Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190128plCC 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: 01/28/2019 Document dates: 01/09/2019 – 01/16/2019 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Carnahan, David From:Janice Hough <janicehough@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, January 12, 2019 11:31 AM To:Transportation; Council, City Subject:The Middlefield North Traffic Experiment. Hello folks    I am a resident of Downtown North    I think the Middlefield North Traffic Experiment should be ended, the barriers taken away, and turn restrictions put back  in place for peak hours.    Here are my reasons.    In short, it is too draconian a solution to a problem, and bad for the environment.    Yes, during rush hours it is dangerous to turn left on Middlefield from Everett and Hawthorne.  But off‐peak hours and  weekends it is not nearly so bad, and just requires paying attention, as most driving does.    At this point, even at 6a on a Saturday, or Sunday afternoon, or whenever, residents of Downtown North must go  several blocks at least out of their way,  5‐10 minutes of extra time on the road to make that left turn onto Middlefield,  which is the logical way to head to San Francisco and the airport, amongst other places. That is more gas used, and more  pollution    The narrowed Middlefield  backs up traffic on a regular basic.  Which results in lots of idling and again, it's bad for the  environment. Indeed, Palo Alto has a rule against excessive idling for that reason.   It can take longer to get from say,  Willow to Lytton, or from University to Willow, than to drive from Menlo Park to Downtown, for example.    One argument for the barriers is that people don't obey turn restrictions.  One day a week for a few hours having police  officers issue expensive tickets necessitating traffic school should cure that problem.    Sincerely,      Janice Hough  189 Bryant Street  Palo Alto, CA 94301    1 Carnahan, David From:Roy Stehle <rstehle@windband.org> Sent:Saturday, January 12, 2019 5:31 PM To:Council, City Cc:Roy Stehle; Gary Richards; Palo Alto Daily Post Subject:Urging Council not to vote to accept the Middlefield North configuration Mayor Filseth and Council Members,    I am writing to strongly request that the City Council not accept the Current Configuration of the Middlefield Road North  Traffic Study Project. I have some serious concerns about parts of the implementation and I do not feel that the public  has been given adequate notice that a report was available and given an adequate opportunity to comment. A  procedural consent vote, scheduled for this coming Monday to adopt what has been implemented should be delayed.    I only became aware, through the Council's Meeting Agenda e‐mail, that a report existed and that the consent vote had  been scheduled. I've wanted to submit my comments on problems I and my wife have encountered with parts of the  implementation. Until recently, the large white signs were still posted on poles along Middlefield Road, suggesting that  the project was still under review. The report is only dated January 3, 2019. On a matter this serious, I would have  expected newspaper articles and NextDoor comments. The Public Opinion Survey was restricted to the small area  immediately adjacent to the project and did not solicit comments from the public commuting through the project.    Over 50 years ago, my wife and I chose our home on Garland Drive to have a convenient route, via Middlefield Road, to  my work (recently retired) at SRI International, our church, our daughter's family residence, friends, and shopping. Over  those decades, we have experienced the traffic along Middlefield Road and the neighborhoods.    I understand the Council's desire to make traveling the road safe and efficient. My experience over the pilot period is  that this goal has not been achieved at two major intersections. The University to Everett stretch is the most in need of  correction and some minor change at Embarcadero would be beneficial. (I recognize that the Embarcadero intersection  is not a part of this report and vote, but it is part of the overall Middlefield road diet and needs to be considered.) I feel  that the improvements in safety and travel time shown in the Alta Planning report are not as optimistic as reported  because of lack of commuter input, specifically with regard to unreported incidents.      Middlefield Road from University Avenue to Everett Avenue  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    The project has been effective in reducing the collisions that had occurred from travelers on the side streets turning  onto Middlefield. I am most concerned about the decrease in safety that my wife and I feel in our travels northbound on  Middlefield due to the installation of the forced left turn lane at Lytton and the immediate reduction to one lane there.  Our travel time has also been impacted by this configuration. The parallel streets have also been negatively impacted by  diverting traffic.    I am requesting that the northbound configuration pre‐project be restored with two lanes tapering to one at Everett.  The left turn only restriction would be removed between University and Lytton.    This stretch of Middlefield is complicated by the presence of the major arterial that is University Avenue. I would  estimate 30% of the vehicles northbound on Middlefield turn right onto University. This slows down the traffic in lane #2  (closest to the curb). Because of the left turn lane on Middlefield beginning at University, through traffic needs to be  queued in the #2 lane. I have been in a single line of cars in the #2 lane that stretched almost to Forest Avenue; the #1  2 lane had only one or two cars stopped at University. When you add in the waiting time to go through two or three signal  cycles, the average delay is increased significantly more than the 3 to 10 seconds noted in the report.    This imbalance in lane function and queues creates the most serious problems to occur in the block between University  and Lytton. My wife and I have both, on different occasions, been subjected to near collisions. Waiting at the limit line at  Lytton for the light to turn green in the through‐traffic lane, we have been forced toward the curb, when the light  changed, to avoid a collision from a vehicle in the left turn lane that simultaneously drove forward on Middlefield. This  was a clear violation of the vehicle code and collisions were avoided only by quick reactions on our parts. While traveling  in the through lane after University, we have witnessed at least six vehicles drive straight forward from the left turn  lane.    The lack of vehicles in the #1 lane approaching University causes motorists to "roll the dice" and figure they can force  merge into the thick line of traffic in the through‐lane. This results in many "dive bombers" and more near collisions.  There is no good way to explain to traffic that the left lane after University is a forced turn. The signs are small and close  to University. It is also unfriendly to visitors to Palo Alto. I have seen cars westbound on University turn right into the  northbound Middlefield left turn lane, because the through lane was filled with vehicles. Only then did they discover  that they are in a left turn lane. At that point, they signal for entry into the filled through lane, blocking cars that did  want to enter the left turn lane. Because the through traffic vehicles sat through multiple signal cycles to get where the  were, many of those drivers didn't want to let those unfortunate cars or the dive bombers into their lane. Also, people  who find themselves in the forced left turn lane don't want to turn left because there isn't any easy way to get back on  Middlefield because of the left turn restrictions implemented at Everett and Hawthorne.    These extremely dangerous conditions never happened when two lanes were permitted northbound before the  project.  Collisions weren't occurring there. There is sufficient distance from Lytton to Everett for traffic to merge into  one lane that wouldn't have the collision potentials and delays of the configuration implemented by the project. The #1  lane would have a green arrow along with the green allowing drivers in the #1 lane to turn left or go forward with a safer  merge. An overhead sign at Lytton would make it clear that a merge was required for through traffic.    The report noted significant intersection turning movements causing many backups that hadn't existed before the  project. Increasing the northbound lane back to the original two at Lytton would reduce these backups.    The report found that traffic and speeds have increased in the parallel roads. This is caused by people who have safety  or time concerns about the changed configuration on this portion of Middlefield.    It should be intuitive that two lanes are necessary at traffic signal to accomplish the traffic flow rate along a single lane  road. This is due to the need for vehicle acceleration and inter‐vehicle spacing requirements. This configuration was  eliminated at the Middlefield intersections at University and Lytton, reducing safety and traffic flow.      Middlefield Road at Embarcadero Road  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    I have written to the City's Transportation Department about problems created by the incorporation of left turn only  lanes. I have not received any word from then. The provided queue length is too short to allow an adequate number of  cars to enter the lane   because the backup in the straight‐through single lane line of cars exceeds the length of the left turn lane. This causes  left turning drivers to wait though one or more signals when the left turn lane is visibly empty. I had asked if the double  solid line   could be painted broken on the one side to allow legal passing of cars to enter the left turn lane. Usually, there are no  cars coming from the opposite direction and the maneuver can be accomplished safely. It would be unreasonable to  property owners to   remove more curbside parking to extend the left turn lanes.  3   A suggested solution, which did exist for a short time during the initial project, was to have a green left arrow active at  the same time as the green straight ahead light, alternating northbound and southbound directions. More cars would be  able to pass   through the intersection than when the left turn is a separate part of the cycle.    A better solution would be to return the intersection to its original, pre‐project configuration and the removal of the  intimidating "Right Turn Only"  labels for the northbound curbside lane on front of the Walter Hays Elementary School.      Conclusion  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    The Middlefield Road North Traffic Safety Project End‐pilot Report was just produced on January 3, 2019 and consists of  158 pages with much information to read and understand. To my knowledge, this is the first time that residents of Palo  Alto have seen   the report. The survey conducted by the project included too small a set of the population to be fully representative. I  feel that there are conditions of unsafe operations along Middlefield that have not received sufficient recognition in the  report.    While there have been significant benefits in the elimination of crashes, problems have arisen because of constriction of  traffic due to the implementation of left turn only lanes. I am requesting that Council withhold approval of the presently  implemented   Middlefield roadway configuration until more study and input from the public can be received. I have suggested some  configuration changes that would improve both safety and traffic flow along this corridor. I would appreciate their  review.    Textbook designs often fail when implemented in the real world. The Ross Road project is one example. In this case of  Middlefield Road, poorly implemented left turn only configurations need fixing. More public input is required.      Sincerely,        Roy Stehle      Garland Drive, Palo Alto      Former technical advisor to TravInfo      Former member of FHWA's National ITS Architecture Technical Review Team      1 Carnahan, David From:dbmoos1 <dbmoos1@earthlink.net> Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 7:19 AM To:Council, City Subject:Middlefield-University traffic diet? I rarely use Middlefield Rd north of University however was reminded about the dangerous changes to the Middlefield‐ University traffic lanes by a post on Nextdoor. The changes mean that northbound through traffic has to move to the left  lane before reaching University, and change to the right lane inside the intersection or within the very short stretch of  road between there and Lytton.  The consequence is confusion, rapid lane changes, long backups due to getting stuck in  the wrong lane, or illegally going straight instead of turning.  It’s dangerous, wasteful of time and fuel, increases pollution and congestion, and exhausting mentally and physically.  Please remove the restrictions, or, ADD extra pavement for turn only lanes. This and other attempts to put roads on  diets are expensive wrong headed and ineffective.  Respectfully;  Daniel Moos    Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:Rosalie <shep8283@comcast.net> Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 6:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Concerning Middlefield vote to approve new configuration Dear Council Members,    I have lived on Middlefield Rd. for 25 years, just south of Embarcadero.  This intersection gets more confusing for drivers  every time the city tries to FIX it.      Please take more time before you vote to approve anything.  There are many many pages to read and digest in this  project.Why hasn’t this been brought to the attention of the citizens of Palo Alto.     What is the hurry?  We need more time.  We live here!!    Rosalie Shepherd  Middlefield Rd.   2 Carnahan, David From:Susan Wolfe <wolfeperson@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 5:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please do not approve the Middlefield Road traffic configurations As Middlefield Road is newly configured, there are several lane reductions that are abrupt and dangerous. Cars getting  trapped unawares in a turn lane who don’t want to turn take dangerous risks to stay on Middlefield. Please insist that  these design mistakes are fixed before you approve anything.    We already have one disaster with Ross Road. Please don’t finalize another one.    Thank you and regards,  Susan Wolfe  350 Campesino Avenue     Sent from my iPhone  3 Carnahan, David From:rogersac@aol.com Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 6:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:Middlefield Road diet Dear Council Members. Thank you for your concern about traffic around Palo Alto and spending time and effort in discussing how to improve efficient traffic flow. I am concerned about the fact that Middlefield Road test project may be approved without discussion about the effects to parallel streets. According to the article in Palo Alto online, it seems that traffic is using parallel streets as an alternate to using Middlefield Road. Is this the ultimate goal of the traffic diet? Have any of the residents on the streets near Middlefield been asked how this is affecting their streets? Have there been more accidents on these streets? Do residents of these streets find it harder to enter or leave their driveways or their street into intersecting streets? I think the effects of this diet in respect to the full neighbourhood should be investigated. Sincerely, Carol Rogers, 3395 Stockton Place. 4 Carnahan, David From:Lorraine Menuz <lmenuz@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 7:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Middlefield configurations You keep promising to do your best for Palo Alto residents. Then you implement all kinds of stupid traffic configurations  to slow traffic and make it more dangerous for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.  Stop all these ludicrous changes.  They just cost lots of money and do nothing to solve the problem. Leave the roads alone!   Your law telling motorists to turn off their cars just causes more traffic jams.    The city council has turned a beautiful accessible city of neighborhood small shops into high end big business city.   STOP 🛑 !    Sent from my iPhone    5 Carnahan, David From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 8:51 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:Middlefield Road Project Council Members:    The Middlefield North Traffic Project is a success by any measure. The project required 5 years of dedicated effort by  residents in collaboration with city staff to reach this point. The final report is clear in its endorsement of the changes.    Most of those posting comments against the project say that it does not solve the problem of traffic congestion or  dangerous driver behavior. These issues are beyond the scope of the Middlefield project. The reconfiguration of  Middlefield was designed to improve safety for all users of this area; drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians and residents, and it  has succeeded.  In particular, residents are grateful to no longer have cars crashing onto the sidewalks and into our front  yards.    Based on the resident survey and the data collected and detailed in the report, this project is a success. Take the win and  move on to address the more difficult challenges of city‐wide traffic congestion.    Thank you,  John Guislin    1 Carnahan, David From:Andrea Lichter <andrealichter@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 10:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:Middlefield Road North Traffic Safety Project Dear Council Members,    It’s great when the city and residents partner and collaborate to solve problems.  The Middlefield Road North Project is a positive  example in that it resulted in a significant increase in the safety and well‐being of those who live on/or near that stretch of  Middlefield Road and those who travel the road everyday.  Prior to the pilot, car crashes/collisions and/or screeching tires were  everyday sounds.      Some will say it is an inconvenience and it may take longer to negotiate the neighborhood.  I know it can take several minutes for  getting out of our driveway onto Middlefield, but I find people stop to let me in if I am patient.  (It feels good to give a “thank you”  wave so early in the morning.)     Safely and well‐being of our community should be the most important thing and it’s hard to argue with the data.  I urge you to adopt  the current configuration as a permanent feature.    Respectfully,  Andrea Lichter  212 Middlefield Road    2 Carnahan, David From:beth.guislin@gmail.com Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 10:23 AM To:Council, City Cc:Rius, Rafael; Aggarwal, Ruchika Subject:Please approve Middlefield Road configuration: Safety is highest priority, and it has improved greatly Council Members,  Please approve the current configuration of Middlefield Road that was in the trial. The trial configuration has  resulted in increased safety considerably, and particularly for pedestrians on the sidewalks and in crosswalks. I  live on Middlefield, and my main reason for advocating for the trial was to improve safety. We no longer have  cars coming on to the sidewalks in accidents. As one neighbor wrote to Palo Alto Weekly, she is no longer  needs to call 911 to report serious accidents.     Before the trial Middlefield had two lanes of traffic in each direction, and the northbound lanes merged to  one‐lane north of Everett. When traffic was not congested, drivers heading northbound on Middlefield often  raced to see who could get ahead, sometimes with serious safety concerns for pedestrians and motorists alike.  Yes, Middlefield is a Residential Arterial—but all streets need to be safe.      The Transportation department has done an excellent job reaching out to the community, providing models  for review at public meetings, and listening to concerns. This Middlefield trial is a fine example of how to  engage citizens.     Thank you.     Beth Guislin          3 Carnahan, David From:Hal Prince <hal@aya.yale.edu> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 10:11 AM To:Aggarwal, Ruchika; John Guislin; Rius, Rafael; Council, City Subject:Resident comments on Middlefield Rd project Council,    I live on Middlefield Rd in the area of the project under discussion tonight.     The project has made a HUGE difference to the safety of Middlefield Rd in that area.     The number of accidents, once very high, is now basically zero.     The crosswalks give us a chance to cross the street safely.     Bicyclists no longer have to compete with cars in too‐narrow lanes.     The middle turn lane means that cars making left turns can do so without impeding traffic flow.     My neighbors and I are very much in favor of making the project permanent.    Regards,    Hal Prince  211 Middlefield Rd  Palo Alto  1 Carnahan, David From:Marion Odell <marionodell7@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 1:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Middlefield/Everett I live on Everett and am so pleased with the Middlefield/Everett intersection. The improvements this past year have  made my family feel so much safer every day. I read the results of the study in today's Daily and am pleased with the  reduction of accidents at the intersection.  Marion Odell  resident on Everett.  2 Carnahan, David From:Ryan McCauley <ryanjoemccauley@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 2:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Middlefield Road Pilot Dear Councilmembers:     I’m writing to request that you please remove the Middlefield Road reconfiguration from the consent calendar for  tonight’s meeting and ask staff to further engage with the community and most‐impacted neighborhoods about the  Middlefield pilot project.  Everyone in our community wants safe and effective roadways – those goals are not exclusive  of one another – and the Middlefield configuration can (and should) be further improved.  As outlined in the staff and  consultant reports (and as felt acutely by surrounding neighborhoods), the impacts of the Middlefield pilot are  significant and far‐reaching.  We have time to get this right and there is no urgency to end the pilot now.  I’d like to offer  the following reasons why the pilot should be continued to find the best balance for this important corridor:     ∙        Effective arterials are essential.  The intention of the Middlefield pilot has been, in essence, to  reduce the efficiency of the Lytton‐to‐Menlo Park corridor to improve safety.  Safety is always  imperative, but we need to implement mechanisms that directly address safety issues while also  promoting efficient arterials.   o   The results of the several traffic studies are a mixed bag in many respects (e.g., reported  accidents in the past 18 months are down but dangerous “near‐misses” are up sharply), but one  effect is clear:  the reconfiguration of Middlefield has pushed traffic onto neighborhood side  streets and, from my perspective, significantly impacted safety on those side streets that are not  designed to support the volume or speed of traffic on Middlefield.  (My street — in line with  observations for most side streets in the area — has seen a traffic increase of approximately  150%.)  It is axiomatic that constraining one part of the arterial network will necessarily impact  the alternative paths.  That has unquestionably happened, but the negative effects of the  reconfiguration seem to have been given short shrift.      o   For example, during the Middlefield pilot, the traffic conditions on Lytton and University have  deteriorated significantly.  The Middlefield‐Willow Road corridor is an important access route to  and from downtown Palo Alto and the principal alternative to University.  Recognizing that  multiple factors are in play and that traffic patterns are dynamic, the constraints placed on the  Middlefield‐Willow corridor seem to have exacerbated the horrible traffic situation on  University.  (During peak evening commute times, traffic on University is frequently backed up  from 101 all the way to Guinda or Middlefield.  As you can see in the attached photo, which  shows traffic on Lytton that is attempting to access Middlefield, the pilot project has resulted in  significant backups stretching many blocks down Lytton too.)  In short, constraining Middlefield  traffic has significant ripple effects, only some of which have been assessed.  The impact of the  Middlefield pilot should be considered in the broader context of impacts to the arterial network  in downtown Palo Alto.        ∙        The pilot should be continued to evaluate individual traffic configurations.  I strongly favor  reasonable experimentation and support the concept of a pilot project for Middlefield, but in order to  strike the right balance, the pilot needs to control for and evaluate the effectiveness of individual sets of  traffic changes.  All at the same time, the pilot has reduced Middlefield’s lanes from four to two (with a  new center turning lane), added traffic‐directing barricades at Everett and Hawthorne (though not  3 added any illuminated crosswalk signs or crosswalk islands), and restricted access to northbound  Middlefield from Downtown North at all times.  There is no assessment of which of these changes has  improved safety.  Two examples:  o   Pedestrian safety is one of the top goals for the Middlefield pilot.  I typically cross north  Middlefield with my family several times a week walking to the Willows Market or another  location east of Middlefield.  As a pedestrian, I do not perceive significant safety improvements  from the intersection changes at Everett and Hawthorne.  Indeed, my experience is that  frustrated commuters who have been stuck in long queues trying to get out of downtown drive  faster and are less likely to yield for pedestrians than they were previously.  If pedestrian safety  is a key goal – and everyone is in agreement on that – then there is far more to be done (e.g.,  the increasingly common solar‐powered, lighted crosswalk signs at either Everett or Hawthorne  would be a real game changer) to reasonably improve pedestrian safety and keep traffic  moving.       o   As a second example, the restricted access from Downtown North to northbound  Middlefield/Willow during all hours seems unnecessary and counterproductive.  (Access to  arterials is important too and far busier roadways that support much faster‐moving traffic (e.g.,  Embarcadero and Alma) don’t feature any similar draconian restrictions.)  That is particularly the  case now that the entire stretch of Middlefield from Menlo Park to Lytton features a center turn  lane and any accidents from left‐turning vehicles would presumably be substantially  reduced.  There has been no assessment of whether the around‐the‐clock restricted access to  Middlefield is necessary, but again, that change has forced traffic onto other very narrow  neighborhood streets (e.g., Byron Street, which does not support two‐way traffic when vehicles  are parked on the side).  Someone leaving Downtown North to access Willow Road/101 now  adds trips down side streets to Lytton and then to Middlefield instead of accessing Middlefield  directly.  During non‐peak commute hours, this extended route – which only adds trips on more  side streets and Lytton – is inefficient and not a safety improvement.     Finally, I want to acknowledge that staff are doing great work as they try to deal with many vexing traffic problems and  assess what sometimes amounts to mountains of conflicting feedback.  Their jobs are not easy ones and their work is  appreciated.  In this instance, I believe that we can and should do more to make the Middlefield corridor both safe and  effective; continuing the pilot and assessing different traffic options and their effects is necessary to strike the right  balance.      Thanks for your consideration of this important issue.    Ryan McCauley  4 Carnahan, David From:Tim Lindholm <timlindholm@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 11:53 AM To:Council, City Cc:Rius, Rafael; Aggarwal, Ruchika Subject:Resident feedback in support of Middlefield Project Dear Palo Alto Council and Staff,    I would like to express my strong support for the modified configuration for Middlefield North, and hope that it will be  made permanent.    I have first‐hand experience with the results of the prior configuration. Crashes were frequent and most of the  dangerous "T‐Bone" variety. Cars ended up on sidewalks and in yards, as there was nowhere else to go. Cycling was  suicidal. Traffic backed up frequently (some people seem to be forgetting that this is not new). The four‐lane  configuration meant that when it did it was very challenging to get out of my driveway. When traffic wasn't backed up  speeds were dangerously high ‐‐ and statistics showed most crashes happening during these times, not during  congestion.    The new configuration has made life along Middlefield much better. Speeds appear to be down, visibility is improved,  and crashes appear to have stopped. Cyclists now use the road rather than the sidewalk, and pedestrians are using the  new crosswalks. I can get out of my driveway. As a daily commuter on that stretch southbound, I do not perceive an  incremental delays due to congestion or the lane reductions.    Granted, not everything is perfect, but on the balance I think the changes have transformed a road with round the clock,  well‐documented dangerous and troublesome conditions into one that is much better both for drivers and residents. I  urge you to keep the new configuration.    Best wishes,    Tim Lindholm  200 block Middlefield  1 Carnahan, David From:Ted Davids <tdavids@sonic.net> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 2:19 PM To:Council, City; Rius, Rafael; Aggarwal, Ruchika Subject:Support of Middlefield traffic alterations Hi, I generally approve of all the Middlefield Road traffic flow improvements with the following caveat. Turning left on Everett at Middlefield requires driving to Lytton and the signage is not clear on that or which cross streets are best for flow to Lytton. Thanks, Ted Davids  2 Carnahan, David From:Lucinda Abbott <lucindawabbott@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 2:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Traffic configuration between University ave and Palo Alto - Menlo Park border on NB Middlefield Rd. Mayor Filseth and Council Members, I am writing to urge that the City Council not accept the current configuration of the Middlefield Road North Traffic Study Project. I have found the implementation to be unsafe and to cause unnecessary delays. I have just been made aware that a procedural consent vote is scheduled for tonight to adopt what has been implemented. An excellent summary of the issues by Roy Stehle has been submitted to Council and I agree wholeheartedly with his analysis. Please delay the vote tonight and re-open public comment on this item. Yours, Lucinda Abbott 646 Lincoln Ave. Palo Alto 94301 650-279-3495 3 Carnahan, David From:Judy Grinberg <judygrin@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 2:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Consent Motion Re: Middlefield North and Mayor Filseth and Council Members, I am writing to strongly request that the City Council not accept the Current Configuration of the Middlefield Road North Traffic Study Project. Many have written about their concerns and I am in agreement that it is premature to approve this without further evaluation. Also, I have a even greater concern about the configuration at Middlefield and Embarcadero. The configuration is so ineffective that it has created huge traffic problems on Middlefield Road. I live on Middlefield 3/10 of a mile north of Embarcadero . I often am unable to get out of my driveway because the traffic is backed up almost 1/4 mile north from Embarcadero for two reasons. One the ineffective left turn lane which people wanting to turn left are unable to access if there are more than 4 cars in the the single lane and because there is a bus stop yards from the corner of Embarcadero going south. . When a bus is there no cars can proceed since it is now only one lane going south. This further holds up traffic, both going south and wanting to turn left onto Embarcadero.     Thanks for hearing this .    Judy Grinberg  1 Carnahan, David From:jan <jan@hamilton.com> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 5:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support North Middlefield Rd Improvements Thank you, Council Leaders!    Happy New Year,  Jan    Jan Merryweather   477 Everett Ave  Pal Alto 94301        Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.  CITY OF PALO ALTO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: 6 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL JONATHAN LAIT, INTERIM DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT JANUARY 14, 2019 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6: PUBLIC HEARING/ QUASI-JUDICIAL: 3703-3709 El Camino Real [18PLN00136]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for a Zone Change to Apply the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District to the Site, as well as Architectural Review to Allow for the Demolition of two Existing Retail Buildings and Construction of a 100 Percent Affordable Housing Project. The Project Consists of a Four-story Building Containing 59 Residential Units, two Levels of Garage Parking, and Associated Site Improvements. The Applicant Also Requests a Design Enhancement Exception to Allow for Garage and Ground Level Encroachments Into Required Rear and Street Side Yards, and a Waiver From Retail Preservation Requirements. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15194 (Affordable Housing) Staff recommends that the Conditions of Approval included in the draft Record of Land Use Action be updated to include the following clarifications, both of which reflect the applicant's proposal. Recommended text additions are shown in underline format. COA #4. AFFORDABITY REQUIREMENT AND SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING UNITS. With the exception of one manager's unit, all of the units in the project shall be deed-restricted and made available to individuals making no more than 80% of the area median income (AMI). The project shall provide no less than 25% of the total dwelling units in the development to individuals with special needs as defined in Section 51312 of the Health and Safety Code, including but not limited to individuals with mental, physical, and developmental disabilities. COA #15. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: As part ofthis project, the following off-site improvements shall be required and constructed to the satisfaction of the City prior to final occupancy. a. The required 12-foot sidewalk along the El Camino Real frontage shall be paved with city staadard sidewalk and free of vertical obstructions with the exception of street trees, street furniture, lighting, and other approved furnishings. b. Driveway on the alley shall be at sidewalk grade as per Palo Alto Public Works drawing 120. It may be modified to include curb in lieu of layers if desired. Adjust grading and drainage as required. c. Modifications or replacement of the curb ramps adjacent to ·project frontage required. At a minimum replace the Caltrans Case-C curb ramp with Caltrans Case-A ramp to provide a curb-less sidewalk area. Adjust grading and drainage as required. d. Modifications to the sidewalk, curb, and gutter on the Wilton Avenue site frontage shall not reduce the availability of existing curbside parking. lanning and Community Environment Ed Shikada City Manager 2 of 2 1 Carnahan, David From:Dina Jacobson <dinakj@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Wednesday, January 9, 2019 2:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:Wilton Court Project Palo Alto needs more affordable housing. The Wilton Court project addresses this need by providing affordable rental housing along a transportation corridor to people in our community earning between 30 -- 60% of the area median income. The project will also provide much needed housing for adults with developmental disabilities, who also live and work in this community. Palo Alto depends on the people who would qualify for this housing. Providing more affordable housing will not only help keep our community diverse, but it will also help reduce carbon emissions from cars by locating housing close to jobs and transportation. Approving this project is a small step in fighting climate change. Thank you for your leadership. Sincerely    Dina Jacobson  Santa Clara County  3 Carnahan, David From:Alex De La Campa <adelacampa@pah.community> Sent:Wednesday, January 9, 2019 6:29 PM To:Council, City Cc:Sheryl Klein Subject:Support for 3703-3709 El Camino Real Affordable housing project   Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council Members,    Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the residents and workers of the City of Palo Alto. I currently live at the California Hotel, Which happens to be a resident community professionally managed by Palo Alto Housing Corporation. I hold a job here in Palo Alto while am currently getting my BA degree at San Jose State University. I am also a veteran of the United States military, attempting to settle back into a civilian life and unfortunately, in this economy, I am not able to afford to live in non-subsidized housing.   I am in full support of Palo Alto Housing's new affordable project located at 3703-3709 El Camino Real at Wilton Avenue. Currently, the project has 59 studio and one-bedroom apartments. Twenty-one apartments will be set aside for adults with developmental disabilities. These apartments will be for households earning between 30 and 60% of area median income. The property is on a high quality transit corridor that will make it easy for residents to commute to work or other services. Adding more affordable housing units will truly help our community!     Thank you for all the support in this project!    Sincerely,    ‐‐   ALEXANDER DE LA CAMPA, Intern, Real Estate Development   a: 2595 E. Bayshore Rd. Ste. 200, Palo Alto, CA 94303  p: 650.321.9709 f: 650.321.4341   e: adelacampa@pah.community  w. pah.community     BUILDING STORIES THAT MATTER  1 Carnahan, David From:Austin Middleton <agmsfcc@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 9, 2019 6:35 PM To:Council, City; Filseth, Eric (Internal) Cc:boardchair@pah.community Subject:Affordable Housing in Palo Alto Attachments:Template - support letter.docx Please see attached letter of support.  Thank you.    Dear Mayor Filseth, I'm a resident of Sheridan Apartments in Palo Alto. I feel fortunate to have the opportunity to live in affordable housing. Without communities like Sheridan, I would not be able to stay in the Palo Alto area. I encourage you to support the creation of additional affordable housing in Palo Alto. The Wilton Court project addresses this need by providing affordable rental housing along a transportation corridor to people in our community earning between 30 -- 60% of the area median income. The project will also provide much needed housing for adults with developmental disabilities, who also live and work in this community. Palo Alto depends on the people who would qualify for this housing. Providing more affordable housing will not only help keep our community diverse, but it will also help reduce carbon emissions from cars by locating housing close to jobs and transportation. Approving this project is a small step in fighting climate change. Thank you for your leadership. Sincerely, Austin Middleton 360 Sheridan Avenue #311 Palo Alto, Ca 94303 1 Carnahan, David From:Daniel Arroyo <darroyo1@icloud.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 9, 2019 7:01 PM To:Council, City Cc:tonie Arroyo Subject:Letter of support for the proposal of Palo Alto Housing January 10, 2019 Mayor and City Council via email to: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA Dear Mayor and City Council members: On behalf of Abilities United, I am pleased to provide a letter of support for the proposal of Palo Alto Housing to develop 59 affordable studio apartments at the intersection of El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue (Wilton Court Apartments), with 21 units subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities who receive supportive services from Housing Choices and the San Andreas Regional Center. The mission of Abilities United, offering people of all ages and abilities educational, therapeutic, recreational, and vocational experiences to help them lead meaningful lives and resource connections that make it easier for them to lead the lives they chose. The Wilton Court project addresses a critical need for housing among Palo Alto’s residents with developmental disabilities. The city is currently home to more than 460 people with developmental disabilities, of whom more than 216 are adults. Of the adult population, only 40 are living in their own apartment, while 11 are living in a community care facility. One hundred sixty-five (165) of Palo Alto’s adults with developmental disabilities (approximately 76%) are living at home with aging parents. The lack of access to affordable housing is the primary reason many adults with developmental disabilities continue to live at home with aging parents--long past the time when the adult is able to and would benefit from living independently, with services provided by San Andreas Regional Center. By collaborating with Housing Choices and San Andreas Regional Center, Palo Alto Housing’s proposal for Wilton Court aligns with federal and California priorities to provide housing for people with developmental disabilities in typical community housing, with access to affordable housing coordinated with access to supportive services. In conclusion, we urge your support for Palo Alto Housing’s Wilton Court project. Sincerely, Daniel & Antoinette Arroyo Parent of Abilities United member     1 Carnahan, David From:LWV of Palo Alto <lwvpaoffice@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 10, 2019 9:33 AM To:Council, City Subject:January 14 Agenda Item Re: Wilton Court Project at 3703-3709 El Camino Real Attachments:LWVPA-CCLetter-WiltonCourt-1-14-19.pdf Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council Members,    Attached please find a letter from the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto regarding the Wilton Court Project at 3703‐3709 El Camino Real for the January 14, 2019 Agenda.    Thank You,    Aisha Piracha-Zakariya  President, LWV Palo Alto    ‐‐   League of Women Voters of Palo Alto  3921 E. Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303  Phone: (650) 903-0600  Web: www.lwvpaloalto.org  Facebook: www.facebook.com/PaloAltoLeague/  Twitter: www.twitter.com/lwvpaloalto  3921 E. BAYSHORE ROAD, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303 - (650) 903-0600 - www.lwvpaloalto.org January 14, 2019 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Agenda Item No. :_______; Wilton Court Project at 3703-3709 El Camino Real Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports City efforts to encourage the development of subsidized low to moderate and below market rate housing by private non-profit developers. The League also supports increasing multi-unit housing with access to public transportation along transportation corridors. For these reasons, we encourage you to accept the findings of the Architectural Review Board and approve the recommendations in the Staff Report to allow the non-profit Palo Alto Housing (PAH) to develop 59 studio apartments on this site. All units in the project would be deed-restricted for low and very-low income individuals including 21 units for individuals with developmental disabilities. Land appropriate for multi-unit housing is scarce in Palo Alto. This site, although small, is a good one, for it is on a bus transit corridor; it is near many services; and it is not directly adjacent to single-family homes. This is a perfect opportunity for you to apply the Affordable Housing Combining District to this site. It is also appropriate and necessary for you to waive the Retail Preservation Requirements so that this project can be economically feasible without further impacting the neighborhood with additional retail parking and traffic. We also encourage you to approve the request for the Design Enhancement Exception as this would allow for more parking spaces, which would help address the concerns of some neighbors. We also note that PAH has done much to address these parking and traffic concerns through various measures including a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program. This project will not only provide workforce housing for people we depend on in our community—but it also will provide otherwise scarce inclusive housing for adults with developmental disabilities, many of whom also work in this community. In the past, Palo Alto had been a leader in the provision of affordable housing. Now is the time for the Council to put our City back on that track. Thank you. Aisha Piracha-Zakariya President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto 1 Carnahan, David From:David Bergen <david.bergen@outlook.com> Sent:Thursday, January 10, 2019 1:54 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Council, City Cc:David Bergen Subject:Support the Wilton Court project Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council members, Palo Alto needs more affordable housing. Wilton Court addresses this need by providing affordable housing to those earning between 30 and 60% of the area median income. I support Palo Alto Housing's Wilton Court project which will create 59 affordable studio and one bedroom apartments. The project will also provide much needed housing for adults with developmental disabilities. Providing more affordable housing will help keep the economic diversity needed for a healthy and thriving city where people other than the just the very wealthy can live. Thank you for your leadership and support for this project. Sincerely, David Bergen 771 Southampton Drive, Palo Alto David.Bergen@outlook.com 1 Carnahan, David From:Mary Nemerov <mabunem@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 10, 2019 3:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please support Wilton Court Development! I am a Palo Alto citizen and homeowner and strongly encourage you to support the Wilton Court Development. Our  town needs to aggressively provide more housing for people with a range of incomes and needs. I currently like across  the street from affordable housing units in downtown Palo Alto and couldn't be happier to have those people as my  neighbors.    Best,  Mary Nemerov  Emerson Street      ‐‐   Mary Nemerov  mabunem@gmail.com  (203) 915‐5999  2 Carnahan, David From:Elizabeth Ratner <eratner@pacbell.net> Sent:Thursday, January 10, 2019 3:32 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Council, City Subject:Wilton Court proposal by Palo Alto Housing, January 14 Dear Mayor Filseth, Palo Alto is in dire need of more affordable housing. The Wilton Court project by the nonprofit Palo Alto Housing addresses this need by providing affordable rental housing along a transportation corridor to people in our community earning between 30 -- 60% of the area median income. The project will also provide much needed housing for adults with developmental disabilities, who also live and work in this community. Palo Alto depends on the people who would qualify for this housing. They may be teachers, administrative and retail workers, artists, therapists, and health care workers, to name just some of occupations which pay workers too little to afford market rate housing in Palo Alto. This proposal will not only help keep our community inclusive and diverse, but it will also help reduce carbon emissions from cars by locating affordable housing close to jobs and transportation. Approving this project would also be a small step in fighting climate change. Thank you for your leadership. Sincerely, Lisa Ratner Carlson Circle Palo Alto __._,_.___ 1 Carnahan, David From:Loree Draude <loreedraude@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 10, 2019 9:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Wilton Court development Hello City Council,    As a Palo Alto resident and home owner, I'm writing in support of the Wilton Court development. Please approve this  project and help to keep economic diversity in Palo Alto.     Thank you,  Loree Draude  2 Carnahan, David From:Cari Costanzo <costanzo@stanford.edu> Sent:Thursday, January 10, 2019 9:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:support for Wilton Court Development As a single‐parent educator living on an academic salary, I can scarcely afford housing in this area. I fully support the  Wilton Court Development project, and I would love to know how I can apply for housing there once it is built. Please  keep me in the loop!     Thank you,  Cari Costanzo    _______________________________ Cari Costanzo, PhD Academic Advising Director, Undergraduate Advising and Research  Lecturer, Department of Anthropology & Thinking Matters  Stanford University  p: 650.723‐0079 | e: costanzo@stanford.edu  To schedule an appointment:   http://www.meetme.so/CariCostanzo  pronouns: she/her          3 Carnahan, David From:Stefania Pomponi <msstefaniapomponi@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 10, 2019 8:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:I support the Ventura neighborhood affordable housing development Dear Palo Alto City Council,    I urge you to support the affordable housing development planned for the Ventura neighborhood. Our city needs more  affordable housing, not less.     People who serve our community like teachers and public safety workers should be able to live here.    Families who want access to our great schools should be able to live and raise kids here.     I want Palo Alto to reflect the the diversity that makes living in California, and particularly the Bay Area, so great.    Thank you for your consideration.    Sincerely.  Stefania Pomponi  Addison Ave./Professorville              ‐‐   -Stefania Stefania Pomponi 4 Carnahan, David From:Robert I. Woods <bob.woods@att.net> Sent:Thursday, January 10, 2019 5:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Wilton Court Development Dear City Council Members,    I’ve long been in support of low income housing and am delighted that this project may move forward in Palo  Alto.  Please approve this project!    Bob  ______________________  Robert I. Woods, Jr.  Principal  Stewart Woods & Associates  1470 Sand Hill Road, #205  Palo Alto, CA 94304    Telephone:  650.473.1465  Cell:  650.213.6111    www.stewartwoodsassociates.com    1 Carnahan, David From:Linnea Wickstrom <ljwickstrom@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, January 11, 2019 2:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:YES! to Wilton Court   Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,    I urge to to vote YES to Wilton Court ‐  vote yes to the applicant’s proposal for 3703‐3709 ECR. I urge you to approve all the  elements of the Palo Alto Housing proposal in order to make this project possible architecturally and financially.  As the aging parents of a developmentally disabled adult, my husband and I are invested in housing for people like our son. In  a variation on the old real estate slogan, it’s all about housing, housing, housing. Housing is crucial to people like my son who  are learning to live independently. Though my son might never gain a residence in this proposed development, there are  hundreds of Palo Alto residents like him who need a roof.  They need a roof close to their support services and to jobs,  shopping, and entertainment: places they can get to using public transit, biking, or walking.  As a 50+ year resident of Palo Alto, I support creating much more housing in Palo Alto – for  the missing middle as well as for  low and extremely‐low income people. As the parent of a disabled young adult,  I focus on advocating for the intellectually  and developmentally disabled who are much in need of exactly the opportunity that Wilton Court presents: inclusive housing  in their own community and alongside “neuro‐typicals”and “abled.”  Thank you for your vote to bring Wilton Court into being.  Sincerely,  Linnea Wickstrom   Palo Alto  NOTE: Traffic and parking are always a major concern for neighborhoods. Based on many ID/DD people I know, almost none  own cars, have driver’s licenses, or will ever drive. They use public transit, bike, or walk, and some use Outreach‐style  transportation to jobs.  In my direct experience with an ID/DD studio apartment house with a parking ratio of .3,  there is  adequate parking for a parent visitor or two in addition to the visits by independent living support services staff during the  day. Because studio apartments do not accommodate people who need 24/7 support, the parking spaces are very little used  at night.       2 Carnahan, David From:Jim Fox <jimafox@pacbell.net> Sent:Friday, January 11, 2019 11:22 AM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Council, City Subject:Support Wilton Court project Dear Mayor Filseth,  I support the Wilton Court affordable housing project, and ask you and your fellow City Council members to vote for its  approval.    This project helps to solve the crises in housing, transportation, and labor shortages in Palo Alto by providing new rental  housing for people earning 30 ‐ 60% of the area median income. Providing such new housing will not only ease the  housing shortage in Palo Alto,  it will also reduce car trips (as a workers can live closer to work), and so relieve traffic  congestion, and reduce pollution.    For these, and other reasons, I urge you to approve the Wilton Court housing project.    Sincerely,  Jim Fox  Carlson Circle, Palo Alto  3 Carnahan, David From:Laurie Stein <laurie@pcconsults.com> Sent:Friday, January 11, 2019 11:56 AM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Council, City Subject:Wilton Court Dear Mayor Filseth, I am writing to you in support of the housing project proposed for Wilton Court. This project fits the need for more affordable rental housing to people in our community earning between 30 -- 60% of the area median income along a transportation corridor. My own daughter, a Palo Alto Native, has a B.A. and works in the public sector. She has relocated to Massachusetts in part because of the lack of affordable housing here. This project will also provide much needed housing for adults with developmental disabilities, who also live and work in this community. When I moved here in the 70’s I was proud of living in a cultural and economically diverse area. As housing prices have gone up, that has disappeared. Palo Alto depends on the people who would qualify for this housing. In addition, providing more affordable housing will not only help keep our community diverse, but it will also help reduce carbon emissions from cars by locating housing close to jobs and transportation. Approving this project is a small step in fighting climate change. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Laurie Stein   4 Carnahan, David From:Sheri Morrison <morrison.sheri@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 11, 2019 5:05 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Council, City Subject:Wilton Court affordable housing Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council members,    I support Palo Alto Housing's Wilton Court project which will create 59 affordable studio and one bedroom apartments  for those earning between 30 and 60% of the area median income.    The project will also provide much needed housing for adults with developmental disabilities.     Providing more affordable housing will help keep the community diverse which is an asset to all of us.    Thank you for your leadership and for your consideration of this important issue.    Sincerely,  Sheri Morrison  5 Carnahan, David From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Saturday, January 12, 2019 11:24 AM To:Council, City Subject:The Wilton Court Housing Project Dear Mayor Filseth and Council Members, I write in support of applying the Overlay ordinance to the project and granting the waivers as recommended by staff. As a parent of an adult child who benefited (as did we) from the chance to live in independent but safe living environment, this project will joy and security to families who waited long for this opportunity. Moreover, the project will provide affordable living to many low income adults who have also waited for many years in some cases for this opportunity. I also understand that the waivers are needed to make the project financially feasible. This will be a great way to start making progress on our housing goals. Stephen Levy 365 forest Avenue Palo Alto 1 Carnahan, David From:Lynnie Melena <lynniemelena@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 12, 2019 5:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Wilton Court Low Income Housing Project Dear Councilmembers, I strongly urge you to approve the various applications for the 59-unit low income housing project at 3703-3709 El Camino Real. Palo Alto Housing has worked long and hard to develop this project so that it can be financially feasible, make an important contribution to affordable housing in Palo Alto and respond to neighborhood concerns. I have lived a few short blocks from this site for 48 years and can attest to the fact that retail uses in this location have been marginal at best. Other nearby sites on El Camino have remained undeveloped or underdeveloped for many years. The retail waiver should be approved. Lynnie Melena 2 Carnahan, David From:Eric Rosenblum <mitericr@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 2:59 PM To:Council, City; Palo Alto Forward Board Subject:Palo Alto Forward supports the Wilton Court Project: Please approve Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers    Happy New Year!    Palo Alto Forward is writing in support of the Wilton Court Project. We agree with the unanimous PTC recommendation that this is exactly the sort of project for which the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone was designed, and strongly encourage you to apply it in this case.    As a general matter, is impossible to overstate how rare these types of units are in Palo Alto. Furthermore, this aligns with Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan’s objective of increasing multifamily density along transit corridors.   As a specific matter, both the Affordable Housing Overlay zone application and the requested waiver of the Groundfloor Retail Protection Ordinance are both warranted. In this case, the groundfloor is intended to be used for the residential community, including bike storage, mail distribution, etc. These waivers are important to make the project pencil out. In addition, Palo Alto Housing has invested considerable thought into TDM measures to minimize disruption due to parking/ traffic creation.    Thank you for taking this final step. This single project is a good start-- we wish that there were more of them!   Sincerely    Eric Rosenblum  President, Palo Alto Forward    3 Carnahan, David From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 4:06 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:January 14, 2019, City Council Meeting, Item #6: 3703-3709 El Camino Real [18-00136] Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    January 13, 2019    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      JANUARY 14, 2019, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #6  3703-3709 EL CAMINO REAL [18PLN-00136]      Dear City Council:    I support this project provided that the actions of the City Council explicitly reflect the substantial evidence in the administrative record that the project is for individuals and families earning no more than 80& of the County median income (and most likely no more than 60% of the County median income).    Although, the draft Ordinance makes reference to the draft Record of Land Use Action that makes reference to a specific set of project plans, I believe you should also include in your actions language that states that the project is for individuals and families earning no more than 80% of the County median income.    The project plans recommended for approval by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) are for design approval only.    In the absence of appropriate language in the Ordinance and Record of Land Use Action restricting your approvals to persons with the limited incomes included in the project description and testimony before the City Council, the Planning & Transportation Commission, and the Architectural Review Board, the ownership of the project and its entitlements can be flipped to a developer who could market the property to those with up to 120% of the County median income.    Therefore, I urge you to add language to both (1) the proposed Ordinance to add the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District to the subject 4 property, and (2) the proposed Record of Land Use Action for Architectural Review and Design Enhancement Exception  to make each effective only if the project occupancy is limited to persons and families earning no more than 80% of the County median income.    I see no reason why the applicant would object to such language.    The following is the substantial evidence that supports my suggestion:     (1) At the City Council public hearing on the Prescreening Application for “3709 El Camino Real [17PLN-00189]” as recorded in the Final Transcript, August 28, 2017 City Council meeting at the bottom of Page 17 of 107 at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61317:    Danny Ross, Palo Alto Housing Development Manager: Thank you, Candice. We present to you this evening a proposed affordable housing project of 61 mostly studio apartments with rental rates based on what is affordable to people at 30-60 percent of area median income with up to 25 percent of those units reserved for adults with developmental disabilities.  (2) In Attachment B (Applicant Project Description) to the 9/26/2018 Staff Report (ID #9578) to the Planning & Transportation Commission for “3705 El Camino Real (Wilton Avenue) Rezoning” on Page 10 of 18 at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66818:  Our proposal includes the development of 61 units of 100% affordable housing with 58 studios and 3 one- bedroom apartments (including one manager’s unit). The new units will provide housing for households earning up to 30 - 60% (possibly up to 80% with 59% averaging) of the Area Median Income with a percentage of the population targeting households with special needs. Additionally, we propose to set aside 15 units for adults with developmental disabilities.    (3) At the Planning and Transportation Commission public hearing on the Application for a zone change for “3703-3709 El Camino Real [18PLN-00136]” as recorded in the Minutes of the September 26, 2018 Planning & Transportation Commission meeting in the second paragraph on Page 10 of 206 at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67266:    We are here tonight to request to re-zoning of properties that we own at 3703 through 3709 El Camino Real. We are asking that the two parcels be re-zoned into the Affordable Housing Combining District. Such a zone change will allow us to finish plans to build an apartment building that will have 65 studio and 1-bedroom apartments. The building will be 100 percent affordable housing with all residents earning between 30 and 60 percent of area mean income. While the actual building plans are still in the works, we’re hoping that at least 16 of these units will be for adults who are developmentally disabled. Housing Choices, non-profit advocacy groups, estimates that there are 400 adults with developmental disabilities in Palo Alto alone. Wouldn’t it be great to build some apartments for them?    (4) In Attachment B (Applicant Project Description) to the 10/4/2018 Staff Report (ID #9423) to the Architectural Review Board for “3705 El Camino Real: 65 Affordable Units at Wilton Court” on Page 10 of 27 at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66966:    Our proposal includes the development of 61 units of 100% affordable housing with 58 studios and 3 one- bedroom apartments (including one manager’s unit). The new units will provide housing for households earning 5 up to 30 - 60% (possibly up to 80% with 59% averaging) of the Area Median Income with a percentage of the population targeting households with special needs. Additionally, we propose to set aside 15 units for adults with developmental disabilities.    (5) At the first Architectural Review Board public hearing on “3705 El Camino Real [18PLN-00136]” in the remarks of Adrianne Steichen, Pyatok Architects as recorded in the Draft Minutes of the October 4, 2018 Architectural Review Board meeting at the top of Page 20 of 54 at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67470:    As has been discussed, it's a 100 percent affordable project, up to 25 percent for adults with developmental disabilities. Certainly under 80 percent, but probably more likely in the 30 to 60 percent AMI. We've talked about the site area. Current proposal is 59 dwelling units, studios and one-bedrooms, the height varying from 35 feet to 49 feet to the top of the parapets.    (6) At the second Architectural Review Board public hearing on “3705 El Camino Real [18PLN-00136]” in the remarks of Adrianne Steichen, Pyatok Architects as recorded in the Draft Minutes of the December 6, 2018 Architectural Review Board meeting at the bottom of Page 16 of 83 at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68346:    Again, this project is a 30-60 percent AMI, 100 percent affordable rental project. Up to 25 percent of the units are targeted to adults with developmental disabilities.    Thank you for your consideration of these comments.    Sincerely    Herb Borock      1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 5:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: SV@Home Letter RE: Item 6 - Wilton Court Attachments:SVH Letter RE Item 6 - 3705 El Camino Real (Wilton Court) 01-11-2019.pdf     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: David Meyer <david@siliconvalleyathome.org>   Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 10:46 AM  To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; alison.cormack@cityofpaloalto.org; DuBois, Tom  <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal)  <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg  <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: SV@Home Letter RE: Item 6 ‐ Wilton Court    Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, Kniss, Kou, and Tanaka:    On behalf of SV@Home and our members, we submit the attached letter in support of the staff recommendations to  approve the application of the Affordable Housing Combining District to the Wilton Court development and adopt the  accompanying measures necessary to enable it to move forward.    You have an opportunity to take decisive action in support of affordable housing in Palo Alto. The City cannot afford to  slow down the construction of this housing in your community. We urge the City Council to move forward without delay  to approve the proposed rezoning and approval of the Wilton Court development.     Sincerely,    David    2 David Meyer Director of Strategic Initiatives david@siliconvalleyathome.org (408) 462-1572 sv@home 350 W Julian St. #5, San Jose, CA 95110 Website I Facebook I Twitter I LinkedIn I Become a Member!   Board of Directors Ron Gonzales, Chair Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley Janice Jensen, Vice Chair Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley Kevin Zwick, Treasurer Housing Trust Silicon Valley Kathy Thibodeaux, Secretary KM Thibodeaux Consulting LLC Shiloh Ballard Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bob Brownstein Working Partnerships USA Gina Dalma Silicon Valley Community Foundation Katie Ferrick LinkedIn Amie Fishman Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California Javier Gonzalez Google Poncho Guevara Sacred Heart Community Service Nathan Ho Silicon Valley Leadership Group Janikke Klem Technology Credit Union Jan Lindenthal MidPen Housing Jennifer Loving Destination: Home Mary Murtagh EAH Housing Chris Neale The Core Companies Andrea Osgood Eden Housing Kelly Snider Kelly Snider Consulting Jennifer Van Every The Van Every Group Staff Leslye Corsiglia Executive Director 350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110 408.780.2261 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org January 11th, 2019 Honorable Mayor Filseth and Members of the Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, Kniss, Kou, and Tanaka: RE: Item 6: 3705 El Camino Real: Apply AH Zoning Overlay and 59 Affordable Units On behalf of SV@Home and our members, we write today in support of the staff recommendations to approve the application of the Affordable Housing Combining District to the Wilton Court development and adopt the accompanying measures necessary to enable it to move forward. Rental prices in Palo Alto are among the highest in the region. As of December 2018, according to Rent Jungle, average monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment in the city is $3,121, which represents an 8% increase from last year at this time. The need for more affordable housing opportunities in the city is dire. Palo Alto Housing’s proposed 100% affordable, 59-unit project is precisely the type of development the affordable housing overlay zone was adopted to permit and promote. The proposed homes provide deep levels of affordability much-needed in Palo Alto. In particular, Wilton Court reserves approximately 25% of the new, affordable homes for people with developmental disabilities, an underserved population who lack housing choices across the County. The City has lined up the tools and policy guidance to make this project possible, now it’s time to put them into practice and get housing built. The proposal aligns with Palo Alto’s affordable housing goals, as made clear in the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element and the Housing Work Plan, which was adopted last year. It operationalizes the City’s efforts to remove barriers to building affordable housing, which includes the affordable housing overlay zone. You have an opportunity to take decisive action in support of affordable housing in Palo Alto. The City cannot afford to slow down the construction of this housing in your community. We urge the City Council to move forward without delay to approve the proposed rezoning and approval of the Wilton Court development. Sincerely, David K Meyer Director of Strategic Initiatives 1 Carnahan, David From:Linda Lingane <linda.lingane@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 9:21 AM To:eric_filseth@cityofpaloalto.org; Council, City Subject:Support for affordable housing Dear Mayor Filseth: Palo Alto needs more affordable housing. The Wilton Court project addresses this need by providing affordable rental housing along a transportation corridor to people in our community earning between 30 -- 60% of the area median income. The project will also provide much needed housing for adults with developmental disabilities, who also live and work in this community. Palo Alto depends on the people who would qualify for this housing. Providing more affordable housing will not only help keep our community diverse, but it will also help reduce carbon emissions from cars by locating housing close to jobs and transportation. Approving this project is a small step in fighting climate change. Thank you for your leadership. Sincerely, Linda Lingane     Linda Lingane  Development Coordinator  Medical Center Development    Stanford University  3172 Porter Drive, Suite 210  Palo Alto, CA  94304  (650) 724‐5558  fax:  (650) 725‐2450  email:  linda.lingane@stanford.edu    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information for the use of the designated recipients named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or its contents is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return electronic mail and destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments.      Please consider the environment before printing this email.    2 Carnahan, David From:Linda Henigin <linda@brail.org> Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 10:02 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Council, City Subject:supporting the Wilton Court housing project Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council members, I believe the strength of Palo Alto is in its people. We are losing valuable community members because they can't afford to live here any longer. To counter this distressing trend, Palo Alto needs to build more affordable housing. The Wilton Court project addresses this need by providing affordable rental housing along a transportation corridor to people in our community earning between 30 -- 60% of the area median income. The project will also provide much needed housing for adults with developmental disabilities, who also live and work in this community. Some of these adults work in our child-care centers, and we can't afford to lose them. Hiring new staff for lower-income jobs has become quite difficult. We need to provide housing for people at a price they can afford while working these low-income, yet crucial, jobs. Palo Alto depends on the people who would qualify for this housing, as I mentioned above. Providing more affordable housing will not only help keep our community diverse, but it will also help reduce carbon emissions from cars by locating housing close to jobs and transportation. Approving this project is a small step in fighting climate change. Thank you for your leadership on this, and many other issues. Sincerely,  Linda Henigin  Palo Alto CA  1 Carnahan, David From:Mary Ann Michel <maryannm7@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 10:48 AM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Council, City Subject:Affordable Housing     Dear Mayor Filseth    Palo Alto needs more affordable housing. The Wilton Court project addresses this need by providing affordable rental  housing along a transportation corridor to people in our community earning between 30 ‐‐ 60% of the area median  income.  The project will also provide much needed housing for adults with developmental disabilities, who also live and  work in this community.     Palo Alto depends on the people who would qualify for this housing.  Providing more affordable housing will not only  help keep our community diverse, but it will also help reduce carbon emissions from cars by locating housing close to  jobs and transportation.  Approving this project is a small step in fighting climate change.        We missed the last opportunity for affordable housing due to the nibby  vote let's not let that happen again.     Thank you for your leadership.    Sincerely,    Mary Ann Michel  650 324 7384  850 Webster St. Apt 503  Palo Alto, CA 94301          1 Carnahan, David From:Mary Beth Train <mbt3305@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 11:59 AM To:Council, City Subject:The Wilton Court project - Please approve Mayor Filseth and city council members -- Please approve the Wilton Court project tonight. Palo Alto has lost so much of its diversity and community because of the restrictions resulting from high housing prices. This project is not on city streets, but on a thoroughfare with public transportation and some stores within walking distance. We need more such projects on or near thoroughfares, like El Camino and Middlefield, so traffic mitigation can be planned. Thanks for your consideration, -- Mary Beth Train - owner of 3305 Middlefield, 94306, and Palo Alto resident Mary Beth Train - Home office phone 650-324-7346 *voice only, not text* -mbt3305@yahoo.com 2 Carnahan, David From:Daniel Ross-Jones <drj@danielrossjones.com> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 1:30 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal) Cc:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto needs more housing Dear Mayor Filseth:    Palo Alto needs more housing overall, but most especially affordable housing for its most vulnerable residents who have  contributed to the diverse tapestry of this community for decades. The Wilton Court project addresses this need by  providing affordable rental housing along a transportation corridor to people in our community earning between 30 ‐‐  60% of the area median income.  The project will also provide much needed housing for adults with developmental  disabilities, who also live and work in this community.    Palo Alto depends on the people who would qualify for this housing.  Providing more affordable housing will not only  help keep our community diverse, but it will also help reduce carbon emissions from cars by locating housing close to  jobs and transportation.  Approving this project is a small step in fighting climate change.    Thank you for your leadership.    Sincerely,    Daniel Ross‐Jones  3 Carnahan, David From:Susan Hartzell <hartzellhs@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 2:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Wilton Court Housing To the members of the City Council—    May I urge you to approve the low‐income housing project on Wilton Court. This is one excellent step toward providing  much needed housing for residents of low incomes and special needs. AND it is close to public transportation, which will  reduce the need for cars. This is a great opportunity for the new Council make a real difference.    Sincerely,  Susan Hartzell      Susan and Harry Hartzell  850 Webster Street Apt 430  Palo Alto, CA 94301          4 Carnahan, David From:Anita Lusebrink <anita@satakenursery.com> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 3:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Wilton Court on Council Agenda tonight Importance:High Dear Palo Alto City Council members, It is my heartfelt wish that although I will not be able to attend the City Council meeting tonight, I sincerely hope that you will take my family’s position into consideration in reference to the final approval of the Wilton Court development at 3703- 3709 El Camino Real. Without PAH and Housing Choices, my niece with would not be able to live in the Bay Area. She now lives in a studio apartment in San Jose with her partner. They pay well below market rate, which is wonderful for the both of them, having severely limited earning power and living mostly on a SSDI check monthly. However, it takes an hour for my niece to get to Palo Alto to visit her grandmother on the bus (she is not able to drive), and so she rarely does. Also, rental increases each year are $90/month, and so my niece and her partner are starting to look for something MORE affordable! The development proposed by Palo Alto Housing called Wilton Court is the first project to ask for the protection of the Affordable Housing Combining District. Wilton Court is a proposed 65 unit project with 25% of the units set-aside with a preference for people with developmental disabilities. It would be thrilling to have a development in Palo Alto where my niece could live nearer to her grandmother and myself, and receive the support (and home-cooked meals!!) whenever that she is low on money or ‘just needs as hand’. Let’s make that first step in enacting the new Housing Combining Ordinance at Wilton Court. Palo Alto Housing is an experienced developer, and a good choice for this first project. I know you will be happy with choosing to go ahead and give adults with developmental disabilities a chance to be near their family support teams and still try out that ‘independence component’, which in the long term will be cost- effective for everyone and help develop more engaged citizens living in Palo Alto! Thank you again for your consideration. Anita Lusebrink for the Lusebrink Family 428 Ruthven Palo Alto, CA 94301   1 Carnahan, David From:Tirumala Ranganath <ranguranganath@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 3:39 PM To:Council, City Cc:ranguranganath Subject:Questions and concerns on the Wilton High Density Housing project Dear Mayor Filseth and Council members,                I know that the High Density Housing project is up for discussion for this evening's agenda.  I am writing this e‐mail  to you in the hope that traffic concerns of current the residents of Wilton, though not addressed comprehensively to  date can and should be revisited.  I am surprised by the fact that an important item of this kind is being brought to the  city Council's attention with such short notice. I was one of the people who got a tour of the Palo Alto Housing  authority's High Density Housing project on Charleston in the later part of last year. That project is unique in that it is  located on a large lot with heritage oak trees that require special consideration. The result, is a property that is  unobtrusive, considering it provides ~ 60 units, with little to no traffic problems to neighbors.                 The proposed project at Wilton and E Camino presents an entirely different scenario and I am writing to express  my serious concern in regards to the lack of consideration to the traffic problems it would create (considering it  proposes to have parking for ~ 40 vehicles).                   I am writing to express my concerns regarding the High density housing project at El Camino Real and Wilton.  The  neighborhood’s concerns regarding traffic effects on Wilton as a consequence of this project have been raised and  expressed a number of times. Looking at the architects plan for the site, one needs to question why the parking access is  in the service street, behind the proposed project? This particular placement forces the traffic associated with this  project to dump all the car traffic onto Wilton, a street that is home to apartment complexes that are located close to El  Camino.      If one were to take the existing plan and rotate it by 180 degrees (about an axis that is perpendicular to the ground and  located at the center of the plot), the parking access would now be on El Camino! Any traffic from this property using  Wilton would be minimal and the concerns of the residents would be addressed to a very large extent! With a 20 ft wide  service street separating this project from the apartment complex behind, concerns of daylight plane encroachment  would be minimal.   In the absence of a thorough traffic study and a serious attempt to address concerns of traffic congestion on Wilton, I  am not surprised with the plan that is being pushed. If the planning commission’s intent is to seriously address these  neighborhood concerns, I would urge you to please consider what I am proposing. It also bothers me that, it falls on the  shoulders of a local resident to point out an alternative such as this one, even though there is ostensibly a planning  commission with access to the talents of the city’s transportation commission!   Thank you for listening to me.  Sincerely,  Ranganath (greater Ventura resident)  1 Carnahan, David From:steven rosenberg <canuck94306@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 3:52 PM To:pegrego@gmail.com Cc:Bob Moss; Council, City; Barron Park Association: Miscellaneous Subject:Re: [bpa-misc: 8085] Rezoning 3703-09 El Camino Paul, The housing is needed, but preserving ground floor retail is also needed. Why can't they do it while preserving the retail space? As you may have noticed, many of the shops that used to exist locally are gone, and people need to drive a lot farther to shops in neighboring towns, while sales tax dollars stop flowing to Palo Alto. This has many downsides for the environment, for the city's finances, for traffic and for everyone's quality of life, including people who will live in new developments.   On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 3:18 PM Paul Gregory <pegrego@gmail.com> wrote:  Bob,  The proposed housing for this site is for low income and disabled housing, both of which are desperately needed.   I don't know about the other businesses there, but Family Fashion Cuts moved across El Camino, to 3666 El Camino  several years ago.  My family and I go there regularly.  ‐Paul Gregory  On 1/9/2019 12:41 PM, Robert Moss wrote:  Dear Mayor Filseth and Council members; Jan. 9, 2019 I am concerned regarding to reported proposal regarding El Camino rezoning plans. According to a notice in the Post Jan. 4 and several to messages on Next Door there will be a proposal on the agenda Jan. 14 to rezone 3703-3709 El Camino from CN to residential, and force out local ground floor retail businesses in violation of the Comprehensive Plan, El Camino Design Guidelines, and formal city policy to preserve retail on El Camino. The four locally owned businesses - Treasure Island Stamps, Novelle Bride, Euro market Grocer and Family Fashion Cut will be forced out and probably out of business. They will all be missed and are unlikely to find replacement locations anywhere nearby. The El Camino Design Guidelines that were generated originally by three of us in Barron Park over 40 years ago are intended to preserve and enhance local retail stores and retain a walk able El Camino streetscape. We also wanted to pacify some of our neighbors that voted against merging Barron Park with Palo Alto for fear that the city would be insensitive to our local needs and interests. This conversion of local retail to housing with no ground floor retail unfortunately confirms those suspicions. The CN zone does allow housing on upper floors, and that option should be fully reviewed and discussed along with this proposal, ideally by staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission interacting with the public. 2 There will be many negative impacts of such a conversion. In addition to loss of local businesses, it will make El Camino less walkable for residents to shop, and seems to verify these old concerns about how our part of town is treated by city hall. There also will be negative financial impacts. Sales taxes will be lost when the retail businesses leave. Housing will cost the city budget over $625,000/year more for city services than the development will pay in local taxes, and the cost will increase over time since residential assessment increases are limited to 2% by Prop. 13 while expenses will rise more than 2%/year. Some of you may recall former city manager Keene stating at the start of the council meeting several years ago that each residential unit costs the city $2800 more annually than it pays in local taxes. The current cost is higher, probably close to $3000/year/unit. Housing also generates traffic, and even assuming above average use of public transit and carpools by new residents at the site trip generation will be in the range of 350-400/day on an already congested El Camino. I urge the city council not to agree to this zone change now. Send the request to the Planning and Transportation Commission for more public review and discussion. Get local neighborhood associations such as the Barron Park Association also involved by having staff and the proposed developer meet with them and answering questions. This issue is too important to just ram through. It needs more careful and extensive review and discussion. Sincerely, Bob Moss ‐‐   This email list is maintained by the Barron Park Association.   Join or renew your BPA membership, or get more email list information, at bpapaloalto.org.  Need to check membership status? Contact barronpark.paloalto@gmail.com.  Disclaimer: Any viewpoints in this message are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent  those of the Barron Park Association or the BPA Board.  ‐‐‐   You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barron Park Association:  Miscellaneous" group.  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpa‐ misc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.  To post to this group, send email to bpa‐misc@googlegroups.com.  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.  ‐‐   This email list is maintained by the Barron Park Association.   Join or renew your BPA membership, or get more email list information, at bpapaloalto.org.  Need to check membership status? Contact barronpark.paloalto@gmail.com.  Disclaimer: Any viewpoints in this message are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent those of the Barron  Park Association or the BPA Board.  ‐‐‐   You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barron Park Association: Miscellaneous"  group.  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpa‐ misc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.  To post to this group, send email to bpa‐misc@googlegroups.com.  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.  1 Carnahan, David From:Kyle Morgan <Kyle@streetsteam.org> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 4:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:In Regards to Agenda Item # 6 - City Council Meeting January 14th, 2019 Good evening,     I am unable to attend the Council meeting this evening but would like to voice my support of the rezoning of retail sites for  affordable housing. It is no secret that affordable housing is a major concern for many in the Bay Area. Many illustrations of  economic growth and housing forecasts have painted a gloomy picture for those living on the fringe. With a hefty goal of 300  units per year, Palo Alto will be making a considerable leap this year, a much needed leap as the last 3 years have seen a  dramatically low output of affordable housing units. The development plans may not appease everyone, and so far they have  not. Both sides provide valuable opinions and concerns regarding the project but one thing should remain true for both sides:  homelessness is an epidemic in the Bay Area and stalling projects like this prevent people just like you and me from living a life  that every person should have; one that’s without housing insecurity.     Though the Downtown Streets Team is a work experience program, we believe housing is an essential resource that no person  should go without. It’s not impossible to help individuals in our program find housing, but it’s a lot more probable that we’ll be  able to help them when new affordable units are built.  I am in support of more affordable housing in Palo Alto to support  Palo Alto residents.     Thank you for your time and support,       KYLE MORGAN  PROJECT MANAGER • PALO ALTO  555 Waverley St. • Palo Alto, 94301  Mobile: (408) 309-2151 Main: (408) 899-7350    DIGITAL DASHBOARD • DONATE HERE  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain  confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are  not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original messag    1 Carnahan, David From:Enrique Ruspini <ruspini@mac.com> Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 8:17 PM To:Council, City Cc:hellojasleen@yahoo.com Subject:Appeal filing: App # 8 / File # 17PLN-00272 / (ID # 9671) Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301    Ref: Appeal filing: App # 8          File # 17PLN‐00272          (ID # 9671)         Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,     We are writing to you in strong support of the appeal of our Carlson Circle neighbors Jasleen and Manoj Raisinghani.    Privacy is an essential characteristic of the Eichler concept. One of the key ideas behind the design of these mid‐Century  homes is the integration of indoor and outdoor spaces into a private continuum. Furthermore, their original concept  strongly emphasized placement of windows so as not to infringe into the privacy of neighboring houses.     We believe that the request of our neighbors is extremely reasonable and we support their appeal.     Sincerely,       Enrique and Susana Ruspini  3720 Carlson Circle  Palo Alto, CA 94306    Tel.: (650) 494‐0862  E‐mail: ruspini@mac.com              sruspini@mac.com  1 Carnahan, David From:Sandra Park <sandrapark04@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 11:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support of Raisinghani Appeal for PRIVACY - Filing App # 8 File # 17PLN-00272 (ID #9671) Dear City Council,     As neighbors on Carlson Circle, I would like to support the Raisinghani request to seriously consider amendments to  their immediate neighbor’s proposed construction:  1. Keep a minimum of 40 foot setback instead of the currently proposed ~29 feet.   2. Allow full windows only on the front‐face of the 2nd level to open into the street at Redwood Circle.    3. Move egress windows from the back‐wall to the side‐walls of the room on 2nd level.    4. Center the 2nd floor volume above the lower level.  It is important to respect the process of review and to maintain neighbor privacy and good community relations.    Thank you for your attention to this matter,  Sandra Park  3700 Carlson Circle  Palo Alto    Sent from my iPhone  2 Carnahan, David From:Roger P <roger.petersen@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 11:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Eichler Privacy impact -- Redwood/Carlson Circle (# 17PLN-00272) Dear City Council,    I am writing about a proposed new 2‐story home in our Eichler neighborhood, where the homes have large glass  windows facing the rear yard.    Several neighbors on Carlson Circle will be negatively impacted by this proposed 2‐story at 3743 Redwood Circle.    The city's IR Guidelines devote Chapter 5 to privacy:  Approval criterion: The size, placement and orientation of second story windows  and decks shall limit direct sight lines into windows and patios located at the rear and sides of adjacent  properties in close proximity.  (see attached diagram from the SF‐IR Chapter 5 ‐‐ similar to proposal)    The R‐1 zoning code describes "detached dwellings with a strong presence of nature and with open area affording  maximum privacy and opportunities for outdoor living and children’s play."    Given this, it is surprising that the 40 foot setback (20+20) was reduced to 29 feet.    Please consider our neighbors' appeal, and suggest adjusting the 2nd story rear‐facing windows and mass to the least‐ impacting locations available.    Thank you for supporting privacy in our neighborhoods!  Sincerely,  Roger Petersen    3   The diagram above shows a very similar design which does NOT meet guidelines.      1 Carnahan, David From:Manoj R <hellomanoj@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 3:10 AM To:Council, City; Jasleen Raisinghani Subject:Appeal to uphold the privacy of our home (3743 Carlson Circle) Attachments:Raisinghani Letter to council - 14Jun2019 - mr3.pdf Dear respected council members, Hope you are well. Best wishes for 2019. Please see the attached letter as an earnest request to uphold our privacy in our Eichler home. We will be happy to discuss our request for privacy and support it with reasonable points during the council review on Monday 01/14/2019. Appreciate your consideration and support for our request. Warm regards, Jasleen and Manoj Raisinghani 650 556 3455 From: Jasleen and Manoj Raisinghani 3714 Carlson Circle, Palo Alto CA, 94306 14th January 2019 Re: Appeal to ensure and uphold our privacy in our Eichler home Hello dear council members, Congratulations on your election to the Palo Alto council. Our appeal case is scheduled to be reviewed by the council on Monday 01/16/2019 around 9 pm. Appeal filing: App # 8 File # 17PLN-00272 (ID # 9671) This letter is in continuation to the one we had emailed you on Oct 28th 2018. Our neighbor, Tim Perkins and we are not averse to the construction of the 2nd level by the owners at 3743 Redwood Circle. However, we repeatedly requested the city planning department (Amy French and Graham Owen) that the 3743 Redwood Circle plans be revised so as to not breach our privacy and to ensure that we can continue to maintain the quality of our everyday living which we have enjoyed in our beautiful Eichler community and neighborhood for more than 15 years. We cherish the inside-out and outside-in Eichler living style! We request you, the respected council members of Palo Alto to earnestly consider safe-guarding the privacy of our home along with the privacy needs of our neighbors, Tim Perkins (3712 Carlson) and Andrea (3710 Carlson and who lives with two small children). After multiple reviews with Palo Alto city, below are the key outstanding items We have requested the following updates to the plans as per our last council hearing and prior to that during the Director’s hearing: 1. Keep a minimum of 40 feet setback instead of the currently proposed ~29 feet. a. The 2nd level of the home facing our backyard (3747 Redwood Circle) and to the right side of 3743 Redwood Circle, already has a 40 feet set-back. b. Our request and an acceptable compromise is that the 2nd level setback for 3743 Redwood Circle needs to be at 40 feet, similar to the 2nd level of 3747 Redwood Circle. 2. Allow full-windows only on the front-face of the 2nd level to open into the street at Redwood Circle. a. Multiple homes on Carlson Circle with a 2nd level including our own (3714 Carlson Circle), have a similar plan where the main and full windows face the street – This allows good light and air flow in the home on the 2nd level without encroaching the privacy of our neighbors. 3. Move the glazed egress windows from the back-wall to the side-walls of the room on 2nd level. a. Our home has ‘no’ windows on the back-wall of the 2nd level. This guarantees privacy for all our neighbors on the back regardless of trees or high bushes. b. Many 2 story homes in Palo Alto have one or more smaller horizontal windows which are 5 feet above the floor on the back-wall of their 2nd level. Without breaching a neighbor’s privacy, these higher placed but smaller sized windows allow good light into the room and enough air flow if they can be opened. 4. Center the 2nd floor building volume above the lower level. a. We are unable to reconcile that in the revised plans for 3743 Redwood Circle, the proposed 2nd level volume (mass) placement is mainly on one side – that is, the majority area of the new 2nd level construction will face our backyard which adversely impacts our privacy. b. With the current proposed plans, our home (3714 Carlson Circle) takes the biggest brunt of this new construction. The natural afternoon light from the west as the sun sets is almost completely blocked from reaching our home due to the planned 2nd story structure and the planned installation of trees and high bushes. c. We believe the 2nd level volume needs to be centered over the lower level. With that: i. The ‘glazed’ egress windows can be installed on the side-walls (left and right vs. the back-wall) of the home. ii. It allows for increased distance from the side neighbors versus having the volume of the 2nd level on any one side as it is now in the plans. iii. Allows the late afternoon natural light to reach our home as it does today. The outside-in and inside-out feeling of an Eichler Being a home in an Eichler community, almost the full length of the back-wall of our house opens into the back-yard. It is a series of full length sliding glass doors. This is our outside-in and inside-out experience that Eichlers are so well known for in California. These ceiling to floor sliding glass doors allow the best of light and air to flow into the home. The council and city development office need to uphold such a rich Palo Alto experience which ensures privacy is not compromised and breached by the new 2nd story designs. The trees help however they are not the answer to ensuring privacy The Eichler IR guidelines recommend that owners ‘must’ plant trees in perpetuity in order to block anyone on the 2nd level in their house from peeping into another neighbor’s home which may be close to their backyard. Such a guideline about neighbors having to plant and maintain the trees continues to put the burden on us. It requires us to check compliance of our neighbors and also file complaints to the city against our neighbors if the trees are short, die or get bare due to some sickness. We can avoid such hardship and long term angst by requiring the new construction of the 2nd level to have at least 40 feet setbacks which give more distance and better potential for privacy. Privacy is a matter of principle and a community mandate We urge the Palo Alto city and the council to give privacy and quality of everyday living a much higher priority to preserve the joy of such classic neighborhoods and communities. We hope that the city planning and development office uses our recommendations as a ‘model’ for updating the Eichler guidelines including the Individual Review guidelines and keep privacy and quality of life among neighbors as their primary focus. We are interested in nurturing harmony and respect among neighbors. We believe mutual privacy is a key catalyst for a peaceful neighborhood and in the longer term, a thriving community. Please help mitigate a situation where our quality of living is interfered with after more than 15 years of being in our home. We do not accept that our privacy will be breached by the new building plans as proposed by our neighbor in 3743 Redwood Circle. View the current situation of our privacy breach - in pictures Attached are some pictures where you will see first-hand how couple of our neighbors whose homes face our back-yards breach our privacy currently - by having full view into our homes and private moments. We are earnestly trying to stop this from happening again and would really appreciate your consideration. Looking forward to saying hello to each of you in person. Best wishes for 2019 Warm regards, Jasleen and Manoj Raisinghani 650 556 3455 PS: please see 3 pictures as examples and proof points to support our request Picture 1 Picture 2 Picture 3 1 Carnahan, David From:Len Filppu <lenfilppu@earthlink.net> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 9:10 AM To:Council, City Subject:In Support of Raisinghani Appeal Filing App # 8 File # 17PLN-00272 (ID #9671) Dear City Council Members,  I’m writing in support of Manoj and Jasleen Raisinghani’s appeal filing, App # 8 File # 17PLN‐00272 (ID  #9671),  concerning the privacy of their home at 3714 Carlson Circle.    Maintaining personal privacy in our Eichler neighborhoods presents unique challenges that will sometimes require  careful application of planning regulations and voluntary guidelines. This is such a situation.    The Raisinghanis are asking that reasonable considerations be applied to the proposed construction at 3743 Redwood  Circle. They have gone through the proper channels of our City’s planning department, discussed the situation with  several Council members, and it seems to many of us who live in our Eichler neighborhoods that it is imperative that the  City back up its commitment to the new Eichler guidelines with appropriate supportive action.     This issue of second story additions impacting neighbors’ privacy and quality of life is of critical concern to our Eichler  neighborhoods and a growing one throughout Palo Alto. Please take a stand for our neighborhoods by ensuring that  growth and modernization can take place as long as it does not stamp on the toes of the neighbors.    I urge you to support the Raisinghanis, and by extension, all our Eichler and Palo Alto neighborhoods, in their efforts to  protect their privacy and maintain their quality of life.     Sincerely,  ‐‐Len   Len Filppu  Fairmeadow Neighborhood         Virus-free. www.avast.com   2 Carnahan, David From:Moy Eng <moyeng@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 8:53 AM To:Council, City Cc:Jasleen; Manoj; Tim Perkins Subject:proposed construction of the 2nd level by owners of 3743 Redwood Circle, Palo Alto, CA   January 14, 2019    Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,    I request the City Council not approve of the proposed construction of the second level by the owners of 3743 Redwood  Circle.    The critical issue for vote before you is how to preserve the quality of life in a Palo Alto neighborhood, while  encouraging thoughtful, non‐destructive urban development.    Our Redwood Circle neighbor’s proposed plans violate the sense of privacy and quality of life in my neighborhood, and  in particular, my neighbors who are most adversely impacted by 3743 Redwood Circle’s proposed plans: Jasleen and  Manoj Raisinghani and Tim Perkins.      In summary, their proposed 2nd floor plans will significantly affect the following:   Privacy – 3743 Redwood Circle owners and their visitors/guests will be able to see directly into the rear living  spaces of Raisinghanis’ and the Perkins’ Eichler homes, in spite of the mature greenery ‐ trees, foliage ‐ and  fences along the perimeter!   Sunlight – The proposed height, design, and massing will block the remaining sunlight from the Raisinghanis’  back yard.   Being in an Eichler community the back walls of their houses open into the backyard and a series of full length sliding  glass doors. This is our outside‐in and inside‐out experience that Eichlers are so well known for. And, the proposed plans  by the 3743 Redwood Circle owners would damage their sense of privacy, sunlight, and thus, quality of life.    After multiple reviews and discussions with the City’s Planning Department, the following are the key outstanding items  that we request the Palo Alto City Council members to consider towards safeguarding the privacy of the Raisinghani  Family and Tim Perkins and his immediate neighbor to the right (Andrea), who has two small children.   1. Provide a 40 foot setback instead of the current proposed ~29 feet. There is a precedent: 3747 Redwood Circle ‐  the house next to 3743 Redwood Circle ‐ has a 40 feet set‐back and was built more than 21 years ago.  2. Center the 2nd floor volume. The proposed 2nd level volume (mass) placement is mainly on one side – that is,  the majority area of the new 2nd level construction will face the backyards of the Raisinghanis, Perkins, and  Andrea’s, adversely impacting their privacy. With the current proposed plans, Raisinghanis’ home at 3714  Carlson Circle takes the biggest brunt of this proposed new construction.   3. Provide the main windows on the front‐face of the 2nd level so it faces the street. Multiple homes on Carlson  Circle with a 2nd level, including the Raisinghanis' home at 3714 Carlson Circle, have a similar plan where the  main windows are facing the street – which allows good light and air flow in the home without encroaching the  privacy of neighbors.   3 4. Have additional egress windows to the side walls with no egress windows on the back‐wall.  By centering the  2nd level volume, the ‘glazed’ egress windows can be on the sides (left and right vs. the back) of the home,  enabling light and ventilation for the proposed 2nd floor of 3743 Redwood Circle while preserving the privacy of  their three Carlson Circle neighbors.   I would strongly urge the City Council to vote against the current proposed plans of the 3743 Redwood Circle owners.     Long‐term, I hope the city planning and development office might consider using the aforementioned recommendations  as a ‘model’ for updating the Eichler guidelines including the Individual Review guidelines to keep privacy as the primary  focus.  Mutual privacy is a key catalyst for a peaceful neighborhood and longer term thriving community.     Thank you for your consideration.    Respectfully yours,    Moy Eng  3704 Carlson Circle  Palo Alto, CA 94306  650.799.0153         "Promise me you'll always remember: You're braver than you believe, and stronger than you seem, and smarter than you  think." — A. A. Milne  4 Carnahan, David From:ada banks <adabanks_2001@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 8:24 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support of Raisinghani Appeal for PRIVACY - Filing App # 8 File # 17PLN-00272 (ID #9671) I support Raisinghani Appeal for privacy and quality of life. Privacy is a very important element in our life and we can not deny it or prevent it. In order to achieve privacy we need to have bigger distances between homes (larger than setbacks). Privacy issues are especially a problems in Eichlers. Nature is brought in through large windows and doors, giving the feeling of country living but at the same time creating serious privacy issues with neighbors. All efforts should be made to support Raisinghani's appeal for privacy. Ada Banks Los Palos Palo Alto 1 Carnahan, David From:ivan hom <ihom627@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 10:57 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fw: Support of Raisinghani Appeal for Eichler PRIVACY - Filing App # 8 File # 17PLN-00272 (ID # 9671) Attachments:Raisinghani letter to council (3714 Carlson) - mr1.pdf Hello City Council My name is Ivan Hom and I am an owner of an Eichler in the Fairmeadow Neighborhood. I do not support the building restrictions listed below, they would effectively prevent ANY potential building of new homes. I urge the council to reject the current request. Thanks; Ivan Hom ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Jasleen Raisinghani <hellojasleen@yahoo.com> To: 'Ramji Digumarthi' <rdigumarthi@gmail.com>; william@susmanmusic.com <william@susmanmusic.com>; Burns@AI.Sri.com <Burns@AI.Sri.com>; carol.chatfield@gmail.com <carol.chatfield@gmail.com>; tomrichardson87@gmail.com <tomrichardson87@gmail.com>; jacobs_suzanne@yahoo.com <jacobs_suzanne@yahoo.com>; phinneysilver@sbcglobal.net <phinneysilver@sbcglobal.net>; 'Sippie Dykstra' <sippied@earthlink.net>; nicholas.catania@gmail.com <nicholas.catania@gmail.com>; tim.perkins@yahoo.com <tim.perkins@yahoo.com>; brianevans@gmail.com <brianevans@gmail.com>; ruspini@mac.com <ruspini@mac.com>; 'Naveena Bereny (Ramona Cir)' <nbereny@hotmail.com>; naomitemes@gmail.com <naomitemes@gmail.com>; mtalley@stanford.edu <mtalley@stanford.edu>; mperezconsultant@aol.com <mperezconsultant@aol.com>; 'Ulfar Erlingsson' <ulfar.erlingsson@gmail.com>; mgoodman@cbnorcal.com <mgoodman@cbnorcal.com>; 'Lucy Filppu' <loosy@earthlink.net>; Kalinsky@Stanford.edu <Kalinsky@Stanford.edu>; 'Karen Fitzpatrick' <karenfitzpatrick@mac.com>; 'K.C. Macqueen' <kcmacqueen@gmail.com>; bemacgregor@earthlink.net <bemacgregor@earthlink.net>; 'Julie C Cardillo' <cardillo@ix.netcom.com>; 'Jim Silver' <jimsilver@sbcglobal.net>; 'ivan hom' <ihom627@yahoo.com>; 'Beth Whitmore' <whitmore1234@sbcglobal.net>; 'Florence Catania' <flocatania@gmail.com>; 'Roger P' <roger.petersen@gmail.com>; mila.zelkha@gmail.com <mila.zelkha@gmail.com>; mbauriedel@ursu.com <mbauriedel@ursu.com>; elizabeth.ratner@gmail.com <elizabeth.ratner@gmail.com>; jwhamburger@yahoo.com <jwhamburger@yahoo.com>; knightwrite@comcast.net <knightwrite@comcast.net>; 'Raul Perez' <raulperezdesign@gmail.com>; sruspini@mac.com <sruspini@mac.com>; mdesai70@yahoo.com <mdesai70@yahoo.com>; elizabetharnow@hotmail.com <elizabetharnow@hotmail.com>; gornish@gmail.com <gornish@gmail.com>; ddpiersig@aol.com <ddpiersig@aol.com>; bobandsusan@rail.com <bobandsusan@rail.com>; joyce.farnsworth@gmail.com <joyce.farnsworth@gmail.com>; MartinWMolloy@sbcglobal.net <MartinWMolloy@sbcglobal.net>; 'Susan Iannucci' <susan@rail.com>; 'Bob Iannucci' <bob@rail.com>; tatianabliss@hotmail.com <tatianabliss@hotmail.com>; eg2wilson@comcast.net <eg2wilson@comcast.net>; tehillonette@yahoo.com <tehillonette@yahoo.com>; mary.e.wheeler@gmail.com <mary.e.wheeler@gmail.com>; michaelmwozniak@gmail.com <michaelmwozniak@gmail.com>; bdendsley@aol.com <bdendsley@aol.com>; cgardner@stanford.edu <cgardner@stanford.edu>; meenukhetan@hotmail.com <meenukhetan@hotmail.com>; rlripley@prodigy.net <rlripley@prodigy.net>; 'Ken Kopper' <kkopper@comcast.net>; clay_lambert@sbcglobal.net <clay_lambert@sbcglobal.net>; fbabian@pacbell.net <fbabian@pacbell.net>; franmavia@yahoo.com <franmavia@yahoo.com>; christina@rebelsun.com <christina@rebelsun.com>; gordon@rebelsun.com <gordon@rebelsun.com>; 'Anjan Ghose' <anjanghose@yahoo.com>; 'Manoj R' <hellomanoj@yahoo.com>; 'Jasleen Raisinghani' <hellojasleen@yahoo.com>; jessicakopper@hotmail.com <jessicakopper@hotmail.com>; 'Paul Ramsbottom' <pramsbottom@me.com>; billy.riggs@gmail.com <billy.riggs@gmail.com>; gphillips@interorealestate.com <gphillips@interorealestate.com>; menka.sethi@gmail.com <menka.sethi@gmail.com>; augustine.sterling@gmail.com <augustine.sterling@gmail.com>; corbett.krys@gmail.com <corbett.krys@gmail.com>; krishnakumar.mohandos@gmail.com <krishnakumar.mohandos@gmail.com>; 'Kay Evans' <kayevans@gmail.com>; 'Olivia Gorajewski' <olivia.gorajewski@gmail.com>; Daniel.o.anger@gmail.com <Daniel.o.anger@gmail.com>; 'Shounak Dharap' <shounak.dharap@gmail.com>; 'Chanda Dharap' <chanda_dharap@yahoo.com>; Len Filppu <lenfilppu@earthlink.net>; 000 Aren Raisinghani <helloaren@gmail.com> 2 Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2019, 9:17:06 PM PST Subject: Support of Raisinghani Appeal for Eichler PRIVACY - Filing App # 8 File # 17PLN-00272 (ID #9671) Hello Everyone, We are reaching out to you to support our request for privacy and quality of everyday life - and by extension the privacy of every Echlier home in Palo Alto. I am attaching our letter to the council members that was sent on Oct 28th which highlights the key points of concern and the appeal to the council members to address and uphold our privacy. Here are the 4 key points we requested: 1. Keep a minimum of 40 foot setback instead of the currently proposed ~29 feet. 2. Allow full windows only on the front-face of the 2nd level to open into the street at Redwood Circle. 3. Move egress windows from the back-wall to the side-walls of the room on 2nd level. 4. Center the 2nd floor volume above the lower level. Appreciate if you can take few minutes to write to the Palo Alto city council urging them to consider our appeal so we set the correct precedence in our beautiful Eichler neighborhood. The Council is hearing our case tomorrow (Jan 14th, Monday) after 8:30 pm. Location: Council Chambers, Civic Center, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Ground Floor Group email of the city council - city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Thank you and hope you will be able to send your thoughts to the council members via email tonight or latest by tomorrow early morning so the council has the time to review your inputs. In addition, we would greatly appreciate if you can also join us tomorrow evening at the council hearing at Hamilton Ave. Cheers, Manoj - 650 556 3455 Jasleen - 408 930 5743 1 Carnahan, David From:John Hamburger <jwhamburger@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 11:15 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support of Raisinghani Appeal for PRIVACY - Filing App # 8 File # 17PLN-00272 (ID #9671) Dear City Council,     As a neighbor on Carlson Circle, I strongly support the Raisinghani request to seriously consider amendments to their  immediate neighbor’s proposed construction:  1. Keep a minimum of 40 foot setback instead of the currently proposed ~29 feet.   2. Allow full windows only on the front‐face of the 2nd level to open into the street at Redwood Circle.  3. Move egress windows from the back‐wall to the side‐walls of the room on the 2nd level.  4. Center the 2nd floor volume above the lower level.  I appreciate living in this special neighborhood of mid‐century modern homes‐‐many single story. It is important to  respect the process of review and to maintain neighbor privacy and good community relations.     Thank you for your attention,  John Hamburger  3700 Carlson Circle  Palo Alto  1 Carnahan, David From:tim.perkins@yahoo.com Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 1:48 PM To:Council, City; Owen, Graham Subject:3743 Redwood Circle, Fairmeadow Eichler Neighborhood Design Plans Attachments:3743 Redwood Circle CityCouncilLetter.pdf January 14, 2019 Subject: 3743 Redwood Circle Designs Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council, The owners of 3743 Redwood Circle are to be commended for being receptive to the feedback of their original non-compatible Eichler neighborhood design and aligning it with the newly developed guidelines. Much progress has been made in the redesign but the remaining issues are formidable and will have impact upon future proposed builds in Eichler neighborhoods. Being in an Eichler community, the walls of our Eichler homes open into the back and side yards typically with a series of full-length sliding glass doors and/or windows. This is our outside-in and inside-out experience that Eichlers are so well-known for. Below is a photo from By Dave Weinstein's Eichler Network Director article "Why Wait 'til It's Too Late? Staving off threatening neighborhood changes — before the inevitable wake up call hits home." The photo captures a similar situation with a high level of glass exposure that the Raisinghanis are confronting in their communications with the City and owner of 3743 Redwood Circle. Note the view is from the ground level and not the second story. 2 (https://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/why-wait-til-its-too- late?page=0,0&utm_source=New%20Subscribers&utm_campaign=7c93aa12b9-BB_1_7_19_new- list&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_29ba75f0fc-7c93aa12b9-99887201) My home at 3712 Carlson Circle is similarly constructed and has a significant violation of privacy due to privacy screening failure (it takes years to regrow a 10+ ft. green hedge that blocks invasive views – please see the photos in the Raisinghani’s letter to council. In short, privacy is a profoundly fundamental issue for Eichler neighborhoods that are facing two-story rebuilds. I am not opposed to two story homes in Eichler neighborhoods but I do feel it is imperative that privacy concerns and aesthetic considerations be heavily weighted. As such, I ask you to consider: 1. Advancing the Eichler Guidelines to the next level. a. Re-activate the working group and public engagement to review and update the document (e.g., long horizontal windows situated above 6 feet) b. Place greater emphasis on privacy and aesthetic compatibility. 2. Update the planning process to require photos from the viewpoint of the proposed second story toward all of the adjacent neighbors’ yards as an aid to support the privacy impact assessment. 3. Explore codification of the guidelines to move them from ‘voluntary’ to “required.” In closing I recommend the council reject the existing plans for 3743 Redwood Circle as I believe there are actions that can further mitigate privacy and the Raisinghani’s other concerns. The Council’s decision will impact whether the intent of the building plans is consistent with the 3 Eichler Guidelines, or merely is minimally meeting the issues of privacy, daylight plane, and second story placement on the first story. Thank you for your consideration. Attached is a PDF version of the letter. Sincerely, Tim Perkins 1 Carnahan, David From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 9:07 PM To:board@pausd.org; jdibrienza@pausd.org; tcollins@pausd.org; mcaswell@pausd.org; kdauber@pausd.org; sdharap@pausd.org; daustin@pausd.org Cc:Joe Simitian; Council, City Subject:Affordable Teacher Housing Proposal. January 15, 2019 January 14, 2019     Dear President DiBrienza and Palo Alto School Board Members,     As School Board Members you have many opportunities to make important and meaningful decisions. Supporting  teacher housing is one of those opportunities.    As a former School Board and City Councilmember,  the issue of “affordable” workforce housing and options has  surfaced many times over the decades. All types of housing, rental and purchased units, have become more scarce and  extremely expensive.    In my own family, my youngest son, who did a portion of his student teaching at Fletcher Middle School, moved with his  fiancee to Portland, Oregon in June 2018. With teaching and non‐profit jobs, they simply could no longer afford to live in  the mid‐peninsula. They felt to have housing and mobility options they needed to move out of state.     This is one of many examples of what happens to teachers who can’t find housing or who want to have more choices to  build a strong future. Not only do families move further away but PAUSD and other Districts lose dedicated, talented,  and enthusiastic teachers.     This is an opportunity for PAUSD, in partnership with other Districts, to make the proposal a creative and well‐designed  local housing complex for teachers.When this is successful, other Districts may be encouraged to do the same. How  great that would be.    I strongly support the affordable teacher housing proposal; I encourage you  to direct staff to support the proposal and  to identify possible funding sources for the PAUSD  share (600K) of the total estimated partnership costs.I deeply  appreciate the generous local and regional funds that already have been identified.     Thank you to Supervisor Simitian for bringing this proposal forward and working with many stakeholders and educators  to make this happen.     Sincerely,     Gail A. Price    1 Carnahan, David From:California High-Speed Rail <info@hsr.ca.gov> Sent:Thursday, January 10, 2019 1:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:AMENDED: California High-Speed Rail Board of Directors Agenda for January 15, 2019 To view this email as a web page, go here. BOARD AGENDA *** AMENDED JANUARY 10, 2019 *** BOARD MEETING DETAILS JANUARY 15, 2019 @ 10:00 AM Meeting Location California Secretary of State Auditorium 1500 11th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 1. Closed Session Pertaining to Litigation The Authority will meet in closed session pursuant to Government Code section 11126(e)(1)&(2)(A) to confer with counsel with regard to the following litigation:  John Tos; Quentin Kopp; Town of Atherton; County of Kings; Patricia Louise Hogan-Giorni; Anthony Wynne, Community Coalition on High-Speed Rail, 2 TRANSDEF; California Rail Foundation v. California High-Speed Rail Authority (Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2016-00204740)  County of Kings v. California High-Speed Rail Authority; (Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2014-80001861) The Authority will meet in closed session pursuant to Government Code section 11126(e)(1)&(2)(B)(i);11126(a)(1). Responsible Party: T. Fellenz Status: -- Duration: 90 PUBLIC COMMENT – APPROXIMATE START TIME 11:30 A.M. The public comment period for this meeting will take place after the Board reconvenes from closed session for any public comments on all Agenda and non-Agenda items. Those persons who wish to comment are required to submit their requests to the Board Secretary before the start of the meeting by filling in the green cards. Typically, public comment will be limited to two minutes per person, however the Chair may decide to shorten or lengthen the public comment periods, at his or her discretion. Agenda Items may be taken out of order. 2. Consider Approving the Board Meeting Minutes from the December 13, 2018 Board Meeting Responsible Party: -- Status: A Duration: 5 min. 3. Status Update on the High-Speed Rail Authority’s Implementation of the California State Auditor’s Recommendations Responsible Party: M. Rossi Status: I Duration: 20 min. 4. 2019 Program Overview Responsible Party: J. Hedges Status: I Duration: 20 min. 3 * “A” denotes an “Action” item; “I” denotes an “Information” item; “C” denotes “consent” item. * The agenda was amended on January 10, 2019. The Closed Session was moved from agenda item #4 to agenda item #1. The Public Comment Period and open session board items were reordered to take place after the Board reconvenes from Closed Session. Reasonable Accommodation for Any Individual Requests for reasonable accommodations, such as interpreters or assistive listening devices, require at least one week advance notice prior to the meeting/event. Please submit request to the High-Speed Rail Authority’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Branch at (916) 324-1541 or via email at boardmembers@hsr.ca.gov. Adaptaciones razonables Las solicitudes de adaptaciones razonables, como intérpretes o dispositivos de audición asistida, requieren al menos una semana de aviso previo antes de la reunión/evento. Haga su solicitud en la Oficina de Igualdad de Oportunidades en el Empleo (Equal Employment Opportunity, EEO) de la Autoridad del Sistema Ferroviario de Alta Velocidad al (916) 324-1541 o por correo electrónico a boardmembers@hsr.ca.gov. 合理便利設施 如需同聲傳譯或助聽設備等合理的便利設施，需至少在會議/活動前一周給出提前通知。請提交申請至高速鐵路管理局的公平就業機會（EEO） 辦公室，電話為(916) 324-1541，或請發送電郵至 boardmembers@hsr.ca.gov. Mga Makatuwirang Kaluwagan Ang mga kahilingan para sa makatuwirang kaluwagan, tulad ng tagapagsalin ng wika o kagamitang pantulong sa pagdining, ay nangangailangan ng isang linggung paunang abiso bago ang pagpupulong/kaganapan. Mangyaring magsumite ng kahilingan sa Sangay ng Pantay na Pagkakataon sa Trabaho (Equal Employment Opportunity, EEO) ng Awtoridad ng Mabilis na Tren (High-Speed Rail Authority) sa (916) 324-1541 o sa pamamagitan ng email sa boardmembers@hsr.ca.gov. 합리적인 편의서비스 통역사 또는 청취 지원 장치 등의 합리적인 편의서비스에 대한 요청은 미팅/행사 적어도 1주일 전에 요청해야 합니다. 요청서를 고속철도청 평등한 고용기회(EEO) 지점, (916) 324-1541 또는 이메일boardmembers@hsr.ca.gov.로 보내 주십시오. การอํานวยความสะดวกที่เหมาะสม หากต้องการขอรับการอํานวยความสะดวกที่เหมาะสม เช่น ล่ามหรืออุปกรณ์ช่วยฟัง ต้องมีการแจ้งให้ทราบล่วงหน้าก่อนการประชุม/การจัดงานอย่างน้อยหนึ่งสัปดาห์ โปรดส่งคําขอไปยังสํานักงานสาขาโอกาสการจ ้างงานที่เท่าทียมกัน (EEO) ของการรถไฟความเร็วสูงที่หมายเลข (916) 324-1541 หรือผ่านทางอีเมลที่ boardmembers@hsr.ca.gov. SEE MORE AT WWW.HSR.CA.GOV California High-Speed Rail Authority 770 L Street, Suite 620 Sacramento, CA 956814 info@hsr.ca.gov (916) 324-1541 This email was sent by: California High-Speed Rail Authority 770 L Street Suite 620, Sacramento, CA, 95814 US Privacy Policy Unsubscribe 1 Carnahan, David From:Edie Keating <edie.keating100@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 6:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:An opportunity for 100% affordable housing deserves a yes. Dear City Council ‐ It took many years to create Palo Alto's level of jobs housing imbalance. This is the background we all  live with today, and must not forget.  The Palo Alto Housing project you will consider tonight deserves approval.  The  main objection I have heard is that it will add to traffic.  It's location on El Camino makes the frequent run bus lines 22  and 522 available to residents, and these drop off right at the downtown Palo Alto Caltrain station.  It is an excellent  location to entice people to take transit.      And while some local trips will be added, housing that Palo Alto builds on average will mean some decrease in longer  commute trips.      In the balance of importance, for the region's housing crisis, and for the residents of Palo Alto who love their home but  are at risk of being priced out, please say yes to this project.      Sincerely,   Edie Keating  Alma St., Palo Alto  1 Carnahan, David From:Paul Ramsbottom <pramsbottom@me.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 15, 2019 3:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Appeal filing: App # 8 File # 17PLN-00272 (ID # 9671) Dear esteemed council members,    We are neighbors on Redwood Circle. This is a letter of support for the Raisinghanis and their key privacy concerns:    Here are the 4 key points:  1. Keep a minimum of 40 foot setback instead of the currently proposed ~29 feet.     2. Allow full windows only on the front‐face of the 2nd level to open into the street at Redwood Circle.    3. Move egress windows from the back‐wall to the side‐walls of the room on 2nd level.    4. Center the 2nd floor volume above the lower level.  Sincerely,    Paul Ramsbottom & Piyawan Rungsuk  3796 Redwood Circle  Palo Alto  CA 94306  1 Carnahan, David From:JIM POPPY <jamespoppy@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, January 11, 2019 1:56 PM To:City Mgr; Council, City Subject:Castilleja's January 9 Letter to City Manager and City Council Dear City Council and City Manager, The letter to you from Castilleja School dated January 9 contains several misleading statements. Please do not be swayed by their rhetoric. The proposed expansion is NOT compatible with the neighborhood. Where in Palo Alto is there an underground garage in an R1 neighborhood? The garage would require multiple variances, which should tell you right away that this is not a compliant project or one that would be viable on Embarcadero Road, within a residential neighborhood. And the design is flawed, with one entrance on the Bryant Bike Boulevard. The letter mentions a half-acre "park" for residents. The letter fails to mention that right next to it would be a massive concrete exit to the garage, and the exhaust chimney for the garage would be located in the "park." Residents would not use the park. We would rather have homes and trees like there are now. Castilleja calls it open space, but a garage exit with fumes is not open space. Castilleja has shown they will avoid the truth in order to get what they want and they do not want to compromise. The neighbors DO NOT WANT THE GARAGE. We are open to higher enrollment, but not 540. Please do not meet privately with the school, or you will also need to hold a study session with neighbors to combat their misinformation. Regards, 2 Jim Poppy 135 Melville Ave. 1 Carnahan, David From:Magic <magic@ecomagic.org> Sent:Wednesday, January 9, 2019 1:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cell phone equipment standards Dear Councilmembers,    I'm writing to ask that you reject the staff proposal to make the director of planning responsible for setting standards for  cell phone equipment in public places.     We've already seen how easily staff in earlier decisions imposed obtrusive nuisance equipment upon residents, and how  ARB consideration with opportunity for public testimony prevented a recurrence.     The quality of our community public spaces is too important a matter to be left to the discretion of a city employee  operating without requirement for public oversight.    Thank you for considering these views.    With appreciation,    David Schrom     ********** Magic, 1979-2018: thirty-nine years of valuescience leadership *********** Magic demonstrates how people can address individual, social, and environmental ills nearer their roots by applying science to discern value more accurately and realize it more fully. Enjoy the satisfaction of furthering Magic's work by making one-time or recurring gifts at http://ecomagic.org/participate.shtml#contribute. Magic is a 501(c)(3) public charity. Contributions are tax-deductible to the full extent permitted by law. THANK YOU! www.ecomagic.org -------- (650) 323-7333 --—----- Magic, Box 15894, Stanford, CA 94309 ************************************************************************************** 1 Carnahan, David From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 10, 2019 5:28 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Architectural Review Board Subject:Cell towers   Dear Mayor Filseth, VM Fine, and council members Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    Sadly, it seems that Palo Alto's Planning Director, Mr Lait, has approved an above ground design for cell phone  towers.   How can this be?   Residents are concerned for their safety (including concern about these towers falling during  an earthquake), have clearly expressed their opinion against this, and the Palo Alto ARB recommended the devices be  placed underground.    PLEASE, do NOT vote to let this man be the sole decider in where these devices are placed!!!  Allow us citizens the right  to be involved.   We should not be excluded ‐‐ it's our city after all ‐‐ and we should not have to beg to be included in  decision making (reminds me of the women's voting suffrage movement I was just reading about today). We are  citizens, don't take away our rights as such.     I ask you to Not approve the ordinance without modification.       Residents should be able to have their say (as problematic as that can be, we do live in a democracy).        No one person should have sole authority.     Thank you,  Ann Protter        1 Carnahan, David From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 3:07 PM To:Carnahan, David Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject:City Council consideration of proposed amended Wireless Ordinance Dear David Carnahan, I would appreciate it if you would let me know on what date City Council will be considering City Staff’s proposed amendments to the Wireless Ordinance. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 1 Carnahan, David From:Sharon Parkinson <marcemom47@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, January 11, 2019 3:11 PM To:shuttle; Council, City; City Mgr; Clerk, City Subject:Crosstown Shuttle C The 11:00 Crosstown shuttle Southbound from the Palo Alto Train station to Stevenson House did NOT operate today Friday, January 11, 2019, leaving several Seniors stranded along the way. Tose planning on the La Comida lunch program were out of luck as the next sguttle arrives 20 minutes too late. The City of Palo Alto is boastful about the shuttle system yet it does not seem to give the MV Bus Company enough money to operate the shuttle on the schedule provided by the city. This was a problem a month or so ago and it seems to be a problem again. I complain because I use the Shuttle and I bet that most of you DO NOT and therefore have no idea what it is like to plan a day using public transportation. I use the Shuttle. I bet you DO NOT and therefore have no idea how difficult it is to depend on it.   Sharon Parkinson      Virus-free. www.avast.com   1 Carnahan, David From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 10:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:ENJOYING TONIGHTS COUNCIL MEETING on TV. CONGRATULATIONS to the new MAYOR FILSETH  and council members.    Geri McGIlvray     EVERYDAY safety and WALKABILITY,  Midtown, Middlefield Road  1 Carnahan, David From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 11:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Everyone should be able to see the clouds and tree tops out of their wkndow!     Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:Annette Rahn <annetterahn@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 9, 2019 7:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:Flaws in the proposed amendment to Palo Alto's Wireless Ordinance     Dear Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Mr. Fine, Mr. Filseth, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou, and Mr. Tanaka:     I am writing to ask you to vote against approving as written the amended Wireless Ordinance that City Staff is asking you to approve.    You may believe that the proposed amendments represent only minor adjustments to the Ordinance, adjustments required to bring it into compliance with an FCC order that goes into effect in mid-January.    However, the proposed new language will leave City Council and Palo Alto residents out of the process that will determine the siting and appearance of cell towers next to their homes. By assigning sole authority to the Planning Director to establish aesthetic standards, it will deny municipalities the opportunity to resist the dictates of the FCC.     Unfortunately, the amended Ordinance, in giving the Planning Director the sole authority to establish aesthetic standards to replace the City of Palo Alto’s core aesthetic standards expressed in Section 18.76.020(d) of the Code with those of his/her own devising—does so a) without stating what the standards should be, b) without requiring that the Architectural Review Board provide the Planning Director with recommendations, and c) without allowing either City Council or residents to voice their opinion.     The amended Ordinance ignores these 2017 ARB guidelines and, as written, empowers the Planning Director to establish whatever aesthetic standards he/she chooses, with input from no one.    If this amended Ordinance is approved:     1. You will be pre-approving, sight unseen, whatever a single City employee wants to do. This person may or may not have any particular qualifications to establish aesthetic standards and is not accountable to voters;    2. You will be allowing this person to make critical quality-of-life and quality-of neighborhood decisions without any recommendations from the Architectural 2 Review Board—i.e., from the people best qualified to establish aesthetic standards; and    3. You will be establishing a process in which Palo Alto residents are given no opportunity to participate.    The proposed amended Ordinance establishes a process that is undemocratic.    The standards for the siting and appearance of cell towers near residences has been a subject of intense debate in Palo Alto for over one and one-half years. City Council has received numerous emails and phone calls from residents who object to the telecom companies’ applications to locate ugly, noisy and potentially hazardous ancillary cell tower equipment aboveground, adjacent to residents’ homes.     Therefore, it is inexplicable why the amended Ordinance you are being asked to approve makes no provision for residents to have a voice in the appearance, noise level, or location of the cell towers the telecommunications industry wants to install in their neighborhoods.     Additionally, there is no provision for either you, our elected representatives on City Council, or for Palo Alto residents to know what standards the Planning Director has in mind until after his/her sole authority is established. Is this a fair and open process?    The proposed amended Ordinance ignores the wishes of the Architectural Review Board and the concerns of the Planning & Transportation Commission and Palo Alto residents.    The Architectural Review Board, in its public hearings, has repeatedly said that ancillary cell tower equipment must be installed underground, where it cannot be seen. This is a clear objective standard.    Two weeks ago, the Planning and Transportation Commission 1) expressed doubts about the safety of aboveground ancillary cell tower equipment; 2) urged the City to consider joining dozens of other municipalities plus the League of California Cities (to which Palo Alto belongs) in suing the FCC; and 3) urged the City to obtain expert legal advice on the lawfulness of the FCC’s order and on how best to amend Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance. Why are the PTC’s recommendations being ignored?    Additionally, the California Public Utilities Commission, because of the fire hazard utility poles and aboveground equipment pose, has now begun a process that will lead to moving most of them underground. Why are these red flags being ignored in Palo Alto?    Please, reject the amended Ordinance that City Staff has submitted to you and insist that it be modified to:     3 1. Establish the Architectural Review Board, not the Planning Director, as the lead in setting standards for the siting and appearance of cell towers;     2. Establish community meetings allowing residents to ask questions and present their ideas about the standards that are being proposed; and     3. Require City Council’s approval, once these standards have been compiled, before they become part of the City’s Wireless Ordinance.     Thank you for your consideration.       Sincerely,    Annette Rahn  650-575-8214            Virus-free. www.avast.com   1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 5:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: amendment to wireless ordinance would leave residents out     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Tina Chow <chow_tina@yahoo.com>   Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 5:48 PM  To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>;  Alison.Cormack@cityofpaloalto.org; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal)  <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Greg Tanaka <greg@gregtanaka.org>  Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning  Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: amendment to wireless ordinance would leave residents out    Dear Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Mr. Fine, Mr. Filseth, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou, and Mr. Tanaka: I have learned that city staff are asking you to approve an amended Wireless Ordinance that would give the Planning Director full authority to approve small cell towers in Palo Alto. Please DO NOT approve this amendment. I am particularly concerned that with this amendment the residents of Palo Alto are being left out of this process. Instead of the current ordinance which relies on the ARB architectural review findings, the amendment replaces this clause with "all objective aesthetic standards published by the Director”.   I learned today that the Planning Director just approved some cell towers without even seeing a photo of them. These decisions should clearly not be made by one person. As you all know, the siting of over 150 small cell towers in Palo Alto is a topic of great debate and concern. The amended ordinance you are being asked to approve makes no provision for residents 2 to have a say in what the cell towers the telecommunications industry wants to install in their neighborhoods look like or sound like, or where these towers are to be located. Please slow down and think about the consequences of these seemingly small changes in the ordinance. I urge you to vote no. Instead, please consider residents’ and the PTC’s and ARB’s concerns about the safety and aesthetics of these cell towers. Please consider joining the dozens of other municipalities plus the League of California Cities (to which Palo Alto belongs) in suing the FCC. As you know Congressional representative Anna Eshoo has challenged the FCC’s assertion that 5G cell tower installations are safe for human health. Finally the fire hazard from utility poles raises serious questions about the wisdom of adding additional equipment to them. Thank you for your consideration. There are many of us in Palo Alto who are willing to help create a city which is forward thinking in many ways - not just blindly installing more cell towers - but thinking about how to bring communications to this city safely and wisely. Please, let’s do this right. Sincerely, Tina Chow, PhD  Barron Park  1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 15, 2019 5:06 PM To:UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City Subject:Fw: CAC application // CACBIO Commissioners, On 01-09-19, Commissioner Segal expressed an interest in who's serving on the Citizens Advisory Committee on FTTP & Wireless (CAC) and what their backgrounds and credentials are. (Thanks for asking.) Within this "Letters From Citizens" document (on pages 42-46) is a copy of my 2016 application to CAC. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53482 Note that the questions about conflict of interest (pages 45-47) were asked in a separate form sent to applicants. Thanks. Jeff 1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 5:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Cell towers     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com>   Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 5:28 PM  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Cell towers      Dear Mayor Filseth, VM Fine, and council members Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    Sadly, it seems that Palo Alto's Planning Director, Mr Lait, has approved an above ground design for cell phone  towers.   How can this be?   Residents are concerned for their safety (including concern about these towers falling during  an earthquake), have clearly expressed their opinion against this, and the Palo Alto ARB recommended the devices be  placed underground.    PLEASE, do NOT vote to let this man be the sole decider in where these devices are placed!!!  Allow us citizens the right  to be involved.   We should not be excluded ‐‐ it's our city after all ‐‐ and we should not have to beg to be included in  decision making (reminds me of the women's voting suffrage movement I was just reading about today). We are  citizens, don't take away our rights as such.     I ask you to Not approve the ordinance without modification.       Residents should be able to have their say (as problematic as that can be, we do live in a democracy).     2    No one person should have sole authority.     Thank you,  Ann Protter        1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 7:40 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Cell Towers     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Luce, Gwen <GLuce@cbnorcal.com>   Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2019 11:57 PM  To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>;  Alison.Cormack@cityofpaloalto.org; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal)  <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; 'Greg Tanaka' <greg@gregtanaka.org>;  Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission  <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Cell Towers  Gwen Luce, Realtor® DRE License #00879652 Direct Line: 650.566.5343 gluce@cbnorcal.com Dear Eric Filseth, Adrian Fine, Alison Cormac, Tom Dubois, Liz Kniss, Lydia Kou, Greg Tanaka Architectural Review Board, Planning Commission, City Clerk: 2 Please do not approve the amended Ordinance without modifying it a) to make the Architectural Review Board the lead in developing the new standards, not the Planning Director and b) to make provisions for the process to be democratic (e.g., to include opportunities for residents to express their views about the proposed standards.) Sincerely, Gwen Luce . Gwen Luce 650-566-5343 gluce@cbnorcal.com www.gwenluce.com Powered by e-Letterhead   Gwen Luce 650-566-5343 gluce@cbnorcal.com www.gwenluce.com      *Wire Fraud is Real*.  Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to  confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a  real estate contract via written or verbal communication.  1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 5:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: cell towers     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Carol Heermance <cheermance@gmail.com>   Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 7:30 PM  To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>;  Alison.Cormack@cityofpaloalto.org; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal)  <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; greg@gregtanaka.org  Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission  <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: cell towers    Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka,   Please be advised that there are many Palo Alto residents that are concerned about the direction that the city is taking regarding the installation of cell towers in our neighborhoods. The City Staff is asking you to sign off on an amended Wireless Ordinance. These proposed amendments sideline any input from residents and allow a single staff person to ok new cell installations. In December we were relieved when the city decided to accept the recommendations of the ARB regarding placement of cell towers. However, in the past few days, it appears that only one person on staff is now solely responsible for cell tower placement. Mr Lait has apparently already ignored the ARB recommendation to locate the Crown Castle/Verizon towers underground in the University South neighborhood and has instead approved the Crown Castle cell towers above ground.     We have included the following emails dated January 7 and January 10, from Jean Fleming, that articulate our concerns.     2 Thank you for your consideration.    Richard and Carol Heermance      Letter from Jean Fleming dated January 7:    Dear Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Mr. Fine, Mr. Filseth, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou, and Mr. Tanaka:     I am writing to ask you to vote against approving as written the amended Wireless Ordinance that City Staff is asking you to sign off on.   The Planning Director and the City Attorney may tell you that the proposed amendments represent only minor adjustments to the Ordinance, adjustments required to bring it into compliance with an FCC order that goes into effect in mid-January.     In fact, however, the proposed new language leaves City Council and the people of Palo Alto out of the process that will determine the siting and appearance of cell towers next to residents’ homes. How? By assigning solely to the Planning Director the authority to establish aesthetic standards—and it is in the establishment of aesthetic standards that municipalities have an opportunity to resist the dictates of the FCC. (Remember President Trump has stacked the FCC with champions of the telecommunications industry—e.g., the new Commissioner was formerly the Associate General Counsel at Verizon).      Unfortunately, the amended Ordinance, in giving the Planning Director the sole authority to establish aesthetic standards—more specifically, the sole authority to replace the City of Palo Alto’s core aesthetic standards expressed in Section 18.76.020(d) of the Code with those of his own devising—does so a) without stating what the standards should be, b) without requiring that the Architectural Review Board provide the Planning Director with recommendations, and c) without giving either City Council or residents any say in the matter.      You may recall that, in 2017, the ARB put forward a thoughtful set of guidelines that should serve as the starting point for any aesthetic standards the City establishes vis a vis cell towers. But the amended Ordinance ignores these guidelines and, as written, empowers the Planning Director to establish whatever aesthetic standards he chooses, with input from no one.     The fact is, if you approve this amended Ordinance:     1. You will be pre-approving, sight unseen, whatever a single City employee—an employee who has no particular qualifications to establish aesthetic standards and who is not accountable to voters—wants to do;    2. You will be allowing him to make critical quality-of-life and quality-of neighborhood decisions without any recommendations from the Architectural Review Board—i.e., from the people bestqualified to establish aesthetic standards; and     3. You will be setting in motion a process in which the residents of Palo Alto are given no opportunity to participate.      The proposed amended Ordinance establishes a process that is undemocratic.    The standards for the siting and appearance of cell towers next to residences has been a subject of intense debate in Palo Alto for over one and one-half years. As you know, City Council has received countless emails and phone calls from residents who object to the telecom companies’ applications to locate ugly, noisy and potentially hazardous ancillary cell tower equipment aboveground, adjacent to residents’ homes. Dozens of residents have attended the Architectural Review Board’s public hearings on proposed cell towers, and dozens have stayed late into the night at City Council meetings to express their concerns about the siting of this equipment and about the language of the Wireless Ordinance. Plus, the press has been closely following this story, along with the related story of the California Fair Political Practices Commission’s investigation of now former Chief Technology Officer Jonathan Reichental, with respect to violations of gift and conflict of interest laws involving the telecommunications industry.    In light of all this, it is unfathomable why the amended Ordinance you are being asked to approve makes no provision for residents to have a say in what the cell towers the telecommunications industry wants to install in their neighborhoods look like or sound like, or where these towers are to be located.    3 Moreover, the amended Ordinance makes no provision for either you, our elected representatives on City Council, or for we Palo Alto residents to even know what standards the Planning Director has in mind until after you have approved his sole authority to establish them. How can this be right?       The proposed amended Ordinance ignores the wishes of the Architectural Review Board and the concerns of the Planning & Transportation Commission and the people of Palo Alto.     The Architectural Review Board, in its public hearings, has repeatedly said that ancillary cell tower equipment must be installed underground, where it can’t be seen. What could be a clearer objective standard?    Why doesn’t the amended Ordinance you are being asked to approve state, at least in general terms, the aesthetic standards the Planning Director wishes to incorporate into the Wireless Ordinance? After all, Staff has had since October to prepare the Ordinance.    Only two weeks ago, the Planning and Transportation Commission 1) expressed grave doubts about the safety of aboveground ancillary cell tower equipment; 2) urged the City to consider joining dozens of other municipalities plus the League of California Cities (to which Palo Alto belongs) in suing the FCC; and 3) urged the City to obtain expert legal advice on the lawfulness of the FCC’s order and on how best to amend Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance. Why are the PTC’s recommendations being ignored?    Moreover, our Congressional representative, Anna Eshoo has, with Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, challenged the FCC’s assertion that 5G cell tower installations—which all of the proposed cell towers in Palo Alto will accommodate—pose no threat to human health. In addition, the California Public Utilities Commission, because of the fire hazard utility poles and aboveground equipment pose, has now begun a process that will lead to moving most of them underground. Why are these red flags being ignored in Palo Alto?       Please, reject the amended Ordinance that City Staff has submitted to you and insist that it be modified to:     1. Establish the Architectural Review Board—not the Planning Director—as the lead in setting standards for the siting and appearance of cell towers;      2. Establish that there be a series of community meetings so that residents may learn what standards are being proposed, ask questions of ARB members and City Staff, and offer their own ideas for consideration; and     3. Require that, once these standards have been assembled, City Council must approve them before they become part of the City’s Wireless Ordinance.      To remind you: The 12/12/18 Staff Report notes that cities may take up to 180 days following the effective date of the FCC regulations to develop and publish their aesthetic standards. There is no need to rush.     For your convenience, I have attached a comparison of the language in the current Wireless Ordinance with respect to the aesthetic standards for Tier 3 cell towers (here, the City’s core aesthetic standards—i.e., “architectural review findings”—expressed in Section 18.76.020(d) of the Municipal Code) with the proposed amended language for aesthetic standards for Tier 3 cell towers.     Thank you for your consideration. And please let me know if you have any questions—questions, for example, about how experts in telecommunications law are advising other cities to respond to the FCC’s order.    Sincerely,    Jeanne Fleming       Jeanne Fleming, PhD  JFleming@Metricus  650-325-5151      4 Letter from Jean Fleming dated January 10    Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka,    I have just learned that Palo Alto’s Planning Director has rejected the Architectural Review Board’s December recommendation to locate underground the cell towers Crown Castle/Verizon has applied to install in the University South neighborhood. Instead, Mr. Lait has approved a Crown Castle streetlight pole-mounted cell tower design—a design which he apparently has never seen a photograph of, much less a mock-up or actual installation.      It was in asking City Staff for a photograph of the towers Mr. Lait approved that I discovered no photo exists.      Planning Director Lait, who is not an architect, has thrown out the recommendations of Palo Alto’s Architectural Review Board and approved Crown Castle’s cell towers without even seeing what they actually look like.     As you know, these irresponsible actions come at a time when City Staff is asking City Council to approve an amended Wireless Ordinance that gives the Planning Director sole authority to establish aesthetic standards for the over 150 so-called small cell node cell towers that telecom companies have already applied to locate in close proximity to residents’ homes here.     Respectfully, I ask you to please reject the amended Ordinance that City Staff has submitted to you and insist that it be modified to:     1. Establish the Architectural Review Board—not the Planning Director—as the lead in setting standards for the siting and appearance of cell towers;      2. Establish that there be a series of community meetings so that residents may learn what standards are being proposed, ask questions of ARB members and City Staff, and offer their own ideas for consideration; and     3. Require that, once these standards have been assembled, City Council must approve them before they become part of the City’s Wireless Ordinance.     I ask you as well to please direct Planning Director Lait to withdraw his decision to approve the Crown Castle/Verizon University South proposed cell tower installations, to withdraw it until he can provide the citizens of Palo Alto with photographs and a mock-up installation that show what he has approved actually looks like.    Sincerely,    Jeanne Fleming    Jeanne Fleming, PhD  JFleming@Metricus.net  650-325-5151    1 Carnahan, David From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 10, 2019 11:47 AM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Fw: January 9, 2019, Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting, Item #2: Staff Request for Feedback   From: herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>  Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 9:49 PM  To: uac@cityofpaloalto.org  Subject: January 9, 2019, Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting, Item #2: Staff Request for Feedback      Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    January 9, 2019    Utilities Advisory Commission  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      JANUARY 9, 2019, UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #2  STAFF REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK      Dear Utilities Advisory Commission:    The purpose of the Utilities Advisory Commission as defined by Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.23.050 is to advise the City Council.  (A copy of PAMC Section 2.23.050 appears at the end of this letter.)    When staff wants to place a proposal on a future City Council agenda about a matter in the UAC's purview, such as the subject of this agenda item, the appropriate thing to do is to place an action item on the UAC agenda to permit the UAC to make a recommendation about staff's proposal.    It is not the purpose of the UAC to give feedback to staff to permit staff to make a recommendation to the City Council based on the UAC's feedback to staff. Instead it is staff's obligation to bring its proposal on a timely basis as part of an action item on the UAC agenda to permit the UAC to make a recommendation to the City Council about staff's proposal.    The only feedback you should give staff on its proposal at this time is when you determine the agenda items for your next meeting that should include your recommendation on staff's proposal for the Fiber-to-the-Node Request for Proposal (RFP 171422) that received bid responses over six month ago by the RFP deadline of June 28, 2018.  2   The agenda item description should be written to provide the UAC complete freedom of action on its recommendation, rather than in a way to constrain the UAC as to the recommendation it could make.    The City Council has the sole authority to either award a contract for RFP 171422 or to reject all bids, and requires the UAC recommendation before the Council can act.    At the same time that staff places RFP 117422 on your agenda as an action item, it can also place on the same agenda an action item on the other subjects of this meeting's agenda item.    The most recent meeting of the Fiber and Wireless Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) was held on October 25, 2018, that was during the normal five-week period that staff was preparing its staff report for the November 19, 2018, City Council action on the Smart Grid Assessment and Technology Implementation plan.    City staff supporting the CAC at that time included Chief Information Officer Jonathan Reichental and Project Manager Todd Henderson from the Information Technology Department and David Yuan, Jim Fleming, and Josh Wallace from the Utilities Department. Dean Batchelor from the Utilities Department sometimes attended parts of CAC meetings.    David Yuan and Todd Henderson were both at the October 25, 2018, CAC meeting, while Dean Batchelor was at most of the meeting. The other staff were absent.    Henderson told the CAC it could not look at the responses to RFP 117422 because the attorney's were still working on the RFP and nobody on the CAC could look at the responses to the RFP until staff made a recommendation.    None of the staff at that CAC meeting told the CAC that the Utilities Department was in the process of writing a staff report to the Council that if approved would lead staff to recommend that the CAC be dissolved or that a new RFP would have to be issued, although Henderson may not have known about the pending recommendation since he is in a different department.    The fact that staff has not provided relevant information to the CAC on a timely basis leads me to question whether staff's current proposal is really about a new bidding process for Fiber-to-the-Node (FTTN), or whether staff has always intended to build and pay for a FTTN system for Google's benefit so that Google can then use the FTTN system paid for by the City of Palo Alto for a Google wireless-to- the-home-system.    My concern about the City building and paying for a FTTN system for Google's benefit is based on the following comments at CAC and UAC meetings.    At the April 17, 2017, CAC meeting, after Google had stopped its work on fiber and was already considering wireless instead, Jonathan Reichental said he wanted to partner with Google and be the first in line.    At the July 20, 2017, CAC meeting, Jonathan Reichental said that going forward Google will be all wireless based.    3 In the verbatim transcript of the April 5, 2017, Utilities Advisory Commission meeting discussion about FTTP & Wireless prepared by Jeff Hoel, the following comments about Fiber to the Node and Wireless were made by Jonathan Reichental and Jim Fleming at the time points indicated in the transcript: “1:56:36: “Jonathan Reichental: So, the bet, I would say, is that we’re going to have more interest if we have nodes – the neighborhood nodes in place, and then either a home owner wants to pay for that wireless connection, or they want their premium fiber--I suppose you could offer luxury and premium or something--or a third-party partner would come in and say, we’ll do the--this wireless to every house. “1:57:00: “Jim Fleming: And that’s the direction that Google is going in. I mean, if Google Fiber has a future, it won’t be running fiber all the way to the home. It will be to a neighborhood access point, and from there, it will be a hop …” Those comments (with Jeff Hoel’s commentary interposed) appear in the Public Letters to the Council prepared for the May 15, 2017, City Council meeting on page 113 of 125 at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57737. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.23.0502.23.050 2.23.050 Purposes and duties. (a) The purpose of the utilities advisory commission shall be to advise the city council on present and prospective long-range planning and policy and major program and project matters relating to the electric utility, gas utility, water utility, wastewater collection utility, fiber optics utility and recycled water matters, excluding daily operations. (b) The utilities advisory commission shall have the following duties: (1) Advise the city council on long-range planning and policy matters pertaining to: (A) Development of the electric utility, gas utility, water utility, wastewater collection utility, fiber optics utility, and the recycled water resource; (B) Joint action projects with other public or private entities which involve, affect or impact the electric utility, gas utility, water utility, wastewater collection utility, fiber optics utility, and the recycled water resource; (C) Environmental aspects and attributes of the electric utility, gas utility, water utility, wastewater collection utility, fiber optics utility, and the recycled water resource; (D) Water and energy conservation, energy efficiency, and demand side management; and (E) Recycled water matters not otherwise addressed in the preceding subparagraphs (A) through (D); 4 (2) Review and make recommendations to the city council on the consistency with adopted and approved plans, policies, and programs of any major electric utility, gas utility, water utility, wastewater collection utility, fiber optics utility, or the recycled water resource; (3) Formulate and review legislative proposals regarding the electric utility, gas utility, water utility, wastewater collection utility, fiber optics utility and the recycled water resource, to which the city is a party, in which the city has an interest, or by which the city may be affected; (4) Review the electric utility, gas utility, water utility, wastewater collection utility, and fiber optics utility capital improvement programs, operating budgets and related reserves, and rates, and the recycled water program, budget, and rate, and thereafter forward any comments and recommendations to the finance committee or its successor; (5) Provide advice upon such other matters as the city council may from time to time assign. The utilities advisory commission shall not have the power or authority to cause the expenditure of city funds or to bind the city to any written, oral or implied contract. (c) The utilities advisory commission may, subject to its city council-approved bylaws and at the discretion of the city council, foster and facilitate engagement with the general public, not excluding representatives of commerce and industry, in regard to the utility matters referred to in subsections (b)(1)(A) through (E). (Ord. 5096 § 1, 2010: Ord. 4938 § 1, 2007: Ord. 4027 § 1 (part), 1991)  Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Herb Borock     1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 5:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Photographs and Mock-up Installation     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Francesca Kautz <dfkautz@pacbell.net>   Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 11:41 AM  To: DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg  <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>;  Alison.Cormack@cityofpaloalto.org; alisonlcormack@gmail.com; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss,  Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission  <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Photographs and Mock‐up Installation    Dear Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kou, Mr. Tanaka, Mr. Filseth, Ms. Cormack, Mr. Fine and Ms. Kniss,    I recently learned that the Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment, Jonathan Lait, has rejected the  Architectural Review Board’s December recommendation to locate underground the cell towers Crown Castle/Verizon  applied to install in the University South neighborhood. He has instead approved a streetlight pole mounted cell tower  design of which there are no photographs available to the public.    Just as with the Cluster 1 proposal, we need to have a mock installation so people can see what the antenna, cabling and  radio equipment screened within a custom green painted, cylindrical shroud mounted atop the replacement streetlight  pole looks like.    Please direct Planning Director Lait to withdraw his decision to approve the Crown Castle/Verizon University South  proposed cell tower installations until he provides the City of Palo Alto with photographs and a mock‐up installation.    Thank you,    Francesca Kautz    1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 5:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Planning Director approves University South cell tower design sight unseen     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>   Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 4:21 PM  To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>;  Alison.Cormack@cityofpaloalto.org; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal)  <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; 'Greg Tanaka' <greg@gregtanaka.org>  Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission  <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Planning Director approves University South cell tower design sight unseen    Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka, I have just learned that Palo Alto’s Planning Director has rejected the Architectural Review Board’s December recommendation to locate underground the cell towers Crown Castle/Verizon has applied to install in the University South neighborhood. Instead, Mr. Lait has approved a Crown Castle streetlight pole-mounted cell tower design—a design which he apparently has never seen a photograph of, much less a mock-up or actual installation.   It was in asking City Staff for a photograph of the towers Mr. Lait approved that I discovered no photo exists.   Planning Director Lait, who is not an architect, has thrown out the recommendations of Palo Alto’s Architectural Review Board and approved Crown Castle’s cell towers without even seeing what they actually look like. 2   As you know, these irresponsible actions come at a time when City Staff is asking City Council to approve an amended Wireless Ordinance that gives the Planning Director sole authority to establish aesthetic standards for the over 150 so-called small cell node cell towers that telecom companies have already applied to locate in close proximity to residents’ homes here. Respectfully, I ask you to please reject the amended Ordinance that City Staff has submitted to you and insist that it be modified to: 1. Establish the Architectural Review Board—not the Planning Director—as the lead in setting standards for the siting and appearance of cell towers;   2. Establish that there be a series of community meetings so that residents may learn what standards are being proposed, ask questions of ARB members and City Staff, and offer their own ideas for consideration; and 3. Require that, once these standards have been assembled, City Council must approve them before they become part of the City’s Wireless Ordinance. I ask you as well to please direct Planning Director Lait to withdraw his decision to approve the Crown Castle/Verizon University South proposed cell tower installations, to withdraw it until he can provide the citizens of Palo Alto with photographs and a mock-up installation that show what he has approved actually looks like. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151     1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 5:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Planning Director approves University South cell tower design sight unseen     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Whitney Leeman <whitney.r.leeman@gmail.com>   Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 7:02 AM  To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>;  Alison.Cormack@cityofpaloalto.org; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal)  <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Greg Tanaka <greg@gregtanaka.org>  Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission  <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Planning Director approves University South cell tower design sight unseen    Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka,   I have learned that Palo Alto’s Planning Director has rejected the Architectural Review Board’s December recommendation to locate underground the cell towers Crown Castle/Verizon has applied to install in the University South neighborhood. Instead, Mr. Lait has approved a Crown Castle streetlight pole-mounted cell tower design—a design which he apparently has never seen a photograph of, much less a mock-up or actual installation.      City Staff has told Ms. Jeanne Fleming that there exists no photograph of the towers Mr. Lait approved.   2    Planning Director Lait, who is not an architect, has thrown out the recommendations of Palo Alto’s Architectural Review Board and approved Crown Castle’s cell towers without even seeing what they actually look like.     As you know, these irresponsible actions come at a time when City Staff is asking City Council to approve an amended Wireless Ordinance that gives the Planning Director sole authority to establish aesthetic standards for the over 150 so-called small cell node cell towers that telecom companies have already applied to locate in close proximity to residents’ homes and busineeses in Palo Alto.    Respectfully, I ask you to please reject the amended Ordinance that City Staff has submitted to you and insist that it be modified to:    1. Establish the Architectural Review Board—not the Planning Director—as the lead in setting standards for the siting and appearance of cell towers;     2. Establish that there be a series of community meetings so that residents may learn what standards are being proposed, ask questions of ARB members and City Staff, and offer their own ideas for consideration; and    3. Require that, once these standards have been assembled, City Council must approve them before they become part of the City’s Wireless Ordinance.     I ask you as well to please direct Planning Director Lait to withdraw his decision to approve the Crown Castle/Verizon University South proposed cell tower installations, to withdraw it until he can provide the citizens of Palo Alto with photographs and a mock-up installation that show what he has approved actually looks like.    Sincerely,    Whitney Leeman, Ph.D.  1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 5:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Please reject the amended Palo Alto's Wireless Ordinance that City Staff has submitted to you for approval     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: celia chow <celia.cchow@gmail.com>   Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 8:01 PM  To: Alison.Cormack@cityofpaloalto.org; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian  <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal)  <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg  <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission  <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Please reject the amended Palo Alto's Wireless Ordinance that City Staff has submitted to you for approval    Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou, and Mr. Tanaka,     I'd like to urge you not to approve the amended Ordinance without modifying it: a) to make the Architectural Review Board the lead in developing the new standards, not the Planning Director; b) to make provisions for the process to be democratic (e.g., to include opportunities for residents to express their views about the proposed standards); and c) to require City Council's approval, before the assembled standards become part of the City's Wireless Ordinance.     Please, reject the amended Ordinance that City Staff has submitted to you and insist that it be modified to:    1. Establish the Architectural Review Board—not the Planning Director—as the lead in setting standards for the siting and appearance of cell towers;  2    2. Establish that there be a series of community meetings so that residents may learn what standards are being proposed, ask questions of ARB members and City Staff, and offer their own ideas for consideration; and    3. Require that, once these standards have been assembled, City Council must approve them before they become part of the City’s Wireless Ordinance.        As a long-term resident of Palo Alto, I thank you for your consideration.     Celia Chow  celia.cchow@gmail.com  (650)776-2878       1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 5:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Regarding Planning Director's decision to reject ARB's recommendation     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Herc Kwan <herc.kwan@gmail.com>   Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 10:11 PM  To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>;  Alison.Cormack@cityofpaloalto.org; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal)  <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; 'Greg Tanaka' <greg@gregtanaka.org>  Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission  <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Regarding Planning Director's decision to reject ARB's recommendation    Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka,    Last month I have written you to urge the ARB to realize that we DO NOT want pole‐mounted ancillary cell‐tower  equipment in Palo Alto. This evening I just learned that the Architectural Review Board’s December recommendation to  locate underground the cell towers Crown Castle/Verizon has applied to install in the University South neighborhood has  been rejected by the Planning Director.    I just attended and returned from the 2019 Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas where I witnessed the Verizon  Wireless executives and other telecom companies emphasizing the 5G network.  https://www.cnet.com/news/5g‐is‐even‐more‐of‐a‐confusing‐mess‐than‐ever‐at‐ces‐2019/    During the show, I can also see how desperately these telecom companies are competing to put their infrastructure in  place.    2 Only I realize now that they are doing it at the expense of poor citizens and residents like us who are being forced to  accept the direction that the Planning Director wants to take us to and not according to ARB who consists of experts and  architects who are highly qualified to defend and preserve the building code in Palo Alto.    If Planning Director Lait would reject every decision made by ARB that does not please the big telecom companies, why  should we have the ARB in place to examine carefully the applications from the big telecom companies? Shouldn’t we  have a system to examine each decision and have a system or authority to re‐examine any suspicious decisions made by  the Planning Director?    In addition, I also learned that the City Staff is hastily asking the City Council to approve an amended Wireless Ordinance  that gives the Planning Director sole authority to establish aesthetic standards for the over 150 so‐called small cell node  cell towers that telecom companies have already applied to locate in close proximity to residents’ homes here, including  our home on 2490 Louis Rd. Why are they so desperate in this effort? Are they doing it to hurt the residents that they  are meant to serve? I just could not comprehend.    Please stop these negative ordinances from damaging our beautiful environment and quality of life. We hope the City  Council will act to protect its residents and citizens living here.    Thank you for your attention.    Best Regards,    Herc Kwan, Ph.D.  Residents, 2490 Louis Rd  Home: (650) 843‐0852    1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 5:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: University South cell design approval     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Kelly Germa <kelly.germa@gmail.com>   Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 6:55 PM  To: Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal)  <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Alison.Cormack@cityofpaloalto.org;  alisonlcormack@gmail.com; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Filseth, Eric (Internal)  <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission  <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: University South cell design approval    Dear Ms. Kou, Mr. Fine, Ms. Kniss, Mr. Dubois, Ms. Cormack, Mr. Tanaka, and Mr. Filseth,    I’ve just learned that Planning Director Jonathan Lait has approved streetlight‐mounted cell towers for the University  South neighborhood without knowing what they actually look like!    This is outrageous.  The people of Palo Alto need to be able to see what will be put next to their homes and provide  feedback along with the ARB on the design before anything gets approved.    Please move to rescind this approval until further review and input can be gained from the community you were elected  to serve!    Thank you,     Kelly Germa, Palo Alto Homeowner  650‐544‐5711    Sent from my iPad  1 Carnahan, David From:Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Wednesday, January 16, 2019 9:18 AM To:Council, City Cc:Arthur Keller; Neilson Buchanan; John Guislin; Paul & Karen Machado; Shikada, Ed; David Schrom; Carol Scott; Christian Pease Subject:Fwd: Announcements from the City of Palo Alto for 01/16/2019 Dear City Council,    please have the Rail Grade Separation as priority #1.    First, nothing got really done and/or accomplished on this issue. Grade separation clearly affects transportation, housing and the budget (and not the other way around).    Second, it is already very late getting a sensible grade separation strategy worked out, since electrification is about to start, and if ever a tunnel would be considered or a partial trench, etc., how would this work if electrification is already partially underway?    Please set clear priorities first and do those things first that affect other things - like grade separation.    thank you    Wolfgang Dueregger    Evergreen Park      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Palo Alto <support@opengov.com>  Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 12:06 PM  Subject: Announcements from the City of Palo Alto for 01/16/2019  To: <wolfgang.dueregger@stanfordalumni.org>    Updates from the City of Palo Alto about Open City Hall Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 2 2019 City Council Priorities Jan 15, 2019 02:57 pm | The City of Palo Alto What are the priorities you would like to see the City Council adopt for 2019? Each year, the City Council reviews its priorities for the year at its Annual Council Retreat. A Council priority is defined as a topic that will receive significant attention during the year. Typically, priorities have a three-year time limit, although some may continue beyond that time period. The priorities for 2018 included:  Transportation  Housing  Budget & Finance  Rail Grade Separation Suggestions and feedback will be provided to the City Council in preparation for their retreat scheduled for February 2, 2019. Your responses are important to the City Council. Please submit all comments on this topic by January 28, 2019. Read More       Copyright © 2019 OpenGov, All rights reserved.   You are receiving this email because you participated on the  City of Palo Alto ‐ Open City Hall website.     Our mailing address is:   OpenGov  955 Charter Street  Redwood City, CA 94063    Add us to your address book  3 unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences      1 Carnahan, David From:John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com> Sent:Friday, January 11, 2019 8:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:FYI: How California can build 3.5 million new homes – Alfred Twu – Medium   https://medium.com/@firstcultural/how‐california‐can‐build‐3‐5‐million‐new‐homes‐dfe2f0ba3466      Best, John     (Mobile. Brief. Please excuse.)  1 Carnahan, David From:Sandy Rosenberg <sandyruthr@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, January 10, 2019 8:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Home for the RVs now on the City Streets Mayor Filseth,  Vice Mayor Fine   Council Members Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou, and Tanaka      Please consider using the site of the former Palo Alto garbage dump, which is now being groomed into a park, to be  converted to a park for RVs.    The City owns the land,  and without an enormous expenses, the City could provide RV campers, paver spaces, water,  sewer dumps sites, showers/bath rooms, power and garbage disposal facilities.      RVs parked on El Camino and on our residential streets are out of place and NOT appreciated by the neighbors.         The RV Residents could be billed for their spaces, maintenance and utilities.  Qualifications for entrance to the park  would have to be established.  It should not be just a storage area for RVs.    Where else could the city provide living sites for low income population at such a low cost?    I know it is a beautiful spot.  Why not use it for the lower income RV population.    Sincerely,        Sandra Rosenberg  A resident for Palo Alto for over 40 years.    1 Carnahan, David From:Sue Benjamin <mysterysue@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 15, 2019 7:36 PM To:Council, City; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; marc.berman@asm.ca.gov; zachary.ross@asm.ca.gov; jerry.hill@sen.ca.gov; lisa.chung@sen.ca.gov Subject:I oppose the CASA Compact - please join me Please join me in OPPOSING the CASA Compact.     I oppose it because  1. The CASA Compact erodes local control and financial infrastructure without solving the affordable housing problem,.  2. The elected officials from small towns and the public have been excluded from the process.  3. The Regional Housing Enterprise creates privatized regional government; a blight on democracy.    Thank you very much,    Sue Benjamin  Palo Alto, CA  1 Carnahan, David From:Shivani Aggarwal <shivani.aggarwal@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 15, 2019 10:42 AM To:Council, City Subject:Maybell Ave parking situation Hi City Council members, On behalf of Maybell ave residents, I'd like to discuss the parking issues on our street. In brief, we'd like to have resident parking permit program setup for our street. A few years ago, parking on Maybell Ave was reduced to only one side of the street from El Camino all the way up to Amaranta Ave. Due to which there is now very limited parking on Maybell Ave. We residents barely have one spot in front of each of our homes. The car dealerships around the corner on El Camino take up all the spots early in the morning. Our visitors, babysitters, gardeners, and other help have a lot of difficulty finding parking. On trash days, we don't even find curb space to place our bins and have to wait for these cars to move! And the parking situation is further exacerbated by all the construction on Maybell which when completed will only increase the parking demands for our neighborhood. Could you please help with this problem or let me know how we can proceed to resolve this? It is a pretty frustrating daily problem for us. We believe the permit parking should help with this situation. We also wonder why there is no parking on the other side of Maybell especially on weekends when there is no school or on weekdays outside school hours. I look forward to your response. Thanks Shivani 1 Carnahan, David From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 9:27 PM To:Council, City Cc:Sheryl Klein; rtsuda@pah.community; Noah Fiedel; Lait, Jonathan; Owen, Graham; De Geus, Robert; Shikada, Ed; gsheyner@paweekly.com Subject:My REAL Comments   Dear City Council Members:    I want to share with you my FULL prepared comments ‐ of which I made a real hash tonight when I had to cut them  down.   Note to self ‐‐ make a 1 minute, 2 minute and 3 minute version going forward.  I didn''t get to say what I wanted  to at the podium.  So I am putting them in this email and asking the City Clerk Beth Minor to add to the public record  please.  Please read the last paragraph if you would so that you can hear what I meant to say.    Sorry to bug out on you tonight. I'm listening to you on the radio while I turn my attention to a work project that is due  tomorrow, here in my home office.    Wish I were there,.    Kind regards and thank you all.    Becky    ===================================    Thank you to Sheryl Klein, Board Chair of PAH, Randy Tsuda PAH Exec Director, and City Staff – Jonathan Lait, Graham Owen and Rob DeGeus for addressing the concerns of Venturans. In this final stretch, Wilton resident Noah Fiedel really carried the ball for Ventura down the field to get us to “first and goal to go.”     Here’s where we are and here’s what we Venturans expect going forward:    1. We were concerned from the get go about daylight plane, massing and density and from the get go Palo Alto Housing took us seriously and gave us fewer stories at the back. Wilton Court will not be a giant industrial shoebox. Thank you for that, Palo Alto Housing.    2. We took a tour of the Tree House and were pleased at the design of the building and the homey-ness of the space. We are excited that these are real homes being added to our community with lovely amenities for the residents to enjoy. Outstanding.    3. Loading Zone – The City and PAH have honored our request not to lose the four designated spaces on Wilton for use as a loading zone for Wilton Court. I think Graham said he’d provide an “at places” memo for your review about that. They will look at placing the loading zone on ECR. Our reach ask was that PAH put the loading zone on site at the back where they have a little extra room. That was not received well.    2 4. We are excited that PAH has agreed to preserve pedestrian access on ECR or Wilton during construction. This is a pet peeve we have in Ventura that a large project gets approved and the construction companies act like they own the sidewalks and the streets, and then we residents have to zig zag our way through the construction zones, risking life and limb as we bike and walk. Thank you, Palo Alto Housing.    5. Construction impacts – We have as a condition of approval promises not to allow construction parking on Wilton Avenue and the surrounding streets. And we have promises not to block off Wilton for construction-staging purposes which is huge. Thank you, Palo Alto Housing.    6. Sheryl sent us the TDM and it looks good. Want to call everyone’s attention to the very last page where it talks of IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING    “The number of vehicle trips associated with the project will be tracked using an annual hose count through the first five-year evaluation period… A manual count and/or a limited timeframe may be necessary if cost is a prohibitive factor.     We believe Sheryl when she said that they will monitor their TDM and that her staff is open to our feedback. But we hope that they will do what is necessary to get the accurate data and find a way to pay for it.    7. In the interests of full disclosure I’m saving that that we didn’t get for last:    Traffic study on Wilton – We were not able to win any concessions on this one at this time. Wouldn’t it be feasible to fold a traffic study of Ventura into the traffic study for NVCAP? The reason we ask is that the NVCAP site is five blocks from Wilton Court, with Foot Locker, Mike’s Bikes, Compadre site and the Quonset hut site at ECR & Matadero -- and others coming into play as well. A traffic study for NVCAP really ought to include the “golden rectangle,” a cut-through drivers’ paradise - Meadow to Page Mill, Park Blvd to ECR to avoid the ECR and Page Mill intersection. Wilton Court will exacerbate our traffic situation with its 50 new trips a day and that is only the beginning. Why can’t we have a comprehensive traffic study? Palo Alto Housing has indicated they agree about the Traffic Study. They would be interested in more data for their own residents. They don’t want their people getting hit by cars every time they step off a curb. So we’ll be keeping after you guys downtown to help us out and ward off Venturamageddon.     8. A word about ground floor retail. Venturans are only okay with losing community serving retail in a project like this -- 100% affordable project. Do not ask us to give up the retail that many of us use and value in order to subsidize office or at market housing. That doesn’t set right with us.    In closing I’d like to say how much I value the chance to work with Sheryl and in recent weeks, Randy to iron out some of these concerns and to affirm that we want the same things for our community – clean well-lighted places for people who are under-resourced to live so that Palo Alto can preserve its diversity and strive for inclusionary excellence, which is a hallmark of the Ventura neighborhood.    Welcome, Wilton Court, to our neighborhood.    Becky Sanders  3 January 14, 2019         1 Carnahan, David From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 15, 2019 10:06 AM To:Ro Khanna Subject:New 6-in-1 vaccine: Coma, Seizures etc. Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com 2 Articles: 1. From National Vaccine Info Center: (FDA approves) 2. From thetruthaboutcancer.com: (Some kids died) FDA Approves VAXELIS Combo Vaccine Despite Infant Mortality 1. FDA approves 6-in-1 Combo Vaccine for Babies ---- (Coma, seizures, spasms, non-stop crying etc.) . ------ From The Vaccine Reaction, January 3, 2019 Published by National Vaccine Information Center by Kate Raines On Dec. 21, 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a new combination hexavalent vaccine (Vaxelis) that includes antigens for six different diseases: diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis and invasive haemophilus influenza type B.1 Vaccine manufacturers Sanofi Pasteur and Merck jointly developed Vaxelis, which is approved to be given in three doses to children between six weeks and four years of age but children will have to get a separate dose of DTaP vaccine to complete the primary pertussis vaccine series before age four. The new combination vaccine is expected to be commercially available in the U.S. in 2020.2 Sanofi provided the antigens for diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and poliomyelitis for Vaxelis production and Merck provided antigens for H. influenzae type b and hepatitis B.3 Vaxelis has been approved by government regulators in the European Union since 2016.4 Monovalent vaccines include only one antigen, while multivalent or polyvalent vaccines like Vaxelis include either more than one strain of a microorganism or more than one type of microorganism. Widely used multivalent vaccines include the live attenuated measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR) and the inactivated diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis vaccines (DTaP for children under age seven and Tdap for older children and adults). Separate vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella and pertussis are not available in the U.S., while tetanus and diphtheria vaccines are only available as a combination (DT or Td) vaccine. Drawbacks of Combination Vaccines Combination vaccines have been created by manufacturers to purportedly reduce the number of shots a child must receive to be in compliance with government recommended childhood vaccine schedules and to simplify ordering, transport and storage of vaccines.5 Drawbacks to the multivalent vaccines include a higher risk of pain and swelling at the injection site and, and for Merck’s MMRV (mumps, measles, rubella, varicella) vaccine in particular, a higher incidence of febrile seizures in children under age four.7 The product manufacturer package insert for the new hexavalent vaccine states that Vaxelis is contraindicated in children with a history of severe allergic reaction to any of the ingredients of the vaccine, or to any “other diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, pertussis- 2 containing vaccine, inactivated poliovirus vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, or H. influenzae type b vaccine.” According to the Vaxelis product insert, contraindications include “a history of encephalopathy (coma, decreased levels of consciousness, prolonged seizures) within 7 days of a previous dose of pertussis-containing vaccine, that is not attributable to another cause” and “a history of progressive neurologic disorder, including infantile spasms, uncontrolled epilepsy, or progressive encephalopathy until a treatment regimen has been established and the conditions has stabilized.” Warnings and Precautions include temperature over 105F within 48 hours not attributable to another identifiable cause; collapse or shock-like state (hypotonic- hyporesponsive episode (HHS) within 48 hours; persistent, inconsolable crying lasting more than three hours within 48 hours; and seizures with or without fever within three days. The product insert reports high rates of adverse reactions among children receiving the experimental hexavalent vaccine in clinical trials: “Rates of adverse reactions varied by number of doses of Vaxelis received. The solicited adverse reactions 0-5 days following any dose were irritability (≥55 percent), crying (≥45 percent), injection site pain (≥44 percent), somnolence (≥40 percent), injection site erythema (≥25 percent), decreased appetite (≥23 percent), fever ≥38.0°C (≥19 percent), injection site swelling (≥18 percent), and vomiting (≥9 percent).”1 References: Thevaccinereaction.org/2019/01/fda/-approves-6-in-1-combo-vaccine-for-babies ----------------- 2. From thetruthaboutcancer.com, FDA Approves VAXELIS Combo Vaccine Despite Infant Mortality The Truth About Vaccines docu-series! Article Summary * The FDA has approved VAXELIS, a new 6-in-1 combo vaccine created by pharmaceutical giants Merck and Sanofi, for infants as young as 6 weeks old. * The new vaccine is intended to reduce the amount of physical injections by combining more vaccines into one shot than ever before. * Though VAXELIS has been approved for children as young as 6 weeks old, rudimentary studies show that the combo vaccine is not safe. * Several children died during clinical trials, and though no deaths were blamed on the vaccine, half of them resulted from “undetermined causes”. * Sudden Infant Death Syndrom (SIDS) was among the “undetermined” causes of death in the study. SIDS has been shown to be correlated with vaccines. (N.B. SIDS vanished when Japan stopped vaccines under age 2 for 20 yrs.) * Like most vaccines, the safety research is inadequate, and the manufacturers have a history of deceitful marketing practices and bribery. * At 6 weeks, infant immune systems are not equipped for the massive toxic load of this vaccine, and patients are liable to experience severe developmental defects as a result. [-] Sources and References * VAXELIS Prescribing Information * 6-in-1 vaccine Parent information leaflet * How About 6 Vaccines In One? FDA Approves New Vaccine From Sanofi, Merck 3 * Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? * FDA Approves VAXELIS, Sanofi (SNY) and Merck's (MRK) Pediatric Hexavalent Combination Vaccine * 2018 Recommended Immunizations For Infants and Children (Birth through 6 Years) in Easy-to-read Format * diphtheria & tetanus toxoids/ acellular pertussis vaccine/poliovirus vaccine inactivated/hepatitis b vaccine/haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine (Rx) * Pediatric Hexavalent Combination Vaccine Approved by FDA * Hexavalent vaccines: characteristics of available products and practical considerations from a panel of Italian experts * FDA Approves Super Vaccine (6 in 1 Shot) To Launch By 2020 * New hexavalent vaccine protects children against 6 diseases * Six disease combo vaccine, VAXELIS, receives FDA nod * The Impact of Vaccination on the Immature Human Immune System * Merck Accused of Fraud, Deceit and Negligence in US Gardasil Case * Merck Whistleblower Suit A Boon to Vaccine Foes Even As It Stresses Importance of Vaccines * Sanofi US Agrees to Pay $109 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations of Free Product Kickbacks to Physicians * Newborn Immune Systems Suppressed FDA Approves VAXELIS Combo Vaccine Despite Infant Mortality PLEASE SHARE WITH OTHER PARENTS. 1 Carnahan, David From:California High-Speed Rail <news@hsr.ca.gov> Sent:Thursday, January 10, 2019 2:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:PHOTO RELEASE: New Housing Complex Opens to Wasco Residents To view this email as a web page, go here. News Release 1/10/19 Toni Tinoco 559-445-6776 (w) 559-274-8975 (c) Toni.Tinoco@hsr.ca.gov Daniel Ortiz-Hernandez 661-758-7214 (w) daortiz@ci.wasco.ca.us PHOTO RELEASE: New Housing Complex Opens to Wasco Residents WASCO, Calif. – Today, the City of Wasco opened Rosaleda Village, a new housing complex to residents, with the help of several federal and state agencies, including the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority). The new 17-acre complex located on the southside of Gromer Avenue features more than 200 units and allows for easier access to schools, shopping centers and other activities. The former housing facility was located east of the BNSF railroad line on 6th and J Street and next to the high-speed rail alignment being constructed through Wasco. As an alternative to building a sound barrier wall to mitigate noise impacts, the Authority instead allocated $10 million to the Wasco Farmworkers Housing Relocation Project. The allocation helped the relocation project leverage several other existing resources and programs to improve the living conditions for residents. 2 “Our team recognized the long-term benefits of relocating this community to an area that would allow for safety improvements and faster response times for emergency personnel. Families will no longer need to cross the railroad tracks to get to school and the rest of the city,” said Central Valley Regional Director Diana Gomez. “This project represents the positive impact that can be made when Federal, State and Local agencies work together to better the quality of life for local residents. The City of Wasco is proud to be a partner on this project that will better integrate over 200 local families in to the community and provide easier access to community resources including local schools, shopping and services,” said Wasco City Manager Daniel Ortiz-Hernandez. The cost for the project was approximately $49 million comprised of $10 million from the Authority, $20 million from Low Income Housing Tax Credits, $18 million from the state’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program and $300,000 in existing project reserves with the City of Wasco. Multiple groups helped to make the project a reality, including the Wasco Housing Authority, the Strategic Growth Council and the Governor’s Rural Community Outreach program. Construction is underway for the first 119-miles of high-speed rail in the Central Valley, creating more than 2500 labor jobs and putting hundreds of small businesses to work. ##### SEE MORE AT WWW.HSR.CA.GOV California High-Speed Rail Authority 770 L Street, Suite 620 3 Sacramento, CA 956814 info@hsr.ca.gov (916) 324-1541 This email was sent by: California High-Speed Rail Authority 770 L Street Suite 620, Sacramento, CA, 95814 US Privacy Policy Unsubscribe 1 Carnahan, David From:nancy moss <nancymoss@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 15, 2019 5:11 PM To:Passmore, Walter Cc:Council, City Subject:planned destruction of trees near new police station and garage Dear Mr. Passmore,    As a resident of Palo Alto since 1966, I strongly object to the removal of mature and beautiful trees in order to  accommodate a larger parking lot in the California Avenue/Sherman/Sheridan area.      Haven't we been through this just a few years ago when the trees along California Avenue were chopped  down overnight without community participation in the decision?    It's bad enough that the planning planning process entices more rather than less use of automobiles.  Removal  of 40 mature trees in our increasingly and garishly urbanized environment is completely inappropriate.  I find  your reassurance that newly planted trees will mature in 15 years disingenuous.    In addition, I see little evidence on my daily walks and bike rides that the trees the city has removed, for  example along Newell, along Middlefield, and near Greene Middle School, have been replaced. Most often  they are NOT replaced, further diminishing the beneficial environmental and health effects of a green canopy.   Shame on you.    Sincerely,    Nancy Moss    Like many of my fellow residents, I am well along in years, and don't have 15 years to wait while the new trees  "mature."        1 Carnahan, David From:Annette Rahn <annetterahn@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 11, 2019 2:06 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission Subject:Planning Director approves University South cell tower design sight unseen        Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka,    I ask you to please reject the amended Ordinance that City Staff has submitted to you and insist that it be modified to:    1. Establish the Architectural Review Board—not the Planning Director—as the lead in setting standards for the siting and appearance of cell towers;      2. Establish that there be a series of community meetings so that residents may learn what standards are being proposed, ask questions of ARB members and City Staff, and offer their own ideas for consideration; and     3. Require that, once these standards have been assembled, City Council must approve them before they become part of the City’s Wireless Ordinance.     I ask you as well to please direct Planning Director Lait to withdraw his decision to approve the Crown Castle/Verizon University South proposed cell tower installations, to withdraw it until he can provide Palo Alto residents with photographs and a copy of the proposed installation that clearly show what he has approved.    Sincerely,    2 Annette Rahn   650-575-8214                    1 Carnahan, David From:JIM POPPY <jamespoppy@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, January 10, 2019 11:02 AM To:Council, City; City Attorney Subject:Please do not meet privately with Castilleja about their DEIR - could be illegal Dear City Council and City Attorney, Castilleja is asking for a private screening with City Council of the draft EIR for their expansion project. Since the matter will eventually be a quasi-judicial matter, it is unfair (illegal?) to exclude the public from any such meeting. Castilleja has shown that they are willing to lie about their intentions and neighborhood opposition. This meeting would give them the opportunity to misrepresent the neighborhood and public sentiment in general. The plan contains multiple code violations and variances, and they are seeking to permanently disrupt the City's easement along Melville Avenue. Please do not allow this meeting to happen without public representation. Regards, Jim Poppy 135 Melville Ave. 1 Carnahan, David From:Jen B <jenbrito11@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 1:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:please help us stay in the President Hotel Apartments Dear Honorable City Council Members,    Good Afternoon, I am a current tenant of the President Hotel Apartments. As a local teacher and young woman who was  born and raised here, I am really attached to the area. I am very eager for any assistance you might offer, in encouraging  AJ Capital to let us reside and pay rent for a few months longer or more. (Or forever!)     Thank you so much for your time and attention.   Jen B.  1 Carnahan, David From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Saturday, January 12, 2019 11:33 AM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly Subject:President Hotel Dear mayor Filseth and Council Members, I am aware of the legal constraints on the city with regard to extending the tenancy of remaining residents. But nothing prevents the Council form making a persuasive appeal. The facts seem pretty clear that no changes on the site can occur before June or probably later. I believe that the ultimate decision on whether a conversion is legal should be made with advice from staff so that the city does not risk legal challenges and monetary damages. But the legality of the conversion has nothing to do with allowing the residents to stay pending resolution of legal issues and permit filing. Moreover, it does appear that the property owner is using the tenants as hostages to influence the legal outcome of their conversion application. I am hoping there is a firm way for council to call this out while using the law to decide the ultimate outcome. Stephen Levy 365 Forest Avenue Palo Alto 1 Carnahan, David From:PNQL-Now <info@pnqlnow.org> Sent:Tuesday, January 15, 2019 11:48 AM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; French, Amy; Lait, Jonathan Subject:RE: Castilleja Letter to City Council and City Manager, January 9 Attachments:PNQLnow to PA CC & CM Jan15-2019.pdf        info@pnqlnow.org attachment included for public record January 15, 2019 Palo Alto City Council Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Castilleja Letter to City Manager and City Council, January 9 To Palo Alto City Council and City Manager Ed Shikada PNQLnow is a Palo Alto resident-based organization that was created to combat the proposed expansion by Castilleja School in an R1-zoned neighborhood. We represent the unaffiliated households within a two-block radius of the school. In the January 9 letter you received from Castilleja, there are many misleading statements that deserve some clarification. We ask that if you grant a private meeting with the school, as in a study session, that you allow a similar meeting with neighbors. First of all, Castilleja fails to mention that their plans call for: 1. The demolition of two single family homes 2. The removal of protected mature oak and redwood trees 3. Combining two 10,000 sq ft lots into the larger property, which would require a variance to combine the lots and also to convert residential property to commercial use 4. Remove 5 structures and replace with one large (Walmart-sized) structure in R1 zone Instead of homes and mature redwood and oak trees on Emerson Street, there would be what Castilleja calls “open space.” This open space “park” would be located next to the massive concrete underground garage exit and would also contain the exhaust chimney for the garage, spewing 400 cars a day plus events directly into the surrounding neighborhood.       2 Above Ground Floor Area Ratio Castilleja states that their requested variance would maintain existing floor area ratio. This is highly misleading, as it includes the residential FAR from the two 10,000 sq ft lots that they want to combine into the larger property. In addition, they want to scrape 5 existing school buildings and build one large building, which is not in compliance with municipal code.     Garage, Parking, and Traffic Castilleja states there would not be an increase in car trips with the expansion. Then why build a garage? Because it lays the groundwork for more expansion. 3 Parking is not an issue around the school. Neighbors are not asking for more parking, so there is no need for the school to build a garage. In fact, Old Palo Alto has an abundance of parking. The only restrictions for school parking are within a half block of the school. The garage design is seriously flawed, with one entrance on the Bryant Bike Boulevard, and the exit dumping directly into the neighborhood. The Palo Alto Weekly has written an editorial decrying the garage design. The school is hoping for the notoriously bad science often found in DEIRs to favor the applicant. Reducing On-Campus Events Castilleja currently holds more than 100 events per year, plus summer camp. The Castilleja CUP allows for “5 major events and several others.” Other private schools in Palo Alto are allowed no more than 10 events and must be closed on the weekend. Castilleja has brazenly violated the terms of their CUP by consistently adding events over the years, which recently included an all-day event on a Saturday, starting at 7am. More Variances The City typically allows 1-2 variances per year. The Castilleja project would require at least 9 variances, probably more: 1. Combining residential lots 2. Converting residential property to commercial use 3. Removal of protected mature oak and redwood trees 4. Changes to the utility easement that runs under the school 5. Floor Area Ratio variance 6. Setback violations on Bryant St for garage 7. Setback violations on Embarcadero for garage 8. Setback violations on Emerson Street for garage 9. Combining multiple structures into one large structure in R1 zone We find it troubling that an institution of higher learning would resort to such misleading tactics in order to achieve their goals. The school has shown they will not compromise with neighbors. Please do your research and learn more about the expansion plans. Visit pnqlnow.org for more information. Regards, On behalf of PNQL: Rob Levitsky 1200 Emerson St Andie Reed 160 Melville Ave Mary Sylvester 135 Melville Ave 1 Carnahan, David From:Mary Riordan <mriordan@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Saturday, January 12, 2019 3:59 PM To:iasdesigns@aol.com Cc:Alison.Cormack@cityofpaloalto.org; Council, City; iqbalserang@gmail.com; KaoKaren007 @gmail.com; michelle.kraus@carbontracing.com; cckellogg@gmail.com; catbox@googlegroups.com; forrest.glick@gmail.com; irfan.mirdad@gmail.com; irfan.rydhan@gmail.com; jeff@levinsky.org Subject:Re: URGENT: RESIDENTS PLEA for EXTENSION at HOTEL PRESIDENT APARTMENTS I do not know why I have been copied on this email.  I have signed a lease and will be moving out of the Hotel President  by 1/31 in accordance with the agreement I signed with AJ Capital.    Thank you,    Mary Riordan    On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 10:34 PM <iasdesigns@aol.com> wrote:  Dear Ms. Cormack; I am writing this appeal to you being the freshest member on this historic Council,,, Welcome!!! And sorry for a tough option brought directly to your attention, I hope you take bold steps where required, and can follow through with some leadership? Please see the attached letter. Thanking you, Sincerely, Iqbal Serang, and Dennis Backlund.  1 Carnahan, David From:Ken Joye <kmjoye@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 16, 2019 10:20 AM To:Council, City Cc:Holman, Karen (external); Rebecca Sanders; Lait, Jonathan Subject:refused entry to NVCAP meetings The NVCAP “About” page contains the statement "Community engagement and outreach is an integral part of the  planning process. The anticipated community engagement activities include […] Stakeholder Meetings”    As such, I was surprised this morning when I was asked to leave the room in which stakeholder meetings were scheduled  to be held.  This was particularly a surprise given this message which I sent last week to <NVCAP@CityofPaloAlto.org>  (emphasis added):    On Jan 9, 2019, at 2:39 PM, Ken Joye wrote:    I am a member of Palo Alto’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee, I was forwarded the  appended invitation.  I would like to attend the session on Transportation Interests to offer input.      I would also like to audit the other four sessions to collect information about what is presented  so that I can bring that to my neighborhood association (I am a Ventura resident and the  stakeholder meetings were discussed at our January association meeting).    I plan to join you at the Downtown Library El Camino Room on the 16th, thanks very much for  setting up these sessions.  Please send me the time for the first session of the day.    The NVCAP process was declared to be under the Brown Act and transparent.    The Stakeholder Meetings engagement page does state "Input gathered from the series of stakeholder meetings will be  recorded by project staff and will be made available for review via the project website” but nowhere on that page or any  other page on the project www site is there a statement that stakeholder meetings are not open to the public.    When asked to leave, I initially said that I would respectfully decline to do so; as I was further pressured, I left as  requested but said that I was doing so under duress.    I am a resident of the Ventura neighborhood and am keenly interested in how the NVCAP process will unfold.  This  episode does not instill confidence.    Ken Joye  Ventura neighborhood            1 Carnahan, David From:ForestLight <forest129@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, January 14, 2019 2:30 PM To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City; alisonlcormack@gmail.com Subject:Cell Towers Approval? Attachments:Resident group blasts city ruling on cell towers.jpeg Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou, and Mr. Tanaka, Apparently interim Planning Director Jonathan Lait has unilaterally rejected the Architectural Review Board’s December recommendation to locate underground the cell towers Crown Castle/Verizon has applied to install in the University South neighborhood. Instead, Mr. Lait approved a Crown Castle pole-mounted cell tower design, and he did so having never seen a photo, photo simulation or mock-up of the towers he approved. (Please see the attached article from the San Jose Mercury News.) Staff has apparently already proposed an amendment to the Wireless Ordinance that gives the Director of Planning sole authority over establishing a new set of aesthetic standards for the siting and appearance of cell towers. These are yet more alarming examples of City of Palo staff trying to ignore or bypass altogether the views and reccommendations of citizen-staffed oversight groups and make ill-informed, unilateral decisions that affect our residents and business interests. This is a trend that should be stopped immediately. Especially when one considers that the City should be building trust, consensus and rapport with its residents and various business interests even as such vastly greater and more disruptive issues such as the impending changes to the rail corridor approach us... Michael Maurier Fairmede Avenue Greenacres One 1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Sunday, January 13, 2019 6:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: 1/15/19 San Jose Mercury News article Attachments:Resident group blasts city ruling on cell towers.jpeg     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>   Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2019 6:28 PM  To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>;  alisonlcormack@cityofpaloalto.org; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal)  <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg  <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission  <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: 1/15/19 San Jose Mercury News article    Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka, In case you haven’t seen it, I’m attaching an article from today’s Mercury News on the City Planning Director’s ruling on the design for cell towers in University South. Regarding this decision: Jonathan Lait’s unprecedented break with practice in unilaterally rejecting the ARB’s recommendation—and rejecting it in favor of a cell tower design he has never seen—has infuriated many residents. So have his contrived excuses for his actions. Consider: Mr. Lait says he approved the new Crown Castle/Verizon University South cell tower design a) without consulting the experts on the ARB, and 2 b) without having seen a photo, photo simulation or mock-up of what the installations actually look like, because the law requires the City to make a decision on them by February 7th. But it was Mr. Lait who sat on the final Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 2 applications for months so he could schedule them for ARB review at the last minute, and in the hyper-busy-for-residents holiday season to boot. This is the same person who is now asking you to approve an amended Wireless Ordinance that gives him the sole authority to establish aesthetic standards for the siting and appearance of cell towers next to people’s home. Surely Palo Altans deserve better than that. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 BB BAY AREA NEWS GROUP 111 SUNDAY, JANUARY 13, 2019 PALO ALTO Resident group blasts city ruling on cell towers By Kevin Kelly kkelly@ bayareanewsgroup.com A grassroots group in Palo Alto that last year lost an appeal to force new cell tower equipment under- ground is gearing up for another fight. United Neighbors, in a letter issued Thursday, ac- cuses Jonathan Lait, the city's interim planning di- rector, of approving a new set of cell towers with all the equipment placed in shrouds atop streetlight poles, against the advice of the Architectural Review Board. In December, the board had recommended all equipment other than • antennas be placed into sidewalk vaults or that Crown Castle -the appli- cant which will lease the devices to Verizon -bring a different proposal to the board for review. Jeanne Fleming, spokes- woman for United Neigh- bors, said her group is con- sidering appealing the de- cision to the City Council, .which it must do by Friday, which is 14 days after the project was approved. The group alleged Lait made his decision without knowing what the design he chose will look like. It is not a design the board re- viewed or that Crown Cas- tle proposed. "Jonathan Lait, who is not an architect, has thrown out the recommen- dations of Palo Alto's Ar- chitectural Review Board and approved Crown Cas- tle's cell towers without even seeing what they ac- tually look like," United Neighbors spokeswoman Jeanne Fleming said in the letter. Lait on Friday said he made his decision because there is no time to send it back to the board for fur- ther review and he already anticipated the decision might be appealed to the council. According to rules set by the Federal Com- munications Commission, which oversees telecommu- nications projects, the city has to make a decision by Feb. 7, which is 100 days af- ter the city received the ap- plication. If appealed, the council tentatively would review it at its Feb. 4 meet- ing, Lait said. The interim director said he made his decision while keeping in mind the con- cerns of the review board, community members and the applicant. Though the city has placed other util- ities below ground in the neighborhood per city pol- icy, he said a consultant told the city it would be "very difficult" to place un- derground additional util- ities. "My takeaway from the Architectural Review Board is that they do not have an objection to the antennas and antenna shrouds," Lait said. "We believe that the smaller equipment that is least intrusive to the environ- ment is what we're seek- ing as long as it can pro- vide the service the appli- cant is seeking." The devices Lait ap- proved are smaller than those Crown Castle pro- posed, which would have been bulkier, mounted to the ground and possibly in- trusive to sidewalk access. He said Crown Castle may now need to apply for ad- ditional devices atop more poles to achieve its desired cell coverage because of the smaller size. Wynne Furth, chair of the Architectural Review Board, confirmed the de- vices Lait approved were never "explicitly discussed" by the board and never re- viewed at public meetings, but said moving to smaller devices bodes well for fu- ture cell tower applica- tions. The board advised the planning director on aesthetics of new construc- tion, but the director does not have to heed its recom- mendations. "In a very different set- ting, which is over by May- field and Barron parks, which is rustic with a lot of trees, no sidewalks and heavily burdened poles, it may very well be better," Furth said. "Very large, obtrusive equipment is not good in most locations." Lait approved five cell towers in the neighbor- hood, on streetlights adja• cent to 275 Forest Ave.; 248 and 385 Homer Ave.; 845 Ramona St.; and 190 Chan- ning Ave. Two other towers were denied: one adjacent to 345 Forest Ave., because it is too close to the historic Laning Chateau apartment building; and tb.e other ad- jacent to 905 Waverley St., because it would involve the installation of a new streetlight pole, which the city is· "unwilling to do." Contact Kevin Kelly at 650-391-1049. 1 Carnahan, David From:John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com> Sent:Friday, January 11, 2019 8:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:See also the California construction figures for 1983-1991 ---Re: FYI: How California can build 3.5 million new homes – Alfred Twu – Medium 2   Source: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Economics/Indicators/Construction_Permits/ — "Annual data, from 1960:      • California and U.S. Residential Building Permits and U.S. Housing Starts”      Cited in https://medium.com/@firstcultural/how‐california‐can‐build‐3‐5‐million‐new‐homes‐dfe2f0ba3466 (see below)   "Let’s do this — we’ve done it before In the mid-1980s, California built 200,000–300,000 new homes a year, back when the state population was about 2/3rds of what it is today. 3.5 million new homes in the next few years is an attainable goal, and one we ought to work towards."       On Jan 11, 2019, at 8:11 PM, John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com> wrote:      https://medium.com/@firstcultural/how‐california‐can‐build‐3‐5‐million‐new‐homes‐dfe2f0ba3466      Best, John     (Mobile. Brief. Please excuse.)    1 Carnahan, David From:iasdesigns@aol.com Sent:Thursday, January 10, 2019 10:35 PM To:Alison.Cormack@cityofpaloalto.org; Council, City Cc:iqbalserang@gmail.com; KaoKaren007@gmail.com; michelle.kraus@carbontracing.com; cckellogg@gmail.com; catbox@googlegroups.com; forrest.glick@gmail.com; irfan.mirdad@gmail.com; irfan.rydhan@gmail.com; jeff@levinsky.org Subject:URGENT: RESIDENTS PLEA for EXTENSION at HOTEL PRESIDENT APARTMENTS Attachments:APPEAL LTTR to COUNCIL 011019.pdf Dear Ms. Cormack; I am writing this appeal to you being the freshest member on this historic Council,,, Welcome!!! And sorry for a tough option brought directly to your attention, I hope you take bold steps where required, and can follow through with some leadership? Please see the attached letter. Thanking you, Sincerely, Iqbal Serang, and Dennis Backlund.  Member of City Council, Palo Alto City Hall, 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, Ca. 94301. City.council@cityofpaloalto.com January 10, 2019. RE: URGENT: RESIDENTS PLEA FOR EXTENSION AT HOTEL PRESIDENT APARTMENT: Dear Ms. Cormack: Welcome as the newest member of the historic 7 member City Council. There are only 20 days left for us to clear out of our homes of 28, and 37 years and yet, we still do not have an equivalent place to go to and call home. Just this fact would be full of unimaginable stress and anxiety for anyone; let alone the seniors, single parents, disabled persons, teachers, professionals, entrepreneurs and retirees, to state a few of the “workforce” people living as a community at this compact 75 unit historic Hotel President Apartments. As you may recall last Monday, some of us made requests asking for specific help from Council to make a non-binding suggestion to the landlord (A. J. Capital) to extend our stay till they receive permit, or at least till June 31, 2019. Especially since this extension cannot possibly harm their “bottom line” and instead would only enhance it. Also this would complement the city’s own Ordinance, PAMC 9.68.030, and 9.68.030.e3, not being observed today. (Requirement of one year leases.) And it would only revert us back to our original agreed expectation with the landlord, which seemed to have been thwarted by actions taken in December by City Council, which brought the worst possible action upon us the residents, by bringing forward our deadline to vacate to an earlier outcome of January 31, 2019. Following are some more personal thoughts on the subject of rental housing shortages, and the city’s record with this current issue and effects of evictions on our vulnerable "workforce" and citizens of all ages. We are under assault literally, and many will be forced to leave the area completely. This is a perfect example of how this city's policies bringing success at business development, while falling short on housing provisions, this creates conditions for losing talented and urgently needed fabric for our growing communities. Just by simply not providing adequate support for already existing moderately affordable housing units in designated transit areas of the downtown. Apart from the failure of political and moral leadership, it is a logistical and strategic loss to our entire Palo Alto community and its future, because at the current rate of housing development, how long could it take to replace those 75 units of compact housing? Perhaps 5, 7, or even 10, or more years? Isn't that tragic for a forward-thinking city like Palo Alto, where there is already a huge shortage by hundreds of units even today? Is it at all possible to influence a different outcome? I sincerely hope so. Is this particular issue of strategic value to the citizens of Palo Alto? If it is, I hope you can take the lead in making a difference for us all. Dennis and I appeal to you personally for your help, and want to know if we are asking too much? Or are we being unreasonable in our expectations? We don’t understand why our cause is not the cause of every city leader of this area? Especially, when we get so many comments of support from conscientious residents of this fair city, and even all across the Bay Area and further. Thanking you. Sincerely, Iqbal Serang, and Dennis Backlund. 488 University Avenue, #307, & #503 Palo Alto, Ca. 94301. (650) 906-7059. (650) 326-8472. IqbalSerang@gmail.com ©Castilleja January 9, 2019 Palo Alto City Council Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Castilleja School Pending Application ' 41-'"N.-. -:. ·'!'r.,,,..j r ''{ . \ . ' • ' •I -~~/ ~--~ 2019 JAN 14 PH 2: Oi nU.~h'EO CITY HANA.Gr~'S IFFIC£ 1310 Bryant Street and 1235, 1263 Emerson Street, Palo Alto [lGPLN-00258] [SCH#2017012052] To City Manager Ed Shikada and Members of the Palo Alto City Council: ~l~ t1'"iir '"J°O\\ Lo.a't ~Ft~ 1310 Bryant Street Palo Alto. CA 94301 650.328.3160 casti I leja.org Nanci Z. Kauffman Hedd of School Thank you for allowing the community to engage with you Monday night in honoring former council members and welcoming newly elected ones. As the city embarks on a new year of service, Castilleja School would like to take the opportunity to revisit our pending application with Incumbent and new members of the Council. As you may know, Castilleja has educated young women In Palo Alto since 1907, and at Its current location since 1910. Our pending application is comprehensive In that it reflects the school's plans for growth and modernization for the foreseeable·future. Our goal Is to enable more young women who reside in Palo Alto and surrounding communities to be educated at our 5th_12lh grade campus, the only non-sectarian all women independent middle and high school In the Bay Area. In simplest terms, our application requests: 1. a Conditional Use Permit amendment to Increase enrollment to 540 students 2. a master plan and architectural approvals (by phase) 3. a tentative map with exception 4. a variance to maintain existing above grade floor area; 5. a 11ariance for below grade setback encroachments related to the underground parking structure Castilleja devised its master plan not only to allow for a sustainable, energy efficient campus, compatible with the neighborhood, but also to minimize impacts. Specific elements include the following: • Ensuring no new vehicle trips through an aggressive traffic demand management plan and third- party audits. • Moving deliveries and service functions below grade to minimize noise. • Relocating the pool below grade and adding a sound wall. • Reducing at-grade drop off and pick up locations. • Creating a half-acre community park for the neighbo-rhood, which contributes to an overall increase in open space. • Reducing the number of on-campus events. \I (J111e11 Lrnmi11.~. I I (J111c11 Lcr1rli11.~~ • Relocating on-street parking on-campus and underground, beneath a well-landscaped playing field, to free up on-street parking for residents. • Gradually increasing enrollment, contingent on meeting traffic demand management requirements. We want to reiterate that the proposed enrollment increase would take place over a period of four years, and Is conditioned on maintaining specific trip counts to avoid significant impacts. Finally, if approved, the project construction is proposed to occur over a period of no more than 3 years. We look forward to reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report, which we understand is due to be circulated for public comment later this month. We also welcome the opportunity to meet individually with any members of the City Council either at City Hall or on the Castilleja campus, so you may learn more about our mission and proposed plans. Sincerely, Nanci Kauffman Cc: Jonathan Lalt, Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment Amy French, Chief Planning Official \\omen Leaming: \\omen Leading: PALO ALTO HOUSING January 10, 2019 Honorable City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 12s:~~~PA.fi.O ~~fsQ ~21 9709 Palo ~f,-;ft~F{ ·s · QM.-~21 4341 19 JAN 15 AM If: 06 pah.community Re: Annual Payment to the City for Market Rate Units at Webster Wood Apartments Mayor Filseth and Members of the Council: We are pleased to inform you that Palo Alto Housing has made its thirty-seventh annual payment to the City of Palo Alto pursuant to the Agreement for Sale for the land upon which Webster Wood Apartments is built. The payment is in the amount of $6,175 and covers the period from January through December 2018. This payment brings the total amount contributed since 1982 to $255,750. Palo Alto Housing volunteered to make these annual payments to the City, beginning in the fourth year after the close of escrow, in an amount equal to $300.00 for each market rate unit at Webster Wood Apartments. This contribution goes into the City's Housing Reserve Fund to assist with future needs for affordable housing. We are pleased to make this annual payment in recognition of the benefits the City has provided to the low-and moderate-income families who live at Webster Wood Apartments. Randal Tsuda President & CEO cc: Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Community Environment Hang Huynh, Senior Planner Enclosures BUILDING STORIES THAT MATTER Payment# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 WWCityPayrnents 1-2019 \VEBSTER WOOD APARTMENTS PAYMENTS TO CITY OF PALO ALTO FOR MARKET-RATE UNITS Year Amount 1982 $3,625 1983 5,575 1984 5,175 1985 6,775 1986 6,600 1987 6,550 1988 6,650 1989 7,325 1990 7,675 1991 9,425 1992 9,600 1993 9,250 1994 8,950 1995 8,650 1996 8,300 1997 8,475 1998 8,900 1999 9,650 2000 8,875 2001 9,525 2002 8,750 2003 8,350 2004 5,850 2005 5,625 2006 6,175 2007 6,000 2008 5,625 2009 5,250 2010 4,475 2011 4,425 2012 5,500 2013 5,450 2014 5,175 2015 5,650 2016 5,875 2017 5,850 2018 6,175 Accumulated Total $3,625 9,200 14,375 21,150 27,750 34,300 40,950 48,275 55,950 65,375 74,975 84,225 93,175 101,825 110,125 118,600 127,500 137,150 146,025 155,550 164,300 172,650 178,500 184,125 190,300 196,300 201,925 207,175 211,650 216,075 221,575 227,025 232,200 237,850 243,725 249,575 255,750 WEBSTER WOOD APARTMENTS MARKET UNITS 2018 MONTH #UNITS $25/UNIT TOTAL JANUARY 20 $ 25.00 $ 500.00 FEBRUARY 20 $ 25.00 $ 500.00 MARCH 20 $ 25.00 $ 500.00 APRIL 20 $ 25.00 $ 500.00 MAY 20 $ 25.00 $ 500.00 JUNE 20 $ 25.00 $ 500.00 JULY 21 $ 25.00 $ 525.00 AUGUST 22 $ 25.00 $ 550.00 SEPTEMBER 21 $ 25.00 $ 525.00 ocro·BER 21 $ 25.00 $ 525.00 NOVEMBER 21 $ 25.00 $ 525.00 DECEMBER 21 $ 25.00 $ 525.00 TOTAL 247 $ 6,175.00 RETURN ADDRESS: I support Castilleja's proposal to increase enrollment and modernize its campus because ... Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Coum.11 i.~.:111u~1 ~ 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 I support Castilleja's proposal to increase enrollment and modernize its campus because ... ~!::~~ '!I ev · ~ ?/:.;r ~I /JC d-t ~ ~ ~ Office of the Clerk -to .fld r~ 1lr, 'vf'.r-e Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 ZF?. 1-t:, -,t:d1~. / /.:.. /id.) rl' ? r v f! J k -41?v~ r ~ ,,,_/_p_ /11 430 itjs~ fo ./ ~,11(ifnmei1· f Jll\T.111ri!iiQfl1P~~;1i .. _ _ 7~ ~~ ~~~ r~d.;>