Page Mill Road development nears finish line Palo Alto Issues, posted by Editor, Palo Alto Online, on Jun 5, 2012 at 10:34 am
After a decade of legal wrangling and plan revisions, developer Harold Hohbach now stands at the cusp of getting Palo Alto's blessing for his proposed three-story building on Page Mill Road. All he has to do is make the project more attractive to pedestrians. Related stories:
Posted by svatoid, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 5, 2012 at 10:34 am
If Bob Moss and Karen Holman are against it, then I wholeheartedly support the project.
And of course that raises the question, Bob, what is the problem the appearance of the building or the contaminated groundwater? And if those reasons do not get you what you want, will you come up with another excuse to kill the project????
Posted by The Big Ugly, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Jun 5, 2012 at 11:43 am
Instead of focusing on the length of time the project has been on the table which is the developer's ploy, you should focus on his obstinate refusal to reduce the ugliness and pedestrian unfriendliness.
Weekly! how about a picture of the Big Ugly?
I mean their picture with the imaginary flowering trees with which the architect tries to hide the building.
Remember when Hohbach at the last minute in front of the council switched it from rentals to condominiums?
Posted by YIMBY, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Jun 5, 2012 at 12:01 pm YIMBY is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
@ svatoid, who wrote: "If Bob Moss and Karen Holman are against it, then I wholeheartedly support the project."
Seriously, to Bob, who is quoted in the article, ""This project fails the basic test of compliance, compatibility and looking appropriate in a residential zone."
Bob - look across the street - does the domineering presence of AOL and it's MASSIVE parking lot qualify the zone as residential??
To the city council: You have an Architectural Review Board - let them do your job. Last night was not your best night. As council member Shepherd stated - she bikes by there often and the presence of this building would be a huge improvement.
Another council member had very interesting words to describe the blighted area.
Not only has the council replaced the ARB with themselves - they asked staff to do cover the details - no wonder the council has yet to submit a housing element - we are the only city in the county yet to do so. Every detail must be worked out first, consequently, not much gets done, but a lot gets delayed.
Posted by Douglas Moran, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jun 5, 2012 at 1:16 pm Douglas Moran is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
There is NOT a dearth of rental housing in Palo Alto: The last numbers I saw put rentals at 56%, which was higher than the numbers cited for Mountain View, Santa Clara, ...
There are lots of apartment buildings in places most Palo Altans don't see, and there are also many single family homes that are rentals.
Re YIMBY on this being a blighted area: The reason that the area is blighted is that Holbach ILLEGALLY tore down the existing buildings (the general rule are that you can remove a building until you have approval for its replacement, unless there are exceptional circumstances). The buildings that were there were functional and full of tenants. Just another instance of Holbach's contempt for the rules and attempting to bully the City.
It is annoying that so many Council decisions proceed from false "facts".
Posted by ABAG hell coming, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 5, 2012 at 1:40 pm
The dearth of rental housing for employees wasn't helped by adding zero housing and overzoning the Gateway project to increase employees by 150-250 (of course no one was willing to limit employee numbers but the "open office" start-up structure packs them in, which arguably is not reflected in last-century parking per sq ft of office rules). I guess the positive is that the 87 units here might offset part of the damage done to the jobs-housing imbalance.
Posted by The Big Ugly, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Jun 5, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Thank you, Weekly, for the pictures.
Have you ever seen anything so unimaginative, a bunch of rectangles piled on one another, with bright paint to disguise the lack of imagination. And imaginary flowering trees. And this is the developer's best rendition.
Maybe it was designed by a kindergarten committee with blocks.That would explain it.
Posted by svatoid, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 5, 2012 at 2:14 pm
"Have you ever seen anything so unimaginative, a bunch of rectangles piled on one another, with bright paint to disguise the lack of imagination. And imaginary flowering trees. And this is the developer's best rendition."
And what do you expect it to look like? do you want something like the Guggenheim Museum? Yes, buildings tend to be rectangles.
No wonder nothing ever gets done in Palo alto and when by some miracle something does get built, people then spend the time after whining about it (JCC, for example)
Posted by Wondering?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 5, 2012 at 5:57 pm
> I saw put rentals at 56%, which was higher than the
> numbers cited for Mountain View, Santa Clara, ...
According to data on the US Census web site, the renter occupancy is about 42%. This number seems to be an estimate for the past five years or so, and might be a little out-of-date. Where was this 56% cited?
An empty lot probably does not present any (or many) of these conditions. Even if the previous buildings might have been old, or “unsightly”, there really wasn’t much evidence of “blight” on that block. Whether he tore done the buildings legally, or illegally, is a matter for the courts
Posted by Pity Poor Park Blvd., a resident of the Ventura neighborhood, on Jun 5, 2012 at 6:39 pm
I hate to say it, but that vacant property is a perfect example of how a small group or people can hold an entire city and sub-region within that city, hostage.
Mr. Holbach's design isn't the most forward, but the design WAS approved by City Council some years ago. The project was given the green light. What happened?
Bob Moss - a so-called "Council Watchdog" - who you will find at every Council meeting, and most of the Commission advisory meetings didn't agree, so he found a basis to sue.
We have the same thing going on California Ave. Same in the old Alma Plaza location. Rinse. Wash. Repeat.
We have anti-housing fanatics in Palo Alto who will do anything to stop a project, for ANY reason they might come up with.
So what has this delay cost Palo Alto? Attorney's fees; staff diligence; lost rental income and new business on Cal Ave (Google made a lease there but didn't move in because it didn't want to be across the street from a chaotic construction zone - s, we lost a Google opportunity!). Also, the delay in construction will make the building cost more (construction inflation); those costs will be passed on to the new tenants. Taxpayer money, resident money, retail revenues - all lost, for what? To satisfy the whims of a few "Council Watchdogs". It's a bad joke.
As for Karen Holman, she's a nice person, but entirely without vision; she has always been this way, in all the years I've watched her on Commissions and the Council. She got the Council seat because she is an insider, period. Same with Burt.
Sure, they went out and raised money, yadda-yadda, but it's mostly about gaining Council endorsements for your run, isn't it. Note that Burt and Holman both come from Planning and YTansportation, which is supposed to be a plum appointment for anyone who wants to be put on the path to a considered council position.
btw, too bad Pat Burt never showed up for CAADA meetings, as a Council liaison to CAADA. In fact, it was Burt who let the community down by his absence, letting others take the fall for his lack of attention to detail and constant absence from meetings where the city made clear its plans. Oh, well...
So, we have some good persons, but at the same tiem *some* weak persons on the Council; they don't know how to legislate, and they have lacking forward vision. Those same people give undue weight to "Council Watchdogs" who can recite City Code, chapter and verse, and act like they really understand the complex dynamics of Palo Alto, but they don't. Instead, what I see in the Council Watchdog types is an inability to hear "no" to one or more of their ideas. When they hear "no", they use their extraordinary knowledge of City code to gum up the works, and cost everyone money, inconvenience, and sub-optimal social benefits.
Think about it: SEVEN YEARS that Holbach's property has been in limbo, a cesspool of an empty lot; rat infested; inviting of transients; dark; lacking a structure to insulate train noise from adjoining neighborhoods, robbing the Cal Ave district of revenue; etc. etc.
We could have a building there NOW; it could have had, by now, a developed landscape facade, and fit so very nicely into the neighborhood. As for those who complain about the exterior facade of the building: I have heard those voices, before, and they are the very same voices that would have complained about this structure, in Paris Web Link when it was first constructed.
What really makes me chuckle at all this is that almost every so-called "Watchdog" in Palo Alto is already ensconced in his or her own home, living comfortably on a pension, public assistance, or inherited property of some sort or other. I know this for a fact. It's a huge irony.
Posted by Joe, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jun 5, 2012 at 11:26 pm
Here's a link to the Palo Alto Weekly article about Mr. Harold Hohbach from 1995: Web Link
If you didn't know, his 4 story building at 260 Sheridan was originally intended to be 10 stories. After 16 years in a lawsuit with the City of Palo Alto, two appeals to the California Supreme Court and three appeals to the United State Supreme Court, he finally got the message that it wasn't going to happen.
Still the same ol' Mr. Hohbach, threatening and suing, and even today telling us that this is his last major project before he dies. Hey, at least Bob Moss lives in Palo Alto. Mr. Hohbach is a former patent attorney living in Atherton.
Posted by curmudgeon, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jun 6, 2012 at 9:47 am
"Hey, at least Bob Moss lives in Palo Alto. Mr. Hohbach is a former patent attorney living in Atherton."
Of course Hohbach lives elsewhere. Palo Alto developers prefer that. They don't want to live with their creations, and who can fault them?
Hohbach finally wised up: like the Gateway project and 800 High Street, he pushed his oversized baby through during an election year. And wow, didn't councilmember Burt read his little script perfectly.
Posted by Douglas Moran, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jun 6, 2012 at 1:45 pm Douglas Moran is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
RE: "Wondering?" question on my citing 56% rental units vs the 42% s/he cites from the Census web site (annual products, not the 10-year):
The 56% was from my notes of a meeting of the City's Technical Advisory Committee on the Housing Element (of which I was a member), but I didn't note the source. Since 56% and 42% are near mirrors, it is possible that the speaker or I flipped which number was which.
There is another possibility that I remember being mentioned one of the many meetings that I have attended over the years: That the 10-year Census shows more rental units in Palo Alto than the normal counting methods produce because they tend to miss many rental units in "single-family" properties (cottages, conversions to create a single rental unit, ...) and houses that aren't rented through public listings.
But the issue of rental units at that location is more an issue of the intellectual and political dishonesty of the City's PTOD zoning. Both experience and analysis has shown that the people occupying such units are very unlikely to use the train for commutes because the train doesn't serve the locations that the potential renters will work. However the PTOD fictions encourage buildings that will almost certainly generate a larger volume of vehicle that the streets are designed or prepared to handle.