September 24, 2004 Item 6 Council Agenda Monday September 27th

Dear Mayor Beecham and Council members; 

I strongly urge that you not only reject the PC proposed at 195 Page Mill/2875 Park, but that you prohibit any similar PC proposal at this site from being submitted for one year.

This PC is a poster child for greed, arrogance, and the perpetuation of Jansen’s Law. 

The greed is amply demonstrated by the proposal that retains non-residential use on a site that staff, the Planning Commission, and formal City Council statements to the State have identified as best zoned for residential use.  This PC increases the area used for office and R&D uses and job potential compared to present uses.  In addition the PC will accommodate almost twice the normal density of housing, with only the legally required minimum number of BMR units.  All other such high density residential projects proposed or approved in Palo Alto over the past 25 years have been for all or almost all BMR use.

The arrogance is demonstrated by the so-called “public benefits”.  Rental housing can be converted to condominiums at any time, and in fact this same developer did exactly that with another residential project across Page Mill Rd.  Any such conversion would probably result in most BMR tenants being forced out since they would be unlikely to have the resources for down payments on the units.  Any such potential displacement would put pressure on Palo Alto and the Housing Corp. to find funds to retain the converted rental units for BMR occupancy.  The so-called additional BMR units are those required to partly justify the significant increase in market rate units.  The claim of a public benefit from having the city donate land worth over $2 million to a private developer so that the developer could use public land rather than his own land for parking, open space, and other amenities that normally are required on-site is beyond insulting.  Finally we have the so-called public benefit of art.  This is from a developer who obtained the PC at 200 Page Mill partly in exchange for public art, and then failed to maintain it.  The same developer installed an open plaza as a public benefit for his Court House Plaza project across Page Mill Rd., and then converted the open space to a restaurant.  Perhaps the many drivers who would suffer increased congestion and delays due to the added traffic on Park and Page Mill that will be generated by the proposed PC will have lots of time while sitting in traffic to enjoy such a public art piece - providing it isn’t converted into a bistro or allowed to deteriorate. 

What is proposed is an excellent example of Jansen’s Law at work.  For those who are unfamiliar with this (it isn’t nearly as famous as Moore’s Law), Jansen’s Law has 2 parts.  Part 1 finds that the pubic benefits conferred in exchange for approving a PC are inversely proportional to the connections and skills of the developer.  Insiders in the development world know how to give rabbits with broke legs in exchange for fine horses.  Part 2 finds that the excess benefits and concessions a developer gets over and above normal zoning are directly related to the inside connections and local skills of the developer.

So what 195 Page Mill offers is a win of retaining non-residential uses, a win of massive profits, a win of gift of public lands, and a win of appearing helpful and a friend of needed housing for the developer and a loss for the public who will see special treatment allow excessive development and no public benefits further devaluing the PC process, a loss for the city in presence of an oversized and ugly building near a train line to nauseate Caltrain commuters, a loss for the schools that will have to serve all the new residents with inadequate revenue from this PC, a loss for commuters stuck in more traffic, a loss for Fry’s shoppers who will be forced to drive in major congestion on Park, a loss for taxpayers who will have to pay far more for services to this development than will be recovered in taxes, a loss for nearby residents whose views will be blocked, a loss of parking for people using the nearby County courthouse who will have to compete for spaces with overflow parking from the PC, a loss in our job/housing imbalance since the non-residential area will generate more jobs than the housing will generate workers, and a loss for reasonable and sensible planning and development.

This PC is a very sick and ugly thing.  Kill it.  Dead.

After seeing what the developer claims in support of this PC, I may wish to present a strong letter in opposition.

Yours truly,
Bob Moss
4010 Orme
Palo Alto, CA 94306