The Barron Park Association

BPA Questions for City Council Candidates 2024

 

Many neighbors had the opportunity to meet upcoming election candidates for Palo Alto City Council, School Board, and State Assembly at the BPA Ice Cream Social in late September. Almost all of our local candidates attended this event! In addition to inviting the candidates to our Ice Cream Social, the BPA Board sent a brief questionnaire to candidates for City Council and State Assembly. The questions and their responses are shown below. The BPA board realizes there are many important issues which were not included in the brief questionnaire. The questions we chose focused on a few concerns residents shared through the BPA email lists or with the BPA Board. As we receive additional responses, we will add them to the website.

How will you address the underground wiring issues for Barron Park since it, along with other Palo Alto neighborhoods, was recently removed from this program? Since the City goal is to increase use of electrical power, will you promote resuming the underground wire program?

Background:

The increasing volume of overhead wires crisscrossing Barron Park streets is unsightly, but most importantly, the high volume of wires is unsafe. These wires can lead to catastrophes during earthquakes, storms, and high temperatures. Even in the absence of storms and heat, Barron Park power outages routinely occur due to overhead wires. This past summer, one Barron Park outage was due to a fallen tree limb and another to a mylar balloon. Outages in Barron Park resulting from storms and high temperatures are too many to list. Statewide, underground wires are considered necessary for safety.

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/09/28/palo-alto-quietly-abandons-decades-long-program-to-put-overhead-utilities-underground/

Answers

I support reconsidering the issue of undergrounding wires in Barron Park and other neighborhoods that were recently removed from the program.

While undergrounding utilities has its challenges, including cost, I believe we should not abandon the program without a thorough analysis, a real price estimate and determination of what the electric rate increase would be for undergrounding when spread across all ratepayers over an amortized period. I believe that the ratepayers may be willing to absorb that cost. Our current path of pole-mounted transformers and pad- mounted equipment might offer some benefits in terms of ability to upgrade, we need a full comparison of costs and pros and cons so residents can make an informed decision.

With Palo Alto's electricity rates being half that of PG&E's, we are in a unique position to absorb the costs of undergrounding while maintaining our cost advantage.

I am open to researching what are our paths to funding so we can resume the underground wire program, I am curious to see if various climate measures from the state and federal level, such as prop 4 which provides cities funding for wildfire prevention could be utilized in this case

Strongly support undergrounding wires in a tight time frame as well as banning obtrusive cell attachments to telephone poll. See united neighbors’ endorsement. (Sent from my iPhone)

Undergrounding should be based on risk for fires, outages, and ultimately resident safety. There are areas of Palo Alto where undergrounding should continue (like our foothills) and it’s sensible to understand hotspots in Barron Park and focus there too.

That said, undergrounding utilities (when there isn’t a safety risk) is expensive, and should generally depend on neighborhood funding.

I support the undergrounding of wires in Palo Alto for safety and aesthetic benefits. The commitment to do so has been waning for decades as the costs of doing so have increased. The 1% taken from electric revenue now covers the cost of undergrounding fewer homes annually than it has in the past; I believe the current estimate is 100 homes a year. My understanding is that 1% is still being allocated to the undergrounding project, but unfortunately the pace is slow.

Currently, to speed things up, there is the option for neighborhoods to create an “undergrounding district” in which the residents bear the cost of undergrounding. To create a “district“ every single home must agree to be included and to pay for the considerable cost of doing so, which is challenging. There is confusion among the populace about what the options are, what funding sources are available, and how undergrounding might work given our need to also upgrade our grid to allow for electrification of our homes and businesses to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This issue deserves discussion and clarification in a public meeting so neighborhoods can make the right decision for themselves.

The City of Palo Alto should underground the wires to prevent power outages. This is not just an aesthetic improvement, but primarily a safety issue. Undergrounding would reduce (if not entirely prevent) outages, reduce risk of fire, and ensure that members of our community who rely on life-saving electrical appliances–for medical reasons or simply to cool their homes during a heatwave–would have more consistent access to power.

The need to underground service wires does not only apply to Barron Park, but to the whole area served by CPAU, which should eventually be served via undergrounded wires. To make this happen, we would need to agree to a funding plan as a city, such as a bond or external funding from the state or federal government.

How will you address Barron Park residents’ parking concerns regarding the proposed El Camino apartment developments that are planned to be under-parked?

How will you assist Barron Park residents who have recently had their application for Residential Parking Permits denied without any discussion from Council?

Barron Park Concerns:

Barron Park residents near El Camino are facing issues new to Palo Alto. Several massive residential developments are planned for Barron Park. Soon there will be no parking along El Camino. The new developments do not plan to offer sufficient parking options for their residents. Barron Park streets near El Camino are narrow and without sidewalks; these streets cannot safely provide more parking.

In addition, Matadero Avenue is a designated “bicycle boulevard” for access to four public schools, a private school, and Stanford University. Some City Council members believe residents near El Camino do not and will not use cars. This has not been true for the existing apartment buildings in Barron Park and Ventura, primarily located near El Camino. The streets with apartment buildings are filled with residents’ cars. Residents in existing homes and apartments rely on cars on a daily basis, since Barron Park is not a walkable area for essential day-to-day needs (See #3 below.).

The Residential Parking Program (RPP) is the most effective way to protect Barron Park residents from the parking impacts of new developments like the under-parked El Camino apartment projects. I believe this decision should have come to the Council for deliberation and I will make sure this occurs. I would welcome specifics of the request being forwarded to me.

Under-parking in new developments, especially in the context of Builder’s Remedy projects, is a growing problem. There are council candidates who are heavily backed by organizations that have opposed the adoption of our housing element and at least one candidate has said he supports the Builders Remedy and who has said that eliminating parking requirements within a half-mile of transit is an "interesting experiment." I strongly disagree. As a regular bike rider and advocate for safe biking and expanded transit, I still believe most new residents will use cars.

I see addressing this in 2 parts historically the city has been really bad at posting signage of where parking is available and identifying what parking is available, currently there are parking spaces directly off El Camino Real that are largely underutilized, and the city will need to work with the businesses that own some of those spaces to help better utilize them and create signage for those spaces.

 

The second aspect of this is how we set the tone with developers, we are moving into an era where we are going to have less car centric infrastructure that is a reality in order to effectively address climate change. However as someone who works professionally with city governments we make this transition there’s a balance of new developments incentivizing as much bicycle. pedestrian, and public transit infrastructure as possible (when new buildings are created, having developers create wider sidewalks, proper bike storage and facilities, protected bike lanes, giving residents discounted transit passes, etc.) but it is also us identifying what is essential for cars.

Require sufficient underground parking under all developments for residents, visitors and shoppers. Immediately issue 2 residential parking permits to all households as matter of right with additional permits upon demonstration of special need.

We absolutely need a more responsive Residential Parking Permit program, and I’ve seen tight street parking throughout the neighborhood. Ultimately, this is how we fairly manage the scarce, community resource of street parking. I’d get more community input, but would support such programs based on the neighborhood’s perspectives.

It is important to provide bike parking and encourage modeshift toward transit, walking, etc.. However, we also need to be accessible to everyone in the community, meaning we need to manage parking and traffic. I support parking requirements (outside of areas in immediate proximity to high-quality transit).

The reason we’ve seen a burst of large projects in Ventura and Barron Park is because we were unable to plan for housing in a way that satisfied state law. By electing candidates that care about building family housing throughout the city, we could have passed a compliant housing element more quickly, enabling us to actually plan for our neighborhoods.

I share Barron Park residents’ concerns about impacts from the apartment developments that have been proposed on El Camino Real. Unfortunately, California state laws allow builders to sidestep our local development standards. There are even state laws that prohibit Palo Alto from imposing parking minimum requirements. I believe that all residential housing developments should provide sufficient parking to provide ease of use, safety, and accessibility to residents and their guests. While I will continue to plan for great pedestrian, bicycle and transit use as I have for the last 8 years on the Planning and Transportation Commission, the reality is that most individuals living in the Bay Area have cars because California transit infrastructure is insufficient. Many people absolutely depend on cars for their livelihood. As a City Council member I will work with residents for the best possible outcomes.

Previously, I helped College Terrace establish Palo Alto’s first Residential Parking Permit Program. Regarding the recent Barron Park Residential Parking Permit application, I believe that the organizers satisfied all the requirements to apply for a residential parking program and that the application should have proceeded to the Planning and Transportation Commission and then the City Council for consideration. If I am elected, I will advocate for city staff to give the application the consideration it is due.

People who park in the neighborhood who don’t live here are often doing so as people who work or study at Stanford. If nearby areas are too under-parked when developed, we can anticipate they will try to park here too. We can have a multi-pronged approach to address this issue. First, we should ensure that Stanford creates adequate parking for all their needs on their own lands. For under-parked developments, we should make sure the city and other agencies that serve the area provide sufficient transit services and nearby paid parking if needed. Additionally, the city should respond to the needs of the neighborhood by creating an RPP for Barron Park and enforce it.

Barron Park lacks a full-service grocery, community center, library, and health care options. It has access to a single pharmacy, on El Camino.

Will you advocate for zoning ground floor retail and services in new construction along the El Camino corridor in or near Barron Park?

In your view, which cities and/or projects in the vicinity – along El Camino – have successfully included resident-friendly ground-level services and retail in new developments?

I support zoning for ground floor retail and services in most new construction along the El Camino corridor, particularly in or near Barron Park. I believe we need a coordinated area plan for South El Camino Real to create stronger retail nodes, ideally including anchor stores like a full-service grocery.

Since the closure of All American Market, greater Barron Park has been underserved in terms of essential services. I disagree with two Planning Commissioners who are Council candidates who voted to eliminate the Retail Protection Ordinance rather than modify it in response to changing retail trends.  Removing ground-floor retail requirements is not the solution—we need to actively plan for and encourage the development of these much-needed services for the community. I will continue to advocate for policies that support the vital retail and community services that Barron Park residents deserve.

There aren’t many examples along El Camino that I would want to model. The redevelopments within the El Camino Way island have probably done the best job at this. Additionally, projects developed under the Builder’s Remedy restricts the city's ability to impose retail requirements.

Unfortunately, we have some council candidates who are part of organizations that opposed the adoption of our housing element and/or have supported the Builder’s Remedy making it difficult to create the vibrant, service-oriented communities that residents deserve.

I believe having walkable, bikeable neighborhood nodes is essential as we add new housing. This requires careful planning and experienced leadership on the City Council. Policies that simply push to "just get housing built" may sound appealing, but the devil is in the details. Without thoughtful planning, we risk creating developments that lack the services and retail that residents need, which leads to unintended consequences like increased car dependency and a less vibrant community. This is why we need leaders who are committed to balancing housing with essential services and ensuring that we build livable, connected neighborhoods.

Yes - off the top of my head Los Altos, but more developments are coming across the entirety of El Camino Real.

Mandate city and developers to work with Barron Park Association to jointly provide a community center with clubhouse of activities e.g. fitness program, swimming, library, social events etc.

Yes. We need strong incentives for retail and services. This is one of my central campaign priorities, and I look towards Mountain View and Menlo Park, which have been able to get new retail investment alongside housing.

I’m deeply disappointed by the state of El Camino along parts of Barron Park and Ventura. Our core obstacles are the high cost of construction, high rents, and lower demand from retail tenants. We need to reexamine fees, incentives, and streamlining to make sure El Camino is a successful and vibrant area. We need to actively combat blight, including overgrown and poorly maintained sidewalks.

Residents may also hear about the Retail Preservation Ordinance, or RPO. This essentially requires that retail square footage be preserved on a lot once it is built. This creates more supply of retail square footage, but can also contribute to blight, as it becomes more challenging to redevelop existing retail and less likely to build new retail. While preserving retail sounds appealing, I agree with outside experts that in its current form, it likely does more harm than good. I would favor reform or repeal.

I support our citywide ground floor retail ordinance and to the full extent possible under state laws, would require ground floor retail along El Camino Real in the Barron Park neighborhood.

Yes, I will continue to advocate for ground floor retail. Menlo Park and Redwood City have both successfully created ground floor retail. For example, Cafe Borrone and Kepler’s is one example of enduring, successful ground floor retail that has served to attract visitors from outside the city and provides a fun gathering place for people in the community.

In Barron Park, we have many existing ground floor retailers. I am disheartened that the Driftwood Deli will be displaced due to redevelopment. I would like to see any new development there retain the Driftwood, as it is a vital and long-standing business serving our neighborhood and the students of Gunn High School.

Cypress Lane is an alley behind Barron Park businesses on El Camino. Part of Cypress Lane has been maintained with the effort of residents and retail locations. The area that includes Barron Park Nursery/Market, Happy Donuts, Siam Thai Restaurant, and Ernie’s has sorely needed maintenance for many years. The surface is broken, deeply rutted, and fills up with puddles in the rainy season. It is narrow, crowded, and often lined with parked cars, despite No Parking signs. The alley is not owned by the City, but it is the only exit available for customers using business parking. Since parking is now removed from El Camino, Cypress Lane use will increase.

What measures will you take to make Cypress Lane safe for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians?

Unfortunately, Cypress Lane is one of many privately owned commercial lanes in the city and the City has limited ability to control its maintenance and operation. I am interested in the City exploring establishing certain minimum health, safety, and other standards on private commercial alleys

I would love to know more information about who owns this and what incentives the city can offer to repair especially as my highest priority is improving bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in high collision areas.

City should acquire cypress lane by eminent domain and make into pedestrian and/or bike path. Move cars to expanded underground parking on El Camino.

I’ve driven on Cypress Lane during a rainy evening, and it is a nightmare.

From talking with Barron Park resident Douglas Graham, I understand there are legal ambiguities that have prevented property owners (or the city) from taking accountability. We need to settle any legal ambiguity around ownership, but also need to require and enforce maintenance on Cypress Lane as soon as possible.

I am familiar with the long history of concern with this alley, and do not have all the information surrounding the issue. I hesitate to offer a solution when I have not seen all the facts, but it seems to me that if the adjacent properties do not claim ownership of the alley, the city should consider making it a Palo Alto street and then provide the associated required maintenance. If any adjacent property owners think the alley is part of their parcel, maintenance becomes trickier, but either way it should be resolved, and the City needs to step in to address a safety issue. It is time to get this issue resolved. As a City Council member I will work to make this happen.

One of the challenges we have had with Cypress Lane is unclear ownership. I would recommend that the City of Palo Alto annex the road to ensure proper maintenance. If we initiate the process of taking over that property legally, either a true owner will be identified or the City will be successful. Either way ownership is the most important step towards maintenance, and our neighborhood will see improvements to the road and a safer space as a result.

Residents of neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed new apartment and hotel construction continue to have serious concerns. These concerns may not come forward if they/we are not allowed input:

Environment: There is potential for severe, irreparable environmental impact on our creeks and mature tree cover. Matadero Creek, with its own ecology and wildlife, is a waterway that starts in the Santa Cruz Mountains, and flows down for 8 miles before joining the Palo Alto Flood Basin to empty into the Bay.

Riparian corridors provide the vast majority of our biodiversity within our natural “oak savannah” local ecosystem. As a result they are vital to our natural environment.

I have strongly supported creek setbacks and have made it a priority to push for changes to our zoning so that these setbacks apply in our urban areas as well. I’ve worked hard to elevate the importance of this issue because creek setbacks are essential for protecting our natural ecosystems, reducing flood risks, and ensuring environmental sustainability.

This effort was delayed because Planning staff had to focus all their long-range planning resources on getting the Housing Element approved due opposition from Palo Alto Forward and other YIMBY organizations that HCD gave extra-legal credence to.

Planning staff will now be bringing this issue forward to the PTC and Council. This is an example of a key reason why the PTC and Council need to be populated by representatives who recognize that a strong housing focus must not be single-minded and must balance environmental concerns.

I’ve touched on several of these issues. On point (a), I’ll note that I do care deeply about protecting the natural environment, and I’ve been endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters.

Protecting precious riparian habitat is a priority for me. My record is likely part of the reason Sierra Club has endorsed my candidacy. When I worked on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, I advocated for adding a program to update Palo Alto's stream corridor protection ordinance. I am pleased that the program was incorporated and that City Council prioritized the stream protection program this year. Next week, the Planning and Transportation Commission will review the updated ordinance. I am looking forward to recommending that CIty Council approves the new protections and am proud of my role in bringing about these much-needed changes.

We must continue with the process of evaluating and mitigating the environmental impact of construction before agreeing to a project like this, especially on a creek.

Retail: Loss of existing, local retail and lack of planning for and attracting new retail. (See #3 above.).

see question 3

I believe Palo Alto must have neighborhood-serving retail for all of Palo Alto, not just downtown, California Avenue, and select pockets around the city. The retail storefronts along El Camino have some of the lowest vacancy rates in our city--a testament to the value that they provide to neighborhoods along El Camino. If I am elected to City Council, I will work to make sure we preserve retail along El Camino as we build new developments.

I would like to see the majority of new residential construction have ground floor retail, especially if the construction is replacing existing ground floor retail.

Traffic: Traffic, particularly at peak times, trapped in the narrow Matadero Avenue and Barron Avenue outlets – with consequent danger to cyclists, mostly students, who have been directed to use those streets.

I completely agree. I ride along Matadero Avenue frequently and understand how dangerous it can be, especially for students. It’s critical that we find a safe alternative for students, residents, and workers. We need to pursue a protected off-road bike route parallel to Matadero Avenue in the Valley Water Right of Way next to the Stanford Research Park properties to get bikes safely off the street and drastically reduce the volume of bikes on the road. (see response to question 2) This solution would significantly improve safety and traffic flow, making the area much safer for everyone.

All new development must respect Palo Alto's Safe Routes to School. Safety comes first! This includes ensuring that ingress and egress from developments doesn't conflict with cyclists using Matadero and Barron, and that overflow parking doesn't occur on these critical student commute routes.

Our Safe Routes to School program advises students on best routes to use for commuting to and from school by bike or walking. However, in Barron Park, we don’t have sidewalks on every street by design, as part of our neighborhood’s desire to stay more rural and less urban after the annexation into the City of Palo Alto. For safety reasons, we should reconsider this approach, especially for the streets that are part of the Safe Routes to School. There, the city should be adding sidewalks and bike lanes to ensure adequate space for walking and biking to increase students’ and families’ comfort and safety while commuting.

Parking: As mentioned in #2 above, with increased density and ‘under-parking’ of the apartment buildings for both apartment residents and employees, parking problems will develop, and may be more serious overnight than during the day.

I agree, and that's why we need a comprehensive area plan to support the Residential Parking Program (RPP). As a VTA board member, I’ve successfully pushed through a pilot program that provides free VTA transit passes for businesses along El Camino to help mitigate parking issues, especially for low-income workers.

I’m actively working on expanding this program to include low-income residents as well. We have some of the best regular and express bus service in the county along El Camino, but it’s currently under-utilized. By getting transit passes into the hands of low-income workers and residents who will transit if they have passes and significantly reduce parking demand and traffic. That’s a solution that has been overlooked but could have a real impact on parking issues as density increases.

See my answer to question #2 above.

This is a very frustrating topic in Palo Alto because the state law requiring us to remove parking minimums near transit corridors was created with other types of cities in mind–specifically cities with more transit infrastructure. For Palo Alto, we will need to continue to encourage parking to be provided in new development projects, even if we cannot require it. For areas with under-parked new developments, the city needs to listen to and respond to the needs of the community members who are affected. This means monitoring parking availability, responding to complaints, creating residential parking permit programs where needed, and enforcing them.

As an elected official, will you strive to understand local and neighborhood concerns and work toward solutions that can mitigate the most serious harms?

My main goal in serving the people of Palo Alto is to deeply understand our community and find workable solutions that reflect our shared values. That’s why I have long served our community without seeking higher office. I have a strong grasp of how government functions and, more importantly, how to make it work for us. I care deeply about this community, and as an elected official, it is my responsibility to protect our residents and ensure their voices are heard. My commitment is to always work toward solutions that mitigate the most serious harms and improve the quality of life for everyone in Palo Alto.

Particularly in this area that is being impacted by so many builders remedy projects I think this is going to involve active communication not only with residents but with state resources and with the developers to see what can be done to help reduce the impacts of these.

I will be a strong voice, for Seniors, renters, environmentalists and preservationists. I will seek innovative solutions to pressing issues facing Palo Alto from airport to railroad and wasteful consultants. See website wwww.triplehelix.net/henry.html

Yes. I commit to not only listening, but also working constructively and responsively to resident concerns.

Absolutely! In all my years on boards commissions and committees (17!) I have worked tirelessly to address the concerns and needs of residents and local businesses, and I will continue to do so. The sole reason I have volunteered so much is because I want to serve the community. My work started with helping College Terrace develop its Residential Parking Permit program. I joined the College Terrace Residents’ Association Board, and then became its president. I worked on Palo Alto’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan (the city’s guiding plan that determines how our land is used), the California Avenue Streetscape Project, and among other things, continued my involvement with the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Working Group and the Planning and Transportation Commission. As a City Council member  I will bring my extensive experience working to solve neighborhood-specific issues. I am known for listening carefully to neighborhoods and working closely with community members to come up with practical solutions that best meet the entire community’s needs (see this article about my record published in  Palo Alto Online on October 2, 2024).

We must protect Matadero Creek, improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists of all ages, and ensure livable residences for new neighbors that do not impose new problems on existing neighborhoods. I will do everything I can to effect the best outcomes in our neighborhoods.

 My desire to be elected to the City Council is to use my 17+ years of leadership experience and continue to serve the community by protecting the quality of life we enjoy in Palo Alto.

Yes, I will continue to bring the concerns and needs of the Barron Park community to City Hall. I am the only resident of Barron Park running for City Council this cycle, and I will bring a voice for our neighborhood to the dias. I will protect our neighbors, our students and cyclists, our retailers, and the beauty of our amazing neighborhood.

 

As an elected official, will you strive to understand local and neighborhood concerns and work toward solutions that can mitigate the most serious harms?