Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190415plCC 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: 04/15/2019 Document dates: 03/27/2019 – 04/03/2019 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Carnahan, David From:Ted O'Hanlon <tedohanlon@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 29, 2019 12:28 PM To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Owen, Graham Subject:In Support of Consent Calendar, Item #6 Housing Incentives, 4/1/2019 Attachments:788-796 San Antonio Text Amendment Letter 3-13-2019.pdf Honorable City Council Members    We have taken notice of the Housing Incentive Program (HIP) for El Camino Real and fully support Council's approach to  motivate the creation of more housing. Having carefully reviewed the details, we request that City Council go a step  further and include similarly zoned properties, specifically on San Antonio Road to utilize the same HIP criteria.    In early March on behalf of the owners of 788‐796 San Antonio Road, we submitted a Major ARB, Subdivision and Text  Amendment Request to Planning Staff based on the HIP.     The applications are a continuation of a Council Pre‐Screening on the same property in October 2018 where we  proposed a 100% residential redevelopment of the property. In preparing a subsequent application, inclusive of a  ground floor commercial presence, we took note of the passage of the HIP for El Camino Real. We examined 788‐796  San Antonio (an Opportunity Site in the City Housing Element and zoned Commercial Service or CS) and observed the  following residential unit yield differences:     Existing Zoning Pre-Screening App Major ARB App Total Units 16 54 64 Market Rate 14 46 54 BMR 2 8 10 Retail 5,555 sq ft -1,684 sq ft Office 4,371 sq ft --    It's this kind of incremental increase in creating housing where Palo Alto can further address and potentially avoid falling  short of housing goals.     Attached is the request for Text Amendment for your review. We look forward to future discussions of our request.    Best Regards  Ted O'Hanlon        ‐‐‐  Ted O'Hanlon  tedohanlon@gmail.com  CA BRE #01868277    Page 1 of 3 Explore Real Estate 2625 Middlefield Rd, #101 Palo Alto, CA 94306 650.813.1077 March 13, 2019 Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning Planning and Community Environment Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650.329.2679 jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: 788-796 San Antonio Road, Letter of Application for a Zoning Text Amendment, Major Subdivision Mr. Lait: On behalf of the owners of the property located at 788-796 San Antonio Road (Property), we are pleased to present this preliminary application for a Zoning Text Amendment and Major Subdivision. In 2018, we presented to the City of Palo Alto a pre-screening application for a fully residential project on the Property. The application proposed a zone change from Commercial Service (CS) to Residential Multi-family, 40 units per acre (RM-40). The application also proposed to utilize State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) to maximize the number of housing units. On October 15, 2018, the 54 unit (46 market rate and 8 below market rate, BMR) project was well-received by City Council and the applicant was encouraged to submit a subsequent application that also included ground floor commercial. At this time, based on the City’s positive feedback, the applicant is ready to submit an application based on the pre-screening that includes the zone change, use of SDBL and ground floor commercial. However, as will be discussed in more detail, with the City’s recent passage of the Housing Incentive Program (HIP) and in consultation with City staff, the applicant is proposing that the City Council instead consider applying the HIP to this Property. Page 2 of 3 The Housing Incentive Program In January 2019, City Council passed various zoning changes to promote the creation of greatly wanted and needed residential units in Downtown Palo Alto and on the El Camino Real (ECR) corridor These changes, including the HIP, are the most significant response to date to the November 2017 Colleagues’ Memo Regarding Zoning Updates to Encourage Diverse Housing Near Jobs, Transit and Services. Specifically, the HIP encourages housing and provides an alternative to SDBL that retains more local control to the City in approving housing developments. The HIP has been called an important step to address the jobs-housing imbalance at a time where the City needs to aggressively adopt pro-housing policies. To avoid falling short of the City’s adopted goal of generating 300 housing units this year (and it is currently anticipated that the City will fall short), the applicant respectfully requests that the City consider a zoning text amendment to apply the HIP more broadly and include the Property. The Property is located on San Antonio Road which is similar to El Camino Real in that each are classified as “Principal Arterials” by Caltrans and each connecting Palo Alto with Mountain View (see embedded image). This Property and others on San Antonio are near transit and employment centers and provide an opportunity to create more housing for the City under locally created rules. In fact, the Housing Element identifies the Property as an opportunity site for mixed-use development with 30 dwelling units per acre. This proposal for a zoning text amendment to apply the HIP to this Property creates even more opportunity for housing in the City. To avoid falling short of its housing goals, the City can do more to “go big” as recommended in the Draft Housing Work Plan by approving a zoning text amendment to apply the HIP to the Property. El Camino Real San Antonio Rd Page 3 of 3 If the HIP is applied to the Property, we are proposing the new site plan that includes 64 residential units (10 BMR, two more than before) and a 1,686 square foot ground floor retail space. By unit count this is 34 more units than the existing zoning might allow and based on the previous zone change and SDBL proposal, 10 more units. This creates both more market rate and below market rate units to achieve the City’s housing production goals, while the fully complying with the City’s locally created HIP ordinance. In conformance with the Submittal Requirements for a Major Subdivision, the following responses are also contained in the Subdivider’s Statement in response to the requested exception to utilize the HIP at the subject property. A) Special circumstances affecting the property. San Antonio Road and El Camino Real are alike and by allowing this Palo Alto can address the self- imposed mandate to create housing units. B) The exception is necessary. In this use case, the exception is not necessary per say, rather it is using an exception that the City has carefully crafted and created to provide developers incentive to create more housing. C) The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. Existing site traffic counts compared to new site traffic produces net new trips for the proposed site. A residential project would be expected to reduce the number of peak-hour vehicle trips and a project would not be expected to cause any adverse impacts on the roadways in the vicinity of the project. This finding was made by Hexagon Transportation Consultants as part of the Pre-Screening application previously referenced. We expect this to remain consistent when a fully scoped Traffic Impact Assessment is commissioned. D) The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies or spirit of the law. We believe that using the Housing Incentive Program is a positive utilization of a City Council approved ordinance. We look forward to forthcoming Staff Reports, Development Review Committee and feedback from the Architectural Review Board and ultimately City Council. Best Regards Ted O’Hanlon cc: Yurong Han, 788 SAPA Land LLC Leigh F. Price, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP Graham Owen, City of Palo Alto March 28. 2019 Yatin Patel 3200 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 Honorable Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine. and Members of the City Council c/o Sheldon Ah-Sing sahsing1a)111-group.us 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 9430 I VIA EMAIL Re: 3200 El Camino Real: Hotel Parmani (17PLN-00156)-April 1, 2019 Agenda Dear Honorable Mayor Filseth. Vice Mayor Fine. and Members of the City Council: I look forward to returning to City Counci 1 on Apri I l, 2019 for your consideration of our project's approval, which includes the necessary removal of a 50' special setback restriction on our site. My family and I are grateful that ARB and PTC have given their respective recommendations to proceed atler a comprehensive, detailed four (4) year process. PTC's recommendation and City Council's concurrence with PTC to eliminate the 50' special setback restriction on our parcel will allow us to create what one ARB member described as "the most neighborhood friendly hotel design in the city that we have seen,'· replacing an aging I 940s-era structure with an attractive and functional building that reflects the authentic hospitality in our City. Having said that, we do have one request that deviates from the PTC recommendation. The PTC recommended that the 50' special setback be eliminated only with regard to Mixed-Uses or Hotel uses. For the reasons explained below, we respectfully request that prior to adopting the Ordinance enclosed in your packet as Attachment B to the staff report that you modify Section 3 to remove this restriction as follows: SECTION 3. The Council hereby amends the Setback map of the City of Palo Alto (PAMC section 20.08.020) to eliminate the 50-foot Special Setback for the subject site (3200 El Camino Real) (Exhibit 1) for ~fo(ed Use and Hotel uses. the 50 foot Special Setback shall remain for all other land uses. We have genuine concerns about replacing one restriction with yet another. Thank you all in advance for considering our concerns. I. The 50' Special Setback Was Likely Imposed on our Propertv in Error. It is not clear why the 50' special setback was imposed on this 100' parcel. The original ordinance that created the special setback (Ordinance 1869) was adopted in 1959. twelve ( 12) years after the motel was built. The special setback was imposed for the purpose of providing a landscape butler to create a bucolic '"campus-like" setting for the Stanford Research Park. Our parcel is within the CS zoning district, not within the RP zoning district. The zoning map shows our site notched out of the Stanford Research Park, creating an anomalous condition where the site is subject to the 50' special setback yet is physically outside of the Stanford Research Park. It also shows that our parcel is just a small fraction of the size of the other parcels subject to the special setback along Hansen Way. Unlike with these other parcels, imposing the special setback on our property effectively precludes any redevelopment of the property. This creates an anomalous condition which we believe in fact was an administrative error. We now have the opportunity to correct this error and respectfully request that you do so by eliminating the special setback with respect to our property in its entirety. 2. Eliminating the Special Setback Only With Regard to Mixed-Uses and Hotel Effectively Precludes other CS Uses on the Site Due to the narrow shape of our parcel, eliminating the 50' setback restriction on our parcel is a prerequisite to any development -now or in the future. With staff and previous Council input, we have diligently pursued the removal of the setback in parallel to securing entitlements for the hotel redevelopment that otherwise meet all CS zoning criteria. As evidenced by the package of entitlement applications that is now before you for final approval, we are committed to redeveloping the site as a hotel. However, as a matter of principle we point out that because any redevelopment of the site requires elimination of the special setback, the PTC recommendation to eliminate it only with regard to mixed and hotel uses effectively precludes a ll other allowed and conditionally allowable CS uses of the site and therefore effectively amounts to a rezoning of the site. This does not seem proper given there is no rezoning action before you. 3. City Council Has an Opportunity Now to Spare Future Generations From Expending Resources to Revisit the Same Issue Multiple Times. Given the safeguards in place available to the City and our community-namely, the zoning code and discretionary entitlement approval process, we do not think it is necessary to introduce more complexity to a simple solution. Today we have an opportunity to correct what in all likelihood was an error by removing this cloud permanently to achieve a tidy result. Decisions today, though well-intentioned. are based on incomplete information of our City's future needs. Please maintain the City's versatility to 2 adapt to future circumstances. It wou Id be redundant to have any potential future applicant (perhaps my own children) come back before City Council to seek removal of the special setback restriction based on a particular land use. The issue of removal of the setback restriction has resulted in years of hearings and an abundance of staff time and resources. Nobody could have known in 1959 that imposition ofa seemingly benign special setback restriction on the smallest parcel on the block would effectively render our site undevelopablc unless we went through a comprehensive city process to try to undo what the restriction never intended to do in the first place. The City has a comprehensive discretionary approval process which affords it oversight of any prqject that comes before it. Do we want City Council to constantly referee the applicability of the special setback restriction based on land use? Removing the setback restriction permanently streamlines the process, removes any clouds of uncertainty for anyone in the future, and spares Staff from potentially revisiting the issue again decades from now. 4. The PTC Recommended Restriction on the Setback Elimination Deviates from the General Principle That Setbacks Be Applied to Structures Uniformly in Each Zoning District Regard less of the Use of Those Structures. Based on my understanding of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the zoning ordinances of other cities, it appears that while setbacks vary between different zoning districts, they are generally applied uniformly within each zoning district regardless of use. In other words, setbacks are applied uniformly to all structures within a zoning district regardless of the use of those structures. The PTC recommendation to eliminate the special setback only for some uses (mixed use and hotel), and apply it to other uses breaks with this general principle that setbacks be applied to structures and not to uses. This could potentially set precedent that is unintended. I humbly thank you for your consideration and look forward to presenting to you on April I, 2019. Sincerely, Yatin Patel 3 1 Carnahan, David From:Kerry Spear <kerry.spear@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 30, 2019 5:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:Do your job: preserve fair living in Palo Alto City Council Members: PLEASE PRESERVE LIVING IN OUR TOWN    Since we all agree that housing is a top priority in Palo Alto, I urge  you to protect the tenants and preserve rental units that already exist   at the President Hotel.    A city‐wide residential preservation ordinance appeals to me. Let's put energy into something we can accomplish to  keep this place liveable.    Kerry Spear  370 Oxford       2 Carnahan, David From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 30, 2019 5:13 PM To:Council, City Cc:Minor, Beth Subject:Vote to protect residential property Council Members, Monday night your votes will show where you really stand on the issue of making housing a priority in Palo Alto. Vote to keep the ordinance that prohibits the conversion of downtown residential properties to other uses and do not permit any waivers. In fact, go a step further and adopt an ordinance that preserves residential properties city-wide. Failure to protect residential units at this time when we have the President Hotel Apartments conversion looming will tell residents just how much you care about residential preservation and your ability to withstand pressure from developers. Your credibility is on the line. Your votes are being closely watched. Sincerely, John Guislin 3 Carnahan, David From:Sue Dinwiddie <sued@daise.com> Sent:Saturday, March 30, 2019 2:51 PM To:Council, City Subject:RE: Building Waivers Honorable Members:    We urge you in your consideration of the waiver process thus Monday night to insure any waiver process fully protects  tenants.     In this era when affordable housing is in short supply, keeping existing housing units rather than converting space to  commercial office or hotels  should be a priority.   Developer exemptions should be kept to the very minimum required  or better yet follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission to completely eliminate waivers and adopt a city‐ wide residential preservation ordinance.     Keeping existing residential units only makes sense when many consider the limited housing supply in the city a crisis     Thank you for your consideration.     Sue and Ken Dinwiddie  543 Jackson Drive  Palo Alto, CA 94303    Sent from my iPhone  4 Carnahan, David From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 30, 2019 1:23 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Monday's Vote - President Hotel conversion   Dear City Council,    I hope you will vote to support the requests of the people of this beautiful city.  We would not like to see elimination of  the 2016 law which protects property from unwanted conversions, nor enactment of the waiver process.    The Planning Commission voted unanimously to eliminate the waiver.      Please: - insure that any waiver process fully protects tenants, - limit developer exemptions to the very minimum required by law,  - look at adopting a city-wide residential preservation ordinance.    Thank you,  Ann Protter      5 Carnahan, David From:Virginia Smedberg <virgviolin@hotmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 30, 2019 12:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:downtown residential issues, incl President Hotel Dear City Council members:    I am very concerned about the possibility of loss of residence space in Palo Alto, especially affordable  space.  Already we have too little affordable space for the people who work here.  I understand there are  developers who want to convert residence spaces to office spaces, or to "luxury" hotel status.    Specifically my concerns are:  That you protect tenants of existing residences, both by ensuring they can keep their current homes (whether  those be houses or apartments) and by ensuring that they will be given notice, well in advance, of any  proposed actions concerning their homes.  Some sort of city‐wide residential protection ordinance would be  well worth considering ‐ perhaps a ban on converting ALL existing residential space to commercial use.    That any new development, of any kind, be required to provide parking for all the cars it will generate.  You  know that we have too few parking spaces for the number of cars that live in and come into the city.  We are  unfortunately a car‐oriented society, and despite our good efforts at promoting mass transit, cars continue to  be too numerous to fit into existing space.    That you hear and understand the Planning Commission's unanimous recommendation to eliminate the  waiver that is being considered, recognizing the public's input into that decision.    That you limit developer exemptions to the absolute minimum required by law ‐ developers are NOT residents  of this city and do NOT have the residents' perspective ‐ they just want to make money and will cut any  corners they can get away with to do so.  That is why we, the city, by way of you our representatives, have to  make rules.    I trust you will consider the welfare of all of us residents in your deliberations.    Sincerely,  Virginia Smedberg  441 Washington Ave  Palo Alto 94301  6 Carnahan, David From:Carol A. Munch <camunch@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, March 30, 2019 11:48 AM To:Council, City Subject:ordinance 18.18.120 of Municipal Code for City Council Meeting April 1, 2019 Dear City Council Members,    I strongly urge you NOT to remove the 2016 ordinance replacing it with one which is narrower and includes a “waiver”  provision.  The Planning Commission does not favor a “waiver", nor should you.  Besides NOT preventing lawsuits by  building owners the “waiver” provision is unclearly written regarding the limits of such a “waiver" on exemptions for  developers.  If anything the 2016 ordinance should be made to apply citywide to prevent conversion of residential  buildings to other uses without exemptions.  We must not repeat the debacle of the Presidential Hotel Apartment  situation!     Sincerely,    Carol A. Munch‐Taylor  1125 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto  7 Carnahan, David From:Ann DeHovitz <rossde@aol.com> Sent:Saturday, March 30, 2019 10:49 AM To:Council, City Subject:preserve residences and protect tenants I am writing as a concerned resident of Palo Alto in regards to City Council's plans to consider a waiver process that  would allow City Council to exempt developers from zoning laws.  I urge you to consider the unanimous Planning  Commission recommendation to eliminate the waiver and look at adopting a city‐wide residential preservation  ordinance.  At the very least, I ask you to insure that any waiver process fully protects tenants and limits developer  exemptions to the very minimum required by law.    Thank you,    Ann DeHovitz, 853 Sharon Court, Palo Alto    8 Carnahan, David From:Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, March 30, 2019 9:27 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please Help Protect the President Hotel Apartments and Residents Citywide Dear City Council,    I completely agree with everything that PAN has written below so am not going to even attempt to reword it better than  they already have.  Please protect residents and housing and do not approve this requested waiver.    Thank you,  Chris Robell  Old Palo Alto resident        ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>  Date: Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 7:38 PM  Subject: [pan: 2745] PAN Committee Item: Please Help Protect the President Hotel Apartments and  Residents Citywide  To: PAN GOOGLE <paneighborhoods@googlegroups.com>    Please distribute the following your lists as appropriate     March 29, 2019 – From the PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) Committee on Development,  Zoning, and Enforcement   The City Council will decide Monday night whether to remove a 2016 law that currently prevents the President  Hotel Apartments and similar buildings from becoming hotels or offices.  The impact on tenants in downtown apartment buildings could be devastating.  Already, occupants of the 75‐unit  lower‐rent President Hotel Apartments have had to leave because the building’s recent buyer, AJ Capital, aims to  convert the property into a luxury hotel.  Other tenants downtown may be affected too if the city removes the  2016 law, which is blocking conversions from any use to another in so‐called “grandfathered” or oversized  buildings.  The city claims the 2016 law was actually an unintended cut‐and‐paste error and seeks to replace it by a narrower  ordinance that limits just the conversion of housing in oversized Downtown buildings to other uses or fewer  units.  However, city staff fear that AJ Capital or perhaps other owners will challenge the narrower law in court and  prevail.  So the proposal on Monday night also includes a controversial “waiver” process that allows the City  Council to exempt a developer from other zoning laws, thinking this might lead to a compromise that would avoid  a court battle.  The City’s approach is insufficient and very worrisome.  Instead of just protecting residents in specific Downtown  buildings, the Council should enact a city‐wide law to prevent all conversions of residences into commercial space,  9 akin to its ban on groundfloor retail and similar uses converting into offices.  Such a law could benefit thousands of  renters across town and also potentially be easier to defend.  The waiver process is itself problematic.  The proposal has no guarantee that apartment tenants will be notified  when their landlord applies for a waiver.  Without that, they could wake up one morning to discover the City  Council has granted their building generous exemptions the night before and that the residents must all move out  when their leases end.  Instead, every tenant should receive notice of any waiver hearing for their building well in  advance.  The waiver proposal also empowers a slim majority of four councilmembers to grant benefits worth tens of  millions of dollars to a developer by placing no limit on how many zoning rules are eliminated or watered  down.  For example, a council majority could respond to a waiver request by granting rights to build an office  tower with no parking.  Nothing in our municipal code currently gives councilmembers so much unchecked power  for a specific site.  When the seven‐member Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the waiver proposal in January, they  unanimously recommended against it.  They further advised the Council to obtain outside legal advice after  expressing concerns that the waiver process might not even be necessary.  Their votes reflected concerns raised by  many residents who spoke and wrote to them.  From the beginning of the President Hotel Apartment tragedy, our city has failed to protect tenants and preserve  rental units, despite repeated proclamations that housing is a top priority.  That can change Monday night if we  insist that the Council:   insure that any waiver process fully protects tenants,     limits developer exemptions to the very minimum required by law,     consider the unanimous Planning Commission recommendation to eliminate the waiver, and    look at adopting a city‐wide residential preservation ordinance.  We encourage you to send an email in your own words to the City Council  at City.Council@CityofPaloAlto.org.  You can also attend Monday’s Council meeting to speak or support others  on this issue.    Links:  City Staff Report Advocating the Law Changes, Including the  Waiver:https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70005  Agenda for Monday’s Council Meeting: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/69999  Palo Alto Weekly Article About the December 2018 Council Vote on the  Waiver:https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/12/11/proposed‐law‐would‐prevent‐president‐hotel‐ conversion  Palo Alto Weekly Article about the January 2019 Planning Commission Vote to Eliminate the  Waiver:https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/01/31/zone‐change‐creates‐hurdle‐for‐president‐hotel‐ conversion    ‐‐   > Only members of this Group may post messages (anti‐SPAM measure).  ‐‐‐   You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Palo Alto Neighborhoods"  group.  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to  10 paneighborhoods+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.  To post to this group, send email to paneighborhoods@googlegroups.com.  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.    ‐‐   ‐‐   You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  Groups "OPANA ‐ Old Palo Alto Neighborhood Association" group.  To post to this group, send email to opana_news@googlegroups.com  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to  opana_news+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com  For more options, visit this group at  http://groups.google.com/group/opana_news?hl=en  Group Moderator: nadianaik@gmail.com  ‐‐‐   You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OPANA ‐ Old Palo Alto  Neighborhood Association" group.  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to  opana_news+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.  To post to this group, send email to opana_news@googlegroups.com.  Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opana_news.  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.    1 Carnahan, David From:Casey Cameron <alt.caseyc@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 1, 2019 8:37 AM To:Council, City Subject:Protect tenants' rights and preserve rental units To the members of the City Council of Palo Alto:    To protect tenants and preserve affordable housing in our city, I am in favor of these actions:   protect existing tenants in any waiver process    limit developer exemptions to the very minimum required by law   consider the unanimous Planning Commission recommendation to eliminate the waiver   adopt a city‐wide residential preservation ordinance  Thank you for your attention to this issue.    Casey Cameron  1033 Bryant St.  Palo Alto, CA 94301  1 Carnahan, David From:Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net> Sent:Monday, April 1, 2019 11:39 AM To:Council, City Subject:Tonights Agenda item #8 Attachments:WD 4-1-19 PHcomments.docx     City Council Members:   From: Winter Dellenbach  Date: 4‐1‐19                          RE: Agenda Item #8 Grandfathered Uses & Facilities  The Proposed Waiver Process:  1.‐The staff report states:  "a waiver provision will require the property owner to present all of its claims and supporting  evidence to the City Council first."      But the Proposed Ordinance in (F) doesn't require the owner to present all claims, only that: "An Applicant... shall  submit a statement of its position with all supporting documentary evidence to the City first."  If you intend for all claims and supporting evidence are to be filed by the Applicant, then the wording in the ordinance  must state this, not require “a statement of position”.  This needs to be changed in the ordinance – require owner to  present all claims and supporting evidence.  2.‐All tenants of subject residential buildings should be given timely Notice of all City Council Waiver Hearings. This  needs to be added to the ordinance.  3.‐The use of Third Party Peer Review is vague in the ordinance, beyond the City activating its use, its vague ‐ review of  what, when and why?  Add clarifying language to the ordinance.  4.‐The City should be required to retain specialized outside Counsel to deal with property owners Waiver/Adjustment  requests – to evaluate owners’ claims and evidence, and advise Council members and participate in public Council  Hearing/s. Given property owners will hire the best private attorneys with relevant experience, the City must do the  same as it does from time to time. This should be added to the ordinance.  The Hearing/s:   I urge you to ask in detail how the public hearing is to actually work procedurally? What role will owners’ attorneys play?  And yours? Will owner’s attorney present their evidence? Will you vote the night of the Hearing? Will the Hearing be  limited to one session? What’s the standard of proof for finding an “impermissible burden” or “preemption violations”  that you will use? Will there be a written record made? This seems like a very different hearing than the norm.  2 Could Council go into closed session during these public Hearings? And why and how would a follow‐up Hearing work?  Get the details now – 121 residential units in 2 buildings downtown depend on it – this better work if you are going to  approve it.  Note: Waiver in the law means a relinquishment of a right or interest. Synonyms are ‐ Abdication, abandonment, and  surrender. The term Waiver is used 17 times in this short Staff Report, whereas the term “Adjustment” is only  mentioned twice and not even included in the Staff Recommendation. The emphasis is on Waiver of residential non‐ conversion, not on Adjustment to save it. This is very worrisome and continues to make me hesitant to endorse the  Waiver clause, not knowing if staff will grab it as the first tool in the box, and once that train leaves the station, the  Council will find it hard to fine the breaks. If you adopt the Waiver, you must make recommended changes, above.                 City Council Members: From: Winter Dellenbach Date: 4-1-19 RE: Agenda Item #8 Grandfathered Uses & Facilities The Proposed Waiver Process: 1.-The staff report states: "a waiver provision will require the property owner to present all of its claims and supporting evidence to the City Council first." But the Proposed Ordinance in (F) doesn't require the owner to present all claims, only that: "An Applicant... shall submit a statement of its position with all supporting documentary evidence to the City first." If you intend for all claims and supporting evidence are to be filed by the Applicant, then the wording in the ordinance must state this, not require “a statement of position”. This needs to be changed in the ordinance – require owner to present all claims and supporting evidence. 2.-All tenants of subject residential buildings should be given timely Notice of all City Council Waiver Hearings. This needs to be added to the ordinance. 3.-The use of Third Party Peer Review is vague in the ordinance, beyond the City activating its use, its vague - review of what, when and why? Add clarifying language to the ordinance. 4.-The City should be required to retain specialized outside Counsel to deal with property owners Waiver/Adjustment requests – to evaluate owners’ claims and evidence, and advise Council members and participate in public Council Hearing/s. Given property owners will hire the best private attorneys with relevant experience, the City must do the same as it does from time to time. This should be added to the ordinance. The Hearing/s: I urge you to ask in detail how the public hearing is to actually work procedurally? What role will owners’ attorneys play? And yours? Will owner’s attorney present their evidence? Will you vote the night of the Hearing? Will the Hearing be limited to one session? What’s the standard of proof for finding an “impermissible burden” or “preemption violations” that you will use? Will there be a written record made? This seems like a very different hearing than the norm. Could Council go into closed session during these public Hearings? And why and how would a follow-up Hearing work? Get the details now – 121 residential units in 2 buildings downtown depend on it – this better work if you are going to approve it. Note: Waiver in the law means a relinquishment of a right or interest. Synonyms are - Abdication, abandonment, and surrender. The term Waiver is used 17 times in this short Staff Report, whereas the term “Adjustment” is only mentioned twice and not even included in the Staff Recommendation. The emphasis is on Waiver of residential non- conversion, not on Adjustment to save it. This is very worrisome and continues to make me hesitant to endorse the Waiver clause, not knowing if staff will grab it as the first tool in the box, and once that train leaves the station, the Council will find it hard to fine the breaks. If you adopt the Waiver, you must make recommended changes, above. 1 Carnahan, David From:abby boyd <abby650@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 1, 2019 1:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:Stop residences from being turned into hotels, etc This should be city wide.  Protect residents from being evicted in order to have commercial space.    The waiver proposal is bad. Don't do it.    Abby Boyd  3998 Bibbits Dr, Palo Alto, CA 94303  1 Carnahan, David From:Respicio, Maryknol <mrespicio@rutan.com> Sent:Monday, April 1, 2019 3:08 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Lanferman, David; Roy, Alyssa Subject:City Council Meeting -- April 2019 / Agenda Item #8 Attachments:2019 0401 Letter to Mayor and City Council Members and City Manager.PDF Please see attached letter from David Lanferman.    Thank you.      Maryknol Respicio Assistant to David P. Lanferman and Alyssa Roy Rutan & Tucker, LLP Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Ste. 200 Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 320-1500 x7723 mrespicio@rutan.com www.rutan.com RUTAN _____________________________________________________  Privileged And Confidential Communication.  This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act  (18 USC §§ 2510‐2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the  intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the  electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly  prohibited.  1 Carnahan, David From:Rice, Danille Sent:Friday, March 29, 2019 1:12 PM To:ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email; Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Flaherty, Michelle; Tanner, Rachael; Stump, Molly; Gaines, Chantal; Lee, Sandra; Batchelor, Dean; Hur, Mark; Tanda, Wayne; Lloyd, Debra; Boatwright, Tabatha Subject:April 1 Council Agenda Questions for Items 4 & 5        Dear Mayor and Council Members:     On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please find below the staff responses to inquiries  made by Council Member Tanaka in regard to the April 1, 2019 Council Meeting agenda.      Item 4: Contract Award to SP Plus for Parking Ambassador Services   Item 5: Gas Circuit Breaker 2 Design‐Build     Item 4: Contract Award to SP Plus for Parking Ambassador Services     1. Is 11am to 2pm really the most busy time for parking in Downtown Palo Alto?   Peak parking times downtown are during the lunch and dinner time periods. We  have found that the lunch period of 11am‐2pm has a higher occupancy due to  the addition of short‐ and long‐term employee parking, thus it is our highest  parking demand hours of the day.  2. Why are the Cowper/Webster and Bryant/Lytton lots the best garages to  implement this program in? Do they have similarities to the Alma/High Street  garage?  The proposed lots are best due to the lot configurations and air circulation in  these particular lots. The Civic Center garage and similar underground garages  were removed from consideration due to poor ventilation for staff members  who work 4‐8 hour shifts doing the parking validation.  3. What other cities have worked with SP Plus?                  SP Plus operates nationwide in multiple parking disciplines. Locally, they  operate parking facilities in San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose.    Item 5: Gas Circuit Breaker 2 Design‐Build     1. The document says that we rely on PG&E equipment to keep things safe, and  that is bad. Why can’t we just outright buy the equipment from PG&E?  The issue related to reliance on PG&E maintenance and operations as well as  their equipment. The equipment that PG&E uses to protect the City’s  transformer asset consists of three 115kV breakers in PG&E / Palo Alto electric  2 switch yard, and associated equipment and infrastructure. This yard is similar in  size to the City’s Colorado Power Station. This specific equipment likely carries a  price tag upwards of $10,000,000.    2. What real difference does it make buying equipment, and using PG&E  equipment? Is there an increased risk?  The difference is maintaining control and protection of the City’s critical  equipment rather than relying on PG&E’s maintenance and operations. As the  report stated, we already have this protection for two of our three 115kV  transformers, protecting all three is the preferred design, but retrofitting would  have been disruptive. As part of the City’s ongoing efforts to increase  operational and financial efficiency we are taking this opportunity to make these  system improvements. Ceding control of protection of the City’s transformer  asset to PG&E does result, in increased maintenance risk, increased operational  risk, and increased resiliency risk. The increased operational risks manifest in the  form of potentially greater physical damage in the event PG&Es equipment does  not work as advertised.    3. The original bid value estimate is pegged at 250,000 dollars. Why is the final  amount 3 times that?  The “request for proposals” identified a proposed option that was superior in  safe operation and electrical protectability, to the original idea of installing a  quick‐fix breaker hybrid solution. The proposed option was vetted by staff in  Operations and Engineering leadership and determined to be the correct option  to pursue in light of the safety and risk aversion enhancements. Note that the  value of the lowest cost original solution idea proposals came in at $300,000.       Thank you.      Danille Rice | Administrative Assistant   Office of the City Manager  250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301          650.329.2105 | Danille.Rice@cityofpaloalto.org           1 Brettle, Jessica From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 2, 2019 4:06 PM To:Clerk, City Cc:Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Presentation to Fin. Committee Apr 2 and P/S Committee Apr 3 Attachments:190402 Buchanan Presentation Open Communications Fin. and PS Committees April 2 and 3 2019.pdf I will present the attachment with oral remarks at Open Communications to Committees above. Thank you. On behalf on residential leaders in the other RPPs my concerns are twofold: #1 Many citizens thought that the Waverly/Hamilton garage was on the backburner, but we now realize that the garage is moving forward competing for funding and staff resources. #2 In this context we ask the Finance Committee and Public Services Committee to place paid parking as a higher priority than capital costs of the garage. Demand for garage parking can be diminished with paid parking. Construction of a new garage is an illogical sequence according to paid parking study on file with the Planning Department. A separate request for public records will be filed tomorrow. The new search engine on the city website does not easily produce the study conducted several years ago. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 1 Carnahan, David From:Rita Deierlein <ritadeier@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 27, 2019 2:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Aggressive squirrels in city park Dear City Council Members,     It was suggested I write to you to have a matter addressed more expediently.     There's an aggressive squirrel problem at Magical Bridge Playground.     I have had to leave the park twice because the squirrel has been chasing after my three‐year‐old and myself.   ( There are two squirrels in particular that seem to be the trouble, you can tell by their weight. One is gray and one is  black.)    I believe this is due entirely to people feeding the squirrels.  I see this occurring on a daily basis.  I have even  seen parents encouraging their children to feed them.    I see the squirrels get into baby strollers, I see them take food from children's lunches,  I have seen them go into  people's bags, take out and rip open boxes of cookies; they've gone into our lunch box and opened containers of  sandwiches.     The bottom line of course is that they are seriously putting Children at Risk.    I understand you cannot control what people do.   I know in Mountain View when they had this problem, they put up signs and installed trash cans that the squirrels could  not get into.  ( I think in addition eventually they actually had to get rid of a couple of squirrels.)    I think squirrels are very cute and enjoy having them at the park, but I don't enjoy having my child be at risk because of  people feeding them.    Perhaps installing signs would be a start. Maybe having a Park employee on the grounds at peak times.(?)     I would hope that at least by educating people that they would stop feeding the squirrels because they are putting  Children at Risk.    Thank you so much for your attention to this problem.   I know how important the health and safety of our children is to all of you.    I look forward to your replies and/or action taken.    Sincerely,  Rita Deierlein  Palo Alto resident     Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android  1 Carnahan, David From:susan van Riesen <chovanriesen@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 2, 2019 4:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:an invitation for City Council Members Dear City Council members,    Hello!  My name is Susan Van Riesen and I'm the Lead Pastor of the Palo Alto Vineyard Church.  I have been informed by  Ellen Bob at Congregation Etz Chayim that a group of faith leaders met in February and declared the month of May as "Faith Communities Celebrates Palo Alto at 125." Our congregation would like to participate in the commemoration of this special time in our city's history by inviting a City Council member to attend our worship service on May 5th at 10am. We would love for you to share a few words and let us pray for you and for the city. Might one of you be available to join us? You certainly don't have to be a Christian to participate with us in this way but if one of you were of the Christian faith, it would be nice to be able to connect with you. Please let me know of any of your availability. Thank you, Pastor Susan Van Riesen  1 Carnahan, David From:Tina Chow <chow_tina@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 1, 2019 4:47 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Lait, Jonathan; Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City; ipriyadarsani@gmail.com; yingcou@yahoo.com; jmnlee@gmail.com; jacobi.marianne@gmail.com; sumita.vasudeva@gmail.com; promiserani; Anjuli@gmail.com; Umamahankali@yahoo.com; Eugene Chow; Jerry Fan; Antonov, Nikolay; olga.v.krupnik@gmail.com; Parris Schmidt; Jennifer Schmidt; Angie Foster; Jalene Salus; Yanling Wang; Zhan Chen; Ann Yeawon Lee; Amrutha Kattamuri Subject:appeal request Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council Members,    We are writing to you to appeal the decision to approve the 7 cell towers in Cluster 2 that Vinculums/Verizon are applying to install in Barron Park and nearby, including one to be placed very close to Barron Park Elementary School.    Many Palo Alto residents are alarmed about these proposed cell towers due to their proximity to our homes and our neighborhood schools. We have several concerns, including aesthetics, noise, health, property value, and fire safety concerns.     Additionally, the Barron Park Elementary school parent community received NO notice of the Cluster 2 decision to place a cell phone tower near the school. The school principal was also not informed. Therefore, while the appeal deadline has passed, this appeal is timely given we only just recently learned of the nature of the Cluster 2 decision at a neighborhood meeting. Certainly the parents at Barron Park Elementary and school staff should have received notice but they did not.    Many cities have ordinances addressing these resident concerns by requiring setbacks from residences and schools. These include Petaluma, Fairfax, Ripon, Mill Valley, San Rafael, San Anselmo, Hillsborough, and more. Furthermore, in 2000, the Los Angeles Unified School District adopted a resolution opposing cell towers placed on or in close proximity to schools to protect children from potential health effects from exposure to radio-frequency radiation.     The purpose of our letter to you is to request acceptance of this appeal for Cluster 2. This would not be the first time that an appeal has been filed after the deadline and we are confident that our reasons for asking for this consideration are sound.    We look forward to discussing this with you.     Sincerely,    Tina Chow  Barron Park Elementary parent    Eugene Chow  Barron Park Elementary parent    Janice Chiu  Barron Park Elementary parent  2   Jerry Fan  Barron Park Elementary parent    Nikolay Antonov  Barron Park Elementary parent    Olga Krupnik  Barron Park Elementary parent    Parris Schmidt  Barron Park Elementary parent    Jennifer Schmidt  Barron Park Elementary parent    Angie Foster  Barron Park Elementary parent    Craig Foster  Barron Park Elementary parent    Jalene Salus  Barron Park Elementary parent    Robert Salus  Barron Park Elementary parent    Yanling Wang  Barron Park Elementary parent    Zhan Chen  Barron Park Elementary parent    Ann Lee  Greene Middle School parent    Scott Stephen  Greene Middle School parent    Amrutha Kattamuri  Hoover Elementary and JLS parent    Bala Meduri  Hoover Elementary and JLS parent    Indira Selvakumaraswamy  Hoover Elementary and JLS parent    Subu Govindaswamy   Hoover Elementary and JLS parent  3   Ying Ou, PhD   Hoover Elementary and Gunn High School parent    Michael Wu, DDS  Hoover Elementary and Gunn High School parent    Jong-Mi Lee  Hoover Elementary and Fletcher Middle School parent    Prerana Jayakumar  Ohlone Elementary parent    Narayan Sundararajan  Ohlone Elementary parent    Sumita Vasudeva  Addison, Greene and Paly parent    Scott Fulton  Addison, Greene and Paly parent    Marianne Jacobi   JLS and Paly parent    Jonas Jacobi  JLS and Paly parent    Anjuli Belwal   JLS parent    Ravi Belwal  JLS parent    Uma Mahankali  Hoover and JLS parent      1 Carnahan, David From:California High-Speed Rail <Central.Valley@hsr.ca.gov> Sent:Thursday, March 28, 2019 10:08 AM To:Council, City Subject:California High-Speed Rail April 2019 Construction Update To view this email as a web page, go here. Progress in Construction Package 2-3 The April Construction Update focuses on progress made at several project sites in Construction Package 2-3 including one of our newer locations Excelsior Avenue just north of the city of Hanford. 2 Construction Update UNDER THE FRESNO TRENCH You'll also get a look for the first time under the Fresno Trench, the only below-grade project in Construction Package 1. Click the button below to learn more. FRESNO TRENCH A VIEW FROM THE AIR It's hard to truly appreciate the size and scale of these projects from the ground. That's why we took advantage of breaks in the rain to fly a drone over several of our active work sites so you could see just how much progress is being made. Click the box below to see our latest video. LATEST VIDEOS Road Closure Alerts Faces of HSR HSR.ca.gov 3 TONI TINOCO California High-Speed Rail (559) 274-8975 Toni.Tinoco@hsr.ca.gov DAN GALVIN California High-Speed Rail (559) 490-6863 Dan.Galvin@hsr.ca.gov CENTRAL.VALLEY@HSR.CA.GOV | BUILDHSR.COM This email was sent by: California High-Speed Rail Authority 770 L Street Suite 620, Sacramento, CA, 95814 US Privacy Policy Unsubscribe 1 Carnahan, David From:California High-Speed Rail <Northern.California@hsr.ca.gov> Sent:Thursday, March 28, 2019 2:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:California High-Speed Rail Northern California Newsletter - March 2019 To view this email as a web page, go here. Can't see the images? View As Webpage Statewide Update New Report Details Economic Benefits of High-Speed Rail program in California 2 The California High-Speed Rail Authority’s most recent economic impact report (Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Impact Analysis Technical Supporting Document) provides an updated snapshot — both statewide and regionally in Northern California — of the economic benefits resulting from investments that took place from July 2017 through June 2018. This report reinforces the fact that California High-Speed Rail is more than a transformative public infrastructure project. It’s an economic lifeline! The Bay Area has seen significant growth derived primarily from engineering and other professional services firms based in the region as well as an increasing amount of construction firms doing work in the Central Valley, with over 3,600 total job-years and $650 million in economic output so far. From planning and environmental clearance to engineering and construction, this sustained employment has generated substantial economic benefits both regionally and statewide. Investing in California 3 CEO Kelly Responds to FRA Threat California High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Brian Kelly’s March 4 response to the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) recent threat to rescind federal funds from the project calls on the agency to continue working with the Authority to deliver high-speed rail for the nation. The consequences of rescinding federal funding is bad policy that can have disastrous impacts in the Central Valley, throughout California and across the nation. Delivering the nation’s first high- speed rail system remains the Authority’s mission and focus. Letter to Ronald Batory, FRA Letter to Jamie Rennert, FRA Statement from CEO Kelly Members of Congress to Secretary Chao: Honor California High-Speed Rail Commitments Washington—Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala D. Harris and 16 members of the California congressional delegation on March 20, 2019 called on Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao to honor funding commitments for the state’s high-speed rail project. Additionally, on March 21, 2019, Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent a similarly strongly worded letter to Secretary Chao urging her to maintain the Department’s commitments to the state. “Cancelling the department’s commitment to fulfill its outstanding legal obligations and attempting to claw back funding already lawfully spent would be unjustified and harmful,” the members wrote. “This unprecedented action would invite years of litigation and would cause the federal government to be rightly viewed as an unreliable and politically motivated partner on all future infrastructure investments throughout the country.” The 16 members of the congressional delegation letter who signed the letter were Representatives Zoe Lofgren, Jim Costa, Lou Correa, TJ Cox, Jared Huffman, Jimmy Panetta, Susan Davis, Grace Napolitano, Linda Sánchez, Ro Khanna, John Garamendi, Eric Swalwell, Alan Lowenthal, Adam Schiff, Barbara Lee and Jackie Speier. Letter from Sen. Feinstein 4 Governor Newsom’s State of the State Address Reflects High-Speed Rail Building Block Approach The Governor’s welcome direction on California High-Speed Rail — as delivered at his Feb. 12 State of the State address — reflects the building block approach laid out in the 2018 Business Plan . Although some media outlets initially reported differently, the plan still calls for delivering high-speed rail passenger service in the Central Valley (where construction is already happening) as soon as possible. The Governor also reiterated the commitment to environmentally clear the rest of the Phase 1 system from San Francisco and Modesto to Los Angeles/Anaheim, complete “bookend” investments and pursue additional federal and private funding for future project expansion. The California High-Speed Rail Authority is preparing a 2019 Project Update Report for the Legislature, which will provide an overall review of the status of the program and how the Authority’s proposes to advance it. That report will be available May 1. State of the State Address CEO Kelly's Response April Construction Update 5 The April Construction Update focuses on progress made at several project sites in Construction Package 2-3 including one of our newer locations Excelsior Avenue just north of the city of Hanford. You'll also get a look for the first time under the Fresno Trench, the only below-grade project in Construction Package 1. Construction Update Northern California Project Section Update In January, the Authority announced it will advance the next environmental milestone for the San Francisco to San Jose Project Section. The staff recommended 6 Preferred Alternative (PA) has been moved up from December 2019 to September 2019 to be identified alongside the San Jose to Merced Project Section PA. We are currently gathering more public input as we move toward this milestone for both project sections. Staff will be presenting their PA to the Board of Directors for the Board to concur with or modify the staff’s recommendation. In February and March, staff from the Northern California region wrapped up a series of Community Working Group (CWG) meetings. The members received a two- part presentation: 1) Rationale and process for identifying a Preferred Alternative; and 2) A presentation from our Early Train Operator, Deutsche Bahn. To view recent CWG meeting materials and updated Flyover videos, visit here for San Francisco to San Jose Project Section, and here for San Jose to Merced Project Section. Past Community Working Group (CWG) Meetings:  February 21: San Jose CWG Meeting  March 5: Morgan Hill-Gilroy CWG Meeting  March 12: San Mateo CWG Meeting  March 14: South Peninsula CWG Meeting  March 18: San Francisco CWG Meeting Upcoming Community Working Group (CWG) Meetings: April 22: Morgan Hill-Gilroy CWG Meeting Monday, April 22, 6-8 pm Gilroy Portuguese Hall 250 Old Gilroy St Gilroy, CA 95020 May 2: San Jose CWG Meeting Edenvale Branch Library 101 Branham Ln E San Jose, CA 95111 May 7: South Peninsula CWG Meeting Santa Clara Central Park Library 2635 Homestead Road Santa Clara, CA 95051 May 20: San Mateo CWG Meeting San Mateo Senior Center 2645 Alameda de las Pulgas San Mateo, CA 94403 May 28: San Francisco CWG Meeting Bay Area Metro Center, Yerba Buena Room 375 Beale St San Francisco, CA 94105 If you are interested in inviting us to your community meeting to receive a project update, our team would be happy to coordinate with you. Feel free to contact us here: Via Email: san.jose_merced@hsr.ca.gov san.francisco_san.jose@hsr.ca.gov Via Phone: San Francisco to San Jose Project Section: (800) 435-8670 San Jose to Merced Project Section: (800) 455-8166 Via Mail: Northern California Regional Office California High-Speed Rail Authority 100 Paseo de San Antonio, Suite 206 San Jose, CA 95113 7 Sincerely, Boris Lipkin Northern California Regional Directory SEE MORE AT WWW.HSR.CA.GOV California High-Speed Rail Authority 100 Paseo de San Antonio, Suite 206 San Jose, CA 95113 northern.california@hsr.ca.gov (408) 277-1083 This email was sent by: California High-Speed Rail Authority 770 L Street Suite 620, Sacramento, CA, 95814 US Privacy Policy Unsubscribe 1 Carnahan, David From:Lawrence Garwin <lawrencegarwin@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 1, 2019 11:28 AM To:Council, City Subject:Cell Tower Approvals Need to Be Slowed City Council Members,    I am very concerned about the proposed process to streamline additional cell tower installations.     For instance, I oppose the cell tower proposed above Lytton Plaza, as this is a place where people gather to talk, relax,  and listen to music.  I don’t want people to be exposed to the additional electromagnetic radiation, nor the noise from  the cooling fans in the electrical cabinet that is usually located at just above head height.     Please register my disapproval of this particular tower with the proper staff.    As well, in considering a process for cell tower approvals, please create a more robust set of objective standards that  would include parameters such as setbacks from homes and schools, requirements for undergrounding, size of  equipment, etc., informed by an inclusive public process.    Also, please create a short term resident task force to inform standards that better reflect community concerns and  values, with quick turn around of a resolution to adopt them.     And continue the ARB review of applications to ensure public scrutiny and comment on proper application of the  standards.    Than you for your kind consideration of my requests.     Lawrence Garwin  Palo Alto    1 Carnahan, David From:Colby <cranger@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 31, 2019 9:49 PM To:Council, City; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Concerned about "Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility" Attachments:IMG_20190317_140440.jpg Hello,    Recently, I noticed the sign for a "Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility" on a utility pole in front of my house at 2085  Emerson St (attached). I have read about serious harmful effects radiation can have on children, including cancer.  This  has me especially concerned since the tower would be ~20ft from my children's bedroom. We have a 4 month old and a  4 year old who would sleep on the 2nd floor directly next to the tower.  When we bought our home in Palo Alto, we  spent a lot of effort trying to find a safe environment for my children to grow up in and I am against a cell tower that  would put them in harms way. Please let me know what additional steps can be taken to prevent this from happening.    Sincerely,    Colby Ranger  650‐390‐7774    1 Carnahan, David From:Shikada, Ed Sent:Tuesday, April 2, 2019 5:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Councilmember Comments Hello Councilmembers,  As mentioned last evening, here are councilmember comments for your information.  ‐‐Ed    Ed Shikada City Manager 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ph: (650) 329-2280 ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org From Lydia:     I attended my second Caltrain Local Policy Makers Group meeting last Thursday.  This is a group established by  Caltrain, with one elected representative from each of the jurisdictions Caltrain passes through.  For anyone  interested in tracking the LPMG, their meetings and presentations are posted on the Caltrain website.      Last week’s presentation included an update on the Caltrain Business Plan.  As we’ve talked about before, the  Caltrain Business Plan is evaluating a range of ridership increases, and this could have a major impact on Palo  Alto, such as needing passing tracks in addition to the grade separations we’ve talked a lot about.  There was  some interesting new information shared last week, that I’d like to share, regarding the growth projections that  Caltrain is using for its ridership forecasts.  In particular, Caltrain presented ridership estimates based on jobs  and people within a ½ or 2 mile circle around our downtown and Cal Ave stations.  The Caltrain Business Plan is  projecting about 65,000 more jobs and people in our area.  Caltrain staff indicated this includes downtown but  also includes large sections of the Stanford Campus and Hospital, and that about 75 percent of the growth is  related to Stanford, Stanford Hospital, and Stanford Research Park, and that Stanford’s new GUP could raise  these numbers even higher.    I understand staff has asked Caltrain to come and talk to the council about their Business Plan, and that new  information makes it even more important that the relationship between Caltrain’s Business Plan and Stanford’s  GUP be clear and publicly understood, as well as any impacts be fully addressed.   From Alison:    As I get settled into my new role, I thought I would make a practice of sharing some information each month  so that you are informed about relevant meetings and events.   My first BAWSCA meeting previewed the organization's budget and the upcoming decision about  whether to participate in the Los Vaqueros expansion to provide additional water supply in drought  years when our allocation would be reduced.  I will also be serving on the board policy committee.  2  The annual BEAM (Business, Entrepreneurship, and Math) program included presentations by Gunn  high school students who are working with the city on recruiting for boards and commissions, sharing  information about the grade separation alternatives, and scoping the California Avenue expansion of  the Palo Alto Transportation Management Authority   The gender equity conversation hosted by the Human Relations Commission offered a welcoming  space to discuss how girls and boys and women and men are treated and represented in our city   The city/school liaison meeting included three location options for housing at the new Cubberley   Cubberley Day was a great reminder of the wide variety of organizations that operate there and  strengthen our community   A League of Cities presentation on recruiting and retaining people to work for local governments noted  that when people consider coming to work for a city, they often watch a City Council meeting, along  with suggestions about designing benefits to support employees throughout their lives   Thank you for the opportunity to briefly meet with the Executive Leadership Team so that I could  introduce myself and learn more about each department  1 Carnahan, David From:OSCAR ITURRALDE <oiturralde13@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 1, 2019 3:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:Donation Hi,  My name is Oscar Iturralde, I live and work at state goverment of Tabasco, Mexico. I want to know if your fundation  support or donate ambulance or truck fire to another countries (like Mexico, specific ti Tabasco). We havent a lot of  social infraestructure in the city and there are a lot of firest fires, so we need to help people in risk situation.    Please tell me If there are any possibilities to obtain any kind of help  from your foundation or if you can give me other  foundation contact information who can help us I will thank you.  PD. Please, excuse me for my english.  1 Carnahan, David From:Tony Ciampi <T.Ciampi@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 1, 2019 9:51 PM To:Carnahan, David; Shikada, Ed; Scheff, Lisa; Council, City Cc:FAC@firstamendmentcoalition.org Subject:Failure to Respond to CPRA Request? Attachments:records 1.PNG; records 2.PNG; records 3.PNG; records 4.PNG; records 5.PNG; records 6.PNG; records 7.PNG; records 8.PNG; records 9.PNG; records 21.PNG; records 22.PNG David Carnahan,   Palo Alto City Deputy City Clerk, MPA  and   Ed Shikada  Palo Alto City Manager      Mr Carnahan,  Fact One:   You claimed to have sent me an email on March 29, 2019.  I did not receive any email from you or  anyone else from the City of Palo Alto on that date.  Records 2 and 4     Did you fabricate this document and back date it to falsely portray that it was sent and sent prior to the date that you  actually created it?  Fact Two:    All of the city’s responses to my previous public records requests have been sent to me from the  Palo Alto Public Records Center; email address, “paloaltoca@mycusthelp.net”  I have provided the last ten responses.  Missing is the March 29, 2019 response.  Records 7 and 1  There is no reason for you to respond personally to the CPRA request outside of the Palo Alto Public Records  Center; to do so further corroborates that something false and misleading is at hand.  Fact Three:   Virtually all previous responses to CPRA requests that involve personnel from the PAPD have  been signed by the Records Manager Lisa Schiff.   No response to CPRA request W001682‐031919, (March19,  2019), has been uploaded to the system with Lisa Schiff’s signature.  You re‐uploaded the response that Lisa Schiff provided, March 18, 2019, for CPRA request W0016670‐030719,  March 7, 2019, to make it look like you responded to W001682‐031919 when in fact you did not.  Records  5, 6, 7, 8, 21 and 3.  Fact Four:  I have not communicated directly to you nor to your email address,  david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org, previously regarding requests W001682‐031919 and or W0016670‐ 030719.  In your document you show a Message History of (3).  There is no email history between your email  2 address and mine prior to you sending me your initial email dated April 1, 2019 and now my response.  That  would make an email Message History of (5) according to your document yet there is only a history of (2)  created on April 1, 2019, not prior.      Communications from the Palo Alto Public Records Center will be identified as "Opened" NOT "Delivered" as in  your email providing more unnecessary obfuscation.  Records 22  ===================    Since you solely re‐uploaded your response to the CPRA request W0016670‐030719, made on March 7, 2019  you have not officially responded to CPRA request W001682‐031919, made on March19, 2019 through your  official Palo Alto Public Records Center.      City Manager Ed Shikada:  On March 7, 2019 I created a document/request, W0016670‐030719, containing a series of questions all of  which but one require a "Yes" or "No" response.  You responded by stating that the CPRA does not require you  to answer the questions.    I followed that up with a request, W001682‐031919 that you provide a reason why you refuse to answer the  questions given that the CPRA does not prohibit you from answering the questions.    You have not provided a response to this request.    Tony Ciampi    .      1 Carnahan, David From:Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org> Sent:Friday, March 29, 2019 11:42 AM To:Clerk, City Cc:Council, City; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner Subject:Files for 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Dear City Clerk and City Council,    One problem with having a temporary contractor host the website for a project is when the project ends and the  contract terminates, we lose the history of that project, including the staff reports, minutes and other documents.  This  appears to be occurring with the domain paloaltocompplan.org, which expired on 3/12/2019 and is pending renewal or  deletion.    The City Clerk should renew the domain (before a squatter buys it), get the files restored, and then have them all moved  to the City’s own website.    Thanks.    Best regards,  Arthur Keller  former co‐chair, Comp Plan Update Citizens Advisory Committee      1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Wednesday, March 27, 2019 3:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: comments on wireless ordinance     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Tina Chow <chow_tina@yahoo.com>   Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 2:58 PM  To: Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: comments on wireless ordinance    Dear Planning and Transportation Commission,    I live in Barron Park and I am a professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at UC Berkeley. I have read the City Staff  report which is asking you to approve revisions to the Wireless Ordinance. I have spent many hours studying the cell tower  approval process in Palo Alto and kindly ask you to consider this and other input you have received carefully. I believe we  can do better to protect the beauty of our city and the welfare of our residents.    1) Our neighborhoods are so distinct that no menu of options will suffice.  The Palo Alto comprehensive plan goals include:  "GOAL L‐9 Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance the image and character of the city.” The proposed  designs do not and cannot uniformly enhance the image and character of the city. The technology will change with time and  each site is unique and must be considered individually and thoughtfully.    2) The ARB review process allows for critical public input and discussion. The Staff report describes pressure from the FCC to  streamline the cell tower approval process, but the FCC does not require any changes to be made to our ordinance at all, we  just need to comply with the FCC. Furthermore, any changes to our city ordinance must not be done by removing public  discussion from the process.  We cannot have these decisions being made by a single person. The ARB's role is critical and  important and I urge you to fight to keep their role and public input as we currently have it in the process.    3) We need an updated Wireless Ordinance that safeguards residents. In addition to aesthetics and noise concerns, there are  2 valid health concerns about placing cell towers so close to residents' homes. Hundreds of studies have been performed since  the 1996 Telecom Act which show adverse biological and health effects. Instead of making it easier for telecom, we need the  safety and welfare of residents to be the priorities of our city and reflected in our ordinances.    4) Many other cities are acting to protect resident interests by creating changes to their ordinances to require minimum  spacing, increased fees, setbacks from schools, etc. Some examples:    * Petaluma, CA requires undergrounding, 1500 ft minimum spacing, setbacks from residences  (https://www.petaluma360.com/news/8567587‐181/petaluma‐sets‐cell‐phone‐tower?sba=AAS)    * Fairfax, CA passed an urgency ordinance putting a pause on cell tower installations and requiring setbacks from  residences, schools, etc., and the city is pursuing a fiber network (https://www.marinij.com/2018/10/04/fairfax‐to‐ study‐fiber‐optic‐broadband‐amid‐protest‐against‐5g/)    * Ripon, CA is having a cell tower removed from a school site after a cancer cluster (at least 3 teachers and 4 kids  affected). Their new ordinance requires a 500ft setback from schools and 130 ft from residences.  (https://www.modbee.com/news/article228295829.html)    * Mill Valley, CA adopted an urgency ordinance to prohibit cell towers in residential zones, strengthen permitting  requirements, set minimum distances and setbacks etc. (https://marinpost.org/blog/2018/9/9/mill‐valley‐council‐ adopts‐wireless‐telecommunications‐facility‐ordinance‐protects‐community)    * Marin County is updating its ordinance, joined the lawsuit against the FCC (with dozens of cities including San Jose,  NY, LA, Seattle, etc.) and held a public meeting to discuss 5G https://www.marincounty.org/‐ /media/files/departments/cd/planning/currentplanning/next‐generation‐communications/20190128‐cda‐5gworkshop‐ v2.pdf?la=en    These include just a few examples of actions cities/counties/communities are taking. We can do better and I urge you to make  strong recommendations to City Council to protect the safety and welfare of our community. There are many residents willing  to work on this issue to create a better solution.     Thank you for all your work on this!  ‐Tina Chow    Some other comments that I sent to the ARB regarding the Staff Report from March 21 may be relevant:   The report mentions the burden on staff resources from handling so many applications for small cells ‐>  this cost,  including staff time, is entirely covered by the applicant!   An updated wireless ordinance should specify a minimum distance between poles with WCF equipment, e.g. 2000 ft.  The report states that: "Vaults are unlikely to comply with noise policies in residential neighborhoods." We went over  this at previous meetings and it's not true, so please ask City Staff again to correct this. It is indeed possible to have a  vault that is not noisy.   The report states that: "All vault designs reviewed by staff require significant excavation and occupy underground  space that the City may wish to use for utility purposes in the future." If that's the case, then why are we allowing  such equipment on poles in the first place? All auxiliary equipment should be undergrounded as residents are asking! 1 Carnahan, David From:Minor, Beth Sent:Tuesday, April 2, 2019 2:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Share with Councilmembers     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Greg Tanaka <greg.tanaka@percolata.com>   Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 12:36 AM  To: Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: Share with Councilmembers    https://youtu.be/_nRmU5Lytdc  1 Carnahan, David From:Michael Harbour <dr.mharbour@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 2, 2019 9:32 AM To:Council, City Cc:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian Subject:Fwd: Palo Alto US Post Office Lobby and Weekend Hours Dear City Council,  I spoke to Crystal Yu, representative liaison from Anna Eshoo's office.  Her office has received numerous inquiries about  the evening and weekend post office hours over the past year.  She stated that the decision to close the post office was  made by the Chief of Police due to the overnight homeless usage of the lobby.  Crystal mentioned that the  Congresswoman would like to see the US Post Office extend their hours, but it is up to the city and Chief to come to an  agreement.  The current hours do not serve the customers that need to access their post office boxes and the 24/7  Automated Machine.  This is especially true for those whose work schedules coincide with the lobby hours.  Could you  please work with the Chief to make the office lobby hours available during the early evenings and on  Sundays?  Someone should be able to unlock and lock the doors as part of a routine security check.  I believe that we can  achieve better customer access while protecting the lobby from the overnight homeless usage.  Thanks,  Michael Harbour  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Michael Harbour <dr.mharbour@gmail.com>  Date: Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 5:14 PM  Subject: Palo Alto US Post Office Lobby and Weekend Hours  To: <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>    Dear City Council,    I'm attaching a letter I sent to Congresswoman Eshoo's office.  I have not received a response to my phone inquiry at her  local office.  I hope you can help find a solution to better access for Palo Altans who must access the Post Office Boxes  and Automated Machine during non‐business hours.  Thanks,  Michael Harbour  480 Palo Alto Ave  __________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________     Dear Congresswoman Eshoo,  Can you please find a solution to the night and weekend lobby hours for the Palo Alto Post Offices (380 Hamilton Ave  and 256 Cambridge St in Palo Alto).  Due to homeless people sleeping in the lobbies overnight, the post office instituted  closures when the window hours close.  This took place over one year ago.  I called your local office at the time, but have  not received any response.  This closure makes it impossible for people like myself (a physician who can't make it to the  regular post office hours) to pick up mail from the post boxes or use the 24‐Hour Automated Machine.  Citizens need  access to their mail boxes and automated machines on the weekends and after hours.  Not everyone's schedule will  allow them to show up during regular hours.  Perhaps someone can lock the lobby later in the evening and open it in the  morning thereby still preventing homeless from sleeping overnight in the lobby.  Also, perhaps using a credit card reader  (like ATMs located in bank lobbies) would work as well.   The current hours are not serving the entire Palo Alto public.    Thanks for your prompt attention.  1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Friday, March 29, 2019 2:20 PM To:dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Mayor; Mark Standriff; Mark Kreutzer; margaret-sasaki@live.com; beachrides; paul.caprioglio; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; terry; Council, City; hennessy; yicui@stanford.edu; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; huidentalsanmateo; info@superide1.com; midge@thebarretts.com; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; Cathy Lewis; robert.andersen; Doug Vagim; Steve Wayte; Joel Stiner; bballpod; popoff Subject:Fwd: Stanford develops simple new blood test to detect TB   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 2:13 PM  Subject: Stanford develops simple new blood test to detect TB  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                    Friday, March 29, 2019                 Dr. Burns‐  Here is news of a new blood test for TB:                 https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/29/simple‐new‐blood‐test‐tuberculosis/                LH  1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Sunday, March 31, 2019 1:23 PM To:Steven Feinstein; huidentalsanmateo; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Mayor; Mark Standriff; Mark Kreutzer; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Cathy Lewis; terry; paul.caprioglio; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; Council, City; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; jerry ruopoli; President; Doug Vagim; Steve Wayte; Joel Stiner; steve.hogg; nick yovino; yicui@stanford.edu; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; hennessy; bballpod; popoff; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com Subject:Fwd: Stanford research: AI accuratley predicts battery life. Big implications.   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 12:31 PM  Subject: Stanford research: AI accuratley predicts battery life. Big implications.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                   Sunday, March 31, 2019                 To all‐  Very big news here. Read, and you'll agree, if you know anything about batteries:                https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/25/ai‐accurately‐predicts‐useful‐life‐batteries/                   And the Republican scum in Fresno and elsewhere have fought for 10 years to deny high speed rail to  California's Central Valley. It would permit people to commute from here to Stanford and Silicon Valley in 45  minutes.  Keep 'em broke, barefoot and pregnant. Southern Fresno County has the most concentrated poverty in the  United States, and the Republicans here want to keep it that way.                     Now, the first phase of high speed rail in California will be built, over their objections, from Merced in the north  to Bakersfield in the south in the Central Valley. About 100 miles of additional HSR track would then connect Merced  with Gilroy, at the southern end of the Caltrain line from San Francisco to Gilroy. Caltrain is now being electrified and  grade‐separated, which will permit HSR trains to run on it too. The Republicans will now fight those last 100 miles of  track with all they have. It will permit residents of the Central Valley to get to Silicon Valley, their worst nightmare.                   There's big money to be made in keeping people isolated and ignorant.                 L. William Harding               Fresno, Ca.                   1 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, April 1, 2019 4:55 PM To:City Council; Council, City Subject:Grandfather Clause To the Palo Alto City Council, I do not know if the 'waiver' is helping our cause to keep existing residents in the little low income housing we have or not.! The PAN take is below. I am asking for you to take the high road on your decision tonight about the Grandfather clause and the waiver. If we really want to have a diverse community, we need to protect our housing we have. If this waiver is granted doesn't it make it easier for other lower income housing such as Lanning Chateau?. I want you all to look at the overall good of the community. Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St. 94306 When the seven-member Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the waiver proposal in January, they unanimously recommended against it. They further advised the Council to obtain outside legal advice after expressing concerns that the waiver process might not even be necessary. Their votes reflected concerns raised by many residents who spoke and wrote to them. From the beginning of the President Hotel Apartment tragedy, our city has failed to protect tenants and preserve rental units, despite repeated proclamations that housing is a top priority. That can change Monday night if we insist that the Council:  insure that any waiver process fully protects tenants,  limits developer exemptions to the very minimum required by law,  consider the unanimous Planning Commission recommendation to eliminate the waiver, and  look at adopting a city-wide residential preservation ordinance. 1 Carnahan, David From:JIM POPPY <jamespoppy@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, March 28, 2019 11:08 AM To:Council, City Subject:Keep Churchill Open Dear City Council, Closing Churchill and adding a stoplight on Alma near Embarcadero is a disastrous idea. Please remove it from consideration. Traffic is not going to get better in the future, so we should be discouraging people from using cars, not ravaging neighborhoods to accommodate more vehicles. Keeping Churchill open will provide some access to El Camino and people will adjust to the increased train trips. Jim Poppy Melville Avenue 1 Carnahan, David From:Tony Ciampi <T.Ciampi@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 31, 2019 9:00 PM To:Shikada, Ed; Scheff, Lisa; Council, City Cc:FAC@firstamendmentcoalition.org Subject:Late CPRA Request Attachments:prr1.PNG; prr 2.PNG; prr 3.PNG Ed Shikada  Palo Alto City Manager      Mr. Shikada,                It has been 12 days since I put in a CPRA request to you and I have not received a response.  Pursuant  to  Govt Code § 6253(c) a government agency has no more than 10 days from the date of the request to  provide the requestor the information sought or the reason why the information will not be provided.  Could  you please provide the information requested or the reason why you cannot provide the information  requested.      https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=7.&title=1.&part=& chapter=3.5.&article=1.  Codes Display Text - California 6250. In enacting this chapter, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state. leginfo.legislature.ca.gov   2     Thank you.    Tony Ciampi          City of Palo Alto Public Records Request:: W001682-031919 Records Requested: Ed Shikada Palo Alto City Manager I asked you a series of questions regarding the actions and conduct of one of your employees whom is under your command and authority and therefore your responsibility. You have refused to answer the questions citing that the Public Records Act does not legally require you to answer the questions. That is not a legitimate justification to refuse to answer the questions for the Public Records Act, nor any other law, prohibits you from answering the questions. Since there is nothing legally or otherwise prohibiting you from answering the questions would you please answer the questions. Should you continue to refuse to answer the questions could you please explain why you refuse to answer the questions since there is no legal or logical reason not to? Since I have already waited ten days several days more than necessary to provide the deficient answer you have currently provided; I would expect that you could feasibly answer the questions oir in the alternative provide the reason why you refuse to answer the questions within a few days. Thank you. Tony Ciampi P.O. Box 1681 Palo Alto, Ca 94302 Your request will be forwarded to the relevant department(s) to locate the information you seek and to determine the volume and any costs associated with satisfying your request. You will be contacted about the availability and/or provided with copies of the records in question. You will be contacted about the availability and/or provided with copies of the records in question. You can monitor the progress of your request at the link below and you'll receive an email when your request has been completed. Thank you for using the Public Records Center. City of Palo Alto 1 Carnahan, David From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 2, 2019 12:05 AM To:Frank Agamemnon Subject:Lawyers and AE fundraising drive for the lawsuit against FBI ends April 15 On Tuesday, April 2, 2019, 2:04:36 AM EDT, Frances Shure <franshure@estreet.com> wrote: Dear 9/11 Activists, FYI: The new joint Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth fundraising drive ends April 15. You can make a donation specifically to support this lawsuit—and learn more—at either website. Every dollar counts! 1 Carnahan, David From:Anne Lum <annelum@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 30, 2019 5:28 PM To:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:No cell tower in front of my house! I am a resident of Palo Alto at 781 Barron Avenue and I STRONGLY oppose having a cell towner placed in front of my  home.    Do the right thing and stop Verizon and others from invading our city with these dangerous and ugly things.    Posted by Environmental Health Trust     In October 2018, Dr. Sharon Goldberg gave expert testimony at a Michigan House 5G Small Cell Tower Legislation  hearing where she unequivocally stated:    “Wireless radiation has biological effects, period. This is no longer a subject for debate when you look at PubMed and  the peer‐review literature. These effects are seen in all life forms; plants, animals, insects, microbes. In humans we  have clear evidence of cancer now; there is no question. We have evidence of DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, which is  the precursor of congestive heart failure, neuropsychiatric effects.”    Dr. Sharon Goldberg Testifies at Michigan's 5G Small Cell Tower Legislation Hearing October 4, 2018       1. They are unnecessary.   Why is Palo Alto rushing to codify in its Wireless Ordinance what so many cities are suing to keep out of theirs?   City Staff are telling the ARB, the PTC and City Council that Palo Alto risks being sued by the telecom industry if it doesn’t make these changes. In fact, the likelihood that a telecom company would sue the City over non-compliance with an FCC order that, first, is the subject of a lawsuit brought by the largest cities in the United States and that, second, Congress is seeking to repeal–is zero. So is the likelihood that any Court would agree to hear such a case.  2. They are not in the best interests of the residents of Palo Alto.   These amendments make it faster, easier and cheaper for telecom companies to install cell towers right next to our homes.   They eliminate public hearings and review by the Architectural Review Board, and give Planning Director Lait the sole authority to decide what a telecom company can install and where they can install it. And we already know what Mr. Lait thinks is acceptable: Hanging hundreds of pounds of ugly, noisy, potentially hazardous equipment on utility poles right next to our homes.   2 3. These amendments fly in the face of City Council’s support for repealing the FCC order.   To quote Mayor Filseth in his letter of February 7, 2019 to Congresswoman Eshoo: “The deployment of [cell towers] must be done through the usual public process associated with local government, a process that … needs no modifications from the FCC. … The FCC’s decision to …restrict our ability to best determine the needs of our own city represents the FCC’s failure to listen to local governments across the country.”    Sincerely,    Anne Lum  781 Barron Avenue    1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 2, 2019 4:06 PM To:Clerk, City Cc:Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Presentation to Fin. Committee Apr 2 and P/S Committee Apr 3 Attachments:190402 Buchanan Presentation Open Communications Fin. and PS Committees April 2 and 3 2019.pdf I will present the attachment with oral remarks at Open Communications to Committees above. Thank you. On behalf on residential leaders in the other RPPs my concerns are twofold: #1 Many citizens thought that the Waverly/Hamilton garage was on the backburner, but we now realize that the garage is moving forward competing for funding and staff resources. #2 In this context we ask the Finance Committee and Public Services Committee to place paid parking as a higher priority than capital costs of the garage. Demand for garage parking can be diminished with paid parking. Construction of a new garage is an illogical sequence according to paid parking study on file with the Planning Department. A separate request for public records will be filed tomorrow. The new search engine on the city website does not easily produce the study conducted several years ago. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com ' PALO City of Palo Alto (ID# 9751) ALTO City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/1/2019 Council Priority: Transportation and Traffic Summary Title: Contract Award to SP Plus for Parking Ambassador Services Title: Approval of Contract Number C19173514 With SP Plus in an Amount Not to Exceed $900,000 for Ambassador and Valet Parking Services in Palo Alto Garages and Surface Lots From: City Manager Lead Department: Transportation Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute contract C19173514 for an amount not to exceed $900,000 with SP Plus for Parking Ambassador Services for City parking lots and garages over a three-year period. Background: City staff is engaged in several parking management programs to improve parking utilization and maximize parking supply, including parking guidance systems (PGS) and parking wayfinding -*~ig'nage. Staff are also bringing forward a scope of work for the creation of a new parking facility.}~ /"'1 at Lot D (Hamilton and Waverley), in addition to the launching of the Palo Alto TMA which w~ "]\:" und transportation programs for Downtown employees. The ambassador program, if implemented at the two additional garages, may allow up to 150 additional cars to be parked with no increase in capital investment (in addition to the additional 40-50 cars that can be parked in the Alma/High Street garage [Lot R]). The existing valet-assist program at Lot R has been successful in increasing the number of permitted vehicles parked during the day. On average the program allowed for an additional SO vehicles to be parked per day between from January through May 2015. City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 Carnahan, David From:Magic <magic@ecomagic.org> Sent:Monday, April 1, 2019 4:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:President Hotel Dear Councilmembers,    I write to respectfully request that you act to prevent conversion of housing to other uses, and that you make our zoning  ordinance with respect to this matter simple and transparent. We can ill afford additional commercial space, especially  when we create it by reducing housing.    Thank you for considering these views.    With appreciation,    David Schrom    ************* Magic, 1979-2019: forty years of valuescience leadership ************** Magic demonstrates how people can address individual, social, and environmental ills nearer their roots by applying science to discern value more accurately and realize it more fully. Enjoy the satisfaction of furthering Magic's work by making one-time or recurring gifts at http://ecomagic.org/participate.shtml#contribute. Magic is a 501(c)(3) public charity. Contributions are tax-deductible to the full extent permitted by law. THANK YOU! www.ecomagic.org -------- (650) 323-7333 --—----- Magic, Box 15894, Stanford, CA 94309 ************************************************************************************** 1 Carnahan, David From:Gary Lindgren <gel@theconnection.com> Sent:Friday, March 29, 2019 3:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rail Grade Separations Attention Council Rail Committee,  I have attended all of the Community meetings for the past 2 years along with the CAP meetings since last August. One  observation is that some of the past council decisions may have been made in haste. Now that we have another 6  months to make a choice, there is time to review a couple decisions. The decisions I’m speaking of are: Closing Churchill  and no viaduct for Churchill. Many people want to keep Churchill open. Rail traffic will increase by only 24% after full  electrification of the Caltrain line. Quad gates can be added for safety and noise issues. Another way to keep Churchill  open is to implement a viaduct over the crossing. A viaduct can be built without taking any property. Aecom could look  at this and define feasibility. Closing Churchill should be the last choice to consider and can be put off for several years.    It is now time to remove the tunnel and trench options for consideration. Building a city‐wide tunnel would require  taking residential property and closing down Alma for up to 7 years. Upon completion, Alma would be narrowed to 2  lanes in 2 areas. But the worst thing about the tunnel is cost. There is no way Palo Alto can come up with $3 to $4 billion  for construction. The trench option should also be removed as a possible choice for Palo Alto. The estimated cost is 2 to  3 times more expensive than the hybrid or viaduct solution. A major negative issue with the trench is the requirement  divert the flow of Adobe and Barron creeks over/under the trench with pumps. There would be constant maintenance  issues and possible flooding if something went wrong.    I personally favor the Viaduct solution. Alma would be kept open during construction and no lanes would be closed. The  estimated construction time be only 2 years compared to 4 years for the hybrid solution.    Thank you,  Gary Lindgren                Gary Lindgren  585 Lincoln Ave  Palo Alto CA 94301     650-326-0655 Check Out Latest Seismometer Reading @garyelindgren    Listen to Radio Around the World     Be Like Costco... do something in a different way  Don't trust Atoms...they make up everything      2 A part of good science is to see what everyone else can see but think what no one else has ever said. The difference between being very smart and very foolish is often very small. So many problems occur when people fail to be obedient when they are supposed to be obedient, and fail to be creative when they are supposed to be creative. The secret to doing good research is always to be a little underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste hours. It is sometimes easier to make the world a better place than to prove you have made the world a better place. Amos Tversky   1 Carnahan, David From:Megan Kanne <kanne.megan@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 28, 2019 11:16 AM To:Shikada, Ed Cc:Council, City; Mercurio, Etty; Litzinger, Millette; Gaines, Chantal; Apex Strategies Subject:Re: Interactive Alternative Explorer Hi Ed,    Here's a new version with buttons to change the color of the boxes per your individual opinion of  impact/benefit: https://observablehq.com/@megankanne/palo‐alto‐rail‐crossing‐alternatives/3.    Regards,  Megan    On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 9:55 PM Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Hi Megan – Thanks so much for doing this; REALLY impressive!     Let me ask that councilmembers provide any comments and suggestions to Chantal and me.  That will help avoid any  Brown Act issues.     One question off the bat.  Could you create a version that allows a numeric impact (instead of the color), either a score  or a ranking?       Thanks again,  ‐‐Ed       Ed Shikada  City Manager  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  Ph: (650) 329-2280  ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org    2    From: Megan Kanne <kanne.megan@gmail.com>   Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 5:49 PM  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Mercurio, Etty <etty.mercurio@aecom.com>; Litzinger, Millette <millette.litzinger@aecom.com>; Shikada, Ed  <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Gaines, Chantal <Chantal.Gaines@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Apex Strategies  <apexstr@pacbell.net>  Subject: Interactive Alternative Explorer     Dear Rail Committee of the Whole,     I was listening to the Committee meeting stream from Monday and I heard requests from the members for a way to play around  with the evaluation matrix and the alternatives, so I made this: https://observablehq.com/@megankanne/palo‐alto‐rail‐crossing‐ alternatives/2     I'm happy to change it in any way that would be helpful to your analysis.     Regards,  Megan, CAP member  1 Carnahan, David From:Anna Griffin <griffinam@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Thursday, March 28, 2019 5:29 PM To:abjpd1@gmail.com; Council, City; council@redwoodcity.org; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; HRC; gstone22@gmail.com; Binder, Andrew; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; JRosen@dao.sccgov.org; Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org; stephanie@dslextreme.com; Kniss, Liz (external); Jonsen, Robert; Perron, Zachary Subject:Re: Reparations and SB 50 -Palo Alto Weekly March 22, 2019 by Aram James Thanks for speaking up and taking a stand for justice and humanity.       "Our lives ends the minute we remains silent about the things that matters.   Rev.Dr.Martin Luther King, Jr.     Anna Griffin   Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android    On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 9:04 PM, Aram James  <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  Palo Alto Weekly  Spectrum ‐ March 22, 2019  Letters to the editor      Reparations and SB 50  Editor,    Although at first blush I find myself strongly supporting SB 50, I appreciate the scope of the questions raised in Greer  Stone and Pat Burt's guest opinion in the March 15 issue of the Weekly ("SB 50 undermines single‐family neighborhoods  and diversity").  In the past, I was part of a group in Palo Alto called Stop The Ban (STB), which fought to overturn/forestall Palo Alto's  then‐proposed ban on vehicle dwellers.  STB worked tirelessly for several years to convince the City Council and faith groups to support a Safe Parking Program  or what Stone and Burt's article refers to as, "managed location for RV dwellers." The resistance to the program was  overwhelming.  We organized a panel discussion on the topic at a local church that was attended by about 100 folks, including former  City Council member Karen Holman. Our keynote speaker was a counselor from a very successful Safe Parking Program  in Santa Barbara. Still, we had no success in getting the powers that be in Palo Alto to consider such a program.  I'm wondering if the answer is not a total refusal to support SB 50's call for more and dense housing, but rather, making  certain that the bill includes provisions for a very large percentage of the dense housing, envisioned by SB 50, to be set  aside, in perpetuity, for low‐ and very low‐income individuals, including seniors, people of color, the disabled, the  formerly unhoused, etc.  2 In addition, we could begin a discussion of mandating housing for the victims, and their families, of housing segregation  going back generations in Palo Alto. Yes, a big‐time discussion of providing permanently free or very low rent housing as  a form of reparations for the wrongs Palo Alto visited and continues to visit on our African‐American brothers and  sisters. SB 50 could include language that would require a principled discussion of reparations statewide.  Aram James  Park Street, Redwood City  1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 2, 2019 7:12 PM To:citycouncil@mountainview.gov; griffinam@sbcglobal.net; cbolanos@smcgov.org Cc:Council, City; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; City Mgr; myraw@smcba.org; senator@feinstein.senate.gov; Raj Subject:Reparations: Daily Post April 2, 2019 by aram James   >   >   >   1 Carnahan, David From:Tanner, Rachael Sent:Friday, March 29, 2019 5:45 PM To:Dan.Elwell@faa.gov Cc:teri.bristol@faa.gov; Jodi.mccarthy@faa.gov; 9-AMC-Aerochart@faa.gov; 9-ATO-WSA-FOIA@faa.gov; Jacob.powers@faa.gov; kim.stover@faa.gov; kevin.stewart@faa.gov; dennis.roberts@faa.gov; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Flaherty, Michelle; Stump, Molly; trevor_higgins@feinstein.senate.gov; Isaac_Irby@harris.senate.gov; eric.henshall@mail.house.gov; Peter J. Kirsch Subject:Request for Extension of Comment Period on STAR PIRAT TWO and Comments Regarding STAR PIRAT TWO Attachments:STAR PIRAT TWO_CommentLtr_PaloAlto_03292019.pdf Dear Mr. Elwell,     Attached you will find a letter from the City of Palo Alto regarding the STAR (RNAV) PIRAT TWO. The letter offers  comments on the procedure and requests and extension of the comment period.     Respectfully submitted,  Rachael Tanner          Rachael A. Tanner, MCP  Assistant to the City Manager  250 Hamilton Ave | Palo Alto, CA 94301  D: 650.329.2167 | C: 510.254.4754    E: Rachael.Tanner@cityofpaloalto.org   Quality|Courtesy|Efficiency|Integrity|Innovation      Mr. Dan Elwell Acting Administrator Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20091 Sent via email to Dan.Elwell@faa.gov City of Palo Alto Office of the Mayor and City Council Re: Request for Extension of Comment Period on STAR PIRAT TWO and Com~ents Regarding STAR PIRATTWO Dear Mr. Elwell, The City of Palo Alto is writing to express our concerns about the STAR PIRATTWO procedure proposed for implementation in the northern California airspace. See https://www.faa.gov/air traffic/flight info/aeronav/procedures/application/?event=procedure.results &tab=coordination&nasrld=SFO#searchResultsTop. The City recognizes and appreciates that the proposed STAR PIRAT TWO procedure directs aircraft to fly at higher altitudes over a portion of the Peninsula -a practice we have frequently requested and supported. However, the City remains extremely concerned about other potential impacts of this proposed procedure and that the response to our Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request regarding procedure has not been completed. Therefore, we write this letter to request an extension of the comment period for the STAR PIRAT TWO procedure and to express our concerns about the procedure. Extension of the Comment Period The comment period for the proposal is scheduled to close on March 29, 2019. The City has previously submitted comments on the proposal but was not afforded access to the background documentation supporting the proposal including, for example, environmental analysis that would support implementation. As a result, we submitted, through counsel, a FOIA request dated October 29, 2018, for further documentation (FOIA # 2019-001087WP). The agency responded with an unprecedented request that we pay copying and search fees, even though we are a public agency which is directly affected by the proposal and we have committed to making the requested information available to the public. We agreed to pay the additional fees. We were informed that documentation would be made available by March 29, which coincidentally is the deadline for comments on the proposal. We have just learned, by email from the Western Service Center to our counsel (see email attached) that the response to our October 29 request has been further delayed to a date beyond the expiration of the comment period on the STAR PIRAT TWO procedure. By this letter, we request an extension of time to submit comments on the proposal for 60 days, or for 30 days after the FAA has supplied information in response to our FOIA request, whichever is later. As you are undoubtedly aware, the time for a judicial challenge to a final agency action is short and the agency's failure to provide even the most basic information to the public about the proposal has already seriously impeded the ability of the City to provide meaningful comments on the proposal. We believe Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine. P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2477 650.328.3631 fax that, absent an extension of time, the City would be justified in seeking an extension of the jurisdictional period under 49 U.S.C. 46110. By extending the comment period, the agency would reduce the risk that potential legal challenges would be further delayed. There is no doubt that the PIRAT procedure has already generated considerable controversy and threatens to create the kind of controversy which led the FAA to announce its intention to prepare an Environmental Assessment for flight track changes in the vicinity of Burbank Hollywood Airport. See https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/nextgen near you/community involvement/bur/. The extension of time that we seek is designed to provide the information to the public which will enable decision makers and the public to understand the impacts of the PIRAT procedure and potentially avoid the overwhelming controversy that occurred in Studio City and Sherman Oaks, California. Comments on the PIRAT STAR TWO Ambiguity of Vectoring's Routes, Altitudes, and Impacts The STAR PIRAT TWO Procedure ends at the waypoint ARGGG. Based on the limited information provided, once the procedure terminates, aircraft are vectored via Air Traffic Control. The paths, altitudes, and noise impact of vectored aircraft have not been disclosed by the FAA. Based on existing conditions and experience with past procedural changes, we believe the vectoring of aircraft will increase noise impacts in Palo Alto and neighboring peninsula communities. We request the procedure be amended to increase the altitude of planes flying over Palo Alto and neighboring peninsula communities. Impacts of Increased Volume The STAR PIRAT TWO replaces a tailored approach that was in limited use as only certain airlines were permitted to fly the procedure. By opening the procedure to more airlines and/or by expanding its use beyond SFO arrivals to also include OAK arrivals the volume of air traffic will increase, thereby increasing the noise impacts on Palo Alto and her neighbors. If the noise impacts have been studied, they have not been disclosed. Until the procedure is amended to decrease noise impacts, we request the publication of the procedure be delayed. Environmental Impacts The proposed route, and the associated areas most likely to be used in vectoring flights from ARGGG to final approach, would likely direct aircraft over noise-sensitive areas, several wildlife refuges and water storage areas, historic areas, and minority and low-income populations. We draw your attention to the specific obligations of the FAA to consider impacts over such areas even if the agency believes that it has adequate legal justification to use a CatEx. See FAA Order 1050.lF § 5-3 in particular. The documentation provided thus far does not address the procedure's environmental impacts. We request the procedure be delayed until these environmental impacts are addressed. Inadequate Use of New Technologies We urge the FAA to creatively partner with airports in the San Francisco Bay Area Metroplex to leverage new technologies to develop improved procedures as part of its Next-Gen journey. Leveraging SFO's Ground-Based Augmentation System (GBAS) is a key starting point. As you know, SFO is linking two satellite-based approach technologies -Required Navigation Performance (RNP) and a Global Navigation Satellite System {GNSS) Landing System (GLS)-to improve from the approach tools invented 85 years ago, but improvements can only be gained by this technology if the FAA is willing to consider procedures that take advantage of it. The STAR Pl RAT TWO is an opportunity to leverage the new technology to create a procedure that deceases noise impacts. We request the FAA to begin working with SFO to integrate the capabilities of the GBAS system with the STAR PIRAT TWO. Inadequate Disclosure of Impacts We do not believe the FAA has adequately disclosed impacts of the STAR PIRAT TWO under its existing orders and policy statements. We have been advised that the manner in which STAR PIRAT TWO has been publicly disclosed violates standard agency practice for enhanced community involvement that has been adopted in the wake of the Phoenix v. Huerta decision. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, ~7/rL Eric Filseth, Mayor City of Palo Alto cc: Sent via email to 9-AMC-Aerochart@faa.gov Ms. Teri Bristol, Chief Operating Officer, Air Traffic Organization Ms. Jodi McCarthy, Vice President, Mission Support Services Mr. Dennis Roberts, FAA Western-Pacific Regional Administrator Ms. Faviola Garcia, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator Ms. Kimberly Stover, Director, Air Traffic Operations, FAA Western Services Area, AJTW Mr. Kevin Stewart, Acting FAA Aeronautical Information Services Manager FAA Western Services Area Air Traffic Organization Manager Staff, FAA Air Traffic Organization Jacob Powers, Air Traffic Organization Western Service Area FOIA office Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senate Hon. Kamala D. Harris, U.S. Senate Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, U.S. House of Representatives Palo Alto City Council Edward Shikada, Palo Alto City Manager Molly Stump, Palo Alto City Attorney Peter J. Kirsch, Kaplan Kirsch Rockwell 1 Carnahan, David From:Amir&Sandra Ben-Efraim <amirsandra@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 1, 2019 8:27 AM To:Council, City Subject:Request for more robust and transparent approval process for small cell antennas Dear City Council members:    I have not met Tina Chow, but I have been following up on the issues of installation on cell antenna poles  around residential neighborhoods in Palo Alto. I fully support a "call for more robust and transparent approval  process for  small cell antennas" and the need for (as per her commentary in Palo Alto Matters):    1. A more robust set of objective standards that would include parameters such as setbacks from homes and schools,  requirements for under‐grounding, size of equipment, etc., informed by an inclusive public process.  2. A short term resident task force to inform standards that better reflect community concerns and values, with quick  turn around of a resolution to adopt them.  3. Continued ARB review of applications to ensure public scrutiny and comment on proper application of the standards.  I will not be able to attend the April 15th meeting, but please affirm that my opinion has been voiced.     Best, Sandra Ben-Efraim Webster St., Palo Alto 1 Carnahan, David From:Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, March 31, 2019 1:37 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Planning Commission; Clerk, City; Star-Lack, Sylvia Subject:RPP Resources Attachments:RPP speech notes.docx Dear City Council Members and City Manager,    Residents in our area of Old Palo Alto near the California Ave tunnel are pleased that the PTC unanimously voted last  week to prioritize our RPP petition request as #1.   I know having spoken with all Council Members on an individual basis  that you too are supportive of parking relief in our area, and for that residents are grateful.    The concern in our neighborhood, however, is about exactly WHEN permit parking will provided.  At PTC last week, City  Staff showed a timeline as follows:    * May:  City Council will convene to affirm PTC’s recommendation to work our Old Palo Alto RPP  * May‐Aug:  Community Outreach / Stakeholder Process & Data Collection  * Sep:  New/Expanded RPP District Referred to PTC & Council  * Nov:  New District Implemented    ….BUT City Staff placed a contingency on the above timeline saying “subject to availability of resources”.   We  understand there is only 1 out of 1500 employees working on RPPs today.    I am writing you to ask that you please direct appropriate resources or obtain additional resources as needed to address  the parking problem in our neighborhood once and for all.  Over 90% of households with a 72% participation rate signed  the RPP petition and want this fixed once and for all.  We have been in discussions with the city on this problem for  years.  It’s also worth noting we have been and continue to demonstrate flexibility in how to best implement (e.g., open  to annex vs. new RPP, accepting some non‐resident permits, accepting city street boundary recommendation, etc.).  We  have also offered resources if this is something the city needs help with.  Please see attached for what I shared with the  PTC.    As part of the city’s desire for “operational rock solid, high quality, efficient service to residents” (stated goal on State of  the City), please, please let us know exactly if and when this will be taken care of.   Clear expectations are much  appreciated.    Thank you,  Chris Robell  (650) 245‐7395      OLD PALO ALTO RPP PTC PRESENTATION 3/27/2019 -More and more spillover and parking intrusion from Caltrain commuters and to a lesser extent from Cal Ave business district employees. Caltrain riders enjoy cost savings and convenience by parking in our neighborhood -avoids $5.50 per day to park in Caltrain lot, evidenced by the fact that the Caltrain parking lot has typically been less than 25% utilized. -avoid busy CA Ave corridor and just enter our residential neighborhood off Oregon Expy onto High St and park near the tunnel in our neighborhood and just go under the CA Ave tunnel The cost savings and convenience afforded to Caltrain commuters, coupled with their recent lack of ability to park in Evergreen-Mayfield residential streets since that RPP was established in early 2017, means our area of Old Palo Alto has become the de facto Caltrain parking lot. We are faced with maximum loading all day Mon-Fri from 7am-7pm. PTC staff report from Jan 2017 contained a parking utilization study that showed our area of Old Palo Alto near the CA Ave tunnel designated with yellow and red lines, meaning the streets in question were above 50% utilized with some greater than 85% utilization. Keep in mind this parking utilization analysis was conducted in May 2016…..almost 3 years ago and BEFORE the Evergreen-Mayfield RPP was established. It doesn’t take too much imagination to deduce what utilization rates are now AFTER the establishment of EVM RPP, particularly when combined with additional commercial growth since this study was done almost 3 years ago. These streets are red now. George Herman sent you pictures of the streets showing full capacity. The impacts of all this Caltrain commuter parking are well understood: -Real safety risks the closer you are to CA Ave tunnel. Combination of students biking/walking on their way to Paly/Greene coupled with hurried Caltrain commuters trying to find a parking spot on High St and surrounding blocks is recipe for disaster. Several months ago there was an accident by CA Ave underpass and many close calls on a regular basis. - Quality of life issue for local residents: -Almost all homes are narrow one car driveways. No parking spaces available for secondary cars. Cannot park near front of your house on weekdays -Often 2 non-resident cars obstruct driveways. I have personally called police twice to get someone towed who was blocking my driveway. -Many calls to police to request tow for vehicles parked for days (using streets as free long term airport parking) since we see suitcases being wheeled to tunnel -Children cannot play ball in streets -My elderly parents who live at Channing House, who would like to come visit me during weekdays, don’t come as often because they cannot find parking near my home. Easier to find a parking spot in commercial corridor with handicap placard. -Streets are only swept in middle of street (people hand make signs not to park on Tuesday and hope commuters comply). -Aesthectics and neighborhood character consideration. Completely different look and feel relative to other parts of PA. These are just some of the impacts people have highlighted. At this point it’s important we correct and clarify a few things in the staff report. They listed 26 signatures but actual number is 57. Two pages of signatures from our petition that we submitted in August 2018 were completely missing from PTC staff report (presumably a clerical error?). That would have brought # household signatures to 44. But we obtained 13 more signatures since August so updated household signature count is 57. And we have 6 people who are currently not interested in signing and another 24 homes we couldn’t contact. Doing the math and comparing to what EVM RPP was, we over 90% support with a 72% participation, wheras EVP RPP had 68% support with only 20% participation rate when city conducted its mail survey, yet EVP RPP was approved. [To give complete perspective, there are 87 households in neighborhood. * 57 signed * 6 aren’t interested or want to think about it * 24 were not reachable (vacant houses or didn’t answer) So the participation rate is (57+6)/87 = 72%. Of those that participated, 90.5% were in favor [ =57/(57+6) ]. Second, we’ve been asking for parking relief a long time. George and Lloyd started discussions with the city a few years ago. While the staff report correctly states August 2018 as the date when the petition was filed, this is the date of the second petition which reflects specific feedback (e.g., suggesting which streets to include, annexing vs. new RPP, etc.) from the city since the first one submitted in 2017. The point is that we’ve been at this a long time. It’s our turn. Third clarification: Staff report mentions we were interested in resident permits only. We have never insisted on that and, in fact, our petition itself included in the staff report says we are open to 20 non-resident permits. That said, we don’t want our streets to be a commercial parking lot so the number of business permits sold would understandably need to be monitored as it is in other neighborhoods. The key point for you to understand is we have been and remain flexible to the extent it helps move things quickly. We have not and are not prescribing any particular way of addressing the problem as long as it is an expedient solution. We have been taking cues from the city these past years (which streets to include, whether to annex into EVM or have our own RPP, whether to accept some business permits). Despite accepting every idea from the city, the date keeps shifting. We continue to be flexible but want an expedient solution. Summary: -Problem is self-evident, well understood, serious, and continues to get worse. -no parking restrictions on our streets unlike Green Gables -problem is every weekday 7a-7pm including summers -Been in discussion with the city for years. Frustration is building (new signatures every day). It’s our turn. -We are flexible and just want an expedient solution. -We also ask that you direct city staff to start working on this immediately given increasing severity, prolonged nature of engagement with the city on this, and relative ease of implementation to the extent we are very flexible on approach. We are ok just annexing us into EVM…. Areas A-G exist today…just make us area H. We were told (via email on May 24, 2018) that annexing is much more streamlined and recommended. Find…just do it! Please do not wait for some redesigned, consisistent RPP citywide overhaul or hiring a transportation manager. Need to walk and chew gum at the same time, and this is a basic city service. Please make this happen! 1 Carnahan, David From:susan hall <hall.health@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 2, 2019 9:21 AM To:Council, City Subject:safety concerns re 5G wireless radiation from Senator Richard Blumenthal https://ehtrust.org/health‐effects‐of‐5g‐wireless‐technology‐confirmed‐at‐us‐senate‐hearing‐after‐senator‐blumenthal‐ questions‐industry/  1 Carnahan, David From:Brian Kilgore <bkilgore05@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 31, 2019 6:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:Small cell antennas and wireless ordinance changes Dear City Council Members, Concerning proposed changes to how future wireless infrastructure is approved for installation in Palo Alto, I would urge the city to see on the side of transparency and full disclosures. Once cellular communication hardware is installed, it is likely that it is virtually impossible to have it removed unless the owner/carrier does so voluntarily. Simply accepting promises or assurances from wireless providers concerning issues of safety, nuicance (buzzing transformers) and aesthetics, is not acceptable. Please consider implementing the following suggestions: 1. Develop and impliment a more robust set of objective standards that would include parameters such as setbacks from homes and schools, requirements for undergrounding, size of equipment, etc., informed by an inclusive public process. 2. Engage a short term resident task force to inform standards that better reflect community concerns and values, with quick turn around of a resolution to adopt them. 3. Continue ARB reviews of applications to ensure public scrutiny and comment on proper application of the standards. Thank you,    Brian  1 Carnahan, David From:Maria Abilock <gotdna@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 31, 2019 9:07 AM To:Council, City Subject:Small Cell Tower Installation Concern Dear Honorable Council Members,    The current wireless cell tower installation ordinances concern me because they are old, outdated and don't consider  current technologies.  I am writing to voice my position on increased transparency that includes resident/stakeholder  input.      It is time to update and tighten the objective standards for cell tower installation (including Small Cell Towers for 5G  networks) with setback regulations around homes and schools.  Some of our neighboring communities have been doing  the same, including San Mateo, San Bruno, San Jose, and even Ripon (a town near my grandmother's house in the  Central Valley) has removed a cell tower from a school campus after a cluster of cancers developed among students,  staff, and school neighbors.     Let's go about cell tower installation in a smart way, with transparency and updated ordinances made with community  input.    Thank you,  Maria Abilock  Palo Verde Neighborhood