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.