Responding to concerns from residents and property owners about a proposed new vision for the Ventura neighborhood, Palo Alto city planners unveiled on Thursday night a somewhat scaled-back set of alternatives for the 60-acre site that until recently included Fry's Electronics.
The city presented these plans during an open house on the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan, which brought about 60 residents to Gunn High School for a series of interactive exercises and spirited debates about the neighborhood's future. The North Ventura Coordinated Area Working Group, which is working on the plan with staff and consultants, is scheduled to present its proposal to the City Council in May.
The new alternatives differ from the prior plans in several key ways. While the previous alternatives had between 952 to 2,646 housing units, the new ones include a less dramatic option with 514 total units (which include 128 existing units and 386 new ones). This alternative reflects the number of units in the Housing Element of the city's Comprehensive Plan.
Much like before, the new set of alternatives includes an ambitious option known as "Designed Diversity" which removes the historic building at 340 Portage Ave. (commonly known as "the Fry's site") to create additional housing. The alternative currently includes a total of 2,595 housing units, many of which would be located in a proposed mid-rise building near the Cloudera building at 395 Page Mill Road.
The other two options, meanwhile, would preserve the Fry's building — a departure from the January designs, in which planners had proposed splitting up the old cannery building to preserve a portion and create a passage through the structure.
The goal of the planning exercise is to develop a long-term plan for the eclectic but underserved area that is bounded by Page Mill Road, Lambert Avenue, El Camino Real and Park Boulevard. Residents were also asked on Thursday to weigh in on proposals to improve Boulware Park, which the council recently expanded by purchasing an adjacent Birch Street site. While plans for improving the park remain under development, residents who have taken the city's surveys have so far reported that their highest priorities for the expanded park are security lighting, playground equipment and restrooms, according to Landscape Architect Peter Jensen, who presented three possible configurations for the new amenities.
While last year's purchase of land next to Boulware Park added some momentum to the city's vision for a more vibrant neighborhood, most of the other plans remain highly speculative and, even in the most optimistic scenarios, unlikely to come to fruition for several years. The Sobrato Organization, which owns the property at 340 Portage Ave., has indicated that it is unwilling to demolish the existing commercial building to build housing, citing the high costs of construction. The property owner's position has dimmed the optimism of the City Council, which last year declined to increase the consultant contract for the planning process.
Several members of the Working Group have also expressed concern about how the process is unfolding. Doria Summa, a member of the group who also serves on the city's Planning and Transportation Commission, noted that the city is proceeding on a very ambitious schedule and that group members haven't had time to weigh in on the new alternatives.
"Sadly enough, these are ambitious ideas that don't really reflect any process with zoning and development standards involving the zoning. There are no improvements to circulation and no improvements to Park Boulevard," Summa told the Weekly.
Kristen Flynn, a Ventura resident who also serves on the Working Group, also said she believes the group members haven't had a chance to offer feedback on the new plans, which were released just before the Thursday meeting.
"I believe good design-think happens when the best thoughts of all stakeholders are voiced and debated," Flynn said. "I don't think we've had the opportunity to do that. We've been presented to a lot."
Others were more optimistic. Former City Councilwoman Gail Price, who serves on the Working Group, noted that this is a long-term planning exercise and lauded the process for facilitating a spirited but respectful debate about residents' priorities for the planning area.
"If this is done well and thoughtfully, this can be a legacy plan that defines who will live here and under what circumstances," Price said. "I do believe we have a responsibility to do something creative."
Planning staff and consultants emphasized Thursday that the planning process exercise is an "iterative" process, with more changes likely to come in the coming months. Planning Director Jonathan Lait said the latest revisions aim to respond to concerns that staff has heard from both the Working Group and Sobrato, which has generally disapproved of designs that call for breaking up its buildings.
"The idea was to reflect some of the feedback we received from the Working Group and, based on that, also factor in some realism about what might happen on the ground over the course of the next 10 or 15 years, particularly as it relates to the Fry's building," Lait said.
There was little consensus on Thursday about which of the proposed alternatives the residents prefer. Attendees were asked to mark with a sticker the options that they favor. The first and third alternatives (which have, respectively, the fewest and the most housing units) received far more stars than the moderate option.
Comments from residents also varied widely. Attendees were asked to place sticky notes with feedback on the various alternatives. On the most ambitious option, feedback ranged from "More homes. More neighbors." to "This is fortress architecture."
Residents also had a chance to weigh in on the type of commercial developments they'd like to see in the area by placing chips into miniature buckets representing different types of retail and office uses. By the end of the exercise, the buckets representing chain stores and professional offices had relatively few chips, while those representing boutique stores, grocery stores, bars and breweries had considerably more.
Those in attendance also had a chance to offer broader feedback on the Ventura exercise by affixing star-shaped stickers next to plan objectives that they deem to be most valuable. Those that received the most stars included creation of "inclusive and diverse" housing, including below-market-rate units; community park and gardens; and making walking and biking "safe and pleasant to and from the likely destinations."
Comments
Ventura
on Feb 28, 2020 at 1:56 pm
on Feb 28, 2020 at 1:56 pm
The Planning Department took no questions during their presentation last night. Instead they asked attendees to come up indivudally to stations to ask questions 1:1. During the presentation the Plannng Department told us that 354 housing units could be built at the Fry’s Site to fulfill Palo Alto’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation under California’s housing element law. I asked why all three alternative proposals exceed that limit. The answer was, “because we can build more housing.” The impression is that the Planning Department is driven to build more housing for the sake of building more housing. Any attempt to question what is driving the number of proposed units in each scenario or why there is not more park space is met with a dismissive response along the lines of, “So your position is that you don’t want any housing.” It is amazing to see that Gail Price, the Planning Department, and others have apparently hijacked the NVCAP working group process and presented these alternatives without taking into account the wonderful ideas of the incredibly dedicated, hard working members of the working group who live in the area and really care about having more high-quality housing and community space for hard-working, mid- and low-income Palo Altans. This project does represent a real opportunity to create a lasting legacy that enhances quality of life and provides more housing for our entire community. Maximizing density and shouting down reasonable alternative view points won’t get us to a good result. I am optimistic that the thoughtfulness and creativity of my fellow Venturans will be heard eventually, and we can come up with a truly balanced plan that would willingly draw residents. Thank you to the hard working members of our community working on this project.
Palo Verde
on Feb 28, 2020 at 2:40 pm
on Feb 28, 2020 at 2:40 pm
Unless P.A. is willing to take the land by eminent domain in order to build (affordable) housing - and it is not clear to me that under current CA law that is even possible - then it seems a waste of time to have any discussions or 'plans' given Sobrato's statements.
Note, too, that we need affordable (below market rate) housing, and no for-profit developer is going to do that - because it is NOT PROFITABLE. We'd need a not-for-profit to build and own and manage the properties so that they are kept affordable (i.e. below market).
Greenmeadow
on Feb 28, 2020 at 3:50 pm
on Feb 28, 2020 at 3:50 pm
This historic cannery should realistically be moved to Cubberely and provide that site a well honored up cycled economically re-established community center. Sabrato get it together ! As a property investor and long time community member its a civic and philanthropic obligation to giveback. Brew pubs, high end boutiques and gourmet markets? Give me a break! The 5/2 jobs to housing is breaking up the backbone of our town.
If its not overbuilt, over sold, over budget, over indulged, over privileged — nothing get done, no decision is made. Too bad, so sad. Hpusing is a human right!!!
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 28, 2020 at 4:02 pm
on Feb 28, 2020 at 4:02 pm
It is a little difficult to tell from the article/discussion what the non-housing components proposed are, but, it sounds like some or possibly all include new office space. If so, then-- NO. No new office space. Only a small amount of office space at current cubicle size/software-developer-density, will result in making jobs/office imbalance worse.
-No more office space.-
Downtown North
on Feb 28, 2020 at 8:27 pm
on Feb 28, 2020 at 8:27 pm
I Think many more Palo Altans want a major park in Ventura on the Fry’s extended property and not thousands of worker bee millennial type mole rat hutches. Excuse the “Sorry to Bother You” type mixed metaphor. But could you picture what brave new world with such creatures, thousands of them living in Fry’s?
And who are we to speak truth to a multibillion dollar industry?
A park would increase the value of all the homes in Ventura and all our homes we who live and vote here.
And then with costa hawkins or whatever weakened We can force landlords to roll back rents to their pre-2009 affordable levels
Ventura
on Feb 28, 2020 at 8:59 pm
on Feb 28, 2020 at 8:59 pm
Mark Weis. Excuse me? Renters are not Palo Altans? Get real! You want a park to increase your personal property value because you vote ? Shame on you !!! Renters vote and contribute taxes just like you. We just don’t have the same advantages as you’ve been afforded. . Wow! I can’t believe such self centered ignorance when it come to the reality of others struggling living here.. The Cubberely park clan is vying for a park there too. Why don’t you go get something on Central Park West in NYC ! Get with the program rents will never be affordable as long as owners of such ilk continue such stupid rhetoric! Renters Unite!
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 29, 2020 at 8:28 am
on Feb 29, 2020 at 8:28 am
A simple question: for each of the proposed possible alternative site configurations, how much office space is included in each one?
Barron Park
on Feb 29, 2020 at 11:17 am
on Feb 29, 2020 at 11:17 am
Just wow! No wonder the state wanted to pass SB 50.
This is not a constructive democratic process, it is privileged whining. Just build the 500+ units here with a super-low parking ratio and loads of bike parking/facilities and be done with it. Housing near transit and jobs, done! Palo Alto does not need to micro-manage every single site like this, we are not that special.
There is commercial on Cal Ave that is suffering and 1,000 new nearby residents that would easily walk over would be a hue benefit to the business and greater community.
Midtown
on Feb 29, 2020 at 12:33 pm
on Feb 29, 2020 at 12:33 pm
What's our plan for providing resources for all of these new residents? Some resources might be providable by the developer and/or by the increased tax base (sewage treatment, parking, police, education) but some are harder to increase proportionately to the new population (especially water). Have the planners been including all of the impacts on city resources and services in their plans?
Old Palo Alto
on Feb 29, 2020 at 2:38 pm
on Feb 29, 2020 at 2:38 pm
There are about 10 sites left (similar to Fry's area) in Palo Alto. As residents have no voice in this city. In 5 years we will have apartment buildings everywhere. Which is approximately 20,000 new residents for PA. Great support to Facebook and others who are planing to relocate few thousand new employees in the same period of time.
Old Palo Alto
on Feb 29, 2020 at 2:59 pm
on Feb 29, 2020 at 2:59 pm
@Nathan:
Not enough Palo Altans are paying attention. We need a grass-roots voter education campaign, so we vote our corrupt local politicians out.
Nothing else has worked, and we won’t have a community left to save in ten years. It will be all corporate dorms and gridlocked traffic.
Midtown
on Mar 1, 2020 at 1:02 pm
on Mar 1, 2020 at 1:02 pm
I'm not clear how the "public" gets to decide what gets done on land the "public" doesn't own. (and I am not talking about zoning)
But since this seems to be the case, I am declaring myself as the czar of the future of Palo Alto. I am going to redesign Palo Alto into my own personal preference. I will start at the north end of town and lot by lot, make decisions of how that property will be used, regardless of who owns it or what purpose it currently serves.
My first decree is that any lot north of Oregon Expressway that is more than 50 x 100 feet has to be immediately sub-divided into small lots, the existing structures razed and new dwellings built. No pools, no tennis courts, no studios, no landscaping, no open space that is not occupied by a dwelling or a garden providing food for the homeless. No garages. All residents north of Oregon will be banned from owning any motor vehicle. They will have to find alternate means of transportation. No public garbage collection, they will need to transport all their waste to the collection point by themselves without using any motor vehicle. The will not be allowed to purchase any product that comes in packaging. The will need to make their own soap, make their own clothes and lead a more eco-friendly life. They will need to buy carbon offsets for any locally grown food that gets transported by motor vehicle.
/marc
:^)
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 1, 2020 at 1:49 pm
on Mar 1, 2020 at 1:49 pm
354 housing units.
That means 354+ residents, could be 2 adults per unit, could be ? children per unit.
How many more cars?
How many places needed in schools?
How much more water?
How much more demand on our power, sewage, roads, parks, recreational activities, food supply, etc.
How much more public transport, parking spaces, will we receive? I suspect none.
Ventura
on Mar 1, 2020 at 2:12 pm
on Mar 1, 2020 at 2:12 pm
Only the residents of Ventura have a legitimate say in this matter as it is their neighborhood.
Other communities or PA neighborhoods should mind their own business as the direct repercussions of over development does not impact them directly except for driving, dining & shopping inconveniences.
We have lived in this neighborhood for over 60 years & like it just the way it is!
Adobe-Meadow
on Mar 1, 2020 at 9:47 pm
on Mar 1, 2020 at 9:47 pm
I know that you all are going to come up with a good response here. What ever you all come up with make sure that it does not require a bond issue to subsidize any of the net effects of the response. If any plan requires some subsidy to get approval then we are in trouble. The total package must be able to stand on it's own financially with no tax breaks. One of the bigger problems we are looking at is the tax breaks given to companies which detracts from the funding for the schools and other city services. All these companies think they are doing us all a favor to locate here since they will be employing people - they think they should be here for free. What we are finding out is that there is no FREE. So be smart in the planning here.
Ventura
on Mar 2, 2020 at 9:50 am
on Mar 2, 2020 at 9:50 am
>>> "I Think many more Palo Altans want a major park in Ventura on the Fry’s extended property and not thousands of worker bee millennial type mole rat hutches. Excuse the “Sorry to Bother You” type mixed metaphor. But could you picture what brave new world with such creatures, thousands of them living in Fry’s?"
^^^ An expansive & bucolic park is OK as long as it is restricted/limited to Ventura residents ONLY with perhaps an exclusive neighborhood rec center at the Fry's site.
If the neighborhood can fund it privately or source a benefactor, we could pull it off.
The lego-land rat box residencies for newcomers is unacceptable...they can go live somewhere else. Try EPA as it is gradually developing.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 2, 2020 at 11:10 am
on Mar 2, 2020 at 11:10 am
Posted by Mind Your own Business, a resident of Ventura
>> Only the residents of Ventura have a legitimate say in this matter as it is their neighborhood.
No.
I'm definitely in favor of giving people in neighborhoods a large voice. But, Ventura is not its own city, and no, no neighborhood gets to decide everything about itself. The city is the unit of management, provisions services that we all share, collects taxes to pay for those services, and all the residents have some amount of voice in what everyone does. Onceuponatime, I guess Barron Park could have pulled off incorporating itself as a city, for example, but, chose to become part of Palo Alto. In so doing, Barron Park residents gave up some amount of self-determination. Going further back, Palo Alto and Mayfield merged (July 6th, 1925). They could have stayed two separate towns.
The biggest problem we have is not that the residents of other neighborhoods want to do something bad to Ventura. The biggest problem is that all the residents of all Palo Alto neighborhoods are getting drowned out by the money and the resulting clout that business interests have, AND, that the business interests are on an irrational office space building spree right now where they all want every company employee to work right here, even if they are commuting from Modesto. Not every "tech" company can locate every job right here. This, as they say, "does not scale".
Downtown North
on Mar 2, 2020 at 3:44 pm
on Mar 2, 2020 at 3:44 pm
Everybody wants to use every opportunity to solve city problems, but over in someone else's neighborhood. Sorry, Ventura
Adobe-Meadow
on Mar 2, 2020 at 3:47 pm
on Mar 2, 2020 at 3:47 pm
Ventura's major problem is that it is defined by El Camino as a main thoroughfare. Everything we are being told now is that main thoroughfares are the targeted location for development. Look at all of the check boxes for development:
- Close to a major transportation point - El Camino with buses.
- Close to Caltrain.
- Ability to create travel trails to schools for kids so they are not in the main transportation streets.
- Commercial zoning for markets, dry cleaners, services, restaurants, etc.
El Camino is a continuation through the city as a whole and is a major state road.
Given the specifics of the neighborhood some development needs to be done to show compliance with the state requirements. The street from Charleston up to San Antonio is fully developed with hotels and condo/apartments. The area from Oregon up to Charleston has pockets of declining value which should be developed. This is an opportunity to address some of the unoccupied storefronts. They do not enhance the neighborhood.
The citizens of that neighborhood should work to identify the locations that are in declining state of repair or are empty so a plan can be made.
Old Palo Alto
on Mar 2, 2020 at 4:39 pm
on Mar 2, 2020 at 4:39 pm
I've never been clear on these infamous state and regional requirements. What's the consequence of ignoring them? If it's a fine, then I say we just pay it and plan to do what's best for our community instead.
Call me paranoid, but I've always suspected that in effect these things mainly provide cover for our local public servants to ignore what we've ordered them to do.
Adobe-Meadow
on Mar 2, 2020 at 7:50 pm
on Mar 2, 2020 at 7:50 pm
No one has ordered empty store fronts. No one ordered building which look like they are going to fall down. Every city has pockets of land that need "refreshing". Take the opportunity to get that done. Beautifying your own neighborhood should be a goal.
Your children live here to and want a safe, organized, beautiful place to live. The fact that some owners are not doing anything to manage their properties is a shame.