|
|
|
Uploaded: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 2:14 PM
New California Ave. buildings target pedestrians
Birch Plaza looks to become second 'transit-oriented' development near the Caltrain station
|
|
by Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto Online Staff
Photos
 
View all photos (5)
| Palo Alto's drive to get residents and workers around California Avenue out of their cars received a boost this week when two separate "pedestrian and transit-oriented" developments made small but significant advances in their respective journeys through the city's planning process.
But both applicants will have more work to do before their ambitious mixed-use projects become a reality.
Birch Plaza, the newest application for a pedestrian and transit-oriented district (PTOD), aims to bring a three-story structure with eight townhouses and ground-floor office space to Birch Street, between Sheridan and Grant avenues. On Wednesday night, developer Harold Hohbach's bid to rezone the residentially zoned site to allow mixed use earned the endorsement of the city's Planning and Transportation Commission, which voted 4-2 to support the zone change (Commissioners Arthur Keller and Susan Fineberg dissented).
If the City Council goes along with the commission's recommendation, the Birch Plaza project would become the second development zoned under the transit-oriented designation, which the city established in 2006 to encourage mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly developments around the bustling California Avenue area.
Meanwhile, the first such development -- a proposal by Clarum Housing to build an ultra-green office-and-residential development at 420 Cambridge Ave. -- continued its own journey through the application process at the Architectural Review Board meeting Thursday morning. Clarum's proposal for a transit-oriented zone had already earned City Council approval in November, at which time council members characterized the project and its panoply of environmentally friendly features as a hopeful vision of the city's future.
On Thursday, the architectural board praised Clarum's latest design revisions -- which include a flattening of the roof, a lowering of the building's height and a reconfigured entrance lobby -- and asked the applicant to provide a landscape plan. The commission voted 4-1 to approve the building's design, with board member (and Birch Plaza architect) David Solnick dissenting.
Though the two developments look vastly different -- the Birch development would resemble a miniature village and have more than 10,000 square feet of office space, while the Clarum project would feature four residential units and less than 1,500 square feet of commercial space -- their goals are the same: to pack a variety of uses into one dense development and to furnish this development with features and amenities that promote public transportation.
This, in fact, was the City Council's vision when it created the transit-oriented overlay district. By encouraging dense, mixed-use developments around the California Avenue train station, city officials hoped to reduce traffic and protect the outlying neighborhood from sprawling development.
Solnick said the intent of his Birch Plaza design was to honor the spirit of the transit-oriented district by making the surrounding streets more attractive for pedestrians. The design includes entry canopies, overhanging balconies and a row of sycamore trees stretching along the sidewalk. It also features two courtyards, which are meant to give the small urban village a communal feel.
"We designed the project very much in the spirit of the PTOD zoning regulations, with elements that encourage use of nearby services and forge a sense of community among the dwellers," Solnick told the Planning and Transportation Commission Wednesday night.
Though the commission voted to support changing the zoning at the site from residential to transit-oriented, some members and area residents expressed reservations about a possible shortage of parking (the same concern that led Vice Mayor Jack Morton to vote against the Clarum proposal in November).
Mary Palmer, who lives in a residential complex near the proposed Birch Plaza site, said the streets in the area are already packed with cars. The neighborhood, she said, cannot absorb any more traffic.
Palmer and a handful of other neighborhood residents also said they were concerned about the proposed entrance to an underground garage, which they said would be located too close to a busy intersection and, as a result, could create a safety hazard. Palmer also said she was concerned about the development's potential impact on the residential character of the immediate neighborhood.
"Mixed-use is not appropriate for this site," Palmer said. "It impinges on the little residential neighborhood that's been developed."
A few commissioners, most notably Keller, also said they were concerned about parking. But others, including Chairman Daniel Garber, Vice Chairman Samir Tuma and Commissioner Fabio Rosati, praised the project for its consistency with the city's transit-oriental vision for California Avenue.
Garber acknowledged that this project would be different from the types of houses that currently stand on Birch Street, but said the diversity in design is a good thing. The district, he said, was meant to encourage a variety of designs and uses around California Avenue.
"It just adds to the scale and variety that you need to have a vibrant and exciting place," Garber said.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 16, 2009 at 2:58 pm No More Housing
Our schools have no more space. There are no schools in walking distance of this housing. We have no school buses and the shuttles will not work here for schools. Residents here will be driving kids to school, not walking them or taking them by train.
|
|
Posted by Sarah, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 16, 2009 at 3:00 pm There are lots of schools within easy bicycling distance of California Ave. I do see hundreds of bicycles parked at these schools, so kids must be riding their bikes there.
|
|
Posted by Sarah, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 16, 2009 at 3:02 pm They do need to widen that tunnel under the Caltrain tracks at California Ave., though. That tunnel gets extremely congested with bicycles and pedestrians during commute hours.
|
|
Posted by Sun and Sand, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Apr 16, 2009 at 9:29 pm Sarah, the tunnel is slated for eventual replacement and redesign. When? That's anyone's guess. These projects are good news, as it's about time that the PTOD started to develop. I can't wait to see what this place looks like in 20 years! It's going to be really nice, busy with many more residents, with better intra-urban mass transit that we have today, more housing over retail, etc. etc. Way to go!
|
|
Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 17, 2009 at 11:28 am What parking? What traffic? What cars? I thought the city and the developer's premise was that this is TOD - Transit Oriented Development? You mean they need cars? Wow, what a shock. Dense housing only packs people in, it doesn't fix dependence on cars? I'm amazed.
If city council, planning comittee and the developers are going to push this FARCE of TOD dense housing - then they need to put their $$ where their mouths are and pass ordinance that says only non-car owners can live in TOD development. NO cars allowed. Because they WALK or they take TRANSIT. Right? Isn't that the big sell here?
|
|
Posted by Frank, a resident of the Ventura neighborhood, on Apr 17, 2009 at 11:32 am It looks like the closest Elementary schools are Barron Park or Escondido and even the new Garland school looks like it is about the same distance. There's a free shuttle from Caltrain to Stanford (Escondido) - some smart kids will figure that one out but the rest are a nice bike ride away.
We need more smart development like this; I wonder why David Solnick - the architect of one project - voted against the other? Or did I read that wrong?
|
|
Posted by Emmy, a resident of another community, on Apr 17, 2009 at 11:38 am wow - no cars allowed. love that idea. how can we get that passed?
Of course this TOD is a farce. Most families need not only one car, they need two cars.
|
|
Posted by Former resident, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Apr 17, 2009 at 12:04 pm When they make the businesses on Cal Ave behave like people live around there, then it's appropriate to have mixed use. Right now the businesses and the city have all the rights -- the right to be loud and obnoxious (think BAR) and the city not honoring it's no leaf blower rule at 4:00 a.m. Think farmer's market set up at o'dark thirty . . .
|
|
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 17, 2009 at 12:57 pm Frank
According the PAUSD website, the neighborhood schools for this are Escondido/Hays (depending on house number) Jordan and Paly. That doesn't mean there is room in these schools, just that the area is situated in that catchment area. This will change when Garland opens.
|
|
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Apr 17, 2009 at 3:22 pm "New Calif. Ave. buildings target pedestrians"
You mean walkers gotta dodge buildings, not just Beemers?
|
|
Posted by It's a Pipe Dream, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Apr 17, 2009 at 4:16 pm Transit housing is a pipe dream. Are they going to forbid the residents from owning cars? Do you have to sign an agreement to walk or bus everywhere? Are they going to provide $200,000 a year jobs on California Avenue so these people won't have to work outside Palo Alto? Or will they just allow wealthy retired or childless couples to live here? Are they doing to prevent the rest of us from shopping/working on California Avenue unless we can walk there?
This is just another way to put money in the pockets of developers. These supposed transit housing projects deceive the public as to who will really live in these units.
Denser housing means crowded schools and more cars in the area.
|
|
Posted by Sarah, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 17, 2009 at 4:41 pm More jobs in town means more commuter traffic to get to those jobs. The only ways to reduce traffic are to reduce the number of jobs or to build housing closer to the jobs. I don't see anyone calling for fewer jobs in town.
|
|
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 17, 2009 at 5:19 pm It makes more sense to put offices near transit centers not housing. At least commuters can find a way to their nearest transit center (station) and leave their cars or bikes there. When company shuttles meet trains, they wait for the trains. When VTA happens to route near a station, they leave before the train arrives!
|
|
Posted by Oldtimer, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 17, 2009 at 5:23 pm Sorry - it would be ludicrous to believe that anyone other than the developers is really going to benefit from these absurd plans. Right now, California Avenue has about as much traffic as it can support, schools are crowded, and jobs scarce. What is the City of Palo Alto thinking of?
|
|
Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 17, 2009 at 9:30 pm Sarah - really? You don't see anyone callnig for fewer jobs? That's exactly what Palo Alto city council did by driving away the Stanford shopping center expansion - and i support it! They did it precisely because jobs = more dense housing quota from ABAG, and Stanford couldnt/wouldn't or didn't want to provide that housing.
Its time for Palo Alto to knock off the dense housing development. They can revitalize the business districts and shopping they already have, without building dense housing, without going multi story ticky tacky - like the shamefully ugly oversided development on San Antonio (by the way - where they heck are those people going to walk to? No where. Just more cars for Palo Alto.
|
|
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 17, 2009 at 10:26 pm Given the softness of the current real-estate market and the fact that the current new developments are far from having sold out there's no crying need for another new developments.
This is just developers trying to make money in one of the few real-estate markets that hasn't gone to hell. There's nothing in it for those of us who live here.
|
|
Posted by PointOfView, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 18, 2009 at 4:51 am There seems to be an assumption that building housing near jobs will increase the odds that people will walk to work.
To me, it seems very unlikely that someone will find a job in their neighborhood that will enable them to pay for their mortgage, health care, property taxes, utilities, kid's education, food. Not to mention a trip to the (Stanford) mall.
Has there been any building of this sort that resulted in a significant percentage of people walking to work?
Or will this just bring "more crowded schools and more cars in the area" as one poster suggests?
|
|
Posted by Donald, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 18, 2009 at 8:11 pm Transit Oriented Development does not assume that people will live within walking distance of their jobs, but that if they live within walking distance of transit they will use it. Read the most recent Palo Alto Weekly about the two Palo Alto school teachers who live in San Francisco and work in Palo Alto. They live car-free and make it work. There is a new generation who don't want the hassles and costs of owning a car. Many of them want to live in dense urban areas with a lot of other people around and feel that car ownership brings slavery rather than freedom. I wouldn't expect most Palo Alto Online posters to understand this, but whether that group understands it is irrelevant to whether it exists in reality.
|
|
Posted by worried about over developement, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 20, 2009 at 3:42 pm Just how many people are going to live in the neighborhood and take the train to work? It is ridiculous to assume that more than a few families will choose to live there and not own cars which they will use often. Why spoil a nice residential neighborhood by tearing down perfectly good places to live and displace the people that are living there for the developers to make yet another killing? I suspect that some of the city staff and/or commission members are getting some kind of perks for constantly pushing this kind of overcrowding on our city.
Right now California Avenue is a pleasant place to browse and shop. It has been widely acknowledged to be one of the nicest places in Palo Alto and many people can be seen walking and going to the restaurants, bookstore, shops and snack places along the street.
Why would you want to spoil this ambiance with taller buildings. almost nobody hangs out in front city hall. Why? Because it is so inhospitable a place to be. It is always cold and windy and unfriendly feeling and the city hall is so overwhelming that there is not a human scale there.
I hope that the initiative to change the rules on street width in the proposal for Alma Plaza so that there is room to park and pass safely. Just because there is no room to park you car will not induce everyone to walk or bicycle. Most people will just decide it is inconvenient and find another place to shop.
|
|
|
| |
2007 Awards from the California
Newspaper Publishers Association
Palo Alto Weekly
First Place
Local News Coverage
Local Breaking-News Story
Feature Story
Second Place
Feature Story
Environmental Reporting
Sports Coverage
General News Photo
Photo Essay
Freedom of Information
The Almanac
First Place
Environmental Reporting
Editorial Pages
Lifestyle Coverage
Second Place
Environmental Reporting
Mountain View Voice
Second Place
General Excellence
Editorial Comment
Front-Page Design
|
|
|
Send this story
Print this story
