Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Monday, August 10, 2009, 12:53 PM

Special meeting will address Lytton Plaza delay
City manager organizing a special City Council session after watchdog said a proposed renovation would violate 1965 City Charter amendment

by Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto Online Staff

Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 10:24 am

Once again it looks like our city council and city management are clueless about the rules that govern our city.

Posted by rem, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 10:29 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Fed up with the process, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 10:31 am

This is typical Palo Alto behaviour. This has been in the planning stages for a long time and now that the funding is there the plans are approved someone comes up with "You can't do this". At some point the "Palo Alto Process" will succeed in ruining this city even more than it has. When will folks learn that improving something isn't a bad thing.

Posted by cathy Abrahamson, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 10:41 am

In these hard times we should not spend the money, give that money to the schools

Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 10:49 am

Fed up with the process--you do raise a good point--while it should be someone's responsibility in city government to make sure what is proposed falls within city rules, why is it that this "watchdog" waited until it was voted on?

Posted by Randolf, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 10:51 am

I hope the article is wrong is giving the impression that the city manager is checking with the developers about whether to obey the city law.

My sense of Mr. Keene is better than that. I'm sure he will obey the law whether the developers want him to or not.

Posted by lame, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 10:54 am

I have lived in and around Palo Alto since 1972 and I don't even go near University Avenue anymore. Lytton Plaza has been a place for deralects to congregate so the only good about it would be they would have to find somewhere else to stay during construction. I dont know much about "development" but money better spent would be to support local businesses and do something to keep them from vacating. I dont see how putting in new benches for the homeless and druggies is going to do anything to attract more people.

Posted by wow, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 10:58 am

fed up -

You seem to overlook the fact that the "approval" of the plans was done with either flagrant or ignorant disregard for the EXISTING local ordinanace.

If the planning process had been thorough, this wouldn't have come up at the 11th hour.

So be disappointed in the outcome. But don't bellyache about folks having the right --and the City having an obligation -- to have the process legally conform to existing laws.

Posted by Michael Gross, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 11:20 am

I believe the Lytton Plaza project is an excellent project but assuming Borok's comments and position are correct, how about some accountability at the City Attorney's office? I have to assume that somebody in the City Attorney's Office charged his time to a review of this project and approved it. What level of sloppiness does it take to get somebody fired! It seems to me an outside audit of how a more diligent, proactive and legally sound effort on the part of the City Attorney's office might have helped Palo Alto get in front of a litany issues including this one is warranted, i.e. private streets, Children's Theater, profiling, Victor Frost and the whole 'sit lie' issue, the business license tax specifically with respect to our inability to tax non-profits, etc. In all of these issues, the City Attorney's office has been front and center with at best sloppy advice.

Posted by Adam Mason, a resident of another community, on Aug 10, 2009 at 11:20 am

No wonder Palo Alto is crying poverty and implementing a business license tax. Look at all the wasted time and money because of the lack of communication between the council and the city's management. Looks like the "Watchdog" must have fallen asleep to wait until now to decide to start barking. Excellent work all the way around. I applaud you all.

Posted by Don, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 11:28 am

I have to agree with "lame". Why spend the money to beautify this plaza? This plaza will never be an attraction until the homeless and druggies are gone. This plaza has such a bad reputation and this will not change. Instead it will give people a new place to ruin. Even with the fence up last night the same crowd was still there hanging around the fence perimeter.

Posted by Disappointing, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 11:34 am

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Herb, there were many public forums held leading up to the Council vote. Did you attend any? Do you think this is good use of city resources, time and money to throw in your two bit monkey wrench at this juncture.

Do you honestly not think improving the park with someone else's money benefits the City and you as a resident.

Posted by Lame, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 11:53 am

Thanks for agreeing Don.

Why not invest that money in some pressure washers and a bottle of bleach to get rid of the pee smell on all the benches. I hope the development plan does not include a coin op. port-a-john. And has Facebook vacated their building? I havent been near in quite a while. How much have they spent over the years on their office space if they are leaving it vacant now?

Posted by Randolf, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 11:58 am

So many people know about the Park Ordinance, I'm not sure why a few here are attacking the messenger.

One of the development group is a Former City Council member! Of course the experienced developers involved know the law. The Park and Rec. Commission should know this law.

The City Attorney insisted that the Alma Plaza ordinance wait until September before being implemented. That delay favored the developer. Why did he give a pass to these developers, in this case speeding it up?

Posted by Michael Gross, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 12:00 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Fed up with the process, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 12:22 pm

Granted the city should do a better job of knowing the law, but even if the official referendum process could not start until the council approved the plans they fact it was needed could have been raised earlier and thus costly delays and potential impact to downtown businesses through the holidays could have been avoided. This is an example of how Palo Alto is dysfunctional on so many levels from the council down through the "concerned" citizens. We are already over 10% vacancy in retail downtown lets fence off the first corner people see coming in from Stanford through the holidays and see the impact that has. That is so much easier than working to quickly resolve the issue and allow construction to continue or raise the issue sooner so that the schedule could be reworked for after the holidays. Instead we have money going out for rental of fencing and schedules for contractors that probably need the work in this economy being redone. Another gold star for the palo alto process.

Posted by John, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 12:29 pm

Just declare the work to be non-substantial, then move forward. After all, it remains a dot park in Palo Alto, just with a different look. This kind of stuff happens all the time in our parks, for example Mitchell and Hoover and Baylands.

Posted by deLemos Properties, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 12:41 pm

Check your facts everyone. The "developers" you love to disparage are wrongly accused here. This park remodel is an act of charity largely on the part of the public--individuals who care about downtown (yes, some of them happen to be developers, but with no profit motives here) and some of them are just very big hearted downtown citizens. The city is matching some funds, but the organization, planning and fund raising and half the money has been donated. Any critics and neigh sayers ought to be embarrassed for getting in the way of something which will be good for Palo Alto at a bargain basement price.

Posted by Douglas Moran, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Douglas Moran is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

There seems to be something missing from the story. Moving a sculpture and installing new benches and trees would not seem to qualify as "substantial", triggering the ordinance. So what is that makes a referendum a possibility?

I have NOT been following this issue, but my recollection from early in this process was that there were complaints that the public-private partnership went too far in converting the plaza from public into private space. The statement about wanting construction to be completed by the holiday season is not inconsistent with this recollection. But there was also a perspective that the changes were intended to change the segment of the public likely to be using the plaza (by changing the layout): It was being used by people and activities that tended to discourage potential customers of the nearby stores (the "homeless and druggies" of earlier posts + skateboarders? + ???). Again, these are dated recollections.

Note: I have no objection to retailers occasionally using public space (there is a long tradition of this, such as sidewalk sales).

Note: On the City Manager: recognize that the bulk of this "process" occurred well before his arrival (just under a year ago).

Note: On the invocation of the ordinance: I remember the status of the plaza as being a park being raised by people such as Mr Borock (I remember because I was surprised that the plaza was technically a park). Rather than Mr Borock missing this issue earlier in the process (as a previous poster speculated), it is almost certainly a case of him being persistently ignored by the City.

Posted by Lame, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 12:54 pm

Douglas,

If I wanted to find out more about the designation of public vs private land for the plaza, where would I look? Would it be beneficial if this was private land, or would it make a difference at all? Would its use be changed, since now nobody wants to use it currently?

Posted by Norman Beamer, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 1:55 pm

It was a mistake to have an ordinace so broad that it would require this improvement to a downtown corner be subject to public vote. If the city attorney or others failed to realize that the law imposed this absurd requirement, I can't blame them too much. To borrow from Dickens, this is indeed an example of where the "law is an ass".

Posted by Bob, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 1:57 pm

Heads will roll.

Posted by Randolf, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 2:18 pm

It is not true that there is no private gain. The building and business (pizza restaurant) adjoining the plaza are owned by friends or relatives of the major developer. Roxy has been working on this project for many years, against frequent opposition. Just love for Palo Alto? Please.

Increasing his property value is a more realistic assessment. The charity that deLemos refers to takes place only on the tax returns of the contributors. WE get to pay again via the federal subsidy to them as well.

Posted by JO, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 2:46 pm

I gather from the article that Herb Borock merely pointed out some very recent occurrences that appear to be violations of the Municipal Code that are taking place or that are about to take place.

According to the Palo Alto Municpal Code (PAMC), ordinances are not considered to be "passed" until they have been approved by the City Council at a second reading of the ordinance that takes place more than ten days after the first reading. (PAMC 2.04.270(b)) In addition, "No ordinance adopted by the council shall become effective until the commencement of the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption" (PAMC 2.04.330(a)), except for a limited list of exceptions -- and a park improvement ordinance is not on that list of exceptions. These provisions of the Municipal Code should be well known by all senior staff, including all the City's attorneys.

Therefore, as yet, the park improvement ordinance has not been officially "passed," and may not be until September 14 -- unless Mr. Keene can organize a special meeting during Council's vacation. The ordinance still would not then take effect for 30 days.

I agree with Doug Moran that Mr. Borock had previously pointed out the the need for a park improvement ordinance at public hearings at earlier stages of the process. It is the job of the City administration to make sure that the legal requirements for adoption of such an ordinance are adhered to. Mr. Borock could not have anticipated that some City workers/affiliates would proceed to ignore the Municipal Code and prepare to start construction even before the ordinance was officially "passed." When Mr. Borock realized what was happening, he apparently brought this to the City's attention in a timely manner.

The "Friends'" timeline should have been more carefully scrutinized by the appropriate City staff before it got the "go ahead." The lesson for the future should be that the City needs to be more diligent when it comes to reviewing proposals, timelines, etc. that originate from private groups such as the "Friends." Make sure to run it through the City Attorney's office; that's what it's there for.

Posted by Michael Moore, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 2:47 pm

And they say Palo Alto is a well educated community. Everyone in city government drops the ball due to incompetance, but then following the law is too much trouble, or wrong. I've lived in Palo Alto for over 20 years now...but thrill is now all gone...and tired of the stupidity; think it's time for me to move to a really coherent and competant city like Union City or Cupertino.

Posted by Facts, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 3:03 pm

Pizza of My Heart, nor Roxy Rapp own the building adjacent to Lytton Plaza.

It is leased space to operate a business out of- that's all.

Posted by John, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 3:17 pm

"There seems to be something missing from the story. Moving a sculpture and installing new benches and trees would not seem to qualify as "substantial", triggering the ordinance. So what is that makes a referendum a possibility?"

Answer: Nothing. It is not a substantial change. Just move forward, and ignore Herb.

Posted by Dennis, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 3:45 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Rudolf, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 4:28 pm

Minor project? It's a complete demolition and reconstruction. Even the brickwork will be demolished.

Over 3 months and $800,000 can be called "minor" if deceiving the public is your goal.

Roxy's brother in law owns the pizza place.

Posted by Dennis, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 4:43 pm

re "[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]"

I guess the suggestion of a public dunking pool was a little to much for the sensitivities of the PA Online staff. Or was it the vulgar image of "consultants dancing in the streets" ? The Music-grinder? Hot dog vendor?

Posted by Dennis, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 4:54 pm

This is the post "removed by Palo Alto Online staff":

As a solution to both the "use" issue and Palo Alto's financial problems:

Create a public dunking pool. City politicos and bureaucrats would be designated as dunkees to be dunked by dunkers willing to pay a fee. Derelicts, and smokers, would be chosen, at random, of course, to be dunked. Add a juggler, hot dog vendor, music-grinder with monkey, and you'll have a space very likely to be enjoyed by the populace of Palo Alto. Business will boom, tax revenues will soar, consultants will dance in the streets.

Posted by common sense, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 5:22 pm

We all know Lytton Plaza is a dump, ugly and cannot remain as it is. Palo Alto, despite all the negative commentary, is a unique place that supports many retail businesses better than most places. Having this hideous square in the middle of our downtown is an embarrassment that will be dealt with, be it this year, next year or some other time in the not too distant future. Referendums, challenges, etc. against such a no-brainer are a huge waste of all our precious tax dollars. Please don't waste all of our time and money on your ego driven aspirations.

Posted by wow, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 6:17 pm

Disappointing

Actually Herb has a life. He's throwing in a perfectly legal and valid "two bit monkey wrench" as you term it, something all the experts failed to do in the numerous public forums you reference. Something the COPA City Atttorney failed to do. But in the usual case of "let's not hold anyone accountable for these failures, let's just blame the party that did the work that should have been done all-along".

Posted by Elizabeth, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 6:59 pm

I'm definitely in the camp of 'why is money being spent this way in these times'?

If every cent is coming from businesses then, fine, go for it. But if it involves any city funds at all it needs to be held off until much more affluent times.

Fix the streets first! There are so many horrible roads in Palo Alto that I feel like we've migrated to the old East Palo Alto.

Typical of Palo Alto gov't, they happily resurface streets in fancy neighborhoods and ignore many others that are in great need. And to make matters worse, they then go back and chop up the newly resurfaced sections and patch them so that we have few streets that reflect the quality of an affluent city.

I'm an artist so I really do appreciate Palo Alto's concern about investing in the arts, but lets get the streets taken care of before worrying about plazas and fountains. One usually needs a good foundation before embellishments and ours is crumbling!

Posted by Rudolf, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 8:01 pm

With all due respect, Common Sense, it is apparent that you haven't seen Lytton Plaza and unfortunately words like dump, ugly, and hideous just mask your lack of information.

After reading these disparaging posts I went downtown to look at the plaza this afternoon. I was astonished to see how nice it looked, and that it is in great condition. The brickwork is in excellent shape, the round benches have been painted recently and are in excellent condition, there are little flowers and plantings in good condition. Has it been spruced up in preparation for demolition? Who is going to get those newly painted seating structures? The place has been cleaned up. It is bright, clean and really, really nice.

It is downright criminal to destroy this nice plaza.

If the intention is to keep unattractive people out, the new plaza will have to be designed so as the keep everyone out. There are models for such design, see the corner of Channing and High Street. That's a plaza designed to keep people away.

Instead of an emergecy meeting of the city council the city manager should call an emergency meeting of the Parks and Recreation commission and ask them to stop this expensive travesty.

Posted by brian, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2009 at 9:01 pm

I think it's unconscionable to spend $400,000 of our City's money to "upgrade" what doesn't need much improvement. Thank you Rudolf for pointing out that the plaza is not really disreputable.

A competant contractor could "improve" the area at 1/10 the cost. Another example of our City Council spending scarce money on projects that don't need it. The color of Palo Alto is a typical example as well as the recent bicycle tour.

Posted by Dave, a resident of another community, on Aug 10, 2009 at 11:57 pm

"I went downtown to look at the plaza this afternoon."

That about says it all. Just as I preee-visioned it, and commented on in a previous article.

All the folks entranced with this little rat hole see it during the day. Not at night with pizza boxes, empty cups, beer bottles and other detritus all over. Not with aimless teens cozying up to random scroungy adults. Not with 2, 3, 4 Palo Alto officers watching over it. And 2 or 3 or 4 Sheriff and CHP officers hanging out.

Heck I'm not even offended that I was approached by an officer demanding to know what I was doing with a camera in public. Meanwhile the dregs of Palo Alto and surrounding areas sat there, unabated, leaving yet more trash and selling yet more drugs. How is it that the police know who the bag men are for the drug dealers, are willing to talk about this in front of anyone within earshot and not bother to do anything about it?

Meanwhile P.A. is sandwiched between a couple of cities who have amazing new(ish) library and CPA... clean downtown streets without annoying and aggressive panhandlers... family and cultural events during almost daily during the summer with solid promotional and technical staff running things.

We should force PA's city council to attend some events to see how things can be done, then they can decide if they want to act on what they've seen, or turn over and go back to sleep.

Posted by Solon, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Aug 11, 2009 at 12:19 am

Move forward, take the heat, do the job.

Changing from concrete benches, to chairs and tables,

changing one type of tree for antoher,

moving an egg,

changing brickwork

does not seem prohibited by ordinance for public work.

In the past, what has, and has not,been found 'substantial?'

Building housing, or making a parking lot, WOULD be "substantial."

I appreciate what these few have done; what is wrong with "improving property values", our main economic engine of decades?

ANd can't an act be both public-interested and self-interested at the same time?

"The law does not engage in trifles."

Posted by JJ, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Aug 11, 2009 at 10:40 am

Well done Herb!! The City Council and Staff need to authorize the taking down of that ugly fence, and pay attention to the taxpayers of Palo Alto who consider $400,000 to supposedly improve Lytton Plaza a huge waste of money.

Posted by Brian Wilson, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 11, 2009 at 3:22 pm

How unfortunate that the City Council, City Manager,two Assistant City Managers, the City Attorney, the Planning Director, the Assistant Planning Director,the Chief Building Official, the Public Works Director, the Assistant Public Works Director, and the many city staff members appointed to these officials somehow forgot that there is an ordinance requiring a second hearing on park improvements. I thought the City Managers comment in another paper was priceless as he was quoted as saying that those who should know were probably on vacation or something. I always remember the Deputy City Manager telling an employee group how institutionalized knowledge isn't necessary to run a city effectively. Really? Well it would seem this mistake will again cost the city thousands of our dollars to fix because city officials were unaware of required city ordinances. To those retirees with valued institutionalized knowledge,you are sorely missed. Good Luck!

Posted by YSK, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Aug 11, 2009 at 9:20 pm

I avoid The Plaza like the plague. Tired of the type of people that hang out there. It always looks vaguely disreputable.

Posted by Rudolf, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Aug 11, 2009 at 10:49 pm

Dave has also pointed out the characters who hang out there at night.

I can't see how a new design will make them go away. Unless it has the same atmosphere as the plaza on University and Cowper where hardly anyone lingers, or the one I mentioned earlier, on the corner of Channing and High. Both are designed to repel people. Is that what we will get for $750,000? How is that an improvement?

That sum, which has doubled from its original cost of about $400,000 is also a cause of concern. Can't help wondering who is going to make a bundle on this deal.

Why not try bright lighting at night to see if it reduces the presence of hangers-around they probably wouldn't like that.

There are so many possible ideas that wouldn't come close to the $750,000. We could buy a fountain for $50,000 like they are doing on California Avenue. No, these people want to demolish every inch of it, bricks and all, and start from scratch. Maximize the cost, and no imagination.

Posted by rem, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2009 at 10:40 am

Why don’t we have a honest City Council and all the other “Councils” and “Work Shops” that will honestly say “Developer (Contractors) Lobbyists , Developer (Contractors), donate to us and we will approve!!!!”

It would be great if the City Council and all the other “Councils” and “Work Shops” learned a new word – NO or new phase – DISAPPROVED….

There is no sane reason for this except MONEY, MONEY, MONEY and not caring about the people of Palo Alto or ANY of the other communities …..

Sound to me like DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENT !!!! Gee, the CITY has messed up “University Avenue.", West Charleston Road & El Camino Real, butchered San Antonio Road and let’s not forget San Antonio and East Charleston Road.

Like I said ABOVE - There is no sane reason for these PROBLEMS except MONEY, MONEY, MONEY and not caring about the people of Palo Alto or ANY of the other communities …..

Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2009 at 10:44 am

Rem--why don't you stop posting your ridiculous statement, which has already been deleted once from this thread, that you post on every thread dealing with building and growth in Palo Alto.

Posted by Herb Borock, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2009 at 11:44 am

My letter to Chief Building Official Larry Perlin was about an apparent violation of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.

However, I noticed that some of the earlier articles used the term ordinance to refer to the Charter amendment that adopted Charter Article VIII regarding parks.

Some cities and counties in California are general law cities and counties that don't have Charters, while other cities and counties do have Charters.

A local government Charter is analogous to the state or federal Constitution.

A local government ordinance is analogous to a state or federal statute.

In May 1965, Palo Alto voters amended the Palo Alto Charter to add Article VIII regarding parks by a vote of 7,588 "yes" to 1,301 "no", or 85% "yes" votes.

Since 1965, the Charter has required an ordinance subject to referendum before any substantial construction can be done on dedicated parkland.

It is the absence of an adopted and effective ordinance that prevents the planned construction on Lytton Plaza.

The voters in 1965 did not adopt or amend an ordinance. The voters amended the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.

Posted by John, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2009 at 11:52 am

"Since 1965, the Charter has required an ordinance subject to referendum before any substantial construction can be done on dedicated parkland."

I don't see what the hangup is. Just declare the changes to be unsubstantial, and start the project.

Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2009 at 1:09 pm

"I don't see what the hangup is. Just declare the changes to be unsubstantial, and start the project."

$750,000 is a very substantial amount to spend on unsubstantial changes. The city ought to instead get its act to together and make the ordinance that Herb Borock described.

I'm not very surprised the city government overlooked this. It needs a knowledgeable developer to steer it through its process to a desired outcome. The Downtown Business Improvement District, the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, and the Friends of Lytton Plaza should have known this very well. They have nobody to blame but themselves. They should have done their diligence and taken the lead at city hall.

Posted by bikes2work, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2009 at 1:10 pm

Then the police should start enforcing this bit of Municipal Code at Lytton Plaza:

22.04.320 Parks closed, 10:30 p.m. to sunrise.

Except as provided under this code, no person shall use, remain in or enter any park or building between ten-thirty p.m. and sunrise, other than a duly authorized city employee or persons participating in city-sponsored activities or other activities for which the city has provided written permission to utilize a park beyond the closing time, provided however that the closure of specific facilities during portions of the day or the year may be specified by park regulation.

Posted by John, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2009 at 1:18 pm

Much more than $750K has been spent on various park improvements in Palo Alto in recent times. Improvements should not be considered a "substantial" change. The word "substantial" is a term of art, and is thus subjective. I think the proposed improvements for Lytton Plaza do not rise to the level of "substantial". I suggest that the City Council agree with me. Then start digging.

Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2009 at 4:49 pm

As Tom Jordan points out in a companion thread (Web Link), our fair city is not terribly good at following its own law, especially this particular one approved by the residents 7-1. Three-quarters of a million to totally rebuild a park is not an insubstantial "improvement" by any stretch of the imagination. Congrats again, Mr Borock.

Posted by John, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2009 at 6:40 pm

Hoover Park was completely rebuilt, recently, for much more than $750K. However, it remained a park, with some improvements. I still recognize it as a park. Much of the money was spent on underground irrigation, but there was also much spent on a new playground, DG path for walkers and ADA approval, new backstop and stands for the baseball field, new water fountains, new surface for the dog run, etc. The only "substantial" change in the last few years, at Hoover, was the addition of public bathrooms.

If Lytton Plaza is only reconfiguring its design, I hardly see this as a substantial project. If it is a dot park to begin with, and it remains a dot park after the project, it is not a substantial change.

What am I missing, here?

Posted by LAw is the law, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2009 at 7:11 pm

I think the plaza should remain fenced off until the city figures out how to enforce the no people after10:30pm law.

Posted by Fay, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2009 at 7:30 pm

Destroy lytton plaza ASAP please. As a woman I'm terrified of it - I'm regularly harrassed and flashed walking by there after dark or when catching the early train to work. It's incredibly creepy and feels more unsafe to me than New York City. The stench of urine is overwhelming.

Posted by Rudolf, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Aug 13, 2009 at 1:54 pm

This isn't a common experience, a little extreme. More lights and closing it at night would take care of it. Have you tried crossing the street?

Posted by Rudolf, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Aug 15, 2009 at 11:58 am

Several times John advocated calling the project "insubstantial" as did Solon, and deLemos called it a "renovation." Norm called it an "improvement." I expect a little less disinformation and more accuracy from supposedly intelligent people.

The project is a total demolition. This is from the city description:

The project includes demolition of the existing plaza and the sidewalks around it; demolition of stone walls along University Avenue and Emerson Street;

removal of existing trees and lights;

repavement of the plaza and sidewalks;

repositioning of the sculpture;

installation of new lights, tables, benches and fountain.

Posted by John, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Aug 15, 2009 at 12:38 pm

Demolition of old concrete, and replacemnt with new concrete or pavers is hardly a substantial change. Heaven forbid that a sculpture gets moved from one place to another in the same dot park. This entire project falls under the category of improvement, not substantial change. When this improvemnt is done, we will have an improved dot park. That's all.