Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180423plCC 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: 4/23/2018 Document dates: 4/4/2018 – 4/11/2018 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:37 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, April 05, 2018 2:40 PM To:Council, City Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC; CAC-TACC; ConnectedCity Subject:Upgrade Downtown Project -- reallocating costs Council members, On your 04-09-18 agenda https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64339 is a Consent Calendar item -- Item 4 -- about reallocating costs for the Upgrade Downtown Project. The staff report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64344 proposes to reduce the cost to the Fiber Optics Fund by $1,070,202 (from $2,140,404 to $1,070,202), by transferring $1,070,202 of cost to the Electric Utility, which wants to adopt one of the two conduits originally intended for the Fiber Utility. I approve of the goal of reducing the cost to the Fiber Optics Fund. But I think it's still costing the Fiber Optics Fund too much. When Council considered the Upgrade Downtown Project contract on 01-22-18, staff said that if Council wanted to change the scope of the project even a little bit, that would require throwing out the entire contract and starting over. Council Member DuBois moved to omit the conduits for fiber altogether, because they were too expensive, but he got no second (not even "for the sake of discussion"). So he moved to accept the contract, but to require staff to return to Council with options for cost allocations. https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63463 And Council passed that motion 7-2. On 01-22-18, staff explained that the conduit for fiber was being included essentially on speculation, not because an actual network design showed that it would for sure be useful there, but rather in the spirit of "dig once" -- whenever a trench is open, the incremental extra cost to add conduit for fiber is minimal. The trouble is that staff has proposed (on both 01-22-18 and 04-09-18) to charge the Fiber Optic Fund far more than the incremental extra cost. --- On 09-28-15, Council directed staff to "bring a dig-once ordinance as soon as possible." https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49302 But this hasn't happened yet. So, for the Upgrade Downtown Project, I think staff misunderstood how "dig-once" is supposed to work. --- Please consider pulling this Consent Calendar item, so you can talk about the following: 1. What is the incremental cost of adding the conduit for fiber? And is that what the Fiber Optics Fund (and, at this point, the Electric Utility jointly) should be charged for this conduit? 2. Should staff refrain from adding speculative conduit for fiber on future construction projects, at least until the City has a clearer idea of the concept of "dig-once"? --- As you know, I'm an advocate of citywide municipal FTTP for Palo Alto. So I think it's very important to spend the money in the Fiber Optic Fund wisely. Thanks. Jeff City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:37 PM 2 ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- PS: On 02-06-18, the Loveland, CO, City Council voted to fund a build-ready design for a citywide FTTP network there, at an estimated cost of $2.2 million. https://www.denverpost.com/2018/02/07/loveland-developing-municipal-broadband-network/ Loveland has a population of 76,987 (so it's about 15 percent larger than Palo Alto), and more of its electric infrastructure is undergrounded. So I'm guessing that it would cost less than $2.2 million for Palo Alto to do such a citywide FTTP network design here. If we did such a design, then we'd know where all the FTTP network infrastructure should go. Affordable Housing Combining District April 9th, 2018 — Agenda Item #7 Palo Alto City Council From Council Member Fine Introduction This presentation is intended to help us make a decision about the best way to encourage more affordable/below market rate (BMR) housing in Palo Alto: ❏Why is the city pursuing affordable/BMR housing? ❏What is affordable housing? What about BMR housing? ❏What is the Affordable Housing Combining District? ❏How does an overlay compare to a Planned Community (P.C.) zone? ❏Conclusion and a Motion Why is the city pursuing affordable/BMR housing? Housing prices in Palo Alto are among the highest in the nation, meaning that only longtime residents or the very wealthy can afford to live here. But our community depends upon people of different backgrounds and incomes. So we use public resources to create housing opportunities for people who would not otherwise be able to afford to live here. Local examples of BMR housing: ●Buena Vista Mobile Home Park was preserved using affordable housing funds from the City and County ●Stevenson House: affordable, independent living for Palo Alto senior citizens ●Hotel California: 20 affordable residential hotel rooms located near jobs and transit In short, there’s a lot of good to having a socially and economically diverse community! 0 The number of 100% BMR housing projects completed in Palo Alto since 2009 (That’s when the Tree House on Charleston was completed) There is no agreed-upon definition for Affordable Housing, but the term is often used to describe housing that a given person/family can afford. This definition is relative to circumstances and is not defined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Definitions The term “Affordable Housing” is very often used in place of Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing, which has a specific technical definition: 18.04 (16): "Below market rate (BMR) housing unit" means any housing unit sold or rented to very-low, low- or moderate-income households pursuant to the City of Palo Alto's below market rate program administered by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, or a successor organization. Definitions BMR housing has rules and requirements ❏BMR housing is only available for people whose income falls within one of the Area Median Income (AMI) categories: 0-50% AMI, 50-80% AMI, and 80-120% AMI ❏Rental rates and sales are deed-restricted for 30 or more years (the housing stays affordable) ❏In addition to meeting the eligibility requirements, there is a current waiting list of approximately 450 applicants for BMR housing in Palo Alto BMR income standards and rent limits Source: City of Palo Alto What is the Affordable Housing Combining District? A combining district is a planning tool, placed over existing base zones, which creates special provisions in addition to those of the underlying zones. In this case, Staff has proposed an overlay district that allows 100% BMR projects to have flexibility with development requirements like: ❏Lot coverage ❏Parking requirements ❏Residential density ❏Build-to lines Areas in red would be eligible for the AH combining district 27 March 2018 To: Mayor and City Council City of Palo Alto Palo Alto City Hall, 7th floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA From: Commissioner William Riggs, Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Vice Chair, Sue Monk, Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Commissioner Michael Alcheck, Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Re: Minority Recommendation from PTC on Affordable Housing Combining District Dear Mayor and Council Members: This memo serves to: 1) provide context for an item on your April 9th agenda; and 2) highlight the minority opinion from the February 14 and March 14 meetings on the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District. During the PTC’s two meeting review of the AH Combining District, staff presented two different draft ordinances. These draft ordinances are available for review in your packet. The second version of the ordinance was crafted to respond to some of the anticipated feedback from an ad hoc committee that was formed at the first meeting. At the conclusion of the second meeting, a motion was put forward by a four member majority that ultimately recommended rejecting both the February 14th version of the AH Combining District as well as the more conservative March 14th version of the same AH Combining District. The authors of this memo were unable to support such a motion and en lieu of that, we would like to provide this minority recommendation: please approve the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District Draft Ordinance, as originally presented by staff on February 14th, with the following considerations: 1. Allow for a waiver of retail preservation for qualifying projects; 2. Include Research Park and General Manufacturing Districts; 3. Provide for flexibility when evaluating the precise distance from high capacity transit corridors; and 4. Allow FAR and height increases where appropriate. We believe this recommendation is worthy of Council consideration for the following reasons:  It is the most promising tool our body has considered to address the enormous shortage of affordable housing in our City. Such zoning overlay ordinances are “simple” policies that do not obfuscate existing zoning, but rather provide yet another tool in the toolbox for non-for-profit developers to use when attempting to bring forward the rarely proposed 100% affordable housing project.  This AH Combining District Ordinance as written and recommended herein, does not automatically apply to any parcel in the City. Parcel owners that are within the radius of application would still need to apply for and receive approval for said zoning designation. Every application would still require yet another review at the PTC and Council levels, and Council would retain the power to condition approval as Council deems appropriate in Council’s effort to encourage appropriate outcomes. Page 2 of 2 While our hope is that Council will accept our minority recommendation, we recognize that it will not solve all of our City’s housing supply issues. That said, we believe that we must begin taking actions to address housing now, and we believe this recommendation is an important first step. Thank you for your consideration. William Riggs, PhD Susan Monk Michael Alcheck Susan Monk City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:16 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Judy Kleinberg <Judy@paloaltochamber.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 03, 2018 5:36 PM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Minor, Beth Subject:Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal Attachments:Affordable Housing Overlay Zone_ltr to Council_Apr 2018.pdf Please see the attached letter concerning the proposed Affordable Housing Combining District zoning proposal  scheduled for the April 9th City Council meeting.    Thank you,    Judith G. Kleinberg, JD President & CEO  355 Alma Street  | Palo Alto, CA. 94301  Tel: 650‐324‐3121 | Direct: 650‐300‐6040      www.paloaltochamber.com  Palo Alto Business Directory & Community Guide            ••• •e Palo Alto Chamber oP Commerce Create I Connect I Compete 355 Alma Street • Palo Alto, CA • 94301 • 650.324.3121 April 3, 2018 Re: Affordable Housing Combining District Dear Mayor Kniss and Members ofthe City Council, The Board of Directors of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and our Government Action Committee, representing nearly 500 businesses in the Palo Alto area, wish to express our strong support for policies and ordinances that create more affordable housing near public transit in Palo Alto. As you consider the options concerning the Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal scheduled for your April 9th council meeting, we encourage you to adopt the most progressive and efficient option for creating more transit-oriented affordable housing. The greatest challenge today to our retail, medical services, hospitality and business organizations in Palo Alto is attracting and retaining workers, too many of whom cannot afford to buy or rent homes near enough to Palo Alto to make a commute workable. From large retailers at the Stanford Mall to small restaurants and locally-owned retail businesses, the challenge of hiring workers has hit a dangerous tipping point that jeopardizes their viability. The lack of an adequate workforce here has a direct impact on the availability of goods and services for residents and shoppers, which directly impacts the potential sales tax revenue our community needs to support high quality community services. The Affordable Housing Combining District will provide the certainty that developers require to build housing for this critical part of our workforce. It also provides certainty for the residents and other owners near proposed high-density housing. They'll know what will be built. The Planned Community (PC) option, on the other hand, has been the source of much controversy, provides no certainty for residents and discourages developers from taking the risk of investing in developments with no assurance at all of the outcome, and creates a protracted and expensive process. There are developers who will step up now to help with this challenge, such as the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, but they need an ordinance that will provide them with the assurances they need to make the investment of time and money required for housing construction. The ordinance as originally proposed may need some minor modifications, but it is the most efficient approach to encouraging the affordable workforce housing our community needs to support a thriving business climate and community vitality. Sincere~ly, ~ u . , y . le in berg ~ President & CEO City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:18 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Linnea Wickstrom <ljwickstrom@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, April 03, 2018 6:31 PM To:Council, City Cc:Linnea wickstrom Subject:April 9 Council Agenda item: Affordable Housing    Honorable Mayor Kniss, Vice‐Mayor Filseth, and Council Members,     I’m a 50‐year+ Palo Alto resident with a developmentally disabled adult son. I’m advocating for affordable  housing in general and affordable housing with set‐asides for the developmentally disabled in particular.     I hope that you will support the AH Combining District ordinance as originally proposed, without added  restrictions.  In general, I support the March 27 Minority Recommendation from PTC on Affordable Housing.     On a few specific points, I urge that you:     DO NOT require a parking space per bedroom. This is not a requirement even for a 6‐bedroom house in  Palo Alto.     DO NOT restrict transit access to 1/4 mile. That will narrow the possibilities for affordable housing  placement.     DO NOT restrict heights to 35 feet. Restricting affordable housing to 35 feet in or next to any  residential area will kill affordable housing given the economics of such housing in our area. Do allow  increased FAR.     DO NOT require retail or a future site‐by‐site retail review that will prolong approval processesand, if  required, limit opportunities for on‐site space and programming forresidents.     Even better than approving the AH ordinance as originally proposed, I urge you to go beyond by removing  detailed obstacles to affordable housing and by proceeding with AH zone mapping to attract the  AHdevelopers we need.  Sincerely,  Linnea Wickstrom  Monroe Drive  Palo Alto  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:18 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:rahnemoony <rahnemoony@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 04, 2018 7:35 AM To:Council, City Subject:Affordable Housing April 4, 2018    Honorable Mayor Kniss, Vice‐Mayor Filseth, and Council Members,    RE: Affordable Housing in Palo Alto    I am a parent of a developmentally disabled child. That child is one of many who need extreme‐low‐income  housing. Affordable housing in the community in which my child has been raised and which provides my  child’s support systems is crucial. Though we are able to provide housing now, we won’t always be here to do  that. As we parents age, we are here to tell you that the community needs to get started now.    The Affordable Housing overlay ordinance as originally proposed is a start. Please adopt that ordinance and  take the next step  ‐ mapping affordable housing overlays to sites in the City.    I hope that, as we move forward, barriers to affordable housing developments will continue to be removed so  that our community’s developmentally disabled will have hope for a place to live.    Sincerely,    Morteza Rahnemoon    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:18 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Maximilian Goetz <max.goetz@gregtanaka.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 04, 2018 9:51 AM To:Jean Dawes Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Low-income housing project Dear Jean Dawes, My name is Max and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank you very much for reaching out to the council. The council has received multiple emails regarding the affordable housing item that is on the agenda for the April 9th city council meeting. For that reason, Councilman Tanaka has decided to host a meeting with multiple constituents on the issue at his office hours. Will you be able to make it on Sunday, April 8th from 3:00 pm to 3:45 pm? The meeting will be held at Councilman Tanaka’s office, located at 3630 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA. If you would like to attend, please confirm your attendance with me. You are welcome to invite others interested in the topic, and it would be well appreciated if they could confirm their attendance with me as well. If you are unable to attend the meeting, we will be broadcasting the discussion on our Facebook Page. From there, viewers will be able to watch the discussion live, and ask questions by commenting on the video. If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know. Best, Max On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Jean Dawes <jean@dawes.org> wrote: Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I am a member of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. I agree with the letter sent by the LWVPA board supporting a 61-unit low-income housing at Wilton Avenue and El Camino Real. That letter stated: "Re: August 28, 2017, Study Session re 3709 El Camino/Wilton - Affordable Housing Proposal Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports City efforts to encourage the development of subsidized low to moderate and below market rate housing by private non-profit developers. The League also supports increasing multiple family units with access to public transportation along transportation corridors. For these reasons, we encourage you to provide positive direction to the non-profit Palo Alto Housing (PAH) in support of the development of at least 61 small low-income units on this site. Land appropriate for multi- unit housing is scarce in Palo Alto. This site, although small, is a good one, for it is on a bus transit corridor; it is near many services; and it is not directly adjacent to single-family homes. In your January retreat, you made housing a top Council priority for 2017. This project will be a positive step in implementing this priority. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:18 PM 2 We encourage you to remove all regulatory obstacles to this project and to make any zoning code and Comprehensive Plan changes necessary to optimize the economical development of this project for low-income individuals. This is a special opportunity for the Council to use a PC process for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Please do not impose any requirements on the project that would jeopardize PAH’s ability to obtain financing or which would make the project economically infeasible. In the past, Palo Alto had been a leader in the provision of affordable housing. Now is the time for the Council to put our City back on that track. Thank you. Ellen Forbes Second Vice President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto" I echo the request of the LWVPA Board that the Council should "remove all regulatory obstacles to this project" and consider th for a 100 percent affordable housing project. Please do not require conditions which make the project economically infeasible. Thank you. Jean Dawes -- Maximilian Goetz | Legislative Aide Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka’s Office W: www.GregTanaka.org | D: 650.665.9734 | E: max.goetz@gregtanaka.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you. This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the message. If you received the message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message. Views I state are my own and may not represent those of this Office or the full Council. CITY OF PALO AL TO SUBSIDIZED RENT AL HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS -March 2018 Project Name & Location Date Units Type of Households Served I Notes I. Stevenson House, 455 East Charleston 1968 120 Seniors 2. Colorado Park, 1141 Colorado Ave 1972 60 Families I Seniors (17 units Section 8) *3. Palo Alto Gardens, 648 San Antonio 1999 I 1973 156 1999 Preservation; Families I Seniors 4. Arastradero Park, 574 Arastradero 1995 / 1974 66 1995 Preservation (47 units Section 8) Families I Seniors 5. Lytton Gardens I, 656 Lytton Ave 1975 218 Seniors 6. Webster Wood Apts, 941 Webster St 2001 11978 68 2001 Preservation Families I Handicapped (4 units) 7. Lytton Gardens II, 656 Lytton Ave , 1979 100 Seniors (50 Independent Living; 50 Residential Care) * 8. Sheridan Apartments, 360 Sheridan 1998 / 1979 57 1998 Preservation (56 units Section 8) Seniors; Disabled 9. Elm Apartments, 129 Emerson St 1980 11 Families (8 units Sec. 8 Mod. Rehab) 10. Pine Street House 1259 Pine St 1981 1 Families * 11. Ferne Apts, 101-131 Ferne Ave 1981 16 Families (6 units Sec. 8 Mod. Rehab) 12. Terman Apartments, 655 Arastradero 1985 92 Families I Seniors (72 Units Section 8) 13. Emerson South, 3067 Emerson 1985 6 Small Families I Single Adults 14. Curtner Apts, 300-310 Curtner Ave 1985 9 Families (9 units Sec. 8 Mod. Rehab) * 15. Waldo Apartments, 3039 Emerson 1987 6 Families (3 units Sec. 8 Mod. Rehab) 16. California Park Apts. 2301 Park Blvd 1989 45 Families, Handicapped (1 unit) *17. Oak Manor Apts. 630 Los Robles 1991 33 Families (23 Units Section 8) 18. Plum Tree Apts, 3020 Emerson 1991 10 Families 19. Lytton Courtyard, 330 Everett Ave 1994 51 Seniors (50 Units Section 8) 20. Barker Hotel, 439 Emerson St 1994 26 Single Adults, Handicapped (5 units) *21. Emerson North, 3051-3061 Emerson 1994 6 Small Families I Adults (1 unit Sec. 8 Mod. Rehab) *22. Emerson House, 330 Emerson St 1996 4 Small Family, Handicapped *23. Ventura Apts, 290-310 Ventura Ave 1997 12 Families (1 unit Sec. 8 Mod. Rehab) 24. Alma Place SRO, 753 Alma St 1998 107 Single Adults & Handicapped 25. Page Mill Court, 2700 Ash St 1998 24 Adults with Developmental Disabilities *26. Oak Court Apts, 845 Ramona St 2005 53 Families 27. Alma Gardens Apts, 2507-2533 Alma St 2006 10 Small Families, Single Adults *28. Opportunity Center, 33 Encina Ave 2006 89 SRO -Single Adults; Family Apts, Homeless *29. Alta Torre Senior Housmg, 3895 Fabian Way 2010 56 Seniors 30. Tree House Apartments 2011 34 Small households; single adults 31. 801 Alma Family Apartments 2013 50 Families 32. 2811 Alma 2015 6 Families 33. Mayfield Place, 2500 El Camino 2017 70 Families TOTAL UNITS 1,672 *=Rental units (488 units in 11 projects) provided in-lieu of on-site BMR units; with BMR land donation or funded with BMR in-lieu fees S:\PLAN\PLADIV\Long Range Planning\Housing\Subs Rental Hsg List 3-18.doc City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:27 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:LWV of Palo Alto <lwvpaoffice@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 04, 2018 12:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:April 9, 2018, Agenda Item No. 7: Affordable Housing Combining District Draft Ordinance Attachments:CC ltr April 9-AH Overlay.docx Dear Mayor Kniss and Councilmembers, Attached please find a letter from the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto urging you to adopt an affordable housing overlay ordinance that will create opportunities for, and eliminate barriers to, the development of affordable housing. Thank you. Bonnie Packer President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto 3921 E. Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 903-0600 April 5, 2018 Palo Alto City Council Re: April 9, 2018, Agenda Item No. 7: Affordable Housing Combining District Draft Ordinance Dear Mayor Kniss and Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto (LWVPA) has come before you many times to show our support of your efforts to increase the supply of housing for all, particularly for those with very low, low and moderate incomes. LWVPA urges you to adopt an affordable housing overlay ordinance that will create opportunities for, and eliminate barriers to, the development of affordable housing. The Affordable Housing Combining District Draft Ordinance, Attachment A to the staff report, will go a long way towards that goal. However, to ensure more affordable housing opportunities and units, we also urge you to include the following changes to that draft ordinance. We had asked the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) to include these improvements which are reflected, for the most part, in the March 27 Minority Recommendation. • Expand the scope of the combining district to include the Research Park and General Manufacturing Districts. • Include language that allows some flexibility regarding the distances from the transit corridors. The language, “major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor,” is too limiting and should be broader in scope. • Allow the Planning Director to approve increases in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and height where appropriate, particularly in the areas around University Avenue and California Avenue. • Allow the Planning Director to waive the retail requirements in all districts. Retail usually requires more parking which is expensive to provide. Moreover, the presence of retail in an affordable housing project severely complicates the funding opportunities. Thus, a retail requirement may make an affordable housing project infeasible, even with the benefits of the combining district. For the last two bullets, LWVPA believes that it is important to streamline the entitlement process. To do so, the Planning Director, not the City Council, should have the authority to approve increases in FAR and height and to waive retail requirements where appropriate. To demonstrate that the Council is serious about meaningfully addressing the housing crisis, we urge you to reject the majority recommendation of the P&TC. We believe the P&TC decision to not recommend at this time any ordinance to allow more affordable housing at this time is contrary to the City Council’s priority on housing, ignores the housing crisis and flies in the face of the housing policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the Housing Element. With this decision, the majority turned a deaf ear to the professional testimony of many affordable housing experts and to the compelling testimony of those suffering from the lack of adequate housing in our city. Thank you. Bonnie Packer President, League of Women Voters of Palo Alto THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PALO ALTO 3921 E. BAYSHORE RD. • PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303 • 650-903-0600 • www.lwvpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:35 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:judith_paulson@agilent.com Sent:Thursday, April 05, 2018 7:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:Affordable Housing document for April 9 Council Meeting Attachments:affordable housing.docx Dear City Council,    Please see the attached letter and have it be included in the agenda for the next council meeting, Monday, April 9.    Thank you and kind regards,    Judy    Judy Paulson Executive Assistant 5301 Stevens Creek Blvd., MS: 1B-08 Santa Clara, CA 95050 judy paulson@agilent.com (408) 553-2350     April 4, 2018 Honorable Mayor Kniss, Vice-Mayor Filseth, and Council Members, Affordable Housing in Palo Alto I am a resident of Los Altos with a developmentally disabled child. That child is one of many who need extreme-low-income housing. My daughter Julie was born with Down Syndrome. It took several years to get her into a studio apartment in Mountain View. We signed up for several lotteries and finally, when she was 36 years old, we won and she moved into her apartment. Affordable housing in the community in which my child has been raised and which provides my child’s support systems is crucial. Though we are able to provide housing now, we won’t always be here to do that. As a senior citizen parent of an adult daughter, there is an urgency for affordable housing. I don’t live in Palo Alto but I have spent 69 years in the Bay Area and I can’t tell you how important this affordable housing issue is. The Affordable Housing overlay ordinance as originally proposed is a start. Please adopt that ordinance and take the next step - mapping affordable housing overlays to sites in the City. I hope that, as we move forward, barriers to affordable housing developments will continue to be removed so that our community’s developmentally disabled will have hope for a place to live. Sincerely, Judith M. Paulson Los Altos Resident City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:44 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 06, 2018 5:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Agenda Item 7: Affordable Housing Combining District Ordinance, City Council Meeting April 9 Dear Mayor Kniss and Council Members: The PAN Zoning committee proposed and the members of PAN voted yesterday to share with Council PAN’s deep reservations about the Affordable Housing Combining District as currently proposed. We urge the Council to consider the Ad Hoc Committee’s recommendations for the following reasons: We favor housing first for our most vulnerable residents and therefore urge that any sweeping ordinances of this magnitude be limited to true BMR housing (that is, incomes of 60% AMI) rather than the 120% AMI in the proposed ordinance. Our primary concern is the sophistry concerning the use of the term “Affordable Housing.” For-profit developers should not enjoy the same bonuses and benefits as non-profits like Palo Alto Housing. The public should not be subsidizing developer profits. Any new housing should get off on the right foot with the neighborhoods and not pit neighbors against neighbors due to inadequate parking. The half-parking space per unit or bedroom proposed in the ordinance, with the Director of Planning having the discretion to reduce this yet further, will create serious neighborhood parking problems. As there is no way to monitor or enforce who owns a car and where they park it (except in RPP zones), assuming that people in apartment buildings don’t own cars or that it’s okay to park them down the street in residential neighborhoods is unreasonable. Funding for the additional parking spaces to insure an adequately parked property could come from the City’s fund of in lieu development fees so as not to jeopardize the ability of organizations like PAH to qualify for funds and grants where funding to build adequate parking is not covered. Many of us remember when there were meaningful bus routes throughout the city, bus routes that connected the neighborhoods to ECR, California Avenue and downtown. This was when Palo Alto had its own transit service, before VTA took over the operations and then shut the buses down one by one. There is no data to support the claim that people who live in apartments will ride the bus and not own cars. It is misleading to claim that ECR and Cal Ave are transit rich when frankly there is only one significant public bus route and not enough trains to meet peak hour demand. It is simply wishful thinking to believe that people will not own cars if there is no designated parking available. Our zoning committee has studied the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee and believe its recommendations to Council are reasonable and prudent. We urge you to accept those recommendations as an excellent compromise and vote against the AHCD zone as currently proposed. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, Becky Sanders City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:44 PM 2 Sheri Furman Co-Chairs Palo Alto Neighborhoods City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:46 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:James Colton <james.colton10@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 7:59 AM To:Council, City Subject:Affordable Housing As a long‐time resident of Palo Alto, I believe the biggest single problem is the lack of affordable housing for lower‐paid  workers in Palo Alto.  Providing affordable housing is critical to the long‐term health of our city and I support any effort  to provide such housing.  However the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay does not accomplish this.  It will result in  housing that can be used by people making a six‐figure salary!  This is affordable housing only in name and will take up  space that could be used for truly affordable housing.  The Overlay should be set at a much lower limit like 60% AMI.   Please reserve the space to be developed under the Overlay to a 60% AMI limit.     Jim Colton  Georgia Ave  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:47 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 8:43 AM To:Council, City Subject:Below Market Rate Housing is fine but not "affordable" housing which is just another developer giveway I support BMR housibg for those truly in need but I'm totally opposed to :"affordable" housing because with empty lots  selling n a week for  $5,500,000 no one can "afford" housing here and there's no way  we can make housing affordable to everyone priced  out if such lots.    Stop adding more office space since it only makes housing LESS affordable by increasing housing conpetition.    Stop developer give‐aways,  Stop the car light fairy tales,    Get real and do something about limiting all cash foreign buyers instead of passing meaningless anti‐idling laws!    Cut government spending on dangerous nonsense like "road   furniture"!!   We've got huge unfunded pension liabilities.    Most sincerely!    Jo Ann Mandinach  Need To Know Info Solutions  http:.//www.needtoknow.com  650 329‐8655  or cell 650 269‐0650  Palo Alto, CA 94301      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:48 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 10:11 AM To:Council, City Subject:Affordable Housing Ordinance Opportunities such as the AH project at Wilton Court are few and far between.  Before you adopt the ordinance, I urge  you to do all in your power to add language that assures that this new housing provide relief for those in what I will call  the first tier of need ‐ meaning those with income that is <60% AMI.  Based on 2016 data, I think this allows for an  income up to ~ 82k.      People with income above 60% AMI have more options b/c they have more money.  Please take this opportunity to  preserve what’s left of this community’s employment diversity and protect those most likely to be driven out by market  forces.  It doesn’t make sense to relax zoning protections for an established neighborhood if we don’t gain housing for  those who need it most.    Regards,    Annette Ross  Palo Alto Resident        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:51 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:LOUIS FRIED <llfried@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 1:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:Approve low cost housing Please approve the ordinance approving development of low-cost housing along transit areas. At least it’s a start on a solution to the housing and traffic problems. It just doesn’t go far enough. We also need to raise the limitation on building height to at least 70 feet. We also need to ensure that these remain low cost housing and not be sold to speculators or used as rentals. Perhaps there needs to be approval by a city agency for transfer of deed or rentals. Louis Fried City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:53 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 5:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal for Monday Night The proposal you will review Monday for an Affordable Housing Overlay will not focus housing towards those who need it most while exacerbating the city’s parking problems. Please limit this zone to residents who have 60% of Average Median Income. These are folks who often have to drive very far and cannot afford local housing yet form a critical element of our community. The current proposal of 120% AMI which can be as much as $125,000 in income for folks who can already afford local housing is not only unnecessary but also displaces the folks who truly need help. Let’s not take these housing opportunities from low income workers and give them to affluent single workers often in tech, some of whom even have stock options. Actual parking demand in Palo Alto is between 0.5 and 1.3 spaces per unit in Palo Alto so it will significantly worsen our parking problems, including starving retail of needed customer parking. We cannot fix our parking problems by passing zoning that makes parking continually worse. Please require a minimum of 1 space per unit except for special needs residents. Allowing this proposal to displace retail in neighborhood commercial is outrageous, requiring local residents drive (or drive further) instead of walking or biking to local services. Raising the height limit and transition to the residential homes will significantly negatively impact neighboring residents. It’s also critical not to compromise the setbacks. Lastly, the neighboring residents should always have a say in nearby projects and the city needs to insists on community meetings with the developer for Wilton Court. Palo Alto Housing ignored community input at Maybell so let’s not repeat that mistake again this time. Our parking, traffic and negative impacts on existing nearby residents is partly the result of poor zoning. This proposal continues that trend while not focusing on truly addressing below market housing and threatening neighborhood commercial. Hamilton Hitchings City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:55 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Noah Fiedel <nfiedel@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 6:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Resident opposition to the Wilton & El Camino Project as-is. Dear City Council, I'm writing you as a fifteen-year resident of Palo Alto, and homeowner on Wilton Ave. I'm concerned about the proposed project at Wilton & El Camino, and strongly oppose the project in the latest documented state (i.e. 60 units, 0.5 parking spaces per unit). Specific concerns about the Wilton Court project: 1. Parking. The street is already over-parked with cars from apartments and one business on El Camino. The proposal to under-park at 0.5 parking spaces is far insufficient. Here is a photo from this afternoon, showing the street as fully parked. Even a small amount of spillover parking will negatively affect quality of life for residents on our residential street. Parking is the most important issue of negative side-effects or burden on a residential street. Please do not overlook this! 2. Transit availability. Unlike the Alma project in downtown, directly across the street from Caltrain, we are a full mile from Caltrain! I don't understand how this is considered adjacent to high quality transit, or "transit oriented". The VTA busses are simply ineffective at going to most employment or activities in the area, and are not be a substitute for cars. This project is guaranteed to need more parking spaces than Alma, and should be planned/required to do so. 3. Height impact on the low-rise residential neighborhood. A 50 foot structure will be looming over mostly single story houses on the block. It will replace far away views of trees and mountains with a wall. 50 feet is extreme for the end of a residential block. For the record, I support more, more dense, and more affordable housing. However, the project as proposed goes vastly beyond both zoning and common sense. Thank you for your consideration, Noah Fiedel Wilton Ave City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:55 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Naphtali Knox <knoxnaph@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 6:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please pass the housing overlay Let's offer some hope for keeping Palo Alto inclusive and diverse. -- Naphtali H. Knox, FAICP (415) 699-7333 Editor, APA California Northern News APRIL 2018 issue: Virtual magazine, 22 pp. PDF (8.6 MB) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:56 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Ozzie Fallick <ozzie.fallick@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 8:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please approve the Affordable Housing Overlay Hello, I'm writing to urge the Council to approve the Affordable Housing Overlay measure coming before it on Monday, April 8. Palo Alto faces a severe housing shortage that is felt especially keenly by lower-income residents. The proposed ordinance will help address the funding, zoning, and community challenges standing in the way of expanding our housing supply and meeting the council's goal of permitting 300 units per year. Enabling affordable housing on as many sites as possible will promote proactive long-term planning, cut down on congestion and pollution by reducing workers' commutes, and support inclusiveness and socioeconomic diversity in our community. Thank you, Ozzie Fallick Evergreen Park City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:56 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:kemp650@aol.com Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 8:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Wilton project considerations Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I am concerned about using the Wilton project to make more general, far-reaching changes to zoning laws in Palo Alto. 1. Special zoning with concessions and bonuses should only be available to builders of housing for 60% AMI or below. Why should we subsidize for profit housing projects that benefit developers? 2. Adequate parking on site for the units. Providing at least 1 parking space per unit will insure friendly relations rather than pitting neighbors against neighbors and asking neighborhoods to absorb the impacts of under-parked properties. Please use the City's BMR housing funds to make up the parking shortfalls in properties like Wilton Court. We want to welcome new neighbors as friends and not as competitors for parking on streets that are already fully parked as it is. 3. There is no east-west transit in the city of Palo Alto, and the Bus 22 parallels the train, but does not facilitate easy travel into Menlo Park. So, justifying density on proximity to transit alone, is misleading. In addition, Caltrain is packed during commute times: how much more capacity does it have to accept large numbers of passengers generated by all the projects under development in the Ventura neighborhood plus those contemplated in the NVCAP? Please explore meaningful transit options first, prior to building any under-parked housing. 4. There is a concern that the collective impacts off all the projects in the pipeline are really not taken into account when evaluating a single project. A single project might be fine on its on merits, but when added to the big changes along El Camino Real, in particular this seems very poor planning. 5. Finally, we request that construction workers and machinery should be full parked onsite, so as not to block/congest the streets. We have experienced lengthy inconveniences on Park Boulevard during the Park Plaza construction, and it's still going on with the project at Page Mill and Park Blvd. Thanks for your consideration. Susan Kemp Ventura neighborhood City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:56 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:Angela Dellaporta <asdellaporta@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 8:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Overlay Proposal Dear City Council Members, An "overlay" that serves developers more than it serves the residents of Palo Alto is a bad idea. While the Wilton project is probably a good one, a community meeting with the neighbors who will be most affected by it is absolutely necessary. The residents in the Ventura neighborhood are being adversely affected by numerous new buildings with many units. Their concerns need to be considered. Creating an entire Affordable Housing Overlay that will allow developers to under-park buildings that might house families that need to use cars -- or simply those who want to keep a car for occasional use -- will inevitably create worse traffic and parking problems. If there were a robust transit web in Palo Alto, that might be a different story; however, the transit in Palo Alto is not yet truly efficient for users. There is absolutely no reason to allow developers to profit from concessions that might be appropriate in this case (the Wilton project) but are certainly not appropriate in others. Thank you, Angela Dellaporta City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:56 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:Ian Barile <ian.barile@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 9:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:Wilton@ECR project To Whom It May Concern, I writing to request that the Wilton@ECR project fulling meet it's parking needs per zoning RM-30. I live on Wilton ave have a 4 and 6 year old child and want to see traffic and parking congestion reduced. The Hong Kong restaurant causes considerable parking congestion due to not having enough parking for it's customers that any addition pressure on neighborhood parking is untenable. Best Ian Barile City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:56 PM 4 Carnahan, David From:xiaotian zhang <xiaotian.zhang@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 9:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Concerns of Wilton Court Project Dear City Council Members: This is Xiaotian Zhang, resident of Wilton Ave. I am writing the email to share with you about my deep concerns of the current Wilton Court Project, as follows: 1. It sounds that the city of Palo Alto looses the construction restriction for the project, since the project is an “affordable housing project”. However, the current project targets to AMI 120%. It’s not helping the people who truly need the assistance. such as AMI 60% or less. I am struggling to understand why the city is considering to changing the zoning and other construction codes to the developer, and subsidizing for profit housing projects? 2. If the city intends to support the project, it should provide special fund for the project to meet the basic construction requirements, such as at least 150 feed distant and one parking space per unit. It’s obvious that the developer wants to cut costs so that they propose 50 feet distance and 0.5 parking per unit. However, the cost-saving proposal will negatively affect the neighbors who live here daily. The street and the venture is ALREADY crowded . I live here but I need luck to park on street close to my house most time. The future residents of the Wilton court also won’t want to circle around to find the parking spot. I don’t see safety for my kid to scoot and bike on street due to the traffic. There was a teen bicyclist hit by a car when the teen biked to school. The distance of 150 feet is literally the minimum distance for privacy. 3. When doing research of Wilton Court project, I surprisedly found that there are multiple projects around Wilton. There're other 2 almost back to back multi-unit constructions along El Camino, besides WCP: 3877 El Camino Real (Cutner & El Camino) and Matadero & El Camino, right City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:56 PM 5 across Shell gas station. All of them have limited parking slots. I urge the city to have a systematic approach to evaluate the projects, and think about the cumulative impact to the residents in ventura. The nightmare is that the projects are reviewed individually, one by one, but the adding-up makes people here suffer their daily life. 4. The last but most least, about inclusiveness and equity. When I talk to our neighbors about the project, some residents who live on Wilton from 1980s told me that our voice won’t be heard unless we live in old Palo Alto and/or downtown Palo Alto. I won’t easily be strapped by the perception but I do find the multiple projects under the pipeline of Ventura, Wilton, Curtner, etc. While it’s great for the city to come out the plan to address the housing challenge, it should be collaborative and inclusive efforts across the city to make things happen in a right way. Hope my voice will get across. Thank you for your time and consideration! Best, Xiaotian Zhang Resident of Wilton Ave Mom of preschool student Professor of Finance Department, Saint Mary’s College of California City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:56 PM 6 Carnahan, David From:Shirley Wang <shirleyw@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 10:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Concerns about Wilton Court Project Dear Councils, I’m a Wilton resident. I support affordable housing. However, the current WCP's under-parking ordinance is absolutely ridiculous. First, owning and driving a car is human right. Why offer only half parking spot to low income residents? Secondly, the problem of parking will NOT be resolved by public transportation. San Francisco is the top #2 city with the best public transportation in the US. 98% of San Francisco’s population lives within a half-mile of transit that operates regularly. Yet, it is also listed #6 worst city for car drivers, in terms of lack of parking, traffic congestion and higher likelihood of accidents. Last but not least, safety for children cyclists is our top priority. Without enough street spaces, how can we ensure the safety of our cycling kids? To protect low income residents' parking rights, to honor our local tradition of bicycle, and to ensure the peace between the new residents and the existing neighbor community, we demand the new building to offer at least two parking spots per family, plus enough visitor parking spaces. Thanks, Shirley City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:57 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Tina Peak <tmpeak@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 12:13 AM To:Council, City Subject:Affordable Housing Overlay Dear City Council, I am completely opposed to any "affordable housing overlay" that changes existing zoning laws. Any affordable housing built should comply with existing zoning and affordable housing funds collected by the city of Palo Alto should be used to supplement other available funding to build suitable affordable housing thus requiring no zoning exemptions to make the project "feasible" The exemptions being considered are all a negative for the city and existing Palo Alto residents. 1. Lowered parking spaces required. These building will be massively underparked if this is allowed. Most low income people need to drive to get to work. In fact many probably have multiple jobs making a car even more important for them to get to work. 2. Building heights up to 50 feet. Again heights for any building should conform to that which the area is zoned for. No exemptions should be allowed. If the building needs to have supplemental funds to make the units affordable the city should allocate funds from its affordable housing fund. That is what it is there for. 3. Floor Area Ratio should not be allowed to be 2:1. This far exceeds the .4:1 that is allowed in CN or service commercial zones. Again any building should comply with the stated zoning and if they need to be supplemented with funds to be feasible to build the city should use affordable housing funds to help out. 2:1 zoning is really an excuse to build massive structures. 4. No exemptions to the city's retail protection ordinance. That was instituted for a reason and that reason has not changed. All of the above exemptions are made at the expense of existing residents and our quality of life. What is being proposed will overcrowd the city, allow large unsightly buildings, put cars on the overcrowded streets, allow more water usage, add more pollution and increase the density in a city that is already too crowded. We need to plan for a future in an area with less water, more pollution, overpopulation and a diminishing quality of life. Palo Alto should be leading the way in looking at the big picture and planning for the city a hundred years from now. Don't be bullied into making unsupportable decisions today that will make things worse for the city in the future. Regards, Tina Peak City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:57 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 7:56 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: 4/9 Council Agenda Item 7: Affordable Housing Combining District Draft Ordinance Attachments:SVH_AH Combining District Comments_040618.pdf     Thanks,    B‐    Beth D. Minor | City Clerk | City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue| Palo Alto, CA 94301  T: 650‐ 329‐2379  E: beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org      City Clerks Rock and Rule    From: Nicole Montojo [mailto:nicole@siliconvalleyathome.org]   Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 2:42 PM  To: DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine,  Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Holman, Karen <Karen.Holman@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal)  <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Scharff, Gregory (internal)  <Greg.Scharff@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Wolbach, Cory  <Cory.Wolbach@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Gitelman, Hillary <Hillary.Gitelman@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Pilar Lorenzana <pilar@siliconvalleyathome.org>; Clerk,  City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Re: 4/9 Council Agenda Item 7: Affordable Housing Combining District Draft Ordinance    Dear Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Filseth, and Councilmembers DuBois, Fine, Holman, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, and Wolbach:    On behalf of SV@Home, I respectfully submit the attached comment letter regarding Item 7 on the April 9, 2018 City  Council meeting agenda (Affordable Housing Combining District Draft Ordinance).      Thank you for the opportunity to share our comments.      Sincerely,    Nicole Montojo  Policy Associate  SV@Home  nicole@svathome.org  (408) 780‐4758  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:57 PM 2       SV@Home has a new website!   Check out the Resource Hub for all your housing data needs.    Board of Directors Ron Gonzales, Chair Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley Janice Jensen, Vice Chair Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley Kevin Zwick, Treasurer Housing Trust Silicon Valley Kathy Thibodeaux, Secretary KM Thibodeaux Consulting LLC Shiloh Ballard Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bob Brownstein Working Partnerships USA Christine Carr Katie Ferrick LinkedIn Amie Fishman Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California Javier Gonzalez Google Poncho Guevara Sacred Heart Community Service Jan Lindenthal MidPen Housing Jennifer Loving Destination: Home Mary Murtagh EAH Housing Chris Neale The Core Companies Andrea Osgood Eden Housing Kelly Snider Kelly Snider Consulting Jennifer Van Every The Van Every Group Staff Leslye Corsiglia Executive Director 350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110 408.780.2261 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL April 6, 2018 Honorable Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: April 9, 2018 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 7: Affordable Housing Combining District Draft Ordinance Dear Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Filseth, and Councilmembers DuBois, Fine, Holman, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, and Wolbach: On behalf of our members, we thank you for your leadership in responding to Palo Alto’s affordability challenges by working to increase the supply of housing, particularly for individuals and families with lower incomes. SV@Home supports the City’s efforts to meet its RHNA goals via the actions outlined in the 2018 Housing Work Plan. To further these efforts, we strongly encourage you to move forward with adopting an Affordable Housing Combining District Ordinance to unlock new opportunities for affordable housing in Palo Alto. Affordable housing faces so many barriers – from the increasingly high costs of land and construction to challenging entitlement processes and regulatory requirements that often make development infeasible. In order to achieve its goals, the City must find ways to eliminate these barriers and make it easier for affordable housing to be built. The proposed Affordable Housing Combining District Ordinance is a step in the right direction. SV@Home strongly supports the March 27 Minority Recommendation, authored by PTC Vice Chair Monk and Commissioners Alcheck and Riggs, to adopt the original draft of the ordinance presented by staff on February 14 , with additional considerations listed in the memo. In particular, SV@Home supports changes that would create greater flexibility by allowing ministerial changes to individual projects’ Floor Area Ratio and retail requirements. Flexibility is key to making this ordinance work. Every site is different, with unique challenges and constraints. With so many existing barriers, to get affordable housing built, the City must do what it can to make development easier. While it cannot control all of the market factors that stand in the way, it does control how the permitting process works, as well as the often-unfeasible requirements placed on housing. It is thus critical that the Affordable Housing Combining District Ordinance provides flexibility in development requirements via ministerial review. We recommend that the final ordinance specifically provide the Planning Director with discretion to approve the following measures: Honorable Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council April 6, 2018 Re: April 9, 2018, Agenda Item No. 7: Affordable Housing Combining District Draft Ordinance Page 2 of 2 350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110 408.780.2261 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org • Increases in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and height where appropriate, particularly in the areas around University Avenue and California Avenue. This will allow affordable housing developments to fully leverage the limited land we have available for housing and support transit-oriented housing that can reduce automobile dependency and traffic. • Waivers to retail requirements in all districts. As many other affordable housing advocates and developers have pointed out, a retail requirement presents financing challenges and often makes an affordable housing project infeasible, even with the benefits of the combining district. Flexibility with retail requirements will ensure that critical affordable housing opportunities are not lost, especially in areas where retail is less viable. With the draft ordinance before you, the City of Palo has an important opportunity to take action on its priorities defined in the Housing Work Plan and demonstrate its commitment to responding to its residents’ affordable housing needs. We encourage you to move forward without further delay. Again, we thank you for your leadership on this issue and for the opportunity to share our feedback. Sincerely, Pilar Lorenzana Deputy Director City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 2:02 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Angie Evans <angiebevans@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 9:14 AM To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory Subject:Affordable Housing on Tonight's Agenda Dear Mayor Kniss and Council Members. I am writing today to express my support for affordable housing in Palo Alto. I attended the planning commission meeting on March 14th and was disappointed that they weren't able to move forward on the previous version of the affordable housing overlay. As you all know, stand alone affordable housing allows for deeper levels of affordability for potential residents and re-zoning some of the commercial space near transit could help our traffic problems, support local businesses that are struggling to keep staff, and revitalize some of the parts of our city that are becoming more and more homogenous. I understand that parking requirement reductions can be seen as controversial but I think affordable housing advocates would agree that affordable, transit oriented homes, as suggested here, use public transit in greater numbers than market rate residents. Although I am writing as a resident of Palo Alto, I also work for a non-profit that focuses on creating and preserving affordable housing. I hear stories of recently displaced residents on a regular basis. No longer are these stories just from low-wage workers. They are from teachers, young families, and even tech workers. The cost of housing is out of control and we have to do something about it. By making a more focused effort to build truly affordable housing you can begin to stabilize the cost of living for all income levels. Personally, I believe this should be done in conjunction with tenant protections but that may be a longer policy discussion. The longer we do nothing, the more our community loses the voices of community members. I am unable to attend this council meeting but not because this isn't important. I hope you consider all of the testimony from the planning commission meetings in your decision. Angie Evans City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 2:04 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Angie Evans <angiebevans@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 9:14 AM To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory Subject:Affordable Housing on Tonight's Agenda Dear Mayor Kniss and Council Members. I am writing today to express my support for affordable housing in Palo Alto. I attended the planning commission meeting on March 14th and was disappointed that they weren't able to move forward on the previous version of the affordable housing overlay. As you all know, stand alone affordable housing allows for deeper levels of affordability for potential residents and re-zoning some of the commercial space near transit could help our traffic problems, support local businesses that are struggling to keep staff, and revitalize some of the parts of our city that are becoming more and more homogenous. I understand that parking requirement reductions can be seen as controversial but I think affordable housing advocates would agree that affordable, transit oriented homes, as suggested here, use public transit in greater numbers than market rate residents. Although I am writing as a resident of Palo Alto, I also work for a non-profit that focuses on creating and preserving affordable housing. I hear stories of recently displaced residents on a regular basis. No longer are these stories just from low-wage workers. They are from teachers, young families, and even tech workers. The cost of housing is out of control and we have to do something about it. By making a more focused effort to build truly affordable housing you can begin to stabilize the cost of living for all income levels. Personally, I believe this should be done in conjunction with tenant protections but that may be a longer policy discussion. The longer we do nothing, the more our community loses the voices of community members. I am unable to attend this council meeting but not because this isn't important. I hope you consider all of the testimony from the planning commission meetings in your decision. Angie Evans City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 2:04 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 9:29 AM To:Council, City Subject:Affordable Housing Below is an excerpt from an email I received from a friend and neighbor.  I think her comment is relevant to the AH  discussion and asked her permission to send it to you.  I again urge you to do all you can to assure that the Wilton Court  housing development is dedicated to those at the lowest end of the AMI scale.  In this instance you truly do have an  opportunity to shape our community.  I hope you will use it for the best.      *******  From a College Terrace neighbor:    Another irony of the lack of affordable housing is that the wealthy people who move here, for the “quality of life” etc,  now decry the fact that they can’t find nannies, housekeepers, and gardeners to maintain the style to which they would  like to be accustomed.  In the past year, we have lost several renters, in my neighborhood alone, who have contributed  to our community for many years.  They include an artist, a retired community physician, and a teacher. They have  moved far, far away. There are others in precarious positions (a carpenter, an administrator) and we shall probably say  goodbye to them soon as well.     ******    Annette Ross  College Terrace  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 2:04 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:Donald A. Barr <barr@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 10:40 AM To:Council, City Subject:Affordable Housing Combining District Dear Council Members,    I would like to bring to your attention the clear potential benefits of adopting an Affordable  Housing Combining District that will “Promote the Development of 100 Percent Affordable  Housing Projects.” In order to do so, I call your attention to a proposed project from nearly 10  years ago that was prevented from its goal of building 98 units of low‐income senior and  family housing, all of which would have been available to families and seniors making less than  60% of AMI.    As a member of the Community Working Group, I had personal responsibility for purchasing  the property that formerly was Olie’s Car Shop, at the corner of Homer and Alma. I also took  personal responsibility for negotiating an agreement with the owners of Hassett Ace Hardware  that would have provided the store with nearly double the square footage as the current  store, by moving to the corner of Homer and Alma from its current location at Channing and  Alma.     Working with Eden Housing, our plan was to build a total of 98 affordable units.  In order to do  this, we needed to have 4 floors of housing located above ground‐floor retail. Because of the  need for a higher ceiling for retail space, the project needed a building height of 53 feet. With  the support of City staff, we submitted plans for this project in the Fall of 2008. After a series  of hearings, our project needed one final review by the Planning Commission and the ARB.  One of the Planning Commissioners argued that the City should not grant an additional 3‐feet  in height to the building. As a result, the project was not approved by the Commission, and the  project had to be re‐designed as the current 801 Alma family housing facility, with 4 stories  and a height of 47 feet, providing only half the number of housing units originally proposed.    The consequences of not allowing the 3‐foot increase were two‐fold:   1) the project was prevented from building 49 units of housing for very‐low‐income seniors,  and   2) the hardware store was prevented from expanding to what would have permitted a full  “home center”.    If the City does not approve the Affordable Housing Combining District, which would include  the potential of increasing building height above the current 50‐foot limit in order to enable  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 2:04 PM 4 ground floor retail with 4 floors of low‐income or very‐low‐income housing, the long‐term  consequences for the City will be comparable to what happened at 801 Alma:   ‐ substantially fewer affordable housing units, and   ‐ a weaker retail presence on major transit corridors such as El Camino Real.    I urge you to adopt the Affordable Housing Combining District.    Yours truly,  Don Barr  Founding member of the Community Working Group      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 2:04 PM 5 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 10:49 AM To:chuck jagoda Cc:Kniss, Liz (internal); Council, City; Palo Alto Free Press; citycouncil@menlopark.org; council@redwoodcity.org; bos@smcgov.org; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto Subject:Re: Who caused the housing shortage? Well written response as always! Thanks, Chuck!! Aram Sent from my iPhone On Apr 9, 2018, at 9:42 AM, chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks, Aram. I read it and agree with what it says. I'd like to offer some more supporting evidence. I once asked Joe Simitian at a public meeting at Stanford why Palo Alto doesn't build housing. He said that a long time ago Palo Alto decided it would make more money more easily building commercial developments than residential and has followed that philosophy, Boy, I'll say they have! I remember one night at CC when a developer had no trouble getting approval when he brought a request that the building he was putting up have a fountain instead of the 10% affordable units in his building which had been part of his agreement. He argued that the fountain was better because "it would benefit everyone." What he meant, of course, was that the fountain and fewer poor people would make his building more attractive to the rich. What Palo Alto and Silicon Valley is all about-- in housing and other areas-- is personal progress at the expense of those who can't keep up, This includes ignoring housing needs of the neediest as the article states, ignoring all but the entreaties of those with money and ambition, and ignoring their most human feelings and religious teachings-- to take care of the children, aged, infirm, poor, and ill who have made other contributions than being able to buy a house now. They have made contributions in the past or will make them in the future. Unfortunately the hard hearted way NIMBY rules the roost now may very well come back to bite the very hands that are so stingy with help now. We each should be examining our lives to see what steps we can all take to help alleviate the crisis instead of trying to avoid dealing with it. Chuck On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 6:55 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Follow the link below to view the article. mercurynews.ca.newsmemory.com/publink.php?shareid=002a8cae8 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 2:04 PM 7 Carnahan, David From:Barbara Evans <evansbanjo@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 10:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:support staff report on housing We have done an abysmal job of providing housing while encouraging job grown. Mountain View seems to be ahead of us in many way. I particularly liked what I assume is a PUD which allows smaller lot sizes for homes (which do have garages), no car parking on street but separate areas in each block for visitor car parking. Mountain View also seems to have more apartment units. When we provide parks, open space and perhaps community gardens, apartment living can be very desirable. Barbara Evans, 1096 Metro Circle, Palo Alt City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 2:04 PM 8 Carnahan, David From:Don McDougall <mcdougall.don@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 10:59 AM To:Council, City Subject:SUPPORT for Affordable Housing Ordinance I'm pleased that City Council has adopted housing for low-income residents as a high priority (maybe THE high priority?). PLEASE support the staff proposed ordinance which will support and signal that housing for low-income residents is welcome in Palo Alto. We ALL know housing for low-income residents faces funding, zoning and community challenges. Please continue this momentum and SUPPORT:  Permitting of 300 units per year.  100% affordable projects serving people up to 120% AMI  The CAC long term planning for affordable housing including consideration of building height policy changes Furthermore, affordable housing is critical to achieving the Palo Alto Sustainability & Climate goals, lowering transportation emissions. from workers) Palo Alto MUST be an open, inclusive, and diverse community with people of all ages, professions and abilities. Thank you, Don McDougall 650 815 1455 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 2:04 PM 9 Carnahan, David From:Shane Combest <shane.combest@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 11:05 AM To:Council, City Subject:Affordable Housing Support Hello my name is Shane Combest and I live in Palo Alto on Melville Ave. I am writing to support affordable housing in Palo Alto. Our local daycares, schools, and business are struggling to staff and pay people well enough for them to live close enough. Our daycare (Kindercare on Ramona) has lost many teachers due to long commutes and cost of living. We need a sustainable housing plan and I: 1) support city council's housing priority and goal of permitting 300 units per year. 2) Support the original staff version of the Affordable Housing Ordinance, for 100% affordable projects serving people up to 120% AMI 3) Support proactive long term planning for the next 20+ years by enabling affordable housing on as many sites as possible 4) Affordable housing is a social justice issue - to keep our community open, inclusive, diverse, with people of all ages, professions and abilities 5) Affordable housing is critical to achieving Sustainability & Climate goals (primarily to lower transportation emissions from workers) We have a many lower income workers in our city and people who work these jobs shouldn’t have to drive in from Gilroy or Tracy Shane City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 2:04 PM 10 Carnahan, David From:Leora Tanjuatco <leora.tanjuatco@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 11:20 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support - affordable housing overlay, ordinance and goal Dear Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Filseth, Council Member DuBois, Council Member Fine, Council Member Holman, Council Member Kou, Council Member Scharff, Council Member Tanaka, and Council Member Wolbach: I'm writing to express my support for MORE HOUSING in Palo Alto. Apartments, condos, BMRs, let's build them! This should be a high priority for our city. I support your goal of 300 new homes this year, and the original version of the Affordable Housing Ordinance. We've got to build more housing - businesses have been suffering for years from high rents and the ridiculous costs of single-family homes. Many thanks, Leora Tanjuatco Ross 215 El Verano City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 2:04 PM 11 Carnahan, David From:Bret Andersen <bretande@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 12:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:In Support of Affordable Housing and a Flourishing Palo Alto Dear Councilmembers,    I urge you to support the staff proposed Affordable Housing Ordinance to help Palo Alto reach for Council’s stated goal  of adding 300 units per year.     For many years the community of Palo Alto has restricted housing growth while favoring job growth, office space  expansion and premium housing conversions/construction. The imbalance of jobs and housing reflects the fact that we  have contributed more than our fair share to the current housing crisis currently plaguing in Silicon Valley.    Clearly, it is our responsibility to address the situation we have in large part created by adding affordable housing units  in our City. Since reducing jobs and office space is impractical and counterproductive, adding affordable housing is the  only sensible way forward.     The Affordable Housing Ordinance is an important, albeit, small step that we can take. It will help us to recover some of  the inclusivity, social justice and cultural vibrancy that our community has lost over the last two decades of technology  business growth and gentrification. I look forward to seeing more affordable housing in our town soon so that we may  welcome more of the people from the diverse professions and walks of life that our community needs in order to truly  flourish.    Sincerely,    Bret Andersen, Ames Ave., Palo Alto    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 2:04 PM 12 Carnahan, David From:Annette Isaacson <annetteisaacson@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 12:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:affordable housing overlay Dear City Council Members, I urge you to approve the low income housing overlay that is being considered tonight. Everyone is aware of how difficult it is to find housing in Palo Alto especially for low and moderate income residents, like the workers in Palo Alto. Since the City Council has a goal of permitting the building of 300 units each year, we should make sure that these 300 units are for low income residents. We need a place for people who work in the city to live. Affordable housing is a social justice issue. We don't want Palo Alto to become a city where only the richest Americans can afford to live. Sincerely, Annette Isaacson 2550 Webster St. Midtown City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 2:04 PM 13 Carnahan, David From:CeCi Kettendorf <cecihome@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 12:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Affordable Housing Overlay 4/9/2018 Dear Council Members: A petition from PAF will be submitted into the public record tonight. The recent past PAF petition was a list of names gathered online; the names on that petition are unverifiable. There is little ability to see if a person whose name is included actually lives in Palo Alto, agrees with the inclusion of his name or is a stakeholder at all. PAF had in fact admitted publicly on paloaltoonline that the past petition which they submitted contained the names of those who DO NOT live in Palo Alto at all. So, Palo Alto professionals submitted a padded bogus document to be included in the public record and projected on to the wall of city hall. ....a new low. Nonresidents are not stakeholders. Those of us who live here are. I also have concern about the fact that the Council not onIly allows the submission of online "petitions" into the public record, but then lends credence to the bogus document by allowing the projection of the PAF petition on to the wall of council chambers. Can anyone come to city hall and use the projector? It appear that Council favors PAF. Surrounding neighborhoods to BMR housing willl suffer from the inadequate offstreet parking requirement of 0.5 spots per unit. BMR residents will still own cars and they will park them or garage them in the surrounding neighborhood. Those residents will have friends, family, lovers, caregivers, deliveries and agency workers who will be in need of parking. All the latter will crowd the surrounding neighborhood. Affordable housing should respect the livability of the nearby neighborhood, not destroy it. Please provide a parking spot per unit. Ceci Kettendorf 3719 Grove Ave Palo Alto, Ca. 94303 650-493-0804 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 2:04 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Randy Mont-Reynaud <rmontreynaud@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 12:36 PM To:Council, City; Greg Tanaka Subject:Letter re Walk the Walk on Affordable Housing Attachments:Affordable Housing April 2018.pdf -- With warmest regards, Randy Mont-Reynaud, PhD ISAIAH 58: ""Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?" 650 858 1558 (cell) Our 501 c-3 is "If Pigs Could Fly - Haiti" Visit us here: www.ifpigscouldflyhaiti.org And here is my blog: http://www.haitinextdoor.com/ Dear intelligent, brainy Palo Altans: Council members, neighbors, participants on April 9, 2018: I hope my community will use its heart as well as its well-educated minds, to move forward immediately on the original staff ordinance for Affordable Housing, Low-income housing, and the efforts of Palo Alto Housing. 300 units per year likely mandate zoning changes. Why should Council and Community and PTC approve the measures? No need to iterate again the social justice issues, diversity, teachers, firefights, city landscape maintenance workers, environment, transportation, etc. It is simply: Because it is the right thing to do. Change is the one thing we can count on in our world. Might be good to model for our children and our country how we learn from and move with, change and challenges. Some Palo Altans raise the question: “What sort of city do we want to see here in 10 years?” - But that’s a red herring. The question is: What defines our city, our community TODAY? “The time is always right to do right,” wrote Rev. Brother Martin Luther King, Jr. He preached this, we teach this, but Palo Alto needs to walk the walk… Sign me, a teacher… Randy Mont-Reynaud, PhD ______ Here’s my stance: 1) I support the priority for housing for low-income residents in Palo Alto's Housing Element, Comprehensive Plan and Housing Work Plan. 2) I appreciate the interest of our non profit housing organization Palo Alto Housing in developing housing for low-income and special needs residents on the Wilton Court site. 3) I support the staff's affordable housing overlay ordinance to remove barriers and encourage financial feasibility of housing for low-income residents at Wilton Court and other sites. 4) I encourage the staff to explain to the community why their proposed ordinance is needed and how it affects the feasibility of achieving our goals for the development of more housing for low- income residents, many of whom have been on waiting lists for many years. 5) I encourage the staff to bring their recommended ordinance and reasoning forward to the City Council in addition to any changes proposed by the PTC City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 2:06 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Rabbi Sarah Weissman <rabbi_weissman@betham.org> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 12:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:affordable housing Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I’m writing to urge you to adopt the Affordable Housing Overlay measure. Housing for low-income residents is a high priority as we are far behind in addressing the human challenges facing low- and moderate-income residents. Housing for low-income residents faces funding, zoning and community challenges and steps like the staff-proposed ordinance will go a long way in signaling that housing for low-income residents is welcome in Palo Alto. Affordable housing is a social justice issue, and is necessary in order to keep our community open, inclusive, and diverse, with people of all ages, professions and abilities. Affordable housing is also critical to achieving sustainability & climate goals (primarily to lower transportation emissions from workers).We have a many lower income workers in our city, and people who work these jobs shouldn’t have to drive in from Gilroy or Tracy. Please support the City Council's housing priority and goal of permitting 300 units per year, the original staff version of the Affordable Housing Ordinance for 100% affordable projects serving people up to 120% AMI, and proactive, long-term planning for the next 20+ years by enabling affordable housing on as many sites as possible. Sincerely, Rabbi Sarah Weissman -- Rabbi Sarah Weissman Congregation Beth Am 26790 Arastradero Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 rabbi_weissman@betham.org (650) 493-4661 We strive to live as a holy community whose study and practice of Judaism inspires and challenges us to “do justice, to love kindness and to walk humbly with our God" (Micah 6:8). City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 2:06 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:yananruan@gmail.com Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 1:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:Concerns of Wilton Court Project Dear City Council,     I found that there is a Wilton court project with a very limited parting. I as a resident of Palo Alto would urge the city to  raise the parking numbers of the project. My family go to Hong Kong Restaurant at Wilton and always have trouble to  find parking. A new project with limited parking makes the street more crowded and unsafe. Kids won’t bike safely  around the town.     So pls ask the developer to add more parking spots. It’s unfair to put the pressure to Wilton resident to take the traffic  jam.       Thanks.   Yanan Ruan   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 2:06 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Elizabeth Gardner <Elizabeth.Gardner@scchousingauthority.org> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 1:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:PACityCouncilMeetingPublicComment copy.docx Attachments:PACityCouncilMeetingPublicComment copy.docx; ATT00001.htm Dear Office of the City of Palo Alto City Council, Please file the attached letter as a comment for tonight’s Council Meeting Agenda item: Affordable Housing Combining District Thank You. Liz Gardner ### Dear Esteemed Mayor and All Members of the City Council, Re: The Affordable Housing Combining District ordinance. Forty-five percent of Palo Alto residents are renters. I regularly listen to my neighbors, who live a nearly grave existence trying to compete for housing in a high stakes, high-tech wage earning marketplace. While my husband and I both work, we still cannot afford market-rate rents. Born and raised just north of San Francisco, I understand firsthand what it’s like being homeless in an affluent Bay Area community: I was nine when my family sought refuge in a state park campground using a borrowed tent. That was only one of several times while growing up that we were without a permanent address. My family’s unstable living situation led me to drop out of school and go to work. But I eventually earned a degree, secured employment and resettled here in Palo Alto for jobs and to be near my children’s grandparents while they age in place. As someone who receives Section 8 housing assistance, I am honored to serve as a commissioner on the Santa Clara County Housing Authority’s board. This agency administers the federal Section 8 voucher programs for our county’s low-income residents and develops affordable housing rental properties. In contrast to my experience growing up, my family has stable housing, and, as a result, we are able to fully participate in Palo Alto’s community and thrive. As parents, we’re grateful our children attend our excellent schools and that our family is actively part of this amazingly generous and philanthropic community’s fabric. Mayor Kniss and the City Council have renewed energy and determination to tackle our city’s housing deficit problem. The city’s new Housing Work Plan is very encouraging. Please adopt an Affordable Housing Combining District ordinance so that more low-income residents can housing they can afford to stay in Palo Alto. I urge members of our community to open their minds and hearts to families like mine by saying “yes” to affordable communities like the one we live in. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 2:06 PM 2 Elizabeth Gardner, Commissioner Santa Clara County Housing Authority 2500 El Camino Real, Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:13 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Dena Mossar <dmossar@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 2:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Eviction Rates are soaring - you can do something about it! According to the program “Marketplace” on public radio: "We spoke to Princeton sociologist and MacArthur genius grant winner Matthew Desmond about his latest findings on eviction rates in the U.S. According to Desmond, about 6,300 people a day were evicted from their homes in 2016. To put the eviction rate into perspective, Desmond said it is twice the number of people who die in car accidents every day. “We're in the middle of a housing crisis,” he told us. “We've seen incomes for Americans of modest means stagnate over the last two decades, but rents have soared and most low-income families who qualify for housing assistance simply don't get it.... One in four poor renting families are spending over 70 percent of their income just on rent and utilities. And when you're in those conditions, a really small thing can lead to an eviction.” City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 4:14 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 4:09 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:April 9, 2018, Council Meeting, Item #7: Affordable Housing Combining District Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    April 9, 2018    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      APRIL 9, 2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7  PROPOSED AFFORDADABLE HOUSING (AH) COMBINING DISTRICT      Dear City Council:    I support the adoption of a new zoning overlay district for 100% affordable rental housing for either (1) individuals and families that earn 80% or less of Santa Clara County median income; or (2) individuals and families that earn 120% or less of Santa Clara County median income, provided for each of those alternatives that income eligibility for occupancy is verified annually.    I am opposed to using such an overlay district for non-rental (i.e., for- sale housing), because income eligibility for occupancy is not verified annually once someone purchases an "affordable" housing unit.    I am opposed to the broad number of commercial uses allowable in the draft ordinance.    A 100% affordable housing overlay district should be an overlay district that replaces the existing allowable commercial uses, rather than being added to those uses to create a mixed-use project that would no longer be a 100% affordable housing project, because it includes commercial uses.    If you believe it is worthwhile to allow the ground floor to be non- residential, then those uses should be restricted to uses ancillary to the housing project; uses ancillary to the non-profit developer of the housing project; retail; or vacant.    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 4:14 PM 2 Neighbors concerns about inadequate parking can be alleviated by prohibiting residents of the project from purchasing any parking permit for City-owned or Assessment-District-owned parking on city streets, parking lots, or parking structures, since one of the rationales for the reduced parking is that residents will use public transit to commute to work in Palo Alto.    If you allow non-residential uses, then you should prohibit use of the Zoning Ordinance provision that allows a reduction of parking due to the shared use of parking by the residential and non-residential uses.    At Page 8 of the staff report (ID # 8966) [Packet Pg. 131], staff suggests that the proposed ordinance should be adopted now, because it would take too long to draft a new affordable housing incentive ordinance.    The proposed AH Combining District ordinance is the "new affordable housing incentive ordinance".    I urge you to reject Section 3 of the proposed ordinance that proposes a wild card zoning provision. If staff is not capable of telling you what other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance need to be changed to meet the objectives of the proposed ordinance, then I am sure some developer knows, especially if the nonresidential use is retained in the ordinance. Palo Alto Housing appeared before the Council for a prescreening of a housing proposal at 3709 El Camino Real [17PLN-00189] that was designed to take into account the neighborhood commercial land uses that are required in the CN zone district, and they then chose the option before you tonight as the best way to get approval for the project that they have already designed. Staff and that applicant must be aware that there has been a pattern where developers have obtained more intensive development than an underlying zone district allows by getting some neighbors to advocate for the intensive development in exchange for a promise to keep some desired neighborhood retail use regardless of whether that use as designed for the project would be viable. I hope you have learned by now that you shouldn't approve a more intensive use (in this case, the beneficial use of 100% affordable housing) in exchange for a promise of a retail use that is not feasible. We already have Chapter 18.15 to make those tradeoffs, although that Chapter cannot be used to obtain as much housing relative to underlying zoning as the current proposal can. If an affordable housing developer wants to develop a 100% affordable housing project, then the new district should be an all housing only zone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 4:14 PM 3 district. Palo Alto Housing, for example, is not a developer of grocery stores or offices for non-profit organizations like the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce. For example, Palo Alto Housing is the developer of the five- story Eagle Park Apartments with 61 rental apartments at 1701 West El Camino Real in Mountain View that will be on the same block as market rate apartments and grocery stores, restaurants, pharmacies, and public transit. Similarly, if Palo Alto Housing develops a 100% affordable housing project without any commercial component, that project would be in the vicinity of neighborhood serving uses. It thus makes senses to apply the AH Combining District in response to specific applications, rather than broadly to a whole area of the City without relation to a specific application or applications. However, if you believe it is worthwhile for the ground floor to be a non- residential use, then I urge you to limit the use to services that are ancillary to the affordable housing development, such as the services at the Opportunity Center, or ancillary to the business of the non-profit developer of the development, such as the administrative offices of Palo Alto Housing. If you believe that retail is an acceptable ground floor use, then the ordinance language should say “retail or vacant”. I believe that Chapter 18.15 should also contain a statement that the provisions of Chapter 18.15 does not apply to the AH district. Before you recommend that the Council adopt the proposed ordinance you should add a new section to amend PAMC Section 18.15.080 to change subsection "(d)" to "(e)", and to add a new subsection (d) to read: "The Affordable Housing (AH) combining district provides flexibility in development standards that allow for a density increase that would in most cases exceed density bonuses under this Chapter 18.15. Therefore, this Chapter does not apply to the AH combining district." Staff should state on the record that the Midtown Shopping Center, the Charleston Shopping Center, and the properties along San Antonio Road shown in the map attached to the staff report would not be subject to the proposed ordinance. Neither the GM zone district nor the RP zone district should be subject to the proposed ordinance. The only properties zoned GM that are located within one-quarter mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor are those GM properties that are included in the area that is part of the North Ventura City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 4:14 PM 4 Community Area Plan (NVCAP) that is funded in part by a grant from the Valley Transportation Authority for a defined Priority Development Area. We should await the results of the new NVCAP process before deciding on any zone district changes for those GM properties. The only properties zoned RP that are located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor are those that are in the Stanford Research Park that is owned by Stanford University and near the Stanford campus that is the subject of an application and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a new 2018 General Use Permit (GUP). There is substantial evidence that Stanford has moved academic facilities to the Research Park and has announced plans to move additional academic facilities to the Research Park at the same time as Stanford is applying for a new GUP that would increase the allowable floor area for those facilities on the Stanford campus. Also, there is substantial evidence that the requested GUP would not provide for enough faculty, staff, and student housing for the academic facilities authorized for the GUP, while Stanford has expressed an interest in building housing in the Research Park that could be used for, among others, Stanford faculty, staff, and students. Accordingly, applying the AH combining district to the RP zone district would be part of the same California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) project as the 2018 GUP application. CEQA requires that the whole of a project be analyzed in the same EIR. Separating an application to adopt the AH combining district for any part of RP-zoned Stanford Research Park from the application for the 2018 Stanford University General Use Permit would be segmenting the project in violation of CEQA and a prejudicial abuse of discretion. The definition of "100% affordable housing project" in Section 18.30(K).030 of the proposed ordinance is not sufficient. The ordinance should state the minimum number of years the residential units must remain affordable, with rent based on a specific percentage of County median income for each family size, for example no more than 30% of income. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Herb Borock   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 4:14 PM 5 Carnahan, David From:Jeffrey Salzman <jsalzman3@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 4:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for affordable housing overlay I support the affordable housing overlay for the following reasons in general because housing for low-income residents is a high priority as we are far behind in addressing the human challenges facing low and moderate income residents. Housing for low-income residents faces funding, zoning and community challenges and steps like the staff proposed ordinance will go a long way in signaling that housing for low-income residents is welcome in Palo Alto. Specifically, I support all measures that will improve the overall housing supply, and especially actions that promote more affordable units. I support: 1) The city council's housing priority and goal of permitting 300 units per year. 2) The original staff version of the Affordable Housing Ordinance, for 100% affordable projects serving people up to 120% AMI 3) Proactive long term planning for the next 20+ years by enabling affordable housing on as many sites as possible 4) Affordable housing as a social justice issue - to keep our community open, inclusive, diverse, with people of all ages, professions and abilities Finally, I support affordable housing, which is critical to achieving Sustainability & Climate goals (primarily to lower transportation emissions from workers) We have a many lower income workers in our city and people who work these jobs shouldn’t have to drive in from Gilroy or Tracy. Jeffrey Salzman 4082 Orme St. Palo Alto, CA 94306 jsalzman3@yahoo.com 650-856-6260 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 4:14 PM 6 Carnahan, David From:Beth Rosenthal <bbr550@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 3:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Agenda Item 7   > On Apr 9, 2018, at 3:24 PM, Beth Rosenthal <bbr550@gmail.com> wrote:  >   > Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,  >   > In regard to the affordable housing ordinance you are considering tonight, I would request the following:  >   > The income level to qualify for this housing should be 60% of AMI, not 120%. It is important to note that projects  serving a population earning up to 60% of AMI are available for funding, particularly tax credits. Given there is so little  housing locally for first year teachers, service workers and the disabled population, why would you put this group in  competition for housing with beginning engineers who have many more options to choose from?  >   > 2. The current recommendation of .5‐.3 spaces per unit leaves this project seriously underparked. If you visited the  neighborhood in the evening, you would find that there is virtually no available street parking. To authorize the  construction of this complex with inadequate parking only exacerbates the problem that the city and the Council  continue to struggle with, the use of city streets as a dumping ground for edifices that skirt parking requirements.  >   > 3.To determine parking and height standards, the ordinance should be sent back to the PTC for further study.  >   > 4. There should be at least one community meeting to hear the concerns of area residents in a more informal setting  than is furnished by having to appear at a Council meeting.       City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 4:14 PM 7 Carnahan, David From:Tirumala Ranganath <ranguranganath@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 3:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:Affordable housing, parking issues, etc. Dear Sirs, Here are some important points that I would like the city council to consider in regards to Housing for 60% of AMI as well the consequential parking issues for project being considered in the north Ventura area and most immediately for the " Wilton project " . 1. Special zoning with concessions and bonuses should only be available to builders of housing for 60% AMI or below. It is not in the iterest of the city or the neighbors to subsidize for profit housing projects that benefit developers by providing housing at 120% of AMI. It is my understanding that housing at 120% of AMI, would be available for purchase - and my question - what, if any, restrictions would be instituted for resale of these properties and at what price. Is this going to be a scheme for quickly building equity for the seleceted group of buyers ? This is a night mare scenario for the city to get into, in terms of policing these units over time and I don't think the city ought to get into this business ! As one concerned resident has pointed out : 1. We should pply the “60% of AMI” income limit (between $35,000 to $50,000) to the Affordable Housing Overlay, which is truly meant for low income workers. City Staff is recommending a "120% AMI" limit, ($95,000 to $125,000) which would include workers who make over $100,000 a year! Question: Why should we allow workers who can afford their own market rate housing (making over $100,000) push out those workers who are struggling to pay their daily bills. That's not right. The Overlay should focus on only those workers who are in the low income "60% AMI" limit. 2. Adequate parking on site for the units. Providing at least 1 parking space per unit will insure friendly relations rather than pitting neighbors against neighbors and asking neighborhoods to absorb the impacts of underparked properties. Please use the City's BMR housing funds to make up the parking short falls in properties like Wilton Court. We want to welcome new neighbors as friends and not as competitors for parking on streets that are already fully parked as it is. Claimimg, people in affordable housing will have cars, at less than one per household is not valid. Also, even if some of them initially don't have a car, what if they decide to get one later, are they then forbidden ? Under the present conditions with no effective east west tranportation, one can bet that there will be atleast one car per household even in these 60% of AMI units. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 4:14 PM 8 To put it succinctly : Any Affordable Housing Overlay approval should be based on “Actual Parking Demand,” not some unrealistic goal that ends up dumping cars into the surrounding neighborhood. We shouldn't allow any project to be "under parked" on purpose, which forces the surrounding neighborhood to deal with the daily parking nightmares that Downtown, College Terrace, Evergreen Park, and Mayfield have had to endure. 3. At present there is no east west transit in the city of Palo Alto, and the Bus 22 parallels the train. So justifying increased density on proximity to transit alone, is untrue at best misleading. Please explore meaningful transit options first, prior to building any under- parked housing. 4. There is a concern that the collective impacts off all the projects in the pipeline are really not taken into account when evaluating a single project. A single project might be fine on its on merits, but when added to the big changes along ECR, in particular this seems very poor planning. 5. It is very important that during construction, all construction workers and machinery should be full parked onsite, so as not to block/congest the streets. The current situation on Park Boulevard is an example of what happens when this requirement is not instituted. Thank you for your attention, Sincerely, Ranganath (Resident, greater Ventura) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 4:14 PM 9 Carnahan, David From:Victoria Thorp <victoriathorp@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 3:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please vote for the affordable housing overlay Dear city council- I am writing to urge a yes vote on the affordable housing overlay. The housing shortage in the Bay Area is well documented and every town needs to step up and start building new units to meet the growing need. Thank you. Victoria Thorp -- Victoria Thorp victoriathorp@gmail.com 415-378-8687 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/5/2018 2:21 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Ng, Judy Sent:Thursday, April 05, 2018 2:21 PM To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan Subject:4/9 Council Agenda Question for Item 7       Dear Mayor and Council Members:     On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold a staff response to an inquiry  made by Vice Mayor Filseth in regard to the April 9, 2018 council meeting agenda.    No questions were received for Consent Agenda Items.     Item 7: Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District Ordinance – Vice Mayor Filseth     Item 7: Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District Ordinance  Q. 1.   The PTC ad hoc committee memo discusses the concept of “Actual Parking  Demand.”  For the Wilton Court project, do we have an estimate of what the Actual  Parking Demand will be?    A. 1.   No, we do not have an estimate for actual parking demand for Wilton  Court. We would get this after a formal application is filed.     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 CITY COUNCIL MICHELLE POCHE FLAHERTY, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER APRIL 9, 2018 8 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8 -Policy and Services Committee and Staff Recommendations on Next Steps Related to Airplane Noise. The following correction is provided to Page 4, packet page 149, of City Council Staff Report #9109. Item B is revised as follows: B. Relocate Arrivals from the South to the East: Not Endorsed. Palo Alto supported the notion of redirecting flights arriving from the south farther to the east (towards the hills to the west of Interstate 5). +he-Although the majority -approximately 53% - of SFO's arriving traffic is currently routed over Palo Alto (via SERFR, OCEANIC and BDEGA East), the FAA has explained that the current flow of arriving flights from the east (via FAITH waypoint and DYAMD, as well as BDEGA West arrivals) is already .:_saturated: with the majority (88%) of si;o's arriviAg traffic, and could not accommodate the addition of flights currently arriving from the south.2 The FAA also argues against the inefficiency of routing flights from southern California (and Phoenix, and Mexico) farther to the northeast of their current route into the approach used by the majority of flights arriving from the east coast and Midwest.3 The corrected paragraph reads: B. Relocate Arrivals from the South to the East: Not Endorsed. Palo Alto supported the notion of redirecting flights arriving from the south farther to the east (towards the hills to the west of Interstate 5). Although the majority-approximately 53%-of SFO's arriving traffic is currently routed over Palo Alto (via SERFR, OCEANIC and BDEGA West), the FAA has explained that the current flow of arriving flights from the east (via FAITH waypoint and DYAMD as well as BDEGA East arrivals) is already "saturated" and could not accommodate the addition of flights currently arriving from the south.2 The FAA also argues against the inefficiency of routing flights from southern California (and Phoenix, and Mexico) farther to the northeast of their current route into the approach used by the flights arriving from the east coast and Midwest.3 ,Ill""" -James Keene City Manager 1of1 PALO ALTO Date: To: From: Subject: Memorandum Office of the City Attorney City of Palo Alto April 5, 2018 Members of the Council Molly Stump City Attorney Legal Framework Regarding FAA Airspace Actions We are transmitting to you the attached public Memorandum prepared by the City's special counsel on airport and airplane noise issues, Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell, regarding legal chall enges to airspace actions taken by the Federal Aviation Administration {FAA). This information supports the Council's discussion of next steps related to airplane noise, Item 8 on the April 9th Council agenda. In addition to the public discussion of next steps, Council will have an opportunity to explore attorney-client privileged aspects of this issue with Mr. Kirsch in Closed Session. Enclosure: cc: Respectfully submitted, / ~r City Attorney Challenges to FAA Airspace Actions, Memorandum from Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell to Molly Stump James Keene, City Manager Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager Michelle Poche Flaherty, Deputy City Manager Beth Minor, City Clerk M E M O R A N D U M TO:Molly Stump, City Attorney CITY OF PALO ALTO FROM:KAPLAN KIRSCH &ROCKWELL LLP DATE: March 29, 2018 SUBJECT: Challenges to FAA Airspace Actions Overview This memorandum examines the legal options for challenging any Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airspace actions, particularly new flight procedures implemented as a result of FAA’s initiative to modernize the federal airspace system, referred to as the NextGeneration Air Transportation System, or NextGen. This memorandum has been drafted to avoid any privileged attorney-client communication or legal advice and may, therefore, be available to the public if you agree. The NextGen initiative began in Northern California in 2012, when the FAA proposed to undertake the Northern California Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (Northern California OAPM).1 The FAA conducted its environmental review through an environmental assessment (EA) and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact and Record of Decision approving the proposal in August 2014.2 The Northern California OAPM was fully implemented by December 2015.3 A number of residents of the South Bay unsuccessfully challenged the FAA approval of the new procedures in federal court.4 In response to community concerns and congressional inquiries about the Northern California OAPM, FAA began the so-called “Northern California Noise Initiative” in late 2015 to review and explore recommended modifications to approach and departure procedures in the Northern California Metroplex. FAA provide a Phase One report in May 2016, which included an analysis 1 The purpose of this NextGen project was to improve the efficiency of the National Airspace System in the Northern California Metroplex by optimizing aircraft arrival and departure routes at San Francisco International Airport (SFO), Oakland International Airport (OAK), Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC) and Sacramento International Airport (SMF), and their environs. 2 FAA, FONSI and ROD for the Northern California Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (NorCal OAPM) (2014) (http://metroplexenvironmental.com/norcal_metroplex/norcal_introduction.html). 3 See, www.nbaa.org/ops/airspace/regional/western/FAA-NorCal-Metroplex-Procedures-20151210.pdf. 4 Lyons v. FAA, (9th Cir. No. 14-72991, Dec. 21, 2016). That litigation concerned the adequacy of the FAA’s environmental review of the Northern California OAPM procedures. The court, deferring to the FAA as it is required to pursuant to Barnes v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 655 F.3d 1124, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011), found that the agency “conducted an extensive, detailed, mathematical analysis of the anticipated noise impacts.” Lyons, slip op. at 2. March 29, 2018 Page 2 and preliminary feasibility study of all the recommendations received by 2015. It met with a working group throughout the latter half of 2016, and published a Phase Two report in July 2017, which evaluated many – but not all – of the recommendations. 5 In November 2017, FAA published an update to the Phase Two report, which contained a full evaluation of the suite of community recommendations. The Phase Two Update identified 101 recommendations already addressed, 25 recommendations to be addressed, and 77 recommendations that FAA did not endorse.6 At least one recommended change is expected to occur imminently.7 Part One of this memorandum summarizes the available options and the attendant limitations to each option. Part Two provides a more detailed background on the applicable legal principles. Part One: Summary and Conclusions There are a series of legal hurdles that limit the degree to which a local community or individual can challenge or change FAA’s implementation of a new flight track or tracks. First, Congress delegated exclusive jurisdiction of the national airspace to the federal government. As a result, it is almost impossible for a local jurisdiction to impose regulations over the time and manner of aircraft operations. Second, legal challenges to FAA actions must be filed no later than 60 days after any final agency order is issued. For airspace actions, the “final order” is generally the FAA’s Record of Decision (ROD) approving the action as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), if the ROD was published, or the FAA’s publication of the flight tracks if no NEPA document was published. While there is an exception permitting late-filed petitions, it is rarely satisfied. Third, there are limits on the ability to sue the federal government for tort claims (e.g., nuisance). The key legal issues and options are outlined briefly below. 1.Airport sponsors and local governments cannot modify (or otherwise restrict) offending flight procedures. The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over the national airspace, so local governments are preempted from directly regulating air travel. There is a narrow exception, permitting airport proprietors to restrict operations when exercising their proprietary powers with regard to operation of their airport. However, even when acting within this narrow area, proprietors are still bound by the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, which imposes procedural requirements and also requires airport sponsors to secure prior approval either from FAA or from all affected air carriers in order to restrict most jet aircraft. That statute has never been used successfully to impose a restriction on airport operations. 5 See, https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/nextgen_near_you/community_involvement/norcal/#wgmp. 6FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns of Santa Cruz/Santa Clara/San Mateo/San Francisco Counties: Update on Phase II (Nov. 2017). 7 See, www.santacruzsentinel.com/government-and-politics/20180326/faa-sfo-flight-path-change-coming-thursday. March 29, 2018 Page 3 2.Neither airport sponsors, nor local governments, nor affected residents, can sue FAA for damages due to noise from overflights. The United States has sovereign immunity and while certain tort claims against the United States are permitted under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the statute provides an exception barring tort claims against an agency when it is exercising a discretionary functions such as determining the location of new flight procedures. 3.Affected parties can directly challenge FAA’s “final order” implementing new flight changes, but there is a strict statute of limitations for these claims. The primary means of challenging an FAA airspace decision is a direct challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act challenging a violation of a statutory mandate or procedural requirement. Any such suit must be filed within 60 days of FAA’s final action. The most recent final action in the Northern California Metroplex is the August 2015 Record of Decision approving the Northern California OAPM. It is extremely unlikely that any petitioner could now identify “reasonable” grounds for filing any challenge to an order that was issued two and a half years ago, especially because of the prior unsuccessful litigation that raised a timely challenge to the FAA decision. 4.Changes to the Northern California OAPM will require new approvals – and therefore new options for legal action. FAA has been reviewing recommendations for changes to the Northern California OAPM as part of the ongoing “Northern California Noise Initiative.” Any new changes – such as the new SERFR 3 route – would require new NEPA approvals.8 The “final action” that would trigger the jurisdictional clock on a revised procedure or other change would be either a new NEPA approval, or (in the absence of a formal NEPA order), the actual FAA publication of the new flight procedure in the aeronautical charts. (The new SERFR 3 route is supposed to be implemented today.9 We have not been able to identify any NEPA documentation to support this action but is possible that FAA prepared such documentation without any public disclosure, which is allowed in limited circumstances. It would be necessary to obtain FAA documents from the agency or through a Freedom of Information Act request to determine what environmental documentation was prepared prior to today’s implementation of that procedure.) While a new FAA action would restart the clock, a potential litigant would still need to identify a legally-cognizable error with respect to that action, which may be difficult. FAA’s actions will be accorded deference by the courts, and a plaintiff will need to show that the agency acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Options for future challenges include: 8 FAA, FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns of Santa Cruz/Santa Clara/San Mateo/San Francisco Counties: Update on Phase II at 5 (“the FAA’s processes and standards for evaluating noise impacts associated with potential amendments to currently published procedures … will be followed before implementing any airspace or procedural changes.”) 9 http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/government-and-politics/20180326/faa-sfo-flight-path-change-coming-thursday March 29, 2018 Page 4 (a)Finding error in the NEPA process for any new change to the Northern California OAPM. Finding a NEPA error may be difficult for two reasons. First, Congress legislatively excluded many NextGen procedures from the need to prepare environmental documentation, in effect authorizing the least stringent NEPA review for these actions. Second, Congress expressly delegated to FAA the authority to set noise thresholds and authorized the use of those thresholds for evaluating noise impacts.10 While residents may object to noise levels below this threshold, there is no clear mandate for relief in the form of mitigation under NEPA if the agency’s significance threshold is not met. (b)Failure to follow FAA’s own procedures for implementing new flight procedures. Finding a procedural error may be difficult as many NextGen procedures are not subject to the agency’s standard rules for implementing new flight procedures. (c)Failure to comply with any other relevant statutory obligation under a stand-alone statute such as the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) or Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. In particular, the NHPA regulations provide for the opportunity to seek re-initiation of consultation to reconsider impacts from airspace changes in the event of any new information and/or changed procedures that could affect historic properties. 5.A specific statutory provision directing review of certain prior NextGen actions is not available for the Northern California Metroplex. In 2016, Congress required FAA to review all categorical exclusions made after February 2012 for airspace procedures to determine if the implementation had a “significant effect.” This statutory directive does not apply to the Northern California NextGen procedures because they were examined through an environmental assessment, not a categorical exclusion. Before implementing any new procedures in the future, FAA would need to complete environmental review and, given recent precedents and Congressional directives, it is likely that FAA would conduct some level of environmental review. 10 See, generally, FAA, 1050.1F Desk Reference (2015) at ch. 11. March 29, 2018 Page 5 Part Two: Applicable Legal Principles I.AUTHORITY TO REGULATE AIRSPACE A.Exclusive Authority The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over the national airspace.11 FAA alone is tasked with developing plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assigning by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace.12 Congress has delegated to FAA the responsibility to address aircraft noise13 and has expressly preempted the local regulation of the “price, route, or service of an air carrier”14 with a limited exception for the exercise of proprietary powers discussed immediately below. As a result, states and local governments are preempted from directly regulating most aspects of air travel.15 Where airport proprietors have been successful in influencing flight patterns or other airspace procedures, they have exercised either political leverage or used the environmental review process to force desirable changes. None of these measures have been implemented independently by an airport proprietor. B.Narrow Exception for Airport Proprietors Congress expressly reserved to airport proprietors the authority to restrict operations at their airport to address local noise concerns.16 Courts have reaffirmed this so-called “proprietor’s exception” for decades.17 The proprietor’s exception is narrow in that it applies only to actions by airport proprietors, affecting operations at or related to that airport. The proprietor’s exception allows for broad authority to regulate noise levels so long as the regulation is “reasonable, nonarbitrary and non-discriminatory.”18 Notwithstanding the breadth of the proprietor’s exception, the exception has been practically limited by subsequent federal legislation and court interpretations. 11 49 U.S.C. § 40103 (the United States government has exclusive authority of airspace of the United States) 12 49 U.S.C. § 40103. 13 49 U.S.C. § 44715(a) (FAA shall prescribe “standards to measure aircraft noise and sonic boom” and “regulations to control and abate aircraft noise and sonic boom”). 14 49 U.S.C. §§ 44701-16; § 41713(b)(1). 15 Skysign Int’l v. City & County of Honolulu, 276 F.2d 1109, 1116, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 275, *12-13, citing City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, 411 U.S. 624, 633 (1973) (aircraft noise); Air Transp. Ass'n of Am. v. City & County of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 1064, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2001) (pricing). 16 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(3) (airport operators not preempted from exercising proprietary powers). 17 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(3); British Airways Bd. v. Port Auth., 558 F.2d 75, 85 (2d Cir. 1977) (“Congress has reserved to proprietors the authority to enact reasonable noise regulations, as an exercise of ownership rights in the airport, because they are in a better position to assure the public weal” than FAA”). 18 Nat’l Helicopter Corp. of Am. v. City of New York, 137 F.3d 81, 87 (2d Cir. 1998). March 29, 2018 Page 6 C.Airport Noise and Capacity Act In 1990, Congress enacted the Airport Nosie and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA),19 which imposes additional restrictions beyond those established by other federal laws, constitutional law and preemption principles to severely limit the ability of airport proprietors to address aircraft noise through local regulation. Under ANCA, restrictions on Stage 2 aircraft20 are subject to procedural requirements including an extended public comment period and required study elements.21 (Congress banned all Stage 2 jets after December 31, 2015,22 making the Stage 2 regulations now applicable only to a small number of non-jet aircraft that are stage-rated by the FAA.) By contrast, restrictions on Stage 3 (and higher) aircraft are subject to procedural and substantive requirements. In particular, the airport proprietor must prepare a detailed study, and also secure FAA approval.23 Since enactment of ANCA, no airport proprietor has successfully secured FAA approval for a restriction affecting Stage 3 (or higher) aircraft. Alternatively, a local operator can impose a noise or access restriction without FAA approval if it can obtain the consent of all affected aircraft operators.24 This route also has also never been used successfully. II.FAA AIRSPACE ACTIONS A.General Rulemaking Authority FAA has general authority to adopt regulations governing the national airspace.25 FAA formally promulgates many airspace changes through its rulemaking authority.26 For example, FAA has published general flight rules at 14 C.F.R. Part 91. The Part 91 regulations govern a full range of issues including visual flight rules, instrument flight rules, and minimum clearance standards. In addition, FAA publishes instrument flight procedures at 14 C.F.R. Part 97. FAA also has a suite of binding Orders which outline policies and procedures for the promulgation of flight procedures. Historically, the FAA relied on these orders, including Order 7100.9, Standard Terminal Arrival (STAR) Program and Procedures and Order 8260.3, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), when promulgating airspace changes. 19 49 U.S.C. §§ 47521 et seq. 20 An aircraft’s “stage” rating refers to the FAA system used to determine and certify the noise level of an aircraft based on weight, number of engines, and occasionally passenger capacity. All jet aircraft and some larger propeller aircraft and helicopters are stage-certified. The smallest propeller aircraft do not have a stage certification. 14 C.F.R. Part 36. See generally, https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/noise_emissions/ airport_aircraft_noise_issues/levels/ 21 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b); 14 C.F.R. Part 16 Subpart C. 22 49 U.S.C. § 47534; 78 Fed. Reg. 39,576 (July 2, 2013). 23 49 U.S.C. § 47524(c); 14 C.F.R. Part 161 Subpart D. 24 14 C.F.R. Part 161 Subpart B. 25 49 U.S.C. § 106(f) (general rulemaking authority regarding aviation safety); 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(2) (air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft) (use of the airspace); 49 U.S.C. § 44701 (general requirements) 26 See, e.g., 14 C.F.R. Part 71 (designation of airspace classes); 14 C.F.R. Part 97 (standard instrument procedures). March 29, 2018 Page 7 B.NextGen Mandate In the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Congress required the FAA to create a new National Airspace System to transform the nation’s air traffic control system from a radar-based system with radio communication to one that is satellite-based.27 This new system is referred to as Next Generation Air Transportation System or NextGen. NextGen is a comprehensive set of interconnected systems permitting more precise navigation and communications.28 Chief among these is Performance Based Navigation (PBN), an advanced, satellite-enabled form of air navigation that enables FAA to design extremely precise flight procedures that will increase efficiencies in the National Airspace System (NAS).29 FAA has already published more than 9,000 new PBN routes across the country and “new ones are introduced regularly.”30 1.NextGen Implementing Regulations In April 2014, FAA published a new Order, Order 7100.41, Performance-Based Navigation Implementation Process, which sets forth procedures for implementation of new PBN routes.31 In April 2016, FAA replaced Order 7100.41 with Order 710041A.32 In the same timeframe, FAA cancelled former Order 7100.9.33 Order 7100.41 created a five-phase implementation process for new PBN procedures.34 Order 7100.41A keeps the five-phase implementation process, but newly clarifies that national initiatives with defined alternative processes, such as Metroplexes, are not subject to the Order.35 The five phases are: 1.Preliminary activities. In this phase, a work group defines and provides justification for a PBN procedure/route project. During this phase, the work group examines current operations, drafts a mission statement, develops a concept of operations, and records expected benefits. This phase begins when a proponent has requested a new route or procedure and ends when the PBN Policy and Support Group makes a recommendation to the Regional Airspace and Procedures Team (RAPT) based upon the data presented.36 27 Pub. L. 112-095 at Section II (enacted Feb. 14, 2012). 28 See, FAA, How NextGen Works, available at www.faa.gov/nextgen/how_nextgen_works/. 29 FAA, How NextGen Works, available at www.faa.gov/nextgen/how_nextgen_works/. 30 FAA, Where We Are Now, available at www.faa.gov/nextgen/where_we_are_now/ .31 FAA Order 7100.41, Performance Based Navigation Implementation Process (April 3, 2014), available at: www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1023306. 32 FAA Order 7100.41A, Performance Based Navigation Implementation Process (April 29, 2016), available at: www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1029451. 33 See, Memorandum from G. Norek (Acting Director, FAA Airspace Services) to A. Spence (Directives Program Manager) Re: Order 7100.9, Standard Terminal Arrival (STAR) Program and Procedures (May 19, 2016) (available at: www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/Cancellation_Memo_7100.9E.pdf. 34 FAA Order 7100.41, at 2-1. 35 FAA Order 7100.41A at pp. i & ii. 36 FAA Order 7100.41 at ¶ 2-3; see also FAA Order 7100.41A at Chapter III § 1. March 29, 2018 Page 8 2.Development. The purpose of the development phase, the second phase of the process, is to generate a single PBN procedure or a set of PBN procedures and routes that are operationally viable, flyable, and suitable for submission for approval and publication. During this phase, a full work group is formed; the procedures and routes are designed, evaluated, and checked; and the required documentation is assembled. This phase also includes the initial environmental evaluation. This phase starts with assembling the full work group and holding a formal project-kickoff meeting. It ends with the submission of the procedures and routes to AeroNav Products.37 3.Operational preparations. The goal of this phase is to identify any operational items that need to be implemented prior to publishing the procedures or routes. During this phase, a series of operational steps is completed, such as training, issuing notifications, considering automation issues, updating video maps, and processing documents. This phase concludes when all the necessary operational steps have been completed and an implementation date has been set by the work group.38 4.Implementation. The goal of this phase is implementing the routes and/or procedures as designed. This phase starts with confirmation by the work group that all steps required up to this point have been completed; it ends when the PBN-based procedures and/or routes are published and implemented.39 5.Post-implementation and evaluation. During this phase, the operation of the procedures and/or routes are observed to ensure they perform as expected and meet the mission statement finalized during the Development phase. Post-implementation activities also involve collecting and analyzing data to ensure that safe and beneficial procedures were developed. This phase starts with the use of the procedures and routes, including the monitoring of the initial usage. The phase ends with the completion of the PBN Post Implementation Analysis Report and the closing of the project.40 Order 7100.41 specified that airport operators must be included as a member of the PBN work group to provide “input on procedure and route design, including any potential operational or environmental impacts to the airport and surrounding communities.”41 In contrast, Order 7100.41A notes that airport authorities “may” be included “as appropriate” in the full working group.42 2.Congressional Directive to Review Certain Procedures In the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2017, Congress further directed that FAA should review any decision the agency had made to issue a NEPA categorical exclusion between 37 FAA Order 7100.41 at ¶ 2-4; see also FAA Order 7100.41A at Chapter III § 2. 38 FAA Order 7100.41 at ¶ 2-5; see also FAA Order 7100.41A at Chapter III § 3. 39 FAA Order 7100.41 at ¶ 2-6; see also FAA Order 7100.41A at Chapter III § 4. 40 FAA Order 7100.41at ¶ 2-7; see also FAA Order 7100.41A at Chapter III § 5. 41 FAA Order 7100.41 at p. A-5. 42 FAA Order 7100.41A at Chapter II, § 2(c). March 29, 2018 Page 9 February 14, 201243 and December 23, 201644 with respect to an airspace procedure implemented at an Operational Evolution Partnership (OEP) airport45 where the procedure was a “material change from procedures previously in effect at the airport.”46 The purpose of the statutorily-required review is to determine whether the implementation of the procedure had a “significant effect on the human environment in the community in which the airport is located.”47 If FAA conducts such a review and concludes that there was a significant effect, Congress directed that FAA must then: (1) consult with the operator of the airport to identify measures to mitigate the effect of the procedure on the human environment; and (2) in conducting such consultations, consider the use of alternative flight paths that do not substantially degrade the efficiencies achieved by the implementation of the procedure being reviewed.48 III.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF AIRSPACE PROCEDURES A.Overview Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), all federal agencies must consider the potential environmental consequences of their actions.49 NEPA may be satisfied through either a categorical exclusion (the lowest level of environmental review),50 an environmental assessment (EA) resulting in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI), or a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).51 FAA has identified categories of actions that are categorically excluded from NEPA review because FAA has determined, based on previous experience, that these actions do not have significant individual or cumulative impact on the quality of the human environment except in “extraordinary circumstances”.52 This list includes: 43 The initial NextGen mandate was enacted on February 14, 2012. Pub. L. 112-095 at Section II (enacted Feb. 14, 2012). 44 The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2017 was enacted on December 23, 2016. 45 OEP airports are airports are commercial U.S. airports with significant activity. They serve major metropolitan areas and also serve as hubs for airline operations. San Francisco International is an OEP airport. See http://aspmhelp.faa.gov/index.php/OEP_35. 46 Pub. L. 114-328 at Sec. 341(b) (Dec. 23, 2016). 47 Pub. L. 114-328 at Sec. 341(b) (Dec. 23, 2016). 48 Pub. L. 114-328 at Sec. 341(b) (Dec. 23, 2016). 49 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. 50 There is a common misconception that a categorical exclusion means that no NEPA review is required. Technically, a CatEx is a type of NEPA review – albeit a very abbreviated review with minimal or no public participation. As a result, when FAA commits to undertake NEPA review, it is not necessarily committing to preparation of an EA or EIS or even to a public review process. The public often misunderstands FAA commitments, as it made with respect to the SERFR3 route, to mean that there will be a public review process. 51 40 C.F.R. § 1507.3(b). 52 FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures (July 16, 2015) at ¶ 1-7. Extraordinary circumstances are factors or circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact that then requires further analysis in an EA or an EIS, including: (1) a division or disruption of an established community, or a disruption of orderly, planned development, or an inconsistency with plans or goals that have been adopted by the community in which the project is located; and (2) an impact on noise levels of noise sensitive areas. Id. at ¶ 5-2. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:19 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Marie-Jo Fremont <mariejofremont1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 04, 2018 11:36 AM To:Council, City; Minor, Beth Subject:April 9, 2018 City Council Meeting --request to change order in agenda Dear Council Members, Would it be possible to change the order of items 7 (affordable housing) and 8 (airplane noise) in the upcoming City Council meeting on April 9? See current schedule in the screenshot below. Both items are important but given that the discussion on affordable housing is almost 2 hours long, it would make sense to take care the airplane noise topic (which is shorter and may not take an hour) first. Furthermore, it is possible that affordable housing may take longer than its allocated time. Thank you for considering my request to move airplane noise to 7:15 pm on the agenda and follow with affordable housing right after and no later than 8:15 pm. mjf City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:17 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Melanie Bieder <mbb@mbieder.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 2:02 PM To:Council, City Cc:Minor, Beth Dear Council,    I am one of those long suffering Palo Alto residents besieged by airport noise.  Recently the FAA changed one of the 3  routes that flow continuously over my house.  After 3 years of patiently waiting for some relief from the excessive noise  and air pollution, virtually nothing has been done to alleviate the situation.  The surprising answer from the FAA was to  move Serfr3 1/4 mile east CLOSER to my house.  The planes are now at times 1 ‐2 minutes apart.  Enough is enough!   The time has come for Palo Alto to take a stand and do something for your patient, loyal but severely affected residents.   I urge you to consider aggressive action as this seems to be the only thing that has achieved results elsewhere in the  country.  The squeaky wheel works.    Also, the upcoming April 9 meeting agenda has airplane noise at two separate times, with affordable housing hearing  scheduled in between for two hours. The affordable housing hearing will likely need more time, and go longer than the  allotted two hours whereas, airplane noise can finish well within the allotted hour or take less time than the hour.  Please consider reversing the order of the last two items on the Agenda. We appreciate your understanding.    Melanie Bieder      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:17 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 1:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:Petition for review vs Roundtables Dear Council, In case this comes up...when the problem with jet noise first erupted in Palo Alto, concerned residents reached out to the City and we asked the City what recourse there was to what was happening, and if the City Attorney could take up our questions. During meetings with City staff, the response we got was that the City felt it was best to apply for membership with the SFO Roundtable. Going by way of the Roundtable appears to have been a deliberate City strategy, as opposed to challenging the NorCal OAPM and subsequently the FONSI. Please be sure that these items don't get mixed up again because the fact is that they are not linked and cities around the country are doing BOTH, participating in community discussions and challenging the FAA. Airport owners like Phoenix are the strongest challengers of FAA actions and FAA does not hold that against them. Newport Beach another example. On the contrary, there appears to be better communication. Better than the one Palo Alto currently enjoys given the Council meetings with FAA in D.C. (reported to be very frustrating) and the fact that FAA has not had the courtesy to respond to a single letter that the City has written. Being left out of the Select Committee and having to be a totally diluted vote on the SJC South Flow Ad Hoc is generally how the region wants it. Tables (long term tables especially) are meant to quiet the public, not the noise. If there was true regional effort, already a year ago everyone would have rallied to get the deliverable we need from the Select Committee. I have noted that the SF Roundtable discourages members from challenging the FAA. During a meeting this past year, an SF Roundtable member went as far as saying that people have "no rights" for environmental review which is not true but it did serve to shut the discussion down. By the way, for all the SF Roundtable talk that FAA would not talk because of the Portola Valley lawsuit, it was during the height of the lawsuit that we got FAA to come to meet in the Bay Area and they began their Initiative to address noise concerns. It turned out to be completely bogus that FAA could not talk. They talked more than ever. Residents care deeply about having proper consideration of impacts and not letting FAA tell our story as "no impact" or "nothing to look at." Peer pressure from Roundtable talk should not aid FAA in getting away with it. Thank you, Jennifer City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:17 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:Kerry Yarkin <kyarkin895@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 1:39 PM To:City Attorney; Council, City Subject:Possible litigation against FAA Dear Molly Stump and City Council Members: I am cautiously optimistic that you will decide to enact a legal case against the FAA for the citizens of Palo Alto who you represent. Enough is enough! I hope you look at the SkyPossee website to see boiler plate language and other legal cases that have been filed by other cities in the U.S against the FAA. I found this short paragraph on the SkyPossee website regarding what the City of Newport Beach is doing. I have not flown out of John Wayne Airport for a long time, but I think all departures have some type of glide procedure (No noise) . We do have the full length of the Bay which is under-utilized! Best, Kerry Yarkin Resident Living directly under the Unfriendly Skies of SERFR3, Oceanic, and Pt. Reyes flight tracks. City, FAA Reach Tentative Agreement Further Restricting John Wayne Airport Flight Departure Paths "The City Council understood that any litigation against the FAA would be an uphill battle and was by no means a guaranteed success; however, the City Council was and is committed to protecting the interests of Newport Beach residents and determined that this was a necessary challenge. As a direct result of the City’s litigation, the FAA agreed that the NextGen flight paths will stay between the existing SNA noise monitors and it will design and study one of the nation’s first precision- based curved departure procedures for SNA. This procedure, planned for implementation in the coming weeks, would in theory allow planes to follow the curves of the Upper Newport Bay, therefore avoiding as many residential areas as possible. " City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:17 PM 4 Carnahan, David From:Gary Lindgren <gel@theconnection.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 11:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page Subject: Airplane Noise    Dear Palo Alto City Council,  Please stop any thought of trying to sue the FAA regarding airplane noise. This is just a big waste of money and  resources. We have a few vocal people that think when they hear airplane noise, they have to report it. Whoever  promised them that Palo Alto would be free of airplane noise, after all we are 20 miles from a major international  airport and 6 miles and even one mile from our own small airports. Please stop any thought of bringing suit. By the way  our house is very close to the MENLO turn and planes from the Pacific fly right over our house.  Thank you,  Gary Lindgren                    Gary Lindgren  585 Lincoln Ave  Palo Alto CA 94301     Check Out Latest Seismometer Reading @garyelindgren    Listen to Radio Around the World     Be Like Costco... do something in a different way  Don't trust Atoms...they make up everything      A part of good science is to see what everyone else can see but think what no one else has ever said. The difference between being very smart and very foolish is often very small. So many problems occur when people fail to be obedient when they are supposed to be obedient, and fail to be creative when they are supposed to be creative. The secret to doing good research is always to be a little underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste hours. It is sometimes easier to make the world a better place than to City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:17 PM 5 prove you have made the world a better place. Amos Tversky   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:17 PM 6 Carnahan, David From:Richard Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 10:24 PM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James Subject:FAA Council Members: Join the lawsuit! I'm tired of being awakened after midnight by the incoming 747 freighter from Asia that literally shakes my house. It comes in at under 3000 ft according the SFO rep who responds to my complaints and then passes them onto the FAA. The FAA then does nothing. Arrogance. Richard Brand 281 Addison City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:17 PM 7 Carnahan, David From:Karen Hendricks <khendricks@pausd.org> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 8:58 PM To:Erica Brand Cc:Council, City; Police; Berkson, Jerry; Paly Principal; editor@paweekly.com; Tanaka, Greg; joshua.mello@cityofpaloalto.org; Judd Volino; DuBois, Tom; Adam Brand Subject:RE: PAUSD to grant Easement for City of Palo Alto to begin safety improvements at where Churchill intersects Castilleja Ave. Hi Erica,    Thanks so much for contacting me.  I was terribly sorry to hear about this accident in February, and your daughter’s  injuries.  I can only imagine how scary and impactful this was for her and for your family.    Please know that I’ll review your email thoroughly upon my return to the office this week, and will also share it with  Trustees Ken Dauber and Todd Collins, who are the Board Members assigned to the School / City Liaison Committee.      Sincerely Yours,    Karen    Karen Hendricks Interim Superintendent   OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT 25 CHURCHILL AVENUE PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94306 (650) 329-3983 Please consider the environment before printing this email.  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE TO RECIPIENT(S): This e-mail communication and any attachment(s) may contain information that is confidential and/or privileged by law and is meant solely for the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized use, review, duplication, disclosure or interception of this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you received this e-mail in error please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message and any attachment(s) from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.      From: Erica Brand [mailto:erica.w.brand@gmail.com]   Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2018 6:06 PM  To: Karen Hendricks <khendricks@pausd.org>  Cc: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; pd@cityofpaloalto.org; Jerry Berkson <jberkson@pausd.org>; Paly Principal  <palyprincipal@pausd.org>; editor@paweekly.com; greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org; joshua.mello@cityofpaloalto.org;  Judd Volino <kazalino@kazalino.com>; tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org; Adam Brand <adamdbrand@gmail.com>  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:17 PM 8 Subject: PAUSD to grant Easement for City of Palo Alto to begin safety improvements at where Churchill intersects  Castilleja Ave.  Dear Superintendent Hendricks, On Feb 12, 2018, my daughter was hit by a car in the crosswalk at the intersection at Churchill and Castilleja Ave, immediately south of the Paly football field. This intersection has been dangerous for a long time. I participated in meetings trying to find a solution in Oct 2016 after another student was hit by a car, and I was left with the understanding that a crossing guard was not possible, but that the City Council would implement specific planned improvements. My daughter suffered road rash, a badly sprained tendon in her ankle, and many cuts and bruises. Her accident could have been far worse, but fortunately when her head hit the ground her helmet protected her head. She cracked a section of that helmet all the way through. My daughter spent 3 hours at Stanford ER, and we have been in and out of doctor’s offices ever since. The accident has had severe effects on her school performance— you know how much homework a Paly sophomore needs to do—and it was incredibly scary. Actions are needed to make this intersection safer for the students who face a high level of traffic, often with no break in the flow of cars. Presently the signage and physical setup does not offer sufficient protection of the students. There have been many discussions and proposals on how to make this busy intersection more safe for the students and commuters who use it daily, including:  Installing a raised crosswalk, with flashing lights  Installing a traffic light  Hiring a crossing guard  Blocking traffic between Castilleja and Alma on Churchill Please see the plans, shared with me by Councilman Dubois’s office, that have been approved since Jan 2015. Please see a link to a descriptive slideset about the intersection. My understanding is that the next step is for PAUSD to grant an easement [for] the CIty of Palo Alto.  Is that correct?  Can it be done by April 30? If not then, when?  If that is not the correct step, please clarify what needs to happen next. How can I help? Let’s work together to fix this before anyone else is hurt. Best Regards, Erica Brand City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:17 PM 9 Carnahan, David From:Jonathan Heiliger <jh@theheiligers.org> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 2:10 PM To:Council, City; Minor, Beth Subject:April 9 agenda planning Dear Council,    The upcoming April 9 meeting Agenda has airplane noise at two separate times, with affordable housing hearing scheduled in between for two hours. The affordable housing hearing will likely need more time, and go longer than the allotted two hours whereas, airplane noise can finish well within the allotted hour or take less time than the hour. Please consider reversing the order of the last two items on the Agenda. We appreciate your understanding.  -jh- City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:17 PM 10 Carnahan, David From:Nancy Martin <nancy.martin@mac.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 10:36 AM To:Council, City Subject:Aircraft law suit Dear Council, The upcoming April 9 meeting Agendahas airplane noise at two separate times, with affordable housing hearing scheduled in between for two hours. The affordable housing hearing will likely need more time, and go longer than the allotted two hours whereas, airplane noise can finish well within the allotted hour or take less time than the hour. Please consider reversing the order of the last two items on the Agenda. We appreciate your understanding. Brad and Nancy martin City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:17 PM 11 Carnahan, David From:Cheryl Lilienstein <clilienstein@me.com> Sent:Saturday, April 07, 2018 8:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:Airplane noise Dear Councilmembers,    Palo Alto MUST file a lawsuit against the FAA. Please. I’m certain Palo Altans will be VERY appreciative if our city can  spend our tax money for this purpose and win the suit. Certainly it will be an investment with a higher positive outcome  than most of the other consultant fees paid out.    The non‐binding communications thus far have not yielded sufficient relief. The window is short: please authorize a  lawsuit as an urgent priority, and pursue a clear and enforceable, specifically and meaningfully measured end goal: fly  higher, spread the landing routes out, prioritize landing over the bay. You have the information you need already,  supplied by Sky Posse. Use it.    Personally, I can’t tell you how disappointed my whole family is with the intensity of noise pollution due to NextGen. We  rarely enjoy our beautiful outside environment any more: it’s too distressing to try to have a conversation with the  airplanes constantly interrupting our thoughts. In our home we keep the windows closed all the time, in order to  minimize the annoyance and control our blood pressure. This is wrong: we didn’t choose to live under an airplane  highway, and we feel trapped in our home, and have to use the AC all night to cool the house instead of what used to be  enjoyable breezes.    thank you,  Cheryl Lilienstein              City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:17 PM 12 Carnahan, David From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 07, 2018 3:56 AM To:Council, City Subject:Your meeting with aviation legal attorney Dear City Council, I understand that you will meet with the City's aviation attorney on Monday, and that a Memorandum by Kaplan Kirsch Rockwell has been released summarizing options for legal challenges to FAA's implementation of new flight tracks, and background of applicable legal principles. Litigation has regrettably been made a "model" by the FAA itself, as FAA responds and is moved to action, when there is a case before them. Litigation is how the more successful resolutions with FAA about noise have been achieved, be it the Newport Beach resolution to the Phoenix reversal of Nextgen procedures. As you read in the Kirsch Memorandum about the exhaustive privileges FAA has going for them, please keep in mind that fundamental to this is that FAA earns the that privilege by being judicious in their decision making, and by following the rules to begin with, particularly those that they have written and published themselves. I urge you to please put a hat on that will explore every right that Palo Alto's natural and human environment has recourse under FAA's own rules. There is a gigantic lobby doing the work for excuses about why this or that cannot be done, you must find the way to assert on what NEPA provides for, namely to find alternatives which can achieve actions with less impacts. Some of the things are so basic, like using the right tools to assess impacts. We need FAA following it's own rules as first order, and for trust to be regained. As mentioned, the agency itself seems to say "make me." Ahead of your meeting, I wanted to share the Summary Argument for the challenge that has been filed (on time) and will be litigated on behalf of Southern California communities. This SoCal challenge has virtually all the elements of what we affected citizens of Palo Alto and neighbors have been speaking to over the last four years. Jennifer Without further ado, the SoCal challenge: SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT from the Petitioners Opening Brief: This case arises from the unanalyzed and undisclosed impacts of FAA’s redesign of the airspace over tens of thousands of square miles in the Southern California region (including 760 historic resources and 60 tribal properties), and millions of inhabitants, and FAA’s stubborn refusal to take into account the environmental impacts of the USCA Case #16-1366 Document #1722731 Filed: 03/16/2018 Page 32 of 115 11 realignment of aircraft flight tracks approaching and departing numerous airports throughout Southern California, despite repeated requests and admonitions from parties affected by the Project, and despite the fact that these changes consolidate arrival and departure flight paths over areas not previously overflown, thereby affecting hundreds of thousands of additional residential, commercial and open space properties. On March 21, 2012, FAA mandated the use of the new and improved AEDT model for analysis of noise and air quality impacts. Instead of adhering to its own regulations governing the analysis of aircraft noise, and mandating use of the AEDT model, which is significantly more accurate in the disclosure of noise impacts than its predecessor, the NIRS model; instead of complying with City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:17 PM 13 either its own rules governing the analysis of air quality impacts, or those of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), instead choosing a Presumption of Conformity with the requirements of the CAA in a region in severe nonattainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) for ozone and nonattainment for particulate matter; and, instead of complying with the unequivocal requirements of USCA Case #16-1366 Document #1722731 Filed: 03/16/2018 Page 33 of 115 12 NEPA, to take into account in its noise, air quality and other analyses, the impacts of the Project when combined with “past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects,” FAA figuratively thumbed its nose at NEPA and its own regulatory requirements, and thus abused its discretion, by: 1. defying its own regulations and thereby substantially understating the noise and air quality impacts of the Project, by, among other notable omissions, using the outdated NIRS model that FAA had itself rejected in March 2012, instead of the currently required AEDT model; 2. failing and refusing to perform any quantification of the Project’s air quality impacts, and instead relying on a Presumption of Conformity, even where the EA reveals numerous procedures on arrival and departure that will take place below the 3,000 foot “mixing height;” and a reduction in “efficiency” of operations caused by the acknowledged increase in fuel consumption caused by the Project; 3. failing and refusing to include in its purported “cumulative impact” analysis the numerous “past, present, and reasonably foreseeable” future projects (including, but not limited to, the runway USCA Case #16-1366 Document #1722731 Filed: 03/16/2018 Page 34 of 115 13 realignments and extension project approved five years ago at LAX in the LAX Specific Plan Amendment Study (“SPAS”) Final EIR [Environmental Impact Report], January 2013, § 2.4, Cumulative Impacts of the LAWA Staff-Recommended Alternative,2 [RJN, Exhibit A], which when taken together with the Project’s impacts materially increase the impacts of the Project on affected populations; 4. failing and refusing to analyze the GHG emissions of the Project in defiance of California law and the then-applicable guidance for federal agencies in the evaluation of GHG impacts. And FAA has similarly failed to provide the requisite “explanation for its departure from established precedent” in favor of the simple, conclusory statement of “no impact” rejected by this Court. Jicarilla Apache Nation v. United States DOI, 613 F.3d 1112, 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2010); and 5. In the final analysis, failing and refusing to honor its statutory mandate to balance the public interest in reduction of noise and emissions impacts in the implementation of the SoCal Metroplex Project with its benefit of increased operational efficiency. 2 An EIR is the California state law equivalent of NEPA. See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq. USCA Case #16-1366 Document #1722731 Filed: 03/16/2018 Page 35 of 115 14 These “sins” of omission seriously prejudice Petitioners. While Petitioners noted the absence of the required analyses, and raised the issues during the administrative process below, FAA has never since remedied these deficiencies by fully and accurately informing the public of the scope and degree of the SoCal Metroplex Project’s impacts, or allowed affected parties to comment on those impacts, or given them any opportunity to weigh in on the possibilities of mitigation. Consequently, Petitioners have sufficiently established the requisite “substantial probability” that local conditions will be adversely affected, and, thus, bring harm to Petitioners and thousands, if not millions of others similarly situated. In summary, Petitioners have provided substantial evidence that FAA abused its discretion in the analysis, and acted in an arbitrary and capricious fashion in the approval, of the SoCal Metroplex EA, and the FONSI/ROD for the Project. This Court is, therefore, fully justified in granting the Petition for Review in this case. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:17 PM 14 Carnahan, David From:jay whaley <whaley_jay@hotmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 06, 2018 4:31 PM To:Council, City Cc:Minor, Beth Subject:April 9 meeting agenda Dear Council,  The April 9 meeting agenda has airplane noise at two separate times, separated by affordable housing hearing  in between.  The airplane noise discussions will probably finish within the allotted time. Please consider reversing the order  of the last two items on the agenda. We appreciate your consideration of this request.  Jay Whaley  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:17 PM 15 Carnahan, David From:Ian Mallace <ianmallace@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, April 05, 2018 5:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:Jet Noise Palo Alto Dear Council,    The upcoming April 9 meeting Agenda has airplane noise at two separate times, with affordable housing hearing scheduled in between for two hours. The affordable housing hearing will likely need more time, and go longer than the allotted two hours whereas, airplane noise can finish well within the allotted hour or take less time than the hour. Please consider reversing the order of the last two items on the Agenda. We appreciate your understanding.  Thanks Ian Mallace City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:17 PM 16 Carnahan, David From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 05, 2018 12:29 PM To:Council, City Cc:Minor, Beth; Keene, James; Flaherty, Michelle Subject:April 9 Council Agenda Dear Council,     The upcoming April 9 meeting Agenda has airplane noise at two separate times, with affordable housing hearing scheduled in between for two hours, possibly making the jet noise issue go late into the night. As you may be aware, residents concerned with airplane noise have attended many and a variety of Council and Committee meetings over the last four years, and when the item goes late into the night, it is particularly difficult. It would be much appreciated if you reversed the order of the last two items on the Agenda.   Thank you for your understanding. Best regards, Jennifer City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:17 PM 17 Carnahan, David From:Evelyn Preston <evierp100@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, April 05, 2018 9:58 AM To:Council, City Cc:bet.minor@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:Airplane Noise I sent Liz Kniss a copy of a Wall Street Journal article re national coverage of the overhead noise pollution and positive responses, lawsuits and amelioration of this problem in other communities. If other areas can effect change, so can the Bay Area. Palo Alto needs to work with regional communities and our U.S. Reps to gather the clout needed for relief of increased airplane noise and send this message to the FCC. Also: The upcoming April 9 meeting Agenda has airplane noise at two separate times, with affordable housing hearing scheduled in between for two hours. The affordable housing hearing will likely need more time, and go longer than the allotted two hours whereas, airplane noise can finish well within the allotted hour or take less time than the hour. Please consider reversing the order of the last two items on the Agenda. We appreciate your understanding. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Evelyn Preston eviepreston.com evierp100@yahoo.com H: 650-494-7443 C: 650-208-4504 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:17 PM 18 Carnahan, David From:Richard Staehnke <rs1fish@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, April 05, 2018 9:11 AM To:Council, City Subject:council meeting times Dear Council,    The upcoming April 9 meeting Agenda has airplane noise at two separate times, with affordable housing hearing scheduled in between for two hours. The affordable housing hearing will likely need more time, and go longer than the allotted two hours whereas, airplane noise can finish well within the allotted hour or take less time than the hour. Please consider reversing the order of the last two items on the Agenda. We appreciate your understanding.  Richard and Claudine Staehnke 3273 Ramona St. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:17 PM 19 Carnahan, David From:Stepheny <stepheny@earthlink.net> Sent:Thursday, April 05, 2018 8:43 AM To:Council, City; Minor, Beth Subject:Jet Noise Please take positive steps with the appropriate agencies to reroute the multitude of overhead jets.  Their invasive and  persistent noise is usually the first thing I hear in the morning and the last thing I hear before falling asleep, after  midnight.  Thank you.  Stepheny McGraw  3303 Thomas Drive  Palo Alto 94303  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:17 PM 20 Carnahan, David From:Carol Ruth <carolruth1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 05, 2018 8:24 AM To:Council, City Subject:April 9th meeting schedule Dear Council,    The upcoming April 9 meeting Agenda has airplane noise at two separate times, with affordable housing hearing scheduled in between for two hours. The affordable housing hearing will likely need more time, and go longer than the allotted two hours whereas, airplane noise can finish well within the allotted hour or take less time than the hour. Please consider reversing the order of the last two items on the Agenda. We appreciate your understanding.  Sincerely,  Carol and Ron Ruth  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:17 PM 21 Carnahan, David From:Karen Porter <porter.k10@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 04, 2018 2:27 PM To:Council, City Cc:Minor, Beth; Flaherty, Michelle Subject:Agenda for 4/9 Council Meeting Dear Council, please consider reversing the order of the below items scheduled for the April 9 meeting. Since the affordable housing item is allocated 2.25 hours and could take longer, it makes more sense to hear the airplane noise recommendations first as that should take substantially less time. Also, while both are important, it is crucial that Council consider the airplane noise recommendations on April 9 given the need for a timely response to the FAA. Thank you, Karen Porter City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:18 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Karen Porter <porter.k10@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 2:49 PM To:Council, City Cc:Stump, Molly; Flaherty, Michelle Subject:Re: April 9 City Council Meeting -- Jet Noise Items Attachments:Attachment to email re 4-9-18 Council Meeting.pdf Sorry, am re-sending with pdf attachment that omits extra spacing in document sent previously. Regards, Karen On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Karen Porter <porter.k10@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Council, Thank you for your continued diligence in seeking relief from harm caused by NextGen – especially the significant noise and emissions due to the high number of SFO arrivals flying over or near MENLO waypoint, at low altitudes, throughout the day and night. Unfortunately, the FAA’s strategy seems to be one of delay and denial. This was made clear by its November 2017 Update on Phase Two, which addresses the 100+ recommendations made by the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals and the SFO Roundtable, following months of public hearings. The Update was part of the “Northern California Noise Initiative” that began in 2015, shortly after NextGen was implemented, at the urging of Congresswoman Eshoo and other local U.S. Representatives. I appreciate the Staff Report’s summary of the Update responses pertaining to Palo Alto’s identified positions, as well as release of the legal framework memo prepared by outside counsel. I am writing to emphasize the serious problems with the Update that – together with more recent FAA comments – demonstrate the agency’s lack of good faith in its purported effort to find a solution, giving rise to the need for more aggressive pursuit of the City’s options. The Attachment to this email provides an overview of the Update’s deficiencies and a more detailed discussion of what I consider to be the top three issues, along with suggested rebuttals. Significantly, the Update (at p. 2) repeats the FAA position that: “This report does not represent the end of our work.” Indeed, the FAA has repeatedly communicated that it was looking into the NorCal Metroplex noise problems, was open to fixing the problems, and wanted to work with Palo Alto and others to find a solution. The City arguably has a reasonable basis for relying on the FAA's recurring representations. The original Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact should be scrutinized for legal deficiencies, particularly in light of the actual effect of NextGen changes (and despite the unsuccessful petition by Portola Valley citizens, since Palo Alto was not a party to that action and should retain its due process rights). Subsequent procedure changes (including SERFR STAR) should be evaluated thoroughly, especially for their impact on historical and recreational sites. A Freedom of Information Act request is also needed to require the FAA to produce supporting data for its Update findings and other relevant information. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:18 PM 2 In short, I urge Council to take strong action now, including developing a strategy for legal action, particularly considering that the only jurisdictions to have achieved meaningful progress are those that have filed a lawsuit (such as Phoenix and Newport Beach). Respectfully, Karen Porter   ATTACHMENT TO K. PORTER EMAIL RE APRIL 9 COUNCIL MEETING The below is an overview of deficiencies in the FAA’s November 2017 Update on Phase Two (the “Update”), followed by more detailed discussion of what I consider to be the top three issues, along with suggested rebuttals. (Please note that I am a Palo Alto resident (and attorney) who for several years has monitored the progress – or lack thereof – of efforts to mitigate NextGen-related jet noise, but am not an aviation expert.)  The Update classifies many proposed solutions as “Not Endorsed by the FAA” which, unless reversed, perpetuates NextGen problems;  It classifies some actions as “Addressed Concern” or “Feasible,” but leaves out essential conditions, adds caveats that undermine their effectiveness, or are contradicted elsewhere;  It does not specify how compliance with the few approved procedures will be measured and enforced;  It does not describe what, if any, formal safety and environmental reviews (consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and other applicable requirements) were conducted and, in particular, whether analysis/modeling was performed using the current AEDT software system;  It does not commit to a fully transparent process - including credible impact assessments - before final implementation in Phase Three of the initiative process; and  It puts the burden on municipalities and citizens to propose a “suitable alternative” to an FAA procedure that should be changed or moved (Update, p. 74), rather than acknowledging the FAA’s responsibility to propose a viable, equitable, system-wide solution using its expertise and superior capabilities. 1. The Update rejects recommendations that would mitigate the unsafe concentration of SFO arrivals over/near MENLO waypoint. Around 60% of SFO arrivals pass over or near MENLO waypoint (per FAA data), imposing a disproportionate burden on Palo Alto and its neighbors. It would also seem to pose a safety hazard, with multiple routes, from different directions, converging around one waypoint situated over a densely-populated area (not to mention the proximity of SFO southbound departures and SJC reverse flow traffic). While the FAA has announced a new route dubbed “SERFR STAR Amendment” (or “SERFR THREE”) to address a safety matter, this only raises new issues (described in section 3 below) and, in any event, the route apparently passes just a quarter mile from MENLO. The Select Committee asked the FAA to consider alternate waypoints to relieve some traffic on the SERFR flight path for jets arriving from the south, which accounts for 30% of SFO arrivals (and the Roundtable made a similar recommendation). One of those proposed is FAITH, situated farther south and to the east of San Francisco Bay. The Update says this proposal is “Not Endorsed,” citing various reasons, none of which withstand scrutiny. (Update, pp. 16, 108-109.)  Per Figure D3 of the Update (at p. 108), FAITH appears to lie just outside SJC Class C airspace and therefore would not seem to require an airspace modification. 2  As FAITH is well south of the DYAMD and BDEGA East flight paths, there appears to be ample airspace to accommodate the three routes, in contrast to the current congested situation at MENLO.  As for noise-shifting (which the Update only mentions when rejecting recommendations, but not when discussing FAA-approved routes), FAITH is situated in a much less populated area and considerably farther south of SFO, so that planes could overfly at altitudes of at least 8,000 feet (per the City’s consultant) and continue descending mostly over the Bay.1  The FAA further states that aircraft arriving from “LAX, SAN, PHX, and MMMX [Mexico City]” are directed to SERFR “because it’s the shortest and most efficient route.” (Update, p. 111.) However, since all of these airports are located longitudinally to the east of the Bay, use of FAITH would seem to enable at least as efficient a route as MENLO, if not more. Another source of congestion is the distribution of BDEGA arrivals from the north. Both the Select Committee and Roundtable urged that more BDEGA arrivals use the East downwind route (over the Bay), rather than the West leg (down the Peninsula with a U-turn over Palo Alto area), particularly at night. The objective is to re-balance usage to pre-NextGen levels, which were about 50/50 in 2006 compared to 30/70 in 2016. The responses in the Update are inconsistent at best, which demonstrates a lack of seriousness to reduce BDEGA West flights.  On pp. 13, 23-24, and 45, the Update says “Addressed Concern” and then references Appendix A. But in Appendix A (at pp. 71-72, 81-82), the Update cites multiple reasons why greater use of the BDEGA East leg is unlikely: it requires a decrease in operations (doubtful except at night); it requires sufficient spacing between DYAMD arrivals (notably, a recommendation to increase in-trail spacing on DYAMD was “Not Endorsed,” at p. 25); it conflicts with Runway 01 night departures; and it conflicts with the recommendation to use FAITH waypoint for arrivals (disingenuous considering that this proposal was rejected as noted above).  The Roundtable also proposed a number of procedures to facilitate use of the BDEGA East leg, all of which were “Not Endorsed.” (Update, pp. 23, 25, 34, 46, 62.) The FAA should explain these inconsistencies and commit to specific, measurable steps to reduce MENLO congestion. 2. The Update declines to increase the minimum altitude for flights over/in vicinity of MENLO to at least 5,000 feet to reduce noise and particulate matter on the ground. In May 2000, Congresswoman Eshoo announced an agreement with the FAA to raise the minimum altitude of SFO arrivals crossing what is now MENLO waypoint from 4,000 feet to 5,000 feet. At some unknown later date, SFO and the FAA’s Northern California TRACON changed the MENLO overcrossing procedure to a minimum of (i) 4,000 feet during instrument conditions, and (ii) 5,000 feet during 1 It does not appear that the FAA has ever defined or specified objective criteria for what constitutes "noise shifting” and therefore it needs to provide clarification. A suggested standard is described in fn. 1 of Palo Alto’s November 15, 2017 letter to the FAA. 3 visual conditions, when able. This side agreement was not disclosed for public comment, nor preceded by any known environmental assessment, and therefore should not be valid. Moreover, when it announced NextGen, the FAA was notably vague about altitudes. It does not appear that any of the FAA’s published documents prior to implementation stated that altitudes over or near MENLO would be lower than 5,000 feet; if anything, they implied otherwise.2 The Select Committee recommended that the minimum altitude for all crossings over MENLO or in its vicinity be 5,000 feet. The Roundtable recommended that the TRACON agreement remain in place for crossings over MENLO, and that flights in the vicinity of MENLO use a 5,000 foot minimum altitude when able. (Of course, all must be accompanied by other noise-reduction methods, including reduced use of speed brakes.) The Update’s various responses to these recommendations are confusing and contradictory, leading to the conclusion that the FAA does not intend to abide by its agreement with Rep. Eshoo, nor provide meaningful relief.  For crossings over MENLO, the Update classifies the Roundtable’s TRACON agreement recommendation (i.e., 4,000 feet for instrument and 5,000 feet for visual) as “Addressed,” adding later “to the extent feasible.” (Update, pp. 55, 88). With respect to the Roundtable recommendation of a visual approach with a MENLO crossing altitude at or above 5,000 feet, the Update says it is “Feasible and Could Be Implemented in the Long Term,” although it is “currently on hold.” (Update, pp. 26, 101.) However, perhaps reflecting bias against the Select Committee, the Update states that the committee’s 5,000 foot minimum altitude recommendation is “Not Endorsed,” whether under instrument or visual conditions. The Update states that the altitude restriction at MENLO must be 4,000 feet to enable a descent gradient into SFO of 2.85º, adding that the higher an aircraft flies, “the farther away from the SFO airport the aircraft must travel in order to descend to the appropriate altitude for approach.” (Update, pp. 15, 106-107.) But other than possible inconvenience to airlines, it is unclear why this would be an issue for non-vectored overflights at MENLO.  For crossings in the vicinity of MENLO – primarily vectored aircraft – the Update classifies recommendations for a 5,000 foot minimum by both the Select Committee and Roundtable as “Not Endorsed,” whether in IMC or VMC. (Update, pp. 16, 26, 106-107, 110). It states that vectored aircraft must adhere to the same descent gradient noted above and repeats the rationale that aircraft would need to travel farther to achieve the appropriate altitude, adding that this could infringe on SJC airspace. (Update pp. 106-107 and Figure D2). But at least to a layperson, it appears that vectored arrivals should be able to avoid SJC airspace. Significantly, the Update ignores the FAA’s assurance in its Environmental Assessment (cited in fn. 2) that Optimized Profile Descents on routes such as SERFR would enable higher altitudes. Nor does it 2 E.g., according to the Final Report of the Northern California Design and Implementation Team, the new RNAV procedures (including SERFR) were to be designed to enable Optimized Profile Descents (OPD). (See http:// www.metroplexenvironmental.com/norcal_metroplex/ norcal_docs.html, NorCal Design and Implementation Team Tech Report, at pp. 6 and 89 of 205.) And according to the draft and final Environmental Assessment for the NorCal OAPM, the FAA assured that “[a]ircraft that fly OPDs can maintain higher altitudes and lower thrust for longer periods.” (Ibid., Draft and Final EA Main Documents, at section 1.2.5.3.) During the comment phase, City Manager Keene asked the FAA to make waypoint altitudes public, but the FAA did not provide a direct answer. (Ibid., Appendix F to the Final EA, at p. 114.) 4 take into account new technology, such as Ground Based Augmentation System (GBAS). As stated by SFO’s Aircraft Noise Abatement Manager at recent Roundtable meetings, GBAS could enable landings at a higher descent gradient and, as a result, higher altitudes at and near MENLO. The FAA should explain these omissions.3 The FAA needs to explain these omissions. 3. The Update announces new SERFR STAR (aka SERFR THREE) route without adequate information. Appendix E to the Update (at p. 126) describes an amended procedure that was due to be implemented on February 1, 2018, although reportedly was delayed. It indicates this is needed to “address safety and operation concerns regarding the Class Bravo containment of the current SERFR STAR.” It adds that SFO’s Class Bravo is being re-designed to contain the SERFR arrival, suggesting that SERFR STAR is temporary, although that is unclear. In other words, the FAA is only now trying to mitigate safety concerns associated with its implantation of SERFR as part of NextGen, which is hardly reassuring. According to the description of the SERFR STAR Amendment, instrument approaches will begin at EDDY “and will proceed from there direct to SIDBY (replaces MENLO, with a crossing restriction at or above 4,000 feet) ….” This will shift the flight track “.25 nautical miles east of MENLO,” which is closer to East Palo Alto. There is no reference to visual approaches. Appendix E adds that the SERFR STAR changes “do not preclude nor will they interfere with any additional changes that are being considered as a result of the Select Committee’s recommendations” and do not “affect the timeline or design of the proposed replacement, optimized idle-power descent procedure into SFO.” Significantly, Appendix E does not say how many aircraft will be shifted; does not specify an altitude restriction at SIDBY; does not include any visual images depicting the new flight path or the communities that will be affected; does not include any idle flight requirements; does not mention any environmental impact analysis; and does not explain why ‘noise shifting’ is fine here, but not elsewhere. However, some additional information about the amendment can be found in a CATEX MEMO AMNDT buried in the Quiet Bridge TIPP TOE Visuals docs on the FAA’s IFP gateway. (See https://www.faa.gov/aero_docs/acifp/2016120928982209001- SFO/CA_KSFO_TIPP%20TOE%20VISUAL%20RWYS%20%2028L-R_A1_S_CORRECTED.pdf.) This indicates that the FAA is relying on a categorical exclusion from environmental assessment requirements, and also that there is a 5,000 foot minimum altitude requirement at SIDBY for visual but not instrument arrivals. The City should insist that the FAA provide more complete information about SERFR STAR, including its expected termination and replacement date. But given the FAA’s history of broken promises, the City should also challenge whether the SERFR STAR Amendment complies with legal requirements. 3 It should be noted that a growing proportion of SFO arrivals over or near MENLO may not be adhering to even the 4,000 foot minimum, according to GPS-based data collected using the stop.jetnoise.net application. This reinforces the need for ongoing monitoring and enforcement to prevent added harm to already-impacted communities. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:31 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 04, 2018 6:09 PM To:Architectural Review Board; Council, City Subject:620 Emerson ARB Hearing April 5, 2018 Attachments:scanarbapril5.pdf; scan0002.pdf Dear members of the ARB and City Council, Please see attached letter and supporting document pertaining to 620 Emerson Street. Thank you. Elizabeth Wong 650 814 3051 Architectural Review Board Meeting of April 5, 2018 ARB Application 17PLN-00331-620 Emerson Street Today's Date: April 4, 2018 Architectural Review Board (ARB) City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: YO LLC Objections to ARB Approval of Application 17PLN-00331 620 Emerson Street, Palo Alto YO LLC reaffirms its previous objections delivered to the ARB at its February 1, 2018, meeting, and requests that the ARB deny approval of subject project. In addition, please consider the following: 1) Elimination of On-Site Parking YO LLC objects to the elimination of the existing parking areas on the property by allowing the applicant to pay in lieu and to construct a building which eliminates such parking. Palo Alto's downtown properties including this one at 620 Emerson belong to a Parking Assessment District. According to the Assessment Roll included as Appendix 2 to the Final Engineer's Report prepared for the City in March, 2001, (See Attachment) the district has 2,124 on-site parking spaces. If developers were to be allowed to buy their way into eliminating on-site parking these 2,000-plus parking spaces (many with the same configuration as 620 Emerson with rear parking from a 20-ft wide alley) can be eliminated from the City's supply of parking. The intensity of traffic and infrastructure use imposed by this new project cannot be remedied by simply having the applicant pay into a future parking fund. Underground parking and mechanically-assisted parking are two options that have not received due consideration for this project. No project within the Downtown Core should receive a recommendation by staff for approval without exhausting all options to preserve either a portion of a site's existing parking or to fully-park a project to the City's parking policies. Allowing the applicant to pay in lieu in this instance simply exacerbates the current parking pain and pushes the parking problems it will create to be dealt with in some future uncertain time, to the detriment of our quality of life. The elimination of any on-site parking as currently proposed by the project will have a significantly adverse effect to businesses along Emerson Street. 2) No Provision for a Loading Zone Page 1 Architectural Review Board Meeting of April 5, 2018 ARB Application 17PLN-00331-620 Emerson Street Today's Date: April 4, 2018 Restaurant uses require accessible loading zones for food deliveries. This is an intense, daily occurrence. Emerson Street between Hamilton Avenue and Forest Avenue has no loading zones that can be utilized by the proposed restaurant land use. This will result double parking impacts along Emerson Street that severely impact the operations of businesses on this street block. High Street between Hamilton Avenue and Forest Avenue also lacks loading zones. The use of the existing driveway and alleyway will impact existing businesses if blocked by loading at the rear of the site. Hamilton Avenue provides a Loading zone along the front of the Epiphany Palo Alto Hotel but that site is already heavily used and inconvenient for deliveries to 620 Emerson Street. The site as it exists now is not impacted by loading zone issues because it provides three (3) existing on-site parking spaces and has additional on-site access through the rear garage doors that serve the site. 3) Independent Restroom Facilities YO LLC objects because the proposed conditions of approval do not and should include restroom facilities independent of neighboring structures. Even if it is the intention of the applicant to operate new uses within the subject site in conjunction with adjacent properties, ensuring that the site can operate independently in the future will help allow future land use choices on the site. Alternatively, the adjacent Epiphany Hotel should include a recorded in-perpetuity access easements for the use of restroom facility or any other utilities that are intended to jointly serve both sides, or the subject project should have a recorded agreement that the developer will provide and pay for independent restrooms within the property in the future. Such agreement and access easements should be presented in conjunction with any proposed land use decision for the subject property. Sincerely, ~LLl.w[~ YOLLC U 0 Elizabeth Wong, Manager Copy: Palo Alto City Council Att.: Final Engineer's Report for University Avenue Off-Street Parking Assessment District Page 2 FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT for UNIVERSITY A VENUE AREA OFF-- STREET PARKING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. Prepared for: City of Palo Alto . California Prepared by: .. . .. Harris & Associates March,2001 City Of Palo Alto University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Assessment District Final Engineer's Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Assessment ............................................................................... ~ ........ Pg. ·1 Engineer's Cost Estimate ....................................... ; ....................... Pg. 4 Method of Assessment General. .............. :. ................... : .................................................... Pg. 5 Project Overview ................................................................ , ......... Pg. 5 Benefit ........................................................................................ Pg. 6 Considerations from Proposition 218 ................. '. ..................... Pg. 6 Special Benefit Analysis ........................................................... Pg.'7 Apportionment Formula ......................... , ................................. ~ ..... Pg. 8 Method for Allocating Costs to the Assessment District. ......... Pg. 8 Method for Allocating Costs within the Assessment District. .. Pg. 8 Description of Improvements ........................................ ~ ............. Pg. Io Bou.ndary Map and Assessment Diagram ................................ Pg. 11 Assessment Rolf ................................... ~ ............... : ..... : .. ~ .... : ...... Pg. 11 Names and Addresses of Owners .............................................. Pg. 11 Plans and.Specific_~tlons ............... : ... ; ..... : .................................... Pg. 11 An~ual Administrative Assessment ........................................... Pg. 11 Certificates · .................................................................... ';Pg. 12 Appendices 1. Detailed Construction Cost Estimates 2. Assessment Roll l:\Projec1s\PALO ALTO\PERI TOC.doc 03/13/01' City Of Pa.lo Alto 03/13i01' University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Assessment District Final Engineer's Report ASSESSMENT Page 1 WHEREAS, on January 22, 2001, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (the Act) adopted its Resolution of Intention No. 8935 The proceedings include financing for the acquisition and/or construction of the public improvements more particularly therein described, in and for the City's University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Assessment District (the "Assessment District"). WHEREAS, said Resolution directed the undersigned to make and file a report presenting: a) Maps and descriptions of the lands and easements to be acquired if any; b) Plans and specifications of the proposed improvements if the improvements are not already installed, including the class and types of improvements for each zone of the Assessment District, if these zones exist; · c) A general description of the works or appliances already installed and any other property necessary or convenient for the operation of the improvements, if the works, appliances or property are to be acquired as part of the improve~ents; d) An estimate of the cost of the improvements and the cost of lands, rights-of-way, easements and incidental expenses in connection with the improvements including any cost of registering bonds; e) A diagram showing, as they existed at the time of the passage of the Resolution oflntentiori, all of the following: 1. The exterior boundaries of the assessment district 2. The boundaries of any zone within the district 3. The lines and dimensions of each parceJ ofland within the district with each subdivision given a separate number upon the diagram; f) A proposed assessment of the total amount of the cost and expense of the proposed improvements upon the subdivisions ofland in the district in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each subdivision respectively. The assessment shall refer to the subdivisions by their respective numbers; · g) A proposed maximum,annual assessment upon each-of the subdivisions of land in the district to pay costs incurred by the City of Palo Alto and not otherwise reimbursed which result from the administration and collection of assessments or from the administration or registration of any associated bonds and reserve or other related funds. The particulars of which are described in the Resolution, incorporated herein by reference; NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, by virtue of the power vested in me under said Act and the order of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby make the following assessment to cover the portion of the estimated cost of said acquisitions, work and improvements, and the costs and expenses incidental thereto which specifically benefit the Assessment District and are to be paid by the Assessment District. J\ProJects\PALO ALTO\Final Engineer's Report.doc City Of Palo Alto . University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Assessment District Final Engineer's Report 03/13/01 Page2 The amount to be paid for said acquisitions, work and improvements, and the expenses incidental thereto, is generally as fo11ows: SUMMARY COST ESTIMATE (1) (2) (3) As As Confirmed As Modified Preliminarily And Recorded After Approved Recordation Project Construction & Acquisitions $33,330,383 $33,330,383.00 Contributions $0 $0.QO Total Cost for Assessment District $33,330,383 $33,330,383.00 Incidental Costs · $6,876,335 $7 ,639,971.89 Bond Costs $5,697,415 $5',697,415.00 Interest Income $0 ($818,779.89) Balance To Assessment $45,904, 133 $45,848,990.00 I do hereby assess and apportion the Balance to Assessment of the Total Cost of said acquisitions, work and jmprovements upon the several lots, pieces or parcels or portions of lots or subdivisions of land specifically benefited thereby·and liable therefor, severally and respectively, in accordance with the special benefits to be received by such subdivisions> respectively, from the acquisitions and improvements. These pieces, parcels or portion oflots or subdivisions ofland are hereinafter numbered to correspond with the numbers upon the attached Assessment Diagram. The portions of land and apportioned assessments are more particularly set forth in Appendix 2 attached herein, and incorporated by reference. In addition, an annual assessment for costs incurred by the City of Palo Alto and not otherwise reimbursed for administration.and collection of assessment of bonds shall be levied in a maximum annual amount of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per individual assessment parcel per year. Said maximum annual administrative assessment shall increase each year by the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), during the preceding year ending in January, for All Urban Consumers for the San Francisco ;Bay area. As required by said Act, an Assessment Diagram is hereto attached showing the Assessment District and also the boundaries and dimensions of the respective subdivisions of land within said Assessment . District as the same existed at the time of the passage of said Resolution, each of which subdivisions having been given a separate number upon said Diagram. Said assessment is made upon the several subdivisions of land within said Assessment District in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received by said subdivisions, respectively, from said improvement. The diagram and assessment numbers appearing herein are the diagram numbers appearing on said diagram, to which reference is hereby made for a more particular description of said property. , Each subdivision of land assessed is described in the Assessment Roll by reference to its parcel nl!mber as shown on the Assessor's Maps of the County of Santa Clara for the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 l:\ProjectslPALO AL TO\Final Engineer's Report.doc City Of Palo Alto 03/13/0i University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Assessment District Final Engineer's Report · · Page3 and include~ all of such parcel excepting those portions thereof within existing public roads or right of way to be acquired in these proceedings for public road purposes. For a more particular description of said property, reference is hereby made to the deeds and maps on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder of said County. . Notice is hereby given that serial arid/or tenn improvement bonds to represent unpaid assessments and bear interest at the rate of not to exceed twelve percent (12%) per annum, or such higher rate of interest as may be authorized by appJicable law at the time of sale of such bonds, wil1 be issued hereunder in the manner provided under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 and the Jast installment of such bonds shall mature not to exceed twenty-nine (29) years from the second day of September next succeeding twelve (12) months from their date. Under the Resolution of Int~ntion, the requirement of Division 4 of the California Streets and Highway Code shall be satisfied with Part 7.5· of said Division 4, for which the following is presented: 1. The total amount, as. near as1 can be determined, of the total principal amount of all unpaid special assessment and special assessments required or proposed to be levied under any completed or pending assessment proceedings,. other th.an contemplated in the instant proceeding is:$ 3,835,000 2. The total amount of the principal sum of the special assessment (the "Balance of Assessment") proposed to be levied in the instant proceedings is: $ 45,904,133 3. The total amount of the principal sum of unpaid special assessment levied against the parcels proposed to be assessed, as computed pursuant to paragraph 1, above, plus the principal amount of the special· assessment proposed to be levied in the instant proceedings from paragraph 2, above is : $ 49, 739,133 4. The total true value, as near as may be detennined, of the parcel of land and improvements which are proposed to be assessed in the instant proceedings, as detennined by the full cash value of the parcels as shown upon the last equalized assessment roll of the County of Santa Clara is: $ 444,654,665 ' 5. The ratio of.total true value, as near as may be detennined to the total amount of the principal sum of unpaid special assessments is: Dated: , 2001 -------- By: HARRJS & ASSOCIATES Engineer of Work Mary Grace Pawson RCE 044573 l :\Projec1s\p ALO ALTO\Final Engineer's Report doc 8.9 to 1 City Of Palo Alto University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Assessment District Final Engineer's Report ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE 03/13/01 Page4 The proposed project costs are set forth below. The costs are prei?ented assuming that the·City will issue two series of assessment bonds. Series 1 will acquire existing assessments and finance ongoing design and administrative activities. Series 2 will finance construction. Appendix 1 includes a more detailed presentation of the cost estimates prepared for the.two parking structures. Description Series 1 Bond Issue Const":'ction and Incidental Costs Refinance Outstanding Assessment Bonds ··Planning, Design & Construction Management Right -of-Way Assessment District Costs Conting~ncy Financing Costs Interest Income Balance to Assessment Series 1 Series ~ Bond Issue UnderWriter's Discount Bond ~eserve Rating Agency Fees Capitalized Interest Cost of Issuance Construttion and Incidental Costs f' Lot R Construction Lot R Estimating Contingency Lot R General Conditions Lot R. Escal~tion Lot R Contigencies Preliminary Confirmed Costs Costs $~.217 ,080 . $5,563,615 $185,000 $238,000 $102,000 $141,300 $671,000 $25,000 $161,040 . $115,965 $0. $9,420,000 $6,846,000 $821,520 $613,402 $621,069 $890,199 $2,217,080 $5,800,472 $18!),000 $238,000 $0 $141,300 $671,000 $25,000 $161,040 $115,965 :'$190,000 $9,364,857 $6,846,000 $821,520 $613,402 $621,069 $890,199 ,, i. Lot SIL Construction $14,906,200 Lot SIL Estimating Contingency $1,788,744 . Lot SIL General Conditions $1.335,596 Lot SIL Escaiation $1,352,290 Lot S/I.,. Contigencies $1,938,283 $14,906,200 $1,788,744 $1,335,596 $1,352,290 $1,938,283 City Management and Administration Assessment District Costs Financing Costs Interest Income Balance to Assessment Series 2 " Total Balance to Assessme.nt f:\Projects\PALO ALTO\Final Engineer's Report.doc Underwriter's Discount , Bond Reserve Rating Agency Fees Capital,ized Interest Cost of Issuance $0 $787,72.0 $547,2,00 $2.765,740 $50,000 $1,200,170 $2~.ooo $634,000 $782,500 $547,200 $2,765,740 $50,000 $1,200,170 $20,000 $0 -$628,780 $36,484, 133 $36,484, 1 33 $45,904, 133 $45,848,990 City Of Palo Alto University Avenue Area Off·Street Parking Assessment District Final Engineer's Report METHOD OF ASSESSMENT GENERAL. 03/13/01 Page5 The Assessment District is fonned under the authority of the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (the Act) and Article XIIID of the California State Constitution, and in accordance with the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (chapt. 28, 1997 stats.) as supplemented by the provisions of Section 13.12.050 of the Palo Alto Improvement Procedure Code, which require that local agencies levy assessments based on the special benefits provided by the project. In addition, Article XIIID, Section 4, of the State Constitution requires that a parcel's assessment may not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that.parcel. Section 4 provides that only special benefits are assessable and the local agency levying the assessment must separate the general benefits from th~ special benefits. It also requires that publicly owned property that benefits from the i~provements be assessed. Neither the Act nor the State Constitution specifies the method or formula that should he used to apportion the costs to properties in any special assessment district proceedings. The responsibility for recommending an apportionment of the costs to properties which specially beqefit from the improvements rests with the Assessment Engineer, who is appointed for the purpose of making an analysis of the facts and determining the correct apportionment of the assessment obligation. Therefore, costs and expenses of proposed improvement(s) will be apportioned against the properties by a fonnula or method that proportionally and equitably distributes the costs in direct proportion to the estimated special benefits these parcels receive from the improvements. The approval of the assessments rests with the City Council. The Council renders its decision after hearing testimony and evidence presented at a public hearing and tabulating the assessment ballots which are mailed to all record owners of property within the Assessment District. Only ballots delivered to the City prior· to the cJose of the public hearing are tabulated. The Council's findings must include whether or not the assessment spread has been made in direct proportion to the estimated special benefits received by each parcel. Assessment ballots are weighted by the amount of the assessment. The ballot tabulation is finalized after the c1ose of the Public Hearing. If fifty percent or more of the weighted assessment ballots submitted favor the levy of the assessments, then the Council may proceed. If the majority of the weighted ballots (more than 50%) oppose the levy of assessment, then the proceedings must be abandoned. PROJECT OVERVIEW The Universit)' A venue Area is a diversy 'mixed-use area with a combination of offices, retail establishments, restaurants, civic facilities and.some higher density residences. The goal of both the City and the property owners in the area has been to "promote the economic health of Downtown, encourage retail vitality and variety and increase potential for a variety of uses". 1 The zoning designations within the University A venue area are Commercial Downtown ( .. CD"). The CD district is intended to: l Downtown Report -A Sunnnary, January 1988, City of Palo Alto l:\ProjeclS\PALO ALTO\Final Engineer's Report.doc City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:19 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Fran Wagstaff <francawagstaff@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 10, 2018 8:44 AM To:Council, City Subject:Affordable Housing Combining District Thank you for taking this courageous step. By doing so, you have greatly increased opportunities for securing sites which are suitable for affordable housing. I applaud your actions! Fran Wagstaff April the 9th, 2018 Przemek Gardias Presentation to the Palo Alto City Council on Affordable Housing Overlay zone. Ad Hoc Affordable Housing Overlay Committee: Przemek Gardias, Doria Summa, Asher Waldfogel Through a series of interviews over a very short period of time with affordable housing providers, market rate developers and community members we have observed that: 1. Affordable housing development below 60% AMI and above 60% AMI are in different financing markets, have different financial hurdles and metrics and need different solutions. 2. Under 60% AMI projects must cost under $500K per door to compete for limited tax-credit financing. 3. Affordable housing providers believe they do not need to provide parking above .5 spaces/unit, but cities may finance additional parking based on demand studies. 4. Actual parking demand in affordable units is between .5 and 1.3 spaces per unit in Palo Alto. Parking standards need to meet actual demand. 5. Retail space does not qualify for tax-credit financing. 6. Affordable housing projects that retain retail will need additional sources of funding and/or zoning concessions. 7. Existing PAMC development transitional height standards limit building heights to 35 feet within 150 feet of residential districts. This is a concern, particularly along the El Camino Corridor. 8. Affordable housing providers want more certainty in the development process. A general process that requires site-specific zoning changes does not meet their needs. Here are our recommendations: RECOMMENDATION 1: We recommend the City pursue a development agreement with PAH to advance the Wilton Court project. We believe a serious negotiation over the Wilton Court project will inform how to write a better city-wide ordinance. Despite a lack of a dedicated motion, there has been uniform PTC support for the Wilton project. The project may proceed under the PTC zone or the development agreement. RECOMMENDATION 2: We recommend separating affordable housing into two work items: under 60% AMI (AH60) and 60% to 120% AMI (AH120). Per the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) annual publication on Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), the annual median income (AMI) levels are set for projects financed with tax-exempt housing bonds. The highest AMI is 60%. From PAH Danny Ross' email: [PAH] [..] development projects generally have a mix of income levels up to, but not exceeding 60% AMI. For [..] Wilton the majority of units will be in the 50% to 60% AMI range. Deeper affordability hurts the cash flow, and without vouchers lower AMI units would make the project infeasible. RECOMMENDATION 3: For AH60 we recommend the following options for retail preservation I. Where retail is retained, offer a zoning (height) concession. II. Where affordable housing provider financing precludes retail: City or a 3rd party may participate in project financing, potentially in exchange for an ownership position. III. As a last resort, City may waive the retail requirement as provided by the retail preservation ordinance. As retail space falls off the qualified area for the State of California Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Programs, retail inclusion lowers required project profitability. For this reason retail space financing needs to come from government sources, including local or private sources. To spur investment in the retail space, we would allow ground floor of 13-15 ft high and residential floors above to go over the zone height limit. Giving attractiveness and demand for the office space in Palo Alto, private capital may be used to fund retail ground floor. We recommend a conditional office use (in lieu of retail) for the period of 10 to 15 years. Upon the term expiry, the ground floor would automatically add to the city retail inventory. RECOMMENDATION 4: For AH60 we recommend City financial contributions to develop parking to meet demand based on measured parking utilization rates of comparable properties. The City may exercise an option to build additional parking available to the public. Per AB 744 the parking ratio for affordable housing requires no more than 0.5 parking spaces per unit. Excess parking is ineligible for the tax credit. For this reason additional parking needs to be externally funded. Funding may come from the government sources, including local or private sources. Governmental or private dollars may be exchanged into the right of use of the parking space. Thus funded parking excess may be redirected to satisfy neighborhood parking needs, of affordable housing tenants, of retail patrons or commuters out of the town. Expanding this idea, the city may ensure parking supply without dedicated investment on standalone parking garages. RECOMMENDATION 5: We recommend maintaining the transition height standards in all the C districts adjacent to residential districts. We recommend a community process with outreach before changing transition heights for AH60 housing. As Chapter 18.16 of Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial (CN, CC and CS) districts, defines development maximum heights within a distance (150 ft) of a residential district, proposed ordinance needs to reconcile with that requirement. A dedicated meeting with the community would identify any concerns and ensure voters' support. RECOMMENDATION 6: We recommend an open space standard for AH60, but we recommend against roof gardens adjacent to low density residential districts. RECOMMENDATION 7: We recommend folding AH120 work into the Housing Workplan effort. The regional consensus is to accomplish AH120 with inclusionary standards. We are not in a position today to make a recommendation on the right inclusionary standard. RECOMMENDATION for a by-right process to acquire an AH60 overlay. Although this recommendation has not made into writing, it has been verbally iterated. Bi-right process would lower cost of AH application and speed up the development process. In summary, please note that in the absence of public or private investment in parking or retail, the AH development proceeds on exclusive AH developer's terms. Such development would not be entitled to any height concession. Dedicated AH60 zoning overlay would demonstrate commitment to the State mandated requirement to provide housing opportunities [..] for all income levels. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:15 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 6:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:April 9, 2018, Special Meeting, Agenda Item 7: I urge you to act decisively tonight to end the housing crisis that plagues Palo Alto Attachments:Letter from Bonnie Packer - President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto dated April 2 2018.pdf; NYTimes editorial -- Opinion _ America’s Federally Financed Ghettos - The New York Times.pdf Honorable Liz Kniss, Mayor Honorable Eric Filseth, Vice Mayor Honorable City Council Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto CA 94301 Re: April 9, 2018, Special Meeting, Agenda Item 7, "Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 18 (Zoning) to add a New Chapter 18.30(J) (Affordable Housing Combining District) to Promote the Development of 100 Percent Affordable Housing Projects Located Within One-half Mile of a Major Transit Stop or One-quarter Mile of a High-Quality Transit Corridor by Providing Flexible Development Standards and Modifying the Uses Allowed in the Commercial Districts and Subdistricts."* Dear Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Filseth, and City Council Members, I strongly urge you not to delay further but instead to vote tonight to demonstrate --- by deeds, not words --- that the City Council values diversity of many kinds and will act decisively to overcome the housing crisis that plagues our community. I further urge you to take the specific actions described in the letter from Bonnie Packer, President, League of Women Voters of Palo Alto, to you dated April 5, 2018 (a copy of which is attached). Finally, I emphatically recommend that you read the editorial that appeared in the New York Times print edition yesterday, "America’s Federally Financed Ghettos" (available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/opinion/sunday/americas-federally-financed-ghettos.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion-editorials&action=click&contentCollection=editorials&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&c ontentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront (a copy of which is also attached). That editorial supplies additional historical and social context, as well as abundant motivation and justification, for your acting immediately and decisively to end Palo Alto's housing crisis. Respectfully submitted, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:15 AM 2 John Kelley * See: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64347 April 5, 2018 Palo Alto City Council Re: April 9, 2018, Agenda Item No. 7: Affordable Housing Combining District Draft Ordinance Dear Mayor Kniss and Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto (LWVPA) has come before you many times to show our support of your efforts to increase the supply of housing for all, particularly for those with very low, low and moderate incomes. LWVPA urges you to adopt an affordable housing overlay ordinance that will create opportunities for, and eliminate barriers to, the development of affordable housing. The Affordable Housing Combining District Draft Ordinance, Attachment A to the staff report, will go a long way towards that goal. However, to ensure more affordable housing opportunities and units, we also urge you to include the following changes to that draft ordinance. We had asked the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) to include these improvements which are reflected, for the most part, in the March 27 Minority Recommendation. • Expand the scope of the combining district to include the Research Park and General Manufacturing Districts. • Include language that allows some flexibility regarding the distances from the transit corridors. The language, “major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor,” is too limiting and should be broader in scope. • Allow the Planning Director to approve increases in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and height where appropriate, particularly in the areas around University Avenue and California Avenue. • Allow the Planning Director to waive the retail requirements in all districts. Retail usually requires more parking which is expensive to provide. Moreover, the presence of retail in an affordable housing project severely complicates the funding opportunities. Thus, a retail requirement may make an affordable housing project infeasible, even with the benefits of the combining district. For the last two bullets, LWVPA believes that it is important to streamline the entitlement process. To do so, the Planning Director, not the City Council, should have the authority to approve increases in FAR and height and to waive retail requirements where appropriate. To demonstrate that the Council is serious about meaningfully addressing the housing crisis, we urge you to reject the majority recommendation of the P&TC. We believe the P&TC decision to not recommend at this time any ordinance to allow more affordable housing at this time is contrary to the City Council’s priority on housing, ignores the housing crisis and flies in the face of the housing policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the Housing Element. With this decision, the majority turned a deaf ear to the professional testimony of many affordable housing experts and to the compelling testimony of those suffering from the lack of adequate housing in our city. Thank you. Bonnie Packer President, League of Women Voters of Palo Alto THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PALO ALTO 3921 E. BAYSHORE RD. • PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303 • 650-903-0600 • www.lwvpaloalto.org 4/9/2018 Opinion | America’s Federally Financed Ghettos - The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/opinion/sunday/americas-federally-financed-ghettos.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion-editorials&action=click&contentCol EDITORIAL Xia Gordon By The Editorial Board (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/opinion/editorialboard.html) The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op‑Ed section. April 7, 2018 Ben Carson, the secretary of housing and urban development, showed utter contempt for his agency’s core mission last month when he proposed deleting America’s Federally Financed Ghettos 4/9/2018 Opinion | America’s Federally Financed Ghettos - The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/opinion/sunday/americas-federally-financed-ghettos.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion-editorials&action=click&contentCol the phrase “free from discrimination” (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/28/us/ben‑carson‑hud‑fair‑housing‑ discrimination.html) from the HUD mission statement. Yet Mr. Carson is not the first housing secretary to betray the landmark Fair Housing Act of 1968 — which turns 50 years old this week — by failing to enforce policies designed to prevent states and cities from using federal dollars to perpetuate segregation. By its actions and failure to act, HUD has prolonged segregation in housing since the 1960s under both Democratic and Republican administrations. The courts (http://www.prrac.org/pdf/HUD50th‑CivilRightsTimeline.pdf) have repeatedly chastised the agency for allowing cities to confine families to federally financed ghettos that offer little or no access to jobs, transportation or viable schools. The lawsuits, filed by individuals and fair housing groups, have forced the agency to adopt rules and policies that have been crucial in advancing the goals of the Fair Housing Act. Mr. Carson was named in such a lawsuit filed last month by the nonprofit Texas Low Income Housing Information Service. The suit accuses HUD of illegally funneling federal money to the city of Houston (http://www.relmanlaw.com/civil‑rights‑litigation/cases/CityOfHouston.php), despite a 2017 finding by HUD itself that the city was flouting federal civil rights laws by allowing racially motivated opposition to stop affordable housing projects in white neighborhoods. In a detail reminiscent of the Jim Crow South (http://www.relmanlaw.com/docs/HoustonComplaintFiled.pdf), the plaintiffs argue that Houston discriminates even at the level of flood relief, maintaining “entirely different (and markedly inferior) drainage systems in predominantly minority neighborhoods, exposing the residents of those neighborhoods to increased risk from storms.” The next round of lawsuits against Mr. Carson’s HUD will almost certainly challenge his recent decision to suspend until 2020 (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/upshot/trump‑delays‑hud‑fair‑ housing‑obama‑rule.html) rules introduced under the Obama administration that require communities to analyze housing segregation and submit plans to address it as a condition for receiving billions of dollars in federal aid. FEDERALLY SPONSORED SEGREGATION Critics of the Fair Housing Act have glibly attempted to dismiss attempts to end segregation as “social engineering” — as if rigid racial segregation in housing were a natural phenomenon. In fact, the residential segregation that is pervasive in the United States today was partly created by explicit federal policies that date back at least to World War I. It is now widely acknowledged 4/9/2018 Opinion | America’s Federally Financed Ghettos - The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/opinion/sunday/americas-federally-financed-ghettos.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion-editorials&action=click&contentCol that the federal insistence on segregated housing introduced Jim Crow separation in areas of the country outside the South (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/books/review/the‑defender‑by‑ethan‑ michaeli.html)where it had previously been unknown. It stands to reason that dismantling a system created by a set of government policies will require an equally explicit set of federal policies. The scholar Richard Rothstein exposed the roots of this shameful process in his recent book “The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/books/review/richard‑rothstein‑color‑ of‑law‑forgotten‑history.html).” He reported that the government’s first effort to build housing for defense workers near military installations and factories during World War I was founded on the premise that African‑American families would be excluded “even from projects in northern and western industrial centers where they worked in significant numbers.” The same toxic pattern prevailed under Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, when the government created the first public housing projects for nondefense workers, building separate projects for black people, segregating buildings by race or excluding African‑Americans entirely. Particularly telling is the fact that racially integrated communities were razed to make way for Jim Crow housing. The federal insistence on rigid racial separation found its most pernicious expression in the Federal Housing Administration, created in 1934 (https://www.propublica.org/article/living‑apart‑how‑the‑government‑ betrayed‑a‑landmark‑civil‑rights‑law) to promote homeownership by insuring mortgages. As the sociologists Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton document in “American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass,” (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674018211) the government typically denied mortgages to African‑Americans, shutting out even affluent black people from the suburban homeownership boom that remade the residential landscape during the middle decades of the 20th century. Government at all levels embraced racial covenants that forbade even well‑to‑ do African‑Americans from purchasing homes outside of black communities. Cut off from homeownership — the principal avenue of wealth creation — African‑Americans lost the opportunity to build the intergenerational wealth that white suburban families took for granted. The vast wealth gap that exists today between whites and African‑Americans has its roots in this era. 4/9/2018 Opinion | America’s Federally Financed Ghettos - The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/opinion/sunday/americas-federally-financed-ghettos.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion-editorials&action=click&contentCol The argument for what became the Fair Housing Act emerged forcefully in the 1968 Kerner Commission (http://www.eisenhowerfoundation.org/docs/kerner.pdf) report, which blamed segregation in large measure for the riots that ravaged the country in the 60s and called for national fair housing legislation. The housing law might well have died in committee had the country not erupted in fresh violence after the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on April 4, 1968. It was signed into law a week later. The housing act put the federal government on record as supporting open housing and prohibiting the pervasive discrimination that had locked most African‑Americans out of decent accommodations and homeownership. But the version that passed in 1968 had been declawed — stripped of enforcement provisions that would have given HUD strong authority to root out discrimination. Nearly a quarter‑century would pass before Congress strengthened the law. So during that time, African‑Americans were left subject to the harsh discrimination the original act was supposed to preclude. This progressive sounding law — which requires entities that receive federal money to “affirmatively further” fair housing goals — was consistently undermined by officials of both parties who had little appetite for confronting entrenched segregation. That realization came home with particular force to George Romney, Richard Nixon’s HUD secretary, who initially took the law at its word and tried to enforce it by turning down grant applications from communities that continued to segregate themselves racially. When white communities complained directly to the Oval Office (https://www.propublica.org/article/living‑apart‑how‑the‑government‑ betrayed‑a‑landmark‑civil‑rights‑law), Nixon shut down Romney’s effort and eventually forced him out of government. Subsequent administrations shied away from enforcing the law in ways great and small — but the Reagan administration sold it out in an egregious fashion that angered even Republicans in Congress. The administration conspired with the real estate industry to undermine HUD’s already limited powers, brought cases that attacked integration programs and showed scant vigor in enforcing civil rights laws. THE NEXT FAIR HOUSING FIGHT 4/9/2018 Opinion | America’s Federally Financed Ghettos - The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/opinion/sunday/americas-federally-financed-ghettos.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion-editorials&action=click&contentCol The Fair Housing Act received new life three years ago when the Supreme Court endorsed the doctrine known as disparate impact (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/opinion/the‑supreme‑court‑keeps‑the‑ fair‑housing‑law‑effective.html), ruling that housing discrimination did not have to be intentional to be illegal. The court reminded the country that the statute does indeed bar governments from spending federal money in a way that perpetuates segregation. Soon after, the Obama administration issued (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/opinion/the‑end‑of‑federally‑financed‑ ghettos.html) a long‑awaited rule that required state and local governments to affirmatively further fair housing goals by making efforts to address the cumulative results of the discrimination that historically shut African‑ Americans out of many communities. The common‑sense rule rightly breaks with the laissez‑faire approach of the past, making it clear that compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws means abandoning the strategy of dumping affordable housing in ghettos — and giving poor residents access to areas that offer greater opportunity. To that end, communities that receive HUD money are being asked to consider data on segregation and concentrations of poverty when making affordable housing decisions. The fact that Congress has not overturned the rule reflects a growing awareness on both sides of the aisle that ghettoizing poor people is counterproductive — and that the country has an interest in giving low‑income families access to areas that further opportunity. Later this month, for example, the House Financial Services Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on a draft bill that would increase mobility for families receiving federal housing vouchers, improving their job and educational opportunities. The hearing is no doubt related to a widely cited Harvard study showing (http://www.equality‑of‑opportunity.org/images/mto_exec_summary.pdf)that young children whose families had been given housing vouchers to move to better neighborhoods were more likely to attend college and had higher incomes as adults than children whose families had not been given the vouchers. The data show that changing the circumstances in which poor families live can be crucial to breaking the cycle of intergenerational poverty. This brings us back to the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which was intended to break down the walls around the country’s ghettos so that at least some people could forge successful lives elsewhere. If the country keeps betraying this 4/9/2018 Opinion | America’s Federally Financed Ghettos - The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/opinion/sunday/americas-federally-financed-ghettos.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion-editorials&action=click&contentCol landmark law, it will continue to squander a powerful tool for reducing lethal concentrations of poverty and for opening the door to upward mobility for the poor. A version of this article appears in print on April 7, 2018, on Page SR8 of the New York edition with the headline: America’s Federally Financed Ghettos. Order Reprints (http://www.nytreprints.com/) | Today’s Paper (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/todayspaper/index.html) | Subscribe (https://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp8HYKU.html?campaignId=48JQY)   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:20 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Barbara Carlitz <barbara.carlitz@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 10, 2018 2:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Baptist church conditional use permit I have sent this to city manager and project managers and am sending to each of you as well:        I write as a neighbor of the First Baptist Church.  I have lived within two blocks of the church for 47 years, and I heartily  support the granting of a conditional use permit.    Reasons:     The church has always been a good neighbor.  The only difficult   traffic snarls, parking issues, or bicycle safety issues I have observed   were many years ago when the single Sunday morning service    attendance was much larger.       We have NO other “community center” type building in old Palo Alto —    no public school, fire station, other church where community meetings   or classes might be held.  Surely our neighborhood can accommodate    one public gathering spot, educational building, voting center etc.     The inclusiveness of the church on LGBTQ and immigration fronts   and its willingness to share space reflects the best of Palo Alto’s    long time reputation for tolerance.    Although I may or may not be able to attend tomorrow’s meeting, I’d like my support to be known.    Barbara Carlitz  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:42 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Val Stinson <valstin@aol.com> Sent:Friday, April 06, 2018 9:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:Bike roundabouts Please cease and desist the creation of roundabouts and mini roundabouts on Ross Rd and elsewhere in the city,  including those that are already approved and, or in progress.    They are dangerous to bike riders. I reference a study that is now being discussed on Nextdoor.     Thank you    Valerie STINSON  Greenmeadow Way    Sent from my iPhone    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:50 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Winter Dellenbach <winterdell@earthlink.net> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 12:18 PM Subject:Buena Vista update Hi Friends of Buena Vista - Here is a short update as to what is happening with Buena Vista. I was just there - It is spring break, so lots of kids are home, full of chocolate bunnies, running around playing ball, riding skate boards now that the sun is out. Some families are out of town visiting family and friends. The leaves are coming out on the big Valley Oaks - some of the few big trees left on the property that was once full of big trees. We hope for a mass tree planting there that will offer cool shade, animal habitat, relief from the asphalt while adding beauty as part of the infrastructure upgrade that will take place. Did you know that Buena Vista is 92 years old this year? Past time for upgrades. In the strip mall fronting El Camino, still owned by the Jisser family, there is now a very nice coffee bar, the Baron Barista, that (sadly) replaced Jamba Juice. It offers a good inside meeting place adjacent to BV which came in handy when I and BV resident and Board member Maria Martinez met with a group of Stanford undergrads and grad students a week ago. The class was focusing on diversity and housing equality issues and touring Bay Area places they thought would enlighten them. They wanted to hear about the BV community, their and their children's lives, residents and the wider struggle to save BV, etc. We dropped by the BV Youth Scholars Program (formerly the Homework Club) to meet Deborah Farrington Padilla and some of the kids streaming in on their bikes or with parents. The cats and dogs were almost as happy to see the students as the students were to see the BV pets - clearly they missed their pets they left at home. I am always delighted to take people on tours at BV as there is so much to learn from being there. I always insist that we meet residents, as BV is nothing without its heart and soul - its community of people. We met onsite Manager, Cassy Husted. She is a wonderful addition to BV. She creates a BV newsletter which residents are invited to contribute to. News, recipes, updates, etc. There is also now an onsite maintenance person, and Travis, a night security guard. The place is cleaner, less cluttered and the many container gardens are in Spring growth. As you know, the property was bought by the Housing Authority of Santa Clara Co. who then contracted with Caritas, a non-profit that owns and operates 22 affordable mobile home parks in California to manage BV. Both Housing Authority and Caritas are doing a good job of fitting a lot of pieces together quickly. It's a challenging time of transition between the struggle to save BV and now stabilizing it. Caritas had to get to know the residents, hire a good onsite manager, make needed repairs, and see that better rules and regulations were drafted, etc. Cheers for Caritas, the BV Board of the Mobile Home Assoc. and all residents who are working together well day to day. Longer term planning is in the works between Housing Authority and Caritas for the infrastructure upgrade and replacement of homes, with work starting in 2020 - if things go as projected of course. I have gotten quite a few emails asking me questions about a recent news article - will BV remain affordable to residents, is there a crime problem there, and more. The article was confusing to many and embarrassing to BV residents given the feedback. It came from a meeting between residents, their attorney, and Caritas. The meeting was meant as an update to residents by Caritas of mostly ongoing matters, plus answers to questions previously emailed by residents to Caritas. That a reporter was there was not generally known to residents, to the Board, or Caritas till later in the meeting, so what was said in the meeting to update residents by Caritas or answer resident's questions was expressed in a sort of "short hand" devoid of context but understood by residents because the subject matter had been discussed at past meetings. Some of this short handed information was in the article, so here I want City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:50 PM 2 to clarify some of parts so you will have a better idea of what was meant.There are other statements about finances and affordability that seem a bit confusing or longwinded that I thought I could also clarify a bit. - There is no drug dealing problem at BV. Residents are mortified if you, their supporters, think of the Buena Vista community that way. That is not who they are. Drugs were talked about at the meeting as an issue. But the actual story is that Caritas inherited this issue before and after they took over management - homeless people would sleep in the community bathrooms, laundry room and even took over vacant mobile homes, some dealing drugs to outsiders - it became a known "scene". The previous owner did little, so the BV Board tried to deal with it, finally even asking to meet with the PA Chief of Police (I attended that meeting) and asking the police for help. Some was given, but what was finally effective was when Caritas responded with a security guard. This was the drug dealing problem referred to at the meeting. He moved the people out of the bathrooms/laundry room and vacate homes and still needs to be vigilant to know that it is ended. - The property will remain affordable to residents now and in the future. That was and is the promise to residents and the legal commitment for this deed restricted property. While the financial specifics may not all be known now, as the planning itself is in early days, all will be worked out to achieve the upgrades and improvements. This is what Caritas and the Housing Authority are in the business of doing. - The BV Board was invited by Caritas to draft the Rules and Regulations that will govern BV resident's in their day to day activities. The Board continues to act as an advisory Board to Caritas which benefits both entities, residents and management. R&R's regulate such things as where to park, speed limits, dogs needing to be on leash, noise, unattended children, where kids play, trash, etc. Unused cars are being hauled off and parking spaces assigned. - An announcement made at the meeting was that eventually all homes would be replaced. I believe the homes will not be replaced with other mobile homes, but possibly with high quality manufactured housing on a permanent foundation, don't all look alike, and would cut down greatly on move out time by a resident. Mobile homes will not be replaced with apartments or single family homes. Struggle to Transition to Stability to Change. There is much more to come for Buena Vista, much more to be worked out, so more to be known. I will keep you informed. But for now, it is transition to stability, which is a very sweet place to get to after 5 years of hard struggle that so many of you were a part of. Residents needed you to keep the faith with them then, and they need you to keep your faith in them now and in the future as Buena Vista moves toward change. Winter Dellenbach Friends of Buena Vista fobv.org City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:51 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:S Anthony <wushujia00@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 2:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:Bulbouts & roundabouts With all due respect, these make Ross Rd and the intersections more dangerous, especially to bikes. If your goal is to have cars totally stopped while bicyclists proceed thru roundabouts or bulbouts, then you've succeeded. The bulbouts on Ross have just enough room for 2 cars to cross. I had to stop completely to make sure bike riders were safe. There's no other place for them to go when cars are present. This is really shoddy. Creating smaller access to roundabouts due to bulging street corners defies reason. Mountain View has roundabouts in residental areas that work much better and seem safer...and have wide access to them, along with stop signs to make right of way clear if when there are multiple cars involved. Please stop construction in PA and perhaps reverse some of the damage that's been done by de-constructing these hazards. Sincerely, Marie & Don Anthony City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:39 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Robert Finn <rfinn@stanford.edu> Sent:Tuesday, April 10, 2018 4:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:comments Attachments:noiseagain.pdf To PACC: I am enclosing the statement I read as a “public comment”, at the initial of two meetings April 9. I would like the statement to be available in detail on the formal records, and I hope that will be feasible. With my thanks, Robert Finn Palo Alto 94301 04/10/2018 Message read to: Palo Alto City Council, at its semi-open meeting Apr. 9, 2018: Prior to 2014 the airplane landing system at SFO worked superbly and displayed no major fault. During that same year, despite only small increases in air traffic, there was a huge jump in disturbing airplane noise. That coincided with adoption of Nextgen, although the public was then not consulted or even informed that changes were occurring, Adverse reaction to the changes surfaced despite the attempted silence, and it led to formal hearings, via the “Select Committee”. This committee seems to have felt that its primary objective was to act as public relations agent for the FAA. My assertion is supported by the emphasis the committee put into its report, that it could not consider return to pre-Nextgen procedures, on the ground that the FAA had informed them it was “required by law to adopt new and advanced technology”. (Sec. 2.17) I can imagine Congress authorizing new technology, but the thought of them requiring it stretches my imagination. And it seems not to have occurred to committee members to ask why the earlier system should be less suited than is Nextgen to advanced technology. What motivated the Committee to defer to and even display with emphasis such unclear, sloppy and misleading language? The FAA has made ghastly blunders, and what they apparently fear most is having the blunders exposed. They have been temporizing with us, manipulating us and giving us a classic runaround. They have been distracting our attention with the objective of having us overlook crucial legal deadlines. That happened to Georgetown, please don’t let it happen to us. Robert Finn rfinn@stanford.edu City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:46 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Michael Tierney <mtierney99@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 6:12 AM To:Council, City Subject:Concrete bulbouts Hi, I am just writing to express my concern for the new concrete bulbouts. I find it hard as it is to avoid the bicyclists on  our streets while driving. The idea of partially merging with the bike lane at some of these new constructions is puzzling.  And scary.     So, scary puzzling.And that’s the worst kind of puzzle.    Thank you for your consideration  Mike Tierney  South Palo Alto  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:47 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Dave Benson <dbenson@sbi-i.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 9:39 AM To:Council, City Subject:Dangerous sections of the bike boulevards I ride my bike every day down Ross Road from Loma Verde to Moreno and then to the frontage road. I am 79 years old  and I can state unequivocally that I have never seen a more dangerous situation than the cement narrowing sections on  the Ross Road bike boulevard I have to navigate every day. Adding more speed lowering bumps is a great idea, but the  cement narrowing sections are just accidents waiting to happen. Cars just do not care about bikers trying to navigate  those narrowing sections, I have been passed a couple of times so far by autos from behind that did not yield to my bike  while trying to go through those sections. I am opposed to building any more of those narrowing sections on Moreno  and Louis Road and support eliminating them on Ross Road.    David Benson  3165 Manchester Ct  Palo Alto    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 2:01 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:aram james <abjpd1@icloud.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 12:17 AM To:dcbertini@menlopark.org; Jonsen, Robert; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; Watson, Ron; Constantino, Mary; Council, City; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; 51swampdog@gmail.com; panaretica@gmail.com; citycouncil@menlopark.org; Kniss, Liz (internal); paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; HRC; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; Kilpatrick, Brad; Carnahan, David; cbolanos@smcgov.org; bos@smcgov.org; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; rpichon@scscourt.org; sscott@scscourt.org; mharris@scscourt.org; jseybert@redwoodcity.org; Keene, James; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; myraw@smcba.org; sdremann@paweekly.com Subject:Federally financed Ghettos and the bizarre Ben Carson https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/opinion/sunday/americas‐federally‐financed‐ghettos.amp.html      Sent from my iPhone  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:43 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Martin Eisenring <martin@eisenring.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 11, 2018 3:50 AM To:Kniss, Liz (internal); Council, City Cc:Müller Dolfi Subject:Follow-up: Introduction, CV Attachments:CV Martin EISENRING_2018 (0465411).pdf; 18.03.14 Empfehlungsschreiben Martin Eisenring.pdf Dear Ms Kniss, I hope you are well. In reference to the Email from Mr. Dolfi Müller, Mayor of the City of Zug in Switzerland, from March 23rd, I would like to kindly ask again if you (or someone of your team) would be interested in a meeting? In the appendix I have attached my CV and the letter of the Mayor. Sincerely yours, Dr. Martin Eisenring                       Martin Eisenring  Dr.iur., MLP-HSG CAS Commodity Professional          Dr. Martin Eisenring  Attorney-at-law & Notary Public Unter Altstadt 28  P.O. Box CH – 6301 Zug  Switzerland     Phone  Fax E-Mail  Web    +41 41 710 26 28  +41 41 710 28 27 martin@eisenring.com  www.eisenring.com        This e-mail was sent on behalf of an attorney-at-law who is registered with the Cantonal Registry of Zug attorneys. It is intended only for the addressee named above and may be accessed, read, printed, retained, copied or disseminated solely by such addressee and its designates. This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately, destroy any print-outs and delete all electronic files of this e-mail. Electronic mail may be manipulated and/or accessed by unauthorised persons. We therefore disclaim any liability for the contents and rule out the legal validity of electronic mail.  Von: Martin Eisenring   Gesendet: Freitag, 23. März 2018 15:58  An: liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org  Cc: Müller Dolfi <Dolfi.Mueller@stadtzug.ch>  Betreff: Introduction, CV  Dear Ms Kniss, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:43 AM 2 I am writing to you with reference to the e-mail below from the Mayor of Zug, Mr. Dolfi Müller. Additionally to the letter sent by the Mayor, I wanted to send you my current CV. You may find it attached. I would also like to emphasize personally that I would be very pleased to meet you or someone from your team for an open and non-binding exchange during my stay in Palo Alto. I wish you a nice weekend and please feel free to contact me if you need any further information. Sincerely yours, Dr. Martin Eisenring                       Martin Eisenring  Dr.iur., MLP-HSG CAS Commodity Professional          Dr. Martin Eisenring Attorney-at-law & Notary Public  Unter Altstadt 28 P.O. Box  CH – 6301 Zug Switzerland      Phone Fax  E-Mail Web    +41 41 710 26 28 +41 41 710 28 27  martin@eisenring.com www.eisenring.com        This e-mail was sent on behalf of an attorney-at-law who is registered with the Cantonal Registry of Zug attorneys. It is intended only for the addressee named above and may be accessed, read, printed, retained, copied or disseminated solely by such addressee and its designates. This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately, destroy any print-outs and delete all electronic files of this e-mail. Electronic mail may be manipulated and/or accessed by unauthorised persons. We therefore disclaim any liability for the contents and rule out the legal validity of electronic mail.  Von: Müller Dolfi <Dolfi.Mueller@stadtzug.ch> Datum: 23. März 2018 um 13:07:52 MEZ An: "'liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org'" <liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org> Kopie: 'Martin Eisenring' <martin@eisenring.com> Betreff: WG: Empfehlungsschreiben Dear Ms Kniss, I hope this e-mail finds you well. Please find attached a scan of a letter from me – mayor of the city of Zug, Switzerland – addressed to you. Many thanks for your consideration. Sincerely yours, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:43 AM 3 Dolfi Müller   Stadtpräsident   Stadthaus, Postfach 1258   6301 Zug   Telefon   +41 41 728 21 01  http://www.stadtzug.ch          Stadt Zug Stadtpräsident Stadt Zug, Stadtkanzlei, Postfach 1258, 6301 Zug Stadthaus am Kolinplatz 6301 Zug www.stadtzug.ch Liz Kniss 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dolfi Müller Mayor of the city of Zug +41 41 728 21 01 dolfi. mueller@stadtzug.ch Zug, March 14, 2018 Dear Ms Kniss, I am writing to you in my capacity as mayor of the city of Zug, Switzerland. The city of Zug is the Capital of the Canton of Zug, a community of approximately 125'000 residents, located in the greater Zürich area and one of the most populär areas to live and do business in Switzerland. Zug may be a small city with 30'000 inhabitants but more than 125 nationalities are represented, giving it a vibrant and cosmopolitan atmosphere. With its spirit of openness, very business- friendly mentality, the city and the canton of Zug have attracted numerous foreign Companies. Since 2013, the canton of Zug has become a hub for FinTech start-ups with investors flocking to the region. Since then, Zug has also been known as the Crypto Valley. Both town and canton have been focused on extending its infrastructure with forward-looking projects: particularly in the education, "Circulago" (energy), health, geriatric care, leisure and sport sectors, as well as on supply and disposal issues. Furthermore, the citizens of Zug have adopted a populär initiative to establish the values of a 2000-watt society in the long term. The interim goal is to reduce C02 emissions to two tons per person/year and energy consumption to 3500 watts by 2050. Zug's economic success is reflected in the canton's rapid growth in employment and population. However, this steep growth trajectory also brings challenges for the future: affordable apartments, public transportation, urban plan, etc. A member of the city of Zug Parliament and an independent Lawyer, Dr. Martin Eisenring with his family will be visiting your city and the region of Silicon Valley from mid-April tili mid-July 2018 to maintain and expand his Professional network. He will also organize presentations in Cooperation with the renowned law firm Hopkins & Carley. www.stadtzug.ch Seite 1 von 2 Dr. Eisenring's long-term goal is to build a bridge of collaboration and exchange between the Silicon Valley and the Crypto Valley. We believe that the canton of Zug and the city of Palo Alto share similar challenges (e.g. high land prices, high capacity utilization of public transport, digitization, etc.) and we would be very pleased if you would find the time to meet Dr. Eisenring during his stay. If you or a member of your team are interested in such a noncommittal first meeting, which I hope very much, I kindly ask you to contact Dr. Eisenring directly. Please find his contact data on the attached CV. Thank you for your consideration and Dr. Eisenring looks forward to hearing from your office. Sincerely'fou7sT\ Dq>lfi Müll er/ Mayor oft/ne^dty of Zug, Switzerland www.stadtzug.ch Seite 2 von 2 CURRICULUM VITAE Summary Broad legal background with more than 20 years’ experience in corporate and commercial law in a global market. Proven ability to represent clients in a complex and challenging environ- ment. Providing pragmatic and efficient solutions in the fields of corporate law, pension funds, commodity trading, private equity, tax law, art law, foundations and as active board member. Solid interpersonal and communication skills in building key alliances and partnerships having dealt with a diversity of clients, corporates and indi- viduals. Martin Eisenring Dr.iur, MLP-HSG CAS Commodity Professional Attorney-at-law & Notary Public Born 1970 Married, two children Language: German – native speaker English – fluent French – fluent Spanish – basic skills Address: Dr. Martin Eisenring Unter Altstadt 28 CH-6300 Zug / Switzerland Email: martin@eisenring.com Phone: (Tel): +41 41 710 26 28 (Fax): +41 41 710 28 27 Education > Course in „Private Equity and Venture Capital“, Università Commer- ciale Luigi Bocconi, Milano, 2015 > Certificate of Advanced Studies (CAS) in „Commodity Professional“, University of Lucerne, 2014 > Executive Diploma in „Management for the Legal Profession“, Uni-versity of St. Gallen, Graduate School of Business, Economics, Law and Social Sciences (HSG), 2007 - 2009 Honours: Scholarship from Henri B. Meier Foundation > Course in „Principles of International and Comparative Taxation“, IBFD International Tax Academy, Amsterdam, 2009 > PhD (Dr.iur.), University of Zurich (Prof. Dr. Hans-Michael Riemer), 1997 - 1999 Honours: Magna cum laude Thesis: Responsibility for Asset Management of Pension Funds > Master of Laws (lic.iur.), University of Fribourg, 1992 - 1996 Honours: Cum Laude > Exchange Semester, University of Paris IV, Sorbonne, 1993 Work History > Senior and Founding Partner EISENRING Attorneys-at-law & Nota-ries Publics, Zug and Zurich, 2017 – present > Visiting Legal Advisor Hopkins & Carley, Palo Alto, 2018 > Legal and Compliance Consultant Aravis Private Equity, Zurich, 2017 – present > Legal Advisor Crypto Explorers, Zug, 2017 - present > Senior Partner Nützi Eisenring & Partners Ltd., Zug, 2015 - 2017 > Managing Partner of Zug Office (Responsible for Compliance and KYC Procedures) Bratschi Wiederkehr Buob, 2006 - 2015 > Founding and Managing Partner Eisenring, Zimmerli & Partners In 2007 merger with Bratschi Wiederkehr Buob law firm, 2004 - 2006 > Senior Corporate Governance Analyst, Senior Marketing Manager and Compliance Officer at Ethos Investment Foundation for sustain- able Investments, Geneva, 2001 – 2004 > Associate Lawyer, mainly in the pension-fund area Zürcher, Blickens-torfer & Widmer, Attorneys-at-law, Zurich, 2000 - 2001 > Practical Courses at Courts in Zurich and Zug, 1999 - 2000 Other Leadership and Volunteer Activities > Member of Parliament of the City of Zug, 2007 - present Head of parliamentarian group of the Christian Democratic Party > Visiting member of the Board of Directors, Zug Commodity Associa-tion, 2015 - present > President of the Christian Democratic Party of the City of Zug, 2006 - 2009 > Member of the Board of Directors of IGBS International Games Broadcast System AG in Zug, 2005 - present IGBS is an important provider of Broadcasting Services for sports Events focusing on Asian Markets > Member of the Board of Directors and legal adviser to OTI Greentech Group AG (Switzerland), 2014 - present OTI Greentech is an international CleanTech Company, providing engineering services, sustainable products and solutions in the Mari-time, Energy and Industrial sectors > Member of the Board of Directors of Gimag Immobilien Ltd., 2005 - present Gimag Immobilien Ltd. is specialized in the acquisition and holding of real estate in Germany > Managing Director (2006 - 2010) and legal advisor to Cadenza Rec- ords Ltd., Geneva, 2006 - present Cadenza Music is a recording label and producer of mayor events of electronical music worldwide > Member of the Swiss lawyers Association, 2001 - present > Member of the Self-Regulatory Organisation of the Swiss Bar Asso- ciation and the Swiss Notaries Association (SRO SAV/SNV), 2006 - present > Member of the Crypto Valley Association, 2017- present > President of the Board of Directors (2006 - 2012) of Hochwacht Zug, Athletics Association > Various Memberships at Board of Directors and foundation Councils Publications / Teaching > Commentary to Art. 80-89a ZGB (Law of Foundations), in “Hand- kommentar zum Schweizer Privatrecht”, Schulthess Verlag, Zürich, 1st (2008), 2nd (2013) and 3rd Edition (2016) > Lecturer at the Certificate Course of Advanced Studies (CAS) in „Commodity Professional“, University of Lucerne, 2015 to Current > Leadership in Pension Funds, in: Schweizer Personalvorsorge 05/2005 > „Good Corporate Governance - Die richtige Organisation der Checks & Balances“, published in BILANZ Management, 02/2002 > „Responsibility for Asset Management of Pension Funds“, Zürcher Studien zum Privatrecht, Vol. 153, 1999 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:18 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 11:38 PM To:paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; HRC; Jonsen, Robert; Council, City Subject:From the archives discussions about the Palo Alto HRC re community policing and related issues circa 2005–or the more things change the more they stay the same http://ccin.menlopark.org/16248.html Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:52 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:aram james <abjpd1@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 2:42 PM To:paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; HRC; 51swampdog@gmail.com; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; dcbertini@menlopark.org; Council, City; citycouncil@menlopark.org; council@redwoodcity.org; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com Subject:Here is the latest in a long and historical record of the PAPD -being accused of unnecessarily attacking African Americans http://padailypost.com/2017/05/06/suit-police-dog-mauled-teen-officers-accused-of-just-standing-by-during- attack/ Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:46 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 07, 2018 11:50 PM To:Aram James; Laura Lee Chiu-STB Coalition; Stop the Ban Google Discussion Group; Jen Hoey Padgett; Housing 1000; Kelcy Fleming; Loquist, Kristina; Chris Richardson; Gregorio, Rose; Greg@streetsteam.org; Eileen@streetsteam.org; Eileen Altman; Marie Baylon; Blaine Dzwonczyk; Bains, Paul; Paul George @ PPJC; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; dprice@padailypost.com; Robert Norse; Roberta Ahlquist; Robert Aguirre; Dolci, Bob; Council, City Subject:homeless victory looking hopeful https://kpfa.org/episode/pushing-limits-april-6-2018/ -- This bulletin brought to you by the Palo Alto Poverty Press Chuck City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:20 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, April 10, 2018 2:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:Housing If you are lost in the wilderness, you have three concerns: food, water and shelter.  Of the three, shelter is number one.   A lot of people don’t know that.  I think this has something to do with why the subject is so very important.    I’ve listened to council debates on development for decades; most of it intelligent, dilligent and thorough.  Sometimes  the developments work, sometimes they don’t and darned if I can tell why.  All I know is most of the time council does  it’s best and that you all work really hard.  Keeping the good thought that the zoning modification gets the results it is  intended to.      Deb Goldeen, 2130 Birch St., 94306, 321‐7375  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:20 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Linnea Wickstrom <ljwickstrom@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, April 10, 2018 12:59 PM To:Council, City Cc:Linnea wickstrom Subject:HURRAH for the City Council!   I applaud the passage of the new AH Combining District ordinance! You heard those of us who have spoken again and again in  favor of such an ordinance, and you did the right thing for our city.    I could not stay last night for all the speakers and all the discussion so I was very pleasantly surprised to see, in the Palo Alto  Online article, that you also asked Staff to look into "including moderate‐ and high‐density residential zones, RM‐15 and RM‐ 30, respectively, in the new combining district.” Expanding AH‐qualified zoning to areas that are already high‐density would be  a great addition to the ordinance.    Let’s get started!    Sincerely,  Linnea Wickstrom  Per Maresca  Peter Maresca  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 3:27 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 3:20 PM To:City Staff Cc:Council, City Subject:Library Strategic Plan draft Hello! Happy National Library Week!    The Palo Alto City Library is in the process of updating the Strategic Plan, for 2018‐2021.  This draft was reviewed by the  Library Advisory Commission, and based on their recommendation, the draft plan  is now available to the community for  their feedback. Please look at the plan and, as a library stakeholder, please send comments to Gayathri Kanth, Assistant  Library Director at Gayathri.kanth@cityofpaloalto.org to be considered as we finalize the plan.    A library customer survey has also been included in the Strategic Plan draft  survey.  A separate survey on technology needs in the Library will be conducted in the fall of 2018.  The survey will be  available from April 8 ‐ 21. Here is the link:    https://library.cityofpaloalto.org/customer‐satisfaction‐survey/    Please encourage community members to participate in the survey.    Please let me know if you have any questions.    Thanks,            Monique le Conge Ziesenhenne, PhD | Library Director &  Interim Director of Community Services  270 Forest Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2403 | E: monique.ziesenhenne@cityofpaloalto.org   Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you  What I’m Reading Now:    Seven Stones to Stand or Fall by Diana Gabaldon  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:14 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Mark McBride <mark.mcbride@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 5:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page I wanted to send a note in strong support of the proposed chapter 18.30(J) that is up for discussion at tonight's city council. I live in Evergreen Park, would be less than a block from some of the proposed overlay zone, and am still firmly in favor of reducing impediments to building housing (even better if that housing is affordable). First, adding additional housing that supports people at a variety of life stages and income levels creates a more vibrant, close knit community. Second, the larger retail areas proposed here are perfect for building higher density, less car reliant housing that is symbiotic with the commercial aspects of those zones. Encouraging residential development in the Stanford Shopping and Town and Country areas is great. Third, encouraging residential development along the University and Cal Ave corridors is even better. These are both neighborhoods that are perfectly livable without cars, extremely convenient to a wide range of jobs, and create an opportunity for people who work here to live here. If anything I'd like to see a more permissive version of this measure that expands beyond the flagged commercial zones. ---Mark City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:42 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Taylor Veach <taylor.veach@sjsu.edu> Sent:Friday, April 06, 2018 10:11 AM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page To Whom it may concern: My name is Taylor Veach and I am a Masters in Social Work student at San Jose State University. As part of one of my assignments, I am looking to schedule a quick meeting with any member of city council (10-15 minutes) to discuss my concern on the suicide rates in the youth population in the city of Palo Alto. I am wondering if you have any availabilities for early April? Preferably the afternoon of April 9th, or anytime April12th? Thank you very much, Taylor City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:53 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Marie Macy <marie_macy@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 5:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:my neighborhood, my neighbor Castilleja Dear Councilmember: Allowing a school, already over-enrolled for the last 15 years, to further expand and further alter my neighborhood, does NOT equal supporting women’s education. And opposing a further grab on the part of the school does not equal opposing women’s education. The inference of Castilleja’s signage is offensive. Over the 34 years we have lived next to the school we have seen it go from a boarding school to a school attended by day students, many of whom appear to have cars of their own to drive themselves to and from school. My family has seen the second block of Melville (yes, there was a second block of Melville) go from a quiet cul de sac where my children played and learned to ride their bicycles to part of Castilleja! Like magic, it just disappeared one day. Don't let this happen again to this little residential neighborhood. Why does Castilleja merit special privileges, special considerations, to over-build on their small lot? Sincerely, Marie Macy Melville Ave City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:22 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Downtown Streets Team <eileen@downtownstreetsteam.ccsend.com> on behalf of Downtown Streets Team <eileen@peninsulahcc.org> Sent:Tuesday, April 10, 2018 3:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:NEWS ALERT: DST recognized as California "Best Practice" for ending homelessness NEWS ALERT! Downtown Streets Team recognized as California "Best Practice" model to end homelessness The League of California Cities is encouraging communities to replicate DST's innovative model in their local neighborhoods. "Our Homelessness Task Force spent more than a year looking at some of the best local programs that are helping people transition into supportive housing," said Darby Kernan, Deputy Executive Director for Legislative Affairs at the California State Association of Counties. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:22 AM 2 "Downtown Streets Team is one of those programs that is helping people get off the streets and address the root cause of their homelessness, too." See the full Homelessness Task Force Report here! KNOW THE FACTS: The average annual public cost of a "persistently homeless individual" is $83,000. By comparison, it costs Downtown Streets Team $14,600 to help someone move into housing and employment. Homelessness is an experience, not an identity. At DST we believe that through collaboration, partnership, and building strong communities, we can end homelessness. We believe it because we see it happening! Join the movement to end homelessness through the dignity of work. Email us! Development@StreetsTeam.org 755 recently homeless individuals secured EMPLOYMENT (averaging 9 jobs per month lasting 90+ days)! 821 Team Members secured HOUSING (averaging 8 people housed per month)! 96% of Team Members reported improved self-esteem, PRIDE and a sense of self-worth since joining our Team. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:22 AM 3 1.8 Million CIGARETTE BUTTS collected from our city streets to be upcycled and made into park benches. 5.2M gallons of TRASH removed from our streets, parks and public spaces. Help us continue to change lives. Want more information on DST's innovative program? Contact Chief Programs Officer, Chris Richardson (Chris@StreetsTeam.org) Your generous financial contribution directly impacts your local Team! Click to DONATE and designate your funds. VISIT OUR WEBSITE Copyright © 2018. All Rights Reserved. Downtown Streets Team, 1671 The Alameda, Suite 306, San Jose, CA 95126 SafeUnsubscribe™ city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Forward this email | Update Profile | About our service provider Sent by eileen@peninsulahcc.org in collaboration with Try it free today City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:17 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 7:42 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:News that impacts Quality of Life on the Peninsula Neilson Buchanan and John Guislin Co-Editors, SF Peninsula Residents Association Newsletter 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com THIS WEEK ON THE SAN FRANCISCO PENINSULA News that Impacts Your Quality of Life April 9, 2018 View as Webpage City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:17 AM 2 In this Issue J2H RATIOS - PART 2 Dear Readers, Our last issue featured the Brisbane and Santa Clara paradoxes. This week we move you to South San Francisco and Cupertino. Once again our theme is Anti-Gravity Economics known as J2H ratios. To Subscribe Click Here Anti-gravity hiding in plain sight “The Bay Area is defying gravity,” said Director of the UCLA Anderson Forecast. Another UCLA economist reported our the region “is the most dynamic, most robust metro area.” Good news weighed must have heavily upon the audience. All economists always hedge; so here are their other perspectives. “Too much retail…too many retail jobs.” “Tech jobs more volatile than non-tech.” “Expensive housing market…perhaps the greatest peril.” “Tech boom could create a wider chasm between economic haves and have nots.” Topping it off Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom said, “We have economic bifurcation…..Palo Alto versus East Palo Alto…Tenderloin versus the Marina District….two different worlds in one city.” SJMercuryNews Ed. Comment: Job growth is out of sync with transportation infrastructure. Infrastructure imbalance will create political upheaval. What kind of upheaval will be determined by the voters. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:17 AM 3 Indigestion Cupertino’s jobs/housing ratio is swinging into full debate in Cupertino. Here is a good glimpse of what is evolving. SFChronicle Ed Comment: Keep your eye on an issue beyond housing shortages. Is anyone accountable for overall infrastructure? Cupertino’s fragile transportation infrastructure is just one example of the Peninsula’s indigestible job growth. Digging for housing A development company proposing a transformative project along Oyster Point in South San Francisco is backing away from housing. Why?... Pushback from the local biotech industry. SMDailyJournal Ed. Comment: Are bio-tech companies are opening up their shells for housing at Oyster Bay? No, they seem to be clamming up for housing. We are looking for better leadership and better trends, but Oyster Bay plunged us into murky waters. To paraphrase The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, “Housing, housing everywhere but not a home to buy." For the record, we think South San Francisco and its bio-tech titans have some explaining to do. There is no plausible evidence that housing supply can catch up with the number of jobs being created by short-term focused CEOs. If a bird, any bird, even an albatross, leads us out of the housing jam, we will praise the bird. Chilled out? Sen. Wiener’s bill was chilled by San Francisco Board of Supervisors. This polarizing bill “that would force California cities to allow taller apartment buildings by BART stops and other transit hubs has been pummeled with opposition from local officials.” “….San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to oppose Wiener’s bill, joining smaller cities such as Lafayette, Cupertino, Palo Alto and Milpitas. A week earlier, the Los Angeles City Council took the same stance, unanimously, with one councilman calling the legislation “insanity.” SJMercuryNews City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:17 AM 4 Ed. Comment: SB827 and other related legislation will be in active committee debate by state legislature dominated by one party. These bills challenge conventional economics. And they would alter balance between state and local government. Our prediction: Profound and interesting test of government. What does Wiener really want? Whom to trust? Google’s former motto “Don’t Be Evil” resides in the minds of thousands of Google employees. Over 3,000 employees signed a protest letter highlighting Google’s involvement with a Department of Defense project. The letter stated “We cannot outsource the moral responsibility of our technologies to third parties. Google’s stated values make this clear: Every one of our users is trusting us. Never jeopardize this. Ever. This contract puts Google’s reputation at risk and stands in direct opposition to our core values.” SJMercuryNews Ed. Comment: Internalizing corporate ethics could be the best cure for pain felt by some of our Tech Titans. Google may need two slogans. “Don’t be evil” and “Do the right thing.” If one smart slogan is good, then two should be better. If Google needs government business, we suggest knocking on the door of the EPA. 156 Mayors come clean on green Climate change seems to be one of the foremost concerns for U.S. mayors: Eight out of 10 said it was important that their cities to address the issue. But roughly half view the lack of funding as the most significant barrier to making progress on this front—more than political opposition at the state and federal level and lack of public support. CityLab Ed comment: Mayors can’t turn green without green in their pockets. Many of us fret about the environment, EPA and future generations; City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:17 AM 5 however, this survey of mayors is most revealing. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Nowhere in the US is lack of transportation infrastructure more severe than the Peninsula and we see job creation outpacing any solutions for transportation infrastructure. We are in the same boat as the 156 mayors….searching blindly for sources of funding. One thing is obvious: Traffic congestion will get worse before it gets better…if ever. Los Angeles Times speaks out Los Angeles Times speaks out. “Facebook finally steps up on privacy. Now it’s Congress’s turn.” LATimes Ed. Comment: The full story will be more than Facebook. We remain uncomfortable with the group thinking in Silicon Valley and its one company towns. Success of SFPRA newsletter success depends upon its readers. Please feel free to forward the newletter to your friends and neighbors. Ask them to subscribe at no cost by clicking the subscribe button above or by emailing cnsbuchanan@gmail.com. Editors Neilson Buchanan and John Guislin are unpaid, private citizens on the SF Peninsula and have no ties to developers or government organizations. Our Web Site Neilson Buchanan | Downtown North, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Unsubscribe cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Update Profile | About our service provider Sent by cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com in collaboration with Try it free today City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:39 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Stafford, Joseph <josephstafford@cardinalhotel.com> Sent:Thursday, April 05, 2018 4:55 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Cc:Hur, Mark; Stephanie Wansek; Christopher Custer; Young, Jarrod Subject:Parking Decal issue with RPP parking program Cardinal Hotel employees RPP communications.pdf Scannable Document on Apr 5, 2018 at 4_30_34 PM... To whom it may concern, I am currently an employee working in downtown Palo Alto and have a major issue with the Zone 5 Parking Decal. I have been in contact with Jarrod Young, Assistant Manager SP+ and Mark Hur, Parking Opertions Lead in Planning & Community Environment-Transportation. Jarrod has been very helpful and understanding but Mr. Hur's responses have been far from satisfactory and have not helped nor solved the issue. I am writing to you because Mark Hur stated that: "Program design and enforcement were reviewed and approved by City Council in the Administrative Guidelines back in  2015, which states:   Other Policies   5. The permit must be affixed on the outside of the rear windshield driver’s side lower left corner, or left side of the bumper. Do not place your permit in any other location. Placing your permit in another location or behind tinted windows shall invalidate your parking exemption." I have a sticker decal for Zone 5 but I do not want to affix it to the outside of my new car which is the only option allowed in the RPP program. Under city policy, sent to me by Mark Hur, I can not tape the permit to the inside of my car (driver side). Even though, an attendant can visibly see and scan the permit through the windshield. Before receiving my permanent decal, I had a Temporary Permit, which was placed on the driver side dash and not a single issue resulted from this. Regarding the placement of the new permit, I received a citation on Friday, "violation of posted RPP Permit", in the amount of $53. And on Monday I received an "Informational Warning". I would have expected the warning before the citation. This makes no sense and I have contested, ticket number R100034514. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:39 PM 2 In his response to my initial outreach, Mark Hur wrote, "As an alternative, we offer transferable hanging permits at an additional cost". The cost for the hanging tag permit is $365, making the "additional costs" $315- more than 6x I paid for the decal! This is not a reasonable option to propose. For a lower income employee, I can not afford to spend $365 for a six month permit. There is simply no excuse or justification to charge someone this much money to transfer the permit over. A hanging permit (at a nominal fee) would be a reasonable solution to what I feel should not be such a contentious, complicated and time consuming issue. I also have a co-worker who can not fix his decal to his vehicle because it is prohibited in his lease agreement. Additionally, my manager, Stephanie Wansek, has also spent time communicating with the SP+ administrators and Mark Hur. I will attach my communications with Mark Hur and my manager's communications as well. I want to thank you for your attention to my issues stated in this email. Best regards, Joseph Stafford The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Notice of Confidentiality: This communication is intended ONLY for the recipient(s) identified in the message, and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, or otherwise protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please disregard this communication and notify the sender. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:28 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 04, 2018 2:58 PM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Gitelman, Hillary; Mello, Joshuah; De Geus, Robert; info Subject:Peer Review of HSR Business Plan and State Rail plan support more immediate regional coordination Attachments:Final CARRD Public Comment for PA Rail Committee for March 21 2018 (Initial Screening of Master List) (1).pdf; Peer Review Group Letter on DRAFT 2018 Biz Plan - PDF signed reduced.pdf Dear City Council Members and City Staff, As you know, CARRD has been advocating for a more regional approach to grade separations given that the Caltrain corridor has been identified as a main economic generator for the State and the emerging connections between Caltrain and other rail systems. Now more than ever, we believe the City needs to take a more aggressive approach on this issue. This week, both the CA senate and assembly Transportation committees discussed the importance of having a cohesive and coordinated plan for funding and building grade separations. Highlighted below highlight are comments from the recently released HSR Peer Review Group and the recent State Rail Plan that emphasize this approach. Attached is the latest comment letter from the legislatively mandated California High Speed Rail Peer Review Group regarding the Draft 2018 HSR Business Plan. The letter describes that the HSR project is essentially at a turning point where the Governor and the Legislature must make a decision about what to do given the lack of funding to connect the Central Valley segment to the Bay Area and then to LA. Whether the program continues or not, there are still impacts for the Peninsula. On page 5, the Peer Review group discusses the issue of freight on the Peninsula. (Bolding, underlining and highlighting are mine). Interaction with the Bookend Operators The Authority has decided to expand the blended operations with Caltrain from San Francisco to Gilroy, and with Metrolink from Burbank to Anaheim, an approach that we consider appropriate both because of limited funding, and because this will have significant immediate benefit to current riders. This approach underlines the need for a clear and fully agreed upon set of operating agreements with the two agencies and with the Union Pacific and BNSF railroads. The existing memoranda of understanding have launched the process, but the Authority should move as quickly as possible to convert the general understandings into specific agreements on ownership, rights of access, costs of access, maintenance responsibility, and dispatching and scheduling decisions, among others. The Authority has already seen how negotiations of final agreements with freight railroads tend to increase estimates of cost and schedule. Any added impacts of these agreements with the commuter operators and the freight railroads should be identified and managed as soon as possible. At the last Rail Committee, CARRD recommended that the City ask the new consultant to provide estimates on what other project (and subsequent cost ) alternatives are available if there was light freight or no freight instead of heavy freight on the Caltrain line before the city eliminates alternatives. (see pg 8 of attached CARRD City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:28 PM 2 comment) Analysis generally shows that heavy freight has significant impacts on the grade separation alternatives, construction impacts and relative costs. By directing the consultant to explain the impacts and ballpark the construction impact and cost differences, the City would have quantitative and qualitative comparisons for use by the City Council to decide which alternatives should be studied in more detail. To date, at a State level, there has not been any specific information available to decision makers to evaluate the impacts of low use, heavy freight operations on the Peninsula's critical passenger rail system. By providing analysis at this critical juncture, the City of Palo Alto has the unique opportunity to help inform the State's decisions directly. The Peer Review Committee's comments are clearly encouraging decision makers to focus on this issue ASAP, which means the City should move expeditiously if it seeks to influence the process. On page 6 of the letter, the Peer Review group makes it clear that the State should play a role in helping plan for grade separations on the Peninsula. (Bolding, underlining and highlighting are mine). Grade Crossings In prior letters we urged that a broad program of grade crossing elimination be developed. The dangers of the interactions of heavy highway traffic and dense, high-speed, conventional and commuter rail passenger traffic moving through rail/highway grade crossings cannot be overstated. Now that the Plan envisions operation over grade crossings in the San Jose to Gilroy area and plans for joint operations over the grade crossings in the Burbank to Anaheim territory, the need for a program to eliminate grade crossings is even greater. This is not a problem that the Authority alone can or should solve. Resolution will be expensive, it will take time, and there may well be a need for prioritizing of funds by crossing exposure and acceptance of interim solutions. Local governments, the state, Caltrain, Metrolink, the freight railroads and federal authorities all have roles to play. A coordinated program over a reasonable period of time to reduce the danger at grade crossings should be developed and implemented. The Legislature may want to request that Caltrans take the lead in forming such a program. The State Rail Plan released last year, for the first time clearly articulates the State's goals regarding statewide planning and coordination for freight and passenger rail. Page 111 of the State Rail Plan has identified grade separations as an "immediate deficiency" and explains that in order to continue to support the growth of the Caltrain corridor, investment in grade separations should be considered. Similarly, on pages 149- 150, the plan identifies the following areas for further consideration:  Complete study of the Dumbarton alignment to connect the Peninsula and East Bay within a regional network, including alternatives for both Integrated Express Bus and Rail service.  Study to address alternatives for meeting capacity needs through Niles Canyon and across Altamont Pass to support growing freight and passenger train volumes as part of a regional network. Both of these areas of study could impact the freight traffic along the Caltrain corridor and thus impact the choices for grade separations. Page 157 describes Service Goals and Improvements for the SF Bay Area, specifically:  Improve San Francisco to San Jose corridor capacity through first phase of investments in grade separations, grade crossing improvements, and level boarding at priority locations. And describes that analysis is need to:  Plan for full grade separation and level boarding on corridor between San Francisco and San Jose to improve corridor capacity and safety by 2040.  Assist communities throughout the East Bay, South Bay, Peninsula, and Tri-Valley in better connecting transit systems to rail, and enhancing station area functions.  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:28 PM 3 Note that in the attached CARRD comments (pg 10-11), we advocated for Station Area Planning to be included as part of Palo Alto's criteria since we believe it offers a critical opportunity to attract additional funding from State and regional partners. The State Rail Plan and the SPUR report we cited in our comments support this position. There are 42 remaining grade separations between San Francisco and San Jose that need to be grade separated or eliminated (and more if we consider crossings to Gilroy). In order for Caltrain to run a robust system in the future the entire corridor will require separations. We would like to reiterate our recommendation that the City should be working more closely with Caltrain, Stanford, legislators, CALSTA and the State Rail Plan officials to develop a funding and planning strategy for grade separations along the Caltrain corridor. A patchwork of funding sources will likely be needed to weave together a strategy for funding grade separations in Palo Alto, thus we would urge the City to use our lobbyist in Sacramento to work on this specific issue at this critical juncture. If you have any questions, please let me know. Regards, Nadia Naik CARRD California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group Stacey Mortensen The Honorable Toni G. Atkins Senate President Pro Tern State Capitol Building Room 205 Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Anthony Rendon Speaker of the Assembly State Capitol Building Room 219 Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Patricia Bates Senate Republican Leader State Capitol Building Room 305 Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Brian Dahle Assembly Republican Leader State Capitol Building Room 3104 Sacramento, CA 95813 Dear Honorable Members: Lou Thompson Chairman Martin Wachs March 30, 2018 The California High-Speed Rail Authority's draft 2018 Business Plan marks a critical decision point for high-speed rail in California. Although the Authority's work to date is in accord with earlier program and funding actions by the Legislature, the 2018 draft Plan highlights the fact that there is a continuing and growing funding gap that must be addressed in order to complete service between San Francisco and Bakersfield and eventually to Los Angeles and Anaheim in Phase I of the system. This is only in part because costs have gone up since the 2016 Plan and they may well continue to do so. It is also not surprising that the project schedule has slipped and may well slip further, nor is it unexpected that compromises continue to be made with respect to expected system performance. The table below illustrates the general magnitude and direction of change from Business Plan to Business Plan. Evolution in Capital Costs, System Size and Demand, Revenue and Net Revenue Forecasts (Revenue Projections for the Year 2040 re-stated in 2017$) Capital Cost, Demand and Revenues are Medium Level Estimates Business Ph I Capital Capital Demand Gross Cost($ Miles Cost/Mile Revenue* Plan (Millions) Billions) ($Millions) ($Millions) 2012 61.0 490 124.5 26.4 1,948.5 2014 61.4 490 125.3 34.9 1,766.0 2016 57.9 520 111.3 42.8 2,512.5 2018 draft 67.5 520 129.8 42.0 2,561.0 * Farebox revenue plus ancillary revenue **Gross Revenue minus O&M Costs and ongoing capital replacement ***To be revised in Final 2018 Business Plan Net Ratio: Revenue ** Net/Gross ($Millions) (%) 1,076.3 55.2 843.3 47.8 1,566.0 62.3 1,610.0 62.9 Schedule: SF to LA 3 stops na 3:08 3:10 3:32 *** None of the changes since the 2016 Business Plan are surprises given the history of the project and experience with similar projects worldwide. These patterns result from the enormity and complexity of the project and the inherent uncertainty su!Tounding it. The changes do not necessarily reflect badly on the competence or honesty of management and many of the changes resulted from issues that were highlighted as risks in earlier plans. They follow the well- established trajectory of most mega-projects that start from a grand vision and end up, eventually, forming a more realistic picture of the actual challenges. Public comment is likely to focus on cost escalation, schedule changes, and modifications to system design, but the Peer Review Group would like to highlight questions that are in our opinion more fundamental. The 2018 Plan poses critical questions because it starkly underlines the need for decisions on the future of the program. Growth in expected costs is of concern even before considering the fact that the most complex and costly parts of the construction (tunneling, for example) have yet to be started, and there is an inadequate and uncertain stream of money to finance the project. There has always been a gap that will have to filled from unidentified sources, but earlier Plans held out the hope that there would be a set of construction cost estimates, public financial resources, and operating income projections that would elicit enough private investment to build at least a significant operational part of the system without major additional state or federal grants or loan programs. Our earlier comments noted that the expressions of interest from potential private sector investors had made it clear that an added role of the state in guaranteeing the income flow of the Authority would be needed, no matter what other sources were identified. The Group has comments on the Plan's details attached below, but more importantly we urge the Legislature to respond to the 2018 Plan by focusing instead on the key questions of whether the project should proceed and, if so, what would a revamped project look like and how can it realistically be financed? It will be essential to develop a realistic program of project finance by revenue source and agency (local, state, federal, private) and a realistic discussion of the predictability of funds generation. The Authority can no longer be expected to deliver a project for which the proposed scope is not matched by adequate and reliable funding. The Legislature will need to consider how adequate and reliable funding can be provided if the project is to continue. The issue is two-fold: current funding is not sufficient to complete even the San Francisco to Bakersfield section; and the primary source of added funding -Cap and Trade -is too volatile to support monetization by the private sector except at a high risk premium. The 2018 Plan does not clearly lay out the Legislature's choices or the actions needed to implement the chosen option. This increases the risk that the mismatch between the desired outcome and available funding will continue to grow to the detriment of the project and the state. In broad terms, the choices appear to be: 1. End the project, pay the remaining contractor charges, retain purchased prope1ty for state uses where needed and otherwise sell it or return it to its former owners and scrap any work already done. In practice this would not be practical because the work done so far would have no utility and the federal ARRA money would probably have to be repaid. 2. Complete the existing committed work in the Central Valley and provide connections to the existing San Joaquin service so that use could be made of the investment and the ARRA funding would not need to be repaid. Complete all contracted commitments to local authorities on the Peninsula and in the Los Angeles basin including Phase I environmental clearances. After doing so, end the project. This appears to be the minimum feasible program, though it would leave Cap and Trade appropriations unspent. 3. Complete existing work as described above and, using Cap and Trade receipts provided under current policies, add improvements in electrification from San Jose to Gilroy and upgrade Los Angeles Union Station and the Los Angeles to Anaheim lines. Complete planning and engineering for the Pacheco Pass tunnels and all environmental clearances needed. Defer other commitments for future consideration but continue to pursue potential financial options such as state guarantees of the share and level of Cap and Trade flows. This is basically the program status in the draft 2018 Plan. If the Legislature chooses this approach, it may want to commission a review of the program before authorizing further commitments. 4. Reconfirm the state's commitment to completion of an agreed version of Phase I as contemplated in Proposition IA and provide the Authority with adequate and reliable sources of financing to complete the project. A workable funding plan should be based on the understanding that the project's schedule and costs are likely to change as the project evolves. In considering these options (or others the Governor, Authority or Legislature may define), the Legislature will need to reassess the vision embodied in Proposition I A and the reality it is turning into. If the Legislature opts to continue the project beyond the Central Valley segment and the existing commitments to the bookend areas, it may want to request that a study be commissioned to revalidate the role of high-speed rail in the future transport network of California and reaffirm the priority that transportation, and high-speed rail, have in comparison to other spending needs of the state. This would be especially important if, for example, the Legislature considers changing the share of Cap and Trade receipts dedicated to high-speed rail. An essential element of the study would be a full discussion of the role of high-speed rail withjn the state's overall rail plan and plans for highways and airports. This should also be based on inputs from the Authority's early operator, who could provide more detail and justification for the projections of services and financial/economic performance of the system for the options being considered. As stated in previous letters the PRO believes that rail passenger service, including high-speed rail service, is important to the economic growth of the State and can play a central role in the State's future transport network. Enhanced passenger rail service -high-speed, conventional and commuter -will be needed in California just as it is useful in other regions of the country and around the world. There is little doubt that better rail service can be achieved if the various providers (not just the Authority) are given appropriate policy guidance and financial support. Unfortunately, the high-speed rail program as it is currently defined and financed will not be able to support the role that high-speed rail could have in the state's future transportation system. Please let us know if you have any questions, need any further information, or would like to meet with the Group to discuss this letter. Sincerely, Louis S. Thompson Chairman, California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group cc: Hon. Jim Beall, Chair, Senate Transportation and Housing Committee Hon. Anthony Canella, Vice Chair, Senate Transportation and Housing Committee Hon. Jim Frazier, Chair, Assembly Transportation Committee Hon. Vince Fong, Vice Chair, Assembly Transportation Committee Brian Ennis, Secretary, California State Transportation Agency Mac Taylor, State Legislative Analyst Ken Alex, Director, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Dan Richard , Chair, California High-Speed Rail Authority Brian Kelly, Chief Executive Officer, California High-Speed Rail Authority Members, California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group Detailed Comments Early Operator The draft Plan does not incorporate the input of the early operator recently contracted by the Authority. The Authority states that the early operator will be asked to assess the reasonableness of the cost estimates and ranges presented and "[w]hen that assessment is complete, this information will be publicly available." (page 32 of draft Plan). There are a number of areas where the input and advice of the early operator will be very important, including capital and O&M costs, cash flows and the business model as discussed below. If at all possible, this input should be included in the final 2018 Business Plan. If inclusion in the final Plan is not possible, the Authority should commit to an agreed date when the assessments will be available because the inputs are likely to have a significant impact on the project and this may affect the Legislature's continuing evaluation of the program. Business Model The Authority's discussion of its proposed business model needs better definition and explanation in the final Plan. This is an area in which the early operator will be able to assist based on experience with rail passenger business models elsewhere in the world. For example, the Authority states "The rail infrastructure provider will interface with the system operator and will be responsible for integrating other elements of the high-speed system (high-speed rail trains, civil works and facilities) so that the system works seamlessly. The rail infrastructure provider is intended to be a key long-term partner and also [to] be responsible for maintaining the underlying civil works of the system." (page 27 of the draft Plan) The Authority should elaborate on how this would actually be implemented in practice. Would there be a separate contractor or concessionaire who would own and maintain the infrastructure and charge a fee for use while paying the Authority a fee? How would the charges be established and regulated? How would the various service providers interact with the infrastructure provider? There is no single, "right" answer to these questions, and the business model need not be defined in complete detail, but the Authority needs to present a clear and consistent concept of its business model in order not to make decisions now that wi ll foreclose future choices. Interaction with the Bookend Operators The Authority has decided to expand the blended operations with Caltrain from San Francisco to Gilroy, and with Metrolink from Burbank to Anaheim, an approach that we consider appropriate both because of limited funding, and because this will have significant immediate benefit to current riders. This approach underlines the need for a clear and fully agreed upon set of operating agreements with the two agencies and with the Union Pacific and BNSF railroads. The existing memoranda of understanding have launched the process, but the Authority should move as quickly as possible to convert the general understandings into specific agreements on ownership, rights of access, costs of access, maintenance responsibility, and dispatching and scheduling decisions, among others. The Authority has already seen how negotiations of final agreements with freight railroads tend to increase estimates of cost and schedule. Any added impacts of these agreements with the commuter operators and the freight railroads should be identified and managed as soon as possible. Grade Crossings In prior letters we urged that a broad program of grade crossing elimination be developed. The dangers of the interactions of heavy highway traffic and dense, high-speed, conventional and commuter rail passenger traffic moving through rail/highway grade crossings cannot be overstated. Now that the Plan envisions operation over grade crossings in the San Jose to Gilroy area and plans for joint operations over the grade crossings in the Burbank to Anaheim territory, the need for a program to eliminate grade crossings is even greater. This is not a problem that the Authority alone can or should solve. Resolution will be expensive, it will take time, and there may well be a need for prioritizing of funds by crossing exposure and acceptance of interim solutions. Local governments, the state, Caltrain, Metrolink, the freight railroads and federal authorities all have roles to play. A coordinated program over a reasonable period of time to reduce the danger at grade crossings should be developed and implemented. The Legislature may want to request that Caltrans take the lead in forming such a program. Schedule Trip Time Changes Although Proposition lA required that the system be designed so that a train could run from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2 hours 40 minutes or less, continuing changes in plans, all of which have reduced speeds and increased potential trip times, will make it more difficult to meet this requirement. In past Business Plans, the Authority took the position that the ''pure run time" as reflected in their train performance calculator results indicated that the 2:40 time could be met for a non-stop train from San Francisco to Los Angeles, but none of the planned schedules included non-stop service. The three-stop scheduled trip time from San Francisco to Los Angeles was shown as 2:55 in the 2009 Business Plan (page 66, Table A), 3:08 in the 2014 Business Plan (page 8 of 2014 Service Planning Methodology) and 3: 10 in the 2016 Business Plan (page 5 of 2016 Service Planning Methodology). It is now shown at about 3:30 in the draft 2018 Business Plan (page 5 of 2018 draft Service Planning Methodology) though we have been informed that this will be revised in the final Plan. The proposed schedules must be consistent with the actual demand modeling in the plans in order that the revenue and O&M forecasts will match the conditions needed to fulfill the schedule. At the same time, the revised schedules illustrate the risk of reduction in system performance due to added maximum speed limitations in a number of areas. Overall Variabi1ity A common thread through all our previous letters has been that all of the forecasts of construction cost, O&M costs, revenue and cash flow, and completion schedule should be presented as having a wide range of potential outcomes. The experience gained so far has confirmed this point, as the draft 2018 Plan states. We fully support the Authority's move to show all projections in terms of ranges and not just point estimates. For example, on page 18 there is a discussion of international experience with tunneling without furnishing any information on cost experience. If the Authority is learning from international experience, given the enormous contribution of tunneling to the cost uncertainty of the project, it might be especially helpful to include preliminary insights about the ranges of unit costs from these experiences as compared with the Authority's estimates. The Authority expects to build over 44 miles of tunnels, which is likely the largest single project cost component, so a clearer perspective on the tunneling estimates would help in building confidence the projected costs will fall within the estimates. More broadly, all future projections should acknowledge that costs, revenues, system performance and completion schedules are still subject to a lot of uncertainty, even after the various contingency allowances are applied. Any funding plans for the system should take into account the possibility that the actual outcomes could be at the unfavorable end of projected ranges. Urban/Regional Development and Potential for Value Capture by High-Speed Rail The Draft Business Plan argues (page I) that high-speed rail will contribute to resolving the state's affordable housing problem and repeats the assertion (pages 11-12), under the heading "Benefits to Disadvantaged Communities." High-speed rail is presented as a catalyst for infill development and for sustainable infrastructure that can make communities safer places to live and the Plan suggests that high-speed rail can benefit lower income communities. The Group considers the relationships between the construction of high-speed rail and land use changes near the stations to be a matter of enormous policy significance and notes that this issue receives inadequate attention in the Draft. Our concern is that the claims, though potentially credible, are not supported by evidence. It is possible, as speculated in the draft Business Plan that people will move to lower-cost housing close to stations while working in Silicon Valley or San Francisco. It could equally be argued that high-speed rail will bring urban sprawl to the central valley and will replace inexpensive housing with luxury market rate development. Because of the significance of the issue of the impact of high-speed rail on regional development, we recommend that better and more detailed studies be undertaken before this issue can be resolved with confidence. Similarly, the plan mentions (page 72) the creation of a Transit and Land Use Committee that is pursuing station area development. References appear to the possibility in the future of value capture financing, to the creation of station area development corporations, and to interest in federal programs such as the federal program of "opportunity zones." We do not argue with the potential importance of these possibilities, but they are not well enough defined or established to give us any confidence in their future role. Much more needs to be done before they can be taken seriously as elements of system planning or finance. Data are provided on page 5 to demonstrate that Los Angeles has a serious traffic congestion problem (clearly true). The Authority asserts that high-speed rail will contribute to the alleviation of that problem, even though the plan makes no commitment to initiate service in the coming decades in Southern California and provides no analysis to show the contribution that high-speed rail or mass transit will make in future. The Authority should consider removing this discussion from the final Plan. Exhibit 1.3 compares travel times by automobile, conventional rail, and high speed rail. Air travel should be added in the comparison for longer trips like those between San Francisco and Los Angeles. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:14 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:elizabeth weal <elizabethweal@tenaya.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 6:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please support Affordable Housing Overlay Measure Dear City Council, I am writing to request that you support the Affordable Housing Overlay measure. The imbalances (wealthy and less wealthy/jobs and housing) are obvious to anyone who lives or works in our wonderful city. The overlay is just a small step but it’s an important one. I am hopeful that you will join with others on the Council and lend your support to this critical measure. Sincerely, Elizabeth Weal General: Housing for low-income residents is a high priority as we are far behind in addressing the human challenges facing low and moderate income residents. Housing for low-income residents faces funding, zoning and community challenges and steps like the staff proposed ordinance will go a long way in signaling that housing for low-income residents is welcome in Palo Alto. Other specific points: 1) Support city council's housing priority and goal of permitting 300 units per year. 2) Support the original staff version of the Affordable Housing Ordinance, for 100% affordable projects serving people up to 120% AMI 3) Support proactive long term planning for the next 20+ years by enabling affordable housing on as many sites as possible 4) Affordable housing is a social justice issue - to keep our community open, inclusive, diverse, with people of all ages, professions and abilities 5) Affordable housing is critical to achieving Sustainability & Climate goals (primarily to lower transportation emissions from workers) We have a many lower income workers in our city and people who work these jobs shouldn’t have to drive in from Gilroy or Tracy City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:49 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 10:57 AM To:Aram James; HRC; Council, City; Jonsen, Robert; Perron, Zachary Subject:Re: Body-Worn Camera’s - Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter The entire HRC sadly, has developed what I have coined, an extraordinarily insensitive immune system. “Affluent syndrome” No concept of the disenfranchised and those whom need representation the most. Their individuals lives are clocked and bathed in the almighty 💵 And your right on target Aram, they have no concept of past PAPD brutally. That is why it’s incumbent upon us to remain vocal... Mark Sent from my iPhone On Apr 8, 2018, at 10:29 AM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Mark, Yes, and at least one other female member of the HRC acted and suggested, apparently not knowing of the long vile history of the PAPD’s discriminatory policing, and police brutality, think the Albert Hopkins case, the Jameel Douglas case, and many others, that this department was without sin. Therefore, in her view, not requiring that the PAPD to have a tight due process based, community supported, body-worn camera policy before, not after rolling out the cameras. In addition to a department with a long history of police brutality inflicted on Africa-Americans, Hispanic, and the poor, the PAPD has had several officers accused of sexual assault, and at least one that I can recall, convicted of a sexual assault. To suggest, as this same female HRC member did, that the PAPD does not reflect the national pattern of police abuse against people of color- is to be blind to the reality of this department’s long and dishonorable history of discrimination policing against people of color. Aram P.S. Also think the Jorge Hernandez case where he was subjected to a long and grueling interrogation, filled with police lies and deception, that led him to falsely confessing to a brutal rape of a 90 yr old plus women. After Jorge was jailed for several week, but for a DNA exoneration, he might still be incarcerated. So not only do we need to scrutinize the body worn camera policy, but the PAPD’s current interrogation practices. On Apr 8, 2018, at 9:32 AM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:49 PM 2 Good Job! Along with one at least other Commissioner both felt there were On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote: It all comes together eventually. Bio is impressive but this individual lives in a vacuum and based on his cognitive responses, I believe he’s immune to the horrors and the trama of police brutality...and incapable of demonstrating impartial views... Would make an excellent candidate for Chief Jonsen’s planned Citizens Advisory Group....god help us all..... Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress) 4/8/18, 8:04 AM Predictive response? Perhaps this explains why Mr. Alhassaini heaped nothing but accolades upon the @PaloAltoPolice during a recent controversial meeting on the approval of Body-Worn cameras The V bit.ly/2GHnsQS #PaloAltoNews No exposure to #policebrutality @rjPAPD pic.twitter.com/FjkuKYO Download the Twitter app Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:19 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Erica Brand <erica.w.brand@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 10, 2018 8:29 AM To:Karen Hendricks Cc:Council, City; Police; Berkson, Jerry; Paly Principal; editor@paweekly.com; Tanaka, Greg; Judd Volino; DuBois, Tom; Adam Brand; Mello, Joshuah Subject:Re: PAUSD to grant Easement for City of Palo Alto to begin safety improvements at where Churchill intersects Castilleja Ave. Thank you, Karen. I am correcting Joshuah Mello's email address in the cc chain, and adding a link to this relevant article in the Palo Alto High School Magazine Verde. http://verdemagazine.com/cycles-of-change-city-responds-to-bike-safety-concerns The article describes the Sept. 2016 accident at the same spot and includes the following quotation, which resonates with my family: "However, even more shocking to Chu was that, following the accident, no permanent measures were taken to improve the safety of the intersection." Looking forward to working together to find safer solutions for that busy intersection. Best Regards, Erica Brand On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 8:58 PM, Karen Hendricks <khendricks@pausd.org> wrote: Hi Erica,   Thanks so much for contacting me.  I was terribly sorry to hear about this accident in February, and your daughter’s  injuries.  I can only imagine how scary and impactful this was for her and for your family.   Please know that I’ll review your email thoroughly upon my return to the office this week, and will also share it with  Trustees Ken Dauber and Todd Collins, who are the Board Members assigned to the School / City Liaison Committee.     Sincerely Yours,   Karen City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:19 AM 2   Karen Hendricks Interim Superintendent   OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT 25 CHURCHILL AVENUE PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94306 (650) 329-3983 Please consider the environment before printing this email. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE TO RECIPIENT(S): This e-mail communication and any attachment(s) may contain information that is confidential and/or privileged by law and is meant solely for the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized use, review, duplication, disclosure or interception of this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you received this e-mail in error please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message and any attachment(s) from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.     From: Erica Brand [mailto:erica.w.brand@gmail.com]   Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2018 6:06 PM  To: Karen Hendricks <khendricks@pausd.org>  Cc: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; pd@cityofpaloalto.org; Jerry Berkson <jberkson@pausd.org>; Paly Principal  <palyprincipal@pausd.org>; editor@paweekly.com; greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org; joshua.mello@cityofpaloalto.org;  Judd Volino <kazalino@kazalino.com>; tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org; Adam Brand <adamdbrand@gmail.com>  Subject: PAUSD to grant Easement for City of Palo Alto to begin safety improvements at where Churchill intersects  Castilleja Ave. Dear Superintendent Hendricks, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:19 AM 3 On Feb 12, 2018, my daughter was hit by a car in the crosswalk at the intersection at Churchill and Castilleja Ave, immediately south of the Paly football field. This intersection has been dangerous for a long time. I participated in meetings trying to find a solution in Oct 2016 after another student was hit by a car, and I was left with the understanding that a crossing guard was not possible, but that the City Council would implement specific planned improvements. My daughter suffered road rash, a badly sprained tendon in her ankle, and many cuts and bruises. Her accident could have been far worse, but fortunately when her head hit the ground her helmet protected her head. She cracked a section of that helmet all the way through. My daughter spent 3 hours at Stanford ER, and we have been in and out of doctor’s offices ever since. The accident has had severe effects on her school performance— you know how much homework a Paly sophomore needs to do—and it was incredibly scary. Actions are needed to make this intersection safer for the students who face a high level of traffic, often with no break in the flow of cars. Presently the signage and physical setup does not offer sufficient protection of the students. There have been many discussions and proposals on how to make this busy intersection more safe for the students and commuters who use it daily, including:  Installing a raised crosswalk, with flashing lights  Installing a traffic light  Hiring a crossing guard  Blocking traffic between Castilleja and Alma on Churchill Please see the plans, shared with me by Councilman Dubois’s office, that have been approved since Jan 2015. Please see a link to a descriptive slideset about the intersection. My understanding is that the next step is for PAUSD to grant an easement [for] the CIty of Palo Alto.  Is that correct?  Can it be done by April 30? If not then, when?  If that is not the correct step, please clarify what needs to happen next. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:19 AM 4 How can I help? Let’s work together to fix this before anyone else is hurt. Best Regards, Erica Brand City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:42 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Alan Prowell <alanprowell@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 11, 2018 2:46 AM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Hi there, I reached out last week but haven't heard back so I wanted to try one last time. Is there an opportunity to sponsor a post on Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition? Please see my initial email below. Best wishes, Alan On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Alan Prowell <alanprowell@gmail.com> wrote: Hi there, I reached out last week but haven't heard back. I wanted to see if there was an opportunity to sponsor a post on Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition. Please see my initial email below. Best wishes, Alan On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Alan Prowell <alanprowell@gmail.com> wrote: Hi there, I came across Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition while looking for resources for our next blog and I knew I had to reach out immediately, kudos on a fantastic blog. My name is Alan, and I'm reaching out on behalf of the UK leader in online parking. This month, we're looking to secure sponsorship placements with five prominent blogs and Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition jumped straight to the top of our list. Please let me know if this is something you're interested in discussing further. Kind regards, Alan City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:16 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Amy Sung <amy@amysung.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 7:34 PM To:Council, City Cc:Ryan Carrigan; Amy Sung Subject:Re: Support: Item 7. Affordable Housing Combining District Attachments:Letter to Council for Affordable Housing Overlay attachement.pdf; Letter to Council for Affordable Housing Overlay attachement.pdf Dear Honorable Mayor & Council Members:  I am writing to you to support the Affordable Housing Overlay and I urge you to pass it tonight.  Although I am writing as a resident of Palo Alto, I also work as a Realtor and am intimately familiar with the housing  marketing and its affordability. It is expensive to live in the Bay Area. But how much do you need to earn to live in  the Bay Area? I took the numbers from my trade association, CAR, California Assoc. of Realtors. It is telling us that  the minimum qualifying income to purchase a median priced home of $1,270,000 in Santa Clara county is $256,450.  I challenge all of you to buy a home in Palo Alto at the median price!   Another number we look at is the Affordability index, also compiled by CAR. The index peaked at 2009 when the  economy tanked at 44%. That means 44% of people wishing to buy a home in our county can afford to buy one  back then. The index since decreased steadily into the 30’s, then 20’s. Last year in 2017, Santa Clara county’s  affordability index read 17%.  But why is that? What drives the affordability down really is the steadily deteriorating supply coupled with unmet  demand that propels the fierce competition and therefore the crazy prices we are seeing in the market. Median  sale price for a Palo Alto home was $735,000 in 2001 when a total of 593 homes were sold. Home sales peaked in  2004 when 1,020 homes changed hands at the median price of $841,000. Number of homes never picked up and  remained flat since. Fast forward to 2017, 448 homes were sold at median of $2,675,000.  More people are chasing fewer homes and unless something happens, the constraint of housing supply won’t go  away and the affordability continue to decline. As Mark Twain once said, “Buy land, they’re not making it  anymore,” recognizing the land being the most valuable commodity. I am writing to you to applaud your leadership  of the proposed affordable housing overlay ‐ quell the cost of land value by permitting for greater density of units.  This is truly what our community needs and most of you ran for the office promising affordable housing.  I am so  very pleased to see the proposal on the table and the time for action is now.  Sincerely,  Amy Sung  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:16 AM 2 Enclosure (1)  Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Virus-free. www.avast.com _____________________________________ AMYSUNG 宋慧瑛 Navigate the California Dream with you 買個好家，賣個好價 amy@amysung.com | 650 468 4834 | Pacific Union 1706 El Camino Real | Menlo Park | CA 94025 License# 01436684 On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Ryan Carrigan <rcarrigan@silvar.org> wrote: Dear Mayor and Council, The Palo Alto Local Government Committee of SILVAR has reviewed and discussed the proposed affordable housing combining district ordinance, and supports it as a tool to provide affordable housing and improve housing mobility in our community. The lack of housing inventory is something our REALTOR® members confront every day, and know contributes not just the high cost of ownership, but to renting as well. Furthermore, the lack of housing production in Palo Alto, and across Silicon Valley, has impacted residents of all incomes and occupations and has led to many being priced out of the communities they work or often grew up in. The affordable housing combining district provides flexibility in project guidelines and administrative review for dense, transit-oriented housing proposals, all residents can afford. Increasing density, reducing parking minimums, easing retail and other requirements when projects are proposed in the appropriate underlying zoning areas, will undoubtedly allow greater viability for affordable projects in this market. The underlying zone requirements also limit impacts to single family neighborhoods, while spurring greater use of transit options. This is a crucial component of addressing the housing, transportation, and environmental challenges our region faces, while working to achieve your goals of producing 300 housing units this year. Lastly, we applaud your leadership in taking proactive options to support housing development in a way that is responsive to Palo Alto’s needs. Efforts such as this will contribute to meeting RHNA requirements, and hopefully inspire others in the region to take a more proactive approach even as the state looks to take away your ability to do so. We urge you to adopt this ordinance, and we look forward to working with you to promote housing and homeownership in Palo Alto. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:16 AM 3 Sincerely, Ryan Ryan Carrigan Government Affairs Director Silicon Valley Association of REALTORS® 19400 Stevens Creek Blvd., #100 Cupertino, CA 95014 www.silvar.org Phone: 408.200.0100 Direct: 408.200.0108 Mobile: 510.393.7622 rcarrigan@silvar.org Declining supply soaring price 2001-2017 Search Criteria Time frame is from Jan 2001 to Dec 2017 Postal City is 'Palo Alto' Property Type is 'Residential' Results calculated from approximately 11,000 listings Matrix https://search.mlslistings.com/Matrix/Stats/StatsPrint.aspx?c=AAEAA... 1 of 1 4/9/2018, 6:34 PM City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:21 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Unknown Churchie <brideifchrist@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 10, 2018 2:55 PM To:Susan Lark; Council, City Subject:Re: The PA city council is housing, (domicilo & mangia mangia) Attachments:IMG_20180401_083555805.jpg; IMG_20180401_083612598.jpg On Apr 9, 2018 6:53 PM, wrote: After post communicating with this senior as he played wonderful music on his guitar I closed my eyes saw passed the smell of urine. Then thought housing I am in favor of. Listen to Stanford university radio broadcast. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:14 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Amy Christel <amymchristel@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 6:01 PM To:Council, City; Kou, Lydia Cc:Keene, James Subject:Recommended action regarding aircraft noise and health effects Dear Council Members, I am unable to attend the meeting and comment this evening on the actions being considered by Council related to aircraft over our city. Since summer 2014, I have been studying both commercial jet traffic and private aircraft over our residential neighborhoods. We have data from a sophisticated noise monitor in our yard which confirms what we know—four years later, we have seen no relief from the noise and pollution associated with the roughly 300 aircraft overflights per day. What we do see is a lot of stonewalling by SFO, the airlines, and the FAA— after we patiently invested hours in meetings of the Select Committee. Sadly, we knew the final recommendations of that committee we would not provide Palo Altans any relief. I encourage litigation on the part of the City, as well as greater pressure on our Congressional Representative to hold the FAA accountable (by withholding funding) and by using legislative power to better regulate aircraft. Regarding proposals before the City: Noise monitors: if provided by SFO they will likely be useless to Palo Alto. What is the goal? Past use of SFO monitors in other communities find no significant noise impact—because of the crude DNL/CNEL metrics used to analyze the raw data. PA should require access to the raw data and supply that data to citizens to correlate with actual aircraft overflights. Each overflight event needs to be assessed for noise impact in excess of the ambient noise levels between overflights. Airbus Retrofits: The FAA rejected the Select Committee’s recommendation to require the retrofit of Airbus jets that emit a horrible whining howl as they descend over PA. They said it is not within their power to require airlines to spend $3000 to install “vortex generators” in order to spare thousands this irritating disruption day and night. The City should sue the airlines flying these Airbus jets over us, and require them to complete those retrofits within a year’s time. This is simple and it would eliminate a huge part of the noise without relying on any complicated route or procedural changes! The City could also pressure Congress to legislate this simple equipment change, which is what they did in Europe. Arrivals from the North, turning over PA: The “concession” by the FAA and SFO regarding the BDEGA arrivals, which promises to maximize use of the East leg (over the Bay) vs. the West leg (over us) during overnight hours, is not real. The east leg is not being used during overnight hours! And arrivals from the north are not even the bulk of our overnight flights—most of which come from the south or west. Data? On April 9, there were 37 aircraft overflights affecting our midtown home between midnight and 7 am. Only 9 of those 37 were SFO arrivals using the BDEGA route (one at 12:05 am and eight more between 5:53am and 7am) and not one of those arrivals used the BDEGA east leg (Bay) approach to SFO! All turned over our homes at altitudes between 3500 ft and 5300 ft. en route to SFO. The bulk of last night’s disturbances (28/37) were from other routes: the South (10), West (14), or GA to SUMC or SQL(4). What we really need is a nighttime curfew at City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:14 AM 2 SFO and Oakland, or barring that, altitude minimums of 6000 ft over homes during overnight hours. More City pressure on Congress and the airports? The Elephant in the Room: How is it that PACC and City staff refuse to acknowledge the contribution of PAO and SQL to our noise problem? Those 60+ GA noise events each day are louder and more polluting per over fight. The City is using our tax dollars to prop up PAO, so we pay for the privilege of being hammered with noise in our homes, at the Baylands Park and at all open space parks along the peninsula. This is not a “sustainable” operation and yet the City chooses to ignore the airport’s carbon and pollution impacts. What can you do to minimize the PAO impact on our communities? How about hosting a conversation with the residents about PAO? Thank you for considering actions that will actually help alleviate aircraft disturbances and the associated health risks. Sincerely, Amy Christel Midtown PA Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:50 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Philip Levy <levy24@comcast.net> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 12:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Ross and Moreno construction – please STOP I am very concerned about driver and cyclist safety on this project - please stop immediately. I am not the only one who has concerns. Let’s not wait for someone to be killed or critically hurt before something is done about this. Thank you for your time, Philip Levy levy24@comcast.net 650-533-6625 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:47 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Soudy Khan <s@vpd.me> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 9:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Ross Road Dear Sir or Madam:    Can someone show me the data on how Ross Road is safer now that you’ve removed a great deal of parking on the  street, forced cars closer to bicycles, and added pillow speed bumps that only encourage cars to drive down the center  of the street?     I have lived on this street for 40 years. I’ve biked and driven on this street for over 30 years. I have consulted in human  factors to the US Military via a top military contractor and been a Director level consultant to one of the big three auto‐ makers where in part my focus was on safety.     I await your reply.     Best,     Soudy       City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:50 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Carol Kenyon <carolskenyon@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 12:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Ross Road Dear City Council Members     The bulb outs and round abounds recently installed on Ross Road are an absolute danger both to bikes and cars.  These  ideas are completely misconceived.  Round abouts are very effective where space is very generous but that is not the  case on these intersections on Ross Road. Making Ross Road a bike boulevard is also misconceived as Ross is a dead end  street at Oregon.    I attend the YMCA 3 days a week and travel on Roos.  The north entrance to the “Y”  Is dangerous especially after dark.   These bulb outs make driving very difficult to enter the parking lot not to  mention at a time of day when many school  children are biking to school.    The community is outraged about these changes i.e. the number of letters written in both  papers and on line.  I do hope  these problems can be remedied as soon as possible.    A Palo Alto Resident concerned about safe driving.    Carol Kenyon  Walter Hays Drive  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:50 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:suekemp@AOL.com Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 1:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:Ross Road Members of the Council, The Ross Road bulb-outs are a huge nuisance, and, I think, dangerous for bikers, not protective. And oh yes, ugly, too, even with the drought tolerant plants . . . Please don't do that on any other bike road. I live two doors from Bryant, and I don't want those awful things in my neighborhood. Sue Kemp 271 Seale Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:52 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Sebastian Andreatta <sebandrpa@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 4:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Ross road bulbouts Please please reassess this work.  These bulbouts are now forcing bikes to merge into cars ‐ this is a truly terrible idea ‐  I’ve already witnessed kids and cars getting extremely close at each intersection on Ross.    Why could you have not just paint a bike lane on one side of the street and restrict parking to the other side.  That  would have been WAY cheaper, and WAY safer.  The community is now at risk of a serious accident ‐ these things are  not helping they are encouraging worse driving behavior by people racing to get through the bulbouts before an  incoming vehicle does.    Terrible Idea ‐ on my block we are now organizing to make sure come voting time that responsible people are placed on  the council.    Sebastian Andreatta  856 Richardson Ct.  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:54 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Sunita Verma <thufan@me.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 5:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:Ross Road Construction Hello,    Please stop the construction on Road Road. It has become dangerous for children biking to school and confusing for cars.    I would appreciate if you could take out the round about or at minimum make it smaller for safety along with taking out  the extension from the YMCA coming onto the road that are dangerous for strollers, someone with a walker and for  pedestrians.  They all have to wait for the cars to go now. How sad!    Thank you.   Sunita Verma    Sent from my iPhone  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:52 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Ellen Loebl <eclnew150@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 3:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Ross Road Construction Please reconsider the roundabouts and the other construction barriers. They are really confusing and they narrow the roadway, which means cars, bicycles, and sometimes pedestrians are competing for narrow space. I would also like to see the schools do some education on how to ride safely in that area. I am a frequent pedestrian and driver on that road and most other roads in Palo Alto. Since bikes are riding in all the wrong directions and on sidewalks, the likelihood of accidents has increased greatly. I'd also like to see greater enforcement before something bad happens. Thank you. Please write me back. Ellen Loebl 408 857 6795 737 Loma Verde Ave. #7 Palo Alto 94303 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:44 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Andrea Gandolfo <amgando@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 11, 2018 8:56 AM To:Council, City Subject:Ross Road early adopter Dear City Council, This morning I walked around the corner to Ramos Park to offer my support and gratitude for all the changes on my street. One of the volunteers asked me to send my message on to all of you. I bought my house on Ross 25 years ago and ever since we have wanted traffic calming. While I know that was not the main focus of all the work, it has addressed my concerns. I raised two daughters on Ross, who both walked or road their bikes to school. When they were in elementary school they used to take yellow duct tape and write "SLOW DOWN" in the middle of Ross in front of our house. I am sad that so many people seem to have strong negative opinions about the bike boulevard, without giving it time to see how it works. I believe I was given information of the construction in advance, but I read my mail and was predisposed to want the changes. These types of projects do require more visibility to help those who struggle with change, but other than that you won't ever be able to make everyone happy. I expect with time and education people will come to realize that cyclists and motorist are safer, being slowed down by all the bulb outs, roundabouts and speed bumps. Many thanks and hang in there! Andrea Mohr Gandolfo 3615 Ross Road City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:46 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:bcm246@aol.com Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 7:28 AM To:Council, City Subject:Ross Road mess The City is making it more dangerous to drive, bike or even walk. Check out the mess at the Y with the narrow in and  outs, bicycle riders moving out to the middle of the street to ride, and even talking about more table taking over  sidewalks in the downtown area. When I grew up you quickly learned the streets were for cars and to be careful, ride  you bike close to the curb, being careful and you were able to walk on the sidewalks without tables and chairs outside  restaurants (do they pay rent on our sidewalks), not to mention the dogs on leashes tied up to the legs of the tables.  Consider the safety of the majority of the people. In our super senior years it is becoming very scary to move around the  area.    Bonnie Miller    Sent from my iPad    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:51 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Kirk Fry <kirkfry@msn.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 2:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Ross Road "safety improvements" Dear Council Members:    I live on the corner of Ross and Moreno and I can sit at my kitchen table and observe the traffic at the new  “roundabout.”  I was the lone citizen that protested the first design contract (you might remember me,  I was the first to  speak) for the project all those many years ago.  I had about 10 reasons why the proposed plan was a bad idea.  I got to  about reason 3 before I got yanked off the microphone, for the 50 or bicycle coalition folks (the spandex crowd) that  thought this was greatest idea since sliced bread.  Almost none of these folks even live in Palo Alto, let alone have kids  that ride on Ross.  Once the design contract was approved it was a done deal.    All those 10 reasons why this project is a bad design are still valid.  You have by now probably heard all of them.  To me  the most important one is that no one seems to know what problem was/is being solved.  Ross worked fine.  It certainly  does not fix our traffic problem.  Kids were not being run down by cars.  Who first said this is a GREAT IDEA?    Are there  any measurable criteria to see if it accomplishes anything?  Getting a few more bikes to ride on Ross is not success.      I will end with one story about what I observed about an hour ago.  Remember I have a ringside seat to the  “roundabout”.  This morning a lady with a stroller and a small child walking beside her came down Moreno going east on  the right sidewalk.  She got to the corner and maneuvered the stroller and small child down over the high curb into the  traffic lane.  She then proceeded to walk slowly  in the traffic lane around the flower bed to the far corner.  While she  was walking two cars came up behind her and were going slow enough to avoid hitting her.  This could have had a far  different outcome.  This is exactly why small traffic circles are dangerous.  It is not obvious to pedestrians and bikers as  to how to use them.  If you have to read the manual it is a fail.    I am not sure what you can do about the mess already built, but you can sure stop ripping up more of our streets for ill‐ defined and unmeasurable goals.    Kirk Fry  2604 Ross Rd  Palo Alto, CA 94303       Sent from Mail for Windows 10    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:47 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:LOUIS FRIED <llfried@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 9:20 AM To:Council, City Subject:Ross Road Please stop construction  of these traffic hazards immediately and remove the atrocities already committed.  Louis Fried  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:17 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 10:03 PM To:leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique Cc:Council, City Subject:Share your thoughts on Palo Alto City Library’s Strategic Plan (2018-2020) Monique: What marketing crap! You are a disgrace to Palo Alto and our Constitution. Everyone, who knows your values and actions, wants your resignation. -DM On Monday, April 9, 2018, Palo Alto City Library <noreply@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Dear Library Customer, I would like to thank you for your continued support for the Palo Alto Library. After the renovation of our library buildings, based on your feedback, the library developed a Strategic Plan in 2015. Library Staff have been working hard to create and present interesting collections, services and programs based on the mission, values and goals of the plan. As part of our planning cycle, the Library will be revisiting our strategic plan and the survey will ask your opinion of our revised version. In addition, we are reaching out to you to seek feedback on our collections, programs and services. This short survey will be available on the library website to gather feedback about programs, services, and facilities. The survey may be accessed here and will be available from the 9th to 21st of April. I look forward to hearing from you! Monique le Conge Ziesenhenne Library Director City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:17 AM 2 Palo Alto City Library 270 Forest Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2436 https://library.cityofpaloalto.org/ If you would like to unsubscribe from these emails, click here. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:42 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:George Jaquette <jaquette@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 05, 2018 10:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Small low-speed roundabouts increase bicycle accidents - why are we building them? Since at least one member of the city council has said that they cannot read NextDoor, I'll repost here. THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS SPENDING MONEY MAKING OUR STREETS MORE DANGEROUS FOR BICYCLISTS I was somewhat relieved to see the city's announcement that they have heard the community's concerns and are willing to accept outside expert advice on our experimental design. But I also noted that Granite Construction is building another mini-roundabout with a raised island at the corner of Ross and Moreno, despite the community's near-universal rejection of the intersection at East Meadow and Ross Road. There are many more of these mini-roundabout experiments planned in the city's bike boulevard project, which is why it is so important that we stop and consider the results of the currently built intersections. Call me weak, but I decided to spend $50 to buy the most recent research articles on bike safety in roundabouts (and yes, ours are not roundabouts -- they are mini-roundabouts that violate the rule that all islands should be traversable). There is a study of 255 intersections in Denmark that were converted to roundabouts, and surprisingly ... there is a 122% increase in bike accidents in 25-mph roundabouts. The danger is even higher for small roundabouts (with islands smaller than 60-feet), and worse when the island is short (under 6-feet). So there is no real way around the fact that the city is spending money making our streets more dangerous for our bicycle riders, especially our young and inexperienced riders. I'll quote (since most of you will probably choose not to spend $50): "converting intersections to roundabouts reduce the number of accidents and reduce accident severity. But the safety effects for cyclists are not so good. The overall picture is that studies indicate that bicycle safety is worsened when intersections are converted to roundabouts. However, intersection design, roundabout design and other characteristics of converted sites influence safety effects for cyclists and other road users. This influence is considerable and safety effects in Table 1 should not be generalised due to excessive heterogeneity (Jensen, 2013)." Table 1 shows a 22% increase in bicycle accidents. The increase in bicycle accidents is especially high in lower-speed intersections. Table 2 shows a 109% increase in bicycle accidents for intersections with a speed limit of 25 mph (40 kmh). Last but not least, the report calls out small roundabouts as dangerous: "Brude and Larsson 1999a find that the accident rate for cyclists is twice as high at small roundabouts, where the central island including truck aprons is less than 20m, compared to larger roundabouts". Taken together, the city of Palo Alto has decided to embark on a construction experiment that essentially ensures more bike accidents ... in pursuit of a more bike-friendly community. I really cannot wrap my mind around citing the reduction in dangerous car accidents as the reason for spending $9.2 million to make our streets less safe for bikers. But that is what we have done. The article is titled: Accident Analysis and Prevention Safe Roundabouts for Cyclists by Soren Underlien Jensen published September 13, 2016 -- George Jaquette email: jaquette@gmail.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:56 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:aram james <abjpd1@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 11:55 PM To:dcbertini@menlopark.org; citycouncil@menlopark.org; Jonsen, Robert; Council, City; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; HRC; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Binder, Andrew; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; swagstaffe@smcgov.org; myraw@smcba.org; bos@smcgov.org; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; Keene, James; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Kilpatrick, Brad; Lee, Craig; Kan, Michael; mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; Watson, Ron; rpichon@scscourt.org; dryan@scscourt.org; bwalsh@scscourt.org; sscott@scscourt.org; mharris@scscourt.org; jseybert@redwoodcity.org; jsylva@scscourt.org; Perron, Zachary; sdremann@paweekly.com; 51swampdog@gmail.com; Kniss, Liz (internal); council@redwoodcity.org; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; sukiroo@hotmail.com Subject:Stephon Clark and the Golden State’s Shameful Secret https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/opinion/sunday/stephon‐clark‐california‐police‐racism.amp.html      Sent from my iPhone  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:13 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:John Perry <jpfrlg@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 4:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:STILL too much jet noise after 3/29 ground track change Dear Councilmembers, As a resident of Skyline Blvd (not Palo Alto proper) I looked forward to the March 29 ground-track change with great anticipation. While the noise problem has improved somewhat, the noise levels, frequency of overflights and times of intrusive overflights remain quite high. In particular, I still hear frequent overflights between the hours of 10pm and 1am. I am somewhat baffled by the continuing frequent overflights; I would have expected that moving the ground track to its old location would have displaced vectored flights commensurately, offering an immediate and tangible difference to longsuffering residents who have been victimized by the SERFR STAR debacle. Instead, I've noticed perhaps only a 30 percent drop in the unwelcome, frequent overflights that have punctuated my working and sleeping hours for several years now. I can only hope that the restoration of the ground track is a staged effort that is not yet complete, because current noise levels are not even remotely close to the peace and quiet that currently affected neighborhoods enjoyed for decades prior to the SERFR STAR change. When I purchased my home about 15 years ago, I heard perhaps three flights per YEAR; now a "good" day is when I hear less than twenty per DAY. Even after the March 29 change, I have experienced multiple days on which I reported over forty flights. Please note that these numbers are artificially low because I have had to resort to wearing earplugs in order to sleep past 5:30 am... this while reporting flights as late as 1 or 2 am from my cell phone in bed. Guess what? You can't sleep when you have to wake up to report an overflight! But what choice do I have if I want this problem to go away? DNR monitoring of noise is absolutely ineffective to the point of being ludicrous - since the ground track change, I seem to hear MORE flights between 10pm and 1am. If someone thinks that's OK, they need to rethink. Now. I'd like to close with a big THANK YOU for your efforts to combat this most unwelcome intrusion, and to ask you to pass along to the FAA that they need not pat themselves on the back too hard with regard to any of their efforts to clean up the mess that they created SOLELY through a combination of colossal incompetence (really? NO consideration of noise impact?) and stunning lack of consideration for the residents of Bay Area communities. Best Regards, John Perry Los Gatos, 95033 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 2:00 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Megan Martin Strickland <martin.megs@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 8:41 AM To:Council, City Subject:Stop construction Ross and Moreno is so safe. We own a house in Palo Alto and I have two small children. If Palo Alto continues to not  protect children, we will move. This is absurd.     Megan Martin Strickland  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:53 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Sheri Ann Cox <shericox@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 4:55 PM To:Council, City Cc:Sheri Cox Subject:STOP THE MADNESS - ROSS ROAD TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES Importance:High To Palo Alto City Council Members: I am writing to share with you that I have witnessed many distressing incidents at the intersection of East Meadow and Ross Road. These “traffic calming measures” have proven to be extremely dangerous for all of us; especially our children and the many elderly drivers in Palo Alto. Do any one of you actually care that this very dangerous situation is ruining our neighborhoods and our quality of life? STOP THE MADNESS! Sheri Ann Cox|shericox@icloud.com|650.387.0786 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:40 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> Sent:Thursday, April 05, 2018 6:24 PM To:letters@paweekly.com Cc:Council, City; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; chuck jagoda; Ruth Chippendale; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; M. Gallagher Subject:survey on elder transportation The resources of the elderly are diminished, but so are their transportation needs. No job means little or no income, but also no daily commute. No car or inadequate vision means no garage and parking needs. The problem is getting enough people together to maintain a car and hire a driver, which can be done either by bringing in or sending out. For bringing in, some destination sends out a car, minivan or bus, collects people from their home and brings them to the destination. For instance the Palo Alto Medical Foundation might coordinate appointments so that everybody from South Palo Alto would come on Monday adding in a drop-ff at the library and downtown, everybody from west Palo Alto would come on Tuesday, and so forth. LaComida would pick up at various bus stops, the YMCA, the library. The churches, also, could pick up worshippers. Lectures and seminars, especially paid ones, could easily send out a car or van to pick up attendees. The most efficient solution would be to gather together several hundred seniors and disabled adults who do not drive, or do not have a car, or, at least don't need to use the car so frequently that they need it nearby, in a very nice hotel with attractive landscaping,(( which would be a visual asset to any neighborhood. Each person would have 200 square feet, comprising a bedroom and bath, with shared amenities such as a pool, workshop, computer room, or gym, such as might be found in a hotel, and, on the ground floor, compatible publicly accessible features such as a subsidized senior nutrition program like La Comida, child care, elder care, a coffee shop.)) A van would be always available to take residents to the train, the bus, or any nearby destination, and the cost, shared among so many, would be negligible. Stephanie Munoz.248-1842 101 Alma, Palo Alto I am 85 and have had my driver's license suspended. I'd be glad to augment this with my transportation experiences recently. The part describing the desirability of the hotel arrangement is, I realize, superfluous for this transportation survey; I added it so as to show that this living arrangement could be acceptable to well-to-do elderly downsizing from a luxury home, as well as to those priced out of the market. The relevant information is the clustering to provide density which makes shared transportation economically feasible. You are welcome to cut this as you like, or I can cut it if you want. SM City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:19 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 10, 2018 9:08 AM To:Council, City Subject:Thank you for demonstrating incredible leadership and courage in supporting affordable housing last night Honorable Liz Kniss, Mayor Honorable Eric Filseth, Vice Mayor Honorable City Council Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto CA 94301 Re: April 9, 2018, Special Meeting, Agenda Item 7 Dear Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Filseth, and City Council Members, Thank you very much for listening to the community last night, for recognizing that policy changes are necessary to preserve the most important values of our community, and for taking decisive action to begin to address the housing crisis in Palo Alto. 1. You listened to the community. As many speakers made clear during the public hearing, people throughout Palo Alto have suffered for many years because too few homes have been built in Palo Alto that people of all income levels can afford. 2. You understood that actual change is necessary. It has been nearly a decade since the Palo Alto City Council has approved a new affordable housing project. You acknowledged that diversity of many kinds — including income diversity — is an important value in our community, but you didn’t stop there. You did not rest after merely articulating that value. Instead, you went on to acknowledge that something needed to be done to protect and to advance that value. You recognized that current zoning laws have been overly restrictive and needed to be changed through concrete legislative initiatives. 3. You took action. Last night, by a 7-2 vote, you demonstrated that you truly care about the needs of all members of our community. A strong majority of the City Council took the first steps to forge powerful new tools that will allow Palo Alto Housing and other groups to build the broad range of more reasonably priced homes that individuals and families throughout Palo Alto need. On the 124th anniversary of Palo Alto’s incorporation, you celebrated some of the best parts of Palo Alto’s heritage. As one speaker observed last night, in decades past Palo Alto has been recognized as a leader in affordable housing. In the future, we can do even better. You demonstrated great leadership and courage by City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:19 AM 2 doing more than simply saying that you support affordable housing: you took decisive action to begin to actually address the housing crisis in Palo Alto. Thank you very much for doing the right thing last night. Respectfully submitted, John Kelley City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:40 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Elaine Uang <elaine.uang@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 10, 2018 8:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Thank you for passing the affordable housing overlay! Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council Members, Thank you VERY MUCH for showing serious leadership and true courage last night (er, this morning) by passing the Affordable Housing Overlay! As the housing shortage becomes more and more acute, your actions demonstrates how serious you are about helping the members of our community who make less than 120%AMI. Hoping this action leads to several 100% BMR project proposals in the coming months. Many thanks again for making this happen! Elaine Uang Kipling St. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:18 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:amy sung <amyconnect@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 10, 2018 2:18 AM To:Council, City Cc:Amy Sung Subject:Thank you- housing affordability overlay Dear Mayor and Council members ,    With a great joy, I want to thank you for listening to the community, thoroughly debating the all important housing  affordability overlay, and took a bold action of making it a reality for our great city of Palo Alto. It’s a sweet victory of all  Palo Altoans who pride themselves as being progressive and compassionate.    This is an great first step towards making Palo Alto a place that promises inclusion and diversity.     I applauded your leadership and the desire to make a difference for our city. Hope is a wonderful thing.    Thank you!    Amy Sung        Sent from my iPhone  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:41 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 05, 2018 10:29 PM To:Stop the Ban Google Discussion Group; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Chris Richardson; dprice@padailypost.com Subject:The world has changed https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/03/23/25950929/seattles-new-normal-homelessness-is- now-normal Chuck City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:41 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:George Jaquette <jaquette@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 11, 2018 2:27 AM To:Council, City; Mello, Joshuah Cc:De Geus, Robert; Shikada, Ed; Gaines, Chantal; Zhang, Wei (FHWA); Star-Lack, Sylvia Subject:Traffic analysis data Josh- On Friday it will have been four weeks since I requested the traffic analysis data for the intersection at East Meadow Road and Ross Road, in writing and in person, required under contract from Alta Design. Specifically, I asked you to provide data that was due from your former employer (under contract). To be precise, that data is: Traffic data collection will be conducted by the CONSULT ANT upon approval by CITY, and is anticipated to include: • Seven days of vehicle speed and classification hose counts along each project route (up to 15 locations) • Seven days of bicyclist and pedestrian counts using video including information on directionality, for each project, one coW'I.t will include approximate information regarding bicyclist type (age, gender, helmet use)‐ (up to 15 locations) · • Where appropriate, intersection peak hour turning movement counts (up to 16 total) My understanding from the California Public Records Act is that you should have provided this information to me within ten business days. If you do not intend to provide this data, you must have a legal reason to support your decision. Please let me know why you have not provided this data to me;. My further understanding is that the outside expert analysis and review that was announced publicly two weeks ago by Mr. De Gues (March 30th) is pending this same data. We are fortunate that an expert like Dr. Wei Zhang from the Federal Highway Administration is willing to provide his input, and it is disappointing that you cannot provide him the traffic analysis data and the engineering design from the newly built construction so that he can help us address the safety issues that have resulted from this design. Since we all agree that safety is the primary issue, and research shows that bicycle accidents increase when a small mini-roundabout at low traffic speeds replaces an intersection with four stop signs, this truly is a matter of urgency. You are on record as believing that this mini-roundabout with a raised island conforms to engineering design standards (against all printed guidelines), where many parents (856 and counting) believe it is dangerous -- it is critical that this data be shared as soon as possible. Please let me know when this data will be made available to me and to the FHWA expert, or explain the delay. My children ride through this intersection twice every day, and my concern and my interest have not faded in the least with the announcement that we are slowing down further construction. I care a great deal about the dangerous interaction between cars and bikes at the intersection of East Meadow and Ross Roads. Since the new construction (concrete experiment that does NOT conform to mini-roundabout guidelines) at Moreno and Ross is continuing, I expect you will find another 800 unhappy Ohlone parents with this new danger to their commuting children (unsafe experiments masquerading as mini-roundabouts). The city council WILL hear residents disappointment, now or at the next election. Choose to be on the right side of that vote City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:41 AM 2 (stop digging, redesign these unsafe intersections), and ensure our children are safe riding their bikes to school every day. 44% of 12,000 kids is 5,000 kids on bikes every day. Do NOT let the parents of Palo Alto down. So really, when can we get the data? George -- George Jaquette email: jaquette@gmail.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:30 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Amy Keohane <amykeohane@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 04, 2018 4:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:Water rates The new proposed water rates are out of hand.  Shall we start using water again so the rate doesn't go  up?  Thank you Councilman Sharff for your concern.  Our Palo Alto rates use to be the best around but it  seems that they are higher than PGE.  Stop with all the increases!!!!!!!!!    Amy Keohane  650‐346‐5306  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/9/2018 1:55 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 08, 2018 6:55 PM To:Kniss, Liz (internal); chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; Council, City; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; citycouncil@menlopark.org; council@redwoodcity.org; bos@smcgov.org; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com Subject:Who caused the housing shortage? Follow the link below to view the article. mercurynews.ca.newsmemory.com/publink.php?shareid=002a8cae8 Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:18 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:lxy66@163.com Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 11:15 PM To:Council, City Dear City Council,    I found that there is a Wilton court project with a very limited parting. I as a resident of Palo Alto would urge the city to  raise the parking numbers of the project. My family go to Hong Kong Restaurant at Wilton and always have trouble to  find parking. A new project with limited parking makes the street more crowded and unsafe. Kids won’t bike safely  around the town.    So pls ask the developer to add more parking spots. It’s unfair to put the pressure to Wilton resident to take the traffic  jam.    Danny Liu  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/11/2018 10:23 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 10, 2018 3:10 PM To:Council, City Cc:Stump, Molly; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary Subject:"would .... flip the predominant context of covered parking ... from 'rear' to 'front.'" My remarks of last night follow.  ‐Fred Balin 4/10/18  Good evening,  Three weeks ago, at the zoning‐code‐update continuation, here, with five councilmembers present, this body clarified  that contextual placement of covered parking on an R‐1 lot applies to carports as well as garages.  Three years prior, in 2015, Planning Commissioner Michael Alcheck, successfully utilized that ambiguity to convince the  city to permit him to build carports in the front of two lots in which he had a material, financial interest.   Somehow in this exception process:  ‐ The city allowed him to build, what the existing code and any reasonable person would see, were garages without car  doors.  ‐ The city failed to recognize or inform, that their permission to allow the demolition of a garage in the rear of each lot to  be replaced with a parking structure in the front, would, in fact, flip, … flip the predominant context of covered parking  on each block from “rear" to “front”.  ‐ And the city failed to bring forth an ordinance in a timely manner to prevent Commissioner Alcheck from fully enclosing  these parking structures as garages, and with it, a significant financial gain.  Just as the council, three weeks ago, began a process to prevent this occurrence in the future, so could have the  Planning & Transportation Commission when staff brought forth its clarifications to close the carport‐in‐the‐front  loophole.   First, in 2015, with his projects just starting, when Commissioner Alcheck, neither disclosed the nature of his interest or  recused himself, but rather participated and successfully pushed discussion of the item off the table.   And then last year, when no permit had been issued for his application to convert each carport to a garage, he neither  disclosed his interest nor recused himself from the commission hearings.   With all due respect to the city attorney, residents looking into this, see these as both legal and ethical violations. And so  we continue to seek out and receive new information, including via public records, and to assess it, to further flesh out  and clarify the points at issue.  This is not a minor matter, nor one that can successfully be pushed under the rug.   We again ask that you take appropriate action.  Thank you.  S3 -SENIOR SITE COMMERCIAL -VIEW FROM CHANNING S1 -SENIOR SITE RESIDENTIAL LOBBY -VIEW FROM NORTH ON ALMA --------------·-------------~--·--- Palo Alto Family & Senior Housing Eden Housing and Community Housing Alliance 801 and 875 Alma Street, Pelo Alto Illustrations P11j1cl Na. lllilD •••NOT FOR •00 CONSTRUCTION 2 \1.., .. ,. ........ r,•.-llro.rf•1·-. ... ......... M -........... O ........... ....... • ••• ~,, '" .... ••,•• ...... I ...... •o ........... . ------------------PRELIMINARY ARB 10/20/08 ·-----------·-----------·-------·-----. F3 -FAMILY SITE -VIEW FROM NORTH ON ALMA F4 -FAMILY SITE -VIEW FROM SOUTH ON ALMA April 9, 2018 Comment on Potential Litigation: ~=--~COlnJNC~ ~NG r ~l--t13ft"l> __ _ f'"l [ ] ~l Before Meeting ·r.·of.! [ yR1;.ceived at Meeting Residents of Palo Alto are facing "death by increments" as a result of failure to challenge the Environmental Assessment for the FAA's 2014 NextGen project. By not challenging that 2014 EA, impacts allowed at that time become the baseline for further changes by FAA, and adjustments to flight procedures will be justified by the FAA as "no big change" or "no impact". To quote from the Southern California cities' Petition for Review, the FAA is at fault in "failing and refusing to include in its purported "cumulative impact" analysis the numerous "past, present, and reasonably foreseeable" future projects " Without accurate assessment of environmental impacts to provide an acceptable baseline for future procedures, there is no way for FAA to measure or consider the consequences of their actions, or provide justification for less harmful alternatives. The goal of mitigation efforts should be to ensure that absolute levels of aircraft noise and frequency of noise disturbances are reduced to or below an agreed upon historical baseline. Two years ago 6 Peninsula cities wrote to Representatives Eshoo and Farr to ask that 2006 be the baseline for FAA actions. Even before N extGen changes started to impact many Bay Area communities in early 2015, earlier changes by the FAA to air traffic practices began impacting some communities well before then. Given improvements in aircraft and navigation systems since 2006 it should be possible to reduce aircraft noise below 2006 levels. Accurate flight data exist back to 2006 for noise modeling purposes. Do not let Palo Alto be the boiled frog in the escalating heat of FAA procedures. Take legal action now to protect Palo Alto's future. Briggs Nisbet 864 Rorke Way, Palo Alto Closed Session -potential litigation April 9, 201 Dear Council Members, My name is Marie-Jo Fremont, a Palo Alto resident since 1993. Thank you for taking the time to hold a closed session to discuss potential litigation in regards to airplane noise. Litigation is indeed a tool that our City should be ready to use if necessary. It is an additional mechanism to pressure the FAA to solve the severe noise problem they created when they deployed NextGen without taking into account the people living on the ground. Why consider litigation? 3 reasons: • It matters. Litigation is something that the FAA pays attention to. • Cities who have filed seem to be getting results (for instance, Newport Beach, Burien, Phoenix). In contrast, after almost 2 years since the Select Committee was created, the FAA has not endorsed or offered any solution that will substantially reduce noise for residents living near the MENLO waypoint. • Cities are much more powerful than individual residents, especially when Cities join forces. Some Portola Valley residents lost the only lawsuit that was filed against the FAA in our area. They did the best they could under the 60-day FAA deadline. Things have also changed. Multiple cities are also exploring possible litigation (Pacifica, Santa Cruz, Half Moon Bay). Palo Alto is not alone. You must be ready to act if necessary. Easier said than done given that filing must occur within 60 days of the FAA implementing a change. Miss the deadline and the court will reject the claim -this just occurred for the Citizen's Association of Georgetown. During that 60-day window, one needs to detect the change, validate it, quickly assess its impact, and then file. Multiple non-legal things must happen before Legal can file. I call this the qualification phase. Staff must be leading that part to prepare the grounds for the Legal team to act if necessary. Thank you again for all your efforts. j 1nbox Unread Starred Drafts Sent Archive Spam Trash Less Views Photos Documents Travel Coupons Tutonals Folders +New Folder b 129 Hide Hide Find messages, documents, photos or people Dally l1!POft aumma +-Back ~ • • ii Archive 11 MO'lle ii Delete 0 Spam .... x Daily report summary for Richard staehnke Yahoo/In box reportllrllctje.net <reportersOjetnoise.net> To: rs1fish0yahoo.com Apr 6 at 12:42 AM Hello, Richard staehnke I All of these cornplalnts have already been auto-submitted to SFO, so please do not forward this 91T1811 to sfo.noise -they already have them all I This is a list of 66 reports relating to jets on flight paths for SFO, SJC and OAK. Where possible, the aircraft were identified via ffightradar24.com. My details: Caller code: Name : Richard staehnka Address : 3273 Ramona Street, Palo Alto, CA, United Stata1 The 66 reports: Thu, Apr 05, Flight AAS015 [LAX-SFOJ (E75l; speed: 178 knots, altitude: 3856.2811944 11:18 PM ft, distance: 10 KM) •s1eep• was disturbed. Thu, Apr 05, Fright Dl2511 (SEA-sFO] (8738; speed: 243 knots, altitude: 11 :10 PM 4346.739186n3333 ft, distance: 3 KM) "Sleep• was disturbed. Thu, 1!9r 05, Flight UA 320 [BUR-SFO] (8738; speed: 221 knots, altitude: 11:07 PM 5101.933972992 ft, distance: 3 KM) •51eep• was disturbed. Thu, 1!9r 05, Flight: AS1756 [SEA-SFO] (A320; speed: 216 knots, altitude: 11:04 PM 4389.6783801088 ft, distance: 2 KM) ·s1eep• was disturbed. 1l1u, Apr 05, Flight AS1947 [LAX-SFO) (A320; speed: 240 knots, altitude: 11 :01 PM 5636.9486472832 ft, distance: 3 KM) "Sleep" was disturbed. Thu, 1!9r05, Flight: WN1260 [SAN-SFOJ (8737; speed: 230 knots, altitude: 10-.58 PM 5881.2231854016 ft, distance: 5 KM) "Sleep" was disturbed. Thu, 1!9r 05, Flight WN6135 (POX-SFO] (8737; speed: 269 knots, altitude: 10-.55 PM 6385.182345255466 ft, distance: 5 KM) 'Sleep' was disturbed. Thu, A9r OS, Flight: UA 650 [HNL-SFOJ (8739; speed: 216 knots, altitude: 10:51 PM 42n.334426523734 ft, distance: 2 KM) "Sleep" was disturbed. Thu, A9r 05, Flight: UA5600 [LAX-SFO] (E75L; speed: 239 knots, altitude: 10-.44 PM 5178.2152921088 ft, distance: 1 KM) "Sleep" was disturbed. Thu, 1!9r 05, Flight: UA 435 [KOA-SFOJ (8739; speed: 234 knots, altitude: 10:41 PM 6854.9695590997335 ft, distance: 2 KM) "Sleep" was disturbed. Thu, A9r OS, Flight: WN5862 [BUR-SFO] (8737; speed: 230 knots, altitude: 10-.40 PM 5791.209464832 ft, distance: 2 KM) "Sleep" was disturbed. Thu,1!9r05, Right AA.452 [PHX-SFOJ (A321; speed: 252 knots, altitude: 10:38 PM 3901.9955486293334 ft, distance: 1 KM) "Sleep" was disturbed. Thu, Apr 05, Flight: AS1945 [LAX-SFOJ (A320; speed: 394 knots, altitude: 10:38 PM 6287.352150272 ft, dis1ance: 4 KM) "Sleep" was disturbed. Thu, A9r 05, Flight: UA 1288 [OGG-SFOJ (8738; speed: 221 knots, altitude: 10:34 PM 5131.0192721376 ft, distance: 1 KM) "Sleep• was disturbed • ........ •-tu: e 1: I 1nbox Unread Starred Drafts Sent Archive Spam Trash Less Views Photos Documents Travel ~ Coupons Tutorials Folders +New Folder b 128 261 Hide Hide Find messages, documents, photos or people Daily report summa +-Back ~ • • ii Archive II Move ii Delete 0 Spam Thu, Apr 05, Flight: M6 444 (QRO-SFO) (8762; speed: 234 knots, altitude: 10:32 PM 3321.9514549386668 ft, distance: 6 KM) "Sleep" was disturbed. Thu, Apr 05, Flight WN1349 (PHX-8FO] (8737; speed: 241 knots, altitude: 10:27 PM 5637.625493450667 ft, distance: 2 KM) "Sleep" was disturbed. Thu, Apr 05, Flight: AS1969 [SAN-8FO] (A320; speed: 253 knots, altitude: 10:24 PM 5391.510767696 ft, distance: 2 KM) "Sleep" was disturbed. Thu, Apr 05, Flight: AS3453 (SNA-SFOJ (E75l; speed: 236 knots, altitude: 1o:23 PM 4689.8363287936 ft, distance: 2 KM} "Sleep" was disturbed. Thu, Apr 05, Flight: UA1602 [PDX-SFO) (A319; speed: 222 knots, altitude: 1C>:20 PM 6855.284972136534 ft, distance: 7 KM} "Sleep" was disturbed. Thu, Apr 05, Flight: AS1818 (PDX-SFO) (A320; speed: 205 knots, altitude: 10:13 PM 5541.013610346667 ft, dlslance: 2 KM) "Sleep" was disturbed. Thu, Apr 05, Flight: UA 214 [SEA-SFO) (8739; speed: 216 knots, altitude: 10:10 PM 5226.854048475733 ft, distance: 1 KM} rrelevision" was disturbed. Thu, Apr 05, Flight AM 662 [GDL-SFO) (8738; speed: 217 knots, altitude: 09-.52 PM 5495.9745964064 ft, distance: 2 KM) rrelevision" was disturbed. Thu, Apr 05, Flight: 861436 [LGB-SFO) (A320; speed: 215 knots, altitude: 09-.48 PM 4901.052219552 ft, distance: 1 KM) "Television" was disturbed. Thu, Apr 05, Flight: FJ 870 (NAN-SFOJ (A332; speed: 209 knots, altitude: 09-.45 PM 5127.40760016 ft, distance: 0 KM) rrelevision" was disturbed. Thu, Apr 05, Fright: WN1528 [LAX-SFO) (8737; speed: 256 knots, altitude: C»A2 PM 6343.9835007072 ft, distance: 3 KM) rrelevision" was disturbed. Thu, Apr 05, Flight: HA 42 [OGG-SFO) (A332; speed: 193 knots, altitude: 09:38 PM 4237.415830488267 ft, distance: 4 KM) rre1ev1s1on• was disturbed. Thu, Apr 05, Flight AA6014 [LAX-SFO) (E75L; speed: 221 knots, altitude: 09:30 PM 4876.956811909334 ft, distance: 1 KM) "Quality of life" was disturbed. Thu, Apr 05, Flight HA 12 [HNL-SFO) (A332; speed: 244 knots, altitude: 09:03 PM 5214.9856704672 ft, distance: 6 KM) "Quality Of life" was disturbed. Thu, Apr 05, Flight: UA 643 (KOA-SFO) (8739; speed: 237 knots, altitude: 08:31 PM 5649.7205448032 ft, distance: 1 KM} "Quality Of life" was disturbed. Thu, Apr 05, Flight: AS1941 [LAX-SFO) (A320; speed: 220 knots, altitude: 08:23 PM 5181.4720078848 ft, distance: 2 KM) 'Quality Of life" was disturbed. Thu, Apr 05, Flight UA2195 [EUG-SFO) (8738; speed: 218 knots, altitude: 08:21 PM 4214.309090839467 ft, distance: 1 KM) "Quality Of life" was disturbed. Thu, Apr 05, Flight: AA6013 [LAX-SFO] (E75l; speed: 230 knots, altitude: 08:20 PM 5210.83n592832 ft, distance: 1 KM) 'Quality of life" was disturbed. Thu, Apr 05, Flight AS1933 [LAX-SFO] (A320; speed: 227 knots, altitude: 08:45 PM 5348.2553474816 ft, distance: 1 KM) 'Quality Of life" was disturbed. Thu, Apr 05, Flight UA2424 (PHX-SFO) (8739; speed: 226 knots, altitude: 05:35 PM 3855.912n9152 ft, distance: 2 KM) "Quality Of life" was disturbed. Thu, Apr 05, Flight AA6011 [LAX-SFO] (E75L; speed: 210 knots, altitude: 05:30 PM 4613.9652325376 ft, distance: 1 KM) 'Quality of life" was disturbed. Thu, Apr 05, FHght: AS1752 [SEA-SFO) (A320; speed: 206 knots, altitude: 04:25 PM 5849.6453489792 ft, distance: 2 KM) ........ x ) e1:mm o SYOEARMOR LIGHTNING CABLE WITH KEVLAR CORE. APPLE CERTIFIED DOUBLE-NYLON BRAIDED-. wo:n1u11uoollVOll!d0MMM • .<1>1aaM OllV'Oll!d • 9 lOZ '6Z .<1nr. 0 L a61!d ·wo:1•4p[BBM1Hf @AUOilprnta 10 pa71owa aq uo:J !uoilpo')[ ouaflJ .1a11.1M . .JJ01s ., · 1 t ·'.3nv 'UO'rBarl?Ji Jl11JOCl! p:iin -p:iq:lS •.h;tsnbJAaid i lll :iq U!ft\ lX:IU :iq.1. ·l:i~pnq :iql '.3ll!pl1!'.3:ii p1oq Ol Slll!ld P!llSfil 'Jt{l, ~uµ:i:iw [t!J:I -A:is JO~~J1 :itp1 SUM i\ups:!up:iA\ ·µ~aI l.f8lS B Ol '.3ix!µto:> -:>ll •u:iµu&i~upt1 i\up~un.J µodcfns '"''"""'"'·'it..i:tmtt3J~ot..Ol~D:IAOJilali l9£t~Cl6 'I0,191' llllt1llld.ll:1 llll· IDll \..:,,:. Upfront N • h. h·r h1 d e1g•n'1 ,11 111 :0r1 00 S1 ' ' ~ r A .;undup of neighborhood news edited by Sue Dremann Aro-•<l ~he:Bl~ck BURGLARIES, liHEFTS ON THE Rl$.El ... As reperted ln~tOOay:s Weekly, bl!lrglars have been strlklJ:IQ soutll Pcalo1~1tO lr;ielghborhoods, , but that's not all going on In theithl.evlng department. Break Ins have occurred In Crescent ~and BarronlPark as well, according to1pollce logs. Andther. cycllcal trend alSo appears to be retl:Jmlng: bike.thefts. At least· six have occorred In six days, with four thefts on July 25. The Palo Alto Polloe Department; as always, warns residents 1to "lock1it or lose lt""ana•to report any suspicious activity. STOLEN P,ROPERTY ARRESTS ... n-1-Al&-.--H--l-.:r-1l. :;;•:" t --~ ·--·· ~. ~ 'Doxsee, right, walk upf(he driveway connecting four one-story aottageson July 26.1Both womenar.e aonaerned aboutamew ne~ghbor's plan to,ad(j1on a second story at@newifenae, whiah thf;y 'Say will alter the •!community feel" ofthe t[Jroperf-Y.. '\ .... ---r-r·-·-· ,.._...._ __ ., 1~ stolen property on Tuesday and Wednesday. Dierdre Sanders, 56, of Oakland was arrested on the 700 block of El Camino Real. She had tWo outstanding warrants. Police fotx1d two daggers, a stolen handicapped.placard, a stolen cellphone and posslble stolen jewelry and drug paraphernalia, Ofllcer Sean DoWney said. She faces four mlsdeiTieanors and two felonles. On July 27, police responded to a call of suspicious persons on Ashton Avenue walking up and doNn private driveways and breaklng Into vehlcfes. Alexander Garstka, 24, of Sunnyvale, was arrested for possession of stolen property, a parole vtolalion, possessioo of drug paraphema!la and a controlled substance and prow11ng -two falonles ana three misdemeanors. Mlnett Bratton, 19, of Palo Alto, was arrested on a no- ball warrant for possession of etoloo property. KEEP AN EYE OUT ••01 There have beefl,a1number of suspicious Incidents In Barron Park around ffi&,Bol!Park• area, Palo ·Alto police Officer Sean Downey said. Pollce so~ght a man who was reportedly casing a residence on the 700 block of Mataclero Avenue on July 25, but they could not locate '... him. He Is descrlbad as a black male In his 20s, 5-feet-10-lnches tall and 165 pounds, with a short black Afro. He wore a light-colored :r-shlrt, gray sagging jeans and ·red-colored shoes. He has a medium build and was unkempt. One suspicious case turned out to be benign If not embarrassing: A construction worker.on July 26 had the wrong address and walked Into a Laguna Avenue home where the resident had left the door open. Police were called after the resident thought the man was a burglar, but after about an hour the situation was straightened out, police said. • CRESCENT PARK Residepts in ·. cottage$. feel the~ big~house·I squ.eeze Some worry these groupings of small homes are facing extinction by Sue Dremttnn For more than.30 years, Cres- cent Park resident Marni Barnes 'has lived' iff a 1940s bungalow that is }!art of a cluster of four cottages at 8:44-850 Boyce Ave. The little grouping of homes is one ef approximately 15 dot- ting Palo Alto's neighborhoods, where more affordable homes on small lots have belpea the city maintain some housing diversity. But Barnes worries that her way of life is about "to undergo a dramatic change. A neighbor, who purchased a cottage two years ago, wants to, expand it into withi a two-story, 2,043-square- foot house, which would tower over•the remaining cottages. Barnes and her neighbors are .fighting the plans. A landscape ar- chitect by trade, Barnes has written to city pJanners, reasoning that the proposed house violates the city's "individual review" guidelines on several fronts. The home is "an im- posing rectangular building" that is inconsistent with the single-story cottages, and it proposes a six·:foot- high fence that would intrude into the cottages' shared space, she said. On a recent day, Barnes looked to the west, where a mansion on an adjacent street looms over the neighborhood. Review Board was studying cottage clusters ... but the city never did any- thing with that research." "I understand there,are person- , al property rights and the cost of real estate, but there needs to be a countervailing force that talks about quality of life and (its) val- ue," she said. Cottage clusters are found throughout many parts of north Palo Alto, mainly throughout Crescent Park, Professorville and Old 'Palo Alto. Built between 1930 to 1951, the homes are arranged in groups of four to 13. 'fypically two structures front the street with a driveway in between. Other: cot- tages are arranged behind around a shared courtyard, which gives a sense of openness for owners living at the rear. The arrangement cre- ates the feeling of a small enclave that provides security, enabling people to keep an eye out for each other. It also provides a quiet space off the main street, Barnes said. They are also generally less ex- pensive than larger homes. The aver- age cottage has two bedrooms and is about 930 square feet, with lot sizes ranging from about 2,500 to 5,000 square feet, according to a city sur- vey and real estate websites. They are typically valued at $25 million; larger homes in the neighborhood can cost between $33 million and $5.8 million, according to real-estate websites Zillow and Trulia. rented to professors and students, according to Palo Alto Histori- cal Association Historian Steve Staiger. Barnes said that one of the Boyce cottages was constructed to make a home for a disabled vet- eran after World War TI. He was the husband. of the 'property own- ers' daugbter; the other cottages generated income for the owners, she said .. But they aren't worthless relics of a time past. City staff consid- ered them of enough value to sug- gest that creating a cottage-cluster zoning designation when it looked to update.its policies for so-called Village Residential districts in 2005, with the idea that more cot- tage clusters might be built. "Cottage cluster" was identified as one of three distinct Village Residential development types - the others being "rowhouse" and "garden court." Although the study of cottages was done in the context of multi-family zones, city staff also presented pre- liminary development -standards for cottage clusteis in single-family zones (R-1) to the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Architectural Review Board. A key goal of proposing the standards was to establish "a mechanism to encourage owners to retain and improve existing cot- tage clusters," a December 2004 staff report to the Architectural Review Board noted. clusters are functional, desirable and acc~pted within the neigh- borhood community," a May 19, 2005, A1rchitectura1 Review Board staff report noted. The standards included some of .the issues that Barnes now raises: limitations on house size, lot size, frontage, open space and encroach- ments into setbacks and parking. A March 17, 2005, Architecfurai Review Board staff report, for ex- ample, suggested.la 24-foot heign t limit and a 1,200 to 1,500-square" foot maximum house size for cot- tages in the R,,l zone. In the end, however, no stan- dards for cottage clusters were formalized or added1n the city's land-use 1update, Barnes said. She said there is evidence that cottage clusters are disappear-. ing from the city. Four cottages at 821-877 Hamilton Ave. were repl aced by two large, two-story· homes at the front that dwarf a single-story home at the 1back; a cluster of five cottages at 920-928 Addison Ave. has been replaced by two large•residences, she said. Elisiibeth Doxsee, a 10-year owner of one of the Boyce cottages, said it doesnlt have to be 'that way. She was able 'to remodel her home to more than 2,000 square feet by expanding it into her backyard. She still retained a green space and kept the cottage at one story. From the street -and 1the view of the other cottages -the house retains its bungalow appearance. Eight years ago, staiger purchased a home in the 10-cottage cluster on the 300 block of Kingsley Ave. "It's a terrific community. . .. (And) The joy is that I could afford to buy a house that my daughter, son-in-law and their children live in," he said. The Kingsley cottages arc now marketed as condominiums, a "I get upset when I see a Taco Bell on steroids anywhere, but in this set- ting, it~ up the community;• she said, referring to the planned new home. "And this is the part that bteaks ·my heart: The Architectural The existing cottages were built mainly as income properties and "The existing Palo Alto cottage (continued Qn page 10) r www.PaloAftoOnline.com •Palo Alto Weekly• July 29, 2016 •Page 9