Loading...
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