Check out Town Square! Hundreds of local topics are being discussed by local residents on Town Square, a reader forum sponsored by the Weekly on our community website at www.PaloAltoOnline.com. Post your own comments, ask questions, read the Editor’s blog or just stay up on what people are talking about around town!
Off Deadline Fast rise of slow-/no-growth ‘neo-residentialists’ afoot in Palo Alto? by Jay Thorwaldson riggered by the Measure D election victory to stop the so-called “Maybell project,” a new wave of slow- or nogrowth candidates is signing up for the November City Council election. This could be called the rise of the neo-residentialists, picking up the term from the late 1960s and early 1970s that described those who wanted to put the brakes on growth. That turbulent period was marked by an angry split on the 13-member council, which became known as the 7-to-6 council for its frequent split votes (between residentialists and “establishment” council members) in a bitter era. The residentialist minority was decimated in a 1966 allcouncil election, but made a comeback in the early 1970s. The split continued when the council shifted to its current nine members in the 1970s. The “5-to-4 council” was more polite, but the underlying growth issue remained. That may seem like old history to today’s generation of residents and neighborhood leaders. Except it’s alive and well, as evidenced recently at the Palo Alto Cafe coffee shop in Midtown. In one corner sat council candidate Tom DuBois, surrounded by a group of neighborhood leaders known for long opposition to large “over-development” projects. Outside, candidate Eric Filseth was being briefed on that early history and its
T
aftermath by former councilwoman Enid Pearson — a leading veteran of the 1960s combat who survived the 1966 election — and former councilwoman and mayor Emily Renzel, once a protege of Pearson’s and longtime friend who has been equally vocal about preserving baylands, foothills and neighborhoods. Most of the current candidates class themselves in the slow-/no-growth category, as do most carry-over council members. The existing City Council is showing that it has gotten the message about growth, especially job growth but including housing that is felt to be too dense for a neighborhood, as in the Maybell project. That protest was aimed mostly at the 12 market-rate houses planned for a site in Maybell Court rather than at the 60-unit senior housing development that was part of the package, opponents said. Traffic, as for the past half century in Palo Alto, is a huge factor. The current council, meanwhile, early this year suspended use of the controversial “planned community” (PC) zone that allows developers and city staff to negotiate increases in size, scale or intensity in exchange for some type of “public benefit” commitment. But “public benefit” has been poorly defined, and no one on the city staff kept track of enforcing the public-benefit commitments the developers made. The PC zone seriously undermined regular zoning by making future estimates of density and traffic unreliable. In one sense, the zone returned community development to the virtually unregulated 1940s and 1950s, before “zoning” was firmly established in communities or courts. In the 1950s, “general plans” were developed by roving teams of planners up and down the
state. It seemed that every community, no matter how small, had to have such a plan, usually with a multi-colored map hanging behind the council dais. Most such plans were noted more for their ability to gather dust in the face of real-world pressures from property owners or developers. In Palo Alto, the widely ignored general plan was replaced by the so-called comprehensive plan when former planning director Naphtali Knox took charge of the process. The difference was that the big decisions would be made first in a series of meetings over months, then the plan would be written by staff based on the key decisions. The theory was that it would be more realistic and actually used. The PC zone originated in the 1950s but didn’t become widely used until the late 1960s and early 1970s. As a reporter for the erstwhile Palo Alto Times, I recall the enthusiasm professional planners had for the PC approach. It would, many felt, allow developers to come in with more creative designs and configurations than the more rigid fixed zone on a property or area. But something bad happened on the way to the Planning Commission and City Council. Several things. First, planning staff members tended to accept whatever plan was submitted as ground zero, not considering amenities developers might add under the PC process. Planners then started adding conditions to the plan. So developers quickly realized that they better come in with a rock-bottom plan and play poker with the staff about what they had to add to it. Second, plans ceased to become public once they were submitted, or they were held back while the developer or landowner held
discussions with staff under a “staff review” period. More negotiations and many projects surfaced long after they were officially or unofficially submitted to city officials. The hugeness of several recent projects that were kept from public sight was a major factor in today’s community sensitivity to growth and mistrust of the process. Third, the added time involved in repeated meetings with developers clogged the planning pipeline, choking up the staff’s collective ability to work on long-term projects, such as revision of the comprehensive plan every decade or updating the companion “zoning ordinance” to reflect changes in the plan, or conducting specific studies of certain areas of town. Once, when the zoning-ordinance update was lagging six or eight years behind the comprehensive plan revision, I quipped to a planning official that perhaps they should just forget the ordinance update and just start on the comp plan revision. Yet the damage done to public visibility and transparency — and trust in city government — has been significant, even if slow to rise over the years. Overall, the PC zone did more to return planning to the free-for-all environment that predated the early zoning battles of the 1950s. A better name might be the “Unplanned Community” zone. The question now is whether today’s city officials (from planners to council members) can salvage the PC zone at all, or salvage public trust in such a zone. Q Former Weekly Editor Jay Thorwaldson can be emailed at jthorwaldson@ paweekly.com and/or jaythor@well.com. He also writes periodic blogs at www. PaloAltoOnline.com.
Streetwise
If you had an extra day off before the summer ends, what would you do with it? Asked at Town & Country Village. Interviews and photos by Christina Dong.
Caryn Goldner
Johannes Escudero
Charles Hudson
Sarah Silva
Norma Navarro
Pitman Avenue, Palo Alto Mother
Amarillo Avenue, Palo Alto Pastor
Hampshire Street, San Francisco Venture capitalist
Gabarda Avenue, Portola Valley Nanny
Ramona Street, Palo Alto Nursing assistant
“Just enjoy hanging out with the kids.”
“Spend it with family, for sure. And give back to the community somehow.”
“Go scuba diving at Point Lobos.”
“Go to the beach. It’s been sunny and beautiful.”
“Go around and shop.”
www.PaloAltoOnline.com • Palo Alto Weekly • August 1, 2014 • Page 19