Palo Alto's long-term future needs, including new facilities and land-use priorities, will be the subject of a special public hearing Wednesday night.
The Planning and Transportation Commission will hold a special discussion to consider its role in shaping the city's future and solicit input from the public about the community's needs. A recent city report projected that the size of households will increase and the population of older persons will grow significantly.
The discussion, titled "Future Palo Alto," will center on land-use and transportation policies and is expected to also include discussion of infrastructure, the council's focus for 2012. The goal is to define Palo Alto's future issues and consider the commission's and the Comprehensive Plan's role in addressing these issues. The city is currently revising its Comprehensive Plan, its guiding land-use document.
Infrastructure is expected to be near the top of the agenda. A recent report from the specially appointed Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Task Force surveyed 84 local structures with known construction dates and found that the average age of these is 50 years.
The 17-member infrastructure commission, which included planning Commissioners Greg Tanaka and Mark Michael, included a "Future Working Group" whose objective was to "stimulate the thought process and discussion that will deliver the right set of buildings, facilities, and asset use to keep Palo Alto a thriving and progressive environment for its private citizens and business residents." The report highlighted several projections hinting at changes to come in the next decade, including the increasing household size from 2.43 persons in 2019 to 2.53 persons in 2020 and a 10 percent increase in the 65 and older age group.
The group also considered possible projects that would enhance Palo Alto's future, including a new Community Services Center, redevelopment of a parcel on Embarcadero Road, a conference center, a incubator for start-ups and a citywide wireless network. The Future Working Group also recommended that the city create an "Idea Bank" for residents who wish to suggest ideas and that the city's planning department extend its planning horizon and become more involved in tracking the long-term trends in population, technology and government.
The "Future Palo Alto" discussion will take place at 6 p.m. Wednesday in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Ave.
Comments
Fairmeadow
on Feb 21, 2012 at 11:27 am
on Feb 21, 2012 at 11:27 am
That's a lovely idea--the idea bank. Here: legalize all cannabis and hemp, encourage local organic gardens in every space available, encourage solar panels on every space available, BAN fluoride in our water, encourage stores that will not sell GMO foods, offer meeting space and heath facilities to OCCUPY THE WORLD and help them set up a government-free, money-free cooperative-living zone, undo the shrinkage of Charleston between Alma and Middlefield, fix the traffic light at Deer Creek so you don't have to be all the way over the crosswalk to trigger it, I'll think of more another day :)
Oh, and publicize the facts that crime in Oakland has been down since Occupy began, as is crime in any area that medical marijuana dispensaries are allowed.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 21, 2012 at 12:56 pm
on Feb 21, 2012 at 12:56 pm
One of the problems with the Comprehensive Plan is that there are no costs associated with any of the proposals, ideas, demands, found in the document. While precise cost estimations are not easily done, there are some rules of thumb that can be applied, such as current costs + 30% (ten years of inflation). Land is currently about $5M an acre, and it costs between $350 and $550/linear foot for underground infrastructure (such as sewer pipe, etc.).
Even if the cost estimate were off by a whopping 30%, knowing that the plan might cost the public/developers, say, $2B-$3B, this would be a big step forward from the "it's all free" mindset that has emerged in previous planning exercises in Palo Alto.
Professorville
on Feb 21, 2012 at 1:33 pm
on Feb 21, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Tracey,
Unlikely anarchy combined with widening Charleston will solve the city's problems. Also, all of your ideas cost money but you suggest a world without any. Please explain.
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Feb 21, 2012 at 4:49 pm
on Feb 21, 2012 at 4:49 pm
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] Essentially you want the government to provide the Occupy movement with a meeting space and health facilities, and then in turn not have the government involved in your lives afterward. So you're alright with the government as long as they can give you something you want, and then reject the same government once that's done. Yeah, I don't think so. I kind of like the idea of you going out and earning your place in life. I'll be the first to support whatever that path might be assuming it's legal and doesn't pose a public safety threat. But you can't have it both ways. If you wish to turn your back on our financial institution and government controls, no problem. Just do it on your own and don't expect the rest of us to either support you in your cause or bail you out when it goes bad. Other than that, best of luck to you.
Crescent Park
on Feb 21, 2012 at 10:07 pm
on Feb 21, 2012 at 10:07 pm
First, Palo Alto has a lot of problems in terms of infrastructure. If we are going to continue growing and building housing and paving over our natural areas increasing our density we better start realizing that we need to be realistic about parking and roads.
We have a lot of resources, in Foothill Park down to the Baylands, and yet all that seems to be happening is bigger houses are being built with insufficient parking for more people and without realistic ideas about road so we do not have to spend hours on the road just going across town.
I'd like to see the airport gone as the density of our city and neighboring cities grows, and that land used for nature and recreation. I was out at the Baylands today for a walk and there is a helicopter pilot training always going on where this helicopter sits on the ground circiling its rotors and flying up and down and nothing can be heard or said for about a square mile, and that is not even considering the planes landing and taking off. The full value of our resources cannot be used while some of them are dominated by people who push their selfish interests ahead of everyone else.
Now what sense does it make to close the dump, create lots of land out there by the bay, and then have so much noise going on there is no point to even think about using it? I like the idea about creating a possibly city subsidized community garden to grow natural food and give jobs or volunteer opportunities to all kinds of people to create a local food production of healthy food in the style of Will Allen's Growing Power in Wisconsin … web link here: Web Link
Also the main arteries of this city need to be looked at in the long term. Oregon Expressway does a nice job of isolating traffic and letting people get to where they want to go … but getting from Oregon to Alma, is problematic or them from El Camino up to 280 could be improved as well.
MIddlefield used to be a dirt road down the middle of a big field, and now is a two lane road strategic in moving about the city. There needs to be thought about a long term plan to allow people to move faster and more freely through this city, and safer.
And how about this Marrol, let people express what they want to say and you express what you want to say on the issue and do not attack people personally or tell them to go live somewhere else? That is, be civil and do not poison the dicussion with your overbearing attitude.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 21, 2012 at 10:48 pm
on Feb 21, 2012 at 10:48 pm
The future of Palo Alto must be to improve infrastructure and facilities for its residents.
The efficient moving of traffic, recreational facilities and services all need to be addressed to improve the quality of life for those who live and work in this town. Public transport, useful retail including decent sized supermarkets and big box stores, pay per hour parking in downtown and a comprehensive overview of school facilities v housing are all part of the equation.
Lastly doing all this within the confines of our present income is very important. City spending must be overhauled before any thought be put into raising sales tax or property tax is essential to balancing city books.
All candidates for city council must be aware of all these issues and have credible opinions if they expect the voters to favor them. It is good to be in an election year at last so that we can make some changes in both city and school government.
Evergreen Park
on Feb 22, 2012 at 6:45 pm
on Feb 22, 2012 at 6:45 pm
A comprehensive plan should begin with a 30,000 foot and 100 year view of the global situation since changes in the world today have a great impact on all local communities. What if the Comp. Plan began with a few simple statements like:
1. Global average temperature rise over the next 100 years is likely to be between 3 and 5 degrees C. The impact on agriculture and on Palo Alto's coastline is likely to be significantly negative.
2. Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) has fallen dramatically over the last 50 years, making energy more costly to provide and with greater pollution impacts.
3. World population has doubled since 1960, to 7 billion. Although the rate of increase has slowed, consumption per capita has accelerated. Studies have calculated it would take 3 to 7 Earths to provide everyone in the world with a Palo Alto standard of living.
With these broad brush realities, we have a basis for making local policy. In their absence, we are likely to flounder. What sense to build near the bay if sea levels rise by a meter, unless the cost of building dikes is factored in? Given the drop in EROEI from fossil fuel extraction and the fact that mining Alberta Tar Sands for example releases 3x GHG compared to a domestic oil field, do we want to continue and augment our current solar power incentives? Do we want to invest even more in bicycle and pedestrian friendly infrastructure?
South of Midtown
on Feb 22, 2012 at 7:15 pm
on Feb 22, 2012 at 7:15 pm
The meeting is structured with speeches by the commissioners and 2 or 3 members of the public given 2 minutes, as at usual PTC meetings.
So much for wanting to hear from the public. I don't think our city has a clue as to what democratic open government is.