The Alma Plaza Learning Curve: The Late Submittal [Part 1 of 5]

The following guest opinion is part of our weeklong coverage of transparency within local government as part of Sunshine Week 2012.

What was the City Council vote on Alma Plaza?

Such a curious and haunting question.

Like the most compelling, earthly graffiti, it continues to call out each time I pass to pick up an agenda or staff report via the ether. Just as it always has since its appearance within the revamped Palo Alto web site over five years ago.

I fear for its continued existence now that I have publicly invoked its name.

What is it really asking us?

There were three City Council votes on Alma Plaza, not one, just prior to the launch of the website. They were in April, May, and June of 2007.

Assuredly, the poet must be referring to the most prominent one. It was at the first council meeting of the three, and the vote was 5 to 4.

But Alma Plaza as a public process is not most remembered for a single Council headcount or even the details of what was approved that evening, as important as they were.

It is best known for something else. It is our most visible symbol of a process gone awry; a stark blow to the public trust.

Yes, the artist was correct to address the issue obliquely, being at a distance still so close in time.

But five years have passed and with the clarity of Sunshine Week around us, it is time to directly face the real questions. What went so terribly wrong prior to the Council vote on Alma Plaza? What relevant changes have been internalized since then. What still needs to be done?

Until that is complete, don’t let anyone scrub that wall.

The Noise Around Land Use

Land use issues in Palo Alto can be contentious, especially when a project applicant asks for exceptions to current zoning or changes to the city’s Comprehensive Plan.

Some proposals sprout campaigns tinted by public relations firms, misleading advertising, and manipulative petition drives. Such sideshows can distract from the essentials of an important and complex land use decision. But there is probably little that responsible citizens can do about this external pollution.

Public trust, however, resides within the conduct of elected officials and the members of the advisory bodies they select to appropriately filter out this type of noise.

On certain land-use matters Council members and planning commissioners preside in a quasi-judicial capacity, in effect acting as judges and expected to apply facts and evidence known to all parties in the context of existing law. In these instances, no information of significance is to be withheld from the public or any decision maker.

But recent history clearly demonstrates attempts to subvert a transparent and fair process within the confines of City Hall.

A singular moment occurred during the Alma Plaza hearings that began six years ago. This series of articles reviews some of what happened during that process and examines how the city has progressed along the path of institutional reform since then.

New Owner, New Plans

In 2006, developer John McNellis purchased the 4.2-acre Alma Plaza site from the Albertson’s grocery store chain. Built in the 1950s, the center was designed to be a strictly commercial center: three-quarters for retail and the balance for other small business uses.

In Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, a state-mandated planning document, Alma Plaza was designated as one of the city’s four neighborhood commercial centers.

McNells’s redevelopment proposals called for reducing the amount of commercial space by more than half and building dozens of single-family detached homes. It was necessary he argued, because a neighborhood-serving retail center was not viable without the inclusion of a large amount of market-rate housing. And even with that alleged crutch, he indicated that Alma Plaza could only support a grocery of a very small size.

Residents countered that not only was a significant amount of neighborhood-serving retail viable on the site, but that the City had an obligation to enforce approved land use policies related to quality of life rather than accept an applicant’s unsubstantiated claims that he or she cannot make a profit without a major change in land use.

McNellis’s proposal requested an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and to make use of the open-ended Planned Community (PC) zoning district.

As per the municipal code, the approval of a PC is dependent on public benefits not otherwise attainable under current zoning. In the Alma Plaza proposals, the overriding public benefits cited by the applicant were the limited about of retail space he would retain, the inclusion of a small grocery store, some below market rate housing units beyond what he would be required to provide, and a community room.

The stakes on both sides were high, opening the door to manipulation and abuse of the public process.

Deny, Appeal, Switch

Five years ago this month, the Planning & Transportation Commission denied the applicant’s proposal and voted for an alternative based on the neighborhood commercial (“CN”) zoning district and specifying a much larger grocery store.

The applicant appealed the commission’s recommendation to City Council.

City staff supported the commission, created a draft ordinance reflecting the commission's alternative, and included it within the staff report to the council, released four days prior to the hearing.

The pivotal council meeting was on April 14, 2007. Just before the meeting started, Jim Baer, a consultant to the applicant, submitted a revision to the applicant’s proposal to the city clerk, . The clerk then distributed the plan to council members at their places on the dais.

As the agenda moved ahead to the Alma Plaza item, Council members’ eyes shifted to the last-minute submission in front of them. The proposed revision had bypassed staff’s vetting for inclusion in its report and the public entirely.

The hearing began, and in what can only be viewed as a severe error in judgment, the council allowed the item to proceed.

And the missteps continued. The applicant was allowed to speak to the proposal. A blind-sided public had its comment period reduced to two minutes per speaker. Flabbergasted community leaders Sheri Furman and Len Filppu were asked to respond to proposed revisions they had never seen.

The public hearing closed. Two Council members entered the applicant’s revised plan as a motion to the full council. The ensuing discussion was permeated by great confusion in addition to significant disagreement.

Apparently in too deep to turn back, the council waded ahead. Much time was expended to untangle the mess. Eventually there was a vote. The clerk announced the motion had passed, 5-4. The council approved motion – in effect, the applicant’s proposal that was denied at the Planning Commission but now resubmitted with a few minor tweaks via circumvention at the last possible moment – was read back to him to confirm that he would accept it.  He said “Yes.” 

As colleagues began to rise from their seats in anticipation of closure, Council Member Judy Kleinberg stated she thought she had voted on something different. It was an awkward end to an awkward evening.

What if anything was learned from all this?

READ MORE: Part Two of The Alma Plaza Learning Curve—First Responders

For more news about Palo Alto and surrounding areas, including Stanford and East Palo Alto, follow us on Twitter and "like" us on Facebook.

Get Patch in your inbox by signing up for our morning newsletter here.