Publication Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2004
Guest Opinion: Lessons from SOFA II -- worth it, but it took so-o-o long
Guest Opinion: Lessons from SOFA II -- worth it, but it took <I>so-o-o</B></I></strong> long
(January 14, 2004) by Yoriko Kishimoto and Bern Beecham
In the mid-1990s, with fresh scars from recently-fought battles, the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) neighborhood was eager for a more peaceful way to develop a common vision.
A Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) process -- under a new city ordinance -- was an experiment designed to provide residents and property owners with "early, meaningful opportunities to help shape the physical components of their neighborhoods and community."
A "Working Group" was established, representing respective interest groups.
The SOFA study was launched in September 1997 and later broken into two phases. The first dealt with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation site and the second with the area to the west, to Alma Street.
More than six long, turbulent years later, in November 2003, phase II of the SOFA plan was successfully brought to a close. This was a minor miracle, after years of proposals, counter-proposals, three planning directors, fits and starts, and countless drafts of policies, development standards and land-use maps.
Looking back, what did we accomplish in our vigorous debates about these nine city blocks in SOFA II? What lessons can we draw from the first coordinated area plan ever tried in the city?
Was it all worthwhile? Yes, it was. But the process could have been much better, and shorter.
SOFA is a strategic area of the city. It is adjacent to our downtown, near the second busiest station on the entire Caltrain line, with bus connections from both counties. It has a thriving mix of small businesses, residents and retailers, and a key neighborhood-heritage area of Homer Avenue.
In 1997, property values were skyrocketing. Neighbors, property owners and tenants all needed a clearer vision of the future.
The essence of the experiment was that the community and council would set the parameters for change and development, rather than allowing ad-hoc "planned community" zone (PC) applications set the pattern.
The result was positive. We broke ground on a number of fronts, as the city:
1) Commissioned economic analyses as required by the coordinated area plan ordinance. Although they came late in the process, they gave us valuable data to confirm economic viability of proposed development standards and incentive packages.
2) Took steps towards transit-oriented policies. Parking requirements are somewhat reduced, housing density is increased and developers now have incentives to utilize the proximity to the transit center and our walkable downtown area.
3) Developed clearer parameters for PC applications in this area, possibly a precedent for the rest of the city. Any increase in development is limited to residential use and benefits are more clearly defined.
4) Defined a new "compatibility standard" to guide new architecture and make it complement the architectural and historic heritage of the neighborhood.
5) Changed setbacks and floor-area ratios to more of an "urban village" standard. Buildings can be larger and closer to the street and to each other but must offer acceptable private and common open space.
6) Established a cap on the size of average housing units in an effort to create "attainable" housing.
Yet the SOFA II process was also fraught with frustrations and delays. Three planning directors participated in the process, there was constant turnover of the planning staff, and there was significant turnover and attrition in Working Group members.
Lack of clarity over leadership of the process and the authority and assignment of the Working Group created serious problems. The CAP ordinance called for the Working Group to advise the City Council, the Planning and Transportation Commission and the planning staff. This mandate created confusion and conflict -- especially since there was significant disagreement with staff recommendations and with the planning commission's views.
The timing of city consideration of the 800 High St. housing development broadened the political struggles into a citywide referendum vote Nov. 5.
SOFA II plan goals set by the council in 1997 were useful. But business and property owners were unhappy about inadequate outreach to property owners. Staff scheduled extra outreach meetings and re-wrote key portions of the plan to preserve most of the existing zoning rights to address concerns of commercial property owners.
A half-dozen "success factors" made a critical difference in the last crucial meetings of the council leading to final approval in November:,
1) Staff laid out clear policy alternatives for the council.
2) We had the needed analysis and data.
3) All sides had had their issues aired and knew there had to be concessions.
4) There was a new attitude and consensus on the council that "failure was not an option" -- a sense that we could compromise to meet most of the original goals.
5) Council members took time to listen to one another and have policy debates that kept both the goal and the time element in mind.
6) Staff did a high-quality job of translating negotiated changes into development standards, policies and ordinances.
In the end, the council --with the support of staff, the Working Group and city commissions -- did what skeptics said could not be done: successfully negotiate an end to the SOFA planning process.
The plan largely accomplishes our original goal of creating design standards for preserving neighborhood character and making new developments compatible. It also enhances incentives for mixed-use developments (housing with commercial), walkability, historic preservation, and increased housing and community facilities while factoring economic feasibility into the approval process.
The city must learn from the mistakes made so the next coordinated area plan will take one year, not six.
But we should not undervalue the steps we took, as a neighborhood and community, toward a vision of transit-oriented, mixed-use development "a la Palo Alto," while preserving our unique historical fabric and our commitment to maintaining a high quality of life for our residents.
Councilwoman Yoriko Kishimoto resides just south of the SOFA area and Bern Beecham -- elected mayor on Jan. 5 -- resides in the Downtown North area. They can be e-mailed, respectively, at ykishimoto@earthlink.net and bern@beecham.org.
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
