HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180416plCC 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: 4/16/2018
Document dates: 3/28/2018 – 4/4/2018
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 | 3/29/2018 11:44 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net>
Sent:Wednesday, March 28, 2018 5:19 PM
To:Council, City; Kniss, Liz (external)
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Michael Hodos; John Guislin; cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
Subject:Inaccurate information "Palo Alto Dentists Need Your Help"
The real story behind this petition to our Council which is being circulated by dentists to their patients, is that it contains false and misleading information. The email I received stated that "the City of Palo Alto requires businesses to purchase parking permits for its employees to park in the Downtown area." You all know that is an incorrect statement. Secondly, it stated that "Next Monday night the City will vote to drastically reduce the number of permits available to businesses." You also know that the reduction is not "drastic" but only to bring the number of permits available with the number that have been sold in the past two years. Employees should have no problems acquiring permits. Follow the Staff plan and vote to continue the success of the Downtown RPP program as we designed it with a gradual reduction in employee permits. Richard Brand
RPP Stakeholder 281 Addison Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/29/2018 11:44 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Jido Lee Ferguson <lee.tao.108@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 28, 2018 5:34 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:chjoydmd@mac.com
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
To the City Council:
The April 2 consent calendar item 5 is not clear to this one of your citizens: why would you be forcing the medical
employees and dental workers in our wonderful town into moving their cars every 120 minutes? That is what will
happen, whether or not you might perceive it. Why are you changing 37 years' precedent?
There are few things that will cause a citizen to contemplate recalling the council, and you should not ignore this one:
the mayor, the staff, and this citizen recommend against your one‐sided, anti‐small‐business decision.
You should vote this item down and come to a more sensible decision.
With sincere questions about my representation in your decisions,
Leland S. Ferguson, C‐IAYT
Registered Yoga Therapist, Niroga (www.niroga.org)
Mobile: (650) 248‐9189
www://movementandstillnessmeditation.blogspot.com
Serving the City of Palo Alto, Avenidas, Stanford, and the VA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/29/2018 11:44 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Norman Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 28, 2018 6:01 PM
To:Mello, Joshuah; Gitelman, Hillary; Council, City; Keene, James
Cc:Neilson Buchanan; John Guislin; Michael Hodos; Brand, Richard
Subject:Downtown RPP resolution consent calendat April 2
It seems there is a mistake in Exhibit A of the RPP resolution on the consent calendar for April 2. It indicates a reserve of 200,
whereas I thought the final vote was for 100. (The body of the resolution correctly states 100)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:28 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Tyler Hanley <thanley@watercourseway.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 29, 2018 12:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Letter regarding downtown parking program
Attachments:Honorable Palo Alto City Council.docx
Please see the attached letter regarding the downtown RPP parking program. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tyler Hanley
--
Tyler Hanley Administrator, Watercourse Way
Honorable Palo Alto City Council, As a member of the downtown Palo Alto business community for more than 20 years, I implore you to rethink the devastating reduction to parking permit availability for downtown employees. What began as a reasonable goal to reduce parking congestion in downtown Palo Alto has morphed into a discriminatory and prohibitive system that shuns local workers. The massive decrease in employee permits for Zone 8 has had a very negative effect on our business, Watercourse Way – which has been in downtown Palo Alto for more than 35 years. As recently as September 2017, there were enough employee permits available in Zone 8 to allow our employees to park within walking distance of the business while maintaining the needed relief to downtown parking congestion. A Palo Alto Transportation Staff report (Feb. 26, 2018) indicated that the RPP program has been successful, with average employee occupancy reduced to 12% or less. Continuing to decrease permit availability for downtown employees seems unnecessary and callous. It forces employees to park far away from their workplace or frequently move their vehicle. It causes undue hardship and frustration, and it furthers a growing division between residents and the business community in what was once a civil, cooperative downtown. I respectfully ask the council to roll back the excessive permit cuts made in Zone 8 so current and future downtown employees have reasonable parking options, and to not exacerbate the problem by continuing to drastically and unnecessarily reduce permit availability for downtown employees. Please, do the right thing. A vibrant downtown Palo Alto depends on residents and businesses alike. This is your chance to be fair and balanced – I truly hope you seize it. Sincerely, Tyler Hanley Watercourse Way
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:39 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Simon Cintz <simoncintz@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 29, 2018 7:14 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Mello, Joshuah
Subject:Pleae take RPP (item #5) off of the April 2nd Consent Calendar
Dear Mayor and City Council Members -
The City has already implemented the employee permit cuts directed by Council on February 26th ... and ...
Downtown employees and businesses are already experiencing the disastrous results of this unprecedented 28% reduction. For most employee/business purposes, usable permits are already sold out and the April 1st parking period has not yet even begun! SOFA area employees/businesses are especially impacted.
I believe that Council did not intend to hurt employees and small businesses by these cuts. Based on current
permit sales, it's now obvious that Council has made a mistake, which only Council can fix. Please take RPP (item #5) off of the Consent Calendar so that staff can update you on the already dire situation
for employees/businesses ... and ... allow you to discuss/implement adjustments to the Downtown RPP
Resolution that will work for both residents and businesses.
Below is the email that I sent to City Staff detailing the real pain that with these extreme cuts are exacting upon employees and small businesses. Please take a few minutes to read my email below.
I hope that you all will have the integrity and courage to admit the error and to fix it.
Thank you,
Simon Cintz
Cintz Commercial Properties, LP
P.O. Box 1216
Palo Alto, CA 94302
831-247-2387
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Simon Cintz <simoncintz@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 9:55 AM
Subject: RPP cuts: Harm is already being done to Downtown employees/business
To: "Gitelman, Hillary" <hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: "Keene, James" <James.Keene@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Mello, Joshuah"
<joshuah.mello@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Kamhi, Philip" <Philip.kamhi@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Hur, Mark" <mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org>
Hillary -
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:39 AM
2
Real harm is already being done to Downtown employees because of the recent City Council
mandated RPP permit cuts of 28%. Permits are already sold out in most zones. Almost all City
Garages/Lots have waiting lists. Zone 8 which primarily serves SOFA employees was cut by
over 80% and is sold out. All of this is already happening before the new April 1st period has
even started.
Now that even more employees can't get permits, they will become the "reparkers" that the February
26 Staff report clearly identified as the REAL cause of overparking, congestion, and traffic in the residential areas bordering the Downtown.
Last year (March 6, 2017) the City Council voted to cut the available Downtown employee RPP
permits by 9%. This year (February 26, 2018), the exact same Council members voted a draconian
cut of 28% against the recommendations of your Transportation Staff to make zero cuts/changes.
The Council's drastic cuts have now broken an RPP program that (according to the Staff
report's parking data) was successful and working well for employees and residents. Only the
Council can fix their unfortunate, and I believe unintended, mistake.
The Downtown RPP resolution is scheduled to be on the City Council April 2nd Consent
Calendar.
I hope you will encourage the Council to remove this important item from the Consent
Calendar and move it to the Action Item section. It should be properly discussed now that we know how we know these employee permits are already hurting employees and businesses. The
impact on residents will start very soon as more and more employees are denied permits and
become reparkers in residential neighborhoods.
Please be aware the Palo Alto dentists have posted a Change.org petition asking the Council
to restore RPP permits. The petition has only been available online for just over 24 hours and has
already gained support from over 425 of their Palo Alto patients/supporters. See
https://chn.ge/2DZUFRr .
Dentists are especially affected and concerned about these severe RPP permit cuts because
… a. Unlike many other downtown businesses, dental employees can't leave work (mid-dental
procedure) to move their vehicles every few hours. Dental offices REQUIRE sufficient permits to be
available for their staff to park all day.
b. Many of their employees are highly skilled and don't qualify for the low income permits. The regular priced permits aren't made available until one week after the low priced permits go on sale.
Therefore, regular priced permits may be unavailable even before highly skilled dental employees
have a chance to purchase them.
Here is some important NEW information which the Council should consider and discuss:
1. According to Mr. Ricardo Robles (a manager for the City's RPP vendor), ALL zones (except 3 & 4,
bordering San Francisquito Creek) are now completely sold out. Some of these zones sold out in a
matter of days. The few remaining permits in zones 3 & 4 are too far to be a reasonable walk to/from
work for most Downtown employees. This is especially true for SOFA area employees who have limited access who can no longer park in zone 8 which was cut by over 80% and is now sold out. Also
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:39 AM
3
SOFA area employees have very limited access to City Garages/Lots which also are not available
because of waitlists.
2. When the new permit period starts April 2nd, employees parking with expired RPP will get a courtesy warning notice instead of being ticketed/fined. HOWEVER, when these employees go online
to renew their permits they will find that there are NONE available (with the possible exception of a
few permits in zones 3 &4 which are too far for most employees).
3. With the exception of the Cowper/Webster garage, all other Downtown garages and lots have waiting lists. (This information was provided by the City's Parking Service Desk as of the latest March
14th data.) SOFA area employees are not eligible to park in most of these facilities.
4. Here are some examples of the types of Downtown employees who now will be told that
they have no place to park in Palo Alto because of the Council's action. This is cruel to
employees who are simply trying to make a living from themselves and their families. It also
hurts the businesses they work at, the customers they serve, and the nearby residential
neighborhoods.
a. New employees replacing previous employees who have left the business. NONE of the reduced price permits are transferable! Most of the regular priced permits are not transferable.
Transferable hangtags are very limited in number.
b. Employees returning from maternity or family leave. They didn't need a permit when
they were not at work, but they will need one when they return, but it won't be available.
c. New businesses replacing old businesses. Permits from one business at a location are not transferable to the new business at that same location. RPP permits can't be purchased until a
business hires employees and once they have hired employees, there are no longer permits available
for them to park.
d. Temporary employees who are needed for high workload periods. In retail, this usually
means the Christmas holidays. e. During the winter time, employees who don't feel safe walking long distances back to
their vehicle on poorly lit residential streets in the dark after 5:00pm.
f. When permits go on sale for the next parking period (starting Oct 1st), there will a "land
rush" mentality when permits go on sale online. Permits will disappear in a matter of hours, if not
minutes. Those that don't purchase permits at 12:01 midnight, will be left out. This is "acceptable" when purchasing popular concert tickets, it is cruel when purchasing the ability to park so one can
support themselves and their family.
g. Downtown businesses will suffer because it makes it very hard to hire and keep
qualified employees in an already difficult labor market. Residents living near the downtown
will also suffer increased overparking, congestion, and traffic.
Please ask the Council to remove RPP from the consent calendar and allow them to discuss
the real negative consequences which they did anticipate at the time of their February 26th
vote.
Thank you,
Simon Cintz
Cintz Commercial Properties, LP
P.O. Box 1216
Palo Alto, CA 94302
831-247-2387
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:39 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Maximilian Goetz <max.goetz@gregtanaka.org>
Sent:Friday, March 30, 2018 12:08 PM
To:Joy Christopher
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: RPP Permits - Consent Calendar April 2, 2018
Dear Mr. Joy,
My name is Max, and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank you for voicing out your opinion to the city council.
I invite you to come speak with Councilman Tanaka directly about this issue at his office hours. Do you have time to meet with Mr. Tanaka this Sunday, April 1st at 11:30 AM? I will also be inviting other people who have written into council about RPP. There will be fifteen minutes allocated for the meeting, as all other timeslots at Mr. Tanaka's office hours this Sunday are already full. Office hours are held at Councilman Tanaka’s office, located at 3630 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA. If you are unable to come into our office, we
can also call you during your scheduled time. Please let me know within twenty-four hours if you are able to make the meeting.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know.
Best Regards, Max
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 11:43 PM, Joy Christopher <chjoydmd@aol.com> wrote:
Please don’t decrease the RPP Permits
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
I am currently the President of the Mid-Peninsula Dental Society. There are 253 active members, 53 of which hail from Palo Alto. I have been practicing on Homer Avenue for 37 years.
We have a crisis on our hands. There are not enough permits available for the employees in our offices.
Although the RPP Program has only been in existence for less than three years, it has been remarkably
effective in reducing parking congestion. Most of the salutary effects were felt immediately. Cal-train
commuters and business employees can no longer use the neighborhood streets for free parking.
The continued drawdown in available permits is happening too quickly for the market to equilibrate, creating a
hypercompetitive situation in our community. According to the Staff Transportation Report (ID # 8721)
presented at the February 26, 2018 City Council Meeting, Average Employee Occupancy (9-5) in each zone
was 12% or less. The Average Employee Show-rate (9-5) was 36% or less. Therefore only a fraction of the
permits sold are being used at any given time. We are not the problem.
Since this is such a complex issue, which has direct impact on the quality of life for Palo Alto residents, please
remove item number 5 from the Consent Calendar on Monday April 2, 2018. For the time being, please
restore the number of permits to 1400. Going forward, please create an exemption for Medical/Dental
employees to guarantee them the option to purchase RPP Permits annually.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:39 AM
6
In the last two days, we have received over 560 signatures (and counting) on our change.org petition:
https://chn.ge/2DZUFRr
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. I look forward to seeing you on Monday, April. 2nd.
Sincerely,
Christopher H. Joy, DMD
668 Homer Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 787-6968
-- 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 Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:39 AM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Sue at Watercourse Way <sue.wcw@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 01, 2018 9:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:RPP permits are needed
Dear Council members,
Please do not skip the discussion of RPP permit reduction. I have been part of the employee parking debate for many years now and I know that the City staff has diligently met the Council's directive to collect data and
analyze it. They presented their findings in February which, based on clean data, states that the RPP program is
working!
And yet the Council chose to ignore this data and respond to a few residents demands that Palo Alto radically reduce the number of permits. If these few residents had their way there would be no RPP parking for
employees.
I think all acknowledge that housing in our area for service workers is non-existent. Businesses must hire out of
the area to continue to operate. Even with TMA and even with buying permits in garages we still have many employees that must park to work here.
Please do not ignore your staff's in put. To ignore it and reduce the permits as you have will create no parking at
all in downtown for workers. This current reduction has reduced zone 8 permits by 80%. What is the purpose of
this?
I have sat in discussion with the residents on the stake holders group and for the majority of the time they said
they wanted a thriving downtown and were willing to share the streets. The cuts were always supposed to be
tied to data. Most of this time they spoke of 30% reduction. Now they seem emboldened to demand no street
parking. Why this change? How can they justify it? The two who spearheaded this drive do not even live near zone 8.
I hope you will broaden your consideration to include business input/needs and to honor the recommendation of
staff. Palo Alto can be inclusive in this way and still protect the rights of residents. Business cannot survive with
this one sided approach.
Sincerely,
Susan Nightingale
Owner Watercourse Way
165 Channing Avenue Palo Alto, California
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 3:55 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 02, 2018 3:23 PM
To:Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Mello, Joshuah; Hur, Mark
Cc:Elaine Uang; Gabrielle Layton; Michael Hodos; John Guislin; Brand, Richard; Norman H.
Beamer; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; Reza Riahi; DDS Kevin Low; Stan Bjelajac; Beth
Rosenthal; Mary Gallagher; Allen Akin; Elaine Meyer
Subject:Downtown RPP on Consent Calendar
Attachments:Cowper Webster Bryant Garage Under Utilization Feb Mar Apr 2018.xlsx; 6th Level
Cowper Webster Garage 1223pm April 2 2018.JPG
Dear City Council,
I understand that there is a full court press to move the RPP item from consent calendar tonight.
I have talked with some but not all the concerned individuals. The amount of misinformation and non-information is alarming.
Nevertheless, I understand why some businesses may be concerned. But the problems are being blown out of
proportion. I urge the Council not to make a knee jerk reaction to political pressure and redesign elements of the Downtown
RPP without analysis and consultation with staff, residents and businesses.
Here are essential facts as I know them. 1. There are over 200 unsold non-resident permits. See recent staff analysis below.
2. The first-come, first-serve allocation process for non-resident permits assures that late applicants will not get
zones of choice.
3. Significant parking capacity exists in the Cowper/Webster garage. See attached photos and multi-month analysis of unused capacity in Bryant and Cowper/Webster garages. 4. Improvements to the Downtown RPP must be fact-based, rational decisions driven by staff.
5. The fundamentals of Downtown RPP are not broken. Council must ask staff again to return with a
prioritization policy for issuance of scarce non-resident permits to applicants. This policy must address to
entitlements of Parking Assessment District tenants to park in the garages/surface lots versus residential neighborhoods.
Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 3:55 PM
2
----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>; Kamhi, Philip <Philip.Kamhi@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018, 5:07:46 AM PDT
Subject: Re: Update
Hello John and Neilson,
Sorry for the delay.
Employee Parking
Zone Total Permits Available Permits Sold as of 3/29/2018
1 69 69
2 111 111
3 208 71
4 176 79
5 162 162
6 92 92
7 125 125
8 57 57
9 0 0
10 0 0
Total 1,000 766
Mark Hur | Parking Operations Lead
Planning & Community Environment ‐ Transportation
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
Ph: (650) 329‐2453 | E: Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org
Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix. Download the app or click here to make a service request.
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AB C D EFG HI JK L M N
Cowper/Webster and Bryant Garage Survey
Source: N. Buchanan cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 650 537‐9611
photographs are available for Bryant and Cowper/Webster daily surveys
time window
plus/minus
10 min
Cowper/
Webster
Level 6
Cowper/
Webster
Level 5
Bryant St
Level 5
Untapped
otential
from staffed
Valet
Parking**
Untapped
potential
from staffed
Valet
Parking***
Total
Vacant
Spaces
Potential for
additional
permit sales
@ 120%
Built In
Safety
Cushion for
Peak
Demand
Days
Wed, Feb 14 1122am 68 17 no survey 20 26 131 157 46
Wed, Feb 14 142pm 61 12 no survey 20 26 119 143 46
Thur, Feb 15 1207pm 70 13 13 20 26 142 170 46
Thur, Feb 15 205pm 58 13 2 20 26 119 143 46
Fri, Feb 16 1205pm 70 17 13 20 26 146 175 46 Holiday
Fri, Feb 16 159pm 75 33 21 20 26 175 210 46 Holiday
Wed, Feb 21 1155am 72 21 4 20 26 143 172 46
Wed, Feb 21 250pm 73 16 5 20 26 140 168 46
Thur, Feb 22 1150am 76 32 21 20 26 175 210 46
Thur, Feb 22 239pm 75 37 2 20 26 160 192 46
Fri, Feb 23 1159am 75 31 17 20 26 169 203 46
Fri, Feb 23 250pm 74 33 23 20 26 176 211 46
Tues, Feb 27 1201pm 64 15 5 20 26 130 156 46
Wed, Feb 28 1148am 67 17 0 20 26 130 156 46
Wed, Feb 28 154pm 59 15 1 20 26 121 145 46
Available Capacity
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
AB C D EFG HI JK L M N
Thur, Mar 1 145pm 69 25 1 20 26 141 169 46
Fri, Mar 2 1201pm 69 0
Mon, Mar 5 1150am 38 5
Mon, Mar 5 200pm 32 5 0 20 26 83 100 46
Tues, Mar 6 1159am 51 5 5 20 26 107 128 46
Tues, Mar 6 215pm 5 2
Wed, Mar 7 1124am 58 10 7 20 26 121 145 46
Thurs, Mar 8 240pm 52 27 5 20 26 130 156 46
Frid, Mar 9 212pm 71 23 7 20 26 147 176 46
Mon, Mar12 121pm 29 0 0 20 26 75 90 46
Tues, Mar 13 116pm 46 3 0 20 26 95 114 46
Wed, Mar 14 1213pm 36 0 2 20 26 84 101 46
Thur, Mar 15 120pm 68 9 0 20 26 123 148 46
Wed, Mar28 1230pm 69 9 5 20 26 129 155 46
Thur, Mar 29 1230pm 76 48 5 20 26 175 210 Holiday
Frid, Mar 30 1230pm no survey holiday Holiday
Mon, Apr 2 68 12 5 20 26 131 157 46
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
AB C D EFG HI JK L M N
**Cowper Webster practical valet capacity is 50% of 40 possible valet parked vehicles
***Bryant practical valet capacity is 50% of 52 possible valet parked vehicles
Please note that an analysis for High Street garage is not included due to lack of time. It is a role model for effective management
and for leveraging 5‐day a week valet parking service expanding garage capacity by approximately 25‐40+ parking space. As a result
City has been able to avoid unnecessary capital investment in garage structures.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 5:02 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Reza Riahi <reza@rezariahidds.com>
Sent:Monday, April 02, 2018 4:57 PM
To:Neilson Buchanan
Cc:Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Mello, Joshuah; Hur, Mark; Elaine Uang;
Gabrielle Layton; Michael Hodos; John Guislin; Brand, Richard; Norman H. Beamer;
Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; DDS Kevin Low; Stan Bjelajac; Beth Rosenthal; Mary
Gallagher; Allen Akin; Elaine Meyer
Subject:Re: Downtown RPP on Consent Calendar
Dear City Council,
As of today the dental practices in the perimeter of the Downtown RPP area are short 20 permits. This is not a complete number. This number comes form my staff calling the neighborhood practices in our vicinity (Middlefield and Channing). Most of our offices fall in the perimeter so getting permits in the parking structures
or clear across town does not serve us for the same reasons that we don't ask our patient to park in the
downtown and then walk 5-7 blocks to our offices. The petition that went out last year and gained nearly 1200
PA resident signatures in support of guaranteed parking for the dental offices was presented to you in the past. There is a very recent petition going around with only 2-4 offices (among 27) participating, which already has over 860 supporters asking for the city to designate guaranteed parking for the Dental / Medical providers in the
city. As previously presented the PA dental offices treat over 43000 PA residents, vast majority of which want
us to stay. However, the recent proposed changes and the drastic reduction in number of available permits as
well as removing zones 9 and 10 have put our practices in jeopardy. As the City is already aware attracting and retaining qualified personnel is extremely challenging due to the commute difficulties. Our small offices are struggling to retain our highly skilled staff and loosing parking will severely hinder us in that effort. Other
larger businesses may have the option of working from home or getting around the 2 hour parking by perpetual
parking rotation. Medical and dental staff can not abandon their patients, run outside and move their cars every
2 hours. Retaining the dental / medical and other health providers in the city should be a part of the greater City plan. There's no better time in granting parking to the dental / medical community which have been part of Palo Alto of decades.
https://www.change.org/p/christopher-joy-urgent-help-save-your-palo-alto-
dentists?recruiter=865338397&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share_email_responsive
Best,
Reza Riahi
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
I understand that there is a full court press to move the RPP item from consent calendar tonight.
I have talked with some but not all the concerned individuals. The amount of misinformation and non-
information is alarming.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 5:02 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Beth Rosenthal <bbr550@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 02, 2018 4:37 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:RPP agenda item 5
Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
I am writing to express my distress regarding the implementation of the Downtown RPP program.I support limiting the
issuance of non‐resident parking permits but I am unhappy about the fact that community serving businesses, in
particular local dentists, have not been able to obtain a sufficient number of permits for their employees. In addition,
the way the program is currently set up, these individuals have to line up twice a year to obtain these permits.
Community serving businesses should be given first priority and permits should be issued for 1 year’s duration rather
than bi‐annually.
Sincerely,
Beth Rosenthal, PhD
0
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
AGENDA DATE: April 2, 2018
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Amend the Contract Between the Board of Administration of the California Public
Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and the City of Palo Alto A4-~41M-I r--e ~ t::I'
In accordance with Government Code 7507, the item titled "Amend the Contract Between the Board of
Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and the City of Palo
Alto" should be removed from the Consent portion of the agenda and addressed by Council as an Action
Item.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/29/2018 11:44 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Darcy Escovedo <darcy.escovedo@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 28, 2018 4:40 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:French, Amy
Subject:Eichler Guidelines
To Whom it May Concern:
I am writing to you regarding the new Eichler Guidelines.
In Eichler neighborhoods, it is of utmost importance is to prevent incompatible architecture such as traditional or Spanish style homes, and to preserve neighbors' privacy. These items should both be a part of the Eichler IR
rules.
Additional guidelines about door knobs, paint colors, etc. should be optional, but I believe are very helpful and
should be published. Thank you,
Darcy Escovedo
--
Darcy Escovedo
darcy.escovedo@gmail.com
3478 Kenneth Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/29/2018 11:44 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Marilyn Bauriedel <babamarilyn@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 28, 2018 9:05 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:French, Amy
Subject:Eichler Guidelines
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to urge you to adopt the Eichler Guidelines at your meeting on April 2. I would like to come speak
to this issue but will be on the East Coast and unable to attend the Council meeting.
For the last 45 years I have been an Eichler home owner and resident in Palo Alto in the Fairmeadow neighborhood. It has been a delightful neighborhood in which to live. The planned community with its "circles" has slowed traffic most of the time and created a safe and welcoming outdoor landscape for children who live
here. My husband and I happily raised a family of 2 children in our home of 1500 square feet. We have always
appreciated the design of the home, which was done carefully (despite the fact these homes were put up quickly
and cheaply in the immediate post-WWII period) by well trained architects from celebrated mid-century modern California architectural firms. We and our neighbors have particularly appreciated the style of the properties with indoor-outdoor living being pretty interchangeable. The green of gardens, shrubs, and trees that
are highly visible through our large floor-to-ceiling windows have a very calming effect after a long day at
work. The orientation of these houses towards outdoor living at the back of the homes and the single-story
original plan has provided a great deal of privacy even where our houses are actually only a few feet from each other.
But as times have changed, the simple, almost Zen-like aesthetic of the Eichler neighborhoods and the
smallness of the homes have not been the preference of upwardly mobile young families and others who want
much more space and don't value mid-century modern style. Thus these neighborhoods in a loose regulatory
environment are undergoing scattershot replacement homes in styles often quite incompatible with the carefully planned and for years much-appreciated look and feel and scale of an Eichler homes community. In particular this new hodge podge of fill-in homes is a great threat to Eichler residents' privacy.
I am one of many people statewide who consider our Palo Alto Eichler home communities to be a unique and
precious community and architectural resource. Mid-century modern is very "hot" in California. Look at what
has happened in Palm Springs in the last decade. I don't think we want to lose these neighborhoods. With careful review and planning by Palo Alto, our residents in these neighborhoods can achieve thoughtful and
spacious remodels and upgrades and replacement homes suitable for today's young families without destroying
the character of the neighborhoods or causing residents' privacy to be destroyed. The Eichler Guidelines can
help move us in this direction. I believe they should be adopted and put into service as more than just suggestions to homeowners. They belong as an integral part of design review standards that I hope you will
adopt for not only two-story homes going into Eichler neighborhoods but for one-story remodels and new
homes as well. The Guidelines look quite flexible to me. Ultimately I would like to see them as part of an
Eichler homes zoning ordinance.
Respectfully, Marilyn Bauriedel
3673 South Ct.""
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/29/2018 11:44 AM
3
--
Marilyn U. Bauriedel
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/29/2018 11:44 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Suzanne Attenborough <suzanne_attenborough@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 28, 2018 9:22 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:French, Amy
Subject:Eichler Guidelines
Dear Councillors:
I am writing in support of guidelines for construction (new and additions) in Eichler neighborhoods.
My primary concern is to protect the privacy of neighbors. Most Eichler neighborhoods in Palo Alto consist of one story homes with lots of windows. These houses were initially designed with privacy in mind with limited windows facing the street and fences around the areas with floor to ceiling windows. Second stories are not incompatible with privacy if the windows are well placed, but privacy
should be preserved for neighbors. Additionally, the blockage of light from a neighbor's yard is a concern. Placing a massive wall of a home very close to the property line may seriously impact the light on a neighbor's yard.
My next concern is the look and feel of the neighborhood. Eichler built mid-century modern style homes with a footprint compatible with the lot size. A Spanish Mission style, Tudor style or Colonial style home does not fit in a mid-century modern style neighborhood.in terms of mass and scale. Thank you for your consideration.
Suzanne Attenborough
3732 Carlson Circle Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:27 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Alison Cormack <alisonlcormack@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 29, 2018 3:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:April 2nd, Item #9
If you choose to adopt the Eichler guidelines, I respectfully request that they be left as voluntary.
The guidelines appear to have been written primarily for historical accuracy and are quite comprehensive for anyone wishing to restore a home to its original condition or to do a modest addition that blends in with any
unmodified Eichlers nearby.
What is helpful and appreciated about this document is the visual do's and don'ts. Having the images of what
the architectural consultant considers acceptable and what it does not makes this topic much more understandable.
However, I am concerned that in multiple places the guidelines contradict our city's best practices for safety and
energy efficiency (e.g., preferring single pane windows with the original wooden outlines over double-paned
insulated windows, insisting on flat surface driveways and specifically recommending against permeable pavers, etc.).
I'm also concerned about the fact that the guidelines apply to some homes that are not Eichlers but are part of a
designated tract. While there is now an FAQ in the lengthy, final document about this situation, it's highly
possible that someone who does not live in an Eichler and received a green postcard about this topic reasonably expects that the guidelines would not apply to their home.
Those of us who live in Eichlers are often faced by structural challenges when we need to repair or replace
something. While I appreciate the thought that went into this detailed document, I would suggest that you not
make these recommendations mandatory.
Thank you for your consideration.
Alison Cormack
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:27 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:judy petersen <judy.petersen@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 29, 2018 5:10 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:French, Amy
Subject:Eichler Design Guidelines
Dear City Council, Thank you for requesting the creation of the Eichler Design Guidelines. It shows a lot of thought and hard work went into this document. To be perfectly clear, we would much rather have the protection of a Single Story Overlay. A Single Story Overlay would guarantee that we would not have a neighboring second story looming over our home and violating our privacy. Since our neighborhood does not have a Single Story Overlay yet, we will look to the Eichler Design Guidelines for help for now.
The points in the Eichler Design Guidelines that we hope you will adopt for Eichler neighborhoods are the ones that all neighborhoods care about.
1) Privacy
Eichlers have floor to ceiling windows that create the indoor, outdoor connection in our homes. We want our privacy preserved so that we are not afraid of our neighbors constantly looking into all our living spaces, allowing us to continue to enjoy our homes' connection to the outdoors. 2) Height, Mass, Scale Many Eichlers are about 9 feet tall from the ground to the roof. Developers today are creating maximum size houses (30 feet tall allowed), easily overwhelming the Eichler homes surrounding them. These new developments loom over the adjacent homes and the neighborhood.
3) Preserve the unique character of Palo Alto neighborhoods
Eichlers are architecturally distinctive and our neighborhoods character of indoor/outdoor living should be preserved.
These points are addressed in general in the Individual Review Guidelines. So, including these points specific to Eichlers from the Eichler Design Guidelines into Individual Review Guidelines will give clear guidance to Planning staff when reviewing houses in the Eichler neighborhoods. Thank you for your consideration, Judy P.S.: I hope this letter will suffice as I cannot make the April 2nd Council meeting due to Spring Break.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:27 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Ben Lerner <balerner@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 29, 2018 9:40 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:French, Amy
Subject:Please Support Eichler Design Guidelines
Dear Palo Alto City Council –
I support having Eichler neighborhood design guidelines. It is my understanding that at your upcoming meeting on
Monday 4/2/2018 you will be considering the adoption of voluntary design guidelines for Eichler neighborhoods, and I
ask that you give it your support.
Having said that, I’d like to address some specifics:
1. The 1st priority of Eichler design guidelines must be to preserve neighbors’ privacy. This should be part of new
IR rules for Eichler neighborhoods that city staff will enforce.
2. The 2nd priority of Eichler design guidelines should be to protect the street‐scape of Eichler neighborhoods and
avoid incompatible architecture, such as excessively tall or bulky homes, Spanish‐style or other non‐modern
styles, “McMansions”, etc. This should be part of new Eichler IR rules that city staff will enforce.
3. Anything about paint colors, door styles, and other such matters of homeowner taste that have minimal effect
on neighbors should be optional and omitted from any enforceable IR guidelines.
The above points were expressed by many attendees at the community meeting hosted by City Planning staff on
1/18/2018 at Mitchell Park Community Center.
There are other observations I took away from the above community meeting:
Homeowners who did not want to be restricted by a Single‐Story‐Overlay (SSO) were afraid that the proposed
design guidelines were an attempt at a “SSO Lite”. It’s my understanding that they are not, and it is my wish
that as long as above priorities (1) and (2) are observed, a homeowner should be allowed to build up.
Homeowners in neighborhoods that have adopted a SSO were concerned that the proposed design guidelines
are a stealth attempt to circumvent their SSO. It’s my hope that this is not the intention, and that any new
guidelines would be in addition to, and not in replacement of, an SSO.
It would be helpful to the community’s understanding of “design guidelines” if you would clarify their intent in the light
of the above concerns.
In conclusion I would like to thank Amy French, her Planning staff, and consultants for producing a very informative
document on Eichler history and architecture. Eichler neighborhoods are a vital part of Palo Alto’s architectural heritage
and must be preserved. Please support and enact design guidelines for Eichler neighborhoods.
Thank You,
Ben Lerner
3482 Janice Way
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:27 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Diane Reklis <reklis@comcast.net>
Sent:Thursday, March 29, 2018 9:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Eichler Design Guidelines
Response to Eichler Guidelines by Diane Reklis, March 29, 2018
The Eichler Guidelines before Council should be considered in 3 parts:
1. The material about paint color, etc. is useful information and should be a part of the guidelines but
not codified. It will be valuable to many Eichler homeowners or contractors as it describes the
original choices made by the builders and what the purpose was. Guidelines should be written to
help both current and future homeowners -- those who follow the guidelines should be confident that their proposed projects will sail through the approval process.
2. Privacy issues are important and we should work together on rational codified restrictions to
protect privacy while allowing homeowners to add space where appropriate. Many Eichlers could
add another bathroom and even a bedroom by relaxing the front setback slightly. This would rarely infringe on privacy and is preferable to adding 2nd story in many cases (although where rear yards border on an industrial area, 2nd stories might be preferable for homeowners and increase
the sound-and-sight buffer for neighbors). Today’s children are less likely to be at home during
the day and lawns are often less advisable than in the ‘50s and ‘60s. Thus we could make our
front yards somewhat smaller without any negative impact. Potential codes could include:
a. new setback requirements in front,
b. appropriate rules for garage conversions,
c. ability to expand footprint of home within roof line
d. some expansion in both the front and back of a home,
e. prevent side of home from expanding too close to window wall of adjoining home when homes face different directions, and
f. limit height to original height of building.
All of this could be designed with reasonable expectation of approval by the planning
department. When larger expansion is desired, an IR process should be invoked even if the new structure is a single story.
3. ADUs are an important concept and regulations should be stronger than guidelines. This came
up in the context of the Eichler Guidelines, but it is a city-wide issue and deserves to be explored
as such. Within the context of Eichler Guidelines, attached ADUs are nearly always preferable to detached ones on typical small Eichler lots. This is particularly true in flood zones where detached structures would have to be raised up several feet. Any ADU should be approved only
when privacy issues can be overcome.
I will focus the rest of my comments on ADUs. I am enthusiastic about the concept, but wary about
them as described so far. Council members who live on large lots need to remember that an ADU in
their neighborhood will have very different impacts on the neighbors than in areas where the homes
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:27 AM
5
are close together. Converting the pool house for Granny to stay in is different from putting a box
outside your large glass walls that looks inside the homes of 3 or 4 neighbors.
I am becoming increasingly aware of widows or widowers who have more house than they need or
want but cannot cash in on their home’s value without paying exorbitant capital gains taxes. Many
would love to stay in the neighborhood if only they had a space for themselves with a small living unit
and room for guests and / or a caregiver. If they could rent out the major portion of their house they
would have an additional income stream and there would be space for more middle class families to
live in Palo Alto. ADUs can be an important part of improving the jobs/housing imbalance and dealing
with the fact that our current Palo Alto population is aging. ADUs can be good looking as well as
functional; they do not have to infringe on privacy.
The “box in the back” described in the Guidelines might work in some neighborhoods, but is not
appropriate in our area of South Palo Alto close to 101. We live in a flood zone, so such a box is
likely to start 3 or 4 feet above the level of the main house and would have an excellent view over the
fence into three or more neighboring yards and living rooms. Our house is typical of this area and we have glass walls on one side and the entire back. The pictured “box” would be in front of the master
bedroom wall of glass with likely views into the living room as well. The only way for someone to
access the box is to either walk past these windows and the kitchen/dining room window walls or to
walk within a foot or two of every bedroom window. This might be okay for Granny, but not if the
space is to be rented to a stranger with late-night habits.
The front of the house is a far better location for an ADU in this neighborhood. Either the garage or
the front bedroom or two could be converted into a very nice living space, particularly if the front of
the house is allowed to be closer to the street than originally built. This type of ADU would be
appropriate for Granny, tech workers, teachers, or others. New owners might choose to live there and rent out the main house until their family needs the space. This would serve a variety of needs
during a family’s ownership – sometimes as an income stream and sometimes for expanded living
space. If folks wanted to expand the master bedroom out the back, this would still be less intrusive to
their own lives and that of their neighbors than a separate unit in the back or a second story.
I strongly suggest that you take the following actions:
1. Approve the part of the proposed Eichler Design Guidelines that deals with paint color,
hardware, etc. as simple guidelines.
2. Expand and codify the proposed guidelines when privacy issues are involved. a. Expansion within the original roof line will rarely impact the neighbors and should be readily
approved.
b. Relax the front setbacks somewhat in many Eichler neighborhoods.
c. Expansion to the rear or side can often be done with minimal impact on neighbors and
should be approved unless this space would loom over neighbor’s glass walls. d. Raising the roof line significantly should be undertaken only when all other options have
been found inadequate. This must be examined on a case by case basis with the
neighbors fully informed. The homeowner should be prepared to explain why a higher
house is essential for them and how they will mitigate impacts on neighbors.
Support attached ADUs in Eichler neighborhoods and similar mid-century modern areas. Consider how ADUs can best work in other areas of town. Obviously they cannot solve the housing crisis, but
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:27 AM
6
they are an important part of the twin problems of older folks wanting to “age in place” and middle
class families increasingly squeezed out of the local housing market.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:27 AM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Katie Renati <windkatie@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 30, 2018 2:34 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:French, Amy; Eichler
Subject:Adopt Eichler Design Guidelines AND Protect Privacy, Access to sunlight, Architectural
homogeneity via code enforcement
Dear Council,
As an owner of an Eicher located in the Royal Manor subdivision, I urge you to ADOPT the resolution adopting Eichler
Neighborhood Design Guidelines. I applaud the City of Palo Alto, the birthplace of Eichler homes, to finally publish this document that will help Eichler owners as they maintain, repair, and remodel their homes. Other cities with fewer Eichlers have similar guidelines (Sunnyvale, Cupertino, etc). It shows that Palo Alto recognizes its heritage and sustain the architectural character of Eichler and mid-century modern homes.
I recommend that these guidelines be used ASAP during the current IR process to help City Planning staff make informed decisions while
reviewing 2-story projects in Eichler areas.
I also urge you to direct Staff to modify its development standards for R-1 neighborhoods in order to:
- Preserve neighbors’ privacy
- Preserve access to sunlight
- Preserve architectural homogeneity.
The current IR process addresses privacy, building mass and streetscape issues BUT not architectural style and access to sunlight. This is why the City of Palo Alto has become a hodgepodge of architectural styles with Mediterranean styled "McMansions" overlooking and "overpowering" their neighbors. Eichler homes are being demolished, while other parts of the nation recognize their architectural value. You can see what is happening in South Palo Atlo. Houses have been purchased by developers/investors, torn down, replaced by cookie-cutter mansions, and sold right away for profit. The investors do not live in the neighborhood, they do not care about upset neighbors!
The access to sunlight has not been emphasized enough in the design guidelines. If someone builds a house near an Eichler
with the current IR process, they only have to make sure the windows are high enough or opaque. This does NOT address the
neighbor's access to sunlight and quality of life. The Eichler owner will have to stare at a wall possibly 3 times the height of
his/her home. In addition the property value of his/her house will be reduced as the view from the living room or family room or
master bedroom will now be a building!
Right-click download help protecOutlook prautomatic dthi s pi ctu reIn ternet.C:\Users\kHome\1066Circle\Larg
(Note that in a flood zone the new construction will be 5 foot taller)
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of thi s pi ctu re from the In ternet.
(Note that this diagram was done for a Sunnyvale house. Palo Alto maximum height is 30 ft,, setbacks are smaller) The current IR process has led to arguments with neighbors, unnecessary battles over SSO applications, legal disputes over new construction, and an overall negative atmosphere that will continue to spread if nothing is changed.
As you are making your decisions on Monday, I would like to remind Council that the adopted Palo Alto
Comprehensive states the following policies and goals:
Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods; use the zoning ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s
desirable qualities.
Maintain the scale and character of the City.
Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods each with its own distinct character…” which includes working about how
Eichler neighborhoods were designed so homes may serve as private enclaves.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:27 AM
8
Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible
with the neighborhood and adjacent structures.”
Thank you for the time you spent reading this mail and for the countless hours you spend representing the interest of its residents. Katie Renati Ecihler Owner Palo Alto Resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:27 AM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Rajesh Srinivasaraghavan <rajesh.srinivasaraghavan@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 31, 2018 3:30 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Dr. Malati Raghunath
Subject:Opposition to the Eichler city guidelines
Dear Council Members
I had the opportunity to review the guidelines on the Eichler. I understand that this is a fall out of the heated debate over single story overlays that was brought in front of the City Council last year.
First and foremost, thank you for initiating and following through the next steps and recommendations on the
council.
I had a few remarks and observations for the record
1. Incongruency of Single Story Guidelines: One of the key elements of the recommendations to preserve
the Eichler design encourages maintaining the single story layout of the Eichler.
1a. This doesn't seem to reflect one of the key sentiments articulated by the members of the community who opposed the original single story overlay restriction viz. there are limited options to expand to
support growing families in the small sized lots of Palo Alto, especially some of which have significant
easement restrictions due to high voltage power lines (e.g., on Kenneth Drive)
1b. Many of the remodeling projects that I have come aross recently have rebuilt eicher houses with multi-story non-eichler structures. This guidelines seems to limit the options of people who want to
make small additions to their house rather than a rip and replace their entire house. It penalizes residents
who want to keep the spirit of the original design
2. Implications of Guidelines and its enforceability: I would like the spirt of the document to be a guideline and not an enforceable code. I feel it is a slippery slope when the City starts providing guidelines on type of
door handles, garage doors and colors of front doors that we should use. Since the motivation for the guidelines
are aesthetics and not something more fundamental (e.g., energy savings) that have impact on the next
generation, I would strongly urge that the city NOT adopt any formal guidelines around looks. Some of the most innovative designs (including the original Frank Lloyd Wright's modern architecture) would have never
come to pass if the City had insisted on preseving status quo
3. Limited visibility to the process seeking community input: While there seems to have been a process around seeking input on these guidelines, it is unclear how this process was communicated to the community. There is a lot of emails messages during the "last phase" of the process but very limited attempts to get broad community input during the earlier phases. I urge you to postpone any decisions on these
guidelines and plan 1-2 community events during hours that are friendly to young families in the local neighborhoods. Please reach out to
champions of the community who opposed the single community overlay and seek their input on involving the audience.
Even this meeting and vote is during the spring break week for the entire PAUSD. In the past, family with young children who have recently
moved into the neighborhood have opposed both the single story overlay and these harsh restrictions. I feel the choice of the date was by design intended to exclude a large portion of this population who would be away during spring break and discriminatory in nature.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:27 AM
10
Please do NOT vote on this in this week's meeting Thank you Rajesh Srinivasaraghavan 3393 Kenneth Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303
--
--
Rajesh Srinivasaraghavan
My Linkedin Profile - linkedin.com/in/rajeshsrinivasaraghavan
My Calendar accessible publicly is @ calendly.com/rajesh_s
rajesh_s@sloan.mit.edu (e) | rajesh@kallanai.com (e) | 1 650 223 4781(c)
http://www.kallanai.com
This e-mail message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an addressee or
otherwise authorized to receive this message, you should not use, copy, disclose or take any action based on this
e-mail or any information contained in the message. If you have received this material in error, please advise the
sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:27 AM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Enrique Ruspini <ruspini@me.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 01, 2018 1:18 PM
To:Council, City; French, Amy
Cc:Susana Ruspini
Subject:Endorsement of Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines
Dear Palo Alto City Counil Members,
I am writing to you in strong support of your staff recommendation for adoption of Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines as
voluntary guidelines. Furthermore I encorage you to consider the possible use of the Eichler Guidelines in conjunction with the Individual Review Guidelines for two story home reviews and other discretionary entitlement programs. We have lived in the Fairmeadow subdivision of Palo Alto for over 35 years. We have raised our four children in its friendly and safe
environment, and continue, to this day, to admire its unique qualities. When moving to Palo Alto from Southern California in 1982 we were attracted by the special character of the neighborhood with its circles and with the,architecture of its houses, inspired by the
modernist ideas of famed American architect Frank Lloyd Wright. We enjoyed particularly the distinctive nature of our circle and the simple, and clear features of its residences. The layout of the circles and the design of the its houses gives a sense of wide space with open vistas that allow residents to see the front of many of their neighbor’s houses. At the same that design protects privacy—a key consideration of the conceiving architects who sought to integrate indoor and outdoor spaces through wide, rear-facing glass windows and doors. We strongly feel that the proposed gudelines—similar in nature and spirit to those already implemented in the city of Sunnyvale—would help preserve the unique character of Eichler homes and neighborhoods.
We are primarily concerned about the potential effects on home privacy that may stem from lack of these guidelines. A key idea of the
Eichler concept is the integration of indoor and outdoor spaces through rear facing, expansive glass windows and doors. Unless otherwise discouraged houses sharing common boundaries with Eichlers might be built or remodeled in ways that would block llight from reaching those residences while permitting its residents to look directly into the living spaces of their neighbors. We are also deeply worried about the loss of character of the unique Eichler neighborhoods and the concomitant deterioration in the quality of life, As noted in the City of Sunnyvale Eichler Design Guidelines: “Eichler homes are unique anddistinctively modern in design. While they evolved over a period exceeding two decades, theyretained a spirit, a construction approach, and a design aesthetic that is immediately recognized as an Eichler.” Together with our neighbors, we have already been threatened by proposed efforts to tear down and rebuld massive, boxy, houses in styles that are completely dissonant not only with those that its adjacent houses but also with those in the general vicinity. In contrast many houses in our neighborhood have been remodeled and expanded (even to two stories) with concern for the preservation of the Eichler modernist style, Adoption of the Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines would help ensure that characteristics that have guided their conception and subsequent modification—such as simplicity, lack of unnecessary detailing. flat or low-pitched roof lines with exposed beams, recessed or simple front entries, relatively-solid wall front façades, wood siding, and concrete masonry walls—are retained thus preserving the unique chaacter of Eichler neighborhoods. In closing, I would like to point out that experience with adoption of similar guidelines in cities like Sunnyvale have not resulted, as claimed by opponents of the guidelines being considered by your body, in undesirable consequences such as loss of value or lessening or lifestyle qualities. Please help preserve this unique, distinctive, characteristics of Eichler Palo Alto neighborhoods by adoption of the proposed Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines. Sincerely yours, Enrique H. Ruspini Susana A. Ruspini 3720 Carlson Circle
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:27 AM
12
Palo Alto, CA 94306
(650) 494-0862
E-mail: ruspini@mac.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:27 AM
13
Carnahan, David
From:David Hanzel <davidkhanzel@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 01, 2018 4:03 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Eichler Design Guidlines
Council members, I support having Eichler neighborhood design guidelines.
We live in an original Eichler in Royal Manor and also support a Single Story Overlay. Our primary concern is the maintenance of our privacy, both outdoor and indoor; this should be part of any guidelines. Second is protection of our
photovoltaics and yard from shading and obstruction of sky view by an adjacent taller home.
We were unable to achieve SSO protection, the guidelines would be a good start.
Thanks in advance for your service to Palo Alto and your attention to this matter,
David Hanzel
988 Loma Verde Ave.
PA
--
David Hanzel davidkhanzel@gmail.com 650.388.0452
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:27 AM
14
Carnahan, David
From:William Lu <william_lu@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 01, 2018 9:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comments on the proposed Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines
Dear City Council of Palo Alto,
This is William Lu, a resident of Fairmeadow since 2006.
Thank you for the time and efforts in putting together the proposed Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design
Guidelines.
I am against this statement in the proposed Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines: "The Palo Alto
Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines are advisory (voluntary), unless regulatory (zoning) changes are
adopted by the Palo Alto City Council to impose them as a requirement." I propose that it be revised to: "The
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines are strictly advisory and voluntary."
More than 240 years ago, our Founding Fathers created this nation on a set of core principles, one of which is
the protection of private property and the owners' rights. Restrictions or infringements on property owner's
legal rights, in any way or form, are in direct contradiction to this nation's founding principles.
The proposed change above is for the consideration and protection of the property owners' rights.
On a related note, as of August 2017, the average price per square foot for Palo Alto was $1,519, while the
national average for 2017 was $141. In comparison, for 2017, the average price per square foot for San
Francisco was $997.
These numbers tell us that, people paid almost 11 times the national average, or 52% more than the average
San Francisco price, for home ownership in Palo Alto. These homeowners should enjoy the same basic
property rights as everywhere else in this country. These basic property rights include their right to renovate
their homes within the legal limits, without having to go through unnecessary regulations to add a second
story to their home, for example.
In recent years, some residents of this City have expressed their opinions in favor of more restrictions and
more regulations, particularly with respect to second‐story homes. I'd like to remind the City Council that
these residents are simply more vocal about their opinions and preferences. They do not necessarily
represent the majority of our community.
I would be most grateful if you could consider my proposed change, and my comments.
Best wishes!
Yours Sincerely,
William Lu
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:27 AM
15
P.S., here are the sources of the real estate prices mentioned above:
The median sales price for homes in Palo Alto for May 24 to Aug 23 of 2017 was $2,550,000:
https://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Palo_Alto‐California/
Average price per square foot for Palo Alto was $1,519 (as of August 2017):
https://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Palo_Alto‐California/
In California, average price per square foot ranges from $224 in Riverside, to $997 in San Francisco (both as of
year 2017):
http://journal.firsttuesday.us/price‐per‐square‐foot‐analysis‐of‐california‐market/7023/
"The median list price per square foot in the United States is $141."
https://www.zillow.com/home‐values/
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:27 AM
16
Carnahan, David
From:Peter Streiff <peter.streiff@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 02, 2018 9:21 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Eichler Guidelines
City Council,
I strongly encourage you to adopt the Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines. Too many of these houses have
already been destroyed and the privacy of neighbors been impacted. Only strong enforced guidelines can protect our
Eichler Neighborhoods.
Regards, Peter Streiff, Fairmeadow
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:27 AM
17
Carnahan, David
From:Lenore Cymes <lenraven1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 02, 2018 9:56 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Eichler gudelines
Dear Council Members -
To approve “guidelines and recommendations” to someone who just spent
a couple of million and they don’t know or care about Eichlers/MCM or
what their neighbors think - will make all the time and money spent on
this project a waste.
AND - it offers no comfort to Eichler owners Persistence on the part of a
new owner wanting a second story will overrule neighbors objections —
—— just offering suggestions for style and materials is not enough! If
you want value for this project you need to set certain parameters - and
second floors are the first thing to go…….. no matter what, a second
story- with clearstory windows is a visual nightmare— it is still a second
story and totally alters the one story homes around it.. Certain Eichler
styles matter and there are plenty of people owning Eichlers who upgraded
and enlarged yet stayed single story. It anyone thinks that the sale price
of an Eichler will be harmed because of this , take a look at the one that
just sold on Channing and Greer - they were asking 2.6 or more - multiple
offers, don’t know the sale price.
None of us can have it all and if someone wants to go up instead of out
because they want the yard space……. why should a long term resident
have to put up with a second story because they didn’t want to follow the
guidelines and restrictions — it was not a rule.
Please make rules. There are thousands of families with 2-3 children that
lived and thrived in one story Eichlers. Now people think they “need”
double and triple the space. If that is what they want, find a neighborhood
that is already full of 2 story homes……… and please don’t use the
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:27 AM
18
existence of those 2 story homes already in Eichler neighborhoods
- neighbors lost that battle. I truly appreciated that the city dedicated the
time and money to find out what Eichler communities want, however, if
you find ways to not enforce what the majority cares about, it was wasted
resources/time. I went to two meetings and the comments were pretty
consistent - no second story, build or remodel within the MCM concept
and being respectful of those people who will be one’s
neighbors. Chances are the neighbors have lived and worked to build the
community they want to live in.
On Wildwood - a family wanted to build a second story - long ago - and
there was so much reaction to this they didn’t build the second story,
extensively remodeled and have lived there ever since (15-18 years or
more)
On Channing - an Eichler was remodeled, to make it a 5 bedroom home, 3
bathroom (I think it is three). They didn’t put in a second story but have
the entire heating/airconditioning system on the roof - and it is as visually
an eyesore as one can imagine. Why this was approved as it is, is beyond
me.
The Council’s process was valuable, only without rules to follow up, that
same council wasted time and tax dollars. Guidelines and suggestions put
us right back where we were prior to all this effort.
Thank you
Lenore Cymes
Wildwood Lane
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 3:54 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Paul Ramsbottom <pramsbottom@me.com>
Sent:Monday, April 02, 2018 1:24 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:French, Amy
Subject:4/2 council meeting and Eichler design guidelines
I am a Fairmeadow homeowner and resident:
1. I support maintaining architectural coherence in Eichler neighborhoods.
2. I support maintaining individual home privacy by careful scrutiny of second story additions and rebuilds (note, I do not
object the second story homes per se).
3. Other quality of life issues: I disagree with the new ADU rules, I want to see fewer cars on the roads and therefore do
not think improvements to rail crossings should not be a priority, and generally think we should be trying to slow the
growth (and speed) of individual cars and encouraging people to work from home more (this is the only really sensible
option IMHO).
I will be at the meeting tonight.
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 3:54 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:John Hurst <john.hurst77@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 02, 2018 1:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Eichler Home Owner
Dear City Council Members,
My family and I have lived in an Eichler at 3722 Carlson Circle since 1992. We had the house stripped to the studs in a major re-model and brought it back to it's Eichler roots.
What we love about the Eichler is the indoor/outdoor living motif that is great for 3 seasons here in NorCal. We
love the airiness of the home and the floor to ceiling windows at the back of the house. It suits our sensibilities.
It's our hope and desire that you implement the overview of what an Eichler home brings to all the Eichler
neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
John Hurst
--
John Hurst john.hurst77@gmail.com | 650.380.6889
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 3:54 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Lynn Drake <lynnhdrake@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 02, 2018 2:12 PM
To:Eichler; French, Amy; Council, City
Subject:YES! .....to Eichler Design Guidelines
Dear Palo Alto City Council-
I enthusiastically support the adoption of the Proposed Eichler Guidelines.
The guidelines recognize Palo Alto's rich Eichler history and inform owners, real estate brokers, and architects
on the special architectural elements that make these communities special.
This is good response to the divisiveness that ensued after the grassroots campaign for SSO status last year. It was regretful that it divided homeowners within the community. These guidelines address many issues that
arose and is a good compromise to save the mid-century design elements and letting homeowners expand their
home with a second story addition or ADU's to make their work for multi-generational families.
Additionally, I hear that the Utilities department may be offering rebates specifically targeted at Eichlers and I definitely support that. We need to encourage homeowners to keep up the maintenance of their properties if we
are going to preserve architecture.
Thank you to the incredible professionalism of Amy French, and the City Council for stepping as a city leading
the effort towards Eichler preservation.
Best regards,
Lynn Drake
3415 Louis Road
Royal Manor Eichler Subdivision
From:Ng, Judy
To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk"s Office; Council Agenda Email
Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Portillo, Rumi; Blanch, Sandra; Jimenez,
Angelica; Auzenne, Tom; Batchelor, Dean; Enerio, Anthony
Subject:4/2 Council Agenda Questions for Items 6 & 7
Date:Friday, March 30, 2018 2:10:50 PM
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries
made by Council Member Tanaka in regard to the April 2, 2018 council meeting agenda.
Item 6: Amend the Contract Between the Board of Administration of the California Public -
CM Tanaka
Item 7: Water Leak Bill Adjustments - CM Tanaka
Item 6: Amend the Contract Between the Board of Administration of the California Public
Q. 1. How much will each employee be contributing to this fund?
A. 1. Pension contributions are established as a percentage of salary. As a result
of the recommended action and steps that follow, an additional 0.5% of pay will
be collected from each employee and transmitted to CalPERS as a portion of their
contributions to the fund. The resulting total employee contributions will be as
follows:
Employee Type
Classic: in pensions system prior to
2013
New Employee (PEPRA): 2013 and after
After
Amendment
SEIU
Classic Employee
New Employee
9.00%
7.25%
Unrepresented Management
Classic Employee
New Employee
8.50%
6.75%
Unrepresented Police Chief, Assistant
Police Chief, Fire Chief and Fire Deputy
Chiefs
Classic Employee
New Employee
10.50%
10.95%
Represented Police and Fire are not included, as that amendment passed previously.
Item 7: Water Leak Bill Adjustments
Q. 1. How do you intend to cover for the loss of money this bill may entail for the
city?
A. 1. Any revenue loss would accrue to the Water Fund and reflected in water
rates for all customers the following fiscal year. The UAC and Finance Committee
agreed that the staff’s estimate of a $50k revenue loss (assuming the same annual
loss as FY 2004-05, the last year that allowed leak adjustments) from water leak
adjustments would have an insignificant effect on water bills across the rate base.
For example, if adjustments in one year total the full $50k, water rates for the
following fiscal year would increase by about $0.01/ccf, or around $0.08-$0.09 on
a median residential water bill of $84.27.
Q. 2. What will happen if, when the impact on the funds becomes known, there is
not enough money in the funds to cover for this?
A. 2. Funding within the Water Fund is sufficient to cover this change. Staff will
monitor expenditures for water leak adjustments, and if expenditures exceed
$50k level, staff may recommend policy or program modifications.
Q. 3. How often do leaks occur?
A. 3. Unknown. As discussed with the UAC and Finance Committee, water leaks
are often seasonal, coinciding with the start of residential and commercial
irrigation season and automatic time-clock watering. Leak-causing variables
include: water pressure, the age of water distribution system components (valves,
piping, heads, fittings, joints, toilets, faucets, etc.). The $50k annual estimate
represents 20 water leaks at the maximum adjustment level of $2,500 per event.
After reading the report, I think it’s a good idea to also ask:
Q. 4. How many incidents did the cost in FY 2004-2005 cover? What was the price
per incident?
A. 4. Unfortunately, the account-holder records for that period are in a legacy
system and no longer available. The total cost of $50k for the fiscal year was
captured in the Utilities annual financials without individual account-holder detail.
Q. 5. Why did the City stop adjusting water bills after FY 2004-2005?
A. 5. For FY 2006-07 staff recommended that Council change the water leak
adjustment policy in place at that time, because:
· The adjustment amount was based on the wholesale cost of water plus ten
percent, and the wholesale cost of water was not in the water rate schedules at
that time and so the adjustment calculation was not transparent to the account-
holders seeking an adjustment.
· There were no firm definitions or guidelines as to what constituted a “water leak”
and so customers were applying for adjustments for any significant increase in
consumption, including “unexplained” or “I don’t know where the water went.”
· Customers were claiming that their increased water consumption resulted from
errors in utility water metering, and wanted the Water Utility to test their meters
for free. When it was explained that account-holders would have to pay the meter
testing charge if their meter was found to be accurate, there was a sizable increase
in customer dissatisfaction.
· There was interest in eliminating the revenue loss.
The FY 2006-07 conversion to a policy whereby all metered water consumption
being the responsibility of the account-holder was deemed to be the fairest and
most transparent methodology at the time. It also directly made account-holders
responsible for the maintenance of their water distribution system and for their
own water efficiency.
The new water leak adjustment policy mitigates the above concerns to the
greatest degree possible given the ongoing monthly reading schedule for water
meters, details the rules for qualifying water leak adjustments, and has a reduced
financial impact of the Water Fund while helping account holders financially
withstand an uncertain and potentially significant expense.
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
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 J 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 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 | 3/29/2018 11:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Indra Levy <2meko@comcast.net>
Sent:Thursday, March 29, 2018 1:51 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:a better use of our money
Dear City Council Members,
In light of yesterday’s news of sexual assault on a high school student who was jogging on Arastradero in the middle of
the day, how about using our tax dollars to develop a cell phone app for all PA residents that would allow them to
immediately send a distress signal to our police?
My 14‐year‐old son regularly passes by yesterday’s crime scene on his way to school, and I thought of this as a way that
even he might be able to do something if he happened to become a bystander or victim of a similar crime. Please give
this some thought. If done well, it could become a highly effective tool for both fighting and preventing crime, and
would be a much better use of our taxpayer dollars than the $8 MM that is being wasted on “traffic calming."
Sincerely yours,
Indra Levy
3440 Thomas Drive
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:13 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Andy Escovedo <andy.escovedo@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 02, 2018 6:46 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Amy.French@cityofpaloalto.org
City Council Palo Alto
Re: Eichler Guidelines
I support guidelines that prioritize neighbor privacy and architectural compatibility on any major remodel, tear-
down or “In Law” structure in the Royal Manor tract.
Thank you,
Andrew Escovedo
3478 Kenneth Drive
Palo Alto CA 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:13 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 02, 2018 6:48 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Anti-Idling Ordinance
Dear City Council,
I would like to urge you to pass the Anti-Idling Ordinance which is on the agenda tonight. This will greatly
help to reduce the unnecessary emissions of greenhouse gasses to protect our living environment. Just an example, during last year street repair on Melville. I witnessed two incidents of construction vehicles left idling
while the vehicles were unattended for extended period (15min to 30min). In the past, I also frequently
witnessed cars parked on the side of the street of a nearby school waiting to pick up students. Most of if not all
of the cars had windows rolled up and the engines idling to run the air heater, air conditioner or radios. These
behaviors have a detrimental impact to our health. Please pass this pass this Anti-Idling Ordinance as is tonight.
Thanks
Nelson
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:54 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Carol Kibler <cjkib@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Friday, March 30, 2018 3:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Arastadero changes
Hi all,
I am sending my thoughts in again about some of the changes to arastadero.
I went to the community meeting. I was hoping for a presentation but found what to me seemed like this is what is
happening and we are telling you it’s a done deal. Though my correspondence It seems that this is not happing in May
and not a done deal.
1. Adding an extra crosswalk at Coulombe.
Un necessary and problem will lead to it being unsafe. There is only 1 crossing guard and if you have 2 crosswalks by
the time people cross at both no one will be able to turn left on to arastadero from Coulombe.
Waste of time and money to add another one in my opinion
2. The changes you have proposed at Terman I think will cause more traffic problems and back up further down the
street than it already does
Currently it backs up to the cemetery andnor gunn in the evenings cutting this street down to one lane was a huge
mistake to start with but now if you are only able to have cars single file at the light at Terman less cars will get through
and it will take longer I think people will get frustrated and then cut into the other lanes and that will cause more
accidents
During the school hours having the turn lane sep seems like a good idea but I think the the lane that is currently there
people use aaa turn lane so why penalize the other 80 percent of the day.
3. All the concrete barriers and or curbs and islands. I think these are not needed
When an accident happens on arastadero or when traffic is backed up it will be hard to get emergency personal to
dodge the cars are the cement to go around. Currently when there is an accident there are ways to shift the lanes to
keep
Traffic moving Or for cars to move over to let the fire truck go etc. this will be much harder with all of these barriers
Having lived next to this street for 24 years I have seen the problems created each time someone fixes this street.
My wish list
Is that someone could put foothill intersection back to a right hand turn only and the straight with right turn to foothill
coming from the straight lanes. This backs up beyond Gunn at 9 It take 3 cycles of lights for me to get on to foothill
making a left turn. This is because that right lane has Cars sitting there that want to go onto foothill north. I don’t even
use this intersection during the morning commute because it takes even longer and so many students parents going to
Gunn.
I am sure there are other items.....
Please don’t spend all your money on changes that make things worse....
I know your trying to make things better
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:54 AM
2
Carol kibler
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:15 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Schwarzwalder <44rns44@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 03, 2018 3:06 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:44rns44@gmail.com
Subject:Changes to Ross Road
I live on Fielding Court and am writing to express my extreme concern about the changes being implemented on Ross
Road. Having experienced the new arrangement and having a daughter who used to bicycle on Ross Road, I can say with
certainty that the changes have made the road LESS safe for bicyclists. The large planters that protrude into the street
force cyclists into the path of cars. The roundabouts mix car and bike traffic in a dangerous way. Moreover the excessive
speed bumps, roundabouts and obstacle course on Ross has forced more traffic onto Louis, speeding up traffic there and
making it less safe for the numerous bicyclists who use that street.
After the fiasco on California Avenue, I would have expected the city to exercise more care with these ill‐conceived
redesign efforts. You are spending a lot of money to make things much, much worse! If there is such a large budget
surplus in our streets departments, why don’t we fix the numerous potholes in Palo Also streets or resurface streets like
Moreno, that are now a compilation of patches?
The neighborhood seems to universally hate the changes being made. Stop by the YMCA on Ross if you want to hear
how people think; you’ll get an earful ! As city council members, I urge you to put an immediate end to the wasteful and
inappropriate changes to Ross Road and to rein in a streets department that clearly has no sense off the needs of our
community.
Thank you for considering my position.
Very Sincerely,
Dr. Robert Schwarzwalder
868 Fielding Court
Midtown, Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:16 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Norman Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 03, 2018 4:04 PM
To:Keene, James
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Downtown RPP
Given that on February 26, 2018 the City Council directed reduction, as of April 1, of the number of employee
parking permits to 1,000 with another 100 held in reserve, please confirm that, notwithstanding the
postponement of consideration of the enacting resolution, the current permit sales will not exceed that
allotment.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:13 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, April 02, 2018 6:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Eichler Design guidelines
Honorable Council Members,
I want to affirm my support of the existing Single Story Overlay (SSO) zoning protection that residents of my neighborhood (Greenmeadow) worked to get and that a large super majority voted to
approve. Further, all homes purchased after the SSO was approved (like mine) were purchased with the understanding that they would have an SSO. An EO should not be applied to an existing SSO
neighborhood, especially a neighborhood that has been recognized as an historic place on the national
register. Our SSO, along with the work of our Architectural Review Committee, helps us maintain our historic place status.
Please adopt the voluntary Eichler Guidelines. I want to thank staff and the city’s consultant for their meticulous work documenting Eichler history, architecture and related Eichler lifestyle. These guidelines
provide a useful reference tool for homeowners, architects and others who are contemplating remodeling
an Eichler or a home that abuts an Eichler. I don’t think that everything in them should be codified or mandated, and I know that there is some fear in the community that if they are adopted, the city staff may
feel compelled to enforce them. I hope that staff and council will clarify this evening what is meant by
“voluntary” and “adoption.” Make clear what, if any, enforcement might be expected if these guidelines are adopted.
I have been thinking about what might be codified to protect the privacy of Eichler windows and the glass-walled indoor/outdoor spaces that define Eichler architecture and lifestyle. Glass walled Eichler homes are
vulnerable to privacy intrusion. This is so in SSO neighborhoods as well as other areas of the city. A raised floor that puts heads above a fence line or a badly placed window or door can allow a neighbor a view into the most private paces of an Eichler home—master bedrooms, bathrooms, living rooms, family
rooms, kitchens. This privacy is not adequately protected by current code. ADUs now further complicate this problem. We are already seeing conflicts arising our neighborhood as ADUs are built taller and closer
to fence lines than previously allowed. Window and door placement becomes especially important when
homes with glass walls are so close.
I am not sure yet exactly what shape the privacy code should take, but I think that some language that
would protect privacy of glass-walled indoor/outdoor living spaces of Eichlers in all neighborhoods must be provided.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Penny Ellson
(speaking as an individual)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:13 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, April 02, 2018 5:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Eichler guidelines
I totally disagree with the staff's opinion on the Eichler Guidelines. The Eichler's are unique and do have historical
meaning for Palo Alto. It is not right for others buying them to tear them down, or add second floors and
destroy
the neighborhood integrity. If they bought there , I believe any additions they wish to make should fit in with
the architecture of the neighborhood. Guidelines, should avoid such things as Spanish style, and/or excessively tall,
bulky homes, And most of all protect the privacy of other neighbors.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/29/2018 11:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Wednesday, March 28, 2018 1:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fw: $2M too much!
Council Members,
Two Million Dollars to beautify council chambers!! Ladies and Gentlemen, this is NOT the Queen's audience chambers in Buckingham Palace.
I wonder if the City Council has any concept of how to properly spend the taxpayer's money. From recent
projects and/or proposals, it would seem that council member's vanity takes first place, rather then what is
actually needed to make this a more workable city. In 2014 the council spent over $4 million of our money to dress up the city hall lobby. Adding the additional conference room was likely a plus, but all the electronic
displays and other amenities were and are vanity items serving no practical purpose.
Recently I wrote the council asking why East Palo Alto can build a 101 pedestrian bridge for $8 Million, while
Palo Alto plans a $20 million bridge over 101 that appears to be even shorter. I recall the council spent well over $20K of our money just seeking ideas for a vanity bridge that would make a statement (to drivers going 65
mph on highway 101!). Typically, I received no answer to that letter.
In that same letter, I questioned why the Middlefield Avenue approach to bike safety, using sturdy plastic
bollards, was not used on Ross Road, which uses concrete bulb outs that actually force cyclists to enter into the traffic lane in order to make a right turn onto an intersecting road. Middlefield works; Ross Road is an accident
waiting to happen. I even mentioned the unworkable Round-about at the intersection of Ross Road and East
Meadow. I toured Council Member Lydia Kou on the two streets. Ask her what her opinion is, or take the tour
yourselves if you have not already done so.
All this leads me to the proposal to spend $2 million on the council chambers. If the seating is becoming
ragged, repair it, but otherwise you need not spend a dollar on the current room. Forget all the added electronic
gadgets; the audience doesn't need them. I would rather you all spend more time actually deliberating and
doing onsight explorations of your projects to be sure your vanity is not over riding your common sense.
Want to fund a much needed project, where actual people are using a pathway that is imposing serious dangers
to cyclists and pedestrians on a daily basis? Then up grade the Bol Park Pathway for a mere two to three
hundred thousand dollars. Now this is a common sense upgrade to a pathway constructed to 1975 traffic use,
that has become the most used off street mile-long pathway in the city. No vanity here, just good planning for
the safety of the city's cyclists and pedestrians.
As always, thank you for your attention to this letter.
Richard Placone
Chimalus Drive
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/29/2018 11:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Luce, Gwen <GLuce@cbnorcal.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 28, 2018 9:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Beth Minor!
Gwen Luce, Realtor®
DRE License #00879652
Direct Line: 650.566.5343
gluce@cbnorcal.com
Good evening!
Just wanted you to know how helpful City Clerk, Beth Minor was to me today! I was trying to access a Parcel Report – to no avail and she patiently explained the Google ad situation and that access is changing – and walked me through how to achieve my goal 2 ways!
What a gem!
Kindest regards,
Gwen. Luce
Gwen Luce
650-566-5343 gluce@cbnorcal.com
www.gwenluce.com
Powered by e-Letterhead
*Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to
confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a
real estate contract via written or verbal communication.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/29/2018 11:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nat Fisher <sukiroo@hotmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 28, 2018 12:35 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James
Subject:Fw: tasers revisited
No reply from the Chief.
It's time for the Council to take up this question again, since the changes by Taser
International. Read below.
Natalie
From: Nat Fisher <sukiroo@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 11:15 AM
To: Robert Jonsen
Subject: tasers
Do the police officers carry the new tasers, which come with Taser International's new
restrictions and which have less power than the old tasers? Or do they carry the old
tasers?
Taser Intern. is no longer liable for injuries or death due to tasers; only the police
departments are now liable.
The new tasers come with less power and are less effective and the new restrictions make
them useless in most cases.
Your comments, please.
Natalie
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/29/2018 11:48 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rohit Relan <rohitrelan7@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 28, 2018 9:09 PM
To:publicinformation@da.sccgov.org; Council, City; Police; Board Operations; Rohit Relan
Subject:Fwd: from the pa police
county da;
a police dept that sends open letters. what else is this dept doing.
relan
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Barbara <myjuno91@sonic.net>
Date: Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:44 PM
Subject: from the pa police
To: Rohit Relan <rohitrelan7@gmail.com>
Their letter came with the flap unsealed, so I could open it. Which I was going to do anyway.
If the resolution of your complaint is not obtained from local, you should write to the county district attorney. . .
We hope this information will
be helpful to you.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:14 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 02, 2018 9:05 PM
To:Council, City; Norman H. Beamer; Neilson Buchanan; Reza Riahi; Gennady Sheyner;
Keene, James
Subject:Fwd: Nothing accomplished!
Email got away prematurely... more below
The City Council's action tonight to pull the RPP resolution off the consent calendar accomplished precisely nothing.
- It fails to implement a plan to give priority to neighborhood serving businesses as Council directed 18 months
ago.
- It fails to correct the unfair model where downtown businesses can buy permits for the garages or the neighborhoods, and the neighborhood businesses only have access to neighborhood permits. Garages currently
have available parking where neighborhood zones are mostly sold out.
- It fails to address the immediate needs of the dentists who are short 20 permits to accommodate current staff to serve patients.
- It fails to make Council accept responsibility for the bumbling implementation of an RPP program where the
chosen vendor:
- Fails to correctly aggregate 6 month and 1 year permits totals resulting in the oversale of permits - Fails to deliver purchased permits in a timely manner - Prints one year permits with an expiration date of 2023
Our Transportation Staff is currently more short-handed than ever with a key employee departing last week.
Delaying the RPP Resolution for more discussion when we lack the staff to manage the process makes no sense. Tonight residents presented a short-term solution of residents lending resident hang-tags to dentists for 6
months while the City holds more meetings.
The City should say thank you and accept this offer.
John Guislin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:47 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Thursday, March 29, 2018 7:46 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: What's your opinion on this bill - what are the negative impacts for housing
heights, parking requirements,
From: Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Date: Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: What's your opinion on this bill - what are the negative impacts for housing heights, parking requirements, "M. Gallagher" <writing2win@gmail.com>
Ideas for Council to reflect upon...Sent to Simitian recently from a WILPF
member--
Dear Joe:
I was recently asked by the Women's League of International Peace and
Freedom:
What is my opinion of SB827 to create more housing near transit, the height
limits, and other provisions?
My initial response is enumerated as follows:
1. I would like to see other options exhausted first.
I speak as a seasoned inhabitant of the housing at Alma Place near transit in
Palo Alto, CA for the last 4 years and in Boston, MA along the green lines
for about a decade. In addition, I am the grand daughter of a family on my
mother's side whose home in Boston's West End was purchased for $7000
by eminent domain in the name of urban development. A diverse
community was destroyed to build a high
rise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_End,_Boston
When neighborhoods begin to be or become more urban, many adverse
living conditions arise. For example, let me site a few:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:48 AM
2
a. Sleeping well at any time of day becomes nearly impossible without
earplugs or other sound barriers.
b. These new urban communities are often or become fraught with daily
conflict for parking, space, quiet, crime, blight, play space, illness.
c. I object to the taking of property rights or compromising the property
rights of homeowners who now live near public transit and who would be
affected by the zoning variances imposed by the state usurping local
laws/ordinances.
2. Other options would be:
a.Identifying and prohibiting 'ghost houses', houses bought, often with cash
by foreign investors, primarily for investment to sell at a later time after
much monetary appreciation.
b. Identifying and inviting elderly homeowners--who live alone or with a
partner--to consider sharing their residence with others after matching
renters with elderly homeowners.
c. Identifying single or two story commercial/residential buildings that
would be suitable to add another story or two to the first story.
d. Having a conversation with those needing/seeking housing to ask what
housing options or housing environments would interest them. Perhaps,
asking housing seekers to take a survey to clarify the needs and wants of
those seeking housing: essentially a needs assessment.
e. Invite shared ownership of existing buildings/residences.
Urban planners and all those advocating for housing, especially those in
positions of political power, seem to assume all humans do is work. Housing
developments and dormitories in many places across our nation could be
mistaken for prisons, tall structures with windows, and cells called
apartments/units/dorms. Going out to play often means taking an elevator
from the 17th floor rather than exiting the back or front to stroll to a river a
park or back yard.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:48 AM
3
SB872--from my limited understanding--does not seem to consider how the
quality of life of those living in the new as well as the existing residences that
live close to mass transit.
Mary Gallagher, B.S.
Content Strategist
650-683-7102
Copyright 2018
Security Alert Notice
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential information, presumed to be virus free, and
intended only for use by the individual or entity named above. Virus protection is the responsibility of
the recipient. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, dissemination or distribution is
prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete the material from your computer.
Thank you.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 1:37 PM, M. Gallagher <writing2win@gmail.com> wrote:
Please do, the council in Palo Alto and all those with the power to influence
where, how, and for whom housing is built for those who need it most.
Mary Gallagher, B.S.
Content Strategist
650-683-7102
Copyright 2018
Security Alert Notice
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential information, presumed to be virus free, and
intended only for use by the individual or entity named above. Virus protection is the responsibility
of the recipient. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, dissemination or distribution
is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete the material from your computer.
Thank you.
Security Alert Notice
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential information, presumed to be virus free, and
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:48 AM
4
intended only for use by the individual or entity named above. Virus protection is the responsibility
of the recipient. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, dissemination or
distribution is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete the material from
your computer. Thank you.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 1:20 PM, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote: These are really good alternatives. We should post these, if you are okay w/ this.
r
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:21 PM, WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>
wrote: Mary and Roberta,
Thanks for your feedback. I won't distribute information about this proposal to the roster. Looks like
there are many alternative options! I'm always happy to send out communication from the committee to
the roster that you agree upon, although I know that sometimes you may have differences of opinion within the committee.
Judy
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:41 AM, M. Gallagher <writing2win@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Housing Advocates:
What is my opinion of SB827 to create more housing near transit?
1. I would like to see other options exhausted first. I speak as a seasoned
inhabitant of housing near transit in Palo Alto for the last 4 years and
in
Boston for about a decade.
When neighborhoods begin to be more urban, many adverse living
conditions arise. For example, let me site a few:
a. Sleeping well at any time of day becomes nearly impossible.
b. These new urban communities are often or become fraught with
daily conflict for parking, space, quiet, crime, blight.
c. I object to the taking of property rights or compromising the
the property rights of homeowners who now live near public
public transit and would be affected by the zoning variances
imposed by the state.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:48 AM
5
2. Other options would be:
a. Identifying and prohibiting 'ghost houses', houses bought, often
with
cash by foreign investors, primarily for investment to sell at a later
time
after much monetary appreciation.
b. Identifying and inviting elderly homeowners--who live alone or
with a
partner--to consider sharing their residence with others after
matching
renters with elderly homeowners.
c. Identifying single or two story commercial/residential buildings
that
would be suitable to add another story or two to the first story.
d. Having a conversation with those needing/seeking housing to ask
what housing options or housing environments would interest
them.
Perhaps, asking housing seekers to take a survey to clarify the
needs
and wants of those seeking housing.
e. Invite shared ownership of existing buildings/residences.
Urban planners and all those advocating for housing seem to assume all
humans do is work. Housing developments in many places could be
mistaken for prisons, tall structures with windows, and cells called
apartments/units. Going out to play often means taking an elevator
from
the 17th floor rather than exiting the back or front to stroll to a river
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:48 AM
6
a park or back yard.
SB827 from my limited understanding does not seem to consider how
the quality of life of those living in the new as well as existing residences
that are close to transit.
I appreciate being asked my opinion and would like to join some
housing
task force to make better housing options a reality for those who need it
most.
Keep well.
With different housing options in mind,
Mary
Mary Gallagher, B.S.
Content Strategist
650-683-7102
Copyright 2018
Security Alert Notice
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential information, presumed to be virus free,
and intended only for use by the individual or entity named above. Virus protection is the
responsibility of the recipient. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient,
dissemination or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete
the material from your computer. Thank you.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:22 AM, WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto
<wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com> wrote:
link to bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB827
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:48 AM
7
email from CA YIMBY.
Judy - - - - - -
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your priv acy, Outlook prevented automatic download of thi s pi ctu re from the In ternet.
Dear Judy,
California is in crisis after decades of failing to create enough housing to keep up with demand. And it’s
impacting our quality of life with longer commutes, less sleep, and worsening air pollution.
But there’s a solution to ending the housing crisis. And with your help, we can make it happen!
Senator Scott Wiener’s Senate Bill 827 will increase home building near transit so Californians can drive
less, save money on gas, and make the air we breathe cleaner. Today we need your help to move SB 827 forward, and end California’s housing shortage once and for all!
Click here to call your state senator and urge them to support SB 827, the bill that would create
more housing near transit, thereby reducing long commutes and pollution.
Your state senator needs to hear from regular Californians like you that our housing shortage is causing chronic traffic congestion, forcing us to breathe polluted air from the noxious fumes. Without SB 827, everything will keep getting worse.
We cannot continue living like this. But we can work together to stop the madness.
Call your state senator NOW and urge them to support SB 827, to make California more affordable
and accessible, and help clean up our dirty air.
Thank you for your support,
Stacy Cohen
Chief Advocacy Officer, California YIMBY
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:11 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Brittany Vanderhoff <brittany@palletshelter.com>
Sent:Monday, April 02, 2018 1:58 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Homeless Housing-Pallet Shelters
Attachments:Pallet Tri-fold brochure.pdf
Hello Respected City Council Members, I'm writing you from Seattle, where I recently heard of the challenges your city is facing with homelessness. We've been working with the City of Tacoma on their response and we've come up with something that I think you'd like to see. We are a social purpose company that makes temporary housing shelters and provides employment opportunities to individuals coming out of prison, addiction recovery and homelessness. I have attached an info packet on the shelters we make, for your reference. The City of Tacoma has purchased our Pallet Shelters to create transitional housing opportunities. You can find more on their plan here
- http://www.cityoftacoma.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=169&pageId=127818
If we can be of any assistance in the response you are preparing for the homeless individuals in your area, please let us know.
Thank you!
Brittany Vanderhoff, Sales & Marketing
brittany@palletshelter.com
C:(541)761-4809 Palletshelter.com
Info@PalletShelter.com
www.PalletShelter.com
+1 (208) 572 -5538
PO Box 77570
Seattle , WA 98177
Call Today !
Customized
Shelter Solutions
Safety and stability in a
compact , rapidly assembled
private shelter
Light and Compact for Easy Transport
Fit-for-Purpose Interiors
PalletShelter.com
Pallet is a Social Purpose
Corporation, meaning we have
a double bottom line - people
and profits.
We prevent and reduce
displacement, both through the
high-quality products we build
and the invaluable people who
build them. We are second-
chance friendly; hiring and
investing in people actively
engaged in recovery and
reintegration.
In multiple ways, the purchase
of a Pallet product gives
someone a safe place to begin
again.
Durable
Long lifespan - set up again
and again
Mold, mildew, rot and insect
resistant
Easy to clean and sanitize
Only $7 per person, per
day over a 6-month duration
Multiple uses and deployments
Lower transport and storage
costs
Quick set-up and
disassembly- only 20 minutes
No tools required
Flat packed and easy to
transport, deploy and store
Rapid
Affordable
S a f e a n d P o r t a b l e H o u s i n g
A n y t i m e . A n y w h e r e .
Safe, secure and private
Adaptable to both cold and hot
climates
Lightweight and compact -
under 400 lbs.
Easy to transport and deploy
Many add-on options available
Benefits
Dimensions: 8x8x8 feet set up,
only 1 foot high when packaged
5 windows and lockable door
Strong structural floor and roof
Up to 4 fold-up bunk beds can
be installed along with shelves
Retractable anchoring system
Features
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:16 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kristian Meyers <k_meyers@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 03, 2018 3:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:In support of Eichler Design Guidelines
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I strongly support the adoption of Design Guidelines for Eichler Neighborhoods. I have been an Eichler owner for fifteen
years, and during that time, I have been directly affected by imposing new construction. This has resulted in both a loss
of privacy and obstruction of natural views.
I find it disheartening to observe on a regular basis other Eichler homeowners being subjected to adjacent new
construction or radical modifications that show no apparent thought for maintaining neighborhood consistency. I
believe Eichler homes have an inherent unique quality that is worth preserving. Since Palo Alto has the greatest
concentration of these wonderful homes, I would expect the City to have a strong desire to lead the way in protecting
both the individual homes and their respective neighborhoods for the benefit of future generations.
Regards,
Kristian Meyers
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:14 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Harry Luo <harrison.luo@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 02, 2018 7:16 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:In support of naming a PA city park after Fred Yamamoto
Dear Sir,
I am writing to support naming a city park after Fred Yamamoto.
As far as I respect Fred Yamamoto for his legends, I spoke against naming a middle school after him because it easily
confuses with Isoroku Yamamoto, one of the top WWII war Japanese army criminals. A middle school is usually referred
by the last name, e.g. Jordan Middle and Terman Middle. We felt that Yamamoto Middle School will be too easily
interpreted, by people inside and outside our community, as being named after the much more well‐known war criminal
instead of our community role model Fred.
We want to pursue alternate ways to honor Fred Yamamoto.
Naming a city park after him is one of the best alternate ways. Very different from a middle school where kids go every
day and tie their identity with, a park is where people visit from time to time to relax. In addition, a park is usually called
for its full name, unlikely to be confused as endorsing any notorious people happened to have the same last or first
name.
Please consider our request, and name a city park after Fred Yamamoto.
Thank you!
Harry
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:55 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:John Minck <jlminck1222@att.net>
Sent:Saturday, March 31, 2018 8:58 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Mar 31, 2018
Dear Members of the City Council
Jane and I moved to Palo Alto in 1956, to attend Stanford. So I have watched a long period of growth of the city, the
industry and commercial entities, and sophistication in government.
Jane died in 2016 after 60 years of marriage.
I never took much part in the city government, although I was active in the recall of 4 councilmen in 1967. My neighbor
happened to be Bob Debs, who was one of the men recalled.
Most of my interest has been around my home in Midtown, driving mostly on Middlefield for 6 decades. About 3
months ago, I began to attend the Ross Road YMCA, thereby driving along the new construction of curbing protrusions,
and the impediments at certain intersections.
I must tell you Council Members, that these "bonehead improvements" are just accidents waiting to happen, probably
representing serious bodily injury damage to school kids biking down Ross Rd.
I will tell you that I am glad I don't bike anymore, at 87, because riding a bike down Ross Rd would be highly dangerous
to my health, since my bike would be forced into the constricted two lanes of passing traffic about 2 feet apart. The
alternative is to recommend that all school kids bike on the sidewalks. I will tell you that if I had school age kids, I would
demand that they bike on the sidewalks of Ross.
Moreover, the entrance driveway at the YMCA now requires me to drive in the opposing car lane to be able to make the
SHARP right turn into the facility.
The other day I was stalled in the ill‐conceived roundabout on Ross because a city truck was parked too close to the
corner, loading material at the curb, forcing a long‐body crew‐cab pickup into a turn it couldn't make around the city
truck in order to enter the roundabout.
The combination of roundabouts and constricted lanes are absurd design thinking, and will lead to someone's death,
and I hope it is not a schoolchild. May I suggest EVERY one of you Council Persons drive south on Ross and turn into the
YMCA entry.
Sincerely,
John Minck
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/29/2018 11:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Indra Levy <2meko@comcast.net>
Sent:Thursday, March 29, 2018 12:35 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Misuse of $8 MM for "traffic calming" calamity on Ross Road and elsewhere
Dear City Council Members,
I was unhappy to see the bizarre road‐narrowing on Loma Verde created by the construction of concrete and stone
median strips (?) at a four‐way stop. This makes the road more dangerous for both motorists and cyclists, as it narrows
the path on which both must travel and is completely counter‐intuitive for both. (And, I would add, that I say this on the
basis of having passed through this intersection as both a motorist and a cyclist on a regular basis for the last 13 years.)
Now it appears that there are many such construction projects throughout Palo Alto, either completed, in process, or
planned, and so far as I can tell none of them make any sense. On top of that, I just learned that these projects are
costing $8 million. This is nothing short of outrageous, and has become the single most heated topic of conversation on
Nextdoor Palo Verde, with virtually all voices expressing increasing anger at this misuse of our tax dollars.
I urge you to immediately suspend the “traffic calming” projects and call a town hall to hear the voices of Palo Alto
residents. The backlash against this initiative is widespread and intense, and you ignore it at your own peril.
Indra Levy
3440 Thomas Drive
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/29/2018 11:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Laura Herrero <laurachristineherrero@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 28, 2018 10:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:NYTimes.com: Spy Contractor’s Idea Helped Cambridge Analytica Harvest Facebook
Data
Dear City Council,
I am very concerned about the business Palantir conducts on behalf of foreign governments and those willing to
undermine our democracy (see below article from today’s New York Times). Why allow a company like this to conduct
this type of business within city limits?
Laura
From The New York Times:
Spy Contractor’s Idea Helped Cambridge Analytica Harvest Facebook Data
Cambridge Analytica was aided by an employee at Palantir, a contractor to the Pentagon. Palantir is owned by Peter
Thiel, a wealthy Trump supporter and board member at Facebook.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/us/cambridge‐analytica‐palantir.html
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:13 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kimberley Wong <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 02, 2018 7:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please pass the Anti-Idling Ordinance
Dear City Council Members,
I am not able to attend tonight's meeting, but would like to pass the Anti-Idling Ordinance which is on the agenda tonight.
We all must do our part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that pollute our air, create health problems, and create damage to our
trees. To outlaw idling is a very simple way to reduce these emissions and should be mandated, abided by, and enforced.
There have been many times that I've seen service trucks, buses, parents sitting nearby and in downtown Palo Alto idling for the purpose of keeping on their air conditioning, heaters or listening to their radios or on a conference call. This is very unnecessary as
well as irresponsibly polluting our environment. There are many studies which cite pollution as health hazards as well. We are a city of walkers, bikers, joggers, and skateboarders who all enjoy the beautiful Palo Alto weather all times of the year.
Please pass this Anti-Idling Ordinance and help keep our residents and environment safe.
Thank you, Kimberley Wong Palo Alto Resident who loves to frequently jog, bike and walk Palo Alto city streets
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:53 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:William M. Conlon <bill@conlon.org>
Sent:Friday, March 30, 2018 2:34 PM
To:leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique
Cc:Gaines, Chantal; Rice, Danille; Keene, James; Martinez, Josh; Council, City
Subject:Re: Change in terms of service
Dear Dr. Ziesenhenne,
Thank you for your response.
I was under the impression that the BiblioCommons system was Software As A Service (SAAS) and that the City has not
purchased or licensed software, but rather has entered into a contract for services. Are the same security and privacy
audits in place for SAAS as for software that is installed on equipment subject to supervision by the City’s IT staff? Does
the City have a process in place to assure that the underlying BiblioCommons software that provides the service is
audited before changes are rolled out to CPA library patrons?
I appreciate that Purchasing and Legal review terms and conditions, but it seems that this function is to protect the City
rather than the Patrons. Did the City Attorney also vette the BiblioCommons user agreement that patrons must
accept? If so, will the City Attorney be given notice before changes are made to that Agreement, as BiblioCommons may
make changes without notice to users.
Did the City Attorney provide or obtain an opinion on the BiblioCommons Terms of Service
[https://paloalto.bibliocommons.com/info/terms/]? I understand that California law provides certain rights with respect
to library privacy. If these were to be breached by BiblioCommons, would the City undertake to seek remedies in
Toronto on behalf of the patron? Of note, the agreement is dated 15 January 2015, some three years ago.
After sending my email, I became aware of several newspaper articles that expressed concerns with BiblioCommons
[https://ebar.com/openforum/opforum.php?sec=guest_op&id=497 ,
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/07/hold_that_book_but_youre_riski.html]. Did the City consider
and address any of the concerns that have been raised earlier?
I understand that the American Library Association has a checklist
[http://www.ala.org/advocacy/privacy/checklists/OPAC] regarding privacy. Did the CPA Library use this checklist and
does generally conform to these guidelines?
The above‐reference ALA guidelines recommend minimal collection of information. I noticed that my registration on
BiblioCommons includes my birth month and year. As it seems to me the library only needs to distinguish between
adults and minors, why is the information maintained?
Finally, with respect to the hold I requested, I note that the item is currently shown as checked out with no holds.
I look forward to having my concerns alleviated, and I fully expect to be able to access the library’s many resources.
Regards,
William M. Conlon, P.E., Ph.D.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:53 AM
2
From: "leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique" <Monique.leConge@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Date: Friday, March 30, 2018 at 12:42 PM
To: "bill@conlon.org" <bill@conlon.org>
Cc: "Gaines, Chantal" <Chantal.Gaines@CityofPaloAlto.org>, "Rice, Danille" <Danille.Rice@CityofPaloAlto.org>,
"Keene, James" <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>, "Martinez, Josh" <Josh.Martinez@CityofPaloAlto.org>,
"Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: RE: Change in terms of service
Dear Bill,
Thank you for your comments regarding the library’s services. On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, I am replying to
first, acknowledge receipt of your e‐mail, and second, to acknowledge that the library staff has, I believe, found an
option for you to use for library holds, and though it may not be optimal, for now, you are getting the holds you’ve
requested.
I also wanted to let you know that the City of Palo Alto’s IT Department requires that all software purchased for use by
the City is vetted for security purposes and must meet strict privacy and security standards before we are allowed to
enter into a contract. Furthermore, all contracts must be approved by Purchasing and the City Attorney, who would
require that the vendor comply with legal standards before allowing the contract to go to the City Council for
approval. Many regional libraries already have or are considering the same software, which means that their systems
for vetting and consideration of security have also found BiblioCommons acceptable. I hope that this alleviates your
concerns and that you will be able to access the library’s many resources.
Again, thank you for taking the time to convey your thoughts about the library’s services. I do appreciate it.
Sincerely,
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 | 4/2/2018 10:53 AM
3
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: William M. Conlon [mailto:bill@conlon.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 4:46 PM
To: Library, Pa <pa.library@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Change in terms of service
I would like to express my objection to recent changes at the City of Palo Alto Library.
The library has entered into a contract with a Canadian company, BiblioCommons, to provide services related to the
library's collections. Unfortunately, this is not merely a back‐office function in support of the library, but directly
impacts the users of the library.
Notably, it is no longer possible to request that an item be placed on hold, unless the individual creates an account with
Biblio. There may be other services that are similarly affected, such as inter‐library loans.
Now, individuals must either sign up with BiblioCommons, accepting their terms of service that include arbitration in
Toronto, Canada, or ask a librarian to place a hold on the item. This is true both for online remote access to the library
collection and in‐person physical access in the library building. Presumably, the librarian will enter the individual's
information into the BiblioCommons system when placing the hold.
It seems to me that:
* this is an extra and unnecessary burden on both users and librarians;
* this will increase risk of leakage of private information, as the BiblioCommons privacy terms plainly state that "Lists of
your current loans, due dates, outstanding fees, etc. may be loaded from your library record during your sessions
online." Even if this information is not stored in a user account by BiblioCommons, it may be intercepted in transit, or
may persist in log files on remote servers.
* the City should not require users to sign up with a private third party to receive taxpayer funded services
* it is unreasonable that citizens of Palo Alto would subordinate their rights under California and US law to a private
third party
* it is unreasonable that citizens of Palo Alto should be forced to accept an arbitration clause in a foreign country in
order to use taxpayer provided services.
I would ask the library director to allow holds to be placed using just the library card bar code and PIN, as before,
without requiring the establishment of an account with BiblioCommons.
Thank you.
Bill Conlon
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:12 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 02, 2018 5:19 PM
To:Norman Beamer
Cc:Reza Riahi; Neilson Buchanan; Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Mello,
Joshuah; Hur, Mark; Elaine Uang; Gabrielle Layton; Michael Hodos; Brand, Richard; Dave
Price; Gennady Sheyner; DDS Kevin Low; Stan Bjelajac; Beth Rosenthal; Mary Gallagher;
Allen Akin; Elaine Meyer
Subject:Re: Downtown RPP on Consent Calendar
Council Members:
Recent exchanges about the Downtown RPP program highlight the views of frustrated business
owners who have not been able to buy permits in the zones they desire. The root of the problem can be traced to:
- The City's inaction on Councils' direction to set up a priority system for neighborhood-serving
businesses, leaving a first-come, first-serve model in place.
- The failure of the City's permit vendor to accurately control permit sales in 2017.
- The restricted access to downtown garage parking only available to Parking Assessment District (PAD) members. (Note, however, these same PAD businesses are allowed to buy neighborhood RPP
permits.)
I agree that the dentists, therapists and other neighborhood-serving businesses should have priority
to RPP permits. The City's failure to act in a reasonable time frame has created frustration and confusion.
I propose an immediate solution that residents can implement:
I will find 10 residents willing to buy Resident Guest Hangtags and lend them to the
dentists lacking permits for 6 months. This will solve the immediate crisis.
In return, the City will agree that this permit use is valid and will implement a
priority system for neighborhood-serving businesses no later than August 2018.
It is an embarrassment that our City government has let the frustration reach this point.
John Guislin
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 5:16 PM, Norman Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com> wrote:
If there are 200 unsold permits, and the workers need 20 more, then it does not seem that the resolution needs to be moved off
consent. Also, remember that the staff has that extra 100 in reserve if absolutely needed, which can be resorted too under the current resolution -- again, no need to further delay passage of the resolution. That said, in parallel with passing the resolution, there should
be an effort to come up with a better accommodation in the near future for the dental practices and other neighborhood serving business -- e.g., giving them priority over the non-neighborhood serving office users such a venture capital, Palantir, etc.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:12 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Stan Bjelajac <stan85b@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 02, 2018 5:40 PM
To:Reza Riahi
Cc:Neilson Buchanan; Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Mello, Joshuah; Hur,
Mark; Elaine Uang; Gabrielle Layton; Michael Hodos; John Guislin; Brand, Richard;
Norman H. Beamer; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; DDS Kevin Low; Beth Rosenthal;
Mary Gallagher; Allen Akin; Elaine Meyer
Subject:Re: Downtown RPP on Consent Calendar
Dear City Council:
A few notes from the Evergreen experience: 1) the number of permits can control demand for permits 2) the number of permits without regulated distribution and respect for available capacity puts an incredible
burden on businesses such as medical and dental offices, some of which in our case were left out for 6 months
without any permits.
I The residents and medical/dental professionals have spoken whether through meetings or via petitions and concurred that priority should be given to these businesses in purchasing and renewing the permits. The Council has mostly focused on the number of permits, which albeit an indicator is limited due to data its
based on. No effort was given to distribution or prioritization except in the case of Addison School. I understand
that Downtown currently we don't know how many employees there are, peak show rate, show rate per office or
why the demand for permits decreased. My hope is that tonight the Council can achieve the following:
1) Immediate Fix- Provide dentists with permits to hold them over until the problem can be properly addressed.
Alternatively, relying on scratches will "push the can down the road" while adding congestion to the
neighborhood. Other solutions may be available and I am sure will be discussed this evening. 2) Put a program in place that businesses within 2-3 blocks of garages be allowed to get garage permits only and not be eligible for both street and garage parking
3) By the next RPP cycle, carve out medical and dental practices out of 1000 allocated permits, to ensure their
office viability and predictability going forward. The latter coupled with a comprehensive renewal program may
help alleviate many of the issues. All the Best,
Stan Bjelajac, DDS
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Reza Riahi <reza@rezariahidds.com> wrote: Dear City Council,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:12 PM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Reza Riahi <reza@rezariahidds.com>
Sent:Monday, April 02, 2018 5:46 PM
To:Brand, Richard
Cc:Neilson Buchanan; Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Mello, Joshuah; Hur,
Mark; Elaine Uang; Gabrielle Layton; Michael Hodos; John Guislin; Norman H. Beamer;
Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; DDS Kevin Low; Stan Bjelajac; Beth Rosenthal; Mary
Gallagher; Allen Akin; Elaine Meyer
Subject:Re: Downtown RPP on Consent Calendar
Richard,
The initial RPP numbers were set at 2000. this number was reduced to 1400 last year with 100 in reserve after
the city sold 1335 permits. This year the proposed reduction is to 1000 with 100 in reserve after the city sold 1090 last year. In 2 years we have reduced the permit numbers by 50% isn't that drastic? The City report clearly shows that the parking permit holders account for 6-12% of the congestion and that the majority of the parking
is taken up by the residents and the 2 hour parkers. These are the facts that led the City staff to recommend no
further reduction at the last meeting. the numbers are going down because businesses that can are getting around
the problem and allow for their employees to move their cars every 2 hours. I have spoken to a couple of these businesses myself. The Dental and Medical staff can not do that. We are being punished by playing within the rules.
Reza Riahi
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Richard C. Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net> wrote: Reza:
While reading your note this phrase “drastic reduction in number of permits available” jumped out at me. Your
statement is just not true.
The new permit numbers are only adjusted to align with the reality of employee permit sales from the last RPP year.
Richard Brand
Resident and RPP Stakeholder Committee member.
On 2 Apr 2018, at 4:56 PM, Reza Riahi <reza@rezariahidds.com>
Dear City Council,
As of today the dental practices in the perimeter of the Downtown RPP area are short 20
permits. This is not a complete number. This number comes form my staff calling the
neighborhood practices in our vicinity (Middlefield and Channing). Most of our offices fall in the perimeter so getting permits in the parking structures or clear across town does not serve us for the same reasons that we don't ask our patient to park in the downtown and then walk 5-7
blocks to our offices. The petition that went out last year and gained nearly 1200 PA resident
signatures in support of guaranteed parking for the dental offices was presented to you in the
past. There is a very recent petition going around with only 2-4 offices (among 27) participating, which already has over 860 supporters asking for the city to designate guaranteed parking for the Dental / Medical providers in the city. As previously presented the PA dental
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:12 PM
10
offices treat over 43000 PA residents, vast majority of which want us to stay. However, the
recent proposed changes and the drastic reductions ahttps://www.change.org/p/christopher-joy-
urgent-help-save-your-palo-alto-dentists?recruiter=865338397&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campai
gn=share_email_responsivehs well as removing zones 9 and 10 have put our practices in
jeopardy. As the City is already aware attracting and retaining qualified personnel is extremely
challenging due to the commute difficulties. Our small offices are struggling to retain our highly
skilled staff and loosing parking will severely hinder us in that effort. Other larger businesses may have the option of working from home or getting around the 2 hour parking by perpetual
parking rotation. Medical and dental staff can not abandon their patients, run outside and move
their cars every 2 hours. Retaining the dental / medical and other health providers in the city
should be a part of the greater City plan. There's no better time in granting parking to the dental
/ medical community which have been part of Palo Alto of decades.
https://www.change.org/p/christopher-joy-urgent-help-save-your-palo-alto-
dentists?recruiter=865338397&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campai
gn=share_email_responsive
Best,
Reza Riahi
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear City Council,
I understand that there is a full court press to move the RPP item from consent calendar
tonight.
I have talked with some but not all the concerned individuals. The amount of misinformation
and non-information is alarming.
Nevertheless, I understand why some businesses may be concerned. But the problems are
being blown out of proportion.
I urge the Council not to make a knee jerk reaction to political pressure and redesign elements
of the Downtown RPP without analysis and consultation with staff, residents and businesses.
Here are essential facts as I know them.
1. There are over 200 unsold non-resident permits. See recent staff analysis below.
2. The first-come, first-serve allocation process for non-resident permits assures that late
applicants will not get zones of choice.
3. Significant parking capacity exists in the Cowper/Webster garage. See attached photos and multi-month analysis of unused capacity in Bryant and Cowper/Webster garages.
4. Improvements to the Downtown RPP must be fact-based, rational decisions driven by staff.
5. The fundamentals of Downtown RPP are not broken. Council must ask staff again to return
with a prioritization policy for issuance of scarce non-resident permits to applicants. This
policy must address to entitlements of Parking Assessment District tenants to park in the garages/surface lots versus residential neighborhoods.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:12 PM
11
Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>; Kamhi, Philip <Philip.Kamhi@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018, 5:07:46 AM PDT
Subject: Re: Update
Hello John and Neilson,
Sorry for the delay.
Employee Parking
Zone Total Permits Available Permits Sold as of 3/29/2018
1 69 69
2 111 111
3 208 71
4 176 79
5 162 162
6 92 92
7 125 125
8 57 57
9 0 0
10 0 0
Total 1,000 766
Mark Hur | Parking Operations Lead
Planning & Community Environment ‐ Transportation
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
Ph: (650) 329‐2453 | E: Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:12 PM
12
Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix. Download the app or click here to make a service
request.
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
--
Reza Riahi DDS, MMSc
Palo Alto Endodontic Center
850 Middlefield Road, Suite 4
Palo Alto, CA. 94301
Phone (650) 485-2514
Fax (650) 485-2511
-- Reza Riahi DDS, MMSc
Palo Alto Endodontic Center
850 Middlefield Road, Suite 4
Palo Alto, CA. 94301
Phone (650) 485-2514
Fax (650) 485-2511
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:19 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rohit Relan <rohitrelan7@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 31, 2018 1:16 AM
To:Rohit Relan; publicinformation@da.sccgov.org
Cc:Police; environmentalcrime@interpol.int; inspector@unhcr.org; Council, City;
mjr@stanford.edu; Office of the President; Board Operations; CIO State Information;
Press@usdoj.gov; elizabeth.wareing@seattle.gov; epwashington@europarl.europa.eu;
OTP InformationDesk; president.juncker@ec.europa.eu; recruitment@opcw.org;
miroslav.lajcak@un.org; publishing@echr.coe.int; juan-
carlos.gonzalez@curia.europa.eu; annuaire.interinstitutionnel@consilium.europa.eu;
cristina.lambotte@europarl.europa.eu; mail@bundestag.de; de-mail@bundestag.de-
mail.de; WEBMESTRE@assemblee-nationale.fr; inquiries@un.org;
holocaustremembrance@un.org; info@parl.gc.ca; speakers.office@parliament.govt.nz;
U.S. Senator Rand Paul; Press_Harris@harris.senate.gov; KlinckMV2@state.gov; San
Francisco Asylum; info.berlin@dfat.gov.au; Paulino, Tom (Feinstein);
Chesna_Foord@feinstein.senate.gov; frantisek.ruzicka@un.org; borgess@un.org;
mihalikova@un.org; vorzimmer.peta@bundestag.de; kanzlei.peta@bundestag.de;
SFPDCentralStation@sfgov.org; Registration@doj.ca.gov; CACI-Inquiry@doj.ca.gov;
missing.persons@doj.ca.gov
Subject:Re: Rohit Relan
Rohit Relan
Palo Alto CA 94301 March 31 2018
District Attorney Santa Clara County CA:
How long does your office intend to take to process my matter, as in the email below from a few days ago.
The last time I contacted the UK and US, New Zealand, Australian - and Canadian -parliaments to stop the
attacks, there was governmental discussion "no quick solution," and the attacks were increased; while the
Financial Times, Reuters, BBC, Radio New Zealand, New Zealand Herald, Sydney Morning Herald,
Toronto Star and Globe and Mail and the Wall Street Journal discussed biological attacks via
adjusting machines and equipment; and celebrated biological damage.
There has been global media allusion to this matter; the UK, US, Australian, New Zealand and Canadian
celebration of biological attacks has increased; specifically from the parliament of the UK, and the person primarily accused.
This person organized a street fight between animals outside government offices the last time I contacted the
UK parliament.
This person appears so consumed with hate, anger, envy and despair ("nobody else in the UK wants my
job"), this person appears almost deranged with a thirst for displaced and misguided revenge.
This is the second time the head of state of that country is celebrating biological attacks and the damage to my
head, hair and body:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:19 PM
2
https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/937405/Queen-Elizabeth-Commonwealth-secret-BBC-
documentary-George-Alagiah
http://www.pulse.com.gh/news/local/queen-elizabeth-honours-ghanaian-librarian-id8025777.html
This is not the first, or second, time the person primarily accused, or institution, has publicly made a threat of
biological damage to humans:
https://uk.reuters.com/video/2017/06/22/other-uk-buildings-are-combustible-pm-ma?videoId=371941244
It's not clear if Palo Alto Police's twitter account is a celebration and/or taunt of this matter, or threat to the UK
in this matter, or some combination of all. I received an envelope that was not sealed asking I should contact your office since I have no response to this matter since fall 2017.
Rohit Relan
CC: To: Palo Alto Police
Attorney General California Attorney General United States
City Council Palo Alto
Stanford University President and Trustees Board of Supervisors Santa Clara County
Members US Senate Canadian Australian New Zealand parliaments Secretaries State Defense DHS Treasury Commerce
Seattle Police
CC: Director and Board Interpol
Director and Board Environmental Crime Interpol Director and Board Cyber Crime Interpol
Inspector General UNHCR
Members European Parliament
Members German Parliament Members French Parliament
European Court of Human Rights International Criminal Court
European Court of Justice Members European Council
Members European Commission
Representatives Members States OPCW
Representatives Member States General Assembly UN Representatives Member States UN Security Council
Director UN Holocaust Program
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 6:21 PM, Rohit Relan <rohitrelan7@gmail.com> wrote:
Rohit Relan
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:19 PM
3
Palo Alto CA
25 March 2018
To:
Palo Alto Police
Attorney General California Attorney General United States
City Council Palo Alto
Stanford University President and Trustees
Board of Supervisors Santa Clara County Members US Senate Canadian Australian New Zealand parliaments
Secretaries State Defense DHS Treasury Commerce
Seattle Police
CC: Director and Board Interpol
Director and Board Environmental Crime Interpol
Director and Board Cyber Crime Interpol
Inspector General UNHCR
Members European Parliament
Members German Parliament
Members French Parliament
European Court of Human Rights International Criminal Court
European Court of Justice
Members European Council
Members European Commission
Representatives Members States OPCW
Representatives Member States General Assembly UN
Representatives Member States UN Security Council
Director UN Holocaust Program
Re: Palo Alto Police Report Number: 17-324-0028; the United Kingdom, its parliament, security services;
the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and their parliaments and security services and individuals named below, for the period April 29, 2015 to January 10, 2018:
Members US Senate Canadian New Zealand Australian Parliaments
Secretaries DHS State Defense Treasury Commerce
Previous two Secretaries DHS Director and previous director FBI Sheriff's Department Santa Clara County Stanford Department of Public Safety
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:19 PM
4
M. Warner, R. Paul, K. Harris, R. Blumenthal, D. Feinstein
J. Trudeau; P. Twyford; D. Cameron; B. Obama; D. Trump
Theresa May
Recipients:
The above complaint is outstanding with no response since fall 2017. I need this matter resolved, and escalated
to Interpol.
The matter started with my publishing research publicly in December 2014, then conducting more research at
Stanford in 2015, while my alma mater was instructing on my research. I was on campus April 2015 till early 2016; during this time I was subjected to harassment and police criminality by the Stanford Department of
Public Safety and the Sheriff's deputies at Stanford, including entrapment and entrapment-based arrest.
That matter evolved into refusal of service by Palo Alto Police, ignoring of my matters by the police, FBI and
secretary DHS; and since spring 2016, has become 24 hour biological/chemical/radiological attacks resulting in accidents, broken bones, surgery, removal of face, eye and body hair, contusions, bruises, and permanent
biological damage to skin, eyes and bones; what else is transpiring, I am uncertain as yet, but it includes
thousands of electric shocks a day, radiation, externally induced convulsions and muscle spasms and
contusions, all of which stop when I go to the hospital emergency room.
There has been a celebration from the Financial Times, and the Wall Street Journal, "we are going to adjust the
dials and switches on our systems in order to vary the amount of biological damage we are going to inflict."
Palo Alto Police has refused service starting summer 2016, and then winter 2016, and then in 2017. The first
event was a threat by a white male "I'm going to break your other leg," the second event was a gym shirt that was moved from its location inside my residence; the third event was a bicycle that was moved from the
courtyard to the driveway; the next event was a pair of scissors that arrived inside the front door of my
residence spring 2017. These events happened during the last and current presidencies. The secretary DHS
ignored this matter in writing the starting spring 2017, and then again each time since then.
The previous head of state of the US has discussed 42 "dog days over," 22 "not out yet," "bonus" and "sing,
unburied sing." This person has celebrated damaged dual color hair at the same time. The current head of state
of the US has been associated with "22 delete" twice, Palo Alto Police was made aware of it. This person has
discussed growth of hair on the neck recently. D. Feinstein has sent out a hate-inspired Christmas card winter
2015, that was also referred to police.
The FBI ignored my matter since spring/summer 2016.
The parliaments of New Zealand, Australia and the Canadians ignored and/or celebrated this matter since
summer 2017; and have been informed, sometimes daily, sometimes several times a day since that time.
I first communicated with the person leading the UK in summer 2017, after which, this person used my
research on two occasions, one to solve a terrorism problem in this person's country, one to make a threat
against her own head of state. I offered my services; and to return to that country despite the criminality by the
security agencies; I asked that the surveillance be brought within the bounds of legality and decorum. Following that, the attacks were increased in nature, type; and so were their celebrations. I have
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:19 PM
5
already communicated to the court system of that country that I cannot return to that country based on these
events.
This person has authorized a campaign of biological/chemical/radiological/suspected nuclear attacks starting
August 2017; there were other biological attacks in spring 2016, including a forced bike accident where I was
pushed off the bike, resulting in broken bones and surgery; and then removal of 70% of the hair on my head in
fall 2017.
This person has authorized several times daily biological attacks including faeces, urine and semen.
This person has authorized 16 intentional infections; each one repeated twice; alluded to by the media of that
country.
This person has authorized theft of cash, property, damage to property, including third party property, theft of
medications, including contact lens, and damage to medications.
This person has authorized including 1000 electric shocks a day into a human being, at the rate of one a
second; radiation at levels requiring hospital ER visits; bruises, contusions and body damage; and convulsions caused by external forces.
This person has authorized damage to the Seattle airports/Air Alaska/Wells Fargo/Twitter/Facebook/MSN.
This person has alluded to "22 die/dog/black/disappear/die/stamp out/burn you down; 42 disappear."
This person has alluded to gays in that country disappear in prison.
This person has alluded to Chinese disappear.
This person has authorized damage to hospital property, including medical systems at Stanford University.
This person has authorized damage to Stanford ER hospital property at the precise moment that the Emergency
Room staff are recommending "immediate voluntary self-hospitalization to get a safe space."
This person has authorized simultaneous biological damage to hair and genitals as retaliation for "taking out the crown jewels," or more precisely, for whisteblowing that country as an anti-Semite and fraudster.
This person has made an empty threat against this person's country's head of state.
This person has authorized immediate and permanent biological damage to the body part I show publicly, each time I put a picture of myself on the internet.
This person has authorized immediate further permanent biological damage to the body part I show publicly,
each time I put a picture of the initial damage on the internet.
This person has authorized immediate and permanent biological damage each time I engage online with any
media firm, in any matter, in probably the most severe case of media envy in history.
This country has been told many times, including EU countries, to keep its activities within the bounds of
legality and decorum.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:19 PM
6
This person has authorized switching off biological/chemical/radiological/suspected nuclear damage
systems, from the offices of the security services of these five countries, each time I present myself at a
hospital or medical facility.
This person has authorized the celebration of each electric shock, radiation and
convulsion/spasm/biological attack with the follow-on attack of another electric shock, radiation and
convulsion/spasm so that I am biologically, chemically, radiologically/nuclearly attacked twice the amount;
and twice at a time. That is two electric shocks, two hits of radiation and two of unknown hits each time.
This person has authorized the security services of this country to have a "conversation" with myself, each
conversation involving one electric shock, one radiological hit/biological hit/unknown hit; each
conversation being "f**k yourself, f**k off and die, you dog, ni**er, you Pa*i; f**k yourself - with same,
similar and additional racial, sexual curses; each such conversation when there is a person of such or
similar profile in my vicinity; so that an electric shock is delivered to my body so that my eye attention is
moved to the direction of the said person.
This person has authorized that country's security services to give electric shocks, radiation and other
biological damage each time I look at pictures of the damage on my body.
This person has threatened to burn down the embassy of another country during parliamentary proceedings.
This person has authorized its security agencies to convey threats of permanent disease, including blindness,
complete removal of every body hair, permanent irreparable damage to reproductive organs, disappearance and death, almost daily online, and in person.
This person has been accused of fraud, deception, misrepresentation during parliamentary proceedings.
This person has been accused of condoning child abuse.
This person has solicited cash for conducting regular government business.
This person has been accused of sanctioning and celebrating illegal activities by its security services when
"people are suspected of joining terrorist" organizations - while this person has used my research.
This person has a publicly recorded reputation of open hate of blacks, Americans, minorities and foreigners
going back years.
The media of the country of this person has discussed castration and removal of hair more than once on the home pages of the Financial Times, Reuters, and BBC. This damage has been celebrated by the Wall Street
Journal, Radio New Zealand, the government funded entity of New Zealand, New Zealand Herald, the Sydney
Morning Herald, Toronto Star and Globe and Mail, sometimes almost daily. Some US media firms are even
drawing very accurate pictures of my symptoms; without my ever have had any engagement with these firms;
or described my symptoms in sufficient detail.
This person has been hissed, booed and cursed repeatedly during London Pride in Hyde Park.
The previous prime minister of this country has discussed disappear/dog/black die/eradicate/banned/stamp out
publicly.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:19 PM
7
The head of state of this country has celebrated biological attacks with the same intended result of removal of
every hair from my body, disease, disappearance and death publicly, using similar visual imagery as this
person did on June 22 2017, "other UK buildings are combustible."
This person has publicly celebrated and taunted the biological chemical and suspected radiological/nuclear
attacks ("this country needs more female spies").
Advance warnings were given about these attacks on the home page of the BBC, Financial Times, and Reuters repeatedly, including removal of every hair from my body, radiation, intentional infection of disease,
disappearance followed by death starting 2016.
The parliaments of New Zealand and Canada have had public celebrations of this matter along the lines of
"Twyford: how to stay zen during biological attack," and "Trudeau: reproduce yourselves, Asians," and "Twyford: why don't you reproduce yourself."
These attacks and permanent biological damage have been alluded to as "pranks." [A visit to a medical facility
in that country will immediately reveal that infecting human beings intentionally with diseases is part of the
paradigm, including the entire spectrum, public (NHS) and private facilities, irrespective of; to the extent that many people living in that country prefer to travel to other countries, including for routine medical treatment.
Biological/chemical/radiological/suspected nuclear attacks are "pranks."]
This county has been alluded to as maggots eating into live humans; and snakes maggotting into humans; I
have not even visited a UK web site since last August, a public discussion or allusion to my work or related (or even unrelated) events anywhere and by anyone around the globe results in a biological attack by these five
countries.
This country has been referred to and alluded to as snakes and a dustbin.
Stanford Hospital and Palo Alto medical staff have described these people as "sick," "animals," "not human," "are these human?" "have you called the police?" "you are lucky you have some hair left."
Each time I have communicated with the parliaments of these countries, including appeals to end the attacks, the attacks are increased. I have disengaged from this country since August 2017, including not even visiting any of their web sites, which is a reason for an attack itself.
All of this material has been recorded to the police and the parliaments and public officials of this country at
least once, and sometimes repeatedly.
I have an open inquiry into this country with the European Parliament winter 2015, REF GEDA
A(2015)01779.
This person has authorized sending falsified, incomplete and inaccurate reports of the biological attacks to the
four countries that it does and shares "surveillance" and intelligence with; according to allusions via email by Mark Warner (senator Connecticut); Feintein and Blumenthal were previously made aware of the attacks and
have ignored it.
I have had the status of US asylum seeker since spring 2015, my application with DHS is pending.
All of the materials you require are already with Palo Alto Police; I have communicated repeatedly with the institutions listed here on this matter.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:48 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Alan Prowell <alanprowell@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 30, 2018 3:07 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:RE: Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
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 | 4/2/2018 10:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 29, 2018 5:01 PM
To:redress of grievance
Cc:@; swagstaffe@smcgov.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; gkirby@redwoodcity.org;
citycouncil@menlopark.org; Jonsen, Robert; council@redwoodcity.org;
myraw@smcba.org; HRC; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com;
Binder, Andrew; dcbertini@menlopark.org; essenceoftruth@gmail.com; michael
gennaco; donald larkin; bos@smcgov.org; Kilpatrick, Brad; Lee, Craig; Kan, Michael;
Cullen, Charles; Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal); molly o'neal;
hayden@yourcriminaldefender.com; Stump, Molly; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Keene,
James; Perron, Zachary; GSheyner@paweekly.com; supervisor yeager;
sdremann@paweekly.com; rpichon@scscourt.org; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Gary
Goodman; dryan@scscourt.org; joe simitian; jchase@da.sccgov.org;
jseybert@redwoodcity.org; ekadvany@embarcaderopublishing.com; Watson, Ron;
sscott@scscourt.org; mharris@scscourt.org; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; mike wasserman;
51swampdog@gmail.com; griffinam@sbcglobal.net;
Bjohnson@embarcaderopublishing.com; stephen connolly
Subject:Re: Stephon -Clark killing -Black lives Matter
I don't know what you want me to do but it certainly sounds as if we should do something. How about we start with by
demanding that $25 phone call charge from the jails be abolished,so that the wrongfully punished can reach out to help
and sustenance? Stephanie
‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐
From: "redress of grievance" <redress.of.grievance@gmail.com>
To: "@" <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Cc: swagstaffe@smcgov.org, jrosen@da.sccgov.org, gkirby@redwoodcity.org, citycouncil@menlopark.org, "Robert
Jonsen" <Robert.Jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org>, council@redwoodcity.org, myraw@smcba.org, hrc@cityofpaloalto.org,
stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu, paloaltofreepress@gmail.com, "Andrew Binder" <Andrew.Binder@CityofPaloAlto.org>,
dcbertini@menlopark.org, essenceoftruth@gmail.com, "michael gennaco" <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>, "donald
larkin" <donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov>, bos@smcgov.org, "brad kilpatrick" <brad.kilpatrick@cityofpaloalto.org>,
"craig lee" <craig.lee@cityofpaloalto.org>, "michael kan" <michael.kan@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Charles Cullen"
<Charles.Cullen@CityofPaloAlto.org>, "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, "liz kniss"
<liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org>, "molly o'neal" <molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org>, hayden@yourcriminaldefender.com,
"molly stump" <molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org>, "minka vanderzwaag" <minka.vanderzwaag@cityofpaloalto.org>,
"james keene" <james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org>, "zachary perron" <zachary.perron@cityofpaloalto.org>,
GSheyner@paweekly.com, "supervisor yeager" <supervisor.yeager@bos.sccgov.org>, sdremann@paweekly.com,
rpichon@scscourt.org, "WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto" <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>, "Gary Goodman"
<Gary.Goodman@pdo.sccgov.org>, dryan@scscourt.org, "joe simitian" <joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org>,
jchase@da.sccgov.org, jseybert@redwoodcity.org, ekadvany@embarcaderopublishing.com, "ron watson"
<ron.watson@cityofpaloalto.org>, sscott@scscourt.org, mharris@scscourt.org, mdiaz@redwoodcity.org, "mike
wasserman" <mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org>, 51swampdog@gmail.com, griffinam@sbcglobal.net,
Bjohnson@embarcaderopublishing.com, "stephen connolly" <stephen.connolly@oirgroup.com>, "stephanie"
<stephanie@dslextreme.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 7:20:41 AM
Subject: Re: Stephon ‐Clark killing ‐Black lives Matter
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:43 AM
2
What I personally find repulsive is the silence of local law enforcement. Blue automatons without feelings. Without
voice, without protest...all the while protective of the “Brotherhood” and the judicial machinery continues to spin out of
control.
Mark Petersen‐Perez
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 28, 2018, at 10:11 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> FYI:
>
> https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/stephon‐clark‐shooting‐sacramento‐protests‐black‐lives‐matter‐new‐york‐city/
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:53 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Friday, March 30, 2018 12:34 PM
To:dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Doug Vagim; kfsndesk; newsdesk;
rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; Mark Kreutzer;
Mark Standriff; Mayor; info@superide1.com; leager; Cathy Lewis; Leodies Buchanan;
nick yovino; midge@thebarretts.com; beachrides; bballpod; bearwithme1016@att.net;
Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Joel Stiner; terry; Council, City;
shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; yicui@stanford.edu; hennessy; huidentalsanmateo;
robert.andersen
Subject:Re: Tesla fire and fire department at accident scene
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 12:13 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 11:44 AM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
Friday, March 30, 2018
To all- The brief message below is from Steven Feinstein at Ionic Materials Corp. I sent him the
mail I sent out on March 27, 2018.
Here is a statement by Tesla which appears on their website. Notice the big news that the crash
attenuator which the Tesla hit had been collapsed in an accident eleven days earlier when an alleged DUI driver from Hayward, Ca. hit it. Caltrans took longer than normal to replace it due to the rainy weather, they
say. Had Caltrans repaired it as soon as they usually do, the driver of the Tesla Model X might well have
survived.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/what-we-know-about-last-weeks-accident
Here is more about the reusable hydraulic crash cushion which Caltrans had not repaired in the
eleven days before the Tesla Model X hit it:
http://abc7news.com/automotive/exclusive-i-team-investigates-why-caltrans-didnt-fix-safety-barrier-before-tesla-driver-died-there/3280399/
LH
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:28 PM, Steven Feinstein <Steven.Feinstein@ionicmaterials.com> wrote:
We are working hard to help make a difference. Thanks.
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:53 AM
2
On Mar 27, 2018, at 7:21 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
wrote:
Tues. March 27, 2018
To all- Tesla Model X hit the divider on southbound 101 in Mt. View, Ca. and
caught fire, Friday, March 23, 2018. Fire dept. called Tesla to come deal with the
batteries. Driver died.
http://abc7news.com/automotive/fire-chief-tesla-crash-shows-electric-car-fires-could-strain-department-resources/3266061/?sf185578839=1
If the car had had Ionic Materials Corp. lithium metal batteries, probably no fire
from the batteries. See "Search for the Super Battery" on Nova at the midway point. About year and a half ago. You will be impressed by what they have. Solid polymer electrolyte
instead of liquid electrolyte which can vaporize and catch fire. The solid electrolyte is far
more resistant to catching fire.
See www.ionicmaterials.com
Until Tesla et. al. are using safer batteries, many more fire depts. should get
special training on how to deal with a burning electric vehicle.
I asked at the Tesla store in the Stanford Shopping Center in Nov. 2017 what
happens to the batts. in a collision of a Tesla, and they told me the car has fire extinguishing
equipment on board.
LH
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 3:54 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nate Reed <bkdons11233@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 02, 2018 12:24 PM
To:cmoffice@cityofepa.org; cmartinez@cityofepa.org; rabrica@cityofepa.org;
lmoody@cityofepa.org; cromero@cityofepa.org; drutherford@cityofepa.org;
lgauthier@cityofepa.org; mbuell@cityofepa.org; scharpentier@cityofepa.org;
gpersicone@cityofepa.org; ggalindo@cityofepa.org; rbonilla@cityofsanmateo.org;
Council, City; City Mgr; Info, Plandiv; piohtaki@menlopark.org;
ccarlton@menlopark.org; racline@menlopark.org; kkeith@menlopark.org
Subject:Residents Residential Concerns
To Whom It May Concern:
Hello,
We are residents on East Okeefe Street in East Palo Alto. We're writing to express our concern for the community. East Okeefe Street (between Menalto & Euclid Ave) is about 1/4 of a mile long. Cars constantly
speed through this residential area with no regard for human life. We can hear cars racing down this street on a
daily and nightly basis.
We are a community of working families and our residents and most of all "children" should feel safe. Some children walk to school and to bus stops unaccompanied by an adult.
We are officially requesting the city of palo alto, east palo alto/Menlo park) to input speed-bumps along this
street to ensure the safety of the community. This street has been without speed-bumps for far too long. The "Menlo Park" side of Okeefe (from Menalto Ave to Willow Road) does have speed-bumps installed. Why?
This community deserves to feel safe just like the blocks with "single family homes" that already have speed-
bumps.
This community has voted officials in office, but this issue remains unresolved. We're asking someone, "anyone" to please help in starting the process to have these speed-bumps installed. They can save lives, and
this community has put its trust in you all to help do that.
What is the official process to get the ball rolling? Can we have some speed tests conducted to confirm what was stated above? Can we have a meeting to discuss policy, procedures, etc?
We look forward to your response, and we hope this is the start to making one more community feel safe.
Sincerely, TREPA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:55 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Saturday, March 31, 2018 12:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rethinking Midtown Neighborhood Traffic "Safety"
Council Members:
Today’s Daily Post Headline: City rethinks roundabouts.
Why did it take 800 petition signatures plus countless individual comments to convince the city to “rethink” this $8.7M
project?
Why wasn’t the thinking done up front?
Why does our Chief Transportation Official only now decide that residents should “feel comfortable and informed”?
Why does he only now plan to use temporary markers to get feedback?
Why does he only now feel the need to ask outside consultants to review the roundabouts?
Shouldn’t all those things have been done before implementing the changes?
And if we need an outside consultant, why are we paying a full‐time employee?
Some of the issues brought up by residents are obvious, e.g., the narrow width of midtown streets.
The two most important responsibilities of a city council are fiscal accountability and oversight. With this project, you
have failed both.
Pat Marriott
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:55 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lee Christel <lee_xtel@pacbell.net>
Sent:Saturday, March 31, 2018 9:05 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Road Bike Boulevard
Dear Council,
I want to add my voice to the many residents who are disappointed with the amount of money spent and 'overkill' we are seeing with the Ross Road 'bike safety' construction. A few speed bumps and striped bike lane
(e.g. Stanford Ave) would have been more appropriate.
Whoever decided that this was appropriate for our neighborhood should be terminated. Unfortunately the new
message of 'more outreach in the future' is too little too late.
More fiscal responsibility please! Ask neighbors what they want (and do not bend to the will of some vocal
minority).
Sincerely, Lee A Christel
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Carole Stivers <carole@stivers.cc>
Sent:Thursday, March 29, 2018 4:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Road "Calming"
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to add my voice to the many who are complaining about the strange changes occurring on my street, Ross Rd. While I knew that there were plans to make Ross into a bike boulevard, I had no idea of the extent to
which the intended changes would disrupt traffic and parking on our street. No one really had the time to dig
into the documentation on this before the work was begun, and we relied on learned heads in our Council to
make the right decisions. In the end, I feel that trust was not well placed.
My concerns are that the changes being instituted:
1. are dangerous for child and elderly cyclists; one child has already been hit while veering to avoid one of
the bulbouts near Matadero Creek
2. disrupt much-needed parking along the street
3. act to inhibit the access of emergency vehicles to houses along the street
These efforts are not "calming" at all! They have many residents on my street in an uproar! Please suspend all
operations on Ross and other adjacent streets until a town hall can be called to hear our voices.
Carole Stivers 2732 Ross Rd.
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:16 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:LOUIS FRIED <llfried@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Tuesday, April 03, 2018 5:24 PM
To:Wolbach, Cory
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Ross Road
Dear Councilman Wolbach:
If you live in the Palo Verde area you can probably understand the outrage of the majority of citizens here.
Much of it is due to the construction itself ( that I believe is dangerous). However, a good part of the outrage is
the due to the long interval between the planning and the “doing.” Quite a few people have forgotten the original plan. Many homes have new owners. Construction was started without adequate notice. The City seems to be intent on the construction; for example, Mr. Tanaka’s meeting is to be held long after the construction is
finished. (That’s unconscionable!)
Furthermore, if you live in the Palo Verde area, why are YOU not holding the meeting? Many of us feel as though we are being ignored by the Council and that the plans are being carried out when
they no longer apply to current conditions. (Consider the neighborhood petition against the Ross Road mess.)
Furthermore, the obsession of the Council with traffic calming and a “Biking City” is flying in the face of
reality and catering to a vocal minority.
Much of this protest can be read in the comments of “Palo Alto Online” for example: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/03/31/palo-alto-looks-to-rev-up-outreach-for-bike-projects ,
however any increasingly believe that no one on the Council reads this popular popular publication. In fact, we
voters don’t believe that the Council and city planners have their own agenda and don’t give a damn about us
voters. The tide may turn!
Louis Fried (over 43 years a Palo Altan)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/29/2018 11:47 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Maren Scheiner <mscheiner@keysschool.org>
Sent:Thursday, March 29, 2018 8:10 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Kiri Nakamura
Subject:School Visit?
Hello Council Members, I am a 2nd grade teacher at Keys School in Palo Alto, California. Our students are currently starting to learn about government and are
brimming with questions, like “Why do we have government?” “How many laws are there?” and “How do you vote?” We are really excited to teach them about responsible citizenship, our system of checks and balances, and the ways they can enact change in their communities! We think it would be a powerful experience to have someone (or a few people, if you’re willing!) to come and speak to
these inquisitive young ones about what it’s like to serve on local government, how laws are created, and how difficult decisions are made.
Is this something you’d be willing to do? We would love an in-peron experience but would be willing to try a Skype session if a visit is not feasible.
Many thanks in advance for your consideration! Sincerely, Maren Scheiner
--
_________________________
Maren Scheiner
Second Grade Teacher
KEYS SCHOOL
p 650.328.1711 x125
mscheiner@keysschool.org
keysschool.org
Lower School
2890 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto, CA 94306
f 650.328.4506
Middle School
3981 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306
f 650.855.9547
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2018 10:55 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nat Fisher <sukiroo@hotmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 31, 2018 12:11 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Clerk, City; Kniss, Liz (internal)
Subject:state of the city address
APRIL 18: STATE of THE CITY. 6PM Reception, 7 PM Address at the JCC. 3921 Fabian Way.
This address should take place at City Hall and be broadcast from the
chambers so that anyone can hear it. Having it elsewhere means
that most interested residents will not hear it! Why do this off site?
Natalie Fisher
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2018 12:14 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mabel <mabelwei668@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 02, 2018 9:23 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:honoringfred@googlegroups.com
Subject:Supporting the proposal of naming a park after Fred M. Yamamoto
Dear City Council,
After we learned about Fred Yamamoto’s story from Renaming Committee’s research, we deeply believe that
Fred was a true hero in Palo Alto’s history. As Asian-Americans, we feel the importance of finding a better way to honor this historical figure and teaching more citizens about his story. We are glad that the city council has put the idea of naming a local park after him on its agenda. Unfortunately, many Palo Alto families, including
ours, are out of town for school’s Spring Break, so we were unable to make it to Monday’s city council
meeting. But we have learned that many of our neighbors, especially the Chinese community, are also
supporting this proposal. At their request, we would like to show our support on behalf of the people below. Thank you.
Hui (Debra) Cen
Monica Yeung Arima
Adrian Arima Eugene Wei Jin Wei
Matthew Wei
Vicky Huang
Fiona Yang Ying Wang
Sincerely,
A Palo Alto resident
Mabel Cheng
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/29/2018 11:47 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kevin Garry <KGarry@troybanks.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 29, 2018 9:19 AM
To:Shikada, Ed
Cc:City Mgr; Council, City
Subject:Telecom and Utility Refunds and Savings
Attachments:Orange County Public Schools FL 3-16-18.pdf; City of Pleasanton CA 2-17-16.pdf
Dear Mr. Shikada,
Over the past few months, I have left voicemails and sent you a number of emails setting forth
how I believe Troy & Banks can help your city recover, without any upfront costs or out of
pocket expenses, money you may have spent in error resulting from utility and
telecommunications overbilling!
Whatever your doubts or other priorities maybe, the attached Reference Letters will speak
better than any email I could hope to send you. It speaks to the power of a TB audit and what
we have been saying all along about the errors, mistakes, misapplied tariffs, etc. made by
utility/telecom service providers.
Here, it’s a school system and one of your neighboring municipalities, but it could have as
easily been your city. We and you just never know until we dig in!...and rest assured, we’ll dig
deep.
Obviously, I want you to encourage you to become a TB client and look forward to hearing
from you. Be that as it may, If you would prefer that I stop calling and emailing you, please let
me know. Thanks.
Kind regards,
Kevin
Kevin P. Garry
Director of Client Services
Troy & Banks, Inc.
2216 Kensington Avenue
Buffalo, NY 14226
Direct: (716) 517‐3966
Email: kgarry@troybanks.com
March 16, 2018
Mr. Thomas Ranallo
President
Troy & Banks, Inc.
2216 Kensington Avenue
Buffalo, NY 14226
RE: Letter of Reference
Dear Tom:
I wanted to take an opportunity to express my thanks for the excellent job your staff did on our
telecommunications bill audit. Please allow this letter to serve as a reference for other entities that may
also be interested in a similar service.
As the 10th largest school district in the nation, OCPS has substantial telecommunications expenditures,
totaling in excess of $4 million. Our objective in hiring an outside auditing firm was to catch possible billing
errors and reduce our future costs. Troy & Banks did exactly that!
The findings were impressive. Troy & Banks recovered over $60,000 in refunds due to our accounts,
as well as reduced our annual expenditures by over $509,000. Troy & Banks worked tirelessly with
our providers, such as AT&T, CenturyLink, and Verizon, in order to achieve these notable results.
We are very pleased with your firm and would be happy to serve as a reference for other entities looking to
recover any prior overcharges and reduce their future expenses.
Sincerely,
Lisa E. Connelly
Senior Administrator E-Rate Compliance and Technology Planning
lisa.connelly@ocps.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/29/2018 11:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:RICH STIEBEL <w6apz@comcast.net>
Sent:Wednesday, March 28, 2018 12:19 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Think Out of the Box – Rail Options 032918o
Think Out of the Box – Rail Options
If cost were no problem, I think most people would favor the tunnel approach for as much of Palo Alto
as possible. Tunneling has several obvious advantages:
- Eliminates the train noise, which will only get worse as more trains run.
- Reunites both sides of Palo Alto, now separated by the tracks
- Eliminates traffic waiting for the trains to cross
- Enhances property values along Alma and Park Avenues.
- Eliminates vehicle/train collisions and makes it safer for cyclists and pedestrians.
How do we address the cost issue? We need creative thinking; think out-of-the-box! If you are not
familiar with creative thinking, this is a skill that can be taught.
Here is just one example. Let’s consider where there are large costs that might be able to reduced or
eliminated.
It has been stated that trenching is less expensive than tunneling. One of the assumptions in both
options is the need to move the tracks on to Alma for the duration of the build cycle; referred to as
shoofly tracks in the white paper. Placing tracks on Alma will not only cause serious traffic problems,
but affect those living along Alma and the business on the street. Those people/businesses think they
hear a lot of train noise now, can you imagine what the trains will sound like when on the shoofly track
much closer to people?
One of the principals of Creative Thinking is: question assumptions.
One assumption is that any work (all options) on the existing tracks would have to start on the surface of the present tracks. What if it were possible to accomplish most of the job without disturbing the present tracks?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/29/2018 11:42 AM
2
What IF tunneling could be accomplished with only a very small length of shoofly tracks and then only
for a short time period instead of for the duration of the project? Obviously this would not only save a
lot of money that would otherwise be spent installing and subsequently removing miles of track and
rebuilding Alma Street, but it would avoid most of the traffic problems along Alma that would be
caused by the present plans.
This could be done with a creative approach to tunneling. Instead of starting to dig the tunnel on the
tracks, start the tunnel off to one side of the tracks at the south end of Palo Alto and continue digging
under the tracks ending up digging the tunnel at the required depth but directly below the existing tracks. So far, there would be no need for tracks on Alma.
If the tunneling were to start somewhere along San Antonio Circle, it would cause minimal traffic
problems as opposed to disturbing Alma. Detoured traffic could be routed along Del Medio Avenue so
that the businesses in that area would feel only a minimal impact.
Could this be done? Sure, the Trans-Bay tube was constructed totally under the Bay without coming
up through the water. The Devils Slide tunnel was dug straight through the mountain.
At some point the tunnel would have to come back up to the surface. Presumably this would be at the
north end of Palo Alto, or somewhere nearby depending on other trade-offs. Only at that point,
presumably years down the road, would a short distance of shoofly track be needed, and then only for a relatively short period of time, compared to the full length of the project.
Other assumptions to question are: what does the railroad “right of way” allow the railroad to
do? What jurisdiction do local cities have? Can the railroad simply run trains 24/7 and cut off all
vehicle traffic crossing the tracks? By examining the railroad’s legal “right-of-way” vs. what they are
planning, might this provide some leverage for negotiations that might help pay for the needed changes
in Palo Alto?
Council needs to get people who can think creatively by thinking out-of-the-box to study the above
ideas as well as generate other cost-saving ideas to make the tunnel a practical reality of which we, and
future generations could be proud.
Rich Stiebel
840 Talisman Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303-4435
650-494-0128
lc~~~~~T!nw
fl Placed Before Me.eting
[ ~ived at Meeting
I was frankly aghast to see Paragraph # 1 on page 8 where Staff
states that based on their experience, individual post war homes
(including Eichlers) do not qualify for State or Federal historic
registers.
I must differ with this opinion as does Palm Springs, the State and
National Historic Registries.
The SHRC on Cultural Resources of the Modern Age was formed in
2002 to encourage awareness, scholarship and the exchange of
ideas on resources of the mid-century and to study thresholds for
significance to facilitate national and state registration. Since 3103
this committee now named the Modernism Committee has been
meeting on a quarterly basis. Very much alive and interested.
Palm Springs has over 20 mid-century modern buildings, including
several world famous individual homes, including the Steele House
#2 and the E. Stewart Williams Home, a shopping mall, a medical
office and a gas station (currently the Visitors Center) on the National
Register of Historic Places. All were built after WW2.
In 2016 the California State Historic Resources Commission
nominated 18 properties to the National Register of Historic Places.
8 were built after WW2.
In Northern California there is a group called the Eichler Historic
Quest Committee finalized the National Register nomination for 2
Joseph Eichler subdivision in Palo alto. The nominations were heard
and approved by the State Historic Resources Commission and were
sent to the Keeper of the National Register for formal listing.
Palm Springs revers and capitalizes on their Mid-Century modern
architecture.
In 2017 according to Jim at the Palm Springs Visitors Center, over
100,000 people attended the February Modernism Week. Each year
sets a new attendance record. Tickets for tours, special events, and
Cocktail parties are priced at $40.00-over $150.00.
..
Additionally, for the last 5 years a Modernism mini event occurs in the
Fall. The entire City, touring organizations, golf clubs, shops,
restaurants, hotels, etc. All adding to Palm Springs' tax base.
Palm Springs even has in their Building Code that any home built
before 1969 may not be demolished without approval by the City's
Historic Site Preservation Board. If the home is considered historically
significant-regardless of age-it may be classified for additional
protection.
The City has identified over 200 structures and properties of merit
and many have been given protection under the City's Historic
Resources Ordinance.
All this information is readily available online if one cares to look.
Why are Palo Alto Staff so eager to destroy what makes us unique
rather than following Palm Springs' lead and featuring Joseph
Eichler's unique role in the building of our City? A good question I
would like answered.
Thank you.
What a two-story neighbor would mean
to Eichler privacy and solar access
2StoryHome
24 ft 27 ft Eichler Home
l j _::;;-
.__ 20ft 25ft
.1ott
1
The current IR process has led to battles among neighbors, unnecessary fights over SSO applications, legal fights over new
constructions, and an overall negative atmosphere that will continue to spread if nothing is changed.
As you are making your decisions on Monday, I would like to remind Council that the adopted Palo Alto
Comprehensive states the following policies and goals:
• Maintain Palo Alto's varied residential neighborhoods; use the zoning ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto's desirable
qualities.
• Maintain the scale and character of the City.
• Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods each with its own distinct character ... • which includes working about how Eichler
neighborhoods were designed so homes may serve as private enclaves.
• Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the
neighborhood and adjacent structures.·
Thank you for the time you spent reading this mail and for the countless hours you spend representing the interest of its residents.
Katie Renati
Ecihler Owner
Palo Alto Resident
!! image.png
742KB
u .. wi...~s,d•
~chi•.-"
Vf.ew 'hM n-,111 OcM
ii°'h"v
COUN11t~t~G
[ ] ~d Before Meeting
rfteceived at Meeting
..
Editor, Stanford
Frances C. Arrillaga Alumni Center
3i6 Galvez Street
Stanford, CA 94305-6105
Dear Editor:
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
18 HAR 23 AH 9: 59
March 19, 2018
I am George E. Gray, BSCE '51, and this is about the Stanford symbol, the original Palo Alto redwoop.
I believe that Galvez Street is named for visitador Jose Galvez, the father of the Spanish Portola
Expedition to California in 1769. That expedition ended its first attempt to find Monterey Bay at the
P~o Alto redwood, which is now the symbol of both Stanford University and the City of Palo Alto. The
Portola force camped near the tree November 1-5, 1769 while they reconnoitered San Francisco Bay,
which they had first sighted on the last day of October. This was the terminus of their attempt as they
realized that Monterey Bay must be south of them. They then began the trip back to San Diego. In 1770,
a second attempt was successful and a presidio and mission were founded at Monterey Bay.
Next year is the 250th anniversary of the Portola Expedition and I hope that Stanford University, the City
of Palo Alto, and the Stanford Alumni Association can get together to recognize this historic occasion. I
feel that many of the present students, alumni, and even university staff do not realize the importance of
the university's symbol. The tree still lives. It not only marks the turnaround point of that first land
exploration which first sighted San Francisco Bay, but also was probably the first redwood tree
specifically noted by Europeans. El Palo Alto was the landmark for the establishment of the El Camino
Real in the Palo Alto area, and it is California Historical Monument #2.
I am in hope that the existing tree will be cloned. This effort would be an excellent activity for the
Alumni Association and I think that many of us would like to have a clone of the original El Palo Alto.
I welcome any thoughts and/or suggestions you may have regarding this correspondence.
Sincerely,
George E
9720 Oviedo Street
San Diego, CA 92129
Gray850b@aol.com
Copies to City of Palo Alto, Stanford University, Stanford Alumni Association
N. Our community has not been immune to the challenge of unhealthy weight gain and
obesity. In 2008-09, over 40% of Ba lmlcy 9th graders were overweight or obese.
These overweight and obese children have a much greater chance of being obese
as adults, with all the health risks that entails.
M. There are also economic costs. In 2006, for instance, overweight and obesity-related
costs in California were estimated at almost $21 billion.
0. Tooth decay, while not as life threatening as diabetes or obesity, still has a
meaningful impact, especially on children. In fact, tooth decay is the most common
childhood disease, experienced by over 70% of California's 3rd graders. Children
who frequently or excessively consume beverages high in sugar are at increased
risk for dental cavities. Dental problems are a major cause of missed school days
and poor school performance as well as pain, infection, and tooth loss in California.
Section 2. Purpose and Intent
A. Based on the findings set forth above, the purpose of this Ordinance is to diminish
the human and economic costs of diseases associated with the consumption of
sugary drinks by discouraging their distribution and consumption in Berkeley through
a tax. Specifically, the purpose of this ordinance is to tax the distribution of sugary
drinks and the products used to make them.
B. This Ordinance is not intended for the purpose of regulation.
C. This Ordinance does not authorize the conduct of any business or activity in the city,
but merely provides for the taxation of distribution of specified products as it occurs.
D. This Ordinance imposes a general tax on the distribution of sugar-sweetened
beverages such as high-calorie, low-nutrition products, like soda, energy drinks, and
heavily presweetened tea, as well as the added caloric sweeteners used to produce
these sugar-sweetened beverages, such as the premade syrup used to make
fountain drinks. Certain drinks containing sugar are exempted, including infant
formula, milk products, and natural fruit and vegetable juice.
E. This Ordinance provides for a small business exemption for Retailers who transport
sugar-sweetened beverage products into the City themselves and then sell those
products directly to consumers.
F. This general tax will provide rev~?Y'e to b~ axailable for the general governmental
needs of the people of BerlEeleyft,1.Q.., ll..Jt.51,,
G. This Ordinance provides for a Sugar Sweetened Beverage Product Panel of
Experts, composed of experts in the areas of public health, child nutrition, nutrition
education, and food access programs. The Panel will make recommendations on
how and to what extent the City should fund programs to further reduce the
consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in Qedceloy and address the
consequences of such consumption.
2
~ ~~' t~'f ~ 0 f}.rk~ ~ tJ_h-o J .,-,
Section 3. New Bep'gg'7 y Municip~ettr W Lf .r;,s { ~#1
That a new Chapter 8 is added to the lierlt11 ley Municipal Code is to read as follow~~)
Chapter 73!1 tf · (pS ~
Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Product Distribution Tax V I Jf. (,~ Cfe
Section '&111 110 Excise Tax
A. In addition to any other taxes imposed by the City, the City hereby levies a tax of
one cent ($0.01) per fluid ounce on the privilege of Distributing Sugar-sweetened
beverage products in the City.
B. For the purposes of this Chapter, the volume, in ounces, of a Sugar-sweetened
beverage product shall be calculated as follows:
1. For a Sugar-sweetened beverage, the volume, in fluid ounces, of Sugar-
sweetened beverages distributed to any person in the course of business in the
City.
2. For Added caloric sweeteners, the largest volume, in fluid ounces, of Sugar-
sweetened beverages that could be produced from the Added caloric
---:i c.1 _ ., sweeteners. In accordance with rules and regulations promulgated by the City
~ pursuant to Sectiol'l"7 .'ili.840, the largest volume, in fluid ounces, that would
"'1 typically be produced from the Added caloric sweeteners shall be determined
U based on the manufacturer's instructions or, if the Distributor uses the Added
caloric sweeteners to produce a Sugar-sweetened beverage, the regular practice
of the Distributor.
C. The tax shall be paid upon the first non-exempt Distribution of a Sugar-sweetened
beverage product in the City. To the extent that there is a chain of Distribution within
Berkeley involving more than one Distributor, the tax shall be levied on the first
Distributor subject to the jurisdiction of the City. To the extent the tax is not paid as
set forth above for any reason, it shall be payable on subsequent Distributions and
by subsequent Distributors, provided that the Distribution of Sugar-sweetened
beverage products may not be taxed more than once in the chain of commerce.
J.}-. (.S. <!> :i_O
Section l:.72.828 Exemptions
The tax imposed by this Chapter shall not apply:
A. To any Distributor that is not subject to taxation by the City under the laws of the
United States or the State of California;
B. To any Distribution of a Sugar-sweetened beverage product to a Retailer with less
than $100,000 in annual gross receipts, as defined in Section 9AI "806, in !h~rn_o_:>,t~
recent year; ~.,i...a. a .. ~ --
C. To any Distribution of Natural or common sweeteners; or
D. To any Distribution of Added caloric sweeteners to a Food Products Store as defined
in Section-23F.04.040, if the Food Products Store then offers the Added caloric
sweetener for sale for later use by customers of that store.
/+.(,~. 0.30
Section r.T%.6a0 Definitions
3
A. "Added caloric sweetener" means any substance or combination of substances that
meets all of the following four criteria:
1. Is suitable for human consumption;
2. Adds calories to the diet if consumed;
3. Is perceived as sweet when consumed; and
4. Is used for making, mixing, or compounding Sugar-sweetened beverages by
combining the substance or substances with one or more other ingredients
including, without limitation, water, ice, powder, coffee, tea, fruit juice, vegetable
juice, or carbonation or other gas.
An Added caloric sweetener may take any form, including but not limited to a liquid,
syrup, and powder, whether or not frozen. "Added caloric sweetener" includes,
without limitation, sucrose, fructose, glucose, other sugars, and high fructose corn
syrup, but does not include a substance that exclusively contains natural,
concentrated, or reconstituted fruit or vegetable juice or any combination thereof.
B. "Alcoholic beverage" means any beverage subject to tax under Part 14
(commencing with Section 32001) of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, as
that Part may be amended from time to time.
C. "Beverage for medical use" means a beverage suitable for human consumption and
manufactured for use as an oral nutritional therapy for persons who cannot absorb
or metabolize dietary nutrients from food or beverages, or for use as an oral
rehydration electrolyte solution for infants and children formulated to prevent or treat
dehydration due to illness. "Beverage for medical use" shall also mean a "medical
food" as defined in Section 109971 of the California Health and Safety Code, as that
definition may be amended from time to time. "Beverage for medical use" shall not
include drinks commonly referred to as "sports drinks" or any other common names
that are derivations ther::~ .e.,, (j../2:1-r
D. "Business Entity" means an P9rs-on except for a natural person.
E. "City" means the City of y, California. ~~ (1_f2_;;:t,,
F. "City Manager" means the City Manager of the City ,eJf Berltefey or his or her
designee.
G. "Consumer" means a natural person who purchases a Sugar-sweetened beverage
product in the City for a purpose other than resale in the ordinary course of
business.
H. "Distribution" or "Distribute" means the transfer of title or possession (1) from one
Business entity to another for consideration or (2) within a single Business entity,
such as by a wholesale or warehousing unit to a retail outlet or between two or more
employees or contractors. "Distribution" or "Distribute" shall not mean the retail sale
to a Consumer.
I. "Distributor" means any Person who Distributes Sugar-sweetened beverage
products in the City.
J. "Milk" means natural liquid milk, regardless of animal source or butterfat content,
natural milk concentrate, whether or not reconstituted, regardless of animal source
or butterfat content, or dehydrated natural milk, whether or not reconstituted and
regardless of animal source or butterfat content, and plant-based milk substitutes,
that are marketed as milk, such as soy milk and almond milk.
4
K. "Natural or common sweetener" means granulated white sugar, brown sugar, honey,
molasses, xylem sap of maple trees, or agave nectar.
L. "Person" means an individual, trust, firm, joint stock company, business concern,
business trust, government, receiver, trustee, syndicate, social club, fraternal
organization, estate, corporation, including, but not limited to, a, limited liability
company, and association or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
M. "Retailer" means any Person who serves Sugar-sweetened beverage products to a
Consumer.
N. "Simple syrup" means a mixture of water and one or more Natural or common
sweeteners without any additional ingredients.
0. "Sugar-sweetened beverage" means any beverage intended for human consumption
to which one or more Added caloric sweeteners has been added and that contains
at least 2 calories per fluid ounce.
1. "Sugar-sweetened beverage" includes, but is not limited to all drinks and
beverages commonly referred to as "soda," "pop," "cola," "soft drinks," "sports
drinks," "energy drinks," "sweetened ice teas," or any other common names that
are derivations thereof.
2. "Sugar-sweetened beverage" shall not include any of the following:
a. Any beverage in which milk is the primary ingredient, i.e., the ingredient
constituting a greater volume of the product than any other;
b. Any beverage for medical use;
c. Any liquid sold for use for weight reduction as a meal replacement;
d. Any product commonly referred to as "infant formula" or "baby formula"; or
e. Any alcoholic beverage.
P. "Sugar-sweetened beverage product" means a Sugar-sweetened beverage or
Added caloric sweetener.
t/-. (,S-. 0 'f-0
Section 7.Ti.040 Duties, Responsibilities and Authority of the City Manager
A. It shall be the duty of the City Manager to collect and receive all taxes imposed by
this Chapter, and to keep an accurate record thereof.
B. The City Manager is hereby charged with the enforcement of this Chapter, except as
otherwise provided herein, and may prescribe, adopt, and enforce rules and
regulations relating to the administration and enforcement of this Chapter, including
provisions for the reexamination and correction of returns and payments, and for
reporting. Such rules and regulations may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
1. The determination of the frequency with which a Distributor must calculate the
tax. This determination shall not constitute an increase of the tax.
2. The determination of the frequency with which a Distributor must pay the tax.
This determination shall not constitute an increase of the tax.
3. The determination of whether and how a Distributor must register with the City.
4. The determination of whether and how a Distributor who receives, in the City,
Sugar-sweetened beverage products from another Distributor must report to the
City the name of that Distributor.
5. The determination of whether and how a Distributor who receives, in the City,
Sugar-sweetened beverage products from another distributor must report to the
5
City the volume of Sugar-sweetened beverage products received from that
Distributor.
6. The determination of what other documentation is required to be created or
maintained by a Distributor.
C. The City Manager shall annually verify that the taxes owed under this Chapter have
been properly applied, exempted, collected, and remitted.
A/-. ~r. o £""D
Section W f 850 Collection
A. The amount of any tax, penalty, and interest imposed under the provisions of this
Chapter shall be deemed a debt to the City. Any Distributor owing money under the
provisions of this Chapter shall be liable in an action brought in the name of the City
for the recovery of such amount.
B. In order to aid in the City's collection of taxes due under this Chapter, any Retailer
that receives Sugar-sweetened beverage products from a Distributor shall, in
accordance with rules and regulations promulgated by the City Manager pursuant to
11 JS" t!> 'f Section 7.i'D.N O, either: r-"' · 1. report to the City all such transactions, the volume in ounces of Sugar-sweetened
beverage products received in each transaction, and the identity and contact
information of the Distributor from whom the Sugar-sweetened beverage
products were received; or
2. collect the tax that would be payable as a result of the transaction by the
Distributor from whom the Sugar-sweetened beverage product was received and
remit it to the City; or
3. provide to the City evidence that the Distributor from whom the Sugar-sweetened
beverage products were received has registered as a Distributor with the City
and that registration is current.
C. The City Council · · t the taxes imposed by this Chapter collected
by the County a or the California Board of Equalization in conjunction with
the collection of other taxes for the City. If the City Council exercises this
authorization, the d i nd o sibilities of the City Manager shall be given, as
appropriate, to the a or the California Board of Equalization, which
may delegate such duties and responsibilities as necessary and as authorized by
law.
ff, ~6-. D {;,I!>
Section 7.71.860 Refunds
Whenever any tax under this Chapter has been paid more than once or has been
erroneously or illegally collected or received by the City, it may be refunded only as
provided in Chapter 'ki@: of the ~ey,lvlw:iicipal Code. L/-.~,O?O ~
Section 7:72.91'0 Enforcement
Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter or by rule or regulation promulgated by
the City Manager, the tax imposed by this Chapter shall be administered in the same
manner as taxes imposed pursuant to Chapter M*and, without limitation, shall be
subject to the same delinquency penalties, appeals processes and other enforcement
provisions set forth in Chapter ~.
~
6
I. The City Council shall consider, but need not follow, the Panel's recommendations
and shall annually inform the Panel as to the extent to which it has implemented the
Panel's recommendations.
111..fJo-:. I llt>
Section ~n.1ee Increase Appropriations Limits
Pursuant to California Constitution article XlllB, the appropriation limit for the City is
increased by the aggregate sum authorized to be levied by this tax for each of the four
fiscal years from 2.Q.15 16-through 2~8-49.
If. (,<r. / /() l}-o ~ 0-0 ~a.. 7
Section :/.72.11& Amendment
The City Council, without a vote of the people, may, either permanently or temporarily,
increase the dollar amount of the threshold for the small-business exemption in Section
z.n.,.o~ B.
~.t,,s-,o~
Section 4. Duration. ?...o { f_
This Ordinance shall be effective on January 1, ~The last effective date of this
Ordinance shall be December 31, 2 ~and it shall terminate as of January 1, 20lJ.l
Section 5. Severability. ,P ~ a..Qs1.....o
The People of the City of Bel ltel-e-y hereby declare that they would have adopted each
section, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the
fact that any one or more sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, words, or portions of
this Ordinance, or any application thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable and, to
that end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. If any section, sentence,
clause, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance, or any application thereof in any
circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of
competent jurisdiction, the remaining sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, words, or
portions of this Ordinance, and applications thereof, shall nonetheless remain in full
force and effect.
Section 6. Municipal Affairf ~ ~
A. The People of the City of .its: lceley hereby declare that the taxation of the privilege of
distributing sugar-sweetened beverage products and that the public health impact of
sugar-sweetened beverage products separately and together constitute municipal
affairs. Pd (ifbM,
B. The People of the City of 8eFk9ley hereby further declare their desire for this
measure to coexist with any similar tax adopted at the county or state levels.
Section 7. California Environmental Quality Act Requirements.
This Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code section 21000 et seq., including without limitation Public Resources
Code section 21065, CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) and 15061 (b)(3), as it can
8
' .
be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity authorized herein may
have a significant effect on the environment and pursuant to Public Resources Code
section 21080, subdivision (b)(8) and CEQA Guidelines section 15273 as the approval
of government revenues to fund existing services.
9