Vowing to improve government transparency and protect residents from the impacts of new development, City Councilwoman Karen Holman announced at a candidates party Wednesday night her intention to seek a second term.
Holman, who served on the Planning and Transportation Commission before getting elected to the City Council in 2009, has been one of the city's most consistent critics of new developments and among its most prominent "residentialists," a term that connotes slow-growth leanings. Because she had already filed a statement of intentions to run and formed a campaign committee earlier this month, Holman's entry into the race was widely expected. She made it official at the Wednesday event, where she was joined by two other candidates concerned about growth, Tom DuBois and Eric Filseth.
As a commissioner and councilwoman, Holman had opposed the Lytton Gateway building downtown and the Alma Village retail-and-residential center. She was also one of four co-signers of an April 2013 memo urging staff to revise design guidelines for El Camino Real and other major thoroughfares to encourage wider sidewalks and less massive building facades.
In a letter announcing her bid for a second term, Holman wrote that issues of "traffic and parking, building design and scale, protecting our retail and environmental assets, and contending with state housing mandates have reached critical points and need to be addressed in a strategic and timely manner." She said she will "continue to advocate for only reasonable development and for protecting our environment."
Holman said that at the party she also thanked DuBois and Filseth for running. Both were involved in last year's Measure D campaign, which overturned the approval of a housing development on Maybell Avenue, and both have been critical of dense new developments. Each is also affiliated with the citizens group Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning, which opposes the granting of zoning exceptions for projects in residential neighborhoods.
Holman told the Weekly that the entry of other candidates with residentialist leanings helped influence her decision to run for a second term. She said that she "had to decide seriously if I wanted to spend four more years being part of a small council minority." With Filseth and DuBois in the race, she said, "There is a possibility of having a different council majority and to make the role I can play more impactful and more meaningful."
She noted that while she shares concerns with Filseth and DuBois about development impacts, the three candidates are not running as a slate.
"We are supporting each other in terms of being bound by our common values and goals, mostly around development transparency," she said.
Holman is one of three incumbents, along with Mayor Nancy Shepherd and Councilman Greg Scharff, who will seek a second term. Councilman Larry Klein will be termed out, and Councilwoman Gail Price said she will not be seeking re-election.
Other non-incumbents who have pulled candidacy papers are: Ventura resident Wayne Douglass; retired Gunn High teacher John Fredrich, panhandler Victor Frost, Barron Park neighborhood organizer Lydia Kou, retired engineer Seelam Reddy; concert producer Mark Weiss; and downtown resident Richard Wendorf.
Comments
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 31, 2014 at 10:07 am
on Jul 31, 2014 at 10:07 am
> Vowing to improve government transparenc
[Portion removed.] Ms. Holman has had four years to do something about government transparency—yet she has done nothing towards that end. The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report of last month would be a good place to start. She has yet to demonstrate that she has even read this document. She sat through the whole 27 University fiasco—and said nothing. So all the sudden she has some “religion” about transparency? She’s just dropping another buzzword—demonstrating that she’s a politician first [Portion removed.]
A vote for Ms. Holman is just another vote for the status quo.
Green Acres
on Jul 31, 2014 at 10:16 am
on Jul 31, 2014 at 10:16 am
Is this the same person who pushed for the Maybell project (together w/ the other council members) despite all the neighborhood opposition?
I just have a hard time understanding the gap between her position and her actions.
Barron Park
on Jul 31, 2014 at 10:24 am
on Jul 31, 2014 at 10:24 am
Karen Holmann supported the Maybell super sized development. She never gave the slightest support to the neighborhood objecting to it.
How did she change overnight?
And she has never explained exactly what those finder's fees that she receives from developers are. And why she advocated for the developers' project at the council meeting.
I hope more qualified and conscientious citizens will run for the council.
College Terrace
on Jul 31, 2014 at 10:42 am
on Jul 31, 2014 at 10:42 am
Who is our go to candidate?
Downtown North
on Jul 31, 2014 at 10:42 am
on Jul 31, 2014 at 10:42 am
I FIND HER ACCEPTANCE OF A $100,000 CONSULTING AND FINDER'S FEE FROM A WELL KNOWN DEVELOPER WHO IS ACTIVE IN PALO ALTO CROSSES MORAL FIDUCIARY BOUNDARIES AND PERHAPS LEGAL BOUNDARIES. AN INVESSTIGATION SHOULD BE LAUNCHED WIHT TEH CALIFORNIA FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICE AGENCY. [Portion removed.]
Midtown
on Jul 31, 2014 at 10:54 am
on Jul 31, 2014 at 10:54 am
[Portion removed.]
I supported her in the past and am sorry. Those considering voting for her should check the Weekly's story on June 13: Web Link
Crescent Park
on Jul 31, 2014 at 11:11 am
on Jul 31, 2014 at 11:11 am
It is easy to make accusations behind the mask of names like "New Boss", "Carlos", and "a neighbor". I have followed Karen Holman's actions on both the Planning Commission and on the City Council and with very few exceptions, Karen has worked tirelessly to encourage good planning for Palo Alto. As a former Councilmember myself, I am well aware that sometimes the best you can do is to get small improvements to otherwise bad plans. It takes FIVE votes to make any decision and one Councilmember can simply do his/her best to influence the decision. This election there is an opportunity to shift the Council balance.
If anyone deserves blame for the 27 University Avenue debacle, it should be the City Manager who deftly encouraged small groups of Councilmembers to meet privately with him and Mr. Arrillaga in order to avoid the Brown Act. It was not until Councilmembers became aware that they were ALL meeting that way that such a violation became apparent.
Karen Holman has been a diligent and hard working Councilmember and deserves to be re-elected, hopefully with several other like-minded candidates.
Old Palo Alto
on Jul 31, 2014 at 11:17 am
on Jul 31, 2014 at 11:17 am
[Post removed.]
Green Acres
on Jul 31, 2014 at 11:20 am
on Jul 31, 2014 at 11:20 am
It is not surprising that a local developer doesn't like Holman's positions on restrained growth. It is sad that he can only attack her personally. Her experience, issue positions and integrity are just what residents seek, and well understood by voters. It is a little laughable that someone with such a blatant conflict of interest points an accusatory finger at Holman - the best qualified and experienced by far of ANY candidate, including other incumbents.
Midtown
on Jul 31, 2014 at 11:31 am
on Jul 31, 2014 at 11:31 am
Not sure what Emily Renzel is upset about the postings of others. As the posters she objects to state, she did vote for the Maybell project. She did vote for the $4.5 million council chamber remodel. and she has not explained her "finder fee" issue. What exactly is emily Renzel taking issue with? Is Emily Renzel denying that Holman voted in the way I have described????
Not sure why everyone thinks that Holman is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Downtown North
on Jul 31, 2014 at 11:31 am
on Jul 31, 2014 at 11:31 am
[Post removed.]
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 31, 2014 at 11:38 am
on Jul 31, 2014 at 11:38 am
Karen why don't you prove that you are not afraid of Chop Keenen by taking the bull by the horn and get him to work with what the people want at 456 Uni, the historic and beloved Varsity Theatre -- slated, with approval from ARB architects and HRB historians to become office space or a corporate lunch room: a cultural amenity for the public good.
[Portion removed.]
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 31, 2014 at 11:44 am
on Jul 31, 2014 at 11:44 am
[Post removed.]
Registered user
College Terrace
on Jul 31, 2014 at 3:34 pm
Registered user
on Jul 31, 2014 at 3:34 pm
I question the authenticity of the post above attributed to “jim baer.” He is too savvy to carry on like this in a public forum. Therefore the entire post should be deleted; If it is indeed from Mr. Baer, which I doubt, it can be reposted after sign in as a registered user.
Registered user
Downtown North
on Aug 6, 2014 at 9:31 am
Registered user
on Aug 6, 2014 at 9:31 am
I do think Karen Holman deserves serious consideration as an incumbent for re-election, based on her 14 years of service, as commissioner and council. I don't agree with all her politics -- and think she has made some serious gaffes, on council -- but overall she and Greg Schmid have been by far the most receptive to ideas that come from grassroots, compared to the overall kowtow to power here in recent years.
I do not, obviously, agree with this pseudo-slate idea.
Good luck, Karen, and thanks for your service and example.
By the way, in terms of the term "residentialist" or "new Residentialist" Tim Gray and myself both used this term in our respective 2012 campaigns, based mostly, in my case, on Matt Bowlings book about Palo Alto, and specifically Enid Pearson and the fight over Oregon Expressway, years prior. In retrospect, and then again as of this summer, Karen is a residentialist, without deliberately using the term as homage, as I and probably Tim did or do.
Registered user
Downtown North
on Aug 6, 2014 at 3:51 pm
Registered user
on Aug 6, 2014 at 3:51 pm
'I question the authenticity of the post above attributed to "jim baer."'
Its vintage Baeriage, whether or not he is the real author. But consider: if it isn't his, why hasn't he demanded the weekly remove it?