Publication Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Letters
Letters
(April 27, 2005)
Mayfield reduces impacts
Editor,
In light of some recent comments about the Mayfield Agreement and its impacts along California Avenue, it is important to point out some key facts:
1) The Mayfield Agreement downzones the Upper California Avenue site to half the current Research Park density of 30 units per acre. This means the 17 acres will be allowed a theoretical maximum of only 255 units if the Mayfield agreement is approved. Of those, only 209 are vested or guaranteed by the agreement.
2) Converting the existing commercial development on Upper California to residential development reduces weekday peak-hour trips by more than 70 percent.
While it is true there will be more trips on weekends with the residential development, there will be 5,700 fewer trips generated over a full week's time.
And these statistics are based upon 255 units. If only the guaranteed units are built, the traffic will be even less.
3) Today, there is no access to Page Mill Road from the Upper California Avenue office/R&D projects that serves the entire site. As pointed out above, the new residential development will result in fewer trips on California Avenue.
Access to Page Mill Road is not necessary or required to mitigate what is already a favorable traffic impact.
We hope this information will eliminate misunderstandings about housing densities and traffic impacts related to the Upper California Avenue housing provisions in the Mayfield Agreement.
Larry Horton
Stanford University
Mayfield concerns
Editor,
I have many concerns about the proposed Mayfield agreement.
One major concern is the very high density, oversized residential development proposed for the El Camino site (adjacent to California Avenue). This development is poorly defined, yet would not even be subject to the city's normal design-review process.
Plus Stanford gets to build an additional 200,000 square feet of commercial/office space, on top of the 100,000 square feet of new office that Stanford receives immediately in exchange for the soccer fields.
The 200,000 square feet is being wrongly characterized as a "relocation" of existing commercial space at the El Camino and California Avenue sites. The proposed housing should not be treated as a "concession" or "gift" from Stanford, especially when Stanford can exclude non-Stanford occupants from all of the market-rate housing units (and 30 percent of the below-market-rate units).
Under the deal, Stanford can take back the soccer fields in 51 years. Stanford avoids paying impact fees on all Mayfield deal construction. Stanford avoids paying mitigations for any impacts on community services caused by 2,035,000 square feet of new academic development and 3,018 new housing units to be constructed on campus under the county General Use Permit.
This is much too high a price for Palo Alto residents to pay for 51 years use of soccer fields that will probably end up mainly being used by adult soccer leagues (including Stanford users and out-of-town leagues). It certainly is unfair to nearby residents who will have to suffer the impacts in perpetuity.
Joy Ogawa
Yale Street
Palo Alto
Praise from PAGE
Editor,
On the morning of April 9, PAGE (Palo Altans for Government Effectiveness) offered citizens an opportunity to learn and discuss, "How do YOU Make a Good Community Better?"
State Senator Joe Simitian explained the basics of working with local governments. Distinguished panelists discussed their experiences as a City Council member (Jim Burch), a school board member (John Barton), a city commission/board member (Judith Wasserman), a neighborhood association leader (Kathy Durham) and a school community leader (Kate Hill).
Attendees then joined various breakout groups to learn more about being in an elected office, an appointee to a commission or board or a community advocate.
The feedback from this well-attended event has been very positive. We are very grateful to Joe Simitian and the panelists for their insightful remarks. However, this event could not have taken place without the Garden Court Hotel's generous contribution of the location, the food and the beverages.
We know its gracious hospitality has been extended to many other local nonprofits, demonstrating the hotel's genuine commitment to meaningfully serve our community. We wish to express our deeply felt thanks to the Garden Court.
Barbara Spreng, Julie Jerome, Nancy Shepherd, Bonnie Packer and Sally Probst (Organizers of the PAGE April 9 event)
Edgewood Drive
Palo Alto
Time to wake up
Editor,
To put a twist on an old phrase, "The more things stay the same, the more things change."
Palo Alto's revenue model needs re-engineering. Sales taxes, hotel-occupancy taxes and other such revenue sources are drying up, as the businesses that generate such revenues leave town.
Similarly, critical infrastructure initiatives such as storm drains and support of our public schools need to be funded in light of diminishing revenues from conventional sources that this citizenry has taken for granted for too long.
We should hold fast to that which is good in Palo Alto, but we also should not be afraid to adapt to the environment our city faces. That includes considering things like a new auto row, how to improve the Alma Plaza and Edgewood retail spaces, better ways to recruit and retain retail downtown, how a re-configured golf course might generate revenues and new hotel possibilities.
If we keep things the same, it means less revenue than we have had as a city in the past several years, and it means major reductions in services, and in my opinion a scarring of the character of the city.
Palo Alto cannot take for granted its sources of revenue. Nor should it take for granted all the things the city currently provides. Wake up folks.
Paul Losch
Lincoln Avenue
Palo Alto
Spotlight on sports
Editor,
The obvious fact that Palo Altans so value their children drew many of us to the city. The schools, variety of youth programs available, parks, attention given by local government, etc., make clear our children are priority number one. I think the Palo Alto Weekly also does an exceptional job in highlighting youth activities.
This community owes a debt of thanks to Keith Peters and the Weekly team that gives so much attention to youth sports. We teach our children that hard work pays dividends in all facets of life. In no small way the attention they get in sports from the Weekly reinforces that notion.
Thanks to the Weekly and Keith Peters for supporting the children of this community.
Dick Held
DeSoto Drive
Palo Alto
Crossing the line
Editor,
It is against the law for a public agency to use public funds to campaign for either side in an election.
Yet, a stuffer in our utility bills argues why our city believes the street-drains fees should be increased. It states that the current charge is a "small part of monthly utility bills," that "revenues were last increased in 1994" and that those revenues "do not adequately fund" allegedly "significant drainage improvements needed in Palo Alto."
This is argument for passage, plain and simple.
There has never been an expectation that drain fees were to fund all drainage work. That's why the council adopted a bond issue in the 1990s.
The brochure argues that revenues "under the current fee structure" "do not adequately fund" "significant improvements" that are "needed." All "needed" improvements were approved by the council when it authorized the bond measure in the '90s. Not mentioning the bond issue is a significant omission. The purpose is to have voters believe the only source of funding is from fee increases as opposed to the General Fund, which has been the source of previous funds for our street drains.
Undated photographs in the brochure show temporary ponding intended to convey a sense of urgency, even though the public works director reported on Oct. 4, 2002, that "our system is in fairly good condition now."
The insert is a campaign piece in favor of passing the proposed fee increase. It crosses the line.
Richard Alexander
Santa Rita Avenue
Palo Alto
Unbelievable allegations
Editor,
I know that I should not believe everything I read in the newspaper, but the recent article regarding land use in Barron Park is almost unbelievable.
Doug Moran is one of the calmest, most reasonable people I have ever met. I can see no reason for anyone, even David Migdal, to file a restraining order against him. Throughout many community and city meetings regarding Migdal's proposed development of the Benedict property, Moran has been a voice of sanity and reason. He was often the one to calm a neighborhood meeting that was about to get out of hand.
Without the diligent efforts of Moran and other residents, Migdal would have developed this parcel into six cookie-cutter homes with no parking and no concern for the many heritage oaks presently there. Only through Moran's diligent efforts to keep busy residents informed have we finally been able to reduce the development to four homes with protection of the heritage oak trees, but with minimal parking and a substandard cul-de-sac.
Had Migdal initially proposed developing this parcel into two or three homes with ample parking and full protection for the heritage oaks and stand of old redwood trees (which he cut down the day before Palo Alto's ordinance protecting such trees took effect), his project would have been welcomed in the neighborhood and completed several years ago. Several other developers and private citizens offered to purchase the property and do just that, but Migdal insisted on cramming as many homes as physically possible onto this property.
Throughout the four-and-a-half years this has been going on, Migdal has consistently displayed a "neighbors be damned" attitude while Moran has been a voice for sanity, reason and calm. Clearly this restraining order is an attempt to silence Moran, a highly respected community leader. We need more Doug Morans in Palo Alto.
Jean Wren
Matadero Avenue
Palo Alto
DeLay strikes out
Editor,
It's baseball season, but there's whistle blowing on Tom DeLay for "traveling."
I'm not much of a sports fan, so maybe I can't always follow the ball, but who could fail to see that Mr. DeLay, as House Majority Leader, would not make a good nominee for "Player of the Year," whatever the sport, for his personal conduct is unsportsmanlike by every rule book.
Mr. DeLay, it seemed to me, was desperately attempting a "fake" by stating at his press conference of April 13 that he would talk on the subject of federal judges being disciplined (and fired?) by Congress, but then insisting he would not entertain questions regarding his political activities -- and I guess that would include questions about his possible ethical violations.
Do Republicans want a new kind of ballgame, with perhaps this as a new rule from the ethics committee:
"Three Strikes ... and more!" special for Tom DeLay?
Here in California, our law is "Three Strikes and You're Out." Even for petty criminals, that's 25 to life.
There are honest Americans who want Tom DeLay, after three admonishments by the House Ethics Committee, to be tagged "foul."
Go Democrats! Give us a slam-dunk at home-plate.
Doris Dahlgren
Sheridan Avenue
Palo Alto
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
