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