Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190225plCC 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: 02/25/2019 Document dates: 02/06/2019 – 02/13/2019 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Carnahan, David From:Nick Briggs <nicholas.h.briggs@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 3:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Pavement Condition Index Dear City Council Members ‐‐    I understand (via NextDoor) that you are about to issue a proclamation acknowledging that Palo Alto streets are on  average the best on Santa Clara and San Mateo counties.    I would like to bring to your attention that one of the City's stated goals for the Street Maintenance Program  (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/street_maintenance/default.asp) was to:     Ensure no street is in "poor" condition by 2019 (no streets with PCI below 60)   and I'd like to point out that in 2013 (the last PCI data that the City has posted online  at http://data.cityofpaloalto.org/dataviews/81589/city‐street‐pci‐scores/ ) the PCI of my street, La Donna, was listed as:   [PCI id, street, from intersection, to intersection, PCI score]    11070,La Donna Street,Kendall Avenue,Barron Avenue,74 11080,La Donna Street,Barron Avenue,Paul Avenue,57 11090,La Donna Street,Paul Avenue,San Jude Avenue,52 11100,La Donna Street,San Jude Avenue,La Para Avenue,20 11110,La Donna Street,La Para Avenue,Los Robles Avenue,29     and that NO work has been done since 2013 on the segment on which I live, between La Para and Los Robles.      While I applaud the fact that the city *is* making *some* progress on repairing streets, it seems premature to be  celebrating when there are still city streets that are in such appalling condition as the PCI data suggests.      Yours sincerely,    Nicholas Briggs    1 Carnahan, David From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net> Sent:Friday, February 8, 2019 12:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Cubberley Comments Attachments:Cubberley Comments on plans preview from 1.doc From: Penny Ellson [mailto:pellson@pacbell.net] Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2019 7:06 PM To: 'Bobbie Hill'; 'Connor McManus' Cc: 'De Geus, Robert'; 'O'Kane, Kristen'; 'Safe Routes'; 'Rius, Rafael' Subject: Cubberley Comments Hi Bobbie and Connor, My written comments are attached. Thank you for releasing materials in advance. For folks who saw them before the meeting, it seemed to help. This week was my first “fun” group. Previous two groups came in with “bees in their bonnets” to use an old expression. This group was thoughtful and polite with each other. I didn’t feel like a referee. People who were seeing the concepts for the first time did mention that they felt the amount of information was overwhelming and hard to digest in the time we had to comment. How can we get materials more broadly distributed in advance? They seemed to feel less stressed about the aesthetics activities than the programming and circulation activities. Please see attachment. Penny Cubberley Comments on plans preview from 1/22 email: Thank you for sending the concepts in advance. It really helped to have time to digest them and think about them before the meeting. Placement of the two public pools: 1). Do the pools need to be closer to the high school? Swimming is part of the high school Phys. Ed. curriculum and an after-school sport. Showering, changing clothes, drying hair, putting on make-up after swimming class or practice takes time—a long walk back to other classes will make it doubly difficult for students to pass from swimming to other classes quickly. Please consider placing the pool and locker rooms closer to the future high school portion of the campus. 2). Please consider: Where are people likely to park when they swim at a pool that is placed right on Nelson Drive? 3). A pool is likely to be a noisy neighbor and it looks, from the drawings, like you may have removed the existing buffer of the existing fire lane between the fence line and the actively used space. The homes behind this fence have glass-walled bedrooms, living rooms and family rooms and very shallow backyards. Please consider their privacy and desire for a peaceful living space. 4). Knowing how a pool will be used will help us understand what kind to build and where to put it on campus. South Palo Alto has a lot of pools for lap swimming. North PA has fewer. If we don’t want people driving across town to swim, we might ask where they want that lap pool to be—in north PA or south PA? South PA pools I know of: • 2 at Campus for Jewish Life • 2 pools at Elks Club • 1 community pool in the Greenmeadow neighborhood • 1 Eichler community pool • 3--JLS, Terman and Gunn have pools that can be used by the public outside of school hours. 5). South PA may need a well-heated therapy pool where users can easily get skilled physical therapy help with aqua therapy. The Betty Wright Swim Center pool was closed years ago and never replaced. I believe the pool building is still vacant. As our population ages, we will increasingly need an aqua therapy pool. How can we get detailed information about how people want to use a future pool: aqua therapy, lap swimming, competitive swimming, or water play on hot days? If it is aqua therapy they want, it would be helpful for the pool to have easy access to skilled physical therapy support staff. Playing Field Perimeter Fire Lanes/Pathways The existing fire lanes along the north and south ends of the playing fields serve many purposes today: • They provide emergency fire access to the back side of Cubberley. • City of Palo Alto Utilities uses the fire lanes to access utilities behind the homes that abut the south end of campus. • The existing lanes provide quiet and direct walking and biking paths that are amply wide for both modes to share the space safely moving in two directions so that people can go back and forth between home and campus. • They provide a buffer space between the very active playing fields and abutting homes. It is important to note that the people who use the fire lanes for walking and biking aren’t just going to Cubberley. These lanes connect people who walk and bike to the Charleston Shopping Center and enable commuter bicyclists to connect to Middlefield and regional bike routes from cross-town bike routes via the Nelson Bike Boulevard without going through the challenging Charleston/Middlefield intersection. These lanes must be open to carry two-way bike/ped traffic throughout the day to enable future students, staff and parent volunteers to come and go throughout the day and to enable all other people who walk and bike to use these important connectors. The paths should be separated from the playing fields by fencing to prevent members of the public from intruding on the playing fields during school hours and to prevent PAUSD from closing path access during school hours due to security concerns as they have done at JLS in the past. The width of the current lanes is sufficient to carry hundreds of bikes and peds to and from school in the huge school commute bike/ped traffic surges that occur in the 15-20 minutes around school bell times. The concept plan diverts ped/bike paths in a loop around the proposed pool site. This lane should not be a meandering one-way walking path. This is a bike/ped transportation corridor and fire lane. It should connect Nelson Drive as directly as possible to the main campus. People who walk and bike for transportation like direct routes because they save time and energy. They need two-way bike/ped access throughout the day. Skateboard Park Was there a strong call for this? We currently have one skateboard park in south Palo Alto. A skateboard park doesn’t seem like a good fit with the other facilities that are being planned for this site. Generally speaking, high school and middle school principals do not enjoy managing the safety and facilities damage problems related to skateboards on campus. This is a long conversation, but riding skateboards is not allowed inside PAUSD campuses. Reporting Space I really appreciate the breakdown of assignable square footage by program. Thank you for that information. I think it would be helpful to show people how the new square footage compares to old square footage in this breakdown. Bike Parking I appreciate the intent of getting bike parking closer to entrances, but I worry that this may create some internal circulation hazards. I would like to have a better understanding how much space will be provided for bikes and peds to share on internal campus pathways, what the sight lines will be like (especially around building corners)—to understand how this will work. This will be an intergenerational campus—with small children and elderly and disabled people. Mixing pedestrians with fast moving (and sometimes impulsive) teenage bicyclists might not be an ideal mix for safety. I think it might be wise to consider a few additional things: • Locate bike parking as close as possible to main entrances, but in choosing these locations, consider carefully where we need bicyclists to dismount and leave their bikes in order to maintain safety for pedestrians of all ages and abilities. • A student probably won’t dismount until s/he gets to the bike racks, and it will be very difficult to enforce “walk your bike” rules on a campus with hundreds of youth bicyclists. Set the kids up for successful compliance by putting bike parking where you want them to dismount and become pedestrians—but please do choose the most convenient, visible, covered bike parking locations possible to remind the people who drive that there are benefits to choosing active, sustainable transportation when they reach their destination! • Folks with disabilities who must drive should, of course, get the most convenient auto access possible to meet their needs. Artesian Well? There is a city-owned facility in a small parcel that that abuts Cubberley’s north fire lane and sits between the backyards of 3939 and 3936 Nelson Drive. Someone told me that this little parcel contains a capped Artesian well. I haven’t seen the site indicated in any of the concept plans—so I thought I’d mention it. Bike/Ped Circulation around Greendell I was surprised that the planned Greendell portion of the project reoriented both the buildings and circulation of the Greendell campus. This change appears to block future use of an existing bike/ped path that connects the Greendell neighborhood to their future neighborhood school. It sounds like this probably was an oversight. On a street map, you can find this bike/ped path between the 437 and 443 Ferne Avenue parcels. The bike/ped path access to Greendell campus is presently completely car-free. The potential for bike/ped conflicts with motor vehicles that will be created by requiring foot-powered path users to cross a future campus auto driveway is not consistent with traffic safety guidelines. Can we find a way to maintain this very safe, car-free access from the neighborhood to the future neighborhood school site? I understand that the building orientation might need to be reversed, but must that change necessitate reversal of the campus circulation? Could the ped/bike path be on the west side of campus so that the existing bike ped connection from the Greendell neighborhood will remain car-free? Proposed Two-way Road Connecting to San Antonio Avenue Thank you for pulling this proposal before the meeting. I am sure it would have alarmed people in the neighborhood who understand that this connector really does not work the way it appears to work on a map. It would have encouraged cut-through into the neighborhoods, certainly impacting Ferne, Shasta, Dake, Mackay, Nelson, Scripps. I will be interested to see alternatives. Montrose/ Middlefield Intersection Montrose will be protected from auto cut-through by the island and new signal that is planned for the Montrose/Louis/Charleston intersection in the Charleston/Arastradero Plan. However, the Montrose/Middlefield intersection is an important bike/ped route connection. Has the city and Fehr & Peers considered a pedestrian lead signal at the Montrose/Middlefield intersection? It is a long, multi-lane crossing. Giving peds (and maybe bikes too) a lead signal might enable safer crossing there. Gym Space (Use Times) In the Reference Sheet for Activity 1& 2, gym use is listed as: During School: PAUSD Dedicated/Primary Use After School: Community Center Use Weekends: Community Center use Generally, high school and middle school gyms (as well as tracks, fields, theatres, and pools) are used for many hours after the school day and on weekends for team sports performances, and other activities. Is it the idea that PAUSD will build additional gym space to accommodate after- school and weekend gym facility needs? It seems like we need more gym space. Perhaps it would be wise to ask PAUSD to double check the User Group Time List for all facilities use to make sure it is consistent with school needs. Alternative commute routes If we want people to walk, bike, and ride transit to Cubberley, we need to protect the bike routes. The nicely connected bus stop is a very good idea. I was glad to see it in the concepts. This is the first time we have ever had the opportunity to plan on- and off-campus circulation from scratch for any school site—and here we have TWO school sites! It presents a wonderful opportunity. The walk/bike facilities still need a fair amount of work, but it is well worth spending time to think this through very carefully. Transportation mode shift can do a lot to mitigate traffic impacts of increased density—especially at our schools. 1 Carnahan, David From:Kelsey Banes <kelseybanes@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 9:32 AM To:Council, City Subject:2/11 Council Meeting City Council,    Today is my birthday and I will celebrating in the East Bay instead of enjoying your debates tonight. My thoughts on  several agenda items follow. In general, my feedback relates to the consideration of our conjoined crises of climate and  housing during your land‐use decision‐making processes this evening.    3) I am excited to see the progress made on the Cubberly redevelopment since the first community meeting when we  discussed our visions for the future of Cubberly. During this meeting, our group discussed having spaces for different  generations to interact and develop community. Utilizing some of this public land for affordable housing for school  district employees and seniors could help effectuate this goal.    9) I am strongly opposed to the Hamilton parking garage and urge you to not adopt the proposed Final EIR. Dense  affordable housing would be ideal for this location, which is on public land, has no single‐family neighbors, and is  walkable to transit and services. If the council decides to pursue a parking garage at this site at all, a climate change  impact report is warranted given council stated top priority of climate change.     Reducing emissions will require reducing car trips/VMT. Building more parking downtown (which has plentiful but poorly  utilized garages already) will cause more driving and increase traffic. For evidence, see  https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2016/01/the‐strongest‐case‐yet‐that‐excessive‐parking‐causes‐more‐ driving/423663/    10) While I support the goal of preventing the conversion from residential to commercial uses given our current housing  shortage, the downtown commercial cap is an ineffective strategy for maintaining existing housing supply and spurring  new home construction. I hope the council will explore policies designed explicitly to protect existing affordable housing  supply (e.g., cottage clusters, President Hotel) from redevelopment that reduces the number of residential units or  converts to a different use.      Enabling what limited office growth we allow to happen near transit seems sensible from a climate perspective.  Additional density downtown could enable more mixed‐use commercial and residential spaces (e.g., live/work spaces  with ground floor office and residential above).     Perhaps lifting the cap with the addition of residential preservation to protect at‐risk housing stock could be an  appropriate compromise.                 1 Carnahan, David From:Ute Engelke <utschnut@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 8, 2019 2:51 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parking Dear Mayor and City Council members,  In light of the recently set Council Priorities that include climate change, the garage needs to be re‐ evaluated against the Sustainability Implementation Plan and other alternatives need to be  reconsidered.  The EIR does not adequately address externalities of induced traffic congestion, GHGs, and does not  include up to date info on alternatives, in particular, the great success of the TMA program, which the  council learned of just last month.  Building the garage also move us in the wrong direction if we are to  meet our 80% reduction in GHG by 2030 and goes against the Comp Plan that states we should be  moving away from more SOV use in Palo Alto.  The downtown garage is also running at a deficit, so  needs to be reconsidered on many levels.  Please do not move forward on this until a proper review can be done.  Sincerely,  Ute Engelke   Oberlin St.,  Palo Alto   Sent from Uteville 🌻  2 Carnahan, David From:Gail Personal <gail.price3@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 8, 2019 1:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please Defer Item No. 9 — Downtown Parking Garage for Feb 11 agenda Dear Mayor Filseth and Palo Alto City Council members, Thank you for selecting climate change and appropriate  measures as a focus area for the 2019 priorities. It matters.     In light of this and without a developed work plan related to the Sustainability Implementation Plan and climate change,  it is premature to take action on the Downtown Parking Garage without a thorough considerations of impacts and  alternatives. Additionally, a rush to action will also contradict numerous environmental and TMA goals and objectives  previously adopted.    This is an important opportunity to be measured and thoughtful; we will all benefit from being better informed through  a focused study session which addresses concerns and questions from stakeholders, experts, and the community. Rather  than repeating myself and others, I concur with David Coale’s letter outlining reasons to support deferring action on the  Downtown Parking Garage.  Thank you.    Sincerely,  Gail A. Price  Palo Alto, CA       Sent from my iPad  3 Carnahan, David From:Ken Joye <kmjoye@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 8, 2019 1:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:please re-evaluate downtown garage I was glad to see that addressing climate change was deemed a Council priority.  In light of that, I ask that you look into  whether a downtown parking structure is appropriate given our need to promote alternatives to single occupancy  vehicle trips.  Such a garage will not be "fully depreciated" until long after autonomous vehicle services are expected to  be serving our community.  What seemed to be a good idea may be a lesser option; I believe that the adage "measure  twice, cut once" applies in this case.    thank you for considering this perspective, Ken Joye Ventura neighborhood  4 Carnahan, David From:Elizabeth Greenfield <elizabethg15@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 8, 2019 12:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:Reconsider Downtown Parking Garage in Context of Council Priority to Accelerate Climate Action Dear Mayor and City Council members,    Thank you for putting brisk climate action front and center as one of your Council Priorities this year. With this as a  Council Priority, I urge you to consider your decisions and projects this year in relation to whether the project in  question is aligned with Palo Alto's Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) goals.     One of these such projects that sorely goes against S/CAP goals are plans for the Downtown Parking Garage. With  transportation‐related greenhouse gas emissions comprising over 60% of Palo Alto's greenhouse gas emission  inventory, the garage needs to be reevaluated against the Sustainability Implementation Plan and other alternatives  need to be reconsidered.     Is another parking garage really the best direction for this City? A parking garage in the long term does not "Create the  right incentives for mobility," which is one of the foundational mobility goals in the S/CAP (p. 23). The EIR does not  adequately address the externalities of induced traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, the EIR  does not include current information on alternatives, such as the success of the TMA program.  Building the garage  moves us in the wrong direction if we are to meet our 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and goes  against the Comprehensive Plan that states we should seek to decrease (instead of increase) SOV use in Palo Alto.  The  downtown garage is also running at a deficit. With problems extending to finances, sustainability, your legacy, and the  lack of alternatives presented, plans for this parking garage need to be reconsidered on many levels.    Please do not move forward on this until a proper review can be done.    Sincerely,  Elizabeth Greenfield  3476 Waverley St., 94306  elizabethg15@gmail.com    P.S. For more information about how Palo Alto can improve quality of life, economic vitality, and save money in the long  term, all while increasing the role of alternative transportation among all residents, I can't recommend Jeff Speck's book,  Walkable City, highly enough. Available at the Palo Alto Library and book stores all over.  5 Carnahan, David From:David Coale <david@evcl.com> Sent:Friday, February 8, 2019 11:40 AM To:SVBC Palo Alto Team Cc:Council, City Subject:Downtown garage this Monday - we need letters! Hi All,    After our successful bid to get climate change as one of the top priorities for the Council this year, this Monday night the  council will be asked to move the downtown garage forward.  I have talked to Council member Adrian Fine about this  and he will support a study session at a later date to reconsider/evaluate the garage, but we need to give him support  for doing this.    We need letters to council on this.  Please use the letter below to send your own letters ‐ volume of letters does make a  difference, logic and reasoning is not enough.    Letters can be sent to:  city.council@cityofpaloalto.org    Thanks and please Bcc me on your letter.        David  Carbon Free Palo Alto    ——————    Dear Mayor and City Council members,  In light of the recently set Council Priorities that include climate change, the garage needs to be re‐evaluated against the  Sustainability Implementation Plan and other alternatives need to be reconsidered.  The EIR does not adequately address externalities of induced traffic congestion, GHGs, and does not include up to date  info on alternatives, in particular, the great success of the TMA program, which the council learned of just last  month.  Building the garage also move us in the wrong direction if we are to meet our 80% reduction in GHG by 2030  and goes against the Comp Plan that states we should be moving away from more SOV use in Palo Alto.  The downtown  garage is also running at a deficit, so needs to be reconsidered on many levels.  Please do not move forward on this until a proper review can be done.  Sincerely,           6 Carnahan, David From:David Coale <david@evcl.com> Sent:Friday, February 8, 2019 9:22 AM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Flaherty, Michelle Subject:Please remove item 9, the downtown garage from the agenda Dear Mayor and City Council members,  Please remove item 9, the downtown garage from Monday night’s agenda.  In light of the recently set Council Priorities that include climate change, the garage needs to be re‐evaluated against the  Sustainability Implementation Plan and other alternatives need to be reconsidered.  The EIR does not adequately address externalities of induced traffic congestion, and does not include up to date info on  alternatives, in particular, the great success of the TMA program, which the council learned of just last month.  Building  the garage also move us in the wrong direction if we are to meet our 80% reduction in GHG by 2030 and goes against  the Comp Plan that states we should be moving away from more SOV use in Palo Alto.  Please remove this item from the agenda until a proper review can be done.  Sincerely,     David Coale  Carbon Free Palo Alto      1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, February 9, 2019 5:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto's University Ave Downtown Three important issues are pending for neighborhoods adjacent to the University Avenue Commercial Core. #1 Prospects for a Downtown Coordinated Area Plan: Please expedite this plan. #2 Downtown Development Cap: Please keep the development cap in place. #3 Waverley Street Garage: Please reject the staff recommend to proceed and table this project for future action. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68782 More information on the new garage. Only a week ago the Council adopted its new priorities. Climate Change Transportation Rail Finances Moving ahead now with the construction of a new downtown garage is ill-timed and misaligned with the city’s 2019 priorities. In a nutshell: Climate Change: Construction and traffic diversions will increase negative climate impact. In the long-term a garage increases dependency upon the automobile and SOV. Transportation: A new garage will increase traffic and congestion by drawing more traffic to downtown. And it diverts funding and staff from long-promised mitigation efforts such as expanded scope TMA, valet parking in two garages, way-finding, permit management system, consideration of paid parking. – and more. Furthermore, RPPs are languishing with no active management attention. Rail: The rail crossings decision will require immense effort to reach a consensus and gain public support. Pushing through a garage will dilute the city’s attention away from rail crossings; a decision that impact Palo Alto for decades and decades. Rail is urgent; a new garage is not urgent. Finances: First, construction costs are currently at record highs. Second, the garage consumes too much capital and compromises future borrowing power. Lower-cost and traffic-reducing options exist. A 2-3 year delay would cause no harm. Investment in TMA, valet programs, garage way-finding, downtown CAP and long-term parking/transportation staff not only is less costly but it also avoids heavy debt. Summary: Avoiding the garage capital outlay has benefits including opening up new options next year for Council priorities, such as another affordable housing project, stable staffing/recruitment, mitigation of cut-thru traffic, implementing the first phases of rail, etc. Furthermore, delay brings time to explore financing options and more effective footprint. 2 Council priorities should work together to enable a coherent, aligned approach to problem solving. Inviting more traffic with one hand via a garage and trying to reduce traffic via TMA with the other makes no sense. Avoiding new debt and paying down bit of pension liability, too, would be prudent. The recent Council consideration of a Downtown Coordinated Plan is a rational, but un-budgeted approach to the current traffic and congestion stresses. Please turn down the staff recommendation for a new garage and refer the matter to the Council Finance Committee. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 3 Carnahan, David From:Allen Akin <akin@arden.org> Sent:Saturday, February 9, 2019 5:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:2/11 Meeting: New downtown garage and commercial cap Council Members:    I think the strongest argument against a new downtown garage is its opportunity cost.  There are much better uses for  our land and financial resources.  Way‐finding systems, TDM, and optimized parking in existing garages seem likely to be  as effective in reducing parking load, and would provide benefits for traffic reduction that a new garage would not, all at  lower total cost.  And the land might be better‐used for housing, if you consider that a high priority.  I suggest that the  garage project be tabled for at least two years to give these other approaches a chance to work.    As you ponder lifting the downtown commercial development cap, please consider whether you want to go on record as  eliminating a long‐standing constraint on commercial growth solely to support a project that reduces affordable housing  and increases traffic and parking issues downtown.  Also consider whether legal entanglement became inevitable once City officials gave incorrect advice to AJ.  I see plenty  of downside, and no plausible upside, to elimination of the cap.    Regards,  Allen Akin  1 Carnahan, David From:Anne Schmitt <schmitta@pacbell.net> Sent:Friday, February 8, 2019 6:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:No more garages! Dear all,     Thanks so much for the priority set on concerns about CLIMATE CHANGE. Plans to increase parking spaces are plans that  need to be looked at again in the context of all the likely initiatives that this new council will approve. The urgent need is  to reduce traffic congestion by making alternative plans. It seems that with more parking spaces we are adding an  incentive for more cars!      Many thanks for serving in Palo Alto,    Anne Schmitt  2 Carnahan, David From:William Courington <billcour@sonic.net> Sent:Friday, February 8, 2019 6:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please reconsider downtown garage: It's an inducement to burn fossil fuel More accommodations/subsidies for carbon‐emitting vehicles contradicts the City’s commitment to minimizing climate  change. If the garage must be built, consider dedicating it to bicycles, scooters, EVs, and—maybe—hybrids. Encouraging  all vehicles independent of the carbon they emit to use the garage, is pouring gasoline on the climate‐warming fire.       William Courington    1231 Byron St.   3 Carnahan, David From:chris cocca <chris_cocca@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, February 9, 2019 1:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parking Garage Dear Mayor and City Council members, I am flabbergasted at the city's continued support for a parking garage. The fact that we are using public money to support private business is galling. Further, we are using public funds to underwrite our carbon- intensive automobile infrastructure, when we should be supporting low-carbon pedestrian, bicycle and mass transit. For the 50 million dollar boondoggle the city plans to construct, we could buy each adult Palo Alto citizen a new Ecotric Fat Tire Electric Mountain Bicycle ($969). I'm not proposing giving out 50,000 electric bicycles, but it's far less crazy than giving away free parking spaces. My family,  friends, and coworkers are all interested in your response.    Sincerely,     Dr. Christopher Cocca  Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android  4 Carnahan, David From:Marianna Grossman <marianna.grossman@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 9, 2019 10:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please reconsider downtown garage, you can do better! Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council members,    Thank you for establishing climate change as a priority issue for the City of Palo Alto. I served on the  Sustainability/Climate Plan advisory task force and am glad that you adopted an ambitious Sustainability Goals and  Implementation Plan.    I also served last year on the City of Mountain View's Environmental Sustainability Task Force 2 and worked on the  transportation section. We worked hard to craft a set of proposals that combine carrots and sticks. Making alternative  transportation attractive, safe and inexpensive and making driving solo vehicles and parking more expensive, to  encourage mode shifting.  Palo Alto should consider charging for downtown parking, making free transit passes available  to lower income workers and investing in other measures to help  people switch out of solo cars. Building an additional  free parking garage encourages more solo driving and enables more congestion.    With recent scientific reports on climate change and the extreme weather and wildfires we have been experiencing, it is  time for Palo Alto to challenge community members and businesses to leave behind business as usual. Stanford is a role  model in limiting solo vehicle driving. Palo Alto should follow suit.    The downtown garage is also running at a deficit, so needs to be reconsidered on many levels. Please do not move  forward on this until a proper review can be done. I hope that out of that review, you will increase investments in active  transportation, public transit and shared vehicle solutions.    Sincerely,  Marianna  ‐‐   Marianna Grossman  Mountain View CA (former 26 year resident of Palo Alto)  marianna.grossman@gmail.com  650‐520‐7003 mobile  1 Carnahan, David From:Valerie Milligan <valerie.milligan5@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 3:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Maintain downtown CAP and No on the downtown garage   I implore you to vote to maintain the downtown CAP and no on the Downtown Garage.      Sincerely,    Valerie Milligan  2573 Park Boulevard, Unit U102  Palo Alto, CA  94306      1 Carnahan, David From:Sven Thesen <sventhesen@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 8:46 AM To:Council, City Subject:No on EIR for Downtown Garage! Gentle Council Members,    My wife and I (and on behalf of our children) would ask that you not approve the 238 space, $29M, (~$120,000/ space)  proposed downtown garage's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) at this time. The EIR is missing multiple key  components and does not address the highly likely autonomous electric car future; the impacts on our Single Occupancy  Vehicle (SOV) reduction priorities of the Comprehensive Plan and Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP); the impacts  of the TMA, the long term economic impact to the city, changing automobile ownership models and more.    As such, please request that staff redraft the EIR taking into account the above.     Sven Thesen & Dr. Kathleen Kramer  314 Stanford Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306    ‐‐   Sven Thesen,  415‐225‐7645  EV Consultant & Founder, ProjectGreenHome.org and BeniSolSolar.com; Wonder Junkie  __________________________________________________   Electric Cars are Cheaper than Cell Phones!  See:   http://www.projectgreenhome.org/articles.html  2 Carnahan, David From:YORIKO KISHIMOTO <yoriko12330@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 7:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Downtown Garage 375 Hamilton Avenue item Mayor Filseth and Honorable City Council members:    Please do not move forward with the Downtown Garage at 375 Hamilton Avenue.     I was pleased to see that the city council adopted the climate protection plan, transportation and traffic and fiscal sustainability (as well as rail separations) as top priorities for 2019. A new garage that accommodates more car trips downtown creates more greenhouse gas emissions, more traffic and costs $29 million. As you know, car trips are biggest remaining source of greenhouse gas emissions in our city.    This is a recent article about the Green New Deal and why massive new garages (this goes up to 65 feet including equipment) take us in the entirely wrong direction.   https://slate.com/business/2019/02/green-new-deal-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-flaw-land-use.html    Thank you very much for your hard work on the city council and for your consideration.    Yoriko Kishimoto  Former Mayor of Palo Alto    3 Carnahan, David From:Margaret Rosenbloom <margaret_rosenbloom@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 6:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:Downtown Garage at 375 Hamilton Ave 1. 2. I am writing to ask the council to defer action on approving the final EIR for construction of this parking structure. 3. 4. 5. There are many reasons why this Structure is not in the best interests of the citizens of Palo Alto, outlined in detail in the communication from Carbon Free Palo Alto, some of which I list below. I support these arguments and urge the Council to defer action until they have been taken into full consideration. Respectfully Margaret Rosenbloom 1. Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA) transportation demand management (TDM) measures appear cost effective 2. Expanding TDM efforts could eliminate the need for this garage. 3. The garage project is not compatible with the City’s Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) reduction priorities of the Comprehensive Plan and Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP).   4 Carnahan, David From:David Page <dalpage5@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 4:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:parking garage Hello City Council Members    I know you’ve been busy lately, but I must bother you about the parking garage.  You may be aware of the criticism the  City of Berkeley got for it’s refurbished [GHG‐oriented] parking garage ‐ adjacent to the BART station.    Can we not learn from Berkeley’s mistakes?  An elegant solution, which fits with your new priorities, would be to build a  smaller garage for EV’s ONLY!  That would include bikes, scooters, cars, etc. ‐ each having no tail pipe with which to emit  poison pollution.     Please don’t say your ‘priorities’ were words only; no more toxic fumes from burning gasoline!    Thank you very much,  David Page  3115 Avalon Court  94306  5 Carnahan, David From:Bruce Hodge <HODGE@TENAYA.COM> Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 3:32 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Flaherty, Michelle Subject:Please postpone moving forward with the Downtown Parking Garage Sunday, Feb 10, 2019 Honorable Council Members,  We urge you to postpone moving forward with the Downtown Parking Garage project in order to improve its understanding of the problem this project is intended to solve and to confirm that it is the best available solution. The garage represents a large, long-term commitment to a parking asset in an era of climate protection priorities, changing transportation patterns and tight budgets. It merits a careful understanding of the parking problem it is meant to solve and a coherent argument that a garage is the best way to solve it. We therefore ask that you vote against approval of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) at this time.    Our reasons for urging reconsideration of this project are listed here. Further below we elaborate on each of these points.  1. The parking problem to be solved is not clearly stated and quantified 2. The garage is a very expensive and inflexible long-term investment 3. No alternative solutions have been presented 4. Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA) transportation demand management (TDM) measures appear cost effective 5. Expanding TDM efforts could eliminate the need for this garage. 6. The garage project is not compatible with the City’s Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) reduction priorities of the Comprehensive Plan and Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP). 7. Tax funding of the garage is regressive in nature and primarily benefits downtown businesses; alternative funding mechanisms should be considered 8. Loss of public trust due to lack of analysis and responding to changing circumstances         The parking problem to be solved is not clearly stated and quantified The May 2018 Draft EIR states that “additional information is needed to show that there is additional demand for parking in the commercial core of the City of Palo Alto and the neighboring residential areas.”(p.18 of the EIR attachment in the staff report). The garage was proposed in 2014 and a 2019 decision to move forward must rely on an up-to-date report that locates and quantifies the excess demand for parking and its impacts on the surrounding residential area. More granular data than that provided in the 2016 Downtown Parking Management Study is needed to indicate the types of trips and their timing that drive the need for parking. It must also acknowledge the situation is evolving and is experiencing significant improvements from the City’s parking permit and TMA efforts.    The garage is a very expensive and inflexible long-term investment  The downtown garage will cost $29M and add new 238 spaces (324 minus 86 existing spaces) at 375 Hamilton Ave. This amounts to $122,000 per additional space. The Staff report does not explain the justification for building parking at this price. This is an expensive, massive (four stories), inflexible structure 6 that stresses our infrastructure budget. It eliminates opportunities to use the funds for other purposes in the future. And, it puts the capital at risk of becoming a stranded asset if parking demand declines sometime in the next 20 years.    The City needs more flexibility to adapt to these changes and align costs with spending priorities. Commute and visitor driving patterns, business/retail/housing mix and the availability and cost of transit and mobility services continue to evolve year by year. The alternative of managing parking demand using a changeable mix of parking and travel mode incentives and disincentives provides that.  No alternative solutions have been presented The downtown garage project was proposed in 2014. The stated objectives of the Downtown Garage Project are to increase the number of parking spaces within the downtown to maximize the accessibility and convenience to downtown visitors and workers. No alternatives comparing costs and benefits are presented in the plan documents. By 2019, SOV reduction has been named as the primary strategy to deal with the climate challenge and to improve quality of life by reducing congestion and parking problems in Palo Alto.   On the other hand, over the past few years the City of Palo Alto has successfully demonstrated the value of using parking demand management tools, like parking permits and pricing, and SOV reduction programs via PATMA. Both of these approaches reduce the demand for parking and achieve our established goals of reducing congestion and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and making it easier not to drive in the downtown area. The Staff report says that such efforts to date have not fully succeeded in addressing parking demand, ignoring the more recent results from PATMA and permitting programs.   We therefore propose that council consider the basic question of alternatives:  Would Palo Alto be better off spending $29M in the coming years on expanding the City’s parking demand management and SOV mode reduction efforts or building the downtown garage?  Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA) transportation demand management (TDM) measures appear cost effective The PATMA compared the cost of SOV reduction measures to the cost of building the downtown garage spaces in its Jan. 14, 2019 PATMA report to council. It included its own incentives for carpooling, rideshare and transit passes (first table below) as well as examples from Stanford (SOV fees) and other sources. To the extent the cost per SOV reduction is comparable to the cost of building a parking space, these figures indicate the potential magnitude of savings in particular cases. The savings could be varied by changing negotiated rates with service providers and subsidy level decisions.      7     All programs except housing stipends to live close to work were less expensive than the annualized cost of a space in the downtown parking garage which, estimated to be $3,908 per year including interest and maintenance.  Many more SOV reduction techniques could be used going forward. The report mentions e-bike loan-to-own, employer commute allowance programs (see Section 7: New Directions) as promising measures for their potential to reduce costs and increasing participation.  Coming bike share and Caltrain electrification programs will also contribute to SOV trip reduction in Palo Alto. Other cities are working with Uber, Lyft and others to reduce parking demand, some, specifically to avoid building garages. Summit, NJ is a town that uses subsidized rides to avoid building more parking at a transit location (see article: New Jersey town decides to pay Uber instead of building a parking lot).  Expanding TDM efforts could cover the need for this garage In Palo Alto, the SOV mode reduction programs appear to be able to reduce the demand for parking by more than 238 additional parking spaces would satisfy. The PATMA report highlights the impact of their programs in 2018:   ꞏ 333 commuters shifted away from SOV mode by Oct-Dec 2018 (2018 annual report)  ꞏ The budget was $450K for 2018  ꞏ On average, that is $1,351 per downtown SOV commute avoided  The PATMA plans to build on this success and has set a goal to shift 30% or 1,650 drivers to other modes in the next several years (https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/03/14/palo-alto-nonprofit-revs-up-efforts-to- reduce-traffic ).  The garage project is not compatible with the City’s SOV reduction priorities of the Comprehensive Plan and Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP) The Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP) Key Actions 2018-2020, Accepted by Council on Dec 11, 2017 specifies the following as top strategies to improve our quality of life and reduce transportation emissions.  SIP Mobility Goals   Reduce SOV travel  Make it more convenient not to drive The proposed public garage goes against these goals by making it easier to drive and thereby inducing more SOV travel. Constructing the concrete parking structure itself will also generate a significant amount of GHGs. Investing in SOV mode reduction efforts reduces GHGs and congestion and frees up real estate for uses other than parking.    Tax funding of the garage is regressive in nature and primarily benefits downtown businesses; alternative funding mechanisms should be considered Aside from transit parking, public parking garages largely benefit the businesses within their own walkable area and those who can afford to own a car and drive alone. Rather than pay for such a car-centric amenity using broad-based and regressive taxes and bonds, it is more responsible to use public parking fees and local 8 business taxes to reduce demand generated by the workers and customers who drive and park nearby using TDM. This flexible demand management approach benefits more people with more travel mode options. For example, the TMA offers up to a $10 discount for local Lyft rides that many restaurant workers need late in the day when transit options are limited.     Loss of public trust due to lack of analysis and responding to changing circumstances Council should strive to ensure its decisions are based on a coherent case for or against projects that represent such large, long term commitments of public funds. The project documents and presentations to date to not provide strong support that the Downtown Garage is justifiable and cost-effective investment itself, nor that it is the best available alternative to address the transportation and mobility needs of our community.    Sincerely,  Carbon Free Palo Alto  Available online here:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uqFoypjeUWnX6l5MfyEdc69n‐QYFwKcXbCGeQJIzUAY/edit?usp=sharing    1 Carnahan, David From:Kelsey Banes <kelseybanes@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 9:32 AM To:Council, City Subject:2/11 Council Meeting City Council,    Today is my birthday and I will celebrating in the East Bay instead of enjoying your debates tonight. My thoughts on  several agenda items follow. In general, my feedback relates to the consideration of our conjoined crises of climate and  housing during your land‐use decision‐making processes this evening.    3) I am excited to see the progress made on the Cubberly redevelopment since the first community meeting when we  discussed our visions for the future of Cubberly. During this meeting, our group discussed having spaces for different  generations to interact and develop community. Utilizing some of this public land for affordable housing for school  district employees and seniors could help effectuate this goal.    9) I am strongly opposed to the Hamilton parking garage and urge you to not adopt the proposed Final EIR. Dense  affordable housing would be ideal for this location, which is on public land, has no single‐family neighbors, and is  walkable to transit and services. If the council decides to pursue a parking garage at this site at all, a climate change  impact report is warranted given council stated top priority of climate change.     Reducing emissions will require reducing car trips/VMT. Building more parking downtown (which has plentiful but poorly  utilized garages already) will cause more driving and increase traffic. For evidence, see  https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2016/01/the‐strongest‐case‐yet‐that‐excessive‐parking‐causes‐more‐ driving/423663/    10) While I support the goal of preventing the conversion from residential to commercial uses given our current housing  shortage, the downtown commercial cap is an ineffective strategy for maintaining existing housing supply and spurring  new home construction. I hope the council will explore policies designed explicitly to protect existing affordable housing  supply (e.g., cottage clusters, President Hotel) from redevelopment that reduces the number of residential units or  converts to a different use.      Enabling what limited office growth we allow to happen near transit seems sensible from a climate perspective.  Additional density downtown could enable more mixed‐use commercial and residential spaces (e.g., live/work spaces  with ground floor office and residential above).     Perhaps lifting the cap with the addition of residential preservation to protect at‐risk housing stock could be an  appropriate compromise.                 1 Carnahan, David From:Bart Westcott <bwestcott2@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 10:24 AM To:Council, City Subject:Downtown garage project Dear Mayor and members of the council‐    Given the scarcity of land and the costs of construction, and more importantly our stated priority of addressing climate  change, I feel that the garage project needs to be reevaluated.     Reducing green gas emissions by encouraging modes of transportation other than private automobiles seems like an  essential part of addressing climate change. Building a new downtown garage may not be in our best interest now.    Thank you from a 21 year Palo Alto resident.  ‐‐  Bart Westcott  bwestcott2@gmail.com  650.465.0969  1 Carnahan, David From:Beth Martin <bbmartin1@mac.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 11:27 AM To:Council, City Subject:Parking Garage Council Members:    Monday night presents you with choices that will impact Palo Alto for decades and your actions will be recorded as  legacy votes, i.e. votes that will determine a major part of your legacy from your time on Council.     Maintaining the Downtown Cap will support our priorities for climate change and transportation by not worsening the  already out‐of‐balance jobs/housing ratio and not encouraging more commuting to downtown. Council members who  deny that traffic is both worsening and negatively impacting residential quality of life do so at their peril for their  reputation and/or future elections. The Downtown Cap provides us the opportunity to pause commercial development  in the downtown core and take a thorough look at solutions that support economic health and improving quality of life. I  also thought affordable housing was a priority. How does this new garage support that goal?     The Downtown Garage is not where I wish to see public monies invested. We have a parking shortage in downtown  because Council has repeatedly approved under‐parked commercial buildings and under‐forecasted parking demand.  Under‐parked commercial buildings have necessitated creating RPP programs around downtown, turning neighborhood  streets into commercial parking areas to an extent not seen anywhere else. Taking more public funds to address this  commercial parking issue by building more parking spaces just encourages more driving and the denser utilization of  existing commercial spaces. We are turning our downtown into a corporate office park that serves businesses, not  residents.    Building a new commercial garage will potentially encourage more traffic.    I implore you to vote to maintain the downtown CAP and no on the Downtown Garage.    Sincerely,    Beth Bening Martin  2 Carnahan, David From:Mark Grossman <grossman_mark@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 11:10 AM To:Council, City Subject:No new downtown parking garage Dear Council,    I want to voice my opposition to building a new garage.  This is incompatible with the city's sustainability priority, which  if taken seriously and implemented, which we must do, will make the garage unnecessary.  For more points, I refer you  to this letter, which I support.  Thank you,      Mark & Lauren      Downtown Parking Garage ‐ Letter to Council         Downtown Parking Garage - Letter to Council Sunday, Feb 10, 2019 Honorable Council Members, We urge you to postpone moving forward with the Downtown Parki...          1 Carnahan, David From:Frank Viggiano <fpviggiano@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 12:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please No More Parking Garages in Palo Alto Honorable City Council Members:  I was dismayed to hear that the council is thinking of spending millions of dollars of tax payer funds on yet another  parking structure in downtown.  I believe this would be a big mistake on so many levels ‐‐ very much a backwards  looking action to take.  Just a few points against it:   It goes against current and future trends: I'm 61 years old, and as others with grown children will tell you, the  coming generations are not nearly as car‐oriented as was our generation.  They use other means of getting  around on a daily basis, and don't like to pay for things like insurance, registration, car washes.  Car ownership  has been decreasing in developed countries in recent years, and all models point for that trend to continue as  the car‐oriented generation dies off and is replaced.  It is expected that, within a decade, inexpensive automated  ride share services will become common, further reducing car ownership and the need for destination  parking.  You don't need to take my work for this ‐‐ you can consult with transportation professionals who will  tell you the same.  Let's look to the future, not the past.   Need is Questionable: We often eat out in downtown on Friday or Saturday evenings, and rather than look for  street parking we usually go straight to the Bryant St. garage.  I've never seen the top floor of the garage, and  usually find plenty of spots by the time I'm up to the 2nd or 3rd floor.  Other times we use the Cowper St. garage  which similarly always has available spots.  You do see people cruising for street parking, but that is either due to  lack of awareness of the garages, or simply a preference for street parking.  I'm told that weekdays are busier  with office working commuters, but if that is the case then it should be more an issue of employers finding a way  to accommodate their commuting employees, rather than being the responsibility of the city to subsidize their  car commuters.   It May Generate More Traffic: If indeed there is a lack of parking for commuters during the weekdays, then  providing tax‐payer subsidized free parking will simply encourage more people to drive alone and cause more  traffic in town ‐‐ which I believe is consistently mentioned by Palo Altans as one of our biggest problems.  For these reasons and others, I strongly implore you not to spend the money yet another parking structure.  By going on  record approving such a project, you may expose yourself to recrimination in the future as these very predictable trends  play out.    Thanks for you consideration,  Frank Viggiano  2 Carnahan, David From:AlbertolleBuckley@msn.com Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 12:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Concerns about the downtown garage Attachments:PA City Council Letter February 11.docx Dear Palo Alto Mayor and City Council Members,    I have attached a letter expressing my apprehensions regarding moving forward with the downtown garage.  Please consider my concern which comes from the perspective of being a resident and an employee working  in the City of Palo Alto.    Sincerely,  Maureen Buckley  3 Carnahan, David From:MEGAN BARTON <megbarton@me.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 12:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Deny the Downtown Garage Council Members:  Please do not vote in favor of the downtown garage to tonight. This vote presents you with choices that will impact Palo Alto for decades and your actions will be recorded as legacy votes, i.e. votes that will determine a major part of your legacy from your time on Council. Maintaining the Downtown Cap will support our priorities for climate change and transportation by not worsening the already out-of-balance jobs/housing ratio and not encouraging more commuting to downtown. Council members who deny that traffic is both worsening and negatively impacting residential quality of life do so at their peril for their reputation and/or future elections. The Downtown Cap provides us the opportunity to pause commercial development in the downtown core and take a thorough look at solutions that support economic health and improving quality of life. Thank you, Megan Barton 4 Carnahan, David From:Pat Kinney <pkinney@ix.netcom.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 12:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:RE Downtown Garage 375 Hamilton Avenue Honorable Council Members, I urge you to postpone moving forward with the Downtown Parking Garage project in order to improve its understanding of the problem this project is intended to solve and to confirm that it is the best available solution. The garage represents a large, long-term commitment to a parking asset in an era of climate protection priorities, changing transportation patterns and tight budgets. It merits a careful understanding of the parking problem it is meant to solve and a coherent argument that a garage is the best way to solve it. I therefore ask that you vote against approval of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) at this time. This action would be consistent with achieving the goals of the the City's climate action plan approved at the  priority setting meeting on Feb 2.    My main reasons for urging reconsideration of this project are listed here. 1. Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA) transportation demand management (TDM) measures appear cost effective 2. Expanding TDM efforts could eliminate the need for this garage. 3. The garage project is not compatible with the City’s Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) reduction priorities of the Comprehensive Plan and Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP). Sincerely, Patricia Kinney 689 Wildwood Lane Palo Alto, CA 94303 1. 1 Carnahan, David From:Janet Walworth <walworthjanet@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 12:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Downtown Garage at 375 Hamilton Avenue Attachments:Ltr to Palo Alto City Council re Proposed New Parking Garage 021119 (00052314xA73C8).pdf   Sent from my iPhone    Begin forwarded message:  From: George Hohnsbeen <ghh@ix.netcom.com>  Date: February 11, 2019 at 12:24:05 PM PST  To: Janet Gmail Account <walworthjanet@gmail.com>  Subject: Letter     Monday, Feb 11, 2019 Honorable Council Members, I am writing regarding the proposed downtown garage at 375 Hamilton Avenue. There are three proposed actions that the City Council is considering as I understand it. One is to approve the final EIR, a second is to make required CEQA findings, and a third is to adopt a mitigation and reporting program. I agree with Carbon Free Palo Alto that the City Council should postpone moving forward with the Downtown Parking Garage project in order to improve its understanding of the problem this project is intended to solve and to confirm that it is the best available solution. The garage represents a large, long-term commitment to a parking asset in an era of climate protection priorities, changing transportation patterns and tight budgets. It merits a careful understanding of the parking problem it is meant to solve and a coherent argument that a garage is the best way to solve it. We therefore ask that you vote against approval of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) at this time. Our reasons for urging reconsideration of this project are listed here. Further below we elaborate on each of these points. 1. The parking problem to be solved is not clearly stated and quantified; 2. The garage is a very expensive and inflexible long-term investment; 3. No alternative solutions have been presented; 4. Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA) transportation demand management (TOM) measures appear cost effective; 5. Expanding TOM efforts could eliminate the need for this garage; 6. The garage project is not compatible with the City's Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) reduction priorities of the Comprehensive Plan and Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP); 7. Tax funding of the garage is regressive in nature and primarily benefits downtown businesses; alternative funding mechanisms should be considered; and 8. Loss of public trust due to lack of analysis and responding to changing circumstances. These points are discussed in further detail below. First, the parking problem to be solved is not clearly stated and quantified. The May 2018 Draft EIR states that "additional information is needed to show that there is additional demand for parking in the commercial core of the City of Palo Alto and the neighboring residential areas."(p.18 of the EIR attachment in the staff report). The garage was proposed in 2014 and a 2019 decision to move forward must rely on an up-to-date report that locates and quantifies the excess demand for parking and its impacts on the surrounding residential area. More granular data than that provided in the 2016 Downtown Parking Management Study is needed to indicate the types of trips and their timing that drive the need for parking. It must also acknowledge the situation is evolving and is experiencing significant improvements from the City's parking permit and TMA efforts. {00052313.DOCX I 1} Second, the garage is a very expensive and inflexible long-term investment. The downtown garage will cost $29M and add new 238 spaces (324 minus 86 existing spaces) at 375 Hamilton Ave. This amounts to $122,000 per additional space. The Staff report does not explain the justification for building parking at this price. This is an expensive, massive (four stories), inflexible structure that stresses our infrastructure budget. It eliminates opportunities to use the funds for other purposes in the future. And, it puts the capital at risk of becoming a stranded asset if parking demand declines sometime in the next 20 years. The City needs more flexibility to adapt to these changes and align costs with spending priorities. Commute and visitor driving patterns, business/retail/housing mix and the availability and cost of transit and mobility services continue to evolve year by year. The alternative of managing parking demand using a changeable mix of parking and travel mode incentives and disincentives provides that. Third, no alternative solutions have been presented. The downtown garage project was proposed in 2014. The stated objectives of the Downtown Garage Project are to increase the number of parking spaces within the downtown to maximize the accessibility and convenience to downtown visitors and workers. No alternatives comparing costs and benefits are presented in the plan documents. By 2019, SOV reduction has been named as the primary strategy to deal with the climate challenge and to improve quality of life by reducing congestion and parking problems in Palo Alto. On the other hand, over the past few years the City of Palo Alto has successfully demonstrated the value of using parking demand management tools, like parking permits and pricing, and SOV reduction programs via PATMA. Both of these approaches reduce the demand for parking and achieve our established goals of reducing congestion and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and making it easier not to drive in the downtown area. The Staff report says that such efforts to date have not fully succeeded in addressing parking demand, ignoring the more recent results from PATMA and permitting programs. We therefore propose that council consider the basic question of alternatives: Would Palo Alto be better off spending $29M in the coming years on expanding the City's parking demand management and SOV mode reduction efforts or building the downtown garage? Fourth, Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA) transportation demand management (TOM) measures appear cost effective. The PATMA compared the cost of SOV reduction measures to the cost of building the downtown garage spaces in its January 14, 2019 PATMA report to council. It included its own incentives for carpooling, rideshare and transit passes (first table below) as well as examples from Stanford (SOV fees) and other sources. To the extent the cost per SOV reduction is comparable to the cost of building a parking space, these figures indicate the potential {00052313.DOCX I l} magnitude of savings in particular cases. The savings could be varied by changing negotiated rates with service providers and subsidy level decisions. Annual cost of non.SOV PATMA Program Efficacy commute Waze Carpool s 1.255 Transit Pass Subsidy· pass outlay Sl.572 Transit pass subsidy including staff time: S2.072 Lyft Program S2.028 Scoop Program $2.635 Table 3.4. Annual COSI Row# For comp11rison·: TOM Program oftlcacy of non-SOV commoto 1 Gates Foondalroo TD J S 12 sov fee y\clds 32% sov -5432 2 Stanford-lt.!<e" TOM: S3 SOV fee yields 50% SOV so 3 Setf-motNated bike 0< carpool so 4 Go Pass ror downtown TedlCo at 35% Ca!Lrain mode $81-1 5 Go Pass for Stanford campus @ 17% mode s/lare Sl.676 6 Go Pass for an employerwill'l 10o/o mode share $2.850 7 Pnva1e express bos service from SF. 25 nde<s S3,508 8 Now structured p.arldng space (SOV commuto) S3.908 9 Employer housing stipend 10 hve dose to work SI0.000 All programs except housing stipends to live close to work were less expensive than the annualized cost of a space in the downtown parking garage which, estimated to be $3,908 per year including interest and maintenance. Many more SOV reduction techniques could be used going forward. The report mentions e-bike loan-to-own, employer commute allowance programs (see Section 7: New Directions) as promising measures for their potential to reduce costs and increasing participation. Coming bike share and Caltrain electrification programs will also contribute to SOV trip reduction in Palo Alto. Other cities are working with Uber, Lyft and others to reduce parking demand, some, specifically to avoid building garages. Summit, NJ is a town that uses subsidized rides to avoid building more parking at a transit location (see article: New Jersey town decides to pay Uber instead of building a parking lot). Fifth, expanding TOM efforts could cover the need for this garage. In Palo Alto, the SOV mode reduction programs appear to be able to reduce the demand for parking by more than 238 additional parking spaces would satisfy. The PA TMA report highlights the impact of their programs in 2018: {00052313.DOCX I 1} 333 commuters shifted away from SOV mode by Oct-Dec 2018 (2018 annual report) The budget was $450K for 2018 On average, that is $1 ,351 per downtown SOV commute avoided The PATMA plans to build on this success and has set a goal to shift 30% or 1,650 drivers to other modes in the next several years (https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/03/14/palo- alto-nonprofit-revs-up-efforts-to-reduce-traffic ). The garage project is not compatible with the City's SOV reduction priorities of the Comprehensive Plan and Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP) The Sustaina bility Implementation Plan (SIP) Key Actions 2018-2020, Accepted by Council on Dec 11 , 2017 specifies the following as top strategies to improve our quality of life and reduce transportation emissions. SIP Mobility Goals • Reduce SOV travel • Make it more convenient not to drive The proposed public garage goes against these goals by making it easier to drive and thereby inducing more SOV travel. Constructing the concrete parking structure itself will also generate a significant amount of GHGs. Investing in SOV mode reduction efforts reduces GHGs and congestion and frees up real estate for uses other than parking. Sixth, tax funding of the garage is regressive in nature and primarily benefits downtown businesses; alternative funding mechanisms should be considered. Aside from transit parking, public parking garages largely benefit the businesses within their own walkable area and those who can afford to own a car and drive alone. Rather than pay for such a car-centric amenity using broad-based and regressive taxes and bonds, it is more responsible to use public parking fees and local business taxes to reduce demand generated by the workers and customers who drive and park nearby using TOM. This flexible demand management approach benefits more people with more travel mode options. For example, the TMA offers up to a $10 discount for local Lyft rides that many restaurant workers need late in the day when transit options are limited. Seventh and finally, loss of public trust due to lack of analysis and responding to changing circumstances would be a consequence of a decision to approve the EIR. Council should strive to ensure its decisions are based on a coherent case for or against projects that represent such large, long term commitments of public funds. The project documents and presentations to date to not provide strong support that the Downtown Garage is justifiable and cost-effective investment itself, nor that it is the best available alternative to address the transportation and mobility needs of our community. Sincerely, .JCUAtct:R . Janet Walworth {00052313.DOCX I 1} 1 Carnahan, David From:Lynnie Melena <lynniemelena@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 2:19 PM To:Council, City Cc:David Coale Subject:Oppose Parking Garage Dear Councilmembers, I would like to add my support for delaying any approval of the proposed downtown parking garage in light of the City's prioritization of climate change as a major City goal this year. Downtown parking is a huge issue, but other strategies such as greater funding for the TMA need to be pursued before we permanently invest funds in a garage. If you build it, they (the cars) will come. Lynnie Melena 1 Carnahan, David From:Lenore Cymes <lenraven1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 3:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:development cap removal Dear City Council members:    Almost nothing makes less sense to me regarding eliminating the development cap now ‐ period….    We plain and  simply cannot handle more congestion and traffic that comes with office space.    From my reading, there is just not enough analysis to have the Council make a full project review until everything has  been evaluated..   To do this would be derelict to the existing residents of the city.  To make a decision tonite, is  blatantly handing away the city to developers and NOT in the best interest of those who live here.    PLEASE STOP GIVING AWAY THE CITY  before all the information is gathered and analyzed.      Topic 2    Garage.   This also sounds like the cart is pulling the horses.   I understand there are neighbors canvasing the existing  garages to evaluate usage and empty spaces.  Once again, I encourage waiting to vote on this issue till all the facts are in,  staff has had a chance to review and evaluation.  What is the rush?   Why is there a rush.    Thank you for reading my letter of concerns.    Sincerely   Lenore Cyes  Wildwood Lane  1 Carnahan, David From:jaclyn schrier <jaclyn@schrier.net> Sent:Wednesday, February 6, 2019 3:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Do NOT repeal downtown commercial cap City Council Members, Please do NOT repeal the downtown commercial development cap. I own and reside in a condominium half a block off University Avenue. I have watched with dismay as our multi-purpose downtown -- replete with interesting startups, practical and fun shopping, and a diversity of eateries -- has transformed into a bland office park, dominated by a few large companies. Our neighborhood quality of life has degraded precipitously. Once, friends were happy to meet downtown. Now, no one wants to deal with the traffic, parking, luxury shops, and overpriced restaurants. The council continues to talk up the priorities of affordable housing, traffic relief, and retail survival. Removing the commercial cap would only make it less desirable for developers to build housing, put more cars on our streets, and push out resident-serving shops and professionals. You have an opportunity to back up your words with action by preserving the downtown commercial cap. Thank you. jaclyn schrier 427 Alma Street #307 Palo Alto 1 Carnahan, David From:Dow Wilson <Dow.Wilson@varian.com> Sent:Thursday, February 7, 2019 3:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:development In general, I’m pro‐development.  But our community has gotten ahead of itself.  We need to reign in development until  we solve other problems.  For example, in Crescent Park where we live, traffic is untenable.  ‘Carmageddon’ happens  two or three times a week.  it’s unsafe for children, for emergency vehicles, and for inhabitants.  Please help solve these  problems before we start authorizing more downtown office development.    Thank you,    Dow Wilson  548 E. Crescent Dr  Palo Alto  1 Carnahan, David From:Carl Van Wey <carl.vanwey@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 7, 2019 4:30 PM To:Council, City Cc:carl.vanwey@gmail.com Subject:Downtown Commercial Cap Dear City Council,      I urge you to vote to make the downtown commercial cap a permanent one.    thanks,  Carl Van Wey  1425 University ave  1 Carnahan, David From:Greg Welch <welgreg@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 7, 2019 5:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:Keep the Downtown Office development cap Palo Alto residents are already suffering from a imbalance of the number of jobs (commuters) to the number of  residents unlike any in the region.  Arterials and residential streets alike are overwhelmed with traffic during rush hour  as commuters make their way to/from their jobs in Palo Alto and cut through residential neighborhoods never intended  to handle this volume or type of traffic.  Permitting more office development will only increase these impacts and should  not be undertaken until the City has deployed a proven‐effective plan to improve traffic flow on our arterials and reduce  cut‐through traffic in neighborhoods.    2 Carnahan, David From:Joanne Koltnow <joanne.koltnow@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 7, 2019 5:08 PM To:Council, City Cc:Joanne Koltnow Subject:Keep the Downtown Commercial Cap Dear Council members-- I urge you to keep the existing Downtown Commercial Cap in place. As we all know, continued commercial growth [and the current practice of jamming workers into office space] has exacerbated traffic and parking problems all over Palo Alto. As a resident of Evergreen Park, I experience the impact of increased commercial growth in my own neighborhood. Palo Alto residents have been urging the city for years to limit commercial development so we can achieve a better jobs/housing balance. Now is not the time to remove one of the safeguards still in place for the Downtown neighborhoods. Nor is it the time to make rule changes that enable developers to change the use of their existing buildings. I will be out of town on Monday, otherwise I would be speaking up at the Council meeting. --Joanne Koltnow 317 Leland Avenue 3 Carnahan, David From:Jim Cornett <jbcornett@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 7, 2019 5:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Downtown Commercial Cap Dear Council Members;    I urge you to maintain the Downtown Commercial Cap instituted over thirty years ago to provide properly balanced  growth of our City.  That same concern is even more pressing today.      Maintaining the cap does not eliminate the opportunities for growth in our downtown area, rather it provides the an all  important limitation on the amount, and the type, of growth that is best for long range planning.    Please do not succumb to the often heard, but terribly short sighted, mantra about our next calendar quarter or next  year's growth.  Please take a longer term view of our City and provide a responsible framework by maintaining this far  sighted cap on downtown commercial growth.    Sincerely,    James Cornett  420 Sequoia Ave  Palo Alto, CA 94306  1 Carnahan, David From:Cheryl Lilienstein <clilienstein@me.com> Sent:Thursday, February 7, 2019 6:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please Keep the cap downtown In recent years Palo Alto has added 13.7 jobs for every new housing unit, thereby increasing commute times, rents,  greenhouse gasses, and our jobs/housing imbalance. Every new square foot of Downtown commercial space takes away  the opportunity to build housing there instead.  Making the Downtown Commercial Cap permanent will benefit housing  enormously by prioritizing residential development.  2 Carnahan, David From:Marilyn mayo <marilynmayo@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, February 7, 2019 7:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:Keep Commercial Cap Dear Council Members: February 8, 2019 I strongly support maintaining the current Downtown Commercial Cap. We have housing, transportation, & infrastructure challenges demanding immediate attention in order to catch up with already approved downtown projects. Step up to the plate & give Palo Alto residents a moment to catch our breath. Thank you for your consideration. Marilyn Mayo 404 Oxford Ave Palo Alto 1 Carnahan, David From:Sheri Furman <sheri11@earthlink.net> Sent:Friday, February 8, 2019 2:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Feb 11 Agenda Item 10: Please Keep the Downtown Commercial Cap Attachments:Please Keep the Downtown Commercial Cap.docx Please see the attached letter from Palo Alto Neighorhoods (PAN). Thank you, Sheri Furman Please Keep the Downtown Commercial Cap February 7, 2019 Dear City Council Members: By the unanimous vote of members present at tonight's PAN meeting, we urge you to keep in place the 33-year-old cap on Downtown commercial growth. Removing it would worsen Downtown's traffic and parking problems, intensify the city's job/housing imbalance, and take away much-needed opportunities to build housing. Way back in 1986, many worried that adding more and more commercial buildings to Palo Alto's Downtown would compound traffic and parking problems. To provide a chance to evaluate and potentially halt harmful growth, the City Council back then enacted the Downtown Commercial Cap, which establishes a one-year moratorium on further Downtown non-residential expansion once 350,000 new square feet are approved. The moratorium was intended to give the public and City government time to craft new policies, such as a permanent limit on new commercial Downtown space. City records show we are close to or have perhaps reached the 350,000 square foot trigger, thanks to a recent surge in Downtown office construction. City staff have not been counting the parking and common areas of many new buildings, although the Cap law does not say to exclude those. If such areas are included, we have reached the 350,000 square foot limit. Downtown is not well-protected by the city’s 50,000 square foot annual cap on new office buildings, as that limit has loopholes and allows Downtown offices to grow far faster than they have on average over the last 33 years. The office cap also allows apartment buildings such as the President Hotel to convert to hotel or offices while the moratorium imposed by the Downtown Commercial Cap does not. The Planning and Transportation Commission decisively sided last July with residents by voting 4-0, with one abstention and two absences, to recommend the Cap be retained. Here are three important reasons why you should as well: 1) The Cap is an important protection for Downtown residents whose buildings might otherwise be converted to commercial space. One such building is the five-story Laning Chateau (aka Staller Court) near the Downtown Farmer's Market. Although you are considering other ways to preserve residences, those efforts may fail upon legal challenge from developers. 2) The concerns back in 1986 about growth impacting traffic and parking have unfortunately proven prescient. Downtown rush hour traffic is creating enormous problems for nearby neighborhoods. Parking has become a nightmare, thanks to numerous exemptions granted to developers and to soaring office rents, which encourages companies to pack more workers into existing buildings. The City currently issues permits to Downtown employees so they can park all day in front of residential homes many blocks away. Removing the Cap will enable further Downtown commercial growth and at a faster pace, yet the City has conducted no study of how those additional buildings will impact traffic and parking compared to the present levels. 3) In recent years Palo Alto has added 13.7 jobs for every new housing unit, thereby increasing commute times, rents, greenhouse gasses, and our jobs/housing imbalance. Every new square foot of Downtown commercial space takes away the opportunity to build housing there instead. Making the Downtown Commercial Cap permanent will benefit housing enormously by prioritizing residential development. For all these important reasons, we feel the Downtown Commercial Cap benefits residents throughout Palo Alto and should remain. Thank you, Sheri Furman and Rebecca Sanders Co-Chairs PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) 1 Carnahan, David From:kemp650@aol.com Sent:Saturday, February 9, 2019 2:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:In Support of Retaining the Downtown Office Cap Dear City Council Members, I am writing to urge you to keep the Downtown Office Cap in place. Here are three important reasons why we should keep and strengthen it: 1) The Cap is an important protection for Downtown residents whose buildings might otherwise be converted to commercial space. One such building is the five-story Laning Chateau (aka Staller Court) near the Downtown Farmer's Market. Although the City Council is considering other ways to preserve residences, those efforts may fail upon legal challenge from developers. 2) The concerns back in 1986 about growth impacting traffic and parking have unfortunately proven prescient. Downtown rush hour traffic is creating enormous problems for nearby neighborhoods. Parking has become a nightmare, thanks to numerous exemptions granted to developers and to soaring office rents, which encourages companies to pack more workers into existing buildings. The City currently issues permits to Downtown employees so they can park all day in front of residential homes many blocks away. Removing the Cap will enable further Downtown commercial growth and at a faster pace, yet the City has conducted no study of how those additional buildings will impact traffic and parking compared to the present levels. 3) In recent years Palo Alto has added 13.7 jobs for every new housing unit, thereby increasing commute times, rents, greenhouse gases, and our jobs/housing imbalance. Every new square foot of Downtown commercial space takes away the opportunity to build housing there instead. Making the Downtown Commercial Cap permanent will benefit housing enormously by prioritizing residential development. Thank you, Susan Kemp Ventura Resident 2 Carnahan, David From:Andy Miksztal <andy.miksztal@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 9, 2019 11:58 AM To:Council, City Subject:Down town Expansion Palo Alto City Council,    As a resident of Palo Alto for over 20 years, I strongly support the current limits for office buildings in down town Palo  Alto.  We don't need monster building to further enrich developers at the expense of the residents, increasing  congestion, traffic and housing in balance.    The City Council's duty is to support the residents, not to be in the pocket of developers!!    Regards,  Andy Miksztal  743 Cereza Drive  Palo Alto  3 Carnahan, David From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> Sent:Saturday, February 9, 2019 11:42 AM To:Council, City Subject:Leave the Office Cap in Place How many times do we have to keep fighting the same issue? KEEP THE OFFICE CAP and make it even stronger. No wonder "regaining trust" wasn't one of the council's priorities. Jo Ann Mandinach 1699 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 4 Carnahan, David From:steven rosenberg <str94306@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 9, 2019 10:19 AM To:Council, City Cc:steven rosenberg; Jitendra Kavathekar Subject:Keep the downtown office cap! Dear City Council,    Please keep the downtown office cap. In fact, it would be a good idea to reduce it. Palo Alto has enough office  envelopment and doesn’t need more for any reason other than developers, and people who make money from real  estate development donate  lots of money to some city council members to push for more development want what they  have paid for. As most recent surveys have shown, the people who Iive in palo alto don’t want more development and  the additional traffic and loss of local stores that it brings. Upgrading a currently commercially zoned space is one thing.  Increasing the cap is another. The best and easiest way to bring our housing and jobs into alignment is to curb job  growth in the city. Every development seems to ask for and get an exception or change in local zoning so that they can  be bigger, denser, provide less parking and drive out street level small stores. The result is a city that more and more  doesn’t work for its residents. Most of the small shops that provide various services are being forced out of the city so  that residents spend more of  their weekends driving to other towns. More local people do not use the downtown  because we can’t find parking there and the streets are congested and the local stores and family restaurants are gone.  Listen to the residents and keep a cap and look into reducing it.    Thank you,    Steven Rosenberg  5 Carnahan, David From:Iqbal Serang <iqbalserang@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 8, 2019 5:02 PM To:Council, City Cc:iqbalserangarchitect@gmail.com; Ias Designs Subject:Please retain the Cap on downtown properties. Hello Council members: Thank you for your support for the downtown commercial cap to be continued and retained, for  future growth to be balanced with residential and rental properties alike. Hopefully, you will now concentrate on  creating zones and rules to accommodate essential housing units which are urgently needed in the downtown area and  other commercial corridors for easy access to mass transit. Please also try to accommodate the Hotel President tenants  and the loss of community and the 75 units of compact reasonably priced homes.  Sincerely,  Iqbal Serang  6 Carnahan, David From:Melanie Cross <melaniecross@earthlink.net> Sent:Friday, February 8, 2019 4:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:No More Downtown Commercial Growth Dear City Council Members,    Over the past decades our city has approved commercial development, specifically offices and hotels, to the point where  we now have a very unbalanced jobs/housing ratio.  Not only has it priced young Palo Altans and those who now work  here out of living in this community, but those of us who do live here find driving and parking so difficult that many of us  avoid going downtown if we can.      We can work to make the city more liveable, but only if we halt commercial growth and encourage housing.  Please  retain the cap on commercial growth which was thoughtfully set 3 decades ago.      Thank you,    Melanie Cross  A 40 year resident of Palo Alto  7 Carnahan, David From:Ray Dempsey <rademps@aol.com> Sent:Friday, February 8, 2019 3:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:The cap on downtownn commercial growth Dear City Council Members,    I have long spoken about the intrusion of business activities on the residential areas, particularly the additional traffic  and intrusive parking, but there are additional factors that affect the entire peninsula communities, traffic certainly, but  the safety and pollution issues that go hand‐in‐hand with our daytime population doubling the residential population.   Please do not end a long‐running policy that has helped to contain runaway growth.  I am hardly an opponent of local  business, especially retail business.  As a resident I support it as best as any Palo Alto resident does by buying locally.   There are many businesses that recognize me, my wife, and Katie Woof and reward us with good services, products, and  dog treats.  (The last for Katie although they would probably give us some too if we asked.)    Respectfully submitted,  Ray Dempsey    1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, February 9, 2019 5:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto's University Ave Downtown Three important issues are pending for neighborhoods adjacent to the University Avenue Commercial Core. #1 Prospects for a Downtown Coordinated Area Plan: Please expedite this plan. #2 Downtown Development Cap: Please keep the development cap in place. #3 Waverley Street Garage: Please reject the staff recommend to proceed and table this project for future action. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68782 More information on the new garage. Only a week ago the Council adopted its new priorities. Climate Change Transportation Rail Finances Moving ahead now with the construction of a new downtown garage is ill-timed and misaligned with the city’s 2019 priorities. In a nutshell: Climate Change: Construction and traffic diversions will increase negative climate impact. In the long-term a garage increases dependency upon the automobile and SOV. Transportation: A new garage will increase traffic and congestion by drawing more traffic to downtown. And it diverts funding and staff from long-promised mitigation efforts such as expanded scope TMA, valet parking in two garages, way-finding, permit management system, consideration of paid parking. – and more. Furthermore, RPPs are languishing with no active management attention. Rail: The rail crossings decision will require immense effort to reach a consensus and gain public support. Pushing through a garage will dilute the city’s attention away from rail crossings; a decision that impact Palo Alto for decades and decades. Rail is urgent; a new garage is not urgent. Finances: First, construction costs are currently at record highs. Second, the garage consumes too much capital and compromises future borrowing power. Lower-cost and traffic-reducing options exist. A 2-3 year delay would cause no harm. Investment in TMA, valet programs, garage way-finding, downtown CAP and long-term parking/transportation staff not only is less costly but it also avoids heavy debt. Summary: Avoiding the garage capital outlay has benefits including opening up new options next year for Council priorities, such as another affordable housing project, stable staffing/recruitment, mitigation of cut-thru traffic, implementing the first phases of rail, etc. Furthermore, delay brings time to explore financing options and more effective footprint. 2 Council priorities should work together to enable a coherent, aligned approach to problem solving. Inviting more traffic with one hand via a garage and trying to reduce traffic via TMA with the other makes no sense. Avoiding new debt and paying down bit of pension liability, too, would be prudent. The recent Council consideration of a Downtown Coordinated Plan is a rational, but un-budgeted approach to the current traffic and congestion stresses. Please turn down the staff recommendation for a new garage and refer the matter to the Council Finance Committee. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 3 Carnahan, David From:Allen Akin <akin@arden.org> Sent:Saturday, February 9, 2019 5:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:2/11 Meeting: New downtown garage and commercial cap Council Members:    I think the strongest argument against a new downtown garage is its opportunity cost.  There are much better uses for  our land and financial resources.  Way‐finding systems, TDM, and optimized parking in existing garages seem likely to be  as effective in reducing parking load, and would provide benefits for traffic reduction that a new garage would not, all at  lower total cost.  And the land might be better‐used for housing, if you consider that a high priority.  I suggest that the  garage project be tabled for at least two years to give these other approaches a chance to work.    As you ponder lifting the downtown commercial development cap, please consider whether you want to go on record as  eliminating a long‐standing constraint on commercial growth solely to support a project that reduces affordable housing  and increases traffic and parking issues downtown.  Also consider whether legal entanglement became inevitable once City officials gave incorrect advice to AJ.  I see plenty  of downside, and no plausible upside, to elimination of the cap.    Regards,  Allen Akin  1 Carnahan, David From:Patrick Slattery <patslattery@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 3:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Downtown Commercial Cap Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council Members:    Please, don't toss the cap just when our ears are about to freeze.     Commercial development profits exceed residential development profits. Housing needs your help. Hopeful residents,  frozen out of PA housing market, need your help.  Don't let free market snow plows bury new housing enticements  under piles of slush.     Keep the Cap!      With best regards,  Patrick Slattery  patslattery@sbcglobal.net  ‐‐   Sent from Postbox  2 Carnahan, David From:neva yarkin <nevayarkin@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 2:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:from neva yarkin Feb. 10, 2019    To Whom It May Concern:    PLEASE KEEP THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL CAP.    Thank you.    Neva Yarkin  nevayarkin@gmail.com              3 Carnahan, David From:Ben Lerner <balerner@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 2:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Preserve Downtown Office Cap Dear PA City Council –    Regarding the proposal to lift the downtown office cap:    1. Keep the office cap.  2. Palo Alto doesn’t need more offices – it needs more housing.  3. Keep the President Hotel residential.  No favors to outside developers over our own residents!  4. Investigate what city staffers made this proposal and whether they received any undue influence from  developers.    Thank You,  Ben Lerner  Palo Alto 94303  4 Carnahan, David From:Sue Dinwiddie <sued@daise.com> Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 12:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:RE: Commercial Development Cap Honorable City Council Member:    We are concerned about the possibility of raising the cap on commercial development downtown.  Commercial  development in the past few years has negatively impacted traffic and parking, not to mention creating a dearth of retail  We urge you to retain the current cap. This city is already way out of balance in terms of jobs per residents.  Palo Alto  does need more office space.  If anything, Palo Alto needs more affordable housing.    Thank you for you consideration.    Sue and Ken Dinwiddie  543 Jackson Drive  Palo Alto, CA 94303  5 Carnahan, David From:Laura Seitel <lseitel@mac.com> Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 12:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:Keep Downtown Commercial Cap Dear Members of the City Council,    As Palo Alto residents, we are writing to urge you to vote tomorrow to keep the Downtown Commercial Cap.       The Cap protects downtown residents from having their homes turned into commercial spaces.  Removing it will  exacerbate already terrible problems with traffic and parking Downtown and in surrounding residential neighborhoods.  Palo Alto has a great need for new housing and making the Cap permanent will result in increased residential  development.    For these and many other reasons, we hope that you will vote to make the Downtown Commercial Cap permanent.    Thank you for your attention,    Laura Seitel and Loy Martin                6 Carnahan, David From:Marion Odell <marionodell7@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 12:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:various I have lived in the DTN neighborhood for over thirty years and have continued issues with your current plans.    Please keep the current development plan in place for the sake of the neighborhood's traffic,  parking problems and  need for housing at the President Hotel.     Thank you,   Marion Odell     7 Carnahan, David From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 10:20 AM To:Council, City Cc:Norman H. Beamer; Greg Welch Subject:Maintain the Downtown Cap / Delay or Deny the Downtown Garage Council Members:    Monday night presents you with choices that will impact Palo Alto for decades and your actions will be recorded as  legacy votes, i.e. votes that will determine a major part of your legacy from your time on Council.     Maintaining the Downtown Cap will support our priorities for climate change and transportation by not worsening the  already out‐of‐balance jobs/housing ratio and not encouraging more commuting to downtown. Council members who  deny that traffic is both worsening and negatively impacting residential quality of life do so at their peril for their  reputation and/or future elections. The Downtown Cap provides us the opportunity to pause commercial development  in the downtown core and take a thorough look at solutions that support economic health and improving quality of life.   The Downtown Garage is not where I wish to see public monies invested. We have a parking shortage in downtown  because Council has repeatedly approved under‐parked commercial buildings and under‐forecasted parking demand.  Under‐parked commercial buildings have necessitated creating RPP programs around downtown, turning neighborhood  streets into commercial parking areas to an extent not seen anywhere else. Taking more public funds to address this  commercial parking issue by building more parking spaces just encourages more driving and the denser utilization of  existing commercial spaces. We are turning our downtown into a corporate office park that serves businesses, not  residents.    At best, it is incoherent to make climate and transportation our priorities and then build a new commercial garage that  will bring more pollution and traffic.  At worst, it adds to the already sharp decline in reported residential quality of life and worsens pollution. The vote on  the downtown garage is also a legacy vote that residents will watch and remember.    I implore you to vote to maintain the downtown CAP and no on the Downtown Garage.    Sincerely,  Joh Guislin  8 Carnahan, David From:Barbara Bowden <barbara@1035b.com> Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 9:55 AM To:Council, City Subject:Keep the Cap! Palo Alto has for several years made efforts to deal with the jobs versus housing and parking imbalance, particularly in the downtown and California Avenue business districts. The President Hotel was one of the last bastions of reasonably priced downtown housing. We are now faced with a national real estate developer whose vice president of development, Tim Franzen, is in pursuit of the AJ corporate mission: “exploiting misalignments between low-quality, highly-commoditized offerings and the consumers’ appreciation and desire for authentic experiences.” Toward that end, the President would be converted to a 100 room hotel with just 12 parking spaces. There’s no apparent concern for the housing and parking for customers or staff (housekeeping, maintenance, food service, etc.) or impact on Palo Alto. . Please stop this conversion, and look for ways to serve those who elected you: keep the President for housing residents on limited incomes, who contribute daily to the positive quality of life we all hope for in Palo Alto. Mr. Franzen’s Illinois real estate license does not entitle him to tell the City Council and/or the Planning Commission how to manage Palo Alto’s problems, but those officials can tell him to pursue his goals elsewhere. Many of us would be happy to give him directions!. Barbara Bowden 850 Webster Street barbara@1035b.com 650.324.7586 9 Carnahan, David From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net> Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 6:46 AM To:Council, City Subject:Downtown Commercial Cap I am writing for the purpose of adding my voice to those urging retention of the downtown commercial cap.   Establishing it was a smart move that acknowledged the need for balance. Eliminating it will destroy any hope for  balance and the problems we currently face will only worsen.    Council has been posturing in favor of housing, the shortage of which is a problem exacerbated by too much commercial  growth that adds workers and demand for housing that we can neither meet or sustain.  Creating the possibility for  worsening that imbalance would be irresponsible.  It would also impugn Council’s credibility.    The cap is a matter best left alone but if there is to be a decision about it, since it carries the potential for citywide,  irreversible, significant impact it should be decided by a ballot measure, not Council.  1 Carnahan, David From:Valerie Milligan <valerie.milligan5@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 3:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Maintain downtown CAP and No on the downtown garage   I implore you to vote to maintain the downtown CAP and no on the Downtown Garage.      Sincerely,    Valerie Milligan  2573 Park Boulevard, Unit U102  Palo Alto, CA  94306      1 Carnahan, David From:James Poppy <jamespoppy@comcast.net> Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 3:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please think creatively about the Downtown Cap City Council,  Please show some progressive thinking about the downtown cap if you are intent on eliminating it. I would prefer that  you keep it in place until you have resolved all of the peripheral issues regarding converting residential to commercial.  But if you want to eliminate the cap, you can make provisions that would support local businesses and services, and not  just open it up for a land grab.     The only time I go downtown is to walk to the Aquarius Theater for a movie, or grab a coffee from Peet’s to go. Its not  pleasant. Please think about downtown as more than square footage.    Regards,  Jim Poppy  135 Melville Avenue       2 Carnahan, David From:Irv Brenner <irvbb@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 4:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Maintain the Downtown Cap / Delay or Deny the Downtown Garage Dear Council Members:    I completely agree with Mr. Guilsin's points.  Previous councils have failed to put residents (to whom they are obliged)  before special interests.  As a result, Palo Alto's quality‐of‐life has plummeted.    Please pay heed,    Irv Brenner  250 Byron Street  Palo Alto 94301    Subject: Maintain the Downtown Cap / Delay or Deny the Downtown Garage Council Members: Monday night presents you with choices that will impact Palo Alto for decades and your actions will be recorded as legacy votes, i.e. votes that will determine a major part of your legacy from your time on Council. Maintaining the Downtown Cap will support our priorities for climate change and transportation by not worsening the already out-of-balance jobs/housing ratio and not encouraging more commuting to downtown. Council members who deny that traffic is both worsening and negatively impacting residential quality of life do so at their peril for their reputation and/or future elections. The Downtown Cap provides us the opportunity to pause commercial development in the downtown core and take a thorough look at solutions that support economic health and improving quality of life. The Downtown Garage is not where I wish to see public monies invested. We have a parking shortage in downtown because Council has repeatedly approved under-parked commercial buildings and under-forecasted parking demand. Under-parked commercial buildings have necessitated creating RPP programs around downtown, turning neighborhood streets into commercial parking areas to an extent not seen anywhere else. Taking more public funds to address this commercial parking issue by building more parking spaces just encourages more driving and the denser utilization of existing commercial spaces. We are turning our downtown into a corporate office park that serves businesses, not residents. At best, it is incoherent to make climate and transportation our priorities and then build a new commercial garage that will bring more pollution and traffic. At worst, it adds to the already sharp decline in reported residential quality of life and worsens pollution. The vote on the downtown garage is also a legacy vote that residents will watch and remember. I implore you to vote to maintain the downtown CAP and no on the Downtown Garage. Sincerely, John Guislin 3 Carnahan, David From:Magic <magic@ecomagic.org> Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 4:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:Downtown Cap Dear Councilmembers,    When your predecessors in the mid‐1980's recognized that we were destroying many of the qualities of Palo Alto that  residents appreciated by building more commercial space than was necessary to accommodate employment and  services we wanted, they gently applied the brakes, and in a very significant way kicked the can down the road with a  promise to pause such construction downtown after an additional 350,000 square feet were built, and to assess its  results and attempt to foresee future results of building more before doing so.    Since then the further adverse consequences of commercial construction have become evident even to those most  stubbornly attempting to disregard them. You now will decide whether to keep the promise made 30+ years ago, pause,  and perform a thorough assessment, or continue down the destructive path we've been taking.    While some argue that change is the order of nature and "market forces" are the best guides for change, the current  state of the world and trends in place are strong evidence that successful human adaptation entails a more ecologically  informed approach. We need land use regulation that will yield benefit locally and beyond our borders. Few matters are  more central to human well‐being.    Today's cities, including Palo Alto, have been built and occupied during a one‐time draw‐down of energy resources for  which replacement has yet to be found and further use of which has become an existential threat. Building more and  operating it over its projected useful service period—a century or more—will entail some mixture of working harder and  enjoying less benefit. Humanity is in overshoot. This is apparent already in global and local changes that have diminished  life quality for Palo Altans and other humans worldwide.    There are those who claim that density is resource efficient and economical. The meaninglessness of this claim is evident  when we note absence of any reference to the extent of density. Only someone ignorant of physical and biological  science will assert that extent is irrelevant. Just as work has both an intensive and extensive quality, so does settlement  have density, an intensive, and area, an extensive, quality. Resource efficiency is a function of both work necessary to  maintain a settlement and benefits reaped by that work. The decoupling of economics from ecology makes all dollar  analysis suspect. Moreover things may be cheap because they're shoddy.    Around the world we can observe that human necessities are more expensive in terms of both resource and money as  density of settlement increases. A straightforward explanation for this is that transport is a cost everywhere in the  biological world from cell to ecosystem. As soon as we exceed the local carrying capacity of a place we're necessarily less  "resource efficient." If density is cheap, why is Manhattan housing so expensive? If cities are resource efficient why did  they come into being only after "civilization" evolved to a point where urban inhabitants were able to exploit rural  peoples and places?    The revolution necessary to "sustainability" will require vast alteration of human settlement patterns, substantial  reduction in human population, and diminishment of quantity and change in quality of human‐mediated matter and  energy conversions. It is hardly yours or Palo Altans' alone to make. We require actions by people everywhere over  decades. You can, however, lead now by pausing commercial growth downtown long enough to perform the ecological  analysis necessary to better predict its consequences and thereby make possible informed choice.    4 To remove the downtown office cap at the very moment when it can serve the purpose to which it was enacted is to  pretend that you've sufficient basis to predict that this will benefit your constituents, the people of Palo Alto. I question  whether you can possibly have this, and even whether it exists.    Thank you for considering these views.    With appreciation,    David Schrom      ************* Magic, 1979-2019: forty years of valuescience leadership ************** Magic demonstrates how people can address individual, social, and environmental ills nearer their roots by applying science to discern value more accurately and realize it more fully. Enjoy the satisfaction of furthering Magic's work by making one-time or recurring gifts at http://ecomagic.org/participate.shtml#contribute. Magic is a 501(c)(3) public charity. Contributions are tax-deductible to the full extent permitted by law. THANK YOU! www.ecomagic.org -------- (650) 323-7333 --—----- Magic, Box 15894, Stanford, CA 94309 ************************************************************************************** 5 Carnahan, David From:Lisbeth <lisbeth@winarsky.com> Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 4:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:Do not lift the cap on downtown commercial development. Please!    Sent from my iPhone  6 Carnahan, David From:Noah Fiedel <nfiedel@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 3:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please keep the downtown commercial cap Dear City Council,    As a Palo Alto resident of 15+ years, votor, and active member of the community, I strongly urge you to vote  uninamously to keep the downtown commercial cap.      Palo Alto has urgent issues facing our community, that are largely due to the great imbalance between housing and  commercial space. Our homes to jobs ratio is the worst in the nation. Our roads are jam‐packed with commuters.      This is a critical issue affecting our entire community, even those of us not in downtown. The commute traffic affects all  of our arterials: North to South and East to West. Palo Altans do not face too few jobs. We do not need more  commercial space. There is zero reason to add more commercial space in our city. If anything, we should allow only for  commercial to housing re‐zoning, and definitely not the other way around.      Thank you for your consideration,    Noah Fiedel    Ventura Park  7 Carnahan, David From:cybele88lb <cybele88lb@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 9:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:Retain the cap Dear City Council,     Please keep the cap on downtown office development.  Or, at least, insist on second and higher floors to have housing  above offices and retail...Let's get pn board with state mandates and make housing a priority.   Thank you,     Sincerely,   Cybele LoVuolo‐Bhushan  3838 Mumford place 94306        Sent from my T‐Mobile 4G LTE Device  8 Carnahan, David From:bondel-comcast <bondel@comcast.net> Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 9:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda Item 10 Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council Members,    I am writing to ask you not to eliminate the Downtown Cap but instead to put a one year moratorium in place to further  study what the repercussions of removing the cap might be. When the policy regarding the downtown cap was first  developed in 1986, the plan was that once 350,000 square feet of commercial development was reached, a study would  be done to formulate appropriate development plans for moving forward with further construction. That study was  never undertaken because in 2017, a slim Council majority led by Greg Scharff and Cory Wolbach voted to eliminate the  Downtown Cap from the city’s Comprehensive Plan. To eliminate the Cap today would amount to breaking a 33 year old  promise about what processes would be followed once the CAP was reached, that is, to undertake a study to assess the  ramifications of further commercial development.    Commercial development has increased more rapidly from 2011 through 2015 than at any time since 1986 almost  doubling in that period. Even when there is no new construction, density is increasing downtown as is exemplified by  what is happening in my office building, 550 Hamilton. Small business leases are not being renewed and when there is a  vacancy, interior office walls are removed, so what was previously a 3 person suite of offices becomes an open floor plan  with the capacity to house 10 to 15 people. This exacerbates the traffic and parking problems that are already a source  of residents’ complaints. The prospect of doing away with limitations without knowing the consequences is  irresponsible.    This is the perfect opportunity for Council to prioritize construction of housing in this area that is served by mass transit.  More housing would help to alleviate the job housing imbalance. I urge Council to look before you leap. Please keep the  Cap in place. Do the Phase II analysis and make decisions based on informed policies.    Sincerely,    Beth Rosenthal, Ph.D.   9 Carnahan, David From:Sherry Listgarten <sherry@listgarten.com> Sent:Sunday, February 10, 2019 10:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please leave Downtown Commercial Cap in place Dear City Council,    It seems to me that the residents have spoken again and again and again on this issue. I'm sure it seems that way to you,  too :)  Please listen.    Our development priorities should be on increasing the availability of affordable housing and ensuring we have  adequate co‐located residential and retail services to support said housing. There is no part of building yet more office,  R&D, or hotels in downtown that addresses that need.    Please leave the cap in place. It is serving precisely the need it was intended for.    Thank you,    Sherry Listgarten  10 Carnahan, David From:Tirumala Ranganath <ranguranganath@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 12:11 AM To:Council, City Subject:Downtown Office Cap Dear Mayor Filseth and Council Members,                 I am writing to express my extreme concern for an agenda item set for discussion/voting on Monday the 11th.  Specifically it is the question of the Downtown Office Cap ‐ something that has been on the books since the mid‐1980s ‐  and with good reason. I have to thank the city leaders from that time, for their foresight.                   It is not surprising that removal of this cap is a monetary bonanza for developers, but the real question to  ponder is, whether it is a good idea for the city and it's residents? For good reason, the city council adopted the existing  50000 square ft limit on office construction for the whole town last year, even before the November election. To carve  out an exception for the Downtown area, given the crowding, parking and traffic problems is a huge issue that needs  your careful attention. One cannot see the logic of this proposed change, except as a public giveaway to private  development interests with a huge downside for the residents. Yes, the argument of increase revenue to the city's  coffers is a big attraction, but who benefits from such a move ? I sometimes wonder if it is mainly in the interests of the  developers and city staff to subscribe to this move. It is a bad idea and sets a bad precedent for city government.              The original downtown cap ordinance set a procedure that would kick in, in the event the cumulative sq. footage  number was approached ‐ namely a one year pause to give time for a thoughtful examination of the situation with all  affected parties getting into the discussion.           To unilaterally remove the cap at the urging of the city staff and developers is a serious deviation from the agreed  upon procedures. What is the urgency for such a move, except to by pass the thoughtful response such a far reaching  change demands?               Please don't short circuit  procedures that have been adopted in the past. We need to call for the one year pause  during which time, inputs from the planning and transportation department can be brought into the picture, including  transportation studies carried out by a reputable entity, if the city staff don't have the real skill set needed.   Thank you for listening,    Ranganath (greater venture resident of 37 years)              1 Carnahan, David From:Mary Dimit <marydimit@sonic.net> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 4:15 AM To:Council, City Subject:Keep Current Downtown Cap & Reconsider the Downtown Garage Dear Council Members,     Your actions directly affect the quality of life for Palo Alto residents. I urge the Council to:      1) Keep the current cap on Downtown commercial growth and development.      As our jobs/housing ratio has continued to grow, traffic and parking have grown much worse ‐‐ especially as retail space  has been converted to office space and new under‐parked buildings have been allowed that greatly increase the square  footage of the buildings they replace.      Residential neighborhoods are not parking lots. It is better to build more housing instead of more commercial  development.     2) Reconsider building the Waverley Street Garage.     We have greater needs for both our limited fiscal and staff resources, such as affordable housing, the rail  project, finances (including pension liability). This is not the time to take on new debt, especially with construction  costs at all‐time highs. City staff are stretched thin and have better priorities. It is more cost‐effective to continue to  reduce traffic & parking demand by investing in TMA and keeping the cap on downtown commercial development.      Thank you for your service to our community,  Mary Dimit  Palo Alto resident  2 Carnahan, David From:Kimberley Wong <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 9:00 AM To:Council, City Cc:Nelson Ng Subject:Do not remove Downtown Commercial Cap and Do Not Certify or Approve the Parking garage at 385 Hamilton To the Mayor and the City Council Members of Palo Alto, I beg you NOT to repeal the Downtown Commercial cap on downtown non-residential development... with hoards of out of town workers traveling to office startups and larger companies such as Palantir and Houzz into downtown Palo Alto, our city is inundated with a burgeoning workforce that is taxing our city streets, our restaurants, our infrastructure and creating a housing imbalance, worse than we have ever seen before. Removing the Office cap will further worsen this office to housing imbalance, create more vertical space to bring in more workers to our downtown to create complete gridlock. Please keep the cap! On your Feb 11th agenda I also see that the City Council will be considering a certification on the 385 Hamilton parking garage as well as approval of the Architectural Design. I have seen the designs of this garage. The fact is that many of the paid spaces of many downtown garages are underparked and another garage is NOT needed! This proposed parking garage would completely overshadow the very large AT&T building already massive in scale and will completely dwarf the historic Birge Clark post office across the street. This massive structure will completely change the landscape of downtown Palo Alto as we know it. Architecturally, it will be an eyesore and should not be allowed. Let us find a way to utilize the other garages that we already have so that they are fully utilized and not build anymore. As I have always said, "Build a garage and cars will come!" Let's fund alternative transportation, incentivize visitors to to carpool, vanpool, create a park and ride off of the 101 or 280 and keep downtown free and clear of more congestion. This is the most important infrastructure that needs to be put in place to help reduce traffic for the problems created by previous overzealous creation of office space in Downtown Palo Alto. Building a garage or building higher is not the solution but a serious problem that further destroy the livability and charm of Palo Alto. As our representatives and stewards of the city I hope you will make decisions to keep Palo Alto a safe, walkable, and livable place. Thank you, Kimberley and Nelson Ng Residents of 1260 Emerson for over 20 years (Family living in Palo Alto since 1900) 3 Carnahan, David From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 9:12 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please Keep the Cap Dear Council,    In addition to adding to the office/housing imbalance which is a very real problem for Palo Alto, there are the all too well  known costs to the City and community from non‐stop office growth.     Please take the opportunity now to do the right thing and keep the downtown cap. Thank you,    Jennifer     1 Carnahan, David From:Kelsey Banes <kelseybanes@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 9:32 AM To:Council, City Subject:2/11 Council Meeting City Council,    Today is my birthday and I will celebrating in the East Bay instead of enjoying your debates tonight. My thoughts on  several agenda items follow. In general, my feedback relates to the consideration of our conjoined crises of climate and  housing during your land‐use decision‐making processes this evening.    3) I am excited to see the progress made on the Cubberly redevelopment since the first community meeting when we  discussed our visions for the future of Cubberly. During this meeting, our group discussed having spaces for different  generations to interact and develop community. Utilizing some of this public land for affordable housing for school  district employees and seniors could help effectuate this goal.    9) I am strongly opposed to the Hamilton parking garage and urge you to not adopt the proposed Final EIR. Dense  affordable housing would be ideal for this location, which is on public land, has no single‐family neighbors, and is  walkable to transit and services. If the council decides to pursue a parking garage at this site at all, a climate change  impact report is warranted given council stated top priority of climate change.     Reducing emissions will require reducing car trips/VMT. Building more parking downtown (which has plentiful but poorly  utilized garages already) will cause more driving and increase traffic. For evidence, see  https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2016/01/the‐strongest‐case‐yet‐that‐excessive‐parking‐causes‐more‐ driving/423663/    10) While I support the goal of preventing the conversion from residential to commercial uses given our current housing  shortage, the downtown commercial cap is an ineffective strategy for maintaining existing housing supply and spurring  new home construction. I hope the council will explore policies designed explicitly to protect existing affordable housing  supply (e.g., cottage clusters, President Hotel) from redevelopment that reduces the number of residential units or  converts to a different use.      Enabling what limited office growth we allow to happen near transit seems sensible from a climate perspective.  Additional density downtown could enable more mixed‐use commercial and residential spaces (e.g., live/work spaces  with ground floor office and residential above).     Perhaps lifting the cap with the addition of residential preservation to protect at‐risk housing stock could be an  appropriate compromise.                 1 Carnahan, David From:Susan Kaplan <sue.kaplan@post.harvard.edu> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 9:52 AM To:Council, City Cc:Susan Kaplan Subject:Downtown Cap Members of the Council,    I implore you to maintain the Downtown Cap.  There is already an over‐abundance of commercial space in the  downtown area.  What there is not is enough new and affordable living space for those who work in the downtown  area.  I hope that you will encourage the building of living space rather than more commercial space.    Thank you for your consideration    Susan Kaplan    Susan L. Kaplan, Ph.D. Licensed Psychologist, Inc. 550 Hamilton Ave. #201 Palo Alto, Ca. 94301 (650) 325-9564   2 Carnahan, David From:Rainer Pitthan <Rainer.Pitthan@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 10:19 AM To:Council, City; city.manager@cityofpaloalto.com; Clerk, City; City Attorney Subject:City Council 2/11/2019, Item#10 Ladies and Gentleman,       2/10/2019  One third of a century ago when the Palo Alto City Planning Administration apparently was less in the pocket of  developers than now, the Council enacted a downtown commercial cap on construction.  Foresightful people who  understood the power of exponential growth worried about compound traffic and parking problems.  After all, this Palo  Alto, we know math.  4 years ago such prediction were ignored for the California Ave. district.  Large number of owners in Palo Alto Central  gave detailed and quantitative descriptions of the traffic problems around the 2555 Park B. Construction project.  They  were only given lot of CEQA bull, and in short order several projects were authorized which were (and still are) under  parked by more than 300 parking spots.  Project owners had paid for (virtual) spots for years into a fund, but the places  were never built.  The planned CalAve District Parking Garage would barely make up for the deficit, but it is already  supposed to account for the future grandiose administrative and residential development.  Already CalAve is self‐ strangulating, very similar to the Mountain View San Antonio District, and I have not seen a good trip and parking  analysis.  The City Council is slated to vote on 2/11/19 on whether or not to end the wise 33‐year‐old cap on Downtown  commercial growth, worsening Downtown's traffic and parking problems, intensifying the city's job/housing imbalance,  and taking away opportunities to build housing.  The cap is also one of the laws currently preventing the conversion of  the President Hotel Apartments into a hotel.  The cap also will prevent a number of unwise projects, which the City  Planners then will approve, like they always have.  The reality of life in Palo Alto has been succinctly described by Alexander Richard and Ken Alsman nearly 4 years ago,  much better than I would.  And thanks to an invention of my fellow student in 1968 in Darmstadt, Peter Grünfeld, we  now have seemingly unlimited storage capacity on disks drive the size of a matchbox, so I could easily find their letters in  20 years of emails on my laptop:  Parking in the city   Dear Editor: Parking in neighborhoods attracts workers because it is cheaper than parking in the downtown  garages, which are empty.    Employers, who pay $6 to $8 per square foot a month for their office space, cram in lots of employees and provide  no parking for their staff. Office owners and employers distributed the economic disadvantages of parking onto the  public, especially neighborhoods adjacent to downtown. If we installed smart parking meters in neighborhoods, provided  for variable charges and gave residents transponders to allow free parking, we would solve the headache, incentivize  drivers to use empty parking garages and could charge big‐city parking rates that would generate substantial revenue  and encourage greater use of public transportation.    On the parking issue, Downtown North parking activist Nielson Buchanan has provided more insight in the past  several years than everyone in the Planning Department, where 44 development projects were approved without an  environmental impact report. I have long thought that if this was New Jersey, somebody got paid off. I once put that out  3 of my mind. But now I am not so sure. The magnitude of the blowout of Palo Alto is significant. There is so much money  driving this mess that unless citizens step up, it will continue unabated.    Please join the coalition to bring some sensibility to growth. Sign on with me and others at http://  paloaltoville.com/cac‐reform.   Richard Alexander Palo Alto  August 20, 2015? The Self‐Administering CEQA  Dear Editor  Last week you had a story about a Palo Alto Councilman protesting the State for trying to avoid a CEQA (the California  Environmental Quality Act). The State must have been looking at what Palo Alto does: OVER 40 commercial projects  approved with staff prepared studies of “No Significant Impact,” no need for the developer to do more analysis, no need  for the Council to deny these projects. For those projects staff has found “No Cumulative Impacts” on traffic (Try getting  into or out of town), parking, housing demand, jobs/housing balance, the environment. Likewise they found no conflicts  with the City’s Comprehensive Plan dealing with neighborhood quality or protection, impacts of commercial on  residential, traffic etc.  The public has questioned their process and objected to the conclusion but to no avail. How could in good conscience  staff, the Community Development Director, the City Attorney and the City Manager let this violation of the intent of  CEQA to continue? Pressure from the City Council? From Developers?  The Palo Alto (LET’S FORGET CEQA) Process – Gotta Love It.  Ken Alsman, Palo Alto, June 23, 2015   When the previous Planning Director Hilary Gitelman quit, She got a well‐deserved good buy in the Palo Alto Weekly:  Posted by We Do Need a Change  a resident of Crescent Park   on Apr 19, 2018 at 12:32 pm  Our planning department is well‐known for its contempt for residents and the law.  It instead lets developers get  away with massively inadequate parking, blatantly illegal uses, unchecked permit violations, and far more. Let's  hope for new leadership that respects the law and the public and works to improve the department's badly‐ damaged image.  But listening to the (now newly installed) new Planning Director Jonathan Lait in recent meetings, it has gotten worse.   While Gitelman was passively reacting to pressure from the developers, and maybe input from corrupt staff members,  Lait seems to believe it is his task to accelerate and advance development.  He knows better than the citizens and the  City Council.  So much, that in December even the City Manager was upset and joked about “deep state”.  Greetings   Rainer Pitthan  4 https://stanford.io/2Mqa8mJ   ---this is not a Government supported domain, true and nasty political comments are given and are welcome--- 5 Carnahan, David From:Stuart Hansen <hansensc@att.net> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 10:23 AM To:Council, City Subject:Downtown Commercial Cap Please DO NOT REPEAL the cap! Very good reasons exist to retain this limit, now long established:  1. The 3:1 jobs imbalance could be made even worse if cap is repealed.  2. The now intolerable traffic levels need restraint.  3. Parking problems when visiting downtown shops could get even worse if cap is repealed leading to lost  business.  Thank you, Stuart Hansen, resident  1 Carnahan, David From:Michael Eager <eager@eagercon.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 10:59 AM To:Council, City Subject:Opposed to lifting downtown cap Dear City Council ‐‐    I want to add my name to the many people opposed to lifting the Non‐Residential Square Footage Cap.    We have many problems in Palo Alto, among which are lack of affordable housing and traffic congestion.  To a large  degree, these are caused by the growth of offices and jobs in the city, far exceeding the number which can be  accommodated by our infrastructure.    Palo Alto has a huge imbalance between jobs and housing.  The City Council has been making an effort to address this by  increasing housing.     At the same time, it should make an effort to, if not actually reduce the number of jobs, at least not exacerbate this  imbalance by promoting more the construction of more offices and creation more jobs.    I urge you to retain the cap on office buildings in the downtown area.    ‐‐   Michael Eager    eager@eagercon.com  1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306  2 Carnahan, David From:certifiedhypnotist <certifiedhypnotist@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 11:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:Keep the cap on commercial development Gentlemen Please do not lift the cap on commercial development. We already have a severe jobs to housing imbalance and need to focus on housing above all.We have dug ourselves into a metaphorical hole. If you want to get out of a hole, first stop digging that is stop doing what got you into this fix in the first place. Gail Sredanovic 2161 Ashton Av. Menlo Park CA 94025 1 Carnahan, David From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 2:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Height Limits, President Hotel, Rent Control I speak for the Women's International League for Peace & Freedom, Peninsula Branch as we argue again for low‐income  housing for our workers, teachers,   service sector employers, and city workers who cannot afford to live in Palo Alto:    1.  Do not lift the height limits as it has taken years to get these priorities defined so that more housing rather than  office/retail can be built.  2.  Do not allow AJ Capitol any exemptions. We need to keep the residents as tenants in the President Hotel.  3.  Develop and implement rent stabilization such that the existing lower income rentals will not be lost to landlords who  can raise the rent to the sky currently.  Let's be proactive so that the state need not mandate controls because cities like Huntington Beach have refused to do  so.    Sincerely,  Roberta Ahlquist,  for WILPF Low‐income Housing Committee.      2 Carnahan, David From:Barry Hart <hartb88@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 2:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:Keep an offic cap - less traffic and protect the environment Dear City Council - Two of the goals of the City for this year are to address traffic and mitigate climate change. Keeping the office cap with help with both of these goals. Removing the office cap will send us backwards in our efforts. Any addition of office space in Palo Alto will add to traffic congestion and greenhouse gasses. This is a fact. Our city has a serious mobility crisis, the addition of office space will add commuters to our city and they will come from long distances. They will cut through neighborhoods and sit in car traffic and add to smog and pollution. Their is such an incredible imbalance of jobs to housing that any new housing will barely impact this huge backlog. The new workers, for any new office space, will necessarily have to drive adding to our mobility crisis. Lets solve mobility first, before we add any offices. More public transit and fewer car trips - this is a hard problem - lets get to work. Adding offices will make it worse. Barry Hart Palo Alto Ave 3 Carnahan, David From:Kim <ksuz1981@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 2:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Retain development cap Please consider that Palo Alto is becoming a hard place to live.     My rent for a one bedroom in College Terrace has risen to $3100/month.      We have a parking permit program specifically because there is a terrible dearth of parking for both businesses and  residential areas.      Additionally the traffic on the peninsula is excruciating to deal with. It’s always been slow being located at crossroads  but driving time has tripled to quadrupled in the last 10 years.      The cap will give Palo Alto breathing room to re‐evaluate the situation and temporarily stop it from becoming worse.     Thanks,  Kim Lemmer   2282 Amherst St  Palo Alto   650‐213‐6836  4 Carnahan, David From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 12:23 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:February 11, 2019, Council Meeting, Item #10: CD Distgrict Non-Residential Square Footage Cap Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    February 11. 2019    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      FEBRUARY 11, 2019, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #10  NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE CAP IN THE CD DISTRICT      Dear City Council:    I urge you to reject the recommendation in the staff report for this agenda item (ID # 9920) to repeal Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.18.040 regarding the non-residential square footage cap in the CD Commercial Downtown District.    Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.18.040 is consistent with the Policies and Programs of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.    The 2030 Comprehensive Plan does not include a Policy, Program, or Implementation Plan to remove PAMC Section 18.18.040.    The City Council could have adopted a Policy, Program, or Implementation Plan to remove that section of the Zoning Code, but it did not.      Environmental Review    No environmental review is needed to retain the existing language regarding the moratorium, because the amount of non-residential development permitted in the CD District by the Preferred Scenario in the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is less than the amount that is contemplated in the No Build Scenario (Scenario 1) in “Figure 3-6: Job Distribution by Scenario” (Page 3-12) and “Table 3-7: Summary of Key Concepts” under “Growth Management” and “Scenario 1” of the Comprehensive Plan Update Supplement to the Draft EIR, Volume 1: Supplement to the Draft EIR (Page 3-13) at Pages 62 and 63 of 440, 5 respectively at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63455.    Under all the Scenarios studied in the Supplement to the EIR, “Allowable commercial densities in the Downtown would be somewhat reduced and replaced with residential uses” (Page 3-7) compared with “Scenario 1 (Business as Usual Scenario): This scenario represents the CEQA-required ‘No Project Alternative.’ New development would be built primarily through redevelopment of property as permitted under existing zoning.”    If any new language is needed in the Comprehensive Plan to retain PAMC Section 18.18.040, it would have to be evaluated as a project according to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form, Land Use and Planning, X.b.    I believe that such a change to the Comprehensive Plan will have No Impact and, therefore, the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared for the following reasons.    Staff’s most recent accounting of the net change in the non-residential floor area in the CD zone district reports a total net change of 317,475 square feet during the monitoring period of 1986-2017, leaving a potential of 32,525 square feet of non-residential floor area before a moratorium on development takes effect.    All of the scenarios in the Comprehensive Plan Draft EIR, including the Preferred Scenario in the Supplement to the EIR analyzed an increase in non-residential floor area Downtown of only 16,000 square feet or less.    Therefore, amending the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan to remove the language added by the City Council to eliminate the moratorium from the Zoning Code would not have a significant effect under the California Environmental Quality Act.    The most recent total for the net change in non-residential floor area in the CD zone district appears in staff report ID # 8872 on page 11 of 17 at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64345 and at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64346.    All the Scenarios contemplate that the 350,000 non-residential square footage cap in the CD District would not be reached during the time period covered by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.      Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.18.040    When the moratorium on non-residential development is effective, the only language you would need to retain in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.18 is Section 18.18.060(c).    18.18.060 (c) Exclusively Residential Uses  6 Exclusively residential uses are generally prohibited in the CD district and subdistricts. Such uses are allowed, however, where a site is designated as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Such sites shall be developed pursuant to the regulations for the multi-family zone designation (RM-15, RM-30, or RM-40) identified for the site in the Housing Element.  Housing Opportunity Sites appear in both “Figure 3-1: Housing Sites” and “Table B-1: Housing Inventory Sites” in the Housing Element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan on pages 412 and 533 of 538, respectively at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62915.  At that time, language would need to be added to require affordable housing projects developed pursuant to PAMC Chapter 18.30(J) Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District Regulations to ensure that there would be no net change in non-residential floor area during the moratorium from affordable housing projects in the CD zone district.    Thank you for your consideration of these comments.    Sincerely,    Herb Borock                            1 Carnahan, David From:Lenore Cymes <lenraven1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 3:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:development cap removal Dear City Council members:    Almost nothing makes less sense to me regarding eliminating the development cap now ‐ period….    We plain and  simply cannot handle more congestion and traffic that comes with office space.    From my reading, there is just not enough analysis to have the Council make a full project review until everything has  been evaluated..   To do this would be derelict to the existing residents of the city.  To make a decision tonite, is  blatantly handing away the city to developers and NOT in the best interest of those who live here.    PLEASE STOP GIVING AWAY THE CITY  before all the information is gathered and analyzed.      Topic 2    Garage.   This also sounds like the cart is pulling the horses.   I understand there are neighbors canvasing the existing  garages to evaluate usage and empty spaces.  Once again, I encourage waiting to vote on this issue till all the facts are in,  staff has had a chance to review and evaluation.  What is the rush?   Why is there a rush.    Thank you for reading my letter of concerns.    Sincerely   Lenore Cyes  Wildwood Lane  1 Carnahan, David From:Jennifer Chang Hetterly <jchetterly@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 4:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Downtown Commercial Cap Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,  I am writing to offer my personal view that it would be a mistake to flat out repeal the Downtown Commercial Cap  without replacing it with alternative strategies that actively and effectively manage the negative downtown impacts the  cap was intended to address. In this climate of declining local public trust, it sends a bad message to a frustrated  community for the ordinance to be repealed at the very moment its purpose comes to fruition.   Unlike many you may hear from today, I don’t believe we should hold downtown commercial growth static indefinitely.  But I’d like to see council figure out how to use the cap to the city’s advantage rather than simply bowing to market  demands. You have repeatedly stated a desire to prioritize housing downtown and struggled to find ways to preserve and  grow retail and community‐serving businesses.   The cap offers a rare tool to counter the deeply embedded market preference for densely occupied office space, thereby  giving their new housing incentives a greater chance of success (as you know, residential uses also have been proven to  have a greater net fiscal benefit to the city’s general fund). Revising it (either now or during a moratorium) to exempt  retail and local services would offer hope to a community that blames too much office growth for diminishing quality of  life and reduced downtown vibrancy, while still continuing the benefit to housing. Even if the cap were raised for all  commercial uses, revisions could be tailored to favor certain uses, including retail, services, and office projects with  smaller traffic and parking footprints.   As editor of the community newsletter Palo Alto Matters, I have heard from a variety of residents expressing great  concern about potential repeal of the Downtown Cap. Many see the Downtown Cap as a critical bulwark against  conversion of the President Hotel Apartments. Even more feel like the Cap represents a longstanding promise to the  community, renewed multiple times over the years, that’s about to be withdrawn.   As a former member of Community Advisory Committee for the Comprehensive Plan, I also find staff’s characterization of  the Downtown Cap ordinance in relation to the Comprehensive Plan misleading. The 1.7 million sf citywide cap was not a  “new policy objective” as described in tonight’s staff report. Rather, it was an update of the previous Policy L‐8, distinct  from Program L‐8 that referenced the Downtown Cap. In existence long before both the 1998 and 2017 Comprehensive  Plans, the ordinance was not “codified … to implement Program L‐8 of the Comprehensive Plan,” (PTC staff report  7/25/18) but instead drove the very creation of Program L‐8 – Program L‐8 was added to the 1998 Comp Plan because the  downtown nonresidential cap ordinance was deemed of sufficient community importance to memorialize in the city’s  long term policy guide.   Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan does not require elimination of the Downtown Cap ordinance; most provisions  of our zoning code are not memorialized in the Comp Plan ‐ not because we just haven’t gotten around to repealing them,  but because the municipal code serves a different purpose than the Comp Plan. Elimination of Program L‐8 from the  Comp Plan creates flexibility for the city to revise or repeal the Downtown Cap, but there is nothing in the Comp Plan  directing staff to do so.  Seems to me the cap creates an important window of opportunity and there are a lot of options the council could  consider. The impending puncture of the cap should be cause for serious contemplation, not for throwing up our hands  and saying “oops, we didn’t really mean that.”  Thank you for your consideration,  Jennifer Hetterly  1 Carnahan, David From:Christian Pease <cgpease2016@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 4:30 PM To:Council, City Cc:Christian Pease Subject:Please do NOT repeal the downtown office cap Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,    I write to ask you not to repeal the downtown office cap ordinance.    It seems that after 33 years this ordinance is poised for the first time to trigger a one year moratorium on new office  development in Palo Alto's downtown commercial core.    And in response, perhaps by a one vote majority, it appears the council might be poised to repeal this cap.    That is how it looks, anyway.    But I sincerely hope this will not be the case.    Yet, just 10 days ago all of you agreed to five citywide priorities going forward and listed combating climate change as  the #1 priority, while addressing our transportation and traffic problem close behind as the #3 priority.    And then there is the ever present housing "crisis" and relentless push for new "car light" (AKA under‐parked) high  density housing as the best means for addressing our severe "worst in the Bay Area" jobs‐to‐housing imbalance that ‐  even leaving aside the obvious linkages between new office development, traffic, and carbon emissions ‐  several of you  have consistently stated to be your most sacred and guiding covenant in elective office and public service.    So, how can you square tossing out the downtown office cap (and with it, heavens forbid, a single year moratorium on  new office development) with addressing climate change, automobile traffic (and the need for more and actually  effective public transportation), and housing to solve a problem that is clearly and materially motivated by the out‐of‐ balance construction of so many office buildings in Palo Alto?    This does not add‐up.    And then there is the small issue of the President Hotel Apartments vs. a tarted‐up, very cool, coming soon to downtown  Palo Alto boutique President Hotel... interesting timing this vote... appearances, that is...    Please do the right thing for our climate, for new housing in Palo Alto, and in pursuit of less automobile and truck traffic  and more public transportation: Vote to keep our downtown office development cap in place.    Thank you for you consideration,    Christian Pease            1 Carnahan, David From:Ng, Judy Sent:Thursday, February 7, 2019 3:19 PM To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email Cc:Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Gaines, Chantal; Tanner, Rachael; Stump, Molly; Portillo, Rumi; Nose, Kiely; Blanch, Sandra; Lee, Frank; Raisch, Nicholas Subject:2/11 Council Agenda Questions for Items 6 & 7 Dear Mayor and Council Members:  On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please find below the staff responses to inquiries  made by Council Member Tanaka in regard to the February 11, 2019 council meeting  agenda.  Item 6: Authorize City Manager to Execute Severance Agreements with PAAS Employees – CM Tanaka Item 7: Chief Transportation Official Salary Midpoint Increase – CM Tanaka Item  6:  Authorize  City  Manager  to  Execute  Severance  Agreements with  PAAS  Employees – CM Tanaka   1.Hasn’t the city already determined severance pay and benefits when we employ them in the first place? a.The five employees affected by layoff are covered by 3 different compensation and benefits plans‐ Management and Professional compensation plan, SEIU 521 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), and SEIU 521 Hourly MOA. b.These three agreements do have varying levels of severance expressed in each document. However, in accordance with the Meyers Milias Brown Act, the City is obligated to complete the meet and confer process with SEIU 521 over the decision to outsource this work, and the impact of that outsourcing on SEIU 521 covered classifications under SEIU MOA section 13. i.The proposed settlement represents what the City and Union have tentatively agreed to (subject to Council approval) appropriately further mitigates the impacts on the impacted SEIU members of contracting out the bargaining unit work. 2 At minimum, the City is obligated to pay severance as stated in SEIU MOAs.  During the required meet and confer process, a tentative settlement was  negotiated and is being presented to Council for approval.   3.Why are we rewarding these employees for their loyalty when they are temporary? The five employees affected by layoff are not temporary employees. These employees have provided service at the Palo Alto Animal Shelter between 5 to 25 years. 4.These are temporary workers, meant for helping the transition between locations, so outside of goodwill, what benefit does the city get out of this arrangement? These are not temporary employees, and despite knowing that the work they performed at the Palo Alto Animal shelter was being outsourced, they continued to work for the City. If they had resigned or retired when the City first entered into negotiation with an outside service provider, services to the Community would have been disrupted. 5.What percentage of the departing employees are in ‘good standing’? All 6.What existing pay and benefits are afforded to these employees? a.Three of the five employees being laid off work full time and receive full benefits from the City including medical, dental, and vision. This pay and benefits will discontinue. The remaining 2 employees work half time and do not receive any medical, dental or vision benefits. b.The pay and benefits for the impacted employees is articulated in the following documents: Management and Compensation plan ‐ https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53620 SEIU 521 MOA ‐ https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52911 SEIU 521 Hourly MOA ‐ https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52911 c.All laid off employees are enrolled in CalPERS as they work greater than 1000 hours in each fiscal year. Item 7: Chief Transportation Official Salary Midpoint Increase – CM Tanaka  1.How is the search coming along? Who is currently performing the duties of the Chief Transportation Official (CTO)? In the absence of a CTO we have contracted with Municipal Resources Group (MRG) to  provide  technical  and  management  support  to  the  Office of 2.Are we compelled to pay severance? If so, why? 3 Transportation staff. Specifically Wayne Tanda of MRG is on site several days a  week providing guidance and support for transportation planning and projects.  Wayne Tanda’s background can be seen at the following link: https://solutions‐ mrg.com/wayne‐tanda.  In  addition,  the  City  Manager’s  Office  is  providing  ongoing supervision of the staff until a new CTO is hired.    Regarding the progress of hiring a CTO, approval of the salary adjustment will be  an important next step. After that our recruiting firm Terry Black and Associates  will  finalize  the  brochure  and  recruitment  material  and  begin  the  search  immediately. The tentative schedule for the search, interview process and hiring  is expected be completed by the end of the April if all goes as planned.    2. Where is the extra funding exactly coming from?      The funding for adjustment of the Chief Transportation Official (CTO) position will  be proportioned to funding sources for this position overall. The CTO position is  funded by the General Fund (64%) and General Fund CIP (36%).     3. Is this position being upscoped for the extra $28k increase?      As indicated in the staff report, the recommended adjustment reflects  the  responsibilities of the position, as well as comparative salaries within the City and  the  external  job  market.  This  includes  the  higher  level  of  responsibility  and  accountability as reporting to the City Manager rather than previously to the  Planning Director.    4. Can you cite the complexity of Palo Alto’s transportation problems as a reason  for  this  increase?  Does  that  mean  the  complexity  requires  a  PhD whereas  before just a Masters was sufficient?  And if we are hiring a PhD now, does that  mean there will be less reliance on expensive consultants?      Complexity of the position is certainly a factor in being able to attract suitable  candidates, as demonstrated by the council’s adoption of traffic/transportation  and rail grade separations as priorities, as well as climate change given estimates  that roughly half of our greenhouse emissions come from transportation. Staff is  not,  however,  recommending  revision  to  academic  qualifications.  Skills  and  experience in selecting and managing resources to advance the city’s priorities  (such  as  consultants  or  in‐house  staff)  will  be  a  factor  in  finding  the  best  candidate.    5. Increased challenges in attracting and retaining staff continue to be cited when  double digit raises are being proposed.  Why is it so hard to attract and retain  people?  It would be good to have a comprehensive review of the HR challenges  so everything isn’t so a‐la‐carte every time a vacancy is filled.  Some root cause  analysis and holistic problem solving would serve us well.  Seems like fighting  fires by throwing cash.    While the factors contributing to a difficult job market for employers  are  complex, they are fairly well known. This includes the cost of living in our area  and associated quality of life factors, the challenges and expectations of each  specific  position,  and  the  choices  candidates  have  when  deciding  among  4 prospective  employers.   Compensation  addresses  the  former,  and the  latter  issues are really affected by the work environment we collectively provide.    6. Parking  and  traffic  are  real  problems  that  must  be  addressed  with  the  appropriate staffing. And it may be the case we need MORE people in this  function (but maybe more workers on the ground and fewer Chiefs on the 7th  floor). But can we staff by redeploying city staff from other areas that seems  less critical vs. adding more people. For example, the 15 people who are going  to do tours of the water sewer treatment facility….can we redirect those folks  to fix transportation/parking problems instead?      Beyond  the  specific  CTO  recommendation,  we  anticipate  bringing forward  additional staffing recommendations as part of the annual budget process. This  will enable the city council to consider resource allocation to transportation in  the  context  of  citywide  choices and  limited  resources.  To  respond  to  this  question, there is apparently some confusion regarding staffing at the regional  wastewater treatment facility, as no staff is dedicated to tours.  This is simply an  ancillary activity for some staff (that incidentally reinforces pride in their work,  contributing to a positive work environment).      Thank you,  Judy Ng          Judy Ng   City Manager’s Office|Administrative Associate III   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650) 329‐2105  Email: Judy.Ng@CityofPaloAlto.org    1 Carnahan, David From:Melissa Kirven-Brooks <mkirvenbrooks@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 3:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Ask Greenwaste the destination of our blue bin materials I support the initiative to request that Greenwaste provide details on the destination for the materials that Palo Alto  household and businesses dropout in our blue bins.  The thought that our goal to reduce waste and provide materials  for recyclers to reuse is betting thwarted and the "green waste" is being shipped to pollute other countries is  repugnant.     I would be available to volunteer in the effort to get some answers and potentially seek other recycling solutions.     Thank you,     Melissa Kirven  1 Carnahan, David From:James Poppy <jamespoppy@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 7:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Bravo Fine and Kniss for words and actions on downtown garage Thank you for questioning the sustainability of a parking structure and the call for more data regarding traffic/parking. A  downtown garage would most likely operate at capacity and have little effect on traffic.    The bigger picture is how to discourage single occupant vehicles from driving downtown. Frequent shuttles across town  and remote parking lots near 101 could help.     Regards,  Jim Poppy  135 Melville Avenue     Sent from my iPad  1 Carnahan, David From:California High-Speed Rail <info@hsr.ca.gov> Sent:Friday, February 8, 2019 2:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:California High-Speed Rail Board of Directors Meeting Agenda for February 19 To view this email as a web page, go here. BOARD AGENDA BOARD MEETING DETAILS FEBRUARY 19, 2019 10:00 AM Meeting Location California Secretary of State Auditorium 1500 11th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 PUBLIC COMMENT For this meeting, an opportunity for public comment on all agenda and non-agenda items will be provided at the outset of the meeting. 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. 1. Consider Approving the January 15, 2019 Board Meeting Minutes 2 Responsible Party: -- Status: A Duration:5 Min 2. Report on State Route 99 Realignment Project Completion Responsible Party: D. Gomez/Caltrans Status: I Duration: 15 Min 3. 2019 Program Overview Responsible Party: J. Hedges Status: I Duration: 15 Min 4. Closed Session Pertaining to Personnel The Authority will meet in closed session pursuant to Government Code section 11126(1)(a) and (b.) Responsible Party: Chair Richard Status: -- Duration: -- 5. 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, 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) and (b). Responsible Party: T. Fellenz Status: -- Duration: -- 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 3 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 이메일 boardmembers@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:California High-Speed Rail <info@hsr.ca.gov> Sent:Friday, February 8, 2019 2:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:California High-Speed Rail Finance & Audit Committee Meeting Agenda for February 19 To view this email as a web page, go here. FINANCE & AUDIT COMMITTEE AGENDA Finance and Audit Committee Meeting February 19, 2019 8:30AM – 10:00AM California Secretary of State Building 1500 11th Street Multi-Purpose Room Sacramento, CA 95814 Agenda  January Meeting Minutes – draft  Action Items from previous Finance and Audit Committee Meeting  Financial Reports o Executive Summary o Accounts Payable Aging and Disputes Report o Cash Management Report o Administrative Budget & Expenditures Summary by Program o Administrative Budget and Expenditures Report o Capital Outlay Budget and Expenditures Report o Total Project Expenditures with Forecasts 2 o Contracts & Expenditures Report o Projects & Initiatives Report o Summary of Financial Reports o Operations Report  Audits o None  Project Update o CP 1 Monthly Status Highlight Report o CP 1 Performance Metrics o CP 2-3 Monthly Status Highlight Report o CP 2-3 Performance Metrics o Caltrans SR-99 Monthly Status Highlight Report o Caltrans SR-99 Performance Metrics o CP 4 Monthly Status Report o CP 4 Performance Metrics  Current Issues 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:Rebecca <bexw19@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 1:01 PM To:board@pausd.org; Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:City Council meeting regarding the Cubberly redesign. Hi, Thank you so much for all the work you and the city are putting into the Cubberly redesign. As a close neighbor in Greenmeadow as well as a DAILY user of Cubberly and Greendell I am excited to see all the work. I attended the first 2 meetings but could not attend the 3 or tonight's meeting so I wanted to enter a few brief thoughts into the discussion. 1. From the beginning of this process, much of the feedback has come from elderly participants who have time and energy to participate in local politics. However, this space is used by many young families that weren't represented in the initial input and more information should be gathered. Also one group not represented at all, that COULD be huge users is a teenage population, which should also be asked for input. Due to the older group, one very important item left off is a playground. There is of course a preschool playground open to use at Greendell but an elementry playground would be used a lot with all the field use. Additionally all the current "private" playgrounds at the day cares are behind fences and not for general use. This needs to be added on for this to be a big space to be used. 2. I am THRILLED they incorporated Greendell & Athena. However the first round of plans includes PSF/TK/Y5's with adult school. Which is a current problem to have unchecked and some random adults trapsing through an area for young children during the morning time when kids are there and is not safe. These two populations have very different needs and have just been thrown together for convenience. The Adult School attendees would much prefer to be with the larger Cubberly campus with access to a cafe and social spaces- which they have none. This was just replicated how it is now, and currently it doesn't work and it's a great chance to re-work that. And an opportunity to make PSF & TK/Y5's smaller. 3. Regarding building style, it looks like at meeting #3 Arts & Crafts won out. I want to remind you how many people participating were not neighbors and this is their personal taste (which also ages older due to the high number of older participants) and did not realize this property lives in the Greenmeadow neighborhood which is on the national registry of historical places and is a historically protected mid-century modern neighborhood. We can not change the look or style of our homes and I think preserving or creating a modern mid century style would be important for the integrity of the neighborhood. 4. On a separate note, I am a huge fan of adding an Ohlone/Connections High School at this site in the very near future. With all the pressure and suicides and depression at Gunn and Paly there needs to be an alternative. Every time there is a tragedy they say things will change, but they don't as many people are happy with the status quo, which is fine. But there needs to be an alternative and if one is not available through the district, I would look at this site as an option for a Charter High School. Thank you again. I've been attending meetings on this since Foothill/Cubberly City council days and this is going great. I'd just like a few of my points to be shared and considered. Thank you, Rebecca Marasco ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net> To: 'gmca-discuss' <gmca-discuss@googlegroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019, 9:03:54 AM PST Subject: [gmca-discuss] Cubberley goes to City coucnil TONIGHT 2 Dear Greenmeadow and Greendell Neighbors, Tonight, February 11, 5:30pm City Council will conduct a Study Session on the Cubberley Master Planning process in City Council Chambers , 1st Floor City Hall, 25 Hamilton Avenue. At this meeting, citizens can offer any comments they may have about the process or the project, including: programming, traffic circulation, building placement or size/height of buildings, etc. An agenda and staff report with visuals can be found here https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/cou/council_agendas.asp My key concerns relate to traffic and circulation. I want to make sure that driveways, parking and bike/pedestrian facilities are set up to minimize auto traffic intrusion and safety impacts on neighborhood streets/school routes. I want to make sure that neighborhood bike/pedestrian connections are retained with adequate capacity for a future high school’s bell time traffic surges. (Note: Gunn & Paly draw 930 bikes each per day.) As most of you know, the project has been expanded to 43 acres, including Greendell and 525 San Antonio (the current site of Athena Academy ). There is a lot to like in the project, but thoughtful direction of citizens who understand the site and surrounding neighborhoods can still help them improve on the current designs. Citizens are invited to attend. (You can find project plans in the staff report that is linked to the agenda.) They have incorporated a lot of what participants have requested. These meetings will be our last opportunity to provide comment before they develop the final plans to be revealed in March. If there is something missing, if you haven’t had opportunity to attend and provide comment, now is your moment. If you cannot attend this meeting, there are other ways you can comment: 1). There are two other meetings where comments will be received:  PAUSD Board Study Session, February 12, time TBA  Planning & Transportation Commission Study Session, February, 13, 6:00pm 2). You can write to your electeds and commissioners and project consultants: 3 board@pausd.org city.council@cityofpaloalto.org planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Best, Penny Ellson GMCA Civic Affairs -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gmca-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gmca- discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to gmca-discuss@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/gmca-discuss. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gmca- discuss/9AAC13C629554620987DA3CBE089AC3A%40PennyPC. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 1 Carnahan, David From:Peter Phillips <pkphillips@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 9:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cost of parking stalls at new CA ave garage It was mentioned during the city council meeting what is the cost of the new parking spaces for the new Cal Ave garage.   If you use the $50MM bond appropriation council approved as a baseline for the cost here is what it is:   For the total # (636) of spaces is avgs to $78K per spot. But that is not really an accurate cost as you should look at net  new spots which is 310 that comes to $161K ‐ outrageous.    Peter Phillips    Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:Ben Shomer <bshoma1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 8:26 PM To:board@pausd.org; Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Cubberley Master Planning process Hi,  Thank you so much for all the work you and the city are putting into the Cubberly redesign.  As a close neighbor in  Greenmeadow as well as a daily user of Cubberly I am excited to see all the work.  I attended the first 2 meetings but  could not attend the 3 or tonight's meeting so I wanted to enter a few brief thoughts into the discussion.     My key concerns relate to traffic and circulation.  I want to make sure that driveways, parking and bike/pedestrian  facilities are set up to minimize auto traffic intrusion and safety impacts on neighborhood streets/school routes. I want  to make sure that neighborhood bike/pedestrian connections are retained with adequate capacity for a future high  school’s bell time traffic surges       From the beginning of this process, much of the feedback has come from elderly participants who have time and energy  to participate in local politics.  However, this space is used by many young families that weren't represented in the initial  input and more information should be gathered. Due to the older group, one very important item left off is a  playground.  There is of course a preschool playground open to use at Greendell but an elementry playground would be  used a lot with all the field use.  Additionally all the current "private" playgrounds at the day cares are behind fences and  not for general use. This needs to be added on for this to be a big space to be used.     Regarding building style, it looks like at meeting #3 Arts & Crafts won out.  I want to remind you how many people  participating were not neighbors and this is their personal taste (which also ages older due to the high number of older  participants) and did not realize this property lives in the Greenmeadow neighborhood which is on the national registry  of historical places and is a historically protected mid‐century modern neighborhood.    We can not change the look or  style of our homes and I think preserving or creating a modern mid century style would be important for the integrity of  the neighborhood.         Thank you again.    Benjamin   1 Carnahan, David From:Judy Adams <judyblueeyes1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 4:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:For tonight's (2-11-19) City Council meeting: I strongly urge the City Council to put a moratorium on   demolition of existing housing, and not add any office  or retail space to the city until sufficient low‐income housing is developed  to meet the needs of low‐income workers and teachers. We do not want  Palo Alto to join elitist communities lilke Huntington Beach and other  cities with skyrocketing rents and home prices that push out of the  housing market working class and low‐income renters/home‐buyers.    At your meeting tonight, and at future meetings keep to these  principles:    *  place a moratorium on office/retail development until you have re‐ built the low‐income rental and housing market in Palo Alto that will keep  it an economically diverse community  * implement rent‐stabilization measures and protection of renters, who  are at the mercy of landlords ever‐increasing rental rates  * and in the specific case of the President Hotel, do not give exemptions  to AJ Capitol ‐ keep/restore to their homes the residents that have lived  at the President.  The city doesn't need a boutique hotel ‐ it needs low‐ income/truly affordable housing for all lower income levels.    Judy Adams  650‐326‐1235  1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 11:57 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Please Support Castilleja     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: Emily Sawtell <wordpress@castillejamasterplan.com>   Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 3:58 PM  To: greg.scharff@cityofpaloalto.org; Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom  <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian  <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Holman, Karen <term.Karen.Holman@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia  <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Wolbach, Cory  <term.Cory.Wolbach@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Council, City  <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Please Support Castilleja    Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,     My name is Emily Sawtell and I live in Palo Alto, CA. I am writing to you as a resident of Palo Alto and supporter of  Castilleja School.     Castilleja was founded 110 years ago to equalize educational opportunities for women. Today, Castilleja seeks to close  the female leadership gap by gradually adding students over four years. Making this opportunity available for more  young women is central to furthering that mission.     As a Palo Alto resident, I am proud to have Castilleja in our city. The school has been an indispensable community  partner and is committed to maintaining its neighbors’ current quality of life. Castilleja has already implemented robust  Traffic Demand Management initiatives, and has repeatedly pledged to neighbors not only to do more, but that the  admittance of new students will be dependent on the continued success of the school’s traffic programs.     Now more than ever, at a time when national politics has devolved into shouting matches and one‐upmanship,  Castilleja’s mission of serving girls and young women from Palo Alto and other nearby cities is critically important.     2 Please do not let the loudest voices in the conversation obscure the robust support for Castilleja found throughout our  wonderful city.     Sincerely,    Emily Sawtell   emily.jane.sawtell@gmail.com    1 Carnahan, David From:Carnahan, David Sent:Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:26 PM To:Council, City Cc:jfleming@metricus.net Subject:FW: United Neighbors Appeal Attachments:2-4-19 University South Appeal OPENING.doc Good afternoon Council Members,    Find correspondence from Ms. Fleming attached.    David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk, MPA  O: 650‐329‐2267 | E: david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org      From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>   Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:30 PM  To: Carnahan, David <David.Carnahan@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: United Neighbors Appeal    Dear David Carnahan, Attached is a copy of the text of the Opening Statement I gave on Monday evening. My apologies for not getting this to you sooner. Sincerely, Jeanne Jeanne Fleming JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 The ten-minute Opening: On behalf of United Neighbors, I am appealing Director Lait’s decision to approve five cell towers Crown Castle/Verizon has applied to install in the University South neighborhood. Thank you for hearing our appeal. We are appealing because, in making this unilateral decision, the interim Planning Director has appointed himself the sole arbiter of aesthetic standards in our city. Mr. Lait has disregarded the judgment of the experts on the City’s Architectural Review Board. He has disregarded residents’ right, as mandated by our Municipal Code, to a public hearing. And he is now dictating to the people of Palo Alto what our neighborhoods are to look like. That is the basis of our appeal. What we are asking you to do is, first, to stand up for the Architectural Review Board and the value of the work they do, and second, to defend the rights of Palo Alto residents. We are asking you, in short, to undo Mr. Lait’s decision. Please consider for a moment who the parties are when it comes to the cell tower issue, and how they line up. On one side there are the residents of Palo Alto, and along with residents are the City’s Architectural Review Board, the League of California Cities (of which Palo Alto is a member), the California Public Utilities Commission, former Governor Jerry Brown, and our representative in Congress, Anna Eshoo. All of these parties are either opposed to the telecom industry’s me-first plans or, at the very least, urging that the plans be put on hold. And who’s on the other side? The telecom industry, of course, plus the telecom industry executives President Trump has appointed to the FCC, plus our very own Mr. Lait. But why? Why is he putting Palo Alto on this side, when what this side wants—and it wants it right now, before the litigation pending against the FCC is decided—what this side wants is to install cell tower equipment as inexpensively-for-the-telecom-industry as possible. And please understand, what inexpensive for the telecom industry means is locating unsightly equipment above ground on city property for a dirt-cheap rental fee. Regarding the five cell towers in question, here’s a brief chronology of how we got to where we are today: In December of 2017—that’s thirteen months ago—Crown Castle/Verizon submitted an application to install these 5 cell towers on existing streetlights in the University South neighborhood. That application called for ancillary cell tower equipment to be installed in faux mailboxes next to the streetlights. After allowing twelve months to go by, the interim Planning Director finally scheduled—as he is required to do—a public Architectural Review Board hearing to consider Crown Castle/Verizon’s application. That hearing occurred on December 6th of last year, and that’s when the ARB concluded that the company’s faux mailbox design did not comply with Palo Alto’s aesthetic standards. What the ARB decided was that the ancillary equipment for these cell towers should be located underground. To be clear, the ARB didn’t say “This equipment can go anyplace but in a faux mailbox.” They said, “This equipment belongs underground.” At this point in the process, the interim Planning Director had three options: First, as is for good reason customary, Mr. Lait could simply have deferred to the judgment of the experts on the ARB and affirmed that the ancillary equipment for the five cell towers should go underground. Had he done this, United Neighbors wouldn’t be here this evening. Second, since, in the wake of the ARB decision, Crown Castle/Verizon submitted a new, ancillary-equipment-on-top cell tower design, Mr. Lait could have scheduled the ARB to consider that new design at their January 17th public hearing. Had he referred the new design to the ARB, again, we wouldn’t be here tonight. And finally, Mr. Lait could have—as he has done many times before— entered into an agreement with Crown Castle/Verizon to stop the University South shot clock until after an ARB public hearing had been held. Had he done that, again, we wouldn’t be here. But, instead, what did Mr. Lait do? He approved a cell tower design that the residents of Palo Alto were never told about, were never shown and were never given an opportunity to comment on. Moreover, he approved a design that was never reviewed by the experts on the Architectural Review Board. In doing so, he approved a design that included exactly what the ARB had recommended against: above ground ancillary equipment. Just so there’s no doubt that what Mr. Lait did was unequivocally wrong, please remember that both Palo Alto’s Municipal Code and the City’s Wireless Master License require both an ARB review and a public hearing. In addition, Palo Alto requires the telecom companies themselves to hold public meetings so residents can see what proposed installations will look like and ask questions. In particular, the companies are required to install mock ups, such as the mock up by the library on Newell Road. But a mock up was never displayed. The design Mr. Lait approved was never even described to the public, much less mocked up. Needless to say, Mr. Lait has his excuses for short circuiting due process. He says, for example, that he had to do it because he ran out of time. But he didn’t run out of time. As I said earlier, he could have—and should have--accepted the ARB’s recommendation. Or: He could have scheduled an ARB review of the cell tower design for their January 17th meeting. Or: He could have simply entered into an agreement with Crown Castle/Verizon to stop the shot clock until a public hearing could be held at the later date. But he didn’t do any of those things. What he did, in defiance of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code, was simply cut the ARB and the residents of Palo Alto out of the review process. More generally, the February 8th shot clock deadline Mr. Lait cites is, in fact, utter nonsense. And here’s the proof: It has been 427 days—that’s 427 days!—since the so-called 100 day shot clock started ticking. It began ticking on December 4, 2017, and it has been stopped repeatedly since then, almost always to accommodate Crown Castle/Verizon. To give you one example: On March 12, 2018, Palo Alto deemed the University South application incomplete. So the City and Crown Castle/Verizon agreed to stop the clock for 50 days, until April 30th. Following that, it was stopped for another 58 days, because Crown Castle/Verizon didn’t resubmit their revised application until June 27, 2018. Again, this is just one example. In other words, the February 8th deadline is completely artificial. In fact, the City’s Master License specifically provides, and I’m quoting, that “the City may toll or stop the clock…in the event of an emergency as determined by the City or for other good and sufficient cause.” It seems to us that protecting the rights of residents and ensuring that architectural review will be conducted by experts who know what they’re doing constitutes a “good and sufficient cause.” It seems to us that preserving due process in the City of Palo Alto is a “good and sufficient cause.” Now I should note that Mr. Lait has offered other, equally thin excuses for his actions. For example, he told the Palo Alto Weekly that there was no need for residents or the ARB to see the new cell tower design he approved because, and I quote, “All one needs is ‘a little imagination’ to see the design, as initially submitted, but a few feet higher.” I’d like to see a resident who is seeking a permit to expand his home try using that one—try saying to the City, “Folks, just use your imagination.” Of course, Mr. Lait has other excuses, equally flimsy, but time does not permit me to rebut them. So in closing, I ask you on behalf of United Neighbors to please undo Mr. Lait’s decision. We hope you will defer to the judgment of the ARB and stipulate that the ancillary equipment for these five cell towers must be located underground. Failing that, we hope you will direct that the new cell tower design Mr. Lait approved—and approved on the basis of advice from no one but the telecom company that proposed it—that the design be referred to the experts on the Architectural Review Board for consideration at a public hearing. Thank you for your attention. I would of course be happy to answer any questions. 1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 1:17 PM To:Dan Richard; Loran Harding; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Mayor; Mark Standriff; Mark Kreutzer; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; info@superide1.com; midge@thebarretts.com; Joel Stiner; Cathy Lewis; huidentalsanmateo; Council, City; Doug Vagim; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg; robert.andersen; jerry ruopoli; pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; popoff Subject:Fwd: No one could have done it better than Dan Richard at CHSRA   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 1:00 PM  Subject: No one could have done it better than Dan Richard at CHSRA  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                  Tues. Feb. 12, 2019               Dan‐  You have done a wonderful job as Chair of the California High Speed Rail Authority. Millions of Californians,  and beyond, know that and are grateful.  Governor Newsom comes off as an ingrate in replacing you.               Every nay‐sayer and every Republican in the Central Valley has sniped and lied and colluded to stop high speed rail  in California. How one farmer in Kings Co. ever pursued a decade of litigation to stop the project on his own has always  amazed me. Surely he had financial help. The Republican scum who have fought high speed rail in California want only  the worst for the people of this state and have shown their true colors by their opposition. Kevin McCarthy, Steve  Brandau in Fresno, and Devin Nunes come to mind.               So, you have done an impossible job as well as anyone could have. You are owed a great debt of gratitude. How  you ever remained so civil and gentlemanly through it all has always impressed me. As a lawyer and former head of the  BART board, you were as good as we could have gotten for this job.                 I still wish that you would become a candidate for President of the United States in 2020. I really believe that if  the American people just heard you on a few topics, that they would support you. You'd have to be willing to get into  the gutter with our current ignorant, insulting and foul‐mouthed President but I believe that your decency and intellect  would shine through and make him look ridiculous. There would come a realization early on that you were the better  choice.               At least Merced to Bakersfield of HSR will be completed under Newsom's plan, and "we'll continue regional  projects north and south". That would include Caltrain electrification, so really all that is being deleted by Newsom is the  connection between Gilroy and Merced, as far as northern California is concerned.  At some point in the future, money  will be found to make that connection, with prodding from people like me. Central Valley to Silicon Valley and San  Francisco would just be too transformative for the Central Valley to delay for long. I think Newsom's plan is a huge win  for the Central Valley. Replacing you is a huge loss for the State.     2          You have not failed. The Republicans have failed, and will continue to fail, with my help. There should be many  magnificent opportunities for you now, and you see the one I'd like for you outlined above. Again, no one could have  done your job as Chairman of the California High Speed Rail Authority Board better than you have. Congratulations on a  job well done.          L. William Harding        Fresno, Ca.   1 Carnahan, David From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 13, 2019 11:17 AM To:Sam Liccardo Subject:5G BURNS Skin, Sweat Glands invalid Mayor Liccardo, Please Wake up and protect the health of ALL homes without Wifi or 5G in San Jose. Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, NO Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com The Pulse of Natural Health Newsletter Alliance for Natural Health USA from . office@anh-usa.org What Do Crowd Control, Burning Skin, Your Street Corner, and Superbugs Have in Common? * Anyone caught in the beam will feel like their skin is burning. * Our skin and sweat ducts, previous assumptions about the safety of energy radiation are no longer valid. * Our sweat ducts actually act like little antennas to absorb more energy into our bodies. * Millimeter-wave-emitting devices will saturate our environment, and we’re plunging head-first into deploying this 5G technology without knowing the health consequences is shocking. BY ANH-USA ON DECEMBER 13, 2018 5G may be coming to your town soon. Recently we told you how telecom companies are working with the federal government to eliminate local control over the deployment of 5G networks, which are billed as the next best thing in wireless technology. Recent research pointing to the health implications of 5G technology reinforces the need to have local control over how it’s used, but more importantly asks the question of whether we should hit the pause button altogether. 5G technology will make wireless networks capable of more data streaming at faster speeds because it uses a broader frequency spectrum, as explained here. Whereas current 4G networks use up to 6 GHz, 5G will use frequencies between 24 GHz and 100 GHz, known as millimeter-wave frequencies. This means that the dozens of small cell towers that will be installed in your neighborhood will be emanating millimeter waves. If that doesn’t sound scary, consider this. The Department of Defense has developed a non-lethal crowd control device called the Active Denial System (ADS). The ADS works by firing a high- powered beam of 95 GHz waves at a target—that is, millimeter wavelengths. Anyone caught in the beam will feel like their skin is burning. The burning sensation stops once the target leaves the beam. So, what we’re talking about with 5G technology is being exposed to the same kind of waves day in and day out, only at a lower power than the ADS. Have safety studies confirmed that such exposure is safe? No. As we saw in our previous article on this topic, the government seems more interested in helping the telecom industry railroad local communities who want to have a say over 2 how or whether this tech gets installed. There’s more. Research from a team of Israeli physicists has found that there are new problems to consider with exposure to millimeter waves. When the wavelength of the energy approaches the dimensions of our biological structures, i.e. our skin and sweat ducts, previous assumptions about the safety of energy radiation are no longer valid. The research shows that, with millimeter waves, our sweat ducts actually act like little antennas, which means we would absorb more of this energy into our bodies. Other research has demonstrated that short-term exposure to low-intensity millimeter waves affects human cell membranes and could even result in the proliferation of multi- drug resistant bacteria. Seeing as there has been virtually no research on long-term exposure to millimeter waves, the large-scale deployment of 5G technology is a massive experiment, and we’re the guinea pigs. There’s no opting out of 5G—in fact it will become more ubiquitous than wireless technology is right now. As Verizon boasts on its website, the “Internet of Things” will thrive on 5G technology. The Internet of Things refers to the expanding number of devices, appliances, utilities, and other technologies that collect, transmit, and share data through the internet. Essentially, many processes that have not previously relied on the internet will start to once 5G roles out: switching lightbulbs on or off with a smartphone app, driverless cars—even “smart cities” that will use wireless networks to collect and analyze data about the environment, traffic, water, transit, lighting, waste management, security, and parking. Millimeter-wave-emitting devices will saturate our environment, and the fact that we’re plunging head-first into deploying this technology without knowing the health consequences is shocking. The government should stop being the industry’s henchman and stand up for ordinary citizens by demanding that research be conducted evaluating the long-term effect of exposure to millimeter waves before 5G technology is unleashed on the public. from Alliance for Natural Health USA from office@anh-usa.org 1 Carnahan, David From:Melanie Sent:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 11:27 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal) Cc:Council, City Subject:Left-turn from west-bound Oregon Expwy to southbound Alma St Dear Mayor Filseth,    I am writing to you about a very dangerous intersection in Palo Alto. On April 24, 2018, I witnessed a dramatic accident  at this site[1]; children were injured.  On February 6, 2019, we nearly were in an accident at this site but my mom  stopped in time.  Both incidents were very frightening and could have been much worse.    The intersection in question is that of Oregon Expressway and Alma.  A car traveling west on Oregon Expressway that  expects to turn south on Alma needs to exit Oregon, then wait at the stop sign for both directions of traffic on Alma to  be clear, before initiating a left turn.  Traffic on Alma is constant at most times of the day, and despite the 35mph limit,  most cars travel around 50mph or even higher.    When I talk to my local friends, they all say that their parents avoid making a left turn onto Alma.  It is simply too  dangerous a manoeuver, and much safer alternatives are available.  However, we do all travel on Alma, with a constant  fear that someone will misjudge and pull out in front of us. It is also interesting to read some of the comments locals  made on the article [1] by Palo Alto Online, as most people say that they avoid this intersection because of how  dangerous it is, and they also mention the speeding on Alma which just makes the risk of an accident increase. This  indicates that the intersection is known to be very hazardous.    I can think of two simple ideas that should make this area safer, and I believe strongly that the city should implement  both of them:    1) prohibit left turns at that intersection by installing a concrete curb forcing a right‐turn‐only lane (it is well known that  left turns are very dangerous [2] [3]),  2) have the police monitor Alma much more closely (I see other issues like u‐turns in the middle of Alma, even at  night).  I have never seen anyone get a ticket on Alma, and I see people speeding there every single day.    Please act quickly on this, before a tragic accident happens.    Sincerely,    Mélanie    Gunn High School student    [1] https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/04/26/two‐vehicle‐collision‐sends‐one‐to‐hospital  [2] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811366 esp Figure 1  [3] https://news.byu.edu/news/byu‐traffic‐study‐no‐more‐left‐turns‐busy‐streets  1 Carnahan, David From:Downtown Streets Team <eileen@downtownstreetsteam.ccsend.com> on behalf of Downtown Streets Team <development@streetsteam.org> Sent:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 9:02 AM To:Council, City Subject:Our CEO and Founder Recognized by Nation's Top Media!   Our Founder and CEO, Eileen Richardson, has been recognized by the  nation’s top media outlets for her ‘visionary leadership’ at Downtown  Streets Team, a small but mighty beacon of hope amidst California’s  homeless crisis.       As Downtown Streets Team continues to grow into 13 California communities, it is  only with the strong leadership of Eileen Richardson, both CEO and Founder, who  continues to inspire hope and innovation in the fight to end homelessness. During the past few weeks, Eileen has been recognized for her leadership in The San  Francisco Chronicle and by The James Irvine Foundation. Read more about each  below:     2 The James Irvine Foundation Leadership Awards:   This week, the James Irvine Foundation recognized five effective leaders in California for their breakthrough solutions to addressing critical challenges in the state. This year has all female winners, and DST will be awarded $250,000 for Eileen's leadership. “Finding concrete solutions to end homelessness can seem unattainable, but Eileen Richardson has shown that there is path for those seeking a way back into the workforce. The success of DST’s program is noteworthy and a reflection of Eileen’s leadership.” - Don Howard, President and CEO of The James Irvine Foundation         The San Francisco Chronicle's VisionSF:   3     Every year, The Chronicle recognizes six visionary leaders who have made a difference in the Bay Area and beyond. Their goal is to inspire change by illuminating the great work of these visionaries. Mayor of San Jose, Sam Liccardo, nominated Eileen because she continues to give individuals "something useful to do, give them a chance to feel dignity and respect, love them in a sense of community, and good things will happen."   To read the entire profile written by Kevin Fagan, and videos highlighting Eileen, click here!     FEELING INSPIRED OR READY TO HELP END HOMELESSNESS WITH DST? We need your help now more than ever. VISIT OUR WEBSITE   Follow us for more stories and news about DST:       Downtown Streets Team Headquarters | 1671 The Alameda, Suite 306, San Jose, CA 95126 Unsubscribe city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Update Profile | About our service provider Sent by development@streetsteam.org in collaboration with 1 Carnahan, David From:Amie Ashton <aashton@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 8:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parking Garage Thank You! Honorable City Council,    Thank you for your action with regard to the downtown parking garage. I am just so happy with the leadership and  vision you all showed. That parking garage was a big, outdated, bloated idea and I am happy to see it die, hopefully  forever.     How about small unit housing at the site?    Also, thank you again for the Middlefield traffic calming. My family loves it!    Amie Ashton  236 Middlefield  1 Carnahan, David From:Christian Martine <> Sent:Wednesday, February 6, 2019 1:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parking Permit Program Feedback Attachments:City-of-Palo-Alto-Parking-Notice-2019.pdf Dear Members of the City Council:    I write as a private citizen to offer feedback on the City of Palo Alto Parking Permit Program.    Yesterday afternoon, February 5, 2019, more than a dozen of my colleagues and I received a postcard in the mail with  the news that we were now able to purchase a spot in a downtown parking lot. My notice had metered postage dated  January 30, 2019, was postmarked January 31, 2019, and had an expiration date of February 7, 2019. I have attached the  notice sent to me, less my personal contact details, to this email.    The current process does not allow much time to respond to a notice and does not accommodate people who are not in  town during the notice period. I have a few suggestions to make this process better:    First, expand the notice period. I received the notice on the third business day after the notice was postmarked and have  two business days to take action. Had I been traveling, sick, or out of town for some other reason, I would have missed  the notice period, lost my $10 deposit, and be required to re‐apply to the wait list and pay another $10 to initiate the  process again.    Second, allow signing up for a wait list and securing a parking spot to occur online. An online system would make signing  up for a wait list more convenient and ensure that a person offered a parking spot does not miss their window to secure  a parking spot offered to them. Additionally, giving notice of an offered parking spot by email or phone would give  people even more time to respond to a notice.    Third, allow people to submit their vehicle registration and driver's license – documents required by new permit holders  to secure a parking spot – in person anytime after signing up for a waitlist. With this documentation already submitted, a  person offered a parking spot could log in to an online system or call City Hall to provide payment information and  secure their parking permit, even if they are out of town since their required documentation would be already on file.    The heart of these suggestions is to accommodate people seeking long‐term parking in Palo Alto with more time, greater  convenience, or a combination of the two in securing their parking spot. People often spend many weeks or months on a  parking wait list, and I ask the City Council to make changes to these policies commensurate to the time and money put  forth in good faith by these individuals. I appreciate you considering this feedback and would be happy to discuss more  by email, phone, or in an upcoming City Council meeting.    Sincerely,  Christian Martine    Attachment: City of Palo Alto Parking Permit Program Wait List Notification postcard  REVENUE COLLECTIONS P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 -- --. neoposc~{ ZIP 94301 041~ .. /11225'1536 = FIRST CLASS MAIL = City of Palo Alto Parking Permit Program Revenue Collections 250 Hamilton Ave, G Floor-Lobby Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: 650-329-2317 / Fax: 650-617-3122 , WAIT LIST NOTIFICATION -FOR LOT BUSINESS HOURS: · Monday -Thursday: 8:00am-5:30pm Friday: 8:00am-4:30pm CLOSED: Holidays &. Weekends ' TIME SENSITIVE MAIL ---EXPIRATION DAJE:I, :FEB -0-1 20i-=--9 _-='____.I A parking permit in the requested lot above is now available for your purchase. You must purchase your permit no later than * * * or you will lose your space. I ~'. · -.-~~··-~-*'If yofaJiiil_ -to ·r~i><f~d by_ th~~da~ ·aoove vo&J _.mu~ re~~pply ·tcfthe ·w~it l~st ~and ~~ ~ver·a·ga~ra. *** I · NEW PERMIT HOLDERS: Jo purchase a permit for the first time, you must bring the following items to the address above: I. This postcard as proof of your available space. 2. A valid vehicle registration verifying that you are the registered owner. 3. Your valid driver's license. CURRENT PERMIT ·HOLDERS: If you already have a valid permit, but would prefer to transfer to the parking lot above; you must bring the following items: I. Your current valid permit must be turned-in. Rem~ve the permit and return it to Revenue Collections--even if the permit is in pieces. 2. This postcard, as proof of your notification of availability. 3. A valid vehicle registration, verifying that you are the owner. Registration is only required if you are changing vehicles. 'Tt,ertf is· a $10 perin't replace·meni: ·fee for transfers, and -/or. permits re-~s_sue~ for any· reason~in..:between renewal periods. '. ~~.~~~~--.. , _. .. ·: . . . . (TH~ ~~.·~-SUB)ECTTO CH~GE.) . Revenue Collections will not process your request to change to your preferred lot without the above items. The available permit space will only be sold to the waitlist applicant addressed on this postcard. *****THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE YOU WILL RECEIVE! ***** 1 Carnahan, David From:pol1@rosenblums.us Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 4:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please cancel the new Downtown Parking Garage Council members:  In light of the City’s commitment to reducing single vehicle travel within Palo Alto as part of our Comprehensive Plan, it  makes no sense to build two new garages for parking individual vehicles on city property. Please take the time to fully  review the EIR and then reject this boondoggle. Thank you.  Stephen Rosenblum  Santa Rita Ave  1 Carnahan, David From:Bret Andersen <bretande@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 4:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please do not move forward on the Downtown Garage Dear Mayor and City Council members,    Thank you for making Climate action a priority! I hope you view the climate challenge is a blessing that spurs us to  collaborate more and think holistically about how to get the best out of our public investment decisions. Here is an  opportunity to better align our programs, projects and policies with that priority.     Assuming no cost escalation, the proposed garage will cost $29M. It will add 238 new parking spaces downtown at a rate  of $122,000 per space. It would be funded using general infrastructure money, most of which we don’t currently have.    Yet, there is strong evidence that spending at this level to expand our parking permit and pricing programs and car trip  reduction programs could more than address the parking related needs in question, better align with our transportation  goals and leave the land open for other uses in the future, like housing.     In the interest of transparency and a sound decision making process, please do not move forward with the proposed  garage plans until you have formally considered alternative solutions that, given a commensurate level of funding, could  more effectively solve the problem in question.    Sincerely,    Bret Andersen, Palo Verde Neighborhood    1 Carnahan, David From:Emily Sawtell <wordpress@castillejamasterplan.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 3:58 PM To:greg.scharff@cityofpaloalto.org; Kniss, Liz (internal); DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Clerk, City; Council, City Subject:Please Support Castilleja Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,     My name is Emily Sawtell and I live in Palo Alto, CA. I am writing to you as a resident of Palo Alto and supporter of  Castilleja School.     Castilleja was founded 110 years ago to equalize educational opportunities for women. Today, Castilleja seeks to close  the female leadership gap by gradually adding students over four years. Making this opportunity available for more  young women is central to furthering that mission.     As a Palo Alto resident, I am proud to have Castilleja in our city. The school has been an indispensable community  partner and is committed to maintaining its neighbors’ current quality of life. Castilleja has already implemented robust  Traffic Demand Management initiatives, and has repeatedly pledged to neighbors not only to do more, but that the  admittance of new students will be dependent on the continued success of the school’s traffic programs.     Now more than ever, at a time when national politics has devolved into shouting matches and one‐upmanship,  Castilleja’s mission of serving girls and young women from Palo Alto and other nearby cities is critically important.     Please do not let the loudest voices in the conversation obscure the robust support for Castilleja found throughout our  wonderful city.     Sincerely,    Emily Sawtell   emily.jane.sawtell@gmail.com    1 Carnahan, David From:Penny Proctor <pennyproctor@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 5:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Pls Keep the Cap Dear Members of the City Council,    Please retain the downtown office/commercial cap tonight. Without it, there will be many more offices and workers  downtown, which will compete with housing and probably raise rents more than otherwise, and create more  commuters with more parking and traffic problems. It takes me 1 1/2 hours to get to a weekly evening class in Union  City over the Dumbarton bridge, and 20 minutes to get home.    Thanks for considering! And thank you for all the countless hours you donate to Palo Alto!    Penny Proctor  Greer Rd  Palo Alto            1 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 1:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:President Hotel Please do not let the AJ developers change the President Hotel into a luxury hotel that is not needed, will increase  parking problems, increase congestion, and get rid of 75 units of affordable housing.  Something that the council and residents do not support as stated loud and clear many times.    AJ Capital did not do their due diligence, their problem, not ours, the corporation should have contacted the city to see if  these plans were legal, zoned for these plans or not.  The council  would have to overturn existing laws etc.  A.J. put themselves into this situation.    We do not need to make many issues worse by allowing them to 'win'.    Sincerely,    Suzanne Keehn  4076 Orme St.  94306  1 Carnahan, David From:Cris Oppenheimer & Rainer Pitthan <oppenpitt@earthlink.net> Sent:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 11:27 AM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Council, City; Cormack, Alison Cc:Lydia Kou; Tom Dubios Subject:Re: City Council 2/11/2019, Item#10 Attachments:NotesOnHistoricPreservation2555.doc; NewConstructionCaliforniaEast.pdf; 2TomDuboisFinal.pdf Dear Eric, thank you for the notification. As always I wonder would it have made any difference if I and 20 others would have shown up? The eternal question about the eternal vigilance needed against developers. Another question: is there a traffic and parking study since an EIR and CEQA was mentioned? Or are these just waived as usual: "nothing to see here??" like Alsman and Richards describe. The CEQA law says that it has to be enforced by citizens filing law suits. Maybe we need an equivalent to the Sierra Club's Earth Justice fund, targeted on suing. Maybe the next time I will get a majority in PASZ to put a zero cap on the ballot. Rainer I believe I sent you these before, but just for your library I attach my shortened accounting of some of the shenanigans re 2555 Park Blvd., which still irks me, and my traffic study. 2 On 2/11/2019 11:13 PM, Filseth, Eric (Internal) wrote: The Council eliminated the downtown commercial cap on a 4‐3 vote as follows:         Keep the Cap but exempt Retail:          DuBois, Filseth, Kou      Eliminate the Cap altogether:                 Cormack, Fine, Kniss, Tanaka          Eric       From: Rainer Pitthan [mailto:Rainer.Pitthan@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 10:19 AM To: Council, City; city.manager@cityofpaloalto.com; Clerk, City; City Attorney Subject: City Council 2/11/2019, Item#10 Ladies and Gentleman, 2/10/2019 One third of a century ago when the Palo Alto City Planning Administration apparently was less in the pocket of developers than now, the Council enacted a downtown commercial cap on construction. Foresightful people who understood the power of exponential growth worried about compound traffic and parking problems. After all, this Palo Alto, we know math. 4 years ago such prediction were ignored for the California Ave. district. Large number of owners in Palo Alto Central gave detailed and quantitative descriptions of the traffic problems around the 2555 Park B. Construction project. They were only given lot of CEQA bull, and in short order several projects were authorized which were (and still are) under parked by more than 300 parking spots. Project owners had paid for (virtual) spots for years into a fund, but the places were never built. The planned CalAve District Parking Garage would barely make up for the deficit, but it is already supposed to account for the future grandiose administrative and residential development. Already CalAve is self-strangulating, very similar to the Mountain View San Antonio District, and I have not seen a good trip and parking analysis. The City Council is slated to vote on 2/11/19 on whether or not to end the wise 33-year-old cap on Downtown commercial growth, worsening Downtown's traffic and parking problems, intensifying the city's job/housing imbalance, and taking away opportunities to build housing. The cap is also one of the laws currently preventing the conversion of the President Hotel Apartments into a hotel. The cap also will prevent a number of unwise projects, which the City Planners then will approve, like they always have. The reality of life in Palo Alto has been succinctly described by Alexander Richard and Ken Alsman nearly 4 years ago, much better than I would. And thanks to an invention of my fellow student in 1968 in Darmstadt, Peter Grünfeld, we now have seemingly unlimited storage capacity on disks drive the size of a matchbox, so I could easily find their letters in 20 years of emails on my laptop: 3 Parking in the city Dear Editor: Parking in neighborhoods attracts workers because it is cheaper than parking in the downtown garages, which are empty. Employers, who pay $6 to $8 per square foot a month for their office space, cram in lots of employees and provide no parking for their staff. Office owners and employers distributed the economic disadvantages of parking onto the public, especially neighborhoods adjacent to downtown. If we installed smart parking meters in neighborhoods, provided for variable charges and gave residents transponders to allow free parking, we would solve the headache, incentivize drivers to use empty parking garages and could charge big-city parking rates that would generate substantial revenue and encourage greater use of public transportation. On the parking issue, Downtown North parking activist Nielson Buchanan has provided more insight in the past several years than everyone in the Planning Department, where 44 development projects were approved without an environmental impact report. I have long thought that if this was New Jersey, somebody got paid off. I once put that out of my mind. But now I am not so sure. The magnitude of the blowout of Palo Alto is significant. There is so much money driving this mess that unless citizens step up, it will continue unabated. Please join the coalition to bring some sensibility to growth. Sign on with me and others at http:// paloaltoville.com/cac-reform. Richard Alexander Palo Alto August 20, 2015? The Self-Administering CEQA Dear Editor Last week you had a story about a Palo Alto Councilman protesting the State for trying to avoid a CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act). The State must have been looking at what Palo Alto does: OVER 40 commercial projects approved with staff prepared studies of “No Significant Impact,” no need for the developer to do more analysis, no need for the Council to deny these projects. For those projects staff has found “No Cumulative Impacts” on traffic (Try getting into or out of town), parking, housing demand, jobs/housing balance, the environment. Likewise they found no conflicts with the City’s Comprehensive Plan dealing with neighborhood quality or protection, impacts of commercial on residential, traffic etc. The public has questioned their process and objected to the conclusion but to no avail. How could in good conscience staff, the Community Development Director, the City Attorney and the City Manager let this violation of the intent of CEQA to continue? Pressure from the City Council? From Developers? The Palo Alto (LET’S FORGET CEQA) Process – Gotta Love It. Ken Alsman, Palo Alto, June 23, 2015 4 When the previous Planning Director Hilary Gitelman quit, She got a well-deserved good buy in the Palo Alto Weekly: Posted by We Do Need a Change a resident of Crescent Park on Apr 19, 2018 at 12:32 pm Our planning department is well-known for its contempt for residents and the law. It instead lets developers get away with massively inadequate parking, blatantly illegal uses, unchecked permit violations, and far more. Let's hope for new leadership that respects the law and the public and works to improve the department's badly-damaged image. But listening to the (now newly installed) new Planning Director Jonathan Lait in recent meetings, it has gotten worse. While Gitelman was passively reacting to pressure from the developers, and maybe input from corrupt staff members, Lait seems to believe it is his task to accelerate and advance development. He knows better than the citizens and the City Council. So much, that in December even the City Manager was upset and joked about “deep state”. Greetings Rainer Pitthan https://stanford.io/2Mqa8mJ ---this is not a Government supported domain, true and nasty political comments are given and are welcome--- -- Cris Oppenheimer and Rainer Pitthan mailto:oppenpitt@earthlink.net (650)327-9497 157 S. California Ave., Unit H-100 Palo Alto CA 94306-1953 Cell Cris: (650)799-1290 Cell Rainer: (650)380-4823 Rainer.Pitthan@Gmail.Com November 28, 2015 “You told the truth, up to a point, but a lie of omission is still a lie” —Capt. Jean-Luc Picard (cautioning Starfleet Cadet Wesley Crusher) Dear Tom, You asked me to summarize on half a page of what I had identified to you as some of the “de- ceptions” (to call it charitably) the City Planning Department allowed to go forward (again, to call it charitably) with the goal of getting 2555 Park Blvd approved. A perfunctory summary would be at least 10 pages. But I will try to make it shorter. For a more introduction parhaps read at least the 2 letters to the Council in URL Doc Letters 6-15-15 Set 1.pdf, http://bit.ly/1H0rig1 , pp 40 by Jamie Beckett, and pp 138 by William Ross, or read all the 14 letters flagged below. You will see many decisions from City planning prioritizing maximizing the profit of the developer over the quality of life and basic safety of residents without regard to facts. Where did the bending and omission of facts come from? For the most part the “deceptions” originally were created by the applicant’s traffic consultant 1 (see footnote) Kimley-Horn (1) and then passed through a sequence of experts: from the architect (2) to the “Planning and Traffic Commission” (3), and on to the Palo Alto ‘”Planning and Community Environment Department” (Planning Department for short) (4), presumably on to the City Attorney (5), and lastly to the City Council (6). There were 4 expert groups and none of them checked for errors and omissions (I hope they have insurance?). Really? That is to say the “deception” may have originated out- side by consultants, but the City Administration was mostly in advocacy mode for the appli- cant, [ http://bit.ly/1hM24bI ] instead of being the guardian of the rights and interests of the resi- dents. [see, e.g., see comments by Annette and Rainer http://bit.ly/1hM24bI, Ken Alsman http://bit.ly/1EPwdfz p31, Bill Ross http://bit.ly/1H0rig1 pp137-146 ]. This advocacy has led to many “quid-pro-quo” questions in the press and sometimes in chambers! What is different in this case is that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required an Environmental impact Report (EIR) for 2555 Park Blvd. This leaves behind, for the first time, a paper trail. The omissions are often very clever: some omissions are actually posted after the respective meetings, so the “legal” aspect is covered! Or, in hearings, as William Ross points out on June 1, 2015, the applicant and its advocates speak after the residents, so their state- ments cannot be challenged. A very few illuminating examples:  For the future 24,5000 sqft 2555 Park Blvd the consultant Kimley-Horn used Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) equations designed for shopping centers with an average size of 200,000 sqft. The Planning Department’s answer to questions reads like Kafka: “In the PM peak hour, the 2555 project is expected to generate a total of 106 trips, with 88 of those trips being attributed to the existing building. “Omitted” was that 78 of those 88 trips come from ZERO office space. The real increase: from 14 to 87 (see Table).  At present only 10 cars exit from the existing 2555 Park B building through Grant Stub. In the future 92 cars will exit from the new building into Grant Ave, an increase of 920%. But the trip increase claimed for approval purposes is the 20% increase. Ridiculous? Yes. Shameful that the City Council has accepted this? Yes. Since the Senior Planner 1 The historical resource Consultants did much better despite being strong armed early on by the applicant. Rainer.Pitthan@Gmail.Com November 28, 2015 and the Director of Planning were repeatedly challenged on those numbers before the June 1 Council meeting the question arises: why insisting on untenable mathematics? Since only 10 of the 28 cars now parked in 2555 Park B. exit into Grant Ave (18 exit into Park B), the present base- line, that is the traffic suffered from 2555 Park Blvd, should be reduced by 10/28 = 36%, from 39 to 14 for PM Peak.  When the Palo Alto Central Condominium owners, and other neighbors, pointed out that the existing traffic from the 94 car underground garage must also be considered, the Sen- ior Planner answered, in writing, that by 8:00AM these cars had left the garage, before the 2555 Park B. cars would arrive. But the original 12/4/13 Kimley-Horn Transport Im- pact Analysis (TIA) http://bit.ly/1Qyu2lX had the measured intersection exit trip data as an Appendix which shows that few cars leave between 7 and 8AM. So the Senior Plan- ner knowingly did not speak the truth: And why? o Hiding the data: The original TIA was difficult to find, as if someone tried to hide the traffic data, but have them legally public. The revised and final TIA is here http://bit.ly/1fzPprN ; it does not have the measured intersection trip data.  Uniform random statistics was used evaluating the stacked parking. Traffic gener- ally does not follow uniform random statistics; neither do decaying nuclei. In this case moreover it was experimentally shown, by the neighbor Jared Jacobs, to be “Poisson Statistics” by measuring the arrival times at the court house. But miraculously, when the Planning Department subsequently changed the “wording” from “uniform” to “Poisson” Statistics in the EIR, not a single number changed. Wow! New Math? So the traffic fraud originated from the outside contractor for Tarlton, LLC, which is not our concern; let Tarlton or the FBI handle this. What is our concern is that the City of Palo Alto’s Planning Department not only let these deceptions pass but even doubled down when made aware of serious errors and mistakes. I am not surprised that the PTC did not object, after be- ing told straight to my face on April 29, 2015, they did not care about any effects outside the pro- ject’s physical properties like height of buildings or other effects on neighbors. And yes, they were looking at each project in isolation, no cumulative impact analysis. This is the Planning Commission? What definition of “traffic planning” (Google for fun) do they use:? It will be easy to unravel for a court the legal aspects in the chain of responsibility which started with Kimley-Horn, was transferred through the Architect to the Planning Department, and from Rainer.Pitthan@Gmail.Com November 28, 2015 there to the PCT. They all had the duty of a critical analysis; I assume the PCT members, like the CC, swore an oath of office? In particular they had to be on the lookout for manipulations of the applicant trying to make the existing traffic large, and making the future additional traffic small, allowing a quicky “not significant impact” statement without thorough analysis. The City Council must be able to rely on the work of the Planning Department (and the PTC), but obviously cannot. The City Council participates in the charade by giving the Planning Department unlimited speaking times, and by not letting neighbors cross-examine the planners in Chambers. There were about 20 detailed letters to the City’s various planning bodies in, e.g., http://bit.ly/1H0rig1 pp 24, 44, 46, 51, 53, 137, and in http://bit.ly/1HM3ONn pp25, 28, 35, 44, 50, 62, 65, 67. In a professionally run planning department these letters would have been com- bined to a matrix describing the mutual dependency of the problems. The legal buck stops with the City Council by stating that the highest profit possible for the applicant is the highest goal of the City, and not, for example improving the housing balance by re-zoning the property to PTOD, as proposed in ARB. The factual buck stops with the Plan- ning Department. The Senior Planner misstates in writing, and in Chambers, the traffic habits of Palo Alto Central, despite having data to the contrary from the first TIA http://bit.ly/1Qyu2lX . As mentioned above since we have an environmental impact report (EIR), (historical building) there is a paper trail on facts, unlike for the other 44 recent building projects [Alsman, in p31 http://bit.ly/1EPwdfz ]: There is the Director, who was early enough given written warning by many to look into the reasonableness of trip calculations [how can 88 trips be generated in one hour out of 28 parking spots in the PM Peak Hour, for example, she was asked]. There are cer- tain City consultants who should be banned from doing business with Palo Alto for solely acting as advocates for the applicants, and not making sure the City follows the spirit of CEQA. And then there is the excellent Historic Resource Evaluation http://bit.ly/1KXtu7q :The Senior Planner bullied the HRB [http://bit.ly/1GYw7Hc pp191-206] telling them they were not allowed to vote (but could express their feelings), after telling the applicant a year earlier “that the City of Palo Alto Planning Staff [….] do not believe 2555 Park Boulevard would meet the criteria for list- ing in “any” category of the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. Why is he still employed? Even in this case the City Council and the City Attorney did nothing. Maybe they wait for citi- zens to sue, because the California Natural Resources Agency states:  CEQA is a self-executing statute. And continues:  Agencies (like the City of Palo Alto) are entrusted with compliance with CEQA and its provisions are enforced, as necessary, by the public through litigation and the threat thereof. o Even more difficult to find than the Palo Alto Central garage traffic count was a 2nd peer report http://bit.ly/1KXtu7q for the Historic Evaluation, maybe be because it concluded like the first, that the existing building could and should be on the histor- ic register. The Final Environmental Report from November 2014 contained a subversively edited 1 ½ page extract of the HRB hearing. The complete 15 page verbatim transcript of the HRB hearing was only available to the public (me) after the City Council session on Jun1, 2015. Rainer.Pitthan@Gmail.Com November 28, 2015 There are serious consequences from the undercount of Trips: the Bike Boulevard and the Public Safety Building The PAC letters quoted above show that there is now, in 2015, with only 104 parked cars in the Grant Stub, chaos in the stub and in the multi-modal Grant/Park Intersection, where separate Level of Services CLOS, PLOS, and BLOS 2 (see footnote) for cars, bicycles, and pedestrians all are “F” in certain modes, directions and turns, with waiting times of several minutes. In FHWA-NAS parlance the stub would be called a critical lane group. Palo Alto has bragged for years of being in the forefront of the multi-modal transportation of the future, but has done only piece meal studies. In the eager advocacy rush to get approval for 2555 Park Blvd. the Plan- ning Department, again, has omitted results from proper analysis with the readily available (FHWA) methodology. Which they should/must have done, they are professionals? To wit: Without any signals for the traffic on Park Blvd. itself, the future 193 PM Peak Hour car trips in and out of Grant Ave (vs. the 106 trips “used” by the Planning Department) will have to traverse in the PM Peak Hour close to 600 cars and 300 bicycles whizzing by, which are un- impeded by signaling on Park Blvd. Reading up on well-managed bicycle traffic in cities (Atlanta anyone?) one immediately learns that the only signaling that bicycles respect are red lights. The EXCEL spreadsheet [ http://bit.ly/1H0rig1 ] on “Page 50 of “Doc Letters 6-15-15 Set 1.pdf” for the Council Meeting on June 15, 2015 (update enclosed) showed that the buildings already approved in the neighborhood with a total of 4200 trips will increase the car traffic on Park at Grant by at least 250 trips per PM Peak Hour, judging that about 40% of the 630 PM-trips trips will use Park Blvd. There certainly will be more than 300 bicycles in the future. Conse- quences are: (a) The bike boulevard will (a) NOT be safe for bicycles, and (b) NOT be efficient for cars, even after replacing street parking with protected bike lanes [ http://1.usa.gov/1lBxF2f, http://bit.ly/1GFqNZX ] and (c) even then FHWA prescribes a red-light signal (and not just blink- ing lights for pedestrians) for the Grant/Park intersection. [ http://1.usa.gov/1SQW8ej ] Similarly the Public Safety Building (PSB) will be suffocated by the projected traffic increase in the proposed location between California and Sherman Ave. The square area between S. California Ave., E. Park Blvd., Oregon, and El Camino is like a traffic anti-fortress: already not easy to get out from. That raises a more fundamental point: Has the Planning Department (maybe with the Police Department) made a study on the mutual compatibility of (a) future traffic, of (b) a physically Centralized Patrol Center and of (c) Community Policing? Community Policing Theory has some varying concepts of Police Patrol http://bit.ly/1NT7xX8 , but always included are:  The Patrol is working from decentralized locations (like upgraded Fire Stations) and  Patrol is on foot as much as possible. So the very concept of a Central Patrol Center goes against both traffic con- straints and the very fundamentals of Community Policing. What gives? 2 In its Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 5th Edition, the National Academies of Science specifically does not define, nor encourage use of, one general MMLOS (Multi-mode LOS). Instead it defines the procedures to have usable separate car, bicycle, and pedestrian LOS’, as CLOS, BLOS, and PLOS, resp., for separate critical lane groups. Easy reading: http://bit.ly/1L5F0k3 . A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q Commercl Parking from sqft Residentl Parking from sqft Total NEW Trips from Office Total In Out Total In Out Trips NEW from Residential Units Total NEW Trips Address parking made available in house sqft commer- cial Condo sqft resi- dential # dwelling units Parking Deficit = G+H - B Required now, per 175 sqft Required, per 500 sqft ln(t)=0.756 * ln(Size) + 3.95 8 trips per unit commercia l and residential 2865 Park 295 47,000 101,000 85 -176 268.6 202 954 124 112 12 143 29 114 680 1,634 260 Cal Ave 42 22,000 8,000 2 -100 125.7 16 537 70 63 7 81 16 64 16 553 2650 Birch 42 10,556 14,271 8 -47 60.3 29 308 40 36 4 46 9 37 64 372 385 Sherman 103 50,000 4,800 4 -192 285.7 10 1,000 130 117 13 150 30 120 32 1,032 2555 Park 92 24,466 0 0 -48 139.8 0 582 76 68 8 87 17 70 0 582 Sum 574 154,000 128,100 99 -560 880 260 3400 440 400 40 510 100 410 790 4200 appropriate numbers are rounded along and across El Camino 1501 California 462 4,291 239,173 180 -41 24.5 478 156 20 18 2 23 5 19 1440 1,596 1845 El Camino 44 7,700 0 44.0 0 243 32 28 3 36 7 29 0 243 2100 El Camino 300 52,500 5,300 8 -11 300.0 11 1,037 135 121 13 156 31 124 64 1,101 2209 El Camino 54 9,500 2,000 1 -4 54.3 4 285 37 33 4 43 9 34 8 293 2500 El Camino 119 20,748 60,000 70 -120 118.6 120 514 67 60 7 77 15 62 560 1,074 Sum 517 94,700 306,500 260 -180 540 610 2200 290 260 30 340 70 270 2100 4300 San Diego County Trips AM PM http://bit.ly/1J31gsU In:Out In:Out Ln(T) = 0.756 Ln(x) + 3.95 13%15% (9:1) (2:8)Updated from Page 50 of “Doc Letters 6-15-15 Set 1.pdf", http://bit.ly/1H0rig1 The ITE equations used by the applicant are different for "AllDay", AM, and PM, and were designed for Office Centers of 200,000 or more sqft. San Diego County used formulae more suited for office buildings <35,000 sqft. Also Consult: "Truth in Transportation Planning": http://bit.ly/1dYZAF6 AM PM We all know that property may not be taken for public use without payment of just compensation to its owner (Cal. Const., art. I, § 19; U.S. Const., 5th Amend). But in the case of zoning changes in practice the courts have for 200 years deferred to the police power of Cities and Counties. Particularly difficult to overcome is the threshold that a "mere diminution" in property value due to a zoning action is not compensable. (Agins v. City of Tiburon (1979) 24 Cal.3d 266, 273-274 [157 Cal.Rptr. 372, 598 P.2d 25], affd. (1980) 447 U.S. 255 [65 L.Ed.2d 106, 100 S.Ct. 2138].) The “mere” for the Supreme Court cases has meant diminution up to of 80%. Under these circumstances it is hard to understand why 2555 Park zoning was not changed to PTOD, the zoning with the greatest benefit to Palo Alto. New Trips& Parking from construction built before June1, 2015 and already approved construction; Omissions and Mistakes: Rainer.Pitthan@gmail.com Early on Palo Alto Central residents and friends looked the Historical Preservation Option which was rejected by Russ Reich with overriding boiler plate master hand Kafka arguments. Towit: “For all of the foregoing reasons, and for any of them individually, the City Councildetermines that the Building Preservation Alternative is infeasible and is hereby rejected.” Because it is a beautiful building which seemed to float, as the HRB Chairman said, levitated building. It is unique, I do not know of any other such building in such good shape in Palo Alto. When the dozen people from Palo Alto Central and friends went to the April 29, 2015 session of the PTC all we had were the shortened 1.5 pages of the “Verbatim Comments Received at Historic Resources Board Hearing, November 19, 2014” http://bit.ly/1GYw7Hc . Those 1.5 pages, http://bit.ly/1G131ot available for the PTC meeting on April 29, 2015 were heavily edited to make it look that in their meeting on November 2014 the HRB only had lukewarm support for the historic preservation option. Historic references or revival influences are notably absent from the Midcentury Modern style. The term Midcentury Modern was generated by the public rather than scholars 1 Carnahan, David From:Eric Horodas <ehorodas@greystonehotels.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 13, 2019 10:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Large Vehicle Parking in front of 3400 El Camino Real Dear Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council:     I sent you all the below e‐mail on December 3, 2018.  I would appreciate a response. Thank you.       Eric Horodas President & CEO   Phone - 415-915-0438 Cell - 415-999-9802  ehorodas@greystonehotels.com 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 404 San Francisco, CA 94104 greystonehotels.com          On Dec 3, 2018, at 11:07 AM, Eric Horodas <ehorodas@greystonehotels.com> wrote:    Dear Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council:                         I am writing to you both as a concerned citizen and as the Managing Partner of the company that  owns and operates the Creekside Inn located at 3400 El Camino Real, Palo Alto. In recent months,  recreational vehicles have been parking on a 24 hour basis on El Camino Real directly in front of the  Creekside Inn. While we have deep compassion for our fellow citizens who are homeless, or who are  forced to live out of recreational vehicles, we implore the City of Palo Alto to find a more suitable place  for these people to park and reside for all the reasons stated below.              The parking of these recreational vehicles appears to violate the Palo Alto Municipal Code,  Section 10.44.020 which prohibits any person from parking oversized vehicles, trailers, or camper shells  upon streets or alleys located within a residential zone or public facility zone between the hours of two  a.m. and six a.m..              In addition, since the individuals residing in these recreational vehicles often lack proper  sanitation facilities and refuse disposal, on many mornings, we find feces and garbage on our property  which can only have come from the residents of these recreational vehicles. These activities, in addition  to being a health hazard, violate Section 5.20.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code which prohibits any  person from throwing, dropping or leaving refuse upon private property.  Finally, as these recreational vehicles are often parked very near to the entrances and exits from  our property, they pose a safety hazard, particularly for our guests, customers, vendors and employees  attempting to exit from our property onto El Camino Real as it is very difficult to see any oncoming  traffic without pulling their vehicles onto El Camino Real. This presents a real danger of a collision  between an exiting vehicle and on coming traffic. We note that Section 10.47.020 of the Palo Alto  2 Municipal Code provides the City Manager with authority to establish streets or portions thereof as "no  large vehicle parking zones”.   Again, we have deep compassion for our fellow citizens who are homeless but equal concern for  the health and safety of our guests, customers, vendors and employees. Accordingly, we are requesting  immediate action by the City of Palo Alto to prevent and prohibit large vehicle parking on El Camino Real  and Matadero Road.  Thank you for your attention to this matter.       1 Carnahan, David From:Liz Kniss <lizkniss@earthlink.net> Sent:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 8:47 PM To:Amy Halpern-Laff Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Thank you! Thx for your note!    Sent from my iPhone    On Feb 12, 2019, at 1:35 PM, Amy Halpern‐Laff <amyhlaff@gmail.com> wrote:  I so appreciate your decision to postpone indefinitely the downtown garage, and look forward to seeing  your agenda take shape this year.    As I’m sure you know, GHG from animal agriculture comprises between 14.5 and 18% of  anthropomorphic emissions. I hope we can promote meat and dairy reduction in Palo Alto. When might  I come in to speak about Green Monday?      Amy Halpern-Laff amyhlaff@gmail.com (650) 665-0266 (text/voice) greenmondayus.org    1 Carnahan, David From:Susan Powers <susapow@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 7:14 AM To:Council, City I am writing to ask the council to please protect the small amount of rental units available to working residents of the  city. As a former tenant of the Hotel President, I am faced with an $825 increase in my rent after being displaced from  my home. The city ordinance that provided relocation money will help cover my additional expenses for about six  months and then I will be struggling. 60% of my take home pay goes to rent. I am 62 years old and will probably have to  leave the Bay Area, which means leaving my job. I work in a hospital laboratory doing critical work in an already  chronically understaffed setting. I hate to leave because I know I am needed but I am living too close to the edge. (Take a  moment to consider what it means to have staff shortages in your hospitals.)    Many of the former tenants of the President no longer live in Palo Alto. Some have left the bay. Most of them would still  be here had they not been forced from their homes. The ones who are trying to remain are struggling like me. I visited a  neighbor who has not turned on her heat this winter because she can’t handle the additional expense. She is a senior  citizen. Another, a single mother recently described how vulnerable she now feels, something she never felt at the her  former home in the President. I won’t try to describe the increased levels of stress in the lives of nearly every former  resident. If you were on council last summer, you heard our stories.    If you choose to support the overturn of the current grandfather clause, please exclude rental and residential properties  from the change. If you do not, the city loses 78 desperately needed rental units (which will further increase the demand  and drive up the already obscene prices) and it puts a number of similar apartment buildings in jeapordy, one of which I  ironically live in. It will not affect me, but I feel great empathy for the thousands of teachers, nurses, entrepreneurs,  elderly on fixed incomes, etc.who will suffer if this process continues.     Thank you for everything you have done to stand up for us. The ordinance money was the only assistance we received  from AJ despite months of negotiations to secure better care for our more vulnerable neighbors. AJ, in the end pulled an  eleventh hour switch that required that the council approve all of their demands before they would allow any of the  additional support we had negotiated. In the end, they gave us nothing that was not forced upon them by law.  So thank  you for that amazing support and please continue to stand up for the people who rely on you to protect them.    All the best to you,    Susan Powers            Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad  1 Carnahan, David From:Riccardo Gaudino <ctb500@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 6:31 PM To:celebrate@usaproud.org Subject:Request for Mayor Proclamation Celebrating California Birthday Founding of Attachments:2019 Cities Golden Gate Frontier.doc; Contra Costa Co 2017 Resolution - signed.pdf Invitation     Celebrate Monday 11‐1pm at historic Alvarado Adobe, San Pablo, CA.  RSVP to be one of 27 signers.     Host: Mayor Rich Kinney    Please review and send digital Proclamation.   You are invited to be one of 27 signers.    Contact: Riccardo Gaudino, Historian ‐ Education Director  415.933.4742  Golden State History ‐ Curriculum Task Force  ASSEMBLY TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE WORDING CALIFORNIA BIRTHDAY RESOLUTION FOR TEEN AND COMMUNITY AWARENESS Whereas, as descendent or newcomer, we are the heirs to its history and keepers of its integrity, acting to share this responsibility with today’s generations, and Whereas, this dedication, by working together as community service organizations, educators, State agencies, Cities and Counties, will advance the USA PROUD Learning Challenge call-to-service: add the Pacific perspective of the geo-political system for students with local history, and grow the community awareness of caring citizens, and Whereas, in 2003, the Around The Horn initiative was started at Monterey Bay to fill the gap of all California teens in 19th Century US History, with the teamwork of Golden State History Riccardo Gaudino, Jefferey Canepa of Capitola and then Santa Cruz mayor Mike Rotkin, to advance teaching 8th grade teens the Pacific Coast maritime routes, and Whereas, in 2006, the California Senate passed unanimous the Pacific Maritime Routes Resolution #33 for their caring to help Golden State History scholars improve education, and proud dedication to preserve history, and Whereas, accordingly in 2016, the California Board of Education adopted the History Social Science 8th grade framework standards to require teaching 8th grade US History to include the Pacific transportation routes of “Around the Horn” maritime, inland waterways, overland routes of Joseph Chiles, and President Polk for the crucial 1846 events that expanded the United States as a continental nation, and Whereas, 8th grade students for the first time, where the sailing ship, horse, ox-cart, covered wagon, and railroad are all together, have the construction of learning the accurate scientific analysis of how Pacific transportation systems, climate, migration, influenced Northern California settlement, food production, and world commerce, and Whereas, the Golden Gate Frontier Region of San Francisco Bay and inland waterways, is serving as the cornerstone of this historical thinking, necessary to guarantee today’s teens access to the basic knowledge of geography and transportation routes, that influenced pioneers in US-Pacific 19th Century history, and NOW, THEREFORE, in 2019, BE IT RESOLVED, I, ________ Mayor of ________, hereby adopt this resolution to implement the USA PROUD Learning of our town and county founding in California schools, by “Celebrating Feb. 18-March 3 California’s Founding for Teaching Excellence” And furthermore, our students now will open the Pacific door for inquiry of their community history, sailing like Magellan 500 years ago to navigate the around-the-horn, searching the golden sunset for Asia to circumvent the globe, all these stories which they are locally bound to with pride to teach this land’s native people, pioneers and California Dreamers. Contra Costa County Board of Education Resolution No. 02-17/18 Commemorate the Historical Milestone of the gTH Grade History Social Science Standards to include Pacific Maritime Routes for Teaching Excellence in all California Schools WHEREAS, the early settlement and development of California was deeply influenced by the immigrants and goods that came to the state by way of the maritime transportation routes by sailing around the Cape Horn of South America, via the Isthmus of Panama, as well as through the more commonly used routes of transcontinental migration; and WHEREAS, the Pacific Maritime routes are an essential educational component of the state's interpretive history; and WHEREAS, the recognition of the Pacific Maritime routes in relation to the state's history will result in a more comprehensive global understanding of the economic impact and cultural settlement role of maritime trade routes; and WHEREAS, scholars and agencies are encouraged to collaborate in their research in order to develop a fair and complete official state historical policy, including the geographical and historic influences, of our historic seafaring population; and WHEREAS, Californians benefit from the development of a complete California story based on geography, climate, botany, transportation, and human settlement and migration; and WHEREAS, the role of Pacific Maritime transportation in the history of California is conveyed by the images contained in the State Seal of California; and WHEREAS, in 2006, the California Senate passed Senate Resolution 33 Relative to Pacific Maritime Routes, introduced by State Senator Carol Migden, for the need to teach the Around the Hom Maritime Routes influence on the early settlement of California; and WHEREAS, in July 2016, the California State Board of Education adopted the History-Social Science framework, including the standards of Around the Horn maritime route and President Polk, for instruction in 8th grade; and WHEREAS, Resolution 33 encouraged recognition of the significant role Maritime Transportation Routes played in the history and development of California, the diverse populations and the patterns of settlement which all played a key role in the cultural and economic history of California; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Board of Education hereby recognizes this historic milestone of the 8th Grade History Social Science Standards to include Pacific Maritime Routes for Teaching Excellence in all California Schools and adopt this resolution to celebrate our heritage of innovation in education and inspire Contra Costa County school districts, teachers and students with the 19th Century perspective of US History. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of September, 2017 at the regular meeting of the Contra Costa County Board of Education. Ayes: <s Noes: C2J' Abstain: (Zf Absent O Signed: 1 Carnahan, David From:Priya Sent:Saturday, February 9, 2019 9:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Summer Internship Hello,    My name is Priya   and I am a junior in high school. In the past two years or so, I have become interested in  pursuing law and now, I am an attorney on my school's mock trial team. I wanted to have more exposure to law and  politics, as the decision making process for things that benefit the city intrigue me.     Although I will only be 17 this summer, I was wondering if I could secure an internship with you? I'm willing to do  anything, whether it be filing papers or writing summaries ‐ I am eager to have the experience.    Sincerely,  Priya   1 Carnahan, David From:Marianna Grossman <marianna.grossman@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 8:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:thank you for reconsidering the downtown garage Dear Honorable Council Members,    Thank you for reconsidering the downtown garage project. I believe that there are better ways to spend those funds to  help people switch out of solo vehicles. I appreciate your acting in alignment with your values and with the City's  commitment to ambitious greenhouse gas reduction and congestion limitation goals.    best regards,  Marianna      ‐‐   Marianna Grossman  former 26 year Palo Alto Resident, current Mountain View Resident  marianna.grossman@gmail.com  650‐520‐7003 mobile  1 Carnahan, David From:Jeralyn Moran <jeralyn.moran@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 10:43 AM To:Council, City Subject:Thank You from the UU Church of Palo Alto Attachments:UUCPA to PACityCouncil 11Feb2019.pdf please see attached -   ‐‐     jeralyn.moran@gmail.com    ..... the Time for Climate Action Is Now.  Palo Alto City Council Office of the City Clerk Palo Alto City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto Green Sanctuary Committee 505 East Charleston Road Palo Alto, CA 94306 February 11, 2019 RE: City Council Priority, Climate Change & 2 Recommendations Dear Good People on Palo Alto's City Council, The Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto, Green Sanctuary Committee is writing with thanks for City Council selecting Climate Change as a 2019 priority. In support, we offer two recommendations addressing transportation and natural gas. The first, transportation is a short-term simple action and the second is a natural gas taskforce. 1) Transportation and Electric Vehicles (EV). Have the city send a letter to our Congresswoman and Senators asking to reform the Internal Revenue Code Section 30D and bring back the $7,500 EV tax credit. More details here: https: I I www. evdrivecoal it ion. com I get-involved I 2) Natural Gas. The City (and Utility} are encouraged to create an internal/ external taskforce to reduce with the goal of ending our natural gas use. Based on our analysis, we see three key components: a) Only electric for new construction; b) A gas fee/ rebate program for existing structures to accelerate electrification; and c) An end date for our gas distribution system beginning with the residential sector. We look forward to working with the City Coundl and again, t hank you all for making Climate Change a 2019 priority. Sincerely, . "'7.2... ..,$... ~~ " Justine Burt UUCPA Green Sanctuary Co-Chair ti::~. UUCPA Green Sanctuary Co-Chair 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 2:02 PM To:Council, City Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC; CAC-TACC Subject:The 06-06-12 survey about user-financed FTTP Council members, On 06-06-12, the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) considered a staff report about a whether it was feasible to deploy a municipal FTTP network that would be paid for in part by charging users a substantial initial connect fee. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30112 Part of the staff report (pp. 1-49) describes a survey (actually done the previous year by RKS Research & Consulting) in which 401 homeowners were asked questions about this idea. The staff report provides some aggregations of the response data, but does not provide the text of the questions asked. On 02-06-19, I received from staff a document that has the text of all of the survey questions. (Thanks to Council Member Tanaka for requesting it.) Below the "######" line is a plain-text version of that document. I have added my comments (paragraphs beginning with "###".) I also asked whether I could look at each of the 401 responses, to see if I could spot meaningful correlations. But staff thinks that information may have been lost forever. Too bad. In general: * The survey talks about "extending" the City's dark fiber network into residential neighborhoods in order to provide FTTP services. I think that's a misrepresentation. The fiber infrastructure that's needed to provide FTTP services has to "pass" premises. That is, it has to be designed to make it possible to connect cost-effectively to each premises it "passes." None of the City's dark fiber network is designed that way. * The survey doesn't mention any specific speeds, and it doesn't mention that the download and upload speeds could in theory be different. The staff report mentions (p. 2) that the service would be a minimum of 100 Mbps, symmetrical. I assume this means that the City would offer a service that was at least 100 Mbps symmetrical, but it might also offer alternative services that were slower. On 02-10-10 (or so), Google Fiber announced its intention to offer a 1-Gbps symmetrical residential service for $70 per month. https://www.technorms.com/59132/google-fiber-101 I don't know why the staff report didn't choose to adopt that speed goal. * The survey doesn't mention "open access," but the staff report (p.2) says that's what the City's user-financed network would offer. This survey is starting to show its age. If the City decides to do another survey about citywide municipal FTTP, I hope the Citizens Advisory Committee on FTTP will be given an opportunity to debug it first. And I hope staff is careful not to lose the data. Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- 2 ############################################################################# === 1 ============================================================================== FALL 2011 CPAU FIBER TO PREMISE STUDY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER SURVEY RKS RESEARCH & CONSULTING 12 Main Street, Suite 279 Brewster, NY 10509 Study No. 3807 October/November, 2011 Sample Size = 400 ### The staff report says there were 401 interviews. Final (Revised 10/17/11 FOR RKS OFFICE USE ONLY – DO NOT FILL IN QUEST. NO. _________________ [1/01-1/04] 1/5-1/6 = 01 1/7-1/12 = 3807 INTERVIEWER’S NAME _______ ______________________ DATE OF INTERVIEW _______ ______________________ GENDER Male _____________________-1 Female _____________________-2 TIME START AM ______________________ PM ______________________ ASK FOR PERSON ON SAMPLE LIST. ### How was the "sample list" generated? Was it supposed to be a list of only homeowners? Apparently it's assumed that renters would not be willing to pay a substantial connect fee to be connected to FTTP. ### What happened if someone answered the phone but it was not the person specified on the sample list? Hello, my name is _____________________. I am calling from RKS Research on behalf of the CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES. We are not selling anything. Palo Alto Utilities is exploring residents’ interest in broadband services it could offer homeowners like you, and they would like your honest opinion about your interest in and expectations from the service. The survey should take no longer than about 12 minutes to complete, and the information you provide will be completely confidential. ### What does "completely confidential" mean here? That the interviewee's name, address, and phone number won't be revealed to the public, but that the interviewee's answers can be revealed to the public? S-a). First, do you currently own or rent your home here in Palo Alto? Own Home -1 (CONTINUE) Rent Home -2 (THANK AND TERMINATE) ### How many people said they were renters? (Volunteered) Not sure -8 (THANK AND TERMINATE) ### How many people said they weren't sure whether they were homeowners or renters? NOTE: If customer refuses to participate, thank them for their time. If customer asks not to be called again about the 3 survey, record name, address and all other information and put person on the “DO NOT CALL LIST.” Send customer's name and all pertinent information to RKS’ operations center. ### How many people refused to participate? INTEREST IN A NEW FIBER/BROADBAND SERVICE I-1. Are you aware that the City currently owns and operates a fiber optic network that, for a cost, could be extended to residential neighborhoods? Yes -1 ### 55% (p. 4) No -2 (Volunteered) Don’t know -8 ### In this case, what's the difference between "No" and "Don't know"? === 2 ============================================================================== I-2a. A fiber connection to the home is capable of delivering internet speeds much faster than speeds available from other internet service providers. Should the City of Palo Alto seriously consider extending its fiber network into residential neighborhoods? Yes -1 ### 76% (p. 4) (p. 14) No -2 ### 12% (p. 14) (Volunteered) Don’t know -8 ### 12% (p. 14) I-2b And if you knew that investing in a fiber connection to your home would be likely to increase the value of your property, would you be more likely to support the City of Palo Alto extending the fiber network Yes -1 (CONTINUE) ### 67% (p. 14) No -2 (SKIP TO I-7) ### 21% (p. 14) (Volunteered) Don’t know -8 (CONTINUE) ### 12% (p. 14) ### The staff report (p. 14) says the question was "support if increased home value?" But that's not the same question! ### If an interviewee were trying to say, "I support municipal FTTP, whether or not it raises property values," would he/she be tempted to say "No" here? ### What's the rationale for skipping to question I-7 if the interviewee answers "No"? ### It would be interesting to look at the data for 1-2a and 1-2b in more detail. How many people said "Yes" to 1-2a but "No" to 1-2b? How many people said "Don't know" to 1-2a and "Yes" to 1-2b? Etc. ### The staff report (p. 17) seems to say that if you consider all interviewees, then 30% said "Yes," 40% said "No," and 30% said "Don't know." But if you consider only the interviewees that said "Yes" to question I-3, then 67% said "Yes," 21% said "No," and 12% said "Don't know." So page 14 and page 17 say different things. If the staff report had reported the results in terms of number of people, not percentages, this might have been clearer. I-3. (IF “YES/DON’T KNOW") Would you still support this option if you knew the cost to extend the fiber network into all residential neighborhoods would be between $40 and $60 million? Yes -1 ### 38% (p. 4) No -2 ### 24% (p.17) (Volunteered) Don’t know -8 ### 38% (p. 4) ### This is a push-poll question, designed to dampen enthusiasm. It shouldn't be the interviewee's job to figure out whether user-financed FTTP is feasible, especially without being given more information. This question implicitly tempts the interviewee to compare the $40 to $60 million for FTTP with, say, the cost for a community center or public safety building. But there's really no comparison. The premise of this user-financed FTTP idea is that if it's feasible, then it will end up costing the City nothing, because users will pay for it. 4 (DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE) To pay for extending the existing fiber network to residential neighborhoods, the City of Palo Alto would ask homeowners who are interested in the service to voluntarily invest in fiber to their home by paying a one-time charge to finance the cost of installation, and then paying a recurring monthly charge for high-speed Internet access. ### Does this mean that the interviewer doesn't tell the interviewee about the description of the service until AFTER the interviewee answers question 1-3? I-4a. The one-time installation charge could be as much as $3,000 per household, ### Question I-5 subsequently asks about a one-time "investment" that could be $4,000 or more. And the staff report (e.g., p. 7) talks about installation charges as high as $5,000. and the fee for Internet access may range from $99 to $199 per month, ### The staff report (p. 4, p. 22) says it could be from $50 to $250 per month. depending on your Internet connection speed. Based on these cost estimates for installation and ongoing charges, would you support the City of Palo Alto extending the existing fiber network to residential neighborhoods? Yes -1 ### 23% (p. 4) No -2 ### 69% (p. 4) (Volunteered) Don’t know -8 ### 9% (p. 4) ### Why is this question worded as being about "supporting" the City? Why not just ask the interviewee, would you be likely to sign up for this service? (What kind of "support" is the question asking for?) I-4b. And would you be willing to consider investing in the City of Palo Alto extending the existing fiber network to your neighborhoods? Yes -1 ### 14% (p. 4) ? No -2 ### 87% (p. 4) ? (Volunteered) Don’t know -8 ### What kind of "investment" is the question asking for? ### I'm not sure I'm understanding what the staff report (p. 4) is saying. How many people were asked question I- 4b? How many said "Yes"? How many said "No"? How many said "Don't know"? === 3 ============================================================================== I-5. I will read some possible cost levels for the one-time investment. Please tell me the maximum amount you would be willing to pay as a one-time investment to have the City of Palo Alto extend its fiber optic connection to your home? Is it: a. From $1,000 to under $2,000 -1 (ASK I-6) ### 35% (p. 25) b. From $2,000 to under $3,000 -2 (ASK I-6) ### 8% (p. 25) c. From $3,000 to under $4,000 -3 (ASK I-6) ### 3% (p. 25) d. $4,000 or more -4 (ASK I-6) ### 1% (p. 25) e. (VOLUNTEERED) Less than $1,000 -5 (ASK I-6) ### 29% (p. 25) f. (VOLUNTEERED) No Interest/Don’t Want -6 (SKIP TO C1) ### 17% (p. 25) g. (VOLUNTEERED) Not Sure -8 (ASK I-6) ### 7% (p. 25) I-6. If the option to pay the fiber installation charge in installment payments such as $25 per month for the next 10 years were available, ### If the interest rate were zero, this would be $25 x 12 x 10 = $3,000. If the interest rate were 5%, the payment would have to be $31.82 to get to $3,000 in 10 years. https://www.mortgagecalculator.org/ Ammon, ID, has a 20-year financing option which is said to cost less than $17 per month 5 http://www.bbcmag.com/2018mags/May_June/BBC_May18_AmmonModel.pdf for an assessment of $2,955.40. would you be more likely to support the City of Palo Alto extending the existing fiber network to your neighborhood? Yes -1 ### 69% No -2 (Volunteered) Don’t know -8 ### This is a lost opportunity. The question could have been asked with the same detail as question I-5. I-7. (ASK EVERYONE) ### What about the people who answered "No interest" to question I-5? They should have skipped this question. In order to extend the existing fiber network a certain minimum number of households in your neighborhood must commit to paying the one-time installation cost. In your opinion how many homeowners in your neighborhood would pay the one- time cost – most, some, a few or hardly any? Most -1 ### 10% (p. 28) Some -2 ### 27% (p. 28) A few -3 ### 26% (p. 28) Hardly any -4 ### 15% (p. 28) (Volunteered) None -5 (Volunteered) Don’t know -8 ### It's not reasonable to expect the interviewee to know what his/her neighbors would be likely to do. ### The staff report didn't say how many people said "None" or "Don't know." BROADBAND COMPETITION C-1. (ASK EVERYONE) In your opinion should the City of Palo Alto extend the existing fiber network to residential neighborhoods to provide broadband services that compete with AT&T, Comcast and other providers? Yes -1 ### 61% No -2 ### 21% (Volunteered) Don’t know -8 ### 12% ### This seems to be another push-poll question. It asks the interviewee to second-guess his/her response to question 1-2a. === 4 ============================================================================== C-2. How much per month is the most you would be willing to pay for a fiber connection to your home? $ per month -1 (Volunteered) Not Sure -2 (Volunteered) Refused -8 ### The staff report (p. 32) says 32% are willing to pay $50 or less, 32% are willing to pay between $50 and $100, 20% are willing to pay $100 or more, and 17% are not sure or refuse to answer. The staff report also reports the percentages for these categories for people who said "Yes" to question 1-4b, and for people who said "No" to question 1-4b. Was this data aggregated from question C-2? Who decided on the categories ($0-$50, $50-$100, $100-up)? I'd like to see the raw data. ### There's no information here about how fast the interviewee wanted the service to be. BROADBAND/INTERNET BACKGROUND 6 BG-1a. Through what company do you currently access the internet? AT&T -1 (CONTINUE) ### 49% (p. 33) Comcast -2 (CONTINUE) ### 37% (p. 33) DirectTV, DISH, Satellite -3 (CONTINUE) Mobile or Fixed Wireless -4 (CONTINUE) Other (SPECIFY) ________ -5 (CONTINUE) (VOL) No Internet Access -6 (SKIP TO D-1) ### 6% (p. 33) (VOL) Not Sure -8 (CONTINUE) ### 2% (p. 33) ### The staff report (p. 33) says "Other" was 8%, but in this case, I guess it includes DirectTV, DISH, Satellite and Mobile or Fixed Wireless. Note that 49+37+6+2+8 = 102%. ### The staff report (p. 38) says 366 people did not answer "Not sure" or "No internet access" to this question. But 366/401 = 91% and 49+37+8 = 94%. Whatever. BG-1b. And what other services, if any, does your household obtain from (COMPANY NAMED IN BG-1a)? (MARK ALL THE APPLY). ### Why doesn't question BG-1b want to know about "other" services the interviewee gets from a provider other than his/her internet provider? Cable TV -1 (CONTINUE) Telephone -2 (CONTINUE) Security -3 (CONTINUE) Other (SPECIFY) ________ -5 (CONTINUE) (VOL) No Internet Access -6 (SKIP TO D-1) ### I don't see how to get here. If the interviewee had answered "No Internet Access" to question BG-1a, he/she would have gone to question D-1. (VOL) Not Sure -8 (CONTINUE) ### The staff report (p. 34) says only 282 people were asked this question, of which 165 were AT&T customers and 111 were Comcast customers. (What about the other 6 people?) BG-2. Have you switched internet providers in the past two years? Yes -1 ### 25% No -2 ### 74% (VOLUNTEERED) Don’t recall -8 ### The staff report also provides information about how often AT&T customers and Comcast customers switched. Only 282 people were asked this question. ### The staff report says few customers have switched in the past two years. To me, 25% is not "few." BG-3. (IF “SWITCHED IN “BG-2) What was your primary reason(s) for switching? (READ LIST AND MARK ALL THAT APPLY) Lower cost/Special promotion -1 ### 34% (p. 36) Customer Service Problems -2 ### 7% (p. 36) Quality of Service -3 ### 30% (p. 36) You Moved -4 ### 14% (p. 36) Or, Something Else (SPECIFY) __________ -5 ### 14% (p. 36) (VOL) Not Sure -8 ### The question asks the interviewee to name all that apply, but 34+7+30+14+14 = 99%. Does that mean that all or nearly all people who answered the question had only one reason? ### The staff report (p. 36) says only 110 people answered this question. === 5 ============================================================================== 7 BG-4. Thinking about various aspects of your current internet service provider, if 0 means “very dissatisfied” and 10 means “very satisfied” what number best represents your level of satisfaction with…..(READ FOR FOR EACH ITEM ON LIST) ROTATE Rating 0-10 (Volunteered) Not sure ### Did the interviewer keep track of how the items were rotated, for each interviewee? a. Quality of the service - -88 ### 6.9 b. Service Reliability - -88 ### 7.3 c. Price - -88 ### 6.5 d. Options for bundling Internet broadband, telephone & cable TV - -88 ### 6.2 e. Offering the latest technology - -88 ### 6.2 f. Overall responsiveness to customer service and billing - -88 ### 6.5 g. Overall value for what you pay - -88 ### 6.6 ### The staff report (p. 38) has some stuff. DEMOGRAPHICS Now I have just a few questions that we use only for classification purposes and statistical analyses. D-1. Which of the following categories best describes your current lifestyle? (READ LIST. CHECK ALL THAT APPLY. MULTIPLE RESPONSES PERMITTED.) Yes No (Volunteered) Not sure a. (ASK EVERYONE) Retired -1 -2 -8 ### 35% (p. 41) b. (ASK IF ‘Not retired’) Employed full or part time -1 -2 -8 ### 60% (p. 41) c. (ASK EVERYONE) Full or part time student -1 -2 -8 ### 1% (p. 41) ### 35+60+1 = 96%. Why so low, especially since multiple responses are permitted? D2. I will read a range of ages. Please stop me when I reach yours. Are you between (READ LIST): 18-24 -1 ### 25-34 -2 ### 35-44 -3 ### 18% (p. 42) 45-54 -4 ### 20% (p. 42) 55-64 -5 ### 17% (p. 42) 65-74 -6 ### 75 plus -7 ### (Volunteered) Refused -9 ### 6% (p. 42) ### The staff report (p. 42) said "under 34" was 4% and "65+" was 34%. D-3. I will read a list of broad income categories; please stop me when I reach the category that best describes your expected total household income before taxes for the full year 2011: (READ LIST) Under $50,000 -01 ### 6% $50,000-100,000 -02 ### 14% $100,000-200,000 -03 ### 26% $Over $200,000 -04 ### 23% (Volunteered) Not sure -88 (Volunteered) Refused -99 ### The staff report (p. 43) said "not sure" plus "refused" was 31%. D4. Time End: _______________________AM / PM D5: ZIP CODE 8 RESPONDENT'S NAME:________________________________________________________________ ADDRESS:___________________________________________________________________________ CITY/TOWN:____________________________________ STATE: ZIP:____________________ TELEPHONE NUMBER:________________________________________________________________ I HAVE OBTAINED THIS INTERVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH MY AGREEMENT WITH RKS RESEARCH & CONSULTING, AND GUARANTEE THAT THIS IS A BONA FIDE INTERVIEW INTERVIEWER'S SIGNATURE: ___________________________________ DATE: __________ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:____________________________________________________________________ VALIDATED BY: __________________________________________________________________________ DATE OF VALIDATION: ___________________________________________________________________ ============================================================================== 1 Carnahan, David From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 10:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:the vintage slide show Councilmember Kniss,    I'm watching tonight's Council meeting online and you have synthesized the appeals to keep the cap to be about  "resistance to change"? Headline ‐ Palo Altans get schooled on change and are shown how the City went from trolleys to  cars.    I don't know how this motion will go but I hope the substance of the appeals about process will be considered. It's not  about resistance to change. I  for one would like to see more study and analysis to see how the City is managing change.    Jennifer               1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, February 7, 2019 5:25 PM To:Council, City Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC; CAC-TACC Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- How America's internet connectivity issues are holding the country back -- interview with Susan Crawford Council members, This article: 01-31-19: "How America’s internet connectivity issues are holding the country back" https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/31/18203591/internet-connectivity-susan-crawford-harvard-law-america-infrastructure- broadband-huawei-vergecast?mc_cid=b7e887cdb1&mc_eid=99443c82f8 includes an audio of an interview with Susan Crawford, which I have transcribed. Please see below the "######" line. (My comments are paragraphs beginning with "###".) I hope it will motivate you to read her new book, "Fiber: The Coming Tech Revolution -- and Why America Might Miss It." Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- ############################################################################### 00:00: NP: Here on this Vergecast, on this week's episode, we have Susan Crawford, who's a professor at the Harvard Law School. She lives here in New York. She's written a ton of books. I actually interviewed her years ago about net neutrality. She's a big proponent of net neutrality. But she's got a new book out. It's called "Fiber: The Coming Tech Revolution -- and Why America Might Miss It." As you might have surmised from the title, it's a book about why we need better fiber network deployment here in the United States. She's just traveled all around the world. She looked at a bunch of countries, in Europe, in Asia. But they have vastly better internet service than we do. And one of the reasons is, they have vastly better fiber networks. We talked all about how those fiber networks are deployed. About the nature of the companies, and the policies that lead to those deployments. About -- this is true -- about the REPUBLICAN communities all across the country that are building their own fiber networks, because they're just not getting serviced by the big carriers. It's a fascinating turnabout. It's exactly not what you would expect. We talked about all of that. We talked about Huawei, and the fact that rural carriers really need Huawei's cheap equipment to build out 5G. We also talked about 5G, and what it could mean -- for big carriers controlling all the devices in our lives. Just a wide-ranging conversation about the present and future of our broadband networks, here in America and around the world. A super- interesting conversation. She is so smart. It's so much fun to talk to her. Check it out. 01:23: NP: OK, we're here with Susan Crawford, who's just written a new book called "Fiber: The Coming Tech Revolution -- and Why America Might Miss It." An optimistic title to start 2019. Why write a book about fiber at this point in time? 2 01:35: SC: Well, Americans, by and large, don't travel a lot. But I've been privileged to go to South Korea, and Japan, and Sweden, and all kinds -- and China. And noticed that what's going on in those countries is that they just take ubiquitous, really cheap, basically unlimited connectivity for granted. And I began to dig into that and find out why that is. And why, in the United States, we're ALWAYS thinking about how expensive it is. And it feels like a huge rent that everybody's paying. And if feels like a luxury. So, I investigated the story. It turns out that the United States is due for a massive upgrade ... 02:11: NP: Um hum. 02:11: SC: ... to fiber optic connections between -- it's called the "last mile" -- between nodes connecting to the internet and individual homes and businesses. And we have no plan to make that upgrade. And that's because we've got a bunch of companies in the United States for whom the status quo is terrific, ... 02:28: NP: Yeah. 02:28: SC: ... who have no interest in either being subject to competition or oversight. So that's the basic picture. And, right now, you can see the crisis. But we don't have leadership in place that could change the story. 02:42: NP: So, I want to dive into that. But I want to rewind, just a little bit. The last time I talked to you, I think, was, like, 2007ish. 02:49: SC: Um hum. 02:49: NP: It was the height of the net neutrality battle. You had just written a book about Comcast and NBC. I remember you very distinctly saying, Comcast should be very happy that I've written this book. Because it makes a great case for their business. Because your entire approach was that they had become a monopoly, and they were vertically integrating content. And you're saying, OK, it's 10-12 years later. That business is great. And they actually don't need to invest anymore. 03:12: SC: In fact, their capital expenditure is down, from years in the past. They've spend their money. They just going to sort of soak their network, and try to increase the number of premium services that they're charging for. They have NO incentive to expand their lines. And they have no incentive to do this upgrade to fiber. So, what's happening is that they're able to pick off very rich areas and cities. And then leave behind poor people in those cities. And completely leave behind rural areas. And so, we're suffering in this country from a number of intense digital divides. One is between rural and urban. That's pretty well documented. The other -- also well-known -- is between poorer people and richer people in America. 03:53: NP: Um hum. 03:53: 3 SC: And most scary of all, really, in this era of climate change and everything else going on around the world, is that our relevance as a nation is under threat. Because we've failed to take on this issue with leadership, and vehemence, and vigor. We just haven't done it. 04:08: NP: So, if you look around the industry right now, every telecom company is trying, in fits and starts, to become a content company. 04:15: SC: Yeah. 04:15: NP: Right? So, AT&T buys Time-Warner. It's Comcast-NBC on a massive scale. I have to mention, by the way, Comcast is an investor in Vox Media, which owns what we do here. But they don't love me. So it's not a big problem. 04:27: SC: Um hum. 04:27: NP I assure you, they're not the biggest fans of me. But they own Vox Media. So if you're listening to this, it has been disclosed. 04:32: SC: Oh, and, by the way, I have no clients or consulting arrangements. Just to make that clear, as well. 04:36: NP: See? You're cleaner than me. 04:38: [laugher] 04:49: NP: But my point is, that deal -- years ago, you wrote about it, and said this is a harbinger of things to come. We now live in a world where those things have come to pass at massive scale. 04:47: SC: That's right. 04:48: NP: But there are some failures here. Just to challenge you on that. So, Verizon tried to become a content company. DISASTEROUSLY failed in a number of ways. T-Mobile bought a TV company called Layer 3. That doesn't seem to have rolled out. And some partnership to do all their silly streaming thing on top of it, that doesn't seem like it's going to go anywhere. It's not like Sprint is doing it. It's not like Charter and Spectrum are doing it. Why is it these big ones are succeeding this way, and it's not happening as pervasively across? That's usually the pushback I get, is, you're talking about Comcast, AT&T, which are their own companies, but these other companies aren't doing that thing. 05:21: SC: Look, the most important part of this story is actually the access network part. 4 05:25: NP: Um hum. 05:25: SC: And so, look hard at what Verizon is up to. They have stepped back from wireline ... 05:30: NP: Um hum. 05:30: SC: ... investment. Because their plan is for 5G to be a completely integrated and utterly controlled ... 05:38: NP: Yeah. 05:38: SC: ... provider of very high premium wireless -- fixed wireless services. And they'll be able to pick and choose which services survive on their platform. That's the whole point of 5G. All those internet protocols that we fell in love with -- they don't function in the world of 5G. This is a completely ad-hoc control thing from Verizon. It will allow them to sell smart city services, ... 06:00: NP: Um hum. 06:00: SC: ... which are high premium. They'll get a lot of money from that. In metro areas. And it will allow them to pick off some wealthy people who would like their high-speed internet access connection, in cities. So, in fact, Verizon DOES have a plan, which is to stay with wireless, to really become a powerhouse in 5G, in metro areas. And to, in that way, make more money from their existing assets. 06:28: NP: Right. And that's a huge push. 06:30: SC: Yeah. 06:31: NP: I mean the amount of 5G ... 06:32: SC: Hype. 06:32: NP: ... hype that exists in this world ... 06:35: SC: Um hum. 5 06:35: NP: I described it yesterday, in a talk I gave, as a fake idea, that everyone can put their own emotions on. Like an ink blot test. 06:41: SC: Absolutely. 06:41: NP: This is a roomful of marketers that I was talking to. And they all just sort of nodded approvingly. Right? 06:45: SC: Um hum. 06:45: NP: Like, yes, we can. But you're saying that 5G protocol is going to be built atop the internet infrastructure we have now, and allow for more sort of service discrimination to occur. 06:55: SC: Oh, absolutely. That's the point. 06:56: NP: Yeah. 06:56: SC: In fact, I saw a presentation in South Korea, where Korea Telecom actually had on their slide "market domination." That they're sick of being commoditized as the dumb pipe. They have other people making money from THEIR infrastructure. 07:10: NP: Yeah. 07:10: SC: And 5G allows for that control. 07:12: NP: Are we just back in the cycle? I feel like ... 07:14: SC: We're doing it over and over and over again. 07:16: NP: Right. You know, AT&T saying they're not going to use our pipes for free. And now we have ... 07:18: SC: Right. Exactly. 6 07:18: NP: ... Korea Telecom saying we're not a dumb pipe. 07:21: SC: Exactly. 07:21: NP: So, we're just back at the start. 07:23: SC: And we always have choices. 07:25: NP: Yeah. 07:25: SC: We could say, let's have -- and let's go all the way back down to the ground. Let's have really great glass in the ground. ### I'm sure Crawford knows that fiber on poles works just as well. Maybe it's because "glass in the ground" sounds a little like "boots on the ground." That's the fiber optic connection. 07:33: NP: Um hum. 07:33: SC: That's just blank. Dark fiber. But reaching -- having interconnections into every home and business. ### I don't think dark fiber is the best way to bring competitive ISPs to premises. In any case, Crawford is not talking about the kind of dark fiber Palo Alto currently has. She means dark fiber that "passes" premises, so that each premises could connect inexpensively. 07:39: NP: Yeah. 07:39: SC: And then you'll be able to choose, from a host of wireline providers. AND, by the way, a host of 5G providers. And it's that pressure -- of having great infrastructure open, that is DELIBERATELY non-discriminatory 07:53: NP: Um hum. 07:53: SC: And allows for a lot of retail competition, that's going to change the picture. We just haven't made that step. 07:57: 7 NP: We haven't made it as a set of policy decisions. 07:59: SC: Right. This is all about policy. And we are in a vacuum of policy, at this point. 08:03: NP: So, to characterize sort of where the United States is, versus Europe. 08:08: SC: Right. 08:08: NP: Europe, historically, has had fiber in the ground, lots of retail competition, ... 08:12: SC: WELL, actually, Europe is heterogeneous. It depends where you are. So, Northern Europe, I'd say -- the Scandinavian countries -- are much better at this than Southern Europe. 08:23: NP: Um hum. 08:23: SC: And, actually, in Germany, Deutsche Telecom has ENORMOUS power. 08:27: NP: Yeah. 08:27: SC: And NO incentive to upgrade to fiber. They're doing -- They're replicating our story in Germany. So -- And in Britain, actually, they -- it looks like they have regulatory oversight. But, in fact, British Telecom gets to choose where that -- structural separation, it's called -- takes place ... 08:43: NP: Um hum. 08:43: SC: ... and other competition will actually exist. And they're seeing a huge rise in cable in England as well. So, it's not one thing. It really matters what country you're in, whether they've made the sensible choices that will allow then the ubiquitous, cheap access. Now, the country that we really should be focusing on is China. 09:01: NP: Um hum. 09:01: SC: After I wrote this most recent book, "Fiber," China is saying, 80 percent of their homes and businesses are going to be connected to fiber. They're planning to be the next big market. The next place where great things come from. By the way, that market -- through Huawei -- will extend to a lot of developing countries. 8 09:20: NP: Um hum. 09:20: SC: So, their internet -- their market -- will be circling the globe. And the United States has no response to that. In league with its usual companions. So, it is an astonishing moment in telecommunications. 09:23: NP: You brought up Huawei. 09:34: SC: Yeah. 09:34: NP: Huawei is in the news all over the place right now. Obviously, their CFO was just indicted. And there's some talk about extradition from Canada to the United States. 09:42: SC: Yeah. 09:42: NP: A controversial company. Inside of this company, to say the least. 09:45: SC: Inside this country. Isn't it interesting that you said "company" instead of "country." 09:48: NP: Yeah. 09:49: SC: It happens all the time. 09:50: NP: I met with the sort of chief comms officer of Huawei, and she was insistent -- it was actually remarkable how insistent they were -- that they were not -- they were separate from the Chinese government. 10:01: SC: Right. But even when you refer to OUR country, you slipped and called it a company. ### This happened at 32:52. (So the audio is not in the same order that it was recorded in.) 10:07: NP: **. 10:07: SC: That's the point that I'm trying to point out. That we've forgotten that there's a real line between public and private. 9 10:13: NP: Yeah. 10:13: SC: And the public sector has a very important role in crafting policy that serves everybody. In the Depression, we began to understand that the private companies, left to their own devices, ... 10:25: NP: Um hum. 10:25: SC: ... are not necessarily going to serve public good. We've forgotten that these days. And that's why we're in this state, when it comes to telecom -- and many other issues in America. But back to Huawei. 10:36: NP: Yeah. 10:36: SC: They are, of course, closely tied to the Chinese government. Enormous investment in their research and development was made by the Chinese government. And this is part of the Chinese 25-year plan. To connect to all the ports ... 10:49: NP: Um hum. 10:49: SC: ... that they need to move their goods, using Huawei communications networks, to provide telecom, using Huawei gear. This is not just for surveillance. It's also for economic growth and market power. Again, because this perfect control will be possible. Not just knowing what's happening on your network, but who's allowed to use it for which services. 11:11: NP: Yeah. 11:11: SC: That allows the Chinese government to create its own global power house, based on telecom infrastructure. 11:17: NP: So, we ran a story, yesterday, on The Verge. We went out and talked with a bunch of rural broadband providers ... 11:23: SC: Um hum. 11:23: NP: ... who are VERY excited about 5G. 'Cause, in their mind, it gives them the opportunity to not have to run cables to these customers in far-off places. They can just beam wireless to them at high speeds. 11:34: 10 SC: Um hum. 11:34: NP: And they're saying, well, this Huawei thing is crushing us. 11:36: SC: Hmm. 11:36: NP: Because they're the cheapest provider of this equipment. And so, now, our costs are now going to skyrocket. 11:41: SC: Right. The choice here is between profits and patriotism. 11:44: NP: Um hum. 11:44: SC: It really is. Because that gear is 20 to 30 percent cheaper, because of the weight of surveillance and market control it carries with it. And you would have to resist that, and say, well, actually, in America, we want to have a free flow of information. We want to be able to let anybody with a good idea launch a new service. 12:07: NP: Um hum. 12:07: SC: Those are our values. 12:08: NP: Those are near and dear to ** ... 12:09: SC: These are our values as Americans. And to put profit as the only value that anybody counts is tremendously corrosive and destructive. So, I don't fault the rural carriers for wanting a better deal. It's just that it actually IS too good to be true. It's not gear that should be in their networks. 12:28: NP: Should consumers be asking their carriers, hey, do you use Huawei equipment? Is that like -- Is that a market signal that will be taken? 12:36: SC: They should be. But because they're unlikely to, that's why it's the role of government. To say something about this. 12:41: NP: Yeah. So, our government, right now, is in a state of -- I would say -- turmoil. 12:46: 1 Carnahan, David From:Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, February 11, 2019 4:42 PM To:Council, City Cc:Arthur Keller; Neilson Buchanan; John Guislin; Paul & Karen Machado; David Schrom; Carol Scott; Christian Pease Subject:University Ave Commercial Core issues Dear City Council,    We ask you to expedite the Downtown Coordinated area plan and keep the downtown development cap in place ‐  actually reducing commercial development would be the right thing to do.    Currently many areas of Palo Alto are struggling with traffic and parking. I thought we need affordable housing. Why do  you intend to exacerbate the situation with commercial growth?    We ask you to not build another downtown garage. There are several downtown garage buildings that are most of the  time only partially filled. Why building another garage? California Ave had no garage building and we decided that it  would be the best to catch up to the current demand of small businesses to get a dedicated garage building on California  Ave. But this does not mean that we keep on building garages without first thinking about the consequences ‐ neither  around Cal Ave, nor downtown nor anywhere else. In the end, you have to address the root cause for this "parking  demand" ‐ which are big commercial developments (and neither small businesses nor residents). Stop building new  commercial developments downtown or on Cal Ave and get big businesses out of the town centers to the periphery of  town. This is the only way to get a handle on parking and the ever increasing traffic that logs already all the main streets  in our town Mon‐Fri.    Thank you    Wolfgang Dueregger  Evergreen Park            1 Carnahan, David From:Alex Stanford <astanford@ajcpt.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 6, 2019 4:45 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Flaherty, Michelle; Stump, Molly; Tim Franzen Subject:Update to Council on Hotel President ARB & Historic Review Submittal Attachments:AJ Capital Statement to Council - 02.06.19.pdf Good Afternoon City Council,    Please see attached update on the Hotel President ARB and Historic Review submittal.      Thanks,    Alex Stanford  AJ Capital Partners  1800 Mission Street  San Francisco, CA 94103  C: 707.481.4801  www.ajcpt.com  www.graduatehotels.com    February 6, 2019 VIA E-MAIL AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL Mayor Filseth City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Hotel President ARB and Historic Review Submittal Update Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council, As you know, AJ Capital and Graduate Hotels are committed to investing millions of dollars to restore the Hotel President to its original historic use, and to make significant seismic, life safety and accessibility upgrades to the building. Since publicly announcing the project last summer AJ Capital has worked with the existing building residents to ensure that adequate time and resources are available to assist with their transition and, to date, final resolution has been reached with all but a few remaining residents. As part of our ongoing efforts to keep you informed, we’d like to share with you that since we are nearing the final stages of the tenant relocation process, we formally submitted the hotel project to the City of Palo Alto on Monday, February 4th for architectural and historic review. For some time now, the historic Hotel President has suffered from a lack of investment and regular maintenance, and as such, has significantly deteriorated over time. The project we submitted involves renovation and restoration of the historic Hotel President including interior improvements such as structural seismic retrofit, fully sprinklered life safety system, ADA upgrades, insertion of hotel lobby in vacant street-level retail spaces, and reconfiguration of guest floors two through six to accommodate 100 guestrooms. Exterior upgrades include restoration of historic roof garden, replacement of non-historic street-level storefronts with historically correct storefronts (copper mullions, tile bases, etc.), and new exterior paint. Not only do we believe that this project legally complies with state and local law but we feel that it provides much needed improvements to one of Palo Alto’s most historic, architecturally significant, and iconic buildings. We look forward to working constructively with you, the City Council, the City Manager’s office and City staff to realize these important improvements to permit the hotel to live on for another hundred years. We are confident that that the property will once again be a much-valued asset to the wonderfully dynamic City of Palo Alto and add to its rich history. We know that the community turns to you, as members of the City Council, for information and guidance regarding Palo Alto’s most prominent projects. Therefore, we want to ensure that we are providing you with timely updates about our work on the Hotel President. Additionally, if you have questions that you would like to ask us directly, please always feel to email, call, or schedule an in-person meeting with myself or a member of our project team. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Timothy G. Franzen President, Graduate Hotels cc. Palo Alto City Council (city.council@cityofpaloalto.org) City Manager Ed Shikada (ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org) Deputy City Manager Michelle Poche Flaherty (michelle.flaherty@cityofpaloalto.org) City Attorney Molly Stump (molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org) [ ] }'laced Before Meeting [ Y' Received at Meeting 1989 -2008 Non -Residential Development within the 1989 Land Use Study Areas Study Area Downtown Urban Lane Midtown East Bayshore Southeast Palo Alto South El Camino Real Central Palo Alto Stanford Research Park/Ecr Sand Hill Road Corridor Existing Square Feet/May 1987 3,313,200 578,100 143,600 1,318,800 3,072,300 1,084,900 1,878,900 9,555,700 3,941,300 24,886,800 *Does not include the 89-90 PAMF Specific Plan **Holiday Inn PC Zone ***VA Hospital (162,540) and 1050 Arastradero Rd (75,980) Development Potential After Citywide Study 350,000 34,400 5,200 93,500 665,000 200,100 -6,200 1,794,100 121,800 3,257,900 Net square feet Increase September 1989 to September 1995 8,723 408 0 294 39,289 12,588 4,865 252,626 127,898 446,691 Net square feet Increase May 1987 to September 1995 OUTSIDE Scope of Citywide Study o• 50,270** 0 0 0 0 0 238,520*** 0 0 Net square feet Increase September 1995 to July 2008 98,335 44,883 917 37,669 -340,997 -187,607 59,463 730,236 424,220 867, 119 Remaining in Growth Monitoring using NI et squaresfeett 1989 (Year Study ncrease ep . . 1989 to Jul 2008 Adopted) morntonng Y start year through Jul} 107,058 45,291 917 37,963 -301,708 -175,019 64,328 982,862 552, 118 1,313,810 2008 242,942 -10,891 4,283 55,537 966,708 375,119 -70,528 811,238 -430,318 1,944,090