League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Santa Clara County, CA November 4, 2014 Election
	Eric Filseth Answers Questions Candidate for Council Member; City of Palo Alto

The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto and asked of all candidates for this office.
Read the answers from all candidates (who have responded).

Questions & Answers

1. How would you balance neighborhood and city-wide concerns?

With a proper orientation in City Hall, those concerns don't need to be balanced: they are aligned. The City's top priority should be quality of life issues such as neighborhood quality, traffic, parking, ample city services and excellent schools.

Unfortunately for the last few years, the City has pursued policies, especially around development and density, that are in conflict with these things. The massive buildout of office space has benefitted special interests, but led to excessive traffic gridlock, parking shortages, displacement of neighborhood-serving retail, and regional housing pressure which in turn crowds our schools.

The solution is to refocus our development policies on projects which benefit the community. I would eliminate the smorgasbord of zoning exemptions (PC's are only one of many) which enable projects that meet neither the intent of our zoning nor the Comprehensive Plan. I would reform the process of the Architectural Review Board and the Planning and Transportation Commission. I would use zoning policy to prevent the California Avenue and Midtown areas from becoming clones of the University Avenue core.

2. Palo Alto and surrounding communities are under economic pressure to grow and environmental pressures to live and work closer together. How do you envision Palo Alto responding to these pressures?

Palo Alto's top priority must be quality of life for residents. I don't accept that individual cities must sacrifice their livability in order to accommodate regional goals: no strategy can be good for the region, if it is not also good for the individual cities. And with only 3% of the county's housing, Palo Alto's actions will have little regional impact under any circumstance.

One key issue is that Palo Alto must manage its own finances responsibly. With strong finances, a competent city leadership with the right values can resist the economic pressures, and do what's right for Palo Alto.

Palo Alto is already a leader on environmental issues, with a carbon-neutral electrical utility, a best-practices recycling program, and a good plan to get rid of the sewage incinerator. Other steps are available to us, such as innovation to reduce dependency on natural gas.

Housing is a complicated issue. I support a housing strategy which benefits the community. That includes a preference for Palo Alto housing near Palo Alto jobs. I disagree with those who would put high-density stack-and-pack housing next to our train stations. It makes no sense to me, either from a community perspective or from an environmental perspective, to build housing for people who commute out to jobs in San Francisco or San Jose, at the same time that 93% of City Staff and 90% of teachers commute in to Palo Alto from elsewhere. Addressing Palo Alto's jobs/housing imbalance by building housing for people with jobs outside Palo Alto is simply misguided. Nor should we become an office park for other communities.

3. What proposals do you have to alleviate the traffic and parking situation in Palo Alto?

On traffic, the first step is to stop making the problem worse. We must recognize that the primary source of our traffic problem is the densification and increase in office space, although in some areas high-density housing has also been a contributor. Each mixed-use project that adds 250 office jobs, but housing for only 8 adults, increases the problem. It is the First Rule of Holes: when you're in one, stop digging. This can be accomplished through development reform. The short-sighted policies of the current City Administration have created this problem, and it is well past time to change them.

I support the City's Transit Demand Management (TDM) initiative and its alternative transportation programs such as Bicycle Boulevards. We should do these things; but we must also recognize they will only be a partial mitigation. The most important step is to attack the source of the problem before it gets any worse.

Parking is an unfortunate problem. Again, the City's past and current policies on development have created a problem which is not easily + or inexpensively + solved. The first step is to get enough commuter cars out of the neighborhoods that the neighborhoods return to an appropriate residential character. I support a Residential Parking Permit program to do this, including the provision that any block can opt out if it chooses. It's unfortunate we should be at a point where we need this, but it is where we are. Business parking must be an operating expense of business, not transferred onto residents.

The rest of the problem must be addressed through a combination of using the existing space better, use of new technology, likely some added capacity, potentially some local transportation enhancements; and pushing more of the pain back onto commuters, in order to further discourage solo vehicle trips. A mechanism which gives some preference to workers of neighborhood-serving businesses is desirable if it can be done.

I very strongly believe residents should not pay for these things. Residents have already paid, in terms of quality of life; and an RPP program, though necessary, will nevertheless be an inconvenience to residents.

---

Responses to questions asked of each candidate are reproduced as submitted to the League.  Candidates' statements are presented as submitted. The answer to each question should be limited to 400 words. Direct references to opponents are not permitted.

Read the answers from all candidates (who have responded).

Candidate Page || Feedback to Candidate || This Contest
SmartVoter Home (Ballot Lookup) || About Smart Voter

---

Created from information supplied by the candidate: October 31, 2014 11:16
Smart Voter <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund   http://www.lwvc.org
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.