Palo Alto Weekly

Spectrum - April 27, 2012

Guest Opinion: 'Gateway' project breaks all of city's zoning rules

by Ellen Wyman

The Palo Alto City Council seems to have forgotten that the role of a city council is to represent the will of public. For years our council did a good job of being in tune with the public and responsive to their concerns; those were years when we enacted the 50-foot height limit and adhered to it and when exemptions were truly exceptionally rare as they were intended to be.

The Lytton Gateway project at Alma and Lytton is simply a developer's dream. This building wildly exceeds our zoning code and is dramatically out of step with our Comprehensive Plan. It even calls for removing 30 mature trees in a community known for its trees. Are we really ready for another California Avenue tree fiasco? Appropriately, the council did send the developer back to the drawing board.

However, it also proposed awarding PC (Planned Community) zoning that is worth millions of dollars. As originally proposed, the project substantially exceeded code not only on height but also density FAR (floor-to-area ratio), and disregarded daylight plane and parking requirements. It simply thumbed its nose at the city's long-standing height limit proposing 84 feet in a 50-foot zone, a whopping 68 percent more than code permits. Of course, the project is referred to as a 64-foot building with a 20-foot tower. In my book that's an 84-foot building. Appropriately, the council reduced the height by one floor but appears to accept the tower if reduced proportionately. That would still be about 36 percent taller than our 50-foot height limit.

The City's Architectural Review Board ignored its mandate and simply rubber-stamped the project stating, "The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city's Comprehensive Plan..." The board did so despite the fact that our Comprehensive Plan states, "Maintain the scale and character of the city. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale." Talk about a feckless board.

In addition, since the project has the potential for creating 200 new jobs and provides for only 14 dwelling units, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) will surely seize on this to demand that Palo Alto build 186 more dwelling units somewhere.

The developer's proposed financial donation for a parking study won't begin to make up for the project's parking deficit. The money will be gone in a few years, and we will be left with the problems: a larger ABAG housing mandate and a truly serious parking deficit.

Ah yes, the parking deficit. New developments must provide parking for all employees and the developer speaks of 200. But shouldn't he provide parking for clients and customers as well? Parking is a serious problem now; just ask Downtown North or University South residents. New development cannot be allowed that exacerbates this problem.

One fact that cannot be ignored is that any building as excessively large as the proposed Lytton Gateway will serve as precedent. Approve one egregiously outsize structure, and it serves as precedent thereafter, thus encouraging more such deviations from code. Is this what we want?

The Weekly tells us that this project represents in many ways the city's drive to encourage more intense development near major traffic centers. Is this the city's new drive? Does the community support this "new urbanism" goal? I would wager that most residents couldn't even define "new urbanism" let alone have an informed opinion of it. The public was certainly not involved in adopting this "goal."

But three cheers for Planning Commissioner Susan Fineberg who voted against Lytton Gateway because it is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan, the city's own land use document and guide mandated by the state that is supposed to govern the city's development. But where were the rest of our Planning Commissioners? And where oh where are our council members? They don't have to approve a project even in concept simply because someone proposes it.

Palo Alto needs to get back to involving the residents in setting public policy and needs to do so quickly. The council must not assume that the community supports "new urbanism" or a seriously oversized Lytton Gateway.

Moreover, if the residents care about our community and the direction it's going, they need to get back to watching the council and current events and involving themselves in the discussions that set the direction of development. Palo Alto won't remain the attractive and inviting community with tree-lined streets that we all enjoy without awareness and involvement by each of us.

Ellen Wyman, a long-time Palo Alto resident, has been involved in numerous local issues from the time of the 1967 City Council recall to, most recently, preserving the historic "bird bath" fountain on California Avenue.

Comments

Posted by Thank you Ellen Wyman, a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 28, 2012 at 5:41 pm

Thank you Ellen Wyman for this clear explanation of what is wrong with this project, and all the reasons and dimensions of its overthetop pride and aggression.
The city council and its commissions keep bowing to these greedy, community-destroying developers. The citizens need to get together and do something about it.
Throw the rascals out!


Posted by PA Resident, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Apr 28, 2012 at 7:47 pm

I'm not a bit surprised at the dimensions of this PC development. When the JCC was approved it opened the door to huge violations of our zoning codes, as developers realized they could get so much by declaring their projects PC.

I believe the tower is the elevator shaft. The 50' height limit only refers to the roof line; air conditioning equipment, chimneys and elevator shafts can go way up above 50'. Much of the JCC is over 75'if you take into account all the equipment above the roof line.

Incidentally, we are still waiting for the JCC to provide the jitney buses they promised as mitigation for their being allowed so many code violations, including something called shared parking!!

I have been told that the setbacks cannot be changed until a whole new comprehensive plan is drawn up which will be - when?!!


Posted by Curious, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 3, 2012 at 7:28 pm

I wonder, will the minarets of the Wicked Huge Mosque going up across the street from the JCC be considered "towers" as well?


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


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