Around Town: Ventura vision in trouble; City seeks greater voice on VTA board | News | Palo Alto Online |


Around Town: Ventura vision in trouble; City seeks greater voice on VTA board

Tidbits on people, events and other happenings in Palo Alto

Some members of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan's working group, which is crafting a vision for the neighborhood, have proposed a different process to compile the plan. Photo by Veronica Weber.

In the latest Around Town column, concerns are rising over the process to create a new vision for Palo Alto's Ventura neighborhood and the city is proposing a new way to select who serves on the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority board of directors.

HAZY VISION ... Last March, more than 100 residents and city leaders packed into Ventura Community Center to present ideas for revitalizing a large chunk of the Ventura neighborhood. Some talked about the need to build more housing, while others raised the prospect of adding park space or removing the channel at Matadero Creek to restore the creek's natural flow. All of these improvements are now under consideration as part of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan, a vision document that the city has been compiling with a group of area residents, business owners and developers known as the Working Group. Now, however, there is trouble on the horizon. Since the March meeting, Palo Alto officials learned that the most promising site in the planning area, the former cannery at 340 Portage Ave. that houses Fry's Electronics and various small businesses, is in fact a historic structure and that the site's owner, Sobrato Organization, wants to retain the building. One Working Group member abruptly resigned after an incident in which she berated a man in a MAGA hat at a local Starbucks made national news. Five of the group's 14 members have expressed concern about the current process and proposed a different approach that involves multiple subcommittees and the goal of reaching a full consensus on a preferred alternative (a goal that staff believes may not be possible). The planning process was initially slated to stretch for two years, but is now estimated to take 35 months, with the deadline currently set for December 2021, according to a new report from the Department of Planning and Community Environment. The additional work is projected to cost the city $367,112. The City Council, which enthusiastically endorsed the new planning process, will consider these issues on Aug. 19, at which point it also will discuss whether the new vision should include the preservation of Thomas Foon Chew's old cannery or its redevelopment to accommodate housing.

A GREATER VOICE ... Palo Alto officials have complained for decades about the city's representation on the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, which ostensibly serves the entire county but which is largely dominated by San Jose. In June, a Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report largely confirmed the city's position when it had determined that the transit agency's leadership structure is, to paraphrase the report, an utter mess. The scathing report notes that the board suffers from a lack of experience by its members, domination by representatives from San Jose and conflicts of interest by members who must balance their fiduciary duties to the VTA with demands from local communities. Later this month, the Palo Alto City Council will consider approving a letter signed by Mayor Eric Filseth that makes a case for changing how board seats are meted out. While Filseth noted that smaller cities like Palo Alto currently don't have a consensus position on the issue, he argued that VTA's governance should be based not just on cities' populations (as is the case today) but also on employment and sales-tax generation. "As a major employment center and sales tax generator at the edge of VTA's service territory, Palo Alto has historically been underrepresented in VTA policy decision in ways that do not serve the travelling public," the city's response to the grand jury states. The letter proposes having the VTA provide funding to a regional group, such as the Cities Association of Santa Clara County, so that the various cities that don't currently have representation on the VTA board can have a "thoughtful discussion" about possible alternatives.


Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.


7 people like this
Posted by NeilsonBuchanan
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 9, 2019 at 5:30 pm

NeilsonBuchanan is a registered user.

Each city council has opportunity to clarify how its interests are represented in the regional organizations such as VTA or regional mega-agency MTC . I doubt if city managers or city attorneys can give definitive answers to their councils or mayors.

Here are three issues to explore:
1. How do cities select their "pooled" representative assuming agreement on weighting of cities' votes?
2. When the representative is selected, then what responsibility does the multi-city designee have to cities being represented?
3. When designee fails to meet expectations of represented cities, then what "recall" recourse do cities have?

3 people like this
Posted by Citizen
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 11, 2019 at 5:49 pm

The additional work is projected to cost the city $367,112. The City Council, which enthusiastically endorsed the new planning process, will consider these issues on Aug. 19, at which point it also will discuss whether the new vision should include the preservation...

Are you kidding me? $367k? Make this more efficient and less costly.

2 people like this
Posted by Staying Young Through Kids
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 12, 2019 at 9:48 am

Staying Young Through Kids is a registered user.

@SherryListgarten...We need you on this!

Great blog opportunity! Palo Alto would be well served if you would focus your intellect on the availability of Palo Alto surface road, public transit relative to time and population over the last 40 years. Prior to and since the the formation of the VTA would be an interesting take. My guess is the VTA has not done much to help our vibrant community (possibly the VTA has hurt PA in some ways).

A few questions I have about surface road mass transit...

Does the existence of the VTA precludes local communities from operating complementary or competing transit systems?

Do any communities or entities in the area (other than Stanford) offer "anyone can ride" public transit options?

How do other transit options compare on price, passengers carried, & thoroughness of coverage to areas/neighborhoods?

How many passengers are being carried by local "private coaches" & what are their routes?

What are the regulations on private coaches entering the community and local neighborhoods for pick-up & drop-off?

Sherry, as with all of your blog posts, I look forward to your data driven analysis on this!

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Umami Burger calls it quits in downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 15 comments | 9,029 views

Couples and Premarital : "Who we are . . . depends in part . . . on who we love."
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 2,404 views

Flying: How much is enough? It's personal.
By Sherry Listgarten | 7 comments | 1,964 views

Wait, wait – we’re working on it
By Diana Diamond | 7 comments | 988 views

My Pet Peeves
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 6 comments | 980 views


Short story writers wanted!

The 34th Annual Palo Alto Weekly Short Story Contest is now accepting entries for Adult, Young Adult and Teen categories. Send us your short story (2,500 words or less) and entry form by March 27, 2020. First, Second and Third Place prizes awarded in each category. Sponsored by Kepler's Books, Linden Tree Books and Bell's Books.

Contest Details