From fast to slow on 27 University? After unsuccessfully trying the hurry-up approach, city staff reverts to the classic Palo Alto process and asks, “How slow do you want to go?”
ust last fall, John Arrillaga’s vision for building huge office towers and a theater where the MacArthur Park restaurant and the Red Cross building now stand was on an unconventional and intentional fast track. After months of behind-the-scenes staff work with Arrillaga and design consultants that cost the city a half-million dollars, the plan was to put the rough idea to a city advisory vote in March or June of this year, and then begin working on an actual project application from Arrillaga. The project was a bird-in-the-hand that could evaporate if not allowed to proceed quickly, the reasoning went. And with TheatreWorks the beneficiary of the proposed theater, its large network of supporters in the community could surely be marshaled to support the project and turn out the right voters in a low turn-out special election. It was a serious misgauging of community opinion. In December, the City Council wisely responded to public outrage over both the process and the proposal by unanimously bagging the election idea and asking staff to develop at least two alternative design concepts that would help focus a more open and transparent public process. Those concepts were to have been brought back to the council in the first few months of this year, but for unexplained reasons no work has yet been done. Instead, in a report prepared for Monday’s City Council meeting, the staff outlines three different “community engagement options” that could last from six months to five years and cost between $100,000 and $750,000, depending on which process the council selects. The staff’s preference is for a process that is essentially what the council already asked for at its December meeting: development of several alternative concepts for the site followed by a few public meetings to gain input and reaction, and then refinements based on the input. We don’t see how the other options, involving much more public process, time and money, provide enough additional benefit to warrant the investment, and we don’t understand why we are at the same point today as we were six months ago. Glaringly missing from the staff’s discussion is how Stanford should be involved as new concepts are explored. As the landowner of the entire site under discussion, Stanford has de facto veto control over what gets built, regardless of what the city may decide it wants. With the original Arrillaga proposal for 27 University, Stanford wisely and understandably stayed in the background. After all, as Stanford’s largest benefactor, Arrillaga is used to having virtual free rein on projects he is funding, and Stanford could sit back and let Arrillaga negotiate the best development he could with the city. But as alternative design concepts are explored they may not be ones that Arrillaga is willing to embrace and finance for Stanford’s benefit, and there may be concepts that have more appeal than others for the university. Palo Alto is not without great leverage, however. Under the current zoning, no new development can occur on the site, so the only way Stanford can turn that property into a productive financial asset is to work with the city toward a win-win solution. Regardless of which “community engagement process” the City Council chooses, we hope it will specifically direct the staff to include high density housing (or mixed use) and a hotel/conference center as part of the new development concepts. These will provide a needed contrast to Arrillaga’s office-building proposal. As we’ve stated previously, we also hope the alternatives will explore creating a bus transit center on Stanford land on the west side of El Camino. Moving the bus traffic and the need for parking two dozen buses from the area adjacent to the train station will solve a major pedestrian and bike safety problem and facilitate better connectivity between downtown, Stanford Shopping Center, and whatever is built at 27 University. Finally, what the city should receive as a “public benefit” for allowing any new development on the site should not assume (nor preclude) the originally proposed theater. The process should identify a range of public-benefit options that reflect compelling needs of the community, and that correlate to the value being created for Stanford in whatever development is ultimately approved. Most importantly, the work going forward must be open and transparent. Anything short of that will prolong, not shorten, reaching a positive outcome that can be embraced by the community. Page 20ÊUÊ>ÞÊÎ£]ÊÓä£ÎÊUÊ*>ÊÌÊ7iiÞÊUÊÜÜÜ°*>Ì"i°V
Spectrum Editorials, letters and opinions
Have a heart Editor, I acknowledge that car sleeping can detract from the ambiance of our otherwise perfect neighborhoods, but these folks don’t have the luxury of owning or renting a dwelling. When night falls, what do you expect them to do, disappear? My father was homeless during the Great Depression. He was rousted and even beaten by police for sleeping in public places. We can do better than that here in Palo Alto. Please don’t add to the difficulties and stigma that poor people face every day. Have a heart, people. Mark Meltzer Byron Street, Palo Alto
Empathy not wrath Editor, I am appalled that some members of the Palo Alto City Council are considering banning poor people from sleeping in their own cars. We are in an economic crisis in this regressive economy. If any of you had the misfortune to lose your jobs, and then your apartment or house, can you think of where you might sleep at night? Please consider people who are less fortunate than you. Building walls, based on socio-economic and racial lines around this city, is not a solution. We can do much better. I urge the City government members and the editor of the Palo Alto Weekly to reconsider your position. If we look at the solutions that San Francisco has initiated, including acknowledging the basic right of people to have access to a place to sleep in their city, we could do likewise. This city is becoming too exclusive; we have done nothing to limit the exorbitant rent increases that have been skyrocketing out of control. The vacancy rate for low-cost housing is .0 percent. What kind of city do we want Palo Alto to become? We need more community consensus before the city takes such drastic actions. Roberta Ahlquist Webster Street, Palo Alto
Tennis, tutoring aces Editor, One of the pleasures of being employed at Stanford was watching the tennis teams, my preferred sport. Over almost 30 years, I had the pleasure of meeting many of the team members, one of whom was Jeff Arons. Unquestionably, he ranked first in my books because of his dedication to public service in East Palo Alto, through this interlocking program of tennis and tutoring. Also note-
worthy is the inspiration and sustained institutional support Jeff received through Emeritus Coach Dick Gould, whom I have had the honor of knowing since my first year at Stanford in 1968. I thank the Weekly for recognizing these gentlemen and their service. Indeed, they are two distinguished “aces.” Henry Organ Euclid Avenue, Palo Alto
‘Know Your Rights Editor, Many thanks to all of the concerned parent groups for joining “We Can Do Better Palo Alto” in sponsoring the presentation “Know Your Rights” presented by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The purpose of the May 16 gathering was twofold: to inform parents and other community members about the civil rights law relevant to bullying and harassment at school, and to inform parents about their rights (including how to file a complaint). As a member, I am proud to say that WCDBPA birthed this event.
We were able to follow through on this exceptional parent-education gathering in spite of a lastminute withdrawal of support by the district office. The sponsors had hoped to receive interest from the PTA. Their members seemed conspicuously absent. I was disappointed to see Superintendent Skelly and a board member sitting in the rear of the room. I fear that their presence may have prevented some parents from asking questions they wanted to ask. Fear of retaliation has been reported to our group and it is real. Ken Dauber, WCDBPA cofounder, served as moderator for Q&A and paid for the babysitter himself so that all parents in the community could attend. Thanks for your generosity, Ken! Thanks also to Ohlone School’s staff for hosting and setting up for the standing-room-only crowd! Thanks again to OCR, Ken Dauber, WCDBPA, PASS, SEAN and CAC! Barbara Slone Barbara Drive, Palo Alto
WHAT DO YOU THINK? The Palo Alto Weekly encourages comments on our coverage or on issues of local interest.
Should the Palo Alto City Council shrink from nine to seven members?
Submit letters to the editor of up to 250 words to email@example.com. Submit guest opinions of 1,000 words to firstname.lastname@example.org. 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 Eric Van Susteren at email@example.com or 650-326-8210.
Published on May 31, 2013