Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200120plCC 701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 1/20/2020 Document dates: 1/8/2020 – 1/15/2020 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jan Stokley <jan@housingchoices.org> Sent:Thursday, January 9, 2020 5:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Letter of support for increase in Wilton Court funding Attachments:Wilton Court letter of support 1.9.2020.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine and City Council members,   Attached please find a letter of support for the staff recommendation to increase city funding for Wilton Court  Apartments by an additional $10.5 million.    Additional city funding will enable rents at the planned affordable housing property to remain affordable to the several  hundred Palo Alto residents with developmental disabilities whom we support in their quest to live independently in  their home community.      Thank you for your continued leadership on behalf of equity for and inclusion of people with diverse abilities.      ‐‐   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.  This e-mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-2521. This e-mail is confidential and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this e-mail message from your computer.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jill Escher <jill.escher@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 9, 2020 6:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Additional City Funding for Wilton Court Apartments Attachments:Wilton Court SFASA 2020 pdf.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,   Attached please find a letter addressed to the mayor and council.  Best wishes,  Jill Escher      ‐‐   Jill Escher  Escher Fund for Autism  President  National Council on Severe Autism    Immediate Past President  Autism Society San Francisco Bay Area    Statement of Confidentiality  The contents of this e‐mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. This  transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of  this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply e‐mail or phone and delete this message and its  attachments, if any.  January 9, 2020 Mayor and City Council, City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California Via email to: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Re: Support for Additional City Funding for Wilton Court Apartments Dear Mayor Fine and City Council Members: We are writing to urge your support for the staff recommendation to increase city funding of the planned Wilton Court Apartments by an additional $10.5 million. Palo Alto Housing has worked diligently to tap every available affordable housing finance program, including county funding to make the Wilton Court project feasible, while targeting rental units at the proposed property to Extremely Low-Income and Very Low-Income people with developmental disabilities. Additional city funding will make it possible to achieve the rent levels that will keep the project affordable to Palo Alto residents with developmental disabilities. Thank you for your leadership to make Palo Alto a community in which people of diverse incomes and abilities can continue to thrive. Please do not hesitate to email me with any questions or concerns. Very truly yours, PO Box 249 San Mateo, CA 94401 www.sfautismsociety.org info@sfautismsociety.org Jill Escher Immediate Past President 1 Brettle, Jessica From:KRISTINE MCCANN <Krismccann@aol.com> Sent:Friday, January 10, 2020 2:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Letter of support for Wilson Court Attachments:Letter of support HCC.pdf; PastedGraphic-1.tiff CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,   Enclosed is my letter of support for the Wilson Court project.  Thank you for your consideration.    Sincerely,  Kris McCann      Kris McCann, Executive Director Bay Area Housing Corporation 101 Church Street, #4 Los Gatos, CA. 95030 Cell: 408-438-7392 krismccann@aol.com www.BAHC1.org Support us by shopping on Amazon at: smile.amazon.com/ch/55-0830072          To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Bay Area Housing Corporation 101 Church Street Suite 4 Los Gatos, CA 95030 Tel: 408/395-5100 Fax: 408/395-5101 www.bahc1.org January 10, 2020 Mayor and City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA Re: Support for Additional City Funding for Wilton Court Apartments Dear Mayor Fine and City Council Members: I urge your support for the staff recommendation to increase city funding of the planned Wilton Court Apartments by an additional $10.5 million. I know first hand the importance of this housing. I have a daughter that has cerebral palsy and have spent the past 20 years being an advocate and developer for more affordable housing in our community for people with Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities. Palo Alto Housing has also worked diligently to tap every available affordable housing finance program, including county funding, to make the Wilton Court project feasible, while targeting rental units at the proposed property to Extremely Low-Income and Very Low-Income people with developmental disabilities. Additional city funding will make it possible to achieve the rent levels that will keep the project affordable to Palo Alto residents with developmental disabilities. Thank you for your leadership to make Palo Alto a community in which people of diverse incomes and abilities can continue to thrive. If you have any other questions of me, please do not hesitate to contact me at 408-438-7392. Sincerely, Kris McCann, Executive Director 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Maria Marriott <riamarriott@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 10, 2020 2:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:Wilton Court Funding CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  January 9, 2020 city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Mayor and City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA Re: Support for Additional City Funding for Wilton Court Apartments Dear Mayor Fine and City Council Members: I have attended many City Council Meetings regarding Wilton Court and have been so impressed with how conscientious PAH has been with the process. I urge your support for the staff recommendation to increase city funding of the planned Wilton Court Apartments by an additional $10.5 million. Palo Alto Housing has worked diligently to tap every available affordable housing finance program, including county funding, to make the Wilton Court project feasible, while targeting rental units at the proposed property to Extremely Low‐Income and Very Low‐ Income people with developmental disabilities. Additional city funding will make it possible to achieve the rent levels that will keep the project affordable to Palo Alto residents with developmental disabilities. Thank you for your leadership to make Palo Alto a community in which people of diverse incomes and abilities can continue to thrive. Sincerely, Maria Marriott 1395 Parkinson Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Residents since 1985 21 year old son with Autism 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Gita Dedek <gitadedek@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, January 10, 2020 3:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Wilton Court Apartments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. January 9, 2020  Mayor and City Council  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA   Re:  Support for Additional City Funding for Wilton Court Apartments  Dear Mayor Fine and City Council Members:  I urge your support for the staff recommendation to increase city funding of the planned Wilton Court  Apartments by an additional $10.5 million.    Palo Alto Housing has worked diligently to tap every available affordable housing finance program, including  county funding, to make the Wilton Court project feasible, while targeting rental units at the proposed  property to Extremely Low‐Income and Very Low‐Income people with developmental disabilities.    Additional city funding will make it possible to achieve the rent levels that will keep the project affordable to  Palo Alto residents with developmental disabilities.  Thank you for your leadership to make Palo Alto a community in which people of diverse incomes and abilities  can continue to thrive.  Sincerely,  Gita Dedek  and daughter Gabrielle Dedek (who has Down Syndrome)  505 Lowell Ave.,  Palo Alto, CA 94301  ______________________  Sent from Mail for Windows 10  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Linnea WICKSTROM <ljwickstrom@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, January 10, 2020 3:42 PM To:Council, City Cc:Linnea WICKSTROM; permaresca5@gmail.com Subject:YES for additional City funding for Wilton Court CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mayor Fine, Vice‐Mayor DuBois, Members of the City Council    My son Per Maresca and I look forward to your Yes vote on the January 13th Consent Calendar to include item 6,  additional City funding for the Wilton Court Apartments.    As you know, my son and I have spoken on many occasions in support of the new housing – including 21 units for people  with intellectual and developmental disabilities.     In these times of great difficulty in financing housing development, I applaud the staff for its proposal and hope that you  will give your utmost support to make Wilton Court a reality for Palo Alto Housing, Housing Choices, and people in our  city who will find an affordable place to live.    Sincerely,  Linnea Wickstrom  Monroe Drive  Palo Alto    Per Maresca  Monroe Drive  Palo Alto   and  W. El Camino  Mountain View    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Lourdes Gonzalez <lgonzalez@sarc.org> Sent:Friday, January 10, 2020 4:08 PM To:Council, City Cc:Javier Zaldivar; 'Jan Stokley' Subject:Letter of Support from San Andreas Regional Center Attachments:letter to City Palo Alto 1.10.20.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council of Palo Alto, Please review the attached letter. Thank you. Lourdes González Executive Administrative Assistant San Andreas Regional Center 6203 San Ignacio Avenue Suite 200 San Jose CA. 95119 Office Tel : 408-341-3826 Cell: 408-685-9658 Fax: 408-281-6967 lgonzalez@sarc.org 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Grady, David@SCDD <David.Grady@scdd.ca.gov> Sent:Friday, January 10, 2020 5:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Wilton Court Additional Funding Attachments:Palo Alto Housing Wilton Ave Project.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.                    January 9, 2020                                                                                    Mayor and City Council  via email to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA     Re:  Support for Additional City Funding for Wilton Court Apartments    Dear Mayor and City Council members:    As Regional Manager for the State Council on Developmental Disabilities, Central Coast (SCDD CC), I urge your support  for the staff recommendation to increase city funding of the planned Wilton Court Apartments by an additional $10.5  million.      In collaboration with individuals, families, providers, and the Regional Center, SCDD CC promotes the ongoing work to improve  the  number  and  quality  of  services  for  men  and  women  with  developmental  disabilities  and  their families.  Throughout our catchment which includes Palo Alto and all of Santa Clara County, SCDD CC works hard to support educational, employment, and residential services for men and women with I/DD.  The housing needs within the Bay Area  effect the I/DD community as it does everyone, and the aim of SCDD CC is to promote housing opportunities for this important often overlooked and underserved population.    Palo Alto Housing has worked diligently to tap every available affordable housing finance program, including county  funding, to make the Wilton Court project feasible, while targeting rental units at the proposed property to Extremely  Low‐Income and Very Low‐Income people with developmental disabilities.  Additional city funding will make it possible  to achieve the rent levels that will keep the project affordable to Palo Alto residents with developmental disabilities.    Community inclusion is important for all.  Thank you for your leadership to make Palo Alto a community in which people  of diverse incomes and abilities can continue to thrive.     STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor   ● website ● www.scdd.ca.gov ● email ● centralcoast@scdd.ca.gov 2580 N First Street, Suite 240 San Jose, CA 95131 408) 324-2106 408) 324-2108 fax    State Council on Developmental Disabilities  2 Sincerely,  David Grady, MA  Regional Manager  State Council on Developmental Disability, Central Coast    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Adriana Anca Suvaiala <anca11@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, January 10, 2020 6:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Additional City Funding for Wilton Court Apartments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mayor and City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA Dear Mayor Fine and City Council Members: I urge your support for the staff recommendation to increase city funding of the planned Wilton Court Apartments by an additional $10.5 million. Palo Alto Housing has worked diligently to tap every available affordable housing finance program, including county funding, to make the Wilton Court project feasible, while targeting rental units at the proposed property to Extremely Low-Income and Very Low-Income people with developmental disabilities. Additional city funding will make it possible to achieve the rent levels that will keep the project affordable to Palo Alto residents with developmental disabilities. Thank you for your leadership to make Palo Alto a community in which people of diverse incomes and abilities can continue to thrive. Sincerely, Adriana Suvaiala    1 Brettle, Jessica From:E Roell <e.roell@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, January 10, 2020 8:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Additional City Funding for Wilton Court Apartments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  January 10, 2020  Mayor and City Council  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA      Re:  Support for Additional City Funding for Wilton Court Apartments     Dear Mayor Fine and City Council Members,     I urge for your support to increase city funding of the planned Wilton Court Apartments by an  additional $10.5 million.    My son has a developmental disability (Autism spectrum and language developmental delay), he  is 17 and a junior at Gunn High school. It will be impossible for him to live in this area  independently, since there is barely any housing available which is suited for him.  Palo Alto Housing has worked diligently to tap every available affordable housing finance  program, including county funding, to make the Wilton Court project feasible, while  targeting rental units at the proposed property to Extremely Low‐Income and Very Low‐ Income people with developmental disabilities.    Additional city funding will make it possible to achieve the rent levels that will keep the project  affordable to Palo Alto residents with developmental disabilities.  Thank you for your leadership to make Palo Alto a community in which people of diverse incomes  and abilities can continue to thrive.    Sincerely,     Esmaralda Roell  254 Ely Place  Palo Alto        Sent from my iPad  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Bonnie Packer <bonniebpacker@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 11, 2020 3:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:Consent Calendar item 6- Jan. 13. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council,    Please approve the $10.5 million loan to PAH so that the 100% affordable housing Wilton Court project can be built.    You know how important this project is for Palo Alto. By approving this loan, you ensure that it happens.    And please make housing, particularly affordable housing in transit‐rich areas, a City Council priority this year.    Thank you for your consideration.    Bonnie Packer  768 Stone Ln  Palo Alto  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Anita Lusebrink <anita@satakenursery.com> Sent:Sunday, January 12, 2020 12:13 PM To:Council, City; Fine, Adrian Subject:Additional funding for Wilton Court project Attachments:Wilton Court funding January 2020.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please read the attached letter regarding Monday’s Consent Agenda…I kept it in Word format to facilitate reading for  you.    Thank you!  Anita Lusebrink  January 12, 2020    Mayor and City Council  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA     Re:  Supporting Additional City Funding for Wilton Court Apartments    Dear Mayor Fine and City Council Members:    It has been almost exactly a year since “Palo Alto reached a rare milestone in its effort to  encourage more housing on Monday night when the City Council approved the city's first  development for low‐income residents in more than seven years.” (Palo Alto Online, 1/14/2019)!     What a positive and hopeful move for the City of Palo Alto to issue in a new era for those that  cannot pay market rate or even “affordable housing” rental prices in Silicon Valley! Simply, this  situation is due to lack of the ability to earn the ongoing, necessary high level of income needed.  Included are citizens that are aging, veterans, and people with mental, physical, and  developmental disabilities. To have support systems in place, many depend upon their families,  and want to stay in or near to the community where their family resides, and with which they are  familiar navigating.     I urge your support for the staff recommendation to increase city funding of the planned Wilton  Court Apartments by an additional $10.5 million. As you know, planning, labor, materials, permits  and fees, management, etc. add up to a large sum of money, which the future residents of these  units will not be able repay even if they wish they could! Palo Alto Housing has been working hard  to get funding from many different arenas, and our local government can set a ‘good faith’  example that this type of project is well worth the investment.     Again, it is a bellwether project for and by the City of Palo Alto in supporting housing for those  who cannot make it without the support of others. Thank you for creating a space where my 24  year old niece with autism WOULD be able to afford staying in the Bay Area, rather than seriously  considering a move to Ohio, which is more affordable ‐ but SO far from her supports here at home.     Every time I drive by the Wilton Court project, I eagerly look to see if some actual physical progress  is being made on the project, and I think your decision to make an additional contribution of $10.5  million will make it so much closer to actually happening!    Thank you for your support,  Anita Lusebrink  Representing the Lusebrink Family   428 Ruthven,   Palo Alto               Sent via email to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Katie Talbot <katiea.talbot@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 12, 2020 3:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:Wilton Court, please read by Monday, January 13 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,    Thank you for your past support for the Wilton Court project, but the job isn't done yet.  For many unhoused  developmentally disabled adults who are natives of Palo Alto, this project is a crucial opportunity for an  independent future.  These people are critical parts of the fabric of our community, but they have an  insurmountable disadvantage in competing for housing in Palo Alto.  We are asking for your help in securing  the funding to complete this project.  A gap this large requires institutional intervention, and Palo Alto has the  means.  This is a perfect opportunity to use the funds collected through in lieu fees for community benefit.    Thank you for your continued support,    Katherine Talbot  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kelsey Banes <kelseybanes@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 13, 2020 7:27 AM To:Council, City Subject:Wilton Court CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine and City Council Members: I urge your support for the staff recommendation to increase city funding of the planned Wilton Court Apartments by an additional $10.5 million. Palo Alto Housing has worked diligently to tap every available affordable housing finance program, including county funding, to make the Wilton Court project feasible, while targeting rental units at the proposed property to Extremely Low-Income and Very Low-Income people with developmental disabilities. Additional city funding will make it possible to achieve the rent levels that will keep the project affordable to Palo Alto residents with developmental disabilities. Thank you for your leadership to make Palo Alto a community in which people of diverse incomes and abilities can continue to thrive. Thank you, Kelsey Banes, PhD 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Leora Tanjuatco <leora.tanjuatco@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 13, 2020 10:03 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Additional City Funding for Wilton Court Apartments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mayor and City Council  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA     Dear Mayor Fine and City Council Members:    I you to support the staff recommendation to increase city funding of the planned Wilton Court Apartments by an  additional $10.5 million. It's in proposals like this where we should absolutely be spending city money.    Palo Alto Housing has worked diligently to tap every available affordable housing finance program, including County  funding, to make the Wilton Court project feasible, while targeting rental units at the proposed property to Extremely  Low‐Income and Very Low‐Income people with developmental disabilities.      Additional city funding will make it possible to achieve the rent levels that will keep the project affordable to Palo Alto  residents with developmental disabilities.    Thank you for your leadership to make Palo Alto a community in which people of diverse incomes and abilities can  continue to thrive.    Sincerely,    Leora Tanjuatco Ross  215 El Verano Ave  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sarah Verity <sverity@gatepath.org> on behalf of Bryan Neider <bryan.neider@gatepath.org> Sent:Monday, January 13, 2020 3:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:letter of support for Wilton Court Apartments Attachments:Wilton Court Apartments.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Good Afternoon,    Please see the attached letter of support for the Wilton Court Apartments.    Thank you,  Bryan Neider  Chief Executive Officer  Pronouns:  He/Him/His  ******************************  Gatepath + Abilities United  350 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 123  Redwood City, CA  94065  Cell: 650.218.2626  **********************************  http://gatepath.org       Accept. Respect. Include.    BETTER TOGETHER! On July 1, 2019, Abilities United became affiliated with Gatepath, ensuring individuals with developmental  disabilities and their families in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties continue to receive important services and achieve their full  potential.  For questions or information, please visit Gatepath.org/MergerFAQ or email merger@gatepath.org.      GATEPATH January 9,2020 Mayor and City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301- Re: Support for Additional City Funding for Wilton Court Apartments Dear Mayor Fine and City Council Members: I urge your support for the staff recommendation to increase city funding of the planned Wilton Court Apartments by an additional SfO.S million. Palo Alto Housing has worked diligently to tap every available affordable housing finance program, including county funding, to make the Wilton Court project feasible, while targeting rental units at the proposed property to Extremely Low-lncome and Very Low-lncome people with developmental disabilities. Additional city funding will make it possible to achieve the rent levels that will keep the project affordable to Palo AIto residents with developmental disabilities. Thank you for your leadership to make Palo Alto a community in which people of diverse incomes and abilities can continue to thrive. Gatepath Sobrato Center for Nonprofits, 350 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 123, Redwood City, CA 94065 Tax lD:94-1156502 | Tel: 650-259-3500 | Fax: 650-620-9891 | Gatepath.org CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Bryan Neider EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Elaine Cohen, Ed.D., Chair LJ n ive rsity Ad m i ni strotor/P role ssor ( Reti red ) Linda Leao, Vice Chair Community Leoder Steve Eskenazi, Treasurer Angel lnvestor Matt Edling, Secretary Sher Edling LLP Todd Gemmer, Development Committee Chair Morgdn Stanley Paul Regan, lmmediate Past chair Hemming Morse, lnc., CPAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS Ken Barker Electronic Arts Jeff Brown PAX Lobs, lnc. Cassy Christianson, oTR/L Deve lopm ento I S p e cio I ist [aurence P. Dugoni Bdrulich Dugoni & Suttmon Low Group, lnc. Jeff Fallick OneDigitol Grace Gengou& Ph.D. Stonford University School oJ Medicine ond sto nford Ch i I d re n's H eolth Larry Grotte SonomoLife Rex lshibashi Originotor lnc. lshng Khababa sotellite Hedlthcdre Helen Marlo, Ph.D. Notre Dome De Namur University/Privdte Practie Charles H, Mason, Jr. H eq lthco re Exe cutive ( Reti re d ) Christopher Murphy Skodden, Arps, Sldte, Meagher & Flom LLP Cynthia owyoung Chorles Schwab Suman Prasad Google Mike Reed F ro n kl i n Te m pleton I nv gstm ents Holly Rockwood Wells Forgo Jennifer Wagstaff-Hinton co m m u n ity Vol u nte er/H ew I ett-Packo rd ( Reti re d ) Sibylle Whittam Ph i I o nt h ropy Con su lto nt carolWndsor Gotepoth Auxilidry Vice President David Wisnom lll Sightcost lnc. Gayle Youlden Gdtepoth Auxiliory President/La Belle Gaurmonde ider 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Matthew Gelfand <admin@caforhomes.org> on behalf of Matthew Gelfand <matt@caforhomes.org> Sent:Monday, January 13, 2020 3:05 PM To:Council, City; Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg Cc:Shikada, Ed; Flaherty, Michelle; City Attorney Subject:Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership Attachments:2020-1-13 - Californians Letter to City Council.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the City Council:    Please see the attached correspondence regarding Agenda Item 8 at your upcoming meeting.    Sincerely,    Matthew Gelfand    -- Matthew Gelfand Counsel, Californians for Homeownership 525 S. Virgil Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90020 matt@caforhomes.org Tel: (213) 739-8206 Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that works to address California’s housing crisis through impact litigation and other legal tools.             MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL MATT@CAFORHOMES.ORG TEL: (213) 739-8206 January 13, 2020 VIA EMAIL City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Email: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; adrian.fine@cityofpaloalto.org; alison.cormack@cityofpaloalto.org; tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org; eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org; liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org; lydia.kou@cityofpaloalto.org; greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org RE: January 13, 2020 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 8 To the City Council: Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization devoted to using legal tools to address California’s housing crisis. I am writing as part of our work monitoring local compliance with California’s revised laws regarding accessory dwelling units (ADUs). At your January 13 meeting, you will discuss an urgency ordinance to address recent state ADU bills, including SB 13 (Wieckowski), AB 68 (Ting), and AB 881 (Bloom). These bills broadly overhaul state ADU law, and they nullify any local ordinance that does not strictly comply with their requirements.1 Staff have prepared a draft ordinance that aims to bring the city into compliance with the revised version of Government Code Section 65852.2. If the City adopts a compliant ADU ordinance, it will be able to maintain certain local controls on ADU development. Unfortunately, the draft ordinance requires extensive changes to be compliant with state law. As drafted, in certain respects, the ordinance appears designed to undermine the important housing production goals of the state ADU laws. We urge the City to go back to the drawing board and delay action on this item until it has had the time to develop a compliant ordinance. Our concerns include:  Proposed Municipal Code Section 18.42.040(a)(5)(A)(ii) unlawfully limits application 1 A previous version of AB 68 provided that a conflicting local ordinance would be “null and void to the extent of such conflict.” That provision was struck from the final bill, which provides for complete invalidation. January 13, 2020 Page 2 of Government Code Section 65852.2(e)(1)(A) to spaces that existed as of January 1, 2017. The state Department of Housing and Community Development and the Legislature have repeatedly rejected local efforts to apply this sort of “freeze” to the application of the laws regarding ADU conversions. In any event, the text of the new state law is clear: Section 65852.2(e)(1)(A) applies to any proposed or existing space.  Similarly, the City may not place a time limitation on the state law rules regarding nonconforming zoning conditions. State law is clear: a “local agency shall not require, as a condition for ministerial approval of a permit application for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions.” This rule is unequivocal, it is not time-limited, and the City may not substitute its own judgment for that of the Legislature.  The City’s application of a “daylight plane” rule to ADUs is a thinly-veiled effort to impose unlawful setback requirements on ADUs. The proposed “street side yard” setback is also unlawful. For an ADU that is not a conversion of an existing structure (or a re-build in the same location as an existing structure), the maximum side setbacks are four feet. Gov. Code § 65852.2(a)(1)(D)(vii). This rule applies to all side setbacks, not just those that the City deems appropriate. Again, the City may not substitute its own judgment for that of the Legislature.  In proposed Municipal Code Section 18.42.040(a)(3)(B), the draft ordinance properly accounts for the setback exception applicable to existing structures, but does not include reconstructed structures as required by Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(1)(D)(vii). This requirement is separate and apart from the special treatment for the categories of ADUs listed in Section 65852.2(e)(1), which the ordinance handles through proposed Municipal Code Section 18.42.040(a)(5).  The JADU provisions in proposed Municipal Code Section 18.42.040(b)(2) are problematic in several ways. First, the City proposes improperly prohibiting JADUs where restricted by a Coordinated Area Plan or Specific Plan. Second, the City proposes limiting JADUs to existing homes; state law requires that they be allowed in proposed single-family homes as well. Third, the draft provisions import several of the requirements from the prior version of Government Code Section 65852.22, such as the requirement for maintaining interior access and the requirement for conversion of an existing bedroom. These requirements have been eliminated from state law and must be removed from the City’s draft ordinance. See AB 68 (Ting) § 2. Under Government Code Section 65852.2(e)(1)(A), a City must allow the development of a JADU that meets the requirements of Government Code Section 65852.22, not a more restrictive local set of JADU requirements.  The JADU provisions also contain ambiguous language about parking, which could be interpreted to prohibit a JADU if it would result in the loss of required parking for the main home, or if the main home is currently underparked. This is not allowed. If the City does not make changes to its draft urgency ordinance, its ADU ordinance will be null and void, in its entirety, and the City will be required to approve ADUs under state law January 13, 2020 Page 3 standards only. The failure to make these changes would also put the City at serious risk of litigation to vindicate the important housing creation rights of its homeowners and the important housing access rights of the potential tenants of unbuilt ADUs. We urge you to delay action so that staff can develop a compliant ADU ordinance. Sincerely, Matthew Gelfand cc: Ed Shikada, City Manager (by email to ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org) Michelle Flaherty, Dep. City Manager (by email to michelle.flaherty@cityofpaloalto.org) Molly S. Stump, City Attorney (by email to city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org) 1 Brettle, Jessica From:L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> Sent:Thursday, January 9, 2020 8:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:support for Priority Development Area downtown CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Honorable City Council:    I write to you on the subject of item #9 on the council's agenda for Monday, January 13, described in  https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74728    I support a resolution establishing a Priority Development Area  (PDA) in the Downtown / University Avenue area.    However, I feel that the boundaries proposed for the PDA should be larger.  The city should be encouraging  development near the walkable downtown area and the Caltrain station even *more*.  Having more development in  this area would allow more people to live where they can walk to the large numbers of businesses along and near  University Avenue and walk to the Caltrain station.  Having more infill development near downtown is good for the  environment since people living there would use less energy for transportation, and have less need to drive and cause  congestion.  Given that such development would generally mean larger buildings (that is, multifamily housing), this also  means using less energy for heating and cooling, and occupying less land, which allows the land that would otherwise be  used for their housing to remain open space.    In particular, I would like to see the PDA expand to (in addition to the area currently proposed) also include something  like all areas east of Alma street that are within the city limits and either within half a mile of either the Caltrain station  or within half a mile of the intersection of University Avenue and Bryant Street.  (The areas within half a mile of University and Bryant are close to the walkable downtown area, and still all within  roughly 3/4 of a mile of the Caltrain station.)    In other words, I would like the boundaries of the PDA to expand so that they include where I live, since I think more  people should have the opportunity to live in the walkable area near downtown as I currently do.    ‐David    ‐‐  L. David Baron  https://dbaron.org/  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Linnea WICKSTROM <ljwickstrom@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, January 10, 2020 4:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:In support of PDAs CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mayor Fine, Vice‐Mayor Dubois, Members of the City Council,    I support the establishment of PDAs at University and at California Avenues. I also urge you to extend a PDA along El  Camino. Let’s enable making spaces, especially for housing.    Sincerely,  Linnea Wickstrom  Monroe Drive  Palo Alto        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Allen Akin <akin@arden.org> Sent:Saturday, January 11, 2020 3:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:2019-01-13, item 9: Downtown Priority Development Area proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    The Staff Report states that "most growth is projected to occur in these areas [PDAs]."  If so, downtown is a poor choice  for a new PDA for a number of reasons.    Downtown does not have, and for economic reasons likely never will have, the largest concentration of jobs in the City.   Greater reductions in VMT and GHG emissions could be achieved by focusing housing and transportation development  closer to the areas with a greater number of jobs (for example, SRP).  PTC's suggestions are relevant here.    Land cost, construction costs, and parcel configuration downtown cause projects built there to be significantly more  expensive than equivalent projects elsewhere in the City.  Downtown housing would be too expensive to improve  average affordability within the City.    We already have a deficit of open space for the current population.  Building "tall" makes this deficit worse by increasing  the ratio of population to open space (even given the debatable classification of rooftops as "open space").  Combining  new dense housing with open space on the same or nearby parcels is economically infeasible downtown, but would be  possible elsewhere.    Increasing density near "transit" is a mistake if the capacity of the transit systems is insufficient to handle the new  population.  Given the anticipated increases in demand for Caltrain, the rather modest increases in service to Palo Alto  envisioned by the current Caltrain business plan, and the limited arterial access to downtown for other transit modes,  this is a significant risk.  Development closer to El Camino, 101, or 280 would allow existing rights‐of‐way to be leveraged  for transition periods and for eventual replacement by new systems.  Again, PTC's suggestions are likely relevant here.    Regards,  Allen Akin  1 Brettle, Jessica From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 13, 2020 2:53 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:January 13, 2020 Council Meeting, Item #9: Priority Conservation Areas CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    January 13, 2020    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      JANUARY 13, 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #9  PRIORITY CONSERVATION AREAS      Dear City Council:    Please consider amending the proposed Resolution designating Priority Conservation Areas in Attachment 9.f to the staff report (ID # 10717) at Packet Pg. 119 by adding a reference in the seventh "WHEREAS" clause to the park dedication Article in the Palo Alto Charter as follows:    WHEREAS, the adoption of a PCA does not change the zoning, comprehensive plan, park dedication pursuant to Palo Alto Charter Article VIII, or other land use designation ... "    Thank your for your consideration of these comments.    Sincerely,    Herb Borock        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Emily Young <emilyjeanyoung@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 8, 2020 4:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:trial adoptions of parking spots for homeless at congregations CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear city council  Please support the proposal to allow a few  congregations to consider designating a few  of their parking spots for  homeless people in transition to permanent housing.    I belong to Etz Chayim.  I know that if you approve this bill then our board will consider this idea more closely.  I  understand that the model being used is the one that was adopted in Mountain View.  I know that the homeless parking  will be overseen by social workers and that our synagogue ( if they choose to participate) would have bathrooms for the  participants.    I know that this program is just a drop in the bucket but it could provide help and relief to a few people.  I have several  friends and acquaintances who are living in cars.  One was a professional piano tuner and a vet.  What a sad situation  that professional people are forced to live in their cars because they cannot afford the high rents around here.  Please support this proposal for a trial period.  Sincerely,  Emily Young   member Etz Chayim , Palo Alto.   ‐‐   Emily Young  402 El Verano Ave  Palo Alto, CA  94306  home: {REDACTED}  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Gmail <david.n6df@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 8, 2020 6:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support overnight parking in congregational parking lots CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Because of the problem of people having to sleep in their vehicles because of the non‐availability of affordable housing, I  urge you to support the proposal before the council to permit limited overnight parking in congregational parking lots.    Sincerely,    David Findley, resident  1802 Edgewood Drive  Palo Alto, CA 94303    Sent from my iPad  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Randi Brenowitz <rsbrenowitz@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 9, 2020 10:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:Safe Overnight Parking CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. A severe lack of housing for working people in our community has forced people to sleep in their  vehicles in unsafe conditions. We support the city’s trial program for overnight safe parking at  congregations linked to social services to move people into permanent housing. I am a resident of Palo Alto and a member of a synagogue located in Palo Alto ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  Randi S. Brenowitz, International Chair  Florence Melton School of Adult Jewish Learning  {REDACTED{}  rsbrenowitz@gmail.com  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sheri Morrison <morrison.sheri@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 9, 2020 11:01 AM To:Council, City Subject:Safe overnight parking proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  As a member of Congregation Etz Chayim in Palo Alto, I strongly support the proposal to provide safe parking spaces at local congregations to assist people living in cars, vans or RVs.     We need to find innovative and effective ways to address the housing crisis for low‐income households. Safe overnight  parking is a proven useful step.    Thank you,  Sheri Morrison  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Solange Tajchman <solangetaj@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 9, 2020 11:33 AM To:Council, City Subject:city's trial program for overnight safe parking at congregations CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am writing this e‐mail in support of the trial program for safe overnight parking at congregations.  It includes two facets that I feel are quite important:  1) access to toilets and sinks: to maintain people's dignity and help keep the city clean  2) access to case management: to help develop strategies that will enable them access to  permanent housing.  A severe lack of housing for working people in our community has forced people to sleep in their  vehicles in unsafe conditions. This trial program would offer them the support they need on both  a short term and long term basis. Although I am a resident of Menlo Park, I am an active member  of Congregation Etz Chayim. It would be an honor to host this program and support members of  the community who cannot afford the exorbitant rent prices in our area.     Sincerely,    Solange Tajchman    1 Brettle, Jessica From:paula rugg <bonnie94306@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, January 9, 2020 1:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:RV Parking - Yes! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Members of City Council, I am a Palo Alto homeowner and member of a local religious congregation. I support the -RV overnight safe parking at congregations- trial program. I urge you to approve this action. Thank you. Paula Rugg 486 Dymond Court Palo Alto 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kim Hunter <khunter@factpoint.com> Sent:Thursday, January 9, 2020 4:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Trial program for overnight safe parking CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members,    A severe lack of housing for working people in our community has forced people to sleep in their  vehicles in unsafe conditions.     We support the city’s trial program for overnight safe parking at congregations linked to social  services to move people into permanent housing.     My husband and I belong to Etz Chayim, which has offered to participate in the program.    Sincerely,    Kim Hunter  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Don Goer <dgoer@intraop.com> Sent:Thursday, January 9, 2020 5:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:Proposal to consider adoption of a trial program to allow congregations to provide safe overnight parking for a limited number of vehicle dwellers in their parking lots. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I would like to express my support and encouragement for the City of Palo Alto to adopt a program allowing a limited  number of vehicles to park overnight in our Congregation’s parking lot.  I am a member of Etz Chayim, a synagogue on  Alma  Street in Palo Alto.    The housing situation makes it difficult for some to afford a home or apartment and forces them to live in their  cars.  Offering our parking lot will provide these homeless people the opportunity to have a safe environment to sleep in  while they look for a more permanent housing solution.  While not a  permanent solution for them, it can be an  important interim step.      I am hoping you will look favorably on establishing such a program.  As a person of faith, I feel it is incumbent upon us to  offer help to those in need.  Our Congregation strongly supports this effort.      Sincerely    Don Goer  Etz Chayim congregant          Donald A. Goer, PhD Adviser, IntraOp P +1 408.636.1020 x101 M +1 408.858.4950 intraop.com | vCard   This message is intended only for the use of the individual to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from  disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the intended message  to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this  communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e‐mail and delete this communication and all attachments from your computer. Thank you.      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Gretchen Wol <gretchen_wol@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, January 9, 2020 8:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:support for allowing overnight parking in congregational parking lots CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  As a member of Etz Chayim I strongly support your allowing a pilot project to allow vehicles to park in congregational parking lots overnight. Kate Lorig 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Stephen Branz <stephen.branz@sjsu.edu> Sent:Thursday, January 9, 2020 8:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:Safe parking proposal for City Council meeting on Jan. 13, 2020 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,    I have become increasingly aware and increasingly concerned about the severe lack of housing for working people in our  community.  The lack of (affordable) has forced people to sleep in their vehicles in unsafe conditions.  I am a resident of  Palo Alto (402 El Verano Ave), and a member of Congregation Etz Chayim.  I strongly support the city’s trial program for  overnight safe parking at congregations linked to social services that will assist moving people, particularly the working  homeless, into permanent housing.  You must be aware of the similar program established in Mountain View, but I  include their website for the record. (See  https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/preservation/safe_parking_program.asp).    Thanks in advance for giving this proposal serious consideration,  Stephen Branz    ‐‐   Stephen E. Branz, Ph.D.  (pronouns: he, him, his)  * Carnegie Math Pathways Administrator Coach (www.carnegiemathpathways.org)  * Professor of Chemistry (emeritus) & (former) Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies  SJSU Contact: Office of Undergraduate Education  San José State University  San José, CA  95192‐0030  e‐mail: stephen.branz@sjsu.edu  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Elisabeth Rubinfien <erubinfien@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 9, 2020 10:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Resident's comment on ordinance for overnight parking (Monday, Jan. 13 agenda) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council,     I am writing to express my support for the trial program to allow local congregations to provide  safe overnight parking in their parking lots for a limited number of people who are living in their  vehicles.  The severe lack of housing for working people in our community has forced some people  to live in unsafe conditions, and this problem must be tackled sooner rather than later.  This is a  small step in a constructive direction.    That said, this program can only serve a handful of people, at best.  The City has the responsibility  to address this on a much larger scale.  If Council members can imagine that this kind of overnight  safe‐parking program could help, why not take responsibility for it as a "city" problem, rather than  just relying on private religious institutions?  The city owns or has ready access to some large  parking lots that are empty at night, without neighbors who might complain ‐‐ for example, the  parking lots at the back of the Cubberly High School campus or the parking lot that faces El  Camino at Paly.  What about the lots around the Main Library or the Art Center? Or, how about  working with local businesses or Stanford ‐‐ the Stanford Shopping Center parking lots, for  example?  Or what about the "reserved" floors of the downtown parking buildings ‐‐ those are  mostly empty at night?    I'm sure each of these presents this or that problem, but if you could come up with 3 ‐ 5 at this  scale, you could make a real dent in the unsafe overnight parking issue. Large parking areas that  could serve several dozen people could be supplied with toilet facilities and even patrolling  guards.  In the meantime, of course, the goal should be to help people into permanent housing,  but that will take much more time.    Please pass this initial ordinance and realize that small congregations will have to navigate  neighbor relations and other concerns, yet they are prepared to take on that challenge. The City  should be able to do as much and more.    Thank you,  Elisabeth Rubinfien  Palo Alto resident   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sara Selis <sara.selis@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, January 9, 2020 11:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:in support of safe parking at churches program CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello city council, I am writing as a member of the Etz Chayim congregation of Palo Alto, regarding the trial program to provide people with a safe place for unhoused people to stay overnight in their cars. A severe lack of housing for working people in our community has forced people to sleep in their vehicles in unsafe conditions. I and fellow members of congregation Etz Chayim support the city’s trial program for overnight safe parking at congregations linked to social services to move people into permanent housing. This is a valuable program and I hope you will expedite its creation and development. Thank you! Sara Selis sara.selis@yahoo.com Sunnyvale resident since 1996 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Lisa Rogers <lisa@stellarfire.com> Sent:Friday, January 10, 2020 10:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support for the safe parking program CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear council members,    As you know, we don't have enough housing for working people in our community, so people sleep in their cars. This is unsafe,  unsanitary, and does nothing to help people get permanent housing. I understand Council is considering a trial program for  overnight safe parking hosted by religious congregations, combined with social services to help people find housing.    I am a member of such a congregation. We are most eager to provide safe parking in our lot, which is not much used at night. I hope  you will approve the program and allow us to help.    Thank you.  Lisa Rogers    ‐‐   lisa@stellarfire.com 650.804.5884    1 Brettle, Jessica From:alice zelkha <azelkha@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, January 10, 2020 12:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:overnight safe parking CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Council Members:    I support the city's trial program  for overnight parking at congregations linked to social services to move people  (hopefully) into permanent housing.  The housing crisis is overwhelming.  I pass more and more people in their cars,  parked on streets.   And in some ways, those are the luckier ones.  In a state with so much, in a country with so much, in  a city where a Tesla is almost the norm, can we not work on helping those less fortunate, down on their luck, ill, and  discouraged find a safe place to be?  I sincerely hope so.    Please put into effect this trial.   Lets see how it works.    Sincerely,    Alice Zelkha  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Natalie Elefant <natalie.elefant@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 10, 2020 4:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for faith communities to offer safe overnight parking for vehicle dwellers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable Council Members, as a member of Congregation Etz Chayim on Alma in Palo Alto, I urge you to  adopt the trial program to allow faith communities to offer safe overnight parking for vehicle dwellers.  Our  congregation would follow all the conditions of the proposed ordinance.  Because of the unaffordable rents on  the Peninsula, cities need to do all they can to help those who cannot afford to pay the existing rents.    Thank you for voting yes on this ordinance.  Natalie Elefant  Los Altos  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sarah Schachter <spschachter@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, January 10, 2020 4:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking Program in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Councils Members,    As a member of Congregation Etz Chayim in Palo Alto,  I support the Safe Parking Program.  There is a   severe lack of housing for working people in our community,  that has forced people to sleep in their  vehicles in unsafe conditions. I am in support of the city’s trial program for overnight safe parking at  congregations linked to social services to move people into permanent housing.   T    Thank you,  Sarah Schachter  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Lissa <cajekaplan@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, January 10, 2020 6:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,     A severe lack of housing for working people in our community has forced people to sleep in their vehicles in unsafe  conditions. We support the city’s trial program for overnight safe parking at congregations linked to social services  to move people into permanent housing.           Sincerely,          Jonathan and Elissa Kaplan         682 Georgia Avenue    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sam Friedman <Sam@pcconsults.com> Sent:Friday, January 10, 2020 6:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for the Safe Parking Proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  We support the city’s trial program for overnight safe parking at congregations linked to social  services to move people into permanent housing.”      Our synagogue, Congregation Etz Chayim at 4161 Alma Street is very interested in being a part of  the trial program.    Thank you.    Regards,    Sam Friedman and Laurie Stein   3360 Cork Oak Way | Palo Alto, California 94303    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Preeva Tramiel <palmpeebs@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 10, 2020 7:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parking for people living in cars CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am a member of Congregation Etz Chayim. A severe lack of housing for working people in our community  has forced people to sleep in their vehicles in unsafe conditions. We support the city’s trial  program for overnight safe parking at congregations linked to social services to move people into  permanent housing.   Thank you.  Preeva Tramiel, Addison Avenue     Sent from my iPhone, be amused by the autocorrect     1 Brettle, Jessica From:Susan Schaps <sschaps@pacbell.net> Sent:Saturday, January 11, 2020 12:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Safe parking program CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,        A severe lack of housing for working people in our community has forced people to sleep in  their vehicles in unsafe conditions. I support the city’s trial program for overnight safe parking  at congregations linked to social services to move people into permanent housing. I have lived  in PA for over 40 years and it makes me so sad to see the horrendous increase in rents that  have led to this situation. Anything we can do to help the homeless live in less harassed  circumstances is the humane thing to do.       Sincerely,       Susan Schaps      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Rabbi Koritzinsky <rabbik@etzchayim.org> Sent:Sunday, January 12, 2020 6:10 AM To:Council, City Subject:Parking proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  As the Rabbi of Congregation Etz Chayim, I fully support my members efforts to find solutions to  the severe lack of housing for working people in our community which is forcing people to sleep in  their vehicles in unsafe conditions. I join them in supporting the city’s trial program for overnight  safe parking at congregations linked to social services to move people into permanent housing.  I  hope that our congregation will be able to be a part of this program.    Rabbi Chaim Koritzinsky   Congregation Etz Chayim, Palo Alto    ‐‐       Rabbi Chaim Koritzinsky  Congregation Etz Chayim  4161 Alma Street  Palo Alto, CA 94306  (650) 813‐9094 x213  www.etzchayim.org  1 Brettle, Jessica From:David Bergen <david.bergen@outlook.com> Sent:Sunday, January 12, 2020 10:19 AM To:Council, City Cc:David Bergen Subject:Safe parking proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,    I am a Palo Alto resident and a member of Congregation Etz Chayim in Palo Alto.     A severe lack of housing for working people in our community has forced people to sleep in their vehicles in unsafe  conditions. I strongly support adoption in Palo Alto of the trial program for overnight safe parking at congregations  linked to social services to move people into permanent housing ‐ one based on successful programs in Mountain View  and elsewhere.     This is a necessary but temporary, “band‐aid” approach to our housing woes, so I strongly urge the Council to provide  more parking for RVs on city‐owned land, as well as to support the building of truly affordable housing in PA aimed  primarily at middle‐class people (teachers, police, utility workers, etc.) who are priced out of the city they work in and  serve.     Thank you,    David Bergen      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Rita Giles <ritalgiles@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 12, 2020 10:36 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Agenda Item 10: Safe Parking Proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I write to you as a member of a Palo Alto congregation supporting the Safe Parking Proposal before you as  item 10 on the January 13, 2020 agenda.     A severe lack of housing for working people in our community has forced people to sleep in their vehicles in  unsafe conditions.  We support the City’s trial program for overnight safe parking at congregations linked to  social services intended to move people into permanent housing.    As a more general matter, the City needs to adopt policies which permit the building of housing for working  families.    Thank you for your consideration.    Rita Giles  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Rhea Feldman <feldman_rhea@cusdk8.org> Sent:Sunday, January 12, 2020 11:31 AM To:Council, City Subject:safe parking proposal at Jan 13 council mtg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council,    I am Palo Alto resident and a member of Congregation Etz Chayim in Palo Alto.    A severe lack of housing for working people in our community has forced people to sleep in their vehicles in unsafe conditions.I support the city’s trial program for overnight safe parking at congregations linked to social services to move people into permanent housing -- one based on successful programs in Mountain View and elsewhere.    This is a necessary but temporary, “band-aid” approach to our housing woes, so I strongly urge the Council to provide more parking for RVs on city-owned land, as well as to support the building of truly affordable housing in PA aimed primarily at middle-class people (teachers, police, utility workers, etc.) who are priced out of the city they work in and serve.     Thank you,  Rhea Feldman      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Charlotte Epstein <ch8r_e@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, January 12, 2020 1:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please support the Safe Parking Program CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Please support the Safe Parking Program so that religious institutions can offer the services described by the program.    Sincerely,    Charlotte Epstein  2192 Waverley St  Palo Alto CA 94301  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Dave <dave5104@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 12, 2020 8:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Comments on Council Agenda: Item #10 on January 13, 2020 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Palo Alto City Council,    Please approve the proposed safe parking program at religious institutions. Although it does not solve the underlying  causes of homelessness, our unhoused neighbors and community members deserve a safe space to sleep. I am grateful  that religious institutions would offer them that space, and the city should let them do that.    Thank you,  Dave Luciano  Midtown Resident  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jim Fox <jimafox@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, January 12, 2020 10:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support Safe Overnight Parking CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council, I urge you to support adoption of an interim ordinance amending our zoning code to allow safe overnight parking on church or religious institution sites. This is an immediately implementable step to ameliorate the housing crisis in our city. Although not a complete solution, it will provide much-needed help to many of our fellows. My support is not that of someone hoping to push a problem onto other neighborhoods; on the contrary, I live in the circles area of south Palo Alto, where there are at least 8 churches and synagogues within a mile or two of my house; thus, passage of this proposal will likely lead to people parking in safe lots near me - and I am fine with that prospect. I believe that all Palo Altans must work together to help solve the housing problems in our city - and urge the Palo Alto City Council to support this zoning change. Sincerely, Jim Fox 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeremy Siegel <jasiegel@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, January 13, 2020 12:25 AM To:Council, City Subject:In support of safe parking CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Although I am not a Palo Alto resident, I am a member of a religious congregation in Palo Alto and believe our  organization should have the opportunity to participate in providing a safe parking location for working people in our  community who need to sleep in their vehicles due to a lack of affordable housing in the area. I urge you to support a  city ordinance to allow a Safe Parking trial program.    Thanks,    —Jeremy Siegel    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kelsey Banes <kelseybanes@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 13, 2020 9:14 AM To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking (Item 10) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine and City Council Members,     I urge you to support the proposed pilot safe parking program for religious institutions. This proposal is extremely  modest, only allowing 4 cars per lot, but provides necessary permission for interested parties to begin providing  services. However, I caution against limiting hours of operation in this and future safe parking ordinances. While limited  hours may serve a select group of high functioning vehicle‐dwellers, such burdensome restrictions will undermine the  city's broader goal of moving vehicle dwellers from city streets to safe lots. Some vehicle dwellers may utilize safe lots to access services and security, but many others will avoid the indignity of moving their vehicles on a daily basis when  street parking allows for 72 hours in the same place. The restriction to vacate during work‐day hours adds stress to  already struggling people's lives. While operators may have limitations (e.g., insurance requirements) that  necessitate such onerous operating hours, these clinically inadvisable restrictions do not belong in city code.    While I support the proposed ordinance, I was alarmed that no outreach was conducted with vehicle dwellers or case  management providers. The population to be served should be an important stakeholder in developing and evaluating a  proposed service. After watching 3 public hearings on safe parking, I have yet to hear any input from vehicle dwellers  who may access the proposed services. The inclusion of vehicle dwellers at public meetings would also help to  communicate to the public why the city is taking this action (the purpose is to help people, not make them invisible).    As someone who has provided case management services to individuals experiencing homelessness, I will underscore  that hours of operation that preclude workday hours are actively unhelpful to the provision of case management.  Typically, case managers meet with clients at their shelter or home, as the client's environment is an important data  point. Case management also requires facilitating contact with public and private agencies that operate within business  hours. Precluding business‐hour operations will prevent case managers from scheduling in‐field appointments during  which they could meet with vehicle dwellers at a given site in succession during business hours.     Finally, I will remind the council that it previously voted to remove provisions to study parking enforcement in  conjunction with safe parking. I was very disappointed to see Council Member Tanaka repeatedly direct staff to study  parking enforcement during the Policy and Services hearings on safe parking. The ordinance proposed tonight will not  result in a meaningful decrease in vehicle dwelling in Palo Alto, as it is a pilot program and will serve a small percentage  of our vehicle dwelling population (please remember that any point‐in‐time count of vehicle dwelling is a significant  underestimation of the actual population!). It is inappropriate to discuss parking enforcement within this context as  parking enforcement can actually exacerbate homelessness by pushing people further into poverty. To illustrate, I  recently met a man in Mountain View who reported that he had to sell his RV due to parking tickets and is now living in  a small vehicle. Mountain View City Council currently has a homeless‐hostile majority: please do not use the city as a  model for how to provide services to vulnerable people.    Thank you,  Kelsey Banes, Ph.D.        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ann Margulies <marfam@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, January 13, 2020 10:03 AM To:Council, City Subject:Homeless Issue CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Palo Alto City Council:     A severe lack of housing for working people in our community has forced people to sleep in their vehicles in unsafe  conditions. We support the city’s trial program for overnight safe parking at congregations linked to social services to  move people into permanent housing.    Sincerely, Ann Margulies‐ member of Congregation Etz Chayim   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Cybele LoVuolo-Bhushan <cybele88lb@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 13, 2020 10:49 AM To:Council, City Subject:RV Parking Agenda item CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,      I understand you have the RV parking plans on your meeting Agenda tonight. It is wonderful that the churches in our city  have step up to the plate to assist us with the thorny issue related to R.V    parking. I urge you to cooperate with the churches and issue the permit, post haste. This untenable situation of ignoring  those who haven't the outsized resources required to live in our community.     I would like a reply to this message on the following question:   Why is the plan only to institute the safe parking program going to be for 3 months only. Setting up the program is time  consuming and to abruptly end it prematurely seems counterproductive.    Thank you for your attention.    Sincerely, Cybele LoVuolo‐Bhushan  3838 Mumford Pl, Palo Alto, CA 94306        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Elizabeth Ratner <eratner@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, January 13, 2020 11:14 AM To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking Proposal, item 10, January 13 council meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council members, A severe shortage of housing for working households in our community has caused people to sleep in their vehicles at night in unsafe conditions. I support the trial safe parking program which would let up to 4 vehicles stay overnight in parking lots of religious institutions and through connections to social service agencies, help vehicle dwellers find permanent housing. I live in south Palo Alto, in a neighborhood which has religious institutions which may apply for a permit under this program. I urge the council to quickly work on the tier 2 and tier 3 safe parking proposals which would include large private lot owners and city-owned land. The safe parking program is a temporary fix for a larger problem, The city needs to adopt policies which will produce permanently affordable housing for working people--including the middle class (teachers, first responders, nurses, etc ). Other communities have used community land trusts and co-ops to provide permanently affordable housing for the working population not served by market rate developers. The number of homes produced by our inclusionary ordinance is so small as to barely address the problem. Please make production of housing for working people in our community a priority this year. Thank you. Lisa Ratner 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tom DuBois <tomforcouncil@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 13, 2020 11:43 AM To:Elizabeth Ratner Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Safe Parking Proposal, item 10, January 13 council meeting Thanks Elizabeth,    Appreciate your comments ‐ please come tonight and insist that we get on to Tier 2 and 3 quickly.      On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:14 AM Elizabeth Ratner <eratner@pacbell.net> wrote:  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council members, A severe shortage of housing for working households in our community has caused people to sleep in their vehicles at night in unsafe conditions. I support the trial safe parking program which would let up to 4 vehicles stay overnight in parking lots of religious institutions and through connections to social service agencies, help vehicle dwellers find permanent housing. I live in south Palo Alto, in a neighborhood which has religious institutions which may apply for a permit under this program. I urge the council to quickly work on the tier 2 and tier 3 safe parking proposals which would include large private lot owners and city-owned land. The safe parking program is a temporary fix for a larger problem, The city needs to adopt policies which will produce permanently affordable housing for working people--including the middle class (teachers, first responders, nurses, etc ). Other communities have used community land trusts and co-ops to provide permanently affordable housing for the working population not served by market rate developers. The number of homes produced by our inclusionary ordinance is so small as to barely address the problem. Please make production of housing for working people in our community a priority this year. Thank you. Lisa Ratner 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Angie Evans <angiebevans@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 13, 2020 12:32 PM To:Council, City; Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; Kniss, Liz (internal); Tanaka, Greg; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal) Subject:Housing on the Agenda Tonight CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine and Palo Alto Council Members,     I'm writing to support housing on this week's agenda. First, I want to encourage you to support the designation of  downtown Palo Alto and along El Camino as a PDA. I think Palo Alto residents are supportive of strategies that  incentivize housing in strategic places and this provides a great outline for that. Building in transit rich areas, like  downtown Palo Alto are exactly how we can align our climate change and housing goals. I think the extension of the PDA  along El Camino is also a smart and forward thinking decision. Many transit advocates would argue that prioritizing  housing along bus routes meets the needs of seniors and lower income community members ‐ aligning our equity and  housing goals. That said, I want to point out that my support for the PDA designation in downtown and along El Camino  is as a priority area ‐ not as the only option. We still urgently need to build housing throughout every neighborhood in  our city. For example, south Palo Alto has a growing community of seniors who would love to stay in their neighborhood  as they age out of the homes they raised their children in. We need to ensure that we're building apartments for them  too.     We also cannot meet our affordable housing goals without allocating the funds needed to complete the construction of  these homes. Wilton Court is an incredible opportunity for Palo Alto to have an inclusive housing development for  people with developmental disabilities. The city and our residents supported this proposal when it was approved, I hope  we will support it financially by allocating funding for it.      I also want to urge the City Council to support RV dwellers and our religious institutions coming together for safe  parking. Allowing for overnight parking is just one way we can provide dignity and safety to our community members  living in RV's. In organizing we have a saying, "There is the world as it is and the world as it should be." There is no doubt  that people are living in RVs throughout Palo Alto. How we respond to this will show other cities the character that I  think is representative of Palo Alto. We still need to build more homes to ensure that everyone has the option for stable,  affordable housing but safe parking is a great first step in making everyone more comfortable.     Last but not least, I want to continue to support a pilot for childcare at community meetings. I would have loved to  attend tonight rather than write‐in.     Please let me know if any additional information around any of these topics would be helpful.     Best,   Angie Evans  Crescent Park resident     1 Brettle, Jessica From:IdaRose Sylvester <idarose@siliconvalleylink.com> Sent:Monday, January 13, 2020 2:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:In support of a stronger safe parking program CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth and Councilmembers,    Please pass a stronger safe parking program tonight.    Through my work on Mountain View's Human Relations Commission, in our safe parking subcommittee, and  through Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning, which leads a resident‐driven program to identify  safe parking lots, I have experienced first hand the challenges of addressing the needs of both vehicle dwellers  and other community members.    First, please extend your pilot program past 90 days. Since safe parking is a relatively new concept around the  country, and each city has unique needs, these programs take longer to bring up than might be expected.  Identifying lots, working with lot owners and operators on logistics, working on public outreach to neighbors‐‐ and vehicle dwellers‐‐takes a lot of time and program adjustments.    Second, please don't sunset safe parking. Until we have completely addressed our housing crisis, we need to  provide safe parking.     Third, please allow private lot owners to provide safe parking. Many private lot owners will have lots of the  right size and right use, and be in better locations, than religious institutions.    Fourth, please keep working on creating a program that allows more than 4 vehicles, and supports large  vehicles. Larger communities have better economies of scale, and a strong sense of community, which  protects and supports the lot. And large vehicle dwellers need support, too, and are a big concern to the  community. Large vehicles often house families, and especially need your support.    I'm happy to discuss the work I've been involved with in Mountain View, and see if our HRCs and private  organizations can collaborate in supporting solutions for all.     Best,  IdaRose Sylvester    1 Brettle, Jessica From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 13, 2020 2:27 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:January 13, 2020 Council Meeting, Item #10: Vehicle Habitation on Church Parking Lots CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    January 13, 2020    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      JANUARY 13, 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #10  VEHICLE HABITATION ON CHRUCH PARKING LOTS      Dear City Council:    This proposed ordinance reverses the conditions of approval opf the successful Hotel de Zink rotating shelter program and moves a token number of vehicle dwellers from the public right-of-way to continue to live in their vehicles while being imbedded in residential neighborhoods where they will border the private back yard and side yard space of neighbors who are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their property, while the program has no effective means of ensuring the neighbors peace and quiet.    The Hotel de Zink program limits its hours of operation from 9:00 pm to 7:00 am and requires guests, including those who have vehicles, to reside during those hours inside the building that houses the rotating shelter program, because there is no effective way to monitor the behavior of the program's guests if they continue to live outside of the building.    The staff report for this proposed ordinance (ID # 10789) makes the meaningless statement that any behavioral problems would be a priority of the City's Code Enforcement Officers when the author of the staff report and those who reviewed and approved the staff report know that the Code Enforcement Officers do not work during the hours that the program is proposed to operate.    The Committee discussion included the promise of a capable staff person hired by the program operator or church to monitor the behavior of the 2 vehicle dwellers, but the proposal presented to you replaces that idea with a complaint process that would not be effective when there is no one available during the hours of operation to investigate any complaints.    When Supervisor Simitian visited the Council recently, he indicated that the vehicle dwellers would be at the back of the church property where they would as far as possible from the church property and any evening activities in church buildings, while the vehicle dwellers would be as close as possible to the neighboring residential properties.    This program appears to be motivated by the availability of funding that religious organizations can receive for the use of their properties, rather than by their wish to do good deeds. If the program was motivated by good deeds, then each church in the program would be enthusiastic about having four vehicle dwellers living as close to the church buildings as possible so that their congregation and participants in church evening activities could witness the good deed the church is doing.    Please see the following articles for more information:    Mountain View Voice January 10, 2020 article “Safe parking sites delayed by insurance snafu” By Mark Noack on pages 5 and 7 at https://www.mv- voice.com/morguepdf/2020/2020_01_10.mvv.section1.pdf. Daily Post January 10, 2020 article “RV parking idea headed to City Council” by Sara Tabin. Daily Post December 27, 2019 article “RV parking lots appear ready but are locked up” by Sonya Herrera. Mountain View Voice December 27, 2019 article “Vehicle dwellers leery of safe parking program” by Mark Noack on pages 5 and 7 at https://www.mv- voice.com/morguepdf/2019/2019_12_27.mvv.section1.pdf. LifeMoves Spring 2019 newsletter GoodMoves articles “LifeMoves Safe Parking for Families Opens” at https://lifemoves.org/newsletter/spring- 2019-newsletter/lifemoves-safe-parking-for-families-opens/ and LifeMoves Safe Parking for Families Program Provides Innovative Solution to Homelessness” at https://lifemoves.org/newsletter/spring-2019- newsletter/lifemoves-safe-parking-for-families-opens/. The Daily News January 10, 2020 article “RV parking expansion delayed after insurer pulls out”. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Herb Borock       1 Brettle, Jessica From:Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net> Sent:Monday, January 13, 2020 3:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Overnight Safe Parking Sites - Agenda Item #10 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  From: Winter Dellenbach  Barron Park, Palo Alto      Council Members ‐     Due to a cold, I cannot comment in person, thus this last minute email to you.      I generally support adoption of this ordinance and hope you do too.     That said, I see this as supplementary to what I hope we will work toward ‐ a single larger site allowing economy of scale that  would serve more households than four here and there. As you recently heard from Supervisor Joe Simitian, he is willing to  find funds for such a use at a site that the city designates. I urge you to not stop with this ordinance before you tonight but to  augment it with a larger area that offers space for more people.     Regarding this proposed ordinance, a couple of comments:     1. It is a needless pandora’s box to notify people within 600 feet of a proposed host site. I think 600 feet, as proposed here, is  either 25% or 50% more feet than the city currently uses to calculate who to notify about a proposed project or tree removal  or whatever so they may comment if they want.  a. 600 feet causes more work for staff to figure out who to send more notifications to, then do so.   b. 600 feet causes potential delay in services because people notified, even if living on the far side of the block 599 feet away,  can Appeal to the city to stop the religious entity     from being approved as a host, delaying cancelling services.     Recommendation: Change the draft ordinance so as to use the same requirements that we use in other circumstances for  Notice and Appeal. Otherwise, our city sends the irrational message that its perfectly reasonable to potentially delay a  religious group from providing more safety for the night to a few low income people. Having a home just shouldn’t come with  the ability to get elected officials in Palo Alto to stigmatize the poor by extending Notice and the ability to Appeal.                       1 Brettle, Jessica From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Sunday, January 12, 2020 12:03 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed Subject:Some ideas for our 2020 housing work pLAN CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. from a mayor and city serious about making housing easier and less expensive to build. We adopted some proposals in 2019. It is time in 2020 to take some next steps. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/01/12/opinion-liccardo-housing/ 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, January 10, 2020 4:31 PM To:Council, City; UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external) Subject:2020: Year of Decision CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Council members and UAC commissioners, Please take a moment to read this inspiring article by Michael J. Copps, former FCC commissioner. It's not specifically about municipal FTTP, or even FTTP. But it is about "nourishing the roots of self-government." Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- ############################################################################################ https://www.benton.org/blog/2020-year- decision?utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletters&mc_cid=4e4e63432d&mc_eid=99443 c82f8 Monday, January 6, 2020 Digital Beat 2020: Year of Decision Michael J. Copps I’m glad that one’s over! What a year 2019 was. For twelve long months, we witnessed one pillar after another being ripped from under the institutions that support our democracy. We saw giant steps backward on communications, media, health, education, environment, voting rights, court appointments, money in politics, equal opportunity, women’s rights, labor rights… the list goes on and on. While much of our national regression can be traced to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, many others are complicit in the damage that has been, and continues to be, inflicted: a dysfunctional U.S. Senate; courts rapidly retreating to nineteenth-century jurisprudence; federal agencies self-immolating; too many statehouses, even local governments, falling under special interest capture. Making a perilous situation even worse is a sadly diminished media too often fixated on sensational video clips, “if it bleeds, it leads” local and national news, twitter feeds and twitter feuds, horse race elections coverage, and reality show politics—all driven by dominant corporate business plans that ravage real news and prioritize quarterly profits over the obligation to inform the citizens on whom successful self-government depends. It works for the big guys; for the rest of us, not so much. Communications is my beat, so herewith a brief recap. Merger mania continued its frenetic pace in 2019. Disney-Fox, Comcast-Sky, Gannet-GateHouse, Sprint-T-Mobile, CBS-Viacom, and Nexstar-Tribune are just some of many telecom and media mergers that further consolidate big corporate control over our media and telecom systems. In many cases, the Federal Communications Commission’s deregulatory actions and its willingness (along with the Department of Justice) to rubber-stamp mergers have spurred the race to consolidation. Last year at this time, industry “analysts” told us 2 the consolidation pace would slow in 2019. It didn’t. Guess what they’re saying now: the pace will slow in 2020. I’ve been listening to this tune since I was sworn in as a commissioner at the FCC in 2001. The song never changes; the mergers never slow. Broadband? We (the FCC or anybody else) don’t have a clue about the penetration of broadband throughout the nation. That’s because it hasn’t been adequately mapped, and the FCC has been relying on industry-produced “maps” that are utterly misleading. For example, if one census block has just a single subscriber, companies have been claiming the whole area is therefore covered! Even Congress is appalled and is trying to fix the mapping problem. Accurate maps would clearly demonstrate that a significant portion of the country lacks access to high-speed broadband. And households fortunate enough to have access often have only one provider available, so forget about competition on pricing and services. On top of that, even our definition of high-speed broadband (25Mbps down, 3 Mbps up!) is vastly outdated. Is it any wonder that the U.S., where the technology was invented, is still far down the list of countries that have deployed broadband with the priority and urgency it needs? Tell me, please, how anyone can be a full participant in our economy and our country if she lacks access to the internet that has become so central to everything we do, from getting a job, to educating ourselves and our children, to caring for our health, to managing our households, to slowing the deterioration of the environment, and to sharing our views and being able to organize with others for a better future. This is why I have long been calling access to high-speed broadband a civil right. I call it that because it is. Now the big telecoms are blowing their trumpets about 5G. That’s the really advanced technology that will one day, hopefully, fuel the internet of things and bring us a host of new services. But that day is a long way off and will demand huge infrastructure investments if it is ever to expand beyond the few stadiums and truncated locales that actually have 5G now. A nation covered by 5G is way beyond America’s headlights today. Infinitely more cell towers packed infinitely close together will be required all across America to handle the increased bandwidth of 5G, and getting them and the other necessary infrastructure built, especially in rural America, will be a truly mammoth and time-consuming challenge. Meanwhile, the FCC continues to lack a clear vision and strategy to meet the challenges of deploying 5G nationwide. So think more in terms of perhaps decades for this to happen, not just a few years. After all, it’s taken us nearly a quarter of a century to get the decidedly mediocre broadband penetration we have now. Yet the big telecom companies are advertising on TV and in just about every newspaper about how they are spreading 5G across the land at warp speed. Nonsense. Given the shortfall in the availability of current broadband and 4G/LTE services, leaving many areas without fiber or wireless connectivity, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to complete that job before hyping something so much farther down the road? The companies, the FCC, and the media are all guilty parties in this. Stay tuned because I’m certain we’ll be seeing ads for “6G” before long. Moving beyond my 5G digression (which I had to get off my chest), let’s return now to the bigger picture. More daunting than all the specific examples of 2019 shortfalls (and there are many more that could be cited) has been the degradation of our democracy and the near-collapse of the kind of informed civic dialogue that is absolutely essential to successful self-government. Government by taunt and twitter, the encouragement of polarization and even hate, media’s widespread failure to cover in-depth the real issues America confronts bear bad tidings for the future—unless we face up to that future in 2020. It is nuts-and-bolts time for democracy. It is not just time to demand more; it is time to organize and work for the concrete realization of these demands. Breaking the stranglehold of big money and the special interests, making sure every citizen can vote, dismantling gerrymandered electoral districts, providing us all with the fact-based news and information democracy requires, working for consensus instead of conflict will not somehow just happen. These things will never come as gifts to the people from their “leaders” in Washington, DC. They will come because we—you and I—work to make them happen. Voting is, of course, the first step in democracy reform. But getting meaningful positive change requires so much more. Citizen involvement, working together, demanding to be informed, organizing on the issues, getting commitments from candidates, and then holding them accountable, is more demanding. Yet it is the price of democracy. Will we pay that price? We are paying dearly now for things that disserve our country, so maybe nourishing the roots of self-government isn’t such a heavy price to pay after all. This is the year of decision. We have the opportunity now in 2020 to put America on course to what it can and should be. Let’s seize the opportunity—while we still have it. ________________________________ Michael Copps served as a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission from May 2001 to December 2011 and was the FCC's Acting Chairman from January to June 2009. His years at the Commission have been highlighted by his strong defense of "the public interest"; outreach to what he calls "non-traditional stakeholders" in the decisions of the FCC, particularly minorities, Native Americans and the various disabilities communities; and actions to stem the tide of what he regards as excessive consolidation in the nation's media and telecommunications industries. In 2012, former Commissioner Copps joined Common Cause to lead its Media and Democracy Reform Initiative. Common Cause is a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy organization founded in 1970 by John Gardner as a vehicle for citizens to 3 make their voices heard in the political process and to hold their elected leaders accountable to the public interest. Learn more about Commissioner Copps in The Media Democracy Agenda: The Strategy and Legacy of FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps 1 Brettle, Jessica From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Wednesday, January 8, 2020 4:36 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Nose, Kiely; Guagliardo, Steven; Flaherty, Michelle; Paras, Christine Subject:Business Tax Issues Attachments:Buseness Tax Issues.doc CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. 1 CENTER FOR CONTINUING STUDY OF THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMY 385 HOMER AVENUE • PALO ALTO • CALIFORNIA • 94301 TELEPHONE: (650) 321-8550 FAX: (650) 321-5451 www.ccsce.com DATE: January 8, 2020 TO: City Council and Finance Committee FROM: Stephen Levy SUBJECT: Business Tax Issues This memo covers four issues: --other business tax measures on the Nov 2020 ballot --the details of obtaining an employer list and tax basis data --competitiveness issues --the need to resolve exemptions, tiering and rates Other Business Tax Issues on the Ballot There could be at least four tax proposals that have a business component in November. --A PA business tax --the split roll initiative focused on large commercial properties --the FASTER regional transportation sales tax -- A regional housing authority funding measure. When CASA discussed this it included (possibly) a head count tax, an impact fee on new development and funding from residents and philanthropy. --a CalTrain sales tax (though this could be included in FASTER). Suggestions: --have staff estimate the tax revenue to the city from the split roll initiative --have the polling consultant consider including a question testing responses when voters know there will be several taxes on the ballot--To avoid surprises when we are pretty sure there will be other business taxes. Details in Getting the Basic Data Other cities have compiled lists of organizations subject to tax and collected head count or square footage data. We do not know how they did this specifically or how long it took or any difficulties encountered. 2 Suggestion: Ask the consultant to call each city and find out exactly how they accomplished these tasks. A general list of what they might have done is not sufficient. I know that EDD will not provide entity data so I assume cities called for head count. Let’s find out the response rate and whether they asked for or got head count at the site or just employees. For EDD organizations report employees. Contract workers are reported by the contracting agencies. Ideally we want to know the count of who works there, whether technically an employee or not. Now that staff has said that for square footage they want to tax the employer not the property owner, I see some challenges with the square footage approach. One is that the city is now advocating for identifying employers and taxing them not the property owners. And for mixed occupancy buildings like mine, you lose the common area in this approach. Competiveness Issues There are at least two issues here: --who are the appropriate comparable/competitive cities --what is the current PA “business climate” On the second issue I am not an expert but I see and hear a lot that PA is no longer the “gotta be there” place. On my daily walks downtown (every day I am here since 1969, I now see a ton of vacancies—many lasting a really long time. In the office condos in our building and in my office there are vacancies going on six months where there was never one lasting even a month. I am told that HP and Palantir have reduced staff and Criteo closed their Lytton office, I hear that the research park has above average vacancies. Suggestion: Get some credible information in support of or contradiction. I notice that Mayor Fine mentioned this on Monday as a concern. Re comparable cities 3 1) For all of the cities studied except SF, PA would have to adopt business tax rates far above their rates to get much above $4 million in annual revenue, 2) As a professional, I think SJ (which has not been extensively studied though the region’s largest city) and cities to our south are our competition. When these two competitiveness issues are combined, it says to me that further analysis of possible competitiveness challenges is warranted. Can the Council Make Decisions on Exemptions, Etc? Suggestions: Eliminate small employers to save on administrative time and cost. Very little funding is lost by doing this. Decide on exemptions. To me it is time to move toward more concrete revenue estimates. Council has made some preliminary comments on discretionary exemptions for retail, restaurants and hotels. Decide on tiering. If small employers are exempt, it may be easier to adopt a flat rate. Still, council should consider whether the rate on a 25-50 employer should be the same as for employers with 500 or 1,000= head count. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Lorie Langdon <lorie.langdon@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 14, 2020 8:04 AM To:Council, City Cc:Simon Gleyzer Subject:Re: CALL TO ACTION for San Alma Residents CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council,    I am writing to request a follow‐up to our request for action and information on the RVs parking along San Antonio Road  at Alma Street in Palo Alto.    Here is a photo I took the morning of Sunday January 12.          In December a City Community Service officer notified the RV dwellers that they needed to move their vehicles.  Some  did.  However, our long‐term 'resident' in the RV closest to Alma Street never moved at all!  (His is the one farthest in  this photo.)     In addition to notifying the RVs, could the City please follow‐up and return to cite those who have not moved?    Also, we were told the City would be installing no overnight parking signs.  Is there a date set for this?    Thank you for your consideration and attention,    Lorie Langdon  4262 Ponce Dr  2     On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 8:35 AM Lorie Langdon <lorie.langdon@gmail.com> wrote:     Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I am a member of the San Alma Home Owner’s Association in Palo Alto. Our community presented a petition (appended below) to the Council on Monday, November 18, 2019. I am writing to show my support of their petition for the City to enforce the Municipal Code 10.36.030 that mandates all parked vehicles move every 72 hours and install “No overnight parking signs” along San Antonio between Alma Street and Briarwood Way. Photo of San Antonio with RVs below taken November 30, 2019. Please keep me informed of any updates regarding this issue. Sincerely, Lorie Langdon 4262 Ponce Drive Palo Alto   November 14th, 2019 To: Palo Alto City Manager and Council From: Residents of San Alma HOA and neighbors 3 Petition We, the 75+ residents of the San Alma HOA and surrounding neighborhoods, are submitting this petition to request that the City of Palo Alto:  Enforce Municipal Code 10.36.030 that mandates all parked vehicles move every 72 hours;  Install “No RV Parking” signs along San Antonio Ave between Alma St and Briarwood Way;  Extend the “No Parking From Here to Corner” zone along the west side of San Antonio Ave between Alma St and Ponce Dr to improve sight lines, and refresh red-color curbs and install additional signs;  Create bike lanes on both sides of the San Antonio Ave between Alma St and Briarwood Way to improve bike and pedestrian safety;  Consider installing “No Parking” signs on designated days and times of the week, to allow a sweeping vehicle to clean pavement and remove trash from both sides of San Antonio Ave. In the last few years the short stretch of San Antonio Ave between Alma St and Briarwood Way has experienced a sharp increase in traffic, littering, and illegal dumping including human waste. The increase in commuter traffic, parking for the train station, ‘Waymo’ car tests, heavy construction trucks, and special equipment have all contributed to these conditions. This entire stretch of San Antonio Ave is always full of RVs and cars used as sleeping accommodations; there are frequently abandoned vehicles as well, and often used for storage of construction equipment. The oversized vehicles parked along this street block visibility when exiting Ponce Drive, especially concerning because this stretch of San Antonio Ave is very busy with bicyclists and pedestrians traveling to and from the Caltrain station. It is currently very hazardous for bicycles and pedestrians: bicyclists are forced onto the sidewalk for safety, jeopardizing the pedestrians and creating hazardous driving conditions for vehicles. We have also observed that the fire hydrant is blocked which causes even more of a safety concern for the residents in the area. It has been often observed that frequent lack of parking provokes fire hydrant blocking violations that is once more an extreme hazard jeopardizing safety of San Alma community. There is a large amount of trash along both sides of San Antonio Ave because the individuals residing in RVs leave bagged trash directly on the street or in nearby areas. The area on the east side of San Antonio Ave is used as a bathroom and human fecal matter and other trash has been observed; the residents of the homes behind these walls have complained of strong human waste odors often coming from San Antonio Ave. The parked RVs and other vehicles prevent the sweeping truck from cleaning the streets. All of these bio-hazardous conditions are creating an area that is unsanitary and unsafe for the community in general and for the quality of life of our residents in particular. When the weather gets colder, the RVs and other vehicles that are used as living accommodations run generators for heat, which pollutes the air and creates loud sounds which violate city noise ordinances. 4 This has been a problem for our community for several years, and many of our residents have filed numerous reports. Despite our efforts, there are several RVs that are here many days and weeks with no discernible movement. One particular RV has been parking here for over three years. This lack of enforcement has attracted more RVs and cars that are used as residences. We ask for code enforcement and “No Overnight Parking” signs placement for safety, security and sanitation reasons. Our Residents require a safe and sanitary neighborhood to be maintained for all. Moreover, we urge the Palo Alto City Council to adopt an ordinance prohibiting overnight parking of RVs, trailers, oversized vehicles, and special equipment within at least 100 feet from any residential property line. We understand that many individuals and their families have circumstances causing them to reside in RV’s and other vehicles. While we empathize with these individuals, we request the City of Palo Alto take immediate actions to protect our residents by enforcing the municipal codes and increasing signage. We are aware of measures taken by the City in other locations, and we request the same consideration from the City. Respectfully submitted on behalf of the residents of the San Alma HOA and surrounding neighborhood. Simon Gleyzer, President of San Alma HOA SGleyzer 4214 Ponce Dr. Palo Alto, CA 94306 qasimon@gmail.com 650.224.6979   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Friday, January 10, 2020 12:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Why Companies are Leaving CA CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Why companies are leaving California for other states     To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In Why companies are leaving California for other states Charles Schwab is moving its headquarters from California to Texas. Joel Kotkin, Chapman University, joins 'The ...      1 Brettle, Jessica From:g kerber <hdtreading@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, January 11, 2020 5:50 PM To:Raschke, Matt; Eggleston, Brad; Shikada, Ed; w. kerber; Council, City; City Mgr Subject:construction hours CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mr. Raschke I contacted the palo alto police dept. today, jan. 11,2020, at aprox. 650 am to report construction taking place at 350 sherman ave. When i called the papd in the afternoon at about 400 pm i spoke with a watch commander and asked her if she could locate an exemption permit. She said she would look at the book where these are kept and that she would call me back. When she returned my call she said she could not see an exemption permit and that she would try to get out to the site to talk with whoever was in charge. I will try to contact her again later tonight to see if she was able to contact anyone at 350 sherman. I would appreciate it if you could explain to me why the work at 350 sherman started before 7am and why the papd seems to be unable to locate an exemption permit which they should have because they are responsible for enforcing the construction hours ordinance. This is not the first time that this has happened and the construction hours ordinance appears to be very laxly enforced because work at 350 sherman begins before 800 am routinely. On Dec. 30, 2019 i was awakened at aprox. 400 am by what appeared to be a delivery to the site. I would like to obtain a copy of tthe exemption permit for work on dec. 30. I have sent tthis email to all the parties listed because this has been a both a private and public nuisance since the work began earlier this year. I would refer you to sect. 3479 and 3480 of the calif. civil code regarding nuisances. greg keber 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, January 9, 2020 7:09 PM To:Council, City Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external) Subject:when Council agendas should be posted by CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  The agenda for Council's 01-13-20 meeting https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=70884.53&BlobID=74721 was posted on the City's website late afternoon on 01-09-20. http://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council/default.asp (I accessed it at about 5:00 pm on 01-09-20.) I have the impression that Council policy is that agenda for a regular Council meeting is posted online at least eleven days before the meeting. (See below the "######" line for further details.) The 01-13-20 agenda was posted only about four days (97 hours) before the meeting. The agenda for Council's 01-21-20 meeting (which is on a Tuesday, so it's a special meeting) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=44742.19&BlobID=74722 hasn't been posted yet. When should that be posted by? Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- ############################################################################################# This 11-13-18 staff report to the Policy & Services Committee, "Review Council Procedures and Protocols" (162 pages) says (at PDF page 13) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67638 A. Regular Meetings are conducted at City Hall on the first three Monday nights of each month, except during the Council’s annual vacation. The meetings will are scheduled to begin at 76:00 p.m. Regular meeting agendas must be posted in the City Plaza by the elevators no later than 7:00 p.m. on the preceding Friday on the preceding Fridayng as required by the Brown Act. It is City policy to make every effort to complete and distribute the agenda and related reports by the preceding WednesdayThursday, eleven days prior to the meeting. For major complex projects and policies, the City will make every effort to distribute these reports two weeks prior to the meeting when the item will be considered. I have the impression that this mark-up was never brought to Council for approval. This 12-10-19 staff report to the Policy & Services Committee, "Council Procedures and Proocols" (62 pages) says https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=61886.3&BlobID=74342 2 A. Regular Meetings are conducted at City Hall on the first three Monday nights of each month, except during the Council’s annual vacationsummer and winter recesses. The meetings will are scheduled to begin at 76:00 p.m. Regular Under the Brown Act, regular meeting agendas must be posted in the City Plaza by the elevators no later than 7:00 p.m. onno later than the preceding Friday immediately preceding the meeting on the preceding Fridayng as required by the Brown Act. It is City policy to make every effort to complete and distributepost the agenda and related reports by the preceding Wednesday on Thursday, eleven days prior to the meeting. For major complex projects and policies, the City will make every effort to distribute these reports two weeks prior to the meeting when the item will be considered. (Sorry, I can't do cross-outs and underlining in my computing environment, so I'll highlight cross-outs in red, new stuff in yellow, and stuff I think is erroneous in green.) So, I think the intent of the 12-10-19 mark-up is to say: A. Regular Meetings are conducted at City Hall on the first three Monday nights of each month, except during the Council’s annual summer and winter recesses. The meetings are scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m. Under the Brown Act, regular meeting agendas must be posted no later than the Friday immediately preceding the meeting. It is City policy to make every effort to post the agenda on Thursday, eleven days prior to the meeting. COMMENTS: * The 12-10-19 mark-up doesn't say what should happen regarding posting agendas if the meeting is a special meeting, e.g., if it's on a Tuesday, or if it's on a Monday but it starts at 5:00 pm. * The mark-up doesn't say what time of day on Thursday the agenda should be posted by. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 14, 2020 4:40 PM To:Council, City Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Shikada, Ed; Minor, Beth Subject:Part 2 -- when Council agendas should be posted by CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Council members, The agenda for Council's special 01-21-20 meeting has still not been posted, as of this afternoon -- 7 days before the meeting. http://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council/default.asp Maybe Council's Procedures & Protocols document should: * Define a "special-but-not-emergency" meeting as a special meeting (in the Brown Act sense) that is like a regular meeting except that the date and/or time is different. * Say that for special-but-not-emergency meetings, as for regular meetings, the agenda will be posted at least 11 days before the meeting (perhaps with fine print exceptions). Thanks. Jeff ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> To: City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020, 07:09:14 PM PST Subject: when Council agendas should be posted by The agenda for Council's 01-13-20 meeting https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=70884.53&BlobID=74721 was posted on the City's website late afternoon on 01-09-20. http://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council/default.asp (I accessed it at about 5:00 pm on 01-09-20.) I have the impression that Council policy is that agenda for a regular Council meeting is posted online at least eleven days before the meeting. (See below the "######" line for further details.) The 01-13-20 agenda was posted only about four days (97 hours) before the meeting. The agenda for Council's 01-21-20 meeting (which is on a Tuesday, so it's a special meeting) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=44742.19&BlobID=74722 hasn't been posted yet. When should that be posted by? Thanks. Jeff 2 ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- ############################################################################################# This 11-13-18 staff report to the Policy & Services Committee, "Review Council Procedures and Protocols" (162 pages) says (at PDF page 13) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67638 A. Regular Meetings are conducted at City Hall on the first three Monday nights of each month, except during the Council’s annual vacation. The meetings will are scheduled to begin at 76:00 p.m. Regular meeting agendas must be posted in the City Plaza by the elevators no later than 7:00 p.m. on the preceding Friday on the preceding Fridayng as required by the Brown Act. It is City policy to make every effort to complete and distribute the agenda and related reports by the preceding WednesdayThursday, eleven days prior to the meeting. For major complex projects and policies, the City will make every effort to distribute these reports two weeks prior to the meeting when the item will be considered. I have the impression that this mark-up was never brought to Council for approval. This 12-10-19 staff report to the Policy & Services Committee, "Council Procedures and Proocols" (62 pages) says https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=61886.3&BlobID=74342 A. Regular Meetings are conducted at City Hall on the first three Monday nights of each month, except during the Council’s annual vacationsummer and winter recesses. The meetings will are scheduled to begin at 76:00 p.m. Regular Under the Brown Act, regular meeting agendas must be posted in the City Plaza by the elevators no later than 7:00 p.m. onno later than the preceding Friday immediately preceding the meeting on the preceding Fridayng as required by the Brown Act. It is City policy to make every effort to complete and distributepost the agenda and related reports by the preceding Wednesday on Thursday, eleven days prior to the meeting. For major complex projects and policies, the City will make every effort to distribute these reports two weeks prior to the meeting when the item will be considered. (Sorry, I can't do cross-outs and underlining in my computing environment, so I'll highlight cross-outs in red, new stuff in yellow, and stuff I think is erroneous in green.) So, I think the intent of the 12-10-19 mark-up is to say: A. Regular Meetings are conducted at City Hall on the first three Monday nights of each month, except during the Council’s annual summer and winter recesses. The meetings are scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m. Under the Brown Act, regular meeting agendas must be posted no later than the Friday immediately preceding the meeting. It is City policy to make every effort to post the agenda on Thursday, eleven days prior to the meeting. COMMENTS: * The 12-10-19 mark-up doesn't say what should happen regarding posting agendas if the meeting is a special meeting, e.g., if it's on a Tuesday, or if it's on a Monday but it starts at 5:00 pm. * The mark-up doesn't say what time of day on Thursday the agenda should be posted by. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Susan C <teachinator@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 13, 2020 3:42 PM To:Council, City Cc:French, Amy Subject:First Republic Bldg / Khoury's Market concerns CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  January 13, 2020  Dear City Council members,  I understand that the issue of the First Republic building at the corner of El Camino Real and Oxford, now  managed by Blox Ventures, is a topic at the January 13 city council meeting.   Blox Ventures should be fully held to its obligation to provide a market in this space and should be fined to the  maximum extent allowed by law until it actually provides conditions that would allow such a business to become  established. The former and current management of the building have implemented or allowed to exist an unending  series of barriers to the two markets that have occupied the building, from a lack of adequate signage to darkened  windows to the shrouding of the entire building that has continued for an inexplicable seven months, until Khoury’s  could no longer hold on despite the family’s efforts and sacrifice. Many commenters on social media have said that they  simply assumed that the business was closed because of the appearance of ongoing construction.  Blox should not be allowed to suggest that the failure of two markets proves that such a business cannot survive  in this location. A good‐faith attempt to provide this benefit has not yet been made.  The fact that city did not enforce the provision of a reasonable business environment as a condition of claiming  to maintain a market has been a failure of the city management. If the Khoury family takes legal action against the city  or the management of this building, I hope that they prevail.      Sincerely,  Susan Cole  420 Stanford Avenue  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 13, 2020 12:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:From the archives of Aram James -2013 article CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Just say yes to a safe parking program!     Aram James       http://archives.siliconvalleydebug.org/articles/2013/08/04/sleep‐car‐go‐jail    Shared via the Google app    Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jill Escher <jill.escher@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 14, 2020 7:15 PM To:Council, City Cc:Sheryl Klein; D Haas Subject:Gratitude from Autism Society San Francisco Bay Area CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,    Autism Society San Francisco Bay Area wishes to express its gratitude for the approval for funding to help Palo Alto  Housing's inclusive housing project, Wilton Court. This additional investment will enable PAH to compete successfully for  state funding and federal low‐income housing tax credits.    The latest data just received from California's Department of Developmental Services indicates that autism rates are  continuing to surge across the state and in the Bay Area (now surpassing 122,000 cases, up from 3,000 in the early  1980s). It has never been more important to expand housing options for adults with autism and other developmental  disabilities.    Very truly yours,  Jill Escher  Immediate Past President  Advocacy Committee member   Autism Society San Francisco Bay Area    Founder  Escher Fund for Autism  President  National Council on Severe Autism    1 Brettle, Jessica From:jeffrey lipkin <repjal@att.net> Sent:Monday, January 13, 2020 11:30 AM To:Lydia Kou Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Help STOP SB-50 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  The record of Palo Alto and its City Council, including yourself, is abysmal on housing, especially for Palo Alto’s teachers,  fire fighters, civil servants and police.     If you want to avoid one‐size‐fits‐all mandates like SB‐50, you have to get your and your fellow members' acts together  on housing.      Jeff Lipkin        On Jan 13, 2020, at 10:57 AM, Lydia Kou <lydiakou@lydiakou.emailnb.com> wrote:      Letters from Lydia  Dear Palo Altans,  Happy New Year! May the New Year bring to you and yours warmth of love and light to guide your  paths toward positive destinations.  Completing my third year as your City Council member, I appreciate from the bottom of my heart all  of your support and encouragement. I also want to Thank You for allowing me to go quiet this  2 holiday season. I was able to spend quality time with my 80 year old Mom whilst accompanying her  to doctor visits to assess her cardiac condition and potential remedies.  I’m going to ask for YOUR help with SB 50. Reminds me of Chucky!  BTW, Senate Bill 50 (SB 50 Weiner) does NOT give more flexibility to cities! It is a sneaky  amendment to get the bill passed with its implementation in two years. We have to stop SB 50  and have it die in the State Appropriations Committee. We have until January 20, 2020 to do this. State Senate Appropriations Committee hears SB 50 again with an insignificant amendment; it  postpones the timeline to seize local controls of our zoning and land use. SB 50 eliminates single  family residential zoning, essentially UP‐zoning all parcels in single family residential neighborhoods  to four units and prohibits requirements for the necessary number of parking spaces.    But here’s where Weiner gets sneaky. Most cities have fulfilled their market rate housing quotas,  but the deed restricted below market rate housing doesn’t pencil out for the developers, therefore  it is not build. Since city governments do not build the housing, what happens when the 2 years  come around is that Weiner can impose this punitive legislation on the city saying their did not  fulfilled their housing production. Case in point, see the San Francisco Board of Superisors  Resolution 541‐19.   SB 50 would entitle real estate developers to increase residential and mixed‐use  development with significantly less public review, and in excess of many existing local  community plans, which are often developed after extensive public participation, in  concert with our regional governing agencies and consistent with state planning mandates;   SB 50 incentivizes private market‐rate housing development unaffordable to most San  Franciscans without guaranteeing increased affordable housing development, even though  the San Francisco Planning Department's Housing Development Pipeline report shows San  Francisco has met 100 percent of its Regional Housing Needs Assessment goal for above‐ moderate housing through the year 2022 but less than 30 percent of moderate and low‐ income housing goals; and has 72,565 units in the pipeline with only 20% affordable units,  despite the fact that 57% of the need is for affordable housing; and   The City and County of San Francisco along with many other communities is striving  to address the social and environmental impacts of regional growth of private industry,  which include displacement of low‐income seniors, working families, and communities of  color, and strained public transit and infrastructure.  State Senator Scott Wiener of San Francisco, who derides single‐family housing as immoral, says  developers will thrive from SB 50’s profit incentives, creating a housing boom that will “trickle  down” to those in need. The city Wiener represents, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors  disagrees! The SF Supervisors say they have failed to see the luxury boom benefit the working  class in the Bay Area.  Here are some of what to expect from the current version of the bill that you should know: Read  more here: https://www.livablecalifornia.org/stop‐sb‐50‐talking‐points‐for‐city‐officials‐and‐ community‐leaders/   Would your neighbor be an 85 foot building? Key in your address at this link to find  out: https://www.livablecalifornia.org/portfolio‐items/stop‐sb‐50/   3 Please Act NOW, call, write and share this email with your friends and family widely so they can  also call and write and say NO to the disastrous bill!   Call the State Senate Appropriations Committee where SB 50 is being reviewed at, the bill  must die here!   Senator Anthony Portantino (Chair) (D) 916‐651‐4025  (He is critical of SB 50 and was  instrumental on shelving SB 50 summer of 2019)   Senator Patricia Bates (R) 916‐651‐4036  (Opposes SB 50)   Senator Steven Bradford (D) 916‐651‐4035  (He avoids discussing)   Senator Jerry Hill (D) 916‐651‐4013  (He is uncertain)   Senator Brian Jones (R) 916‐651‐4038  (Position is unknown)   Senator Bob Wieckowski (D) 916‐651‐4010  (Position is unknown)  Contact your California Assembly Member and State Senator. Today. It’s simple. If you don’t  already know how, find out here [http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/]  State Senator Jerry Hill – District 13  Capitol Office:  State Capitol, Room 5035, Sacramento, CA 95814  Tel:  (916) 651‐4013 | Fax:  (619) 651‐4913  District Office:  1528 South El Camino Real, Suite 303, San Mateo, CA 94402  Tel:  (650) 212‐3313 | Fax:  (650) 212‐3320  Email Link:  https://sd13.senate.ca.gov/send‐e‐mail  Assembly Member Marc Berman – District 24  Capitol Office:  State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249‐0024  Tel:  (916) 319‐2024 | Fax: (916) 319‐2124  District Office:  5050 El Camino Real, Suite 117, Los Altos, CA 94022  Tel:  (650) 691‐2121 | Fax:  (650) 691‐2120  Email Link:  https://lcmspubcontact.lc.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/ContactPopup.php?district=AD24      Share with your friends and family in California, SB 50 is a statewide bill that will have  disastrous impacts to cities and counties.   They can find their CA assembly member and senator (& contact info) here   They too can call your CA assembly member and senator   They, too, can email their CA assembly member and senator (find email texts here)   They can send an old fashioned letter to their CA assembly member and senator   They can tell everyone they know to do the same – forward this email.   They can share this link on social media: https://www.livablecalifornia.org/portfolio‐ items/stop‐sb‐50  4 Legislators don’t read or listen to all of their messages; YES they do count those phone calls, emails  and letters — and the numbers really matter to them.     Don’t be nervous to call: you almost always have to leave a message, and a simple  “My name is XXXX, Palo Alto resident and I vehemently oppose SB 50” should do the trick.     Here are some sample emails (in Word format) you might want to use for email or print and use  for regular mail.  Modify them as you see fit.      Sample Email No. 1 ‐‐  Dear Senators,  Please kill SB 50 in Appropriations. Hundreds of communities oppose this untested state experiment  to place luxury apartments next to homes, reward global capital for buying out and demolishing  neighborhoods and displacing thousands of families.   download sample email 1     Sample Email 2 ‐‐  Dear Senators,  Don’t listen to me. Listen to the 500,000 people represented by the Los Angeles Westside Regional  Alliance of Councils.  download sample email 2     Sample Email 3 –  Dear Senators,  Please Oppose  SB 50, considering that 86 cities have recently said "Notwithstanding the alternatives  to SB 50 recommended above, there continues to be unsustainable flaws to the bill in its current  form" in this excellent letter from the Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities,  “A Proposal for SB 50 Alternatives/Enhancements”.  download sample email 3     Sample Email 4 –  5 Dear Senators,  Mayor Eric Filseth is right in opposing SB 50.  In a recent article in the Daily Post, the Mayor said "SB 50 doubles down on this old strategy by  subsidizing corporations and hurting communities. Instead, let’s focus directly on balancing jobs and  housing growth. Cities have the power to create balance between commercial and residential  growth.  Sacramento should insist on this, and not try to micromanage the zoning of cities. "The whole point  of SB50 is for communities to subsidize housing developers. Since SB50 really only affects high‐end  housing, whose demand comes from commercial expansion, that’s where the subsidy ultimately  goes."  download sample email 4     Sample Email 5 –  Dear Senators,  On Dec 20th, San Francisco renewed it's Opposition to SB 50. The first paragraph summarizes it well: “AMENDED IN COMMITTEE  FILE NO. 190398 12/5/2019 RESOLUTION NO. 541‐19   [Opposing California State Senate Bill No. 50 (Wiener) ‐ Housing Development: Incentives ‐ Unless  Amended]  Resolution opposing California State Senate Bill No. 50, authored by Senator Scott Wiener, which  would undermine community participation in planning for the well‐being of the environment and  the public good, prevent the public from recapturing an equitable portion of the economic benefits  conferred to private interests, and significantly restrict San Francisco's ability to protect vulnerable  communities from displacement and gentrification, unless further amended.”  But please ask your staff to read it all: https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0541‐19.pdf.  download sample email 5  As the saying goes… “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”  Sincerely,     Lydia Kou  http://www.lydiakou.com/    Lydia Kou ∙ 708 Matadero Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306, United States   This email was sent to repjal@att.net. To stop receiving emails, click here.   You can also keep up with Lydia Kou on Twitter or Facebook.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kathleen <vz222222@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 9, 2020 4:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Independent Auditors are essential CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi all,     As a former auditor and financial analyst in both public accounting and corporate finance, I want to concur with the  recommendation of Richard Chambers of the Institute of Internal Auditors for Palo Alto to maintain an independent  internal auditor who reports to directly to the City Council.  An auditor who reports to a CEO or City Manager cannot by  independent when their job reviews and salary depend on pleasing that person.      I would be very careful about outsourcing internal audits as again, they will be beholden to those hiring and paying  them.      Please hire a permanent internal auditor who reports only to the city council and would be the only person to select his  or her employees or contractors.  Internal auditors are not supposed to be part of a team.  They are supposed to  audit  city operations for efficiency and compliance to their own policies and those of regulating agencies.    Harriet Richardson was a great asset to the city.  I hope you can find someone of her stature and then let  her recommend how to structure her department, not the city manager and his consultants, if you want a truly  independent auditor.  Auditors generally return their costs several times over, if the city follows their recommendations  for improved systems and compliance, often by reducing the number of lawsuits resulting from the city not being in  compliance with both government and internal regulations and policy.    Kathleen Goldfein  Resident or Palo Alto since 1989  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 12, 2020 9:39 PM To:John McAlister Subject:John —one more piece from 2014-re my request that Palo Alto step to the plate and build a state of the art homeless shelter CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  http://archives.siliconvalleydebug.org/articles/2014/05/04/should‐palo‐alto‐build‐new‐shelter‐homeless    Shared via the Google app    Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:mike.forster@alumni.usc.edu Sent:Monday, January 13, 2020 3:37 PM To:French, Amy; Council, City Cc:'Susan Cole'; mlf2 Subject:RE: Khoury Market concerns Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  January 13, 2020 City Council and Ms. French: To add to my comments below: In this case, it is obvious that the College Terrace Center current owner made the leasing situation untenable for Khoury's Market by allowing the shrouding of the building for 7 months with the expectation that it would continue for 2 more months, a total of at least 9 months. The owner must not be allowed to avoid the fines by claiming that a good faith effort was made to provide a grocery store at this location. Creating an untenable situation for Khoury's Market does not constitute a good faith effort. The City should have some legal mechanism other than just fines to force timely completion of construction projects. Perhaps one comprehensive approach would be: 1 The City requires that the scaffolding and shrouding be removed immediately. 2 The City provides financing to Khoury's Market for a specified period so it can establish its business, and charge the costs back to the College Terrace Center owner. 3 The City requires that future exterior work be completed with minimal impact to Khoury's Market. Mike Forster, Evergreen Park From: mike.forster@alumni.usc.edu <mike.forster@alumni.usc.edu>   Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 5:52 PM  To: Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  Cc: Susan Cole <teachinator@gmail.com>; mlf2 <mike.forster@alumni.usc.edu>  Subject: RE: Khoury Market concerns  Importance: High    January 3, 2020 City Council and Ms. French: 2 Today, the news is that Khoury's Market is closing soon, due to the seven months (and counting) of shrouding and scaffolding that has hampered their business. I live a few hundred feet from Khoury's location, and I pass by it 3 or 4 times every day. During all of those months, only seldom did I see any workmen doing any work at all. If I compressed all of the days I did see workmen into a short timeframe, the renovation could have taken a very few weeks, not more than seven months. Some might say that no grocery store could succeed in this location, with the larger Mollie Stone's nearby. I've lived here long enough to remember JJ&F on this same block which was successful for over 60 years, even after Mollie Stone's opened. The City of Palo Alto - Council and Planning and Development - has failed the citizens of Palo Alto by allowing these modifications to take so long, especially for a the "public good" required by the City itself. Mike Forster, Senior Manager, Systems and Software Engineering (retired) 420 Stanford Ave Palo Alto, CA 94306 Mike.forster@alumni.usc.edu From: French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 9:07 AM  To: French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; City Mgr  <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Khoury Market concerns    This email is intended for the bcc’d community members,     I am sending you Director Jonathan Lait’s message regarding the Khoury Market:     Thank you for calling attention to the concerns at the Khoury Market.  Since July 2019, several applications were filed  and approved to make exterior modifications to the building, including a couple requests to repaint the building. The  construction superintendent has informed the City that the exterior work is expected to take another 60 days.  Additionally, to address concerns regarding safety, changes will be made to clearly define the entrance/exits and to also  provide full overhead protection at all required exits.      We’ll continue to monitor their progress to help encourage a more timely completion to this project. We appreciate the  value this market has to the community and share in your interest to see it succeed.     Thanks again for sending us your email.      Jonathan Lait       Jonathan Lait, AICP  Planning and Development Services Director 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ph: (650) 329‐2679  jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org     1 Brettle, Jessica From:Chris Saccheri <chris.saccheri@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, January 9, 2020 11:31 AM To:Council, City Cc:ctraboard@googlegroups.com Subject:Letter from the CTRA re: College Terrace Centre CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  January 9, 2020    Dear City Council,    The College Terrace Residents’ Association (CTRA) wants to express its extreme disappointment with the actions of the  owner of the College Terrace Centre and urge the Council to pursue all necessary means to preserve the public benefits  intended with the original development of the building.    On November 14, 2018, the building’s owner, Jason Oberman, attended the CTRA’s monthly board meeting and spoke of  several improvements his company was planning to implement before the grand opening of Khoury’s Market. These  improvements included more prominent signage, reconfigured outdoor seating, and new exterior paint–all intended to  ensure the market’s success after the former College Terrace Market had failed.    More than a year later, however, none of those promised improvements have come to fruition–in fact, the market has  spent the past seven months completely shrouded in scaffolding and still lacks exterior signage. For a business struggling  to attract customers with limited street‐level visibility, this was the final nail in the coffin. Unsurprisingly, the Khourys  announced last week that they’re closing the store due to the difficulties caused by never‐ending construction.    Among the conditions of approval attached to the original development of College Terrace Centre was a schedule of  fines to be levied if the grocery store closed. In the past month, we’ve learned that the $345,000 in fines incurred  between the closing of the former College Terrace Market and the opening of Khoury’s Market have been cut in half due  to a failure to attach the schedule of fines to the city's official conditions of approval for this development. Furthermore,  the building’s owner has been in court attempting to have the fines wiped out completely.    Without a grocery store, or the fines incurred for the absence of a grocery store, there is little public benefit for a project  whose approval by the City Council was based entirely on public benefit. This would be a terrible outcome for the  neighborhood, community, and city, particularly given the extensive time and resources spent by residents and City staff  alike to realize this benefit in the first place.    The College Terrace Residents’ Association urges the City Council and City Attorney to attach the schedule of fines to the  city's official conditions of approval for this development and remain steadfast that the owner of College Terrace Centre  does not evade its obligation to provide a public benefit to the neighborhood and surrounding community.    Sincerely,    Chris Saccheri  President, College Terrace Residents' Association        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 14, 2020 7:10 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Letter to the Editor re City Auditor CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    To the City Council:     We can have a city we can place our trust and faith in.  Please appoint a City auditor.    Let's have a city that lives within its means, and pays down its $455 million in unfunded pension liabilities. A City auditor  could help with that.    Want residents and taxpayers to think the City and the City Council have something to hide?  Then don't appoint a City  auditor.     Want residents and taxpayers to note how the position that watches over how tax dollars are spent is the one that  doesn't get appointed?  Then don't appoint a City auditor.     Please appoint a City auditor.    Thank you,    Kathy Jordan      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Adam Ortiz <adamlagortiz0x7@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 13, 2020 12:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Lydia Kou - Palo Alto City Council – Availability this week? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi there,    Wanted to get in touch with you.    I think I can help Lydia Kou ‐ Palo Alto City Council save $100s/year by switching to a highly‐reviewed, leading business  phone service. Wanted to know what might be a good number to get in touch.    What features do I get while saving $100s/year?    ⨾⨿ Unlimited calling  ⨾⨿ SMS and text support  ⨾⨿ Auto‐attendant services  ⨾⨿ Desktop and mobile apps  ⨾⨿ Tons of free extras    Interested in making the switch like a number of other CA companies?    Simply reply with the best number to reach you. We’ll ask you a few questions and get you on the way to savings within  a few minutes.         Thanks,      Adam Ortiz Business Phone Superstar Phoneous Business Phones. Reinvented.        If you no longer would like to receive emails, please respond "STOP"    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 9, 2020 1:05 PM To:Council, City; city.council@menlopark.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Kniss, Liz (internal); Aram James; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com Subject:The Mercury News E-Edition Article CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Important piece on another partial solution to the unhoused issue —see below    Follow the link below to view the article.  http://mercurynews.ca.newsmemory.com/?publink=318339082      Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Emma Reid Talley <emmat332@stanford.edu> Sent:Sunday, January 12, 2020 9:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi,    My name is Emma Talley and I am a reporter for the Stanford Daily. I just wanted to let you know that I will be attending  the city council meeting tomorrow to source information for an article I am working on. Please let me know if you have  any questions. Thanks!    Emma Talley  Emmat332@stanford.edu  (916)‐599‐9514    Sent from Mail for Windows 10    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Steve Mims <mimsborne@earthlink.net> Sent:Sunday, January 12, 2020 1:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:paper bags for nuts in grocery stores CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello City Council,     I am writing to complain about the recent restriction on grocery stores offering  plastic bags for the purchase of bulk items, like nuts.   I shop at Piazza at Middlefield  and E Charleston, and every week I purchase a bag of pecans.  This month, I was   told that Piazza could no longer offer the clear plastic bags that had been in the aisles  for customers dispensing nuts out of the bulk containers.   Now, when I go to the  check‐out, the clerk has to open each bag to determine what was purchased.  Furthermore, the paper bags are porous by nature, and the nuts leak juices  and generally dry out over time.   I enclose a picture of one bag after 24 hrs  on my shelf.   This is a bad situation.    I never understood the anti‐bag craze.   In San Diego, the grocery stores   allow you to purchase a recyclable plastic bag for 10 cents.   Sometimes I  do reuse them.   It is a much more civilized experience than dealing with  the bulky, noisy paper bags that fill up my trash cans.    Please consider repeal of this Luddite law.    sincerely,    Steve Mims  1788 Oak Creek Dr  Palo Alto, CA  94304      2   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Guillaume Bienaime <guillaumebienaime@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 11, 2020 3:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Permitting Process & the Future of Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To all city council members,     I wanted to share my recent experience with the city to give you insight as to what it looks like.    I submitted my fire sprinkler permit to the City of Palo Alto 30 days ago yesterday (the stated turnaround time). I had to  submit to 5 different departments for this specific permit. In addition, only in the City of Palo Alto is one forced to install  a sprinkler system for a change of use, regardless of occupancy.     This will cost me $100,000 or 25% of my construction budget.     In addition to not getting comments back from the planning department on time, the assigned planner won't respond to  my voicemails or emails. I am left in the dark with no one to talk to.    By creating communication hurtles, and regulations above and beyond California Fire Code, the City of Palo Alto is  expressing a lack of consideration for small business owners.     In contrast, I emailed greenwaste of Palo Alto about a trash issue and got a courteous response within the hour. This  gives me hope that government agencies can     I'm not asking for help, because I only think that would create more resentment amongst the staff, but wanted to share.   I believe that if we continue making this process difficult and costly, chain restaurants will be the only one's who can  absorb the costs. We will be left with little very few owner/operated businesses.     Thank you again for being open to conversation and caring.     Guillaume    ‐‐   Guillaume Bienaimé  Proprietor  Zola  zolapa.com  barzolapa.com        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Nick Briggs <nicholas.h.briggs@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 12, 2020 1:59 PM To:UTL-Customer Service Cc:Council, City Subject:power outage in Barron Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear CPA Utilities ‐‐    Yet again we have a power outage in Barron Park (Sunday Jan 12, 2020).  Apparently this one started at noon but then  the affected area grew bigger, to encompass my property at 3994 La Donna Ave, at around 1PM.    The number and duration of service interruptions has been doing nothing but increase over the almost 30 years I've  lived here.    What is being done to restore the relatively uninterrupted service that we used to have?    Yours sincerely,    Nicholas Briggs  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Rebecca Ward <rebeca.ward@verizon.net> Sent:Thursday, January 9, 2020 8:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:Release of the June 10, 2019 closed session vote Attachments:12.20.19 Bicameral letter to FAA re IG Report.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council:       The roll call vote taken during the June 10, 2019, “CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY‐POTENTIAL LITIGATION Subject:  Noise and Other Impacts Arising From Management of Aircraft in the Northern California Airspace, Including the STAR  PIRAT TWO Procedure Authority” should be made public.    The response to the request to release the vote, yielded the following from the City,  “the City Attorney has determined  that release of the roll call vote would impair the City's ability to resolve the matter through negotiation, mediation or  other form of settlement and the Council has not voted to determine otherwise pursuant to PAMC section  2.04.030.” The City is not in negotiations, mediation or in settlement talks with the FAA.  Further, any legal action  needed to be filed within the 60 day window of the FAA’s “final action”.  That time has well passed.    The City’s response states the Council can vote to release the roll call vote taken during closed session.  Council should  be transparent and a vote should be taken to release it.  Multiple residents have asked the City Council to do so.        Two weeks after the City of Palo Alto declined, for the second time in just over a year,  to take legal action to protect its  citizens, LA announced it was suing the FAA over changes to flight patterns specifically affecting the areas of Mid‐City  and central Los Angeles noting, “No community should be particularly unduly burdened by a concentration of these  flights” https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/faa‐changes‐to‐flight‐pattern‐over‐mid‐city‐central‐la/148945/.        Palo Alto has THREE routes of SFO arrivals traffic concentrated over the City. A March 6, 2019 email from John Bergener,  SFO Airport Planning Director stated, “As noted in a prior email from Airport Director Ivar Satero, the concentration of  jet traffic over Palo Alto is the result of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) implementation of the Optimization  of Airspace Procedures in the Metroplex project (Metroplex).  In that project, the FAA changed from ground based  navigation to satellite based Area Navigation (RNAV) which directs arrival traffic on narrow paths before connecting to  an approach for a landing at SFO. “ emphasis added.      The  December 20, 2019 BiCameral letter from Congress to the FAA Administrator (attached) articulates the impact of  NextGen concentration :      “The FAA has concentrated flight paths over neighborhoods, schools...This heavy traffic produces constant noise and  particulate matter that has yet to be deemed safe by the FAA or any other government agency...has had a devastating  impact on residents’ quality of life...”.  Their letter closes by noting the “... the burden of noise, health risks, and  declining property values fall on the backs of hard‐working Americans”.  That is all true in Palo Alto. The Council has  2 heard from numerous residents about the noise at our schools, lack of sleep, the need to wear ear plugs and  headphones, a degraded quality of life, and concern about the concentration of ultra fine pollution, among other things.     The citizens of Palo Alto have the right to know which Council members thought the appropriate course of action was to  depend on the “nascent” SCSC Roundtable, that costs the city $33,000/year and is not supported by or the official forum  for any Bay Area airport (costing 22x more than the $1500.00/year SFO Roundtable members pay to be on SFO’s official  Roundtable), and nebulous “regional efforts” to solve the problem.      The Council should be transparent and the vote should be released.          Rebecca Ward   Palo Alto     1 Brettle, Jessica From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 13, 2020 12:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:Should Palo Alto Build a New Shelter for the Homeless? | Silicon Valley De-Bug—2013 article CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    http://archives.siliconvalleydebug.org/articles/2014/05/04/should‐palo‐alto‐build‐new‐shelter‐homeless      Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Monica Yeung Arima <myarima@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 9, 2020 8:20 AM To:Monica Yeung Arima Subject:Stanford’s Chinese Railroad Workers History Exhibit at Rinconada Library CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear friends,    The Stanford’s Chinese Railroad Workers History exhibit is up at the Rinconada Library for the month of January 2020.  Please share the news, come and check them out.    There will be some seminars on the afternoon of January 19 and possibly some other days. Mark your calendar and stay  tune. Details to come later. — at Rinconada Library.  2 3     Sent from Monica Yeung Arima's iPhone  www.myarima.com  650 888‐4116  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Linnea WICKSTROM <ljwickstrom@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, January 9, 2020 1:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support SB50 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mayor Fine, Vice‐Mayor Dubois, Members of the City Council    I’ve written to our State Assembly Member Berman and State Senator Hill to urge their support for SB50.  Now I urge you to reverse your previous position and to start supporting SB50 as it moves through the legislature.    The continuing delays on housing are unconscionable and accommodating the "local control" and "neighborhood  character" arguments got us where we are.     I live one block off a transit route and have no problem with a duplex, triplex, or even 4plex going up on either side of  my house ‐ that's no different than the massive two‐stories that would go up under current zoning. And no, I'm not even  frantic about the infamous "parking" issue. Cities will never overcome local resistance to change and meet any kind of  housing goal without state intervention.     I’ll note that the exclusion of lower and middle‐income people, in particular, may make it impossible for the current Palo  Alto population to continue to enjoy the services and assistance we will need for years to come. Though financing is  always an issue, just changing zoning and process rules can make a big difference in easing the creation of housing.    Yours in support of an unpopular view,  Linnea Wickstrom  Monroe Drive  Palo Alto        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Leora Tanjuatco <leora.tanjuatco@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 14, 2020 4:07 PM To:Council, City; boardchair@pah.community Subject:THANK YOU for funding Wilton Court CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto city council,     Thank you for your leadership in funding the homes for people with disabilities. I'm proud to welcome them to Palo Alto.   Sincerely,    Leora Tanjuatco Ross  215 El Verano Ave.   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 14, 2020 8:49 PM To:Frank Agamemnon Subject:This post was BANNED from CIA FACEBOOK ? GHEEZ LOL CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  READ the following article... LEARN... This is what ACTION looks like... stop talking... start doing.... COLLECTIVE POWER IS HEARD. Oh... a suggestion... every time a bill goes into the hopper for gun confiscation... put one in for CELL PHONE confiscation. A gun is to a Conservative... what a cell phone is to a Lib-tard. MEN HAVE THE UPPER HAND over politicians... if ....MEN USE THEIR HEADS. Reporting. R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./ sciences Freelance Investigative Science Reporter since 1996 +++++++QUOTE VA Dems Drop AR-15 Confiscation After 1000s of NRA Members Show https://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/va-dems-drop-ar-15-confiscation-after-1000s-of-nra-members- show/260425 Posted on January 14, 2020 by Misty Breitbart – by AWR Hawkins Virginia Democrats withdrew an AR-15 confiscation bill Monday after thousands of NRA members showed up to oppose new gun controls. The NRA asked members to flood the January 13, 2020, Virginia Senate meetings and ensure pro- Second Amendment voices drowned out those calling for gun control. Video from hallways outside the meetings showed NRA members responded en masse: 2 The Washington Free Beacon reports the presence of thousands of NRA members “appeared to have an impact.” Democrats withdrew a bill aimed at AR-15 confiscation and moderated other gun control proposals. But NRA-ILA Virginia state director Daniel Spiker made clear the changes, though good, were not enough. He said, “While there were some improvements to some of these bills, overall, it’s still bad legislation. Putting in more regulations and making it more onerous on the law-abiding citizens of Virginia is not something we stand for.” Richard Cosner, a Chester, Virginia, preacher, was present to oppose new gun controls. He pointed out attempts to legislate gun control serve as a way to usurp the Constitution: “The Constitution is specific; it ‘shall not be infringed.’ If somebody wants to restrict those rights then they need to follow it by altering the Constitution, not by putting in place legislation that is in conflict with the Constitution.” +++++ AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange. VA Dems Drop AR-15 Confiscation When 1000s of NRA Members Show To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In VA Dems Drop AR-15 Confiscation When 1000s of NRA Members Show AWR Hawkins Virginia Democrats withdrew an AR-15 confiscation bill Monday after thousands of NRA members showed up to oppose...    END QUOTE   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 15, 2020 9:43 AM To:Council, City; Planning Commission Cc:Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Kamhi, Philip; Dave Price; Jocelyn Dong; Gennady Sheyner; John Guislin; Holzemer/hernandez; Neva Yarkin; Andie Reed; Nelson Ng; Allen Akin; Greg Schmid (external); Joe Hirsch; Joe Baldwin; Marion Odell; David Kwoh; Ted Davids; Mary😂- SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD; Rebecca Sanders; Sallyann Rudd; Malcolm Roy Beasley; Jerry Smith; Lora Smith; Furman, Sheri; Wolfgang Dueregger; Carol Scott; David Schrom; Lauren Burton; Fred Kohler; KJ Chang; Chris Robell; Kathy Jordan; Taylor Brady; Mary Gallagher Subject:time for caution: SPILLOVER PARKING CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please consider the impact of such decisions upon Palo Alto neighborhoods adjacent to commercial areas. Valet parking from an unparked hotel would displace current permitted parking in the commercial core to neighborhoods. Amid opposition, San Jose approves hotel's use of San Pedro Square garage - San José Spotlight     Amid opposition, San Jose approves hotel's use of San Pedro Square garag... Despite opposition from neighbors and downtown businesses, San Jose lawmakers approved a plan to allow guests of...     Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301   2 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 1 Brettle, Jessica From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Sunday, January 12, 2020 11:59 AM To:Council, City; Planning Commission Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed Subject:a warning about backing away from housing committmenrts CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. relevant to North Ventura and in general. The legislature and HCD are getting more serious about foot dragging on housing. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/01/10/state-lawmaker-warns-lafayette-about-huge-apartment- project/ 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Gary Lindgren <gel@theconnection.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 14, 2020 2:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:Wood Burning Fireplaces CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council,  Wood burning fireplaces are no longer allowed in new construction for Palo Alto. The problem though are the homes  that have wood burning fireplaces and people use them now in the winter and smell up the neighborhoods. How about  a program that would have an incentive to convert these wood burning fireplaces into a natural gas appliance. There are  gas burning units that look just like a wood fire and put out heat also. In our home we have a gas stove that looks just  like a wood burning unit and for the last couple years has been our only source of heat and it is controlled by our regular  thermostat on the wall. I could envision a Saturday where several different units would be laid out for people to see and  touch.     Thank you,  Gary Lindgren                Gary Lindgren  585 Lincoln Ave  Palo Alto CA 94301     650-326-0655 Check Out Latest Seismometer Reading @garyelindgren    Listen to Radio Around the World     Be Like Costco... do something in a different way  Don't trust Atoms...they make up everything      A part of good science is to see what everyone else can see but think what no one else has ever said. The difference between being very smart and very foolish is often very small. So many problems occur when people fail to be obedient when they are supposed to be obedient, and fail to be creative when they are supposed to be creative. The secret to doing good research is always to be a little underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste hours. 2 It is sometimes easier to make the world a better place than to prove you have made the world a better place. Amos Tversky   Palo Alto City Council Item #10953 1/13/2020 As we understand it, the goal of your discussion tonight is to align the City of Palo Alto regulations with those of the State in regard to ADUs. Please remember that Palo Alto takes pride in being forward thinking (Energy Reach Code, etc.) and should create regulations which seek to encourage the creation of ADUs wherever possible and should at a minimum be consistent with the spirit and language of the State Bills. Problem: The language in the Urgency Ordinance is inconsistent with the language provided in the State bills in a number of important locations. Items to be corrected in the Urgency Ordinance regarding Section 3 relative to 18.42.040: • (a)(3)(A): Daylight Plane restrictions may not be imposed. The allowance of a 16' height is clearly stated. S868 65852.2 (e)(1)(B)(ii) o There is no further discussion or language about this implying that any ADU can be constructed to this height. • (a)(3)(B): Setbacks may not be restricted as defined in subsection (a)(5) in regard to renovated or rebuilt structures 88881 65852.2 (a)(1)(D)(vii) • (a)(3)(C): 2-story accessory dwelling units may not be restricted if they are able to be constructed within the 16' height limit defined by the State. S868 65852.2 (e)(1)(B)(ii) o As above, there is no further discussion or language about this implying that any ADU can be constructed this height. o To preserve privacy, we suggest there be language added to limit the uppermost height of windows facing property lines to a maximum of 12' above adjacent grade, no 2nd level doors or decks facing adjacent properties • Section (a)(4) is generally inconsistent. Recommend this be replaced with more simple language: o Lot Coverage, FAR, and maximum house size: • May not be limited to less than 800 sf f?r an ADU or 1000 sf if the accessory dwelling unit contains more than 1 bedroom. SB13 65852.2 (c)(1)(B) • (a)(9)(C): Number of units allowed may not be limited as stated. • (a)(9)(J) Replacement of protected trees shall be at the discretion of the City Urban Forester • (b)(1) JADU may be part of existing or new residence • (b)(2)(G) Does not require the conversion of a bedroom • (b)(2)(J) Inconsistent with the parking requirements if a garage is converted to a JADU Other items to note: • Key to this topic is language in SB68 Section 65852.2 (g) which states: ''This section does not limit the authority of local agencies to adopt less restrictive requirements for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit." This clearly implies local agencies may not be more restrictive than the State language describes. • SB68 65852.2(e)(1 )(D)(2) "The local agency shall not require ... the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions. n o Restriction for work on renovated or rebuilt structures relative to 18.70.100 needs to be removed. • ADU total area shall not be limited to less than 1200 sf SB81 65852.2 (a)(1)(D)(5) • Approval needs to be granted within 60 days SB68 65852.2 (a)(3) • Need clarification regarding the applicability of these regulations for projects in the pipeline but not yet at Final Inspection -should not punish those who were early in regard to refund of Impact Fees, etc. Respectfully, Jessica Resmini The ADU Collective Randy Popp Randolph Popp, Ar ct C~CIJ. MEETING l l,;Jllr,}c) [ ] P~ Before Meeting ["1'1feceived at Meeting ICOUN2L ~EETING J I a/,;i.a ,;){) [ ] Ptfced Before Meeting ~d at Meeting I begin by noting the precept in the Old Testament to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and house the homeless. I subscribe to that. And I personally would be willing to pay over $100 a year in increased taxes for these purposes. Nevertheless, I oppose the Safe Parking Program. It's a proposal that addresses the symptoms and not the real problem. Instead, what's needed is a comprehensive solution. A comprehensive solution would have two components: 1. Determine PA's fair share of the problem. Figure out what is our fair share and then commit to doing 150% of that, or even 200%. But no more. Homelessness is a problem at the national level, the California level, the Bay area level, and the PA level. I 2. Solve the problem at the City level in a way that doesn't create a magnet to draw in more homeless people. It's the City that should make the land available, initially for vehicles but with a commitment to build safe affordable housing for city employees, city retirees, and b~ fide city residents, but no one else. What's wrong with the Safe Parking Program? It's been categorized as a temporary experiment. An experiment is something that generates new information. The SPP won't generate new information. Everyone already knows what the results will be: Those who like it will deer:n it a success, and those who dislike it will deem it a failure. Nothing will be learned. So it's not an experiment. 1 1 ., • And it's not temporary. It starts with 4 vehicles per church for 3 mont~ But by the time it ends, it will become a permanent plan with 12 vehicles for 5 years. The commitments made now will be forgotten and overruled. The SPP won't house the homeless. It will simply hide the homeless. It will hide them from the vast majority of PA residents, so everyone can forget about them and kick the can down the road. It will make it harder, not easier, to come up with a real permanent plan. If you want to solve the problem, you leave the vehicles on El Camino but provide the facilities that they need there on El Camino. So that everyone sees them all the time. So that everyone remembers that there's a problem. And so everyone is motivated to work towards a real solution. 2