Town Square

Post a New Topic

New tool, same quandary in debate over Jay Paul project

Original post made on Sep 17, 2013

Palo Alto officials on Monday unleashed a new tool for appraising the most ambitious development in the city's pipeline -- a proposal by Jay Paul Company to build two four-story office buildings next to the AOL headquarters at 395 Page Mill Road. It didn't take long for them to realize this tool -- an independent economic analysis -- is both imperfect and insufficient for making a decision on the massive development.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, September 17, 2013, 1:26 AM

Comments (25)

Posted by Doubtful, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 17, 2013 at 8:52 am

> "A new public-safety building is vital to the future of
> our city," Berman said.

Right. Without a new public safety building, Palo Alto is going to wither, and just drop off the map.

The inmates have truly taken over the asylum.

Well, at least the bulk of the Council weren't fooled by this report.


Posted by pavoter, a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 17, 2013 at 8:52 am

The big problem with this is the rezoning to accommodate a new huge office building. That project would add even more strain to our traffic woes. Worse still, ABAG will demand even greater density to our city because of the jobs/housing imbalance.

The city is pushing rezoning at Maybell to appease ABAG. Removal of R-1 compatible homes and replace with tall townhouses. So the rezoning at Maybell is going to be a pattern for our city leaders to urbanize Palo Alto.

The problem is the willy-nilly rezoning R-1 homes to accommodate high density housing. The Maybell project sets a precedent for all of Palo Alto if the city prevails with its current wishes.


Posted by curmudgeon, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 17, 2013 at 9:18 am

If the referendum fails, R-1 zoning is toast.


Posted by Bob , a resident of Community Center
on Sep 17, 2013 at 10:50 am

It's time for Palo Alto and all California cities to tell ABAG "where to go", and get legal help if necessary to do it!! Already popular California cites are overburdened by those who think it is their legal right to live where they choose... including this state in general. Our roads, our schools, our medical services cannot handle the influx - legal and illegal. There's plenty of room waaaay up in the Sierras or the desert or in the Valley, but not in the good-weather areas overpopulated now. Palo Alto has NO MORE ROOM. The overflow is squeezing the life of this town - not Atherton, not Portola Valley, not Los Altos and LA Hills, not Saratoga... and the list is quite long. The developers have spread their suffocating wings over our city - with help from the inside. This City Council must get some 'guts' - or find another job. And yes, if the Maybell referendum wins, R-1 re-zoniing can happen ALL OVER TOWN. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!


Posted by JS, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 17, 2013 at 10:59 am

- The University North neighborhood suffers from parking problems and cut through traffic.
- University Avenue (downtown) is a traffic and parking disaster.
- The University South neighborhood suffers from parking problems (created by downtown problems)
- California Avenue suffers from parking problems.
- The Arastradero/Charleston Road corridor suffers from excess traffic
- The Page Mill corridor from 280 to El Camino Real is a traffic disaster in AM and PM
- The Oregon Expressway from 101 to El Camino Real is a traffic disaster
- Crossing town on Middlefield Road in AM and PM is filled with traffic
- Embarcadero Road at Paly and Town & Country is a traffic disaster almost all hours of the day.
- Park Blvd. (within 50 feet of project) is already an afternoon traffic gridlock not counting the Hohbach project that will be adding hundreds of cars to the mess.


I apologize for not listing all of the other bad parking and traffic areas within the City.

So Jay Paul wants to add a project that incrementally adds over 1,000 parking stalls. Because they are not planning to provide the full 4 stalls per 1,000 of new office space, we presume that they will be running bus shuttles to/from this project (read additional traffic). The project also includes a new Public Safety Building that will have police vehicles coming and going all day/night long (read additional traffic).

Jay Paul wants to create 311,000 sf of new office space. Who is going to work in this office space? Existing Palo Alto residents? Likely not; the space will likely be filled by predominantly by non-residents who commute to and from other cities. Palo Alto already suffers from a jobs/housing imbalance.

Do we really need to wait for a traffic report to tell us what is going to happen??? These cars can only come/go to the project from El Camino Real and Page Mill Road because the project is blocked by the railroad tracks to the east and the Ventura neighborhood to the south (no project access from the east and south). El Camino Real, Page Mill Road, Park Blvd and California Avenue are going to be what get impacted by this project and the traffic impacts will be HUGE. There are no significant mitigations that the Jay Paul can offer that are going to lessen the traffic impacts from this project because they don't exist.

Our City Council is composed of Palo Alto residents. The Council is (or should be) accountable to the residents and voters of Palo Alto. Every neighborhood is sensitive to traffic and parking. No neighborhood in Palo Alto wants anymore traffic and parking problems and no residents want the ability to travel around town impacted by even more traffic than we already have now. This should not be a case where Council decides to load this neighborhood with traffic/parking problems so that this neighborhood has as much problems as other bad traffic/parking areas.

The California Avenue and Park Blvd. corridor has been studied for years and a comprehensive plan study is well underway. The proposed Jay Paul project completely ignores the direction and goals of that planning process. If Jay Paul does any projects, any and all projects should be consistent with the studies and planning efforts for the California Avenue and Park Blvd. Corridor region of Palo Alto. The Sobrato Companies own the 75-acre Fry's site. The Fry's site is a site where re-development might want to be encouraged. If Jay Paul's project is approved there may be no infrastructure (road/traffic capacity, etc.) remaining to accommodate a future housing/mixed-use re-develoment of the Fry's site. Wouldn't we rather see the Fry's area upgraded than see jay Paul add 311,000 sf of office space?

Jay Paul is seeking to "redevelop" a property that is only 15 years old and is already 100% fully built out. Jay Paul wants to City to give him precious approval that will allow them to build "three decades" worth (311,000 sf - a huge amount) of additional office space. This City should NOT be encouraging redevelopment of properties that don't need re-development. Re-development incentives should be reserved for properties that have become functionally obsolete or blighted over time.

The City has been in "need" of a new police building for over 20 years (over 20 years ago, the City first initiated studies on inadequate police facilities, etc.). The fact that the City still does not have a new police building demonstrates a long term failure by many, many City Councils to find a long term infrastructure solution. Far too many financial resources of this City have been squandered in bloated salaries/benefits and unnecessary City services. The City should have started a capital replacement fund years ago for the eventual replacement/upgrade of the police station.

Allowing an out of town developer to grossly overbuild a neighborhood, reap a HUGE profit in the process and leave our community with a PERPETUAL traffic/parking problem in the wake is wrong and needs to be prevented. This City does not "need" this project from virtually anyway that anyone wants to view the project. Our City Council needs to stop this nonsense immediately. If this community really needs a Public Safety Building, this is NOT the responsible way to obtain one.


Posted by DO NOT be lured, a resident of Meadow Park
on Sep 17, 2013 at 11:00 am

It is NOT, NOT, NOT right to approve a building of this size. The Council is again being lured, in this case by a police building. The police building isn't even the most desirable design or in the most desirable location.


Posted by Midtown, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 17, 2013 at 11:06 am

The solution to traffic problem is to quickly approve both 27 University and the Page Mill project. The streets will be solid cars and we will all have to walk like God intended us to.


Posted by Longtime resident, a resident of Green Acres
on Sep 17, 2013 at 11:10 am

@JS,
Don't forget Maybell, where the City is trying to steamroll a high-density rezone for a large development on a major school commute corridor that is seriously substandard in width and has no space for even a single full-width bike lane or sidewalk.

They approved a development with only 47 parking spots (36 for a 60-unit rental apartment, 6 for visitors, and 5 for employees), even though the surrounding neighborhood has no capacity to absorb excess parking.

The excess will take up the few spots by the park at the heart of the neighborhood, as well as compete with families of disabled kids who attend the OH across the street from the park and take their kids for rehab at the county rehab facility there. Parking is already tight! I hope the rest of Palo Alto will vote AGAINST Measure D just to avoid putting another residential area at the top of the parking problem list!


Posted by Mary G, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 17, 2013 at 11:56 am

Okay - Let's see - developers sometimes described as philanthropists, who have already become rich off of the city development, want to build huge office buildings with inadequate parking and they want to give us a police station or theater in exchange for extra tradeoffs? Why doesn't one of these wealthy "philanthropists" just give us a police building (theater optional - I don't really think we need it as badly as a police station) and pay back the city for some of what they already have gleaned from their other developments.


Posted by Counsel the Council, a resident of Evergreen Park
on Sep 17, 2013 at 12:49 pm

[Post removed.]


Posted by helene, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 17, 2013 at 1:08 pm

Bottom Line: TRAFFIC. It is already a huge problem on Oregon Expressway leading up to
Page Mill Road. Get real. We live here and are tired of developers not giving a care as to our
quality of life. A new police station is a bribe and nothing more.


Posted by John, a resident of another community
on Sep 17, 2013 at 2:34 pm

Maybe improving the roads in PA should be the priority versus a new police building. An overpass at El Camino & Oregon/Page Mill and a traffic light at the 280 exit to Page Mill come to mind as urgent needs.

I have lived in this area for many years and see that PA wants the cachet of having corporate headquarters but does not want to provide the infrastructure required. The parking restrictions PA places on corporate campuses are a laughingstock. In many PA corporate campuses, if you do not drive in by 9:00am, you are out of luck for finding a parking space.

PA has high visibility nationwide. Provide the infrastructure to make it also a city for the 21st century. Cars are not going away anytime soon.


Posted by palo alto resident, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 17, 2013 at 5:20 pm

Is there any reason not to simply knock down the police department and rebuild it where it is now? If there is not enough room, move all the administrative non-security needing functions into the City Hall building.


Posted by Resident, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 17, 2013 at 6:36 pm

@John says, " ... PA wants the cachet of having corporate headquarters ..."

Who exactly in PA wants that? Is it anybody who actually lives here?

Maybe certain nonresident city staffers want big buildings on their resume. Maybe nonresident downtown restaurant owners want a source of customers. Maybe a swing vote of council members want developer contributions when they run for Supervisor someday.

But of people who actually live (and vote) here, who?


Posted by Offices in Palo Alto should remain garages, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 17, 2013 at 9:29 pm

Resident,

on @John says, " ... PA wants the cachet of having corporate headquarters ..."

I would agree that nobody in PA wants the "cachet" of corporate headquarters. QUite the opposite.

@ John

Sorry John, corporate headquarters is what one builds in a town that is dying. Or on some gigantic piece of land somewhere with no (less) zoning restrictions.

PA is a center of innovation and capital, but that does not mean offices (desks, parking lots, City Council incentives, or invitations to move HQ offices here). At the most, you need a garage to do business here.

The garages are getting fancier, and yes everybody wants Palo Alto to rub off on their venture, but unless the buildings are to house HQ for a venture of 3-5 people, I see no logic to cater to developers who want to build, build, build.

You are correct we have no infrastructure to house massive amounts of corporate headquarters, and who would be paying for that anyway?

Not to mention, does the CIty even make any money on offices long term? Where is that economic analysis, compared to retail.
















Posted by resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 17, 2013 at 9:41 pm

Oddly,almost all of the discussion at the Council meeting was on the economic feasibility of the developer's proposal. That is the developer's concern. What they should be focusing on is the traffic impacts of the proposed project. Staff says the traffic study is delayed and is coming early next year because the assumptions were wrong. If the Council took a field trip some weekday afternoon to that section of town, they would not need a traffic study. They might expand the field trip to other sections of town and the neighborhoods too. I think the "assumptions" have been wrong the
past 10+ years.


Posted by Elaine, a resident of Ventura
on Sep 17, 2013 at 11:33 pm

As we analyze this project's impact on traffic and gridlock in our community, let's remember the negative impact of the traffic on safety. Park Blvd. is a designated bike boulevard. It is already unsafe for bicyclists at the current level of traffic, and I can only imagine how that will change if this project goes through.

Different topic: Can someone tell me what the huge construction pit is on Park Blvd. in this area? Has it been approved, or is it being excavated in hopes of approval? Is it too late to stop it?


Posted by Jack, a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 17, 2013 at 11:52 pm

Elaine, That "pit "on Park Boulevard will be 50,000 SF of research and development space (what is research and development space used for nowadays?) plus 200 apartments. No worries though, they are painting the building yellow and blue so it will blend with the neighborhood. No way to stop Hobach now for he would likely just file a lawsuit against anyone in his path.


Posted by Elaine, a resident of Ventura
on Sep 18, 2013 at 12:00 am

Jack, thanks for the info about the pit. Do you know if there was a traffic study done, and what the impact is likely to be?


Posted by Jack, a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 18, 2013 at 12:55 am

Elaine, I apologize if the answer comes across as sarcastic, but...

There will be increased traffic when Hohbach's project is fully leased (about two years from now). There will be approximately 400 cars coming from and/or going to the Hohbach project in the AM and the same 400 cars coming from and/or /going to the Hohbach. The Park Blvd and Page Mill Road intersection will become even more of a disaster. There are no significant traffic mitigations required of Hohbach. No one needs a traffic report to tell us that the traffic will be far worse than it is now.


Posted by Longtime Resident, a resident of Green Acres
on Sep 18, 2013 at 1:31 pm

And let's not forget the questionable wisdom of taking the police station as a "gift" where we will probably end up with less discretion about the details of it than if we just did it ourselves.

City Council can find $2.1million for a cosmetic facelift of Council chambers, and $8million for a gym by their boondoggle golf course, they can find money for a safety building. Same on Maybell, if they want affordable housing, they should just build the affordable housing, and not sell off more than half the property for densely packed market-rate housing, then call neighbors NIMBYs for not wanting the 50-foot building the affordable component gets squeezed into because of the for-profit developer giveaway.

Which is why EVERYONE should vote AGAINST Measure D, even if they - like me - support affordable housing. City Council should not be using affordable housing to break the zoning codes in residential neighborhoods and get high-density developments they could never get any other way. City Council should not be using our need for a public safety building to let a developer to whatever the H#$#$% they want! We are not exactly without the means to do it ourselves.

You could justify murder, euthanasia, and prostitution by economic tradeoffs such as these. That's not the standard by which a City Council should operate.


Posted by clie, a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 19, 2013 at 9:31 am

State mandate ABAG says: If you make More Jobs, you must build more housing.

To the city council I'd like to say: Use common sense.
Do you expect the economic study to include the MULTIPLIED housing/traffic/parking effects from building this gigantus? Of course not.

No "economic evaluation" existing today CAN include the cost to the residents of cramming in more of the required ugly housing units all over Palo Alto. Yet we feel the effects.

Why isn't very smart Palo Alto capable of curtailing this insanity? Shouldn't we expect the City Council to listen to the voices of the residents when we are telling them
1. WE don't believe the old and self-serving story that we will die if we don't grow, and,
2. WE are sick of ugly-dense-in-your-face buildings being plunked down in our neighborhoods.

I am voting AGAINST MEASURE D and please, reader, if you are concerned about the direction of development, I invite you to join me to make your voice count in the coming election. I want the city to STOP granting special high density privileges to developers.
www.voteagainstD.com


Posted by Tsk tsk, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 20, 2013 at 8:51 am

Jay Paul and his company should be told " NO!" In no uncertain terms, and then shown the door!
Palo Alto has no more room for any more big developments, no more room for the extra parking they require, and no more room for the roadway improvements to handle the extra traffic these developments bring in from out of the area.
Why don't Palo Alto residents, who have invested in homes here, have any say in the living and traffic conditions of our city??


Posted by another resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 21, 2013 at 11:43 pm

resident said: "Oddly,almost all of the discussion at the Council meeting was on the economic feasibility of the developer's proposal."
It sound like the city council is trying to find a way to rubber-stamp the proposal. Admittedly a new and "free" police station is a pretty big carrot. Unless PA residents and those who commute to and from PA via Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road stand up to loudly oppose this project, it will undoubtedly be quietly given the green light.


Posted by resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 22, 2013 at 8:17 am

The planning process in Palo Alto must be based on a set of
constraints- access, the reality of the public transportation
system that we have, residential areas surrounding our commercial
areas without separation, an attribute which became a vulnerability,
design constraints in terms of scale and historic districts and
properties, an architectural heritage. All of this was thrown out the
window in the last ten years as a basis for land use decision-making
in Palo Alto. Anybody on the Council/ARB/staff see anything wrong with this yet?


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Scottís Seafood Mountain View to close, reopen as new concept
By Elena Kadvany | 7 comments | 2,812 views

Who Says Kids Donít Eat Vegetables?
By Laura Stec | 7 comments | 1,549 views

Breastfeeding Tips
By Jessica T | 10 comments | 1,465 views

How Bad Policy Happens
By Douglas Moran | 12 comments | 823 views

The life of Zarf
By Sally Torbey | 4 comments | 264 views