The Barron Park Association

Nov 062013
 

My thoughts on the day after the election…..

I think those of us living in Barron Park and Greenacres can agree that we have just been through a period that has challenged our community’s cohesiveness. The PAHC housing proposal along Maybell had its supporters but it brought out an amazing outpouring of anger and opposition from many in the neighborhood.

The Measure D campaign was contentious. People had to choose sides. But now that the election is over, it’s time to repair frayed personal relationships, and to learn from this experience and just accept the fact that good friends do not necessarily share similar political views.

Arguments and disagreements, private and public, are not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, that’s how democracy is supposed to work.  It is a good thing if people are willing to listen to what others have to say, are willing to learn something new, to compromise even if they disagree on some points, and are not hyper-sensitive to slights or criticism. On the other hand, it’s not good if disputes get out of hand and possibly rupture long standing bonds of personal friendship. There’s been lots of back and forth debate, some of which has been less than illuminating or edifying.

So, we should take some time to reflect on some of the heated exchanges and see if problems were caused by what was said or how it was said…or written – some heated exchanges were in emails. People sometimes will say things in email that they would not say in person, and sometimes regret it immediately afterward. Reflect and take a deep breath, and reread your message before you push that send button. When using our BPA-issues, my suggestion is to direct your argument and comments to the entire group of subscribers, not to a single individual, try to elevate the discussion rather than denigrate the author of a previous email, and avoid cheerleading.

Even after taking care with your message, it’s sometimes not possible to avoid becoming embroiled in a heated exchange when people misconstrue your words.  Folks can misread your words in ways that are difficult to anticipate, and those preoccupied with real or imagined slights are quick to counterattack and the exchange can elevate and become personal and unpleasant. In those cases, there’s not much you can do about that besides halting the exchange if you see yourself caught up in a debate with someone like that.

This year’s street scape Halloween decoration featured the red and yellow of the lawn signs and countersigns. It’s now  time for us to pull back from confrontation as we pull up the lawn signs, and repair whatever bonds we can that were broken within our community.  Let’s all try to reengage each other with respect – respect different opinions, accept that others can honestly disagree with you, listen to what is being said before reacting and immediately sending off a response. Think independently and don’t necessarily rely on any group for answers. Let’s return our community discourse into a more civil tone, and not allow any leftover bitterness, alienation, and divisiveness within our neighborhood have any long-lasting effects upon future cooperation among friends and neighbors. We’re going to be living together after this election and probably the next election, and a long time after that.

Art Liberman

Sep 122013
 

Another Community meeting called by the Transportation Division to receive input about a bicycle boulevard, this one running along Maybell-Donald-Georgia, from El Camino Way to Arastradero.

When:  September 17, 2013 @ 6:30 pm – 8:30 pm

Where: Terman Middle School Cafeteria Room

The text of the message sent to homeowners by mail:

“The City is soliciting public input on design elements of the proposed Maybell-Donald-Georgia Bicycle Boulevard between El Camino Way and Arastradero Road. This project is proposed in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012 and supports Safe Routes to School operations for Briones Elementary, Terman Middle and Gunn High School.

The kickoff meeting will include a presentation on standard bicycle boulevard treatments and allow residents to provide input, using high resolution maps, of areas where focused improvements may be necessary to improve bicycle and pedestrian operations.

All information shared at the meeting will be posted on the City website at www.cityofpaloalto.org/transportationprojects

Following the meeting, the design team will put together improvement concepts that are responsive to the community input and return for a followup meeting later in the fall.”


If this follows the recipe for similar meetings they’ve held on the Matadero-Margarita Bicycle Boulevard, Jaime Rodriguez will give a presentation about bicycle boulevard treatments and answer a few questions and take a few comments. He will then ask the attendees to break up into several groups and look at some high resolution posters of the streets taped to tables in the rear, and write their comments and suggestions for special treatments (crosswalks, signs, speed humps…) on those places on the posters.

He refused to discuss other traffic issues publicly (invited speaker to talk with him privately) when they were raised at the recent Matadero -Margarita Bicycle Boulevard meeting.

Aug 252013
 

The  City’s Transportation Division has prepared a draft Initial Concept Plan for the Matadero-Margarita Bicycle Boulevard.

A community meeting has been scheduled to solicit public input on the design elements of this plan:

WHEN: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 at 7:00 PM
WHERE: Barron Park Elementary School multi-purpose room.

General Bike Boulevard Treatments
Alert road users to the presence of cyclists with:

  • Bike Boulevard stencils on the road at gateways
  • Bike Blvd signage
  • Sharrows every 350 feet or closer to position cyclists in the travel lane (away from pedestrians and the ‘door zone’ of parked cars)

Some of the specifics, images and treatments:

Laguna – Matadero Section

Matadero – Josina – Tippawingo Section

Matadero – El Camino – Margarita Section

The City of Palo Alto held the kick-off meeting for the Matadero-Margarita Bicycle Boulevard Project on Wednesday, May 15, 2013. A presentation on general bicycle boulevard features was shared, and members of the public were asked to provide input on the existing conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists in the corridor. Public input was captured on aerial maps of the corridor and by staff recording public comments during the meeting.

Send Questions to:
Sylvia Star-Lack
Safe Routes to School Assistant Coordinator
City of Palo Alto Transportation Division
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
email: Sylvia.Star-Lack@CityofPaloAlto.org
Send Email

T: 650-329-2156 | F: 650-329-2154

Jun 212013
 

posted by Art Liberman, BPA President

These are some of my thoughts following the Council’s action on the Maybell homes and Clemo affordable senior project. My views on that project, the process followed by the City Council in arriving at a decision and its consequences for the neighborhood and the City differ from those expressed by Lydia Kou in the Maybell/Clemo Rezoning  article she recently posted on this topic.

BPA Board and Community Viewpoints

A wide range of opinions were expressed by community members during the weeks of heated debate leading up to the Council decision on this proposal. Many people were adamantly and absolutely opposed to any rezoning, but there were some who supported the Palo Alto Housing Corporation’s (PAHC) proposal, and also those who thought the best option was one in which the senior housing building would be combined with fewer number of market rate single family houses. The debate was more focused on land use policy than about the inclusion of affordable housing in the proposal, though good arguments were presented for why this site was not suitable for affordable senior housing.

No one position captured the voice of the entire neighborhood –  nor of the Barron Park Board, which was just one of the various community groups who met and debated the merits of the PAHC proposal. One group of Board members, those supporting the minority proposal that received 4 of the 10 votes at the Board meeting, coalesced around the view that the rezoning with a senior affordable housing project was acceptable provided there were many fewer market rate single family homes (a total of eight) than what PAHC had proposed (fifteen).

There is a tradeoff when comparing the PAHC project, or variants of it, with other possibilities for development of the Maybell Clemo site. If the property were developed following the existing zoning, most likely we would see a project with 35 or so multi-family units or apartments in the rear and about 8 single family or duplex homes along Maybell, with some adjustments in land lines, still with driveways for entrance and exit on Maybell and Clemo and possibly curb cuts for single family homes or duplex homes along Maybell. While there would be more people and more units and a taller building in the rear of the property, it turns out when looking at the numbers that the combination of many fewer single family homes and the senior affordable unit would likely be less disruptive in terms of traffic and would place fewer demands on schools and street parking than if the property were developed according to current zoning.

Council Action

The Council delayed its action while accepting the many hours of community input, but the debate among Council when it finally happened was shallow and disappointing. It is regrettable that the Council members backed away from asking PAHC some really hard questions about their proposal – for example requiring them to justify their claim for needing so many market rate homes on the site or by squeezing the PAHC developers and mandating many fewer than the twelve they approved.  Granted, PAHC has provided affordable housing to a large number of people in Palo Alto, but there was no justification for the Council members to refuse to give this proposal the same scrutiny as one from a for-profit developer, especially given the fact that the Council had authorized a large loan of public funds (ones it obtains from developers in lieu of providing affordable housing in their projects – not tax dollars) to PAHC to purchase the land.

Traffic

Traffic was the source of much of the initial opposition to the project, and this point of view was passionately argued by many of the residents who live along the Maybell corridor. They know that the traffic has significantly increased along Maybell and on other neighborhood streets in the past few years. This was the fuel that had spread throughout the neighborhood – the Maybell-Clemo rezoning proposal was the match that set the neighborhood ablaze (figuratively speaking of course).

Resolving the traffic problems may not be easy. Councilman Klein recognized that the school district and City must work together on this, but it is clear it will only happen if there is strong and ongoing community involvement. Progress could be made if the capabilities of the energetic group of Greenacres and Barron Park residents who mobilized so effectively to challenge the PC rezoning could be harnessed to make sure City staff and School District staff examine all the aspects of this issue  – and keep the pressure on them until they come up with some solutions and improvements that we in the neighborhood want to see happen.

Development Pressures

The creeping densification we see around us is the price we are paying for rapidly escalating land and housing prices combined with vigorous job growth. The City is besieged with proposals, including hotels and multi-family housing projects along El Camino from Page Mill to the Mountain View/Los Altos border. Some of these proposals are within the current zoning, which favors higher density along traffic corridors such as El Camino and around Caltrain stations, but others are requesting modifications and exceptions – as was requested by PAHC for their site for Maybell/Clemo site – through the PC (Planned Community) zoning. It is absolutely true that the PC zoning classification has been misused (a polite way of saying ‘abused’) for some time, and it is necessary for our policy makers to come to grips with this fact, and then come forward with a clearer, more specific and much tighter definition of the ‘community benefit’ or discard the PC zoning category completely. That’s another area where citizens should make policy makers focus their efforts.

Jun 202013
 

Dear Barron Park Community:

I want to be sure to communicate to Barron Park that the Barron Park Association Board of Directors are not opposed to senior housing, low income or otherwise.  A couple of proposals were brought before the BPA Board on May 21, 2013 and the agenda stating such was sent by email to all on the BPA distribution list.  The proposals were as follows:

  1. Recommend to the Planning and Transportation Commission to recommend a NO to City Council with regard to Palo Alto Housing Corporation’s application to rezone the Maybell/Clemo properties to PC zoning, which would mean high density.  This would mean that PAHC can continue with its quest to build low income senior housing, however, within the current zoning.
  2. Recommend to the Planning and Transportation Commission to recommend to City Council to allow the senior housing project and the PC zoning to proceed but only with a smaller single family home cluster – five along Maybell and three along Clemo, scaled down to no more than two stories with standard 20’ setbacks.

The BPA Board of 11 voted 6 in favor of Proposal 1 and 4 in favor of Proposal 2 with 1 board member absent.

Along the way, Palo Alto Housing Corporation and the City’s departments’ transparency issues have come to light and for us as taxpayers and residents, forces us to question how this city represents its constituents, especially the taxpayers.

Some facts about this application from PAHC for rezoning for the Maybell/Clemo properties to PC (high density/planned community):

1)     In order to purchase the land, the City of Palo Alto helped PAHC finance the purchase by providing a loan of over 5 Million dollars.  This is all prior to approval of the rezone PAHC needs.  Notifications and disclosure to the general public, this city’s constituents and taxpayers, were not adequately given.

2)     In order to facilitate such a project, the city has to approve a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Designation for a portion of the site to become single family residential where it used to be multi-family residential.

3)     PAHC does not have enough funds to build the senior housing.  In order to make up the funds, PAHC proposes to build 15 3-story buildings erected on Maybell and Clemo.  Those homes will be sold at market rate and will provide the funding to build the senior housing.

4)     In order to facilitate such buildings, in the rezoning, the developer and PAHC has also proposed and applied for many alternatives to property setbacks, daylight planes which involves the height of the building, its compatibility to the immediate neighborhood, parking, etc., which normally most applicants would have been denied.

5)     Since the restriping on Arastradero Road, traffic from both automobile drivers and bicyclists have been a nightmare on neighboring streets and it spreads throughout the neighborhood, including Green Acres I & II and Palo Alto Orchards.  Even the Ventura neighborhood has been experiencing the increase in traffic as alternatives to having to use Arastradero and Charleston Roads.  Even Matadero Avenue, on the other end of Barron Park, has experienced increased traffic.

6)     PAHC hired a traffic study consultant, Hexagon, to conduct the traffic study and Hexagon’s representatives insists that the increase in traffic will be by 1 automobile.  The study was not current and did not take into factors of current situations especially during high commute hours when schools are in session.

7)     Planning and Transportation Commission and Departments provided these same Hexagon traffic safety reports and PAHC’s development plans and reports to Palo Alto Fire Department to assess emergency response only to this proposed site.  We would like to know how emergency response will be affected into the interior of Barron Park and also Green Acres.

8)     To place a senior facility in the midst of a neighborhood that has virtually no amenities that serves the senior residents conveniently seems to be poor outlook.  There are no continuous sidewalks for the senior citizen to walk to El Camino Real to access public transportation unless they drive which adds to traffic.  Grocery shopping is not close either.

The BPA Board Members who voted in favor of Proposal 1 (No to rezones) were highly concerned of the number of proposed and possible high density developments planned for Palo Alto, in particular it seems most are in the southern part of Palo Alto.  The following sites are slated for PC (Planned Community) or RM40 high density rezones or some may have received approval on their applications already, (I may not have all of them):

  • Maybell/Clemo properties – received city council approval last night for rezoning to Planned Development.
  • 4124 El Camino Real (formally Enterprise, across from Arbor Real) – has been rezoned and a hotel is under construction.
  • Agilent right here on Page Mill is in the application process to rezone to commercial.
  • The parking lot on the corner of Page Mill and El Camino Real next to the Sunrise Senior Housing, wants to apply for PC rezone in order to put in an office building.
  • 451 Page Mill and its surrounding single family homes finally sold and is in the application process for PC rezone.
  • 4146 El Camino Real, across from Starbuck’s off El Camino Way and the property has a billboard in it, the owners are or will be applying for high density rezoning.
  • Buena Vista Mobile Home Park – another rezone to high density, the developer hopes to build an apartment complex with 180 units.
  • Compadres site was just sold and still in escrow.  Purchaser is a developer and plans to submit an application to rezone to PC.
  • Fry’s Electronics site – if the lease is not renewed, slated for PC rezone.
  • Palo Alto Bowling property will be or already rezoned to PC.
  • 4329-4335 El Camino Real, diagonally across from Cabana Crown Plaza, rezoned to PC and is under construction.
  • 3159 El Camino Real, formally the “We fix Macs” site, request Site and Design Review. Existing is a 900s.f. commercial building, need PTC approval for 5-story, 75,042 s.f.  to establish 48 residential apartment units, and commercial and retail.
  • 27 University – yes, rezone to PC.

Sites that are of great concern that may be sold off and can be rezoned for high density which will further impact and compound our traffic issues:

  • The site at the corner of Barron Ave and El Camino Real.  There is a tailor shop, a clothing shop and a large open spaced lot at this time.
  • The site on the corner of Matadero Ave and El Camino Real.  There is an auto repair/smog shop, open lot, parking lot, bunker structure at this time.

Controlled points of entry into Barron Park and its neighboring neighborhoods, those controlled by traffic lights, are limited.  Most of these streets with traffic lights are at El Camino Real or Arastradero which are congested most of the time.  Do we overlook the potential danger to becoming isolated and constrained because of traffic congestion on ECR due to all these developments to high density.  As an emergency preparedness and awareness advocate, this concerns me greatly.

Before I end though, I would ask you to give consideration to the following:

  • Consider the larger picture rather than focus on the red herring, that this is a senior housing which is low income, that is not the matter at hand.  The matter at hand is about all the massive developments in this city and the city’s extremely short term outlook/planning and implementation of its infrastructure, especially resolving traffic issues; which brings about safety, health and quality of life issues.
  • Maybell Avenue residents are Barron Park residents.  What core values do we have if we do not have empathetic consideration for their quality of life day in and day out.  Are we INMBYs, It’s Not In My Backyard… so what do I care?  Bottom-line, we are all residents of Palo Alto and it is not this neighborhood vs. that neighborhood, talking this talk is a diversion and takes us all off focus.
  • Is a urban Palo Alto the Palo Alto we moved to?  Where’s the charm or does anyone care?
  • Today Maybell Avenue, tomorrow where?  Hopefully, it is not in your backyard!

The BPA board members voted as such in order to halt the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council Members from making a decision so quickly without revisiting and confirming data provided and to conduct their due diligence, not only on the Maybell/Clemo rezone application but, future high density applications.  Further, this particular rezone for Maybell/Clemo can or may set precedence for future developments where any form of high density can go anywhere.

Determining the highest and best land use is not easy in a city where land is scarce, but do you want the highest and best use defined and determined at the whim of the city, never mind tax paying residents’ right to safety, health and quality of life?

Respectfully,

Lydia Kou

Barron Park resident and BPA board member