HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190311plCC 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: 03/11/2019
Document dates: 02/20/2019 – 02/27/2019
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net>
Sent:Thursday, February 21, 2019 7:32 PM
To:De Geus, Robert; Council, City
Subject:Thank you, Rob DeGeus.
I enjoyed reading Rob DeGeus’ proclamation…and found myself nodding my head at the words, “thoughtful, positive,
warm.” Yes. He is.
It has been a pleasure working with you over the years, Rob. It seems like yesterday when we were introduced just after
you first started at the city. I wish you the very best in your new endeavors.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Gratefully,
Penny Ellson
1
Carnahan, David
From:eswyoung@aol.com
Sent:Saturday, February 16, 2019 12:56 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:sharon.erickson@sanjoseca.gov; sharon.winslow.erickson@gmail.com
Subject:Consent Agenda Item - "RFP to Outsource the Office of the City Auditor"
Dear Mayor Eric Filseth,
I was disappointed to learn that an RFP to outsource the Office of the City Auditor was placed on the "Consent Agenda"
and not presented as a major item for discussion by the full City Council. In my opinion, the RFP proposal is a deliberate
attempt to eliminate the office of the city auditor operations and a subterfuge to amendment the city charter without the
consent or approval of the electorate.
The citizens of Palo Alto specifically established the city auditor position to ensure city operations are transparent and
open, and city employees are accountable and ethical. Placing the RFP on the Consent Agenda while the City Auditor
position is vacant, when no one is able to defend the office, and when no one can oppose placing the RFP on the
Consent Agenda is, in my opinion, an unfair tactic to eliminate a Council appointed position that is sorely needed in
government.
Only the city auditor would dare to test the city information systems, discover the cybersecurity practices are flawed, and
dare to report the system shortcomings. If the city outsources the city auditor operations to contractors who are unfamiliar
with the city operations, I doubt anyone would dare to test, detect, and report such shortcomings, particularly if the results
embarrassed top level executives.
Past city auditor reports, while not warmly received, have repeatedly pointed out ways for the city to improve its programs
and operations and saved significant taxpayer funds. I am therefore opposed to placing the RFP proposal on the
"Consent Agenda". The electorate should fully debate the issue and the discussion should be open and transparent, not
hidden and smuggled through as a consent agenda item.
Sincerely,
Edwin Young
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jones, DavidG <DavidG.Jones@seattle.gov>
Sent:Friday, February 22, 2019 2:24 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Adams-Wannberg, Kristine (Auditors) (Kristine.Adams-Wannberg@portlandoregon.gov)
Subject:Proposal of Evaluation of the Office of City Auditor: Item #8 on City Council Consent Calendar
2/25/19
Attachments:Palo Alto Final Lttr 2_22_19.pdf
Attached is a letter from the Association of Local Government Auditors (ALGA) concerning City Council Consent Calendar
Item #8 for 2/25/19.
Please free to contact me if you have any questions about the attached letter.
Thank for your consideration of our letter.
David G. Jones
City Auditor
City of Seattle - Office of City Auditor
http://www.seattle.gov/cityauditor/
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2410
PO Box 94729
Seattle, WA 98124-4729
(206) 233-1095
PLEASE NOTE : The State of Washington has a very broad public records law. Most written communications to or from City
officials regarding City business are public records available to the public and media upon request. Your E-mail communications may
be subject to public disclosure.
Association of Local Government Auditors
OFFICERS President Kristine Adams-Wannberg Senior Management Auditor Portland, OR
President Elect Pam Weipert Compliance Officer Oakland County, MI
Secretary Chris Horton County Auditor Arlington, VA Treasurer Larry Stafford Audit Services Manager Clark County, WA Past President
Tina Adams Deputy City Auditor Charlotte, NC
BOARD MEMBERS AT LARGE Justin Anderson Senior Management Auditor King County, WA
Andrew Keegan
Assistant City Auditor Austin, TX Van Lee Deputy City Auditor City and County of Honolulu, HI Carolyn Smith Chief Audit Executive Columbus City Schools, OH
MEMBER SERVICES 449 Lewis Hargett Circle
Suite 290 Lexington, KY 40503 Phone: (859) 276-0686 Fax: (859) 278-0507 www.algaonline.org
February 22, 2019
Members of the Palo Alto City Council:
The Association of Local Government Auditors (ALGA) recently learned the Palo
Alto City Council is considering changes to the Office of the City Auditor. Specifically, we learned there is an item on the Council’s February 25, 2019
Consent Calendar to issue a Request for Proposal for an outside firm to evaluate
the office’s organization and resources devoted to it. ALGA is committed to
supporting independent performance auditing within local governments. We are a
professional organization representing over 300 government audit organizations across the United States and Canada.
In making your decisions about the office’s future, we encourage you to preserve
the office’s ability to conduct performance audits and nonaudit services in
accordance with the Government Auditing Standards (GAS) promulgated by the U.S. Comptroller General’s Government Accountability Office (GAO). We note
the City of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code (2.08.130 b) states that the Office of the
City Auditor shall conduct audits and nonaudit services in accordance with GAS.
Adherence to the GAS standards helps ensure the work performed by an audit
office is independent, thorough, objective, and accurate, and enhances the public’s confidence in the audit function. ALGA believes an independent performance
audit function, operating under applicable professional auditing standards, plays a
key role in effective governance and public accountability and transparency.
In making decisions about the Office of the City Auditor’s future, we believe the Council would be best served by consulting with individuals and/or organizations
that are very familiar with performance auditing and GAS. ALGA is willing to
provide information, such as benchmarks with other local government audit
functions, to assist Palo Alto in making decisions about its audit function. It would
also be prudent to appoint an interim City Auditor, and subsequently a permanent City Auditor, who has significant experience in performance auditing under GAS.
We believe the experience with GAS performance audits is more important than
any audit certification, some of which (e.g., CPA and CIA) require no experience
with the theory or practice of GAS performance audits.
If you decide to consider whether to outsource all or part of the audit function, it
would be helpful for you to bear in mind that while outsourcing for audit resources can make sense when specialized skills are required, in-house audit
functions can provide many advantages over outsourcing, including:
• Lower costs per audit hour
• Greater familiarity with internal operations
• Continuity of review and oversight
• Quicker response to requests
An independent audit function also provides assurance to elected officials, residents, and management that resources are protected by strong management controls and practices.
Performance auditors can report on the results and outcomes of programs and services as well as
help ensure compliance with laws, policies, and procedures. In addition to strengthening public
accountability and transparency, performance audits can identify potential financial benefits as
well as ways to improve the effectiveness of programs or make other positive impacts. Performance audits are different from the annual financial audit performed by the organization’s
external financial auditor. The primary purpose of a financial audit is to provide an opinion on
the organization’s financial statements.
Other key elements of an effective audit function are detailed in our publications, Establishing a
Performance Audit Function: Help for Local Government Leaders and Model Legislation Guidelines for Local Government Auditors. Here are some links to other publications on our website that may provide you with additional useful background information to assist you with
your deliberations.
• The Role of Auditing in Public Sector Governance
• Audit Committee Guidance
• Funding the Audit Function: Money Well Spent
• Performance Measures for Audit Organizations We note that the Palo Alto City Charter language about the Office of City Auditor, unlike the
Municipal Code, does not mention performance auditing, which the office has been performing
for over 20 years, and does not mention GAS as the required set of standards for the office. The
Council may wish to consider placing a measure on the ballot that would revise the Charter language to include these important items.
In closing, we respectfully suggest independent performance audits conducted in accordance with
Government Auditing Standards are a good governance best practice. We also suggest that
maintaining an in-house audit function can have many advantages compared to an outsourced alternative. We urge you to proceed cautiously with any plans to alter your audit function and appreciate your consideration of our comments.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions or would like additional resources. You
can reach our lead California committee member, Ann-Marie Hogan, at (510) 883-4078 or amhogan@pacbell.net, or you can contact me at (206) 233-1095 or davidg.jones@seattle.gov.
Sincerely,
David G. Jones Seattle City Auditor
Chair, ALGA Advocacy Committee
Cc: Kristine Wannberg-Adams, ALGA President
1
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 25, 2019 1:12 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:February 25, 2019, Council Meeting, Item #8: City Auditor
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
February 25, 2019
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
FEBRUARY 25, 2019, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #8
CITY AUDITOR
Dear City Council:
I urge you to remove this item from the Consent Calendar and refer it to
the Council Appointed Officers Committee to (1) recommend to the Council
the recruitment and appointment of an Interim Auditor who reports to the
Council as required by the Palo Alto Charter, and (2) consider other
recommendations regarding this Council Appointed Officer position that may
include issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) after a draft RFP is reviewed
by the Committee for the purpose of recommending any amendments to the RFP
draft to the Council.
The Committee’s deliberations should be informed by the legislative
history that led to the creation of the Office of City Auditor when then
City Manager Bill Zaner wanted to remove the independent office of
Controller from the 1950 Charter that established the Council-Manager form
of government for Palo Alto, but the Council on the advice of a report
from a citizen’s committee did not place a measure on the ballot to remove
the independent Controller unless the position was replaced with the
position of City Auditor.
The proposed action on your Consent Calendar violates the Palo Alto
Charter and does not comply with your adopted Procedures for placing items
and the Consent Calendar.
Palo Alto Charter
2
The Charter prohibits combining the positions of City Manager and City
Auditor,
The Charter prohibits combining an office to which the City Manager makes
the appointment with an office that the Council makes the appointment.
This item effectively combines the positions of City Manager and City
Auditor in violation of the Charter, and effectively combines a position
that the Charter permits the City Manager to appoint with a position that
the Charter requires the Council to appoint.
CHARTER OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
Article III. Council
Sec. 20. Assignment of officers' duties.
The council may, by ordinance, assign additional duties and powers to officers, departments, commissions,
and boards provided in this charter, or may reassign functions from one office to another, or may combine in
one office the powers and duties of another office, provided that the offices of city manager and auditor may not
be combined and that an office to which the manager makes the appointment shall not be combined with one to
which the appointment is made by the council.
(Amended by amendment filed with the Secretary of State, December 9, 1983)
City Council Procedures
The most recent City Council Procedures and Protocols Handbook was
approved on February 11, 2013.
The November 13, 2018, staff report (ID #9808) to the Policy and Services
Committee on Page 2 says, “Various changes to the Council Procedures and
Protocols were previously recommended by Policy & Services in Fiscal Year
2015, however the recommended changes were not finally approved by
Council.”
The Action Minutes of the November 13, 2018, Policy and Services Committee
meeting at Page 2 record that the Committee unanimously directed staff “to
finish the previous suggested revisions … and bring the updated document
to Council for discussion, including comments made by the Committee.”
City Council Procedure 2.4.J.4 says “Items Recommended for Approval if the
Committee Unanimously Recommends Placement on the Consent Calendar, Unless
Otherwise Recommended by the Committee, Mayor, or Staff.”
The last action by the Committee on the subject of the City Auditor was
not a unanimous vote.
3
The Council Procedures do not say that any official can place on the
Consent Calendar an item from a Committee if there is not a unanimous
Committee vote.
The exception in the rule is for not placing items on the Consent Calendar
even if they are recommended unanimously by the Committee.
City Council Procedure 2.4.K says, “Any two Council Members may bring
forward a colleague memo on any topic to be considered by the entire
Council.”
The Council Procedures do not say that the City Manager and Mayor can
override the adopted procedure for placing or not placing items on the
Consent Calendar in furtherance of Committee recommendations.
In a City with a directly elected Mayor who is the city’s chief executive
officer such as San Jose, the Mayor as an individual has more authority in
regard to the contents of the city council agenda.
If that is the kind of Mayor you want, then there is always the
opportunity to amend the Charter for that purpose.
But be careful what you wish for. Look what happened to the San Jose City
Manager the last time a new San Jose mayor was elected.
Fiscal Stability, Staffing, and Transparency
Anybody paying attention to City government in recent years should have
noticed that it is the City Auditor’s office that has worked to provide
transparency and has been able to do that because of its independence.
The City Auditor’s office would be improved if all the management and
professional employees in the Auditor’s office were At-Will employees, as
they are in the City Attorney’s office.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sharon Erickson <sharon.winslow.erickson@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 25, 2019 3:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Agenda item #8 City Auditor's Office
It was very disappointing to see the City Auditor's Office coming up reconsideration again. Rather than hiring a
consultant to study the issue, the City Council should move forward with engaging a recruiter to hire a new City Auditor.
That would certainly be the final result after the consultant's report anyway.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sharon Erickson
Laguna Way
1
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 19, 2019 8:48 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:February 25, 2019, Council Meeting, Item #10
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
February 19, 2019
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
FEBRUARY 25, 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #10
PROPOSED ORDINANCE REPEALING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.18.120
CROSS REFERENCE: 488 UNIVERSITY AVENUE (PRESIDENT HOTEL)
Dear City Council:
I urge you to remove this item from your agenda, because the proposed
ordinance violates the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
Brown Act Violation
The primary purpose of this proposed ordinance is to enable the conversion
of the property at 488 University Avenue from rental apartments to a
hotel.
The failure to include that fact in the agenda description is a violation
of the Brown Act.
CEQA Violation
CEQA Regulation 15378(a) defines “project” as the whole of an action,
which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in
the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in
the environment”, including “(1) An activity undertaken by any public
agency.”
CEQA Regulation 15378(d) says, “Where the Lead Agency could describe the
project as either the adoption of a particular regulation under
2
subdivision (a)(1) or as a development proposal which will be subject to
several governmental approvals .. the Lead Agency shall describe the
project as the development proposal for the purpose of environmental
analysis.
Therefore, the CEQA project is the proposed conversion of 488 University
Avenue from apartments to a hotel, and the regulation in the subject
agenda item is part of that CEQA project.
Segmenting this agenda item from the CEQA analysis of the development
project is a violation of CEQA and a prejudicial abuse of discretion.
Additional reasons why the project is subject to CEQA are included in the
arguments in July 27, 2018, letter from Heather Minner of Shute, Mihaly &
Weinberger LLP that appears in the Public Letters to Council in the August
13, 2018, City Council Agenda Packet on pages 90-96 at:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=45470.91&
BlobID=66185.
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.18.040
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.
The proposed development of additional non-residential floor area at 488
University Avenue exceeds the remaining allowable floor area under the
cap.
Therefore, the proposed CEQA project is 488 University Avenue.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
1
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 20, 2019 11:57 AM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:Fw: February 25, 2019, Council Meeting, Item #10
The correct section reference in the subject line of the letter should read 18.18.040, not 18.18.120.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Elaine Wood <elainewood3000@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 22, 2019 11:45 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Leave office development cap in place
Pro‐office‐growth policies by the City over the years have changed Palo Alto from a residential community to a
commuter‐dominated environment. As a 28‐year resident of Crescent Park, I have witnessed the office tidal wave
surrounding University and Hamilton Avenues. I’ve seen local entrepreneurs put out of business so charming retail
space could be converted to office space. Leave the cap in place and begin to plan for balanced development. “Mixed
use” arguments give developers all the leverage on how to co‐mingle higher‐margin office space with lower‐margin,
minimal residential units. Please give priority to the needs of your local citizens who live here and deal now with the
burden and impact of day‐trippers.
Thank you.
Elaine Wood
2
Carnahan, David
From:Colleen Crangle <crangle@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Friday, February 22, 2019 11:53 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Colleen Crangle
Subject:Downtown office cap
Council Members:
I am writing to express my strong disapproval of the proposed
elimination of the downtown office development cap. As a resident
of Crescent Park, this decision affects me directly in exacerbating
parking on our streets and traffic logjams in and around University
Avenue and Embarcadero Road. But it is also to the detriment of
the city at large, turning Palo Alto into a commuter city. There is no
justification for eliminating this cap. I urge you to reconsider and
fulfill your obligations to us, the residents who voted you in.
Sincerely,
Colleen E Crangle
Kirby Place
3
Carnahan, David
From:Patricia Jones <pkjones1000@icloud.com>
Sent:Friday, February 22, 2019 12:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please do NOT remove the cap on downtown non-residential development!
Dear City Council members,
Please do NOT remove the cap on downtown non‐residential development.
We in Crescent Park are already profoundly impacted by the fact that pro office growth policies by the City over the
years have changed Palo Alto from a residential community to a commuter‐dominated environment.
The gridlock on our streets of these rush hour commuters trying to get on Highway 101 whenever it experiences a
backup has created a parking lot of vehicles in our neighborhood, effectively blocking us from leaving our
driveways. Heaven forbid that a medical emergency occurs, because emergency vehicles would simply not be able to
reach the stricken resident’s home.
City Council needs to rise to the challenge of addressing the traffic problems that already exist, rather than ignore them
and implement policies that exacerbate them.
Please direct your attention to our current traffic issues. Please do NOT remove the cap on downtown non‐residential
development.
Thank you.
Patricia Jones
1407 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto
Patricia Jones
www.pkjones.com
pkjones1000@icloud.com
4
Carnahan, David
From:Matt Buchwitz <mbuch2938@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 22, 2019 12:19 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Do Not Remove the Cap on Downtown Non-Residential Development
Palo Alto City Council:
Removing the limit on downtown non‐residential development will
further exacerbate deteriorating quality of life issues for current and
future residents of our city, including but not limited to traffic. Please
vote against the removal.
Matt Buchwitz
Palo Alto Homeowner
5
Carnahan, David
From:Lindsey North <lnorth_home@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, February 22, 2019 1:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:office development
Dear Council members Kniss, Fine, Tanaka, Cormack:
I'm very disappointed that you have voted to remove the office development cap. Please reconsider so our
neighborhoods are not overwhelmed by the impact of commuters.
Lindsey North
Jackson Drive
1
Carnahan, David
From:Janice Holliday <luvlivlaf@aol.com>
Sent:Friday, February 22, 2019 1:15 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Don’t do something that is WRONG
Please keep the downtown livable and traffic no worse than it is already.
One vote and you are ruining years of reason and good stewardship.
Do the right thing for the citizens not the developers for a change!!
Thank you, Janice Holliday 55year resident....
2
Carnahan, David
From:Deborah Wexler <drkwexler@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 22, 2019 1:16 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Downtown Cap
>
> I am a resident of Crescent Park. I cannot believe you are willfully voting to remove the downtown office cap. Do you
have any idea what it is like to live in Crescent Park and see your once quiet neighborhood be overrun by traffic and
overflow parking from downtown? I’ve lived here almost 19 yrs and have seen the deterioration of our quality life.
Every year it gets worse. The parking program has only partly stemmed the problem.
>
> There is enough development in the downtown core to last many, many years. It is time to support the residents who
will be most impacted. Keep the cap in place.
>
> Deborah Wexler
> Forest Ave
>
> Sent from my iPhone
3
Carnahan, David
From:lauren thinkgardens.net <lauren@thinkgardens.net>
Sent:Friday, February 22, 2019 3:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Development Cap
I am a resident of Palo Alto concerned about excessive development downtown. Please pull Consent Item
#10 off of the consent calendar and reconsider the development cap. I am very concerned about the
impact of lifting this cap on the community of Palo Alto.
Lauren Burton
4
Carnahan, David
From:Ellen Smith <ef44smith@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 22, 2019 4:23 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Downtown office cap
Although I am an advocate for more affordable housing in Palo Alto, I
strongly urge you to restore the downtown office development cap. I do
not buy the argument that only more office space will make more housing
happen. It certainly has not happened as the number of offices and
workers has increased in recent years. Yes, there are a few "mixed use"
units scattered about, but they have hardly been affordable. And at present
there is empty space in the downtown area - no one has leaped in to fill the
SurveyMonkey / "Gateway Palo Alto" space, for example. As a resident of
Crescent Park, I have also experienced the traffic gridlock that can build
up during the extended rush hours we now have around University
Avenue. This graph, from the Census Bureau says it all. Again, please
restore the downtown office cap ... and perhaps even consider a citywide
moratorium until we can resolve traffic and housing issues.
Ellen Smith
1469 Dana Ave.
5
Carnahan, David
From:Joseph Baldwin <zbrcp1@comcast.net>
Sent:Friday, February 22, 2019 6:09 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Channing board; Jocelyn Dong; Dave Price
Subject:Repeal of Downtown Office Cap
Members,
Respectfully, but most urgently, ask you to remove subject from Consent Calendar.
Next, ever-so-carefully reconsider it AFTER staff has furnished your requested
impact information. As your/our elected Major has accurately pointed out, Council has
for years ignored public opinion in its ongoing addiction to commercial development.
Slowly re-examine the mythical allegation that mixed-use commercial development
is the ONLY avenue to providing "affordable" housing in the city.
Joseph Baldwin
850 Webster Street Apt 524
Palo Alto CA 94301
650-324-7378
6
Carnahan, David
From:Carolyn Godfrey <carolyngodfrey3@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 22, 2019 6:25 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:KEEP the cap on downtown non-residential development
Dear Council Members,
Please vote the KEEP the cap on downtown non‐residential development. Our city is already struggling painfully to cope
with the number of workers we currently host.
Please!
Regards,
Carolyn Godfrey
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ann Lewnes <ann.lewnes@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 23, 2019 5:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:DON’T REMOVE THE CAP!!!
City Council Members:
I live on Center Drive between Hamilton and Universiry and the traffic on my street has become untenable. Cars racing
toward downtown in the morning and stacked up headed toward the freeway every evening. We can’t stand it.
What’s causing it? More and more commercial development, which you are encouraging. Our once charming and
livable downtown has become an office park. Traffic, store closures, endless construction...that’s what Palo Alto has
become. The office cap was one of the last roadblocks to a complete sellout to developers and you’re going to remove
it? Are you guys serious?!?
You have ruined our town. We weren’t able to vote the 4 of you who are pro‐development out last election, but, trust
me, it’s coming. And we’re not going down now without a fight.
Ann Lewnes
2
Carnahan, David
From:Rohini Chakravarthy <rohini.chakravarthy@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 23, 2019 5:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Keep Development Cap as is
To the PA city council:
It has come to my attention that the city council is considering eliminating the city wide development cap just as we are
reaching the cap.
As a Crescent Park resident who sees the ill effects of commuter traffic through our neighborhood each day, I urge you
to Remove Item #10 from Consent agenda, leave the cap as is for now and let the moratorium begin if needed. Please
place any alternative options in front of voters rather than unilaterally removing a well considered and widely supported
measure.
Rohini Chakravarthy
1370 Pitman
Sent from my iPhone
3
Carnahan, David
From:Henry Mellen <henry_mellen@icloud.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 23, 2019 5:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Building Cap
Dear City Council,
As a Palo Alto resident, I am opposed to removing the downtown building cap until its impact on traffic has been
evaluated.
Please remove Item #10 (the Downtown Cap) from the Consent Calendar.
Please also reconsider what the impacts will be.
Review all the options presented to Council, and select one that does the least amount of damage to residents.
Thanks for the good service you are all doing on behalf of all of us in Palo Alto!
Yours truly,
Henry Mellen
henry_mellen@icloud.com
1488 Hamilton Ave.
4
Carnahan, David
From:Sophia Abramson <sophia1@earthlink.net>
Sent:Saturday, February 23, 2019 5:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:DOWNTOWN CAP
Dear Members,
Please do not remove Downtown Cap for all the reasons elaborated by concerned Palo Alto residents. Keeping the cap
in place will help to avert major livability problems for our citizens and far outweighs any gains in so‐called “growth”.
Sophia Abramson
Pitman Av.
5
Carnahan, David
From:Elaine Andersen <elaine.a@onemail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 23, 2019 5:34 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Dudley Andersen
Subject:Please listen to the voices of your constituents & remove and reconsider Item #10 on the Consent
Calendar!
How can you argue that we need more housing, recognize our major traffic problems, & vote for this removal of the
cap?
It just makes no sense.
Many of us who voted for Alison are extremely upset about her vote.
And there will definitely be negative repercussions if the cap is removed & Fine or Tenaka then decide to run again for
City Council.
Elaine & Dudley Andersen
6
Carnahan, David
From:Christy Telch <gforman806@aol.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 23, 2019 4:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please reconsider removing the cap!
Dear City Council members,
I will make this brief because I imagine you are quite aware of the many reasons to NOT remove the cap on non-
residential development in the downtown area. The residents of Crescent Park, and Palo Alto generally, are weary of
being inundated by traffic and parking problems and degradation of our quality of life due to the pro-development City
Council decisions. The significant negative impact on residents lives cannot be overstated. Please do not continue to
ignore the residents in favor of the developers. Put the brakes on more downtown development until a comprehensive
plan for traffic, parking, housing AND retaining neighborhoods and quality of life for Palo Alto residents is put as a priority!
Retain the building cap!!!
Thank you,
Christy Telch
Christy F. Telch, Ph.D.
467 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 4
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650-323-1637
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THIS MESSAGE: Please note that the confidentiality of e-mail communications
cannot be guaranteed. This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and
destroy all copies of the original message.
7
Carnahan, David
From:Lenore Cymes <lenraven1@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 23, 2019 3:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:The vote was definitely not in the best interest of Palo Alto
The need for common sense is urgent‐ This approval is disaster for the city and for the many, many residents who took
the time and energy to express the opposite of 4 people on the council.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Lenore Cymes <lenraven1@gmail.com>
Subject: development cap removal
Date: February 11, 2019 at 3:37:08 PM PST
To: city Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
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.
Sincerely
Lenore Cymes
Wildwood Lane
8
Carnahan, David
From:Irv Brenner <irvbb@pacbell.net>
Sent:Friday, February 22, 2019 8:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Consent Calendar
Dear Council Members:
I'm writing to urge you to remove Item #10 from the Consent Calendar Item, and to
reinstate the Downtown development cap. I presume you've read the Palo Alto Online
editorial regarding the cap removal, and I can't say it any better. All I can ask is for you to
reconsider your assumption that more development in any way leads to more housing, let
alone affordable ones. Every current study on the topic disputes this bogus claim.
Palo Alto already has one of the highest jobs/housing ratio in the country and the results
are obvious - a once desirable town has become nearly unlivable. Nightmarish traffic,
parking, noise and pollution, yet this council thinks exacerbating the situation to allow
"change" in downtown is even remotely acceptable to Palo Altans.
I don't know why many of you are so blatantly pro-developer at the expense of residents
despite the outcry, but one can draw some obvious conclusions. I hope they're wrong.
Respectfully,
Irv Brenner
250 Byron Street
Palo Alto 94301
1
Carnahan, David
From:Trish Mulvey <mulvey@ix.netcom.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 23, 2019 6:04 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:keep the downtown commercial cap
Honorable Mayor Filseth and Council Members:
Palo Alto has the worst jobs/housing balance I know of on the Peninsula. Please remove Item #10 (the
Downtown Cap) from the Consent Calendar and reconsider what the impacts will be. Please re-review
all the options that were previously presented to Council, and select one that does the least amount of
damage to residents.
Thanks for considering this concern.
Trish Mulvey
527 Rhodes Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303
2
Carnahan, David
From:phyllis sherlock <phyllissherlock@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 23, 2019 6:37 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Building Cap
I strongly urge you NOT TO REMOVE THE CAP
Phyllis Sherlock Dana Ave,
3
Carnahan, David
From:Sylvia Gartner <sgartner@ix.netcom.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 23, 2019 6:58 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:We Need a Downtown Commercial Cap
Item #10 should not be a consent calendar item. The misguided decision to repeal the cap, criticized by the Palo Alto
Weekly and lambasted in the comments section of that newspaper, should be reviewed and other options considered.
It makes no sense that on one hand the council talks about a housing crisis and then, on a slim majority, votes to
exacerbate that very crisis by adding more commercial square footage downtown. Where are these new employees to
live?
I feel that the vote demonstrated palpable contempt for the citizens of this city.
This bad decision needs to be reviewed. At the very least it appears suspiciously like kowtowing to monied interests.
Sylvia Gartner
824 Moreno Avenue
4
Carnahan, David
From:Sherry Listgarten <sherry@listgarten.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 23, 2019 7:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please reconsider removal of downtown non-residential cap
Dear City Council:
I am not alone in being very disappointed by the 4‐3 vote to remove the non‐residential cap in downtown. As so many of
you agree, our priority should be finding ways to build affordable and BMR housing, along with services and
infrastructure to support our growing population.
There is no part of building yet more office, R&D, or hotels in downtown that addresses that need, and in fact there are
very good arguments that removing the cap makes it more difficult to build said housing and services in that area.
Please remove item 10 from Monday's agenda, and review the alternatives that city staff proposed.
I have lived here for over 30 years. Our downtown has become a sad vestige of what it once was. Rather than doubling
down by adding capacity for yet more office/R&D/hotel, let's instead focus on how to add much‐needed affordable
housing stock and retail to our downtown.
Thank you for your consideration,
‐‐ Sherry Listgarten
5
Carnahan, David
From:Hal <halkorol@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 23, 2019 7:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:repeal of cap on downtown office space
STRONGLY AGAINST
Sent from my iPad
6
Carnahan, David
From:Barbara Gross <barbara.ellen.gross@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 23, 2019 7:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Downtown Cap
I am writing to support removing the downtown cap. My perspective is to remove limitations within the downtown
continued
Sent from my iPhone
7
Carnahan, David
From:Maurice L Druzin <druzin@stanford.edu>
Sent:Saturday, February 23, 2019 7:48 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Removing the cap on development
Please vote NOT to remove the cap on downtown development A more thoughtful approach to unrestrained
development is urgently needed, given the huge impact on the quality of life of people who live around downtown
Maurice Druzin Pitman avenue
Sent from my iPhone
8
Carnahan, David
From:Steve Bisset <steve@bisset.us>
Sent:Saturday, February 23, 2019 10:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Keep the Cap
Dear Council Members:
Please remove Item #10 from the Consent Calendar, and keep the Downtown Cap in place.
As far as I can tell, every impact of repealing the Downtown Non‐residential Commercial Cap is decidedly negative.
The overarching consequence is that a repeal clearly makes the jobs/housing imbalance worse.
If you support this repeal, and support alleviating the housing crisis, then please explain how you justify the stark
contradiction between these two positions.
Sincerely,
Steve Bisset
1051 Fife Avenue
9
Carnahan, David
From:ginny@hullz.com
Sent:Sunday, February 24, 2019 9:07 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Stop the repeal of the downtown cap
I live near Crescent Park and see traffic issues several times a week. I urge you to keep the downtown cap until you help
alleviate traffic in our neighborhood.
Best,
Ginny Hull
579 Jefferson Drive
Sent from my iPad
10
Carnahan, David
From:Anne McGee <amcg55@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 24, 2019 12:10 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Urging you to remove and reconsider Item #10 on the Consent Calendar
As a 30 year resident of Palo Alto I want to register my disapproval of the City
Council's decision to repeal the Downtown Non-residential Commercial Cap.
Pro-office-growth policies by the City over the years have changed Palo Alto from a
residential community to a commuter-dominated environment.
Leave the cap in place and begin to plan for balanced development. “Mixed use” arguments
give developers all the leverage on how to co-mingle higher-margin office space with lower-
margin, minimal residential units. Please give priority to the needs of your local citizens
who live here and deal with the burden and impact of commercial over development.
Urging you to remove and reconsider Item #10 on the Consent Calendar
Anne Z McGee
1290 Dana Avenue
Palo Alto
11
Carnahan, David
From:Bonny Parke <bonny.parke@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 24, 2019 12:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please don't remove downtown non-residential cap
Dear City Council,
If you haven't noticed, downtown Palo Alto can hardly be navigated. How can you consider removing this cap? Please
reconsider Item #10 in light of this congestion. All of the businesses and residents are suffering because people simply
can't park or navigate the streets anymore!
Sincerely,
Bonny Parke, Ph.D.
12
Carnahan, David
From:Ron Celaya <roncelaya@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 24, 2019 12:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:downtown office cap
Good afternoon:
I’ve been waiting to calm down before writing in voicing my displeasure with the recent vote however that doesn’t seem
to be happening ‐ so here it is.
I’m still in a bit of shock that the council will be allowing MORE businesses development in Palo Alto. My only guess is
that some of you don’t really “go‐out” of your offices and experience PA any longer. I’ve lost faith that the council will
vote in a way that discourages further development. I realize that growth ‐ specifically here in Silicone Valley is constant
however those of you that voted to repeal the measure are priming the pump the same way that the Donald juiced the
economy with a smoke and mirrors tax‐cut.
Thank you to our Mayor and council members Tom DuBois and Lydia Kou for having the backbone and standing up for
Palo Alto residents.
Sincerely,
Ronald J Celaya
Center Drive Palo Alto
13
Carnahan, David
From:Joseph McGee <jmcg55@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 24, 2019 2:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please do not repeal the cap on Downtown Non-Residential Development
Sirs,
I have lived on Dana Avenue for almost 30 years. Over the last 5 years the quality of living in our neighborhood has
rapidly worsened due to the explosion of downtown building projects. The traffic congestion has increased
logarithmically. Please don't repeal the cap on non-residential development. Thank you.
Joseph McGee
1290 Dana Avenue
1
Carnahan, David
From:brucecrocker <Bruce.c@pitango-us.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 24, 2019 2:38 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:crocker1@pacbell.net
Subject:Monday Item 19: vote on removing cap!!
To the four council members voting to remove the cap:
Please reconsider your position and vote to retain the cap on office development. Until there are realistic actions to
deal with traffic, parking, and housing associated with current and any further development, it should pause.
You are elected by Palo Alto RESIDENTS. We are two long‐time residents and home owners in Palo Alto who hope you
are committed to retaining the character and the quality of life that we all enjoy here. The continued cap while existing
housing, traffic, and parking problems are solved is critical to our city. Please vote accordingly.
Thank you for your consideration
Bruce & Suzanne Crocker
1250 Hamilton Ave
O/H‐‐650‐321‐7514
C‐‐650‐862‐4032
Bruce.c@pitango‐us.com
Crocker1@pacbell.net
2
Carnahan, David
From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 24, 2019 3:16 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please Remove DT cap from Consent/Reconsider the rush to repeal the Downtown Cap
Dear Council,
It was surprising/stunning to see Council act so quickly to remove the Downtown cap ‐ which is basically a "pause" to
consider how to address the many concerns about Downtown Development which is currently geared to offices, at the
expense of Housing.
I reject that growing offices in Downtown will bring about Housing ‐ that sounds like FAA saying that Precision Based
Navigation reduces noise. Yes, conceptually, but not in practice. Or that "what if" there is a performing arts project ‐
when obviously you can cross that bridge when you get there.
Please remove the item on the downtown cap from the consent calendar, and work with the many ideas presented by
residents at that meeting.
I look forward to hearing that you will give this topic the attention it needs.
Thank you,
Jennifer
3
Carnahan, David
From:Larry Jones <john.x.wyclif@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 24, 2019 3:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Downtown Cap
Please Stop the Repeal of the Downtown
Non-Residential Commercial Cap
Larry Jones
4
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Almond <rjalmond@stanford.edu>
Sent:Sunday, February 24, 2019 6:44 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Repeal of Cap
This decision would continue the ruin of Palo Alto, as you turn it from a pleasant University town to a city with
inadequate infrastructure. Recall is the alternative for voters who were misled about your positions in the
campaign.
Richard Almond, MD
1520 University Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Opinion pieces and other recommendations may not always be responded to quickly, due to time constraints, but they are appreciated.
5
Carnahan, David
From:E Nigenda <enigenda1@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 24, 2019 9:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:CC Agenda Item #10
Dear Council Members,
Please remove and reconsider Item #10 on the Consent Calendar. I agree with the Palo Alto's Weekly editorial
of Feb. 15 that this vote was a setback for housing. It completely ignores the statewide "housing crisis" we
keep hearing about. We'll never get out of the housing/jobs imbalance hole unless we stop digging.
I have attended a few Council meetings and am very disappointed that the majority vote on Feb. 11th was
antithetical to the enthusiastic support for housing I had formerly heard from the dais.
Esther Nigenda
6
Carnahan, David
From:Peter Rosenthal <pnr21@comcast.net>
Sent:Sunday, February 24, 2019 9:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please remove item#10 (DOWNTOWN CAP) from Monday nights consent calendar
Dear Council Members:
I urge you to remove item #10 from Monday night’s consent calendar.
I hope that in the clear light of day you will reconsider your decision last week to eliminate the remainder of the
Downtown Cap.
In reaching your decision last week you basically ignored the overwhelming number of letters and communications
opposed to removing the cap.
In addition, a number of council members either didn’t understand or mis‐stated the impacts of the Cap, namely that it
would “Freeze Downtown Development”. In reality it would do no such thing. It would freeze office development but it
would continue to allow the construction of retail and residential space.
The most recent addition of Palo Weekly summarized in a clear way the negative impacts of your decision. I hope you
will take it under advisement and reconsider in light of the wishes of the majority of the local community.
Respectfully,
Peter N. Rosenthal
Crescent Park
7
Carnahan, David
From:Emily Renzel <marshmama2@att.net>
Sent:Sunday, February 24, 2019 7:11 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Downtown cap
Dear Mayor Filseth & Members of the City Council:
I don’t know why this happens, but some battles have to be fought over and over again. The Downtown cap was put
on after a great deal of study and public input. It hard to imagine how much worse traffic and parking would be
downtown, if that cap had not been adopted.
Please remove the Downtown Cap item from the Consent Calendar and reconsider the options.
Sincerely,
Emily M. Renzel
Councilmember 1979‐1992
1056 Forest Avenue
(now being used for overflow parking from downtown)
8
Carnahan, David
From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net>
Sent:Sunday, February 24, 2019 7:21 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Downtown Cap
I am writing this “hail mary” message in hopes that one of the four of you who voted to eliminate the downtown cap will
reconsider and vote on Monday to retain it. You reasoned that the proposed (and promised) garage warrants more
study. Shouldn’t that same logic apply to the overall development of downtown? A past Council promised a one year
moratorium once downtown commercial development reached 350,000sf. Let’s keep that promise. Another good
reason to retain the cap: you claim to be in favor of housing. Removing the downtown cap doesn’t move the needle on
that. In fact, it likely threatens progress on that front given that commercial development increases demand for that
which is in too short supply.
Annette Ross
Palo Alto
9
Carnahan, David
From:Anil Gangolli <1800getanil@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 25, 2019 7:45 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:citizen comment: Opposing repeal of the downtown cap
Dear City Council Members:
I am voicing my opposition to removal of the downtown non‐residential commercial office space cap. This will bring
increased automobile traffic, congestion, and parking issues. I would favor alternatives that open to more residential
development, and efforts to make our Downtown more welcome to pedestrians and cyclists.
Anil Gangolli
878 Sycamore Dr.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
11
Carnahan, David
From:Kathleen M Eisenhardt <kme@stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, February 25, 2019 9:00 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Remove and reconsider
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: kme@stanford.edu
Date: February 25, 2019 at 8:56:34 AM PST
To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: Remove and reconsider
Council
Pls remove and reconsider the repeal of the downtown non residential commercial cap.
It seems illogical and even wrong to expect more offices and other commercial uses will improve traffic
and jobs housing imbalance.
Thank you.
Kathleen Eisenhardt
Palo Alto resident.
Sent from my iPhone
1
Carnahan, David
From:Beth Rosenthal <bbr550@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 25, 2019 9:38 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Item 10 on Consent Calendar
Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council Members;
I am writing to ask you to remove the Downtown Non‐residential Cap from the Consent Calendar and instead approve a
one year moratorium for further study of what removing the Cap would mean both for the downtown and the
community as a whole. I was appalled as were many other residents when at the City Council meeting on February 11,
you voted to eliminate the Cap despite the overwhelming objections of those present at the meeting and the many
individuals who had written to you on this subject asking you not to do this. This is an example of non‐representative
government and a Council pursuing its own agenda without regard to the statements made by candidates during
campaigning. It also disregards goals that Council members have stated as their priorities. If the Council retreat defined
as one of its goals preservation of the environment, why would you remove the Cap, an action that will surely result in
densifying construction in the downtown and bringing more people and cars into the area? This in turn will increase
parking in neighborhoods, a problem that Council has proposed all sorts of solutions to try and address effectively. If
there is a goal to increase the housing supply including the construction of more BMR housing, why would you buy the
specious argument of developers that say housing will not be constructed unless it is mixed use? As was pointed out,
Wilton Court is not mixed use and it is a viable project. It is well known that mixed use projects result in the construction
of few and expensive housing units. Actions like this suggest to me and many others that Council members Kniss,
Tanaka, Fine and Cormack support the interests of developers who have helped them get elected and are not looking
out for the benefit of the community as a whole.
Sincerely,
Beth Rosenthal, PhD
1
Carnahan, David
From:Irene Kane <ikkane@att.net>
Sent:Monday, February 25, 2019 11:28 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Office space cap
Please do NOT remove the cap on office space.
We have WAY too much as it is!!!!
No more!!!
Irene
1060 Channing Ave.
Sent from my iPhone
2
Carnahan, David
From:Roni S <hipkneebodywork@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 25, 2019 10:30 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Remove #10 from Consent
Dear Council,
For the short term it may seem as if you are working to increase a tax base or whatever but the long term the residents
will suffer increased traffic, congestion, and parking issues. The developers take their money and are gone and we the
residents must live with the consequences.
Please be aware that the more you increase the density of the city the less desirable it will become in the future.
Please reconsider the options. Don't be seduced by developers marketing and pressure.
3
Carnahan, David
From:jkathomas@aol.com
Sent:Monday, February 25, 2019 10:17 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Downtown Cap: remove from Consent Agenda
Members of the City Council,
I ask that you remove what I understand is Item #10 (the Downtown Cap) from the Consent agent and
consider/reconsider all options that leave the Downtown Cap in place.
Traffic and parking volumes have seriously eroded quality of life in Palo Alto, both for residents
and for commuters who work in Palo Alto.
Mixed use, in its current configuration, has lost all of its appeal.
Eliminating the current Downtown Cap or revising it upward is irresponsible at this point.
Please work harder/longer/more creatively.
Thank you,
Jeannie Thomas
4
Carnahan, David
From:Karen White <tangoklw@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 25, 2019 9:46 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:PLEASE Stop the Repeal of the Downtown Commercial Cap!
Hon. Members of the Palo Alto City Council:
Please pull the consent item regarding the cap on non‐residential development and vote against this measure, which I
believe most residents oppose.
As a thirty‐year homeowner and resident, I believe that the citizens of Palo Alto do not need or want more commercial
development any more than they need more of the resulting traffic. Try driving out to Highway 101 on University any
weekday after 2:30 PM. It is already jammed with workers getting a jump on the traffic jams to follow.
The major backers of more commercial development are the developers and the few council candidates that they
generously backed. How much more money do these very successful businessmen and women need to make at the
expense of the quality of life for our residents? Perhaps they should approach the city councils of Woodside and Portola
Valley with some four‐story office buildings...after all, that is where more than one of them live.
In just the past five years I have watched downtown University area businesses that our neighborhoods could walk to
move out due to the high rents. In that short time we lost a lighting shop, sporting goods store, University Arts, and
many more. How many more chain coffee and juice stores do we need?
In addition, please keep in mind the 400,000 sq. feet of commercial development now under construction on El Camino,
a stone's throw away in Menlo Park and the huge development projects at Stanford. Traffic is jammed up on Page Mill
Road Ave every weekday by 3:00 PM, just imagine what it will be like in a few years with just the construction already
approved by local governments eager to please the powers that be ‐ which are obviously not our local residents.
Respectfully,
Karen White
Palo Alto
1
Carnahan, David
From:Stuart Hansen <hansensc@att.net>
Sent:Monday, February 25, 2019 1:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Consent Item # 10, today's calendar
Please remove item #10‐‐‐Downtown Dev. Cap—from consent calendar and consider all your options: otherwise, we
residents will suffer additional traffic and parking problems from a worse 3:1+ jobs/housing imbalance. This cap is
needed. More development is just not sustainable. Thank you, Stuart Hansen, resident.
2
Carnahan, David
From:jaclyn schrier <jaclyn@schrier.net>
Sent:Monday, February 25, 2019 12:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Reconsider item #10 (Commercial Cap) on Feb 25 consent calender
City Council Members:
With my greatest insistence as a 25 year Palo Alto citizen and voter, I urge you to remove item #10 regarding the
downtown commercial cap from tonight's consent calendar and reconsider options that will benefit, or at least be less
harmful, to city residents.
The recent vote by Council Members Cormack, Fine, Kniss, and Tanaka to overturn the downtown commercial cap was a
disgraceful show of bad faith to those you are sworn to protect. You made this choice with full knowledge that:
Choosing to maintain the cap would not *freeze* commercial development downtown as some council members
misrepresented, but rather would *pause* commercial development for one year to allow for proper planning
As city staff presented, you could have chosen to pause office development which is harmful to residents while
continuing to permit retail and professional-service development which is beneficial to residents
Arguing that allowing commercial development would lead to housing development was dishonest and would
serve only to increase the jobs to homes imbalance
Again and again, the council has claimed that adding affordable housing and improving traffic and parking are priorities,
but last week, in voting to overturn the downtown commercial cap, the council majority took the one action that was sure
to increase housing demand and costs as well as increase traffic congestion and parking difficulties.
You have an opportunity to reverse this harmful decision tonight. Please do not let your constituents down again.
Thank you.
jaclyn schrier
427 Alma Street #307
Palo Alto
3
Carnahan, David
From:beth.guislin@gmail.com
Sent:Monday, February 25, 2019 11:56 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please remove Item #10 Downtown Cap from the Consent Calendar
Council members,
Please remove Item #10 (the Downtown Cap) from the Consent Calendar. Palo Alto resident Allen Akin has
analyzed U.S. Census data that shows that Palo Alto has increased the number of employees working in the
city proportionally more than Counties of San Mateo and Santa Clara, and the nine-county Bay Area. See
Allen’s chart below:
4
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Beth Guislin
5
Carnahan, David
From:Kimberley Wong <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 25, 2019 11:56 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Nelson Ng
Subject:Stop the Repeal of the Downtown Non-Residential Commercial Cap: Please remove and reconsider
Item #10 on the Consent Calendar of February 25!
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am forwarding my letter from Feb 11 and would like to forward it again to you as you are facing a decision about the
Downtown Cap in Item #10 tonight at the February 25 City Council Meeting. Please remove this item #10 from the
Consent Calendar to review all the options so that you can make in informed decision that will cause the least damage to
the residents. We are a city of residents who enjoy walking our city streets and appreciate that we and our children can
safely cycle and walk around town. We as very long time residents have seen how the increase in office spaces and influx
of workers has been increasing traffic into our city and increasing accidents caused by testy drivers navigating the traffic
.That worries us as to what direction we are headed if we remove the cap for Non-residential/Office Growth.
I thank you also on February for not certifying the garage on Hamilton and Waverley. It would be a great travesty to build
another garage and bring in more traffic to our city than we can safely handle.
Thank you,
Kimberley and Nelson,
residents of 1260 Emerson St in Old Palo Alto,
a quick 10 minute walk to Downtown Palo Alto
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Kimberley Wong <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com>
To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019, 8:59:50 AM PST
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
6
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)
1
Carnahan, David
From:Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org>
Sent:Monday, February 25, 2019 1:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Remove item 10 (Downtown Nonresidential Square Footage Cap) from Consent Calendar
Attachments:1989LUStudy_Growth_Monitoring_102908 rotate.pdf
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I request that item 10 (Downtown Nonresidential Square Footage Cap) be removed from the Consent Calendar and be
placed on a future agenda for further analysis and reconsideration.
First, I observe that approximately 107,058 square feet of nonresidential development occurred in the three decades
between September 1989 and July 2008. Most of the remainder of 242,942 square feet was used in the next
decade. That is, the rate of growth in the decade since 2008 has been six times the rate of growth in the three decades
before then.
Second, I note that the plural of anecdote is not data. See https://sites.google.com/site/skepticalmedicine/the‐plural‐
of‐anecdote‐is‐not‐data and https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/12/27/plural/ That many of the buildings in existence
before 1987 still exist does not change the above facts. Indeed, this data is consistent with the data from the staff
report of February 11, 2019.
Third, traffic is subject to exponential delay even with small increases in volume when saturated. (LOS Level F indicates
a degree of saturation.) It is clear that rush hour traffic through Crescent Park is saturated in the afternoons. Saturation
likely to increase with the with the removal of the cap on nonresidential square footage. The EIR did not study repeal of
the downtown cap, it merely considered removal of the program. In particular, it did not consider a program to remove
the cap.
Fourth, when the Comp Plan EIR was approved, it is not clear that the cumulative impacts with the Stanford 2018 GUP
were considered. Because of the Stanford 2018 GUP consideration, there are changed conditions requiring a
supplemental EIR prior to removal of the cap on nonresidential square footage downtown.
Fifth, it was promised to the voters that a study would be done prior to exceeding the cap on nonresidential square
footage downtown. That study was delayed and folded into the Downtown Coordinated Area Plan. Consequently, the
cap should not be exceeded unless and until the Downtown Coordinated Area Plan is completed with its own EIR.
Sixth, it might be reasonable to exempt retail but not hotels from the cap, but it is not clear that there is any demand for
expanding retail square footage downtown.
Sincerely,
Arthur M. Keller
Attachment distributed to PTC for evaluation of Land Use Element in 2008.
19
8
9
-
2
0
0
8
N
o
n
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
1
9
8
9
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
S
t
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
s
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
S
q
u
a
r
e
F
e
e
t
/
M
a
y
19
8
7
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
f
t
e
r
Cit
y
w
i
d
e
S
t
u
d
y
Ne
t
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
9
8
9
to
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
19
9
5
Ne
t
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
M
a
y
19
8
7
t
o
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
9
9
5
OU
T
S
I
D
E
S
c
o
p
e
of
C
i
t
y
w
i
d
e
S
t
u
d
y
Ne
t
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
9
9
5
to
J
u
l
y
2
0
0
8
Ne
t
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
S
e
p
t
19
8
9
t
o
J
u
l
y
2
0
0
8
Re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
i
n
G
r
o
w
t
h
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
u
s
i
n
g
19
8
9
(
Y
e
a
r
S
t
u
d
y
Ad
o
p
t
e
d
)
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
st
a
r
t
y
e
a
r
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
J
u
l
y
20
0
8
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
3
,
3
1
3
,
2
0
0
3
5
0
,
0
0
0
8
,
7
2
3
0
*
9
8
,
3
3
5
1
0
7
,
0
5
8
2
4
2
,
9
4
2
Ur
b
a
n
L
a
n
e
5
7
8
,
1
0
0
3
4
,
4
0
0
4
0
8
5
0
,
2
7
0
*
*
4
4
,
8
8
3
4
5
,
2
9
1
-
1
0
,
8
9
1
Mi
d
t
o
w
n
1
4
3
,
6
0
0
5
,
2
0
0
0
0
9
1
7
9
1
7
4
,
2
8
3
Ea
s
t
B
a
y
s
h
o
r
e
1
,
3
1
8
,
8
0
0
9
3
,
5
0
0
2
9
4
0
3
7
,
6
6
9
3
7
,
9
6
3
5
5
,
5
3
7
So
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
3
,
0
7
2
,
3
0
0
6
6
5
,
0
0
0
3
9
,
2
8
9
0
-
3
4
0
,
9
9
7
-
3
0
1
,
7
0
8
9
6
6
,
7
0
8
So
u
t
h
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
1
,
0
8
4
,
9
0
0
2
0
0
,
1
0
0
1
2
,
5
8
8
0
-
1
8
7
,
6
0
7
-
1
7
5
,
0
1
9
3
7
5
,
1
1
9
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
1
,
8
7
8
,
9
0
0
-
6
,
2
0
0
4
,
8
6
5
0
5
9
,
4
6
3
6
4
,
3
2
8
-
7
0
,
5
2
8
St
a
n
f
o
r
d
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
P
a
r
k
/
E
c
r
9
,
5
5
5
,
7
0
0
1
,
7
9
4
,
1
0
0
2
5
2
,
6
2
6
2
3
8
,
5
2
0
*
*
*
7
3
0
,
2
3
6
9
8
2
,
8
6
2
8
1
1
,
2
3
8
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
R
o
a
d
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
3
,
9
4
1
,
3
0
0
1
2
1
,
8
0
0
1
2
7
,
8
9
8
0
4
2
4
,
2
2
0
5
5
2
,
1
1
8
-
4
3
0
,
3
1
8
24
,
8
8
6
,
8
0
0
3,
2
5
7
,
9
0
0
44
6
,
6
9
1
0
8
6
7
,
1
1
9
1,
3
1
3
,
8
1
0
1
,
9
4
4
,
0
9
0
*D
o
e
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
8
9
-
9
0
PA
M
F
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
**
H
o
l
i
d
a
y
I
n
n
P
C
Z
o
n
e
**
*
V
A
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
(
1
6
2
,
5
4
0
)
a
n
d
10
5
0
A
r
a
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
(
7
5
,
9
8
0
)
1
Carnahan, David
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Monday, February 25, 2019 2:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Don't Repeal the Cap
Dear Councilmembers:
It is in the best interests of the development of low‐income housing that you keep the cap on commercial development
in the downtown area! The vast majority of citizens who spoke at several meetings on this issue are opposed to
repealing this cap. It was unconscionable to see your decision in light of the majority opposition.
Do the right thing. Keep the cap. See what happens.
Roberta Ahlquist, WILPF Low‐income Housing committee
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA DATE: 2/25/2019 ID#: 10034
SUBJECT: Adoption of the Urban Forest Master Plan Second Edition
This item was included on the consent agenda for Council’s December 17, 2018 meeting. A
concern was raised that councilmembers were not able to properly see the redline additions in
the edited Goals, Policies, and Programs chapter, and three councilmembers voted to pull the
item from consent. Following the December 17 meeting, staff determined that the redline
additions had not been viewable because the Council packets were printed in black and
white. Council’s packet, and the online report, now includes a color version of the Goals, Policies,
and Programs chapter that shows the edits and the item has been placed on the consent agenda.
___________________________ ___________________________
Brad Eggleston Ed Shikada
Director of Public Works City Manager
COUNCIL MEETING
Received Before Meeting 112/25/2019
4
DocuSign Envelope ID: EDB46003-8676-4339-ABA3-C568B84A12C6
1
Carnahan, David
From:Catherine Martineau <catherine@canopy.org>
Sent:Friday, February 22, 2019 10:41 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Eggleston, Brad; Passmore, Walter
Subject:Urban Forest Master Plan Council meeting 2/25/19
Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers,
I noticed that the Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) is on Monday’s Consent Calendar. I originally thought that it would
be an action item as it had been pulled from the 12/17/18 consent calendar.
Canopy strongly supports this updated version of the Urban Forest Master Plan. The only concern we have is around
funding for the programs scheduled in the Plan and especially those programs formerly prioritized by the Council, such
as the South Palo Alto Tree Initiative to increase tree canopy cover in South Palo Alto neighborhoods and remedy the
inequity in tree canopy cover compared with North Palo Alto.
Our concern stems from the fact that, although dollar amounts are attached to some of the programs in the
implementation plan, and $150K per year has seemingly been budgeted to implement UFMP programs, in reality the
money is not systematically available. It appears that the Public Works Department has chosen to cut Urban Forestry
disproportionately to achieve across‐the‐board budget cuts mandated by Council. In year 3 of the plan (Fiscal year
2018), no funding was allocated to the UFMP. In year 4 (current year) again no funding was initially allocated, but
following Canopy’s comments during the budgeting process, Public Works decided to fund UFMP programs at the
expense of the annual street tree maintenance cycle, which was once again lengthened beyond best practices.
Sacrificing the health of Palo Alto’s urban forest, a living asset crucial to achieving public health, sustainability, and
economic goals, is shortsighted.
Is there anything that the council can do to direct Public Works to allocate sufficient funding to the Urban Forestry
program for both the implementation of the UFMP and routine activities including maintenance?
Catherine Martineau
Out of office heads‐up:
February 28
March 4 to 13, 15, & 18
April 18
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Catherine Martineau
Canopy Executive Director
HEALTHY TREES, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES
catherine@canopy.org www.canopy.org (650) 964‐6110 ext. 2
1
Carnahan, David
From:Andrea Temkin <andreatemkin@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 22, 2019 12:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Boulware Park expansion
Dear City Council Members:
I want to add my voice to that of my neighbors in supporting the City's purchase of ATT‐owned land at 3350 Birch Street.
In my 23 years as a Ventura resident, the park has always been well used by the community of all ages and is now also
being used by our new neighbors in the businesses along Park Blvd.
This unique opportunity to enlarge the park is one I urge the Council to move forward on as rapidly as is possible.
Thank you!
Yours,
Andrea Temkin
‐‐‐3371 Park Blvd
Palo Alto CA 94306
650.380.6183
2
Carnahan, David
From:D Caleb Hauser <dcalebhauser@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 22, 2019 2:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Boulware Park
Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council Members, I urge you to purchase the property across the street from Boulware
Park in Ventura and add that to our parkland. Please make sure that prospective competitive buyers know that the lot is
zoned PF and that Council has NO intention whatsoever of changing the zoning to make it attractive for investors. Let’s
keep our PF zones Public Serving. Thank you.
D. Caleb Hauser, Ventura resident
3
Carnahan, David
From:Oliver Vogel <oliver@ovogel.com>
Sent:Friday, February 22, 2019 4:59 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:AT&T parcel / Boulware Park
Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council Members,
I just found out that the weedy part of the AT&T lot is up for sale, and that the city is considering buying it and
expanding Boulware Park in Ventura. I urge you to purchase the property and add that to our parkland. Please
make sure that prospective competitive buyers know that the lot is zoned PF and that Council has NO intention
whatsoever of changing the zoning to make it attractive for investors (RIGHT??). Let’s keep our PF zones Public
Serving.
Thanks Oliver Vogel Ventura resident
4
Carnahan, David
From:gmahany@aol.com
Sent:Friday, February 22, 2019 8:40 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Boulware Park in ventura neighborhood
To: Mayor Filseth and Palo Alto City Council Members.
Subject: purchasing the vacant lot at 3350 Burch St adjacent to Boulwar Park and Matadero creek
Since the lot at 3350 Burch St is also adjacent to the Fry's redevelopment site developers might just want to out bid the
city for it. Developers just might think that after the purchase they could get the planing department and city council to
change the zoning from its current PF to RM-15 or another more lucrative zoning. After all this zone switching has
happened before in Palo Alto.
I suggest that the zone PF could be change to zone L landscape. Such a zone change might lower the cost to the city. Or
maybe a flood zone designation if there is one, after all it is next to the creek.
Gary Mahany a resident of Ventura neighborhood.
5
Carnahan, David
From:Lissy Bland <lissybland@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 23, 2019 9:04 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:BOULWARE PARK EXPANSION
Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council Members, I urge you to purchase the property across the street from Boulware
Park in Ventura and add that to our parkland. Please make sure that prospective competitive buyers know that the lot is
zoned PF and that Council has NO intention whatsoever of changing the zoning to make it attractive for investors. Let’s
keep our PF zones Public Serving. Thank you.
Lissy Bland
235 Wilton Ave
6
Carnahan, David
From:Ken Joye <kmjoye@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 23, 2019 1:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Boulware Park expansion
I cannot attend the meeting at which you consider the purchase of the AT&T property adjacent to Boulware Park. If I
were able, I would encourage you to complete that effort. This will be a huge mitigation to the NVCAP project which will
significantly change the Ventura neighborhood.
Thank you for pursuing this!
Ken Joye
Ventura neighborhood
Sent from a mobile device (please have high text entry tolerance)
From:Kim Murray
To:Council, City
Subject:PLEASE EXPAND OUR PARK - IT IS OUR TURN!!!!!!!
Date:Monday, February 25, 2019 3:01:08 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council Members:
I live in the Ventura neighborhood and have lived there for 30 years, raised my son there
and know my neighbors very well. Our neighborhood doesn’t always receive the same
attention as some of the neighborhoods in North PA and we think it would be very nice if
this time around, you could provide us with an expansion of our park. We are beginning to
feel very closed in with all of the building happening on Park Blvd., El Camino and Page
Mill and are in desperate need of some open space/park space to provide our children,
grandchildren, and neighbors a decent place to play in the evenings and to develop and
maintain a community. If you do not develop a neighborhood as it grows, people feel
distant, splintered and annoyed with eachother. Our neighborhood is one of the most
diverse neighborhoods and it is imperative that we encourage everyone to get along and
to get to know each other – which having the new park expansion will definitely help
with.
Please don’t miss the opportunity to purchase the property across the street from
Boulware Park in Ventura. I am sure I am speaking for many in the neighborhood that are
probably not aware of this opportunity but would love this expansion.
Thank you so much!
Kim Murray
At 3543 Park Blvd.
Palo Alto
Kim Murray
Director of Administrative Services
for Janine Bisharat
1550 El Camino Real, Suite 250
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Direct: 650-264-9087
Main: 650-328-2758
Fax: 650-242-4473
Kim@KarunaAdvisors.com| www.karunaadvisors.com
From:
To:
Cc:
Ng, Judy
Council Members; ORG - Clerk"s Office; Council Agenda Email
Subject:2/25 Council Agenda Questions for Items 5, 7, & 11
Date:Thursday, February 21, 2019 5:28:11 PM
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 25, 2019 council meeting
agenda.
Item 5: Approval of Amendment Number 1 with ARC for New Replacement Copier
Machines for Utilities Bill Print – CM Tanaka
Item 7: Reimbursement Resolution for Revenue Bonds for the Regional Water
Quality Control Plant – CM Tanaka
Item 11: Urban Forest Master Plan Second Edition – CM Tanaka
Item 5: Approval of Amendment Number 1 with ARC for New Replacement Copier
Machines for Utilities Bill Print – CM Tanaka
1.Have you looked into having these utility bills printed by an outside company
instead of doing it within the City? Is it really more cost-effective to print
internally?
By using ARC the City has outsourced the machines and servicing of the
machines. The ARC machines print three times faster than previous machines for
the same cost. This allows staff to perform the bill print job more efficiently.
Outsourcing of additional aspects of utility bill printing will be evaluated after
implementation of the new utility customer information system (CIS).
2.How many ARC printers does the city have at this point?
The City has 68 ARC printer/copiers deployed at office locations throughout the
city since 2017 when the City started with new ARC machines.
3.How many printers will be replaced with this annual extension?
Six network printers are replaced with ARC copier/printers with this amendment.
Three ARC copier/printers are added to new office locations.
4. How much does each printer cost?
The cost of each ARC copier/printer is based on the volume of printing performed
on that machine in a given month. At the high end, the City Clerk’s machine does
a lot of packet printing and has costs in the range of $2,500 on months when
they print packets. Other machines cost little if there is low volume such as the
machine in the Baylands ranger station, which had $17 in costs in November, on
the low end.
5. Is every printer the City has going to be replaced?
In 2017 the City replaced all of its fleet of aging Toshiba printer/copiers with new
ARC machines. Additional HP network printers may be replaced, if warranted.
Item 7: Reimbursement Resolution for Revenue Bonds for the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant – CM Tanaka
1. How much are the Partners paying of the total cost and not just the annual debt
service?
The Partners (including Palo Alto) will be paying for all of the total project costs,
regardless of the extent to which the debt service is ultimately designed to cover
the total project costs. The share for each partner is defined in the Agreements
(contracts) with the Partners. Palo Alto is not paying more, or less, than its share
as one of the Partners.
Item 11: Urban Forest Master Plan Second Edition – CM Tanaka
1. Council adopted the initial plan two years ago with funding called out for
implementation, particularly for a push to plant more trees in South Palo Alto,
but over the last couple of years why was it not included in the budget?
Instead, funding was pulled from the Tree Department’s pruning contract to pay
for the plantings?
The UFMP was not included in the FY 2018 budget due to funding shortfalls. It
was included in the FY 2019 budget and funded with savings realized from the
tree trimming contract, as staff was able to achieve the 7-year trimming cycle
goal without utilizing the full balance of the contract.
2. Would it make sense that UFMP is included in the upcoming budget process?
Funding for the UFMP is part of the FY 2020 budget development process that is
occurring at this time.
3. Why is there a need (at least now) to identify and attack invasive species? A
cursory look at any one of the bulletins in the open space preserves shows that
invasive species are being combated.
Invasive species compete with native species, thus detracting from optimal
ecosystem functions. Heath of the natural environment is embedded in achieving
goals of the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and other
City Council priorities.
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
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
HONORABLE POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
ED SHIKADA, CITY MANAGER
FEBRUARY 25, 2019
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1-VTA 2019 NEW TRANSIT PLAN
1
Councilmember and Committee Chairperson Liz Kniss transmitted a list of questions related to
the VTA 2019 New Transit Plan to VTA's General Manager on February 22, 2019. The letter is
attached.
Ed Shikada
City Manager
Cc: Palo Alto City Council
Attachment: Letter to VTA
1of1
February 21, 2019
Nuria Fernandez
General Manager
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95134-1906
City of Palo Alto
Office of the Mayor and City Council
Re: Questions for Tuesday's Discussion in Palo Alto about VTA's 2019 New Transit Plan
Dear General Manager Fernandez,
Thank you so much for agreeing to have staff attend our City Council Policy and Services Committee
next week. We look forward to meeting with your staff to discuss the 2019 New Transit Plan and critical
questions related to the proposed changes to VT A bus service in Palo Alto.
As you are aware, Palo Alto is a major job location for people in a wide variety of industries. Many
employees who work within Palo Alto come from other communities within VT A's service area or other
transit service areas. We have been working with large employers in our community to be innovative
around the way that their employees get to and from work in Palo Alto. Our goal is to reduce single
occupancy vehicle trips by continuing to expand available transit services in our community and not to
contract them. While we broadly understand VT A's financial situation, we also do not want to constantly
be subject to service reductions every time VT A needs to make a cut.
We would appreciate your staff being prepared to address the following questions in their presentation
next week:
1. What exactly are the proposed reductions, improvements, and "no changes" for Palo Alto-serving
bus lines?
2. What is the basis for those reductions? Why do the routes in Palo Alto need to change? (If cost,
please help us understand how the proposed reductions for Palo Alto contribute to specific
savings for VT A. If ridership or coverage related, please explain how VT A balances the need for
more focus on high ridership routes with the need to provide a service to lower income transit
users and to major employment hubs).
3. How is VTA evaluating social equity in the proposed service changes? If some routes have lower
ridership but are known to help demographic groups with higher need, will VTA factor that into
your decision making?
4. What is the ridership of our Palo Alto routes in comparison to other routes?
5. Help us better understand VT A's fiscal picture and what the endgame is here. How will VTA
realistically reach fiscal sustainability and still serve the North County? More broadly, how long
does VT A anticipate your financial insecurity to persist?
6. Please provide us with a list of cuts that have been made in North County, particularly Palo Alto,
over the past 10 years.
7. Finally, understanding VT A's need to reduce costs, what alternatives are being pursued to
address the travel needs of the public, and specifically current VT A passengers that will be
displaced by the proposed service reductions?
City staff has been in direct contact with VT A staff and have received initial responses to some of these
questions. We would like to ensure that VTA staffis planning to address these questions publicly at our
meeting on the 26th.
Palo alto seeks to ensure transit services are available to the people who need them most while also
expanding ridership and converting some single occupancy vehicle drivers into transit users. In order to
best work towards this goal, we rely on quality, reliable, and convenient VTA service. We look forward
to chatting on Tuesday about these very important questions and about VT A's 2019 New Transit Plan.
Sincerely,
Liz Kniss
Councilmember, Palo Alto
Chair, Policy and Services Committee
cc:
Ed Shikada, City Manager, City of Palo Alto
Eric Filseth, Mayor, City of Palo Alto
Teresa O'Neill, Chairperson, VTA Board of Directors
47
HW
Y
1
7
to
S
a
n
J
o
s
e
55
86
to Diridon Station
to San Jose Airport, Diridon Station
55
86
to Diridon Station
to San Jose Airport, Diridon Station
GO
GO
GO
MV
MV
MV
G
O
M
V
M
V
MV
GO
GO
MV
U
U
55
86
to Diridon Station
to San Jose Airport, Diridon Station
2
1
7
2
1
7
2
3
9
2
1
7
239
2
3
9
U
U
55
86
to Diridon Station
to San Jose Airport, Diridon Station
280
281
280
297
397
281
28
0
29
7
39
7
29
6
EC
R
280
28
0
DB
1
DB1
DB1
DB
DB
1
55
86
to Diridon Station
to San Jose Airport, Diridon Station
DB
1
D
B
280
28
8
28
8
28
8
L
28
8
M
2
5
6
256
2
7
0
2
7
0
2
4
7
2
4
6
2
4
6
2
4
7
288
L
288
M
288
L
28
8
28
8
L
288
10
3
104
104
121
121
1
2
1
168
16
8
102
103
1
6
8
10
2
16
8
103
103
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
3
104
104 121
12
1
12
1
102
168
10
2
1
0
4
1
0
4
104
12
1
121
1
0
4
10
4
103
102
10
4
10
2
103
104
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
4
12
1
1
6
8
to
M
o
r
g
a
n
H
i
l
l
,
G
i
l
r
o
y
(se
e
S
o
u
t
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
m
a
p
)
89
89
89
80
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
70
70
66
66
66
64
64
64
63
63
63
61
61
61
59
59
59
59
59
59
56
56
56
56
56
56
55
5555
55
55
55
55
53
53
53
53
52
52
52
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
4747
47
47
44
44
44
42
42
42
42
42
40
40
40
40
39
39
37
37
37
31
31
27
27
27
27
27
27
26
25 25
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
20
20
20 20
20
77
7
7
77
77
77
73
73
73
72
72
72
70
70
70
68
68
68
68
68
66
66
66
66
66
66
64
64
61
61
61
61
60
60
60
60
60
57
57
57
57
57
26
26
26
26
26
25
25
25
25
25
2323 23
23
22
22
2
2
22
22
22
523
523
523
523
523 523
5
2
3
522
522
522
522
5
2
2
522
500Civic
Center
Metro/Airport
Ch
a
m
p
i
o
n
Lic
k
M
i
l
l
Karina
Japantown/
Ayer
Gish
Oakridge
Almaden
MountainView
Component
Downtown
Campbell
Whisman
Re
a
m
w
o
o
d
Gr
e
a
t
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
Ba
y
p
o
i
n
t
e
Cis
c
o
W
a
y
Ald
e
r
Gr
e
a
t
M
a
l
l
Old
I
r
o
n
s
i
d
e
s
Vie
n
n
a
Fa
i
r
O
a
k
s
Cr
o
s
s
m
a
n
Bo
r
r
e
g
a
s
Lockheed
Martin
MoffettParkBayshore/
NASA
Middlefield
Bonaventura
Orchard
River Oaks
Tasman Cropley
Milpitas
Hostetter
Berryessa
Penitencia
Creek
McKee
Hamilton
Bascom
Fruitdale
Race Virginia
Tamien
Curtner
Capitol
Branham
Ohlone/
Chynoweth
Blossom Hill
Snell
Cottle
Santa Teresa
Alum
Rock
Winchester
Berryessa
MountainView
Diridon
Station
Tamien
Great
America
Sunnyvale
Blossom Hill
Caltrain
Capitol
Caltrain
College
Park
Caltrain
Lawrence
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
Stanford
Caltrain
Palo Alto
San Francisco Bay
Moffett
Field
Levi’s
De
Anza
Foothill
SJCC
Evergreen
Mission
SJSU
SCU
West
Valley
Stanford University
Eastridge
West Valley
College
Valley Fair
Santa
Clara
Yerba B u e n a
El Ca
mino Real
Camden
Main
Se
r
r
a
Arastradero
Emba
r
c
a
d
e
r
o
Bryant
Remington
Homestead
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
El
M
o
n
t
e
Sa
n
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
Fremont Fremont
Cuesta
Gr
a
n
t
Ho
l
l
e
n
b
e
c
k
Ma
r
y
Mi
r
a
m
o
n
t
e
San
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
Charleston
Re
n
g
s
t
o
r
f
f
Sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
St
e
l
l
i
n
g
N
1
s
t
Carrib
e
a
n
Monroe
Bo
w
e
r
s
Sc
o
t
t
Reed
El Camino Real
Evely
n
Fa
i
r
O
a
k
s
Wo
l
f
e
Fa
i
r
O
a
k
s
Tasman
Central Expwy
Arques
Sa
n
T
o
m
a
s
Camden
Almaden Expwy
Al
m
a
d
e
n
E
x
p
w
y
Le
i
g
h
Bi
r
d
Ra
c
e
The Alameda
El Camino Real
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
Skyp
o
r
t
F
l
i
c
k
i
n
g
e
r
A
d
r
i
a
n
J
a
c
k
s
o
n
J
a
c
k
s
o
n
S
e
n
t
e
r
M
o
n
t
e
r
e
y
Keye
s
Story
Tully
Capit
o
l
Curtn
e
r
Curtn
e
r
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
Hillsd
a
l
e
Bloss
o
m
H
i
l
l
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
Minne
s
o
t
a
Willow
Ro
e
d
e
r
Branham
Blossom Hill
Santa Teresa
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
Co
t
t
l
e
Ral
e
i
g
h
Sa
n
t
a
T
e
r
e
s
a
Sn
e
l
l
C
a
p
i
t
o
l
A
v
e
Senter
O
a
k
l
a
n
d
Mont
a
g
u
e
E
x
p
w
y
Monta
g
u
e
E
x
p
w
y
Agne
w
Broka
w
C
a
p
i
t
o
l
W
h
i
t
e
W
h
i
t
e
C
a
p
i
t
o
l
E
x
p
w
y
1
1
t
h
N
1
1
t
h
N
1
0
t
h
1
0
t
h
S
1
s
t
Quimby
G
u
r
d
w
a
r
a
R
u
b
y
Delta
S
a
n
F
e
l
i
p
e
Aborn
Aborn
The Villa
g
e
s
E Tay
l
o
rE He
d
d
i
n
g
Rigol
e
t
t
o
2
4
t
h
M
c
L
a
u
g
h
l
i
n
M
c
L
a
u
g
h
l
i
n
K
i
n
g
K
i
n
g
K
i
n
g
L
u
n
d
y
Hacienda
Bas
c
o
m
Los
G
a
t
o
s
Win
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
Qu
i
t
o
Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
-
S
a
r
a
t
o
g
a
Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
-
S
a
r
a
t
o
g
a
Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
Campbell
Hamilton
Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
Forest Na
g
l
e
e
Ta
y
l
o
r
Coleman
Fruitdale
Prospect
Bollinger
Mi
l
l
e
r
De
A
n
z
a
Wo
l
f
e
Sa
n
T
o
m
a
s
Williams
Knowles
Samaritan
Wi
n
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
Wi
n
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
Ki
e
l
y
Ba
s
c
o
m
Un
i
o
n
San CarlosStevens Creek
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Stevens Creek
Saratoga
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Be
r
n
a
r
d
o
Wi
l
l
o
w
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
Ca
m
p
u
s
De
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
Cha
r
l
e
s
t
o
n
Mea
d
o
w
Pal
m
Gal
v
e
z
Uni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
w
y
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
Cas
t
r
o
San
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
Sho
r
e
l
i
n
e
Mof
f
e
t
t
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Maud
e
Ma
i
n
Lu
n
d
y
Capitol
Landess
Montagu
e
E
x
p
w
y
Calavera
s
Jacklin
Dixon La
n
d
i
n
g
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
P
a
r
k
V
i
c
t
o
r
i
a
M
i
l
p
i
t
a
s
M
a
i
n
M
c
C
a
r
t
h
y
M
i
l
p
i
t
a
s
M
i
l
m
o
n
t
Page
K
a
t
o
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
G
o
l
d
E Sa
n
t
a
C
l
a
r
a
Alum
R
o
c
k
Story
McKe
e
Mabu
r
y
Berry
e
s
s
a
Hoste
t
t
e
r
M
o
r
r
i
l
l
P
i
e
d
m
o
n
t
E Jul
i
a
n
L
a
f
a
y
et
te
Draft 2019 New Transit Service Plan
COLEMAN
DE
L
M
A
S
WOZ
AL
M
A
D
E
N
J U L IA N
S
T
OC
KTO
N
SAN SALVADOR
State University
San Jose
87
280
280
168
HWY17 168
86
55 55
55
55
86
55 86
HW
Y
1
7
500
523 523
500 500
522
523
6822
23
52
2
22
522
523
23
22
6623
23
22
73726464
72
64
64 64
66 66
73
72
73
72
73 7368
66
68
66
68
66
23
68
66
63
64
64
63
63
St James
Santa Clara
San Antonio
Convention
Center
Children’s
Discovery
Museum
San Fernando
Diridon
Station
Ma
r
k
e
t
St James
Santa Clara
The
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
Aut
u
m
n
Cah
i
l
l
Mon
t
g
o
m
e
r
y
San Fernando
San Carlos
Bi
r
d
Julian
Bassett
1s
t
2n
d
6t
h
7t
h
10
t
h
11
t
h
2n
d
10
t
h
11
t
h
San Carlos
Reed
1s
t
San Fernando
Downtown San Jose
121 to Lockheed Martin
168 to Diridon Station
185 to Mountain View
55 to Diridon Station
86 to San Jose Airport,
Diridon Station
68
to
San Jose
Th
o
m
a
s
S
a
n
t
a
T
e
r
e
s
a
Luchessa
Mantelli
Ke
r
n
1st
Montebello
3rd
Wr
e
n
Sa
n
t
a
Ba
r
b
a
r
a
S
a
n
Y
s
i
d
r
o
10th
6th
Howso
n
C
h
u
r
c
h
M
o
n
t
e
r
e
y
M
o
n
t
e
r
e
y
San Ma
r
t
i
n
Leaves
l
e
y
E
l
m
Dunne
Tennan
t
Half
Main
M
o
n
t
e
r
e
y
B
u
t
t
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
M
o
n
t
e
r
e
y
Coc
h
r
a
n
e
Burn
e
t
t
H
a
l
e
D
e
w
i
t
t
P
e
a
k
C
a
m
i
n
o
A
r
r
o
y
o
5
5
8
6
55
86
8
6
5
5
5
5
287
2
8
7
1
2
1
1
6
8
1
2
1
1
6
8
1
2
1
1
6
8
87
87
86
85
85
85
85
84
84
84
68
Monterey-Salinas
Transit
to Monterey County
55 86
San Benito
County Express
to San Benito County
Gavilan
College
Gilroy Transit Center
Morgan Hill Caltrain
San Martin Caltrain
Legend
VTA Transit Services
Light Rail
BLUE LINE
Alum Rock–Santa Teresa
Partners & Neighbors
Bus
Rapid Bus
Limited-stop service at frequent
intervals – every 15 minutes or
better during day times
Municipal bus and shuttle services
within Santa Clara County:
A thick line indicates frequent service
A dashed line indicates part-time service
BART
Caltrain · ACE · Amtrak
Regional rail connecting
the Bay Area
Frequent Bus
Local service every 12-15 minutes
on weekdays, every 15-20 minutes
on weekends
Less frequent part of route,
generally served by every other trip
Local Bus
Less frequent local service,
usually every 30-60 minutes
Selected trips or part-time service
Express Bus
Direct commute-hour service
to major employment centers
School Service
Seasonal service oriented to
school bell times
GREEN LINE
Winchester–Old Ironsides
Mountain View Shuttle
MVgo Shuttle
Palo Alto Shuttle
ACE Shuttle
Caltrain Shuttle
Stanford Marguerite
Connecting transit bus services to
neighboring cities and counties:
SamTrans
Dumbarton Express
Amtrak Highway 17 Express
Monterey-Salinas Transit
AC Transit
ORANGE LINE
Alum Rock–Mountain View
PURPLE LINE
Almaden–Ohlone/Chynoweth
Light Rail Station
Transfer Station
Rapid
Stop
BART Station
Longer-distance rail to
neighboring counties/regions
Rail Station
Transit
Center
61
522
61
89
42
Places & Connections102
247
Hospital,
Medical Center
schematic map
not to scale
JANUARY 2019
Subject to Change
Cuesta ~'===::::;::::::::~~ MV
+
Stanford/
Marguerite
Shuttle
Free shuttle serving
Stanford University. For information
Stanford University
phone (650) 723-9362.
Los
Altos
Hills
Town•
Hall
San Antonio Transit Center e ++e
a>e
Stanford
Marguerite
Shuttle
Palo
Alto
Municipal
Golf Course
Palo
Alto Airport
Baylands Nature
Preserve
~Embarcadero Shuttle
0 ·c:
.9 c: <(
ffi
<.fJ City
Hall • [JJ
Free shuttle operating Monday -Friday
City of Palo Alto Crosstown Shuttle
Free shuttle operating
Monday -Friday
Los
~Altos
Almond
National Wildlife
Refuge
Shorelint
at Mount
View Par
Mounta
View .she
Am
-!!' oc;; ,~ Mountain View
0 Community Shuttle
Free shuttle operating 2
Monday -Sunday gp::::=:::=:=~
.~. 2 1
• i8i +
W EI Camino Hospital
Route 89
No changes proposed.
Route 522
Hours of frequent service on weekdays and weekends would be extended.
Route 88
Route 88 is proposed to be scaled down to just trips around school hours.
Routes 88, 88L and 88M would be renamed 288, 288L and 288M.
Express 101
Express 101 is proposed to be disconƟnued due to low ridership and a high
subsidy per boarding.
Express 102
Trips on Express 102 are proposed to be decreased from 7 trips to 5 trips in
each direcƟon.
Express 103
Trips on Express 103 are proposed to be decreased from 4 trips to 3 trips in
each direcƟon.
Express 182
Express 101 is proposed to be disconƟnued due to low ridership and a high
subsidy per boarding.
Route 21
Route 21 would merge current Route 35 and current Route 32 into a single
Route connecƟng the Stanford Shopping Center, San Antonio Transit Center,
Mountain View Transit Center and Santa Clara Caltrain StaƟon. On Sundays,
the service would only operate between the Stanford Shopping Center and
Mountain View Transit Center.
Route 22
Service would no longer be operated between 1:00 AM and 4:00 AM.
Proposed changes in Palo Alto compared to current service
1
Carnahan, David
From:Susan Hartzell <hartzellhs@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 26, 2019 9:42 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Save the 35 bus!
Dear Council Members—
As a resident of Channing House I want to urge you to preserve the VTA 35 bus route for the use of the many residents
of the downtown area who are saving the environment by giving up their cars and riding the bus. (Or even riding the bus
instead of driving their cars.)
—Susan Hartzell
Susan and Harry Hartzell
850 Webster Street Apt 430
Palo Alto, CA 94301
1
Carnahan, David
From:Betty Howell <betty@anderwell.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 23, 2019 9:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:SUPPORT for BUS 35 - re: February 26 meeting
Dear Policy and Services Committee of Palo Alto City Council,
This is a message supporting Bus 35. The north section of Santa Clara County needs transit,
particularly for seniors. The 35 bus is very important to members of our senior community and the
seniors nearby. Please do not cut service for this north Santa Clara area.
Thank you,
Betty Howell
850 Webster Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Virus-free. www.avast.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:Connected Communities Collaborative <answers@connectedcc.org>
Sent:Thursday, February 21, 2019 11:31 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:CityLaunch 2019 - Announcing CityLaunch’s Rockstar Keynote Speaker – Peter Hirshberg!
March 10‐12, 2019
Hard Rock Hotel ‐ San Diego, CA
2
Peter Hirshberg serves as an innovation
advisor to cities and companies. He has
created two centers of urban innovation
from scratch: Maker City Project and Gray
Area Foundation for the Arts.
He’s a founder of the Maker City Project,
the national organization tasked with
helping cities and towns reclaim
manufacturing prowess by leveraging the
Maker movement.
His research on the Maker City is available
in the best selling book – Maker City: A
practical guide to reinventing our cities –
funded by the Kauffman Foundation. This
book was created in collaboration with
White House where it was launched in 2016
and with the Brookings Institution, where
Hirshberg is an author.
As Chairman and Co-founder of San Francisco’s Gray Area Art and
Technology Theater, he’s been instrumental in building one of San
Francisco’s most vibrant and civic-minded arts organizations, a center
for digital media education, incubation, performance and exhibition. He
spearheaded initial fundraising, provides strategic and operational
guidance, and helps pioneer internationally recognized programs
including Urban Prototyping, a global movement that engages citizens in
the co-creation and co-planning of their cities. As part of this work
Hirshberg pioneered the open data movement to foster transparency and
innovation in cities, leading dozens of hackathons and open data events
in San Francisco, Singapore, New York, Hong Kong, and London.
3
As CEO and founder of the Re:Imagine Group, he consulted with
executive teams at Best Buy, Sony, IBM, Verizon, Time Warner, Unilever,
GE, Estee Lauder, Telefonica, and many others on their innovation and
digital growth strategies.
During his nine-year tenure at Apple Computer, Hirshberg headed Enterprise
Marketing, where he grew Apple’s large business and government revenue to
$1 billion annually. Subsequently he was CEO of Elemental Software (sold to
Adobe), Gloss.com (Estee Lauder), and he served as Chairman of Technorati,
the pioneering social media search engine and advertising network with over a
billion monthly page views.
Peter is cofounder of City Innovate foundation, an organization formed with
The San Francisco Mayor’s office, UC Berkeley and the MIT media lab to
promote a network of global civic innovation centers.
As an advisor to United Nations Global Pulse he’s addressed the General
Assembly real-time data for international development and is editor of, “Taking
the Global Pulse.”
Peter is a sought after technology and innovation speaker, having presented at
TED, the World Economic Forum, DLD, The Aspen Ideas Festival,
E.G.,Techonomy, CeBIT, WEB 2.0 Summit, and many other events.
His board and advisor positions have included Active Video Networks,
Technorati, Build Public, The Computer History Museum, and Gray Area
Foundation for the Arts. He is a Senior Fellow at the USC Annenberg Center
on Communication Leadership and Policy and a Henry Crown fellow of the
Aspen Institute. He is a graduate of Dartmouth College and received his MBA
at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
Come hear more from Peter at CityLaunch 2019
With Support From
4
CityLaunch 2019 | 877‐468‐5222 | E‐mail | ConnectedCC.org
Connected Communities Collaborative | 1620 5th Avenue, Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101
Unsubscribe city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
About our service provider
Sent by answers@connectedcc.org in collaboration with
Try it free today
1
Carnahan, David
From:Steve Rock <rock_js@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Monday, February 25, 2019 9:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Dangerous Iron plates on Mayview
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to you because your staff will not fix this serious safety
hazard, including the city manager.
As of about noon on 2/25, the iron plates with their dangerous piles of
asphalt present a serious hazard to cyclists. This problem has existed for
over a month. It is against the city rules to have these iron plates
raised and no smooth transition.
I spoke informally to a staff person not in the relevant department and
they said it sometimes takes Sherlock Holmes to figure out who is
responsible there are so many different agencies and managers of
projects. It doesn't matter who made the mess, someone should be put in
charge of fixing it!
Please ask your staff to fix the problem before someone is injured.
Thank you for your help.
-Steve
Stephen Rock
3872 Nathan Way Palo Alto CA 94303
ser84@columbia.edu
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Steve Rock <rock_js@sbcglobal.net>
To: CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019, 6:39:08 PM PST
Subject: Fw: iron plates on Mayview
Dear Manager,
I am writing because your staff has failed to address an important bike
safety issue for about a month
The transcript from PaloAlto311 about the Mayview hazard is
below. Nothing has changed.
It is marked as completed, which is far from observation based reality
(but perhaps bureaucratic reality of passing the problem on to someone
else).
I called Meneses on Mon 2/11 and he said "why are you calling me". Note
that Palo Alto311 claimed they were contacting Meneses. (You will have to
translate between Palo Alto311 unusual and unique calendar style of "days
ago" to the one in day and month the rest of the world uses.) The screen
shot was taken about a week ago, so "days ago" is not from today).
Meneses said he would take care of the problem.
2
He lied, Palo Alto311 lied. The Hazard still exists in the slippery rain.
The warning signs were only placed because I called the police.
What can be done to get competent, honest people working for Palo Alto?
------
My other complaint about a similar hazard on Ross near Stone where nothing
at all has been done and my complaint on Palo Alto is still "pending" (see
lower box).
-Steve
Stephen Rock
3872 Nathan Way Palo Alto CA 94303
ser84@columbia.edu
#5504769
3
4
1
Carnahan, David
From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 20, 2019 8:14 PM
To:board.secretary@vta.org
Cc:boardoperations@cob.sccgov.org; Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Subject:DRAFT 2019. New Transit Service Plan
February 20, 2019
Re: Draft 2019 New Transit Service Plan
Dear Chair O’Neill and VTA Board of Directors,
The proposed changes outlined in the Draft 2019 New Transit Plan have serious impacts to users of VTA Bus lines
22,522, Routes 88L, 88M, 88, and 89. I do support keeping the Express Routes serving Palo as one means of reducing
commuter car traffic in the region. This memo, however, focuses on different routes.
VTA Routes 22 and 522
VTA does deserve credit for enhancing bus frequency during the day by reducing bus headways. By VTA’s own
admission, the 22/522 corridor has long been of the most important spines of the overall system.
VTA should examine the implications of service reductions to transit users who are dependent upon accessible services.
For example, the elimination of 22/522 services between 1am and 4am has consequences.
Workers with night or swing shift hours need transit. If services stop for a three‐hour period in the middle of the night,
individuals, including women, will be let off in the middle of the night with uncertain and possibly dangerous situations.
Community policing and VTA security (provided by the County Sheriff’s Office) may not have the capacity to provide
safety and security to these transit users.
2
Some riders are homeless and due to lack of services or willingness to use them, these people are also very vulnerable.
How can we justify such reductions while recognizing economic disparities and insufficient housing and services for
working poor and the homeless? I find it hard to believe that the funding of 3 hours of services cannot be accomplished.
A significant number of riders use both lines along the El Camino Real Corridor.
In fact, many transit dependent riders heavily rely on these lines because they do not have alternatives. Many
individuals and families and seniors use transit bus services to get to and from work, schools, colleges, and training and
employment development centers, shopping and medical services, hospitals, and appointments. These statements also
apply to other users who have made deliberate choices to reduce or eliminate their use of the automobile in favor of
transit.
VTA Routes 88 L, 88M, 88 and 89
Keeping Routes 88 L and M are critical services to community members and Gunn students. The plan makes this
proposal. However, the VTA Route 89 would run less frequently and the Route 88 would no longer exist and reliable
access to the VA Hospital would be eliminated. Many veterans do no have the means to access ride‐share services of
taxis, Lyft, or Uber.
The VTA campus provides important services for veterans. As noted above, many veterans do not have alternatives, cost
effective means of accessing the VTA Hospital in Palo Alto. Appointments do not always neatly fit into the limited time
frames of the buses remaining to reach the VA campus. As I understand it, the VA does provide a shuttle between San
Jose and Palo Alto. However, it is infrequent. Route 88 provides better and more frequent service.
Various options to consider: Direct VTA to secure funding for VTA Routes 88 and 89, get a partial stipend from the VA to
help with operations, or develop a bus‐route sponsorship program for at least one year or explore if the VA would
provide some support, originally used for its own shuttle, to ensure the bus routes are maintained. Another alternative
would be to use VTA’s paratransit to provide some limited services to veterans needing rides from Caltrain stations or
bus stops along El Camino to the VA Hospital.
Development Along the Corridor
Additionally, the level of completed and pending construction of multi family units will yield additional users. Cities
continue to examine how a change in the required parking standards can complement reduced car ownership and
usage.
3
The evolution of the Grand Corridor anticipates that over time increased population and job growth will prompt the
increased uses and capacity of our major “north‐south” corridors (with related east west connections and shuttles
services).
As a community planner for over 25 years, I have an optimistic attitude about our abilities to find creative solutions. . As
this increases, traffic and mobility will be more difficult and the need for alternatives more apparent. VTA is examining
strategies to incorporate new technologies related to mobility (Workshop on Feb 22, 2019)
My Recommendations
1. Re‐examine the Draft 2019 New Transit Service Plan and find alternatives to support many existing
services that people depend upon. I do not think funding alternatives were adequately examined.
2. Do not reduce services from 1am to 4am for the 222/522 Bus by finding appropriate resources to
maintain services. The most vulnerable, including shift workers, need bus services throughout the night
to have secure mobility and make safe connections; many people (40‐45 of the total of 120 using the
route at night) who use this route are homeless. I think it would make sense to have VTA work with the
County to secure additional homeless and housing services to help the population using VTA routes as a
shelter instead of making them depart with no place to go.
3. Do not reduce the frequency of lines of Routes 88 and 89. Re‐examine alternatives to ensure access to
the VA Hospital. I have made several suggestions in the concluding section of the discussion about
Routes 88 and 89.
4. To adequately support all growth in the region, we must adequately and fully support the transit and
paratransit services for individuals who depend on it irrespective of their use of the expanded BART
services to anta Clara County .The transferability between systems will evolve as needed d but should not
be done now at the expense of current and new bus transit riders.
Sincerely,
Gail A. Price
Former VTA Board of Directors
Former Palo Alto Council Member
Palo Alto, CA
4
Cc: President Joseph Simitian, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Cc: Mayor Filseth and Palo Alto City Council Members
Cc: Palo Alto City Manager Ed Shikada
Cc: CA Assemblyperson Marc Berman
Cc: CA State Senator Jerry Hill
1
Carnahan, David
From:Downtown Streets Team <eileen@downtownstreetsteam.ccsend.com> on behalf of Downtown
Streets Team <development@streetsteam.org>
Sent:Thursday, February 21, 2019 5:03 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:DST In The News!
In Case You Missed It!
Downtown Streets Team was featured this
morning on KTVU. See the full segment below:
Do you know someone that would be the perfect fit
for Downtown Streets Team?
2
Could that candidate be you?
We're hiring!
Program Operations Manager:
San Jose
We are seeking an independently focused,
dedicated, experienced and passionate
Manager of Program Operations to work directly
with the Chief Program Operations to improve
and supervise programs throughout the
agency. For the full job description and how to
apply, click here.
Culinary Program Manager:
Mountain View
Downtown Streets Team is launching a culinary
training program inside a newly renovated
industrial kitchen to train Team Members in the
skills they need to graduate unto living wage
culinary jobs. For the full job description and
how to apply, click here.
Project Manager: Palo Alto
You will be managing a Team of
volunteers, up to 30 individuals, who are
experiencing homeless, or at-risk of
experiencing homelessness. For the full job
description and how to apply, click here.
Why work at DST?
We've been recognized as “The top 100 non-profits in the USA to work for”
by Non Profit Times in 2016 and 2018
and
“One-of-five best practices for ending homelessness”
by the California Association of Counties and League of California Cities.
Email Chris for more information about current openings.
3
If you can't donate your car, consider donating long johns and thermals
to our Team Members. It is incredibly cold right now on shift, and an
extra layer would be greatly appreciated. Email Latisha for donation
coordinating.
Want to help us continue our work?
DONATE
Follow us for more stories and news about DST:
4
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
Try it free today
1
Carnahan, David
From:chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 23, 2019 9:16 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Cubberley plans incomplete
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 5:11 AM
Subject: Cubberley plans incomplete
To: <letters@padailypost.com>
Dear Dave Price,
(Re: your fine story on the Cubberley plan Feb. 12). The Cubberley plan is NOT complete.
The plans have different roofs, lots of styles of architecture, all kinds of colors.
But what about the homeless for whom Cubberley was once and for many years, in the
immortal words of Jim Keene, "a defacto homeless shelter"? He didn't say it like it was a
good thing.
Palo Alto needs to take pride in helping those most squeezed by the housing crisis, the
most unequal victims of the "deepening income inequality" (Daily POST Feb 16-17), not
apologize for its social consciousness.
Wise, successful, thinking humanitarians give half their profits to those in need. Small
minded, insecure soon-to-be victims of our economic woes worry about a few hours of bus
time in the middle of the night.
VTA and the City of Palo Alto and all of us should be looking to increase the few scraps for
those at the bottom of the valley, not eliminate them.
2
The fact that managers and shareholders of the VTA fortunate enough to have a safe,
warm, dry place to sleep should take the Hotel 22 away from those too poor to pay for
shelter for four hours in the middle of the night qualifies those shareholders for extra
points on their applications for the Donald J. Trump Award for Shamelessness.
And where are the plans for accommodations at Cubberley that were taken away in the
Great Cubberley Expulsion of 2013?
Why not a grilling area for all people who like (or need) to eat outdoors?
The plans are not complete. All segments of the community have not been considered.
Chuck Jagoda
‐‐
Chuck
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Monday, February 25, 2019 4:17 PM
To:Loran Harding; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Mayor; Mark Kreutzer; Mark
Standriff; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; nick
yovino; Doug Vagim; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com;
boardmembers; Council, City; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; Cathy Lewis;
hennessy; Chris Field; info@superide1.com; midge@thebarretts.com; huidentalsanmateo; terry
Subject:Fwd: Daily Mail today: HSR in England- $77 B est'd cost, big fight over it.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 3:10 PM
Subject: Fwd: Daily Mail today: HSR in England‐ $77 B est'd cost, big fight over it.
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 2:52 PM
Subject: Fwd: Daily Mail today: HSR in England‐ $77 B est'd cost, big fight over it.
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 1:58 PM
Subject: Fwd: Daily Mail today: HSR in England‐ $77 B est'd cost, big fight over it.
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 5:05 PM
Subject: Fwd: Daily Mail today: HSR in England‐ $77 B est'd cost, big fight over it.
To: Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, Mark Standriff
<mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, <esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov>, paul.caprioglio <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, beachrides
<beachrides@sbcglobal.net>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian
<davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>,
<kwalsh@kmaxtv.com>, nick yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>, Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, Steve Wayte
<steve4liberty@gmail.com>, Joel Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com>, <pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com>
2
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 5:00 PM
Subject: Fwd: Daily Mail today: HSR in England‐ $77 B est'd cost, big fight over it.
To: Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 4:33 PM
Subject: Fwd: Daily Mail today: HSR in England‐ $77 B est'd cost, big fight over it.
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 4:28 PM
Subject: Daily Mail today: HSR in England‐ $77 B est'd cost, big fight over it.
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sunday, Feb. 24, 2019
Dan‐ You may find this interesting. The cost of the British HSR system is now estimated at, coincidentally, US$77
billion. Huge fight to stop it. The WHO issued a nighttime rail noise limit of 44 dB in Oct., 2018.
The Chinese have built. 25,000 KM of HSR in 10 years, and the Germans, French, Spanish, Italians, Japanese, and
Taiwanese, have big systems. There is something in the U.S. and British political systems or character which just rebels at
this.
We are more like the British than we are like the continentals or the Asians wrt HSR. Who is doing better?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article‐6739807/Fresh‐blow‐HS2‐study‐says‐noise‐levels‐breach‐new‐World‐Health‐
Organisation‐limits.html
But the final chapter has yet to be written on either the British or California HSR sagas.
There is hope for California yet. Just tie the Central Valley HSR line near Merced via ninety miles of track to Gilroy
and thus to the SF peninsula. It would transform the CV and address the housing crisis on the peninsula. ~Ninety miles of
track. Los Banos and Gilroy both have an elevation of ~300 feet. Summit of Pacheco Pass is 1368 feet, so 1,000 feet up
and 1,000 feet back down over the coast range along part of the route. Ninety miles of track should be feasible. The
U.S. defense budget is $716 billion under California‐hater Trump. Those two numbers should make a lot of people
wonder about our system, and vote for change. The advantages of those ninety miles of track will prove irresistible.
Given the cost estimate for the entire California HSR system of $77 billion, it works out to ~$130 million per mile.
At that rate, 90 miles of track to connect Merced to Gilroy would cost $11.7 billion. Maybe more for that stretch if
3
tunnels and viaducts are required. But look at our gargantuan defense budget of $716 billion this year. Trump has taken
to calling it "the cost to rebuild our military", as if Obama left us utterly vulnerable militarily. You can almost hear those
six carriers approaching Oahu again as we speak. This after I have complained repeatedly that we are providing a free
military defense for all of Europe, Japan, S. Korea, and more, so they can spend their defense money on high speed rail,
national health care and affordable universities. No one has or can refute that. We are being played for suckers by the
whole world. Somebody said that the U.S. is like a drunken billionaire lying in the gutter. If you go over and kick him, a
few billion dollars fly out. That is how we are viewed by the whole world and I don't like it.
The people of California should remember Trump. He said during his visit to the Camp fire with Gov. Brown that
there is $50 million in the Interior Dept. budget for cleaning up the forest floor of dead trees and undergrowth, etc.,
what he alleges causes our wild fires. That was an insult to the Governor and the people of California. It would cost
billions of dollars to clear out the undergrowth, etc. on millions of acres of forest in the West. And debris on the forest
floor, etc. is only part of the cause of our horrific, and now almost monthly, wild fires in California. 129 million dead
trees in the Sierra, caused by a 5 year drought, itself caused in part by climate change, idiotic encroachment by
homeowners into the WUI, and drier, warmer conditions caused by climate change, are also the cause of these fires. We
must clear out and thin the forests and halt the encroachment by homes into the WUI. The clearing and thinning will
take years, even if Trump and Congress provided the billions of dollars it will cost. Trump will try to block that. Notice
that, my fellow Californians. After we get a President who represents the American people, we can address that urgent
task. In the meantime, we need 50 747s converted to fire‐retardant tankers. They can deliver 19,000 gal. of retardant
onto a fire in one pass. At present, there is exactly ONE of these planes available to fight wild fires, and it was used
belatedly on the Camp fire. It is privately owned by a company in Colorado, I believe. At $100 million per plane, 50 of
these would cost $5 billion. We need those as soon as they can be bought and converted. Trying to fight 300 square‐mile
wild fires with thousands of men using shovels, the current procedure, is just ridiculous.
No federal money for high speed rail in California, and no money to prevent and fight the now unending wild fires
here. But unlimited federal money to guarantee the good life for the people of Europe, Japan and S. Korea and to enrich
Trump's pals in the defense industry. Trump is worse for this State than a neutral actor would be. He is an affirmative
enemy of the people of California. I know his type. I spent years in the GM building one block north of Trump Tower.
He's a type of manager on Manhattan Island: Screw the people who make the system work and enrich the one per‐cent,
including himself. Maybe these are found beyond Manhattan Island as well.
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Dr. Mathew <getfiteatwellglobal@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 26, 2019 3:07 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Interview & National Nutrition Month
Hello
We would like to interview and invite the Elected officials to be a judge in a Healthy Cooking competition in celebration
of National Nutrition Month. We create fun and exciting experiences around healthy food. Plant based food and
sustainability are at the core of what we do. We are excited to work with you. We will be also recording for Midpen
Media.
Best in Health,
Dr. Mathew
1
Carnahan, David
From:Audrey Gold <audreygold@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 21, 2019 1:46 PM
To:simitian@bos.sccgov.org; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org;
dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org
Cc:boardoperations@cob.sccgov.org; City Mgr; Council, City; PTAC President; Gold, Audrey; Howell,
Melissa; daustin@pausd.org; Ellson, Penny; Heather Rose
Subject:Letter from Fletcher Middle School PTA regarding Stanford GUP transportation needs
Attachments:Fletcher PTA Stanford GUP letter on Transportation.pdf
Dear Honorable Supervisors,
Please review the attached letter from the Ellen Fletcher Middle School PTA that details our concerns around
transportation needs for students and families specific to our school site.
Thank you,
Audrey Gold
PTA President at Ellen Fletcher Middle School
Palo Alto
February 20, 2019
Honorable Santa Clara County Supervisors,
As you consider the Stanford GUP Final EIR and Development Agreement, Fletcher Middle
School PTA in Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) respectfully asks you to consider the
following requests regarding transportation.
Fletcher Middle School serves 667 students - 38% of these students bike to school for the
2018-19 school year. We estimate that about half of Fletcher students use foot-powered
transportation for their daily commute to school.
We are glad to see the proposal to improve connections to Fletcher via the Bol Park
Path, Hanover Street, Page Mill included in the EIR. 113 of Stanford-affiliated students who
currently attend Fletcher live in the Stanford area which can be considered “west of Page
Mill.” As Stanford’s growth plans will likely increase PAUSD student enrollment, this is an
appropriate time to improve these well-used facilities--especially because increasing numbers
of Stanford-affiliated residents will attend Fletcher Middle School and other nearby PAUSD
schools that are served by these bike connections. In addition to funding for this project, the
City has requested an easement to enable these improvements. We hope that easement will
be granted.
Many students have commented on the “scary” darkness of both the upper and lower paths
when they commute in the evening from after-school activities. Lighting and other safety and
capacity improvements will make the routes more inviting. Hanover and Page Mill connector
improvements will encourage more parents to allow their students to use these auto-impacted
connectors. Thank you for including these off-site improvements in your project plans to
create a safer and more comfortable bicycle-pedestrian route from Stanford to school, as well
as the Stanford Research Park and other destinations. Stanford employees will also benefit
as some use these paths to commute to campus.
Fletcher Middle School PTA supports requests made by the Palo Alto Council of PTAs
Traffic Safety Committee with some additional points that are specific to our school
site.
●Make contributions to Transit and Transportation Infrastructure: Make
contributions to necessary capital improvements at City intersections and to support
grade separations. Make fair share payments to the City in-line with the City’s
Transportation Impact Fee requirements, including fair share contributions to Caltrain
grade separation. Specifically, in support of the Charleston–Arastradero Plan to
improve bike facilities and road operations along this route, we ask you to please
analyze Project impacts on this school commute corridor in order to identify an
appropriate fair share contribution toward grade separation.
The Fletcher PTA supports the Charleston-Arastradero (C-A) Plan which will provide
safer bike and pedestrian facilities on Charleston-Arastradero. EIR Mitigation #58
would require a new, dedicated right turn lane at the intersection of Alma/Charleston.
This proposed mitigation is inconsistent with the Charleston-Arastradero Plan
(currently under construction) and the City’s Bicycle–Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
Further, it is not consistent with the city’s plan to grade separate the rail crossing at this
intersection. The FEIR would require $1.8 million for mitigation measure #58. Instead,
consistent with city plans, we ask you to apply this contribution to planned grade
separation of this intersection in addition to any other fair share contribution that may
be required once requested analysis is complete.
●Upgrade Analysis and Commute Trip Methodology: Peak spreading and reverse
commutes impact school commute safety. Please require Stanford to make needed
adjustments in order to fully capture traffic impacts that occur throughout the day,
including morning and afternoon school commute times and reverse commutes.
●Provide funding assistance to the City for crossing guards at intersections that
may warrant crossing guards in the future due to Stanford GUP-related traffic impacts
on PAUSD school routes.
●Continuation of Cooperation with the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Partnership
and extend that cooperation to support future Stanford-affiliated PAUSD students.
●Fund identified and not yet identified safe routes engineering improvements:
Fletcher PTA supports the City’s request that Stanford create an annual budget based
on the agreed work program for future improvements that benefit Stanford faculty,
employees, staff, and graduate students with children. Please ensure that the
University remains responsive when new demands for school travel are generated by
new development, giving heightened attention to safety and congestion impacts on
school commute routes.
●Support Partner Organizations: Provide technical and financial support to partner
organizations (e.g. local Shuttles and TMAs). Coordinate with the City of Palo Alto to
support the City’s Shuttle Program and enhance connections with the Marguerite
Shuttle.
Thank you for considering our requests.
Sincerely,
Audrey Gold
Fletcher PTA President on behalf of the Ellen Fletcher Middle School PTA
cc:
Board Operations boardoperations@cob.sccgov.org
Planning Commission planningcommission@pin.sccgov.org
Ed Shikada, City Manager cityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org
Palo Alto City Council city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
1
Carnahan, David
From:Marty DOUGLAS <martydoug@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, February 26, 2019 3:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Purchase of property across from Boulware Park
Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council Members,
I urge you to purchase the property across the street from Boulware Park in Ventura and add that to our
parkland. Please make sure that prospective competitive buyers know that the lot is zoned PF and that Council has NO
intention whatsoever of changing the zoning to make it attractive for investors.
Let’s keep our PF zones Public Serving. Thank you.
Marilyn Douglas ‐ Ventura resident
360 maclane St.
P.A. 94306
1
Carnahan, David
From:Glenn Fisher <gfisher@mac.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 21, 2019 3:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rail Committee - grade separation concerns
Hi,
I’m addressing the Rail Committee, which I understand is currently a committee of the whole.
I’ve spent some time to read all the presentations and white papers, and I have a few concerns that I’d like to raise.
1) Financing.
The Consultant’s estimate is that implementing any of the plans will raise property taxes by $1700 to $6500 per year
(that’s additional to current taxes). That’s up to a 40% increase over current property tax.
I did my own analysis. If one assumes that half of the cost comes from external sources, and only houses are taxed, over
30 years to pay off the bond, it works out to about $270/year/household for the cheapest (hybrid) to
$4300/year/household for tunnel.
I think it’s critical that the potential cost to each household is clearly communicated. I think if people who want the
tunnel realized it would cost them $4200/year for the next 30 years, they might change their mind.
I realize that until plans are finalized and the city shops funding sources, we won’t know how much it will actually cost
per household; and that there will be some sort of tax on businesses (property tax?) that will further reduce the cost,
but that isn’t a reason to not talk about cost now.
2) Creeks and flooding
The trench option is favored by many people, but it has two huge obstacles. One is that the city may never get
permission to obstruct the creeks and replace them with a pump system. It is disingenuous at best to promote an
option which is not feasible because of permitting and rights issues. The other is reliability of the pump systems. During
the time I’ve lived in the city the pump systems for Embarcadero and Page Mill underpasses have failed more than once,
flooding the underpass and rendering it impassible. Annoying. If the pump systems failed for Adobe or Matadero creek
under a trench option, houses above the tracks would be flooded, which would be more than annoying and likely costly
to the city.
3) Grade
Several of the options require a grade of more than 1%. However, it’s unclear that CalTrain and Union Pacific will
approve a grade greater than 1%. Apparently CalTrain has approved a grade slightly above 1% for another city. Palo
Alto needs to have certainty that a higher than 1% grade will be approved, or it must take those options off the table.
We can’t afford a multi‐year delay while approval is sought, only to find that the powers won’t approve more than 1%,
and we have to go back to the drawing board and start over. It’s critical that the City aggressively pursue the necessary
approvals for a greater than 1% grade immediately.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Steve Bisset <steve@bisset.us>
Sent:Monday, February 25, 2019 6:08 PM
To:Fine, Adrian; Council, City
Subject:Re: Keep the Cap
To Adrian Fine and Palo Alto Council Members,
Thank you Adrian for responding in detail to my email “Keep the Cap”. It is much appreciated.
Comments on your many points follow this email. Here are my overall conclusions:
(1) The only significant result of removing the Downtown Cap will be, unsurprisingly, that new construction of
downtown Office/R&D will be approved.
Since every impact of such new construction is negative, then the Cap should be retained, and I ask you to
vote accordingly.
(2) There are no credible benefits to removing the Cap.
This begs the question: What fuels the urgency to remove the Cap?
Discussions with developers who seek downtown projects should be disclosed to the public, as should
discussions (if any) about downtown developments as tax revenue sources.
See below for point‐by‐point comments.
Sincerely,
Steve Bisset
Fife Avenue
Adrian Fine Point A. “First of all, the downtown cap prohibited everything except residential, which means
leaving the cap in place would have prevented all future retail, banks, personal services, groceries, non‐profits,
theaters, dentists, etc. Office/R&D aside, I think that's an irresponsible choice for Downtown and Palo Alto.”
Comment: This appears to be false for all practical purposes. The Cap does not prevent conversion from one
commercial use to another. It would only prevent, say, a new restaurant if that restaurant planned new
construction that would cause a net increase in commercial space. How many potential non‐Office/R&D
projects have been thwarted by the Cap? Any at all? In reality we have the opposite problem, where the
rules have been bent to convert ground floor space from public‐facing uses to Office/R&D.
Adrian Fine Point B. “On Office/R&D uses, the downtown cap was subsumed last year by the 50k square feet
annual pacing mechanism, and by the citywide/15 year cap of 850k square feet (technically only ~600k
remaining).”
2
Comment: You seem to be saying that the Cap has no affect on Office/R&D development, but why does it
need to be removed?
Adrian Fine Point C. “Keeping the cap doesn't stop office growth in Palo Alto, it simply moves future office
growth to the neighborhoods.”
Comment: This is ridiculous. It could only be true if there were a plan afoot to rezone residential
neighborhoods for commercial use. Do you know of such a plan? If so, it must be disclosed to the public
immediately.
Adrian Fine Point D. “On the supposed conflict between housing and office downtown, the downtown zoning
districts separate office and residential square footage, so building office does not prevent housing.”
Comment: “Keep the Cap” makes no mention of such a supposed conflict. Point D deflects from the
obvious: Every new square foot of Office/R&D makes the jobs/housing imbalance worse, so all of its impacts
are harmful.
Adrian Fine Point E. “Moreover, if we continue to bundle office space, housing, retail, and traffic into a single
issue we simply can't plan for Palo Alto's future.”
Comment: Of course you can plan for the future with the Downtown Cap in place.
Any plan to mitigate problems in housing, retail, and/or traffic is made almost impossible by Office /R&D
growth, so a permanent Downtown Cap would be a strong benefit to future planning.
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 7:50 PM Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Hi Steve,
Thanks for the message, and nice to hear from you. A couple of comments:
First of all, the downtown cap prohibited everything except residential, which means leaving the cap in place
would have prevented all future retail, banks, personal services, groceries, non‐profits, theaters, dentists, etc.
Office/R&D aside, I think that's an irresponsible choice for Downtown and Palo Alto.
On Office/R&D uses, the downtown cap was subsumed last year by the 50k square feet annual pacing
mechanism, and by the citywide/15 year cap of 850k square feet (technically only ~600k remaining). Keeping
the cap doesn't stop office growth in Palo Alto, it simply moves future office growth to the neighborhoods.
On the supposed conflict between housing and office downtown, the downtown zoning districts separate
office and residential square footage, so building office does not prevent housing. Moreover, if we continue
to bundle office space, housing, retail, and traffic into a single issue we simply can't plan for Palo Alto's
future.
I hope this helps explain a bit of my thinking. Feel free to reach out with any questions.
Regards,
Adrian
3
PS
Gary says hi
From: Steve Bisset <steve@bisset.us>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2019 10:53 PM
To: Council, City
Subject: Keep the Cap
Dear Council Members:
Please remove Item #10 from the Consent Calendar, and keep the Downtown Cap in place.
As far as I can tell, every impact of repealing the Downtown Non‐residential Commercial Cap is decidedly negative.
The overarching consequence is that a repeal clearly makes the jobs/housing imbalance worse.
If you support this repeal, and support alleviating the housing crisis, then please explain how you justify the stark
contradiction between these two positions.
Sincerely,
Steve Bisset
1051 Fife Avenue
1
Carnahan, David
From:Peter Comcast <pnr21@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, February 25, 2019 8:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rooftop utilization
If you are going to allow these non informing adjustments we as community members should get some benefit.
Peter Rosenthal
Sent from my iPhone
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sky Posse Post <skypossepost@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 26, 2019 3:36 PM
To:andi@citiesassociation.org
Subject:Santa Clara | Santa Cruz Community Roundtable - Five Principles to help guide next steps
Attachments:Sky Posse Letter to SCSC Community RT 022619.pdf
Please find attached: Sky Posse Palo Alto letter to Members of the Santa Clara | Santa Cruz Community Roundtable
!
!
Sky$Posse$Palo$Alto!
2225 East Bayshore Avenue, Suite 200, Palo Alto, CA 94301!
!
!
February!26,!2019!
!
!
Andi!Jordan,!Executive!Director!
Cities!Association!of!Santa!Clara!County!!
PO!Box!3144!
Los!Altos,!CA!!94024!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
Re:!Santa!Clara!|!Santa!Cruz!Community!Roundtable!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!Five%Principles%to%help%guide%next%steps%%%%
%
!
Dear!Members!of!the!Roundtable,!
!
The!Santa!Clara!Santa!Cruz!Community!Roundtable!represents!welcome!progress!after!some!four!years!
of!regional!discussions!over!aircraft!noise.!We!want!to!thank!the!13!member!citiesT!Santa!Clara!and!
Santa!Cruz!County,!and!CASCC!for!your!leadership!on!this!issue.!
!
Formation!of!the!Roundtable!follows!the!foundational!efforts!of!the!Select!Committee!on!South!Bay!
Arrivals!which!successfully!set!an!agenda!based!on!considered!"Underlying!Principles"!which!guided!the!
subsequent!public!discussions.!We!think!there!is!much!information!to!serve!as!guidance!for!next!steps!in!
the!process!to!find!solutions!to!aircraft!noise!problems!for!our!communitiesT!how!those!steps!are!taken!to!
make!measurable!reductions!in!aircraft!noise!is!critically!important.!Foremost!is!the!need!to!recognize!the!
noise!impacts!to!all!communities!affected,!and!to!address!how!and!where!those!impacts!are!affecting!
particular!communities.!No!person!or!family!living!in!the!13!communities!represented!by!this!Roundtable!
expected!or!were!prepared!for!the!effects!of!a!rapid,!multiYfold!increase!in!air!traffic!over!their!homes.!!
!
To!ensure!the!best!chance!of!success!for!the!Roundtable!to!address!the!problem!of!aircraft!noise!for!
impacted!communities,!we!suggest!focusing!on!five!principles!YY!based!on!the!“Underlying!Principles”!of!
the!Select!Committee.!These!are!basic!goals!that!can!and!should!be!incorporated!as!a!baseline!for!
determining!a!successful!outcome!for!this!Roundtable.!
!
●!Reduce%noise%impacts!on!communities!caused!by!NextGen!Performance!Based!Navigation!
procedures.!This!should!be!the!first!priority!for!Roundtable!discussions!and!outcomes,!for!all!
communities!affected.!
!
●!Use%of%metrics%that%accurately%and%meaningfully%measure%aircraft%noise!is!essential!for!
outcomes!that!reduce!real!noise!as!experienced!by!those!on!the!ground!in!affected!communities.!
!
●!A%common%baseline%of%aircraft%noise!must!be!established!to!determine!what!and!where!are!the!
outlying!or!unacceptable!levels!of!noise!that!need!to!be!addressed.!
!
February!26,!2019!
Page!2!
!
!
Sky%Posse%Palo%Alto%is%a%grassroots%group%of%residents%from%across%the%Mid?Peninsula%deeply%concerned%
about%increased%air%traffic%over%our%communities.%%Many%have%invested%substantial%effort%in%studying%!
the%issues,%attending%hearings%and%meetings,%and%engaging%in%outreach.%!
See%our%website%at%www.skypossepaloalto.org!
!
!
!
●!A!small!number!of!communities%should%not%be%disproportionately%affected!when!there!are!
ways!to!avoid!or!disperse!aircraft!noise.!!
%
●!Night%flights!are!a!particular!health!concern!that!needs!urgent!attention.!
!
Our!view!is!that!aircraft!routes!should!be!redesigned!so!that!the!overall!groundYlevel!noise!is!reduced!to!
the!minimum!possible!and!no!single!corridor!or!set!of!communities!bears!a!disproportionate!amount!of!
the!noise.!To!succeed,!it!is!imperative!to!have!accurate%data%and%analysis.!In!addition,!solutions!and!
alternatives%must%be%explored%in%a%holistic%manner%?%as!FAA!reminds!Y!all!arrival!and!departure!
procedures!in!the!Northern!California!airspace!are!interconnected!and!interdependent.!!
!
Finally,!we!ask!that!NEPA!statutes,!and!FAA’s!own!rules!and!orders!be!observed!and!documented!in!
your!meetings!Y!particularly!to!immediately!receive!from!FAA!noise!and!emissions!screenings!for!all!
CATEX!actions!(which,!by!law,!require!a!procedure!to!demonstrate!reduction!in!fuel!burn,!emissions,!and!
noise!to!qualify!as!a!CATEX),!and!that!affected!communities!have!early!and!meaningful!involvement!in!
amendments!or!new!actions!before!final!records!of!decision.!Again,!thank!you!and!we!look!forward!to!
supporting!efforts!which!can!help!all!our!communities.!!
!
!!!!!!!!Kind!regards,!
!!
!
Sky!Posse!Palo!Alto!
!
!
!
!
CC:!!Representative!Anna!Eshoo!
!!!!!!!!Supervisor!Joe!Simitian!
!!!!!!!!FAA!Administrator!Dan!Elwell!
!!!!!!!!Members!of!the!Select!Committee!
!!!!!!!!Palo!Alto!City!Council!
!!!!!!!!Raquel!Girvin,!FAA!!
!!!!!!!!Steve!Alverson,!ESA!
!
!
!
!
#
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES
1. Minimizing aircraft noise must be a priority of the FAA when designing procedures, and
of Air Traffic Control (ATC) when vectoring flights. Airline efficiency may have to be
compromised to some degree to minimize noise exposure on the ground.
2. Aircraft noise should not be an afterthought in FAA planning and operations; nor should
aircraft noise be moved randomly without regard to the relative noise burden experienced
by communities below. A small number of communities should not be disproportionately
affected when there are ways to avoid or disperse aircraft noise.
3. Reducing aircraft noise at night is an urgent priority. Given the availability of airspace in
the nighttime hours, it should be an extremely rare occurrence that a flight path is disruptive
,1 ,2$+166=.',FP 3=0,2$0;".'>2,,'6$*&21=)-($-$#'.$-%&KU 6'-.'>2,,1 VWLL%6;(=,
should be expanded to include the hours of 11:00pm-12:00am and 6:00am-7:00am
whenever possible.
4. When designing new procedures, the FAA must include affected communities as
stakeholders. Aircraft noise not only disrupts quality of life but also has significant and
well documented adverse impacts on the health and well-being of individuals residing
under flight paths, particularly children.
5. No matter how effectively the airspace, or any specific procedure, is re-designed, the value
of the change will only be as helpful as the extent to which it is followed. ATC should
adhere to published procedures except when safety considerations require vectoring. The
rate of adherence to published procedures should be monitored.
6. Meaningful metrics for measuring aircraft noise should be used when working with the
9166',,$$7&Recommendations. Limiting the metrics to use of DNL is inadequate and
unacceptable. A baseline of aircraft noise should also be established. The recent agreement
between the FAA and the Massachusetts Port Authority (which owns and operates three
airports: Boston Logan International Airport; Hanscom Field; and Worcester Regional
Airport), to use real-world single-event noise data from communities in order to develop a
supplemental noise metric to measure and track noise and flight concentration is a
development the Committee supports and points to as an example of a meaningful metric.
7. Reducing the noise impacts caused by NextGen should be a priority.
8. The FAA should demonstrate its ongoing commitment to working with communities
throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, including, but not limited to, the three counties
represented on the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals, by: (a) monitoring resultant
noise levels following implementation of Recommendations from the Select Committee;
(b) participating with successor committees to the Select Committee; and (c) leading all
future procedural, waypoint, and flight path development activities undertaken in response
to continuing health and noise issues associated with local air traffic in consultation with
the affected communities.
Adopted by the Select Committee.
(Vote: __11__ Aye, __1__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 24, 2019 9:06 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission; Jocelyn Dong; Dave Price; Allison Levitsky; Gennady Sheyner
Subject:SB50 Invitation from Sen. Jerry Hill
Last Friday I attended "Java with Jerry" meeting in San Mateo. Over 75 citizens attended and a wide
variety of concerns were discussed. SB 50 was touched upon. Sen Hill acknowledged the concern
that is building within his senate district.
He told the audience that CASA compact was created by a relatively narrow group of people and
influenced by larger cities. He acknowledged that most citizens and most cities have not addressed
SB50 adequately.
Hill added that he would be convening all 25 cities in his district to discuss SB50 due to lack of
understand and the profound impact being felt by some cities and citizens. Sen. Hill has issued this
invitationconvening city mayors and city managers. A copy of the invitation to meet on March 15 is
below.
On behalf of Palo Alto citizens who only basic understanding of SB50 and its intent, I urge
Mayor Filseth and City Manager Shikawa to attend this meeting on March 15 and report back
to Council at the earliest possible City Council meeting.
SB50 and its companion bills are not benign legislation so typical of February legislation. This
legislative package can have profound impact on Palo Alto as we know it. Control of zoning and
taxation is the heart of these issues.
In conclusion, I want to be on record that the city lobbyist did not convey the importance and urgency
of SB50 et al. As a result, your decision about the downtown development cap is ill timed.
Please pull Downtown Development Cap Agenda Item #10 from the Feb 25 Consent Calendar
and reconsider it after meeting with Sen Hill and reporting back to citizens of Palo Alto.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Lynette Lee Eng <lynetteleeeng@sbcglobal.net>
To: Neilsen Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019, 12:24:02 PM PST
Subject: Invite from Hill
2
Begin forwarded message:
From: Senator.Hill@senate.ca.gov
Date: February 22, 2019 at 12:01:52 PM PST
To: lynetteleeeng@sbcglobal.net, administration@losaltosca.gov, alex.kobayashi@sen.ca.gov
Subject: From the Office of Senator Jerry Hill
Dear Mayor Eng and City Manager Jordan:
Please join me and other community leaders on March 15th for a roundtable discussion on one of
California’s most challenging issues--housing. There are a number of proposals pending in the state
Legislature; before votes are cast, I’d like to hear your thoughts, concerns, and suggestions and would
appreciate an open discussion of how these proposals would impact your city.
Friday, March 15th
2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Redwood City Downtown Library, 3rd Floor Community Room
1044 Middlefield Road, Redwood City
This invitation is being extended to each mayor and city manager from the 13th Senate District. Please
feel free to invite one other councilmember or staff member to attend with you or in your place.
I look forward to a lively discussion about the CASA Compact, SB 50 and other issues affecting the
availability of housing. Please RSVP by Tuesday, March 5th, to Alex Kobayashi of my staff by email
at alex.kobayashi@sen.ca.gov, or by telephone at (650) 212-3313.
Sincerely,
Jerry Hill
State Senator, 13th District
Sent from my iPhone
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 25, 2019 2:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Silicon Valley De-Bug | Jeff Adachi’s Untimely Death Hit Me Like a
FYI:
https://siliconvalleydebug.org/stories/jeff‐adachi‐s‐untimely‐death‐hit‐me‐like‐a‐hammer‐s‐blow
Sent from my iPhone
1
Carnahan, David
From:Noah Fiedel <nfiedel@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 25, 2019 6:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for purchasing the park land in Ventura
Dear City Council Members,
Please register my support for investing in our community by purchasing the AT&T land in Ventura park for park/open
space usage.
Thank you!
Noah Fiedel
Rail Grade Separation Update
Council Action January 22, 2019
MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Vice Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member
DuBois to:
A. Direct Staff to separate from study all alternatives for the Palo Alto Avenue crossing (closure
and hybrid) and include Palo Alto Avenue in a separate comprehensive planning effort with a
priority on
transportation;
B. Direct Staff to separate from study the bicycle and pedestrian crossing of the Caltrain
corridor in the vicinity of Loma Verde Avenue and incorporate this into the North Ventura
Coordinated Area Plan process;
C. Direct Staff to present the tunnel alternative at the Community Advisory Panel (CAP) and
March Community meeting, and outline assumptions and alternatives for a citywide tunnel and
further explore (the Scope and Budget) for an alternative with freight trains on the surface and
passenger trains underground (for the Meadow and Charleston crossings);
D. Adopt a modified list of grade separation alternatives:
1. South Palo Alto I Rail Tunnel;
2. Churchill Avenue I Full or Partial Closure and add Improvements
(CAX);
3. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road I Hybrid (MCL);
4. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road I Rail Trench (MCT);
5. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road I Viaduct (MCV);
6. Citywide Tunnel (WBP);
E. Direct Staff to return to Council with a strategy for Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and
Stanford University, especially around funding;
F. Direct Staff to study multi-modal mitigations for existing grade separations, taking into
consideration both current conditions and future impacts;
G. Direct Staff to restore "maintain or improve local access" evaluation criteria; and
H. Direct Staff to return to Council soon to review evaluation criteria and timeline with a
funding and polling strategy.
Stanford General Use Permit Update
C [-t-v\ ~V\oO l Cl MEE1ING Cf
Council Action February 4, 2019 -MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Filseth moved, seconded
by Council Member Kniss to direct Staff to prepare a letter, signed by the
Mayor, to the County Board of Supervisors that reflects Council's direction regarding Stanford
University's General Use Permit Application, addressing the following topics:
A. Downtown Area Plan, including the Transit Center;
B. Fair-Share Implementation of Area Plan;
C. Fair-Share Grade Separations;
D. Contribution to the City's Affordable Housing Fund;
E. Long Term Preservation of the Foothills;
F. Upstream Flood Water Detention;
G. Issues of Residential Preferential Parking (RPP} districts, existing grade separated rail crossings and
two existing train stations, and potentially expanding the no-net new trips project;
H. Mitigation of housing development impacts within the Academic Growth Boundary (AGB} and
roadway impacts; I. Continue the requirement that Santa Clara County affordable housing funds be
used within six miles of the AGB;
J. Contribute to the on-going maintenance of the College Terrace Library and four parks located in the
College Terrace neighborhood;
K. Request the opportunity to replace the City's shuttle service with enhanced Marguerite shuttle
service;
L. Request an easement to connect Bol Park Path via Hanover Street between California Avenue and
Page Mill Road and a $250,000 contribution towards signal modification and other physical
improvements for the pathway;
M. Consider funding for the City's Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Plan including exploring pathway
options connecting Stanford Research Park to Bol Park and a pathway behind Creekside Inn along
Chimalus Drive and crossing guards for areas directly impacted by Stanford University traffic and used
frequently by Stanford Affiliates and their families;
N. Ensure the Tri-Party protocol (City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County and Leland Stanford Junior
University} is updated;
0 . Contribute to the on-going maintenance of Peers Park;
P. Support Palo Alto Unified School District's (PAUSD} concerns regarding full mitigations for all
generated impacts; and
Q. Expanding the list of impacted intersections.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-0 Tanaka absent
PRLO ALTO STRONG Vft1~E ;;m
JOIH UP • RISE UP • WIN Stronger Together
PRLO RLTO MUST RDDRESS RETENTION ISSUES AFFECTING SERVICES
Palo Alto is one of the most expensive cities in Silicon Valley, and nearly all of our job classifications are
below average in total compensation; this is unacceptable for such an affluent city.
"We have been without a contract since the end of 2018! Our city services are in jeopardy as
our employees are leaving for opportunities with better pay and benefits. Meanwhile,
remaining staff is overworked and, on top of that, is tasked with the work of many due to all
the vacancies piling up."
-Alison de Geus, Palo Alto Bargaining Team Member
The City of Palo Alto website (www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/human_resources/) states:
The mission of the Human Resources Department is to recruit, develop, and retain a diverse, well-qualified
and professional wor1cforce that reftects the high standards of the community we serve, and to lead City
Departments In positive employee relations. talent management succession planning and employee
engagement
CONNECT WITH US ON FACEBOOK, TWITTER, INSTAGRAM, SNAPCHAT:@SEIU521 J WWW.SEIU521.0RG
~ 2018 SEIU 521 CTW·CLC KS:jb opeiu 29 Forms/stock articles/2019/Feb.2019/Region 2 3 4 Trusnee vacancy FINAL.pub
SEIU Local 521 -#PALOALTOSTRONG · PAGE 2
PRLO RLTO HRS SERIOUS RETENTION ISSUES AFFECTING SERVICES:
+ We currently have 67 vacancies, representing over 11 % of our workforce 1• Increased
vacancies cost money, put unfair and unsustainable burdens on our city workers, many of
whom are working overtime without adequate rest to continue to deliver services to our
residents, and risking the safety not only of themselves but of the residents of Palo Alto as
well.
• Housing often represents more than 50% of our pre-tax income2, causing many of us to
have long commutes.
+ Our total compensation is below average among bay area cities; this is unacceptable for
such an affluent city.
Increased vacancies put unfair and unsustainable burdens on our staff, many of whom are
working overtime without adequate rest to continue to deliver city services. This risks the
safety not only of our members, but of the residents of Palo Alto as well.
' For example, the Utilities Department lost two of their veteran Compliance Technicians in
December, taking with them institutional knowledge and leaving behind one technician to
perform the work of three. Compliance Technicians are responsible for conducting all required
safety and service reliability inspections of overhead and underground electrical lines
throughout the city t~ el")sure compliance with the State of California safety codes.
Not only do the retention issues strain our workforce and affect services, but these issues
increase the city's costs of attracting new employees, including recruitment, hiring, and
training. Many SEIU workers currently commute from great distances due to the extremely
high cost of living in and around Palo Alto. Our public services are at risk as we continue to
lose experienced workers.
We are urging the City Council to support us and help us reach a fair contract. Let's invest in
our Palo Alto workers and services -for our families and our community. The city works
because WE DO!
Help us get a fair contract that values the excellent work our members
do to provide high quality services to the residents of Palo Alto.
#PaloAltoStrong
Soigces:
1. City of Palo Alto, Vacancy Report. 1210312018
2. 2018 Santa Clara County Economic Forecast, Catifornia Oepartlll!llt ofT ransportation. www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/socio _economic_ files/2018/pdf/SantaClara.pdf
CONNECT WITH US ON FACEBOOK, TWITIER, INSTAGRAM, SNAPCHAT: @SEIU521 I WWW.SEIU521.0RG
UNITED, WE FIGHT FOR: _ co':ffJ>UU'f'ING
• RESPECT 1 .: [ ) PJaced Before Meeting
• RETIREMENT WITH DIGNITY JJ fc.1'Rec;civcd llt M eting
• INVESTMENT IN FRONTLINE STAFF
Honorable Councilmembers of the City of Palo Alto,
0 2019 SEIU Local 621, CTW-CLC SF:js opeiu 29 afl-cio/clc (N:\Clerical\Chapters\Redwood City\C1ty of Palo Alto\Publication\CiPA BOS card 011719