Editorial
In a baby step, PCs are put on hold With election approaching, City Council finally initiates review of ‘planned community’ zoning
A
fter years of hearing citizen complaints about Palo Alto’s practice of allowing developers to exceed zoning limits by offering “public benefits” that often don’t live up to promises, the City Council has voted not to accept or approve any new proposals until it can figure out how to reform the system. While the moratorium, described in the proposal by the staff as a “time out,” will certainly be well received in the community, it is hardly a bold policy move. Since the council must already approve any project seeking a PC zone, adopting a formal moratorium shouldn’t be necessary at all. The council can simply vote them down if they come forward, although that has not happened in recent history. As Council member Pat Burt observed, it’s ironic that a moratorium is considered by some to be the best way to “control our urges.” “We’re almost acting like we’re the town drunk who burned down the liquor store to keep himself from drinking,” Burt said. “We shouldn’t need that.” What is really going on is a strong desire by the Council to remake itself and demonstrate that it is listening to the public after the intense negative reaction to the warm reception given to the Arrillaga proposal for 27 University, the Council’s approval of the PC office project at 101 Lytton, its willingness to entertain a huge development at 395 Page Mill Road, and the defeat of Measure D, overturning the Council’s approval of a senior housing PC project. Redemption is particularly urgent for Greg Scharff, Nancy Shepherd and Gail Price, who must polish their positions and voting records in preparation for their anticipated re-election campaigns this fall. (Karen Holman is also up for re-election, but her record of skepticism and opposition to major development projects is unassailable.) Depending on the quality of the challengers, this November’s election has the very real chance of sweeping out of office more than one incumbent due to dissatisfaction with the Council’s handling of development and traffic issues. (There will also be at least one “open” seat due to Larry Klein being termed out.) Scharff and Shepherd, who were both pushing for fast-tracking the now-withdrawn massive Jay Paul project (behind the AOL building on Page Mill) in order to try and obtain the public benefit of a public-safety building, are now looking to convince voters they have heard the outcry, seen the light and are now ready to institute reforms. Indeed, Scharff has come full circle since he ran in 2009, with no previous political or government experience, when he advocated reform of the PC zoning process in his campaign but then initiated no steps to do so until now. It was Scharff who, when supporting the 101 Lytton office project PC, took the position that a welldesigned building should be considered a “public benefit” worthy of exceeding the zoning requirements. Regardless of the individual motivations or sincerity in adopting the “time out” for PC projects, the system does need major reforms. The process of staff negotiating privately with developers over development exceptions and public benefits and then supposedly assuming a neutral role in evaluating the project once it is unveiled is unseemly and improper. The lack of quality economic analysis quantifying a developer’s financial gain from zoning exceptions or the value of the public benefits has left the city in a weakened negotiating position, and the historically bad monitoring and enforcement of past PCs gave rise to great cynicism. We have advocated reform of the PC process for years, so we are glad to see this finally embraced by the city staff and council. But this is but one of the planning and land-use challenges facing the city. The greater threat and worry is the state of our current commercial zoning throughout the city, which allows for large increases in density as property owners redevelop smaller buildings to the maximum size allowed under the existing zoning, one project at a time. Much more complicated and fraught with legal dangers than reforming the discretionary PC process, that is the task that will really put the City Council to the test, and that candidates will hopefully be forced to address as they seek our votes this fall. Page 18ÊUÊ iLÀÕ>ÀÞÊÇ]ÊÓä£{ÊUÊ*> Ê Ì Ê7ii ÞÊUÊÜÜÜ°*> Ì " i°V
Spectrum Editorials, letters and opinions
Less two-hour parking
Parking, more parking
Editor, Growth is good for business. The only way to grow the number of shoppers, employees, restaurant customers and residents in downtown Palo Alto is if people don’t bring their cars with them. Right now the freeways and streets are full; there is no more room for cars but there is room for more people. In my quality of life, people add value, vehicles do not. It is in the interest of growthoriented businesses — especially environmentally sensitive ones like Whole Foods and Lyfe Kitchen — to support their employees in using healthy, carbon-neutral ways of getting to work. Stanford, Patagonia and other quality Palo Alto workplaces have done this with Go Passes, shuttles and showers. I only hope that, instead of building more parking garages, Palo Alto builds more bike/pedestrian paths. Elaine Haight Cowper Street, Palo Alto
Editor, Last Thursday afternoon, I walked from my house on Kingsley Avenue to University Avenue. As usual every parking space along Bryant was taken. When I got to University I decided to go to the High Street garage and count unoccupied permit-parking spaces. There were 50. Extrapolating across all the downtown garages there are probably 300 unoccupied spaces on a typical weekday. It is not hard to understand why downtown workers prefer to park in the neighborhood residential streets rather than buy a permit. For anyone who works in a downtown restaurant and makes, perhaps, $30,000 a year, a $466 parking permit is a major expense. Avoiding it and walking three or four blocks is a no-brainer. Before instituting a residentialparking license I think the city should try the following experiment: Reduce the price of parking permits to zero for a three-month permit. It is almost certain that those 300 unoccupied garage spaces will fill up. If that solves the problem of neighborhood
Fees not justifiable Editor, A case can be made for the requirement of permits to park overnight on city streets. in residential areas. While a fee charged to non-residents is justifiable, it is definitely not justifiable to charge tax-paying homeowners a fee for parking on the street directly in front of their own home. Homeowners parking their own cars in front of their own homes in not a problem and never has been. Don’t penalize homeowners for a problem caused by others who do not live in the neighborhood where they park. John Paul Hanna Crescent Drive
Support local business Editor, I am really sad to learn that Cho’s is being forced to close with a 60-day notice. After 30 years as a business on California Avenue, you would think that the owners would evaluate such a change with more than “Well, I have the time this year .... I know Cho has talked about the fact that he was going to retire ...” How about talking to Cho and finding out when he is going to retire and coordinating his eviction to coincide with his plans? Many of us have enjoyed eating at Cho’s and picking up food to enjoy at home or at work. Please reconsider this closure! Too many negative things have happened to our California Avenue. Let’s support this local business. Rhoda Grumet San Francisco Court, Stanford
street parking then we have an economic problem, not a parking problem. I realize that the construction of the downtown garages was paid for by the city and downtown merchants and that the fees from parking permits are required for maintenance and amortization. However, there is certainly a price, somewhere between zero and $466 where supply and demand are in balance and all spaces are occupied. Finding that price should not be too difficult. David Lieberman Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto
What about Buena Vista? Editor, The dispute over the Maybell project, plus the ongoing controversy over planned-community zoning, have obscured the problem of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park, whose residents live in fear of losing their homes to redevelopment. Established as a travelers’ camp in 1926, Buena Vista has evolved into a thriving community. Neighbors meet for coffee; children ride bicycles to Palo Alto schools; gasoline and groceries are near at V Ì Õi`Ê Ê iÝÌÊ«>}i®
WHAT DO YOU THINK? The Palo Alto Weekly encourages comments on our coverage or on issues of local interest.
Is there a better solution to the proposed “Dish” access parking plan? Submit letters to the editor of up to 300 words to letters@paweekly.com. Submit guest opinions of 1,000 words to editor@paweekly.com. Include your name, address and daytime phone number so we can reach you. We reserve the right to edit contributions for length, objectionable content, libel and factual errors known to us. Anonymous letters will generally not be accepted. Submitting a letter to the editor or guest opinion constitutes a granting of permission to the Palo Alto Weekly and Embarcadero Media to also publish it online, including in our online archives and as a post on Town Square. For more information contact Editor Jocelyn Dong or Editorial Assistant Elena Kadvany at editor@paweekly.com or 650-326-8210.