Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
20180813plCC
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: 8/13/2018 Document dates: 7/25/2018 – 8/01/2018 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 | 7/30/2018 9:11 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:jaclyn schrier <jaclyn@schrier.net> Sent:Friday, July 27, 2018 5:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Reduce Office/R&D Cumulative Cap Palo Alto City Council Members: During the July 25 meeting, please vote to adopt the initiative measure to reduce the comprehensive plan's citywide cumulative cap on office/R&D development as written. There is strong citizen support for the proposal, evidenced by the collection of over 3000 petition signatures. Over-development of office space, resulting in a 3:1 jobs/housing imbalance, has led to severely diminished quality of life for residents in terms of living costs, traffic congestion, etc. The only additional offices we need in Palo Alto would accommodate community-serving professionals, such as therapists, etc., many of whom have been displaced from their former facilities by high-bidding software firms. Converting existing office space to housing would better position our city for a healthy future. Please do not continue to add R&D space which our infrastructure cannot support. Thank you. jaclyn schrier 427 Alma Street #307 Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 9:11 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net> Sent:Sunday, July 29, 2018 12:21 AM To:Council, City Subject:Growth Cap Initiative Re: Item #3 on the July 30, 2018 Agenda I am writing to urge you to choose the first option noted on this agenda item and “Adopt the Initiative Measure to Reduce the Comprehensive Plan’s Citywide Cumulative Cap on Office/R&D Development (Initiative Measure) as an Ordinance Without Alteration". I heard Jean Mc Cown speak against the initiative and I have read comments that it sends a “Palo Alto is closed for business” message that will drive businesses away. With regard to Stanford’s position on this, Palo Alto will be hard-pressed to absorb the impact of the university’s new GUP on our built environment. It would, therefore, be smart to cap what office/r&d we ourselves add to the built environment. With regard to the argument that the cap would send the wrong message and we will lose businesses and hence our vitality, that falls into the “scare tactics” column. Stanford isn’t going anywhere and as long as it is here this community will be vibrant and creative and entrepreneurial. And attractive to businesses. Sure some businesses may choose to leave; so might some residents; these things cycle. Also, there are communities better suited than Palo Alto to accommodate businesses that require a large campus. We need to start the process of improving the jobs:housing imbalance. Adding more and more office space generates more and more demand for housing. And drives prices up. Rather than leave here because of a moderate cap on office/r&d that would simply maintain the up-to-now allowable growth rate, I think it far more likely that businesses might relocate because: commercial lease rates are high; employees either cannot find housing here or they cannot afford what they can find; the housing issue means more people must commute, creating miserably long commutes; community-serving professionals cannot afford to live here or commute here, making it hard to recruit people into support staff positions or service positions; California has some onerous employment and compliance laws. Each of those issues alone is a serious business concern; combined they spell trouble. Companies will do the best they can for as long as they can, but when lease renewal time rolls around, hard questions must and will be asked. And then there’s the elephant in the room: the looming displacement of the Hotel President residents. Our growth policies have been brewing this problem for a long time, and now it is here. And it is ugly. I don’t City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 9:11 AM 3 believe this was an intended consequence, but it is a consequence all the same. Accepting the cap would send a strong message to the community. We know that such a step would be contrary to what some of you might prefer to do. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it. Politics should have no purchase here. This is now an issue about what we value and how we define our community. I look forward to hearing the debate and remain optimistic that your vote will be one that puts Palo Altans first. Regards, Annette Portello Ross College Terrace City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 9:11 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:Penny Proctor <pennyproctor@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, July 30, 2018 7:59 AM To:Council, City Subject:Adopt Initiative to slow office growth Dear Members of the City Council, The quality of life in Palo Alto is going downhill fast! The traffic from too much office growth gets worse all the time. Please adopt the citizens initiative tonight! No parking means I almost never go downtown anymore. With a mild disability, limited parking means it is too far to walk, would hurt my legs, so I can't go there. The heavy commute traffic is limiting. I try not to go anywhere much after 3 pm. Mailing a letter takes 20 minutes to go one mile. Luckily I don't commute. But I do take an evening class in Union City. Because the main routes are gridlocked, I go through Crescent Park and west East Palo Alto. On bad days it takes an hour and a half to get from my house on Greer Road to Facebook, just before the Dumbarton bridge, which takes 10 minutes in non‐commute times. One day the traffic was not moving at all, and I thought this is so unfair to the lower income residents of west East Palo Alto, who get to breathe all the pollution from all the idling cars stuck in front of their houses and apartments. I turned around and went home. Please adopt the initiative to slow office growth tonight! This city really needs it. Penny Proctor Greer Rd, Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 9:12 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Sheri Furman <sheri11@earthlink.net> Sent:Sunday, July 29, 2018 2:31 PM To:Council, City Cc:GSheyner@paweekly.com; kkelly@bayareanewsgroup.com; aruggiero@padailypost.com; bkerr@padailypost.com Subject:July 30 Agenda Item 3 -- Office Cap Initiative Attachments:Office Cap Ballot Initiative July 30 Letter.docx Please see the attached letter from PAN. Thanks, sheri City Council July 30 Meeting — Agenda Item 3 Dear Mayor Kniss and Council Members, At its July 12 meeting, PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) voted to request that Council support the citizen’s Office Cap ballot initiative as it stands, either by passing it right away or letting the voters decide. By reducing office growth, adopting the initiative will provide many benefits to Palo Alto, including • Making more land available for new housing, and especially for true affordable housing • Lowering the enormous costs the public must pay for traffic mitigation • Shrinking the deficit in affordable housing funding created by office development, whose impact fees pays only a fraction of the true costs • Reducing the effective tax on travel time paid by existing residents and commuters due to traffic congestion • Allowing overburdened transit solutions such as CalTrain to catch up with existing demand The consultant’s report discusses reductions in one-time development impact fee payments from slower development. Since the impact fees charged cover only a part of the full mitigation costs, the community avoids the much larger subsidy to implement the mitigations. Reducing the need to mitigate by reducing the impacts saves the community money and avoids further worsening of the quality of life for Palo Alto’s residents, employees, and visitors. Please do not subvert democracy in action. Volunteers gathered all the signatures for the Office Cap initiative, not professional signature gatherers. The organizers have paid all the legal fees out of their own pockets, thanks to grassroots donations. The all-volunteer effort identified well over three thousand residents who signed in only a three-week period, demonstrating that Palo Alto voters are greatly concerned about office growth and surely justifies adopting the initiative Monday night. Thank you. Sincerely, Sheri Furman, Co-Chair PAN Rebecca Sanders, Co-Chair PAN City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 3:45 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, July 30, 2018 3:26 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:July 7, 2018, City Council Meeting, Item #3: Office/R&D Development Initiative Ordinance Herb Borock P. O. Box 632 Palo Alto, CA 94302 July 30, 2018 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 JULY 30, 2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #3 OFFICE/R&D DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE ORDINANCE Dear City Council: I urge you to adopt the Initiative Ordinance without alteration. I also urge to not place on the November 8, 2018, ballot a measure that would amend the Initiative Ordinance. Should you choose to place the Initiative Ordinance on the November ballot, I urge to not place on that ballot a competing measure or an amendment that would amend the Initiative Ordinance if that ordinance is adopted by the voters on the same ballot. Council Member Cory Wolbach and Mountain View Mayor Lenny Siegel authored an article in the July 6, 2018, Palo Alto Daily Post that advocated converting portions of the Stanford Research Park into mixed-use, medium density neighborhoods. As an example of a mixed-use neighborhood, the article states that Mountain View "is creating neighborhoods that include apartments and condos, schools, retail, parks and transit". If the Palo Alto City Council wants to adopt the mixed-use neighborhood concept described in the Wolbach-Siegel article, then the Stanford Research Park would need to reduce the rate of growth of research and development (R%D) uses in the Research Park to provide space for housing; City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 3:45 PM 2 schools; retail; and park, playground, recreation, or conservation purposes. The existing growth rate in the adopted Comprehensive Plan would enable R&D uses to occupy space that could be used for the mixed-use neighborhood described in the article, while the growth rate in the Initiative Ordinance would make it possible to create the kind of mixed-use neighborhood described in the article. When you adopt the Initiative Measure, you should follow the example set by two previous City Attorneys when the Council adopted initiative ordinances. Ordinance No. 3201 adopted May 12, 1980, approved as to form by City Attorney Roy C. Abrams, and Ordinance No. 3440 adopted June 27, 1983, approved as to form by City Attorney Diane M. Lee (later known as Judge Diane Northway), each consist solely of the Ordinance Number, the text of the Initiative Ordinance, and the required signatures attesting to and approving the ordinance. I will provide copies of both of those adopted initiative ordinances for you at tonight's meeting. I urge you to reject using the form of the draft ordinance included in the staff report at Packet Pages 54 and 55. The City of Palo Alto Charter provides that Initiative Ordinances can only be amended by a vote of the people, whether the ordinance is adopted by the electorate or by the City Council, which is why the Charter and Palo Alto Municipal Code require that the enacting clause be the same regardless of the means used to adopt the ordinance. Thus, the language required by the Charter is, "The people of the City of Palo Alto do ordain as follows", instead of the enacting clause, "The Council of the City of Palo Alto ordains as follows". If courts need to choose between two different methods of implementing the Charter language for adoption of the Initiative Ordinance, they will reject a method that could cause mischief. The unnecessary draft ordinance at Packet Pages 54 and 55 is an ordinance that requires two readings and, therefore, can be the subject of a referendum. Also, the unnecessary draft ordinance uses the enacting clause, "the Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows" and, therefore, can be amended at any time by the current Council or a future Council. Adopting the draft ordinance on Packet Pages 54 and 55 would not ensure that you have adopted the Initiative Ordinance, or ensure that once the City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 3:45 PM 3 Initiative Ordinance is adopted it could only be amended by the electorate. The ordinance form used in both 1980 and 1983, approved by the City Attorney instead of a lower ranking employee in the City Attorney's Office, is the correct form to use to adopt the Initiative Ordinance, and I urge you to use that form instead of the draft ordinance on Packet Pages 54 and 55. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Herb Borock City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 3:45 PM 4 Carnahan, David From:LINDA MANTIPLY <lindaman@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, July 30, 2018 1:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page Dear City Council Members: I am unable to attend today’s City Council meeting. It is with great emphasis, that I say as a Palo Alto resident, I do not want continued excessive office growth. Please adopt the Initiative Measure. Thank you, Linda City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 3:45 PM 5 Carnahan, David From:KRISTINA P SMITH <jubilada@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, July 30, 2018 11:58 AM To:Council, City Subject:Tonight's meeting on the Voter Initiative Hello members of the City Council, I am asking that at tonight's meeting you PLEASE adopt the Voter's Initiative as is, and put it on the November ballot. Sincerely, Kristina P. Smith Registered Voter Palo Alto, California City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 3:45 PM 6 Carnahan, David From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, July 30, 2018 9:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please ADOPT the Citizen's Office Cap Initiative Dear Council, Palo Alto has a unique situation and the usual concepts of "open for business" do not apply. Especially given the situation with housing imbalance - our priorities are looking very mixed up. And we don't need to fight in sound bytes in the WSJ over this. Only we and you know what's going on and it's complicated, but here is something you CAN do. By adopting the office cap, you are not saying "no growth." You will be saying that you understand, and see why it matters to manage competing priorities in a more intentional manner. Things have changed, continue to change (unfortunately get worse) and ignoring the obvious is not good policy. Five years ago citizens reached out to the City about the size of the airplane noise problem to deaf ears, and I'm sorry to say that the City is still not being proactive. The immensity (and human toll) of the office and housing imbalance issues, for any town, are horrible to see. How did it even get this bad? Where was the planning to stop this earlier? The more I learn it feels very much like the Nextgen problem, a regional debacle. Palo Alto needs to take care of Palo Alto right now. The City world renown and beloved for being green, full of trees, unlike no other in the US, is becoming a hot mess! There will be another time when you may want to do the usual Chamber of Commerce thing to say "open for business", but if you take the long view, you should know what the priorities are now. Please adopt the Citizen's Office Cap Initiative which many already think is not even enough. Thank you for your consideration, Jennifer 1 of 1 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: AMY FRENCH, CHIEF PLANNING OFFICIAL, PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: JULY 30, 2018 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3 – Adopt the Initiative Measure to Reduce the Comprehensive Plan’s Citywide Cumulative Cap on Office/R&D Development (Initiative Measure) as an Ordinance Without Alteration, or Adopt a Resolution Placing the Initiative Measure on the November 6, 2018 Ballot Attached is a document, containing 11 exhibits, which was referenced as “Stanford Research Park Fiscal Analysis July 17, 2018” in a footnote on the EPS report contained in the staff report. _______________________ _________________________ Amy French James Keene Chief Planning Official City Manager 3 Assumptions and/or Cost and Revenue Factors Note/Source of Assumption (1) Growth Measures Sq. Ft. of Workspace per New SRP Employee 250 Conservative Ratio of New Employee Headcount/Sq. Ft. (Current SRP Ratio is 1:355 SF) Employment Workspace Growth (Sq. Ft.)850,000 Total Unbuilt Square Footage Under Current Zoning per Stanford Research Park Employee Growth 3,400 Calculated Valuation-Related Property Value per Sq. Ft., 2015 $1,183 SRP Exhibit 4 (based on 2014-2016 transactions, assume 2015 avg.) Annual Turnover Rate 2.7%SRP Exhibit 5 (based on 2002-2017 transactions) Annual Market Appreciation Adjustment Factor 6.1%SRP Exhibit 6 (actual 15-year average annual growth rate from 2002 to 2017) 15-Year Market Appreciation Rate, Unadjusted, SRP 245%SRP Exhibit 6 (actual 15-year percentage growth rate, proxy for growth from 2015 to 2030) 15-Year Market Appreciation Adjustment Factor, EPS 132%EPS Report Figure 13, page 19 Property Value per Sq. Ft., 2030 (using EPS Adjustment Factor)$1,561 In-Lieu VLF Revenue 25%EPS Report page 19. Revenue source is 25% of Palo Alto property tax revenue County Basic Property Tax Rate 1.0%Common Knowledge City of Palo Alto Property Tax Rate 9.4%SRP Exhibit 6 (share of 1.0% property tax rate) City of Palo Alto Property Transfer Tax Rate/$1,000 $3.30 SRP Exhibit 5 Palo Alto Sales and Use Taxes SRP Tenant Sales and Use Tax Generation/Sq. Ft. (2)$0.30 SRP Exhibit 7, rounded Business-to-Business Palo Alto Sales per Sq. Ft. (3)$20.00 EPS Report page 23 Business-to-Business Palo Alto Sales Tax Revenues/Sq. Ft.$0.20 EPS Report page 23 Taxable Business Spending in Palo Alto per Employee/Sq. Ft.$2.00 EPS Report Page 23 Taxable Business Spending per Employee Sales Taxes/Sq. Ft.$0.02 EPS Report Page 23 Taxable Spending Per Worker $9,270 EPS Report Figure 17, page 24 Palo Alto Sales Capture Rate of Employee Spending 80%EPS Report Figure 17, page 24 City of Palo Alto Sales Tax Rate 1.0%EPS Report Page 22 Other Palo Alto Tax Revenues Utility Users Tax Per Capita $82.75 EPS Report Figure A25-A30 Hotel TOT Tax per Employee $104.28 SRP Exhibit 9, based on EPS assumptions City of Palo Alto Expenditures Per Job $259 EPS Report Figure 4, page 6 Value Exhibit 1. Estimation of Net Revenue Generation to the City of Palo Alto per Employee for Future Employment Growth, in Approximate 2015 Dollars Calculated, uses the EPS Market Appreciation Adjustment Factor of 132%, vs. some variation of the SRP unadjusted factor of 245%. The EPS factor incorporates inflation and other adjustments, but it is unclear how the SRP rate of 245% should be similarly adjusted. Assumptions and/or Cost and Revenue Factors Note/Source of Assumption (1)Value Exhibit 1. Estimation of Net Revenue Generation to the City of Palo Alto per Employee for Future Employment Growth, in Approximate 2015 Dollars Annual City of Palo Alto Tax Revenues and Expenditures City of Palo Alto Revenues Property Tax $1,250,272 Calculated In-Lieu VLF Revenue $312,568 Calculated Transfer Tax $120,079 Calculated Sales Tax SRP Tenant Sales and Use Taxes $255,000 Calculated Business-to-Business Sales Taxes (2)$170,000 Calculated Employer Spending per Employee Sales Taxes $17,000 Calculated Employee Spending Sales Taxes $252,144 Calculated Total Sales Taxes with Business-to-Business Sales $694,144 Calculated Total Sales Taxes Excluding Business-to-Business Sales (4)$524,144 Calculated Utility Users Tax $281,350 Calculated Hotel TOT Tax $354,538 Calculated Grand Total Tax Revenues Total Revenues with Business-to-Business Sales $3,012,951 Calculated Total Revenues Excluding Business-to-Business Sales (4)$2,842,951 Calculated City of Palo Alto Expenditures $880,600 Calculated Net Annual City of Palo Alto Revenue per New SRP Employee (5) Total with Business-to-Business Sales $2,132,351 Calculated Per Employee with Business-to-Business Sales (6)$627 Calculated Total Excluding Business-to-Business Sales $1,962,351 Calculated Per Employee Excluding Business-to-Business Sales (4) (6)$577 Calculated Net Annual City of Palo Alto Revenue per New 2030 Comprehensive Plan Employee Per Employee for 6 Scenarios Estimated by EPS $192 - $284 (6) Note, if the SRP-calculated 15-year Market Appreciation Rate of 245% were reflected in the analysis, with adjustments of inflation and other factors, instead of the EPS Market Adjustment Factor of 132%, these results would likely vary. (5) The per employee figures derived for SRP are substantially greater than the per employee figures derived by EPS in the 2017 Fiscal Analysis for the Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan for employees associated with new development. These figures vary by scenario evaluated by EPS, ranging from $192 to $284 net revenue per employee. EPS Report Figures 3 and 4, page 6. The range reflects different scenario results based upon the mix of employment-generating land uses (2) This figure is based upon taxable sales generated by Stanford Research Park tenants. The figure is derived based upon sales trends over a 10-year period. The analysis assumes future tenants in new growth space will achieve taxable sales at a similar rate. (3) The EPS Fiscal Analysis report includes an estimate for Business-to-Business Spending in Palo Alto. It is unclear if this is measuring point of sale taxable sales generated by businesses located in the new development, such as the SRP Tenant Sales and Use Tax Generation estimated above. If these are measuring the same revenue factor, then the SRP-based figure would supersede this more generic estimate which was based on generalized analysis of Palo Alto's sales and use tax revenues. (4) This figure reflects a total adjustment assuming the SRP estimate for "Tenant Sales and Use Tax Generation" is measuring the same fiscal factor as "Business-to-Business Palo Alto Sales per Sq. Ft." Since the SRP-specific estimate is greater, the analysis retains this figure and excludes the lower "Business-to-Business" estimate derived in the EPS analysis. Sources: "Fiscal Analysis of the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan," Prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., February 17, 2017; Stanford Research Park; and ALH Urban & Regional Economics. (1) If the value is based upon an external assumption, the source of the assumption is noted here. In most cases, the source is the report titled "Fiscal Analysis of the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan," Prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), February 17, 2017. The source pages or report figures are noted as relevant. This column also notes if a value is the result of a calculation. Jurisdiction 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 City of Palo Alto (2)$6,647,612 $7,341,823 $7,916,903 $9,138,785 $9,660,372 $10,945,707 $10,706,835 $11,526,910 $11,708,677 $11,986,762 $14,655,975 $14,715,106 $14,402,858 $18,480,546 $16,575,641 $16,449,135 Transfer Taxes $102,300 $429,825 $249,150 $136,125 $34,980 $618,420 $0 $111,540 $103,950 $0 $512,243 $1,117,215 $462,000 $4,232,250 $1,786,191 $436,920 Property Tax $1,335,953 $1,362,672 $1,389,925 $1,685,586 $1,667,099 $1,786,616 $2,009,120 $2,405,875 $2,384,732 $2,368,335 $2,420,634 $2,522,896 $2,644,074 $2,873,566 $3,019,401 $3,268,389 Bonds and Assessments $209,414 $213,602 $217,874 $264,220 $261,322 $280,057 $314,935 $377,127 $373,813 $371,243 $379,441 $395,471 $414,465 $450,439 $473,299 $512,329 In Lieu VLF Revenues $0 $0 $0 $421,396 $416,775 $446,654 $502,280 $601,469 $596,183 $592,084 $605,158 $630,724 $661,018 $718,391 $754,850 $817,097 SRP Palo Alto Sales and Use Taxes $1,040,145 $1,193,124 $1,722,353 $2,060,458 $2,456,596 $2,726,661 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,600,000 $4,400,000 $3,430,000 $3,300,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,600,000 Taxable Spending by Workers $1,296,400 $1,345,900 $1,400,200 $1,467,100 $1,542,600 $1,618,200 $1,702,700 $1,724,600 $1,772,500 $1,853,200 $1,924,700 $1,985,900 $2,056,600 $2,115,300 $2,192,100 $2,254,400 Business Spending on Employees $87,400 $90,700 $94,400 $98,900 $104,000 $109,100 $114,800 $116,300 $119,500 $124,900 $129,800 $133,900 $138,700 $142,600 $147,800 $152,000 Utility User Taxes $990,000 $1,060,000 $1,130,000 $1,210,000 $1,290,000 $1,380,000 $1,480,000 $1,580,000 $1,690,000 $1,810,000 $1,930,000 $2,070,000 $2,210,000 $2,360,000 $2,520,000 $2,650,000 Transient Occupancy Taxes $1,586,000 $1,646,000 $1,713,000 $1,795,000 $1,887,000 $1,980,000 $2,083,000 $2,110,000 $2,168,000 $2,267,000 $2,354,000 $2,429,000 $2,516,000 $2,588,000 $2,682,000 $2,758,000 PAUSD $7,685,377 $7,839,084 $7,995,866 $9,696,720 $9,590,372 $10,277,919 $11,557,926 $13,840,348 $13,718,718 $13,624,395 $13,925,253 $14,513,543 $15,210,644 $16,530,848 $17,369,797 $18,802,162 Property Tax $6,466,039 $6,595,360 $6,727,267 $8,158,269 $8,068,795 $8,647,257 $9,724,182 $11,644,483 $11,542,150 $11,462,792 $11,715,917 $12,210,870 $12,797,372 $13,908,117 $14,613,961 $15,819,071 Bonds and Assessments $1,219,337 $1,243,724 $1,268,599 $1,538,451 $1,521,578 $1,630,662 $1,833,744 $2,195,865 $2,176,568 $2,161,603 $2,209,336 $2,302,672 $2,413,272 $2,622,732 $2,755,837 $2,983,091 County of Santa Clara $2,839,413 $3,004,694 $3,001,698 $3,584,868 $3,512,334 $3,957,782 $4,218,870 $5,089,178 $5,042,251 $4,973,171 $5,253,738 $5,670,133 $5,706,183 $7,444,834 $6,935,714 $7,008,798 Transfer Taxes $34,100 $143,275 $83,050 $45,375 $11,660 $206,140 $0 $37,180 $34,650 $0 $170,748 $372,405 $154,000 $1,410,750 $595,397 $145,640 Property Tax $2,255,194 $2,300,297 $2,346,303 $2,845,401 $2,814,195 $3,015,948 $3,391,553 $4,061,306 $4,025,615 $3,997,937 $4,086,220 $4,258,848 $4,463,405 $4,850,805 $5,096,986 $5,517,298 Bonds and Assessments $550,120 $561,122 $572,344 $694,092 $686,479 $735,694 $827,317 $990,693 $981,986 $975,235 $996,770 $1,038,880 $1,088,779 $1,183,279 $1,243,331 $1,345,860 State (Sales and Use Taxes)$6,760,946 $7,755,306 $11,195,294 $13,392,976 $15,967,875 $17,723,296 $16,250,000 $16,250,000 $16,250,000 $16,900,000 $28,600,000 $22,295,000 $21,450,000 $19,500,000 $19,500,000 $23,400,000 Other $5,978,546 $6,263,336 $7,020,311 $8,478,312 $8,908,748 $9,664,863 $10,160,723 $11,550,115 $11,476,074 $11,543,657 $13,976,800 $13,122,413 $13,384,263 $13,812,919 $14,323,617 $15,945,549 Bonds & Assessments, All Others (3)$216,929 $221,267 $225,693 $273,701 $270,699 $290,106 $326,236 $390,660 $387,227 $384,564 $393,056 $409,661 $429,338 $466,602 $490,283 $530,713 Other School Funds (inc. Foothill-DeAnza)$3,870,050 $3,947,451 $4,026,400 $4,882,882 $4,829,330 $5,175,551 $5,820,112 $6,969,449 $6,908,200 $6,860,703 $7,012,204 $7,308,443 $7,659,475 $8,324,277 $8,746,739 $9,468,021 Other Property Tax Revenues (4)$591,385 $603,213 $615,277 $746,157 $737,974 $790,880 $889,376 $1,065,007 $1,055,647 $1,048,389 $1,071,540 $1,116,809 $1,170,450 $1,272,039 $1,336,596 $1,446,815 Special Sales Taxes at 1.25%$1,300,182 $1,491,405 $2,152,941 $2,575,572 $3,070,745 $3,408,326 $3,125,000 $3,125,000 $3,125,000 $3,250,000 $5,500,000 $4,287,500 $4,125,000 $3,750,000 $3,750,000 $4,500,000 Total $29,911,893 $32,204,244 $37,130,071 $44,291,661 $47,639,701 $52,569,566 $52,894,354 $58,256,552 $58,195,720 $59,027,985 $76,411,767 $70,316,194 $70,153,949 $75,769,147 $74,704,768 $81,605,643 Sources: Exhibits 5, 6, 7, and 8; and ALH Urban & Regional Economics. Exhibit 2. Stanford Research Park Select Tax Revenue Estimates Aggregated by Jurisdiction, 2002 - 2017 (1) (4) "Other Property Tax Revenues" accrue to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Santa Clara Valley Water District North West Zone 1, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Santa Clara County Importation Water-Misc District, and (1) Does not include all tax revenues, especially to the City of Palo Alto. The analysis focuses on revenue sources most affected by growth, per the assessment of Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., as cited in the following study prepared for the City of Palo Alto: "Fiscal Analysis of the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan," February 17, 2017. (3) Includes VMC, Mid Peninsula Open Space, and SCVWS - State Water Proj. (2) As this analysis includes sales and uses taxes generated by SRP tenants, the EPS sales category of Business-to-Business sales referenced in the report cited in footnote (1) is not included in case this is duplicative of the actual SRP tenant sales. If the two categories are not duplicative then the City of Palo Alto Sales and Use Tax revenues estimated herein are underestimated. Type of Tax Source 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Transfer Tax Ex. 3 $136,400 $573,100 $332,200 $181,500 $46,640 $824,560 $0 $148,720 $138,600 $0 $682,990 $1,489,620 $616,000 $5,643,000 $2,381,588 $582,560 Property Tax Revenues Ex. 4 $16,714,420 $17,048,709 $17,389,683 $21,088,758 $20,857,471 $22,352,770 $25,136,574 $30,100,463 $29,835,938 $29,630,801 $30,285,118 $31,564,550 $33,080,630 $35,951,855 $37,776,430 $40,891,586 Basic 1.0% County Tax Revenues $14,178,341 $14,461,907 $14,751,146 $17,888,960 $17,692,766 $18,961,183 $21,322,600 $25,533,318 $25,308,929 $25,134,918 $25,689,956 $26,775,259 $28,061,305 $30,496,879 $32,044,611 $34,687,104 Bonds & Assessments $2,536,080 $2,586,801 $2,638,537 $3,199,798 $3,164,705 $3,391,587 $3,813,974 $4,567,145 $4,527,008 $4,495,883 $4,595,162 $4,789,291 $5,019,326 $5,454,977 $5,731,819 $6,204,482 Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Ex. 4 $0 $0 $0 $421,396 $416,775 $446,654 $502,280 $601,469 $596,183 $592,084 $605,158 $630,724 $661,018 $718,391 $754,850 $817,097 Sales & Use Tax Revenues (2)Ex's 5 & 7 $10,485,073 $11,876,435 $16,565,188 $19,595,006 $23,141,816 $25,585,583 $23,692,500 $23,715,900 $23,767,000 $24,728,100 $40,554,500 $32,132,300 $31,070,300 $28,507,900 $28,589,900 $33,906,400 Utility Users Tax Revenue Ex. 7 $990,000 $1,060,000 $1,130,000 $1,210,000 $1,290,000 $1,380,000 $1,480,000 $1,580,000 $1,690,000 $1,810,000 $1,930,000 $2,070,000 $2,210,000 $2,360,000 $2,520,000 $2,650,000 Transient Occupancy Tax Ex. 7 $1,586,000 $1,646,000 $1,713,000 $1,795,000 $1,887,000 $1,980,000 $2,083,000 $2,110,000 $2,168,000 $2,267,000 $2,354,000 $2,429,000 $2,516,000 $2,588,000 $2,682,000 $2,758,000 Total $29,911,893 $32,204,244 $37,130,071 $44,291,661 $47,639,701 $52,569,566 $52,894,354 $58,256,552 $58,195,720 $59,027,985 $76,411,767 $70,316,194 $70,153,949 $75,769,147 $74,704,768 $81,605,644 Sources: Exhibits 5, 6, 7, and 8; and ALH Urban & Regional Economics. Exhibit 3. Stanford Research Park Select Tax Revenues Estimates Aggregated by Type of Tax, 2002 - 2017 (1) (1) Does not include all tax revenues, especially to the City of Palo Alto. The analysis focuses on revenue sources most affected by growth, per the assessment of Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., as cited in the following study prepared for the City of Palo Alto: "Fiscal Analysis of the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan," February 17, 2017. (2) As this analysis includes sales and uses taxes generated by SRP tenants, the EPS sales category of Business-to-Business sales referenced in the report cited in footnote (1) is not included in case this is duplicative of the actual SRP tenant sales. If the two categories are not duplicative then the City of Palo Alto Sales and Use Tax revenues estimated herein are underestimated. Date of Sale Property Address Square Feet Acreage Land Value Improvements Value Total Assessed Value 12/19/2016 1701 Page Mill / 3150 Porter 152,172 8.456 $76,000,000 $114,000,000 $190,000,000 $1,249 4/28/2016 2475 Hanover 81,928 4.704 $31,620,000 $73,440,000 $105,060,000 $1,282 6/1/2015 600-660 Hansen 99,317 5.917 $31,066,650 $78,702,180 $109,768,830 $1,105 4/1/2015 3301-3307 Hillview 284,098 16.305 $120,958,001 $220,780,326 $341,738,327 $1,203 6/22/2014 3175 Hanover 124,895 7.168 $43,147,623 $90,995,539 $134,143,162 $1,074 Average:$1,183 Source: Stanford Research Park, Transaction Tracking Sheet, SRP Leasehold Sales, 2000 - June, 2018. Total Assessed Value Per Square Foot Exhibit 4. Stanford Research Park Recent Sales Transactions and Assessed Value per Square Foot Values 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Total SRP Property Sales (1)$31,000,000 $130,250,000 $75,500,000 $41,250,000 $10,600,000 $187,400,000 $0 $33,800,000 $31,500,000 $0 $155,225,000 $338,550,000 $140,000,000 $1,282,500,000 $541,270,000 $132,400,000 $3,131,245,000 Transfer Taxes (2) County of Santa Clara $34,100 $143,275 $83,050 $45,375 $11,660 $206,140 $0 $37,180 $34,650 $0 $170,748 $372,405 $154,000 $1,410,750 $595,397 $145,640 $3,444,370 City of Palo Alto $102,300 $429,825 $249,150 $136,125 $34,980 $618,420 $0 $111,540 $103,950 $0 $512,243 $1,117,215 $462,000 $4,232,250 $1,786,191 $436,920 $10,333,109 Total $136,400 $573,100 $332,200 $181,500 $46,640 $824,560 $0 $148,720 $138,600 $0 $682,990 $1,489,620 $616,000 $5,643,000 $2,381,588 $582,560 $13,777,478 Sq. Ft. Traded (1)89,595 501,431 167,960 97,133 0 284,208 0 60,932 73,978 0 188,465 471,982 123,910 1,461,479 598,140 117,634 4,236,847 SRP Property Turnover Rate Total SRP Sq. Ft. Base (3)10,300,000 Total Turnover, 2002-2017 41% Average Annual Turnover Rate (4)3% Sources: Stanford Research Park, Transaction Tracking Sheet, SRP Leasehold Sales, 2000 - June, 2018; californiacityfinance.com; Stanford Research Park; and ALH Urban & Regional Economics. (1) Property sales and square feet traded are based upon information maintained by Stanford Research Park, tracking SRP leasehold sales. (2) Transfer tax rates are $1.10 per $1,000 of property value for the County of Santa Clara and $3.30 per $1,000 of property value for the City of Palo Alto. See http://www.californiacityfinance.com/PropTransfTaxRates.pdf. (3) Figure maintained by Stanford Research Park. (4) Averaged over 15 years, from 2002 to 2017. Exhibit 5. Stanford Research Park Transfer Tax Revenues, 2002-2017 Tax Characteristic/Jurisdiction Tax Rates (1)2002 (2)2003 (2)2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Property Tax Rate Total Property Taxes Paid (3)1.17887 $16,714,420 $17,048,709 $17,389,683 $21,088,758 $20,857,471 $22,352,770 $25,136,574 $30,100,463 $29,835,938 $29,630,801 $30,285,118 $31,564,550 $33,080,630 $35,951,855 $37,776,430 $40,891,586 Property Taxes Based on 1.0% of Value 1.0 $14,178,341 $14,461,907 $14,751,146 $17,888,960 $17,692,766 $18,961,183 $21,322,600 $25,533,318 $25,308,929 $25,134,918 $25,689,956 $26,775,259 $28,061,305 $30,496,879 $32,044,611 $34,687,104 Taxes Paid for Bonds & Assessments (4)0.1789 $2,536,080 $2,586,801 $2,638,537 $3,199,798 $3,164,705 $3,391,587 $3,813,974 $4,567,145 $4,527,008 $4,495,883 $4,595,162 $4,789,291 $5,019,326 $5,454,977 $5,731,819 $6,204,482 Portion for PAUSD 0.0860 $1,219,337 $1,243,724 $1,268,599 $1,538,451 $1,521,578 $1,630,662 $1,833,744 $2,195,865 $2,176,568 $2,161,603 $2,209,336 $2,302,672 $2,413,272 $2,622,732 $2,755,837 $2,983,091 Portion for Santa Clara County 0.0388 $550,120 $561,122 $572,344 $694,092 $686,479 $735,694 $827,317 $990,693 $981,986 $975,235 $996,770 $1,038,880 $1,088,779 $1,183,279 $1,243,331 $1,345,860 Portion for City of Palo Alto 0.0148 $209,414 $213,602 $217,874 $264,220 $261,322 $280,057 $314,935 $377,127 $373,813 $371,243 $379,441 $395,471 $414,465 $450,439 $473,299 $512,329 Portion for Foothill-DeAnza 0.0240 $340,280 $347,086 $354,027 $429,335 $424,626 $455,068 $511,742 $612,800 $607,414 $603,238 $616,559 $642,606 $673,471 $731,925 $769,071 $832,490 Portion for All Others (5)0.0153 $216,929 $221,267 $225,693 $273,701 $270,699 $290,106 $326,236 $390,660 $387,227 $384,564 $393,056 $409,661 $429,338 $466,602 $490,283 $530,713 Allocation of 1.0% Property Taxes County of Santa Clara 0.159059062 $2,255,194 $2,300,297 $2,346,303 $2,845,401 $2,814,195 $3,015,948 $3,391,553 $4,061,306 $4,025,615 $3,997,937 $4,086,220 $4,258,848 $4,463,405 $4,850,805 $5,096,986 $5,517,298 City of Palo Alto 0.094224911 $1,335,953 $1,362,672 $1,389,925 $1,685,586 $1,667,099 $1,786,616 $2,009,120 $2,405,875 $2,384,732 $2,368,335 $2,420,634 $2,522,896 $2,644,074 $2,873,566 $3,019,401 $3,268,389 PAUSD 0.456050497 $6,466,039 $6,595,360 $6,727,267 $8,158,269 $8,068,795 $8,647,257 $9,724,182 $11,644,483 $11,542,150 $11,462,792 $11,715,917 $12,210,870 $12,797,372 $13,908,117 $14,613,961 $15,819,071 Other School Funds 0.248955062 $3,529,770 $3,600,365 $3,672,372 $4,453,547 $4,404,704 $4,720,482 $5,308,369 $6,356,649 $6,300,786 $6,257,465 $6,395,645 $6,665,836 $6,986,004 $7,592,352 $7,977,668 $8,635,530 All Others (6)0.041710467 $591,385 $603,213 $615,277 $746,157 $737,974 $790,880 $889,376 $1,065,007 $1,055,647 $1,048,389 $1,071,540 $1,116,809 $1,170,450 $1,272,039 $1,336,596 $1,446,815 Total 1.00000000 $14,178,341 $14,461,907 $14,751,146 $17,888,960 $17,692,766 $18,961,183 $21,322,600 $25,533,318 $25,308,929 $25,134,918 $25,689,956 $26,775,259 $28,061,305 $30,496,879 $32,044,611 $34,687,104 Palo Alto Property Tax In Lieu of VLF (7)$0 $0 $0 $421,396 $416,775 $446,654 $502,280 $601,469 $596,183 $592,084 $605,158 $630,724 $661,018 $718,391 $754,850 $817,097 Avg. Annual Aggregate % Change % Change Tax Characteristic 2002 2017 2002-2017 2002-2017 Growth in Property Taxes (8)$16,714,420 $40,891,586 6.1%244.65%(9) (3) Total taxes paid sourced to property tax bills for SRP-owned properties for the years 2003 through 2017. (5) Includes VMC, Mid Peninsula Open Space, and SCVWS - State Water Proj. (9) Adjustment factor assuming 6.1% compounded annual average growth for 15 years. (7) In its fiscal impact analysis for the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan, EPS estimates that In Lieu VLF revenues to the City of Palo Alto are equivalent to approximately 25% of the property tax revenues to the City of Palo Alto (see EPS Report page 19). This factor is applied to the estimated City of Palo Alto property tax revenues from SRP (based upon the overall 1.0% property tax rate). This revenue source was created by the State of California, first implemented in Fiscal Year 2004-2005. For the purpose of this analysis, 2005 is assumed to comprise the first year of this municipal revenue source. (1) Tax rates corresponding to TRA 006-001, which is associated with the majority of the valuation for SRP (the other TRA is 006-055, with rates very similar to TRA 006-001). The tax rate allocation factors correspond to Fiscal Year 2015-16 for simplification and illustrative purposes. Exhibit 6. Historic Property Tax Trend for Stanford Research Park, Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Revenues, and Annual Taxes Paid Growth Rate, 2002 - 2017 (2) Due to lack of data, the total property tax amounts for 2002 and 2003 were conservatively estimated from the total figure from 2004, with the amount estimated to increase by 2.0% between 2003 and 2004, and then another 2.0% between 2002 and 2003. The 2.0% reflects the likely minimum increase in underly property valuation pursuant to the provisions of Proposition 13. (6) All Other taxing entities include Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Santa Clara Valley Water District North West Zone 1, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Santa Clara County Importation Water-Misc District, and Santa Clara Valley Water (8) Comprises a proxy for growth in property value. Sources: Stanford Research Park; Post-ERAF IAF for Tax Roll Year 2015-16, Property Tax Division, Controller-Treasurer Department, County of Santa Clara; County of Santa Clara Compilation of Tax Rates & Information, for Fiscal Year 2015-2016, Controller-Treasurer, County of Santa Clara; "Fiscal Analysis of the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan," Prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., February 17, 2017; and ALH Urban & Regional Economics. (4) Of the .1789 amount for bonds and assessments, approximately one-half, or 0.08600 accrues to the Palo Alto Unified School District. The other distributions include .03880 to Santa Clara County, .01477 to the City of Palo Alto, .02400 to Foothill-DeAnza Community College, and .01530 to a range of other, smaller districts. Sales and Use Tax Characteristic Values 2002 (2)2003 (2)2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 (3)2014 2015 2016 2017 (4) SRP Palo Alto Sales and Use Taxes Amount (5)$1,040,145 $1,193,124 $1,722,353 $2,060,458 $2,456,596 $2,726,661 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,600,000 $4,400,000 $3,430,000 $3,300,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,600,000 Percent of Total Sales (6)6.6%7.8%9.1%10.3%11.5%12.8%14%16%15%14%21%14%15%13%13%15% City of Palo Alto Sales and Use Taxes (7)$15,759,780 $15,231,370 $18,996,540 $20,004,445 $21,299,966 $21,357,657 -----$24,500,000 ---- Imputed SRP Taxable Sales (8)$104,014,548 $119,312,398 $172,235,296 $206,045,784 $245,659,608 $272,666,088 $250,000,000 $250,000,000 $250,000,000 $260,000,000 $440,000,000 $343,000,000 $330,000,000 $300,000,000 $300,000,000 $360,000,000 Distribution of Sales and Use Taxes (9) City of Palo Alto 1.00%$1,040,145 $1,193,124 $1,722,353 $2,060,458 $2,456,596 $2,726,661 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,600,000 $4,400,000 $3,430,000 $3,300,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,600,000 State of California 6.50%$6,760,946 $7,755,306 $11,195,294 $13,392,976 $15,967,875 $17,723,296 $16,250,000 $16,250,000 $16,250,000 $16,900,000 $28,600,000 $22,295,000 $21,450,000 $19,500,000 $19,500,000 $23,400,000 Special Taxes 1.25%$1,300,182 $1,491,405 $2,152,941 $2,575,572 $3,070,745 $3,408,326 $3,125,000 $3,125,000 $3,125,000 $3,250,000 $5,500,000 $4,287,500 $4,125,000 $3,750,000 $3,750,000 $4,500,000 Total 8.75%$9,101,273 $10,439,835 $15,070,588 $18,029,006 $21,495,216 $23,858,283 $21,875,000 $21,875,000 $21,875,000 $22,750,000 $38,500,000 $30,012,500 $28,875,000 $26,250,000 $26,250,000 $31,500,000 SRP Total Sq. Ft. Base (10)10,300,000 Palo Alto Sales Tax per Square Foot of SRP Building Area (11) 5-Year Average (2013-2017)$3,266,000 5-Year Average (2013-2017) Per Sq. Ft. $0.32 10-Year Average (2008-2017)$3,083,000 10-Year Average (2008-2017) Per Sq. Ft. $0.30 (6) The amount or percent of sales and use taxes in Palo Alto contributed by SRP are cited in the City of Palo Alto's Sales Tax Digest Summaries for 2002 (amount) and 2008 through 2012 and 2014 through 2017 (percent). The analysis assumes the percent derived from the fourth quarter 2002 report of 6.6% pertained to the full calendar year. Percentages for the intermediary years not reported by the City (i.e., 2003 through 2007) were assumed to increase by 1.2% per year, which is the annual average growth rate between the 2002 assumption and the 2008 reported figure. (7) For 2002 and 2003 these figures comprise 1.0% of the taxable sales reported in the City of Palo Alto by the State of California Board of Equalization. For the years the years 2004 through 2007 and 2013 these figures were included in the City of Palo Alto Sales Tax Digest Summaries for the trailing four quarters ending in December of the respective year, excepting 2013 where the figure corresponds with the trailing four quarters ending September 2017. These figures are all included because they were needed to support other calculations. If figures are not cited they were not necessary to complete the analysis as other important data points were provided and did not need to be calculated or estimated. (11) This analysis calculates the sales and use tax revenues associated with SRP on a per square foot basis across the entire property, to derive an average sales and use tax figure on a per square foot basis, reflecting different time horizons. Exhibit 7. Stanford Research Park Sales and Use Tax Generation, 2002 - 2017 (1) Sources: City of Palo Alto Sales Tax Digest Summaries, Quarterly Sales, City of Palo Alto Office of the City Auditor, 2002-2017 (see https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/reports/tax.asp); State of California, Board of Equalization, Taxable Sales by City, Calendar Years 2002 and 2003; Stanford Research Park; and ALH Urban & Regional Economics. (2) The 2002 and 2003 City of Palo alto Sales and Use Taxes comprise 1.0% of the total Taxable Sales reported for the City of Palo Alto by the State of California, Board of Equalization. (4) Only City of Palo Alto sales and use tax revenues through third quarter 2017 are presently available, measuring the revenues for the four prior quarters. For analytical purposes, these data are treated as a proxy for all of 2017. (8) Comprises an estimate of the taxable sales generated by SRP. The estimate comprises the SRP sales and use taxes divided by .01, reflecting the City's sales and use tax rate of 1.0%. (9) SRP sales taxes are distributed to the jurisdictions receiving shares of sales and use taxes generated in Palo Alto. The percentages vary over time. This analysis illustratively includes a generic distribution reflective of the present/recent time horizon. (10) From Stanford Research Park. (1) This analysis is generally based upon sales and use tax revenues reported by the City of Palo Alto for Stanford Research Park. These specific revenues are reported by the City of Palo Alto for 2008 through 2012, and 2014 through the most recent time period available (trailing year ending third quarter 2017). As noted in other footnotes, missing data points were estimated to develop an estimated time series of sales and use taxes received by the City of Palo Alto and other jurisdictions from Stanford Research Park tenants. Sales and Use Tax figures highlighted in purple are estimated. (3) For 2013 the City of Palo Alto's quarterly sales tax digest summaries do not identify the amount or share of sales and use tax contributed by SRP. Pursuant to the quarterly digest through December 2013, total sales and use taxes in Palo Alto were approximately $24.5 million. During the several years before and after 2013, SRP's share of Palo Alto's sales and use taxes typically ranged from 13% to 16%, with one outlier year (2012) at 21%. Conservatively, the analysis assumes for 2013 that SRP's sales and use taxes comprised 14% of total City sales and use tax revenues. (5) Sales and use taxes generated by SRP are estimated for 2002 through 2007. These revenues are estimated by multiplying the City of Palo Alto's total sales and use tax revenues by the percent share assumed to be contributed by SRP for each year. For all other years, except 2013, these figures are presented by the City of Palo Alto quarterly in the City's Sales Tax Digest Summaries. Unless otherwise noted, figures correspond to the calendar year of the year cited. Data Characteristic 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Stanford Research Park Employment (2)23,000 23,384 23,774 24,171 24,575 24,985 25,402 25,826 26,258 26,696 27,142 27,595 28,055 28,524 29,000 29,000 Taxable Spending by Workers Taxable Spending per Worker (3)$7,046 $7,194 $7,362 $7,587 $7,847 $8,096 $8,379 $8,347 $8,438 $8,678 $8,864 $8,996 $9,163 $9,270 $9,449 $9,717 Annual Sales Taxes, rounded (4)$1,296,400 $1,345,900 $1,400,200 $1,467,100 $1,542,600 $1,618,200 $1,702,700 $1,724,600 $1,772,500 $1,853,200 $1,924,700 $1,985,900 $2,056,600 $2,115,300 $2,192,100 $2,254,400 Business Spending on Employees Taxable Spending per Employee (5)$380 $388 $397 $409 $423 $437 $452 $450 $455 $468 $478 $485 $494 $500 $510 $524 Annual Sales Taxes, rounded (6)$87,400 $90,700 $94,400 $98,900 $104,000 $109,100 $114,800 $116,300 $119,500 $124,900 $129,800 $133,900 $138,700 $142,600 $147,800 $152,000 Utility Users Tax (UUT) Estimated UUT Per Employee (7)$43.05 $45.27 $47.61 $50.06 $52.64 $55.35 $58.21 $61.21 $64.36 $67.68 $71.17 $74.84 $78.69 $82.75 $87.02 $91.50 Annual UUT Taxes, rounded (8)$990,000 $1,060,000 $1,130,000 $1,210,000 $1,290,000 $1,380,000 $1,480,000 $1,580,000 $1,690,000 $1,810,000 $1,930,000 $2,070,000 $2,210,000 $2,360,000 $2,520,000 $2,650,000 Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Hotel Room Rate (9)$182 $186 $191 $196 $203 $210 $217 $216 $218 $225 $229 $233 $237 $240 $245 $252 Annual TOT, rounded (10)$1,586,000 $1,646,000 $1,713,000 $1,795,000 $1,887,000 $1,980,000 $2,083,000 $2,110,000 $2,168,000 $2,267,000 $2,354,000 $2,429,000 $2,516,000 $2,588,000 $2,682,000 $2,758,000 (6) For each year, comprises SRP Employment * Taxable Spending per Employee * 1.0% City of Palo Alto Sales Tax Rate (see Exhibit 1), rounded to the nearest $100. Sources: Stanford Real Estate, Stanford University; "Fiscal Analysis of the City of Palo alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Draft Report," February 17, 2017, Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI-Average Data, Electricity per KWH in San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA; and ALH Urban & Regional Economics. Exhibit 8. Employment-Based SRP City of Palo Alto Fiscal Revenues, 2002-2017 (1) (7) The annual rate for 2015 is based on an estimate generated by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. in "Fiscal Analysis of the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Draft Report," February 17, 2017, Figures A25-A30. The EPS estimate of $82.75 in 2015 was adjusted backward in time based upon the U.S. Department of Labor CPI-Average Price Data index for Electricity per KWH in San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA (see http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blsap/APUA42272610). A rate of change from December 2008 to December 2017 was estimated, at 1.05155, as an illustrative estimate (see Exhibit 10). This rate was applied annually for the entire time period as a proxy for the additional years. While utility users taxes reflect payments for other utility services other than electricity, the electricity index is deemed a reasonable proxy for all utility services subject to the utility users tax. ALH Economics believes this results in a conservative analysis, as there were years prior to 2015 where the City's electricity rates remained unchanged. See http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52037. (5) The annual rate for 2015 is based on an estimate generated by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. in "Fiscal Analysis of the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Draft Report," February 17, 2017, page 23. The EPS estimate of $500 per employee in 2015 was adjusted backward and forward in time based upon the U.S. Department of Labor CPI Index for Urban West Consumers (see Exhibit 11, annual figures). EPS converted the per employee metric to a per square foot metric. However, in this case, the per employee metric is applied because of the availability of an estimated time series of SRP employment. (9) The annual rate for 2015 is derived from analysis presented by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. in "Fiscal Analysis of the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Draft Report," February 17, 2017, Figure 19, page 27 (See Exhibit 6). The deduced EPS average hotel room rate of $240 in 2015 was adjusted backward and forward in time based upon the U.S. Department of Labor CPI Index for Urban West Consumers (see Exhibit 11, annual figures). (10) For each year, comprises SRP Employment * Hotel Room Rate * 90% Palo Alto Capture Rate (See Exhibit 9) * 14% City of Palo Alto Transient Occupancy Tax (see Exhibit 1), rounded to the nearest $1,000. (8) For each year, comprises SRP Employment * Estimated UUT per Employee, rounded to the nearest $10,000. (1) Figures for 2015 outlined and in bold are source figures, per the information provided in footnotes 3, 5, and 7. (4) For each year, comprises SRP Employment * Taxable Spending per Worker * 80% Palo Alto Capture Rate (See Exhibit 1) * 1% City of Palo Alto Sales Tax Rate (see Exhibit 1), rounded to the nearest $100. (3) The annual rate for 2015 is based on an estimate generated by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. in "Fiscal Analysis of the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Draft Report," February 17, 2017, page 23. The EPS estimate of $500 per employee in 2015 was adjusted backward and forward in time based upon the U.S. Department of Labor CPI Index for Urban West Consumers (see Exhibit 11, annual figures). (2) Annual employment extrapolated from employment estimates of 23,000 in 2002 and 29,000 in 2016. Employment assumed stable in 2017. Estimates provided by Stanford Real Estate, Stanford University. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 8:55 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Richard Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net> Sent:Friday, July 27, 2018 1:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Idling Ordinance Dear Council members. I have my New York family visiting next week so unable to speak to you in person. I STRONGLY support this proposed ordinance. In part because Palo Alto has become world famous, we have 10 wheeled and other smaller tour buses sitting idling for long periods in our Professorville neighborhood. While I don't expect the police department to have to respond to every occurrence, having this ordinance on the books will allow we residents to ask the operators to shut off their large displacement motors. This also applies to construction vehicles. Please vote YES to create this new restriction. Thank you, Richard C. Brand 281 Addison Ave. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 8:55 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Bill Zaumen <bill.zaumen@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, July 27, 2018 10:15 AM To:Council, City Subject:Idling vehicle ban The news articles I've seen claim that the city council is considering a ban on vehicles idling for more than three minutes, with exceptions for emergency vehicles, refrigeration trucks, and armored vehicles. I would suggest considering extending this list to include hybrid vehicles. The Prius I drive will usually shut off the internal combustion engine when stopped, but there are exceptions. If the internal combustion engine is running while the vehicle is stopped, it is doing something useful such as recharging the battery or possibly just warming up the engine (fuel efficiency is low while the engine is cold). A computer determines when the engine should run. Given the sensors and the effort Toyota's engineers have spent on optimizing the car's performance, it is at least plausible that their design decisions would result in less total emissions than legislation that requires the engine to be turned off regardless. In addition, one can stop and wait a few minutes with the engine technically "on" but with the internal combustion engine not running. Then at some point the computer may decide to turn the internal combustion engine back on. If a law does not handle hybrid vehicles appropriately, with some unfortunate timing, a driver could be fined because a police officer wandered by just after the engine started, not knowing that the engine was actually burning fuel for only a few seconds. Similar systems in which an engine automatically stops when the car is stopped and restarts when the car is about to move are being introduced into vehicles that are not hybrids. An exception for this case may be useful as well. Regards, Bill Zaumen Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/25/2018 3:22 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Gretchen Hillard <gretchen.hillard@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, July 25, 2018 2:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:airplane noise Dear Councilmembers, Kindly take steps to move forward the Council’s ability to reduce jet and airplane noise over Palo Alto. Kindly request a date for staff to present a plan for a litigation strategy with respect to this ongoing affront to our peace. Thank you, Gretchen Hillard 3048 Greer Rd. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/26/2018 5:06 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Darshana Maya Greenfield <darshanamaya@icloud.com> Sent:Thursday, July 26, 2018 9:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:please craft a fair partnership with Pets In Need They are a *wonderful* organization! I adopted my last dear dog from them, and she was such a blessing in my life. They do a phenomenal job! And if Palo Alto were to be sending lots more dogs and cats there, they may need some financial contributions, or some campaign to get more donors. Adopting animals in need should not be out of reach for good families, who will take good care of the pet, but cannot afford increased fees. Please be in discussion with them with what they would need to help Palo Alto with animal services. Thoughtfully, Darshana Greenfield Menlo Park neighbor just on the other side of the Creek City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/26/2018 5:06 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:Jody Horst <jodynizzie@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, July 26, 2018 9:58 AM To:Council, City Subject:Pets Please allow Pets in need to provide services for our animal shelter. Jody Horst Metro Circle Palo Alto Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/26/2018 5:06 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:TED FLETCHER <lafletch@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, July 26, 2018 10:28 AM To:Council, City Subject:shelter To All of my City Council Members, I have lived in Palo Alto all of my life!! My mom and dad grew up here as well, and I am raising my children in my grandfather's house here in Palo Alto. This city is the most amazing place to live due to it's commitment to its residents!! One of the most important services is the shelter on East Bay Shore Road. It has served this community for many years and it now needs our help and support. Every day I read on my Next Door App, a story about a pet in need. Every day animals are lost, killed, hurt, and in need of medical help. Our wonderful shelter has always helped animals and their families for as long as I can remember. It is not a big shelter, but it does a HUGE job. Please do whatever it takes to save that shelter!! Thank you for your time, Linda Fletcher 843 Channing Ave. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/26/2018 5:06 PM 4 Carnahan, David From:Marilyn Coghlin <me.coghlin@att.net> Sent:Thursday, July 26, 2018 10:30 AM To:Council, City Subject:Animal Shelter Working with Pets in Need is a no brainer. The animal shelter is vital to Palo Alto. I have a black cat from the shelter in addition to my other two. I am proud we have the shelter & should maintain it. We need financial help from our residents also. Marilyn Coghlin, proudly 45 year resident. Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/26/2018 5:06 PM 5 Carnahan, David From:Christine Walravens <cfwalravens@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, July 26, 2018 1:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:animal shelter Hello, I would very much like Palo Alto to use some of its funds to continue having an animal shelter. When I see all of the money put into roadwork, it is clear that Palo Alto has money to spare and I favor shifting it over to animals in need (instead of just painting sea animals on roadways like on Louis). Sincerely, Christine Walravens 145 Heather Lane City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/26/2018 5:06 PM 6 Carnahan, David From:Hana Verny <hanaverny@hotmail.com> Sent:Thursday, July 26, 2018 4:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:Animal Shelter Contract To City Council Members: This is in support of the contract for Palo Alto Animal Shelter with Pets in Need. Pets in Need is an excellent organization that will provide good care and services for our animals. I have long time experience with the organization and can highly recommend it. Sincerely Hana Verny Greer Road Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/26/2018 5:06 PM 7 Carnahan, David From:Caroline Hicks <cyhicksmail@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, July 26, 2018 5:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:palo alto and pets in need to save our shelter Dear Council members, Please save our animal shelter by joining with Pets in Need. This is long in coming and we need this shelter and it’s services badly. We are counting on you to make this happen. Many Thanks! Caroline Hicks Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 8:52 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Nancy Olson <nso2431@icloud.com> Sent:Saturday, July 28, 2018 1:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Pet Shelter Please vote favor of the partnership between Pets In Need and our Palo Alto Shelter. This is an important member of our community - the community we want to be! Nancy Olson 2431 Bryant Street nso2431@icloud.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 8:52 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Kathryn Linz-Cox <linzieme@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, July 26, 2018 8:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Pets in Need Dear Council members, As a decades long supporter of Pets in Need, I urge each of you to vote "yes" to partner with this amazing, caring group. Thank you in advance. Kathryn Linz-Cox 485 El Dorado Ave. Palo Alto, CA City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 8:56 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Mark Hoffberg <mark.b.hoffberg@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, July 27, 2018 1:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Pets in Need Dear City Council members, As a long-time Palo Alto resident and as a dog owner, I urge you to formalize the agreement at their Aug. 13 meeting for Pets In Need to provide animal care services for the City of Palo Alto. Thanks for your good work for the entire city, Mark Hoffberg 1560 Channing Ave. Palo Alto, CA City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 8:54 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Clay Shepherd <clayshepherd@mac.com> Sent:Thursday, July 26, 2018 8:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:Appeal to Avoid Evictions at President Hotel Apartment Building Hello Palo Alto City Council, I'm Clay Shepherd, a Stanford graduate and self‐employed technology consultant living and working at this complex for the 10th year. I have lived at three different apartments within the President Hotel Apartments building and currently reside in unit #304 with my 20‐year‐old son Andy, who works two jobs at establishments on University Ave. We both appreciate the convenience of living downtown, being able to walk anywhere and using the local shops and resources. We value the affordable, efficient, minimalist lifestyle, the local culture and the community of people at and around the complex. Living in this complex is our livelihood, and we cannot comprehend why we are suddenly being allowed to uprooted and forced to relocate by an overzealous and misguided developer. It is disruptive to our lives and work and will create a significant financial hardship. For the past week, I have been casually exploring alternate rental properties in the area and it is apparent that we will not be able to stay in Palo Alto. Moreover, with an upscale hotel located adjacent to this property and others in the area, we cannot understand why another hotel catering to temporary visitors and tourists would be needed or valued. The developer AJ Capital Partners' corporate theme is to "conquer space and give it back meaning." However, the plans they have for this property act to extinguish 50 years of rich, meaningful local history and community. Us residents of the President Hotel Apartments feel we deserve help in preserving our homes and this unique and diverse residential community, and request protection from outside forces looking to maximize profits from this property. Thank you, Clay Shepherd President Hotel Apartments Unit #304 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:47 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Peter Drekmeier <peter@tuolumne.org> Sent:Tuesday, July 31, 2018 8:22 AM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed Subject:Bay Delta Plan Follow-Up Dear City Council Members: Thank you for the opportunity to address Council during Oral Communications last night. As I mentioned, I’m following up with additional information about the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. Please take eight minutes to watch this brief slideshow video about the Plan and the SFPUC’s misinformation campaign, which contributed to Palo Alto’s comment letter on the draft Substitute Environmental Document. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL_INODOxsI&feature=youtu.be Thank you. -Peter ----------------------- Peter Drekmeier Policy Director Tuolumne River Trust peter@tuolumne.org (415) 882-7252 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 9:12 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Christine Boehm <cboehm@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, July 29, 2018 1:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Bike lanes and road safety (from a young Palo Altan) Dear City Council Members: I really like to bike to school with my mommy and brother. I want more bike lanes because they show you where to bike; it’s harder to know where to bike without bike lanes. Please make Addison Avenue between Guinda and Cowper less bumpy. Please paint the bike lanes after the road is smoothed out. It would also be nice if grownups were reminded not to park in the bike lanes on Addison. I would also stop light at Lincoln and Middlefield so I can ride my bike across Middlefield and not have to go over to Addison. Thank you, Charles (age 4) (As dictated to Christine Boehm) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:44 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, July 30, 2018 6:22 PM To:Council, City Cc:Tom DuBois (tom.dubois@gmail.com); Holman, Karen (external); Greg Schmid (external); Arthur Keller Subject:butterflies are free but are we? ( I did a two-minute drill of this Monday, July 30, 2018 at Council): A butterfly affect Posted on July 30, 2018by markweiss86 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:44 AM 2 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:44 AM 3 I’m a gonna speak to City Council in about 30 minutes, after 14 or so speakers, about butterflies literally and metaphorically. Eleanor Laney, Palo Alto Garden Club, was tabling at California Avenue farmers’ market Sunday about monarch butterflies and planting milk weed here. I donated $10 and went home with two plants, now sitting in their respective boxes on our porch. 1. I recall speaking by phone to a Juanita Salisbury of Palo Alto who planted a “pollinator zone” at Guinda and Embarcadero. It attracts bees. Laney said she knows Salisbury, and Juanita, later, confirmed such. 2. I pulled up on my handheld from the Earthwise Gallery of Posters on my wordpress Plastic Alto blog a 1997 poster design created by Michele Nelson who married to become Michele Ester Turner (1965-2016). It was for the bands Calobo and Sweet Virginia at Cubberley, in 1997 and was a digital print poster (about 200 run) of a butterfly (but Laney said it was not a monarch). I read recently that Michele had passed away, and I am speaking today partly to honor her memory. 3. I’m also thinking about “Chaos Theory” and “The Butterfly Effect”. I’m not expert. What I mean is it is hard to predict effects due to causes. If you excuse the political metaphor, I am saying that there is alot more going on here, on the grassroots level, then you would know if you only follow the “party line” which, to my mind, tries to propulgate a monoculture of ideas and discourages dissent. (I’m just sayin’). In the cases of the butterfly and the bees projects, these are viable and could have ongoing support and significance, belying their humble (bumble) current states. 4. Background: A Sound of Thunder, a story from 1952 by Ray Bradbury, dealing with space travel and time tourism and the effect, ironically, of leaving the path. (It impacted the use of language, and spelling, and outcome of an election. Also: Edward Lorenz, who went to Dartmouth and studied weather. Not to be confused with Henrik Lorentz, a physicist. There’s also a Simpson’s episode on this concept, or popular notion of such. 5. My concert featured four bands: Calobo (from Oregon), Laura Kemp Band (from Oregon), Sweet Virginia (from SF, but featuring Clint Bennett from Gunn on guitar), and Shelly Doty, of Berkeley, formerly of Jambay of Oregon. Calobo two members later joined a more popular band, The Decemberists. 1997. Write- up in the Weekly. Clint went on to make soundtracks for network TV shows, in Hollywood. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:44 AM 4 6. edit to add, five minutes later but eight speakers before my hit: Clint Bennett did the music for Bunheads, a show TMW then Terry My Terry watched several episodes of, of which Terry and I watched several episodes. I recall reaching Clint around then to catch up. I mis-identify Clint in a previous Calobo/Sweet Virginia post, confusing his name with that of a local jazz instrumentalist and maybe singer. I don’t recall if I asked Michele Nelson if she knew Clint Bennett. She went to Paly, he Gunn. I should post separately about the subset of posters designed by Michele. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/25/2018 3:22 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Amy Keohane <amykeohane@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, July 25, 2018 3:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cap on office space To the city council, I live downtown and I for one am opposed to doing away with the office cap. As it is downtown we have so many buildings that are empty now. We dont need anymore office space, we need retail space. amy Amy Keohane 650‐346‐5306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/25/2018 1:25 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Gretchen Harding <gretchen.harding@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, July 25, 2018 1:12 PM To:pwecips; Council, City Subject:Construction is causing dangerous traffic diversion to 300 block of Byron Street Due to street construction at the intersection of Lytton and Webster, dangerous and excessive traffic is being diverted in both directions onto the 300 block of Byron. This street segment is narrow and busy with lots of short-term parking and pedestrians from visitors and deliveries to nearby Lytton Gardens. Yesterday, without notice to residents, southbound through-traffic on Lytton was diverted to Byron Street, congesting the narrow street and making for dangerous conditions. My car, that was parked on the street across from my home, sustained significant damage to the front passenger side from a hit and run driver. This additional traffic is especially dangerous because we also have had increased traffic in the opposite direction for several weeks due to the closure of Webster. Cars on Everett that wish to turn left at Middlefield, no longer have the option to use Webster, where there was a traffic light at Lytton, and instead are speeding on Byron toward Lytton to be able to make a left, then another left onto Middlefield. This is simply too much traffic diversion in both directions by frustrated drivers trying to navigate their way through Palo Alto's current road closures. Making drivers zig-zag through Palo Alto onto a narrow residential street, that is busy with short-term parking and many pedestrians, especially elderly ones from Lytton Gardens. This is a recipe for disaster. I have already suffered a property loss within hours of the new traffic detour onto my street, but my bigger concern is for the safety of pedestrians. There needs to be a different traffic diversion plan to prevent excessive dangerous traffic in both directions on the narrow 300 block of Byron before there is a tragedy. Gretchen Harding 336 Byron Steet 650-296-1322 -- Gretchen Harding c:) 650-296-1322 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/25/2018 3:22 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Scott Kilner <scott.kilner7@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, July 25, 2018 2:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:Continuing Airplane Noise! Dear City Council Members, My family remains very concerned about the lack of progress to remedy the issue of oppressive airplane flight noise. We urge you to move forward on Action Item 8 E from the May 7 Council Meeting -- i.e. for staff to “Bring to Council as fast as possible a plan for a litigation strategy in support of procedural changes affecting Palo Alto and investigate the best approach for filing timely lawsuits within 60 days of an appropriate new event.” Sincerely, Scott F. Kilner 827 E. Greenwich Place Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 9:06 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Sunday, July 29, 2018 9:33 PM To:dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; David Balakian; beachrides; blackstone@blastfitness.com; Leodies Buchanan; boardmembers; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; paul.caprioglio; Daniel Zack; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Raymond Rivas; huidentalsanmateo; steve.hogg; hennessy; info@superide1.com; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; johnhutson580; kfsndesk; Mark Kreutzer; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kclark; leager; Mark Standriff; Mayor; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; midge@thebarretts.com; nick yovino; nchase@bayareanewsgroup.com; nettemike2011 @gmail.com; newsdesk; pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; popoff; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; terry; Jason Tarvin; Tom Lang Subject:Fwd: Anothe BS story re HSR from the liars at the LA Times ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 9:08 PM Subject: Fwd: Anothe BS story re HSR from the liars at the LA Times To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 8:50 PM Subject: Fwd: Anothe BS story re HSR from the liars at the LA Times To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 5:28 PM Subject: Fwd: Anothe BS story re HSR from the liars at the LA Times To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 5:16 PM Subject: Anothe BS story re HSR from the liars at the LA Times To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 9:06 AM 2 Sun. July 29, 2018 Mr. Dan Richard Chairman of the Board California High Speed Rail Authority Dan- You'll like this. Everybody who "knows" anything about HSR takes a 15 foot run and gives Calif. HSR a good whack here. http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-speed-20180729-story.html# Morshed admitted years ago that he pulled the 2 hr 40 minute number out of the air, so it's funny to see all these experts raving that it might take 2 hrs. and 50 minutes. They should all grow up. We defend the whole world, and the rich countries we defend all then spend their defense dollars on HSR and comprehensive national health care. The U.S. is becoming a third world country and we are not going to have it. Central Valley Republican members of Congress like David Valadao, Kevin McCarthy, Jeff Denham and Devin Nunes work tirelessly to defund and kill HSR in California. Their victims, any voter in their district worth less than $100 million, should vote them out of office. The experts quoted here fail to see that the American people are no longer willing to be made suckers by their government. We too are going to have wonderful national health care, high speed rail, and not just in California, good roads, affordable universities, all the things the Germans, Italians, French, Spanish, Japanese, and S. Koreans have at our expense. Somehow these people are "more deserving" than the American people. They deserve to start fighting their own wars. Trump said recently that the U.S. pays around 70% of the cost of NATO. Those belly-aching about Calif. HSR should explain why that should be acceptable to the American people. Yet, Trump now wants to raise our gargantuan "defense" spending from $700 billion per year to $714 billion. The extra $14 billion per year, if devoted to California HSR, would move the project forward to an early completion. $700 billion for defense is way more than we need to deter and destroy any conceivable foe. It is just out of spite for the people of California that Trump wastes this money on "defense" and will not fund California HSR. The LA Times is a mouthpiece for rich Republican scum. The experts who take a whack at Calif. HSR in this piece are on the wrong side of history. They look like 9th graders bitching about a few minutes of running time when the target number came straight out of Morti Morshed's imagination in 2005. It would be ironic if a few minutes running time by Calif. HSR was the cross upon which its critics chose to sacrifice themselves. We, the people, are going to have a magnificent high speed rail system in California. These critics are way behind the curve wrt the mood of the public. We have been screwed six ways to Sunday by our government for a long time and now we are going to get some great stuff or find out why. I sense nothing short of a political revolution afoot in this country. We are not victims, we are the American people. People should ask around about what we can do to victimizers. To give a tax break of $1.5 trillion to the richest Republicans and crumbs to the rest of the taxpayers shows the exploitive, venal mentality of the Republicans. "Let the scum hang" is probably heard a lot on their side in Congress. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 9:06 AM 3 I recommend that when Congress gets to funding infrastructure that the Republicans tell Valadao, McCarthy, Denham and Nunes that the California High Speed Rail project is going to be fully funded. They can vote "no" and we in the Central Valley can vote them out. Dan, you have done a magnificent job as Chairman of the Board of the California High Speed Rail Authority, and in a lot of other tough jobs. If the Democrats have any sense, they will nominate you for President of the United States in 2020. You'd make a great President. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/26/2018 5:09 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hawthorne <jhawthorne16@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, July 26, 2018 12:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Stanford GUP comments Attachments:20180724_085349.jpg Dear Palo Alto City Council In response to Stanford’s proposed academic expansion or GUP, I want to reiterate the need for Stanford to adequately address the costs to the city of Palo Alto and county of Santa Clara associated with the impact of the proposed expansion. While there are, many potential impacts associate with the proposed expansion, my main concerns are twofold. One is the direct and in‐direct traffic related impacts and second is the impact to the PAUSD. Traffic‐related impacts. The city of Palo Alto has questioned the methodology and feasibility of the No Net New Commute Trips mitigation outlined in the current DEIR. Regardless of trying to predict future growth impacts, I believe there is already a significant impact today from Stanford commute traffic on Palo Alto transportation infrastructure. Steps should be taken today to address the current traffic impacts and adequately plan and prepare for future growth. Most traffic routes into Stanford are at capacity during commute times. Embarcadero Rd, Churchill Ave, Oregon Expressway, Page Mill Rd, Alpine Rd, Junipero Serra Blvd and Stanford Ave all experience significant backups during commute times with traffic clearly flowing into Stanford during the morning hours and out of Stanford during the evening hours. Attached photograph looking west on Churchill Ave on Tuesday 8:45 AM. Traffic is backed up from El Camino to the pedestrian crosswalk at Palo Alto High School. Improvement projects and the required funding should be addressed today to improve traffic flow on the aforementioned roads. While the proposed development may or may not result in No Net New Commute Trips, it will certainly generate additional day trip local traffic as new families and students access local schools, shopping centers and other city facilities. Plans and funding to improve the local transportation infrastructure to accommodate an increase in local day traffic must be included in the plan. For example, the Marguerite shuttle system is grossly underutilized by the Stanford community. Perhaps, coordination and enhanced connections between the Marguerite and City Shuttles should be addressed to improve access and ridership. Other actions could entail requiring that some portion of the Stanford undergraduate population not be allowed to have a vehicle on campus. Potential Impacts to PAUSD The project documentation does not address how Stanford will help to fund the cost of educating over 2,500 new potential students. Much of the proposed expansion is on Stanford land that is exempt from paying property tax. PAUSD City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/26/2018 5:09 PM 2 operations are funded directly by property taxes. The burden of paying to educate over 2,500 new Stanford family students would fall on Palo Alto residences and could exceed $51 million annually. For every 400‐500 new elementary students generated by Stanford, PAUSD would have to build an additional neighborhood school, with each requiring a 3‐4 acre site. The RDEIR “ignores the secondary potential environmental impacts associated with this new development that would be needed as a direct result of Stanford’s development.” The project documentation also does not address how Stanford would help to fund the longer‐term capital for new school facilities. Funding According to the affordable‐housing fee “nexus” study, the cost to provide affordable housing to support Stanford University’s proposed campus expansion would be $143 per square foot — or about $325 million for the 2.275 million square feet of academic development the university is planning through 2035. Several issues: 1) It is not clear that this funding would adequately address the necessary traffic flow and overall transportation infrastructure improvements. Many of which are needed today, not by 2035. 2) It does not address funding required for the potential impact to PAUSD. Regardless of these issues, Stanford is fighting the $143 per square foot funding level proposed by the study and the county. Stanford has reluctantly increased its offer of affordable housing funds to Santa Clara County from $45.5 million to $56 million which amounts to $24.61 per square feet. Well below the target proposed by the county. While Stanford brings many tangible and intangible benefits to the city of Palo Alto and the county of Santa Clara, they have not paid their share for utilizing the infrastructure of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County. Santa Clara County and Palo Alto must work together to ensure that Stanford adequately address funding requirements for transportation infrastructure improvement and PAUSD funding as part of the approval for their expansion plan (GUP). Now is the time to hold Stanford accountable. Sincerely Jeff Hawthorne 230 Sequoia Ave Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:48 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Mary Ann Michel <maryannm7@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 31, 2018 10:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: VTA Service I am forwarding this message because of the light coverage five ETA in our part of the county. I regret that our transportation commission does not think about transit coverage as much as they do about parking.We need the 35 bus and you must a attention to what is happening at VTA. I would be pleased to talk to any of you up at transit in Palo Alto. MAMichel 850 Webster st apt 503 Palo Alto ca 94301 Begin forwarded message: From: Mary Ann Michel <maryannm7@gmail.com> Date: July 31, 2018 at 10:35:54 AM PDT To: VTA Customer Service <customer.service@vta.org> Subject: Re: VTA Service at this point I cannot remember what my question was but I am well aware of the two answers you gave. It must have had to do with the limited coverage of north county Santa Clara. I continue to hear that the 35 vta line Is on its way out and that would be a tragedy it needs to be run every 30 minutes all day and night. I don’t know how you expect to get more riders with scant coverage I would like an answer to this email. MAMichel 850 channing st apt 50 palo alto ca 94301 6503247384 On Jul 31, 2018, at 8:08 AM, VTA Customer Service <customer.service@vta.org> wrote: Hello Mary Ann, Thank you for contacting VTA. Lines 22 or 522 will drop off passengers at the Palo Alto Transit Center where they can transfer to SamTrans’s ECR to travel through Menlo Park and beyond. For the Palo Alto ran C shuttle schedule, please click here. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:48 AM 2 Thank you, Danielle Nguyen VTA Customer Service City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:49 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Allen Liu <allen.operations@projecthumancity.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 31, 2018 1:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:Human City Program Collaboration Proposal Attachments:project_human city-1.pdf Hello Council Members, My name is Allen and I’m the Network Outreach Coordinator for Project: Human City. Project: Human City is a think tank, not-for-profit, social enterprise committed to resolving social and urban issues of society through technology, transparency and equity. As an organization, we have ambitious goals, and creating a global governance system is one of them. In order to do this we created the Human City Program. This program looks to digitize and modernize cities sustainably, past the conventional “smart city’ model and seeks to create community lead governance models, communal asset development and data leveraged insights. We are interested in partnering with your City to implement our Human City Program - Project: Human The Human City Program has 3 main goal components: Creating Access, this means making all services offered by the city digitally accessible and optimized to the needs of the local community. We do this by creating public apps for residents and specialized apps for streamlining internal city operations. Project: Human City works with government to build for need and delivery, so that our technology is able to turn arduous processes into simple practices. Empowering Growth, this means investing in technology that delivers a social return by either enhancing the physical environment, servicing a need, or fostering the opportunity for value creation. Project: Human City invests in and builds the technology, both hardware and software, that cities need to be sustainably productive and data informed. Developing Culture, is a highly collaborative effort that is vital to the sense of place and comfort that come from great communities, Project: Human City looks to cultivate a unique identity for each city that can inspire residents and visitors to be their best selves. The focus of our project revolves around organizing cities to be the best service providers for their citizens and developing a culture of community ownership. We believe that as people build a stake in their communities, they develop a greater sense of pride and diligence in maintaining it. We promote communal ownership to share this sense across a greater population to gain a bigger social return. Please see our attached one sheet for more information on the Human City Program and feel free to reach out to schedule an introductory presentation meeting with our management and Human City Onboarding Team. Thank you for your time and consideration, Allen Liu - Project: Human City www.projecthumancity.com O U T S I D E T O O L S L E V E R A G E D I N T E R N A L C I T Y S E R V I C E S P U B L I C S E R V I C E S B U S I N E S S S E R V I C E S SOC I A L ME DI A C O N TA C T - W WW.PR O J EC THU MA N CI TY.C O M Project: Human City Human City Program community@projecthumancity.com @prohumancityprojecthumancity 4 Y E A R S E R V I C E M E M B E R S H I P Year 1 - 100% of Fee Used for Integration Year 2-4 - 30% of Fee Used for Operation + 70% Locally Invested Local Media Promotion 5 Episodes of online video series filmed in City Local Changemaker Promotion Landmark Promotion Cultural Scene Promotion Software Services Hardware and Infrastructure Development Community First Development Unified City Dashboard tool Transparent Workflow Management Build to Need Data Analytics Inter-department Synergy Recommendations Internal Operating Software End-point and data assessment + integration + roll-out plan Revenue Source Planning and Development Embedded full-time Project: Human City Project Coordinator 24/7 software support Data trends and advanced analytics IOT data management, processing, and planning Community Building Mobile App and Web Portal Project, Program, Co-op Recommendations Localized Service Support Community Outreach Campaigns Inclusion Assessments Needs Assessment and Strategic Area Planning Online city Licensing, Permits, Listing and Status Updates Operation Software Tool Suite Local Economic Project Development and Planning Support B A S E S E R V I C E S : Data Processing & Network Support IOT Nodes and Smart Data analysis Environmental Trackers Human Interaction Nodes Advanced Autonomous Additive Manufacturing Organic Community initiative support Large Scale vision planning incremental component rollout Live state of project reporting Creative economy support and cultivation Gehl Institute - Place Inventory + Public Life Data Protocol Citysdk Open 311 General Data Protection Regulation The Human City Memberships allows cities to leverage existing assets to gain revolutionary efficiency, service quality, and transparency. The membership program enables city to city information sharing and best practice protocols. Project: Human City works with municipalities to ensure streamlined rollout and continual service upgrades free of additional cost. Year 5 - 100% of Fee Used for Mandatory Community Infrastructure Investment Year 6-8 - 30% of Fee Used for Operation + 70% Locally Invested Renewal Option and 4 Year Goal Orientation and Public Consultation Membership Fee Calculated by P:HC's Population Equality Algorithm City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:49 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Gloria Pyszka <gpyszka@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 31, 2018 12:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:Is traffic getting worse? What a ridiculous question. Dear Liz and Colleagues. I didn’t go to the City Council meeting on Stanford – too old and I go to bed early. Since you are apparently my only avenue of expression, here goes. You must be out of your mind when you tell us that if we just found an alternate traffic route, life would be fine, or even better. You must live next to City Hall. I live in southern Palo Alto and find myself quite regularly on Alma, ECR, Oregon Exp, etc., going to PAMF, T&C, Watercourse Way, Shopping center (hardly ever), Stanford, etc. I group errands to make as few trips as possible. (Now, I could give up driving altogether and just hibernate. Then, traffic would be better, right?) Give me a fast way to make it on the bus, and I'll switch. A fast way, remember. That's the operative term. Meaning not all afternoon meandering through the neighborhoods. No, not lyft or uber. I know that Palo Altans - and the zillion who are using PA as a drive-through route - cannot find an alternate route anywhere, unless it’s down some residential street that used to be bucolic. I know them all which is what happens when you've lived here forever. You’re a CC member who is supposed to know what goes on around here. The fact that you’ve lived in PA for a long time – and should know better - is regrettable. Gloria Pyszka, East Charleston and it's not bucolic! City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 9:09 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Anne Gregory <xagregoryx@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, July 30, 2018 1:13 AM To:Council, City Subject:Jet Noise was brutal today Dear Palo Alto City Council: Jet noise was brutal over Midtown today, with jets flying low over my house every two minutes for most of the day, making it difficult to focus on anything but the noise. We have been putting up with egregious amounts of noise for over three years with no solution in sight. I'm disappointed that the City hasn't done more to protect us. When can we expect City follow up on the May Council votes? In particular I am referencing action item 8 E., for staff to “Bring to Council as fast as possible a plan for a litigation strategy in support of procedural changes affecting Palo Alto and investigate the best approach for filing timely lawsuits within 60 days of an appropriate new event." Sincerely yours, Anne Gregory Loma Verde Ave. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:45 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:ANDREA B SMITH <andreabsmith@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, July 30, 2018 8:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page RE: Traffic in Palo Alto Yes, traffic in Palo Alto is horrific. How you can say, Mayor, that it is not, is unbelievable. As one of my many volunteer jobs, I am a VOLUNTEER driver for Avenidas and I can say in the morning and in the afternoon and in between times, traffic on Embarcadero, Oregon, Middlefield, University, Middlefield is definitely backed up. I drive one person from Atherton to Cubberly in the morning; there is no good way to get there.. I’ve lived in Palo Alto 51 years and know what it was and what it is today. Yes, Channing is a good street to take. I know many other streets also; it is very convoluted. Andrea Smith 194 Walter Hays Drive City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:47 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, July 30, 2018 11:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:News Impacting Quality of Life on the Peninsula You are not subscribed to our newsletter, but we felt you would like to see how we featured Peninsula and Palo Alto issues. If you are interested in future newsletters, please self-subscribe. The newsletter is free and edited by volunteer citizens. Neilson Buchanan John Guislin Editors SFPRA Newsletter 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 | 8/1/2018 7:47 AM 2 THIS WEEK ON THE SAN FRANCISCO PENINSULA News Impacting Your Quality of Life August 1, 2018 View as Webpage To our readers: THANK YOU! We are growing! This newsletter is edited by local, volunteer residents. It is free. We focus on your local newspapers. If you find this news summary helpful, forward this edition and urge your friends and neighbors to subscribe. To Subscribe Click Here City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:47 AM 3 Time for new talent! Are Bay Area cities forfeiting their ability to make hard decisions? Are City Councils ready to defer governance to other entities? Has profound success diminished critical thinking skills to balance jobs, housing and infrastructure funding? Below are six articles describing cityquakes shaking all Peninsula cities. We urge our readers to think carefully as pressures rise to restructure local city government. There is immense talent on the Peninsula and that talent is needed in rebooted, sturdy City Councils. But some Councilpersons are clearly not up to their challenges. Most Council elections are coming in less than 100 days! A city council seeks voter opinion Brisbane residents will determine whether their community should essentially double in size when they vote this fall on a divisive proposal to transform the Baylands into a sweeping mixed-use development. SM Daily Journal After 10+ years of controversy, a massive mixed-use complex doubles Brisbane’s supply of homes. Council voted unanimously to amend the general plan on the upcoming ballot. The measure will pave a multi-year process for 1800 to 2200 homes, 6.6 million sf of commercial space and a hotel. SJ Mercury News Ed. Comment: Standing tall above most city councils.....Brisbane officials are declining to be their voters’ mindreaders. Certain decisions can legimately be above elected officials’ comfort zones. This city council driven by sense of community and common sense wisely seeks voter opinion on a development of historical importance for the entire Peninsula. BTW..the best case scenario seems to be 2200 homes and 25-40,000 new jobs within 7-10 years. We can't calculate the job/housing ratio but Brisbane voters will. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:47 AM 4 More Ed. Comment: We turn to Art Buchwald's humor for serious advice. Brisbane is a mirror reflecting complexity of local control. Consider these three quotations reflected in local press. “It is in the best interest of city to approve this,” said former Brisbane mayor Lori Liu.” “I think this plan you are looking at is cutting your own throat. It’s like saying ‘we’ll cut our own throat instead of the state cutting it for us.’ I don’t agree with that at all,” said Brisbane resident Tony Verreos.” Brisbane City Manager Clay Holstine said, “I think the bottom-line issue for the city is that if there is going to be development there, we want it to be a fully functioning community and not just a series of buildings that are disconnected from the town.” This is invaluable journalism by the San Mateo Daily Journal and San Jose Mercury. Although rude, SNAFU is a fitting farewell City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:47 AM 5 Steve Heminger, executive director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, will end an 18-year reign by retiring early next year. It can’t come soon enough. The region’s freeways are gridlocked. Public transit systems are in disarray. Commute times continue to increase. Heminger touts his agency as “action-oriented and project-based,” but that has translated into piecemeal construction, pathetic planning and a lack of long-range vision. The agency merely hands out money for one politically popular project after another with little sense of where it will all lead. SJ Mercury News Ed. Comment: Words count and we praise courage of this opinion. When a legit editorial begins with “Good Riddance”, then we read it carefully. We urge our subscribers to read it twice. If you have lived your life without full understanding of SNAFU, click below for a definition with punch. Full disclosure: SJ Mercury did not suggest SNAFU. SFPRA slung the slang. Wikipedia Danger zone Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury issued a report addressing housing. The 45-page report offers 39 findings and recommendations for 15 cities to close the housing gap, including employer fees, incentives for greater density and creation of "sub-regions." Cities with high real-estate costs would subsidize housing built in adjacent cities that have lower real-estate costs. This clarion call for denser housing makes a case for stronger state laws that will prod "flailing cities" to build more densely, particularly below-market-rate housing. A summary states, "Higher densities are a necessary solution, but cities are not fully embracing this solution in the face of resident resistance, and a lack of funding, land and urgency.” Palo Alto Weekly Ed. Comment: We welcome out of the box thinking, but creation of overlapping political entities with unclear accountability to voters is not only unproven but is dangerous to democracy. We think Peninsula city councils can easily improve their own performance by 200%. This would better than throwing established governing mechanisms into the dustbin. Too many city councils do not attract the best community leaders to city hall. This is the first step for quality government. Councilpersons! Heal thyselves and encourage the best candidates to step up during the next two election cycles. Your tax checks and their bank balances City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:47 AM 6 An obscure government agency, the Joint Powers Authority, can take on significant debt without oversight from the county, the state or the voters, according to Contra Costa civil grand jury report. These agencies are essentially agreements between two or more government agencies to collaborate and create a third agency to provide a service or combine their monies for a large project. Among the most important findings were that an unknown number of JPAs have taken on an unknown amount of debt that did not need voter approval and can exceed debt ceilings imposed on regular government agencies. The county and 19 cities have at least $1.5 billion in public debt. East Bay Times Ed. Comment: Democracy depends upon checks and balances. JPAs have a real role on the Peninsula. However, when taxes are spread over such large systems over very long periods of time, then everybody and nobody is in charge. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Raking in other people's money Amazon’s search for a second headquarters has produced eye- popping revelations about the subsidies and other benefits cities are offering to a company worth some $820 billion. SJ Mercury News Ed. Comment: Amazon is just the tip of an iceberg. We find tech titan tax avoidance impossible to understand but surely some journalist is on the trail of something big. Major firms all over the US have been quietly hauling in subsidies worth hundreds of millions of dollars, according to data from a subsidy watchdog. In a readers want to engage in tedious research, click on Good Jobs First. San Bruno budgets City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:47 AM 7 Officials pass a spending plan, while pointing to need for additional tax revenue. San Bruno officials suggested work should begin to improve the city’s financial footing in the coming years. The Council unanimously approved a budget with $47 million in payments outpacing the $45.6 million in projected income for the coming fiscal year. SM Daily Journal Ed. Comment: These councilpersons are showing the candor their citizens deserve. It can't be easy to state that cost of city government may be outpacing cash flow. This imbalance seems prevalent across the Peninsula but few councilpersons are as honest with each other and their voters. Is it possible that most city operating and capital budgets are structurally flawed for the long term even before the pension deficits are considered? For readers with curiosity, here are some QuickLinks Developer withdraws 50 low income units SM Daily Journal Facebook may force workers out (for lunch) NBC News Public benefit concept and grocery store grow stale PA Daily Post Multi-story school may rise high Mt. View Voice When density isn’t greener City Lab City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:47 AM 8 School backs away from $898 million bond Mt. View Voice Success of SFPRA newsletter success depends upon its readers. Please feel free to forward the newletter to your friends and neighbors. Ask them to subscribe at no cost by clicking the subscribe button above or by emailing cnsbuchanan@gmail.com. Editors Neilson Buchanan and John Guislin are unpaid, private citizens on the SF Peninsula and have no ties to developers or government organizations. Our Web Site Neilson Buchanan | Downtown North, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Unsubscribe cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Update Profile | About our service provider Sent by cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com in collaboration with Try it free today City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 8:58 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, July 29, 2018 12:16 PM To:Kniss, Liz (internal); Council, City; citycouncil@menlopark.org; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; dcbertini@menlopark.org; Jonsen, Robert; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; HRC; council@redwoodcity.org; ibain@redwoodcity.org; Keene, James; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; Stump, Molly; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; myraw@smcba.org; stephanie@dslextreme.com; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Perron, Zachary; Binder, Andrew; swagstaffe@smcgov.org; griffinam@sbcglobal.net; Bains, Paul; allison@padailypost.com; Kilpatrick, Brad; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Kan, Michael; Lee, Craig; fred124c41@gmail.com; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Constantino, Mary; Zelkha, Mila; rpichon@scscourt.org; dryan@scscourt.org; sscott@scscourt.org; mharris@scscourt.org; bwalsh@scscourt.org; aflint@scscourt.org Subject:NYT Sunday July 29–How Suffrage Movement Betrayed Black Women by Brent Staples https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/28/opinion/sunday/suffrage-movement-racism-black-women.html Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:49 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:zbrcp1@comcast.net Sent:Tuesday, July 31, 2018 2:06 PM To:cory@corywolbach.com Cc:Jocelyn Dong; Dave Price; Neilson Buchanan; Council, City Subject:Office Cap From: zbrcp1@comcast.net To: zbrcp1@comcaast.net Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 1:04:01 PM Subject: Office Cap Cory, Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your key vote last night on this issue. I've lived here 45+ years and seen Palo Alto be radically transformed by office developers enabled by zealous pro-growth city managers and councils. Our family moved here for the usual reasons: good schools, neighborhoods, parks, libraries, restaurants, & shops. Driving and parking were easy; quality of life was excellent. All three daughters are Paly graduates: a Harvard Assistant Dean, a Tulane tenured professor and an attorney. None of them or their children could ever live here. In 1973 we swallowed hard and paid $80,000 for 1211 Cowper Street. Zillow price today: $5,961,887. Absolute insanity! In 1984 I moved singly into 865SF condo at 280 Waverley for $135,000. Zillow price today: $1,936,787. Council's decades of exceptions (many via PCD's) to office developers, i.e., more square footage and less parking than required by law, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:49 AM 2 turned Downtown North into a free public parking lot. It and other neighborhoods will never be what they once were, RPP districts notwithstanding. Nor will council's absurd but approved goal of ZERO employee permits ever be achieved. Last night you became our city's Justice Anthony Kennedy. I respectfully urge you to remain in the slim slower growth majority you have created. Gratefully yours, Joseph Baldwin 850 Webster St. #524 Palo Alto CA 94301 650-324-7378 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 8:56 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Irfan Rydhan <irfan.rydhan@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, July 27, 2018 12:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please Halt Eviction of the "Hotel President" Renters! Hello I'm a resident of San Jose, but I have been to the Hotel President Apartment many times in the past as a few of my close friends live there. It is a shame that the owners of the property are now trying to evict the renters, some of whom who have lived there for well over 15 years, so that they can get more money. There is already a shortage of "affordable" housing everywhere in the Bay Area and we need to be able to protect those people who already have a place to live (and work) in Palo Alto from having to be kicked out onto the street (literally)! Please do what you can to stop the evictions and protect the rights of the renters. thank you -- Irfan Rydhan mobile: (408) 509-7965 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 9:10 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Elaine Uang <elaine.uang@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, July 30, 2018 8:36 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please Prioritize Housing! Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council members, Welcome back and hope you had a restful summer break! As the fall session begins, I ask you to remember the housing priority you set in January and to command as much attention to this issue as possible. We have a growing crisis and need your actions on long term housing plans. I have been following Palo Alto housing policy since joining the Housing Element Community Panel in 2014. In that time, the Housing Element and the Comprehensive Plan have been approved, ADU reform and an Affordable Housing Overlay has passed, our planning director has come and gone, and my one year old has grown up and will be starting kindergarten. Over the last four years, we should have built 200 units of housing per year and completed 800 by now. By staff's count on Feb 12, we built only 118 units in 2015-2017, and we need to build 303 per year to catch up. We need policies to incentivize housing creation immediately. The housing shortage we have in Palo Alto today has been dire for years and is about to get worse. The ONLY residential complex on the commercial core of University Avenue, The Hotel President, has been purchased and hopes to be converted to a hotel again. For 50+ years this building has been a wonderful example of affordable, high quality, car light, downtown living for hundreds of residents over the years. We should have been building more housing like this over the years. Many current residents have been longtime dwellers, their lives deeply woven into the fabric of Palo Alto. Preserving this housing stock is critical today, but so is increasing future housing stock so we don't exacerbate housing scarcity in our city. Scarcity will only drive prices up and force more people away. To change housing scarcity, we need to change policy frameworks and financial incentives to allow more housing like the Hotel President. To do this we need you, the City Council to act. 40 years ago, city council downzoned our downtown core and severely limited residential development. For 40 years, we have prevented construction of housing like the Hotel President and now left current Hotel President residents (and many many others over the years) with no affordable housing options today. We must stop collectively failing our residents, especially the 45% who are renters. We need to proactively take steps to help renters and to allow more housing in Palo Alto, especially along University Avenue, California Avenue and adjacent districts. Renters need better protections, including better housing options. I am tired of seeing friends and neighbors being pushed out. I'm tired of seeing teachers and caretakers, health care workers and accountants, small business owners and retail workers leave our city. We need them here today and we need them here tomorrow. We need to make room for them now. Please use your fall session to take up housing, particularly the Housing Workplan which can stimulate housing along our commercial areas. I also encourage you to look at missing middle housing, which already exists in downtown neighborhoods but have not been legal for 40 years. Both are policies that have been in our Housing Element for 3+ years and our Comp Plan for 1. Please do not delay. We need serious, realistic, and effective City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 9:10 AM 2 long term policies to create housing and stem the bleeding exodus of people from our city. Your actions matter. Please redouble your efforts on January's Housing priority right away. Thank you Elaine Uang Kipling Street City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 8:53 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Glitter Kitty <moonsauce@hotmail.com> Sent:Thursday, July 26, 2018 8:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please Save My Home @ Pres. Apts. Hello Honorable Council Members, First of all, thank you so much for letting AJ Capital know that it is not an option to turn our building, President Apartments, into a luxury hotel. I have lived in downtown Palo Alto my entire adult life, minus childhood in LAH and a few years spent at graduate school. As a public elementary school teacher, I have contributed to the PAUSD community, taught at Stanford for many years, and volunteered at local non‐profits. I have strong ties to hundreds of Palo Alto families and friends! When we were labeled the "snobbiest" mid‐sized city in the US a few years ago, I though it was comical, albeit a bit true. Lately, I experience that to be true on a daily basis. So, maybe it's time for me to leave downtown Palo Alto, much as I don't want to. My father came here decades ago to work in the tech industry, our neighbors were people like Gordon and Betty Moore and Joe Montana. People worked hard, were down‐to‐ earth and didn't think they were better than anyone else. Palo Alto was always the friendly, well‐educated, professor‐filled town lined with gorgeous trees! I've always adored this place. The thing is, having a developer come in and turn us out of our community feels horrible. Is it becoming not allowable for people to rent homes in Palo Alto? I can not afford to buy anything within hours of here on a teacher salary! I could understand if we needed a hospital or a school! When my landlord on Channing Ave asked me to vacate my cottage so her 90yr old parents could move in, I didn't mind! But we have 8 luxury hotels in walking distance and dozens within a few miles. We need relatively affordable housing. I still give up 60% of my paycheck to my rent! AJ slipped a letter under our doors on Monday, saying "our ongoing discussions with the City about the correct interpretation of the Municipal Code has absolutely no bearing or impact on your tenancy in the building. We did not want there to be any confusions due to questions raised in recent articles as to what, if any, effect our discussions with the City have on the time you have remaining in the building. We will not be renewing any residential tenant leases..." I love my cozy, safe junior one bedroom home. I really feel at home here! As a single young woman living downtown, I do get nervous about the muggins that happen, and I definitely get harassed occasionally by guys, and it's important to me to live in a safe building, with a secure front entrance. Thanks so much for your time, and consideration, Jennifer City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 9:08 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Joanna Buniak <jobuniak@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, July 29, 2018 9:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please stop evictions at Hotel President Apartments Dear City Council, I’m a Palo Alto resident for the last six years. My family and I are very happy here mainly because of the people who are devoted to this city. Palo Alto has a strong community and we look after each other. A dear friend of ours is one of the residents at Hotel President Apartments for over two decades. There are so many residents like him living there. We need more affordable housing in Palo Alto not hotels. I’m a single mother with to young children working in tech with two other jobs so I can keep living in my tiny apartment, which we adore. This is how much we love this city. Let’s keep Palo Alto diverse and available to folks at different income levels. It can be done if we provide more housing like Hotel President Apartments. Please fight for us and stop the evictions. Warmly, Joanna Buniak 521 Everett Avenue Apartment 4 Palo Alto, CA 94301 650‐485‐9840 jobuniak@gmail.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 8:58 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Alyssa Erickson <alyssaerickson@me.com> Sent:Sunday, July 29, 2018 11:15 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please Support Renter Protections Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I understand that you will be asked to research additional renter protections for our city. I think this is worthwhile. Providing some level of relocation benefits for residents like those at the President Hotel who are being evicted should be mandatory, not optional. Also, structuring relocation benefits to discourage extreme rent increases is also worth studying. Renters are an important part of our community, and renter displacement hurts all of us. Thank you, Alyssa Erickson South Court City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 9:01 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> Sent:Sunday, July 29, 2018 5:24 PM To:jeff_lev@ix.netcom.com Cc:roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Ruth Chippendale; chuck jagoda; Court Skinner; M. Gallagher; Eric Rosenblum; Council, City Subject:President Hotel t save, Jeff.! How can I help? You know, people are very attached to Prop 13, because middle class owners used to be forced out of their homes by arbitrary tax increases, just as renters are forced out by extreme rent raises. It seems to me cities which change zoning to evict residents so as to replace them with higher value uses are making an end run around Prop 13, and I intend to tell them so tomorrow night, (July 30), and get as many helpers as I can. I've been saying for a long time that these gifts of extra rentable space should be saved for low low income because otherwise investors will choose to apply the bonus to more lucrative uses--here we are, and, sure enough, the investor wants the extra height without the lower income per unit--indeed, without even holding to the market rate. let alone low income. In addition, this upgrading nullifies the Buena Vista land purchase, very expensive, to save about the same amount of low income units as are being cast off, as well as the "workforce housing" Palo Alto Forward got for the VTA lot. Why should Palo Alto have to spend all those millions just to get something we already have and are throwing away? Stephanie Munoz City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:51 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Justin Chew <jstinchw@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 31, 2018 8:54 PM To:Fire; OES; City Mgr; Council, City; City Attorney Subject:ProTransport-1 Follow- Up Dear City of Palo Alto, I am writing to follow-up on my July 21, 2018 letter regarding the criminal allegations against ProTransport-1. Thus far, I have submitted reports to both the Department of Insurance and Department of Industrial Relations. The San Mateo County District Attorney's Office Bureau of Criminal Investigations has also indicated that preliminary investigations are underway, suggesting that coordination of resources among multiple counties may be in order. While some city, EMS, fire, law enforcement officials, and other community members have been positive in their responses, I've yet to hear from others. Your input on this matter as trusted community leaders would be invaluable. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Justin Chew City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:51 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Terry Trumbull <terryt1011@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 31, 2018 7:56 PM To:Bartell, Amy Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City Subject:Re: Bay Delta Plan- need for public discussion Amy- I do not see anything that is "privileged and confidential" in this. It is well known that some parties, including BAWSCA may litigate this. I see no reason to act like the facts in this update need to be kept secret. This is particularly true since there was no BAWSCA attachment to my e-mail. I strongly support the SWRCB's action, and think it should be 80% of natural flow to protect recreation, fishing, and all sorts of beneficial uses for natural flow. 40% is way too low. I will be highly offended if the City staff supports litigation or opposed the SWRCB proposal without public discussion. Terry A. Trumbull -----Original Message----- From: Bartell, Amy <Amy.Bartell@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: Johnston, AC - UACMailbox Forwarding <acjohnston@paloalto-uac.org>; Ballantine, Arne <arne.ballantine@bloomenergy.com>; Schwartz, Judith <commissioner.schwartz@yahoo.com>; Forssell, Lisa <lisa.forssell@paloalto-uac.org>; Danaher, Michael <mdanaher@wsgr.com>; Segal, Lauren <laurengagesegal@gmail.com>; Trumbull, Terry <TerryT1011@aol.com> Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Tue, Jul 31, 2018 5:36 pm Subject: Bay Delta Plan Update PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Commissioners: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:51 AM 2 Amy Bartell | Assistant City Attorney City Attorney’s Office 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2171 | E:amy.bartell@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/25/2018 1:39 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Christian Pease <cgpease2016@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, July 25, 2018 1:36 PM To:planning.commisssion@cityofpaloalto.org Cc:Council, City Subject:RE: Your hearing this evening - proposal remove the downtown office cap from our muni code Dear Members of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission, Unfortunately I cannot attend your meeting this evening. Thus, I write to urge you to postpone your hearing regarding the proposal to remove the current downtown office (development) cap from our municipal code. I am certain each and every one you on the PTC is quite aware of the level of concern and engagement among Palo Alto residents concerning the new office development issue - and not just downtown, but throughout the commercial districts in this city. Holding this hearing in the middle of the summer months when many residents are out-of-town on vacation or otherwise focused summer activities strikes me as wholly inappropriate and unresponsive to a degree that verges on outrageous. What is your hurry on the important proposal? Moving forward at this moment, in this season, seems to imply an effort to get this proposal passed before the residents of Palo Alto are even reasonably cognizant of what is taking place - at minimum, it creates that strong impression. Why not wait until mid-September? Thank you for your consideration, Christian Pease Evergeen Park City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 8:51 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Gelena <gelena@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, July 26, 2018 6:58 PM To:Kou, Lydia Cc:Council, City Subject:Severe cracking on the soil and sinking foundation (first time) perhaps related to groundwater pumping Lydia and City Council, I would like to report severe cracking on the soil and sinking foundation (slab on grade foundation) first time since I've lived in my house (2003). The house floor was leveled in 2003 and had no problems until this summer. 2-3 weeks ago one of the corner of the living room sinked 2 inches down. The middle of the floor cracked. There is a significant slope in the living room from the center to the fireplace. I am near Ross rd and Clara ave, next to the creek. Can groundwater pumping cause this damage? Do you have advice, recommendations how to stop this damage. Thank you Gelena Siganevich 650 464 0039 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:45 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net> Sent:Monday, July 30, 2018 10:03 PM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James Subject:Silly measure? The only place I have seen needless idling, were government vehicles in FRONT of the Garden Court Hotel. They ARE just wasteful. Talking about this might be enough. Please remember that drivers are speeding 20++ miles over all limits at Marion and Middlefield, and near the fish market. THIS truly affects all of our safety. Just raising, the issue in the Post got everyone to use less water by more than we even needed to. Just raise the consciousness. It’s not always Necessary to be punitive. We could use some leadership regarding drivers pulling UP behind cars in all signal turn lanes so that the though traffic was not all blocked. It’s in the drivers manual. Gary Richards encouraged STOPPED drivers to leave a whole car space ahead, while waiting to turn. Geri McGilvray EVERYDAY SAFETY and WALKABILITY, MIDTOWN and all of Palo Alto Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/1/2018 7:48 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Todd Collins <todd@toddcollins.org> Sent:Tuesday, July 31, 2018 10:22 AM To:Council, City; Keene, James Subject:Stanford GUP - Fair Share for Schools flyer Attachments:Stanford - Fair Share for Schools Flyer 07-2018.pdf Council Members, Attached is the flyer I passed out last night, which lays out more about how Stanford's proposed GUP housing will significantly impact PAUSD. As I said last night, I am really trying to raise an alarm. I think this issue has been overlooked, and especially with the expanded housing scenarios being discussed, the numbers are jaw dropping. Ultimately, we all depend on the County Supervisors and esp. Supervisor Simitian to protect our interests with regard to the GUP approval. But I know Joe will have a stronger hand to negotiate if the community and its leadership is informed and engaged on this issue. While I don't speak for the school board, from past board meetings I think the board is generally of one mind that we need Stanford to do its share here. And I expect the board will speak out. But the community will also benefit from you speaking out, both on this and the other GUP impacts. I am happy to provide more information (there's a slide deck that goes into more detail) or to discuss with any one at any time. If you have any suggestions of how I can further "raise the alarm" or lobby for this issue, I'm all ears. Thanks for your help on this important issue. Best, Todd -- Todd Collins 650-403-2084 Want to see how PAUSD is performing? Check out our California School Dashboard, a new tool from the CA Dept of Education for understanding, monitoring, and comparing school districts! NOTE: Messages to/from this account related to PAUSD matters may be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. Stanford – Pay Your Fair Share for Our Schools New GUP Housing Must Cover its Costs 7/28/2018 The Problem ● We are entering a new era with Stanford housing, where Stanford plans to build much more high-density rental housing, both on and possibly off its campus. This housing is expected to add hundreds of new students to PAUSD schools. ● PAUSD is a “Basic Aid” district – its funding comes primarily from local property taxes. Property tax revenue is key to the quality of PAUSD schools. ● Under tax law, Stanford’s new proposed housing will pay little or no property taxes. Under the proposed GUP, PAUSD would have a shortfall of up to $34.0 million a year covering the costs of current and anticipated students living in Stanford rental housing. Students Living in Stanford Rental Housing % of Total Students Taxes Paid to PAUSD* % Cost Covered** Annual Shortfall** Today: 350+ students 3% $450,000 7% $6.3 M Original GUP: +275 students 5% +$0 0% +$5.3 M EIR Alt. B: +861 students 9% +$0 0% +$16.5 M EIR Alt. A: +1,446 students 13% +$0 0% +$27.8 M Total: 625 - 1,800+ students 5 - 13% $450,000 1 - 4% $11.6 - 34.0 M * Est. payments for all Stanford-owned affiliate rental properties in PAUSD, based on County assessment data ** Based on est. per pupil cost of $19.2K GUP #’s: County Draft EIR, pp. 2-161, 2-364 The Solution ● Schools like Princeton, Harvard, Yale, MIT, Dartmouth, Cornell, Brown, and many others provide millions in annual voluntary payments to cover their costs, to both their host cities and their schools. ● Like the others, Stanford, with a rapidly growing endowment of over $24 billion, can afford to pay for the community resources it uses. ● These universities have learned that recruiting and keeping faculty, staff, and graduate students requires a healthy host city, especially its public schools. Quality public schools are as important to Stanford as to everyone else in Palo Alto. Hundreds of New Students $0 New Tax Revenue What Stanford says… Stanford spokespeople have made several statements arguing that it already does its fair share and should not be required to do more. “The school district [PAUSD] has never relied on Stanford for tax revenue.” (Daily Post 7/17/18) • True, PAUSD has always just absorbed the unfunded cost. In the past, costs were lower and Stanford’s rental properties sent relatively few students to PAUSD. The GUP housing plan would dramatically increase the students coming from tax-exempt Stanford rental properties. “The sizeable tax contribution from Stanford commercial lands more than supports the cost of [student] enrollment in PAUSD.” (Daily Post 7/17/18) • Stanford itself pays taxes on only 10% of the Stanford Research Park and 0% of the Shopping Center, having sold off and ground-leased these properties over time. Current owners and lessees pay the property taxes, not Stanford. • Besides, why does this even matter? PAUSD doesn’t give commercial property owners a credit on their residential taxes, just because they are big commercial tax- payers. Both residential and commercial owners have to do their part! “Stanford provided the land to build Palo Alto and Gunn high schools and [two] elementary schools … on Stanford lands.” (Daily Post 7/17/18) • Actually, PAUSD purchased the four school sites in question from Stanford between 50-100 years ago and built the schools at its own expense. • For 3 of the 4 sites, PAUSD paid legal fair market value through an eminent domain process. For the other, purchased almost 100 years ago, it is uncertain if there was a discount or not – hopefully any generosity has been repaid. What about the taxes paid by single-family houses and condos that Stanford has developed for its faculty and staff? Shouldn’t those be counted? • Again, all those single-family houses and condos have been sold and ground-leased, and the current owners (mostly the residents) pay the taxes, not Stanford. • Why should Stanford itself not do its share because its affiliated homeowners have to do theirs? City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 8:58 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Heather M. Minner <Minner@smwlaw.com> Sent:Friday, July 27, 2018 5:28 PM To:Kniss, Liz (internal); DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Kou, Lydia; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory Cc:Council, City; Stump, Molly; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Support for the City's Determination that President Apartments May Not Be Converted into a New Hotel Attachments:Letter Supporting City_s Determination re President Apartments.PDF Dear Mayor Kniss and Honorable City Council Members, The City’s Planning Department recently determined that the residential units at President Apartments cannot be converted into a new hotel under the Zoning Code’s regulation of grandfathered buildings. As set forth in the attached letter, this determination is well supported. There is no basis for AJ Capital Partners to contest it. Sincerely, Heather Minner Heather M. Minner Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP 396 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94102-4421 v: (415) 552-7272 x260 f: (415) 552-5816 www.smwlaw.com 396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816 www.smwlaw.com HEATHER M. MINNER Attorney Minner@smwlaw.com July 27, 2018 Via U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail Mayor and City Council Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Support for the City’s Determination that President Apartments May Not Be Converted into a New Hotel Dear Mayor Kniss and Honorable City Council Members, This firm represents a group of tenants living at President Apartments in downtown Palo Alto. Last month, AJ Capital Partners acquired the historic building and announced plans to convert the existing 75 units of workforce housing into a luxury hotel. It immediately sent eviction notices to all residential tenants, including families, seniors, and community service providers, demanding that they move out by November 12th of this year. AJ Capital’s plans for the building, however, are not allowed under the City’s Zoning Code. The developer has boldly claimed that because hotels are generally an allowed use in the Downtown Commercial zoning district, it can take advantage of an existing, oversized building to establish a brand new hotel that would far exceed the City’s current height and size limits for hotels downtown. This is not correct. After a thorough review, and in consultation with the City Attorney’s Office, the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department determined that “the establishment of a hotel at this location, as described, is impermissible based on existing zoning regulations and site characteristics.” Letter from J. Lait to T. Franzen (July 17, 2018). In response, AJ Capital stated that it “disagrees with the City’s current reading,” and reiterated demands that the residents vacate the building before the Thanksgiving holidays. Letter from T. Franzen to President Apartments Residents, (July 23, 3018). As explained in detail below, the City’s determination that a new hotel is not permitted at this site is well supported: there is no basis for AJ Capital to contest it. July 27, 2018 Page 2 Moreover, removing 75 units of workforce housing from the downtown neighborhood is an extremely misguided proposal that runs counter to the City’s planning policies to address the current housing crisis. Converting apartments to a hotel would exacerbate the City’s severe jobs/housing imbalance and its attendant traffic congestion. We urge the City to continue to enforce its Zoning Code to protect these housing units and the residents who are an integral part of a diverse and inclusive community. I. The City’s Zoning Code Prohibits Converting the President Apartments, an Oversized Building, into a New Hotel. A. The Existing Building Does Not Comply with Current Zoning Regulations for the Downtown Commercial District. The City’s Zoning Code regulates, among other things, the size of buildings and allowed uses for those buildings. The President Apartments building is located within the Downtown Commercial-Community (CD-C) zoning district. For mixed-use buildings such as this, the maximum height is 50 feet and the maximum total Floor Area Ratio (the ratio of gross floor area on a site to the total site area) is 2.0:1. Muni. Code § 18.18.060, Table 3. The existing building, however, does not comply with these standards. It is nearly 80 feet high—far exceeding the allowable height of 50 feet. In addition, the total FAR is roughly 6.45:1—more than triple what is currently allowed. In other words, not only is the building too tall, it is also too massive. It is thus considered a “noncomplying facility.” That is, a building that does not comply with the applicable zoning regulations. B. Regulations for Noncomplying Facilities Downtown Prevent Renovations that Convert to New Uses. Section 18.18.120(b) of the City’s Zoning Code governs noncomplying facilities in the Downtown Commercial zoning district as follows: (1) Any noncomplying facility existing on August 28, 1986 and which, when built, was a complying facility, may remain as a grandfathered facility and shall not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.70. There can be no doubt that this grandfather clause applies to President Apartments. The building was lawfully built in 1929, prior to the 1986 cutoff. Moreover, the Code expressly states that grandfathered buildings in this downtown zone July 27, 2018 Page 3 “shall not be subject to” separate grandfather provisions in Chapter 18.70 of the Zoning Code. Section 18.18.120(b) regulates renovations of these downtown grandfathered buildings as follows: (2) The grandfathered facilities in subsection (1) shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site for continual use and occupancy, by the same use, provided such remodeling, improvement, or replacement complies with all of the following: (A) shall not result in increased floor area; (B) shall not relocate below grade floor area to above grade portions of the building; (C) shall not result in an increase of the height, length, building envelope, building footprint, or any other increase in the size of the improvement; (D) shall not increase the degree of noncompliance, except pursuant to the exceptions to floor area ratio regulations set forth in Section 18.18.070. (emphasis added) Accordingly, based on the plain language of this grandfather provision, remodeling noncomplying facilities is permitted only for “continual use” of the “same use” that currently exists. This conclusion is consistent with the well-recognized principle that provisions allowing for the continuation of nonconforming uses and facilities are strictly construed. County of Orange v. Goldring (1953) 121 Cal.App.2d 442, 446-47. As one court explained, “[t]he spirit underlying the ordinance is to restrict rather than to increase the nonconforming use.” Edmonds v. County of Los Angeles (1953) 40 Cal.2d 642 (emphasis added). The City thus correctly concluded that Section 18.18.120(b) “precludes the remodeling, improving or replacement of site improvements together with the conversion of an existing non-complying facility in the subject property’s Downtown CD-C district to a different land use.” This determination by the City’s planning staff is entitled to “great weight” and under well-established law, the courts will defer to it. See Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1011, 1015. July 27, 2018 Page 4 C. These Grandfather Provisions Control, Even When the Proposed New Use Is a “Permitted Use.” As we understand, AJ Capital nonetheless argues that it may develop a hotel in this noncomplying building by right because a hotel is a permitted use within the CD-C zoning district. But this same “permitted use” argument was rejected by the Court of Appeal in Sabek, Inc. v. County of Sonama (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 163. In Sabek, the owner of a nonconforming gasoline station sought to establish a mini-mart in part of the building without complying with the zoning code’s regulations for grandfathered uses. The owner argued it could do so because a grocery store was a permitted use in that zone. The Court disagreed. It reasoned that the purpose of zoning codes are “to eventually end all nonconforming uses and to permit no improvements or rebuilding which would extend the normal life of nonconforming structures.” Id. at 168 (emphasis added). Accordingly, even though the mini-mart was a permitted use, the grandfather regulations still applied. Id. at 165, 168. Similarly here, even though hotel uses are generally permitted in the CD-C zone, the City’s grandfather regulations apply when a hotel is proposed in a nonconforming facility—and those regulations prohibit remodels to establish a new hotel in this building. D. The City’s Grandfather Regulations Make Perfect Sense. The City’s determination that the Zoning Code prohibits converting this noncomplying building into a hotel is not only supported by the plain language of the Code and legal precedent; it is also good policy. Developers should not be able to take advantage of existing, oversized buildings to establish a brand new hotel that would far exceed the height and size limits for hotels currently imposed by the Zoning Code. Doing so would lead to excess noise, traffic, and other adverse impacts in the Downtown. II. Preserving Existing Residential Units Promotes Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan’s Housing Policies. The President Apartments is exactly the type of housing that the City’s recently adopted Comprehensive Plan seeks to protect and encourage. The City’s Housing Element recognizes that the City has a “heavily skewed” jobs-housing imbalance, with approximately three jobs per employed resident. 2015-2023 Housing Element, at 15. As a result, “[s]ince many of Palo Alto’s workers cannot afford to live in the City, the imbalance creates negative impacts such as long commutes for workers both inside and outside the region, substantially increased traffic congestion during peak commute periods, and increased air pollution and energy consumption.” Id. July 27, 2018 Page 5 To help address the City’s housing crisis and ameliorate these impacts, the Plan includes policies to encourage housing, and in particular, mixed-use housing in commercial and employment areas such as downtown. See, e.g., Policy L-2.4 (“stimulate housing, near retail, employment, and transit, in a way that connects to and enhances existing neighborhoods.”); Program L2.4.4 (“convert non-retail commercial FAR to residential FAR, where appropriate” in the Downtown Commercial Districts); Policy L- 2.6 (“Create opportunities for new mixed use development consisting of housing and retail.”). The Comprehensive Plan also sets forth policies and programs to preserve housing such as the President Apartments. For example, Policy L-2.7 seeks to “[s]upport efforts to retain housing that is more affordable in existing neighborhoods,” and Program L2.7.1, directs the City to “[r]eview development standards to discourage the net loss of housing units.” Policy H1.2 of the City’s Housing Element likewise directs the City to “[s]upport efforts to preserve multifamily housing units in existing neighborhoods.” And just last November, the Council approved developing additional programs and zoning updates to promote moderately-sized and reasonably-priced housing options this near jobs, transit, and services—exactly the type of housing provided by the President Apartments. This work program will include “strategies to assist community based workers . . . to reside in Palo Alto” and regulations to “implement a no net-loss policy when housing is redeveloped and preserve existing non-conforming cottage clusters.” Colleague’s Memo Regarding Zoning Updates to Encourage Diverse Housing Near Jobs, Transit, and Services (Nov. 6, 2017) and City Council Action Minutes. In short, the President Apartments’ workforce housing units are exactly the type of diverse housing in walkable neighborhoods that the Council’s recent policies seek to protect. Undermining the Zoning Code’s grandfather regulations to allow conversion of these existing residences into a new hotel would conflict with these policies. III. Conclusion If AJ Capital wishes to develop a luxury hotel in Palo Alto, it must do so in a manner that complies with the City’s Zoning Code regulations. The City’s determination that the Code prohibits converting residential apartments in an oversized building into a new hotel use is well supported by the plain language of the Code and by legal precedent. Any other determination would contravene the Comprehensive Plan’s housing policies, July 27, 2018 Page 6 deepen the City’s housing crisis, and frustrate efforts to improve traffic congestion for all residents. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP Heather M. Minner cc: Molly Stump, City Attorney Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director, Planning and Community Environment Department 1021821.4 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 4:17 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Edie Keating <edie.keating100@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, July 30, 2018 4:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for the Colleagues Memo on Renter Protections The main approach suggested in the memo is to consider relocation benefits for certain situations. Relocation benefits for evictions where the tenant is asked to leave for no fault of their own have two important benefits: 1) Relocation benefits help the tenant with the expense of moving. 2) Relocation benefits are a disincentive to withdrawing apartments from the rental market. Relocation benefits can also be structured as a disincentive, but not a prohibition, on large rent increases. This structure has been in use in Portland for over a year now. I hope that the possibilities offered for supporting tenants through requiring relocation benefits will get a full review by this Council in the near future. Sincerely, Edie Keating Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/26/2018 7:57 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:purcell.shawn@gmail.com on behalf of Shawn Purcell <shawn_purcell@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Wednesday, July 25, 2018 6:09 PM To:actionline@mercurynews.com Cc:Dabiri Alaee, Valeh; Council, City Subject:Sweating cubicle dwellers in Palo Alto's high tech Mitchel Park Library Hi Action Line! Please read this thread from the bottom up. As I look around me a see a row of sweating library users at 6pm, and this library has automatic shades! (it's just they are set to go way too late in the summer, and apparently it is not a big enough priority to change the automatic timers). Thank you! Shawn Purcell Palo Alto resident since 1999. South Bay resident since 1979 Shawn Purcell <shawn_purcell@stanfordalumni.org> 6:00 PM (1 minute ago) to Dabiri Hi Dabiri, I know it can be hard to get action in goverment orgs sometimes. I will try the Mercury News Action Line -- sometimes a slight public nudge helps. Thanks for trying! Shawn PS: I'm currently sweating at 6pm in a cube by the window 😁 On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 8:48 PM, Dabiri Alaee, Valeh <Valeh.Dabiri@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hi Shawn, Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. We will review the area and check with Facilities Division to see if this is possible. We are glad you are enjoying the Library. Thanks, Valeh Dabiri Alaee Supervising Librarian Mitchell Park Library City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/26/2018 7:57 AM 2 From: purcell.shawn@gmail.com <purcell.shawn@gmail.com> on behalf of Shawn Purcell <shawn_purcell@stanfordalumni.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 5:12 PM To: Library, Pa Subject: Automatic shades at Michell Park Library Hello, Is it possible to modify the time that the shades go down in the Mitchell Park library now that summer is almost here? There is a significant time when the son is in our eyes before the shade goes down (the cubicles along the wall facing the parking lot). Please let me know either way. I love this library! Thank you! Shawn City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 3:27 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Nick Selby <selbytelecom@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, July 30, 2018 2:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:The Hotel President Apartment Building Hon. Liz Kniss, Mayor Hon. Eric Filseth, Vice Mayor Hon. Members of the Palo Alto City Council Dear Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Filseth and Members of the Palo Alto City Council: As a resident of Palo Alto since 1979, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the reported plan of AJ Capital to evict the residents of The Hotel President Apartment Building in order to convert the building into a “luxury hotel.” Please do not allow this project to move forward. The Hotel President Apartment Building provides valuable and important residential housing in downtown Palo Alto. The very last thing the City needs at this time is a decrease in the amount of residential space in the City, simply for the sake of another hotel. It has been reported that, inasmuch as The Hotel President was once a hotel, but was converted into an apartment building, it would be a violation of the City Code to allow AJ Capital to convert the building back into a hotel. I strongly support enforcement of the City Code against a reconversion of this building into hotel space. The City should not allow outside developers to evict the residents who live, work and provide valuable services in downtown Palo Alto – and have done so for many years, in some cases for more than 20 years. In addition, no retaliatory evictions should be permitted. The residents of this building have properly insisted on enforcement of and adherence to the City Code. I look forward to strong leadership by the City Council to protect the residents of Palo Alto from this dreadful project. Thank you for your consideration of this letter. Sincerely, Nick Selby 475 Melville Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Law Offices of Earl Nicholas Selby 530 Lytton Avenue, 2nd Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: 650-323-0990 Email: selbytelecom@gmail.com (A paper copy of this letter will be provided to the City Council at its meeting on July 30.) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 9:00 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, July 29, 2018 3:30 PM To:UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City; CAC-TACC Subject:08-01-18 UAC meeting -- Item IX.1 -- Un-undergrounding transformers in Greenacres One? Commissioners, Item IX.1 on UAC's 08-01-18 agenda is about refurbishing the electric distribution system in Underground Utility District 15 (Greenacres One). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66026 08-01-18 staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66025 06-04-18 letter from neighborhood residents Michael Maurier and Nina Bell (pages 2-31 here): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65979 The City (i.e., the Utilities Department) wants refurbish the electric distribution system in Greenacres One, which is part of Underground District 15 (see page 9 here). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/33496 The City wants to move the transformers and switches from being underground to being above ground in pad-mounted cabinets. Residents think it would be ugly, not necessary, etc. --- The staff report (page 3) says, "Pad-mounted [above-ground] equipment is the industry standard for underground construction." But has the City looked into what Fort Collins, CO, is doing? Their electric distribution system is "over 99% underground." https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/light-power Fort Collins has a SAIDI rating of 19 minutes of outage per year. (SAIDI = System Average Interruption Duration Index.) https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/17-10736_2016_Energy_Policy_Update_Web.pdf By comparison, Palo Alto in 2016 had a SAIDI of 39.48 minutes. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54496 (As an aside, in a message here (page 177) I complain that Palo Alto hasn't reported its SAIDI data more recently.) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65112 Both Palo Alto and Fort Collins have received "Diamond Level" awards from the American Public Power Association for the "reliability, safety, workforce development, and system improvement" of their electric utilities. https://www.publicpower.org/rp3-designated-utilities Here's Fort Collins' Ordinance No. 066 -- Electric Service Standards -- dated 04-14-16 (35 pages) https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStandards_FINAL_18November2016_Amendmen t.pdf I haven't read this in detail, but it seems to describe how they do their undergrounded electric system. This Fort Collins document describes how they charge for electric construction, including for undergrounded transformers. https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/2016_Estimated_Light_and_Power_Electric_Charges.pdf ---- The staff report says (page 4) "subsurface transformers cost 31% more than the comparable pad-mounted transformers." Does Fort Collins agree? Ideally, the staff report could have cited specific equipments. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/30/2018 9:00 AM 2 The staff report says (page 4), "The life expectancy of pad-mounted equipment is typically twice the life of subsurface...." Does Fort Collins agree? Where does the data come from? ---- The staff report cites a Resolution 7580, passed by Council on 04-22-96, as the "justification" for insisting on pad-mounted stuff. I looked for such a document online and couldn't find it. I looked for minutes of Council's 04-22-96 meeting online, but couldn't find them. I looked for the 04-22-96 staff report, but I couldn't find it. If the Utilities Advisory Commission looked at this item before Council looked at it, it would be interesting to look at those minutes and that staff report as well. --- Please ask staff whether the electric distribution wires in Greenacres One are direct-buried or in conduit? And, if they're in conduit, is the plan to reuse the existing conduit? (What's the estimated lifetime of vintage-1973 conduit? Of vintage- 2018 conduit?) If a refurbishing requires installing new conduit, this might be a "dig-once" opportunity to install conduit for FTTP at the same time. --- By the way, Fort Collins voted to do citywide FTTP earlier this year. --- Thanks very much. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- Herb Borock P. O. Box 632 Palo Alto, CA 94302 July 30, 2018 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 lco722~rn~ [ 1 Placed Before M~eung c.-f'Received at Meeung JULY 30, 2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #3 OFFICE/R&D GROWTH INITIATIVE MEASURE Dear City Council: Attached are copies of Ordinance No. 3440 (Jobs With Peace Ordinance of 1983) adopted by the City Council on June 27, 1983, and Ordinance No. 3201 (Park Dedication of Downtown Park North) adopted by the City Council on May 12, 1980. I am providing you with copies of these two ordinances approved as to form by the City Attorney in each case, to give you examples of the form that should be used by the Council to adopt the Initiative Ordinance for an Office/R&D Growth Cap, to ensure that the Council action adopting the ordinance could not itself be subject to referendum and to ensure that the ordinance once adopted can only be amended by the electorate. S~ly, Herb Borock Attachments: Ordinance No. 3440 (one page) Ordinance No. 3201 (three pages) 9 ORIGINAL ORDINANCE NO. 3440 JOBS WITH PEACE ORDINANCE OF J983 The People of the City of Palo Alto do ORDAIN as follows: The Mayor of the City of Palo Alto sh.~11 send the following state- ment to California's United States Senators and Members, of Congress: nThe City of Palo Alto calls upon the United States Congress to make more Federal funds avai 1- able for local jobs and ptcgrams in such areas as quality-education, public transportation, afford- able and energy efficient housing, improved health care, and conversion from military to peacetime production, by significantly reducing the amount of our tax dollars spent on nucloar weapons, foreign military intervention, ana wasteful military pro- grams. These policies will promote a healthy economy, national security, and jobs with peace." INTRODUCED AND PASSED: Jun8 27, 1983 AYES: Bechtel, Fazzino, Fletcher, Klei.n, Re.m.el NOES~ Cobb, Eyerly, Levy, Withe1spoon ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: AP.PROV S TO FORM: ~1)-/n ,¥-a . -"""- APPROVED: ' ' I ·~~---Mayo · · · --· • ENT 15 CERTIFIED 10 BE THE FOREGOING DOCUMTHE ,....•GINAL ON PILE A CORAl!CT' .COPY OF VI'& •t CERTIFY OR oeCLARE UNDER PENALTY~ PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING lS T1W AND CORRECT" CITY ~~~OFFICE , -CITY ALTO t>i._la-J /ii" 'd-"'r DATE . °'· ----~ ..., • • ORDINANCE NO. 3201 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTED BY THE INITIATIVE PROCESS ADDING SECTION 22.08.068 TO CHAPTER 22.08 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE ORJ~l~.JAL The People of the City of Palo Alto do ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 22 •• 08.068 be added to Chapt~r 22.0~ (Park""Dedlcat1ons) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as fol- lows: •22.0S.068 Downtown Park North. Ti14't certain parcel of land known as Downtown Park North as delineated and described in E~HIBIT A-6.5 attached hereto is hereby reserved for park, playground, recreation or conservation purposes." SECTION 2. All provisions of Chapter 22.08 of the Palo Alto Munic1~al Code shall apply to Section 22.08.068 with the same force ~nd effect as though said section were originally included therein. SECTION 3. The Council of the City ~f Palo Alto finds that. th!s prOJP.ctis categoricall~r exempt from the· requirements of the California EnvL:onmental Qualit.y ~.ct and does not require an env1- ronmentC\l as:sess.men t. · SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective upon the commencement of the thirty-first d~y after the day of its passage·. INTRODUCED AND PAS-<;ED: .May 1 ~, i seo AYES: Brenner, Eyerly, LelfY, Ren~~l, Sher, Witherspoon NOES: Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None c City~torney APPROVED: THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT IS CERTIFIED TO BE A CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ON FILE "I CERTIFY OR DECLARE UNDER PENAL1Y OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORREC1"' CITY ClERK'S OFFICE cnYOFrm SIGNAlURE • • EXHIBIT A-6.5 All those c~rtain real properties situate in the City of Palo Alto, Coun~y of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: Portions of Block 32, as shown on the tiap of University Park, no~ City of Palo Alto, recorded February 27, 1889 in Book D, page 69 of Maps, Records of Santa Clara County, California, and being more parcicu1.arly described as follows: COMMENCING at the point of intersecti.on of the Southeasterly line of Hawthorne Avenue with the Southwesterly line of Kipling Street; running thence Southwesterly along the South~asterly line of Hawthorne Av~nue 225 feet co the point of intersection of the Southeasterly line of Hawthorne Avenue w:f.th the Northeasterly line of Waverly Street: thence at Tight angles Southeasterly along the Northeasterly line of Waverly Street 400 feet co the point of intersectior1 of the ~lortheasterly line of Waverly S~eec with the ~orthwescerly line of Everett A\•enue :· thence at right anglss ~fortheasterly along the Northwesterly line of Everett A·.renue 225 feet to the point of intersection of the ~lorthwescerly l~ne of Everett Avenue and the Souchwcsterlv line of Kipling Street; thence at right angles ~orth westerly along the Southwesterly line of Kipling Street 400 feet to the point of begirining. se c:T ..!3HITH=>:: ;· :UP L:p J'411'T<>' ~ . ,.. -;, ~ .. :l'.f.~:3~ .5i::i' ~ "!l · 1 r ::i1.1>1T t:!I v•w.:.:~:-.... ,: -·· ·". '·"= I t .... . " ·~ .. ... . ~·· .. ~ •• .. •\ .. ~ . ~ I " .. ~ .... ~ I -~~ ·t _,.. .. '. !; .• : o· p f ~ L"4&H~ ~-. i ~cow1t1.,; .... ~· B~ca. Na ~ ~ !- • .. . • 1• 'JQ. © ,.. EXHIBIT A-6.5 6:"e~e.TT '°' 1 'o ! © I "'°' C.t' 111.,. ©~ 2 i - 111.t' . © ·o "' I.~ ~. ;,"H': i\ ::.1> 2 Ill ... • A~. 11,.-. ® '"··· ·® nr.t" e . Ill~ ® uz.J' U !'.I I V E' ~~ ~ 1 ·r '( p ... , l-41<·. (£1. 'a ® . "' .• II Z.~ ....... © j @'J u.~ ~ l 111.to' .. ,. 4Q 40 100· ). ® ©. ® ® it :· ' ; 'o it 10_. Sl ~ ® i .... . ~ ... .. ·,. . . •. ,: .... =·::..u,..· ;.. . . ~ .. ,,.,.. . ·~ .. ·.~:t: ,.,,,. :: ... ; ,.r. . • 00IGct" 0 ~;., ·-~ 0 o I ,•' : :~~-t·~· .... ~ .. ·~ . -~·~·-;: .\ ...... · .. · .: .· '•· ·. A" .. ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ 3 . : 1 ... J f . . J ~ i . ~ . I ' . . . '• ~p ·' .~ ' ·J . ' '·{