PC Zoning: A Ripoff for Taxpayers and Residents

Planned Community (PC) zoning has become a massive ripoff for residents and taxpayers—and a treasure trove for developers and their hired guns. Although Palo Alto has allowed PCs for more than 50 years, in the last 25 years, problems and ripoffs have multiplied.

Let me explain the issues and problems.

PC zoning allows developments that are prohibited from standard zoning regulations. Exceptions include cases such as high-density housing, where zoning is for low-density retail; buildings that are two or three times their normal density and bulk; heights well above normal zoning limits of 35 or 50 feet; or reduced setbacks or greater encroachments on adjacent properties. 

In exchange for these rights, the developer is supposed to provide an equal “public benefit.” Examples from past PCs include $75,000 for a traffic study of impacts brought about by the project, which is a normal requirement anyway; $100,000 for senior programs (The money for traffic studies and seniors will be spent and gone, but the private benefits are permanent); a play structure for children living in the development (when the play structure was demolished, there was no enforcement or efforts to restore it); an "attractive appearance" providing an entry to the city; grocery stores such as JJ&F (which has announced its retirement).

In every recent project, PCs have generated far more profit and intensity of use for the developer than the supposedly comparable public benefits. How is this possible? A study done by staff more than 15 years ago found there was a strong correlation between who proposed the PC and the disparity between private and public benefits.

If the person proposing or advocating (as a paid consultant) for a project was someone who was connected, who knew staff and council members personally, then the private benefit heavily outweighed the "public benefit.” If the advocate wasn’t a local developer, hadn’t proposed many projects here, or was a relative outsider, then the private and public benefits were much more balanced. Staff tends to play along with PC requests and rarely recommends disapproval.

The latest PC scam is the massive office building proposed to replace the gas station at Alma Street and Lytton Avenue. It would greatly violate the 50-foot height limit, have almost three times the building volume allowed under existing zoning for the site, and add more than 100 jobs and hundreds of car trips. 

Most of the building will be offices, so there will be little tax revenue to the city, but there will be added costs to provide services for building occupants. The supposed ”public benefit” will be an “entry structure to downtown” across from the train station, ignoring the fact that Lytton Avenue has never been an entry to downtown and that requiring attractive “entry buildings” is one of the tasks of the Architectural Review Board.    

The Palo Alto Planning Commission will discuss this proposal on Wednesday. Let’s hope the commission totally rejects it—and that the council supports the rejection.