This is intended to present my understanding of the assessment of the members of the Planning and Transportation Commission -- hence forth either "PTC" or "the Commission" -- during the study session on a proposal for Alma Plaza. I have also added contextual information - comments by speakers and my perspective.
This is based upon my notes taken during the meeting.
I will use teletype font for phrases that are approximate quotes
of the Commissioners.
I try to note which Commissioners made which points,
partly so you can see patterns,
and partly to help you find them in the transcript
(if you want to see broader context).
Unfortunately, although this transcript reportedly exists
(it was given to Council members on Friday as part of their packet),
it is not available online.
Note:
There were multiple instances where Commissioner X
said that they largely agreed with Commissioner Y's previous comments,
but since this applied to multiple topics,
it did not fit well to this scheme.
I have reordered and filtered the comments by topic.
The PTC voted 5-2 to approve a motion that enumerated multiple significant failings of the proposal (Commissioners Bialson, Burt, Holman, Lippert, Sandas for the motion, Cassel and Garber against).
The majority opinion was that there was not enough retail on the site, and that it should have a level of retail similar to the other neighborhood centers. Commissioners (esp Burt) commented that the applicant misrepresented the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan (CompPlan).
The CompPlan is a statement of principles, policies and programs to guide development, zoning, ...The CompPlan intent was to allow housing in Centers to make better use of the available land - Housing was not intended as an acceptable alternative to retail. With housing now providing a significantly higher return-on-investment than retail properties, limited amounts of housing are now viewed as legitimate incentives - or subsidies - for retail developments. However, the amount of housing goes far beyond what most Commissioners viewed as the appropriate incentive/subsidy.
The proposal was the tail wagging the dog (Burt) or Housing with retail as afterthought (Holman) or housing at the expense of retail (Lippert).
Context: A year ago, the plan had a tiny amount of retail, with some of the single-family housing fronting on Alma. In the past few months, the amount of retail has increased in two steps, so that now the retail building and some of its parking now occupy the full Alma frontage. However, at least two-thirds of the property is occupied by a subdivision of single-family homes.
There were a number of comments and questions from Commissioners about what could be done to increase the amount of retail, but the applicant deflected them or labeled them as impractical.
The applicant claims that retail is viable only in the narrow strip directly visible from the street. One of the Commissioners questioned this, pointing out that this was a neighborhood center and that most of its customer base would know that it was there, and didn't need extensive signage to draw them in.
A persistent question has been that if this site is as unfriendly to retail as the applicant claims, why was Lucky/Albertson's interested in building a grocery store 2-3 times larger just 3 years ago? The applicant's response seemed to be that a large corporation was able to absorb cash flow problems and losses. To me, this seemed to be a partial non-sequitur, but there was no follow-up.
Prior studies: The City commissioned four studies that are relevant to Alma Plaza: in 1992, 1995, 1996 and 2000 (I haven't found on-line copies). All cited difficulties related to the Alma Plaza location. However, questions were raised about the relevance of these studies. For example, at least one was based on the assumption of Alma Plaza containing a 41,000 sqft grocery store plus some small shops. The applicant's proposal started at a total of 11000 sqft (last year) and has moved up to roughly 19,000 sqft now. Also, these studies did not take into account the tremendous growth in housing currently taking place in southern Palo Alto. Even Commissioner Garber - who favored the proposed plan - questioned the applicability of those earlier studies (fewer grocery stores, population shift).
There were also questions about changing shopping patterns, passed upon Commissioners own experiences and observations, for example, people are more willing to use neighborhood-serving retail (Lippert).
Interesting tidbit from applicant McNellis: each of the grocery stores contacted is looking for space that is about 20% larger than their current size.
Background: Retail stores in Palo Alto can be outstanding performers. For example, the Ace Hardware store has the highest sales/sqft in the US, and needs to be restocked 3 times a week. A survey of grocery stores (date misplaced) found that the Midtown Safeway had the highest sales/sqft of any grocery store on the Peninsula. And Whole Foods chose Palo Alto to launch their brand name in this area (Whole Foods is Texas-based).
Developer's profitability Some have argued that the applicant should be allowed to do whatever he determines necessary to turn a suitable profit on this project. Commissioner Burt noted that it was not the City's role to guarantee any developer a profit, that this developer knew that Alma Plaza was designated a neighborhood center when he bought the land, and that he should be prepared to develop it according to the CompPlan. The unstated flip side of this is that questions about whether a developer is making "too much profit" on a project is also outside the City's purview.
In the 1990s, a significant part of the opposition to the substantial expansion of the grocery store in Alma Plaza was based on the expectation that it would drain business away from the financially troubled Co-op Market on Middlefield (which closed in early 2001). The various dimensions of the current competitive landscape were commented on by a range of Commissioners.
One of the applicant's claims for the undesirability of significant retail at Alma Plaza is that there is an abundance of retail, and that residents are set in their shopping habits. Furthermore, the pending Whole Foods megastore (55,000 sqft) in Mountain View will suck business away from all the south Palo Alto groceries. My personal informal, unscientific survey contradicts this - virtually everyone regarded Whole Foods as too expensive for everyday groceries.
Aside: My favorite comment came from a family whose dog was sick and on a special diet. They were buying liver for the dog at Whole Foods to minimize hormones and other chemicals, but bought their own food at Safeway.
Commissioner Burt noted that the existing south Palo Alto groceries had benefited from the closing of the Albertson's in Alma Plaza, and that having that business return to Alma Plaza should be viewed as taking business away from those stores. It could also have been argued that the population increase from all the new housing in southern Palo Alto would also mitigate the effects of a replacement store.
Commissioners Sandas and Burt noted that a significant part of the expected customer base for Alma Plaza came from west of the tracks (Barron Park, Ventura, ...) - residents who currently shop in Mountain View and Los Altos for price and convenience. Hence, this wasn't weakening existing stores, but Bringing business back into Palo Alto.
Commissioner Sandas (College Terrace resident) asked if too much were being made of competition between stores, pointing out that JJ&F and Mollie Stone's manage to co-exist within a short distance of each other (and she could have mentioned the small Country Sun market between them). The applicant's own presentation undermined his argument (although it wasn't commented on): He cited the Milk Pail and the adjacent gourmet market (recently opened) as competition for Alma Plaza, but didn't explain how they thrive within spitting distance of two megastores (Albertson's and Safeway).
The consensus of the Commissioners seemed to be that the size of grocery that would locate in Alma Plaza would be too small to have a significant economic impact on other Palo Alto groceries.
All the Commissioners except Cassel criticized the overall design. This is a neighborhood center, not a strip mall (Burt). Public space is important (Burt). Design was missing a sense of place (Burt, Holman, Lippert, Garber).
The applicant's proposal is actually for a three-way subdivision of the site. The back portion (roughly two thirds) will be sold to Greenbriar Homes to build single family residences that will then be sold. The front portion will have a building that has retail on the first floor and apartments on the second and third floors. These apartments will be Below Market Rate (aka "affordable") and would be sold to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. Several Commissioners (Burt, Holman, Lippert?)
Open space: The Greenbriar subdivision has small front yards along a paseo, and a very small "tot lot." Commissioner Holman and others commented on the need for additional open-space. One thing that seemed to have been overlooked was that there is absolutely no open space for the apartments.
Walled community: Because of the concerns of immediate neighbors about repeats of the problems with Albertson's customers parking along their streets, the Greenbriar subdivision is surrounded by a wall, broken only by its internal streets. The exits for pedestrians and bicyclists are the same as for cars: via Alma. I personally view the absence of a pedestrian-bicycle connection to Ramona as unacceptable urban design.
Many of the Commissioners emphasized that the parking was inadequate. Retail viability requires parking (Bialson).
Of particular concern was that the parking intended for retail would be used by others, particularly the residents in the apartments above the retail (the plan has them parking underground). Several Commissioners noted that people have a strong preference for parking in the open (over parking in structures).
Aside: This well-known preference has been the primary factor in California Avenue merchants opposing having the proposed new police building located on their parking lots (resulting in the replacement of open-air parking with parking structures).
Tangled parking situation, part 1: There is also a controversy over whether a neighboring apartment building has a valid claim to parking on this property - the apartments and Alma Plaza were originally had the same owner and the inadequate parking for the apartments was compensated for by parking in Alma Plaza. The City's legal opinion is that when that owner sold Alma Plaza, there was no obligation to provide parking for the apartments in the terms of the sale. However, there are some that argue that the obligation was part of the sale.
Tangled parking situation, part 2: Part of the parking for the development will be provided by replacing the parking on the frontage road from parallel to diagonal, at the cost of converting that road from two-way to one-way. The owner of the adjacent professional building testified that the land for the frontage street was an easement on his property, and that the two-way street was a critical part of the traffic access for his building, and that the parking on that street was used by his tenants. Consequently, the proposal represented a taking of his property.
Part of Commissioner Lippert comments about the need for more retail related to transportation policy: If there were more retail, it might become enough of a destination to warrant being included on the route of the City's shuttle (thereby making it an important resource to people who did not drive).
Two key motivations given for encouraging high-density housing is to create the population densities needed to support both effective public transit and services within walkable distances. Commissioner Lippert noted that Alma Plaza was not served by public transit, and hence was the wrong location to build high density housing. I didn't hear any of the Commissioner make the related critique - The Alma Plaza area has a paucity of services, which is why residents are fighting to have as much retail there as possible.
Trip Reduction: The applicant's description of the project is attached to the Staff Report as an appendix. In this description, the applicant claims that this project will reduce the number of peak hour vehicle trips. However, this requires that you believe that absolutely none of the trips to the stores in the old Alma Plaza are simply displaced to different locations (customers, employees, deliveries). The calculation is also based upon the size of the retail operation at its peak (45,600 sqft, circa 1990).
Misuse of Mixed Use?: The housing densities seem to be based on a bonus for mixed use (retail and housing), but the proposal is not true mixed use (several Commissioners). Staff was requested to compute the densities treating the Greenbriar portion as a separate subdivision (Holman).
Background: Development of the size of this proposal are required to be 15% BMR. BMR units are often referred to as "affordable housing," but "affordable housing" is an indefinite - and often elastic - definition, whereas BMR has an official definition (based upon the county's average income).
The CompPlan calls for BMR units to be equivalent to the market-rate units. One speaker questioned the calculations. At least one Commissioner mentioned that s/he would prefer to see some of the single family residences be BMR. However, what I saw as the bigger issue of comparability was not raised: The proposed BMR apartments (located above the retail) serve as a sound wall protecting the Greenbriar homes from noise generated by Alma and the trains (Caltrain and nighttime freight trains). These would seem to be far less desirable units (which is contrary to policy for BMRs).
However, the letter submitted by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, which potential would purchase these BMRs, states that they prefer the proposed arrangement (vs having the BMRs scattered among the Greenbriar homes). This does make sense administratively.
Commissioner Lippert, an architect by profession, stated that the proposal failed on all four tenants of urban design: Density, Diversity, Design, Transportation. Most of his explanation of these components has already been discussed.