Home > Resource Center > In the News Home > Greenbelt Alliance in the News

Greenbelt Alliance In the News

October 29, 2003

Yes on Measure C

800 High St. housing project is neither something to fear nor a precedent for other areas of the city

Measure C asks Palo Alto voters whether the City Council's decision in February to approve a 61-unit condominium project at 800 High St. should be upheld.

A "yes" vote means the owner-developer, Doug Ross, can proceed with the project. A "no" vote would allow Ross instead to develop a smaller office building without further city approvals, or return with a new proposal for a housing project that would go through another "planned community" review process.

To fully grasp the controversy surrounding Measure C, one must understand the policies regarding planned community (PC) zoning in Palo Alto. Essentially, property owners have the option of (1) developing their property in full conformance with the regular zoning and be subject only to architectural review or (2) proposing a project that exceeds the density allowed under the zoning but that offers "community benefits."

Years ago, to curb commercial development, the City Council sharply reduced the allowable density in the downtown area. The idea was to discourage developers from simply building office buildings within the zoning density and instead encourage them to apply for a PC project that had more density but was more creative and addressed community needs, such as housing or parking. Almost all new downtown development in recent years has come through this process, as the council intended.

But it is a practice that has come under repeated criticism, including by the Weekly, because of the absence of clearly defined criteria for the community benefits and because of the secret developer-staff negotiations that produce the final project proposal to be reviewed by the City Council.

While some PC developments in recent years have indeed produced welcome community benefits, such as child care, a public plaza or additional public parking, others have, in our opinion, been abuses of the process. Ironically, one such abuse is the office building developed by Doug Ross across the street from Palo Alto Hardware at Alma Street. and Channing Avenue.

Ross was allowed to exceed the maximum density because he offered the city a small "public" plaza (which is of no public benefit) and "public art" (a stainless steel piece of artwork on the exterior wall of the building, facing the hardware store.) These amenities may enhance the building, but they were a poor trade-off for the city's approval of another office building.

Now along comes 800 High St., the site of the now-defunct Peninsula Creamery ice cream plant and, long before that, the Family Service Laundry.

Prior owner Roxy Rapp proposed a mixed commercial/retail/housing project on the site but finally gave up on getting city approval and sold the property to Ross in 2002 for a reported $6.8 million. After conferring with city planners and council members, Ross came to the city with a 96,000 square foot housing project that included 201 underground parking spaces with 63 spaces for public parking, plus 10 housing units to be managed as part of the city's below market rate housing program.

Along with six of nine City Council members, the League of Women Voters, the Greenbelt Alliance and many respected community leaders, we believe the benefits offered by this project make it far more desirable than the site being developed into an office building, even taking into account the larger size.

In spite of what some opponents of the project assert, Measure C creates no precedent and has nothing to do with what kind of development is approved elsewhere in the city. Those are just scare tactics designed to gain opposition from residents truly unaffected by what is built at 800 High St.

Similarly, comparisons of the size of the proposed housing development to large commercial buildings downtown are misleading because they don't take into account the acreage of the property or the fact that each floor in a commercial building is significantly higher than in a residential building. The 800 High St. project will be built at a floor-area ratio of 2.3, meaning that the total square footage will be 2.3 times the actual footprint of the building. That's not a small building, but neither is it the massive, bulky project its opponents would have us believe.

We are also troubled by opponents of this project who claim to support more housing in the community. Located in a transition area between commercial and residential, and within a few hundred yards of the train station, this is exactly the kind of development we should be hoping for. The affordability of its units is completely a function of the density the community is willing to accept. The project's density strikes an appropriate balance, given neighborhood concerns over traffic.

It is true that no single project will make a major dent in addressing the infamous housing-jobs imbalance in Palo Alto. But this one creates a meaningful number of units close to shopping and transit, and it will help get at least 63 cars off neighborhood streets during the day.

The alternative is an office building, which no one thinks makes sense, or hoping for a new housing proposal that will be smaller by offering fewer units and less parking. Some voters may want to take that risk and settle for less community benefit; we don't.

It is tempting to vote against Measure C purely out of frustration over the planned community zoning process, which badly needs reform. But in the case of 800 High St., we believe the benefits to the city and neighborhood are real and significant, and we urge Palo Alto residents to cast a reasoned vote in favor of Measure C.

###