Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190902plCC 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: 09/02/2019 Document dates: 08/14/2019 – 08/21/2019 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 15, 2019 2:59 AM To:Council, City Cc:Gail Price Subject:Comments regarding NVCAP, Agenda Item 14 (August 19, 2019) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. August 14, 2019. ACTION ITEM 14: August 19, 2019 Dear Mayor Filseth and Palo Alto City Council Members, As a member of the NVCAP Working Group, I agree with the four recommendations of staff:To direct staff to return with a contract with Water Resources Association, amend the conrzt with Perkins+Will for additional services, endorse the overall approach, schedule ad direction of Working Group and to direct staff to explore additional funding opportunities with large property owners in the study area to share plan development costs. These modifications are critical to address concerns raised and to address the complex data needs and evaluation of the study area. The staff report provides context with land use policies in the Comprehensive Plan to create a North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan as a long- range planning document including policies to guide development and plan for community amenities, including a walkable and connected community, residential, and mixed use to utilize the value of accessibility to high quality transit. As noted, “The plan should describe a vision for the future of the North Ventura area.” The Plan and the Future I concur with the staff that this plan is important to the future of the area. The plan, for a variety of reasons, may not come to fruition for 10 to twenty years or more due to market conditions, owner interests, and feasibility. I have been dismayed that discussions of the vision, led by staff and consultants, have not promoted more comments about the evolution of neighborhoods to become more sustainable and what the literature conveys about neighborhoods of the future. Working Group members and the public have made comments to support these ideas. I do not feel traditional approaches and expectations are sufficient for this area. I trust that the various alternatives developed will incorporate these ideas. There are many changing conditions, including environmental, economic, and public health issues which will frame the future. Historical Preservation and Housing The description of the historic preservation options and eligibility have been clearly outlined in the recent Page and Turnbull Report regarding the site. It states that the former cannery property is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources at the local level of significance under Criterion1 (Events). They have identified many ways the original portion of the cannery bulding can be recognized for its historical significance. I do not believe we need a special section in the NVCAP goals, since this will be addressed in the EIR and will clearly be related to the financial and environmental and economic feasibility of the various alternatives. One of my concerns is that this issue becomes a premature”fire storm” that could impact the pace and intensity of needed discussion of all other vision and planning elements of the NVCAP. The extended schedule and enhanced consultant services will be able to incorporate the various concerns. The full EIR will address this issue and extended discussion now, I do not believe, is helpful. All comments made to date, including comments and discussion by the Historic Resources Board, Working Group and public and City council will be incorporated. As you know the study area has been designated as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Comprehensive Plan and is a key area to provide mixed use, including affordable and market housing, to address our RHNA numbers and help meet our growing housing needs. However, the recent news that the owner of 340 Portage expressed desire to retain the full cannery building and little or no motivation to redevelopment the property in a way to yield significant housing units is very concerning given the clear need and growing demand for a range of types, size, and ownership or rental models in Palo Alto. The most critical statement in the staff report is: “Without willing property owners, the plan will be unable to realize the Council’s project goals.” I do believe that given the critical need for housing that the various alternatives need to address this need. The expanded scope of Perkins+Will does support evaluation of enhanced economic value, an expanded EIR, and market and economic feasibility which are 2 important to the plan and its ultimate implementation. We need compact and expanded Smart Growth to address housing and sustainability goals. The Scope of Services for Perkins+ Will I concur with the expanded scope with the following considerations: Task 3.2 Policy Context Considering the proximity of the area to El Camino and the Caltrain Corridor, I think there should also be references to the Rail Corridor Study (City of Palo Alto), the El Camino Guidelines, the Grand Boulevard Initiative, Caltrain Business Plan 2040, Plan Bay Area 2040 and Valley Transportation Plan 2040. All of these policy documents relate to the economic and transportation analyses for Palo Alto and the region. Task 3.5 Housing including Affordable Housing: The description should clarify that the below market rate rental and purchased housing in the Plan Area. All presentations to the Working Group, to date, have used a range of Area Median Income (AMI) for 4 people without attaching the phrase to real constant dollars. The phrase is often used without appropriate context, including staff reports and the popular press.Most people do not appreciate what AMI is and therefore cannot related to the discussion. If you examine AMI, for example, one can better understand that it applies to such a broad range of incomes and circumstances, including middle income individuals/families. In 2018, for example the 4-person AMI in Santa Clara County was $125,200. The AMI for one person was $87,650. I hope the financial analysis will cover the funding options for affordable housing to serve a wide range of income levels and why that is important. I believe that various ownership models, including non-profit and market rate ownership models (such as co-ops), among others, should be explored. Thank you for addressing these important issues. We absolutely cannot lose sight of the importance of building significant housing capacity of various types and sizes within the NVCAP. The City needs to explore ways, in partnership with the property owners and community, that this can be achieved, including various incentives for housing diversity and site development in order to promote these outcomes. Sincerely, Gail A. Price {REDACTED}, Palo Alto, CA 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Karen Holman <kcholman@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, August 19, 2019 2:32 PM To:Council, City Cc:Lee, Elena; Moitra, Chitra; French, Amy; Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed Subject:NVCAP Working Group Meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    First of all,  thank you to staff for for the initiation of extending the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan timeline.  I believe it to be necessary if there is to be a meaningful and positive outcome.    I offer the following observations and comments regarding the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan and planning to  this point:    The timeline has been and was identified early on as too rushed. The extension is welcomed.    I note that I have attended each Working Group and CC meeting regarding the Plan. There are several issues wit the  information and process to date.    The baseline data has been slow in coming. The Working Group has been asked to consider the area without the critical  information needed such as            • the viability of naturalizing the creek          • the historic analysis          • the Plan Area  parcels information: zoning, existing use, FAR, # stories, etc. These should be laid out in association  with an area map.          • how many housing units exist in the Plan area and surrounds          • how many housing units are in the pipeline within and surrounding the Plan area          • how many BMR units are required for x or y amount of housing development in the Plan Area. So far 15% has  been referenced but with no associated numbers, thus conceptual.          • how much parkland is required for different scenarios of development          • how much office square footage currently exists in the Plan area and surrounds    These are rationally necessary in order to develop a Plan that is respectful of neighborhood character (a stated goal) and  to develop transitions in development considerations consistent with  best planning practices. Please note this was  provided for the oft referenced SOFA planning process and working group members.    The Page & Turnbull HRE identifies both the Cannery building and the associated office building (the original dormitory  for the cannery) as eligible for the California Register of Historic Places. It was confirmed at the HRB meeting that they  both also qualify for the National Register. These findings are being couched as counter to housing. That is a false  argument. The retention of these buildings can potentially provide some housing or the area overall, considered as a  whole, provide housing. To date, there has been no information, analysis provided as to what the cannery building could  provide in terms of ANY use. Again, during the SOFA plan there was analysis of what could be accomplished in the  various buildings.    2 And a correction to the staff report, I attended the HRB meeting and there were no speakers who prioritized housing  over preservation of the historic buildings but for one who indicated saving a portion of the cannery building.    General comments about the process and work to date is that the Working Group members are not being educated  about even basic planning principals such as transitions, zoning, heights in relation to daylight plane, etc. Further, a map  was provided to the Working Group at their last meeting that indicated by way of a color overlay that redevelopment of  the whole area was feasible. This not only violates on the the principals (retaining neighborhood character) but violates  CEQA as that included demo of both the CA Register eligible office building and all but two small sections of the cannery  building, chosen for not reason or rationale that was provided. There is a CEQA process (State Law) required before  historic buildings can be removed. None of that or any alternate considerations were presented to the WG. There was  only this one map provided for the wG members to drop down there housing, open space, etc “chits" which were for the  most part being dropped onto the maps indiscriminently due to a lack of background for the inexperienced members,  especially.    The N. Ventura area offers creative opportunities that so far have not been considered. For instance, industrial buildings  in many parts of the region and country are being repurposed for very successful community uses such as for the arts  and culture. Brew pubs, artist galleries, event spaces, public enthusiasm.    Thank you for listening and apologies for the long message.    Please support staff in asking for the time extension and toward a successful, creative outcome that we, and they, can  be proud of.    Respectfully,    Karen Holman          1 Brettle, Jessica From:Gary Lindgren <gel@theconnection.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 1:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rail Blue Ribbon Committee CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council,  Please do not organize a so‐called Rail Blue Ribbon Committee. You, the city council need to get fully informed on the  rail grade separations. Come to the XCAP meetings. There should be no need to call on past council members to assist in  this process. You have been following the progress of the CAP and now XCAP meetings. You know what is happening.  Calling on former council members will only delay the decision longer. One suggestion is to talk to council members of  other cities on the Peninsula and ask them how they worked out the process. When it comes down to the decision, it’s  likely going to be either a hybrid or viaduct. Not everyone will be happy either one.  Thank you,  Gary Lindgren  Gary Lindgren  {REDACTED}  Palo Alto CA 94301  {REDACTED} Check Out Latest Seismometer Reading @garyelindgren  Listen to Radio Around the World  Be Like Costco... do something in a different way  Don't trust Atoms...they make up everything  A part of good science is to see what everyone else can see but think what no one else has ever said. The difference between being very smart and very foolish is often very small. So many problems occur when people fail to be obedient when they are supposed to be obedient, and fail to be creative when they are supposed to be creative. The secret to doing good research is always to be a little 2 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 Brettle, Jessica From:Larry Klein <lklein40@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 11:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:Item 16, August 19 meeting, Proposed establishment of a Rail Blue Ribbon Committee CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth and Members of the City Council     Recommendation  I respectfully urge you to vote in favor of the creation of a Rail Blue Ribbon Committee("RBRC") as recommended by  staff with the following amendments and additions to the staff proposal:  1. RBRC  should consist of  ten to fifteen citizens of Palo Alto, subject to  state conflict of interest rules,  with each  Councilmember appointing two or three members of his/her choosing.  2. Outside organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, Stanford , Caltrain, VTA and Silicon Valley Leadership Group  should have no formal role in RBRC's work although they and other interested groups should certainly be encouraged to  attend and participate in RBRC's meetings as appropriate.  3.The procedural rules for RBRC be the same as the rules for the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee as far as  applicable.  4. The due date for RBRC's report to the Council be April 30, 2020.  5. The Expanded Community Advisory Panel be terminated.     Discussion    A "Blue Ribbon" committee to focus solely on a key issue and then advise  a City Council on appropriate action has long  been used by Palo Alto and many other jurisdictions as a way to improve and enhance the decision making process. Palo  Alto's grade crossings and potential grade separations is an issue particularly suited to this process given  the  complexities and variables involved. The RBRC's ability to communicate its views directly to the Council, unmitigated by  staff,  is essential to the credibility of the process. Staff will always be able to state its views to Council if they differ from  RBRC's.  As to the five suggested deletions or additions:  1. If the City had more time its regular procedure for selecting Board and Commission members would be appropriate  for the selection of RBRC members. But that process usually takes three to four months, almost half of the time between  now and when RBRC's would have to be submitted to Council for it to have sufficient time to reach the necessary  decisions for there to be an item on the November, 2020 ballot. Having each Councilmember appoint two or three Palo  Altans to RBRC is a procedure used occasionally and would seem the most expeditious way to get RBRC up and running  with a diverse membership.   An RBRC composed solely of  former Councilmembers would eliminate many, many qualified individuals from serving. It  would also skew sharply to our oldest demographic. And there might not be enough of them. I count 20 surviving former  Councilmembers from 1981 on who I believe presently live in Palo Alto. Three (Simitian, Berman, McCown) clearly could  not serve. I don't know if any of the remaining seventeen have a conflict of interest or of course whether they would be  willing to serve.    2. The organizations named all have a role to play in  decisions regarding grade separations  from their individual  standpoints. The purpose of RBRC and ultimately the Council's decisions is to establish Palo  Alto's position. After that negotiations between and among the parties should ensue.    3. No comment needed.  2   4. Council should establish a hard and fast deadline so all can know what's needed and when. April 30 would give the  Council approximately three months to consider RBRC's report and reach a decision on a ballot measure for 2020. This  might mean the Council having its summer break in  August rather than July.    5. Having both  RBRC and EPAC seems a potential source of confusion. For example, staff's recommendation that RBRC  not evaluate technical aspects  but instead use evaluation developed  by staff and XCAP is murky at best.And of course  having two groups doing somewhat similar work increases staff and consultant costs.    Larry Klein  Former Mayor  XPAC member (recently appointed)    Disclaimer: the views expressed in this memo are mine alone and not that of XPAC or any of its other members    3. No comment needed.        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 19, 2019 7:32 AM To:Council, City Cc:Gail Price Subject:Agenda Item No. 16, Recommendations for Rail Blue Ribbon Committee (August 19, 2019) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Mayor Filseth and Palo Alto City Council Membeers,     The August 19, 2019 City Staff report proposes the establishment of a Rail Blue Ribbon Committee to advise the City Council on the Selection, Funding, and Support for Grade Separation Projects.     There is simply no question that a more focused approach to addressing the significant  complexities of grade‐ separations within Palo Alto segment of the Caltrain corridor.      I concur with the recommendations made fy former Mayor Larry Klein about the process and composition of the  proposed Blue Ribbon Committee.     The recommendations, as you know, are as follows:     Recommendation  I respectfully urge you to vote in favor of the creation of a Rail Blue Ribbon Committee("RBRC") as recommended by  staff with the following amendments and additions to the staff proposal:  1. RBRC  should consist of  ten to fifteen citizens of Palo Alto, subject to  state conflict of interest rules,  with each  Councilmember appointing two or three members of his/her choosing.  2. Outside organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, Stanford , Caltrain, VTA and Silicon Valley Leadership Group  should have no formal role in RBRC's work although they and other interested groups should certainly be encouraged to  attend and participate in RBRC's meetings as appropriate.  3.The procedural rules for RBRC be the same as the rules for the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee as far as  applicable.  4. The due date for RBRC's report to the Council be April 30, 2020.  5. The Expanded Community Advisory Panel be terminated.    The key is finding individuals with both long standing technical knowledge about Caltrain and the grade‐separation  issues combined with knowledge about the political process. There are community members, including former Council  members, who have those skills.   This is the most significant fixed rail project on the Peninsula; it will impact our corridor now and the future.       Best,  Gail A. Price  Former Palo Alto City Council Member  Former Transportation and City Planner        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 19, 2019 3:42 PM To:Council, City Cc:Dave Price; Bill Johnson; Jocelyn Dong; Nadia Naik Subject:Agenda Item #13 Formation f a Rail Blue Ribbon Committee Attachments:14054.pdf; 15182.pdf; 16206.pdf; 89-671.PDF CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am unable to attend the Council meeting tonight. I urge you to support recommendations below from Nadia Naik who has vastly more experience with Palo Alto's rail issues than I. Ms. Naik's rationale and recommendations are solid. I can't think of any foresightful business or government organization which would look so heavily to the past to solve its most difficult present and future problems. Furthermore, the staff proposal suggests deferral of the University Avenue CAP and Alma/PA Avenue grade crossing....each of which is vital to the interests of all downtown neighborhoods, especially DTN. Although there seems to be general consensus to defer these two issues, I want to be on record that they must not be forgotten. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com On Monday, August 19, 2019, 02:09:06 PM PDT, Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> wrote: I support the Staff Report with the following amendments:      1) The RBRC should be made up of 10‐15 residents with skills in three major areas:    Technical (Civil engineering, construction, design)  Finance, Transportation  Public Policy/Community Relations. An open application process should be used to get the broadest applicant pool and skill set possible. RBRC  needs to consider ALL future rail infrastructure investments including stations.  2    2) Staff should return to Council shortly so that guiding questions can be developed to define RBRC and XCAP's  roles.     3) VTA, Caltrain, Stanford, and SVLG or others should not be designated as non‐voting participants.     4) Council should seek a formal FPPC ruling to confirm that as advisory bodies,  RBRC and XCAP are not subject  to Conflict of Interest rules.      Discussion     1) Attached is the original Policy and Services Report that described the creation of the Infrastructure Blue  Ribbon Committee. The IBRC was NOT made up principally of former electeds. It was chosen from Palo Alto  residents who applied with three categories of skills needed; Technical, Finance and At‐Large. Applicants were  selected similar to how Boards and Commissions members are selected.      Similarly, for the appointment of the RBRC, the City Council should seek residents with diverse skill sets to  ensure the RBRC has the right domain expertise to make the best recommendations to Council.      The scope of the RBRC’s work should be broad enough for them to consider both political and technical  aspects of the project in order to make the best recommendations (ex. the potential need for 4 tracks in South  PA is both a technical and political issue). RBRC needs to consider not ONLY grade separations, but the  infrastructure investments necessary for station areas and the strategies for funding those improvements.  Those considerations, by their very nature, are technical, financial and political and thus need a diverse skill  set not inherently present in a more narrow grouping of former electeds.        2) The Staff Report highlighted the valuable role that XCAP has played in this process. The XCAP and RBRC  would have complimentary roles that would ultimately help the Council make a final decision. Specifically, the  XCAP's close ties to neighborhoods impacted by the decisions, offers an important base to help support any  potential ballot initiatives that might come forth and would be supportive to the RBRC's ultimate mission.     A clear definition of roles between RBRC and XCAP will help build towards a final decision. Residents should  only serve on one body. I've appreciated being able to serve on the XCAP and that's where I intend to continue  my focus.    When considering scope for the original IBRC, the Policy and Services Committee Report stated “The general  consensus was that the IBRC should look at the broadest definition of the infrastructure deficit and then break  it down into similar modules for analysis and recommendation.” They also wrote “There was also consensus  that the schedule and timing of an election should not automatically dictate or limit the scope.”      In addition, the report stated that the IBRC should “determine its own internal organization and structure and  meeting schedule” and that it could “potentially create working subcommittees to focus on specific topical  areas.”      The same guidelines should apply to the RBRC – they should be allowed the broadest scope possible to answer  the specific questions Council needs answered and they should not be artificially limited in their scope due to  possible election timing.   3    3)  VTA, Caltrain, Stanford, and SVLG or others should not be designated as non‐voting participants in part  since RBRC will be focused on the city’s strategic interests including recommendations that Council should  take in dealing with these groups. Palo Alto Chamber is already a member of XCAP and therefore does not  need another seat on RBRC.      4) Conflict of Interest Rules were discussed previously with regard to the formation of the XCAP. The issue was  raised by a member of the CAP (Dave Shen) but were never directly addressed by the City Attorney.      The Staff report now describes that the RBRC must be subject to Conflict of Interest rules, however, the FPPC  rules would seem to contradict this guideline since the group has no decision making authority and would only  be advising council.      The attached letter (FPPC File No. I‐14‐054) to the Town of Atherton in 2014 seems to be the clearest in  describing why it would be unlikely that an RBRC that makes recommendations to Council would be subject to  Conflict of Interest rules.      The FPPC wrote the following of the establishment of a Civic Center Advisory Committee (CCAC) [highlighting  mine]:   The threshold question in determining if the members of the CCAC are subject to the Act‟s conflict‐of‐ interest provisions is whether the members are “public officials.” For purposes of the Act, Section 82048 defines “public official” as every member, officer, employee or consultant of a state or local government agency. The term is further defined by Regulation 18701(a)(1), which states:   “(a) For purposes of Government Code section 82048, which defines „public official,‟ and Government Code section 82019, which defines „designated employee,‟ the following definitions apply:   “(1) „Member‟ shall include, but not be limited to, salaried or unsalaried members of committees, boards or commissions with decisionmaking authority.   “(A) A committee, board or commission possesses decisionmaking authority whenever:   “(i) It may make a final governmental decision;   “(ii) It may compel a governmental decision; or it may prevent a governmental decision either by reason of an exclusive power to initiate the decision or by reason of a veto that may not be overridden; or   “(iii) It makes substantive recommendations that are, and over an extended period of time have been, regularly approved without significant amendment or modification by another public official or governmental agency.   “(B) A committee, board, or commission does not possess decisionmaking authority under subsection (a)(1)(A)(i) of this regulation if it is formed for the sole purpose of researching a topic and preparing a report or recommendation for submission to another governmental body that has final decisionmaking authority.”   Thus, a committee, board or commission is deemed to have decisionmaking authority if it (1) makes a final decision, (2) can compel or prevent a decision, or (3) makes substantive recommendations that are regularly approved without significant amendment or modification. If the CCAC has decisonmaking authority under any of these tests, its members would be considered public officials and are subject to the Act‟s conflict‐of‐interest provisions. Alternatively, if the CCAC does not have decisionmaking authority, its members are not considered public officials under the Act and are not subject to the Act‟s conflict‐of‐interest provisions solely by virtue of their membership on the CCAC.   Based upon the facts provided, the CCAC was established to help identify key issues during the planning and design of Atherton‟s new civic center and to bolster public participation in the process. Most significantly, you have stated that the CCAC does not take final action on matters before them, 4 but merely makes recommendations to the City Council for the council‟s consideration. Moreover, there is no indication that the CCAC can compel or prevent any governmental decision. The only pertinent question is whether the CCAC has or will make substantive recommendations regularly approved by the City Council without significant amendment or modification.   You have stated that the CCAC has made just one recommendation to the City Council since its inception. While this recommendation was accepted, a single instance does not establish a record of regularly approved recommendations. Previously, we have “advised new advisory bodies that they are in fact solely advisory until a history of recommendations has been established.” (Simon Advice Letter, No. I‐04‐014, citing Traverso Advice Letter, No. I‐01‐124 and Ball Advice Letter, No. I‐89‐671.) Without a history of recommendations being accepted by the City Council, the CCAC is solely an advisory committee with no decisionmaking authority and, at this time, its members are not public officials subject to the Act.   Nonetheless, we must caution that members of the CCAC may become public officials at a later date. If the CCAC‟s recommendations begin being regularly approved by the City Council, you will ultimately need to revisit the issue of whether the CCAC may have decisionmaking authority.     Council should seek a formal FPPC ruling to confirm that as advisory bodies with no decision making  power,  RBRC and XCAP are not subject to Conflict of Interest rules and could report to Council.      April 15, 2014 William B. Connors Office of the City Attorney 91 Ashfield Road Atherton, CA 94027 Re: Your Request for Informal Assistance Our File No. I-14-054 Dear Mr. Connors: This letter responds to your request for advice regarding the conflict-of-interest provisions of the Political Reform Act (the “Act”).1 Because you seek general information and have not provided information regarding any specific governmental decision, we are providing informal assistance.2 Nothing in this letter should be construed to evaluate any conduct that has already taken place. In addition, this letter is based on the facts presented; the Fair Political Practices Commission (the "Commission") does not act as the finder of fact. (In re Oglesby (1975) 1 FPPC Ops. 71.) QUESTION Are members of Atherton‟s Civic Center Advisory Committee subject to the Act‟s conflict-of-interest provisions? CONCLUSION The Civic Center Advisory Committee does not currently have decisionmaking authority. Therefore, the Act‟s conflict-of-interests provisions do not apply to its members. However, we caution that members of the committee will be subject to the conflict-of-interest provisions if the committee gains decisionmaking authority as analyzed below. 1 The Political Reform Act is contained in Government Code Sections 81000 through 91014. All statutory references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise indicated. The regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission are contained in Sections 18110 through 18997 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations. All regulatory references are to Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, unless otherwise indicated. 2 Informal assistance does not provide the requestor with the immunity provided by an opinion or formal written advice. (Section 83114; Regulation 18329(c)(3).) File No. I-14-054 Page No. 2 FACTS The Town of Atherton has established a committee to act in an advisory capacity to the Atherton City Council (the “City Council”) regarding the creation of a new civic center to include administrative offices, police department offices, public works and planning department offices, community meeting rooms, replacement for an existing library, and resulting parking in the general area where these uses currently exist. The committee is titled the Civic Center Advisory Committee (the “CCAC”) and includes two non-voting council members and seven citizens to act as voting members. The CCAC does not take final action on matters before them, but it does make recommendations to the City Council. The CCAC is a Brown Act compliant entity, and it is not disputed that the actions of the committee constitute government decisions. However, you are unsure whether or not members are “public officials” for purposes of the Act and the Act‟s conflict-of-interest provisions. The CCAC is charged with acting in an advisory capacity to: “a. Assist staff in the development of a master planning process to determine the key issues that need to be addressed by the community as well as a process for keeping the community at large informed and involved. “b. Work with staff to solicit feedback through tools such as surveys, community gatherings, and workshops to disseminate information regarding the key issues and questions involved in the development of a Master Plan for the proposed new Civic Center. “c. Engage in public outreach to solicit substantive feedback and opinions on the Master Plan and the Civic Center project and provide Council with a summary of findings for consideration. Support staff with updates for the Town website and periodic updates for residents. “d. The CCAC may form Ad Hoc Subcommittees and/or host community workshops to involve a broader base of residents for the purposes of information gathering on specific issues, thus creating more community involvement and more in-depth visioning. “e. Once the Council adopts a Master Plan, the CCAC will continue to work with staff to coordinate public outreach and collect resident input during the design phase of the Community Center project. “f. Assist in discussion about the short-term improvements needed for the Library and Town Center facilities.” The City Council has solicited membership from the community to fill the public member spots on the CCAC and has intentionally attempted to include representation from File No. I-14-054 Page No. 3 diverse locations in the community. The City Council has specifically attempted to include a member from the neighborhood close to the project as there will be a greater impact from the new civic center development. However, the potential member who has been identified resides approximately 475 feet from the project area. Accordingly, there is a concern that the potential member will be automatically disqualified from taking part in recommendations by the CCAC under the Act‟s 500 foot rule for interest in real property. For purposes of determining whether or not the CCAC is an advisory body, you note that the CCAC was created by action of the City Council on February 12, 2013, and has met almost every month since inception. In this time, the CCAC has made only one recommendation to the City Council regarding the selection of a consultant to create the Master Plan. The City Council ultimately agreed with the suggestion and retained the consultant. ANALYSIS The Act‟s conflict-of-interest provisions ensure that public officials will “perform their duties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by their own financial interests or the financial interests of persons who have supported them.” (Section 81001(b).) Section 87100 prohibits any public official from making, participating in making, or otherwise using his or her official position to influence a governmental decision in which the official has a financial interest. A conflict of interest exists whenever a public official makes, participates in or uses his or her official position to influence a governmental decision that has a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect on one or more of his or her interests as specified by Section 87103. The threshold question in determining if the members of the CCAC are subject to the Act‟s conflict-of-interest provisions is whether the members are “public officials.” For purposes of the Act, Section 82048 defines “public official” as every member, officer, employee or consultant of a state or local government agency. The term is further defined by Regulation 18701(a)(1), which states: “(a) For purposes of Government Code section 82048, which defines „public official,‟ and Government Code section 82019, which defines „designated employee,‟ the following definitions apply: “(1) „Member‟ shall include, but not be limited to, salaried or unsalaried members of committees, boards or commissions with decisionmaking authority. “(A) A committee, board or commission possesses decisionmaking authority whenever: “(i) It may make a final governmental decision; File No. I-14-054 Page No. 4 “(ii) It may compel a governmental decision; or it may prevent a governmental decision either by reason of an exclusive power to initiate the decision or by reason of a veto that may not be overridden; or “(iii) It makes substantive recommendations that are, and over an extended period of time have been, regularly approved without significant amendment or modification by another public official or governmental agency. “(B) A committee, board, or commission does not possess decisionmaking authority under subsection (a)(1)(A)(i) of this regulation if it is formed for the sole purpose of researching a topic and preparing a report or recommendation for submission to another governmental body that has final decisionmaking authority.” Thus, a committee, board or commission is deemed to have decisionmaking authority if it (1) makes a final decision, (2) can compel or prevent a decision, or (3) makes substantive recommendations that are regularly approved without significant amendment or modification. If the CCAC has decisonmaking authority under any of these tests, its members would be considered public officials and are subject to the Act‟s conflict-of-interest provisions. Alternatively, if the CCAC does not have decisionmaking authority, its members are not considered public officials under the Act and are not subject to the Act‟s conflict-of-interest provisions solely by virtue of their membership on the CCAC. Based upon the facts provided, the CCAC was established to help identify key issues during the planning and design of Atherton‟s new civic center and to bolster public participation in the process. Most significantly, you have stated that the CCAC does not take final action on matters before them, but merely makes recommendations to the City Council for the council‟s consideration. Moreover, there is no indication that the CCAC can compel or prevent any governmental decision. The only pertinent question is whether the CCAC has or will make substantive recommendations regularly approved by the City Council without significant amendment or modification. You have stated that the CCAC has made just one recommendation to the City Council since its inception. While this recommendation was accepted, a single instance does not establish a record of regularly approved recommendations. Previously, we have “advised new advisory bodies that they are in fact solely advisory until a history of recommendations has been established.” (Simon Advice Letter, No. I-04-014, citing Traverso Advice Letter, No. I-01-124 and Ball Advice Letter, No. I-89-671.) Without a history of recommendations being accepted by the City Council, the CCAC is solely an advisory committee with no decisionmaking authority and, at this time, its members are not public officials subject to the Act. Nonetheless, we must caution that members of the CCAC may become public officials at a later date. If the CCAC‟s recommendations begin being regularly approved by the City File No. I-14-054 Page No. 5 Council, you will ultimately need to revisit the issue of whether the CCAC may have decisionmaking authority. If you have other questions on this matter, please contact me at (916) 322-5660. Sincerely, Zackery P. Morazzini General Counsel By: Brian G. Lau Counsel, Legal Division BGL:jgl STATE OF CALIFORNIA FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION 428 J Street • Suite 620 • Sacramento, CA 95814 -2329 (916) 322-5660 • Fax (916) 322-0886 October 16, 2015 David E. Kendig Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart 555 Anton Blvd., Suite 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7670 Re: Your Request for Advice Our File No. A-15-182 Dear Mr. Kendig: This letter responds to your request for advice regarding the financial disclosure provisions of the Political Reform Act (the “Act”).1 This letter is based on the facts presented. The Fair Political Practices Commission (the “Commission”) does not act as a finder of fact when it provides advice. (In re Oglesby (1975) 1 FPPC Ops. 71.) QUESTIONS 1. Does the Act require the volunteer members of the Veterans Advisory Committee (the “Committee”) of the City of Tustin to file statements of economic interests (“SEIs”)? 2. At what point, if any, would the Act require the volunteer members of the Committee to file SEIs? CONCLUSIONS 1. No. The Act does not require the volunteer members of the Committee to file SEIs at this time because the Committee currently lacks “decisionmaking authority.” However, we caution that the Committee’s volunteer members will be required to file SEIs if the Committee gains decisionmaking authority in the future. 2. The Act would require volunteer members of the Committee to file SEIs upon the Committee demonstrating decisionmaking authority through its development of a history of making substantive recommendations that are regularly approved without amendment or modification over an extended period, as discussed further below. 1 The Political Reform Act is contained in Government Code Sections 81000 through 91014. All statutory references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise indicated. The regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission are contained in Sections 18110 through 18997 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations. All regulatory references are to Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, unless otherwise indicated. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:YORIKO KISHIMOTO <yoriko12330@icloud.com> Sent:Monday, August 19, 2019 12:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Recommendations for Rail Blue Ribbon Committee - Item 16 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable City Council:    I heard about the proposal for the blue ribbon committee.  My two cents are to take a close look at the decision‐making  model developed by Dr. Steve Barrager, an expert decision coach:    https://www.slideshare.net/barrager/informs‐public‐decisionmaking    He recommends a role and structure for decision‐makers (blue ribbon committee, ultimately the city council),  stakeholders, and experts ‐ plus expert decision coach and staff support.    The challenge of how to integrate rail and community is such a technically and politically complex and expensive one  and truly requires the best decision‐making process.  In the case study in these slides, they also went through two  failures before coming up with this approach to promote mutual learning.    Thank you for your hard work on this and let me know if I can be of further assistance,    Yoriko Kishimoto  Former Mayor and first Chair of Rail Committee      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Charlene Liao <charlene.liao@immuneonc.com> Sent:Monday, August 19, 2019 4:37 PM To:sahsing@m-group.us Cc:Charlene Liao; Ji Li; Laura B. Lawton; Council, City Subject:Proposed construction project at 788 San Antonio Raod CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Sheldon,    I received a public hearing notice for the proposed construction at 788 San Antonio Road (the flyer said  Avenue). I missed the public hearing at the ARB on Aug 15.  Could you please keep me informed of the review  status of this project?    My company Immune‐Onc Therapeutics, Inc. is dedicated to discovering and developing innovative treatment  for cancer patients and we are based just cross the street at 795 San Antonio Road. We will be concerned of  the noises and dusts from the construction site as they will affect the work environment of our scientists and  the cultured cells in our life science laboratories.    Kind regards, Charlene Charlene Liao, PhD President and CEO | Immune‐Onc Therapeutics charlene.liao@immuneonc.com | 1.650.460.8898   1 Brettle, Jessica From:jeffrey lipkin <repjal@att.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:18 AM To:jeffrey lipkin Cc:Lydia Kou; Council, City Subject:Re: 2019 City Council Priorities CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Are you taking any action on these priorities?     Why did you waste $12 million on the Arastradero traffic project, which is a failure?    Jeff Lipkin          On Mar 6, 2019, at 11:09 AM, jeffrey lipkin <repjal@att.net> wrote:    One year later, I still see no action on number one, two, three or four.     I especially care about one, and I would add the need for an RPP program in our neighborhood near the  cut‐through.    Jeff Lipkin          On Feb 3, 2018, at 2:17 PM, Jeffrey Lipkin <repjal@att.net> wrote:    Thanks for your letter to constituents.     In brief,     1. I want to see immediate action on speed humps along Georgia Avenue on both sides  of the cut‐through to Gunn. This is disgraceful no matter what one’s political  predilections.    2. I support more housing along El Camino ‐ between Stanford and Mountain View.  Most of the property is way underutilized, and some is wasteland. I would give  preference to seniors, police, teachers, civil servants, and firemen. Mountain View has  done a much better job in this regard.    3. I think that most citizens are smoking a dangerous form of opium when they support  the billion dollar alternatives for grade separations at the tracks.     2 4. I would eliminate the city airport and golf course, which are wasteful luxuries at city  expense, including the lost opportunity to contribute the land to housing (as above) and  transportation (to link the development by transportation to California Avenue).    Sincerely yours,    Jeff Lipkin      On Feb 3, 2018, at 1:10 AM, Lydia Kou  <lydiakou@lydiakou.emailnb.com> wrote:    To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Vote for Lydia Kou   Letters from Lydia  To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Jeffrey ‐‐   I want to wish you Happy New Year, and at the same time, I apologize for the late wishes. The  holidays turned out to be a forced rest for us – our family had a family cold. We’re all recovered rested. I hope you are all well.  Please put this date on your calendar and help inform City Council what you would consider a  priority or priorities for 2018.  City of Palo Alto City Council Retreat  Saturday, February 3, 2019  9:00 am – 3:00 pm  El Palo Alto Room, Mitchell Park Community Center, 3700 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto  Agenda https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63222  This year, there is much to be aware of and for you to determine whether this is YOUR vision fo YOUR city…a place that you decided to call home for your family, a place that you could feel saf all aspects, a place that you thought you could find peace and quiet enjoyment.  There is an aggressive plan/priority to build housing by deregulating and providing flexibility by changing zoning and relaxing the City’s building codes. Much of the negative cumulative impact deflected by the rationale that it is a regional matter. Here is a link to the draft Housing Work  Plan https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63027. Page 27 will show all t deregulation. How will this impact your neighborhood and quality of life? The City is big on talk about “sustainability”, is this kind of growth sustainable? How will the City address parking? Ho will the City address the cut through traffic into our neighborhoods? How will the City fund all C services and infrastructure needs? The growth plan below is for the years 2018 – 2035.  3 Many of you already know of Stanford University’s aggressive growth plan, today is the last day provide your comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Stanford is proposing following:   2,275,000 net new square feet of academic and academic support facilities;   3,150 net new housing units/beds which amounts to approximately 4 million square fe  40,000 square feet of childcare and childcare related facilities; and   Stanford University proposes that the 2018 General Use Permit include an option to  allow Stanford to construct a 2,000‐space parking supply reserve, subject to Planning Commiss review and approval, if any one of the following conditions apply: 1) Stanford is achieving its No New Commute Trip goal; 2) such parking would not result in a substantial increase in peak‐hou commute trips; or 3) unforeseen circumstances occur due to changes in background conditions would require provision of additional parking.  If you haven’t already done so, it is due today by 5:00pm. Send your comments  to David.Rader@pln.sccgov.org  The City of Palo Alto has also passed its Comprehensive Plan which will increase traffic congest and decrease air quality which are identified as “significant unavoidable” impacts. This is what been adopted in spite of the “significant unavoidable impacts:   Three million square feet of new employment workspace (1.3 million square feet is th new Stanford University Medical Center which is not opened yet and we don’t know w traffic impacts it will bring yet)   10,240 to 11,890 new employees   11,240 to 13,260 new population   4,710 to 5,580 new housing units (no square footage has been provided)  The City’s finances are supposedly in good shape, yet there is going to be dips in the coming ye starting next fiscal year. The General Fund, your tax dollars is funding the growth mitigation. Yo have to ask why are we mitigating so much and at the same time, having to physically change o lifestyle in order to accommodate all the negative cumulative impacts.  A friend said they were looking to move to Nevada and their friends in Nevada said that there a many from California moving to Nevada, but the Nevada residents do not want to openly welco Californians because 1) the real estate prices will escalate, and 2) Californians who have identif the area to be suburban, quiet and peaceful, no traffic congestions and parking issues will then to change the area to become urban and metropolitan. This is what happened in Colorado and  Washington State.  Is this what you want for Palo Alto? Is this why you moved to Palo Alto?  Lydia Kou  http://www.lydiakou.com/    Vote for Lydia Kou ∙ 708 Matadero Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306, United States   This email was sent to repjal@att.net. To stop receiving emails, click here.   You can also keep up with Lydia Kou on Twitter or Facebook.  Created with NationBuilder, software for leaders.   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, August 15, 2019 11:11 AM To:Shikada, Ed; Filseth, Eric (external); Stump, Molly Cc:Council, City; Planning Commission; Tanda, Wayne; Kamhi, Philip Subject:AB516 and Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Good Morning, Ed, Eric and Molly, Khamis may have a political reason to churn his opinion but he advocates reasonable caution about unnecessary parking legislation that would reduce Palo Alto's parking improvements/enforcement. This would be disruptive to Palo Alto neighborhoods and commercial zones. I ask you to evaluate and render a Palo Alto opinion about AB 516 as quickly as possible. I will be out of town Monday night and cannot present this concern to Council as a public comment. Khamis: State legislators propose impediments to parking enforcement - San José Spotlight Khamis: State legislators propose impediments to parking enforcement - S... My office has fielded numerous complaints of vehicles stored or abandoned on city streets, plus occupied motor h... Neilson Buchanan {REDACTED} Palo Alto, CA 94301 {REDACTED} {REDACTED} cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 20, 2019 5:41 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed Subject:Boulware Park! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members:    THANK YOU EVER SO MUCH for authorizing the City Manager to purchase the lot by Boulware Park.  That is amazing. It  seems amazing to me. I will be pinching myself when the deal is sealed.  It's just too good to be true. Thank you thank  you thank you.     Enthusiastically yours,    Becky Sanders  Ventura Neighborhood    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Martha <marthalg@sonic.net> Sent:Monday, August 19, 2019 1:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cal Train grade crossings. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council and Mayor,  I read with interest the city's ideas for a new tax to pay for the needed grade crossing. Please first contact Cal Train. A recent article about two abandoned cars on the train tracks mentioned that Cal Train was considering a new tax for grade crossing. It would be wasteful to duplicate the taxes.  Thank you,  Martha Gregory  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mary Jo Pruitt <maryjo.a.pruitt@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 1:53 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Subject:I Support Castilleja! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To Whom It May Concern,    My name is Mary Jo and I live on Stanford campus, along El Camino. I am writing to let you know that I support  Castilleja's application to educate more young women, modernize the campus, and return their impact on the  neighborhood.  I appreciate the DEIR's findings in support of Castilleja's plans, and you look forward to learning about how the impacts  due to the redistribution of traffic can be resolved.    Additionally, I would love to mention that the new campus design is more compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods; LEED Platinum Environmental measures surpass Palo Alto’s sustainability goals; the underground garage preferred over surface parking to increase green space; and the DEIR proposes further steps to allow for increased enrollment without increasing daily trips to campus.    Thank you for allowing me the space to share my support.    Best,    Mary Jo  1 Brettle, Jessica From:RONALD OWES <ronow1@msn.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 2:42 PM To:Clerk, City; Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Castilleja Comments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Planning Commission:  I am a licensed civil engineer who has practiced for decades on both small and large projects. I am submitting comments on several elements of the Castilleja project and draft EIR after a preliminary review.  In my opinion, a no action alternative is preferred due to the reduction in quality of life in this single family location with impacts to storm water, water quality, noise, and additional loss of neighborhood character.  In general, the project EIR appears to be a lot of boilerplate listing regulations of typical projects with inadequate specific analyses. For example, I did not see any data on ambient noise monitoring at the proposed site during different hours of the day, days of week nor times of the year. On our residential street, Bryant, we hear little to no noise in the evening hours, while Castilleja neighbors with 90+ events per year will experience extra noise every 3-4 days. These events will produce significant noise to the surrounding neighbors on both sides of Embarcadero and possibly some distance. Years of construction noise including loud back-up beepers, will impact the neighbors. As the PTC knows, Castilleja has a history of violating their CUP for numbers of events as well as the number of students, so actual impacts are difficult to determine.  GARAGE: During construction of the garage, ground water removal may be required and the surrounding properties could be impacted if lowering adjacent property ground water levels occurs, with potential structural damage to their property and landscaping. Long term, the garage could impact ground water quality by oil and grease run off from the garage. SURFACE WATER: Water percolation from the field to be built above the garage may impact water flows and the entire project will affect the existing storm water conveyance system. If it requires significant changes to existing facilities, this could be costly to the city.  NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER: The EIR exaggerates the attempts to fit into the neighborhood. e.g.: the sound wall will be an eyesore and violates the fence height. The loss of 2 houses, even if one is just used for school events, to be replace by a gaping garage entrance as well as the removal of mature trees will be a dramatic change in the character and ambience of the neighborhood.  Ron Owes, PE  Bryant Street    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 2:52 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Palo Alto Planning Commission, Castilleja DEIR Identifies “significant and unavoidable” impacts to the community — impacts that cannot be mitigated and will only compound over time This one line says it all. The school has not followed many of the city's or school board mandates over the years, adding more students than they were legally supposed to have. Yes, it is a high quality school, mostly students from very well off families, but that should not automatically give them permission to exceed their enrollment. Also the neighborhood has already had to experience excess traffic, noise from too many events at the school in the evening etc. It is time when neighborhoods, citizens, residents of this city be listened to and given the right to influence the decisions that are made. Many times, in many areas this has not been so. I know that you all have received the points that the Neighbors have raised. They are all important to make a fair and just decision. NO 5 is the most important, and I believe that all of us would answer NO to that question. Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St. 94306 THERE IS NO COMMUNITY BENEFIT TO CASTILLEJA’S EXPANSION EFFORT ! BELOW ARE KEY IMPACTS TO PALO ALTO FROM THIS EXPANSION PLAN: 1. 30% Student Enrollment Increase 2 Castilleja sits on just over 6 acres in a R-1 residential area. In a request to expand and amend their Conditional Use Permit, the school has requested a 30% increase in enrollment, making it by far the most densely packed school in Palo Alto, public or private, yet only 25% of its students are from Palo Alto. Neighbors support modernization and a limited enrollment increase. 2. Significant Traffic Impacts to Embarcadero, Alma and Neighborhood Streets The DEIR states that there are “significant and unavoidable” traffic impacts from this project. That means the impacts cannot be mitigated. Impacts on Embarcadero and Alma will continue to compound over time. 3. Demolition of Homes, Underground Garage, Threat to Cyclists Castilleja proposes to demolish 2 homes to be replaced by an underground garage, changing the face and character of Emerson Street. Cars entering and exiting the garage would clog neighborhood streets, jeopardize cyclists on the Bryant Street bike boulevard, and further cause delays on Embarcadero. The school has shown that when they abide by their transportation management plan, an underground garage is unnecessary. An industrial-style underground garage and the cars it would attract is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 4. Removal of mature oaks and redwoods; loss of canopy for at least 30 years. Mature redwoods and oak trees are protected, but the school wants City Council to declare there are overriding benefits to the project. 5. Precedent-Setting Project for Palo Alto Neighborhoods If this project is approved, what does this mean for Palo Alto’s neighborhoods? Would YOU want a commercial underground garage exit across from your home and 5 years of construction? 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 3:20 PM To:Planning Commission; Castilleja Expansion; Council, City Subject:public comment - Castileja draft EIR - CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Planning Commission members and City Council:     As a community member, I would like to see traffic congestion eased in the community, not increased.  The Draft EIR for  the proposed Castilleja project states that one lane of Embarcadero Road would be needed for years while construction  progressed.  This is unworkable for our community.   Many of us in the community need to use Embarcadero for school,  work, shopping, to reach Paly, and so on.  Many people are employed at Stanford as well, and use Embarcadero to  commute back and forth.  The impact on the community is unworkable.     According to the Draft EIR, Castilleja plans to use egress into its planned underground garage on Bryant Street.  There is  very little space for those traveling west on Embarcadero Road turning left into Bryant ‐ maybe three cars can fit into  that left turn lane on Embarcadero.  Perhaps more than just three cars on Embarcadero will want to turn left onto  Bryant to reach that garage entrance to make it to school on time.  There is also a very short run up from Embarcadero  to the egress location into the underground garage.  It is quite possible that there will be backups going into that garage  from everyone trying to get in it at the same time, which due to the short run from Embarcadero to the entrance of the  garage could cause backups ON Embarcadero, BOTH those traveling east on Embarcadero and turning right onto Bryant,  AND those heading west on Embarcadero Rd and turning left onto Bryant St to enter the garage.  This is also unworkable  for our community ‐‐‐ to have possible backups spilling onto Embarcadero road and jamming up this commute route and  connector to PAHS.    Castilleja, according to a local media article, has been a scofflaw for two decades, violating its City use permit repeatedly  for its own gain, and apparently is currently over enrolled this school year, again violating its use permit.  Why would the  City of Palo Alto want to reward those who violate its codes by providing them public benefits ‐‐‐ and instead inflict pain  and negative environmental impact upon its own community?    Denial of its project will not affect Castilleja's ability to continue to educate young women at their existing  facility.  Castilleja can also choose to expand elsewhere in a separate facility.     Given 75% of Castileja's students are not Palo Alto residents, won't building a garage and expanding the student and  teacher base encourage more automobile usage and traffic?  This is not a benefit to the residents of Palo Alto, but a  negative impact.     Also, given Castilleja seeks to bring more students, and presumably more teacher employees to teach those students,  won't Castilleja also need to provide mitigation for housing assistance monies or beds to the City of Palo Alto, as other  local employers are being pressured to do by the City of Palo Alto's council members?  In fact, Castilleja plans to actually  remove housing as part of its project, rather than maintain existing housing or provide additional.       Please consider these points, the draft EIR, its impacts on Palo Alto residents,  and deny Castilleja's plan.     Thank you,    Best,  1 Brettle, Jessica From:JIM POPPY <jamespoppy@comcast.net> Sent:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 3:27 PM To:Planning Commission; Castilleja Expansion; Council, City Subject:Castilleja DEIR - Traffic delays for garage not based on any data CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Planning Commission, In the Staff Report for tonight's meeting, page 9 states The applicant is preparing a bicycle and pedestrian circulation plan, to complete the Architectural Review application and ensure adequate, safe circulation for bicyclists and pedestrians. The plan will indicate how the school will prioritize active forms of transportation, and will describe access and parking. This means that the DEIR statements about possible delays entering the garage are no based on any actual traffic flow, but some other data, probably existing traffic flows, which are one-way only on Bryant and Kellogg. The DEIR must study this before it goes any further. This is crucial information that has been overlooked. Seems naive of the staff to assume that Castilleja's plan will "ensure adequate, safe circulation." Regards, Jim Poppy Melville Ave. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Laurie Pasmooij <wordpress@castillejamasterplan.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 8:39 PM To:greg.scharff@cityofpaloalto.org; Kniss, Liz (internal); DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Clerk, City; Council, City Subject:Please Support Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,    My name is Laurie Pasmooij and I live in Los Altos, California. I am writing to you as a Castilleja parent and supporter of  Castilleja School.    Castilleja was founded 110 years ago to equalize educational opportunities for women. Today, Castilleja seeks to close  the female leadership gap by gradually adding students over four years. Making this opportunity available for more  young women is central to furthering that mission.    As a Palo Alto resident, I am proud to have Castilleja in our city. The school has been an indispensable community  partner and is committed to maintaining its neighbors’ current quality of life. Castilleja has already implemented robust  Traffic Demand Management initiatives, and has repeatedly pledged to neighbors not only to do more, but that the  admittance of new students will be dependent on the continued success of the school’s traffic programs.    Now more than ever, at a time when national politics has devolved into shouting matches and one‐upmanship,  Castilleja’s mission of serving girls and young women from Palo Alto and other nearby cities is critically important.    Please do not let the loudest voices in the conversation obscure the robust support for Castilleja found throughout our  wonderful city.    Sincerely,    Laurie Pasmooij  laurie.pasmooij@mac.com    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 15, 2019 11:46 AM To:Planning Commission; Castilleja Expansion; Council, City Subject:Re: public comment - Castileja draft EIR - CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To piggyback onto my previous remarks,      I see no reason that Castilleja cannot continue to fulfill its mission to educate young women with its current  configuration.  Any assertion to the contrary is a false choice.     If proximity to Stanford is so important to Castilleja, and expanding elsewhere is thus not an option due to this need to  have proximity to Stanford, then perhaps it should consider giving up its expansion plans and simply renovate.      Thanks.    Kathy Jordan    On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:20 PM Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com> wrote:  Planning Commission members and City Council:     As a community member, I would like to see traffic congestion eased in the community, not increased.  The Draft EIR  for the proposed Castilleja project states that one lane of Embarcadero Road would be needed for years while  construction progressed.  This is unworkable for our community.   Many of us in the community need to use  Embarcadero for school, work, shopping, to reach Paly, and so on.  Many people are employed at Stanford as well, and  use Embarcadero to commute back and forth.  The impact on the community is unworkable.     According to the Draft EIR, Castilleja plans to use egress into its planned underground garage on Bryant Street.  There is  very little space for those traveling west on Embarcadero Road turning left into Bryant ‐ maybe three cars can fit into  that left turn lane on Embarcadero.  Perhaps more than just three cars on Embarcadero will want to turn left onto  Bryant to reach that garage entrance to make it to school on time.  There is also a very short run up from Embarcadero  to the egress location into the underground garage.  It is quite possible that there will be backups going into that  garage from everyone trying to get in it at the same time, which due to the short run from Embarcadero to the  entrance of the garage could cause backups ON Embarcadero, BOTH those traveling east on Embarcadero and turning  right onto Bryant, AND those heading west on Embarcadero Rd and turning left onto Bryant St to enter the  garage.  This is also unworkable for our community ‐‐‐ to have possible backups spilling onto Embarcadero road and  jamming up this commute route and connector to PAHS.    Castilleja, according to a local media article, has been a scofflaw for two decades, violating its City use permit  repeatedly for its own gain, and apparently is currently over enrolled this school year, again violating its use  permit.  Why would the City of Palo Alto want to reward those who violate its codes by providing them public benefits ‐ ‐‐ and instead inflict pain and negative environmental impact upon its own community?    Denial of its project will not affect Castilleja's ability to continue to educate young women at their existing  facility.  Castilleja can also choose to expand elsewhere in a separate facility.     2 Given 75% of Castileja's students are not Palo Alto residents, won't building a garage and expanding the student and  teacher base encourage more automobile usage and traffic?  This is not a benefit to the residents of Palo Alto, but a  negative impact.     Also, given Castilleja seeks to bring more students, and presumably more teacher employees to teach those students,  won't Castilleja also need to provide mitigation for housing assistance monies or beds to the City of Palo Alto, as other  local employers are being pressured to do by the City of Palo Alto's council members?  In fact, Castilleja plans to  actually remove housing as part of its project, rather than maintain existing housing or provide additional.       Please consider these points, the draft EIR, its impacts on Palo Alto residents,  and deny Castilleja's plan.     Thank you,    Best,    Kathy Jordan  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:DEIR comments 8/14/19 Attachments:OverheadZoom.jpg; Both houses.JPG; Lockey House.JPG; UndergrdGarage same architect.JPG; Map1200blkEmerson.PDF; NO garage slide 3.docx; 7-17-19 sq ftg vs. 6-30-2016 sq ftg.PDF CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Aug 14, 2019 Speaker: Andie Reed Thank you, Planning Commissioners, for your hard work on this project. I am Andie Reed, and I live at160 Melville Avenue. The legislative intent of CEQA declares the maintenance of a quality environment for the people now and in the future is a matter of statewide concern; further the state should take all action necessary to provide enjoyment, aesthetic, natural, scenic and historical environmental qualities (sections 21000 and 21001). I find many areas of inconsistency with these goals in this report. In Chapter 3 – Project Description, it is important to point out that the project site includes two residential lots where currently houses, surrounded by stands of oaks and redwoods exist, owned by the Castilleja Foundation. However, they are NOT a part of the school. This Report infers differently, states that the proposed site is fully developed with Castilleja school facilities, and makes presumptions that variances and other exceptions will be approved, which process has not even begun yet. SLIDE ONE – Short Block of Emerson (att’d) The green outlines the residences, and the red outlines the school property. The red stripes indicate the two residential lots the school proposes to subsume into school property. The Lockey House was a residence for 100 years, until the current administration. To demolish these two houses and merge these lots into the school increases Castilleja Foundation’s tax-exempt school site at the demise of a neighborhood residential block. 2 Chapter 12 – the Cultural Resources section studies the Castilleja owned buildings for historical importance, but does not study the surrounding blocks for historic context. Houses across the street in the short block of Emerson pre-date the Lockey House. Physical and visual changes to land-use affects this district. Dudek needs to study the “Area of Potential Effects (APE)” of the district per National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106. Chapter 5 – Aesthetics The DEIR states that the Emerson Street frontage would experience a great degree of change in conditions because of demolishing houses, including the 100 yr old Lockey house. However, it concludes that these changes would not substantially alter the visual character of the site and would “continue to present the character of a school campus”. Again, those houses are not on a school campus, they are on a residential block. Would a reasonable observer come to these same conclusions? SLIDES (att’d): This is a slide of the overview; please note all the trees over the area slated to be demolished. Here is a photograph of the two houses on the chopping block; this is the Lockey house beautifully surrounded by trees. This is an underground garage exit. It is not the one planned, I hope, but the school has declined for 3 years to let us in on what is planned. None of the citizens in the surrounding area were interviewed about whether they would prefer to have 2 lovely homes, surrounded by trees, in their residential neighborhood or would they prefer an underground garage exit and streams of cars. In impact 4-2, “Land Use Incompatibility”, which Dudek determines is significant and unavoidable, the report uses as a mitigation the frequency and size of events held by the school. This is misleading, as neighbors have continuously over the last years, brought to the attention of the City Council, City staff, and Castilleja school officials at many meetings that the current CUP allows 5 major events and several other events (quote from the conditions of approval in the current CUP). The school has 100 events, disrupting the neighborhood with traffic and non-stop activity at and around the school. Previous Planning Director Gitelman stated in a letter to the school that the City did not agree with the school’s interpretation of this Condition of Approval. The school countered by saying they will reduce events to 90. Using this “reduction” as a 3 mitigation indicates that Dudek has not read the current CUP or done any study of the issue, as Dudek’s mitigation in 4a is lifted from the narrative provided by the applicant in their Master Plan. I request the preparer explain how the school asking for 90 events when they are limited to a much smaller number qualifies as mitigation to Land Use Incompatibility. SLIDE (att'd): 7-1-19 current sq ftg vs. 6/30/16 current sq ftg Table 4-2 shows that the proposed project would come in at a floor area ratio (.41) which significantly exceeds that which is allowed in large lots in R-1 zoned neighborhoods (.30). It erroneously does not include in FAR an underground garage, with 50,500 square feet, which counts toward FAR in a residential district operating under a Conditional Use Permit (PAMC 18.12.060(e)) bringing the FAR to .58. The report’s “Zoning Ordinance Analysis” concludes there is no conflict with City standards. That is clearly not the case. Dudek needs to describe how non-compliance with the Muni Code does not conflict with City standards. Table 3—1 shows current square footage conditions in 2019 of 122,300. The same chart supplied to the City of Palo Alto by Castilleja with its initial application in June 2016, page 6 of the Master Plan, shows sq ftg is 105,700 (see attachment). How can that be, you ask? I’ve drilled down on the numbers, and the difference is an attic and pool equipmt shed thrown into the mix to increase the square footage starting point. The reason this is concerning is because there are statements made THROUGHOUT this document that the school is decreasing above grade square footage, and that can’t be supported. These numbers don’t add up. I request the preparer correct erroneous statements that the proposal decreases square footage compared to current square footage. Finally, Castilleja purchased many residences on the 200 block of Melville in past decades, and in 1992, applied for the City of Palo Alto to abandon that street to the school, which the City Council approved. This resulted in an increase of land becoming school property at no cost to the school, but at a loss of public space, biking and walking access to Embarcadero. What did the 4 community get in exchange for this deal? The current proposal will increase their school property site by merging residential lots into the school, which results in the City of Palo Alto losing housing and losing property tax revenue, the neighbors losing their residential block of Emerson, unmitigable impacts to those of us who live here 24/7, at NO cost to the school. How does this benefit the City of Palo Alto? SLIDE 3: No garage (att’d) The logical Alternative for the school would be: No garage; leave residential block of Emerson Street intact. Yes modernize, upgrade, re-build classrooms. Limit enrollment. Thank you. ‐‐   Andie Reed {REDACTED} Palo Alto, CA 94301 {REDACTED} NO garage; residential block of Emerson intact YES modernize, upgrade, re-build classrooms Limit enrollment; future increases based on success of shuttling 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Amy Darling <amywdarling@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 16, 2019 9:26 AM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Subject:Fwd: Letter in Support of Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Amy Darling <amywdarling@gmail.com>  Date: Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:07 PM  Subject: Letter in Support of Castilleja  To: <Castilleja.expansion@cityofpaloalto.org>  Dear City Council and Planning Commission,  I write this letter in support of Castilleja’s renovation. I hope that the city will find a way to compromise so this asset to our community can fulfill its mission to educate young women to become confident thinkers and compassionate leaders with a sense of purpose to effect change in the world. As a resident of Old Palo Alto, I feel that we are extremely lucky to have a resource like Casti in our backyard. The school provides an amazing education for young women. Countless studies have shown that girls lose confidence in the middle school years. I am grateful for the work that Casti is doing with young women from our community as well as communities beyond Palo Alto. I have read the summary of the EIR. I feel our community should not be short cited and unwilling to compromise with Casti and allow them to both modernize their campus and provide this opportunity for a fantastic education to more young women. Casti is trying to move much of the car congestion underground with a garage that would have a one way entrance and one way exit to improve traffic flow. I greatly understand the concern about traffic and congestion, but the truth is that the increase in congestion is not the fault of the school. Palo Alto and our neighboring cities have seen a huge amount growth. I moved to Palo Alto in 2007 and have seen a lot more traffic in our area. But again, this is not the fault of Castellja and we are being short cited if we prevent them from updating the campus. Casti is trying to mitigate the problem. It has shuttles to help students come from neighboring cities and many students take the train. Faculty is required to find alternative modes of transportation several times a week and park outside of the neighborhood. 2 I have several friends who live in Menlo Park near Sacred Heart and Menlo School. They do not complain about these institutions and feel grateful to have these two resources nearby. Why is the tone so negative here with Casti? I understand that a mistake was made by the previous head of Casti and enrollment numbers were increased when they were not supposed to be. However, this was under previous leadership. Casti has made amends, reduced enrollment, and is trying to work together with Palo Alto to make this right. In today’s day and age, we tell our children to learn from failure and mistakes. How can we not grow and try and partner with this valuable resource in our neighborhood? Casti is doing everything to try and win the trust back. There will be neighbors who will never be happy with Casti being in Old PA, but the truth is there are many benefits to having such a prestigious school in our neighborhood. Casti has taken accountability for its mistakes. Can we not look long term, support all girls’ education, and give Casti a chance? Sincerely,  Amy Darling  {REDACTED}  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kim Martin <kim_maas_martin@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, August 16, 2019 10:21 AM To:Council, City Subject:Sharing My Comments Regarding Proposed Castilleja Expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello City Council members. Thank you for your service to our community! I recently wrote a letter to share my comments, as a citizen of Palo Alto, regarding the proposed Castilleja expansion. I am forwarding this letter to you as well, in the event that decisions on this issue reach past the Planning Commission to the Council in their final stages. There is clearly a lot of community division on this issue, but I sincerely believe Castilleja will not have endless opportunities to generate and direct its capital funds. If they use them to build an annex campus in a surrounding community, they will expand their reach, strengthen their brand (even more!), lay the foundation for even more future growth, and still retain a beautiful, seismically sound campus in Palo Alto that is appropriately sized for the community in which it is located. If we allow them to deplete their funds on a massive reconstruction of the Palo Alto campus, they will very likely not have the funds for annex expansion in the future when it will absolutely, critically be needed. I believe the time is now to make this difficult decision...save Castilleja and Castilleja's future! Regards, Kim Martin ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Kim Martin <kim_maas_martin@yahoo.com> To: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org <planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; castilleja.expansion@cityofpaloalto.org <castilleja.expansion@cityofpaloalto.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019, 7:17:04 PM PDT Subject: Comments to Express Relative to Commission Meeting Tonight Greetings. My name is Kim Martin. I am a resident of Palo Alto, living on Churchill Avenue a couple of blocks from Castilleja. I am unable to attend the meeting at City Hall this evening due to a potentially communicable illness, so am writing this letter and sending it via email instead - out of concern for others. First, I would like to state a couple of things that I believe are wide-held community beliefs….practically truths if you will….that I believe should not be used as political pawns in the debate on Castilleja's proposals regarding enrollment or premises construction. First, everyone in this community supports the education of women. Full stop. Enough said. Second, everyone in this community also recognizes that Castilleja will eventually have to cap its enrollment for its Palo Alto campus at some number (probably not far from where it is at), and you can only do so much to a physical space to wring more capacity out of it. Wherever the commission and the community draw the those lines, the demand for a Castilleja education will continue to rise and Castilleja will continue to be enticed by further expansion “creep.” This is a near certainty. Castilleja has one of the strongest brands in girls’ education in the Bay Area and perhaps even the state. In my opinion, the reason that demand for a Castilleja education will continue to increase has less to do with excellence in education and more to do about the affordability of living in Palo Alto. Although I am near certain this dynamic is familiar to all of you, I will explain. When a young family decides to move to the mid-peninsula and put down roots, they evaluate communities based on a range of factors, the 2 greatest of which appears to be the reputation and rankings of its schools. There are many excellent communities and schools in the area, but Palo Alto stands out above the rest primarily for the strength of its schools throughout the district - a statistic I am particularly proud of having spent extraordinary hours volunteering at, fundraising for, and otherwise supporting these schools and the students who attend them. However, many if not most who consider moving to Palo Alto choose instead to move to a more affordable (more house for the money) neighboring community on the basis of proximity to Palo Alto and its resources, the potential for moving in to Palo Alto at some point during their kids’ educational tenure, and the potential for attending one of the fine private schools in the area. Most families who make this decision learn that as the years go on, Palo Alto becomes even more expensive relative to other communities, they learn that the communities where they live have higher rates of community turnover and their community values fluctuate quickly, and that the market for private schools, particularly upper schools is seeing a long-term surge in demand. It is my understanding that only somewhere around 25% of Castilleja students are from Palo Alto. This makes sense to me, as the best education (for girls or boys) in this town, by every measure, is at Gunn and Paly. I do not believe that Castilleja could fill its enrollment capacity with students solely from Palo Alto if that were even a mandate, which it is not. I do not think you could find 500 or so families in this town who would prefer to send their daughters to Castilleja over Paly or Gunn, thus, Castilleja has and probably always will need to expand its reach to communities beyond Palo Alto to round out its student body. I believe this has far less to do with money than with choice in education. Palo Alto is an extremely rich community overall. However, when families from other communities are the reason behind proposed increases to enrollment and premises expansion, the City of Palo Alto should take pause. Castilleja is not the first Palo Alto institution to face the challenge of growth within restricted circumstances, but may have the most restrictions/considerations in recent memory, something we should not let ourselves lose sight of. Many companies have started-up in Palo Alto, only to outgrow the city. They often follow a path of “annex and later relocate to a campus.” PAMF, on the other hand, is a very prominent example of expansion success by annexation. PAMF grew wildly popular for patients outside this region due to the high reputation of its providers and care. PAMF embraced annexation and now has a seemingly unlimited number of locations. That expansion has not diluted the standard of care at its core Palo Alto medical center. Many of the physicians affiliated with PAMF serve multiple locations, allowing for a consistently high level of care across facilities. This is a model that could be followed in education as well. I believe that the best answer to Castilleja’s intent on growth would be to annex and open a new campus on a site that is better situated for even more growth, ideally to the south, say Mountain View or Sunnyvale, as the communities to the north already have a high concentration of private schools. I expect that Mountain View would be thrilled to support an annex. Back to one of my original points, Castilleja will ultimately have to either annex or move. They appear to have adequate capital funds and endowment to afford this at this time, but if we are shortsighted and allow extensive investment in the Palo Alto location, they may not be able to afford this solution so readily in the future when it is needed….because it will be needed. I for one feel no moral obligation whatsoever to aid families from other communities who send or would like to send their daughters to Castilleja. Palo Alto citizens, particularly those like myself who live in the shadow of the school, would have to bear the complete brunt of the expansion impact. This includes traffic congestion, massively reduced street parking (I live on the south side of Churchill so cannot park in front of my house anyway), debris, masses of random construction workers parking around, eating lunch on the street curbs and in their cars…you know the picture I’m sure, but take a typical house renovation street disruption and increase that tenfold. It’s almost frightening to try and picture. This would obviously be very different if Castilleja were situated in a less residentially dense area, but I would argue that Castilleja never would have grown into the school it is now if it had been initially located elsewhere. That’s just a fundamental aspect of school site selection…the most appealing sights are where the people live, you will just outgrow them at some point (not as likely if you are 3 just serving the local community, however). Even Stanford Medical Center, as a contrast to PAMF, had to annex even though they had much more land to expand into. Annexation or relocation is inevitable, so why wait. It would be best planned now. If there end up being future community meetings on this topic, I hope to be able to attend. In the interim, thank you very much for your consideration of my opinions. Regards, Kim Martin 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Diane Guinta <diane.guinta@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 16, 2019 12:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for the Castilleja plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    > Dear City  of Palo Alto Officials,  >  > I am writing to you as a proud former Castilleja parent, Board member and Palo Alto resident (1990‐2019).  >  > I would like to voice my support for Castilleja’s latest plan for development. The plan takes into consideration the city’s requirements, goes above and beyond in its LEED certification, is respectful of the neighbors and provides improvements  over the current site in many ways that affect the neighborhood.  >  > Under Head of School Nanci Kaufman’s leadership, the school has reduced the number of trips in and out of the  neighborhood. This requires a great commitment of families, staff and administration. Furthermore, the plan for  increased enrollment does not increase traffic.  This is in contrast to increased traffic overall in the city.  >  > In addition, Castilleja's proposal is 100% compliant with Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan.  >  > The DEIR highlights include:  > ‐ Improvements in overall building heights and setbacks  > ‐ Proactive noise mitigations to reduce school's impact on neighbors  > ‐ An Underground garage which is a preferred solution over surface street parking  > ‐ Increased green space  >  > Finally, this is one of the most important institutions in our city. In these fraught times, providing an improvement to  the highest level of education of young women leaders and providing that opportunity to a greater number of young  women leaders could not be a more laudable endeavor.  >  > Please support this great and historic institution’s plan.  >  > Sincerely yours,  > Diane Guinta  >  >  >  > Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Heidi Hopper <hhopper@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 16, 2019 2:17 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Subject:Castilleja School Master Plan and CUP (Comments on DEIR) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Planning Commission and City Council, I am a Palo Alto citizen and owner of three properties in Palo Alto. I am also a strong supporter of Castilleja's proposal for new CUP and Master Plan. As a Board of Trustees member at Castilleja, I am proud of the work we have done to make Castilleja a strong partner with the Palo Alto community and envision a beautiful, sustainable, and wonderful learning space for Castilleja students. Castilleja's proposal is 100% compliant with Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan. The DEIR supports our project in many important and exciting ways: The new campus will more beautifully blend with the neighboring homes and will mitigate noise, traffic, and other issues that are important to the neighbors. It is also LEED Platinum and surpasses Palo Alto sustainability goals in energy efficiency, water conservation, and will be fossil fuel free (outside the science labs). The underground garage is far superior to surface parking and will allow more green space at street level. I fully believe in Castilleja's proven ability to reduce trips to school through traffic demand management programs. Please support Castilleja's application for new CUP and Master Plan. Most other Palo Alto schools (both public and private) have modernized their campuses over the last decade, and Castilleja deserves the same opportunity. Thanks, Heidi Hopper {REDACTED} 1 Brettle, Jessica From:marcela millan <marmillan@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, August 16, 2019 6:05 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Subject:Support for Castilleja DEIR CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Good evening, my name is Marcela Millan. For the past six years we lived on the corner of Embarcadero and Waverley and now live on Crescent Park. We have four children and our daughter Sophie started at Castilleja last year. This letter is in support of the Castilleja Proposal and in particular in support of the underground garage. We were happy to see that the DEIR confirmed what we hoped. An underground garage will make room for higher quality open spaces and will improve the aesthetics of our neighborhood. We believe it would make our neighborhood stronger as it would make room for places where people can gather and form community while solving a host of logistical and practical parking concerns. As we drive around our neighborhood we will not see parked cars but open spaces and a beautiful building. We were also happy to learn that with the proposed setback it would also improve bike safety on Bryant street which our kids use multiple times daily to bike to school and soccer. Replacing the underground garage with surface level parking would put cars on top and working spaces underground which to sounds absurd. We prefer to see green beautiful spaces. The report confirmed that an underground garage is consistent with an R-1 residential neighborhood and moving cars below the ground not only makes logical sense but it will give our neighborhood more open space. As neighbors we appreciate how Castilleja remains committed to make adjustments to the project to mitigate neighborhood impact. We appreciate your time. Thank you. Marcela Millan and family    Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 17, 2019 10:51 AM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:re public comment re draft EIR and re Castilleja project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Planning commission and the City Council:     I just learned that Castilleja is asking that beyond removing the two homes it owns, and the housing that provides within  the Palo Alto community, that Castilleja hopes to have those parcels rezoned to be part of the tax exempt school, rather  than property tax paying parcels within the City of Palo Alto.      Why would the City and the Planning Commission look favorably upon this proposal?      Not only is Castilleja proposing to disrupt the entire community and commuters and shoppers and commerce, as well as  Stanford University too, by tying up Embarcadero Road via its proposed underground garage construction, a major  artery through our community to Stanford, but it hopes to end the property taxes those parcels paid, and shift this  burden onto the rest of Palo Alto property taxpayers to support the infrastructure in place these taxes support?    Please oppose this request.     Thank you.    Kathy Jordan  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Christina Gwin <my1gwinevere@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 17, 2019 11:01 AM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Subject:in support of Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I write in support of Castilleja.    I understand that people are frustrated by the traffic and changes in Palo Alto, but it is misguided to blame Castilleja. I moved to Churchill Ave, 13 years ago well aware that Paly was two blocks away and Castilleja one block and I welcomed the idea of being close to these 2 schools. Yes, it gets backed up during school hours for PALY. It doesn’t for Castilleja.    It’s inaccurate to point to Castilleja as the problem because they have actually reduced car traffic in the last few years.     I would think that those concerned with “quality of life” would be concerned about the amount of construction for houses that remain empty for most of the year or longer:  On the corner-- construction for over a year, and no one lives there full time.   A block and a half away-- construction for over 2 years and nobody lives there.  Across the street-- there has been construction for 3+ years, with work on and off-- for 2 people.   Around the corner on Bryant—they have been working on a basement for well over a year and no one plans on living there full time.  And so on.   All of these construction projects generate anywhere from 5-15 cars and trucks a day, and most of them are on school routes.    I would think those concerned with quality of life would embrace all schools in the community because schools bring life and that they would look to for-profit business to address the issue of transportation.    Don’t we want a sought-after, mission-driven school that is committed to educating women? We need them!     Thank you,  Christina Gwin     1 Brettle, Jessica From:Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 17, 2019 4:19 PM To:Planning Commission; Lait, Jonathan Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Comment on traffic study for Castilleja DEIR CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Planning Director and Planning and Transportation Commission,       I notice that I omitted "weekend" in the following bullet point for item #3 below  ‐   The days that Castilleja have evening and weekday events      This bullet point should be "The days that Castilleja have evening and weekday and weekend events"       Regards    Nelson  On Tuesday, August 13, 2019, 05:41:25 PM PDT, Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com> wrote: To the Planning Director and Planning and Transportation Commission,    My name is Nelson Ng.   I live at 1260 Emerson Street directly across from the 1263 Emerson Street known  as the Lockey House that is owned by Castilleja School.    I found that the DEIR published for Castilleja’s Expansion is incomplete and the basis for analysis is fatally  flawed.  The baseline traffic study was based on only three days – January 26, 2017; May 16, 2017 and April  10, 2019.  These days were mid‐week and the data was based on Castilleja’s self survey and vehicle counts.  To  provide a more accurate understanding of the project and its impacts, what should be evaluated in the traffic  study for Castilleja’s proposed project are:   Current traffic counts for the full neighborhood (including nearby Palo Alto High School) for a full week  while Castilleja and Palo Alto High is in session.  The traffic count should include vehicles, pedestrians,  bicyclists, etc. This traffic count should be signed off by a Castilleja official certifying that the count is accurate.  Bicyclists, both adult commuters and school children make up the majority of traffic on the Bryant street bike  boulevard and should be included.   Traffic should be counted (car and bike/pedestrians/other) for the full neighborhood for a full week while  2 o Castilleja and Palo Alto High are in session.  o Castilleja is not in session while Palo Alto High is in session.  o Palo Alto High School is not in session while Castilleja is in session  All intersections within a half‐mile to a mile radius, especially those with traffic signals need to be  included.  Critical intersections missing are:  Embarcadero/Waverley; Embarcadero/Pedestrian crossing at Palo  Alto High School; and Embarcadero Road/Town & Country/Palo Alto High School Driveways. In addition, the traffic study needs to address the construction traffic for the three‐five years of  construction.  The information in the report puts the responsibility on the future contractor for construction  routes, construction staging, and construction parking.  The volume of vehicles and the duration of the project  warrant that a complete study, recommendations, and mitigations for this work be presented in the EIR  instead. The traffic study also needs to include proposed projects such as the CalTrain rail crossing project, the City of  Palo Alto’s modifications to Embarcadero Road for bicyclists, etc.  From this baseline, the traffic report should be rewritten/resubmitted for review.  1. The following 3 Alternatives are listed in the DEIR: 1:  Staying with 415 students and no construction 2:  73% enrollment increase to 506 students and demolish two Single Family Home to build an  underground garage 3:  73% enrollment increase to 506 students and demolish one Single Family Home to build an  underground garage This DEIR is incomplete because the Chapter 7 Transportation section did not analyze impact of any  enrollment increase option without an underground garage.  This report focuses on how to make the  garage achievable by various means to mitigate the three Significant but Unavoidable  impacts.  Instead, it should study other alternatives that allows for a moderate enrollment increase  (20% to 30%) without an underground garage to address the traffic impacts such as satellite parking  areas and splitting the campus to provide a truly unbiased solutions for the community. I am requesting this DEIR to provide the current impact of Castilleja comparing to other streets listed to  be included in item 3 below and to study the impact of an alternative without an underground garage  but using satellite parking for all students being driven in with school shuttles running between the  satellite parking lot and the campus. 2. In page 7‐12,  The peak hour is determined based on the actual traffic volume data; it is defined by the City and Caltrans guidance as the 60- minute period during which the highest traffic volumes were observed. The peak period for morning commute traffic is from 7:00 3 AM to 9:00AM; … The school afternoon peak period occurs between 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM … The evening peak period, between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM, … The commute traffic has increased significantly in recent years.  The peak period has  expanded.  Therefore, the peak period study should be expanded to the following:  morning commute traffic 7:00AM to 10:00AM   evening  commute traffic to 4:00pm to 7:30PM. 3. The following is stated in page 7‐13, At the time of the existing conditions traffic counts in January 2017, enrollment at Castilleja School was 438 students. Site- specific trip generation rates for the AM, School PM, and PM peak hours were developed based on driveway counts and adjusted based on results from a student travel pattern survey. It is estimated that the school site currently generates 352 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour, 274 vehicle trips during the School PM peak hour, and 176 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour,  Site specific trip generation rates based on driveway counts and adjusted based on results from a  student travel pattern survey is problematic and will not yield accurate results.   Students are routinely  dropped off one to two blocks away from the campus.  For example, Castilleja students are routinely  dropped off at the cul‐de‐sac on Melville between Bryant and Waverley.  Those traffic counts are not  included in Castilleja’s count of cars entering their parking lot.   Student travel pattern survey is  conjecture at best.   During the March 2017 scoping letter input for the DEIR, I suggested the following study criteria to  establish a baseline.  The data should be compared with traffic of “what is allowable” for the Single  Family R‐1 neighborhood and not the existing condition. This determines the TRUE impact of Castilleja  traffic to its surrounding neighborhood.  Some surrounding neighbors have observed a 90% traffic  reduction on days when Castilleja is not in session while Palo Alto schools are still in session. Therefore,  the study must measure traffic impact with and without Castilleja in session.  In addition, missing from  the study are the impacts of a hundred of Castilleja school events per school year including evening and  weekend events and the two summer camp sessions per year.    The following are a list of items the  Traffic study must include - Castilleja in session while Palo Alto school in session - Castilleja school is out on holiday with no activities while Palo Alto school in session  - Palo Alto school holiday while Castilleja school in session - The days that Castilleja have evening and weekday events - During the summer, with and without Castilleja Summer School in session.  4           All studies should be done on a weekly basis of 24x7 period and not just one day in week to avoid  missing significant traffic pattern changes for different days of the week.  Please see item #6 for the  complete set of streets and intersections to be studied. 4. Projects such as Grade Separation at Churchill and Alma, Stanford GUP expansion and bike lane on  Embarcadero Road will have major traffic impacts to this neighborhood.  This study must include the  cumulative impact of Castilleja expansion along with these projects.  This study should show the impact of  Castilleja expansion with the additional impact from each project. 5. The 3 to 5 years construction for this expansion project must be studied.  We need to understand what is  the feasible for this neighborhood to handle with increase in traffic created by the construction related  machinery and staging.  6. A number of streets and intersections that were submitted to be studied as part of the March 2017 EIR  Scoping comment are omitted in the DEIR study listed in page 7‐5 to 7‐7.  Please see attached update to Figure  7‐1 and Figure 7‐2.  Please include them into the study for the final EIR. 7. In Page 7‐30, Table 7‐10 shows the following Daily Trips count for different number of enrolled student  scenarios.   This yields 2.74 Daily Trips per student for all 4 scenarios.     Condition # of Students Daily Trips  Existing CUP 415 1,135  2017 Enrollment 438 1,198  2018 Enrollment 434 1,187  Proposed Project 540 1,477    In page 7‐19, it stated “The existing ADT was determined based on 24‐hour machine counts conducted  in January 2017 and September/October 2018”. Is the Daily Trips number for 2018 Enrollment  Condition measured from Sept/Oct 2018 study or just calculated using the rate for 2017 Enrollment.  If  it is measured, please explain how the rates 2017 and 2018 are exactly the same?  If it is calculated,  please provide the actual measured daily trip. 8. In Table 7‐4 of page 7‐14, the following is car trips exiting the garage - AM Peak(7am to 9am): 199 (This works out to be 18.1sec per car) - School Peak PM(2pm to 4pm):  187 (This works out to be 19.3sec per car) - PM Peak(4pm to 6pm): 124 (This works out to be 29sec per car) In table 7‐12 of page 7‐40, it estimates the following Delay time with this project at Emerson right turn  onto Embarcadero  - AM Peak(7am to 9am): 24.7 sec (145.7 cars/hr) - School Peak PM(2pm to 4pm):  24 sec  (150 cars/hr) - PM Peak(4pm to 6pm): 20.1 sec  (179 cars/hr) 5 Majority of the morning drop‐off traffic and afternoon pickup traffic will not be evenly spread out  during the 60 minutes period.  Most traffic will appear within the 15 minutes before and after the  bell.  Therefore, the study should provide a the study of the same traffic volume of within a 30 minutes  window to calculate how many cars will back up through the proposed garage onto Embarcadero from  Bryant entrance due to the delay of cars making a right turn from Emerson onto Embarcadero. 9. The following claim regarding Castilleja expansion impact on bike safety is on page  7‐29.   The project includes a reduction in total curb cut driveways from eleven driveways … to six driveways … The reduction in driveway curb cuts will improve bicycle safety. However, I am unable to find any traffic study data and analysis in the report to substantiate this claim  that significant traffic increases to the Bryant Street Bike Boulevard by combining all incoming Castilleja  traffic entering the proposed garage by making a left turn from Embarcadero onto Bryant Street and  then a right turn from Bryant to enter the garage will not put Bike Boulevard users at risk. Bryant Street  Bike Safety Boulevard is one of the most used commute routes by PAUSD students biking to  school.   Castilleja auto traffic will be competing with the PAUSD students and other adult commuters  for the right of way to use this busy section of the Bike Boulevard during the commute hour.    This  study must include data and analysis on the potential risk increase to PAUSD students and other  bicyclists due to significant traffic increase during student commute hour.  The study should include all  previous traffic accidents including bicyclists and use the data to project the potential of increase  accidents by the increased traffic.    Please refer to item 8, on the volume of Castilleja traffic should not  be averaged on a 60 minutes basis but rather concentrating on the 15 minutes before and after the  school session bell time. The study should also include scenarios when cars are backed onto Bryant and Embarcadero from the  garage per study of item #8, the increase risk to the bicyclists when cars are blocking the intersection  of Bryant and Embarcadero or abandoning entering the garage and competing with bicyclists to travel  south on Bryant Street.    7   Waverley Street from: ‐ Churchill Ave to Coleridge ‐ Coleridge to Lowell   Bryant Street from: ‐ Churchill to Coleridge ‐ Coleridge to Lowell   8 Emerson Street from: ‐ Churchill to Coleridge ‐ Coleridge to Lowell   Churchill Avenue from: ‐ Embarcadero to Cowper ‐ Cowper to Waverley   Alma Street from ‐ Churchill to Coleridge ‐ Coleridge to Lowell Lincoln Avenue from: ‐ Cowper to Waverley   Kingsley Avenue from: ‐ Cowper to Waverley   Melville Avenue from ‐ Cowper to Waverley ‐ Waverley to Embarcadero (cul‐de‐sac)   Embarcadero Road from ‐ Middlefield to Bryon ‐  Bryon to Webster ‐ Webster to Tasso 9 ‐ Tasso to Cowper ‐ Cowper to Waverley ‐ Waverley to Bryant ‐ Bryant to Emerson ‐ Emerson to El Camino   Kellogg Avenue from: ‐ Alma to Emerson ‐ Emerson to Bryant ‐ Bryant to Waverley   Coleridge Avenue from: ‐ Alma to Emerson ‐ Emerson to Bryant ‐ Bryant to Waverley ‐ Waverley to Cowper   Lowell Avenue from: ‐ Alma to Emerson ‐ Emerson to Bryant ‐ Bryant to Waverley ‐ Waverley to Cowper   Cowper Street from ‐ Lincoln to Kingsley 10 ‐ Kingsley to Melville ‐ Melville to Kellogg ‐ Kellogg to Embarcadero ‐ Embarcadero to Churchill ‐ Churchill to Coleridge ‐ Coleridge to Lowell       Sincerely Nelson Ng 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Diana Darcy <ddarcy@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Saturday, August 17, 2019 4:42 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Cc:Diana Darcy Subject:Re Public Comment -- draft EIR -- Castilla proposed project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To the Planning Commission and the City Council:   I understand that not only is Castilleja is asking to remove the the two homes it owns, but they also want to have those  parcels rezoned to be part of the tax exempt school, rather than property tax paying parcels within the City of Palo Alto.  This not only removes housing within the city, but it also reduces revenues for the city which help support the  infrastructure we all, including the school, rely upon.  I can't see any reason for the City and the Planning Commission to seriously consider this proposal. To do so would not  be fair to the citizens of Palo Alto.   As it is, Castilleja is proposing to disrupt the community, worsen commuter traffic and hamper shoppers and commerce,  affecting Stanford University as well, by tying up the major artery of Embarcadero Road through its proposed garage  design and increased enrollment. Now they also hope to end the property taxes those parcels paid, and shift this burden  onto the rest of Palo Alto property taxpayers.   This is has gone from harmfully greedy to unconscionable.   I urge you to oppose this request.  Thank you.  Diana Darcy  ddarcy@stanfordalumni.org  {REDACTED} Palo Alto, CA 94301  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Diana Darcy <ddarcy@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Saturday, August 17, 2019 5:33 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Cc:Diana Darcy; Peter O'Riordan (oriordan) Subject:Public Comment - Castilleja draft EIR CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Planning Commission members and City Council:   The Draft EIR for the proposed Castilleja project states that one lane of Embarcadero Road would be needed for years  while construction progressed.  This is unworkable for our community.  As a community member, I would like to see  traffic congestion eased in the community, not increased.  Many of us in the community need to use Embarcadero for  school, work, shopping, to reach Paly or Stanford, and such.  The impact on the community would be untenable.   According to the Draft EIR, Castilleja plans to put the entrance into its planned underground garage on Bryant  Street.  There is very little space for those traveling west on Embarcadero Road turning left into Bryant ‐ only about  three cars can fit into that left turn lane on Embarcadero.  It is likely that more than just three cars on Embarcadero will  want to turn left onto Bryant to reach that garage entrance to make it to school on time.  There is also a very short run  up from Embarcadero to the entrance into the underground garage. It is very likely that there would be backups going  into that garage from many cars trying to get in it at once, which would also likely cause backups on Embarcadero in  both directions, as well as on Bryant in both directions. This is also unworkable for our community.  As reported in local media, Castilleja has been a scofflaw for two decades, violating its City use permit repeatedly  through over‐enrollment for its own gain. Reportedly they are currently again over‐enrolled this school year, again  violating the use permit.  Why would the City of Palo Alto want to reward those who violate its codes by allowing them  to expand to benefit themselves ‐‐‐ inflicting pain and negative environmental impact upon its own community?  Denial of its project will not affect Castilleja's ability to continue to educate young women at their existing  facility.  Castilleja can choose to remodel in place without expansion, and can also choose to expand elsewhere in a  separate facility.   Given 75% of Castileja's students are not Palo Alto residents, it seems clear that building a garage and expanding the  student and teacher base would encourage more automobile usage and traffic. This is not a benefit to the residents of  Palo Alto, but a negative impact.   Also, given Castilleja seeks to bring more students, and presumably more teacher employees to teach those students,  won't Castilleja also need to provide mitigation through housing assistance monies or beds to the City of Palo Alto, as  other local employers are being pressured to do by the City of Palo Alto's council members?  In fact, Castilleja plans to  actually remove housing as part of its project, rather than maintain existing housing or provide additional housing. This  is nothing but greed and self‐interest on Castilleja's part.      Please consider these points, the draft EIR, and the plan's impacts on Palo Alto residents, and then please deny  Castilleja's plan.   Thank you,  Diana Darcy  ddarcy@stanfordalumni.org  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Holly Rubinstein <hmrubinstein@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 19, 2019 4:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members:     We write to urge you to deny Castilleja the right to renovate and expand its enrollment. It simply  has outgrown its current site and its proposed renovation will be very disruptive to the  neighbors.  Should Castilleja be allowed to increase its enrollment, all areas of activity will expand:  garbage collection at early hours, food delivery at early hours, sports teams and the  accompanying games and meets along with parents from other schools who wish to watch their  children compete and other extra curricular activities for the students.  This is a situation similar  to the old Palo Alto Medical Clinic problem. Once the city made it clear a move was needed, it was  accomplished with great success. Why spend any more time on this issue?    A recent letter to the editor of the Palo Alto Weekly suggested that one should be careful of what  one wishes for.  We support turning the Castilleja campus into subsidized housing for teachers,  firefighters and police workers. Look what happened to the site Gamble Garden now occupies  once the city took a more innovative approach.    Thank you.    Holly & Paul Rubinstein  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Barbara Kelly <bmkelly@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 19, 2019 2:00 PM To:Council, City Cc:Jeanne Fleming Subject:Cell Towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou, and Mr. Tanaka,    Why is the City of Palo Alto dragging its feet in updating our Wireless Ordinance?      It took only a month, start to finish, for Los Altos to draft and pass a Wireless Ordinance with strong protections for the quality of life in their community. Their Ordinance includes many of the sensible provisions Palo Alto residents have long been asking for—provisions such as disfavoring cell towers in residential neighborhoods, establishing minimum distances between cell towers, requiring annual safety inspections of equipment and more.    Please finish the job you started on April 15th. Please immediately revise our Wireless Ordinance so that Palo Alto stops allowing telecommunications companies to install ugly, noisy, potentially hazardous and least-expensive-for-them cell tower equipment anywhere they want in our beautiful, quiet, safe neighborhoods.      The residents of Palo Alto are counting on you to put us—not Verizon or AT&T--first.    Thank you,    Barbara Kelly (I strongly agree with the above letter written by Jeanne Fleming.    Palo Alto Citizen Voter  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Megan Swezey Fogarty <meganfogarty@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 19, 2019 10:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:City Auditor CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council, In June 2018 I wrote to the City Council to voice my concern about a budget recommendation to eliminate staffing for the Office of the City Auditor. Over a year later I am dismayed to learn that the Council has yet to name a new City Auditor, that we have a paralyzed Office of the City Auditor, and that we are neglecting our city charter sanctioned commitment to promote honest, efficient, effective, and fully accountable city government. I urge the Council to restore this independent cornerstone of good government. As a Palo Alto resident who has volunteered and worked most of my career to promote strong civic organizations, I am so proud that Palo Alto made the Office of the City Auditor a part of the city charter in the early 1980s. This independent office reports directly to the Council and for most of its history has been grounded in the context of our city operations. As the independent eyes and ears of good government, it builds trust by telling us when a process is broken, and providing reports on services and performance metrics. I first became aware of the City Auditor’s important role when working with our libraries. Instead of cutting a branch, a critical report helped us align staffing with high demand service hours. We were able to retain services for the community. Over the years, the Office of the City Auditor has also led to better coordination of street cuts and street repair, improved contract‐processing times, adoption of an employee‐ethics policy and implementation of a whistleblower hotline, improved monitoring of water usage in parks and park maintenance, establishment of utility risk‐management procedures and provisions for purchasing natural gas and electricity, improved controls over overtime pay, improved ambulance billing practices, better inventory controls, streamlined planning‐permit processes, identification of information‐security control vulnerabilities, improved practices related to workers' compensation claims to reduce injuries as well as costs to the city, and improved code‐enforcement practices to more quickly deal with eyesore properties ‐‐ as well as additional sales and use tax, transient‐occupancy tax and utility tax recoveries. Outsourcing is not that answer. While you can hire financial auditors, for performance auditing there are very few firms that do this work and consultants coming in and out I believe results in reports of far less quality than in house performance audits done by a professional staff team. I believe we would have far fewer hard‐hitting recommendations than we have come to expect and far less accountability. Palo Alto citizens put this function in the city charter with good reason. The office not only issues audits, but also holds the city manager accountable to assess progress and implement recommendations. 2 City services that are fundamental to good governance should not be taken for granted. Let’s restore the City Auditor's Office. Thank you for your consideration. Megan Swezey Fogarty Bryant Street 1 Brettle, Jessica From:lchiapella@juno.com Sent:Saturday, August 17, 2019 6:12 PM To:pacustomerservice@greenwaste.com Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City Subject:Clean up day requirements CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    To Whom It May Concern:    Big Brother has arrived to "help" me organize my clean up into two scheduled days. Apparently Green Waste is under  the impression that everyone's life is neatly arranged so that moving, family needs, business trips and vacations fit into  the preassigned two clean up days.  I assume we have City Council to thank for this "Expanded Clean Up Day Service".    It was my understanding that in 2019 residents would be entitled to 1 pick up day that they arranged according to their  need.  I was told to call a week in advance to arrange such a pick up.   I was not told that the program would end in  July/August of 2019 so that anyone who had not taken advantage of the service by said date would be unable to use the  2019 one time service pick up.    Now, Green Waste says that my pickup is scheduled for March 3 of 2020 and if, god forbid, I am not in town I must then  wait until August 25th of 2020.   I would like a rebate of $80 that other residents who recycled prior to the cut off date  received as a subsidized pick up.  My mother's recent death inconveniently did not fall on a preassigned pickup day so  Green Waste says "Sorry" and "Tough Luck", but for a minimum $80 charge or more they will come out in 2019..  My  request in 2019  would have been the second time in 45 years that I needed the service.     How many ways can Palo Alto government think up to nickle and dime the small user, renters, Stanford students and  others who must move and recycle according to Green Waste's schedule or pay a minimum of $80.  I wonder who are  the few prolific users who need two days every year?    Most of us cannot predict when we will need such a service that serves us only occasionally and often in an emergency  or unpredictable situation.  Is this really a service for the average customer?    I guess I have the City Council and Ed Shikada to thank for the "convenience" of a predetermined schedule 7 to 12  months away.    Thanks so much,    Lynn Chiapella  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis <ealexis@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 20, 2019 6:31 PM To:Alison Cormack; Tom DuBois; Fine, Adrian; Council, City Subject:Comments on Special Finance Meeting August 20, 2019 Attachments:x-48-15.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  We are undersizing the business tax proposals. None of them consider taxes at the rate that San Francisco applies.  From the information presented today, this tax does not appear to be hurting the business environment there. In Palo  Alto, we should be able to deliver increased infrastructure and services for Palo Alto to continue to be a desirable  business location.     Most of the employee tax measures that are aimed towards professional and office workers can be translated into a tax  per square foot. If a typical employee equates to 150 sq feet, even a $750 tax per employee is only about $5 / sq ft ‐  which is about a 5% tax on current lease rates for Palo Alto's highly desireable lease rates.    We need to protect retail.  Really.    We need to analyze the implications of a "split‐roll" tax measure passing. This is a new source of revenue and changes  the math for a new property tax.    Triple‐check the data  Don't pull a PAUSD    Update the framework  While the general framework of "EASE" to evaluate tax options is important, there are several significant refinements I  would recommend.      1) The definition of "equity" is a specific type of tax equity called "horizontal equity". It is not the definitions generally  used in the context of taxes‐ "user pays" and "ability to pay". The one in the framework asks only if the tax if applied  uniformly ‐ which is typically not an issue most taxes ‐ with the clear exception of property tax in California. While some  of the analysis does broaden the equity analysis, the formal framework should reflect whatever principles the city  council thinks are most important. I have attached a Congressional report that discusses these concepts.    2) Administration should not only consider the transaction costs involved with collecting the tax but also the costs and  complexity of related financing to transform an income stream into an upfront payment that can be used for  infrastructure investments. (both transaction and interest charge). For example, local property taxes have clear  inequities, but are revenue generation and financing wrapped into a single, simple and efficient financing method. It  should be noted that current interest rates are at historic lows.    2 To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.       3) Proposition 13 had an enormous impact on how cities and counties are financed ‐ leading to various deals over the  years. If the city determines that the revenue will be used to offset specific impacts, this may not matter. If the revenue  is added to the general fund, it makes sense to look at the proforma overall burden of taxation in the city for the  different options‐ who have we asked to pay so far for the wide range of city services and infrastructure?    4) It is difficult to evaluate both equity and economic benefits without an explicit discussion of who ultimately bares the  burden of each tax. For example, while tariffs may be assessed on businesses, consumers often end up bearing most of  the cost through price increases.      Some small notes:    Several charts for the business tax included "Revenue per FTE". In these charts, FTE appears to be munipal employee  FTES, not all employees in the city subject to the tax.    There is an assumption that small businesses are poor businesses in many of the tax structures discussed. It is not clear  that this is true in Palo Alto.    Thank you very much.    Regards  Elizabeth Alexis    To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Virus-free. www.avg.com   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Geetha Shankar <geetsmail@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 5:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:The Market @ Edgewood Plaza CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To whom it may concern:  My family and I live on Jackson Drive and have grown to depend on the Market for innumerable things we take for  granted in our daily lives: last minute dinner shopping; my high school aged daughter bikes there for sushi and  sandwiches and numerous other cravings; I shop there for my weekly groceries; and on and on.  I can still remember  when the space was abruptly vacated by the previous grocer the Fresh Market and what a hardship that was ‐ I had to  factor long grocery trips into an already full day of work, commute and kids activities.  Our quality of life is currently amazing thanks to the Market.  If the City of Palo Alto cannot see what a huge public  service benefit this is, we have much bigger problems as a resident‐friendly city.  If the goal of the council is to cozy up to  developers and people whose only aim is to make money at all costs, Palo Alto is only headed in one direction as a city ‐  down, way down.  How can elected officials have any doubts about how to rule on the issue of keeping the Market for the community and  the people and holding Sand Hill developers accountable and responsible for providing this service?  It is absolutely mind  boggling that this issue is has been debated and is being dragged on for so long. The Council needs to only bear one  thing in mind: the people who live in this community and their quality of life, and the City's obligation to keeping this city  livable. Any other priority is indicative of a corrupt, useless and ineffective Council who should be replaced with  members who have a better sense of community values.  ‐‐   Geetha Shankar  {REDACTED} 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Haluk Konuk <haluk_konuk@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 9:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Keep the Grocery at Edgewood Plaza CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members, I have been a homeowner and resident of Palo Alto the last 12 years. Please file a strong appeal and under no circumstances negotiate away requiring an operating grocery store at Edgewood Plaza. I love the existing store "The Market at Edgewood", and it has been a wonderful addition to our community. Please help us keep it. Sincerely, Haluk Konuk 1 Brettle, Jessica From:jewelia dakin <jeweldakin@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Keep the Market at Edgewood Open CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________  Hello,  I heard there is talk about closing or revoking the subsidy of the Market at Edgewood. I am new to the area and it is one  the few supermarkets with quality food near my house.  Please keep it open.  Thanks,  Jewelia Dakin  {REDACTED}  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Suzanne Dee <suzannedee333@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 20, 2019 3:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:Embarcadero Road Traffic CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Greetings,   I work at a company on Faber Place & Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto, on the East side of 101. We are just 2 blocks from  the freeway entrance to 101. Recently, the evening traffic has become backed up on Embarcadero. It takes nearly 30  minutes to go 2 blocks to the freeway. There are traffic lights at Geng Road & East Bayshore Road & they aren't  synchronized, so when Geng has a green light, traffic can't move due to the red light at E. Bayshore. This is a recent  development & I wondered if the timing system in the traffic lights has changed. I know this is not an earth shattering  issue, but adding 30 minutes to already long commute times impacts family's lives. I would be appreciative if someone  could look into this.    Regards,  Suzanne Dee  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent:Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:39 AM To:Council, City; city.manager@cityofpaloalto.com Cc:Lydia Kou; Fred Balin; Doria Summa; Paul Machado; Maurice Green; Rainer Pitthan; David Schrom; Christian Pease Subject:Re: The Fallacy of ABAG wrt affordable housing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi Rainer,     excellent thought process. I hope our city council will take your observations to heart.    Action is needed.     ‐1: For example: The planning for Ventura ‐ when you  read the headlines in the Daily Post‐  is getting more and more  into disarray.    Plastering every square foot left is not the solution. I hope strategic thinking prevails and for the sake of the Ventura  neighborhood, there will be some parks and trees as well.    Reg/ traffic: did anybody study  how many new residents  will occupy those hundreds of new units (which won't be  cheap by the way ‐ otherwise our dear developers won't make any dime on it) ?    ‐2: how many more car trips will be generated and add to the already completely clogged El Camino and Page Mill/  Oregon? City Council and the county are all up against Stanford's mega expansion with  the additional car trips  and how to mitigate all this new traffic. Why does the City of Palo Alto not apply the same standards for its own  projects?    Where is our traffic management study/analysis just for this one mega project? Please don't tell us that people will take  the train or ride the bike. This is  wishful thinking and does not align with reality. Imagine you live in Ventura and want to  go grocery shopping and   for the sake of it, you want to go to downtown or towards San Antonio. Are you really jumping onto the train with 3,4 or  more grocery bags? Are you bicycling with many grocery bags on your bike right through the middle  of congested streets? Please be realistic, this will never work since it has NEVER worked. People always jump into cars to  do their chores.  Even if you would "go" to the Koury market, the same reality would apply: It is too far to carry several bags back home.  And the reason why this market has so many problems is because nobody can really park there, and getting in and out  into the congested El Camino  is what everybody wants to avoid.    ‐3: There is only one solution ‐ and more and more people have already posted online in the comment section of the  Daily Post:    ‐ Move businesses out of our residential neighborhoods; Move them across 101 to the east side; new car dealerships are  already taken hold there; This way we will have less "in" and "out" traffic of all the employees every morning and every  afternoon/evening.   This will lessen the gridlock on our local streets overall;  2 ‐ Convert those square feet freed by commercial businesses to residential  ‐ think about how all the residents (from east of Alma and west of Alma) can still get around across the city; when  Churchill is being closed because of the train; even more gridlock looms because of this;  ‐ the city council still believes a tunnel is way to expensive: numbers are thrown around of 3‐4 billion for a complete  tunnel; but nobody actually mentioned a number how all these sub‐optimal alternatives would cost. why?  also think about that initial construction costs are only part of the total cost: what about costs directly and indirectly  inferred over the next 30+ years? how are all the alternatives comparing in this regard?  ‐ what about the grand boulevard concept of traffic calming along El Camino. Big buzz around election time; now the  elections are over for 1 year; and this hype about the grand boulevard is over as well?    We hope our city council hears us residents loud and clear.    Wolfgang            On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 8:20 PM Rainer Pitthan <Rainer.Pitthan@gmail.com> wrote:  Hello,  by popular demand, please find enclosed my thoughts on ABAG and BMR    Rainer Pitthan   -- mailto:rainer@pitthan.com ---this is not a US Government supported domain, true and nasty political comments are given and are welcome--- https://stanford.io/2Mqa8mJ Rainer Pitthan, Rainer.Pitthan@GMail.com 8/19/2019 Every move California ABAG and related unelected and not-responsible Committees have made seems to be based on making it easy for developers to increase their profit. They claim it is based on planning, but it is not. As is borne out by the results. Unfortunately, implied or expressed, the Palo Alto City Council is helpful. Using the wonders of Google I was looking at the 50 pages of 2555 Park Boulevard Project in the City Council minutes: there is was, stated by the PA Planning Department: enabling maximum profits for the developers is the highest aim of the planners. This will only change if Palo Alto fires its City Attorney, gets an attorney who knows how to fight for the City, joins up with other Communities, and sues. ABAG demands are unconstitutional and against common law. Since New England times, before 1776, the police power of communities wrt to building is nearly unrestricted, as certified by the Supreme Court. Example: We all know that property may not be taken for public use without payment of just compensation to its owner (Cal. Const., art. I, § 19; U.S. Const., 5th Amend). But in the case of zoning changes in practice the courts have for 200 years deferred to the police power of Cities and Counties. Particularly difficult to overcome is the threshold that a "mere diminution" in property value due to a zoning action is not compensable. (Agins v. City of Tiburon (1979) 24 Cal.3d 266, 273-274 [157 Cal.Rptr. 372, 598 P.2d 25], affd. (1980) 447 U.S. 255 [65 L.Ed.2d 106, 100 S.Ct. 2138].) The “mere” for the Supreme Court cases has meant diminution up to of 80%. Under these circumstances it is hard to understand why 2555 Park zoning was not changed to PTOD, the zoning with the greatest benefit to Palo Alto, but not the developer. The following text, opposing SB50 and pseudo SB50s, I sent on July 4, 2019, to the California Senate (via Palo Altan for Sensible Zoning PASZ). I have got an unusual number of letters from Palo Altan, with the exhortation to impress the thoughts on the City Council. There are actually good reasons to oppose taking local control away from residents and local authorities and giving it to for-profit developers. Because, worldwide experience has shown, that local control is best for the local population, see more details below. I have lived in Palo Alto since 1978. I noticed starting maybe in 1995 that developers have basically bribed City Council members to approve unlimited construction of commercial office space, by donating tens of thousands of $ for election campaigns. Those City Councilors were not embarrassed to call buildings in prime locations with 20,000 sqft of office space, and only two luxury condominiums, “mixed use”. Unfortunately, for the elections in 2014 residentialists we were too timid to answer the accusation that they wanted to stop office construction in Palo Alto with: you bet, we are! Because there is no advantage for Palo Alto’s coffers, and its citizens, in more office square footage. It has taken 50 years to create this problem, it will take another 50 to remedy it. The fight against too many jobs in Palo Alto, and not enough housing, has only begun with elections about 5 years ago, and is now well under way, I hope, with commercial building caps finally introduced. But watch the money flow to candidates for City Council. And insist on adequate fines for violations of rules, like a fine 5 times the money illegally raised, and not $2000, on a $10,000 gain. Friends in San Francisco (Faculty members at UCSF) showed me likewise (follow the money they said) that building interests have been buying off Assembly members like Scott Wiener, who seem to be mostly interested in personal power. I do not want for-profit developers to be empowered by any law or edict, to reshape our town, to negate the process Palo Alto has made for a better building process. Lack of affordable housing has become an international problem. Some of it in the US comes from increased demand in space: the average house size in 1945 in the US was 1000 sqft; now it is 2,700 sqft. The average household size went down from 3.6 to 2.5 people. The worldwide experience is that efforts to force affordable housing construction (BMR = Below Market Rate) centrally from above, without the cooperation and the knowledge of local experts, including the leadership of non-profit mutual building associations, leads to the abominable results we see in the US Projects, British Community Estates, French HLM, etc. That does not even mention the catastrophe of Soviet style central decisions in housing, which even in countries with traditional high standards (East Germany), did lead to dismal results. And then there is Japan to consider: intensification of housing (higher density) follows rules which are negotiated often block-wise by neighbors). This decentralized concept would not have been alien to New England settlers long ago, as I noticed on famous Washington Street in Bath, Maine. In Europe, building mass housing around Rail Road Stations (and other traffic hubs) is seen as a one-way ticket to insanity, because (a) it crams construction onto the most expensive real estate in town (Wide sidewalks? Forget it!), and (b) where is the commuter going to go after arriving at another train station with BMR housing: another apartment? It will lead neither to Jane Jacobs’ beautiful cities, nor to Le Corbusier’s walkable cities of New Urbanism. However, it will lead to maximizing profits, and so the building industry is all for it. The most successful BMR efforts in OECD countries seem to be the German, Dutch, and Scandinavian (the Nordic Block) approach; where within the framework of their social market economy (conservatives take note: it is based on Friedrich Hayek’s Ordo Liberalism) Mutual Non-profit Building Associations are the developers. It cuts out the for-profit developers, who naturally cannot compete on price; their profit prevents it. Non-profit here just means that the 30% profit, which flows into the pockets of private developers, is used as starting capital to build more BMR housing, and not take it out circulation for private enrichment. In the next step of progress local utilities and building associations join forces. In Germany (which I know best) a well-known example is the Hessian City of Darmstadt, the town of the Architect Peter Behrens (the teacher of Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe, and Walter Gropius). Here the former Arbeiter Bauverein 1864 (Workers Building Association of 1864, now Bauverein AG) and the local Hessian Electricity AG (HEAG) have joined to create the starting capital. The CEO of the combined enterprise is a “Dr. Ing.”, who as a Diplom Wirtschafts Engineer (literally a graduate industrial engineer) has a hybrid degree of an Economist and an Engineer. Since Darmstadt has built up its BMR apartment stock since 1864, they now own 16,000 Apartments in a city of 150,000 people. And this despite Darmstadt being destroyed by Anglo-American Terror bombing to 80% in WW2. But Darmstadt, governed by Social Democrats being not in the pocket of local builders, has never allowed the run-away office construction by for-profit companies we see in California. As always in BMR projects rehabilitation and preservation of existing affordable housing is a continuous hand-to-hand combat, as is the adjusting of rent depending on changing income of renters, creating and maintaining vibrant mixed income neighborhoods. This only can be done locally. We all know the terrible consequences the Thatcherism inspired ‘right to buy’ ideology had in Britain. By nationally forbidding that the profit made, from the sale of the estate housing in the 1980’s, could be used to build more houses, and by even confiscating the profits by the treasury, BMR housing stock all but disappeared and new stock was not created. The profits from the “right-to-buy” sales were used by Thatcher for trickle down tax cuts. Sounds familiar? It did not work in Great-Britain either! A final remark: the “Nordic” system for below market rate housing is a take-off of the Nordic Block’s health insurance system. The “insurance entities” were originally thousands of local (now often regional, but never national) non-profit 1700’s guild based mutual sickness funds, which like any mutual association are run by the members, thus off-the-bat lowering the cost by the 30% of profits which US Health Insurances take out. And operating for the interests of the members and not the profit of the companies keeps premiums low. Regarding the economic Cooperation between Building Associations and Utilities, Palo Alto with a local Housing Authority and a local Community Utility Company (which produces a return-on-investment – Dividends) could easily do that. As an example, Palo Alto in 1987 already introduced a Utility Users Tax to support in a clever maneuver the Palo Alto School District. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Caroline Japic <cjapic@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:18 PM To:Rode, Patrick; news@padailypost.com Cc:City Mgr; Council, City; editor@paweekly.com Subject:Re: Greene Girl's Volleyball Thanks for getting back to me, Patrick. I find it hard to believe that in a public school, participation in physical education  in limited to when parents register and pay for it.  Many girls want to play volleyball at Greene, but only the first 24 to  log in win (and note that I logged in at 8:30AM Pacific when it was allowed, but because I was traveling and in Napa, my  daughter was placed on the waiting list). This seems wrong! I'll keep checking in with you daily as I don't want to have to  tell my girl she won't be playing volleyball with Greene this year. I'll also keep sharing this information with the Palo Alto  City Council, the Post and the Palo Alto Weekly.    Best,  Caroline    On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:21 PM Rode, Patrick <Patrick.Rode@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Unfortunately if they are not registered they cannot participate in evaluations. I'll be sending an email out  soon about that    Patrick Rode Frank Greene Middle School Athletic Director 650-892-5839 Patrick.Rode@CityofPaloAlto.org From: Caroline Japic <cjapic@gmail.com>  Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 12:20:48 PM  To: Rode, Patrick <Patrick.Rode@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: Re: Greene Girl's Volleyball      Could she attend the evaluations next week?     CJ    On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:37 AM Rode, Patrick <Patrick.Rode@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Thanks. Our 6th graders will be on 2 teams, an "A" team that is slightly more competitive and a "B" team  that is going to have more beginners or players that have never played before. Evaluations for these teams  will take place late next week, with practices beginning right after Labor Day.     Again, we are looking at people dropping out of the program at this point in order for her to be added to the  program. Keep your eye on emails and there could be a phone call coming as well in order to do payment.    Thank you    Patrick Rode Frank Greene Middle School Athletic Director 2 650-892-5839 Patrick.Rode@CityofPaloAlto.org From: cjapic@gmail.com <cjapic@gmail.com>  Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:25:56 AM  To: Rode, Patrick <Patrick.Rode@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: Re: Greene Girl's Volleyball      She’s in 6th grade. Thanks for your help.  Sent from my iPhone    On Aug 20, 2019, at 9:30 AM, Rode, Patrick <Patrick.Rode@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Hi Caroline,  What grade is she in? Being #2 on the waitlist, there is a chance that people drop out of the  program for something else, which would potentially open up a spot for her.    Patrick Rode Frank Greene Middle School Athletic Director 650-892-5839 Patrick.Rode@CityofPaloAlto.org   From: Caroline Japic <cjapic@gmail.com>  Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 8:44:12 AM  To: Rode, Patrick <Patrick.Rode@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: Greene Girl's Volleyball      CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Hi Patrick: Although I was logged on at 8:00AM and was ready to register my daughter, she is #2 on  the waiting list for the Girl's Volleyball team at Greene. Is there anyway you can extend the number of  attendees so she can play? She's literally been practicing every day this summer and is going to be  devastated if she can't play. Can you please help? Her name is Reese Japic.     Best,  Caroline  650‐619‐4162  1 Brettle, Jessica From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Monday, August 19, 2019 10:54 AM To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed Subject:HCD slides presented last Friday Attachments:Regional Housing Need Assessment101v8 (1).pptx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I believe the new HCD RHNA requirements and policies are on slides 8,10 and 11 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Nat Fisher <sukiroo@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 20, 2019 1:03 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission Cc:Kou, Lydia Subject:Council:Matadero Creek CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I just read this: "The council was more united about the prospect of removing the concrete channel at Matadero Creek and restoring the creek to its natural state. It unanimously approved a $93,000 contract with the firm Water Resources Associates Environmental Consultants to explore the idea of converting the channel into an open space corridor." "Lait said the study will consider both the prospect of enhancing the existing channel by building recreational amenities around it and the more ambitious idea of removing the concrete and converting Matadero into a natural creek." Why remove the concrete lining of the creek? What is the point? Someone please respond. Why sign a contract before holding community meetings about this idea? Has the Planning Commission held a meeting? It seems premature to sign a contract before consulting residents who live around the creek. Natalie Fisher   neighbor to creek  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 16, 2019 10:49 AM To:info@bayareametro.gov Cc:Council, City Subject:Public must participate in MTC/ABAG plans CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear ABAG Executive Board,     Thanks to Lynette Lee Eng's Editorial in the Daily Post today, alerting to your activities.     High stakes decisions which affect communities demand a high level of public outreach, which I have not seen from your  organizations.      Please let the public participate fully in the discussion of your plans to impact the jobs and housing imbalance in the Bay  Area. Thank you,    Jennifer Landesmann                  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ruchita Parat <ruchita@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 21, 2019 10:47 AM To:Boyd, Holly; Eva Gal Cc:City Mgr; Council, City; Reply to group Subject:Re: [GA2] Nightmare on Arastradero Corridor:The Road .....Paved With Good Intentions Hello, Most if us have been residents of this area for long time and do care for everyone's safety. We do think this new calming effort by the city could have been better. It is too late to mention but simple "speed bumps" would have been aesthetically more appealing, less costly and would do the job of slowing down. Also- instead of constructing in the middle, giving that width to the bike lanes may have been better for all. regards Ruchita On Wednesday, August 21, 2019, 10:40:51 AM PDT, Eva Gal evahgal@gmail.com [greenacres2] <greenacres2- noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Ms. Boyd, Thank you for your response to my message on Mr. Shikeda’s behalf. I do appreciate the fact that messages get read. In my letter, I focused specifically on several of the dangerous omissions in the City's poorly designed and poorly executed plans for one corner on Arastradero Road. Nothing major. I chose not to get into the litany of all the other horrors you have created on this road, since other communications have dealt with those issues already. Sadly, your note to me completely ignores all these concerns. Instead, your note reiterates the same talking points and platitudes that you and your staff have voiced in the past. As we continue to share our concerns, please note that none of us question the positive intentionality of the redesign. Unfortunately, neither positive intentionality nor talking points and platitudes resolve the nightmare you have created for us in this neighborhood, and for everyone else using the Arastradero corridor. And, we all know where the the road paved with good intentions often leads….. In my message last week, I listed the following specific issues, to no avail: -As the students stack on bikes in the green slime box waiting to cross Arastradero, and as the students stack on bikes on the green stripes on Arastradero waiting to either cross to Fletcher or to go to Gunn, there is no space for cars to make a right turn to Donald even at the slowest speed- without jutting into the bike box or the waiting students. What. A. Nightmare!!! We warned staff about this, to no avail. -With all the so called planning that has gone into this realignment, the City has not bothered to activate/place a "no turn on red when students are present” sign at the four corners. (There is one well hidden at one corner, which is ignored by all) Safety concerns, City Staff?????? -The four corners at Donald/Arastradero and Terman Drive/Arastradero are still not painted red. Therefore, parents are stopping and dropping kids off at the corners; parking at the corner (I almost hit a car as as I turned right on to Donald from Arastradero going West)-all legally. Safety concerns, City Staff???? 2 Once again, I am requesting that you Ms. Boyd, Mr. Shikeda or SOMEONE address each of the above issues, along with all the issues identified/shared by my neighbors, with specific plans to mitigate them. These are easily correctable issues. Correcting them would at least make one highly dangerous corner a little bit safer. (BTW, I saw that there is finally red curb paint at the corner of Arastradero and Georgia. I understand it took approximately four years of requests/complaints to achieve a 3 ft. long red marking. I am hoping that we do not have to wait four years for these corrections at Donald.) Your note lists one mitigating step that is supposed to help the dangerous situation on Arastradero: the addition of more signage/traffic warning devices to explain the very confusing situation that City Staff designed. Since one of the main issues is the visual overload-arrows going in all directions, red, white, green, yellow, black markings, straight lines, jagged lines, arrows shifting directionally in short distances, parking signs in the middle of the road, bumper car protrusions along the street, lack of turning radius at corners-could you please explain to the uninitiated how adding new signage-thereby creating more visual confusion-is supposed to help? With all these visual detractions, you have done nothing but keep drivers from paying attention to cars/students/bikers along the road. Trying to read the signage and pay attention traffic warning devices has the same net effect as texting while driving: distracting from paying attention to the road. What genius came up with this plan? What textbook proposes a plan that supposedly creates safer driving conditions by maximum distraction of drivers? Do I read signs or pay attention to student bikers/walkers/on a mile long parking lot with bumper to bumper cars during peak traffic hours? I am truly wondering how anyone can call this a “CALMER DRIVING CONDITION”, one of the ostensible goals for this million dollar redesign. Ms. Boyd, your note states that you evaluate concerns as they are brought to your attention. Surely, the very specific and very serious concerns we have brought to your attention merit a better, more robust and more respectful response/action plan from City Staff than adding more signage and painting the median noses red. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Regards, Eva Gal On Aug 20, 2019, at 1:09 PM, Boyd, Holly <Holly.Boyd@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Ms. Gal,  The City Manager, Ed Shikada, asked me to respond to your message on his behalf. Thank you for  reaching out to us about the concerns you noticed regarding the improvements along Arastradero Road.  The road improvements along Arastradero Road are part of a greater effort to improve 2.3 miles of the  Charleston‐Arastradero Corridor by moderating vehicle speeds and creating calmer travel conditions for  drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. Charleston‐Arastradero is classified as a residential arterial which  means it has lower speeds than commercial arterial streets. However, given the change involved, we  have installed additional temporary traffic warning devices to reinforce lower speeds in addition to the  permanent medians that limit turns. The medians work in conjunction with the project’s other design  elements to ensure smoother traffic flow, lower speeds, and less abrupt lane changes, dangerous turns,  and other unsafe driving maneuvers such as illegal U‐turns.  Staff from Public Works and the Office of  Transportation observed the school commute along the corridor during the first days of school last week  and is reviewing additional improvement opportunities for signage and striping, including the painting of  the median noses to make them more visible. While most of the hardscape work is completed, there is  still more work to be done.  Irrigation installation is happening now, with landscaping and tree planting  to follow.  Meanwhile, work on the Palo Alto‐Los Altos bike path will happen later this fall.  Upgraded vehicle  detection and traffic signal synchronization along the corridor to smoothen traffic flow will continue to  be optimized over the next several months.  The construction project is expected to be completed in  November, with the last segment (Phase 3) to be bid later this fall.  3 We value your feedback. We continue to evaluate concerns as they are brought to our attention. Please  let us know if you have additional questions or observations.     Regards,                             From: Eva Gal <evahgal@gmail.com>   Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 9:43 AM  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Reply to group <Greenacres2@yahoogroups.com>  Subject: Nightmare on Arastradero corridor     CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.   Members of the City Council of Palo Alto:     I have read the many notes written about the disastrous Charleston/Arastradero corridor, and I agree with the details and sentiments expressed in them.      We were away from home for almost five weeks this summer. As we were driving home last week, I thought I was prepared for the worst, but of course I was wrong. Driving on Charleston and then Arastradero, I had a sense of what it must be like to to be hallucinating-roads curving in odd directions, abutments sticking out in unexpected places, roads so narrow that an SUV touches both sides of the markings, insufficient turning radius for cars due to unnecessary bump-outs, green boxes, green lines, jagged lines, red markings, white stripes, etc. One does wonder about the state of mind of City Council who directed these changes, and City Staff, who interpreted and implemented these directions in a truly nightmarish way. As a person who gets sick on roller coasters, and stays away from Ferris wheels and bumper cars for the same reason, Arastradero and Charleston feels equally nauseating and dangerous-yet unfortunately unavoidable. Shame on you City Council and City Staff for wasting millions of dollars on a project that has caused so much grief for residents and created possibly the most unsafe corridor in Palo Alto or any area in the Bay Area.      On a different note, this Morning, I went to observe the traffic at 7:45 am at the corner of Donald and Arastradero.. Here are some thoughts and observations:     Good News:  - No one got hurt this morning.  - On the whole, the students and the crossing guard did a good job observing the traffic rules.     Bad news:  -There is a significant increase in traffic on side streets as a consequence of traffic on Arastradero. Thank you, Council Member Kniss !!!!!  -As the students stack on bikes in the green slime box waiting to cross Arastradero, and as the students stack on bikes on the green stripes on Arastradero waiting to either cross to Fletcher or to go to Gunn, there is no space for cars to make a right turn to Donald even at the slowest speed-without jutting into the bike box or the waiting students. What. A. Nightmare!!! We warned staff about this, to no avail.  -With all the so called planning that has gone into this realignment, the City has not bothered to activate/place a "no turn on red when students are present” sign at the four corners.  <image001.jpg>       Holly Boyd, P.E.  Assistant Director of Public Works     Engineering Services     650.329.2612      4 (There is one well hidden at one corner, which is ignored by all) Safety concerns, City Staff??????  -The four corners at Donald/Arastradero and Terman Drive/Arastradero are still not painted red. Therefore, parents are stopping and dropping kids off at the corners; parking at the corner (I almost hit a car as as I turned right on to Donald from Arastradero going West)-all legally. Safety concerns, City Staff????  -The traffic inside Fletcher is equally problematic: cars are going in four different patterns, no turning areas for cars to drive by, and Bowman pre-school drop-off has not even started!  -Parents making u-turns on Donald right into oncoming walkers, parked cars, double yellow lines, bicycling kids, etc. is a major hazard-no police presence at all to help with traffic!!!!     These are but a few observations from one morning. City Council and Staff, you have managed to endanger lives and create a traffic snarl that benefits no one. I do not know what base you are catering to or whose interests you are accommodating. It is certainly not the residents of Green Acres ll.     Eva Gal  Green Acres ll         -------- Original message --------  From: "'A.J.' ajlumsdaine@gmail.com [greenacres2]" <greenacres2- noreply@yahoogroups.com>   Date: 8/14/19 3:38 PM (GMT+08:00)   To: Betty Thana <bthana@att.net>   Cc: Ree Dufresne <ree_duff@comcast.net>, Sheryl Keller <kellersheryl@gmail.com>, "Sheryl Keller kellersheryl@gmail.com[greenacres2]" <greenacres2- noreply@yahoogroups.com>, Ron Baker <bakerra@pacbell.net>, Greenacres2 <greenacres2@yahoogroups.com>   Subject: Re: [GA2] Fwd: Congratulations Lunkheads, the City Will Now Get Sued Over the Corridor Project         The most serious is the separated bike lane which is basically designed to kill someone. Separating bike and car traffic is not a bad idea, but there needs to be integrated signaling so the bikes don’t just think they have the right of way. As it is, the cars have to know about this separated lane in order to not turn right in front of bikes on that separated lane, otherwise called a right hook, the most common car-bike accident. The new streetscape is so confusing and unorthodox, and set up to be such an obstacle course, I have noticed that I have to spend so much attention on the street scape it’s making it impossible to safely keep an eye on pedestrians and especially bicyclists (especially erratic bicyclists, which unfortunately, is just par for the course with middle schoolers).    The crazy thing is that I spent a lot of effort trying to explain to the City how the previous jut-out curb was an accident waiting to happen, and so it seems like they went back to the drawing board to make absolutely certain they kill someone. Absolutely crazy.    Anne        On Aug 13, 2019, at 10:31 PM, Betty Thana bthana@att.net [greenacres2] <greenacres2- noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:    Hi Neighbors,  I was returning home tonight, around 7:15 PM, turning onto Arastradero from El Camino, then turning right onto Coulombe, and I noticed how dangerous the newly 5 constructed cement barriers are on Arastradero, for that 0.3 miles. It is as if someone has constructed an obstacle course for us:    1) midway on Arastradero, between El Camino and Columbe, the new cement barriers directly cut off the right lane, by being constructed straight across the road, ie perpendicular to the curb, and stretching out one lane’s length, directly into the lane where people are driving their cars.    I was only alerted to its existence, because there were a few orange flags on top of the cement barrier, otherwise, I probably would have driven my car straight into the concrete barriers, that is directly in front crossing my lane.    This was in the day light, and accidents may happen after dark, when the drivers who are not familiar with this road, and not anticipating a concrete barrier crossing their entire lane, would crash into the concrete barrier, causing severe injuries to passengers and kids.    2) to make the right turn into Coulombe, there are the concrete barriers butting out as a big triangle, way into the middle of the road, and if one is not familiar with this road, it may cause an accident,     It is a bit ironic that here we are, living in the heart of the Silicon Valley, supposedly full of the smartest people on earth, making all these innovations, and we have in our own neighborhood these concrete barriers that do seem in need some help from some smarter road safety designers and legislators..    Regards,  Betty  On Aug 10, 2019, at 1:04 PM, ree_duff@comcast.net [greenacres2] <greenacres2- noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:      Before I send this to City Council, do I have my facts straight & does it make sense to the rest of you? Ree Dufresne    Members of the City Council of Palo Alto  Before Those DANGEROUS ABUTMENTS were put in permanently, I along with other Intelligent residents of Palo Alto, objected to having them put in. It was obvious to me that they pmwould do more harm than good!  As Staff apparently carries more weight in how my Tax dollars are spent, our opinions opposing these structural monstrosities abutting out of the normal lane markers, etc. were ignored.   I would ask the Council to weigh the collateral damage & risks to Automobiles, Bikers & Pedestrians, from “sideswiping” or bouncing off of these blocks of Concrete.  Although I was aware of the danger they posed. I didn’t fully appreciate how easily a driver could miss allowing for that concrete, as it isn’t a normal lane width.  I wasn’t prepared for the damage caused to the front left wheel well, etc. on the side of my car when I bounced off of one. Is the City of Palo Alto going to pay for the damages to cars that bounce off of these abutments?  6 Why is it that STAFF carries more weight with a Computer generated model for altering our streets, than those of us who are in our cars and driving these roads every day?Ree Dufresne            On August 7, 2019 at 9:18 PM "Sheryl Keller kellersheryl@gmail.com [greenacres2]" <greenacres2-noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:     Agree with Ron Baker. Where is the city employee who designed this mess. Let's find him and have him drive on our "improved" corridor at 8AM and at 5PM. Same with the city council members who approved this. Let them drive this stretch for a week. See what happens.     On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:58 PM Ron Baker bakerra@pacbell.net [greenacres2] < greenacres2-noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:         Forwarding because they bounced my new email address. See my message below..    From: Ron Baker <rabaker.pa@gmail.com>  Subject: Congratulations Lunkheads, the City Will Now Get Sued Over the Corridor Project  Date: August 7, 2019 at 8:48:03 PM PDT  To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  Cc: Greenacres2 <greenacres2@yahoogroups.com>, webmaster@paloaltoonline.com    I went to a council session, my wife and I went to department meetings or hearings, my neighbors went to planning meetings, I talked to and emailed council and staff on the absolute stupidity of the “traffic calming” project on Charleston Arastradero corridor. ABSOLUTELY NOBODY WAS LISTENING. Let me tell you, there was NO material problem that a few citations/police speed patrols and better use of rapid transit funds wouldn’t solve. Traffic accidents were largely due to Gunn kids reading their phones and rear ending people in stop and go traffic at rush hour. I know, as my home fronts Arastradero,and I work from home most days.    Anyway, today TWO cars just ran into those stupid new traffic calming forms today, just in the stretch of Arastradero between Coulombe and Cherry Oaks.     This was the first day without the orange warning blocks. I only saw what happened in one of these “accidents", fortunately the second driver, whose car will have to be extracted from the form, was okay, though her expensive car may need some work.. The prior accident reportedly involved a double blowout when the vehicle hit the form. My neighbors on and near Arastradero, some of whom also tried to complain, were out in force to greet the fire truck that responded, and all agreed this was totally predictable, so from a legal standpoint, that will be a problem for Palo 7 Alto.. As one firefighter said, wait til the schools are in session, and rush hour traffic has gone to zero. I’m guessing that residents now ! take longer getting to the local freeways then actually traveling on them.    Meanwhile, wait til a bicyclist who doesn’t understand the design runs into a form. This is just pathetically stupid.     The city is going to get sued for this project, and the the hazards it presents. This city is run by a part time council that leaves decisions in the hands of staff who couldn’t figure out best practices if their lives depended on it, but fortunately for them, they collect great pensions, no matter how bad their recommendations. Clearly, the incentives here are all wrong. At least half the council is funded by developers, or depend on incomes in real estate or property development, the other half move on to higher office with the support of the public employee unions. Few members of the council are willing to challenge the reports and proposals prepared by the bureaucrats, or challenge the assumptions on which they are based.     The council and departments run interminable meetings where many of the people with something real to say have to leave because the council is running way too far behind. When the citizens on rare occasions rebel, as with the original Maybell housing project, council members seem to have no clue because they almost never go door to door to canvas residents in the affected area, and the bureaucrats are even less inclined to do that. The process here is a total failure.       Ron Baker  Greenacres 2                              __._,_.___ Posted by: Eva Gal <evahgal@gmail.com> Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group •Start a New Topic •Messages in this topic (1) 8 TO DO THE FOLLOWING: Post a message: greenacres2@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: greenacres2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com [Include your real name and street address - for use of moderators only] Unsubscribe: greenacres2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com List owner: greenacres2-owner@yahoogroups.com VISIT YOUR GROUP To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Yahoo! Groups • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, August 17, 2019 3:31 AM To:thx1138zardoz@yahoo.com Subject:Old Ads that government allowed that hurts our health CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  YIUP BY FAR MY BEST POST I'VE SHARED IT MANY TIMES IT SAVED MY KIDS LIVES AFTER 9/11, WHEN THEY RAN INTO DAD WHO HOMESCHOOLED HIS KIDS You who are on the road Must have a code that you can live by And so become yourself Because the past is just a good‐bye. TEACH YOUR CHILDREN WELL Vatican Assassins ‐ Eric Phelps on the Jesuits 2          To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In Vatican Assassins ‐ Eric Phelps on the Jesuits I believe the pope of Rome is Antichrist (Daniel 7:7‐ 27,2Thessalonians 2:1‐12,2Peter 2:1‐22,1John 2:18‐25, Revel...    On Thursday, July 25, 2019, 07:15:40 PM EDT, Lou Basile <ldbasile@comcast.net> wrote: The Jesuit oath allows killing which is against the 10 commandments under any conditions 3 From: Yahoo Mail.® [mailto:honkystar@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 9:05 PM To: Lou Basile Subject: Re: Old Ads that government allowed that hurts our health YIUP THE MOB OF OLD? LIKEN THE PIPER CALLING US ALL TO JOIN THEM (JESUITS) The JESUIT OATH should be a MUST READ as written? IN THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS? I read it and EVIL IS AS EVIL DOES. THEY CAN ALL EAT SHIT AND BARK AT THE MOON On Wednesday, July 24, 2019, 07:17:56 PM EDT, Lou Basile <ldbasile@comcast.net> wrote: China and David Rockefeller were tight. It is like the mob they get control of people and local businesses and carve out territory From: Yahoo Mail.® [mailto:honkystar@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 10:36 PM To: Lou Basile Subject: Re: Old Ads that government allowed that hurts our health INTERESTING China TRYING to ween out their POPULATION too I suppose On Tuesday, July 23, 2019, 07:34:32 PM EDT, Lou Basile <ldbasile@comcast.net> wrote: Apple may do billion dollar deal so can build out 5g and not rely on the china company that has almost a monopoly on it. %g need to control electronic cars and all other device including the ones Elon Musk wants to implant in our heads. He was the one that says he is scare of Artificial Intelligence turning on us. From: Yahoo Mail.® [mailto:honkystar@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 7:06 PM To: Lou Basile Subject: Re: Old Ads that government allowed that hurts our health 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tony Caruthers <tonycaruzz@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 5:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:The Philadelphia oil refinery caught fire with no injuries, after Robert Kraft went to Israel, now some police are shot in Philadelphia. Mark Zuckerberg is yet to contact me about God & Israel money. "The city of brotherly love"?? Attachments:Discernment-WS_1.jpg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    https://youtu.be/wphamyNFmZo  4 MINDBOGGLING Just as much IGNORANCE back then as NOW? Just like any INFORMATION about 5G is GOOD lol I KNOW FOR CERTAIN AS VERIZON IS PROMOTING 5G LOL AND WITH ASPIRATIONS OF IMPLEMENTING IT ASAP? On Tuesday, July 23, 2019, 06:50:54 PM EDT, Lou Basile <ldbasile@comcast.net> wrote: 5 ï 6 7 8 9 10 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 17, 2019 8:44 PM To:Council, City Cc:editor@paweekly.com; Dave Price Subject:Please appoint an auditor; fully staff the auditor's office CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the City Council:     I see that the City of Palo Alto's budget is approaching the $1 billion mark in expenditures ($831 million).  According to a  City study, the City of Palo Alto has approximately $900 billion in unfunded employee pension liabilities. These are very,  very large figures, which need to be carefully monitored.       As a Palo Alto resident and taxpayer, I strongly request that the City Council appoint a City Auditor as soon as possible,  and fully staff the auditor's office. Many past news articles attest that city governments cannot be reliably relied upon to  audit themselves.      To that point, I am very unhappy to have read in the article copied below that the Palo Alto City Council considered:   1. folding the Auditor's office into Palo Alto City government, rather than retaining it as an independent position  which the City's charter requires.   2. stripping the auditor's office of staff members, perhaps to compromise the effectiveness of the office.   As a result, whatever trust I had in the City Council and City government is gone.    I strongly implore you to follow the requirements of our City's charter, maintain the independence of the Auditor's  office, and by doing so, attempt to build public trust in City government and the management of our tax dollars.     Thank you.     Best,     Kathy Jordan    https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/08/17/around‐town‐auditors‐office‐getting‐taste‐of‐its‐own‐medicine‐ bay‐trail‐work‐set‐to‐begin  THE AUDITED ... For decades, the City Auditor's Office has led the charge on identifying flaws in Palo Alto's programs and shortcomings in its facilities. Its scathing review of the local animal shelter has helped spur the City Council to commit to short-term infrastructure improvements and a long-term partnership with the nonprofit Pets In Needto operate the beleaguered facility. Its audit of the business license tax program has shown the program to be inaccurate and unreliable. Its recent look at Palo Alto's code-enforcement program has revealed a slew of flaws in how the program is administered and in how the city communicates with residents. Now, the five-person office is itself undergoing an audit of sorts — one with existential implications for its operation. The city has recently approved a $32,780 contract with the firm Kevin Harper, CPA and Associates, to perform an "organizational review" of the City Auditor's Office. The review will consider what other cities are doing and evaluate whether some of the functions of the office should be placed under the 2 purview of the city manager, a move that could effectively eliminate its independence. The review is taking place at a time of flux for the office, which has been without a permanent leader since February, when City Auditor Harriett Richardsonresigned (in June, Richardson was appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom to serve as BART's inspector general — the first person to hold that position). Though the city auditor position was established by voters and is required by City Charter, the council has not been in a rush to replace Richardson (the office is now overseen by a consultant, Don Rhoads). Last year, council members flirted with the idea of eliminating all the positions in the office except the city auditor, though they backed away in the face of community opposition. The city auditor position is one of four that is selected directly by the council — along with city manager, city attorney and city clerk.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Batchelor, Dean Sent:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 12:14 PM To:Council, City Cc:City Mgr; leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique; Caracciolo, Lisa; Ng, Judy Subject:Press Release this Afternoon Dear Mayor and Council Members:     On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please find below a press release that will be going out later this afternoon from  the California Energy Commission (CEC) that will award $31 million to Santa Clara and San Mateo counties to encourage  EV charging infrastructure, primarily Level 3 fast charging and charging for workplaces and commercial centers (though  multi‐family buildings are also eligible). Funding allocations are still being negotiated, but Palo Alto is hoping to seek $1  million to $3 million dollars (including matching funds) in this program.        Today the California Energy Commission (CEC) will be announcing that they will award $31 million to Santa  Clara and San Mateo counties for a rebate program to expand EV charging infrastructure. Palo Alto will be part  of a partnership with Silicon Valley Clean Energy, Peninsula Clean Energy, the City of San Jose, and the City of  Santa Clara (Silicon Valley Power) that has agreed to provide matching funds to the program, subject to  governing board approval. The program will be administered by the Center for Sustainable Energy (CSE), which  has administered similar programs in Southern California. More detail on funding allocations and rebate levels  will be forthcoming. Participation in the program will require Council approval later this year. The program will  tentatively launch in late spring 2020. We are working out a plan to engage our customers and help them  effectively access these funds. This is an exciting opportunity for the community, and we look forward to  discussing the program in more depth with you later this year.      Thank you,   Dean         Dean Batchelor  Director of Utilities  City of Palo Alto Utilities  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  Ph: (650) 496‐6981 | Cell: (650) 444‐6204  Dean.Batchelor@CityofPaloAlto.org           1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kimmie George <kimberlyn@berkeley.edu> Sent:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 2:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Questions From Student Researcher CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,      My name is Kimmie George, and I am a PhD student in the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley. I am currently  looking into some research questions surrounding municipalities, and would love to speak with someone from the City  Council regarding the governance of the City of Palo Alto and the offices of City Council, Mayor and Vice Mayor.     Please let me know if there is someone specific I can contact.     Thank you!    kimmie       ‐‐   Kimmie George PhD Student Haas School of Business University of California, Berkeley  To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Saturday, August 17, 2019 12:52 PM To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed Subject:New RHNA methodology and policies CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/blogs/p/2019/08/14/the-regional-housing-needs-allocation-rhna-process- explained#comment_68396 confirmed in a presentation by HCD yesterday with additional info in the first comment. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis <ealexis@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 20, 2019 7:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:San Francisco payroll tax CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/Tax/us‐tax‐san‐francisco‐tax‐update.pdf      " San Francisco Tax Update Overview Beginning January 1, 2019, a number of tax law changes will become effective in  the City of San Francisco (the “City”).     Two of these resulted from recent voter‐enacted initiatives, notably: • The Homelessness Gross Receipts Tax, which was  passed on the November 6, 2018 ballot, is imposed on the gross receipts of a business above $50,000,000 that are  attributable to the City. The monies raised are intended to fund services for the homeless. The Homelessness Gross  Receipts tax is in addition to, and incorporates the rules, of the existing City Gross Receipts Tax (“GRT”); and • The  Commercial Rents Tax, which passed on the June 5, 2018 ballot, is imposed on the gross receipts earned from a lease or  sublease, at the rates of 3.5% for commercial space and 1% for warehouses and industrial space in the City. The monies  raised are intended to fund early child care and education. In addition, the City enacted an economic presence nexus  rule, whereby a remote seller or service provider with more than $500,000 in annual gross receipts attributable to the  City will be considered as “engaging in business within the City”, and therefore subject to registration and gross receipts  tax filing requirements. 1     Finally, the City also announced that the Payroll Expense Tax, which was originally scheduled to phase out in 2018  will remain in place at the rate of 0.38%.   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:06 PM To:Council, City Cc:Dave Price; editor@paweekly.com Subject:A slow-motion disaster | CalMatters CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  https://calmatters.org/commentary/pensions‐taxes‐slow‐motion‐disaster/     To the Palo Alto City Council:     Per the linked above article, how is our City Council facing up to the City of Palo Alto's $900 million in unfunded  employee pension liabilities?     By passing 3% salary increases for employees, and approving costly council chambers improvements ‐  that the City  cannot actually afford?    By dedicating $3 million of money that the City really doesn't have ‐ to teacher housing?     By proposing to spend an extra $367,000 on  a North Ventura process that relies on converting the Fry's location to  housing, even though the owner of the Fry's location says they don't plan to convert the Fry's location to housing as it  doesn't make economic sense?    By not appointing a city auditor as required by the City charter, to better watch over city finances, programs, and things  like pension obligations?    Please don't continue to kick the can down the road, but face up to the huge and close to unsurmountable obligations  the City has placed upon itself, and its taxpayers.     Thank you.    Best,    Kathy Jordan          1 Brettle, Jessica From:Bob English <rmenglish@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 19, 2019 1:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Thank you for your parking policies 2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    These are cars parked in Menlo Park, to use the train in Palo Alto. The drivers park here and walk a half mile or more  because parking near the train station in Palo Alto is highly restricted. Thus in one classic Palo Alto policy move, people  are discouraged from using public transit, and the local costs of that transit are exported to the city’s neighbors.    I appreciate this. It serves as a daily reminder of the neighborly spirit of Palo Alto and it’s government.    Robert English  Menlo Park, CA    Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 20, 2019 5:29 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan; Tanner, Rachael Subject:Thank you! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members: Thank you for supporting the continuation of the NVCAP process. I know it was a tough call for you. Please allow me to tell you why I think it’s bound ultimately to succeed now: 1. You have amazing volunteers who want to serve and do a good job. They did the right thing in coming forward and crying foul of the previous process. Staff wisely “stopped the presses” to regroup. Good for them. 2. The members of the working group have LEARNED a lot during NVCAP 1.0 and will be able to proceed with that experience to draw on. 3. On their own, the members stepped up and recruited help. Experienced mentors Karen Holman and Pat Burt don't seem to mind providing clarification, based on their own expertise as former mayors themselves as well as their deep knowledge of SOFA. Their involvement will save staff time. 4. Also staffing issues seem to be resolving. We are very excited to see such competence as evidenced last night by the new assistant planning director Rachel Tanner’s informed contribution to the discussion. 5. Plus there is renewed hope and the will to succeed. I think clearing the air and having staff be responsive to the working group members helps build up trust and pivot us all in the fresh direction. Once again, thank you to Council Members who supported this vision, and to the minority in this case, one can see your point of view, especially in light of Sobrato waffling a bit. However, even with the owner's lack of a pulse, there is plenty that can be done to build this plan without their involvement. Perhaps they’ll find their attitudes alter over time as this exciting process moves forward. Thank you. 2 Becky Sanders Ventura Neighborhood 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 20, 2019 5:43 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Ventura Traffic Woes CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members and City Manager:    Ken Joye was accurate last night in pointing out that there is something amiss when traffic is slowed to one lane so that  traffic takes turns in each direction, and there are no bike paths and no sidewalks.  How does a construction company  get to do that? And can they really do that during the commute hour?  Are they paying the city for the privilege of  staging their equipment in bike lanes, let alone the parking lane and taking up a full lane to boot? I'd like to see  something done about this massive disruption on a major commuter/biking/walking thoroughfare.     Thank you.    Becky Sanders  1 Brettle, Jessica From:John Eaton <johneaton@pacbell.net> Sent:Thursday, August 15, 2019 11:23 AM To:Council, City Subject:Waymo cars in our neighborhood CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council, We have been seeing a LOT of Waymo cars driving multiple times down our street (Guinda) and on Fulton, Lincoln etc recently. This is not a one-time occurrence, we have had probably 20 drive-by’s in the last month or so. One evening a Waymo car drove twice down our street in less than an hour. As they are on residential streets like Fulton, Guinda, Lincoln – thoroughfares for kids biking to Addison, Green, Paly, Walter Hays etc.. I don’t think it’s appropriate or entirely safe for our community. I’m all for autonomous driving, but I think Tesla’s approach of extracting data from personal cars is a better system, where I don’t think having Waymo pummel our city with more traffic is appropriate. I sent a complaint to Waymo and got a somewhat generic response- see below. But as they mention working closely with local officials, I was just wondering if the city is aware of the volume of Waymo driving that is done in Palo Alto? I just wanted to point out my observations. And I also would like to thank all of the council members for your time with all of the important community service issues you have to deal with every day!  Best regards, John Eaton Guinda Street {REDACTED} m From: Waymo Support [mailto:support@waymo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 10:00 AM To: johneaton@pacbell.net Subject: RE: [3-2184000027300] Your Waymo Feedback Hi John, Thank you for taking the time to reach out to us and share your feedback. Waymo’s mission is to make it safe and easy for people to move around, and in doing so, improve mobility and road safety. We care deeply about the safety and comfort of all road users. We work closely with local officials, public safety, and members of the community where we operate. More details about our safety program can be found at Waymo.com/safety. As a next step, I’ve shared your note with our team and we will carefully review this situation. Feel free to reach back out if you have any questions. 2 To learn more about self-driving technology and for regular updates, please check LetsTalkSelfDriving.com and/or Waymo.com. All the best, Andrew To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this pictInternet. Website | YouTube | Blog Work on the Caltrain Business Plan began in spring 2017 after the agency awarded contracts for construction of the Caltrain Electrification project that allows the system to replace decades-old diesel equipment with modernized electric trains. When complete, Caltrain Electrification will immediately improve the system's capacity, service frequency and travel times, but the strategies recommended in the final Business Plan will need to be implemented to fully realize the benefits that electrification makes possible. The Business Plan will be completed with input from communities along the corridor and is anticipated to be a year-long process. ### About Ca/train: Owned and operated by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, Ca/train provides commuter rail service from San Francisco to San Jose, with limited commute service to Gilroy. Ca/train enjoyed five years of consecutive monthly ridership increases, surpassing more than 65,000 average weekday riders. While the Joint Powers Board assumed operating responsibilities for the service in 1992, the railroad celebrated 150 years of continuous passenger service in 2014. Planning for the next 150 years of Peninsula rail service, Ca/train is on pace to electrify the system, reduce diesel emissions by 97 percent by 2040 and add more service to more stations. Like us on Facebook at www.caltrain.com and follow on Twitter @Caltrain. Free translation assistance is available. Para traducci6n llama al 1.800.660.4287; :!zr.Ji\'H~~'~m 1.800.660.4287. Cal, •. NEWS Media Contact: Tasha Bartholomew, 650.508.7927 Page 2 of /'1- • PALO ALTO TO: FROM: CITY OF PALO ALTO MEMORANDUM HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL MOLLY STUMP, CITY ATTORNEY COUNCIL MEETING ~ 8-19-2019 16 !!!!!IZl!'!!"R-ec-e~iv-ed"!""B!!""e~fo-r-e "!"'!M~ee-t~in-g AGENDA DATE: AUGUST 19, 2019 ID# 10572 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION FOR CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION ON ESTABLISHMENT OF A RAIL BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE TO ADVISE THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE SELECTION, FUNDING, AND SUPPORT FOR GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS On Behalf of Mayor Filseth and Council Member Kniss, the City on Friday received the attached email from the Fair Political Practices Commission. MOLLY STUMP CITY ATTORNEY From: Matthew Christy Stump Mp!Jy To: Subject: Infonnal Assistance Regarding the caltraln Corridor Crossings Friday, August 16, 2019'12:29:08 PM Date: CAUTION: 'l'his email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Molly, Please find below our informal assistance regarding whether Mayor Filseth or Councilmember Kniss may take part in decisions relating to the City of Palo Alto's potential formation of an advisory committee regarding the siting of crossings of the Caltrain Corridor within the City. We will continue work on your formal advice request, No. A-19-159, regarding future decisions relating to the Caltrain Corridor. In the meantime, please let me know if you have questions or concerns relating to this informal assistance or that formal advice request. QUESTIONS In light of the Stump Advice Letter, No. A-18-106, does the Act prohibit: 1. Mayor Filseth from taking part in governmental decisions relating to the formation of an advisory committee regarding the siting of crossings of the Caltrain rail corridor tracks, given that the closest remaining crossing option under consideration is located nearly 1.5 miles from the Mayor's residence? 2. Councilmember Kniss from taking part in those decisions, given that the "citywide" tunnel option has been eliminated and none of the remaining crossing options under consideration is located within 1,000 feet of the multi-family residential rental property in which the Councilmember has an ownership interest? CONCLUSIONS 1. No. The Act does not prohibit the Mayor from taking part in decisions relating to the City's formation of the advisory committee because it is not reasonably foreseeable that those decisions would have a material financial effect on his real property interest in his residence based on the facts presented. 2. No. The Act does not prohibit the Councilmember from taking part in those decisions because it is not reasonably foreseeable that those decisions would have a material financial effect on the Councilmember's interests in the multi-family residential rental property based on the facts presented. This analysis i_ncorporates by reference the facts presented in the Stump Advice Letter, No. A-18-106 and the additional facts presented in your request letter dated July 11, 2019. .I ANALYSIS The Act's conflict of interest provisions prohibit a public official from taking part in a governmental decision if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision would have a material financial effect on one or more of the official's financial interests distinguishable from the decision's effect on the public generally. (Sections 87100 and 87103.) An official's interests that may give rise to a disqualifying conflict of interest under the Act are identified in Section 87100. Mayor Filseth has a real property interest in his residence assuming he has an interest worth $2,000 or more in that property. Councilmember Kniss has a real property interest in her multi-family residential rental property assuming she has an interest worth $2,000 or more in that rental property, a business interest in her property management business that manages that rental property if she has an investment worth $2,000 or more in that business, and a source of income interest in that business if she aggregates $500 or more in income from the business in the 12 months preceding the decision at issue. A public official always has an interest in his or her personal finances and those of immediate family members. Eoreseeabi!itv and Materiality Regulation 18701(b) provides that a decision's effect on an official's interest that is not explicitly involved in the decision at issue is reasonably foreseeable if it "can be recognized as a realistic possibility and more than hypothetical or theoretical." Maypr Eilseth Regulation 18702.5 sets forth the materiality standard applicable to a decision's reasonably foreseeable financial effect on an official's personal finances or those of an immediate family member, and subdivision (c) of that regulation provides that if the decision affects the official's interest in a business or a real property, materiality is determined under Regulation 18702.1 or Regulation 18702.2. Therefore, we apply Regulation 18702.2 to determine whether decisions relating to the potential formation of the advisory committee would have a disqualifying effect on the Mayor's interests at issue. Regulation 18702.2(b) provides that the reasonably foreseeable financial effect of a decision involving property 1,000 feet or more from the official's real property interest is pres~med immaterial unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the decision would have a substantial effect on the official's real property interest. Whereas the Mayor's residence was located within 500 feet of a crossing under consideration at the time of the Stump Advice Letter, No. A-18-106, the closest crossing site still under consideration is nearly 1.5 miles away from the Mayor's residence. Thus, Regulation 18702.2(b) applies rather than Regulation 18702.2(a)(7) (colloquially known as the Act's "500 foot rule") . There is no indication that the decisions relating to the City's potential formation of the advisory committee wou_ld have a substantial effect on the Mayor's residence. Therefore, based on the facts presented, the Act does not prohibit the Mayor from taking part in those decisions because it is not reasonably foreseeable that they would have a material financial effect on the Mayor's real property interest in his residence. Coyncilmember Kojss Regulation 18702.3 sets forth the Act's materiality standards applicable to a decision's reasonably foreseeable effect on an official's source of income interest, and subdivision (a)(4) provides that a decision's effect on such an interest is material if the source is a business that will be financially affected under the materiality standards of Regulation 18702.1. As noted above, Regulation 18702.S sets forth the materiality standard applicable to a decision's reasonably foreseeable financial effect on an official's personal finances or those of an immediate family member, and subdivision (c) of that regulation provides that if the decision affects the official's interest in a business or a real property, materiality is determined under Regulation 18702.1 or Regulation 18702.2. Therefore, we apply Regulations 18702.1and18702.2 to determine whether decisions relating to the potential formation of the advisory committee would have a disqualifying effect on the Councilmember's interests at issue. Regulation 18702.1 provides the materiality standards applicable to a decision's reasonably foreseeable financial effect on an official's business interest. The Fair Political Practices Commission repealed the former version of Regulation 18702.1, and adopted a new version of that regulation, at its regular meeting on July 23, 2019. The analysis below applies Regulation 18702.1 as updated. Regulation 18702.l(a)(4) provides that a decision's reasonably foreseeable financial effect on an official's business interest is material if the official knows or has reason to know that the business has an interest in real property and there is clear and convincing evidence the decision would have a substantial effect on that interest. Because the Councilmember also has a real property interest in her multi-family residential rental property separate from her property management business's real property interest in that property, we apply Regulation 18702.2 to determine whether decisions relating to the potential formation of advisory committee would have a disqualifying effect on the Councilmember's real property interest in her multi-family residential rental property. Regulation 18702.l(a)(2) provides that a decision's reasonably foreseeable financial effect is material if the decision may result in an increase or decrease of the business's annual gross revenues, or the value of the business's assets or liabilities in an amount equal to or more than five percent of the business's annual gross revenues and the increase or decrease at issue is at least $10,000. Based on the facts presented, there is no indication that decisions relating to potential formation of the advisory committee would result in any increase or decrease in the Councilmember's real property management business's annual gross revenues. Therefore, it is not reasonably foreseeable that those decisions would have a material financial effect on the Councilmember's business interest in her property management business. . .f As noted above, Regulation 18702.2(b) provides that the reasonably foreseeable financial effect of a decision involving property 1,000 feet or more from the official's real property interest is presumed immaterial unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the decision would have a substantial effect on the official's real property interest. The facts presented provide no indication that decisions relating to the potential advisory committee would have any financial effect on the Councilmember's real property interest in her multi-family residential rental property. Therefore, the Act does not prohibit Councilmember Kniss from taking part in those decisions because it is not reasonably foreseeable that they would have a material financial effect on her real property interest in her multi-family residential rental property. Please contact me if you have additional questions or concerns relating to this matter. Sincerely, Matthew F. Christy Commission Counsel Fair Political Practices Commission mchristy@fppc.ca.gov 916.322.5789 The Political Reform Act is contained in Government Code Sections 81000 through 91014. All statutory references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise indicated. The regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission are contained in Sections 18110 through 18997 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations. All regulatory references are to Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, unless otherwise indicated. This email advice is not a final decision of the Fair Political Practices Commission (the "Commission") and does not alter any legal right or liability, does not create an attorney/client relationship, nor does it provide immunity to the requester under Government Code Section 83114. The Political Reform Act (Government Code Sections 81000 through 91014) and the Commission regulations (Sections 18110 through 18997) are on the Commission's website. Formal written advice is offered by request and, in some cases, offers public officials a complete defense in any enforcement proceeding initiated by the Commission, and evidence of good faith conduct in any other civil or criminal proceeding. (Section 83114(b); Regulation 18329.) Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any review, use, disclosure, or distribution not authorized by the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and de'stroy all copies of the original message.