195 Page Mill Road: Reasons for rejecting proposal

In a public hearing on August 11, 2004, the Planning and Transportation Commission rejected of a proposal for a PC zone for the properties spanning 195 Page Mill Road and 2825-2901 Park Blvd, Palo Alto. This rejection automatically results in the project being forwarded to the City Council, along with the Commission's reasons for rejecting it.

Below are the merged notes taken by several members of the audience, attempting to capture the primary points the Commissioners were making. Be aware that they may be imprecise as to the degree of opposition (e.g., concerned, troubled, flatly opposed).

Comments by Commissioners in the order in which they spoke:

Commissioner Michael Griffin:
1. Project is large and out-of-scale with other buildings in the neighborhood
2. The massing is troubling
3. Project exceeds the RM-40 zoning standard (RM-40 is Residential Multi-family, maximum of 40 units per acre)
4. 70 units per acre is too large
5. Sound wall next to the railroad tracks has been ignored. Issue of sound being reflected into Midtown neighborhood.
6. Finding for a PC (Planned Community) zone difficult to justify
7. 2000 square foot neighborhood-serving retail is inadequate
8. Parking lot entrance on Page Mill (versus proposed entrance on Park Blvd) needs investigation.
9. Transportation Division needs the opportunity to evaluate the developer's traffic analysis (it was not made available to City staff in time for this hearing).
10. Conversion of public street to private property
11. Blocking of views of foothills from residences along Alma (Comprehensive Plan Policy L-3: Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills from public streets in the developed portions of the City.)

    Commissioner Karen Holman:

12. Disagrees with claimed public benefits used to justify request for a PC zone
    • Housing does not qualify as a public benefit - it is part of the project
    • Double-dipping: claiming as public benefit items that have already been accounted for elsewhere in the proposal.
      • BMR (Below Market Rate) Housing units are required as part of the overall project and should not be counted as public benefit
      • Vacating of public land to the developer
13. Questionable claims for reductions in required parking. The R&D classification for the commercial space should be treated as no different from office space
    Background: R&D space used to have signficantly fewer employees per 1000 square feet than office space, but with much R&D being done on computers, R&D now has similar densities as traditional office uses. For example, a sofware development company typically has higher densities than a law firm. This change is being incorporated in the ongoing update of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
14. Conflicts with Comprehensive Plan Policy L-31: The Cal-Ventura area should be developed as a well-designed mixed use district with diverse land uses, two to three story buildings, and a network of pedestrian-oriented streets providing links to California Ave.

    Commissioner Annette Bialson:
    Concurring with much of what has already been said. "... not wanting to pile on ..."

    Commissioner Lee Lippert:
    "wanted to like it, but ...", "brutal", "monster multi-family residences"

    Commissioner Bonnie Packer:
    "like public housing in St. Louis"

15. Design needs creativity
16. If office space, it should be minimal (Background: proposal has it occupying almost all of first floor).

    Commissioner Patrick Burt:

17. Setbacks (of building from property line) is inadequate. Makes landscaping efforts difficult.
18. Lack of articulation in sound wall is a fault
19. FAR (Floor Area Ratio) and site coverage are in contradiction with requirements
20. Need for open space
21. Comprehensive Plan Policy L-31 (mentioned above) is most important
22. Encouragement to applicant:
    • Positive: including rental units
    • RM-40 (40 units per acres) is appropriate density
    • Try to diminish need for a PC zone
    • Project needs to have real public benefits

    Commissioner Phyllis Cassel:

23. Concerned about not just the number of units, but the FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
24. 2000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail is not trivial (disagreeing with earlier speakers)
25. Building is too close sidewalks. Other setbacks inadequate.
26. Double-dipping (echoing Commissioner Holman's comments)
27. Reduced parking count is appropriate
28. No open space is a problem
29. Concerned about vacating street. If it is done, it needs to be a true public benefit.

    Attribution missing:

30. inappropriate conversion of a public street to a private landowner
31. project has no open space (interior courtyard could be open space, but is a parking lot)

References: Comprehensive Plan

• Policy L-3: page L-6
• Policy L-31: page L-24