Publication Date: Wednesday Oct 15, 1997

Letters to the Editor

Using positive energy

Editor,

On behalf of both the Measure M and Measure O campaigns, we would like to make an appeal to all Palo Alto area residents. It has come to our attention that lawn signs from both sides of the campaign are being knocked down, destroyed or thrown away.

Palo Alto is a community known for collaboration, tolerance, and a respect for the democratic process. Destroying lawn signs is not in keeping with these ideals.

Neighbors, and organizations like the Chamber and Measure M Campaign, with differing opinions are peacefully coexisting throughout this election. We ask those individuals who are vandalizing lawn signs to, instead, put that energy to work positively for the measure of your choice.

Explanation of "the loop"

Editor,

In the October 3 "Around Town" section, Jay Thorwaldson of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation referenced that of the City Council candidates that appeared at the Sept, 25 meeting on the fiber optic loop, I was the only candidate who "took a position on the issue." Since that article appeared several people have asked me to clarify what my position is.

The city of Palo Alto is about to finish what is known as a "fiber optic loop." The project cost approximately $2 million. The loop is modern day gold in the ground. Last week Web TV announced they will be hooking up to the Loop. They are just the second of thousands of end users who will take advantage of this exciting technology. The creation of the Loop was money well spent.

The question posed to us in conjunction with the forum was "Should the City of Palo Alto pay for a fiber optic link from the Loop to each household and business in Palo Alto" (or what is referred to as "Last Mile")? I indicated fiber optic technology has incredible potential and one day will reach every home. As a member of the council, I will do everything I can to encourage each home, business and public facility to have access to fiber optic technology. However, for the reasons discussed below, at this point in time, I believe the cost of the extension of the Loop to end users should be born by private industry (as was the case with Web TV) instead of the taxpayers of Palo Alto.

Cost: the City Manager's office has reported the Last Mile could cost up to $75,000,000.

CHECK THIS

This is too big of a burden for the Palo Alto taxpayer. Technology: The technology in this field is change at a revolutionary pace. The City could find that after it spends $75,000,000 the technology it has purchased is out of date, requiring substantial additional taxpayer funds. Lack of Consensus: An indication of how fluid the situation is, even those that believe the City should pay for the Last Mile cannot agree on which technology should be used to complete the project.

When these obstacles are overcome (and I am sure that will happen sooner than almost anyone can imagine), we will be ready to complete the Last Mile and provide our citizens a quality product without risking taxpayer funds. If you would like a copy of the complete statement I prepared for the event, please visit my web site www.best.com/duf, call my campaign hot line 599-1877 or e mail me @ Duf@DotySund.com

Let Stanford pay

Editor,

As a Palo Alto resident and chair of the Chamber of Commerce board of directors, I urge the community's Yes vote on Measure O and No on Measure M in the upcoming election. Endorsed by the Palo Alto City Council, League of Women Voters of Palo Alto and hundreds of Palo Alto residents, Measure O and the Sand Hill Road projects that would be built as a result of its passage are a long time coming for the Palo Alto community and region.

Measure O offers traditional housing, additional senior housing, on-site child care, free Marguerite shuttle service and 13 miles of additional bicycle and pedestrian paths. The shopping center gets slightly larger and Sand Hill Road gets widened. Because Sand Hill Road will extend to El Camino, it improves access to 280, Stanford Hospital, Packard Children's Hospital and the shopping center. The financial burden for all this rests solely with Stanford.

Measure M is not constructive. It is not a viable alternative to Measure O because of inherent flaws in its design and effects. Stanford University has clearly stated that it will not build Measure M as it nullifies all approvals of measure O along with the negotiated solutions for different elements of the projects.

Measure M eradicates five years of collaborative dialogue and preempts viable solutions to important issues. Measure O moves us ahead with credible improvements for our community. Again, on behalf of over 800 businesses in Palo Alto and the Bay Area, I urge all Palo Alto voters to vote yes on Measure O and no on Measure M.

An embarrassed alumni

Editor,

I am a Stanford graduate who strongly supports the university's right to express its perspective on Measures M and O, regardless of whether I agree with it. I am, however, embarrassed by those tactics of my alma mater which range from deceiving insinuations to outright lies. Falsehood: A pamphlet Stanford is circulating lists Measure O features, including the following: "Widen Sand Hill Road to four lanes from Santa Cruz Avenue to Arboretum." The stretch from San Francisquito Creek to Santa Cruz Avenue lies in San Mateo County, and the Menlo Park City Council will not allow any such widening. The Stanford Land Management Company knew this long before the pamphlet was mailed out. (What good are four lanes in the middle if the road is pinched to two at either end, as is the case under O?)

Falsehood: A letter inviting me to a pro Measure O coffee at a neighbors house state that "Sand Hill Road would not be extended" if Measure M passes and receives more votes than Measure O. Measure M quite clearly mandates that Sand Hill be connected to El Camino.

Deception: The Stanford Land Management Co. has implied that the cost of the Sand Hill-El Camino connection would be $20 million. The implied message is that the city will be left with this terrible price tag under M, because the university will not pay for the extension if M beats O. The insinuation is designed to scare supporters of the connection into voting for O and against M.

This $20 million figure is the cost for all the road work under O (Sand Hill, Quarry, Sock Farm, Pasteur, and Vineyard). The cost of the Sand Hill to El Camino connection is only $1 million to $2 million. When called on this deceiving implication, I heard Larry Horton, a Stanford representative, claim he never believed that anyone would be confused as to the cost of the Sand Hill El Camino connection. Given the fact that the organization he is working for is knowing spreading complete falsehoods, we would be naive to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Ignoring the advantages

Editor,

Letters opposing Stanford's Sand Hill Road project and Measure O ignore its many advantages to the community: Locating badly needed senior housing adjacent to first-class medical services and shopping is ideal. Moreover, seniors are generally retired individuals who tend not to drive during peak hour traffic. The housing opposite the Medical Center is designed for individuals who work at Stanford and will therefore be within walking or biking distance of their work place, or can use Stanford's Marguerite Shuttle. These are not people who need access to buses and trains. To the extent that most of them now commute from nearby communities, this new housing could actually result in a reduction in peak hour traffic headed to Stanford.

Stanford has planned an open space setback nearly the length of a football field between this housing and the bank of the creek. The proposed housing area is "almost" completely free of existing trees, which are mostly along the creek bank and will be preserved as a natural barrier between the housing and the creek. On the Menlo Park side of the creek, existing housing lots border the creek bank with no setback.

The combined effect of these two housing proposals will be to make available more than 1,000 existing homes which are needed by many young families, and will lower this area's jobs and housing imbalance.

It is obvious that a four-lane Sand Hill Road with a connection to El Camino will improve emergency access to Stanford's medical facilities, and decrease traffic on parallel Menlo Park streets (e.g. Middle and Santa Cruz), a major benefit for Menlo Park residents.

All in all, a yes vote on O and a no vote on M will provide a win-win situation for most everyone.

They owe Palo Altans more

Editor,

Since I am no longer a resident of Palo Alto I cannot vote on Measures M or O. However, in order for the citizens of Palo Alto to make an informed decision, it is my opinion that the backers of Proposition M owe Palo Altans more than just an objection, or "Just say No". They have presented what they call an "alternate plan." But the plan is just some words of "Put this here instead of there", "Put in a three-lane death trap," "Too many lights", "Too big", "Closer to the transportation hub" etc.

In all fairness they should present a much more specific plan, such as working drawings of building layout, parking areas, tree removal, access roads, traffic lights and/or stop signs, cross walks, building heights, estimated costs, if not a full blown EIR, then at least a summary type preliminary EIR. Their "plan" certainly does not treat the voters fairly; it only says "Trust us, we know what is best for you." Instead of cluttering up Sand Hill with sausages around their necks, why don't they spend their efforts convincing both Palo Alto and Menlo Park of the irrationality of the actions that create this "sausage effect."

Thanks to Gunn volunteers

Editor,

Gunn High School Sports Boosters organized a very successful fundraiser on Sunday, Aug. 17, our annual sports physical for local high school athletes. An event of this magnitude requires hours of effort and coordination by many parents. Once again, this is another reminder of how fortunate we are to live in this wonderful community. In a time when so many areas of education need funding, it is marvelous to have the support we received during our event. We wish to publicly thank the many volunteers, who gave their time freely to help us with this fundraiser for Gunn's athletes.

Steve Ames, Dr. Lorry Frankel, Fran Codispoti, Dr.Brandy Sikic, Dr. Bob Wachs, Dr. Peter Pompei, Dr. Bill Benitz, Julie Burkhart, Dr.Tonja Kujac, Dr. Joe Davis, Dr. Prasada Mennon, Dr. Mike Rossi, Dr. Raad Al-Shak, Dr. Patrick Suen, Dr. Brad Kraetzer, Dr. Heidi Bloom, Dr. Nick Giori, Dr. Marc Samson, Eddie Cornell, EMT, Deanna Bower, Mike Houlihan, Jean Lambert, Sandy Pellazari, Carol Dressler, Jill Snyder, Joan Washborn, Anne Graham, RN, Joyce Zajac, RN, Syd Major, RN, Terry Alfredson, RN, Kay McGuire, RN-Chairperson, Sue Rinsky, The Posh Bagel, Dona Berey, Susan Hughes, Terry Silverman, Rich Scherer, Hal Danner.

Thank you, thank you all for participating.

Avoiding gridlock

Editor,

The opponents of Measure O to appear on the November ballot contend that completion of the Sand Hill Road proposal will bring "54,000 new cars to the area." They could be right about the the number of cars, but not for the reasons they have given. A recent study reported upon by the San Jose Mercury reveals that, "Traffic congestion grew 31 percent in the Bay Area last year, and two-thirds of that growth occurred on highways leading into Silicon Valley."

Several reputable economists recently have pointed out to us that we are living in the electronic technology center of the world. This is the center of action. The intensity of the development associated with this fact will continue. Stanford's proposal to build housing to accommodate some of its employees can only be an ameliorating factor rather than one aggravating traffic conditions. Traffic is produced by people driving to work; not by people who live where they work.

Once created, traffic becomes "gridlocked" when it cannot move in the direction it is headed. In this respect, it is difficult to imagine conditions more difficult than those caused by a mass of vehicles starting from and terminating in a parking lot at the same time. This is a condition that now frequently exists along Sand Hill Road. It is hoped that the electorate will exercise the wisdom to vote yes on O and no on proposal M.

Measure O or status quo

Editor,

Much has been said by opponents of Stanford's Measure O regarding extra population, traffic, pollution, etc., which, they believe, would result if Measure O passed. Please think about who will occupy those homes along Sand Hill Road. Priority will be given to those working at Stanford or on Stanford lands such as the Stanford shopping center.

These are people presently commuting, thus polluting and clogging freeways and streets of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and vicinity, twice daily in order to reach and leave their jobs. Obviously, it is desirable for people to live as near their work place as possible, not only for their convenience but to reduce pollution. Then there is the senior housing. For the most part, the seniors living there will be those from this area. They are not increasing the population but simply moving to a place where all the facilities for living will be provided with little need for a car.

It is very important to understand that if Measure M gets more votes than does Measure O, nothing will be done by Stanford, because its provisions are unsound. There will be no extension of Sand Hill Road beyond the shopping center parking lot; traffic in this area will inevitably increase with time. In effect, this is not a choice between Measure O and Measure M but, between Measure O and the status quo. With this in mind, think about the absolutely essential extension of Sand Hill Road, improved access to the Stanford Hospital, the much needed senior housing, and other benefits that have already been spelled out. Vote yes on Measure 0.

Not only good, but needed

Editor,

Some Palo Altans have the impression that Measure O is Stanford's Sand Hill development proposal. It is not. Measure O is the City Council's plan. It is the compromise that resulted after Stanford's original proposal was modified to accommodate citizens' wishes after community input meetings; modified again by Stanford to correct problems revealed by the independently prepared Environmental Impact Report; and modified yet, again by City Council/Stanford negotiations after months of public hearings and Council deliberation.

Measure O represents the best thinking of citizens, planners, council members and Stanford representatives. I believe it is not only good for Palo Alto, it is needed by Palo Alto. We need the senior housing; we need the apartments, especially the 156 below-market rent units; And we need real Sand Hill road improvement.

Measure M was written by those who would not recognize the needs of other groups. The road design and housing relocations it requires have been considered at length and rejected as either unworkable or unacceptable to the City Council or Stanford or both. I believe Measure O is a win-win plan for the City and Stanford I will certainly vote for it, and against M.

Simple legitimate solutions

Editor,

The Palo Alto November ballot has an example of what occasionally frustrates me about our ballot system. On it are Measures O and M. Measure O has reached the November ballot having passed through thousands of hours of review from hundreds of people via public forums, City Council, community outreach, Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and environmental impact analyses spanning over five years. It is a fully financed, fully implementable project that builds 600 plus apartments, 300 plus senior care units, modestly expands the Stanford Shopping Center and widens and extends Sand Hill Road.

On the other hand, Measure M has had no analyses, none. It is words without substance. It is not financed, nor is it implementable. An example: it proposes placing the 600-plus apartments in the eucalyptus grove at the right of the Stanford campus entrance on Palm Avenue and El Camino and the clear cutting of 300 of those eucalyptus trees. This, I am afraid will have Mr. Leland Stanford spinning in his grave.

Measure M, aside from allowing voters to agree to a "fix" for the Sand Hill problem but, just not according to the means proposed in Measure O, has, in my opinion, a greater intent; to clear cut, so to speak, Measure O. It leaves nothing but a barren patch in Measure O's place. Every detail hammered, chiseled and approved over five years of the gauntlet of microscopic review of Stanford's project proposals is erased as though it never happened. This, in my opinion, serves no useful purpose as far as our community interests are concerned. We should be allowed to focus explicitly on the approved proposal. It seems a dangerous distraction and waste of time to have this other bogus proposal to decipher.

By now, following years of sifting through the complexity of Stanford's proposal, the choice for the voters should be reduced to a simple, legitimate decision and Measure M is not a legitimate proposal and only confuses that decision. If one disapproves of Stanford's solution to the Sand Hill Road problem vote no on Measure O or, if one finds the Sand Hill Road projects an acceptable fix vote yes on Measure O. Measure O has paid its dues. Measure M undermines and confuses the "real" issue and interferes with our communities opportunity to decide about this issue, once and for all.

A negative reward

Editor,

Having been privileged to live in Palo Alto 46 years and over those years attempted whenever possible to serve and show my appreciation, I find the Sept. 30 San Jose Mercury News article, "Palo Alto asked to delay plan to force homeless to leave" totally unthinkable.

I believe Palo Alto and its many service organizations have essentially made our town a magnet for many irresponsible persons. This sort of response by our civic leaders is commendable but for the most part goes unrewarded and what's more only opens the door to even more absurd future requests. I ask you, what evidence is there to support continued efforts when the great majority of homeless, but granted not all, are not willing to make some order of "profound lifestyle change" such as giving up alcohol, drugs, and finding a job? (I quote the article)

Let us not continue to reward irresponsibility--how about setting some expectations.

Stand still road

Editor,

It is strange that the debate over the Stanford West project (a.k.a. Stand Still Road) should be ignoring the windfall of 1,000 housing units that Stanford is providing. Traffic seems to be the only focus in this campaign even though the 1,000 housing units will take almost that many cars out of the traffic cauldron. Measure O provides the whole enchilada of housing units as well as traffic relief.

This traffic anxiety takes me back to 1961 when we first moved to Palo Alto. I wondered how I would ever get acquainted in this new setting but, the first person to ring our doorbell was--guess what--a precinct worker. She was circulating a petition against the proposed Oregon Expressway. She told me it would irrevocably ruin Palo Alto's sense of unity by splitting north and south, and devalue the homes and neighborhoods in its wake, and bring enormous traffic jams. Oh, dear, I said and signed on the dotted line.

Look at the Oregon Expressway today. It carries tons of traffic quite smoothly commuting to the Stanford Industrial Park. Home values have kept pace, and I can only shudder to think what traffic hell we would be experiencing had that initiative passed.

Fast forward to 1997. I went to the Midtown Safeway on the Fourth of July and was instantly nabbed by an earnest young woman with a clip board. She started to sound the Measure M pitch before I could explain I was strongly supporting Measure O. I walked on, only to have her shout "You want to let Stanford rape the environment?" I laughed--such a preposterous taunt deserved no answer.

But the strident traffic angst about Sand Hill--Stand Still Road--should not persuade voters to throw overboard the tremendous benefits to the city of Palo Alto and its citizens. Vote yes on O.

Worried on O

Editor,

As the election approaches, I feel increasingly worried about the chances of Measure 0. After the Palo Alto City Council unanimously approved Stanford's Sand Hill Road projects I finally, after 20 years, started to believe that we would see a widening of Sand Hill Road and its extension to El Camino Real, not to mention more housing and a new senior life care community. Rapid access to the hospitals would be, in itself, a tremendous benefit of passing Measure 0.

However, those people who want to keep the status quo are making a great deal of noise about Measure M. In my opinion this is a diversionary tactic--it doesn't realistically address the traffic problems, and it doesn't allow Stanford adequate income to warrant paying far the project, so nothing will get built. (Certainly Palo Alto taxpayers are not going to pay for it.)

I fervently hope that voters will approve the City Council's Sand Hill Road project and vote for Measure 0.

Half right

Editor,

In a letter to the Daily News, Kim Maxwell writes, "Of course, Measure M doesn't provide funding; neither does Measure O." This refers to funding for a Sand Hill Road extension.

Mr. Maxwell is half right. Measure M does not provide any funding, and I am glad he admits it. On the other hand, Measure O does indeed provide funding for widening and extending Sand Hill Road. Measure O ratifies the City of Palo Alto-Stanford Development Agreement, and that Agreement, as a condition of the project approvals, requires that Stanford pay 100 percent of the costs of the roadway improvements. The agreement even spells out that Stanford must pay 100 percent for specified roadway improvements in Menlo Park as well, including much-needed improvements in the failing Alpine Road-Junipero Serra Boulevard and the Sand Hill Road-Santa Cruz Avenue intersections. If Measure O passes, Stanford will pay more than $20 million for much needed roadway improvements in the Sand Hill Corridor, including nearly $7 million for work in Menlo Park.

Mr. Maxwell either does not understand the basic facts of Measure O of which he has already paid $25,000 to stop or he is deliberately misleading the public. Either circumstance is regrettable.

No false leads

Editor,

We are in strong support of Measure O. We are in distinct opposition to Measure M. Clearly, Sand Hill Road is and has long been a horrible bottleneck for traffic in commute hours.

Measure O will provide for a fix which has been studied and reviewed for environmental impact and honed by public comment over a period of five years. Moreover, it has been unanimously approved by the Palo Alto City Council.

In addition to fixing Sand Hill Road, Measure O goes further to advantage the community by improving access to the area hospitals both Stanford and Packard Children's and providing for much-needed additional housing for area seniors. In sharp contrast, Measure M is not even a project. Rather, it is nothing but a dead-letter box. Its proposals have been studied and explicitly rejected by environmental reviews and by action of the City Council. Not even in theory could its two-lane design for Sand Hill Road do ought but further constrict an already intolerably binding situation. Talk about false leads. Measure M is worse than empty.

Say no to development

Editor,

I'd like to focus attention on the problem of air pollution in the Bay Area. Have you noticed on many days the brown haze hanging over the South and East bay as you head south on 101 from the Midpeninsula? Did you know that air pollution in this area is primarily the result of automobile traffic, and that the economic boom of the last couple of years has increased this pollution, sometimes over the limits set by federal air quality standards? The beauty of this area is marred, and our much-touted quality of life reduced, by this smog.

I'm greatly concerned about the additional pollution that we can expect to see generated if Measure O is passed. The increase in car trips, over 50,000 per day according to the EIR for the project, will certainly increase pollution. I'm not the only one who's concerned. In a letter to Mayor Huber of Palo Alto earlier this year the American Lung Association said that it was "extremely concerned about the impact on air quality of the proposed Sand Hill Project." While I do not represent the American Lung Association, I can tell you that their letter goes on to cite specific concerns about noise and ozone levels, and harmful effects on sensitive populations nearby such as children at Oak Knoll School and Ronald McDonald House. The letter also states that these increases may make us unable to meet federal standards for ozone, and that "It appears that little planning has been done to increase mass transit or manage congestion."

As someone who loves this area for its natural beauty, it makes me really sad to see the smog that so often muddies the view, and to think of all of us that are breathing it in. Let's do what we can to reduce traffic and pollution, which includes using mass transit, bicycling, car-pooling, and saying no to the development proposed by Stanford and the city. Yes on Measure M, no on Measure O.

Back up to the Table of Contents Page