HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180618plCC 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: 6/18/2018
Document dates: 5/30/2018 – 6/6/2018
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 | 5/31/2018 6:19 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ng, Judy
Sent:Thursday, May 31, 2018 5:31 PM
To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email
Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Minor, Beth; Batchelor,
Dean; Lloyd, Debra
Subject:6/4 Council Agenda Questions for Item 3
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 June 4, 2018 council meeting agenda.
Item 3: Pole Replacement 2018 – CM Tanaka
Item 3: Pole Replacement 2018 – CM Tanaka
Q. 1. When was the last time poles were replaced in Palo Alto?
A. 1. Pole replacement is an ongoing activity, and the recommended contract
continues this program. Poles determined to be unsafe are replaced internally by
staff. Other poles are graded during inspections and scheduled for future
replacement. When we have a situation that we can’t keep up internally with the
replacement schedule, we will put out a batch of pole replacements to bid. Prior
to this, the last time we used a contractor was 2015. In 2016 and 2017 poles were
replaced by in‐house staff.
Q. 2. How much did this entire process cost the City of Palo Alto last time we did a
full scale pole replacement?
A. 2. The 2015 cost for 65 poles was $995,618 ($15,317/pole).
The 2014 cost for 30 poles was $458,200 ($15,273/pole).
We typically use $15,000/per pole when estimating the budget for pole
replacement. There are more than 6,000 poles throughout the city.
Q. 3. How much does the extra height of the poles cost?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/31/2018 6:20 PM
2
A. 3. Labor costs will be basically the same. Material costs: 45 ft ‐ $673, 50 ft ‐
$806, 55 ft ‐ $888, 60 ft ‐ $1,127, 65 ft ‐ $1,490.
Q. 4. Are attachments regularly added onto poles?
A. 4. Yes, attachments are common in the communication space with companies
such as AT&T and Comcast occupying the space along with City fiber lines.
Q. 5. How long are these poles going to last for?
A. 5. Poles can last from 50 to 60 years. We have an on‐going inspection and
maintenance program for the poles. Each pole is inspected and treated every 10
years.
Q. 6. Why can’t AT&T be paying more?
A. 6. The cost sharing is defined by the joint pole agreement between the City of
Palo Alto and Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company.
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
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2018 1:07 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 01, 2018 10:34 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Stump, Molly; Lait, Jonathan; Architectural Review Board; John L. Flegel
Subject:Council Hearing of June 4, 2018
Attachments:scanappeal.pdf; paweekly0001.pdf
Please see attached.
Thank you.
Yo LLC
55° High: 77° Low: 44°
Sat Sun Mon Tue Print or online subscription starts as low as $5 /month I SUPPORT HERE J
Log in I Register
Palo Alto
o n n e
Home News Town Square Biogs A&E Sports Real Estate Print Edition
5
Uploaded: Thu, May 31, 2018, 9:22 am
Nobu expansion faces appeal in Palo Alto
Downtown property owner says city is giving the applicant 'special treatment'
''f'l1-,,~s: ~-~·· ,.., ... ,,_.,, __
... -..... 1_, .. , ....
~· .... --g •. ,...
~ ...,,. ... ~. ~-------------' l
This rendering from the project plans illustrates the new Nobu building proposed for 620 Emerson
St. Rendering by Montalba Architects Inc.
by Gennady Sheyner /Palo Alto Weekly
As a downtown developer, Elizabeth Wong fully
understands the power of the appeal in slowing down
a project.
In February 2017, her proposed mixed-use
development at 429 University Ave. narrowly won
the City Council's approval after more than three
years of reviews and a formal appeal by neighbors
who deemed her project at the former site of Shady
Lane too massive and architecturally incompatible
with the area.
Now, Wong finds herself on the other side of the
debate. On Monday night, the City Council will
consider an appeal of another downtown project: the
proposed expansion of the Nobu restaurant, which is
Hou•o: l,540+SF I
:Picturesque home, iust
;minutes from downtown
'Redwood City'
iO!=F=ERED AT $1,498,000
T
located at the Epiphany Hotel at 180 Hamilton Ave. The appellant is Yo LLC, which is managed by Wong.
In appealing the proposal to open a new Nobu location next door to the Epiphany, at 620 Emerson St., Yo
LLC, is seeking to reverse the approval that project received from the city's planning staff on April 19. Palo
Alto's Architectural Review Board had also voted on April 5 to approve the proposal, which calls for a new,
4,063-square-foot two-story building to replace the existing structure formerly occupied by Stanford
Florist.
For Yo LLC, the biggest issue is parking --specifically, the city's decision to allow the property owner to
pay "in-lieu parking fees" instead of providing actual parking on the site. The project would remove three
existing on-site parking spots.
Planning staff had determined the removal of parking spots is reasonable. The location and size of the
property, combined with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, local standards for refuse collection
make it "infeasible to provide additional parking onsite in an efficient or convenient parking layout,"
according to a report from the Department of Planning and Community Environment.
Search
Classifieds Visit Join Contact
TOP BLOGS
-~~ ------·-
Keeping expectations in check
By Cheryl Bae I O comments I 6,111 views
Palo Alto's Vin Vino Wine reopens
By Elena Kadvany I 1 comment I 1,913 views
At Home with John Collins, Wherever You
Are
By Aldis Petriceks I 1 comment I 1,211 views
Couples: "When someone shows you who
they are, believe them the first time."
By Chandrama Anderson I O comments I 622
views
Ahhh, those dam aging questions
By Diana Diamond I 2 comments I 449 views
View all local biogs
deJeur
www.deleontealty.
Wong disagreed with this determination and argued that the city's decision on parking sets a dangerous
precedent. In an interview with the Weekly, she noted that if every restaurant in downtown's parking
assessment district were given the same right to remove parking spots, the area would lose more than
2,000 parking spots. This, she said, represents "a tremendous loss to the city."
"Whatever you grant this applicant, you have to grant to other applicants," Wong said.
Wong also argued that by approving the proposal, the city is essentially giving the restaurant special
treatment. Any project building within Palo Alto, she wrote to the architecture board in February, "should
comply to the requirements of the City's existing land use policies.•
"Yo LLC objects to special treatment the City has granted Nobu restaurant because it is a very popular and
well-regarded restaurant and to Larry Ellison, the owner, because of his immense status in the business
community."
The tiff over parking spots isn't the first clash between Yo LLC and the project applicant, who is listed in
the project plans as PA Hotel Holding LLC. Last year, Yo LLC filed a lawsuit against the property owner
alleging breach of contract, fraudulent concealment and negligent misrepresentation.
According to the suit, Yo LLC made a bid in 2013 to buy the property from the owner, Krucker Trust
(represented by Ruth Krucker), for $3.25 million. The two parties entered into a purchase agreement and
the sale was set to close escrow in 2014. That, however, did not happen because of a separate legal
dispute between Krucker and her husband, Adolf Konigsreiter, over ownership rights. In July 2016, the
Krucker Trust was deemed the "sole and rightful" owner of the property, according to Yo LLC's court filing.
Yo LLC maintains that the Emerson Purchase Agreement remained in effect, despite these disputes.
However, in January 2017, Ruth Krucker, as trustee of the Krucker Trust, sold the property to PA Hotel
Holding for $4.25 million.
The complaint from Yo LLC argues that by selling to PA Hotel Holding, Krucker and Trucker Trust "have
breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to honor the Emerson Purchase Agreement
and by breaching their contractual obligations.•
Yo LLC's formal appeal focuses on the issues of parking, congestion and the provision of a code-compliant
restroom; Wong's February letter to the board alludes to the ongoing litigation as another reason the
application should not be approved.
"Yo LLC has a contract to purchase the property which predates Applicant's ownership of this property,"
Wong wrote. "Approval of this application and the proposed demolition and development work proposed to
follow may have to be reversed depending upon the outcome of the pending litigation.•
The council is scheduled to consider Yo LLCs appeal at its meeting this Monday. Planning staff is
recommending that the council reaffirm the project's approval and reject the appeal. Because the appeal is
listed on the council's "consent calendar," it would take three council members to remove it from the
calendar and give Wong a full public hearing.
Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news,
local events, photos, videos and more.
Comments
Posted by Downtowner
a resident of Downtown North
21 hours ago
19 people like this
"Planning staff had determined the removal of parking spots is reasonable."
Yep, that's our Planning Department. After all, that's what Larry Ellison wants. We don't want to
stop the rich folks from getting richer. Parking is someone else's problem.
Email Town Square Moderator Report Objectionable Content
Posted by Online Name 14 people like this
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
20 hours ago
Online Name is a registered user.
Planning staff also didn't think the Epiphany needed parking for its guests and their visitors, its staff
and its restaurant patrons. Where did they "think" those hundreds of cars would go??
Email Town Square Moderator Report Objectionable Content
llt\YOU
SUMM\
REGISl
BEGIN:
MAY3'
JUNE7
FOR NON
SATURDAY. JUNE 'J
& J\Dlv
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
18 hours ago
5 people like this
Let's see if they do get special treatment. It's outrageous, and Imoppose this. But I'm just a city
resident.
Posted by Marie
a resident of Midtown
12 hours ago
Marie is a registered user.
Email Town Square Moderator Report Objectionable Content
· 5 people like this
Just say no to a restaurant that is not willing to provide any parking at all, next to a hotel, which
was allowed to convert a low income assisted living building to an expensive hotel -without any
parking, since it was deemed to be an equivalent use. Right.
Email Town Square Moderator Report Objectionable Content
Posted by RichardT Like this comment
a resident of Old Palo Alto
11 hours ago
I'm all for more parking downtown (aren't we all), but after some research, it looks like the hotel's
parking is there, but off-site (valet). That's a bit inconvenient but works, I guess.
I frankly don't get the issue with Nobu parking. The spots in question would be employee-only
anyway, and i'd rather see something other than a shuttered building inthe old florist spot. This
seems like a frivilous and vengeful appeal that will hinder the restoration of our very special
downtown area. If nobu needs to provide additional parking, what about all of the other
restaurants? Why only Nobu?
This seems like a case of sour grapes. An opportunity was missed and has since been elevated by
$1M -Wong is going for the money-grab, and the original contract was never executed. Game over.
Emal! Town Square Moderator Report Ob3ect1onable Content
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Email: Your email address
Post a comment
Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit
"submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful In your postings so Town
Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion.
All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our
staff.
We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.
Name:
Select your neighborhood or school community: Not sure?
Neighborhoods
JOIN US FOR A FREE COM MU'
Saturday, June 2 9
9:30am -11:30am
Palo Alto
1MiHH;*
To: City of Palo Alto City Council
Subject: Appeal of Planning Staff Approval of
Demolition and Construction at 620 Emerson St.
Appellant: Yo LLC
Date: May 31, 2018
Let's start with a few simple facts.
Until Stanford Florists closed, the back of this property at 620 Emerson was actively used for
parking and loading for the flower shop. The Applicant's approved design eliminates all three
on-site parking spaces.
This Appeal objects to the elimination of the parking spaces based on the following:
POTENTIAL DISAPPEARANCE OF 2,124 PARKING SPACES
On-site parking is sorely needed in the downtown core. Elimination of on-site parking pushes
the parking problem to the City.
The city's parking assessment document (University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Assessment
District -attached as Exhibit A) shows on page 5 that the property is given credit for three on-
site parking spaces and paid in-lieu for the remaining eleven spaces it didn't provide.
The architects' drawings for this property show as existing conditions that there are three on-
site parking spaces. The Applicant's plans for new construction removes all on-site parking.
Now I ask you, why would the City even consider allowing this on-site parking to be removed?
This sets a dangerous precedent as there were by my count 2,124 on-site parking spaces listed
in the report (page 6 of Exhibit A), many with similar 90-degree parking configurations with
access from a 20-foot wide alley (see Exhibit B), that can also be removed from similar sites if
on-site parking at 620 Emerson is allowed to disappear.
Purportedly, the reason to allow removal is because the current configuration for the existing
parking spaces is 20 feet long and does not meet the new standards requiring 23 to 25 feet.
This can be easily accommodated by increasing the length inwards towards the interior of the
site. Further, any space lost by the expansion of the parking could easily be accommodated on
the second floor of the Applicant's design.
DO WE NEED TO LOSE ALL THREE SPACES?
If it is necessary to accommodate access for utilities and/or trash removal, it might necessitate
losing one of the parking spaces; but to remove all three parking spaces is overreaching. The
Applicant should be required to preserve as much on-site parking as possible, even only one in
the extreme case.
OTHER ON-SITE OPTIONS
The Applicant has not addressed other viable options such as putting parking underground,
which can easily be accommodated with a ramp from the alley. Another option is to use a
mechanical lift to double the parking of any space, thus increasing the parking density of
downtown.
In summary, we are appealing Planning's approval for this project because it runs counter to
the City and its residents' best interests. The elimination of on-site parking goes against the
City's long-time vision to keep the downtown a viable commercial core with easy access for
residents and visitors. Return this project to Staff until the on-site parking issue is properly
addressed.
Respectfully submitted,
Yo LLC
FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT
for
UNIVERSITY A VENUE AREA OFF.-
STREET
PARKING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT.
Prepared for:
City of Palo Alto
. California
Prepared by: .. .
.. Harris & Associates
March, 2001
Clly of Palo Allo
Unlvorslly Avenue Off·Slreet Parl<lng Asscs•ment Dlstrlcl
~55essmem ngn
A'$$1!1S!Unent AHH!OOf't °"""'' Number Parent tJRma
I 120.0l·002 Pelcrs. COiin
2 1.:0.03·023 MOOIJ'!m lm>t'J1mtol Co.
3 120-0!·02' t.o\odUfus lnvetment CC.
4 120.0J.025 Reane LLC
5 120-03-026 Chi. Ros;rrnd c. Truol ..
0 -f:O.OJ.027 Sedt.lmeyer. Ci1atte~ L. and O•rbars S.
7 120·03-028 L .. ett.Oonnl$1\
8 120.0'-030 Palo Allo lmprovmT!rJnl Co.
0 120.03.0JI Brrmdl, J:imes A. TNslto
10 t20-03.0J2 JTC
If f201J3.0l3 J L S Ar.S.Oelilltls II
t2 120.03-035 TP Unlvon;lty Avo. As.Wes. LLC
13 120.03·038 Forbe!I, T~mos ,,,
u 120-03·037 Rugtlv. GtlOrgo M. i1l:rd Onrt:;ira M. Trvstec
IS 120-03-F'n1ttM!l1·Andtv1rn Trust
10 120.0J-063 Hammon W•b•tor JT Vtn Et Al
17 120.03.()114 Johns.on. LIJM M. Trvstoe El Al co 1~0.03·MS Le~elt, Oennls A
IG !20.03-000 SOS H::tmll1on Av(lt'llle Pattnen w 12(>-0J.087 OotSccco, Con1I andet:.i)1otJR. Tnntw
21 120.o:i.oeo CM Copilal Corpornllon l••• note IJ
22 120-03·010 CM Copilal Corpotalion
23 120.03·071 Jahrlton·Hlm~I Plittntrthlp, Et Al (Ht rote :iJ
24 121>03·012 Closs 1097 Pam P•rtnM~lp. LP
25 120.03·08' Clly of PatD Aflt1 (Wob.stcr-CCWpor Qomgo) aUn: Jf><: Sacdo
20 W>03·00S Monts AuodJIM V • f'reS:no Land Onfy
21 120.tl-OSS Cllyof Pelo Allo lL)1ton-Wovei1y Loi) >110: JQe Socdo
2S 12'0.14"°91 Jac:ruvso. DoNlo A. and P;qquallna A.
20 120.14·002 505 Hamnton Avenue Pms, LP
30 120.1'·095 City of Polo Allo (Lytton-W:avofiy Loi) :;i"n~ Joe 03tdo
lt 120.11-101 Kelley, mctwd R. Jr.
32 120.t,.102 Me:t;ur,t Propcity lnvs. LLC.
33 t20.U·t10 Kolloy, Richan! R. Jr. El Al
3, 121>14-ll! CnmpbcM AU.admo$ II, A PTSP
35 120.15-002 Gr.>y. tyle Trust<• g El Al
30 121>·15-003 Hatosolc.1, H•ny H. •n<I S"">ko M. Tru&I••
37 120.15·00-' -401 Floteht:.4 Ar.riocfAIOS L to
30 120-!5.QCS Oe~hger. Dorolhl?ll E. Trusff!I!
30 !20.•5·009 !Iv F~ma., Partni'tah'rJ, LP
40 12015·007 euroo. Richan! G. Tn,.leo
41 120.15-010 First Atnorlc:An TIUs Guar.lnty CQ,
42 120.l!Mllt Tiiclts ams. Irie. (SOO ~u 3)
43 120-,~·012 Thalls Ut0-1. Inc.. .. t:!0-15-013 MPS Ass.od:itas UC
•S 121>15-014 Tho!ls ems. lne.
•6 1~15--015 Thcllla Oros. IMC. (lvo r.alo -4)
41 12tHS.Ot6 RRC A Llmllod ll•blllty Co. •a tZ0.15·011 Kulomln, Elll!lbelh A TNSICl:r & lft Al
40 tall-15·018 Sw;iin, MatU13P, Trustee & f!lAf
50 120.10·019 Guesg,Myma -·--·-·-Nole I: orulte ~orklng pn>vhled co APN 120·03·070 to creclllC'J to th!$ APN
Nole 2: <mslle patl:lno ~mvlded on APU 120.03-012 !s ....r.tod 10 lhi• APll
Uota 3: OM.Sile p11!tlng ptovldffd Drt APH t20-15-0t2 ls oedilt:d IC) tl~s APN
tlolc •: on,ae ~mtdng 111twldt."d ari APN t20 ·0 l!>-014 Is crtldllOO to this APN
MoiUng AddteH
t.fumbllt Stioel
550 l.)1tonAv 3rd Fir. 2ns E. P.mtaY, Ways Ste !2-0
2725 E. Ptn1•)"• Wais Sia 120
525 Onlvo!l~Y Av. Unll 1500
425 t.msl.
6SO WJi'itl'le·i1 SI
P.O. 901· 420
P.O.Bot21
530 Untvll:r1ilyA.v.
54(1 UAfvQrs.lty Av. Slo. tOS
f1Q Starfish Cl.
1$$0 tltluron s1e. A et.
P.O. Bo• I 021
25'2$ Adobotn. -sn Hammon Av.
S55 Hamllion Av. Unll St 100
1400 OolplllcWy.
503 wavu1ley St.
259 llnlvl1Blly Av. Sle. 208.
1 SellylMO
525 UnlVCf:Jl\Y Av. Unll \500
525 un1,, .. 11y Av. Unll tsllO
.c M.atn St. Unil 20 I
4 Mlllo SI. llnlt 201
2SO Hamlllon Avi:nuc .tlh FIOo'
112 Un!YorsltyA-1.
250 Hamilton A\'enuo 4th Floor
2203 C!11myAv.
10s Alborto Wy. sro. s
2SO H1mf1Jon Avenue .fth rtoct
172 Unl.,&r$!ly Av
435 Tasto Sl. Uni! SI 300
17~ Unlverslly Av
2055 Gat..,,.y ?I. Uni~· sac
IOOS t.insenOr.
me Gto~OA'l<,
~Ol Floronc1:1 Sl
344 Ml<ldto Fleld Rd
21Dt Dry•n!SI
t Kaiser Plato Ste 1•50
405 Klplir9St
P.O.Oor. 21
P.0.9o1<2t
IOUt Sro-ay Ste 300
P.O. Bo11: 21
P.O.llo•2t m Unl>1ariltyAv
HO 11omrv,iwwior.
1715 Vntparal$0 Av
24915 laLom~Ct.
Prollmlnal)'
Cos! Esilmal•
Clly
Polo Aho
Sa!tLPeCiey
SoJILohClly
Palo Alto
PtlloAlto
Polo Mo
P:JloAllo
PnloAllo
PaloAllU
Pa'oAtto
M"""o
Bolvnwo
PalOAlto
Loo Altes Hill.<
Pa'oAno
Palo AllO
Poe,,tello
Polo "!to
Polo Alto
Alfl-Man
Polo Alla
Palo Alto
Lo$~11os
Loa Ano~
Palo Mo
Palo Alto
Pal;,Atto
SonJos•
LosOolu•
Polo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
San Jona
MonloPatfl
Palo Alto
P•lo Ano
Polo Ano
Pa!oAlto
OaklMd
Poto Alto
Pu!OIJlo
FalOAllo
Stale
Cl>.
l/T
UT
c~
CA
Cl\
Cl\
Cl\
Cl\
CA
C4
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
10
Cll
Cl>.
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
ROO.<>O<IClly Cl>.
Polo Alto Cl>.
Pala Ma Cl>.
~::loAiftt CA
SanRaroud CA
Mento Pork CA
Los Alias Hill• CA
Final
S•S.OOJ, 133 Co•I Eollmate $'5,1148.090
SKe Sqtmrtl Parking Part<lng A.0.PaJl\l"ll Parlll"IJ Prelimln•ry Finni
Zip Address Fool~c Reaukod Provided P"'1idnotlon Sencfil Au™"1tn( AIS"Hment
9-1301-1542 SSOL)llon 4.lllS ID 10 0 0 S!Hlo $000
G<tO!l se1 un1 ... e,,~tv G.028 21 n 5 s $25.0$5.0S s25.oes.os
114109 SSS Unlvor1tl)4 10.532 '2 2 40 •o $200.5211.40 $200,520.40
!M301 435 TaslO 35,ftO 140 30 110 110 USt,,31.H $551,431.11
000"1545 425Teno 0 D 0 0 0 . so.oo
9>4301·2510 lt7Tosso l,168 5 4 I I SS.013.01 $5,013.01
114301 -'4t.5Tano 0 0 0 0 0 10.00 $000
0002·0021 500 UnivGtlllly tS,800 °' 0 °' °' $320,1132.84 sno.a32,04
Ol301·1VOI 5:1D Unlye,,Jty 8,400 34 0 31 34 $170,1•23• $170.412.31
IM30J.1012 540 Unlversts'I U.OJ5 Ila 0 00 ea U00.70000 U00.780.llO
03033·22•• s.48UnlweBffy •.>75 t7 0 11 17 S9S,2':!.f.t7 ios.m.11
omo SSOUnlv"'Uy oso 20 0 ~o 20 $!Q0,2ll0.2Q $100,W0.20
94302·1021 58'Unlver.llly MOO 0 0 n 0 $0.00 $0.00
Q.i022~550 5BB lJnivenlty 9,207 37 0 37 !11 $1115,481.37 $18S,4Ql.31
04301·2035 Sl!SHam!lwn l.810 0 0 D 0 $0.00 !0.00
o•JOt 555 Hamfllon u.010 SB 5 5t St $255,003.51 $255,683.51
1!3401 S31Hamhton uae 10 0 le 18 $00,2'4.18 $\I0,234.18
(1430! 5i!.$Hamllton 3,m il 0 0 0 $0.00 10.00
94301 505H•m111on 32.515 130 0 130 130 $1l51.1Jll1.31 $tlSl,001.31
04027·5401 543C0wpor o.m 31 0 37 37 Slll5.•n1.31 SillS,481.37
01301-1923 525 Unl•u,.lly 201,270 BOS IS2 353 353 $t,ID9.51!2.55 St.769.592.55
9430f.!1)23 525 Unlv""1ry 0 0 0 0 0 l0.00 $0.00
IM022·2ll02 5:!0L)11on 50.120 200 01! 102 102 $511,327.02 SM t,321.03
94022-2002 530L)11on u 0 0 0 0 $0.00 $0.00
0001 0 0 0 Q 0 10.00 so.oo
IM30t 53!~r 16,093 80 0 ea OS $310,884.88 $310,l!S.181
IM301 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 $0.00
05125-4712 38QLyttoo oeo • 0 4 ' $20,052.04 $20,0SWI
9SOl2 :un LyUon 1.Slll 30 0 30 30 StS0.~00.30 I 150.300.30
114301 0 0 0 0 0 I0.00 $0.00
DllO! 305L)1ton 10.tll>O 44 1 37 37 StOS,,8!.37 I tBS,481.37
IMlOt 325Lytlon P,51'0 30 49 ·11 0 SO.OD $0.00
94301 33&Bryanl 0.410 38 0 38 3! $190.404.38 $190,<IM.38
oSllO 37DL11ton 30.000 120 85 35 35 $115,•55.35 St15,4$US
o.t02S 3t4Lytton o.~ 33 0 33 33 $105,429.33 $105,421!.l!
0'303·4~38 330L)1ton 0,975 28 0 2a 28 ,,.0,3114.20 $I 10,38'.28
IM3Dl·ll06 401 Florence 5,121 2t 0 21 21 $105.213.2t $105.273.21
IM301·t3l4 JllOL111on 550 2 I ! I $5.013.01 SS.OtM!
9-1301>3007 300Lytton 1.106 • 0 4 • $20,052.04 120,il52.CM
o.t612-3/llll 401Wovorloy 4,050 16 10 6 0 • $30,078.00 $30,070.Qe
9·130!· 1530 405Klr.ll"ll 3,134 !l 0 t3 13 SM.168.13 S!IS.100.13
IM302 UOL111on 5.952 2• 20 4 4 $20,052.04 ll0.052.04
94302 4B2L)1ton 0 0 0 0 0 so.co $0.00
g.;003 420C."1"!f tQ.051 70 0 70 7D $3PB,027.70 Sl00,027.70
91302 4UCowpcr 0 0 a 0 0 so.co $000
01302 489 Unlvers'ty t0,301 42 22 20 20 $100,260.20 St00.2&0.20
OUOI •l'O UnlveNly o.1ze 37 2 35 35 $17S.45S35 1175.455.35
91001-1453 483 Unlv"'11ily 2,005 12 0 <2 12 $00. HUS.12 $i)0.1$tl.12
94025·5~50 451 UntveJSllV 5.1150 24 4 20 20 $ too.200.20 s !00,280.20
04022-4~~ 443KlrulM 2 Bt5 0 0 0 0 $0.00 $0.00 "
I
A.s~Usmoftt Assew.trs O"M1~r'r. Mamno Addtcn Sile Squ;iro P>tttJng f';rJ\lng A,0, Parkin' Patting Prefimlf'l#ry Ftn:at
t.tumbt!r f'il!tt(!I f.lnmo mnnbtr Street C.ily Sin!<! Zlp Addrt!H Foot;oa neqult['lj Pmvldcd PiUi!ldpi1tlcn B&nem i\HP.SSmant A!illenmom
flumb<'f Units
51 111H5·0ZO Tholl!BtllS,lnc. P.0.8ox21 PoloAlto Cf, ~ii AJIKlpllng 1.m -' 2 2 2 $10,028,02 $10,028,02
52 t2015·0'l1 Tl1ollsBml Inc. PO.Ba<21 PoloAllo C~ gJl02·0011 All81p!ina 2.729 0 0 0 Q $0,00 $0.00
S:l lttHS~02:? Otwitz.OorothyLE.IAI UO OoSabfnRd. Hlli®oteoOh CA CMM(2 AZ:IKlollno 2.Gt:! 1t 6 0 6 $30,078.0'l $30.01000
st t:o-1s-o~.:1 TholtJ~nn .. lnc. 020E.tt1aMn!it PaloAllo CA Q..tl~nGlt1Ktpling 1.S3't e o e e uo.011.oe .S3o.ontoo -tj~ ,.q,u_ ~lM~ .. 11£1-i11,~,.--~·-"-"·-,-··~-'" ,,_.,.u ~.cs.~ •. ,~~ ~ .. , G4·--0~1..uu lllpiof--· -·~-·-·-e -·-·--·~D:il -'fl!l;lll'O:t!l!lj"~·I
. se t?O·IS·OW Wt'!1'9,J;:i:lmttTru!lcite.EtAI ~0,£1"~:t:!0.4 Pr.toA!lo Ct~ . t).IJ0;?44;9'Unt~. -·· 7.lt\1 -w ___ ~ ~i 21 ~!.12!!1.~? .. ?~ -1~J.!.? ... ttL,,..,.. [ -··-57-·· 'l'lill'li1<(1ll~· C'.>llllllllll!~t<l1:1fflttl'T:"i"l!l'l1eo'&'lffA)""""·c-·--··"-"'. ---'l':o:1!0ii11frl'"''"··-·-Mil':Uft:Fi\i1''"C~--o:rs~m-cr.r, ... 11y ""'t:i?5 18 2 16 16 SB0.208.16 U0,2C9.16
59 lZf\·15030 Slenln,B~rb:araF. t014t tndlonHillOr. Weed CA 00094·9485 A23Unlvars1tv 2.200 0 1 8 8 &40.IO<l.Oa $40,10.LOO
59 120-15·03! Felfondo, Do""ld '"'""" & Et Al 224 Anion Rd Menlo Pork CA IM025 415 UnlVl!r.llly 5,076 23 • 17 t7 S0$,22t.17 $05,221.17
oa 12015·032 Shanrcr.Elalnot,t, Tru1100 1320 C".ounlryClubOt. Lo1Alloo CA 1>4024-5302 40,Ulli'lor.:lly 5,550 22 I 21 21 $105,273.21 $105,273,21
01
62
OJ
64 es
IJll
87
on
09
10
71
12
13
74
75
70
11
78
79
Bil
81
82
83
"' 85
RO
87 eo
BO
tlO
91
92
93
9!
05
ll<I
97
98
g9
100
101
f():!
103
104
t20-ll>-Ol3
IW·IS.034
•20-15-036
120.1S-Ojr
12015-038
120-15-0JO
12015·040
t20.15·04t
121).1$.(M?,
120..15.~3
120-15-04•
121l-15·045
120-16.CMO
t~()..1!i·040
12o.15·050
120.t5·051
12().15-052
t1fl.lf't.053
120.15-~
t?O.tS-0$5
170-IS·llSr
120.IS·OSB
120-16·0~0
120-15·000
120.15·08:?
12\lolS.063
12ll-IS.Oll4
120.15-065
12015·066
1201>-olll
l~IS-OOn
no-15.000
120·15'076
120-IS.071
12M5·07l
120.15-073
120.16.07'
•20-15-075
120.15-07n
120·15·071
120.IS.OIB
120-15·0!9
12o-IS.Oll0
12MS.0Gt
Mlchact:s ffower SOOP Haley. J(athl<on £, TnJoloe & El Al
CMo'teU, John 0 Et At
Ch!ldrm. Kothf)'ll A. El Al
Fr.toer, All~ G, ltusllil'e 4 El Al
Holl;tnd, Arthur l arid Juno M.
John Chlldreu Auod;its
Childres&. KaUiryn A. El At
Rapp, Stoty H. And Mlchoffe R. Tru:ilce
Rapp, Roxy fl. Tn11.10o & El Al
Styy. Carollna P. frv:.toa
M:1110ntc TcmpfQ .Assn.
Mchmlt! B;my Propertiet, LP,
O•-n. Oolo H. and 11•11<)' s. El Al
Glovannotlu, S;tlvatoto arr.I Stella Tru!:I
Mtl:mlc Banv Pnn:ittllos, LP.
Ml!lanlc Ollrry Prop.~rtlei, L.P.
We?ls F:irgo B.nn~Corpor.ilo Prapr,rtlci;. Orovp i'Jrtn: Jerf R:sd;ar
Shoow, Elalll1' I.I. El Al
Well& Fnrga Dank Corporate Pmperiic~ Cm11p nttre Jen Acdtst
300 Untvel'!JltY A!>r.odales.
Cmru:ton. Alien Tn1s.tee & Et Al
Hanna, Mar1an110 L. :md Ft.tgh:.tm Lynn l. Et Al
Worig. J:itm.o nod Elltabolh 1-1. TmMl?O
Sllmkovlc:, rrlcda 't'Mlelt A Et Al
Ropp, Roxy H. •n<I Mltlt!l'e ft. llldloe
Toyo. Yastumtuu ard Tokelto Trwte!'.
Le.,tt. Oenn•s A El Al
Sia""' Propcrtl•• Corp
Knng A~weflltM 1nc.
Nagy, Ct1ntfc.s. E. nnd Martha Trus.loc
P:1lo Alto lhl!.:alto t:Qrpor.:ilfcn
Silny, Fri;n)'. R. Jt. Trus.tee
Unl'YC"ily PC1!.1kf(lnt Awes. UC
C:owpe-r Squ:ro Pilrtntra c.'o 'Web5lcr Fln.and!lf
Clty at Pa!o Alto (Cowper·H~mlilon Lall mtn: t.tr. Joa-S;iedo
Loar.no Inc
Cowper.H;immon AtS(ldalra
Hafezt, SMral,UJnl,O,rt R. and MoSIAfD
Gloyonnolfa, Soh1olot(j an:t Slell;i TniM
OOi.,)ia>, Oonnld K 11"1 f,l•rrEHon K. T rusl
AU Stt!nl' Eplu:o~I Chureh
Sl•na> Pn>M•leJ C<l!ll
StMtO PrclocrlltHI com
UQlt!' 5: on~to pnAlng P"' .. +Jtd cm Af'N t20.t5°0$S Js rtedllcd to lh~ 5lln
4S31W""•"'1\' Sl 110 Rol!inVl.ood Dr.
PO!lox 656
POOO•,S.;8
4 ISSIS.W. SoUlll Sho•e SL
to.t7 R;1mon:i St.
PO eo• esa
POllox MG
P.O. Dox 107Z
P.0, Box 1612
4 C1Mll!OnlPI.
P.O. Bo• 1000
<31 1'1orcnoo SI. $•• 220
250 Unl,,mlly A\/ Sio 200
P.O. a., Gom
431 Flarcnte St. Sin '20
431 Flomnco St Slo 220
033 Folsom SllOOI, nth Fl:ior
P.O. SO. 3UB7
833 Folsom Slteel. tllt1 Fl'J:>r
172 Unl\lertlty Av
P.O. Bo111:0
122 HnmUkmAv
P'.O. Boic 204
s2e err•nt s1""'1
F.O. llOx 1672
320 9!1dgeRd P.o eox rnn
2 CMc Pl11:.1 Unll mo
955 AlmaSI.
300 lo Cuosltt Or.
700 Emctl$Cn SI.
431 Fl...,... SI. Slo 220
1 tlob Hill rJ.
425 Wavtrl•1 Str®t
zso Ham.illon .tin Ftoor
172 W. Uohrt!r'GllyA.v.
355 Sanlo Rlla Av
7530 Loodo Av
P.O. Do• nom
2llllllTauo SI.
P.O, Sox 322
2 CMeP1~uun111eo
2 CM: Pla;!D: Una 1EIO
Palo Ma CA
Sa11Rarnct CA
P:a!oAl!O CA
P•l•Allo CA
Lake 0M"Ot• OR
Polo Alto CA
PaloAllo CA
Palo Alla CA
Pa!OA!IO CA
Palo Alto CA
MenloP;llk CA
Pi1foAllo CA
Polohho CA
PaloA!ta CA
Palo Alto CA
PaloAllo CA
Palo Alto CA
sanfmntlAOO CA
Hovston lX
sen Fron~!~"° CA
Palo Alla CA
Palo Allo CA
Pal<tAtto CA.
PalOAllO CA
Polo Aho CA
Peto Aho CA
Hl!lsborc1111h CA
P:iiDAffo CA
tler,.,'POll Bc~ch CA
PaloAllo CA
lo1Allar. CA
PialoAUo CA
PoloAllo C/\
sanfrtnr.4w e.&.
P:al~Alla CA
Pait> Ano CA
Polo Ano CA
PnloA!lo CA
Cupertino CA
PoloAllo CA
PoloAl/o 'CA Pn.!oAtli;i. CA
Ufl'Y.port Ooi1ch CA
lldWPOrt Bil:seh CA
O-t30M7tQ 453 Wnvcrley
il41lOM4!;3 '39 W3«AOy
94302 4:M Wrtw:rfoy
Jl.IJ02 410 wo,clfey
97033 122 l'lo,.rfey
il4301·2'4• 426 Woverfcy
04302 On Wovo•ur
il4303 383 Unl•omllr
04302-1872 370 llnlv11111/y
94302·1812 375 Unl•tr:illy
!1<025·3914 367 Unl>mlly
043Dl· 'Cf.O lSS Unlvt:r•lly
9430M700 431 Flon:neo
1).C!IOi .c20 Florunca
91300 339 Unl•o11lly
D.t30M700 32.l Unlverslly
il430Ml0il 317 Unlvor>lly
94107 301 Uo1'en;l/y
77234..USI 301 Unlvel'llly
04107 301 Unlve"11)'
94:91'11•!0l1 3t0 Uttlvordty
9~301 318 Unl•e<011r
fl.t~DI 330 Unlveru\ly
94302·02o.t 340 Unlvt'rGlly
0430f.171S 310Unlvo"ll1·
94302·10r.? JU Unlvo1>tly
().10106912 382 UrJv01$lly
il4l!tM672 31>4 Unl•o!!lty
926605022 •oa Unlmslly
o.430f 4.:?8 Un!01tors!ly
94024-~748 <t.52 Unl'+'~1slly
9-130f·2.4 IO of.S'.J Unlvcn.Jly
1J.130f.1700 41\0 Untmsllv
Pl 106 480 Unlvomllv
1)4301·1023 520 Co'·~.,
94301
£14'01·1El3f fi44 C,·•-pt-t
o<lOl-31142 499 Hammon
95014·5219 m Homlllon
94300 459 Hnmtllon
0430tl.C35 Hamilton !l430l·0322 555 Wovorley
t)260-592~ SJ~ l/IQ\ICltty
02t00.5922 S1S 'r"hherlev
050
7.2M
1,18' mo
3,990
3.219
2,845
3,02!i
3,llro
8,137
2.500
33.~30
5,7U
B,730
10,llOO
8,320
!;,2JO
20Jl1!i
0
0
29.S30
18,342
8,111(1
IMlO
3,1150
2,0l7
3,57!i
1',290
10,855
10,447
0,CO!l
22.498
l.784
15,tm
07,184
0
8,MO
15,10B
8,126
14,~cn
5.llO!I n.4•a
0
0
3
29
0
0
16
0
11
15
18
33
10
13•
23
35
43
25
21
118
0
0
118
o~
33 or
15
12
14
51
Ol
74
32
00
31
Bl
209
0
27
OJ
33
50
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ii
0
0
0
3
0
0
0 o'
0
0
20
0
0
t
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
28 •
0
0
0
0
64
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2Q
0
0
10
0
0
15
16
33
7
131
17
35
43
25
21
OG
0
0
117
62
30
07
15
12
" 57
39
70
32
00
31
03
20!!
0
27
&l
33
59
21
0
0
0
3
20
0
0
16 o'
0
15
16
33
7
134
17
35
43
25
21
'~
a
0
117
62
30
87
15
12
" 57
39
70
115.039,03
~t,S,377.20 so.oo
$0.00
580.208. IB
10,0Q
10.00
$1&,105, 15
$00,200.10
$Ul5,42D.33
~S,0!!1,07
1671,743.35
$115.221.17
$175,455.35
$215,559.43
S 12S.'325.2S
$105,213.21
$401,24U9
$D.OO
SU.Oil
SSG0,522, ta
SllO.COS.112
5150,300.30
n3s,011.01
$75,195. 15
SD0.158.12
$70, 182.14
$205,70.57
$105.507.39
S3SD.OI0.70
$15,039.03
5145,317.20
$000 sooo
seo.2oa.m
ID.OD
$0.00
$75, l&S.IS
$B0,20lUO
$105.429.33
S35,Cll1.0f
$011,743.35
$115,221.17
Sl1M5~.35
$215,SSU3
S H?!l,325.25
5105.273,21
$401,248.07
$0,00
$0.00
JSao,s22. 1a
SllO,!lllS,1!2
$1511,300,30
S335,Q71,07
$1$, 105.15'
$60.159.12
$70. 182. I~
1285.74157
S!tlS.507.30
13511,M0.70
32 SlllOAI0.32 Sltl0.41032
00 5451.170.00 $451,170.91
31 5155,403.31 S15S.403.JI
03 S315,81U3 $315.01003 ws s1.021.ll!l1.oe 11.021.001.oe
0 $0,00 $0.00
27 $135.351.27 $1l5,35l.27
63 Sll5.SIU3 $315.819.BJ
33 SI05,42G.33 $ IBS,42D.33
GO S205,7tJ7.50 $205,7ti7 .SO
21
0
0
0
$105.27321
$0,00
~O,C(J'
so.oo
$105,273 21
$000
W,t>)
so.DD
~
AHessrnen1 /\S\'le1S.0($ OwnJ?l"S Malllro Addrau Sill\ SQU.3(0 Po<1dno r,11<1.,.. AO. Parl<i"{) P•cl<I"{) l'rcllmlnaJY rln~I
~lurnbor P~f~&I Nnine Numb!! r Stmt!t City Slntt? 71p Addrciu t:oolage Rcqult~ Provlg"t:d PJrl!ic!p;iH:m Bt'naDI 11.t,~t·~~IOl?ilt ,\".t;~ss:nefl1
N1:1nber Units
UJ5 t~().IS.0112 C~Man. Cale H. ohd Nancy K P.O Oti).Jng Pal~ ll.t:.~ CA 01302·0380 S10Wavet1ey 2.1!53 11 • 7 7 -·-·m.09T01 ·~
toe 121).15·083 Holr>tk1!r, Edward 0. Ill El Al '™ \IJrxd.sJdt!Rd. \-'.'omftl:Jn CA 0<002·3843 520Wovortoy 8,152 35 I 34 34 $170,442.34 $170,Hn4
107 121).IS.Oll4 EdcJtteln, Ch.1rtao R. and S:irn J. TrusfH 1958 Vullc/o SI. Unlt 4 S11n Fti;tncl&eo CA 114123·4009 550WovortoY 7,050 J2 I 31 31 S15S.<03,3f $155,403.31
108 120.15·085 Jalmo Wong nntf F.lll::abolh Hort Shu Wung TrustnP.S POBo:r.204 Pala Alto CA 0'307 S60Wovo1foy ti.GOO •0 0 40 •o $130.599 . .tG s~30,sgs.4a
109 120-15-0Be Clly of Palo AllD (HM1TIIOn-Wn'lerly lot) ~Un: Joe S:lt;Cio 250 Ham!llon Aveooe -ith Floor Po!Ollllo CA 9~301 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 $000
110 120-IS.0!10 Foll, Tom R. Trusleo & ii Al 13175 SkJvll!'NlP Trud<c• CA OlllSI ll5H;lmll""1 0,019 38 0 30 38 Sl!lll.<118.36 steo,408.30
1f 1 120-1$-091 H:inscn. P,:;iut J. intll1r.e 1635 SC!nRaaAv t..or;t\llo!I CA 94024·6241 541 ary:inl 8,140 35 0 3S 35 $175,455.35 $175,455.35
112 t2o.'1s.og4 Promier P1Upar1h:1a e/o Mr. JJm Snl:!r 112 Unl111:f1.ll)' Avenuo Palo Alie CA 9'301 520BryMI 45,000 182 0 ,iB2 102 $912,307.ll:I $012.307.03
113 120.1s.011e C!ly ol Pnlo Alla (FlorenC1>Lyl!on Lo11 onn: Jo• Sact!o 250 Hamman AYenue .ifth FkY.lr PllloAllo CA 114301 0 0 0 0 D So,oo so.oo
111 121).IS.100 Cl1y or Pa!O Allo (l\ilon-Klpllng loll •ttn· Jo• SoQ;/o 250 Hammon Avenue 4th Floor P~oA!fo c.i. 114301 0 0 0 0 0 $D.OO $0.00
115 121).tS.101 Wu.Row,.naS. 577 SU>A-1 Sun Ft0nditW CA 94118-371' l31 W•veilcy 10,090 •• 4 40 40 $200,520.40 $200,520.40
110 12().IS.102 Pac:ine Sell Ro;t E~t;fe OHice lllOO Ctnnlno ~~rnoii Rm 31: t02 s;inRnrm CA 94US 3'5 Hnmllton 101.600 •oe & 402 402 U,015,Wl.04 $2,015,230.04
117 1:?0-tfi.1D3 s1rm1iovlc, Alerol')(Jcr and Friedo Truslee 520 Brynn! SI PoloAllO CA 94301·1703 3®Unfverslly 33,015 135 Q 135 135 $B70,758.36 $870.7$8.30 ... 110-t5-t(14 City of Pala Alto (lliynnl·FloronceJBryilihl·Lyllon Lot) tl\111' Joo Sac:tfo 250 1-l.amU!on A.venua 41'1 ~laar P•IOAllo CA 9'301 B,lllO 32 0 32 32 'IC0,416.3<? StlJ0.418.32
119 12().15-105 Glovaonotto~ S'3l11;no10 :niS Sto!la irusf P.O. !lox 60177 P.<rloAllo CA Ol3D11 3,945 0 0 0 0 $000 S0.00
120 120-tS.IOll Glov:mnotto. Smltnt.ora and Stella Trust P.O. Do• 50177 P;;.loft~r:i CA 94306 5lS Bryonl 2,560 10 0 to 10 SS0,130.10 $50,130.10
121 121).10.00i Piiio AllO Fa!il Omen 3SO Hamllton Avenuo Pnlof..l!o CA 04302 300H•mlllon ll,S31 40 te 20 28 $140,31>1.20 $140,364.28
122 120-lfl.021 Lrvoll, OennlS A. P.O.Bo .. 20 Pt:iloAllo CA 9<302 610 Waverley 3,000 0 0 0 0 ID.OD 50.00
123 121).18-022 Rt.dor. Oauola~ W. nod Ele~r L.1'ru$:1to: a..o Mento A:.: Ste to Menlof.i:I~ CA e.io2s..s11~ &3t.I Waverley 1,37' s 5 ·1 D !OM $0.00
124 12(\.1(1.02) Rud$er. Oo1iglas W, o.ndEJunorL. Trustff (stic no!J} OJ 840 Mcnt, Av Ste 10 Mm>loPll<I< CA llol025·471i r.iuw..,.,,cy t.829 7 0 1 0 $000 $000
125 120-1(1.024 Aflf~nec for C#l'nmtmay Caro 08 N. Wti;I• Rd. San Jose CA 95127 esowavertoy 4.151 0 0 0 0 SOS,241.24 $0.00
120 120.1s.ozg Cllr al Palo AtlQ tGllman-Waverty lot) 1t1n: Joe Sxdo 250 HamllloraAvenue 4th t:fQot Po!OA!lo CA Q.1301 D 0 0 0 0 10.00 $0.00
127 120.lfl.OJZ K•enon, Chodos J Ill Truslco & et Al 700 Emo1'0n SI. PaloAllO CA o.t30M.!410 654011m:m l,575 D t 5 5 S25,065.0S $25,0!IS 05
120 121).11).033 lovclt, Oa-nlitS '1.. P.O. eox 420 Palo Alto CA 0~3llt 345f:or1ut 3,995 ID 0 16 IG $00,Z00.10 seo.2oe.10
120 120.18-034 r 1111 Church cf Ctvlst Sd•otl<t er P>lo Mo 881 BryantSI Po!oAUo CA r.4301.zsoz ll!ltBoyant 11.121 D 0 0 0 10.00 $000
130 1ZO..l&-O:t!> trvfn~. Ptny A. ~ ttomley·ll"lflne UnOa 635 Bryant St Pa!oAKo CA 94301·25llt 6358oyont '-1118 ID 1 IB ta $00.234.16 S00,234.tB
131 1:.?0-10-00& li:tmUton AsflOdi1lOs. 300 100 Emt-nion SI. PnloAllo CA 04301·2410 027 Ooyonl 0 D 0 0 0 $0.00 $0.00
m 120.lfl.DllS Cl!y ol Pate Alto (GH,,,.n·Boy•nt LOI) ottn: Joo Smlo 250 HnmlltonAvcn:.io Allt r1oor PoloAllo CA 94301 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 SO.DO
133 fZl).lll-011!1 fiamJlronAsSOtlatss 300 100 &mllf"'..On St. PQ!oi\llo CA 04301·i?4t0 ~OOHa.muton 41,508 1tlil 57 llJQ IO'a $5-48,416.10 '5!i48,418.IO
134 12'>·25.071 KntJpl, KM'nfl U. frus.lH & El Al 1<485 Kel!tO -CA 115370.11417 lOJl:imona D 0 0 0 0 $0.00 $0.00
135 t;?"/).i5·099 Kidder, W. Jodi et Al 3105 Stool Rd Ptbblo BtUICh CA 03051 l~I Lt'"'" 5,702 23 0 23 23 SllS,2!1U3 S115,21m.23
130 120.2.5-109 Uchlensleln Pl'Qrurrilt>J LP 5801 CMltlO Av. Untl 075 Emt!ryvltlo CA o•ooe mL)'11on 3,671 15 5 IQ 10 $50,130.10 $50, 130.10
137 120.25·110 Jock Pyrnoro Assn cs 450 Flral $1. loo Alto• CA 04022·3600 127Lytion 4,1150 ID 0 10 IV lll5.241.19 595.241.19
138 121).21·111 Fom:il'kio. Qon;fd :ind Ofane E. TruslH 224 Ardonl?d MtnloPnt:-t CA 11'025 IOI L)1ton i.282 0 15 .5 0 :o.oo $0.00
139 120.2S.118 WCbl\ler bev~!apmenU Inc El Al 14485 foo:ellfitln Sonora CA 05310.11477 380Br,ant 4,24C 17 0 17 t1 l!l5,?ll.17 $115,221.17
HU 120.25·119 Wobttl!!r SQU#JQ Assad.ales 250 Unlvontly Av Sto 200 P~ltiAJlo CA 94301 205 Lytton 10,717 75 17 SB 50 U00,7St.SO S200,754.59
141 120.25·13: "05 Hamlllo" .Avunoo, Par1notShlp, L.P, 405 Albat1D W)". Sic S losGnto3 CA ll5032 IBI lyt!On tO,TlB 70 28 53 JI:! $265.000.53 $165,6119.53
142 12Jl.2S.150 T~o~ng J Rlcltmtl 3 Noncy K•lly Tro 84 AIJ•)Mdro Athnt1on CA 114021-4107 3t2Rlrl1l<lffil t,ll57 0 2 0 0 $000 $0.00
tu t20-2S.IS1 lhustnoJ. Alcho/11 & HD11cyKC'flylru 84 Al•Jandra Alhatton CA 94027·•107 3tRcmonoSI 0 0 0 a 0 $0.00 S0.00
14' t20-2S.t5Z 21$ Lj110n Ave P1n 1.P 1063 E11$tt.te:J!fcr.'ICI. Pa!JJ.AUo CA 04303·4230 245Li<'°" 5<.000 220 150 •o 70 $350.010.70 '3SOJH0.70
145 1io.20-002 Dy"'"· Jeanetta hi. P.O. Bo• ~!J.t l.IDytlard MA Ol751·04!J.t ~02 High 29,BSO 0 0 0 0 so.oo SMO
1(8 IZG-2(1.003 Olbmn, G. crew Jr. Truslcl! & Et Al 60 9. M:ntel St. Unil #1 li?O S:1nJou1 CA 99113 401 Hloh uoo 17 0 IT 17 $05.221.17 1115.?lt.IT
147 121).21).005 Clly ol P•lo Alto (Emol$0n·L)'11on Loi) •Hn: Joe Socdo 250 Uornflton Ave11ue 41h Floor PaloAllO CA 114301 0 0 0 0 0 $000 $0.00
148 120.21).lm Comerica Bank ·Callfomia alto: l.)'dl;, A. Espimo1m 75 !. lrtmt/!o Rood MC4700 bnJost'! CA 1,14301·1•27 260 Lytton 28.3!J.t 113 se 57 57 12115.741.57 $2115.741.57
149 121).20.00ll Klogos, OoNld N. TMleo & El Al c'tl Koen•• L•r.d Co. 100 Emcrt!)n$lreel P.QloAtlo CA 04301 2e1Untv•"'IV 15,000 80 0 eo 00 $300,711?.00 $300,78000
150 121J.21>00l) Thalls Bros. Inc, P.O. Box2t Palo Ano CA 114302 271 Untvers.Uy 3,250 13 0 tl 13 505,1&9.13 lllS,169.13
151 120.2!1-010 Amas. Edw:mi P. Truslr.o ees N"""llRd. Palo Ano CA 0430).21148 iatUnlvmlly I0,700 43 0 43 43 $215.559.43 $215.559.43
152 12(1.2(1.013 EMQ, Joell L. Et Al 420 ft;mon:. 51. Palo AHo CA 04301·1107 At8R.inum.o 4,488 18 Q to 1e $00.234.10 $00,234.18
153 f.21).20..01' StA11lord'theatl'r~uur:doillon 221 Unlvttl.'t)'A.vc. Palo Mu CA 04301-1712 UlVnlvertJly 18,8611 75 0 1S 15 U7S,915.t6 $375,975.75
154 121J.2f!.015 Ft;.rnona Anodatn 050 ilorthFlrtlSI. San Joso CA ll511H109 440Rarootl.t M78 15 0 15 15 175,195.15 $75.l!l>.15
155 120.2(1.0IC Kano Barney 011<1 Young 50 Cortol.aro Wo1,dalde CA ll406H~18 4S0Rtimonu 2,046 0 0 a 8 f40,t04.0B $40,104.08
158 1211-21J.017 Hlllleelc, ROIS Tnat•o & Et Al 3785 6uin$ldO Rd. Sebastopol CA 0'-472°0459 .f70RO'mOruJ 2.242 0 0 0 9 $45, 117.09 $45,117.09
157 120.2&-018 i.ims. Fr.>hk H, and ShlrloY A TMIOD ~9 polo Alto Palo Alto CA 1\.1301·1220 ZJ3Unlv.,.lly D,'81 39 Q 38 38 $100,404.39 St00,401.30
150 tZ0.28-0ID J!li!'l<tt Clo•"'"'' w. Md ElallnO• L. Truotee 640 f.l""'o Av Sle 10 ManloPO!ll CA Q.1025-4712 2l7UnMmllv 4Sll8 18 0 10 I& !00.2Jt.10 $00234.10
Noto G· OM!llt p:nidng Pl)vidtd 04 APN t20-0 tft.02.2 h. etOOilOO to INS APU
};
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Audrey Gold <audreygold@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 24, 2018 10:13 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:David Shen; Kenneth Horowitz; superintendent@pausd.org; board
Subject:PTA Council Support for Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax
Attachments:PTAC SSB Tax Support May 2018.pdf
Dear Honorable City Council members,
Please see the attached letter of support to request that a sugar sweetened beverage tax be placed on the Palo
Alto city ballot in the fall of 2018.
Sincerely,
Audrey Gold
PTA Council President, 2016‐18
http://ptac.paloaloto.org
May 23, 2018
To Palo Alto City Council
We are writing on behalf of the Palo Alto Council of PTAs (PTAC). PTAC works with
the district staff, the Board of Education, community partners and the PTAs at the 17
schools to support the students and families of the Palo Alto Unified School District
and to improve the education, health and welfare of all children and youth. The Palo
Alto PTA Council requests that a sugar sweetened beverage tax be placed on the
Palo Alto city ballot in the fall of 2018.
Scientific evidence has shown that sugary drinks harm our childrens’ health,
contributing to rising rates of dental caries, obesity, heart disease, diabetes and liver
disease. Sugary drinks have no nutritional value but yet represent almost half the
added sugar we consume. When sugar enters the body in liquid form, the body
suffers a deluge of sugar into the bloodstream and overwhelms the body’s natural
ability to process it.
Taxes on sugary drinks discourage consumption due to higher prices. It increases
awareness of the issues of consuming sugary drinks. Significant revenue is expected
to be raised through this tax that will help our schools and other programs which
help populations suffering from related diseases.
PTAC supports initiatives like these that encourage healthy choices and create a
healthy environment for our children. We believe that this tax will help children
make healthy choices that will enhance learning and their growth and support
PAUSD with much needed revenue.
We thank you for your cooperation and support.
Sincerely,
Audrey Gold
PTA Council President, 2016-18
http://ptac.paloaloto.org
cc: Board of Education
Interim Superintendent Karen Hendricks
Dr. Kenneth Horowitz
25 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 94306 | https://ptac.paloaltopta.org | council@paloaltopta.org
Palo Alto Council of PTAs (PTAC) is the umbrella organization representing the 17 unit PTAs of the Palo Alto Unified
School District.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Schreiber <r_schreiber_98@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 24, 2018 10:25 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Soda tax
Please put it on the ballot and let the voters decide.
FWIW I was called by a lying “poll taker” who at first claimed to be calling on the city’s behalf but who was pushing the
pro sugar, anti regulation agenda.
Rob Schreiber
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:47 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kenneth Horowitz <klhorowitz@earthlink.net>
Sent:Thursday, May 24, 2018 1:15 PM
To:Gold, Audrey; Council, City
Cc:David Shen; Kenneth Horowitz; superintendent@pausd.org; board
Subject:Re: PTA Council Support for Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax
Thank you all (PTA Council) for this wonderful letter and support of a SSB tax The City Council will be discussing this measure on June 4 The results of the polling data will be revealed then Hopefully, everything will be positive Will keep you all in the loop Best regards, Ken
-----Original Message----- From: Audrey Gold Sent: May 24, 2018 10:12 AM To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: David Shen , Kenneth Horowitz , superintendent@pausd.org, board Subject: PTA Council Support for Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax
Dear Honorable City Council members,
Please see the attached letter of support to request that a sugar sweetened beverage tax be placed on the Palo Alto city ballot in the fall of 2018.
Sincerely,
Audrey Gold
PTA Council President, 2016‐18
http://ptac.paloaloto.org
• CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
TO:
DATE:
City Council
June 4, 2018
City of Palo Alto
MEMORANDUM
City Council Meeting #7
6/4/2018
[X] Placed Before Meeting
[ ] Received at Meeting
SUBJECT: CMR ID# 9322: Review of Refined Public Opinion Survey Results Regarding
Potential 2018 Ballot Measure to Address the Funding Gap for the 2014 Infrastructure Plan and
Unplanned Potential Community Assets Projects, and Potential Direction to City Staff for a 2018
Ballot Measure
The following is a summary of a meeting with members of the Hotel Industry and a representative of the
Downtown Business Association regarding the potential 2018 Ballot Measure to increase the Hotel Tax.
This was sent via email on June 3rd and is now at places so the public can see the information provided.
Potential 2018 Ballot Measure to Address the Funding Gap for the 2014 Infrastructure Plan.
Staff indicated in CMR ID#9322 that it would meet with the general managers of Palo Alto
hotels on Thursday, May 31, 2018. General managers from Palo Alto hotels including the including the
Garden Court, Cardinal, Zen, Sheraton, Dinahs, as well as from the Downtown Business
Association attended the meeting and provided staff with feedback and a request that a written summary
be provided to City Council. Staff from the City Manager's Office, Public Works and Administrative Service
Departments attended the meeting and captured the following:
The general managers expressed frustration that City staff had not met with them earlier, and while
they feel that voters would most likely approve an increase in the hotel tax, they communicated they
would have liked other options to be considered such as increasing· enforcement in collection of hotel
taxes from short-term rentals, having a tax that sunsets, a flat tax increase, keeping the hotel tax at current
level and adding a tourism fee or tax.
The group also expressed concerns that companies were also not consulted such as Stanford, Palantir, VM
Ware and Facebook since expenses are rising and business bookings in particular have other nearby
options in Mountain View and Menlo Park. It was important for the general managers to point out
to City Council that occupancy is starting to trend down, which forces them to adjust room rates down in
a time when minimum wages and parking permits are going up as well.
Additional notes:
• Owners of hotel properties are mentioning that it may be too difficult to maintain the businesses and it
could be more appealing to turn the properties into office space
• Concerns that the City will not generate the revenue it's anticipating, because the level of occupancy
will not be maintained and it will hurt both the City's tax base as well as the local hotel industry
• General consensus that this will be a game changer when hotel tax goes from 14 to 16%, highest in
state.
• Belief there are million to be collected in the enforcement/collection of hotel tax from short-term
rentals
• Occupancy rates at all hotels are flat, and are seeing softening in terms of corporate bookings,
particularly those hotels closest to nearby cities
• Expressed frustration at last minute nature of meeting, hotels not considered
• Expressed willingness to work with City on solutions (i.e. flat tax with sunset on ro.oms, marketing
rebate to hotels if TOT increased, possibility of 1% so city is not highest in state, decrease in
parking permit rates for employees)
• The number of rooms available has increased, but they are struggling to remain competitive with room
rates
• Believe that Council doesn't understand contribution of hotels to local economy, and how difficult it is
to do business in city (parking, etc.)
• The Council focus has been on individual travel when it should be on total corporate cost.
• Hotel owners are now attending general manager meetings, which was not the case previously, but the
cost of doing business is going up and the potential increase in hotel taxes has them very concerned.
• They started to notice impacts to the Monday-Thursday bookings which normally are very strong.
•Some corporate businesses are removing staff from town and it is decreasing room demand.
• Having the City with the highest hotel tax in the State is not right -leave it to San Francisco, Anaheim or
Los Angeles.
Staff will discuss the challenges of enforcing the collection of hotel tax on short-term rentals at the Council
meeting. In addition the revenue stream needed to debt finance bonds that will have a minimum term of
20 years and credit rating agencies will need to be assured the revenues pledged will be there for the term
of the debt issuance.
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
mistrative Services/Chief Financial Officer·
CITY MANAGER:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2018 1:05 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:LWV of Palo Alto <lwvpaoffice@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 30, 2018 2:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:June 4, 2018 Agenda Item 8: Workforce Housing Ordinance
Attachments:LWVPA-WorkforceHousingLetter-5-30-18.pdf
Dear City Council members,
Attached please find a letter from the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto regarding the June 4,
2018, Agenda Item No. 8: 2755 El Camino Real: Multi-family Housing Project and Workforce
Housing Ordinance.
Thank You,
Aisha Piracha-Zakariya
President, LWV Palo Alto
--
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
3921 E. Bayshore Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Phone: (650) 903-0600
Web: www.lwvpaloalto.org
Facebook: www.facebook.com/PaloAltoLeague/
Twitter: www.twitter.com/lwvpaloalto
3921 E. BAYSHORE RD., PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303 | 650-903-0600 | www.lwvpaloalto.org
June 4, 2018
Palo Alto City Council Members
250 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Agenda Item 8: 2755 El Camino Real: Multi-family Housing Project and Workforce Housing Ordinance
Dear City Council Members,
The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto (League) supports actions of the City that improve the diversity of housing
opportunities for all economic levels, ages and ethnicities. For this reason, we urge you to accept all the recommendations in
the staff report regarding the adoption of a Workforce Housing Combining District ordinance and the approval of the
multi-family housing project at 2755 El Camino Real.
At a May 15, 2018 panel discussion on the “missing middle” sponsored by SV@Home, Palo Alto Forward, Bay Area
Forward and this League, we learned how the extraordinarily high cost to rent or buy have made it almost impossible for
those earning even 120 to 150 percent of AMI (area median income) to live in Palo Alto. The panelists agreed that changing
zoning was the most effective solution to address this problem – by allowing increased density in appropriate locations.
While there are several regulatory programs that attempt to address the affordable housing needs of those earning less than
AMI, there are practically no such vehicles for the missing middle. The proposed Workforce Housing Combining District
(WHCD) ordinance is a major and innovative step which can begin to fill that vacuum. However, this ordinance applies
only to sites zoned PF (Public Facilities) and so would have very limited use. Because the needs of the missing middle are
so obvious and so great, the League believes that much more needs to be done.
The League strongly urges you to direct staff to return with a proposed ordinance to expand the application of the WHCD
ordinance to the City’s various commercial zoning districts: Community (CC), Service (CS), Neighborhood (CN) and
Downtown (CD). This would align the effort to build workforce housing with the equally important effort to build
affordable housing for those earning less than 80 percent AMI.
In April 2018, you approved an Affordable Housing Combining District (AHCD) that can be applied to CC, CS, CN and
CD districts on sites located 0.5 miles from a major transit stop. It makes unquestionable sense to apply a Workforce
Housing Combining District to the same areas that the AHCD would apply to. In this way, a landowner could choose to
develop such a site either with affordable housing using the AHCD or workforce housing using the WHCD. Such zoning
flexibility could do much to increase the supply of housing in transit-rich areas.
Moreover, by expanding this ordinance to commercial zones you would be implementing the critically important policy in
the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Work Plan: “To allow for higher density residential development, consider amending
the Zoning Code to permit high-density residential in mixed-use or single-use projects in commercial areas within one-half a
mile of fixed rail stations….” (Housing Element H2.1.1).
Thank you.
Aisha Piracha-Zakariya
President, League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 4:08 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Darrow, Brian <Brian.Darrow@BOS.SCCGOV.ORG>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 4:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Letter re: Item 7
Attachments:Yeager letter.pdf
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Please see the attached letter from Santa Clara County Supervisor Ken Yeager related to item #7 on tonight’s City
Council agenda.
Brian Darrow | Policy Director
Office of Supervisor Ken Yeager
Fourth District, County of Santa Clara
70 West Hedding St., 10th Floor, East Wing
San Jose, CA 95110
(408) 299‐5040 (phone) | (408) 299‐2038 (fax)
brian.darrow@bos.sccgov.org
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, EAST WING
70 WEST HEDDING STREET, 10TH FLOOR
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110
(408) 299-5040
FAX (408) 299-2038 TDD 993-8272
WWW.SUPERVISORYEAGER.ORG
KEN YEAGER
SUPERVISOR, FOURTH DISTRICT
June 4, 2018
Palo Alto Mayor and City Council
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Agenda Item 7 – Review of Public Opinion Survey Results
Dear Honorable Mayor Kniss and City Council:
I write to express my appreciation for your leadership in exploring a potential sugary drink tax in
Palo Alto. Scientific evidence shows a strong link between sugary drink consumption and a number
of serious health problems, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease, tooth decay, fatty liver disease,
and weight gain. These drinks are particularly harmful to kids. Yet, 65% of middle and high school
students in Santa Clara County still report drinking one or more sugary drinks in the last 24 hours.
Sugary drinks are by far the largest source of added sugar in the American diet, accounting for 46%
of all added sugar Americans consume.
Moreover, liquid sugar and calories are more harmful than sugar and calories consumed in solid
foods, both because forcing the body to quickly absorb sugar in liquid can have harmful effects, and
because liquid calories don’t satisfy the body’s hunger in the same way solid foods do. Studies
show consuming calories through sugary drinks does not result in people eating less of other foods.
There’s still an awareness gap about the health risks and sugar content of these beverages. Whereas
the public is pretty aware that candy or cake are not healthy foods, sodas are not necessarily viewed
this way. Yet, they contain significantly more sugar than many desserts. Just one 12 ounce sugar-
sweetened soda contains an average of 10 teaspoons of added sugar, exceeding the recommended
daily limit for adults.
For these reasons, I applaud your leadership in polling to explore a possible sugary drink tax. Such
taxes are the most powerful strategy we have to reduce consumption of sugary drinks.
I understand the initial poll findings may not be strong enough to justify placing a sugary drink tax
on the ballot in 2018. If you determine this year is not the appropriate time, you might want to
consider investigating the possibility of a tax in 2020. Additional polling may be worth exploring to
provide more clarity on the public’s interest in such a measure. The polling that was done appears to
have some limitations. It did not discuss how the revenues could be used, which is a major
determinant of support. Also, the poll only considered a two cent per ounce tax, rather than the one
cent per ounce level that has been approved in San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and Albany.
Regardless of what decision the City Council makes related to a soda tax, I encourage you to
explore non-tax policy options in this area. Cities can play a very important role in decreasing
health risks associated with sugary drinks and encouraging children and youth to drink healthier
beverages. There are a variety of non-tax strategies that cities can implement, including adopting a
healthy beverage policy for children’s meals at restaurants or requiring sugary drink advertisements
to display a health warning label.
I also offer the County’s expertise in this area. Santa Clara County has long been a policy leader in
promoting healthy food and beverage choices. Given all the work County staff has already done on
these issues, should Palo Alto choose to explore adoption of additional sugary drink policies, we
can offer a great deal of assistance.
I commend the Mayor and City Council for your past leadership on public health policy, including
your great work on tobacco control. I encourage you to continue to take steps to promote public
health and prevent chronic disease in our community. There’s more we all can and should do.
Sincerely,
Ken Yeager
Supervisor, Fourth District
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2018 1:06 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 30, 2018 2:39 PM
To:Planning Commission
Subject:Disingenuous
You under park projects near the bus/train implying everybody will take
mass transit. Once project is built however, folks instead drive and have
cars they park in the neighborhood. This is poor planning based on false
assumptions. This should not occur.
Thank you
Paul Machado
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2018 1:06 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Thursday, May 31, 2018 10:56 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:2755 El Camino housing project and combining district ordinance
May 30, 2018
Mayor Kniss and the Palo Alto City Council
I write in support of the proposed housing project at 2755 El Camino Real and the accompanying new
combining district.
The project includes major positive components in support of the city’s adopted housing priorities.
Great location: The project is located near job centers, shopping, services and transit opportunities. This location can reduce car use on some work trips and on many non-work trips.
A triple affordability bonus: The project has a 20% deed restricted component, an additional
contribution of BMR fees and a focus on the missing middle group of residents and workers.
Expanding housing options: The project will focus on studio and one bedroom units of relatively
small unit sizes but great locations.
Moreover, the project is consistent with Comp Plan and Housing Element goals and policies as laid out in the staff report. In addition, I can report that the project both in repurposing public lands like VTA sites
and addressing the missing middle housing challenges is consistent with the action recommendations
presented to the Committee to House the Bay Area (CASA). This was made clear in a presentation at the
missing middle housing event on May 15th co-sponsored by SV@Home, the Palo Alto League of Women
Voters, Palo Alto Forward and Bay Area Forward and welcomed by Mayor Kniss.
The combining district ordinance and the idea of pilot projects will move us closer to actually meeting our housing goals. I do not want to delay the project or the ordinance as this project already has seen extensive work and time spent. I do have two suggestions for staff to include in the housing work plan for
2018 that will improve the ordinance and which can be brought back to PTC and council later this year.
Extend the ordinance to apply to more zoning than just PF. This is one of the major
recommendations of CASA to facilitate the development of more housing in the region by opening
up commercial sites as housing opportunities.
Review the recently released parking study to modify parking requirements for future projects covered by the combining district ordinance. The parking study suggests that local multi-family
developments generally have an excess of parking supply over demand.
Stephen Levy
365 Forest Avenue 5A
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2018 1:06 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:ginadalma@gmail.com on behalf of Gina Dalma <gina@dalma.org>
Sent:Thursday, May 31, 2018 11:21 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:2755 El Camino
Dear Council,
I support the housing proposal for 2755 El Camino. The project will increase the supply of housing in a
great location and contribute to affordability by paying fees into our BMR fund and deed restricting 20% of
the units for missing middle housing.
Please support this.
Kindly,
Gina
--
Gina D. Dalma
e: gina@dalma.org p: (980) 722.2660 t: @ginadalma
l: www.linkedin.com/pub/gina-dalma/0/53/b47/en
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2018 1:06 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Hodgkins, Claire
Sent:Thursday, May 31, 2018 5:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: 2755 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, Ca.
Please find correspondence below relating to Agenda Item 8 on the June 4th Council Agenda (2755 El Camino Real).
Regards,
Claire
Claire Hodgkins, Associate Planner
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301O: 650-329-2116 | E: claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org
From: Brian Kelley [mailto:bkelley@zanemacgregor.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 5:15 PM
To: Hodgkins, Claire
Subject: 2755 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, Ca.
Claire Hodgkins
Associate Planner
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
June 1, 2018
RE: 2755 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, Ca.
Dear Ms. Hodgkins,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2018 1:06 PM
4
I am writing to you in support of this project and ask that you forward this letter to the City Council, as they consider this
project at the June 4th hearing. I have followed this project since it was first proposed in 2016 and I continue to support it as it has evolved and additional amenities and benefits have been included in the project.
This project has the right attributes to not only to benefit the immediate project area, but more importantly, the City as a
whole since it includes the following:
Housing Not Office – This is what the area needs and office has already been proposed and rejected on
this site.
Location – Located in close proximity to multiple transit options as well as the amenity rich California Ave retail district
Work-Force Units - Smaller residential units, comprised of studios and one-bedroom units are proposed, which are
more affordable by design and size to serve an unmet need in Palo Alto
Income Restricted Units - 20% of the units will be income-restricted at levels to serve the local work force (140%-150% AMI)
Palo Alto Employee Preferences - Palo Alto employees will be given a preference, so that employees within the city
have a greater opportunity to live, work and play within the city
Sustainable, High Quality Design - sustainable and attractive building that provides for a high-quality design at a
very visible corner.
Transit Proximity-Residential units that are proximate to transit (within 1/2 mile walking distance of the California Avenue train station; direct access to multiple bus routes and shuttle service; as well as being within walking and bike riding distance to employers and retail and dining amenities.
Robust TDM Plan-A robust TDM plan that reduces vehicle trips by 35% compared to a typical residential project. TDM measures include Cal Train Go Passes and VTA Bus Passes; construction of a new Bus Shelter; a Bike Share program; and a monthly stipend to encourage the use of services like Uber and Lyft to those residents not
owning a vehicle
GreenTRIP Certification – The project meets GreenTRIP standards for daily vehicle miles driven per household, a
reduced parking ratio, the provision of a traffic reduction strategy and bicycle parking. The project will also
participate in GreenTRIP’s Transportation and Parking Survey for annual monitoring.
I encourage the City Council to support this project for our city.
I was born and raised in Palo Alto, attending Grade School through High School then attending Columbia for College and have lived in my home now for 35+ years.
Sincerely,
Brian N. Kelley
1435 Tasso Street
Palo Alto, Ca. 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2018 1:06 PM
5
BRIAN KELLEY
Investment Sale, Leasing, Residential
ZANE MACGREGOR
Real Estate Advisors & Brokers 621 High Street Palo Alto CA 94301
cell 650 387 7122 main 650 324 9900 fax 650 323 5431 zanemac.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2018 1:06 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, June 01, 2018 12:26 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Carol Scott; Paul Machado; Beth Rosenthal; Holzemer/hernandez; Becky Sanders;
Norman H. Beamer; Furman, Sheri; Gennady Sheyner; Dave Price
Subject:Monday June 4 2019 Agenda Item #
I am on vacation and cannot attend your June 4 meeting. The agenda item has been confusing to
many citizens who are following the issues. Housing policy and an individual project known as 2735
El Camino Real should not be bundled if you want citizens to be fully informed and involved.
Here are my areas of agreement and disagreement. Also included are areas warranting indepth staff work.
Agreement
1. The requirements and analysis for very low income housing are generally correct. I have
personally and informally surveyed all of PAHC properties. Based on simple layman observations of parking condition early on Sunday mornings there seems to be very low parking spillover from most
properties. Exceptions are projects with very high density and working population dependent upon
automobile to work. Whatever spillover occurs, in my opinion, is worth the social value of this and
future housing in Palo Alto.
2. Auto ownership per capita may fall particularly as Stanford students and faculty concentrate on
campus. The very nature of how Stanford organizes its students and faculty is unique. Stanford
housing and transportation services create unique demands on city staff analysis and I don't see that
level of sophistication in staff forecast.
3. I agree that shared parking in mixed use circumstances. Housing over retail has real potential in
Palo Alto but the half-mile radius to mass transit is a major assumption and risk in high-come Palo
Alto. In many ways close proximity to Stanford has more potential for reduced parking because of
unique characteristics of Stanford faculty and graduate students (for example, medical residents and
high levels of post-doc students welded to their jobs)
Disagreement
1. Studies of Palo Alto apartment parking are not documented by sources and potential conflict of interest. Any data from apartment owners and their associations must be considered with its inherent
bias. Please note about how special interest factions are presenting rent control facts to citizens in
Mt. View.
Fight brewing over rent control petition
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2018 1:06 PM
7
Fight brewing over rent control petition
Mark Noack
The push to collect signatures for a landlord-backed rent control
initiative is leading to many reports of paid ...
2. Empirical evidence has not been presented to City Council by staff or consultants. Spillover from
EPA apartments unfortunately spreads further and further outside the ever-expanding no overnight
parking RPP. I personally observed obvious spillover on the latest edge of this RPP. Please survey Lincoln. Please survey Curtner and Ventura which suggest higher density and high level of car
ownership. It is quite possible these homeowners and tenants do take alternate mode of
transportation to work and have high levels of car ownership.
3. There is no evidence whatsoever that car ownership in high income areas such as Palo Alto has decreased in total. Ownership per capita may fall particularly as Stanford students and faculty
concentrate on private housing near campus. Does the data provided by consultants and staff
include or exclude campus centric housing?
4. Please discuss appropriate application of national and California trends to Palo Alto dependency upon car ownership now and in future. Also Palo Alto hardly qualifies as a model of mass, public
transit. Remember what Caltrain officials said about the Stanford GUP: There is no assurance that
Caltrain in the future would be able to meet Stanford's stated reliance to meet needs of commuting
employees, students and faculty.
5. I personally and informally have asked a small number of local Peninsula experts about the ability
of any new level of Caltrain capacity to serve the growing expectation of TOD (commercial and
housing) development along the entire Caltrain corridor. No person is willing to make a statement or
analyze this silent issue. My personal inquiries are immaterial. What has the Palo Alto Council asked
and learned? I submit that there is no known systematic analysis of the impact of major TOD development. Therefore, staff assumptions and analysis are purely speculative. Consequently
this City Council is creating a parking template that may not be rational for years to
come. Most new Caltrain ridership will be bypassing Palo Alto as it flows between major new
job and housing centers.
6. Assumptions about senior housing are equally speculative. Surveys should be undertaken with
Channing House and Vi. I know from recent, personal research of continuing care facilities (aka
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2018 1:06 PM
8
retirement centers) auto ownership is higher than common assumptions. The regional market
forces demand great amount of living space per unit and parking per unit.
7. Assumptions about effective TDM are also speculative. There is no evidence that city staff can monitor and enforce TDMs. Any sensible developer will agree to TDM and there is no evidence in
the FY19-23 operating/capital budgets to suggest that city staff is organizing itself to manage parking
or traffic with TDMs. In my honest appraisal of PA TMA, it will require 2-3 years to prove its
effectiveness. I am 110% supportive of an expanded TMA as soon as possible to reach its minimum level of operational effectiveness. I strongly feel that our current TMA will fail unless it is expanded geographically.
8. Has the Planning Commission diligently addressed these issues raised to them. I have been out of
town so I cannot comment diligently, but it is unlikely that staff has given them adequate support due to their low level of staffing.
9. Did the consultant's report probe Palo Alto's unique characteristics? Did the consultants'
contract adequately require spillover parking onto existing residential areas, especially those
with RRP protection from negative parking impact from commercial and parking-lite housing?
10. Survey of condo housing and parking is a missing metric. This is just as important at parking
trends for rental apartments. Resident leaders have started survey on condo parking, vehicle
ownership, bedrooms, spillover parking and use of secure garage spaces. Use of garages is a
particularly unknown factor as storage is a factor both for condos, apartments and private homes. Higher density per housing unit and downsizing appears to shift more storage to garages
with displacement of overnight parking onsite and offsite. This is a factor to be considered before
Council makes conclusions.
11. Residents have also started survey use of private parking capacity in commercial buildings. Staff and consultants have not addressed this issue.
12. City Council and staff avoid the high cost of free parking like the plague. I understand and
reluctantly accept city manager's decision to delay parking management (ending of free parking). But
this is the key driver of Council parking assumptions. Until free parking is ended for
University and California Ave commercial zones, there will be very limited impact on
decreased use of autos under consideration Monday night.
13. As Palo Alto is forced to accept state mandated pressure for parking and traffic, then traffic and
parking problems are likely to worsen. Is there a way to reduce the amount of political pressure and guesswork upon professional city management?
I am relying on other residents to raise issues about 2735 El Camino Real and its impact on
neighborhoods and RPP. I think that this project must not be approved without full consideration of
protections such as a CUP to preclude inclusion into the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP. This RPP has saturated parking areas and 2735 ECR has potential to make parking conditions worse during
workdays, holidays and weekends. I think the 2735 El Camino Real project has merit that has not
been presented well nor have neighborhood protections been discussed publicly. I urge that this
project be deferred.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2018 1:06 PM
9
My bottom line is that too many naive, simply rushed assumptions are being made by
Council. Adequate staff analysis has not been done because Palo Alto Planning Department does
not have the resources to manage parking and traffic now or in the future.
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 | 6/4/2018 8:48 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Grant Dasher <gdasher@post.harvard.edu>
Sent:Saturday, June 02, 2018 9:28 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:2755 El Camino
Dear City Council,
I am writing to urge you to support the project at 2755 El Camino Real. Unfortunately, I will not be able to speak in person in favor of the project, but I am writing this letter to express my support. As you all know, the City of Palo Alto and the broader Bay Area face a severe housing shortage that is fueling sky high rents for workers in our community. This project is an example of what I believe we should be building more of in the city: small, relatively more affordable units located near jobs, retail, and transit. It has already gone through substantial process and has received the unanimous recommendation of the PTC. It should be approved. Beyond voicing my support for this project, I want to use this letter to
address a few important policy points.
In addition to the small market rate units and the payment of in lieu fees, the project includes 12 deed restricted units targeted at 140-150% AMI, which is an important contribution to the “missing middle” housing problem. In Palo Alto, 140-
150% AMI is not wealthy enough not to merit potential housing assistance. As you know, the AMI is defined in terms of Santa Clara County’s incomes and 140-150% constitutes $111k-119k for a single renter or $126-$135k for a
couple. $126k would be the salary of a couple of two entry level teachers in PAUSD. Because Palo Alto’s average rent is substantially above the county-wide average, deed restrictions up to 150% AMI are a useful tool to ensure we have local
housing that is affordable to these members of our community.
That said, the staff recommendation does not go far enough in my view. The underlying Workforce Housing Combing
District (WHCD) should be expanded beyond the PF zone to encompass the other zones that the previously passed Affordable Housing Combing District (AHCD) extends to (specifically— CC, CS, CN, CD). Many sites located near this
project—or similarly situated near jobs, retail, and transit—belong to such zones and would be excellent sites for similar projects in the future. The council will retain legislative discretion to apply the WHCD to particular sites and limiting the
potential sites to PF zoned areas unnecessarily complicates the potential future application of this zoning tool.
Further, the recently released parking study strongly suggests that this project, as presently conceived, is over-parked. In the interests of moving this project forward, I encourage it to be approved as is, however the requirements of the WHCD
should be relaxed based on the data produced from the parking study. The evidence strongly indicates that 0.75 spaces / bedroom is sufficient to fully park a project of this nature and the WHCD’s development standards should be updated to
reflect this evidence. Relaxing the WHCD’s requirements can, together with the recently approved AHCD, serve as canaries for broader evaluation of residential parking requirements for multi-family development in the city. Future parking
studies will either validate these relaxed standards or provide evidence for further updating them.
I hope this letter is useful to you in moving forward on this item and I thank all of you for your work as public servants. Sincerely, Grant Dasher 800 High St. #305 Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:48 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Eric Rosenblum <mitericr@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 02, 2018 10:35 AM
To:Council, City; Palo Alto Forward Board
Subject:Palo Alto Forward supports the workforce housing development at 2755 El Camino
Real
Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
Palo Alto Forward strongly supports the Workforce Housing project at 2755 El Camino Real, and
hopes that you recommend Council approve it. We have previously submitted petitions to the PTC in
support of this project with a total of over 200 signatures (between 2 separate petitions) This is the sort of project that Palo Alto Forward was formed around:
Smaller unit size = adding to Palo Alto's housing diversity and options
Great location: located on El Camino 0.5 miles from Caltrain with a host of TDM benefits; it is
also located close to shopping and services, which should enable a car light life-style
An affordability bonus: 12 units are deed restricted for 140-150% AMI; plus additional in-lieu fees for Palo Alto’s affordable housing fund plus the Combining District ordinance calls for
20% deed restricted units on all future projects.
This is the sort of project that Palo Alto should be building, and the fact that the developer will be
giving preference to Palo Alto employees makes it all the sweeter (also, making it more likely that car-
light lifestyles can be attained).
We would like to acknowledge that there has been past controversy around whether 140-150% AMI
(which is $111-119k for a single renter, $126-135k for a couple, and $143-153k for a 3 person family)
sufficiently low to accomplish the diversity goals that our community desires. We would like to point
out the following:
First year teachers in PAUSD (with just a bachelors degree and no other training) earn
$63k/year; this is the lowest teacher salary in the district. If that teacher is married and his/her
partner also works, it is likely that they are well over $120k, which would likely be around the
150% AMI threshold. It is difficult to afford to live in Palo Alto and be a teacher here.
First year fire fighters in Palo Alto earn $85k/year. Average salaries for fire fighters are over $120k. Firefighters also cannot afford to live here.
Average salary for RNs in Santa Clara County is $59/hour, which is $122k (without overtime,
assuming 40 hrs/week and 2 weeks paid vacation). Nurses also cannot afford to live here
In short, 140-150% AMI barely accommodates teachers, nurses, firefighters and dozens of other professions that we depend upon for our community, and whom we would like to have as friends and
neighbors. We hope to put to rest the notion that 120% AMI is somehow serving the wealthy.
Finally, a note: this project has gotten watered down. It started with 60 units, and got reduced to 57; parking was substantially increased from 45 stalls to 68. We still support this project, because it will add much needed housing (and smaller units no less to Palo Alto). And it is still car-light. However,
we missed an opportunity to be far more aggressive on TDM measures in exchange for a reduced
parking requirement AND build more units which our community sorely needs.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:48 AM
3
The combining district will be more powerful in supporting expanded housing options in Palo Alto if it
applies to commercial as well as PF zones as being recommended at the Committee to House the
Bay Area (CASA). We thank you for your consideration, and hope that you will recommend this project. Sincerely,
Eric Rosenblum
President, Palo Alto Forward
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:48 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Annie Bedichek <annie@bedichek.org>
Sent:Saturday, June 02, 2018 11:37 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Transit Centric housing
Hi,
Thank you for all you do. You guys have a challenging job, and I very much appreciate how well you do it. I am a long
time Palo Alto resident (and 3rd generation). I very much support the Workforce Housing project at 2755 El Camino
Real. I know it’s a tiny patch in a very challenging market, but I feel like every housing unit we can provide makes a big
difference. I would love it if you all supported it too.
Thank you.
Annie Bedichek
884 Loma Verde Ave
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:48 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 02, 2018 6:39 PM
To:Eric Rosenblum; Council, City; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu
Cc:Palo Alto Forward Board
Subject:Re: Update on workforce housing project (2755 El Camino)... almost through the
process. Phew!
Thanks, Eric, for your good intentions, your hard work and your organizational capability, working for housing. I have to say I'm disappointed in "workforce housing " because I think large employers
should furnish housing for their workers to balance jobs and housing, and public entities should
furnish housing for their employees to protect the taxpayer from constantly escalating salary expense
fueled by home prices, and teachers and firemen are both employees of large companies and
employees of the public, and could, and should, be p rental housing by the PAUSD and the city, on land already owned by the city. Also, because this property was public VTA property (I don't think it
should have been sold to a private developer) and bears the zoning of Public Facility it ought to be
used to fill a public need and the city has more control over it than over other properties. I believe this
property could, and should, be used to house low income people who do not qualify as employees of
the city, namely, the elderly and handicapped who do not own cars, or at least are willing that cars they happen to own not be garaged near their home, and very low rents of $600 a month for an SRO
of 200 feet (plus a room sized non private balcony and some common activity rooms) could be made
possible by much greater density--250 to 300 tenants. Rent controlled, and with a bus-in-residence
to take the residents to the train station, bus or library.
I also believe that because of the existing zoning, ALL of the units, not some should be below market.Cordially, Stephanie Munoz.
From: "Eric Rosenblum" <mitericr@gmail.com>
To: "Palo Alto Forward Board" <board@paloaltoforward.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2018 10:50:47 AM
Subject: Update on workforce housing project (2755 El Camino)... almost through the process.
Phew!
Hello everyone
You are receiving this because you signed a petition supporting a project intended to provide "transit-centric housing" to moderate income people in Palo Alto.
On behalf of Palo Alto Forward, I want to thank you: thanks to your efforts, City Council will now do
the final review of this project on Monday. THANK YOU.
Below is the letter that I've delivered to Council on behalf of Palo Alto Forward.
Should any of you feel inspired to write to Council (city.council@cityofpaloalto.org) before
Monday night with your own thoughts, they always like to hear from you :)
Again, thanks for the big effort, and let's keep our fingers crossed on Monday night that Council
listens to our voices and approves 57 units of much-needed housing in a great location!
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:48 AM
6
Eric
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Eric Rosenblum <mitericr@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 10:34 AM
Subject: Palo Alto Forward supports the workforce housing development at 2755 El Camino Real
To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, Palo Alto Forward Board <board@paloaltoforward.com>
Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
Palo Alto Forward strongly supports the Workforce Housing project at 2755 El Camino Real, and
hopes that you recommend Council approve it. We have previously submitted petitions to the PTC in support of this project with a total of over 200 signatures (between 2 separate petitions) This is the sort of project that Palo Alto Forward was formed around:
Smaller unit size = adding to Palo Alto's housing diversity and options
Great location: located on El Camino 0.5 miles from Caltrain with a host of TDM benefits; it is
also located close to shopping and services, which should enable a car light life-style
An affordability bonus: 12 units are deed restricted for 140-150% AMI; plus additional in-lieu
fees for Palo Alto’s affordable housing fund plus the Combining District ordinance calls for
20% deed restricted units on all future projects.
This is the sort of project that Palo Alto should be building, and the fact that the developer will be
giving preference to Palo Alto employees makes it all the sweeter (also, making it more likely that car-light lifestyles can be attained).
We would like to acknowledge that there has been past controversy around whether 140-150% AMI
(which is $111-119k for a single renter, $126-135k for a couple, and $143-153k for a 3 person family) sufficiently low to accomplish the diversity goals that our community desires. We would like to point
out the following:
First year teachers in PAUSD (with just a bachelors degree and no other training) earn
$63k/year; this is the lowest teacher salary in the district. If that teacher is married and his/her
partner also works, it is likely that they are well over $120k, which would likely be around the 150% AMI threshold. It is difficult to afford to live in Palo Alto and be a teacher here.
First year fire fighters in Palo Alto earn $85k/year. Average salaries for fire fighters are over
$120k. Firefighters also cannot afford to live here.
Average salary for RNs in Santa Clara County is $59/hour, which is $122k (without overtime,
assuming 40 hrs/week and 2 weeks paid vacation). Nurses also cannot afford to live here
In short, 140-150% AMI barely accommodates teachers, nurses, firefighters and dozens of other
professions that we depend upon for our community, and whom we would like to have as friends and
neighbors. We hope to put to rest the notion that 120+% AMI is somehow serving the wealthy.
Finally, a note: this project has gotten watered down. It started with 60 units, and got reduced to 57;
parking was substantially increased from 45 stalls to 68. We still support this project, because it will
add much needed housing (and smaller units no less) to Palo Alto. And it is still car-light. However,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:48 AM
7
we missed an opportunity to be far more aggressive on TDM measures in exchange for a reduced
parking requirement AND build more units which our community sorely needs.
The combining district will be more powerful in supporting expanded housing options in Palo Alto if it
applies to commercial as well as PF zones as being recommended at the Committee to House the
Bay Area (CASA).
We thank you for your consideration, and hope that you will recommend this project. Sincerely, Eric Rosenblum
President, Palo Alto Forward
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:48 AM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Joy Wright <joy0603@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 02, 2018 7:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Transit-centric housing
The Mayor & City Council Members,
I’m sending this email voicing my strong support for the Palo Alto Forward Workforce Housing project at 2755
El Camino Real. I’m hoping that the Council approves construction of the 57 units of affordable housing on Monday nights meeting. As a life long resident of Palo Alto, I believe that this city is in dire need of affordable
housing and every effort should be made to address this issue.
Thanks for your consideration in this very serious matter.
Joy
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:48 AM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Paul B Goldstein <marmot@stanford.edu>
Sent:Sunday, June 03, 2018 1:50 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:2755 El Camino Real
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
I urge you to approve the Workforce Housing project at 2755 El Camino Real. This is the kind of project the
City really needs. I wish the density goals were more aggressive, and the parking requirements less, but this is a
good project in a good location. Please approve it.
Sincerely, Paul Goldstein
1024 Emerson St
Sent from mobile
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:51 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 02, 2018 2:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:My 5/28 Comments Re P&TC Distractions
Mayor Kniss, your fellow council members,
On Monday, a proposed ordinance for a Workforce Housing Combining District will come before you.
At its Planning Commission hearing on January 31st, and as I wrote to you shortly after, one commissioner:
‐ would not accept the procedures for discussion set down by staff and the chair,
‐ continually interrupted and was disrespectful of both staff and the chair, and
‐ repeatedly challenged, without basis, the legitimacy of another commissioner to participate.
This is a partial list of detrimental distractions, and in aggregate, possibly a factor in the commission’s failure to inquire
why an environmental study for the Work Force Housing district was not presented for review, contrary to the wording
in the proposed ordinance.
The behavior at this specific meeting is just part of a broader and repeating package, which also includes:
‐ outright misstatements, occasionally corrected by other commissioners;
‐ attacks designed to diminish and misrepresent the motivations of those in disagreement, and
‐ the creation of false generalizations to further divide residents who have valid, reasonable, yet differing perspectives.
Over the last two council meetings, you have grappled with issues of inappropriate conduct. Part of the optimal path
forward is how behavior is modeled at the dais. And part of the trust in a council appointment is utmost respect and fair
consideration by those who take on this responsibility. When that baseline is repeatedly violated by an appointee, you
do not let it sit until the balance of your term, or the commissioner’s, which extends past all of yours.
Finally, — related to, but separate from the above — are the ethical and FPPC issues in my formal complaint of March
5th, which I am updating with new information since its submission.
Thank you.
(Fred Balin, 5/28/18)
##
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 3:08 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Amie Ashton <aashton@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 9:48 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:SUPPORT for 2755 ECR
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members, I wanted to write in support of the housing project at 2755 ECR. Though the number of units was reduced and the number of parking spaces was increased (against ever smart-planning principle out there), it is still a step in the right direction with regard to placing housing near transit and employment. Please vote to approve this much-needed project in our City!
Thank you,
Amie Ashton
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 3:08 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Moss <bmoss33@att.net>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 9:52 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Mello, Joshuah
Subject:2755 El Camino, Agenda Item 8
2755 El Camino, Agenda Item 8
Dear Mayor Kniss and Council members:
After reviewing the staff report, 8972 on this project again I realized that it omits very significant
information on the site and the project. I did some investigating of other documents relating to the site and past proposals for site development and found that vital data on this site was omitted, so it is
impossible to make an informed decision on the project with the minimal information provided for this
item. Please do not approve it today, but send it back for a full and careful evaluation. Here are my
major concerns:
Site area is less than half an acre. The lot is 19,563 sq. ft. or 0.449 acres. With 57 units the
development would be 127 units/acre, or more than FOUR TIMES the maximum allowed under
standard zoning.
In exchange for this huge increase in density the project provides 20% BMR units – which is a normal percentage of BMR units in multifamily developments. What is the justification for allowing such over-
development on a site zoned PF and getting no real public benefit?
The site at El Camino and Page Mill is the most congested intersection in Palo Alto, but traffic
impacts of high density projects at this location are essentially ignored.
Supposedly because the site is on bus lines and near the Caltrain station residents will take transit
and not drive. This is a fantasy. At Palo Alto Central, which is at Park and California, next to the
Caltrain station, 85% of residents drive to work. A similar percentage of drive to work residents is
almost certain at the 2755 El amino site.
The only real benefit from this proposed project is a big profit for the property owner and
developer. The rest of the community will suffer worse traffic, parking overflow onto adjacent streets,
and net expenses of over $155,000/year for public services for the housing units. Please do not approve this redevelopment of a public site for private benefits.
Sorry to be sending this request the day of the meeting, but I had trouble finding the history of the site
last week.
Yours sincerely, Bob Moss
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2018 1:09 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:John Hutar <jhutar@dinahshotel.com>
Sent:Friday, June 01, 2018 11:41 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:City Mgr
Subject:Letter regarding TOT issue from John Hutar, General Manager, Dinah's Garden Hotel
Attachments:John Hutar Letter 060118.pdf; ADIRDNA Data Palo Alto Market.pdf
Dear Members of Palo Alto City Council and City Manager,
Attached please find my letter regarding Transient Occupancy Tax issue currently under discussion. Please feel free to
contact me directly if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
John Hutar
General Manager
~ A UNIQUE BRAND OF HOSPITALITY ~
4261 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Direct 650.798.1307
Hotel 650.493.2844
www.dinahshotel.com
Palo Alto loses $5,343,400 annually by excluding Short Term
Rentals (SRT) from Transient Occupancy Tax
Source: AirDNA.com
Nearly One-Third of the units are available full time
54% of bookings made 0-14 days out
Pattern very similar to corporate hotel
61% of Hosts have multi-unit listings
Very diverse clientele
NYC/London = top corporate market
Very diverse booking clientele –Palo Alto origin = using
corporate address
Highest single property produces over $200K/year
June 1, 2018
Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
After much research and discussion, I was disappointed to learn that Palo Alto still has not
implemented the necessary processes to collect all of the Transient Occupancy Tax due to the City
from the Short Term Home rental industry. My understanding is that of the over $5,340,000 in
potential TOT receipts generated by this industry, less than $1M is currently collected. All of the data
available points to the STR industry being a big business which needs your oversight and regulation:
• 61 % of Palo Alto Hosts have multiple unit listings
• One third of the 77 4 units listed in Palo Alto are available full time
• London and New York City are the #1 International/Domestic markets where STR renters
originate
• The highest producing rental unit generates in excess of $200,000 in annual rental revenue
• The top 8 units each generate revenues in excess of $109,000 /unit with an average daily rate
in excess of $563.00/day
I remain unchanged in my views which I shared with you at the April 30, 2018 Council Meeting:
increasing the Transient Occupancy Tax to be the highest in the State of California and pushing it to
a level of being amongst the highest in the United States is a bad idea. Capturing revenue that is
within your reach will generate more immediate tax revenue and is a much better solution than
jeopardizing the future of an industry which even your staff acknowledges that year over year
occupancy is starting to decrease (Attachment B -May 31, 2018 Staff Report). I strongly urge you
to take this solution under consideration. Afterwards, if there is still a need to increase overall
Transient Occupancy Tax once all proceeds are being captured, a lesser overall percentage increase
should be considered to keep Palo Alto out of the spotlight as being the highest within the state and
neighboring municipalities.
Attachment: Palo Alto Market Short Term Rental Market Data from AIRD NA
DINAH'S GAR DEN HOTEL
4261 El Camino Real I Palo Alto, CA 94306-4405 I HOTEL 650.493.2844 I TOLL FREE 800.227.8220 I FAX 650.856.4713 I dinahshotel.com
Palo Alto loses $5,343,400 annually by excluding Short Term
Rentals (SRT) from Transient Occupancy Tax
Market Overview
Palo Alto ~ Se.a.-i:tt'"'..-.~'
M3rbtGrade
,1C'1"!.il~r""..J'°4
tto.i:.al'l1J1t·1 B+ ll""'"!""U<!Cru ... 111 -----
{fl"'j.;.,1l.llt1:f'
75 Ol 100 ·n.l.tt.1.t..-l+ty
'l
50
~
"
Source: AirDNA.com
IM·ll'IU on774 xtkr• ff'n!.3'S 3'"1onth~ofrra1:i.eltrH:ch ... ,@1§8
Ac~ss .lll 6 r*f:~ in P.110 A!:o
Avera.ge Dail)' Rate Occup:tnC)' Rate Revenue
$193 ~ 70%~ $3,000 ~
1~---~·t<.a·h-
-·----13 ~;--1. ,...
... ,.,
"~ Redwood City a.,.,, GD ~ .v
FlloUE>
,:--' ... ·-Fair ().)1-.
tnwr•1dl11!lt: '/
!l>
P~CfEsf4fc-
Ctttk HIJddM PM/c "'' ...,. ...
EJC0t1ed~ Ml!ld«3CteN ~serve
Go gle
w-....... O w-<.off!I
_..,..111,1
Wl.H'ld.nrch .1 Counl')'~
®
® \
PonolaV.:alloy
Wltwti.<,.Mt
®
®
Otiii'ldi"lrd1 Sal'lrr•rw:-::o "'1N11~a1 W.Jdl.f,.
GD
Mountoln@ ~'
"
u,,/~
&¢:ands P:Kk.-
@
C4!1rom1:as:0 \, ·:..._,
Creal Amcrko ~.,,
lnti:I Mu::cum 0 + LOI Alt()• t-lill1 Los Altos V~w "'' ''.,..(,.
~I~ f. \ t'~~'ll• •·l"'l-(!;3 -
~oethlll ( ~ 1.. Surw•~·~i::-:1u-. l!!!z b ;
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2018 1:12 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:John Hutar <jhutar@dinahshotel.com>
Sent:Friday, June 01, 2018 12:27 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:City Mgr; Julie Handley
Subject:Letter regarding TOT issue from Julie Handley, CEO and Owner, Dinah's Garden Hotel
Attachments:Julie Handley 060118 city council letter.pdf
Dear Members of Palo Alto City Council and City Manager,
Attached please a letter from Julie Handley, CEO and Owner of Dinah’s Garden Hotel, regarding Transient Occupancy Tax
issue currently under discussion. Please feel free to contact Ms. Handley at 650‐493‐2844 if you have any questions or if
the team at Dinah’s can be of assistance in any way.
Sincerely,
John Hutar
General Manager
~ A UNIQUE BRAND OF HOSPITALITY ~
4261 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Direct 650.798.1307
Hotel 650.493.2844
www.dinahshotel.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2018 1:12 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:John Hutar <jhutar@dinahshotel.com>
Sent:Friday, June 01, 2018 12:27 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:City Mgr; Julie Handley
Subject:Letter regarding TOT issue from Julie Handley, CEO and Owner, Dinah's Garden Hotel
Attachments:Julie Handley 060118 city council letter.pdf
Dear Members of Palo Alto City Council and City Manager,
Attached please a letter from Julie Handley, CEO and Owner of Dinah’s Garden Hotel, regarding Transient Occupancy Tax
issue currently under discussion. Please feel free to contact Ms. Handley at 650‐493‐2844 if you have any questions or if
the team at Dinah’s can be of assistance in any way.
Sincerely,
John Hutar
General Manager
~ A UNIQUE BRAND OF HOSPITALITY ~
4261 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Direct 650.798.1307
Hotel 650.493.2844
www.dinahshotel.com
June 1, 2018
Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I would like to reiterate the sentiment I shared with you at the April 30 Council meeting regarding
the negative impact a 2 percentage point increase would have on overall TOT collections. My family
has owned and operated Dinah’s Garden Hotel for the past 61 years which makes me well qualified
to speak on how corporate clients and guests would react should such an increase take effect.
While Stanford University and surround technology and medical corporations create extraordinary
demand in to the Silicon Valley market, it is naive to think that consumers won’t look to nearby
Mountain View and surrounding communities where the TOT can be as much as 4-6 percentage
points lower.
Should this proposal advance, a typical corporate group could save $3,600 in TOT booking their 5
day 40 room per night meeting in Mountain View instead of Palo Alto. In this scenario, the meeting
planner is responsible to keep costs down for their company. The actual attendee most likely won’t
even know they’re not staying in Palo Alto and will have at their disposal all of the ambience Palo
Alto has to offer.
As it relates to corporations that negotiate corporate rates for their travelers, there will be an
expectation that any TOT increase will be reflected in a corresponding reduction of rate increase or
worse-case scenario, an outright rate reduction to compensate for the increase. In both of these
scenarios, the net effect is a decrease in revenues which of course will generate less TOT for the City.
Increasing TOT is a bad idea. There is clearly a reason why other cities have not increased tax to 16%
which would make Palo Alto the highest in the State of California. I would support us hitting the
pause button while more study is done and feedback received for affected stakeholders. Let’s
proceed thoughtfully, and not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs!
Sincerely,
Julie Handley
CEO and Owner,
Dinah’s Garden Hotel
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2018 4:57 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kenneth Horowitz <klhorowitz@earthlink.net>
Sent:Friday, June 01, 2018 3:02 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Carnahan, David
Subject:Support sugary beverage tax
Hello Councilmembers FYI Ken Horowitz
-----Forwarded Message----- From: Amy Andonian Sent: Jun 1, 2018 12:40 PM To: Kenneth Horowitz Subject: RE: Support surgary beverage tax
Of course! As you know, health & wellness is at the core of what we do here at Avenidas, so we are in strong
support of this sugary beverage tax and urge the Council members to support it as well.
Thanks so much for your advocacy, Ken.
Warmly,
Amy Andonian | President & CEO
4000 Middlefield Road, #I-2, Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 289-5440 (office) | (650) 326-3048 (fax)
From: Kenneth Horowitz <klhorowitz@earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2018 12:38 PM
To: Amy Andonian <aandonian@avenidas.org>
Subject: RE: Support surgary beverage tax
Hi Amy: May I just share your email to me at the Council meeting Monday evening? I really do not need a formal letter. I will have others there and some letters from organizations.
Thank you. Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: Amy Andonian Sent: Jun 1, 2018 11:42 AM
To: Kenneth Horowitz Subject: RE: Support surgary beverage tax
Hi, Ken.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2018 4:57 PM
2
I won’t be able to come to the council meeting on Monday, but we continue to support this initiative. Do
you have a petition or letter that you’d like for us to sign?
Thanks,
Amy Andonian | President & CEO
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
4000 Middlefield Road, #I-2, Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 289-5440 (office) | (650) 326-3048 (fax)
From: Kenneth Horowitz <klhorowitz@earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2018 10:20 AM
To: Amy Andonian <aandonian@avenidas.org>
Subject: Support surgary beverage tax
Hi Amy: Is there any chance you can attend the City Council meeting at 6:30pm on Monday June 4 at
City Hall? If not, an email to me with support would be appreciated. It is item #7 on their agenda
Thank you, Ken
-----Original Message----- From: Amy Andonian
Sent: May 18, 2018 1:46 PM To: Kenneth Horowitz
Subject: RE: Support surgary beverage tax Update
Okay, sounds good. Thanks for keeping me in the loop here!
Amy Andonian | President & CEO
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
4000 Middlefield Road, #I-2, Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 289-5440 (office) | (650) 326-3048 (fax)
From: Kenneth Horowitz <klhorowitz@earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 1:29 PM
To: Amy Andonian <aandonian@avenidas.org>
Subject: Support surgary beverage tax Update
Hi Amy: Hope all is well with you
The City Council is currently polling residents on a soda tax The results are coming back to the Council at their meeting on June 4
I will let you know if a support letter will be needed based on the polling data Hopefully the polling information will be positive
Will get back to you as soon as I know more Thank you for your help
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2018 4:57 PM
3
Best regards, Ken
(650)464-8959
-----Original Message-----
From: Amy Andonian Sent: Mar 19, 2018 4:27 PM
To: Kenneth Horowitz Subject: RE: Support Sugary beverage tax
Excellent! Sounds good. Fingers crossed. I’m sure Liz Kniss will be 200% on board with
this.
Amy Andonian | President & CEO
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
4000 Middlefield Road, #I-2, Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 289-5440 (office) | (650) 326-3048 (fax)
From: Kenneth Horowitz <klhorowitz@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 3:59 PM
To: Amy Andonian <aandonian@avenidas.org>
Subject: RE: Support Sugary beverage tax
Thank you Amy Will be in touch if the City Council moves on this I am attending their meeting tonight Regards, Ken
-----Original Message----- From: Amy Andonian Sent: Mar 19, 2018 3:44 PM To: Kenneth Horowitz Subject: RE: Support Sugary beverage tax
Hi, Ken. Happy to support you on this! Just let me know how we can best assist.
Amy Andonian | President & CEO
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
4000 Middlefield Road, #I-2, Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 289-5440 (office) | (650) 326-3048 (fax)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:49 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Hemant Mistry <hosts@thezenhotel.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 02, 2018 12:56 PM
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Cc:Ricardo B
Subject:Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) letter
Attachments:CIty of Palo Alto Transient Occupancy Tax June 2 2018.pdf
To whom it may concern,
Kindly review the attached letter and consider it as part of your decision making process on how to move forward with the adding the proposed increased in TOT for City of Palo Alto lodging establishments to the
ballot.
Should you have any questions about this email or letter, please contact me at this email or call (650) 964-7822
Respectfully,
Hemant R. Mistry, CPA Chief Financial Officer
Mistry & Sons, LLC
The Zen Hotel
0
t Hf zen
H 0 T E l
4164 El Camino Real I Palo Alto, CA I 94306
P: 650.493.4492 I f: 650.493.3418 I stay@thezenhotel.com
www .thezenhotel.com
City of Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Proposal to increase Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) from 14% to 16%
Honorable Members of City Council,
I am writing to express my concern and firm opposition to the measure being considered for the ballot this year to increase the TOT
from 14% to 16%. The Zen Hotel is a family-owned business, we have owned the hotel since 1985 and have experienced first-hand
the inevitable economic cycles that are inherent to our business.
The results of the supporting poll fail to address the potential collateral damage of this increase. It is a grave mistake to take this poll
as absolute validation that the measure is a sound fiscal decision. It is not. Some of my concerns are as follows:
• If approved, Palo Alto would be the city with the highest TOT in the state of California. Higher than destination cities such as
Anaheim and San Francisco where a higher tax is perhaps justifiable.
• If approved, Palo Alto would be at a significant disadvantage against competing hotels in Mountain View, a city which happens
to be less than one mile away from The Zen Hotel. How impactful is it to hear that by staying less than 1 mile away you pay 60%
less in taxes? We are mainly business hotels that cater to companies with Travel Departments that look at overall spending for
their aggregate room nights. A two percentage points increase makes a vast difference when looking at thousands of room
nights per year. It is an overall 14.28% increase in tax costs.
• This is the 3rd time in less than ten years that one single segment of the business community is singled out to carry this burden.
Enough is enough.
This is evidently a rushed discussion in order to meet the deadlines for the ballot. Furthermore, the very first time there was an
outreach to members of the hotel industry to hear their opinions and concerns was on 05/31/18, and that was after the staff report
was finalized for the next city council meeting. The meeting, I am afraid, has all the overtones of a formality.
A better approach in making fiscally responsible decisions is conducting an objective study. A study that considers the fiscal impact
of tax increases on all the local businesses. This proposed TOT increase has the potential for a ripple effect on the restaurants and
other ancillary businesses that benefit from visitors staying in Palo Alto. We also believe that other options must be explored, such
as ramping up enforcement of tax collection from all short-term rentals like Airbnb.
Regarding the projects that are currently underfunded, perhaps a more sensible approach is to prioritize projects rather than trying
to complete all projects planned for the city. With the recent shortage of labor and high cost of construction some projects that are
not as urgent can be postponed.
The approach of increasing the TOT is doing what might be described as "biting the hand that feeds you". Most fiscally responsible
governments use good judgement and not rely on just polls to make informed decisions. All to often it is easy for our city to pass the
buck on to our guests when at some point that short-sighted philosophy is selfish and probably fiscally irresponsible.
Please let's be prudent and not rush a decision that could very well have the opposite effect and hurt an industry that has been an
excellent contributor to the city coffers.
~~ Hemant R-: Mistry, CPA
Chief Financial Officer
Mistry & Sons, LLC
Oba: The Zen Hotel
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:56 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ken Horowitz <horowitzken@fhda.edu>
Sent:Sunday, June 03, 2018 12:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:SSB testimony for the City Council
Attachments:image003.jpg; Palo Alto_6.4.18.docx.doc
Hello Council: Thank you, Ken
Please find attached written testimony about SSB taxes for the Monday council meeting.
from Jim Krieger, MD, MPH
Executive Director
Healthy Food America
Clinical Professor of Medicine and Health Services University of Washington
jkrieger@HFAmerica.org<mailto:jkrieger@HFAmerica.org>
p. 206.451.8196 x 1001
c. 206.491‐9597
[cid:image001.gif@01D194DB.9111DA30]
HealthyFoodAmerica.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http‐
3A__www.healthyfoodamerica.org_&d=DwMFAg&c=xoYdONxMEGxjdvKj5bOdEOV28uakaJ20R4TjadGGZBc&r=k0_5F_Kc
2uRZfrDCfBzfTmZMClj3h4eRCojb7‐z3hFU&m=tT5jzexXCMWj6Q‐
W8M2kffmkKIUXiXgxaQbdKTnW8d0&s=7g6dYQY_yrr0zLaE4pAO_8Y7xUEsB5LS‐4‐lTeZ2FpE&e=> | Moving Science to
Action
Stay in touch with us! Go to
http://www.healthyfoodamerica.org/join<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http‐
3A__www.healthyfoodamerica.org_join&d=DwMFAg&c=xoYdONxMEGxjdvKj5bOdEOV28uakaJ20R4TjadGGZBc&r=k0_5F
_Kc2uRZfrDCfBzfTmZMClj3h4eRCojb7‐z3hFU&m=tT5jzexXCMWj6Q‐
W8M2kffmkKIUXiXgxaQbdKTnW8d0&s=hpAUtxO2wwRI4iXzShtrZKww0nq59uRjxC‐H5B6FC8o&e=>
PO Box 22260, Seattle, WA 98122
206-451-8196 www.healthyfoodamerica.org
June 4, 2018
Re: Tax on Sugary Drinks in Palo Alto
Dear Mayor Kniss and members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am pleased to share written testimony for discussion of a tax on sugary drinks. As I cannot attend in
person, I am submitting my testimony to lend my public health expertise and my knowledge of taxes on
sugary drinks across the country.
The nonprofit I direct, Healthy Food America (HFA), provides non-partisan technical assistance related to
healthy food policies that address the epidemic of nutrition-related diseases. Palo Alto, just like cities
across the nation, is bearing a heavy burden from the epidemic of nutrition-related conditions including
diabetes, obesity, and heart disease. Low income communities and communities of color suffer from
these conditions at significantly higher rates than white and more affluent communities.
One of the most effective nutrition policies is taxing sugary drinks. Sugary drinks are a leading
contributor to unhealthy diets and are linked to diabetes, obesity, heart disease and tooth decay.1, 2
They are uniquely harmful because:
o They contribute 46% of all added sugar in the diet – far more than any other product. 3
o They bypass the body’s defenses against eating too much, leading to excess calorie intake.
Sugary drink taxes work because they decrease consumption of this uniquely harmful product. Recent
scientific studies have found that:
o In Berkeley, the first city in the US to implement a tax, consumption of sugary drinks is down
21% in low income neighborhoods, and sales are down 10% overall while sales of water are up
16%.4,5
o In Mexico, sales are down 10% overall and 14% among low income Mexicans. 6
Taxes work because they raise revenues to address important community needs, including activities that
prevent obesity and diabetes. They can reduce health disparities by directing revenues to fund health
activities in low income communities and communities of color disproportionately affected by the
diseases associated with sugary drinks.
o In Berkeley, the tax is raising $1.2M per year to support diabetes prevention programs, health
and nutrition education, and healthy schools programs.
o In Boulder, the tax has raised $3.3M since July 2017 to improve access to healthy and affordable
food and clean water and to increase opportunities for physical activity and recreation.
o In Philadelphia, the tax raised $78M in its first year. It supports access to pre-K, maintenance of
parks and rec facilities, and community schools.
Health experts agree that taxing sugary drinks is one of the most effective and cost-effective policies to
prevent childhood obesity.7 The World Health Organization, American Heart Association, American
Medical Association, National Academy of Medicine, and American Public Health Association all
2
www.healthyfoodamerica.org
recommend taxing them.8,9,10,11 Thomas Frieden, immediate past director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, said sugary drink taxes are “the single most effective measure to reverse the
obesity epidemic.”12
The beverage industry will undoubtedly oppose any proposed tax with its deep pockets and
misinformation, just as it did in the seven US cities that fought Big Soda and won. For example, Big Soda
will claim that a tax would result in job losses or increased grocery bills. Yet data from Berkeley,
Philadelphia and Mexico show clearly this is a false claim. Food sector jobs and revenues have increased
in Berkeley,13 wage-tax collections in Philadelphia from beverage-related businesses actually rose in the
first six months of 2017 after the tax began,14 and Mexico’s tax on sugary drinks and junk food has had
no impact on food and beverage sector jobs, or on overall national unemployment rates.15
If the tax passes in Palo Alto, it will be a win for health, a win for health equity, and a win for a healthier
next generation. Seven US cities are already reaping the benefits of sugary drink taxes (along with more
than 30 nations around the world). Now you have an opportunity to join the growing movement to
adopt a sugary drink tax and place Palo Alto in the forefront of communities seeking to reverse the
epidemic of chronic diseases.
Thank you for considering our analysis of this issue.
Sincerely,
James Krieger, MD, MPH
Executive Director, Healthy Food America
1 Mozaffarian et al. Changes in Diet and Lifestyle and Long-Term Weight Gain in Women and Men. New Engl J Med.
2011 June 23; 364(25): 2392–2404
2 Schulze MB, Manson JE, Ludwig DS, et al. Sugar-sweetened beverages, weight gain, and incidence of type 2 diabetes
in young and middle-aged women. JAMA. 2004; 292:927–34.
3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015 – 2020 Dietary
Guidelines for Americans. 8th Edition.
4 Falbe J, Thompson HR, Becker CM, Rojas N, McCulloch CE, Madsen KA. Impact of the Berkeley Excise Tax on
Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption. Am J Public Health. 2016 Oct;106(10):1865-71.
5 Silver LD, Ng SW, Ryan-Ibarra S, Taillie LS, Induni M, Miles DR, Poti JM, Popkin BM. Changes in prices, sales,
consumer spending, and beverage consumption one year after a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley,
California, US: A before-and-after study. PLoS Med. 2017 Apr 18;14(4):e1002283.
6 Colchero MA, Rivera-Dommarco J, Popkin BM, Ng SW. In Mexico, Evidence Of Sustained Consumer Response
Two Years After Implementing A Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017 Mar 1;36(3):564-571.
7 Gortmaker et al. Three interventions that reduce childhood obesity are projected to save more than they cost to
implement. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(1):102–111.
8 Ending childhood obesity: a time for action. Nishtar, Sania et al. Lancet. 2016; 387: 825 – 827.
3
www.healthyfoodamerica.org
9 Dan Glickman et al. Accelerating progress in obesity prevention: Solving the weight of the nation / Committee on
Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention, Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine of the National
Academies. CDC website, Early Care and Education (ECE):http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/strategies/childcareece.html
10 American Medical Association. https://www.ama-assn.org/sites/default/files/media-browser/public/about-
ama/councils/Council%20Reports/council-on-science-public-health/a12-csaph5-sugartax.pdf
11 American Public Health Association, 2012. https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-
statements/policy-database/2014/07/23/13/59/taxes-on-sugar-sweetened-beverages
12 Frieden, TR et al. Health Affairs, March 2010 vol. 29 no. 3 357-363.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/29/3/357.long?related-urls=yes&legid=healthaff;29/3/357
13 http://www.phi.org/resources/?resource=berkeley-soda-tax-boosts-jobs-revenues
14 http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/even-with-soda-tax-phillys-food-and-beverage-wages-rose-in-1st-
quarter-2017-20170612.html and the City of Philadelphia
15 Guerrero-Lopez, CM, et al. Employment changes associated with the introduction of taxes on sugar-sweetened
beverages and nonessential energy-dense food in Mexico. Preventive Medicine, Sept 2017.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743517303249?via%3Dihub
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 3:19 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jon Goldman <jon.goldman@prprop.com>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 10:00 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed TOT Tax Increase: Input from Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Members
(Hotel Operators)
Dear City Council Members:
I am contacting you regarding the currently proposed increase in the transit occupancy tax ("TOT") to 16%.
I am the vice chair of the executive board of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce (which represents approximately 500 businesses). I also serve as the government affairs chairperson.
The Chamber has been contacted by a number of members who are hotel operators in Palo Alto. They are
extremely concerned that the proposed increase in the TOT, to the highest rate in the State of California, will lead to a decrease in bookings. They explained that corporate bookings are often made solely based on price (within the parameters of location and amenity level). Palo Alto hotels compete with hotels in Mt. View, Menlo
Park, Redwood City and other nearby cities. Suddenly, a room in Palo Alto will be more expensive than a
comparably priced room in a nearby city. When the rooms are sorted by price, Palo Alto hotels will drop down
the list and may not be considered. Rather than increase tax revenue, the increased TOT rate may well end up causing a tax revenue loss if
bookings drop. The highest rate in the State will get the attention of all hotel operators and will be a factor in
future investment, renovations, site location for new hotels, etc. Therefore, the TOT increase could have a
dramatic long-term effect on future TOT revenue. We ask that you reconsider the proposed TOT increase to 16% which, as mentioned, would be the highest rate
in the State of California. The small amount of potential additional tax revenue is offset by all of the risks to the
future stability of TOT revenue.
__________________________________________________
Jon Goldman Executive Board Vice Chair Government Action Committee Chair
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 3:19 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Brad Ehikian <brad.ehikian@prprop.com>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 11:02 AM
To:Council, City; Minor, Beth; Carnahan, David
Subject:Transient Occupancy Tax - Proposed Increase
Attachments:Microsoft Word - Mayor Kniss and members of the council-1.docx.pdf
Dear Mayor Kniss and honorable members of the council,
This letter is submitted on behalf of the board of directors of the Palo Alto Downtown Business & Professional
Association and many of our over 600 due paying members.
Under consideration is an increase of the Transient Occupancy Tax, (TOT) to 16%, a level that will be the highest in the state—higher than Anaheim, which draws millions of visitors to Disneyland. While Palo Alto has a vibrant downtown, Stanford and many other amenities that help fill its hotels, it is not a destination on the
order of Disneyland.
The City of Palo Alto’s own study of May 31, 2018 indicates that hotel occupancy is on the decline. With
competition from neighboring cities providing an increase in room supply with new hotels and lower TOT, to competition from AIRBNB and VRBO, (that the city does not efficiently collect taxes from,) there are now options for corporate clients, (the mainstay of hotel occupancy,) that did not exist in the past.
A raise in the TOT just four years ago was intended to fund a public facility, (the new parking garage,) but now
appears to be in the general fund with a host of use opportunities for its revenue. Raising the TOT again to fund
a public facility (a new public safety building) should not be the burden of just one industry sector.
This is not a case of the boy who cried wolf. The hotel industry, like retail and restaurants are facing disruptive and challenging market trends. Adding another tax amongst other increases in taxes and fees that may be in the
pipeline as well as other operating challenges that downtown businesses face will hurt this particular industry
and its ripple effect will hurt others.
Additionally, hoteliers were not consulted until after the consultant’s report was submitted to the city.
Remember that sales tax revenue is a cornerstone of revenue for the city. A decrease over time may not seem to sting but will eventually affect the city’s ability to serve its residents at the levels that they have become
accustomed to.
Sincerely,
Katie Seedman, Presidio Bank
Rob George, Lemonade
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 3:19 PM
2
Stephanie Wansek, Cardinal Hotel
Nancy Coupal, Coupa Café
Brad Ehikian, Premier Properties
Georgie Gleim, Gleim the Jeweler
Jeff Selzer, Palo Alto Bicycles
Barbara Gross, Garden Court Hotel
Patty McGuigan, Cornish & Carey Commercial
Kyle Morgan, Downtown Streets Team
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301 June 3, 2018
Dear Mayor Kniss and honorable members of the council,
This letter is submitted on behalf of the board of directors of the Palo Alto Downtown Business & Professional
Association and many of our over 600 due paying members.
Under consideration is an increase of the Transient Occupancy Tax, (TOT) to 16%, a level that will be the
highest in the state—higher than Anaheim, which draws millions of visitors to Disneyland. While Palo Alto has
a vibrant downtown, Stanford and many other amenities that help fill its hotels, it is not a destination on the
order of Disneyland.
The City of Palo Alto’s own study of May 31, 2018 indicates that hotel occupancy is on the decline. With
competition from neighboring cities providing an increase in room supply with new hotels and lower TOT, to
competition from AIRBNB and VRBO, (that the city does not efficiently collect taxes from,) there are now
options for corporate clients, (the mainstay of hotel occupancy,) that did not exist in the past.
A raise in the TOT just four years ago was intended to fund a public facility, (the new parking garage,) but now
appears to be in the general fund with a host of use opportunities for its revenue. Raising the TOT again to fund
a public facility (a new public safety building) should not be the burden of just one industry sector.
This is not a case of the boy who cried wolf. The hotel industry, like retail and restaurants are facing disruptive
and challenging market trends. Adding another tax amongst other increases in taxes and fees that may be in the
pipeline as well as other operating challenges that downtown businesses face will hurt this particular industry
and its ripple effect will hurt others.
Additionally, hoteliers were not consulted until after the consultant’s report was submitted to the city.
Remember that sales tax revenue is a cornerstone of revenue for the city. A decrease over time may not seem to
sting but will eventually affect the city’s ability to serve its residents at the levels that they have become
accustomed to.
Sincerely,
Katie Seedman, Presidio Bank
Rob George, Lemonade
Stephanie Wansek, Cardinal Hotel
Nancy Coupal, Coupa Café
Brad Ehikian, Premier Properties
Georgie Gleim, Gleim the Jeweler
Jeff Selzer, Palo Alto Bicycles
Barbara Gross, Garden Court Hotel
Patty McGuigan, Cornish & Carey Commercial
Kyle Morgan, Downtown Streets Team
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 3:20 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Andrea Barnett <andreabarnett@ferrado-us.com>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 11:03 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please see Attached
Attachments:LetterPaloAltoReTOT_20180531_FGC.pdf
Regards,
Andrea
Andrea Barnett
20411 SW Birch St. Ste 360 Newport Beach, CA. 92660
O 949 474-9884 D 949 474-4494
F 949 474-9892
Privileged And Confidential Communication.
This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use
of this message or any attachments, for any purpose, is strictly prohibited by law. For the environment, please do not print this e-mail unless it is necessary
Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto City Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
May 31, 2018
To Whom It May Concern:
FERRADO GARDEN COURT LLC
20411 SW Birch Street, Suite 360
Newport Ocach, California 92660
Phone 9'19 ii 71\ 9881\
rax 949 474 9892
I am writing to you to express my concern regarding your consideration of raising the Transient
Occupancy Tax in Palo Alto. My credential to communicate with you regarding this topic is based on our
ownership and management of hotels throughout California, New York, Florida and Europe.
We purchased the Garden Court Hotel in 2006, a small independent boutique property. We invested
over $10M in the property in 2010 and are on the brink of investing another $4M before years-end. Our
business model has been successful, and we continue to expect respectable returns on our investment
going forward. As our cost of doing business continues to rise, we are very concerned about the impact
of a 16% TOT.
We will watch the productivity of this hotel very closely to determine how we proceed with our
investment. We are astounded that Palo Alto believes it is appropriate to become the state TOT leader
in order to fund deficits in their budget and without any benefit to the hospitality industry.
As business people, I am certain you understand business cycles, and how this business sector is being
cannibalized by increased competition from new hotels within Palo Alto and neighboring cities, ABNB,
VRBO and other booking sources.
We hope you will consider other options to fund your deficit and not tip the scales on one business
sector to fill your coffers.
Respectfully,
Andrea Barnett
Ferra do
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 3:20 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Stephanie Wansek <stephanie@cardinalhotel.com>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 12:39 PM
To:City Mgr; Council, City
Subject:Cardinal Hotel Owner Response to Proposal to increase TOT - Agenda Action Item #7
Council Meeting June 4
Attachments:Palo Alto City Council TOT Letter June 4.pdf
Stephanie Wansek
General Manager
Cardinal Hotel
235 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 323 5101
stephanie@cardinalhotel.com
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
Notice of Confidentiality: This communication is intended ONLY for the recipient(s)
identified in the message, and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, or
otherwise protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please disregard
this communication and notify the sender.
CARDINAL HOTELTHE
235 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, California 94301650.323.5101 - www.cardinalhotel.com
CARDINAL HOTELTHE
235 Hamilton Avenue ؖ Palo Alto, California 94301650.323.5101 ؖ www.cardinalhotel.com
Dear Mr. Smith,
Incium qui ipsandist rem faccatiustio iuscipsum vention paruptatium voluptaque con cus, ut est
ulparum re ma dolum re dolupitioria illam, ut et doloraes quassequae plitas que persper iberate
pro magnis as acid quo cum dissus voluptatiam quaecusant que nobis ditaqui beriore dellupta-
tia nonestotasi dis rero quo ipsunt eius qui coribus, asi arumet quis et ociam vendam que
opta que ventium et reium esectatinis ut laborerum natem et omnietur? Re nia dolupta tecer-
speria quist as quis res ea et, velecae riorumquae si inia quae sit a eaquo ommodi od mod minis
rendipic tem quasped et et vel molupta tincit dianducia simus.
Bistore perciendam qui omnis eatis nimincimus as quia sum cus, ulpa doluptas sequi vendem
ipicim erferspis nonsent que cus estibusam, es dere omnissite corrorepra nam, corempe
riatusciet ut erum sumquaectur? Ocime sapersp ernati tet laccusa ntibusc itiunto omnienist
estiatu ribus.
Et et praectotat. Nem et rerum suntempos ipsae volorporum nonseditius, qui blautesti ipsa
volupta sunti sum estiati doluptia volor adi tecera conet, voluptate natet volupti corerspiciis et
reptiate non cumqui ommolutes mos et la dolorem. Sit aute verrovidebis seque liam, ommolup
tatecea con restibus.
Aximil et ex el ium sequis pe veliantio. Everibusapic torenditatur re natum accabo. Edi optam a
id moluptatem ad molo il ius volo magnihit veliquam remquiam, num hicia volest, omnimaio.
Loribus a quias sam hiligent fuga. Et quibus istrum il et rercimint ipissusci re nemposti sum, test
ex et, undit, to voles solo moluptat aut ium qui occum volumendam id ut autenihic tempos
exerunt ra eribusa doloris et ommoles a siminvelis ut quis ea consequos miliqui sum ra secus
digendi genditata senimpo repelestem eari te venem iusdae nis miliaerem inullan duciame
nditam as volupta vit et voluptati dipsam, ut quas dolupta tionsentur, que non porerferita si
repudam entuscium volupta tquiam re omnihit issimen toreper ersperum untis et elentiam in
prehenet qui ration ne dolorent.
Olupta quiduntem qui digenec eptatemporum fugiasi int enet et quaturia venisciaero octate
nus ad maiossu ndebisquo magniss inctatur sint volorit, invel earum deliqui derenis citatiis
esequiscimet asperci derores aut quia volore, quo venis ped qui vollam aut eatiis nobis et enturi
as incillisit autem dolorem. Namus delitatur?
Ut aut velia quati doluptati doles modiand aernatur?
Uptatis que et quatur aut prepuda idi dolupta quides estruptati dolesed utet fugiam voluptur,
quid molessi tem fuga. Oluptati optaquatur, escipsum, cuptati atatium exerae doloria tiscimi
nverecta volupta tatiae perchilit mos reroribus.
Nihit faccullit ocima deritaes in consedipit eos et endae num vendandes sum volor sent
vollaut fuga. Ovide simpore mquam, conse num sunte quam re, autatibus.
Lorerferum nient a qui consect ioriscitis il et quasped expel id quatur, sunt et re magnihitio
ocimpore sero omnis quiate veliquia doluptatqui ut liquam aut autempo restium fugit, te
ipsaperspe persped modiora ectatemodi
Palo Alto City CouncilPalo Alto City Manager250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301June 4, 2018Re: Proposal to raise TOT from 14% to 16%A second TOT tax increase in 4 years re�lects a growing structural issue in revenue sources. The global economy is rapidly evolving as better-informed consumers chase lower prices. Over the last 5 years customers all over the world are quickly shifting from brick and mortar to eCommerce.This new internet economy tends to go under taxed as governments struggle keep up with this changing landscape. Just as Taxi’s are faced with new electronic competition from Uber, and Retailers from Amazon.com and eBay, hotels now must compete with Air B&B and a host of emerging online shared accommodation websites.All these new competitors have a common advantage: Their revenues are not taxed as easily as brick and mortar business.Palo Alto hotels are already at a 14% disadvantage in this new marketplace. Increasing that gap to 16% further damages our ability to compete on two levels important to Palo Alto:Accommodation revenue is tilted towards the undertaxed providers,Palo Alto based hotels �ind themselves competing on price with hotels in nearby municipali-ties with lower TOT burdens.If increasingly well informed and price sensitive hotel guests �ind other areas more afford-able, they likely take their retail, dining, and entertainment spending to those areas as well.Instead of another TOT increase, would it be better in the long haul for the City of Palo Alto to instead move towards leveling the playing �ield.Local businesses would greatly appreciate it if Palo Alto would study the efforts of other governments as they work to ensure that all economic activity generated within their borders is taxed fairly. Accurately tracking and taxing this growing internet led activity would not only improve Palo Alto’s �iscal position in the long term, but also create a strong movement towards a fair competitive environment.
Respectfully yours,
Stephan Dahl
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 5:50 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Josh Brown <josh.brown@heart.org>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 4:42 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Letter of Support for Sugary Drink Tax
Attachments:Palo Alto SSB Tax - Dana Weisshaar.pdf
To Whom It May Concern:
Please see the attached letter of support from Dr. Dana Weisshaar, FACC, Chief Medical Director, Kaiser Permanente,
Santa Clara and member of the American Heart Association’s Silicon Valley Board of Directors for your consideration.
Best,
JOSH BROWN
Grassroots Director, Advocacy
2007 “O” Street I Sacramento, CA 95811
Josh.Brown@Heart.org I www.heart.org
P 916-431-2364 I F 916-443-2865
My Family is why
President
Joseph Woo. M.D.
Norman E. Shumway Professor &
Chair Department of Cardiothoracic
Surgery
Stanford University School of
Medicine
Chair
Tammy Kiely
Partner
Goldman Sachs
Immediate Past-President
Nicholas Leeper, M.D.
Associate Professor of Surgery
Stanford University Medical Center
Directors
Doug Bettinger
Executive Vice President & Chief
Financial Officer
Lam Research
Calvin Kuo, MD .. Ph.D
Professor of Medicine
Stanford University School of
Medicine
Graham R. Poles
PwC I Partner
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Bob Swan
Chief Financial Officer
Intel Corporation
Dana Weisshaar. MD FACC
Chief/Medical Director,
KPNC Heart Transplant Program
Kaiser Permanente. Santa Clara
James Woloszyn
Vice President. Customer Advocacy
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Margaret Maloney
President
1929 Productions
Keri Janssen
Executive Director
American Heart Association
"Building healthier lives,
free of cardiovascular
diseases and stroke. n
,__
A -VAm -merican erican
Heart I Stroke
Association Association.
life is why~
June 4, 2018
Honorable Mayor Kniss and City Council Members
Palo Alto City Ha ll
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Honorable Mayor Kniss:
Silicon Valley Division
1 Almaden Boulevard
Suite 500
San Jose, CA 95113
Phone: (408) 606-5940
Fax: (408) 977-4959
Sugary drinks are an unnecessary part of our lives and lead to significant
declines in health -from heart disease to type 2 diabetes to tooth decay -
and are the leading single source of added sugars in the American diet
Hence, the American Heart Association encourages the City of Palo Alto to
pass a sugary drink tax that will incentivize consumers to reduce
consumption of sugary drinks and invest the revenue to bring about
healthy changes in neighborhoods most in need.
The evidence is clear that added sugars are a detriment to heart and brain
health, that sugary drinks are the top single source of added sugars in the
American diet and that children are consuming ten times the amount of
sugary drinks recommended.
A sugary drink tax can reduce consumption and improve health. Adding a
few cents to the cost of sugary drinks isn't a significant financial burden on
families. What costs families -and all of us -more is diabetes.
With seven out of 10 deaths among Americans each year caused by
chronic diseases such as heart disease, stroke, cancer and diabetes, it is
important that we find viable policy solutions that will tackle these
growing public health problems. We feel that increasing the price of
sugary drinks and dedicating the revenue to programs and solutions that
reduce consumption of sugary drinks is a sensible way to address this
public health crisis and look forward to working with the City of Palo Alto
as you explore this policy option further.
Dana Weisshaar, MD
Chief /Medical Director, KPNC Heart Transplant Program
Kaiser Permanente, Santa Clara
I if e is why™ es por la vida™ ~~~$· ..
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 12:24 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Frank Ingle <frankwingle@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 29, 2018 12:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
This email is re Agenda item 8 of the City Council meeting on June 11, 2018.
I recommend approval of the proposed project at 2755 El Camino.
“Residentialists" such as myself are most concerned about privacy, traffic congestion, and parking.
This project scores well on these issues.
Privacy: The residents next door will have less noise than before because of less exposure to Page Mill and El Camino traffic noise.
Traffic congestion: It is time for more very small apartments next to public transit. This location is close to
California Avenue and not far from downtown, by walking or bike. Also close to Caltrain for trips to San
Francisco where use of a car is a liability.
Parking: Limited parking in this project, but residents in this project could save money by doing without a car.
Only entry level single residents are likely to want to rent such small spaces, and it will be convenient for them
to walk or bike if they work in Palo Alto, or commute by rail or bus to another nearby location.
Young singles would enjoy proximity to Palo Alto downtown, California Avenue, and nearby Stanford
University and shopping center.
I wish there were dozens more projects like this one along El Camino.
Frank Ingle
814 Richardson Ct
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2018 1:05 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:LWV of Palo Alto <lwvpaoffice@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 30, 2018 2:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:June 4, 2018 Agenda Item 8: Workforce Housing Ordinance
Attachments:LWVPA-WorkforceHousingLetter-5-30-18.pdf
Dear City Council members,
Attached please find a letter from the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto regarding the June 4,
2018, Agenda Item No. 8: 2755 El Camino Real: Multi-family Housing Project and Workforce
Housing Ordinance.
Thank You,
Aisha Piracha-Zakariya
President, LWV Palo Alto
--
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
3921 E. Bayshore Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Phone: (650) 903-0600
Web: www.lwvpaloalto.org
Facebook: www.facebook.com/PaloAltoLeague/
Twitter: www.twitter.com/lwvpaloalto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 4:00 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ryan Globus <ryanglobus@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 3:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:City Council Meeting: Agenda Item #8 (June 4, 2018)
To the Palo Alto City Council,
Please approve the multi-family housing at 2755 El Camino Real. The housing crisis in the Bay Area is severe, and every city must do its part to build more housing. If we do not build more housing, the poor will be
punished further with high rents and evictions, while the middle class will be squeezed out. Even many of my
friends who are engineers in tech are considering moving out - none of them can even imagine being able to
afford to buy a house or condo in the Bay Area. If we do nothing, the Bay Area will face an economic and
demographic crisis.
Thank you,
Ryan Globus
YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard)
Palo Alto Midtown Resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 5:49 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 4:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Project Item 8
The project at 2755 El Camino Real, sounds OK, but only if it is adequately parked.
. Working people need cars for work, and need to park them.
If you keep the current plans, then EXEMPT the residents from the RPP for Evergreen
Park/Mayfield
neighborhoods.
Thank You,
Suzanne Keehn
4076 Orme St.
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 5:49 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sung, Don (RWC) <Don.Sung@colliers.com>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 4:43 PM
To:Council, City; Hodgkins, Claire
Cc:D'Alessandro, Jamie (Windy Hill Property Ventures)
Subject:Letter in Support of 2755 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA
Attachments:2755 El Camino Real Support Letter - Don Sung - 6-4-2018.pdf
Dear City Council of Palo Alto & Ms. Hodgkins,
Attached please find my letter in support of 2755 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA.
I am unable to attend the meeting this evening but please feel free to review and contact me if you have any questions,
Thank you,
Don
Don Sung
Senior Vice President CA License No. 01935797
Direct +1 650 486 2228
Mobile +1 650 380 5188 Main +1 650 486 2200 | Fax +1 650 486 2201 don.sung@colliers.com | Add as Contact
http://www.colliers.com/don.sung
Colliers International
SF Peninsula & Silicon Valley
203 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 125 | Redwood City, CA 94065 | United States
www.colliers.com
Claire Hodgkins June 4, 2018
Associate Planner
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
RE: 2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing
Dear Ms. Hodgkins,
I am writing to you in support of this project and ask that you forward this letter to both the
Planning and Transportation Commission as well as the City Council, as they consider this
project at future meetings. I have followed this project since it was first proposed in 2016
and I continue to support it as it has evolved and additional amenities and benefits that
have been included in the project.
As a long time, Palo Alto resident and proud father of 3 wonderful children, who were born
and raised in Palo Alto, I would hate for them to one day return from college, only to find a
general lack of housing options because of insufficient supply of good quality housing units
at fair market prices. I believe the key to stabilizing housing prices (for rent or for sale) is to
provide a sufficient supply and allow the market to take care of any pricing inefficiencies. I
believe this project would represent a good step towards providing more good quality,
relatively affordable housing units, which would offer our local workforce additional
housing options in the long run.
I have selfishly thought about the impact this project may have on traffic and the overall
congestion that many residents may be concerned with. But in the grand scheme, I believe
more good quality, high-density housing developments, located within walking
distance/bike ride to commute options, would, over time, alleviate any perceived impact on
traffic and local congestions. I believe the City of Palo Alto can evolve in a positive direction
by offering its residents better rental housing choices, while offering more supply to offset
rising rental rates due to finite supply.
This project will be an asset to our community in that it promotes and supports our City’s
goals as they pertain to the provision of additional housing in our community to serve our
local workforce and developing housing in appropriate locations near transit to reduce
vehicle trips and promote healthy lifestyle choices that include walking and bicycling. This
project will also replace an existing parking lot with a sustainable and attractive building
that provides a high-quality design at a very visible corner. While providing 57 new
residential units, the building is also in context with height, massing and scale of the
adjacent residential uses. This has the right attributes to not only to benefit the immediate
project area, but more importantly, the City as a whole since it includes the following:
• Work-Force Units - Smaller residential units, comprised of studios and one-bedroom
units are proposed, which are more affordable by design and size to serve an unmet
need in Palo Alto
• Income Restricted Units - 20% of the units will be income-restricted at levels to serve
the local work force (140%-150% AMI)
• Local Employee and Local Resident Preferences - Local employees and residents will
be given a preference, so that they have a greater opportunity to live, work and play
within the city
• Sustainable, High Quality Design - sustainable and attractive building that provides
for a high-quality design at a very visible corner.
• Transit Proximity-Residential units that are proximate to transit (within 1/2 mile
walking distance of the California Avenue train station; direct access to multiple bus
routes and shuttle service; as well as being within walking and bike riding distance to
employers and retail and dining amenities.
• Robust TDM Plan-A robust TDM plan that reduces vehicle trips by 35% compared to a
typical residential project. TDM measures include Cal Train Go Passes and VTA Bus
Passes; construction of a new Bus Shelter; a Bike Share program; and a monthly stipend
to encourage the use of services like Uber and Lyft to those residents not owning a
vehicle
• GreenTRIP Certification – The project meets GreenTRIP standards for daily vehicle
miles driven per household, a reduced parking ratio, the provision of a traffic reduction
strategy and bicycle parking. The project will also participate in GreenTRIP’s
Transportation and Parking Survey for annual monitoring.
I encourage the PTC to support this project for our city.
Sincerely,
Don Sung
Palo Alto Resident Since 2003
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 5:50 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 4:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Venturans Oppose 2755
Dear City Council:
2755 funnels a public asset into private hands. Do not do it. Insist on all BMR housing. If Windy Hill can't handle it, then hold onto the zoning until you can figure out how to get into the building business. Lots of
capable non-profits want to help you build needed housing to serve the people who need it the most. True
BMR.
You know we want the AT&T lot for a park. You start handing out free upzones, that puts the PF zoned properties we do have at risk. Which of course you know. So why are we even contemplating doing this.
If for some reason this boondoggle gets passed you, please consider the Mayfield residents. They are parking
cheek by jowl over there as it is and when this under-parked building comes on line, there is no way to prevent
the people who don't own cars from parking the cars that they do own in the neighborhoods.
The City's RPPs need cleaner management so that we can know who's buying the RPPs and who's really using
them. Even though there may be a greater percentage of folks giving up their cars, we have more people than
ever living in Palo Alto with more moving in as much needed housing is built. So yes, there are more cars than
ever before on roads that were never design to handle the current and future loads.
Thanks so much for hearing me and for your attention to our concerns.
Becky Sanders
Moderator Ventura Neighborhood Association
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 5:50 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 5:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Yet another under parked project!!!
The developer gets a tremendous break by having property up zoned and
he will under park it. Next, will you allow him to buy permits to park in
the RPP?
If part of the up zoning does not prevent this project from buying RPP
permits, it will be very informative to see the council members that vote
for it.
I urge you to exclude this property from the RPP as a condition of
approval.
Thank you
Paul Machado
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 5:50 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Evan Goldin <evan.goldin@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 4:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Parking requirements
Council members,
I know, this evening, you will be voting on the proposed El Camino Real development — a "car-light" development. I wanted to write to you to:
1) Encourage you to approve this project. My friends, neighbors and fellow Paly grads and being driven out of
this area, and we must build more housing. This is a great location for a denser development, even with the
Zebra copy long-gone :)
2) Push you to support this car-light pilot. As a Peninsula resident in a 2-bedroom apartment I share with my
wife, we just own one car between us. Part of the reason for this is that we only have one parking spot. If we
had a second spot, it's likely we would still own a second car. City policy should encourage developers to build
less parking, and support alternative transportation (bike parking, etc).
3) On that last note, I want to strongly encourage you to push developers asking for medium-to-large projects
— both commercial and residential — to charge for parking. If parking is bundled with rent (or a housing deed),
it is VERY likely that the resident will not feel the cost of constructing/maintaining that spot, and they will have
a car. You should require buildings to charge the market cost of parking, separate from renting the residence. And I know this would be more difficult, as it's less common, but you should ask the same of commercial
developers. Charging users for parking is the single easiest way to discourage driving, and encourage alternative
transportation.
Thanks, - Evan
Paly '03
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 6:13 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Carol Scott <cscott@crossfieldllc.com>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 6:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:2755 El Camino Real -- Agenda Item #8 - June 4, 2018
Dear Council Members,
Once again the Council is being asked to approve a development that is opposed by neighboring communities and that does not take into account the likely negative effects on those communities. The relevant communities
here are Mayfield and Ventura.
This project, unlike so many others we have seen in the recent past, is for housing rather than office space. That
it is to provide housing -- a worthy goal -- should not blind us to the project's many downsides and the need to effectively manage those. By all means build housing, but do it in a way that adds to the community or at least
is neutral. There is no need to add to developer profits at the expense of current residents of Palo Alto.
Here are some notable issues with the proposed project
No Below Market Rate Housing is Provided
The developer has already been given a site that was previously designated for public benefit. No public benefit
now -- just more developer profits.
The project provides only a small number of "affordable" units. But, affordable to whom? The "affordable" units only require that the person make 140% of the median income level. This is a joke. Just another give
away to a developer and the city's neediest people get nothing. Studio apartments are not for families. Most of
the units will be "luxury" apartments -- perhaps ones that wealthy families use as addresses for their children for
purposes of attending Palo Alto schools, perhaps for tech workers to use during the week, etc.
Maybe private developers cannot provide below market rate housing. Then why doesn't the City work a public-
private partnership to build these? Look at the success of the other City-subsidized apartments in Palo
Alto. They provide a model from which we can learn. They provide decent, livable housing (with parking) to
those who don't make top dollar in Silicon Valley.
The Project is Under Parked
I have no issue with people who choose to live in an expensive apartment with no parking -- if there is any way
to enforce a ban on residents parking in the surrounding neighborhoods. If residents must pay for parking in
this development, but street parking remains free, you can see the likely effect. I have seen nothing in the
agreement that prevents people living in this project from applying for residential permits in the Mayfield/Evergreen Park RPP. And, even if it did, (1) the City has shown no ability to track who is getting
permits in the current RPPs and staff vacancies do not bode well for any improvement there, and (2) the RPP
only protects the surrounding neighborhood from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. If you move your car before 10 a.m. and
return sometime after 4 p.m., or if you only park on weekends and holidays, you don't even need to have a
permit. Even the City staff recognized last winter at the renewal hearings for the Mayfield/Evergreen Park RPP that the Mayfield area is saturated and could not absorb any additional employee permits. When Mayfield
becomes even more congested, there will be spillover to Evergreen Park and then to Southgate.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 6:13 PM
2
No Enforcement Mechanism for TDMS
The current proposal suggests that this project is a 'pilot' for TDMs and other ideas. A "pilot" is a temporary
test, and this is a permanent building. The City staff has acknowledged that they have done absolutely nothing to monitor or enforce the TDMs that are currently in place for commercial buildings. When asked for copies of existing TDMs, the staff has claimed that they can't find them, or it takes too long to find them, or some other
excuse. If you can't even find them, you can't monitor and enforce them. What is the enforcement mechanism
for this project?
No Plans Forthcoming to Provide Transportation to Supplant Auto Use The Planning Commission, and to a large degree the City Council, continues to turn a blind eye toward the need
for transportation improvements needs to support a trend toward 'car-lite' developments. Palo Alto is not New
York, San Francisco, or Washington, D.C. where there are subways systems and a large network of buses and
other shuttles. While you may be able to commute to work if you are in walking distance from your home, or if you take Cal Train to San Francisco or San Jose (although the capacity there is already strained), you certainly
cannot live without using a car. Running all of your errands by bus is just not feasible.
This is Palo Alto -- one of the wealthiest and most educated communities in the United States. Why are we so
planning challenged? Can't we hold ourselves to higher standards? Can't we plan our way out of a paper bag? Can't we acknowledge the constraints that we have and demand solutions to them rather than ignore them
for the sake of immediate profits for private interests? Build housing, but also do it in tandem with solid
policies and plans to get Palo Alto back to a workable, livable community.
Carol Scott Evergreen Park resident
--
Carol Scott
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 6:13 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Bryna Chang <brynachang@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 5:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Agenda item # 8 tonight: 2755 El Camino Real
Dear City Council,
I just heard about the agenda item tonight regarding 2755 El Camino Real. I cannot make it to the meeting as I have two
kids to take care of, but I wanted to tell you that I am dismayed to hear that the development, which is supposedly for
workforce housing, only has a small percentage allotted to affordable housing and that the portion that is "affordable"
requires less than 140% of median income. Further, that you may allow upzoning if this area (which formerly was public
property providing the public good of parking) to develop housing *without* the typically required amount of parking
for such a development seems ridiculous. The development would make sense only if it had a greater percentage (50%
or more!) of affordable housing and if the housing were actually affordable (at most median income, but ideally much
lower than median income). Given that this proposed development hardly includes any affordable housing and the
"affordable" housing isn't even really affordable (how is 140% of median income affordable??) it makes absolutely no
sense to allow them to build less parking. We are effectively allowing a developer to line their own pockets with a public
good. Given that I am a longtime Palo Alto resident, I want to see the benefits of this property go into the pockets of
community members who need it. Why are we not using nonprofit affordable housing developers to develop affordable
housing, rather than allowing for profit developers to build (a very small amount of) sham affordable housing?
No upzoning for sham affordable housing with insufficient parking!! This area already doesn't have enough parking. No
taking a public benefit and allowing a private developer to benefit while the community suffers with more congestion
and less parking! You should only make the community suffer so if the community is getting a real benefit of a
significant number of truly affordable units. The proposed development does not fit the bill.
Sincerely,
Bryna Chang
3338 Waverley St.
Palo Alto, 94306
Brevity brought to you by iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:52 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Terry Trumbull <terryt1011@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 05, 2018 11:49 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for Cool Block Program- June 11 consent agenda
Dear Mayor Kniss, Vice-Mayor Filseth and City Council Members:
I’m writing today to encourage you to support the Cool Block Pilot program which I understand is on the June 11, 2018 Consent Calendar.
When my wife retired from her federal judgeship in 2010, we started walking downtown every morning. It was quite nice
to become friends with so many of our neighbors on the 2.4 mile walk.
You would expect that I would know my neighbors well, but sadly, that is not true. A program to get us prepared for potential disasters would be excellent. An example is being flooded out of my home in 1998 by San Francisquito
Creek. When we were forced out of our home, we had to spend the night with friends 3 miles away, when neighbors 5-6 houses away were dry.
I’ve been tracking the The Cool Block program is an unique and effective tool with tremendous potential. Getting our
residents take action around issues that affect us, short and long term, is essential. An example is climate change, which is raising the level of the Bay, and thereby increasing the potential for flooding to re-occur.
In regards to climate change, I believe that the City's direct actions have been good, but we have a willing population who
we ought to get more engaged. We all know its crucial for citizens to do their part to reduce carbon but it’s not an easy task. I have studied the data from the first 2 pilots and the program has had some very impressive results in carbon
reduction.
Our Utility Dept has programs available to residents and the Cool Block program but difficulty in getting the information to residents. This program makes it easier for them to learn about -- and take advantage of -- these programs by leveraging
existing initiatives.
As a City we’ve have approved ambitious goals in all sorts of programs. While changes our municipal operations deserve praise, we also need to get citizens on board. I know of no other platform that engages residents to lower their
carbon footprints and we need citizens who understand their role in both creating and reducing energy usage. Behavior change is difficult and the Cool Block is an effective cooperative, educational program.
Please support the Cool Block program.
Sincerely,
Terry Trumbull
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:51 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Marilyn C Messer <marilyncmesser@comcast.net>
Sent:Sunday, June 03, 2018 9:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Utility rates rise every year
I do my best to turn off lights, rarely watch tv. Often use a flashlight. I also, like many people here watch every drop of
water. I am very upset that utility rates continue to rise a lot!
Marilyn Messer
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:51 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Karen Robin <karenrobin2007@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 03, 2018 7:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rates
Hi,
Please do not continue to raise utility rates. It’s already so expensive!!
Thank you!
Karen Gould
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:51 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Oli <oli_chen@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 02, 2018 11:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:No new rates
Hi,
I’m opposed to new rate hikes.
Olivia
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 9:00 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 03, 2018 5:18 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Eggleston, Brad; French, Amy; Raschke, Matt
Subject:Re: Public Safety Building and California Avenue Parking Garage - Final EIR and
updated TIA
Please include this email as input for the Public Safety Building and Cal Ave Parking Garage Final EIR City Council agenda item which is either this Monday or next Monday. It appears there is a
significant accidental omission where content in the DEIR was not carried over to the FEIR (nor
crossed out) and since I have not received a response from staff on it yet, I want to make sure it is
corrected in the FEIR. See my email below. Thank you.
Hamilton Hitchings
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>
To: pwecips <pwecips@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Raschke, Matt <Matt.Raschke@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Brad Eggleston <brad.eggleston@cityofpaloalto.org>
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018, 2:06:32 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Public Safety Building and California Avenue Parking Garage - Final EIR and updated TIA Thank you very much for the improvements. The FEIR discussion of earthquake requirements are much clearly and more specific and appear to much better support Goal #2 (*1)
There appears to potentially be a significant error in the final EIR where at least one section appears
to have been removed. This is on page 136 of the FEIR page 8-3 at the top where the sentence starts "the earthquake
source (e.g., magnitude, location, and area of causative fault surface), distance from the fault, and
amplification effects of local geologic deposits."
In the DEIR this can be found on page 160 where the preceding text was
"(1) Ground Shaking. Ground shaking is the most widespread cause of earthquake damage. Most
loss of life and injuries during an earthquake are related to the collapse of buildings and structures.
The intensity of the ground shaking at a particular site depends on characteristics of 1 Army Corps of Engineers Field Manual TM 5-818-7, 1985. Available online at: http://armypubs.army.mil/eng/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/tm5_818_7.pdf, accessed on February 3, 2012 by
Placeworks for the Comprehensive Plan Update EIR. Palo Alto Public Safety Building and Parking
Garage Draft EIR City of Palo Alto 8. Geology and Soils January 4, 2018 Page 8-3 T:\10754 Palo Alto
PSB EIR\DEIR\8 (10754).doc the earthquake source (e.g., magnitude, location, and area of causative fault surface), distance from the fault, and amplification effects of local geologic deposits."
This along with the paragraphs preceding it have been removed. It appears most of the Geology and
Soils section starting on page 158 in the DEIR has been removed. This includes section 8.1.1, 8.1.2,
8.1.3 from the DEIR. Was this intentional? If so,why? Do you plan to fix it?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 9:00 AM
2
Also, I noticed in section 3.4.3 all mentions of aesthetic enhancements were removed on page 117 of
the FEIR were removed. Does that mean the plan is to build a much less attractive building? On page 113 it appears you reducing from 2 vehicle ramps to one for the PSB garage and along with
removal of emergency access on page 112?
Please let me know about the above issues Hamilton Hitchings
1-650-862-9657 (mobile)
*1 Goal #2:To locate the City’s Police Department, Office of Emergency Services, Emergency Operations Center, Emergency Communications (911 Dispatch) Center, and Fire Administration Division operations within a facility that meets the standards of an essential services facility to
substantially increase the probability of maintaining operation after a major earthquake, natural
disaster, or other substantial disruption or disaster.
On Monday, May 21, 2018, 9:47:34 AM PDT, Raschke, Matt <Matt.Raschke@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
Dear Commenter,
Thank you for your comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Palo Alto Public Safety Building
(PSB) and California Avenue Parking Garage at 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue, respectively. The Final EIR with response to your comments has been published and is available for download at
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/infrastructure_plan/psb_and_cal_ave_garage.asp
Hardcopies of the document are also available for review at the following locations:
1. Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, 6th Floor, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
2. Downtown Library, 270 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
3. College Terrace Library, 2300 Wellesley St., Palo Alto CA 94306
4. Mitchell Park Library, 3700 Middlefield Rd, Palo Alto CA 94303
5. Rinconada Library, 1213 Newell Rd., Palo Alto CA 94303
Additionally, the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) by Fehr & Peers in the Draft EIR was revised (with a revision date
of May 2, 2018) for the following changes:
1. Revised TIA Section 7.0 Other Transportation Considerations, Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT), pages 58 to 62.
2. Deleted under TIA Section 2.0 Existing Conditions, Bay Area Bike Share, pages 20 to 21.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 9:00 AM
3
The full revised TIA dated May 2, 2018 is also available for download on the project webpage at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/infrastructure_plan/psb_and_cal_ave_garage.asp
City Council resolution of approval of the Final EIR is tentatively scheduled for June 11, 2018. When available, the
agenda for that Council meeting will be posted at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council/default.asp
Thank you,
Matt Raschke
Project Manager
Matt Raschke, PE | Senior Engineer 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650.496.5937 | E: matt.raschke@cityofpaloalto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
View our other Infrastructure Plan Projects at www.Infrastructure.cityofpaloalto.org.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 9:02 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Bret Andersen <bretande@pacbell.net>
Sent:Sunday, June 03, 2018 11:53 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hodge, Bruce; 'David Coale'; Altieri, Lisa; Hays, Walt
Subject:Case for Reconsidering the Parking Garage Projects and related Funding and EIR
Attachments:Letter to Council re Cal Ave Parking Structure.pdf
Honorable Council Members,
Please find attached a letter from Carbon Free Palo Alto presenting the case for reconsidering the proposed California
Avenue and Downtown parking garages and the related Environmental Impact Report and Funding proposals on the
June 4th Council Agenda.
Carbon Free Palo Alto
Honorable Council Members,
We would like to reiterate the need to evaluate alternatives to moving ahead with the planned
California Avenue and Downtown parking garage projects.
These two projects make up the majority of the 2018 budget shortfall that is causing the City to
explore politically and economically detrimental ways to raise taxes in order to fund them. The
budget crisis is also forcing the City consider deep cuts to its operations in 2019 . The proposed 1
garages were conceived of before 2014, prior to the current proliferation of alternatives to
driving and parking demand management techniques. To our knowledge, there has been no
formal consideration of the other available courses of action to address the demand for parking
that ostensibly justifies the building of these structures.
This situation alone should compel the Council to carefully reconsider the garage projects. But
the projects are also prohibitively expensive (on a per parking space basis). And they are huge,
single purpose, car-centric investments that run counter to our community’s recognized
transportation and infrastructure strategies and goals. Among the much better alternatives
described below, the most obvious is to expand the Palo Alto TMA to reduce parking demand.
That approach completely aligns with our transportation plans at a tiny fraction of the cost of
building new parking garages.
The garage projects represent $65M of the capital budget shortfall.
The March 20, 2018 Finance Committee Staff Report presented the enormous potential savings
from cancelling or deferring the garage projects based on the 2018 budget in the table below.
The savings are even higher now as project costs escalate. The California Avenue project cost
stands at $47M in the 2019 budget and it quite likely could exceed $50M due to cost escalation 2
and overruns before it is complete.
1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65197
2 2019 Fiscal Year Capital Budget, p110: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64860
The garage projects are prohibitively expensive on a per space basis.
The California Avenue garage, for example, was proposed in large part to satisfy the demand
for parking during the limited, lunchtime peak. In its January 22 presentation to Council on the
City Infrastructure plan, City staff described it as a “$75,000 per space for a 2-hour need”
solution (see slide below). 3
The cost rises to $120,000 per space if one considers only the 335 net new spaces created.
The cost of building new parking is prohibitively expensive while we have proven means of
reducing the demand for such parking that cost on the order of one tenth as much.
The Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) offers an alternative that is
far cheaper and much more flexible and valuable to our community.
The TMA is already successfully promoting the use of alternatives to driving and parking in the
downtown area. It provides hundreds of small business and service employees incentives to
use transit, carpool, bike, walk or rideshare instead of driving to downtown. Highlights from this
3 Jan 22, 2018 City Council Meeting staff presentation, Potential Solutions section, p10.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63341
March 2018 Palo Alto Online article reveal the TMA’s impact and how it plans to build on its
success : 4
●Rate of workers driving alone declinedby 10% (from 80 to 70%) in just one year (2016 to
2017)
●Goal is to shift 30% or 1,650 drivers to other modes in the next several years
●Budget is $450K for 2018
●Aims to increase transit pass use from 200 in 2018 to 700 in 3 years and 1000 in 5 years
●Scoop and Waze carpooling programs currently serve 160+ users and aim to serve 300
users in 3 years and 600 users in 5 years. These are the TMA’s cheapest programs to
provide.
●Aims to add 100 to 150 riders to shuttles in 3 to 5 years
●TMA board will consider expanding to the California Avenue business district if funding is
available
We should consider expanding the TMA to the California Avenue district. We conservatively
estimate the cost at $4.8M over 10 years (10 times the current TMA’s 2018 budget which covers
a much larger zone). The TMA results noted above indicate that this could reduce parking
space demand by the hundreds. This is commensurate with the size of the proposed California
Avenue garage at 335 new spaces yet would cost 10 times less!
Subsidized ride hailing alone could eliminate the need to build more public parking.
Cities are working with Uber, Lyft and others providers to achieve this today. It is a flexible way
to reduce parking demand and avoid building garages.
●Summit, NJ is an example of a town that uses subsidized ride hailing to avoid building a
parking lot. 5
●Neighboring Mountain View and Menlo Park are already pursuing this option to reduce
parking demand in their downtown districts . Using the Mountain View example of a 50% 6
subsidy, the cost for Palo Alto to provide enough rides to avoid the need for the
California Ave. garage could be about $418k. That is less than 1% of the cost to build
the new garage. This assumes 335 rides per day avoids 335 parking spaces at up to $5
per ride within Palo Alto 250 business days a year.
●Volume and fixed arrangements with ride hailing companies reduce the cost to the City
and users of subsidized services. For popular routes, fixed shuttles are on offer at ride
hailing companies. They are being tried in San Francisco using Lyft Shuttle . The 7 8
service is still being tested but is getting good reviews and is expanding. It costs 2 to 3
times less than a standard Lyft Line ride.
4 https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/03/14/palo-alto-nonprofit-revs-up-efforts-to-reduce-traffic
5 https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/3/13147680/uber-new-jersey-free-ride-parking-lot-train-commute
6 https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2017/07/24/menlo-park-city-could-help-pay-for-uber-lyft-rides
7 https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/New-Lyft-Shuttle-service-launches-with-fixed-SF-11049922.php
8 https://www.lyft.com/shuttle
Ride hailing, carpooling, micro-bus and shuttle services from private providers will continue to
proliferate because they use existing infrastructure to generally deliver better service at a lower
cost than driving and parking. They will likely play an important role moving forward as Palo Alto
improves its transportation options in its commercial districts.
Other measures that will reduce driving and parking demand.
Palo Alto’s bike share program will bring hundreds of bikes and scooters to the streets starting
in 2018 at no cost to the city. Paid parking also motivates drivers to think about alternatives.
Metered parking is already the norm in many Peninsula cities. Palo Alto could introduce
metered parking in commercial districts and expand permit programs where needed to preserve
it for neighboring residences. Finally, the electrification of Caltrain is projected to increase daily
ridership by 21% overall and should be operating by 2022. Caltrain serves both downtown and 9
California Avenue areas.
Funding alternatives to driving and parking. Funding new parking structures from general tax
money is regressive in nature including the current favorites, increased hotel and real estate
transfer taxes. In the words of Donald Shoup, Research Professor in the Department of Urban
Planning at UCLA, “A city where everyone happily pays for everyone else’s free parking is a
fool’s paradise”. 10
The less costly alternatives to the garages give Palo Alto more funding options that more
effectively target the beneficiaries of such services, for example:
●Instituting a business tax. Palo Alto is one of the few cities in the region that don’t collect
this tax.
●Institute a district tax for each business district to help pay for transportation services
The garage projects run counter to our official community transportation development
plans. The Comp and Sustainability Implementation Plans (CP and SIP) reflect years of
consensus building effort with city leadership, staff and community members. They direct us to
responsibly invest public funds in efficient and flexible alternative transportation modes and
services that lower costs and bring other quality of life, productivity and economic benefits. They
recognize the hidden cost of public parking and the trends that are moving us away from a
car-centric infrastructure. We should accept their challenge to find more intelligent and effective
ways to improve our transportation services than building public parking facilities.
In conclusion, we believe that both garage projects are probably unnecessary and a waste of
money and real estate. We recommend that the City Council at least delay these projects and
9 http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Electrification/PCEP+Fact+Sheet+Nov+2017.pdf
10 https://www.accessmagazine.org/spring-2016/cutting-the-cost-of-parking-requirements/
call for a more complete analysis of the costs and benefits of cancelling them in light of the
much more promising and beneficial alternatives at hand.
Sincerely,
Carbon Free Palo Alto
Lisa Altieri
Bret Andersen
David Coale
Bruce Hodge
Walt Hayes
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:52 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Amy Keohane <amykeohane@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 05, 2018 11:36 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Corner of Bryant & Everett a mess
I am not sure who approves all ridiculous plans to " traffic calm" but they are bad. Mr Mello is producing all
this "great ideas" which no one seems to like. There has been so many complaints in the south and now the
North. I am a bike rider and I for one do not like to be pushed into cars. What was wrong with the current
intersection? You can't see around the stupid planters. I just don't see the point. What does the council do
about all these expensive plans that have gone bad. Why does this guy still have a job?
Here is another email on Nextdoor‐
I just left a voicemail outlining my concerns of the corner in front of my home. It is a MESS! It blocks the cross walk from
Going across EverettAve. I have to walk around it; I have seen joggers leaping over it. The bags that hold the gravel are broken
and gravel is spilling out, the street sweeper is unable to sweep in front of my home. Last week somehow one of the tubes had
been moved into the street. Who can I email about my concerns since no one answered the City line???? Very frustrated!
Amy Keohane
650‐346‐5306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:53 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ken Joye <kmjoye@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 05, 2018 4:43 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:June 12th meeting on NTSBB phase 1
The City Council will be conducting a special study session on June 12th, at which time staff will be presenting
a review of the NTSBB phase1. I will not be able to attend that study session, but wish to send you my
thoughts regarding Staff Report 65305.
I support the establishment of a network of shared paths, bikeways and traffic-calmed streets. A hierarchy of
streets which balances the needs of all users in a safe and appropriate manner is of great value to both residents
and workers traversing Palo Alto roadways. Some streets in our community should be prioritized for bicycle
traffic, just as some are for automobiles.
There are residents who believe that the NTSBB phase1 improvements made on Ross Rd are not safe; though I
do not share their position, I do believe that they raise their concern sincerely and that it may be difficult for you
to allay their concern. The best way for our community to get through this is to slow down, both in our vehicles
and our rhetoric. Please proceed judiciously.
I ask that you re-affirm our long-established goals of creating a sustainable transportation system and reducing
single-occupancy automobile trips.
Thank you for your work maintaining our city infrastructure,
Ken Joye
Ventura neighborhood
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:54 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:buixote@gmail.com on behalf of Bill Michel <bmichel@alum.pomona.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, June 06, 2018 7:17 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Middlefield Bike Improvements
Dear Councilmembers,
It's never been clear to me how visible the activities of PABAC have been to the Council, or whether their proceedings are officially recorded. In light of these
questions, I'm copying you on some recent correspondence.
Thank you for your attention.
Yours truly,
Bill Michel
city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
June 6, 2018
337 Lowell St.
Redwood City, CA 94062
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
City of Palo Alto
Hello PABAC Members,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:54 AM
2
I'm not sure what involvement PABAC has had with the recent changes to Middlefield, and/or whether and to
what degree cyclist input was considered.
I would like to share with you some of my reactions.
The project at Jordan has decreased cyclist safety. The pole in the road NB at the beginning/end of the dual-
flow lane is a collision hazard. Contraflow traffic past driveways on California is dangerous. Conditions for
cyclists travelling Northbound(sic) past the School are degraded; entry and exit to/from the “facility” are awkward.
I'm wondering if this thing conforms to any existing, bona fide design guidelines. I cannot imagine any proper,
safety-conscious design guidelines allowing such a facility.
At the North end of Town, there are also sign posts in the Roadway (SB Middlefield @ Palo Alto Ave.) these are un-necessary, and a clear hazard to cyclists. Better alternatives abound. Shoulder striping is un-necessary,
and tapering the stripe to the curb at intersections provides inappropriate visual cues to both cyclists and
motorists. The stripe should be eliminated and replaced with sharrows. The sidewalk on the East side (between
Palo Alto & Woodland Aves) needs to be widened, collision hazards removed. A curb-cut at the North End should be added. It might also be a good idea to consider a rolled curb, instead of a square one, to permit
“emergency escape” by cyclists.
Yours truly,
Bill Michel
cc: Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 11:19 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:George Jaquette <jaquette@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 06, 2018 10:38 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Stop the construction, insist that the traffic analysis is completed before doing any
more work
Gregory, Tom, Eric, Adrian, Karen, Liz, Lydia, Greg & Cory-
I requested (via the California Public Records Act) the traffic analysis that the city paid Alta Design to do in the design contract. The city cannot produce the data required under contract, and the data that was provided is insufficient to support the design elements built on Ross Road (let alone to justify the cost). Rather than a week of detailed information, there are two days of partial information. There is no analysis of the bike traffic, as specifically called out in the contract, and no count of pedestrians.
Traffic data collection will be conducted by the CONSULT ANT upon approval by CITY, and is anticipated to include:
• Seven days of vehicle speed and classification hose counts along each project route (up to 15 locations)
• Seven days of bicyclist and pedestrian counts using video including information on directionality, for each project, one
count will include approximate information regarding bicyclist type (age, gender, helmet use)‐ (up to 15 locations) ∙
• Where appropriate, intersection peak hour turning movement counts (up to 16 total)
The US Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration published a helpful document called "Roundabouts: An
Informational Guide". That guide has useful insights in Section 4.2 titled "Data Requirements". Knowing the number of vehicles,
bikes, and pedestrians is critical to designing traffic control measures. Alta Design did not collect this information, and obviously
cannot now collect data from the past.
The City of Palo Alto paid Alta Design $400,000 with the express mandate that they collect traffic data and analyze it.
Alta Design did NOT collect the required data, and did not analyze it per the contract.
The City of Palo Alto should stop all new construction until Alta Design collects the necessary information to justify the
changes proposed for other intersections around the city. Changes are planned in front of an elementary school, and adjacent to (for Palo Alto) high density housing on Amarillo, and it is critical that they address this past shortcoming by collecting and analyzing the data that the city paid them to collect and analyze. Given data that was collected by residents living near the intersection of East Meadow and Ross Road and posted online, the
intersection has very high bicycle volume. The only suitable treatment would have been a mini-roundabout, where all islands are
traversable and the lanes should NOT be constricted to either a bicycle or a car -- the design as built has been shown to
increase the danger to bikers. The raised traffic circle should be removed, the bulbouts should be eliminated, and the rolled
curbs should be restored.
The announcement by the city on March 30th that they were re-evaluating all of these design changes turned out to be a misleading promise. Our chief transportation official was hired from Alta Design, and he assembled a group of consultants who make money off of city transportation projects to review the work done by his prior firm. Eight of the thirteen people participating in this review were city employees or Alta Design employees; the questions posed in the recently published analysis reflect the bias towards defending this project ("do you have any concerns...?"). The outside experts spent three hours reviewing a presentation, which does not reflect the rigorous and quantitative review that citizens expect when safety matters are being reviewed. Where was the devil's advocate questioning the whole project? Where was any discussion of accident analysis? Both
went missing.
Here are a few questions that were not asked:
1. The standard for roundabout design in the UK and Canada is for a minimum inscribed circle diameter of 90 feet;
below that, only a mini-roundabout with completely traversable islands would be considered. What justifies the
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 11:19 AM
2
exceptional design built at East Meadow and Ross Road? "In the UK the minimum size for roundabouts with raised islands is 28 metre diameter ICD with a 4-metre diameter island."
2. An international study on roundabout safety found that smaller roundabouts, and low-speed roundabouts, actually result in an increase in bike-car accidents. Why did we build a small, low-speed roundabout at the intersection of East Meadow and Ross Road? o "converting intersections to roundabouts reduce the number of accidents and reduce accident severity. But the safety effects for cyclists are not so good. The overall picture is that studies indicate that bicycle safety is worsened when intersections are converted to roundabouts. However, intersection design, roundabout design and other characteristics of converted sites influence safety effects for cyclists and other road users. This influence is considerable and safety effects in Table 1 should not be generalised due to excessive heterogeneity
(Jensen, 2013)." Table 1 shows a 22% increase in bicycle accidents. The increase in bicycle accidents is especially high in lower-speed intersections. Table 2 shows a 109% increase in bicycle accidents for intersections with a speed limit of 25 mph (40 kmh). Last but not least, the report calls out small roundabouts
as dangerous: "Brude and Larsson 1999a find that the accident rate for cyclists is twice as high at small
roundabouts, where the central island including truck aprons is less than 20m, compared to larger roundabouts".
The article is titled: Accident Analysis and Prevention Safe Roundabouts for Cyclists by Soren Underlien
Jensen published September 13, 2016
3. If Alta Design did not collect comprehensive traffic data the city paid for and implemented these major changes, how is the city going to be able to show an improvement in bicycle ridership? What measurements does the city have to reflect an improvement, as anecdotal evidence indicates that riders are avoiding this intersection? 4. We have been unable to find a similar intersection retrofit anywhere in the United States. Can you provide a list of similar designs (under 90-feet ICD, with a 34' raised traffic circle and 15' travel lanes)? We would love to understand
the safety history of these intersections, because our anecdotal experience is that ours is dangerous. Can you point
to similar designs in the US, and can you attest that they have increased safety there?
5. Traffic safety is typically the justification for making this type of significant investment in bulbouts, roundabouts, and
barriers. How many accidents, and what type of accidents, have occurred in the past ten years at each of the
locations where construction has happened and where it has been proposed?
Until Alta Design completes their traffic analysis, the city really should stop implementing these designs. It is clear that many residents oppose the changes, and they may really be dangerous. We do not have the necessary traffic analysis to support the investment nor the design, so we certainly should not rush forward reproducing these changes in other parts of the city. We should consider undoing the changes that have been made, based on our design agency's failure to collect the information required under contract. Alta Design should pay for the restoration of our bike lanes on East Meadow, and should be asked to explain and document why they did not perform to the clear expectations of the City's contract with them. Thank you for your service.
George Jaquette
-- George Jaquette
email: jaquette@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:49 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Angela Dellaporta <asdellaporta@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 05, 2018 12:41 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:2755 El Camino - Agenda Item #8
Dear Council Members --
What does "workforce housing" mean to you? Doesn't it imply that teachers in our local schools, and nurses who work at our local hospitals, will live there? Doesn't it imply also that a few people who staff small local
retail businesses might be able to live there?
The current plans for 2755 El Camino will NOT allow teachers or nurses -- even those at the top of the pay
scale -- to live there, let alone local workers who are not professionals.
How can it possibly be called "workforce housing"?
Upzoning 2755 El Camino will enrich the developer and NOT serve the public, as that parcel of land was
intended for.
Be sure that local residents will note and remember what you decide to do with this piece of property.
Angela Dellaporta
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:48 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Susan Kemp <skemp650@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 6:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:2755 El Camino Real - please do not subvert public benefit space to benefit luxury unit
development with insufficient parking
I am writing to say I do not support the proposed luxury development at 2755 El Camino Real whose plans
include insufficient parking.
Allowing the developer to convert public facility zoning to build luxury housing with no other benefit to the City of Palo Alto except housing that only those with higher income could afford and allowing the developer to claim that less parking would be needed due to the closeby transit options isn't fair to the citizens of Palo Alto.
It especially isn't fair to the surrounding neighborhood which already has a parking shortage.
Please do not allow this development in its current configuration. Future developers would likely find it beneficial to sue the City if they don't get similar favorable treatment. Meanwhile, affordable housing is the most pressing need in this city.
Susan Kemp
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:49 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Margaret Heath <maggi650@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 8:43 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:2755 El Camino Real Upzoning
Dear Council Members,
Having just returned from being out of town I only learned this evening that this item is on tonight’s council agenda.
Although my observations come too late for you to read prior to the council discussion, I want to add my voice
to those who believe that upzoning a public facility property, a rare designation which should be used for the
broadest public benefit, is an abuse of the public trust. Especially to permanently tie up a rare piece of land designated for use as a public facility with luxury apartments, where even the least expensive will be high-end
apartments for those making 140% AMI.
And it is most certainly not the public’s responsibility, as represented by our city employees and elected leaders,
to upzone a public facility property to ensure that a private for-profit company does not incur a loss on it’s gamble to buy land for luxury apartments knowing it is land zoned for use as a public facility.
There are many reasons why this particular site is not suited to housing. But if you believe housing is the best
use of this land, especially during a time when log-term residents are being forced out by large rent hikes, at
least reserve your approval for use for non-profit BMR housing. Although wise city planning might keep this rare piece of land available to allow flexibility in the future as the broader public needs can change over time.
There are many other reasons that at this time this particular housing project for this site is poor city planning.
In particular, city staff have yet to produce any solid data to demonstrate that the under parked developments
already approved and built with the guarantee of “robust” TDM’s even have TDM’s at all. Growing suspicions that promising “car lite” and “robust” TDM’s is a scam have yet to be alleviated.
Like many others, I will be at home watching your discussion with great interest.
Sincerely,
Margaret Heath
2140 Cornell Street
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2018 1:06 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Thursday, May 31, 2018 3:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Avenidas and TDRs
Council Members,
Thanks to Vice Mayor Filseth and Councilwoman Kou for opposing Avenidas TDRs.
Apparently the city is willing to override zoning codes, as long as the price is right. How about the price residents pay in
higher density, more traffic congestion and reduced quality of life?
This end run around city planning and zoning could be ended if you would ban the use of TDRs, which I strongly urge you
to do.
I agree with Kou that the plans for the Avenidas addition desecrates the site. If a homeowner had a historic house and
tried to add such a modern addition, the ARB and planning department would surely prohibit it.
Thank you,
Pat Marriott Palo Alto property owner
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 9:02 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Charles Casella <casellapa@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 7:40 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Blocking Churchill rail crossing/road diet
We are particularly concerned about the proposal to block Churchill to vehicles. This route is very
important, to getting patients to hospitals and doctors, getting first responders to emergencies, getting shoppers
to stores and shopping centers and getting commuters to freeways. We anticipate more irritating traffic jams, especially if the plan to put the Arastradero-Charleston corridor "on a diet" is fully implemented.
Please, just say "No" to transportation policy to "Put our roads on a diet." If we add more traffic jams to
high housing costs, our city's desireability and quality of life will suffer in the future.
Sincerely,
Charles and Sherryl Casella
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:59 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Winter Dellenbach <winterdell@earthlink.net>
Sent:Sunday, June 03, 2018 3:05 PM
Subject:Buena Vista Board honored by State Senator Jerry Hill - and much more
Attachments:PastedGraphic-1.pdf; PastedGraphic-2.pdf
L to R - Roberto, Rene, Sen. Hill, Erika, Maria, Sabina
Dear Friends of Buena Vista - Yesterday outside Ada's Cafe, the Board members of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park Association were honored
by our State Senator Jerry Hill. He did so in recognition of their dedicated service as Board members and their efforts to preserve Buena Vista as an affordable housing option to the great benefit to the nearly 400 residents of Buena Vista and to the entire community.
Honored were:
Erika Escalante Rene Escalante Mary Kear (who couldn't be there)
Maria Martinez
Roberto Munoz
Sabrina Ramirez They were each presented a framed Certificate of Recognition that in part stated, "On Behalf of the people of
the State of California's 13th Senate District, please accept our gratitude for your good work and our sincere
best wishes for your future endeavors". Exactly.
It was a beautiful morning with perhaps 60 people attending for one of the "Java with Jerry" sessions that he holds on occasion. This one was attended by several City Council and School Board Trustees there for the BV
folks, along with some Friends of BV of course - it was so good to see you. The Senator was gracious and
enthusiastic in talking about Buena Vista, mentioning details of what members did during the 5 year effort - It
lifted up everyone there, making the morning very special. Thank you Senator Hill for remembering those who took on the hard task of saving their homes, undaunted and
determined. They taught those of us who got to know them to take heart and do the same.
Well done, Sabrina, Roberto, Maria, Mary, Rene and Erika. Take a bow - you helped lead your community then and you continue now in your new role.
Don't miss this weeks article on Buena Vista in the Palo Alto Daily News. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/30/palo-alto-buena-vista-residents-tout-cleaner-safer-park-months-
after-sale/
And - more: Caritas As you know, Buena Vista, though owned by the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County, is managed and
operated by the wonderful non-profit Caritas. Here are 2 programs they recently made available to Buena Vista
residents. As we are at school's end, some BV teens just graduated from Gunn High and are college bound.
Caritas is offering $1000 scholarships, with some qualifications, to these BV students and those up to 25 years of age. What a great and welcome program. Also this summer, a terrific K-12 reading program has been started
where books can be chosen, read and kept, then more books chosen, with rewards given for each book finished
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:59 AM
2
and a short report made. Thank you Caritas and Tom Mauro for not just managing but being involved with
residents and the Board in a positive way.
Have an enjoyable summer, dear Friends. And celebrate the 1 Year Anniversary since saving Buena Vista! Yes
- 1 year as of May 19. So you too get to take a bow. It wouldn't have happened with out you - each an everyone
one of you. So let's say it again and never forget the lesson learned -
Si Se Puede! Yes We Can!
Winter Dellenbach
Friends of Buena Vista
fobv.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:55 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net>
Sent:Sunday, June 03, 2018 10:31 AM
To:PlannerOnDuty; Council, City; Parks
Subject:Dog Park at Peers Park
The new dog park, from my perspective, is a enormous success! People are coming from all over the city to use it. Peers
Park has been my local park for thirty five years. My dog thinks he’s died and gone to heaven. There are many people
using the park who live in the neighborhood or adjacent neighborhoods who have never before had a place to excercise
their dogs. They are ecstatic.
There is one neighbor, Kristin Luehrs, who says that people are now letting their dogs off leash coming and going to the
dog park. I don’t know if this is true or not. She has dogs and doesn’t use the park. Yesterday morning I was there for
ten minutes. Five people (and five dogs) showed up during that time. Each one had their dog leashed until they entered
the enclosure.
It might be worth noting that this is same neighbor who insisted construction on the side (replacement of a window) of
my house stop because the use of power tools (on my property with proper set back) was a threat to her children.
Thank you for the new park.
Deb Goldeen
2130 Birch St., 94306
321‐7375
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:53 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, June 05, 2018 1:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Update on workforce housing project (2755 El Camino)... almost through the
process. Phew!
Thanks to Stephanie, who clearly challenges the notion of 'workforce housing', for what it is, and
instead argues for low-income housing, not middle-upper-middle class housing.
This is a lost opportunity if the city doesn't modify this proposal.
Roberta WILPF LOW-INCOME HOUSING COMMITTEE ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: Update on workforce housing project (2755 El Camino)... almost through the process. Phew! To: Eric Rosenblum <mitericr@gmail.com>, "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu
Cc: Palo Alto Forward Board <board@paloaltoforward.com>
Thanks, Eric, for your good intentions, your hard work and your organizational capability, working for
housing. I have to say I'm disappointed in "workforce housing " because I think large employers should furnish housing for their workers to balance jobs and housing, and public entities should
furnish housing for their employees to protect the taxpayer from constantly escalating salary expense
fueled by home prices, and teachers and firemen are both employees of large companies and
employees of the public, and could, and should, be p rental housing by the PAUSD and the city, on
land already owned by the city. Also, because this property was public VTA property (I don't think it should have been sold to a private developer) and bears the zoning of Public Facility it ought to be
used to fill a public need and the city has more control over it than over other properties. I believe this
property could, and should, be used to house low income people who do not qualify as employees of
the city, namely, the elderly and handicapped who do not own cars, or at least are willing that cars
they happen to own not be garaged near their home, and very low rents of $600 a month for an SRO of 200 feet (plus a room sized non private balcony and some common activity rooms) could be made
possible by much greater density--250 to 300 tenants. Rent controlled, and with a bus-in-residence
to take the residents to the train station, bus or library.
I also believe that because of the existing zoning, ALL of the units, not some should be below market.Cordially, Stephanie Munoz.
From: "Eric Rosenblum" <mitericr@gmail.com>
To: "Palo Alto Forward Board" <board@paloaltoforward.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2018 10:50:47 AM
Subject: Update on workforce housing project (2755 El Camino)... almost through the process. Phew!
Hello everyone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:53 AM
2
You are receiving this because you signed a petition supporting a project intended to provide "transit-
centric housing" to moderate income people in Palo Alto.
On behalf of Palo Alto Forward, I want to thank you: thanks to your efforts, City Council will now do
the final review of this project on Monday. THANK YOU.
Below is the letter that I've delivered to Council on behalf of Palo Alto Forward.
Should any of you feel inspired to write to Council (city.council@cityofpaloalto.org) before
Monday night with your own thoughts, they always like to hear from you :)
Again, thanks for the big effort, and let's keep our fingers crossed on Monday night that Council
listens to our voices and approves 57 units of much-needed housing in a great location! Eric
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Eric Rosenblum <mitericr@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 10:34 AM
Subject: Palo Alto Forward supports the workforce housing development at 2755 El Camino Real
To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, Palo Alto Forward Board <board@paloaltoforward.com>
Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
Palo Alto Forward strongly supports the Workforce Housing project at 2755 El Camino Real, and
hopes that you recommend Council approve it. We have previously submitted petitions to the PTC in
support of this project with a total of over 200 signatures (between 2 separate petitions)
This is the sort of project that Palo Alto Forward was formed around:
Smaller unit size = adding to Palo Alto's housing diversity and options
Great location: located on El Camino 0.5 miles from Caltrain with a host of TDM benefits; it is
also located close to shopping and services, which should enable a car light life-style
An affordability bonus: 12 units are deed restricted for 140-150% AMI; plus additional in-lieu
fees for Palo Alto’s affordable housing fund plus the Combining District ordinance calls for 20% deed restricted units on all future projects.
This is the sort of project that Palo Alto should be building, and the fact that the developer will be
giving preference to Palo Alto employees makes it all the sweeter (also, making it more likely that car-
light lifestyles can be attained).
We would like to acknowledge that there has been past controversy around whether 140-150% AMI
(which is $111-119k for a single renter, $126-135k for a couple, and $143-153k for a 3 person family)
sufficiently low to accomplish the diversity goals that our community desires. We would like to point
out the following:
First year teachers in PAUSD (with just a bachelors degree and no other training) earn $63k/year; this is the lowest teacher salary in the district. If that teacher is married and his/her
partner also works, it is likely that they are well over $120k, which would likely be around the
150% AMI threshold. It is difficult to afford to live in Palo Alto and be a teacher here.
First year fire fighters in Palo Alto earn $85k/year. Average salaries for fire fighters are over
$120k. Firefighters also cannot afford to live here.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:53 AM
3
Average salary for RNs in Santa Clara County is $59/hour, which is $122k (without overtime,
assuming 40 hrs/week and 2 weeks paid vacation). Nurses also cannot afford to live here
In short, 140-150% AMI barely accommodates teachers, nurses, firefighters and dozens of other professions that we depend upon for our community, and whom we would like to have as friends and
neighbors. We hope to put to rest the notion that 120+% AMI is somehow serving the wealthy.
Finally, a note: this project has gotten watered down. It started with 60 units, and got reduced to 57; parking was substantially increased from 45 stalls to 68. We still support this project, because it will add much needed housing (and smaller units no less) to Palo Alto. And it is still car-light. However,
we missed an opportunity to be far more aggressive on TDM measures in exchange for a reduced
parking requirement AND build more units which our community sorely needs.
The combining district will be more powerful in supporting expanded housing options in Palo Alto if it applies to commercial as well as PF zones as being recommended at the Committee to House the
Bay Area (CASA).
We thank you for your consideration, and hope that you will recommend this project.
Sincerely, Eric Rosenblum
President, Palo Alto Forward
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:55 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net>
Sent:Sunday, June 03, 2018 10:56 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing
I just had a conversation at the dog park with another long time Palo Alto resident. He complained about the high cost
of housing and how it had taken decades before he could afford housing here. Followed quickly by a rant about the
density housing that will likely be built on the Fry’s site and how all the poeple who come here should go live in Milpitas
where there was plenty of space, but, God forbid they should need to drive to work because traffic in Palo Alto was
terrible and why can’t we support a decent live music venue (which needs a certain density of population to thrive).
This man was perfectly sane and a perfect example of the mindset of so many people in Palo Alto.
It is the job of leadership to lead. It is not 1980 anymore. Please explain that to my fellow citizens. Thank you.
Deb Goldeen, 2130 Birch St., 94306, 321‐7375
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:48 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Don Nielson <nielsonz@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 7:12 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Item #8 Tonight!!!!
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE quit overbuilding our City. PLEASE stem the urbanization of Palo Alto. Don Nielson, resident
since 1961.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:47 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:craig <ckyana@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 5:28 PM
To:Council, City; Mark Crady
Subject:Lincoln/Middlefield
2 more accidents last week;
Wed. 5/30 at 3:40pm
Fri. 6/1 at 5pm
See pics
6/1/18 5pm
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:47 AM
2
5/30/18
I invite anyone to stand at this intersection 4-6pm any weekday.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 3:08 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mary T <talec09@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 1:12 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Hello,
I heard the Palo Alto animal shelter might close down this year and a new animal shelter/rescue place that will
not euthanize animals (from what I heard) will take over. I just wanted to briefly email you guys to let you know that I hope this will happen, that the Palo alto animal
shelter will close and another animal rescue/shelter will take over.
I want to share my story with you guys. ( I will make it as short as possible) to make a long story short my best
friends beloved healthy puppy was euthanized by the Palo alto animal shelter about 2 yrs. Ago. It saddens and
haunts me as well as Sophie (my best friends name) till this day. Sophie had to move in with me due to unfortunate circumstances while she looked for a place of her own but unfortunately our apt complex doesn't
except animals. Her puppys right paw was injured at the escalator at the airport when sophie was picking up a
relative. We took the puppy to the Palo alto animal shelter in hopes that they can help with her injury for a low
cost and also because I heard this was a good place to find someone that can adopt her puppy as well since we
couldn't keep boobba (the puppies name) at our apt complex. When we got there we made it clear that if booba doesn't get adopted then we'll take her back and try to figure something else out. They told us she would have to
pass a behavior test for her to qualify to stay there and get adopted and that the behavior test would be done on
her the following week so we told them we'll stay in contact to see how she does on the behavior test as booba
has never been around others besides her owner and she's always been an ( in house) puppy living inside the
house with her owner ever since she was a baby and is not use to being anywhere else or other people. We checked in at least 3 times in the following days. We were told the last time we called that they just finished the
behavior test and she isn't doing well cause it seems she didn't pass the behavior test so we told them we would
pick booba up that same week on that weekend when boobas owner sophie is off of work. We called the day
after to let them know were on our way to pick Booba up and got the devastating news that theyve euthanized
booba. Cody the animal trainer euthanized booba and his claim was that booba tried to bite him. Booba was a small sweet puppy and very healthy yet he was euthanized. We couldnt believe they didn't spare her life even
though we told them we we're coming to take her back. Cody seemed like a senseless human being on the
phone and it the animals life that he had taken didn't mean anything. I also couldnt believe how easy it was for
that shelter to euthanize HEALTHY animals just because they didn't pass a behavior test. There are so many
rescue centers they can call that will take the animal in and these are steps that should be taken before u take an animals life. We told them wed pick her up that weekend and instead they killed her the day after....
Never picked up the phone to call us to let us know they changed their mind and shed be dead the next
day...unbelievable. I hope this shelter shuts down so that they can't euthanize another healthy animal and no
other animal will have to come in to contact with Cody the animal control person who works there who was
very rude and cold on the phone with us...he even said "who are you going to call next? Obama?) To us when we told him we wanted to talk to the manager there. Please have a different organization take over the Palo alto
animal shelter who will NOT euthanize healthy animals just because they didn't pass a behavior test.
Regards,
Mary
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:50 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:E Nigenda <enigenda1@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 05, 2018 7:30 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Keene, James
Subject:NYT: Cyberattacks Put Russian Fingers on the Switch at Power Plants, U.S. Says
Dear City Council,
Cyberattacks Put Russian Fingers on the Switch at Power Plants, U.S. Says
Regardless of our "guaranteed water supply", the possibility exists that the power grid and/or our water supply
will be disrupted, not merely for days (El Camino Reservoir) but for weeks or months.
I believe it's important to have a robust backup plan: microgrids, solar power, batteries, EVs, etc. AND protect our local water source - groundwater.
Thank you for your service to our community,
Esther Nigenda, Ph.D.
Save Palo Alto's Groundwater
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:48 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 7:46 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:# 8. on Agenda---140% is NOT Low-Income Housing!
Please DO NOT approve this project!!!!
What a SCAM!
1. The rents will be uncontrolled: 10% (6 units) for people who earn 150% of AMI another 10% (6 units) for 140% - why are we subsidizing
the building of luxury housing? This is NOT what the term "workforce housing" connotes … it might be more expensive than any place else
in the City.
2, Not one single unit will be truly BMR - To call this "Workforce Housing" is disingenuous. 3. Once a PF zoned site is gone, it's gone forever; we've lost the opportunity to build truly low-income housing forever. 4. The numbers don't add up: Private developer gets a big fat profit at public expense? The public gets nothing. This is a developer giveaway! 5. Applying this to all PF zones in the City puts a target on all the PF zoned sites. Private developers will sue if they don't get the same
generous treatment with kid gloves.
6. We need LOW INCOMEl housing - why is the City asking private developers to solve the housing crisis? Other communities get in the
business of building housing - work meaningfully with THE PA HOUSING CORP OR OTHER non-profit orgs. Private companies are
motivated by PROFIT. 7 THIS IS a betrayal of the public trust. Why would you support public money going into private hands? 8. Finally, don't allow it to be underparked it doesn't make sense. . There are too many opportunities for parking intrusion into the already saturated Mayfield -- we'll only have people's word they aren't parking in the neighborhoods.
9. There are no funds to police and enforce the parking 10. The city can't even figure out who bought all the parking permits they've sold in the current programs
throughout the city, so there is no teeth in the way the RPPs are currently managed.
11. The parking is unbundled so the owners can charge people extra for parking, which also encourages skirting the rules. There is no legal way to make sure that the people that live there won't have cars. To say that people who work don't have cars is not accurate. Even if fewer people own cars, we have more people than
ever living in Palo Alto with plans for more housing so the number of cars will go up, even if the percentage of
ownership goes down.
These are a few major concerns. Rethink this plan! We need LOW INCOME HOUSING, NOT HOUSING
FOR THE 'MISSING MIDDLE'.
Sincerely,
Roberta Ahlquist, member of WILPF Low-Income Housing Committee
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 9:03 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Eric Hahn <eric@hahnfamily.com>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 9:02 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Elaine Hahn
Subject:Opposition to widening Embarcadero Road
We've lived near Embarcadero Road for 30 years. While not opposed to the city's growth in general,
I am vehemently opposed to widening Embarcadero Road for these reasons:
1) Many school kids are already at substantial risk of traffic injury due to the at-grade pedestrian
crossings at Paly & Walter Hayes.
2) the noise and neighborhood congestion is already significant. In particular, the traffic situation
at Town and Country is already unbearable.
3) The primary beneficiaries of Embarcadero road expansion are non-residents.
4) We already have the Oregon Expressway which could/should be enhanced instead.
Thank-you.
-Eric Hahn
____________________________________
Eric Hahn
eric@hahnfamily.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:51 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:angeline.f.lim@gmail.com on behalf of Dr. Lim <drlim@duetplasticsurgery.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 05, 2018 9:12 AM
To:Transportation; City Mgr; Council, City
Subject:Pedestrian safety at Churchill and ECR
Hello City of Palo Alto,
Are there any updates on plans to improve pedestrian safety at the intersection of Churchill Avenue and El Camino Real?
Since the implementation of the Southgate RPP and business employees of have been forced to find parking on
the frighteningly hazardous ECR, the rate of near-misses for those of us trying to get to our offices has
skyrocketed.
This morning a "gentleman" in a large truck nearly killed me as I was crossing Churchill with the light, then
proceeded to stop his car, backing up oncoming traffic from ECR, to hurl verbal insults at me as I walked to my
workplace.
I feel less and less safe coming to work in Palo Alto.
Looking forward to your reply on this Election Day.
Angeline Lim, M.D.
--
Angeline Lim, M.D.
D U E T Plastic Surgery, A Medical Corporation 1515 El Camino Real, Suite D
Palo Alto, California 94306
650.380.0415
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:49 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:atkinsonkim@pacbell.net
Sent:Saturday, June 02, 2018 11:19 AM
To:Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal)
Subject:Please relocate porta-potty
To the Palo Alto City Council, and Mayor Liz Kniss,
I apologize for writing a second time about the development at the top of Arastradero
Open Space Preserve. Something new was noticed up there today.
Hiking there today, Saturday June 2, revealed views of a bright turquoise‐colored porta‐potty
at the private construction site, seen from park trails, evidenced by the photos taken today ‐shown below.
Your writer here, a life‐long resident and Palo Alto taxpayer, is commenting on behalf of other hikers who
were up there today, and possibly for many other Palo Alto residents and tax payers:
‐ The porta‐potty should not be visible from park trails. This is not a construction project for public benefit.
‐ The damage being done to this once‐natural hillside does not seem to be consistent with
city laws protecting open space views from our public parks.
‐ The natural view‐shielding plantings that were promised last year are not evident,
however plenty of hardscape is emerging.
What was once an “open space” park is soon going to feel like the backyard of a private 9000+ square foot mansion
to hikers.
This jewel of a park, with open sky views at the top, has been spoiled.
There is a serious responsibility of stewardship to the city by the council. Decisions you make can have far‐reaching
and long range impacts on the lives of residents here. Hopefully great caution and restraint will be used in
considering any future development to beautiful and charming downtown Palo Alto, particularly anything high‐rise.
Your decisions affect our quality of life here, and they affect our property values.
Thank you,
Kim Atkinson
1753 Middlefield Road
PA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:49 AM
2
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:49 AM
3
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:48 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:CeCi Kettendorf <cecihome@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 7:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:RE: Agenda 8 item: 2755 ECR June 4th, 2018
Dear Council Members:
Yet again, you will cave tonight to developers by approving under-parked buildings. Your irresponsible vote is based on bogus surveys, commissioned by those who benefit from the false data. You choose to answer to the developers who funded you; you profit from your conflict of interest vote since your LLC real
estate holdings in Palo Alto gain value because of your vote.
The citizenry should have know that your campaign fraud debacles in which you took money from
developers was just the beginning of the erosion of livability in Palo Alto. Your sanctioning of under-
parked buildings is a betrayal of the public trust.
CeCi Kettendorf
3719 Grove Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:50 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 05, 2018 2:25 AM
To:chuck jagoda
Cc:Council, City; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Paul George @ PPJC; Stop the Ban Google
Discussion Group; Roberta Ahlquist; Eric Rosenblum; Becky Johnson; Gregorio, Rose;
Robert Norse; J S; Pamela Chesavage; Bains, Paul; Jen Hoey Padgett; Housing 1000;
housingforallsv@gmail.com; Kelcy Fleming; Blanca Bosquez; Sandy Perry-HCA;
dprice@padailypost.com; Jason Green; MN Letters; Andrew Burnham
Subject:Re: How bad a housing crisis can be
I agree with the principles Mr. Costelloe enunciates, that you catch more flies with honey...but we're
all using as much honey as can be found, and , aslthough I'm sure they have good intentions--why
else would they keep on appearing week after week? they really don't seem too
responsive, so Chuck's sarcasm is not too offensive to me if it cathces their attention. I wouldn't call
it mudslinging. Stephanie
From: "chuck jagoda" <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>
To: "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: "WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto" <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>, "Paul George @ PPJC" <peaceandjusticecenter@gmail.com>, "Stop the Ban Google Discussion Group"
<STB_Discussion@googlegroups.com>, "Roberta Ahlquist" <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>, "Eric
Rosenblum" <mitericr@gmail.com>, "Becky Johnson" <becky_johnson222@hotmail.com>,
"Gregorio, Rose" <rose.gregorio57@gmail.com>, "Robert Norse" <rnorse3@hotmail.com>, "J S"
<julieannschaul@gmail.com>, "Pamela Chesavage" <pamela@chesavage.com>, "Paul Bains" <pbains7@projectwehope.com>, "Jen Hoey Padgett" <jenhoeypadgett@gmail.com>, "Housing 1000"
<jennifer@destinationhomescc.org>, housingforallsv@gmail.com, "Kelcy Fleming"
<KFleming_2011@yahoo.com>, "Blanca Bosquez" <Blanca.Bosquez@faf.sccgov.org>, "Sandy
Perry-HCA" <perrysandy@aol.com>, dprice@padailypost.com, "Jason Green"
<jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com>, "MN Letters" <letters@mercurynews.com>, "stephanie" <stephanie@dslextreme.com>, "Andrew Burnham" <acburnham@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, June 4, 2018 8:55:47 AM
Subject: How bad a housing crisis can be
To the Palo Alto City Council,
I believe that Palo Alto is not taking the housing crisis seriously enough. Council is entirely too
complacent and way too friendly to the big developers, way too dismissive toward those who cannot
afford Palo Alto's burgeoning housing prices, and totally forgetful towards those who have already
been pushed out of housing and into their cars and tents.
Perhaps this reminder of how bad it can get will help jog you out of your complacent, stubborn
refusals to do anything about housing other than briefly and dismissively considering rent control
before going back to hiding your heads in the sand which never works.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:50 AM
2
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/02/business/economy/vancouver-housing.html
Chuck Jagoda
PS
It would be nice if our mayor, Liz Kniss, would allow office hours so that citizens could come and talk
with, and possibly even educate, her.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:54 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rita Lancefield <ritalance@comcast.net>
Sent:Wednesday, June 06, 2018 9:34 AM
To:Amores, Jim
Cc:Council, City; Keene, James
Subject:Sidewalk repairs
Dear Mr. Amores,
The crew from the city has just finished replacing the dangerously unlevel sidewalk in front of our
home at 189 Walter Hays Drive. I am writing to commend all of them for a job well done. The crew,
consisting of Dan Hagemann, Manuel Ruiz, Miguel Gallegos, and Juan Granados were efficient, friendly, knowledgable, and very careful in their work. The job they did is beautiful, and we are very
appreciative. Thank you for having such good men on your team.
Rita and Rob Lancefield
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2018 1:05 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Admin Account <office@fbcpaloalto.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 30, 2018 12:48 PM
To:Council, City; hello@bayareanewsgroup.com; editor@paweekly.com;
news@padailypost.com
Subject:STATEMENT FROM FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF PALO ALTO
A STATEMENT FROM FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF PALO ALTO
We at First Baptist Church of Palo Alto regret deeply the difficulties caused by the tweets of our former associate minister, Gregory Stevens. His choice of language was offensive and highly unprofessional. By mutual agreement, Mr. Stevens resigned
his position on May 17. We want to reassure everyone that those tweets in no way
express the views of our congregation. Our mission is to worship, educate, serve,
and build community. Our guiding principle is love. Dan B. Cudworth Randle R. (Rick) Mixon
Moderator Pastor
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:57 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Adequacy Assurance <adequacyassurance@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 03, 2018 1:04 PM
To:adequacyassurance@gmail.com
Subject:U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT /EDUCATORS /PRESS: STOP THE THEFTS FROM AMERICAN
CITIZENS, & ENFORCE OUR RIGHTS TO TRIAL BY JURY
U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT /EDUCATORS
/PRESS:
STOP THE THEFTS FROM AMERICAN CITIZENS, & ENFORCE
OUR RIGHTS TO TRIAL BY JURY
California Institute of Science
Adequacy Assurance-Collegiate (Constitutional) Research Group
______________________________
Dear Honorable Law Enforcement Officers,
I would like to bring your attention to the “Juryless Process Abuse Epidemic”, that is currently plaguing our country, and unlawfully stripping away assets from some of our most vulnerable citizens/seniors…a situation that we have become aware of---and seen the evidence. Too often “juryless” courts are being used as a tool to racketeer/steal assets from American hard working citizens & families, and intentionally wrongly award them to probate networks including “attorneys“, “guardians”, “fiduciaries”, etc., via cooperating “probate/juryless judges”, acting in contravention to law. These
racketeering uses of our court facilities, "federally and state defined felonies" (of the corruption, obstruction, grand theft/embezzlement, jury, witness, & evidence tampering, etc. varieties), are immensely adding-to/creating the civil unrest, chaos, crime & debt rates on the streets....which in turn is endangering, harming, and KILLING POLICE OFFICERS and the general citizenry alike, this very day. Just recently, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reported a 61% increase in police officers killed this very year...NOW IS THE TIME TO PROSECUTE!
I am of the great hope that you, from your position and dedication to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and your personal stake herein, will take the necessary steps to ensure that these abuses are stopped and due process is in fact being provided and protected, including minimally: 1.Identify courts operating without juries in your area & jurisdiction, detailing those sitting without a jury in the courtroom, as well as those without sufficient jury review and oversight of “proposed findings” and litigant objections, etc.
2.Ensure that in your department, as well as on a state/federal level, that there is an adequate task force apprised and
charged with identifying and prosecuting any/all illegal exploitation of juryless court facilities/functions, which would include the wrongful removals of proper grand/trial jury function and the facilitation/enabling of organized crime/wrongdoing, "court"/"attorney"/"bar" exploitation of litigants, assets, etc.; and personally ensuring that those findings are presented to the district grand jury for process, minimally
It has long been proven that Juryless Governance is a breeding ground for organized crime, racketeering, and crime in
general---preventing the same being one of the main reason for the establishment of this country. As these are urgent
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:57 AM
2
matters that expand and exaggerate unnecessarily the crime and debt rates on our streets this very day, they are well
within your authority and best interest to investigate and bring to justice. I look forward to your efforts in stopping these CRIMES & UNCONSTITUTIONAL activities, RESTORING PROPER GRAND/TRIAL JURY FUNCTION. As always, my
staff and I are available to assist you in any way possible. Please stay safe as you protect our communities, and may God Bless you and the United States of America.
Sincerely,
California Institute of Science
A Government/Law Studies Research Science Group
Adequacy Assurance-Collegiate (Constitutional) Research Group
Email us: AdequacyAssurance@yahoo.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:49 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Preeva Tramiel <palmpeebs@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 9:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Utility rate increases
I am against the proposed rate increases you sent out last week. My utility bills are high enough now.
Preeva Tramiel
767 Addison Avenue
Sent from my iPhone, be amused by the autocorrect.
May 23, 2018
To Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto Council
PTIJ
every child. one voice."
CO~NG
[ ] Placed Before Meeting
[ ~ed at Meeting
We are writing on behalf of the Palo Alto Council of PT As (PTAC). PTAC works with
the district staff, the Board of Education, community partners and the PT As at the 17
schools to support the students and families of the Palo Alto Unified School District
and to improve the education, health and welfare of all children and youth. The Palo
Alto PTA Council requests that a sugar sweetened beverage tax be placed on the
Palo Alto city ballot in the fall of 2018.
Scientific evidence has shown that sugary drinks harm our childrens' health,
contributing to rising rates of dental caries, obesity, heart disease, diabetes and liver
disease. Sugary drinks have no nutritional value but yet represent almost half the
added sugar we consume. When sugar enters the body in liquid form, the body
suffers a deluge of sugar into the bloodstream and overwhelms the body's natural
ability to process it.
Taxes on sugary drinks discourage consumption due to higher prices. It increases
awareness of the issues of consuming sugary drinks. Significant revenue is expected
to be raised through this tax that will help our schools and other programs which
help populations suffering from related diseases.
PTAC supports initiatives like these that encourage healthy choices and create a
healthy environment for our children. We believe that this tax will help children
make healthy choices that will enhance learning and their growth and support
PAUSD with much needed revenue.
We thank you for your cooperation and support
Sincerely,
~A'&
Audrey Gold
PTA Council President, 2016-18
http: //ptac.paloaloto.org
~ •. +1·
cc: Board of Education
Interim Superintendent Karen Hendricks
Dr. Kenneth Horowitz
25 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 94306 https://ptac.paloaltopta.org I council@paloaltopta.org
Palo Alto Council of PT As (PTAC) is tl1e umbrella organization representing the 17 unit PTAs of the Palo Alta Unified
School District.
Moving Science to Action
June 4, 2018
Re: Tax on Sugary Drinks in Palo Alto
Dear Mayor Kniss and members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am pleased to share written testimony for discussion of a tax on sugary drinks. As I cannot attend in
person, I am submitting my testimony to lend my public health expertise and my knowledge of taxes on
sugary drinks across the country.
The nonprofit I direct, Healthy Food America (HFA), provides non-partisan technical assistance related to
healthy food policies that address the epidemic of nutrition-related diseases. Palo Alto, just like cities
across the nation, is bearing a heavy burden from the epidemic of nutrition-related conditions including
diabetes, obesity, and heart disease. Low income communities and communities of color suffer from
these conditions at significantly higher rates than white and more affluent communities.
One of the most effective nutrition policies is taxing sugary drinks. Sugary drinks are a leading
contributor to unhealthy diets and are linked to diabetes, obesity, heart disease and tooth decay.1• 2
They are uniquely harmful because:
o They contribute 46% of all added sugar in the diet -far more than any other product. 3
o They bypass the body's defenses against eating too much, leading to excess calorie intake.
Sugary drink taxes work because they decrease consumption of this uniquely harmful product. Recent
scientific studies have found that:
o In Berkeley, the first city in the US to implement a tax, consumption of sugary drinks is down
21% in low income neighborhoods, and sales are down 10% overall while sales of water are up
16%.4,5
o In Mexico, sales are down 10% overall and 14% among low income Mexicans. 6
Taxes work because they raise revenues to address important community needs, including activities that
prevent obesity and diabetes. They can reduce health disparities by directing revenues to fund health
activities in low income communities and communities of color disproportionately affected by the
diseases associated with sugary drinks.
o In Berkeley, the tax is raising $1.2M per year to support diabetes prevention programs, health
and nutrition education, and healthy schools programs.
o In Boulder, the tax has raised $3.3M since July 2017 to improve access to healthy and affordable
food and clean water and to increase opportunities for physical activity and recreation.
o In Philadelphia, the tax raised $78M in its first year. It supports access to pre-K, maintenance of
parks and rec facilities, and community schools.
Health experts agree that taxing sugary drinks is one of the most effective and cost-effective policies to
prevent childhood obesity.7 The World Health Organization, American Heart Association, American
Medical Association, National Academy of Medicine, and American Public Health Association all
PO Box 22260, Seattle, WA 98122
206-451-8196 www.healthyfoodarnerica.org
•
Moving Science to Action
recommend taxing them.8•9•10•11 Thomas Frieden, immediate past director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, said sugary drink taxes are "the single most effective measure to reverse the
obesity epidemic."12
2
The beverage industry will undoubtedly oppose any proposed tax with its deep pockets and
misinformation, just as it did in the seven US cities that fought Big Soda and won. For example, Big Soda
will claim that a tax would result in job losses or increased grocery bills. Yet data from Berkeley,
Philadelphia and Mexico show clearly this is a false claim. Food sector jobs and revenues have increased
in Berkeley, 13 wage-tax collections in Philadelphia from beverage-related businesses actually rose in the
first six months of 2017 after the tax began, 14 and Mexico's tax on sugary drinks and junk food has had
no impact on food and beverage sector jobs, or on overall national unemployment rates.15
If the tax passes in Palo Alto, it will be a win for health, a win for health equity, and a win for a healthier
next generation. Seven US cities are already reaping the benefits of sugary drink taxes (along with more
than 30 nations around the world). Now you have an opportunity to join the growing movement to
adopt a sugary drink tax and place Palo Alto in the forefront of communities seeking to reverse the
epidemic of chronic diseases.
Thank you for considering our analysis of this issue.
Sincerely,
James Krieger, MD, MPH
Executive Director, Healthy Food America
1 Mozaffarian et al. Changes in Diet and Lifestyle and Long-Term Weight Gain in Women and Men. New Engl J Med.
2011 June 23; 364(25): 2392-2404
2 Schulze MB, Manson JE, Ludwig DS, et al. Sugar-sweetened beverages, weight gain, and incidence of type 2 diabetes
in young and middle-aged women. JAMA. 2004; 292:927-34.
3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015 -2020 Dietary
Guidelines for Americans. 8th Edition.
~ Falbe J, Thompson HR, Becker CM, Rojas N, McCulloch CE, Madsen KA. Impact of the Berkeley Excise Tax on
Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption. Am J Public Health. 2016Oct;106(10): 1865-71.
5 Silver LD, Ng SW, Ryan-Ibarra S, Taillie LS, Induni M, Miles DR, Poti JM, Popkin BM. Changes in prices, sales,
consumer spending, and beverage consumption one year after a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley,
California, US: A before-and-after study. PLoS Med. 2017 Apr 18;14(4):el002283.
6 Colchero MA, Rivera-Dommarco J, Popkin BM, Ng SW. In Mexico, Evidence Of Sustained Consumer Response
Two Years After Implementing A Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017 Mar 1;36(3):564-571.
7 Gortmaker et al. Three interventions that reduce childhood obesity are projected to save more than they cost to
implement. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(1): 102-111.
8 Ending childhood obesity: a time for action. Nishtar, Sania et al. Lancet. 2016; 387: 825 -827.
www.healthyfoodamerica.org
Moving Science to Action 3
9 Dan Glickman et al. Accelerating progress in obesity prevention: Solving the weight of the nation I Committee on
Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention, Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine of the National
Academies. CDC website, Early Care and Education (ECE):http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/strategies/childcareece.html
10 American Medical Association. https://www.ama-assn.org/sites/default/files/media-browser/public/about·
ama/ councils/Council%20Reports/ council-on-science-public-health/ a 12-csaphS-sugartax. pdf
11 American Public Health Association, 2012. https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy·
statements/policy-database/2014/07 /23/13/59 /taxes-on-sugar-sweetened-beverages
12 Frieden, TR et al. Health Affairs, March 2010 vol. 29 no. 3 357-363.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/ content/29 /3 /3 5 7.long?related-urls•vcs&legid =healthaff; 29 /3 /3 57
13 http:/bvww.phi.ore/resot1rces/?resource=berkeley7oda-tax·boom·iobs-revenues
14 http:Uwww.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq·phillydeals/even·with-soda-tax·phillvs-food-and-beverage-wai:es·rose·in-lst·
quarter-2017-20170612.html and the City of Philadelphia
15 Guerrero-Lopez, CM, et al. Employment changes associated with the introduction of taxes on sugar-sweetened
beverages and nonessential energy-dense food in Mexico. Preventive Medicine, Sept 2017.
http:ljwww.sciencedirect.com/science/article/i.iii/S0091743517303249?via%3Dihub
www.healthyfoodamerica.org
--..
Santa Clara County Dental Society
June 4, 2018
To: Palo Alto City Council
I understand you are considering tonight placing a sugar-sweetened beverage tax on the November
2018 ballot. I write in support of this.
As a component of the California Dental Association and the American Dental Association, my
organization has more than 1,700 dentist members practicing locally. These dentists see daily the
damage that over consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages causes, particularly for children, in dental
caries, diabetes and overweight. The long-term effects of these conditions are well documented.
Sugar-sweetened drinks have no nutritional value, yet represent almost half of the sugar the average
American consumes. And most Americans consume way too much sugar. Sugary drinks are particularly
harmful because when sugar enters the body In liquid form, there is a sudden deluge of sugar into the
bloodstream that overwhelms the body's natural ability to process it.
As we have seen with tobacco, taxes (and other public policy decisions) discourage consumption. They
also increase the awareness of the problems causes by consuming sugared drinks. Other local cities that
have approved a tax on sugared beverages have realized significant revenue that can be used for health
education, schools or other important concerns.
As health professionals, dentists support public policy decisions that encourage healthy choices and
create a healthier environment for everyone, especially children.
Thank you for considering this approach to encouraging healthier choices.
zz__
Candace Roney~Director
Santa Clara County Dental Society
l~:c.:: .
( Received at Meeting
June 1, 2018
Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I would like to reiterate the sentiment I shared with you at the April 30 Council meeting regarding
the negative impact a 2 percentage point increase would have on overall TOT collections. My family
has owned and operated Dinah's Garden Hotel for the past 61 years which makes me well qualified
to speak on how corporate clients and guests would react should such an increase take effect.
While Stanford University and surround technology and medical corporations create extraordinary
demand in to the Silicon Valley market, it is naive to think that consumers won't look to nearby
Mountain View and surrounding communities where the TOT can be as much as 4-6 percentage
points lower.
Should this proposal advance, a typical corporate group could save $3,600 in TOT booking their 5
day 40 room per night meeting in Mountain View instead of Palo Alto. In this scenario, the meeting
planner is responsible to keep costs down for their company. The actual attendee most likely won't
even know they're not staying in Palo Alto and will have at their disposal all of the ambience Palo
Alto has to offer.
As it relates to corporations that negotiate corporate rates for their travelers, there will be an
expectation that any TOT increase will be reflected in a corresponding reduction of rate increase or
worse-case scenario, an outright rate reduction to compensate for the increase. In both of these
scenarios, the net effect is a decrease in revenues which of course will generate less TOT for the City.
Increasing TOT is a bad idea. There is clearly a reason why other cities have not increased tax to 16%
which would make Palo Alto the highest in the State of California. I would support us hitting the
pause button while more study is done and feedback received for affected stakeholders. Let's
proceed thoughtfully, and not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs!
s· ~ly,
an mlf'fK...-71
nd wner,
Dinah's Garden Ho
DINAH'S GARDEN HOTEL
4261 El Camino Real I Palo Alto, CA 94306-4405 I HOTEL 650.493.2844 I TOLL FREE 800.227.8220 I FAX 650.856.4713 I dinahshotel.com