August 10, 2004

Dear Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission,

MRA just heard about this project Monday. Our steering committee has not had time to meet, review and take a formal position, nor have had time to present this to our members. Due to the speed of this project, we want to share our concerns and initial thoughts.

We urge you to deny this application made by Courthouse Plaza Company for a Planned Community Project on Park Avenue. This is an appropriate location for housing; however, this project needs to go back to the drawing board. Let’s stick with the current zoning or the planned Transit Oriented Residential zoning for this site.

We have the following reasons for asking you to reject this project and send a clear message to council.

1) The Project - Mass, Scale, Height, Streetscape, Density

2) Noise/Landscaping/Setbacks

3) Traffic Impact/Parking

4) Cannot meet the Findings for a PC

5) No public benefits

6) Request for the City to vacate .39 acres of land which even staff agrees could be difficult to justify

7) Comprehensive Plan issues

8) Process Issues

1) Mass, Scale, Height, Streetscape, Density:

· This building is a monolith - poorly massed, out of scale compared with the current buildings, and excessively tall.

· At 51 feet this building exceeds the height limit of the City. Current zoning is 35’. Its nearest neighbor, Agilent, is under 35' (Correction: The MRA had asked the staff for the height of buildings surrounding the proposed development in order to relate them to the proposed height. At the P&TC meeting, the staff planner Chris Riordan stated that the Agilent building is actually 45 feet tall).

· The design is described by the developer as ”reminiscent of industrial and warehouse.” is design does not meet the fine lines of the newer building nearby such as Agilent and the Sheridan apartments by Café Riacce. Industrial is a description of the buildings removed, not the current streetscape.

· Density: This project proposes the largest density (RM 70) for residential housing ever conceived by zoning in Palo Alto. The residential FAR proposed is 1.92 where it is currently zoned for FAR of .5. The developer is asking for a project 4 times the size that current zoning allows. If the developer waited till the ZOU (zoning Update Ordinance) was complete, RM 40 is proposed to be allowed; the developer is requesting almost 60% greater density than this. Stay with current zoning or the proposed ZOU definition of RM 40.

· A mixed use project should have a café (as proposed). It is hard to imagine that one will prosper facing Park with the increased traffic and noise. An improved location would be inside the complex

2) Noise/Landscaping/Setbacks:

· The back of the building facing the railroad tracks is a tall non-articulated wall. This wall will act as a large sound wall magnifying sound and bouncing it back to the east destroying the quality of life and peace in Midtown.

· The developer is asking for significant variances in setbacks on all sides. Sufficient landscaping is not possible with “0” side yard and front setbacks and 5 feet side and rear setbacks. Landscaping and improved articulation are strong mitigating factors that could reduce the effect of this sound wall.

3) Traffic Impact/Parking:

· This is currently a busy and dangerous intersection - to my mind one of the worst in Palo Alto. I, Annette, have waited for 5+ minutes north bound on Park trying to turn onto the Oregon Expressway. This is extremely dangerous in rush hour, with businesses letting out, bikers trying to drive down Park. This will only get worse, as the additional cars will try to get kids to and from school. The staff report does not fully explore the traffic impact of new commercial (R&D i.e. offices) and residential. The Fry’s lease expires in the near term; there should be a comprehensive look at this area including an expanded traffic impact analysis.

· Will a majority of residents (or more than 10%) use the train without substantial incentives, since California Avenue is not a stop for the bullet trains?

· Lack of sufficient parking will become an issue since the only other options are parking in the Agilent parking lot or the train station.

4) This project does not meet the findings for a Planned Community Project. The required findings (dead link, possibly not intended because it was invisible: http://nt2.scbbs.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=148703&hitsperheading=on&infobase=procode-3&jump=18.98&softpage=Document#JUMPDEST_18.98) for a PC Project re stated below along with reasons why this project doesn’t meet the measure

· FINDING ONE: The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the

proposed development.

This site should NOT be developed as a PC. Mixed Use dense housing can be accomplished by the ZOU standards of Transit Oriented Residential. Additionally this TOR zoning will meet adequately goals of the comprehensive plan for this site. (see point 7)

· FINDING TWO: Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining

districts. In making the findings required by this section, the planning commission and city council, as

appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned

community district.

This project does not provide any significant public benefit (See point 6).

· FINDING THREE: The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential

uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity.

(See point 7)

5) This project does not provide significant public benefit.

· Housing has never been accepted as a public benefit. Even the staff report states that “it would be difficult to count the 13 extra BMR units as a public benefit, since the project benefits by getting 38 additional market rates units.”

· A fountain is not a significant public benefit. Although a passerby might be able to glimpse at any interior art or fountains (like Café Riacce where the public IS NOT ALLOWED to linger even though the art was paid for with city money), this will not be ”public” art, thus not a public benefit. The staff report does address this by stating that a public benefit “traditionally” is an “element or feature that benefits the general public not just those who use the project”.

· The “take” of public city lands is ludicrous to declare a public benefit (see below)

6) This point is a red herring meant to distract the discussion. The city should not give up any public land or street without a considerable and significant financial benefit directly to the city. In this case, taking this land is not necessary or prudent to compete a project in this location. Even the staff report agrees that this request could be difficult to justify. If this area is vacated, it should be a public park for the neighborhood not a pedestrian plaza.

7) The letter from the developer in the staff report, tries to relate this project to elements of the comprehensive plan. Dense housing near rapid transit, mixed use etc. We support housing on this site, but strongly recommend that the site be developed according to the current zoning or ZOU standards of Transit Oriented Residential and not as a planned community project.

8) Was the process correct?

· As stated earlier, MRA first heard about this project Monday, and we have not had time for full public review and a formal position. This stealth project came out of nowhere from the public consciousness. This MAJOR project wasn’t even covered in the press.

· From the developer’s letter page 3, this project was reviewed by an ARB subcommittee for design and land use issues. How can you have an ARB subcommittee established, without the ARB meeting on this? Since the developer decided not to do a pre-screening, shouldn’t this project go to the PT&C first?

· The ARB is not supposed to decide on land issues (the Planning & Transportation Commission has this role), the ARB purview is predominately design.

Thanks for considering the points in this correspondence.

Sheri

Annette Ashton Sheri Furman

Chair, Midtown Residents Association Vice Chair, Midtown Residents Association