HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200217plCC 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: 2/17/2020
Document dates: 1/29/2020 – 2/5/2020
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Ryan Globus <ryanglobus@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 2, 2020 5:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Traffic Signal Preemption System
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To the Palo Alto City Council,
I noticed that on the consent calendar for the Feb 3 Council meeting, there is an item to approve a pilot project to install
a traffic signal preemption system for emergency vehicles.
Although outside of the scope of tomorrow's agenda, I hope the Council and city staff begin to also explore integrating
the traffic signal preemption system with Palo Alto shuttles and VTA buses. By improving transit speeds, we can make
public transit a more viable option for those who choose between driving and transit in addition to improving the lives
of those who depend on transit. With faster service, VTA and Palo Alto shuttles can either save money or increase
service frequency without additional drivers or buses, as the buses can finish their routes and turn around faster.
Additionally, for buses with many people (like the 22/522, which are the most popular VTA lines), we can move more
people per hour by giving a slight edge to vehicles with many people over vehicles with one or two people. Finally, if the
buses are faster and more people choose to take the bus, we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, while also
reducing traffic and easing parking demand for those who continue to drive.
Given that we'll already be adding preemption infrastructure into our signals during the pilot project, I think it would be
a worthwhile investment to explore expanding that system to include shuttles and buses.
Thank you,
Ryan Globus
Midtown Resident
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Ken Joye <kmjoye@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 2, 2020 1:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing Work Plan Update on 3 Feb 2020 agenda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
One item you will consider is "Reach Code Follow Up / Substantial Remodel Amendment”, which prompts this
off-hand thought: if any project includes an upgrade to the electrical panel, consider requiring that these be
factored into the sizing of the new panel: (1) capacity for EV charging (2) capacity for induction cooktop, (3)
capacity for heat-pump water heater and (4) end-feed to accommodate PV
The recent eviction of long-time tenants from the President Hotel certainly suggests that renter protections are
worth your consideration. It is slightly inconceivable that another situation like that could arise, but it would be
good if you were to enact something to avoid it.
I support zoning changes to allow additional cottage clusters, duplexes and fourplexes in R-1/R-2 districts.
Of course, the RHNA update for 2022-2030 is the big factor. Given the presentation made to the NVCAP
Working Group on 21 January 2020, I believe that Council really must consider how to spread the city’s
approach across our community more evenly. If we are to create enough below-market units for the
forthcoming RHNA, the impact of that should not be on a single neighborhood.
I will also pose this question: given the suggestion last Saturday by Jean Wilcox that vacant commercial space
near Fabian Way should be repurposed as housing, do you think such housing should be geared toward
Google software developers or the janitors and dishwashers working in the Google offices who are employed
not by Google but by its contractors?
As I mentioned in my submission on the 2020 Council Priorities site, all that you do should be through a
climate crisis filter; making housing in our community for *all* who work here should be our focus.
thanks for considering these thoughts,
Ken Joye
Ventura neighborhood
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 2, 2020 3:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing Work Plan Discussion
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Mayor Fine and Honorable Council Members:
Regarding your discussion of our housing work plan at the next Council meeting, I'd like to bring to your attention the
possibility of building BMR housing and truly affordable housing for our missing middle at the Fry's site via Eminent
Domain. The bases for this suggestion are outlined in my online comments to the article on NVCAP in the recent issue of
the Palo Alto Weekly. I have put my comments below in their entirety.
My main concern is that we will never be able to get the housing we really need there using a for‐profit model. I
completely understand Sobrato's predicament. And ours is clear. And at yesterday's retreat, you all made housing one
of your priorities for 2020. What if the whole Fry's property were housing with some community serving retail and
adequate parkland to support the new residents there? We'd have housing for our service workers and our public
servants, teachers, nurses, other professional who have a "good" salary, just not one that allows them to live here. We
could get ABAG off our back, respond to our state government's efforts to encourage local governments to build more
housing. This could be a model for other municipalities grappling with the conundrum of housing more people while not
exacerbating traffic and congestion through added commercial development.
Thank you for considering this option.
Becky Sanders
Ventura Neighborhood
PS Please make sure the application to convert the residential President hotel to commercial use is refused on the
grounds that it is actually an illegal use. Please do not change the zoning code to please the owners. Rather keep the
zoning residential and return these units to our housing stock. This action is also in alignment with your Housing Priority
for 2020.
=========================
Hi Gennady and Everyone. Thank you PAW for covering this story and pretty much letting the facts speak for
themselves. Thank you interested readers for paying attention to this tiny part of the City, but big part of Ventura. This
could be the most important issue of the coming years.
If you don't want to read my analysis of the situation, just jump to the bottom to review the elegant and simple solution
that will get us the results we (residents and Council) want:
2
After sifting through documents and attending meetings, it is obvious to me that there is no way we will get the housing
we want at that site. Sobrato points out that as developers, they need to make their profits for their investors in order to
justify the risks. Makes total sense. In order to "underwrite" below market rate housing and truly affordable units while
still making the money they need to meet their obligation to maximize profits, Sobrato would need lots of at‐market‐
rate housing and lots of office/commercial rents‐ which make way more money for property owners than housing. Also
because owners can charge more per square foot for one bedroom and studio apartments, in order to build family
housing ‐ which is what is desperately needed
‐‐ then we will need to densify even more to justify building more family housing because family housing is less
profitable.
A consequence of more offices/commercial is an exacerbation of the already ludicrous 3‐1 jobs to housing imbalance.
Planners also know that office/commercial means more new net daily car trips in and out of a property, and housing
means less per diem trips. So a second consequence to commercial development there is even more traffic and
congestion in Ventura and near the already stressed intersection of Page Mill/Oregon and ECR.
The Perkins and Will recommendations of three option bore no resemblance to what had been discussed at the prior
working group meetings. The report signals a complete disconnect and a complete disrespect to the working group
members and all their incredible work.
SOLUTION: Here's the solution:
The City fixes its own loophole and reinstates the RM‐30 designation, which means no commercial/no office. Such action
is within the purview of what the City Council can do and DOES.
Then... wait for it...here it comes...
We EMINENT DOMAIN the property and the City partners with Palo Alto Housing and any number of eager non‐profit
agencies and we put 100% affordable and below market rate housing at the site.
That is the answer, and remember "eminent domain" doesn't mean we steal Sobrato's property. Independent experts
come up with the fair market value. Sobrato can use that money to develop elsewhere and fulfill its profit‐driven
mission. And we get to have all housing all the time. Plus some amenities like a health clinic or a grocery co‐op or a
lovely park could be possible in a new model. When a project becomes non‐profit, so many wonderful things can
happen.
There! Isn't that the obvious fix here?
PALO ALTO HOUSING will soon be breaking ground on Wilton Court, housing for developmentally‐disabled adults, just
two blocks from my house. We didn't protest. We questioned. We asked. We grappled but we got it! Housing for the
people that desperately need housing!
It is my experience that things usually work out for those who can afford market rate housing. So I'm not really worried
about the big earners out there who can't find the place they want in Palo Alto.
Plus there is nothing to stop anyone from building more market rate housing elsewhere in the city. Remember the City
has met or surpassed the quota assigned for market rate housing by ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments).
Where we get a big "fail" is below market rate and truly affordable housing to serve teachers and public servants, etc.
I'm calling on the residents of Palo Alto to rally and for the Council to do its darnedest to solve the problem they say is
uppermost in its priorities ‐ the housing of humans. Here's chance to do something legal and revolutionary.
Thank you for reading.
3
PS Here's a few humdingers based on my conclusions upon reading the Perkins and Will report:
Current for‐profit paradigms at the site call for roof top gardens since available garden and park space will needs be
limited because there is no money to be gained by it. Seriously, what parent wants their toddler playing on a roof top, 8‐
stories high with the gusting wind. "Look out below" as balls and toys rain down. Ventura will need more parkland, not
less, especially if more neighbors are added at this site, no matter what the density.
According to Perkins & Will, public park space could be enclosed in a fortress like building with archways for entering.
Would you like to take your picnic into say the courtyard of the Pentagon and spread your blanket and read your book
with windows looking down on you from all sides? How welcoming is that? There would need to be signs outside the
fortress to point the way to the "Park."
With P&W, we will need to go at least 8 stories in one place in order to make room for the offices and luxury homes
needed to maximize profits and underwrite the most important housing. The three plans can't maximize lower cost
housing without building up and out and over. Our current height limit is 50.
And let's not forget the President Residential Hotel downtown. The 75 tenants got the boot even though the owner
knew he would not be able to convert the residential use to commerical use, under current zoning laws. Still the owner
has submitted an application to the City. The City should send a clear signal to this developer that we are serious about
retaining housing on the site. The owner should give us a plan that gives us housing and which makes it pencil out for
them, or to sell it to someone who is willing to maintain the legal use ‐ housing.
Who's with us? Let's get this done!
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Ryan Globus <ryanglobus@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 2, 2020 6:24 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing Work Plan: Council Meeting on Feb 3, 2020 (Item #11)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To the Palo Alto City Council,
As the Council updates the Housing Work Plan for the City, I urge the Council to incorporate the following priorities:
1. Ensure the plan includes housing for all income levels, including subsidized affordable homes and market‐rate homes.
We need a lot of both to fix the housing shortage crisis. I also urge the Council to maximize the *number* of subsidized
affordable homes rather than the percentage of subsidized affordable homes. If the inclusionary percentage required is
too high, housing projects become financially difficult or infeasible.
2. Increase zoning capacity near transit. This includes near three Caltrain stations (Palo Alto, California Avenue, and
areas in Palo Alto that are near San Antonio station). It should also include El Camino Real, which has the most popular
VTA bus routes, the 22 and 522.
3. Zone for and encourage "missing middle" housing. This includes townhomes, row houses, duplexes, triplexes, four‐
plexus, small apartment complexes, ADUs, single family homes on smaller lots, housing with smaller setback
requirements, etc. This allows us to gradually introduce density without drastically changing a neighborhood's character.
"Missing middle" housing can also be more naturally affordable even without subsidies. I currently live in an R‐1 zone on
a lot smaller than current law requires (the lot/house was built before current zoning requirements), and our home has
more affordable rent than similar homes in Palo Alto with the same neighborhood character as the rest of the city.
4. Streamline the approval process. Housing can be both made more expensive and prevented by the long amount of
time and money it takes to get a project approved.
The housing crisis is severe, and we must take bold action to address it.
Thank you,
Ryan Globus
Midtown Resident
P.S. I would normally address the City Council in person during public comments on this very important issue, but I have
to work late that evening.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Angela Dellaporta <asdellaporta@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 2, 2020 7:10 PM
To:Council, City; citycouncil@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject:Moratorium on Building Activity in the NVCAP
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members,
As a member of the NVCAP Working Group, I want to urge your support of a moratorium on building permits in the
NVCAP area.
The Working Group has been directed by you to give our recommendations regarding the best way to use the area in
question; proceeding with this work is meaningless if new projects are approved before we even make our
recommendations.
Thank you,
Angela Dellaporta
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Elaine Uang <elaine.uang@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 8:05 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing Workplan
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,
Many thanks for re‐instating Housing as a council priority for 2020 on Saturday and for taking up the Housing Workplan
tonight. The staff report is quite detailed and carefully lists items they are working on and items they are considering.
Below are my thoughts on a Housing Workplan:
A) Resource our Planning Team ‐ Not sure if the budget can still be increased, but the planning department has
indicated they are stretched resource wise, and will need a few more professionals to take on any housing
workplan. Please give staff the additional support they need to manage housing related planning items.
B) Scalable Housing Solutions ‐ Palo Alto has a severe housing deficit which needed to be filled a decade ago. To do so,
we need housing policies and development standards that allow the city to approve as much housing as quickly and
predictably as possible. We will not get any housing if we require each applicant to enter into custom negotiations, like
a PC process ‐ that is not scalable.
While PCs were important tools to permit housing and affordable housing during the 1980s‐2000s, why were PC's
introduced in the first place? They were used for housing because our baseline residential zoning standards were too
restrictive. PCs require expensive, time consuming staff resources to negotiate custom standards for individual
projects. It's fiscally irresponsible to dedicate precious staff resources to a policy that yields 1 housing application at a
time. Today, you have a better opportunity to fix the root problem ‐ modernize and update our overly restrictive zoning
code and development standards. I urge you to consider spending valuable staff resources to craft realistic,
economically feasible, housing policies and standards that apply to as many housing project sites as possible:
C) Right Size Palo Alto's Housing Standards: In 2018/2019 this council discussed and passed the Housing Incentive
Program to encourage housing in our mixed use districts ‐ University Ave, California Ave and El Camino Real. So far
those changes have yielded NO applications because they are not incentive enough. Please right size these the
standards, and encourage financially feasible housing projects.
Increase the Height Limit along Univ and Cal Avenues (not ECR) In the 1920s we built 75' 7 story
residential/hotel buildings (Hotel President, Staller Court, Casa Real) , we should be allowing those again (the
building code already allows this, our city just prohibits them) This is critical for subsidized BMR housing.
Increase the FAR along Univ & Cal Avenues ‐ 2.0 residential FAR doesn't yield many units and the 1920s buildings
I named above are all 3.0 FAR or greater. Again, this critical for subsidized BMR housing.
Parking: At Cal Ave & Univ Ave, residential in‐lieu parking fees will be needed, or access to existing Parking
District garages. Parking takes up a lot of space and is physically impossible to accomodate for smaller CD‐C and
CC lots (especially sites that are < 100' wide) and some lots simply have no ways for cars to access them (ie no
car access allowed from University.) BMR and workforce housing parking standards also need to be reduced ‐ at
$75k‐$100k percar parking space, this takes away precious dollars to build housing for people who need it most.
Streamlined permitting processes ‐ When we needed housing yesterday, 2‐3 year approval timeline just delays
the problem unncessarily. Encourage a shorter fixed timeline with a predcitable process. any additional steps
will just introduce an expensive time delay.
Extend the HIP to corridors like San Antonio Road, Alma Expwy and/or Middlefield Road.
2
I regret that I can't attend tonight. Hope your conversation is yields a impactful Housing Workplan for 2020!
Sincereley,
Elaine Uang
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 10:57 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Housing work plan
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I support these four goals for direction to staff
1) Fill planning department vacancies and add staff and consultants as needed to meet our housing goals
2) direct staff to return with another round of zoning incentives and changes--scaleable ideas that will
move the needle including exploring Council member Tanaka's idea of micro units.
3) Further speed the review and approval process
4) Explore funding options for low income housing as suggested by Council member Cormack
Stephen Levy
(home to 17 families including some school age children and older residents)
Now Illegal to build
Redacted
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Bonnie Packer <bonniebpacker@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 11:46 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing Work Plan Agenda # 11.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
Here are my comments on Agenda item 11‐ Housing Work Plan Staff Report:
Since you have made housing a priority, this should translate into meaningful action to increase production of housing in
Palo Alto. To accomplish this important goal, I urge you to do the following:
1. Embrace the proposal described in the staff report to develop a new housing overlay or combining district. A well‐
designed district could realistically produce housing by increasing incentives for developers (particularly non‐profit
affordable housing developers) and by eliminating the barriers to such production.
This housing overlay zone must
allow at least 5 stories of housing units;
reduce unrealistic parking requirements and increase FAR;
streamline the entitlement process; and
create other incentives that would make it economically feasible for developers to build housing, rather than
offices
A housing overlay zone would be most appropriate in the transit and service rich areas of Downtown North and South,
Cal Ave, El Camino Real and San Antonio and the North Ventura area and should take priority over all the other
assignments listed in the staff report. You should make this an emergency and set a due date.
2. Triage the assignments listed in the staff report, to determine which would get the most bang for the buck to produce
more housing. Some of these include cottage clusters, PTOD Village amendments (this could be tied into the overlay
zone), and a no‐net‐loss housing policy.
3. Explore creative and more reliable ways to help fund affordable housing projects. There has been little or no recent
commercial development in this city, so increasing the housing impact fee will do nothing to help fund affordable
housing. Zero times zero is zero.
Bonnie Packer
PS: As a veteran of two Comprehensive Plan Citizen Advisory Committees, of at least three Housing Element Technical
Advisory Committees, as a former Planning and Transportation Commissioner and as a board member of Palo Alto
Redacted
2
Housing, a non‐profit affordable housing developer, I understand the importance of zoning and development standards
and the complexities of financing affordable housing projects.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net>
Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 2:03 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Tonight City Council Meeting Agenda item #11 Housing Plan
Attachments:Housing Work Plan 2-3-20 WD.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
From Winter Dellenbach
RE: Housing Work Plan To: Members of the City Council From Winter Dellenbach Date: 2-3-2020 1. Bringing back PC’s, and some possible options under Housing Overlays or Combining Districts are troublesome if not harmful to generating housing we need: (Staff report excerpt in italics) -Allowed only for housing projects, including mixed-use housing projects. Can be used for any housing, not just the moderate or low-income housing that we actually need, -Housing alone, including required affordable housing, would be the public benefit. It does not benefit anyone but for-profit developers to use up valuable land resources while increasing land costs when building luxury and market rate housing for the most privileged and moneyed among us or moving here. The small percentage of affordable housing that may be required and generated will never compensate for the loss to affordable housing. Trickle down housing works no better than the bankrupt theory of trickle down economics no matter how often people say it. For mixed use projects, housing units, sufficient to address any job-related housing needs generated by the project, must be provided on-site. This is somewhat unclear - does it mean a project must house workers onsite? How would that be enforced? Would this be a live/work project for all kinds of workers - food handlers, retail, office workers? Do they live there if they don’t work there anymore, say after 3 months? Is this the only affordable requirement at mixed-use projects? If so, this maintains the jobs-housing balance and makes things no worse, but makes things no better – we need more affordable units. 2. When it returns to you later this year, enact the so-called Palmer Fix to include inclusionary zoning for rental housing as it now applies to for-sale housing, but increase the percentage to 20% for both. 3. Also require inclusionary units to be used on-site rather than satisfied as in-lieu fees, given we need actual housing when and where we can get it, allowing in-lieu when rounding-up for partial unit percentages. 4. Increase Impact Fees to get more in-lieu fees for our Affordable Housing Fund. Look to Stanford/County GUP formula as you review updated Palo Alto and County nexus studies, and this time rely on them. It is irresponsible in this day and age not require near full mitigation from commercial developers just because we have not done so in the past. You impact, you mitigate. The next time a for-profit developer tells you their
project “doesn’t pencil out”, tell them they need to fix their project, and if they need something from you, require a full analysis of their project pro formas by an expert rather than taking their word for it. 5. Other work efforts that have not even been started and remain outstanding include protections for cottage clusters and exploring a no net housing loss policy. It is critical that these are incorporated into the Housing plan to save the housing we have.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Pat Burt <patburt11@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 2:59 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:02/03/20 Agenda Item 11 - CC Housing Workplan
Attachments:Palo Alto Housing Initiatives 020220.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
City Council,
Tonight you will review its Housing Workplan and give direction to staff on next steps.
In 2018, the council adopted the most significant city housing zoning changes in decades, intended to spur affordable,
workforce and market rate housing. In addition, in 2018 the council adopted far reaching ADU incentives, exceeding
what were then state requirements. Increases in FAR (building size), density (number of dwellings per acre), reduced
parking requirements and regulatory streamlining were all accomplished.The council also just adopted new ADU
regulations to comply with 2019 state law changes which now allow one Senior ADU (detached) and one Junior ADU
(attached), along with other incentives, including elimination of any parking requirements for the ADU or for loss of
parking due to a garage ADU. These far reaching changes are in contrast to Mayor Fine’s claim recent claim in the press
that the city has not done “Jack S…”, https://sf.curbed.com/2020/1/13/21062784/palo‐alto‐mayors‐housing‐crisis‐sb50‐
filseth‐fine.
Despite the major zoning incentives, the impacts to date have been modest. The city is roughly on track to hit its current
RHNA housing goals for market rate housing, but well behind those goals for moderate or low income housing. Due to
SB35, , for the first time, failure to meet those goals is anticipated to have onerous impacts on the city by the state in
two years, drastically reducing the city’s ability to control local approvals.
Moderate and low income housing are not being produced adequately due to several economic barriers; lack of funding
for housing subsidies, very high land costs driven by higher investment returns for commercial office than housing, and
lack of available land.
The following are among the most impactful action that you can take:
Affordable housing lacks adequate funding. The city needs to take two actions to address the city share of
funding which affordable housing non‐profits can then leverage.
o Include a share of the upcoming business tax to supplement affordable housing funds. 25% of that tax at
a rate of a quarter of what San Francisco charges per worker on average would double to triple the
amount of affordable housing produced in Palo Alto.
o Raise the commercial development impact fees to the rate supported by the city nexus study in late
2016 and which is aligned as a rate with what the county came up with for the next Stanford GUP.
Currently, Stanford’s rate is determined by Palo Alto’s rate. Consequently, failure to increase that rate
by the CC in 2017 resulted in ~$8 million less funds from Stanford for local affordable housing over the
last three years. The Stanford impact fees have been used for projects such as Buena Vista.
Zoning changes. The city currently has tens of millions of square feet of land zoned for commercial use. Given
the annual and Comprehensive Plan office caps, there is far more land zoned for commercial than can be built
for that use. Yet keeping commercial zoning in place inhibits incentives for developers to take advantage of the
new housing incentive zoning. Rezoning a relatively small portion of that land for strictly multi‐family residential
use, or retail/residential mixed use, would have a large impact on residential project being produced. The
former VTA lot is a strong example of this impact. When the initial developer thought the city would rezone
from PF to CS, he proposed an office project. When the city council made clear they would only approve
2
predominately residential, the property was sold to a residential developer and the project proceeded and is the
only significant market rate project currently under construction.
o Designate specified current CS zoned (which allow the new housing overlays) areas in Downtown, Cal
Ave and El Camino as housing or mixed retail/housing only.
o Designate other commercial areas that do not currently fall under the housing overlays, such as within
the Stanford Research Park and elsewhere, so that they only allow multi‐unit housing or retail/housing
mixed use.
o Initiate a Coordinated Area Plan (Specific Plan) for the greater San Antonio/East Meadow Circle area to
determine changes to incentivize housing in conjunction with addressing needs for accompanying
transportation/mobility, parks and public services and selection of specific areas restricted to affordable
and workforce housing.
Affordable housing goals will not be met with current local funding sources. However, increased local funding is able to
be leveraged to provide far more dollars than would be provided locally. Housing for all income levels is at an economic
disadvantage when competing with office development for land, labor and materials. The city cannot address the
regional impacts of massive office development on the cost and availability of construction labor, but we can and should
address the availability and comparative cost of the land.
Real success in achieving your goals requires an objective recognition of the economics of housing development and a
willingness to take corresponding actions.
Best regards,
Pat Burt
What Palo Alto is Doing to Address
Housing and Sustainable Growth
-where we are and where we’re headed
Palo Alto has been a longtime regional leader in providing affordable housing.
PA has recently responded with multiple measures to reduce the rate of job
growth while increasing the supply of housing for all income levels citywide.
Results of those changes are bearing results with increasing impacts ahead.
However, job growth tends to occur in spurts while housing development
requires a longer cycle. The community is pursuing a next set of initiatives.
As the epicenter of Silicon Valley, Palo Alto has a long history as a jobs center
while surrounding communities were predominately residential. Many of those
communities are now major jobs centers.
Overview
Very high regional job growth is driving housing shortages at all income
levels, increasing traffic congestion, undermining social/economic balance.
Palo Alto
Sources: City of Palo Alto; American Community Survey; Zillow, Inc;
Rentcafe.com. Numbers are approximate.
Subsidized - Deed Restricted: 8.0% of all
housing units citywide – regional leaders
Population: 67,082
Households: 28,750
Housing Type: Ownership 55% / Rental 45%
A mixed, small urban and suburban community
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
1999 - 2006 PALO ALTO
RHNA
1999 - 2006 PALO ALTO 2007 - 2014 PALO ALTO
RHNA
2007 - 2014 PALO ALTO 2015 - 2023 PALO ALTO
RHNA
2015 - 2023 PALO ALTO
1,397
1,713
2,860
1,062
1,988
447
PALO ALTO REGIONAL NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA)/PERFORMANCE
From 2000-2013 Palo Alto population grew 13% vs Santa Clara Co average of 9%
*Note: Current period numbers
are not pro-rated. Current rate
would be ~1000 for 2015-2023.
Recent Housing Policies, Programs, Initiatives
-exceeding state and regional mandates
Mayfield Place 70-unit Family -
100% Affordable - 2017
Buena Vista Mobile Home Park -
Preserved and Deed Restricted
Affordable Housing - 2016
Broad Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU)
expansion
2016-2017
•All single family lots
now allow second
dwelling units
Renter Relocation Assistance - 2018
Housing Plan 2017-2019
-50% increase in
housing zoning citywide
•ADU’s, affordable and
workforce housing
overlays
•Market-rate Housing
Incentive Program
(HIP) – near transit
Caps on office &
commercial growth –
annual and 15-year
cumulative
Adopted 2015-2030
Comprehensive Plan
•3,500 – 4,400 new
housing units
•230 – 290 units/year
2015-2030
Housing Work Plan -2018
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63027
Partnerships
Recent Initiatives
Leveraging City Funds
Ongoing Initiatives
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=48913.78&BlobID=68392https://www.curbed.com/2019/10/11/20909545/adus-development-california-real-estate-housing-shortage
Designated as Affordable Units by State
70% increase of dwelling units allowed citywide
(~10,000) in R-1 neighborhoods
Bonus floor area and lot coverage
New 2019 State ADU Legislation – all cities must
allow two ADU’s per R-1 lot, adding zoning for
~16,000 additional housing units citywide
No limits on lot size, no parking required, fee waivers
ADUs allowed on nearly all single family lots
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PRODUCTION
*Note: 2019 figures
are projected based
on Jan 1, 2019 –
May 8, 2019.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019*
2010-2019
# of Building Permits for ADU issued # of Building Permit ADU Applications
ear 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019*
# of ADU
Building Permits
Issued
5 5 2 6 3 8 5 12 36 41
# of ADU
Applications
9 1 4 5 2 10 9 28 54 80
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:ron ito <wsrfr418@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 5, 2020 12:08 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing..........
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I think any talk about affordable housing should consider mini/micro apts at Reduced rents since there are many
people who probably would be willing and able to pay for a smaller apt at reduced rates. There is little sense
to put up market rate full size apts in a city when there is still a substantial number of people who could not afford
them. One of my
neighbors complained that PA is becoming "too white collar". Maybe be true; lots of professionals and wealthy people
here as well as the
surrounding cities.
I think council once considered putting a mini/micro size apt building like that at the corner of Page Mill Rd and El Camino
but that would
result in loss of a soccer field, which is probably not all that desirable. Lets not solve the housing problem while creating
another problem.
Any large corporation that is allowed to put up apts is probably going to do so to generate a return on investment.
(ROI). Better known as
a profit. It would be better if the profit motive is taken out of the equation but I don't know if it is possible.
More housing = more traffic and the traffic is already bad enough. You can mitigate the problem by putting up apts near
transit centers but
lets watch the height and density of the buildings that house the apts. If you give developers the green light on putting up
multi story apt
buildings as long as they include some features to "benefit" the public; you (and the residents) will likely get more than you
bargained for.
I sort of have a dim view of developers; if they can snake their way Around certain regulations designed to fit the city's
needs they will do it. Remember they are in business to make money; not necessarily to do what is best for the
community. As for the "public benefit" that is too broad a term. It needs
to be more narrowly defined....and I am sure it will be when the time comes. Council needs to stay on the ball and
scrutinize every single development
that is proposed. Poorly designed developments could end up being great for renters but poor for people in surrounding
homes. Lets try to avoid
that debacle.
Some of these homeless/low income people come here because the weather is generally mild year around. That creates
a problem for the city
AND themselves. At some they have to wonder if the trade off is worth it. From what I read people are leaving
CA. Where they go I don't know
but my brother in law moved to TX because he could not keep up with the COL in Los Gatos since he retired.
There has to be a balancing act/compromise.. if you cannot afford housing in this part of the peninsula then consider
going to where you Can afford it
rather than forcing the city to find a way to accomodate your housing needs. I know some cities are giving their homeless
residents a one way ticket to the city of their choice on the condition that they do NOT return. I heard it has been
somewhat successful. Maybe PA should consider the same. Every little bit helps.
2
In other words...people who can...Do (live in CA and the bay area) and those who can't ...Move. If people cannot afford to
live in even a micro size apt then consider moving to an area where the COL is much lower. Might not be the best
weather but at least those people could afford their housing and get off the street.
That is the 2cents from me. Thanks for reading.
Concerned Resident Ron Ito
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Leslie Mills <casamills@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 2:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:233/235 University
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Members:
We are the owners of the building at 233/235 University. The building is an un‐reinforced brick
building for which we have ARB approved plans to seismically upgrade. We are currently working
on the design drawings for the building permit. We were told by the Planning Department that
we must keep 50% of the Building walls to qualify for the seismic bonus so we planned
accordingly by keeping the front facade and wall adjacent to the theater and tearing down the
back wall and the one along Ramona. The plan is to reuse the existing brick and build a 2 story
building with the added square footage of the seismic bonus plus TDRs purchased from the City.
As we are exploring in more detail the required design to retain the inner 12" thick brick wall, it is
proving to be a costly venture (estimated at ~ $1Million) to try and support this mass from falling
either way (it can only be accessed from one side) and I've been told it will never be as structurally
sound as a new wall. It seems counter intuitive to remodel a building for seismic reasons and
keep one of the prime offending components that could never be as structurally sound as a new
wall built to today's codes.
In reviewing the codes on this issue I am not seeing anything that states the 50% rule. I was told
by Planning that decision to allow the seismic bonus only if 50% of the existing building is
maintained was made during the city council meeting on May 4, 2015. However in reviewing the
transcripts for the meeting I do not see where that is mentioned. I can only refer to the City codes
to determine what qualifies for seismic bonus. Municipal Code 18.18.70(2) states that the seismic
Rehabilitation Bonus is subject to the restrictions in subsection (b). Subsection (b) (5) states the
seismic rehabilitation shall conform to the analysis standards referenced in Chapter 16.42 of this
code. Chapter 16.42 required an engineering report be submitted to the City years ago which my
father did. The engineer wrote a letter report stating:
"In my opinion, any proposed scheme of reconstruction to meet the requirements of the Seismic
Hazard Reduction Program would involve such extensive reworking of the existing structural
components as to make complete replacement a more logical course of action."
So if I follow the requirements in the Municipal code, the demo recommended in the engineer's
report per Section 16.42, would qualify for the seismic rehabilitation bonus. Apparently several
2
other buildings were allowed to be demo'd prior to 2015 and received the seismic bonus. I can
give you a list if you need it.
I would think in circumstances where the seismic retrofit of a building is not
feasible or logical and demolition is the logical course than this would
qualify as a seismic rehabilitation as it once did. Furthermore, is not the
point the the seismic bonus to encourage those with seismically
challenged buildings to upgrade their building whether it be a remodel or
a new structure? We are not wealthy developers and the costs for this
project are estimated in the $9M to$10M range plus soft costs. This is a
huge loan for us which needs to be paid by the building rents and at this
point is questionable even with the added square footage. Financially we
would be better of leaving the building as‐is but we think it is in both the
City and our best interest to seismically improve this building. The new
building will be a beautiful improvement to the downtown.
I've been told that there is only one other building remaining to be
seismically upgraded besides ours and therefore would apply to the
seismic bonus policy. We are looking for your help and guidance on this
to make this plan happen.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 1, 2020 1:38 PM
To:City Mgr; City Mgr; Stump, Molly; Greer Stone; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org;
Kniss, Liz (internal); Human Relations Commission; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; chuck
jagoda; Kou, Lydia; DuBois, Tom; Fine, Adrian; city.council@menlopark.org; Steven D. Lee; Roberta
Ahlquist; Council, City; Jonsen, Robert
Subject:Assembly Bill 686 -Bill’s Goal fairness in housing — very important legislation -cities forced to
respond -and mandates city plan.......
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Follow the link below to view the article.
http://mercurynews.ca.newsmemory.com/?publink=0bb60f54d
Sent from my iPhone
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 1, 2020 1:52 PM
To:Aram James
Cc:City Mgr; Stump, Molly; Greer Stone; Palo Alto Free Press; Greg Tanaka; Kniss, Liz (internal); Human
Relations Commission; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Kou, Lydia; DuBois, Tom; Fine, Adrian;
city.council@menlopark.org; Steven D. Lee; Roberta Ahlquist; Council, City; Jonsen, Robert
Subject:Re: Assembly Bill 686 -Bill’s Goal fairness in housing — very important legislation -cities forced to
respond -and mandates city plan.......
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Thanks for sharing!
Good, true article.
It's hard to really grasp the fact that local cities (not just Palo Alto) have spent the last forty years NOT
building for the lower levels of the market. Which SO obviously disadvantages the lower and middle
classes and leaves us right where we are now-- caught between those who need housing but can't find
anything affordable and those (present residents and developers and City Council cohorts) hell bent
on only catering to those who can pay big bux to live here. How long, how long will this stupid
stalemate survive?
Chuck
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 1:37 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:
Follow the link below to view the article.
http://mercurynews.ca.newsmemory.com/?publink=0bb60f54d
Sent from my iPhone
‐‐
Chuck
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 2, 2020 10:09 AM
To:Fine, Adrian; City Mgr; Council, City; chuck jagoda; Roberta Ahlquist; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com;
Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Jonsen, Robert; city.council@menlopark.org; greg@gregtanaka.org;
Human Relations Commission; council@redwoodcity.org; price@padailypost com;
citycouncil@mountainview.gov; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; wintergery@earthlink.net;
WILPF.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Stump, Molly; Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org; Anna Griffin;
Minor, Beth; Bill Johnson; Ian Bain; Bains, Paul; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; City Attorney; Cecilia
Taylor; Cecilia Taylor; Donna Wallach; mark weiss; epatoday@epatoday.org; Shikada, Ed;
paloaltofreepress@gmail.com
Subject:Fact sheet re AB 686 —important read...end segregated-housing -and take certain affirmative actions
—-applies to Palo Alto—time to plan —time to act ...
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
https://www.nhlp.org/wp‐content/uploads/AB‐686‐Fact‐Sheet‐Feb.‐2019.pdf
Shared via the Google app
Sent from my iPhone
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 3:37 PM
To:Aram James
Cc:Fine, Adrian; City Mgr; Council, City; chuck jagoda; Mark Petersen-Perez; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou,
Lydia; Jonsen, Robert; city.council@menlopark.org; greg@gregtanaka.org; Human Relations
Commission; council@redwoodcity.org; price@padailypost com; citycouncil@mountainview.gov;
jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Winter Dellenbach; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Stump, Molly;
Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org; Anna Griffin; Minor, Beth; Bill Johnson; Ian Bain; Bains, Paul;
cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; City Attorney; Cecilia Taylor; Cecilia Taylor; Donna Wallach; mark
weiss; epatoday@epatoday.org; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Re: Fact sheet re AB 686 —important read...end segregated-housing -and take certain affirmative
actions —-applies to Palo Alto—time to plan —time to act ...
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Thanks for sharing! Good piece to use.
Went to 35 years of EPA RENT CONTROL ON SAT. WOW,
GREAT EVENT, INFORMATIVE, INCLUSIVE, SOCIAL JUSTICE COMMUNITY.
THEN WENT TO PA 'RETREAT' IN AFTERNOON...WHAT A CONTRAST..MOSTLY WHITE,
DEALING W/ PETTY ISSUES...WHICH WORLD DO WE LIVE IN?
On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 10:09 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.nhlp.org/wp‐content/uploads/AB‐686‐Fact‐Sheet‐Feb.‐2019.pdf
Shared via the Google app
Sent from my iPhone
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:David Page <dalpage5@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 29, 2020 6:55 PM
To:Luong, Christine; Benatar, Lisa; Elvert, Catherine; Kelty, Hiromi; Mellberg, Scott; Utility Programs;
Council, City
Subject:Re: educational campaign re climate crisis (cc - Catherine Elvert and Lisa Benatar)
Thanks much Christine,
I do hope to join you for the 2020 S/CAP Community Engagement Workshop and S/CAP update process. Would it take
that long to get an ok, with budget, for an educational campaign of the type I'm suggesting?
I am familiar with the Cool Block program. The type of strong PR campaign I'm thinking of would be something that
could help encourage residents to, for example, join a Cool Block effort.
Perhaps connecting the dots between pollution created and famines, floods & fires is a uncomfortable subject that our
city, or our utility, would prefer to let others speak about. I'm asking that Palo Alto government help it's citizens develop
a "sense of moral imperative" explicitly because of how these causes and consequences are connected.
What I recommend we stop doing can be found currently on the City website regarding the Sunshares program:
"Benefits of Going Solar:
- Financial - (Predictability) know your costs for electricity for years to come
SunShares prices are discounted
• Grid benefits
Less wear on the grid
• Resilience
Rooftop solar combined with battery storage can provide back-up in the case of power outages"
As you can see, there is no ethical or moral reason listed as a "benefit of going solar". Is, what might be
called, the biggest crisis in the world irrelevant? Why not point out that "rooftop solar combined with battery
storage" can help reduce your contribution to global death, disease, and destruction via GHG emissions? (as well as
helping to shift cultural norms regarding climate‐related anti‐pollution efforts)
I apologize for my exuberance here; please forgive me. I'm not sure who I should be asking to take on such an
educational/public‐relations task. Whomever didn't follow through with the 2007 GRTF requests perhaps had good
reason...then. Perhaps it's time, now, to be honest with the public?
Thank you very much for all of your work with this issue,
David Page
dalpage5@gmail.com
2
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 10:51 PM Luong, Christine <Christine.Luong@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Dear Mr. Page,
Thank you for reaching out. Thank you for sharing the results of your poll, which is very interesting. Your timing is great
because we are just about to launch our 2020 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Update, which will be a year‐long
process. We’ll be seeking input from community members on the goals, priorities, and actions of the 2020 S/CAP and
I’ve added your suggestions to our list of community ideas for the 2020 S/CAP. I hope you’ll join us for the first 2020
S/CAP Community Engagement Workshop (tentatively on March 25). I’m happy to add you to the mailing list for that.
In the meantime, are you familiar with our Cool Block program? Cool Block educates Palo Alto residents about climate
change and sustainability and teaches residents ways of reducing their carbon footprint.
Best,
Christine
From: David Page <dalpage5@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 2:25 PM
To: Luong, Christine <Christine.Luong@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: educational campaign re climate crisis (cc ‐ Catherine Elvert and Lisa Benatar)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello Ms. Luong
I'm a long time Mid‐town resident concerned about the warming of the atmosphere. At last year's City Council retreat,
I proposed that the City do an educational campaign regarding the climate crisis, covering consequences, causes, and
3
carbon‐footprints. I believe this idea was dismissed. Since then I found out that Palo Alto had convened a Green
Ribbon Task Force who had recommended a similar type of educational program in their 2007 Palo Alto Climate
Protection Plan: "create an overall {public relations} umbrella", where "staff and citizens would collaborate
on...delivering this message".
I've also noticed the excellent work done by those who produce utility bill inserts explaining the "how" or "what"
behind energy or electricity delivery/usage. However, I haven't seen much explanation about the "why", except to be
more "efficient". I asked Scott Mellberg and Hiromi Kelty about the lack of a broader rationale in the inserts or on City
web pages. They suggested that people may not be interested in the bigger picture, i.e., the crisis of atmospheric
warming, but are more concerned about utility bill fees or a more efficient household.
Yet I've seen and heard some residents complain about changes the utility has done to reduce pollution. I feel if an
PR/educational effort could connect the dots between the pollution we create and world‐wide worsening weather
conditions, residents would at least have a better understanding of, and maybe an appreciation for, the City's 80 x 30
S/CAP efforts.
The City Council is currently taking suggestions about 2020 priorities, and many respondents asked that climate change
be a priority. Perhaps, therefore, the timing is right to bring up the idea of a PR/education campaign again.
Since I could find little data, I conducted a poll (results are below) about what people know already. Unrelated to me,
around the same time, Sherry Listgarten asked many Palo Alto high school age students about the same topic ‐
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/blogs/p/2020/01/12/what‐local‐teens‐are‐saying.
Would PAUSD be interested in a coordinating with the City to get out information about why anti‐pollution efforts are
being implemented/considered? Isn't this what was recommended back in 2007, "coordinate climate protection‐
related PR with...outreach programs”? Would Menlo Park, Stanford, or Mountain View want to join in an effort to,
“create a sense of moral imperative”, as stated by the Green Ribbon Task Force?
I'd like to spend a few minutes of your time going over options about how to integrate my proposal into your plans to
promote/disseminate the February review of Palo Alto's S/CAP. Could you please contact me at your convenience?
Thank you very much,
David Page
650‐269‐1126
4
Anonymous, informal, survey of 105 random people in Palo Alto. Poll conducted in person by David Page,
daily, between 1/4/20 - 1/7/20. Questions were asked in a variety of Palo Alto locations; respondents were
allowed to read the written question as well as listen to it verbally.
Questions were strictly open-ended; no prompts were given.
Question1 What are, or will be, the worst consequences of the global atmosphere warming up?
Question 2: What are the major causes of this heating of the climate?
Question 3: How do individuals create pollution (your “Carbon Footprint”)?
{most subjects gave multiple answers; totals will not add up to 100%}
Question1 What are, or will be, the worst consequences of the global atmosphere warming up?
22% - “sea level rise/floods”
20% - “human mega-death / human death”
20% - “plant/animal species extinction” “eco-system/habitat/nature destruction”
12% - “losses of food/agriculture”
11% - “climate refugees/migration”
11% - “extreme weather disasters”
10% - “DON’T KNOW”
9% - “heat/drought”
7% - “fires”
5% - “children / next generation”
5
4% - “hoax / scam / conspiracy to create one world government”
other - “disease / economic disaster / resource wars / destruction of infrastructure”
Question 2: What are the major causes of this heating of the climate?
54% - “fossil-fuel pollution / CO2 emissions / greenhouse gases”
22% - “manufacturing/industry” “business/corporations” “lack of govt regulation”
12% - “cyclical / earth’s orbit / natural / NOT humans / scam/hoax / volcanoes”
11% - “cows/beef/diary” “meat/agriculture” “methane”
8% - “cars”
5% - “china/india” “big countries”
4% - “DON’T KNOW”
4% - “ozone”
other “shipping/hvac/mining/plastics/garbage/airplanes/greed/deforestation/population”
Question 3: How do individuals create pollution (your “Carbon Footprint”)?
54% - “litter/waste/garbage/plastics” “lifestyle/consumption/product purchases”
47% - “cars”
19% - “meat / food / diet”
6
13% - “shipping / transportation / travel”
11% - “airplanes”
9% - “hvac / electricity”
8% - “NOT fault of individuals” “corporations / factories / machines”
6% - “DON’T KNOW”
5% - “burning wood/garbage/trees/bushes”
4% - “cigarettes”
4% - “people don’t care / people don’t know”
3% - “aerosols”
other - “fentanyl / scam / noise / coal/oil / greed”
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Arnout Boelens <a.m.p.boelens@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 9:13 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Nicole Zoeller Boelens
Subject:Examples of Dutch cycling infrastructure applicable to PA
Attachments:cycleBoulevard1.jpg; cycleBoulevard0.jpg; cycleBoulevard2.jpg
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear members of the City Council,
Last week my wife and I attended the "word on the street" event at the Ohlone Elementary School. Since we have a
newborn on the way and plan on continuing to live car‐free, we're looking forward to having the bicycle boulevards
project completed soon. Based on some of the conversations I had at the event, I would like to share some images of
bicycle boulevards in the Netherlands that I think would be relevant to Palo Alto.
I think it is interesting how all of the designs feature bulb‐outs to make parking space available for cars. However, the
parking lane has a different texture and color from the main road so cyclists stay in the middle of the road. While we are
very happy with Ross road, maybe this kind of Dutch design could be implemented to alleviate the concerns of some of
the people living in the neighborhood about cyclists weaving in and out of traffic. This could be done by paving the
parking lane with concrete like Park Boulevard (Park and Oxford), but it could also be as simple as applying some striping
on the road to differentiate between the parking lane and driving lane. These designs could also be applied to future
bicycle boulevards, like the Maybell Ave boulevard.
If any of the council members would like to learn more about successful Dutch cycling policies and/or how to live car
free in Palo Alto, my wife and I would be more than happy to meet with you.
Kind regards,
Arnout Boelens
• • ' • • -• • • • • ' ... .... ... -• ' • ' • • ' • ' ' ... ... ' ' •
\. \ ' ' ' \ \ ' ' . ' ' • \ .. • ' I ' t' ..
• ' \ • ' -• ' ,_ -"'
r ' r 1 -• t i -\
• -'-,
I---J ~-I --~----:.;.. ]:_:, l ~ --~ ·IP-~~ A-t ~--:--
f -1 ---=-:.::
~ --~
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Gloria Pyszka <gpyszka@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 29, 2020 4:10 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fire Fine
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
What Adrian Fine did by putting down his opinion in the Mercury News in in the official capacity as major, is
reprehensible.
He should be censored, fired and "fined". Any and all would be deserved. He should step down immediatley as mayor
of Palo Alto. What he said is not the issue. The manner in which he chose to represent his own opinion, under the guise
of the Council's, is an entirely different matter.
Gloria Pyszka
East Charleston
Palo Alto
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 29, 2020 5:15 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Kleinberg, Judy; Drekmeier, Peter; Supervisor Simitian; AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov;
anne.ream@mail.house.gov; RA@alexanderlaw.com
Subject:GIVE 'EM THE BUM'S RUSH !
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
GIVE 'EM THE BUM'S RUSH !
Our Palo Alto downtown Food Closet was founded with the single purpose of distributing groceries in a professional and charitable manner. Located on All Saints' Episcopal Church grounds, our Food Closet was founded, during the '70s, by collaborative effort
between a parishioner of All Saints' Episcopal Church and a parishioner of Palo Alto's First Presbyterian Church. Sadly, in recent times, Downtown Streets Team (DST) has completely taken over control of our Food Closet and converted it into a job-training facility for vagrants. Many Palo Altans are alarmed and disgusted with this uncanny
arrangement. Residents want our community churches to ban together to simply take back our Food Closet and restore it to what it was intended to be, which is a food distribution facility with a businesslike and welcoming presence. We want incompetent, dysfunctional Downtown Streets Team vagabonds to be restricted from customer-service
positions within our Food Closet. It is both inappropriate and harmful to force elderly and infirm residents, who RELY on our church Food Closet, to be at the total mercy of derelicts and transients, who are often mentally-ill, wet alcoholics, "druggies", have no substantial work history, no understanding of how to deal with the public, or, indeed, how to operate within polite society. It is unfair and cruel to subject Food Closet patrons to crude language, confrontational behavior, and verbal abuse when receiving charitable groceries. Our Food Closet was not founded to be a job-training facility for vagrants and the chronically unemployed. Our Food Closet was founded with the SINGLE noble purpose of distributing groceries in a respectful manner. FOOD CLOSET PATRONS DESERVE BETTER !
Danielle Martell
Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Barbara Best <bbest@pausd.org>
Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 9:16 PM
To:bbest@pausd.org
Subject:FW: Invitation to the Gunn Staff Musical
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello! The Gunn Choir Boosters would like to invite you to a fantastic evening of entertainment at
Gunn High School, involving both students and Gunn staff: a musical called Heavenly Bandstand.
There are only two performances Tuesday February 11th at 8:00 pm, or Wednesday February 12th at
8:00 pm, at Gunn’s Spangenberg Theater. Click here to get tickets.
Get out your poodle skirts and hair cream and prepare to stroll, mash potato, and doo wop your way
down memory lane. High school senior and heroine, Annette, is visited by Johnny Angel in a dream.
He is desperate to return to earth and make it to the Top Forty. In order to do that, however, he must
compete on Heavenly Bandstand against many famous 1950’s rivals, including the King Himself,
Elvis. Join the fun as Johnny battles for his place on the charts, Annette searches for true love, and
the rest of us savor the sweet taste of American Pie.
Thank you and we hope you join us for the show!
Gunn Choir Boosters
2
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Bonny Parke <bonny.parke@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 2, 2020 3:07 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Homeless housing ideas
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members,
I thought you would be interested in this article on an approach taken to combat homelessness in Oakland. Many of the
ideas are also relevant to those living in RVs.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/25/1914149/‐A‐Safe‐Place‐To‐Camp‐Is‐The‐First‐Step‐In‐Getting‐People‐
Housed‐Be‐Of‐Hope‐Intentional‐Encampments?detail=emaildkcc
Thanks for all of the work you do for the citizens of Palo Alto.
Sincerely,
Bonny
Bonny Parke, Ph.D.
Palo Alto resident
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kim <ksuz1981@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, January 31, 2020 11:57 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Jet fuel emissions as a priority
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Council,
Thank you for your letter to San Francisco Airport regarding noise monitors.
Please keep climate as a priority and consider adding jet fuel emission pollution to the list of city priorities.
Thank you,
Kim Lemmer
Palo Alto
650‐213‐6836
Redacted
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Ann Balin <alafarguebalin@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, January 31, 2020 4:08 PM
To:Shikada, Ed
Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Stump, Molly; French, Amy; Hoyt, George; Council, City
Subject:Khoury Market Closure 1/26/20; Shelves Completely Empty 1/31/20
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
City Manager Ed Shikada,
Attached are twelve photos of the empty Khoury Market taken today, January 31, 2020 by me, Ann Lafargue Balin. The
Khourys ceased operation on January 26, 2020, a Sunday. Their business was not supported by the landlord, Jason
Oberman, who has for seven months and ongoing covered the business with netting and scaffolding. The chief building
inspector, George Hoyt, was told in November by Oberman’s superintendent that all covering would be removed in sixty
days which was January 22, 2020. This covering remains.
The city needs to urgently send staff to the site to take photos to document the empty market. Without the
documentation you will not be able to collect the fines. Kindly instruct your staff to take the photos and get the process
implemented.
Thank you in advance for your urgent attention to this serious matter that has impacted the community.
Best regards,
Ann Lafargue Balin
College Terrace Residents’ Association
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:LWV of Palo Alto <lwvpaoffice@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 29, 2020 3:25 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:League of Women Voters 100th Anniversary Proclamation
Attachments:City of PA Proclamation for LWV 100th Anniversary .pdf; Let to City Council asking that 14Feb2020
be proclaimed LWV Day in Palo Alto.pdf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
January 29, 2020
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mayor Fine and City Council Members,
On behalf of the Board of Directors of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto, I hereby request that the
Palo Alto City Council proclaim February 14, 2020, to be League of Women Voters Day in Palo Alto.
The League of Women Voters was founded 100 years ago, on February 14, 1920, just six months before
the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, giving women the right to vote after a 72-year struggle.
In the 100 years since 1920, the LWV has been an activist, grassroots organization believing that voters
should play a critical role in democracy.
The League is proud to be nonpartisan, neither supporting nor opposing candidates or political parties at any level of government, but always working on vital issues of concern to members and the public.
The League of Women Voters continues to play its unique role as a recognized force in molding political
leaders, shaping public policy and promoting informed citizen participation at all levels of government.
Thank you for your kind consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Ellen Forbes First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Palo Alto for Terry Godfrey,
President, League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
‐‐
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto 3921 E. Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303
2
Phone: (650) 903-0600
Web: www.lwvpaloalto.org
Facebook: www.facebook.com/PaloAltoLeague/
Twitter: www.twitter.com/lwvpaloalto
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
Proclamation:
Celebrating the 100th Anniversary of the League of Women Voters of the United States
Whereas, the League of Women Voters was founded in 1920 as a “mighty political experiment” by the
foremothers of the suffragist movement at the National American Woman Suffrage Association, and;
Whereas, their goal was to help the 20 million women who were granted the right to vote by the 19th
Amendment understand and carry out their new responsibility as voters, and;
Whereas, with the success of this effort and the tireless efforts over the last 100 years to strengthen and
uphold its mission to empower voters and defend democracy, the League has become a trusted
nonpartisan, grassroots organization, and;
Whereas, the League has sponsored legislation and fought in the courts to protect and strengthen
voting rights and access, and for free and fair elections, civil rights, children, community health, and
education, and;
Whereas, the League has consistently been noted for its nonpartisan election information, including
sponsorship of candidate forums and information on state and local ballot issues, as well as its
commitment to register, educate, and mobilize voters, and;
Whereas, the League champions government systems that are open, transparent, inclusive, and
equitable, and;
Whereas, the League believes that active and engaged citizens, irrespective of gender, ethnicity, or
political affiliation, are the hallmark of democracy;
Now therefore be it proclaimed February 14 as League of Women Voters Day in the City of Palo Alto.
We honor and congratulate the League of Women Voters on its 100th Anniversary and commend the
League for its significant contributions to empowering voters and making democracy work.
Signatories
January 29, 2020 Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mayor Fine and City Council Members, On behalf of the Board of Directors of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto, I hereby request that the Palo Alto City Council proclaim February 14, 2020, to be League of Women
Voters Day in Palo Alto.
The League of Women Voters was founded 100 years ago, on February 14, 1920, just six
months before the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, giving women the
right to vote after a 72-year struggle.
In the 100 years since 1920, the LWV has been an activist, grassroots organization
believing that voters should play a critical role in democracy.
The League is proud to be nonpartisan, neither supporting nor opposing candidates or political parties at any level of government, but always working on vital issues of concern to members and the public.
The League of Women Voters continues to play its unique role as a recognized force in
molding political leaders, shaping public policy and promoting informed citizen participation
at all levels of government.
Thank you for your kind consideration of this request. Sincerely,
Ellen Forbes
First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
for Terry Godfrey, President, League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Robert Schreiber <r_schreiber_98@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 1, 2020 12:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Paper sacks aren’t perfect!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Guess I need to bring my own plastic bag to carry home oats from the bin at the store.
2
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kathleen <vz222222@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 29, 2020 5:13 PM
To:Planning Commission
Cc:webmaster@sensiblezoning.org; Council, City
Subject:Community letter to Planning Commission
Attachments:Community Letter PTC 20200127.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi all,
I endorse the attached community letter to the Planning Commission regarding procedures for a more productive
commission. There should be no place on the commission for someone who is rude to other commissioners and
members of the public. Please keep this in mind when selecting new commission members.
Kathleen Goldfein
Resident of Palo Alto since 1989
Homeowner and landlord since 1995
Alma Street, Palo Alto 94306
We the Undersigned
Residents of Palo Alto
… request that all Planning & Transportation Commissioners take into account the key characteristics below when nominating and voting for this year’s Chair and Vice Chair at your meeting on January 29, 2020.
1. Selfless interest in serving the public good and carrying out the work of the people. 2. Punctual and regular attendance at meetings. 3. Thorough preparation for each agenda item, including knowledge of relevant background.
4. Utmost respect and courtesy toward the public, its right of participation, and the commission’s role to thoroughly vet items adhering to the Commission’s role and on the public’s behalf.
5. Zero tolerance for bullying or disparaging a member of the public from the dais. 6. Respectful interactions with colleagues. 7. Commitment to transparency, including:
a) Compliance with State-required, complete disclosure at the dais of any conflict of interest and resultant recusal from participation, and
b) Full compliance with disclosure requirements in quasi-judicial hearings: disclosure of contact(s) with any parties involved, as well as providing the substance of new and pertinent
information from those contacts that are not part of the public record.
8. Respectful interactions with staff in private (e.g., when setting agendas) as well as during public meetings. Full disclosure of any interactions with staff on personal matters that may overlap with the work of the commission.
9. Managing fair, open, and productive meetings by:
a) Preserving order and decorum at the dais,
b) Curbing behavior that is not in alignment with the highest ethical standards, c) Allowing adequate time for members of the public to speak,
d) Permitting each commissioner an opportunity to ask questions before any motions are made,
e) Keeping discussions on topic and moving by encapsulating key ideas and being as clear and brief as possible, and
f) Seeking areas of common ground when possible.
January 25, 2020 List of endorsers begins on the following page.
Endorsers
Adobe Meadow
Ceci Kettendorf Peter Taskovich
Barron Park Beth Charlesworth
Maury Green Suzanne Keehn Art Liberman Richard Placone
Charleston Gardens Jean Wilcox
College Terrace Fred Balin
Stewart Carl Margaret Heath Annette Ross William Ross
Crescent Park Norm Beamer John Guislin Karen Holman, former Planning and Transportation Commissioner and two-term Chair and former City Council Member and Mayor
Enid Pearson, former City Council Member Emily Renzel, former Planning Commissioner and Chair and former City Council Member Beth Rosenthal Greg Welch Rita Vhrel
Downtown North Neilson Buchanan
Duveneck/St. Francis
Hamilton Hitchings Steve Mullen
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Jo Ann Mandich
Evergreen Park Paul Machado David Schrom
Carol Scott
Fairmeadow Len Filppu
Green Acres
Jim Colton Joe Hirsch, former Planning Commissioner and Chair
Mayfield
Terry Holzmer
Shannon McEntee
Midtown Sheri Furman
Annette Glanckopf
Jennifer Hetterly, former Parks and Recreation Commissioner and Chair Jeff Hoel Debbie Mytels Greer Stone, former Human Relations Commissioner and Chair
Old Palo Alto Chris Robell
Palo Alto Hills
Mark Nadim
Palo Verde Ben Lerner Greg Schmid, former City Council Member
Vijay Varma
Professorville Mary Gallagher Yoriko Kishimoto, former City Council Member and Mayor
St. Claire Gardens Barbara and Steve Smith
University South
Roberta Ahlquist
Elaine Meyer
Ventura Lissy Bland
Susan Kemp
T. Ranganath
Rebecca Sanders
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:James Poppy <jamespoppy@comcast.net>
Sent:Wednesday, January 29, 2020 8:25 PM
To:Planning Commission; Council, City
Subject:Yet another travesty at City Hall
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Planning Commission,
Shame on you for politically motivated election of a new chair and vice chair. It’s obvious you do not want to represent
citizens of the community but would rather promote your own agenda. Ms Summa deserved a position and some
respect.
And what is up with Alcheck? You look ridiculous, and your attempts at placating the outrage was beyond stupid.
Palo Alto government continues to be a bad joke getting worse. Please stop fingering yourselves to get off.
Jim Poppy
Melville Avenue
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Aleks Totic <a@totic.org>
Sent:Thursday, January 30, 2020 9:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:SB50 thank you
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
I'd just like to thank Mr Fine. for his support of SB50. I'd like to see my children have an option to live in the Bay Area.
Aleks, Los Arboles
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Gary Wesley <gary.wesley@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 5, 2020 2:13 AM
To:Citycouncil
Subject:Fw: Senate Bill 50
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Senator Bates <senator.bates@senate.ca.gov>
To: Senator Bates <senator.bates@senate.ca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020, 04:02:33 PM PST
Subject: RE: Senate Bill 50
Thank you for your message regarding Senate Bill 50 (Wiener), the bill concerning the construction of higher-density
housing. I appreciate hearing from you and I am writing to give you an update.
As you may know, SB 50 failed to pass on the Senate floor on January 30, 2020.
In its latest form, SB 50 requires local governments to reduce specified local zoning standards in “jobs-rich” and “transit
rich areas.” This bill also requires a neighborhood multifamily project containing up to four dwelling units to be subject to a
streamlined, approval process. Specifically:
• SB 50 requires cities and counties to allow higher-density housing near “jobs-rich” and “transit-rich” centers.
• SB 50 provides localities two years to develop plans that increase housing density – localities that do not come up with
their own plans will be subjected to a one-size-fits-all standard developed by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development.
• SB 50 delays implementation in “sensitive communities” (defined as disadvantaged and vulnerable to displacement) until
January 1, 2026, unless the city or county in which the area is located votes to make these provisions applicable after a
specified petition and public hearing process.
While the latest version of SB 50 is an improvement over the previous version, I could not support it for several reasons.
2
First, SB 50 removes requirements for parking in new developments. Most households, even those that commute through
alternative methods, own at least one vehicle, and any new development must take this reality into account. Without
adequate parking, cars are forced to compete for on-street parking, creating significant public safety issues and
challenges for local businesses and neighboring properties. It is unrealistic to expect that most Californians – especially
families – will move into new housing and not bring a personal vehicle with them. I repeatedly asked SB 50’s supporters to
include a sensible parking requirement in the bill, but they refused.
Second, the bill ultimately allows the construction of multi-unit housing in single-family residential neighborhoods, which
undermines decades-long local control community planning authority. Additionally this would create significant traffic and
public safety impacts in neighborhoods that were designed to only accommodate the needs of single-family homes. Given
that the bill removes parking requirements for new developments, residents in single-family homes are understandably
concerned that multi-story housing towers would be built next to them and create significant traffic and parking problems.
Third, SB 50 is a one-size-fits-all solution for a geographically and demographically diverse state. It undermines the
authority of local governments to make decisions that respond to the concerns of their residents. SB 50 is partly a reaction
to what is happening in San Francisco, where housing costs are astronomical and there is physically little space to build
new housing other than constructing high-rise towers. SB 50 may work well for San Francisco given its unique geography,
but it does not mean it is the best solution for the rest of California.
Finally, SB 50 exempts numerous cities from its requirements, including Carmel-by-the-Sea and Malibu. Furthermore, SB
50 gives special treatment to Marin County – a county in the San Francisco Bay Area. This is not the first time Marin has
received special treatment in Sacramento. In 2014 and 2017, the Legislature exempted the county from state density
requirements for affordable housing projects. I have nothing against Marin County or any other community that will receive
special treatment from SB 50, but if SB 50 is a good bill, it should apply to everyone.
I know that California has become increasingly unaffordable for many people, with the cost of housing continuing to rise in
communities throughout the state due to high demand and low supply. The state simply is not building enough housing to
keep up with population growth. That is why I have fought for reforms to cut red tape and opposed previous measures that
have added to the cost of new housing construction. However, SB 50 as currently written is not the answer given the
concerns that I have listed above.
Sincerely,
PATRICIA C. BATES
Senator, 36th District
(Orange and San Diego Counties)
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Ed Lee <edjam1992@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, January 31, 2020 7:04 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Leepr; Jed Prophet; Karen Hawkins; Marianna; Judy Mann; in8jocelyn1392@gmail.com;
tuffycat@sbcglobal.net
Subject:T-intersection habitually blocked at San Antonio Court and San Antonio Road
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Hello again,
I was wondering when we might here from you or the city department to which you sent this matter for further action.
Thanks,
Ed Lee
.........
Dear council members,
those of us who try to turn right onto San Antonio Road from San Antonio Court are almost always blocked by cars that
have moved into the T‐intersection there.
The only chance those of us trying to enter San Antonio Road is during the time the traffic signal turns red. However,
drivers block this intersection during stopped traffic.
The problem has increased over the years so that even during non‐rush hours, we’re blocked. We have to fight our way
in most all the time.
I believe that the large majority of the drivers are not intentionally blocking the T‐intersection. They just don’t see it as
an intersection. The paint has faded and even I don’t see it as a casual driver.
There are a few malevolent drivers who are selfish and don’t care that they shouldn’t block this intersection. But these
folks, I think, are in the minority. There are drivers who honor the intersection, but these few good drivers are getting
fewer and fewer (anecdotally).
Could one or more of you ask the appropriate department to repaint the intersection so that the T‐intersection here is
visible? It’s possible that drivers don’t know they are breaking the traffic laws by blocking this intersection, especially
when the traffic signal turns red.
I recall that in San Francisco, they had a “Don’t block the box” campaign a number of years back, and designated the box
with a cross‐hatch paint job. Or maybe a yellow paint color repainting?
Anyway, we REALLY could use your help on this matter. It’s been going on for years and it’s just not getting better.
Thanks,
2
Ed Lee
ed@leepr.com
Redacted
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Doug Greene <pacoa101@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, January 31, 2020 9:48 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:101 Alma & train horn noise
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
RE: A quiet zone for the Alma Street/Palo Alto Avenue Caltrain crossing
Dear Mayor Adrian Fine and members of the Palo Alto City Council,
We, the Board of Directors of the Palo Alto Condominium Owners Association at 101 Alma Street in Palo Alto, represent the
approximately 170 people who reside here in 99 apartments. We write because of our residents’ concern about the intrusive noise
that train horns cause on a daily basis. Horns sound loudly four to six times as each of the current 92 weekday passenger trains cross
at Alma Street/Palo Alto Avenue. In addition, there are freight trains, often in the middle of the night.
Our concern is magnified by announced plans for Caltrain electrification. Even more trains are expected to come through this
corridor. This will cause further upheaval in the lives of our residents, who range in age from babies to seniors. The noise disturbs our
residents’ sleep and interferes with their right to quiet enjoyment of their homes.
We request that the City Council create a quiet zone for this Alma Street crossing. Other communities, such as Atherton, San
Jose and Campbell have established quiet zones. We request that Palo Alto do the same for the large number of families who reside
very close to this crossing. A quiet zone can be achieved in several ways. Note that the first does not require additional funding.
1. Ban the noise of all train horns. Create a quiet zone.
2. After creating the quiet zone, to promote additional safety, replace the current dual‐gates with quad‐gates. While quad barriers
require funding, we note that the city plans to spend funds to improve other crossings and believes ours needs improvement, also.
Thank you for your attention to this request. We look forward to hearing from you about next steps that can be taken to resolve this
matter.
Sincerely,
PACOA Board of Directors:
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Ursula Moore <usmoore@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 29, 2020 2:50 PM
To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City
Subject:Re- Barron Park Cell Towers
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Planning Director Lait,
I am writing to you to ask you to deny Vinculums’ request that their entitlement for the
Vinculums/Verizon Barron Park cell towers (Project Number 17PLN-00170) be extended.
First, Vinculums has failed to show good reason why they should receive this extension.
Second, the City of Palo Alto now has a new set of standards for cell tower installations, standards
such as prioritized placement outside of residential areas and a 600 foot set back from
schools. Vinculums is well aware of these new standards. They should be complying with them, not
asking to be allowed to disregard them.
Please let Vinculums’ entitlement for the Barron Park cell towers expire as scheduled on February 4,
2020. The residents of Barron Park deserve no less.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Ursula S. Moore
731 Josina Ave.
Palo Alto
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:martha stevenson <mstevenson201@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 29, 2020 4:52 PM
To:Lait, Jonathan; Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org;
Clerk, City
Subject:Barron Park Cell phone towers
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Planning Director Lait,
I am writing to you to ask you to deny Vinculums’ request that their entitlement for the
Vinculums/Verizon Barron Park cell towers (Project Number 17PLN-00170) be
extended.
Vinculums has failed to show good reason why they should receive this extension.
The City of Palo Alto now has a new set of standards for cell tower installations,
standards such as prioritized placement outside of residential areas and a 600 foot set
back from schools. Vinculums is should be complying with the new standards.
Please let Vinculums’ entitlement for the Barron Park cell towers expire as scheduled on
February 4, 2020.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Martha Stevenson
Redacted
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Celia Boyle <swcie@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 29, 2020 5:21 PM
To:Lait, Jonathan
Cc:Architectural Review Board; Council, City; Clerk, City; board@pausd.org
Subject:Barron Park cell towers
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Planning Director Lait,
I am writing to you to ask you to deny Vinculums’ request that their entitlement for the
Vinculums/Verizon Barron Park cell towers (Project Number 17PLN-00170) be extended.
Please note that there are already TWO of these cell towers on Barron Avenue.
Vinculums has failed to show good reason why they should receive this extension.
The City of Palo Alto now has a new set of standards for cell tower installations, standards such as
prioritized placement outside of residential areas and a 600 foot set back from schools. Vinculums is
well aware of these new standards. They should be complying with them, not asking to be allowed to
disregard them.
Please let Vinculums’ entitlement for the Barron Park cell towers expire as scheduled on February 4,
2020 so they will comply with the new standards.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Celia Boyle and Jay Hopkins
Barron Park, CA
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 2, 2020 8:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:NOTE: Eminent Domain Attorney at XCAP this Wednesday
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council members,
The Expanded Community Advisory Panel will be hearing from Eminent Domain attorney Norm Matteoni at our
meeting this Wednesday, Feb 5th from 4-7pm.
It would be wonderful if you could attend to learn more about how potential property impacts related to grade
separations might impact the community.
If not, it will be video taped and available on the website.
Hope you can make it.
Thanks,
Nadia
<l'. l.U CJ .u o-._4-
-14.. c;:::O
o ~n
....J:X: ~f;}
LL. ....J o<->
>.>-.... t: :::><->
fte Palo Alto Condominium OWners' .A&soc.latton
101 Alma Street
J>alo Alto, CA 94301
~ Phone (650) 321-0100 Fa.x (860) 321-6470 .. N 2020 FEB -4 PH I: 0 I
x: a_
..::;t
., r 1 r 1 v ~ u
CITY M,~HAGUl:S OFFICE
' CD l&J
January 31, 2020
u..
0 N RE: A quiet zone for the Alma Street/Palo Alto Avenue CaJtrain crossing
Dear Mayor Adrian Fine and members of the Palo Alto City Council1
We, the Board of Directors of the Palo Alto Condominium Owners Association at
101 Alma Street in Palo Alto, represent the approximately 170 peopte who reside here
in 99 apartments. We write because of our residents' concern about the intrusive noise
that train horns cause on a daily basis. Horns sound loudly four to six times as each of
the current 92 weekday passenger trains cross at Alma Street/Palo Alto Avenue. In
addition, there are freight trains, often in the middle of the night.
Our concern is magnified by announced plans for Caltrain electrification. Even
more trains are expected to come through this corridor. This will cause further upheaval
in the lives of our residents, who range in age from babies to seniors. The noise disturbs
our residents' sleep and interferes with their right to quiet enjoyment of their homes.
We request that the City Council create a quiet zone for this Alma Street
crossing. Other communities, such as Atherton, San Jose and Campbell have
established quiet zones. We request that Palo Alto do the same for the large number of
families who reside very dose to this crossing. A quiet zone can be achieved in several
ways. Note that the first does not require additional funding.
1. Ban the noise of all train horns. Create a quiet zone.
2. After creating the quiet zone, to promote additional safety, replace the current
dual-gates with quad-gates. While quad barriers require funding, we note that
the city plans to spend funds to improve other crossings and believes ours needs
improvement, also.
Thank you for your attention to this request. We look forward to hearing from you
about next steps that can be taken to resolve this matter.
Sincerely,
PACOA Board of Directors:
TO:
~ V$
ClfY Of
PALO
ALTO
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
8
FROM: BRAD EGGLESTON, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE:
SUBJECT:
2/3/2020
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8 -APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NUMBER 3 TO
CONTRACT NUMBER C16161210 WITH SHAH KAWASAKI ARCHITECTS, INC., TO
ADD A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $102,141 TO PROVIDE CONTINUED
CONSTRUCTION AOMINISTRATIONAND LEED CERTIFICATION SERVICES FOR THE
FIRE STATION 3 REPLACEMENT PROJECT (PE-15003), FOR A NEW TOTAL NOT-
TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $916,383
This additional information Is provided to help clarify the roles of the architect and the general
contractor in the Fire Station 3 project.
Architectural services relating to any building construction project involve a significant
construction administration phase during the actual construction work. Shaw Kawasaki
Architects provides these services for the Fire Station 3 project. Shaw Kawasaki Architects is
fully independent from the general contractor.
The general contractor is responsible for constructing the project under the City's construction
contract at a set price and within a specified number of days. Strawn Construction, the general
contractor for the Fire Station 3 project, self-performs some of the construction work and also
has 22 listed subcontractors who are under contract with Strawn to perform specific scopes of
work.
The time and materials budgets for architectural services were set with an expectation that the
construction would finish on time. When construction is delayed, the budget for these services
needs to be increased and the time period extended to a new expected completion date. Palo
Alto's standard construction contract template includes a provision for Liquidated Damages to
cover extra costs that are expected due to delay. In the case of Fire Station 3, the established
amount for liquidated Damages is $1,500 per day,
l of2
CIT r' CH
PALO
ALT
Brad Eggleston
Director of Public Works
Ed Shikada
City Manager
2 of2
~ ~. ~CJL MEETING ,;2, / ;l/)o2Q
_ f ] ~d Before Meeting
r.,...:r'Received at Meeting
REMARKS TO PALO ALTO CITY COUNClLATTHEIR SPECIAL MEETING ON 1st FEBRUARY 2020
I am Cherrill Spencer, a resident of Palo Alto for the past 45 years and a member
of the Palo Alto branch of the Women's International League for Peace and
Freedom, and of the coalitjon called Cities for CEDAW. Our WILPF branch has
been working on peace and justice issues for the past 97 years. I have been
advocating for the CEDAW convention since 1985. Instead of waiting another 40
years for the US government to ratify this convention we are working to get city
ordinances developed that will discover and then eliminate instances of
discrimination against girls and women in certain cities. On the 1st October 2018
(16 months ago) the Palo Alto City Council passed a motion that directed city staff
to study options for a city ordinance endorsing the CEDAW and to bring those
options to the Policy and Services Committee. The Council wanted staff to work
within existing budgets and city resources.
Throughout 2019 our coalition has been eagerly studying the Policy and Services
Committe~~meeting agendas expecting to see a staff report laying out options for
a new ordinance based on the CEDAW, but we have seen no such report. Our
coalition does not know why there has been no report and we come to you today
to urge you to discover what the city staff has done so far and to allocate them
some time and money so they can generate at least a preliminary report
describing some possible paths towards a CEDAW ordinance.
Our coalition has examples of other cities' existing ordinances we can provide to
staff and other materials to assist them. Staff will find this website has
informative resources: http://citiesforcedaw.org
Thank-you Councilors for your soonest attention to this issue.
Cherrill Spencer, Palo Alto resident, Barron Park.
P.S. WILPF draws particular attention to the issue of affordable housing and low-income
housing in Palo Alto, which impacts women strongly; we want any ordinance that is produced
to ensure that women are given equal access to affordable housing.
February 1, 2020 l cou/fl~ MEETING d J ;)..DrJo
[ ] Placed Before Meeting
[ ] Received at Meeting
I am Helen Young and have been a resident of Palo Alto since 1963.
I am grateful for the actions the Palo Alto City Council has already taken towards implementing
gender equity In Palo Alto and am asking that you continue to make it a priority in all phases of
your work. We know that homelessness negatively affects women disproportionately, but so
do transportation schedules, Job hiring procedures, promotions, and in fact, almost all budget
considerations. As you d iscuss the city's work today, I hope that you will continually ask the
question, .. What are the gender implications for thls action?" tor each item you consider as a
Council.
Please keep gender equity, and the steps needed to making Palo Alto a CEDAW City a top
priority for the Palo Alto City Council by encouraging the Policy and Services Committee to
begin action on this in a timely and effective manner.
I am one of the co-founders of the Palo Alto Coalition for Cities for CEDAW. Our purpose is to
have the principles ot the UN Convention on the Elimination ot all forms ot Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW) be enacted and implemented at the city level across the country.
This treaty was signed by Jimmy Carter and sent to the US Senate for their advice and
consent, where it has languished in committee for the past 41 years. I also work on gender
and international Issues for the Palo Alto branch of the AAUW and am a leader of the United
Nations Association, Midpeninsula Chapter.
• T~r letting me speak,
Helen Young ;/J 17
3387 Kipling Street
Palo Alto, CA 94306
650-493-6541
650-380-4923
hybj@stanford.edu
Gender Equity Through Hutnan Rights:
Local Efforts to Advance the Status of
Wotnen and Girls in the United States
Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute
The Human Rights Institute advances international human rights through education, advocacy, fact-
finding, research, scholarship, and critical reflection. We work in partnership with advocates,
communities, and organizations pushing for social change to develop and strengthen the human rights
legal framework and mechanisms, promote justice and accountability for human rights violations, and
build and amplify collective power.
Founded in 1998 by the late Professor Louis Henkin as the anchor for human rights within Columbia Law
School, the Human Rights Institute promotes engagement and knowledge of human rights within the
law school, throughout the University, and around world. Across the many substantive areas of its work,
the Institute builds bridges between scholarship and activism, develops capacity within the legal
community, engages governments, and models new strategies for progress.
The lnstitute's Human Rights in t he United States project develops the capacity of U.S. lawyers,
policymakers, and advocates to advance social justice in the United States through a human rights
framework. We build networks, facilitate trainings, conduct educational outreach, and promote
coordination among progressive public policy and advocacy groups, including through our Bringing
Human Rights Home Lawyers' Network. The project also directly contributes to the development of
lega l theories and positive precedents based on international law through work on select litigation
before U.S. courts, in international and regional fora, and through other research and advocacy projects.
The project works on cross-cutting issues, with particular focus on building human rights accountability
at the state and local level; promoting and improving U.S. engagement w ith the Inter-American human
rights system; and adva ncing access to justice in the United States.
For more information, please contact Columbia law School's Human Rights Institute at
hri@law.columbia.edu or (212) 854-3138.
Gender Equity Through Human Rights:
Local Efforts to Advance the Status of
Women and Girls in the United States
Prepared by the Columbia Law School Human Rights lnstirute
January 2017
Table of Contents
Ac.k:nowle.d_gmen'ts •..•................................•.••..•................•..•.........................•..•................................•.. 1
Introduction .................................................................•....................................................................... 2
Women's Rights in the Un'ited States ................................................................................. -... -............ 2
Benefits of Addressing Women's Rights Through a Human Rights Lens ...... ~ .................... .4
Current Efforts to Advance Gender Equity Using Human Rights ...................................... 7
CED AW -based Ordinances ...................... ~ ...................................•......•................•...•............................. 8
Human Rights Based Resolutions and Proclamations ............................................................ 12
Local Strategies to Advance Gender Equity Through Human Rights ............................. 14
Commit to Human Rights Principles ............................................................................................. 14
Gather Information on the Status of Women and Girls .......................................................... 14
Develop Goals to Advance Gender Equity .................................................................................... 15
Monitor Progress Related to Gende1 Equity ............................................................................... 15
Conduct Human Rights Education & Training ........................................................................... 15
Recommended Considerations .•......................... .-....................................................................... 17
Legal Tools & Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 17
Trans-parency & Public Participation ........................................................................................... 17
T'he Role of the Private Sector ......................................................................................................... 18
Resource Alloc.ation~···················································,········································································· 19
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix
A -State and Local CEDAW Initiatives in the United States ...................................................... 21
B -Select C.EDAW Implementation Tools ......................................................................................... 22
C -Additional Resources on Local CEDAW Initiatives ............................................................... 23
Endnotes .............................................................................................................................................. 24
Acknowledgments
Erin Foley Smith, Project Attorney with the Human Rights lnstitute's Human Rights in the U.S. Project,
researched and drafted this report. JoAnn Kamuf Ward, Deputy Director of the Project, along with Risa
Kaufman, Executive Director of the Human Rights Institute, provided guidance on the project and edited
drafts of the report. Yvette Dzakpasu, L.L.M 2016 and Abigail Gotter, J.D. 2019, provided valuable
research assistance •. We thank, too, June Zeitlin, Director of human rights pol.icy at the Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the Leadership Conference Education Fund, for providing
critical feedback on this project, and to the Cities for CEDAW Campaign.
We are grateful to the many state and local officials and human rights advocates who s_hared their
experiences and insights for this project in interviews conducted for this report, including: Araceli
Campos, Commissioner, City of Los Angeles Commission on the Status of Women; Daniella Levine Cava,
Commissioner, Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners; Helen Foster, Commissioner, New
York State Division of Human Rights and former New York City Council Member; Deb Liebowitz, Associate
Professor of Political Science at Drew University; Karen Mulhauser, Chair, UNA-USA and Commissioner,
Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights; Emily Murase, Executive Director, San Francisco Department
on the Status of Women; Monica Palacio, Director, Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights; and Soon-
Young Yoon, U.N. Representative, International Alliance of Women and Chair, NGO Committee on the
Status of Women. We also extend our appreciation to the local government and civH society participants
of the March 16, 2016 Roundtable Cities for CEDAW: Strategies and Lessons Learned, co-hosted by the
Human Rights Institute and the Leadership Conference Education Fund . In particular, we thank Krishanti
Dharmaraj, Executive Director, Center for Women's Global Leadership; Yolanda Francisco-Nez,
Coordinator, Salt Lake City Mayor's Office of Diversity and Human R~ghts; and Elizabeth Newman,
Workplace Policy & Legislative Director, San Francisco Department on the Status of Women. The
knowledge and reflections of all the Roundtable participants informed this report.
This resource builds upon prior Institute publications detailing strategies that state and local agencies and
officials can use to .strengthen human rights protections through local law, policy, and practice. These
publications include Bringing Human Rights Home: How State and Local Governments Can Use Human
Rights to Advance Local Policy and Using Human Rights Assessments in Local Governance: A Toolkit for
State and Local Human Rights and Human Relations Commissions.
Gender t.qu 11y Through Human Rights l l
Introduction
Because human rights are experienced close to home, local governments have jurisdiction over a range
of human rights issues, including those related to employment, education, housing, and public safety.
Indeed, local agencies and officials are essential to the promotion and protection of human rights in the
United States. They work every day to create conditions under which individuals and communities can
flourish, and they are well-situated to build and advance a culture of human rights, based on dignity,
freedom from discrimination, and opportunity.
With a focus on women's rights, this resource provides an overview of core human rights principles and
how they can strengthen local policy-making in the United States. It describes ways in which local
governments around the country are incorporating human rights into efforts to advance gender equity.
This resource is also forward-looking. It offers concrete suggestions for ways that state and local
agencies and officials throughout the United States can use human rights standards and strategies to
improve outcomes and opportunities for women, building upon established and emerging human rights
initiatives. Drawing from these initiatives, this resource highlights five key strategies for state and local
governments seeking to advance gender equity through human rights:
• Commit to Human Rights Principles
• Gather Information on the Status of Women and Girls
• Develop Goals to Advance Gender Equity
• Monitor Progress Related to Gender Equity
• Conduct Human Rights Training & Education
By adopting these strategies, local governments can build upon the existing efforts of U.S. mayors, state
and local agencies, and local legislatures that are using human rights principles to measure the impacts of
government policies and to develop responses to specific concerns, including in the areas of housing and
domestic violence. 1
Women's Rights in the United States
The United States Constitution enshrines the right to equal protection of the law in the Fourteenth
Amendment. While there is no Constitutional Equal Rights Amendment that guarantees equal rights for
women, a robust system of federal laws prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender and sex in many
arenas, including housing, employment, and education, and establishes measures to address gender-
based violence. State and local laws also prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex and gender, and in
some cases offer stronger protections than the U.S. Constitution and federal law.2
Yet despite robust legal protections, women -more than 50% of the U.S. population -continue to face
barriers to full equality in the United States. Women and girls lack equal opportunities and outcomes in
social, economic, and political life. Disparities exist not only between women and men, but also among
women, based upon a range of factors that include age, racial and ethnic background, sexual orientation,
income, and zip code.3
2J Gender Equity Through Human Rights
In the political arena, women have made great strides since securing the right to vote, but there are still
inequities with respect to the exercise of political power. The United States stands 97tti in the world in
the pe.rcentage of national legislative seats held by women,4 and in 2014, 71% of political offices in the
U.S. were held by men.5 The 2016 U.S. presidential election -historic for being the first time that a
female candidate was nominated by one of the two major U.S. politi'cal parties -was also notable for
gendered and sexist rhetoric that it surfaced, illustrating some of the barriers women face in achieving
full equality.6
In the economic arena, women's workforce participation has increased exponentially over the past SO
years, and women constitute almost half of the U.S. workforce.1 Yet women lack the same earning
potential as men and the gender-wage gap, which exists in every state, is well documented.8 Overall,
women earn only 79 cents for every dollar a white man earns, with a larger gap for women of color.9
While women aged 25-34 are more likely than men to have college degrees, they also have lower
earnings and higher poverty rates than men in the same age group,10 with women of cofor experiencing
poverty at a rate more than double that of white women.11
Women continue to face inter-personal violence at staggering rates despite a public policy focus on
domestic violence and sexual assault. Nearly one in four American women will experience intimate
partner violence in their lifetime. Thirty percent of African American women and 50% of Native American
women experience such violence.12 Indicators on health likewise reflect disparities based on women's
race, ethnicity, and background. African American women have the highest mortality rate due to heart
disease. The prevalence of diseases such as diabetes is double among American Indian and Native
Alaskan women compared to any other adults in the United States.13 Recognizing this reality, a 2016
report on the United States issued by independent international women's rights experts observes that 11in
[a] global context, women in the United States do not take their due place as citizens of the world's
leading economy, which has one of the highest rates of per capita income. In the United States, women
fall behind [international standards] as regards their public and political representation, their economic
and social rights and their health and safety protections."14
In an effort to address these challenges and secure more equitable opportunities and outcomes for
women and girls, U.S. city, state, and county governments increasingly look to international human rights
principles for guidance. Over a dozen jurisdictions have taken steps to integrate principles from the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, also known as CEDAW, into
local law and policy.15 While the U.S. signed CEDAW in 1980, it has not yet ratified the treaty. In the
absence of federal ratification, a number of local governments are taking action to bring local law in line
with CEDAW principles.
Incorporation of CEDAW principles into local governance reflects a broader trend among U.S. advocates
and policymakers to adopt human rights standards and strategies in their work. lndeed1 many local
governments are on the forefront of efforts to enhance decision-making through human rights, explicitly
using these principles to guide po'licy, as well as fostering participatory governance.
San Francisco led the way in using human rights to advance women's rights in 1998, when the Board of
Supervisors passed a CEDAW-based ordinance. Other cities and counties have followed suit. As of
December 2016, CEDAW ordinances were in effect in five additional jurisdictions: Los Angeles, California
Gender Equity Th r au g h Human R 1 g ht s. I 3
(2003); Berkeley, California (2012); Miami-Dade County, Florida (2015); Honolulu, Hawaii (2015); and
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (2016). Over a dozen other jurisdictions have made formal commitments to use
CEDAW principles in local law and policy through resolutions and proclamations (see Appendix A for the
full list of jurisdictions). Looking to CEDAW, local governments are taking strides to document the status
of women and girls, to analyze local policy and practice through a gender lens, and to more proactively
foster women's participation in local governance. In 2014, the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) joined
with these individual jurisdictions to signal that CEDAW is a valuable tool for local governance. The USCM
adopted a resolution that encourages cities to implement CEDAW principles and highlights that "city and
county governments have an appropriate and legitimate role In affirming the importance of international
law in communities as universal norms and to serve as guides for public policy."16
The growing momentum to implement CEDAW locally is also a direct outgrowth of the Cities for CEDAW
Campaign, which aims to encourage use of this women's rights treaty as a framework to advance
women's political and economic equality in the United States. The Campaign, which launched in 2014,
seeks to enhance state, county, and city efforts to improve the human rights of women and girls.
Comprised of local advocates in communities around the country, the Campaign is facilitated by the
international NGO Commission on the Status of Women (NGO/CSW NY), the San Francisco Department
on the Status of Women, the Women's lntercultural Network (WIN), and The Leadership Conference on
Civil and Human Rights.17 The Cities for CEDAW Campaign emphasizes "the Importance of implementing
gender responsive policies in cities nationwide."18 The Campaign calls on localities to address barriers to
full equality for women and girls by implementing CEOAW through a binding ordinance that requires: (1)
a gender analysis of city departments and operations; (2) an oversight body to monitor implementation;
and (3) funding.19
Benefits of Addressing Women's Rights Through a Human Rights Lens
Human rights offer a valuable tool to tackle persistent disparities and address the factors that perpetuate
discrimination and inequity. When local governments embrace a human rights-based approach to
gender equity, they signal that core human rights principles, including non-discrimination, equality,
participation, accountability, and transparency will inform local law, policy, and practice.20
Human rights are grounded on the premise that all rights are interconnected, and that to achieve
equality and freedom from discrimination, governments must take proactive steps to respect, protect,
and fulfill the full range of human rights, including civil, political, social, economic, and cultural rights.
This means that government must not interfere with a person's enjoyment of rights, and must take steps
to prevent human rights violations by third parties. Additionally, fulfilling human rights requires action to
create conditions where all individuals, including women, can exercise their rights and meet their basic
needs. Further, active public participation in identifying and solving problems locally is a h<1llmark of
human rights. By empowering women to influence outcomes, government agencies and officials can
ensure that policies and programs meet their needs and take their perspectives into account.
The full range of human rights is set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).21
Developed under the leadership of the United States and adopted by the United Nations in 1948, the
41 Gender Equity Through Human Ri ghts
UDHR is the foundational human rights document, and the basis of subsequent universal human rights
treaties, including CEDAW.22
As the comprehensive treaty on women's human rights, CEDAW lays out specific universal standards that
affirm the fundamental rights of women and girls and offers a framework to foster gender equality and
eliminate discrimination against women. It defines what constitutes discrimination against women
broadly to encompass laws and policies that negatively affect women's human rights, and offers a
blueprint to create more equitable opportunities and outcomes in a wide range of areas. CEDAW calls on
governments to affirmatively identify the factors that perpetuate inequality, and to take steps to mitigate
thern. These factors may include laws, policies, and programs that have a disproportionately negative
impact on women, regardless oflntent,
A CEDAW-based approach requires measures to eliminate discrimination against women in political and
public life, including to ensure women's right to vote and to hold public office. It also requires measures
to foster equal access and non-discrimination in relation to education, employment, and health. CEDAW
ca·lls for specific polides to advance women's economic stability, including equal pay and paid maternity
leave. It further provides a foundation to address violence against women through efforts to identify its
root causes, focus 011 prevention, and prioritize redress for survivors.13
In order to ensure equal enjoyment of rights, CEDAW calls for policies that reflect the ways that a
woman's multiple identities, including her race, nationality, disability, age, as well as economic and social
status, impact her enjoyment of rights, and calls for targeted and culturally-appropriate solutions.24
Founders of the Cities for CEDAW Campaign have emphasized the importance of an intersectional
approach to policy-making, noting that women can better relate to, and benefit from policies that
address all aspects of their identity.25 Using CEDAW principles, cities are encouraged to disaggregate
data in order to paint a clear picture of how laws and policies may affect different constituents and
facilitate solutions shaped to advance equity fot all women and girls.26
CEDAW seeks to foster not only equal opportunities, but also more equitable outcomes. This human
rights-based understanding of substantive equality goes beyond the concept of formal equality, which is
more common in U.S. domestic law. Efforts to implement CE DAW underscore how an approach based on
gender equity can foster substantive equality to level the playing field. As the San Francisco Commission
on the Status of Women has described: "Equity accentuates fairness in process and result, recognizing
differences and accommodating them to prevent the continuation of inequltable status quo. The goal of
gender equity is to ..• ensure conditions that will enable women to achieve full equality with men,
recognizing that the needs of women and men may differ."27
As detailed below, U.S. cities and .counties are taking steps to explicitly incorporate CEDAW's core
elements into local governance, r,esponding to, and working with, women's rights advocates. As one
example, in 2015, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti issued a Gender Equity Directive to establish Los
Angeles as a leader in CEDAW implementation. The Directive requires city departments to collect and
analyze data on sex and gender in recruitment, employment, contracting, and city services. The goal is to
integrate gender equity into all aspect of city operations to better rneet the needs of all constituents,
particularly those who have historically been underrepresented, such as women. 28 Accordingly, Los
Angeles has adopted a strategy to eliminate disparities based on gender that reflects CEDAW's
Gender Equity Through Human Rights IS