HomeMy Public PortalAbout20181015plCC 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: 10/15/2018
Document dates: 09/26/2018 – 10/03/2018
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jon Graves <jchgraves@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 1, 2018 1:02 PM
To:Hap Abbott; Peter Steinhart
Cc:jeffrey.d.brown-1@nasa.gov; Council, City; Lucinda W. Abbott
Subject:Re: Meeting at City Hall
Hi Hap,
I am copying Peter Steinhart who will be at the meeting this evening, you make very compelling points.
Best Regards
Jon
On Oct 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, Hap Abbott <hapabbott@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Jon and Jeff, thanks for letting me know, We have
read through the proposal and think that is not suitable for
our neighborhood. We already are over subscribed with
traffic and as the proposal suggested that we live in a
walk-able neighborhood, that means that parking and
traffic would be greatly impacted. We already have
overloaded the infrastructure an more traffic and people
would only make a bad situation worse. I will try to make it
over this evening. I would not try to dictate a person use
of their property, but we have had parties over there with
ice skating and the like where cars and buses were parked
on Lincoln and noise was beyond reasonable. This area
will not accommodate more parking and traffic. We all
have to live together and the number of events coming
from Addison street is unacceptable. I really hope the
council will put the kibosh on this!
Best,
Hap Abbott
646 Lincoln Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 12:12 PM Brown, Jeffrey D. (ARC‐TSS)[Analytical Mechanics Associates, INC.]
<jeffrey.d.brown‐1@nasa.gov> wrote:
2
Hi Jon and City Council,
I'm out of town until Wednesday evening and won't be able to attend tonight. But, I stand firmly with
you guys, and I know of others who do also.
I think that describing the planned future use of the mortuary property as a "private club" understates
the likely traffic, parking, noise and safety impacts to result: on residential neighbors, on Middlefield
Road, and on Addison students and families walking/biking to and from the school. My yet‐limited
understanding of the “vision” is for there to be regular “events” that would each bring dozens, if not
hundreds, of people to the facility – people with no connection to the school or the neighborhood – to
the site.
I’m quite sure that Ms. Meyer has the resources – and certainly would if she sold the property
(perhaps, eventually, to be repurposed to affordable housing for teachers and city workers) – to
exercise her vision at any number of other existing, suitably situated and equipped venues around Palo
Alto or the mid‐peninsula. It just wouldn’t be a block from her home.
Best,
Jeff
On 10/1/18, 11:44 AM, "Jon Graves" <jchgraves@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
As you may or may not know, there is a new suggested plan for the use of the Mortuary on Addison,
owned by Marissa Meyer. This plan will add untold traffic and parking issues for our neighborhood, as
she is planning a private club for professional women.
There is a meeting at City Hall today starting at around 5.30pm, if you would like to join a group of
about 15 residents of the area, objecting. Sorry for the late notice, Marci and I will be attending to
make our objections clear.
Best
1
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 26, 2018 1:12 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:October 1, 2018, Council Meeting, Item #3: 980 Middlefield Road [18PLN-00129]
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94301
September 26, 2018
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94302
OCTOBER 1, 2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #3
980 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD [18PLN-00129]
Dear City Council:
The subject site, currently zoned PC-2152 , was approved when the City
Council adopted Ordinance No. 2152 on July 22, 1963, pursuant to Article
16 of the 1951 Zoning Code that was subsequently amended when the Council
adopted Ordinance No. 1395 on April 11, 1952, Ordinance No. 1613 on May
23, 1955, Ordinance No. 2010 on March 27, 1961, and Ordinance No. 2087 on
July 23, 1962.
The 1951 Zoning Code as amended was repealed on the effective date of the
1978 Zoning Code adopted by Ordinance No. 3048 on March 20, 1978, that
became effective on July 20, 1978, when the new Zoning Map became
effective.
The proposed use for 980 Middlefield Road must submit an application for a
new PC zone district that complies with and conforms to the regulations of
the current Zoning Ordinance, including the provision of a public benefit.
On February 3, 2014, the Council adopted a motion made by Vice Mayor Kniss
and Mayor Shepherd to: "1) defer requests for rezoning to the Planned
Community (PC) zoning district until the process and requirements
regulating the PC zone in Chapter 18.38 of the Municipal Code are revised,
and 2) direct Staff to return to the Council with an analysis of potential
revisions and alternatives to the PC zone for public input and
discussion." ( City Council Action Minutes, February 3, 2014, Page 3 at:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/39103.)
2
Before any PC application can be submitted for 980 Middlefield Road or any
other property, the City Council would have to reverse its action of
February 3, 2014.
There is substantial evidence that properties zoned PC pursuant to the
1951 Zoning Code that apply for changes to their PC zone district on or
after July 20, 1978, have been required by the Council to follow the
proper procedure of applying for a new PC zone district pursuant to the
1978 Zoning Code as amended.
For example, 3000 El Camino Real (Palo Alto Square) was zoned PC-2533 by
Ordinance No. 2533 adopted by the Council on September 22, 1969.
The uses and development plan for PC-2533 were amended by Resolution No.
5545 on May 15, 1978.
Although Resolution No. 5545 was adopted after the new Zoning Code was
adopted by Ordinance No. 3048 on March 20, 1978, PC-2533 could still be
amended pursuant to the 1951 Zoning Code as amended, because Ordinance No.
3048 did not become effective until the passage and effectiveness of a new
Zoning Map that was adopted by Ordinance No. 3066 on June 19, 1978, that
became effective on July 20, 1978.
However, when 3000 El Camino Real applied for a change of use in the year
2000, a new application and new PC zone district application was
submitted, and that application had to provide a public benefit.
The Council approved the new PC zone district, PC-4637 on May 22, 2000. (
Ordinance No. 4637:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/20455 .)
Alternative Project
The environmental review for any new application for 980 Middlefield would
be required to consider alternatives to the proposed project.
I suggest that the subject property be rezoned RM-15 (or RM-20 if the
Council approves the staff recommendation in the 2018 Housing Work Plan
Ordinance Framework currently before the Planning and Transportation
Commission to rezone RM-15 properties to RM-20), and be developed for 100%
low-income housing consistent with the low-income housing project on the
remainder of the block known as Webster Woods.
Webster Woods consists of 68 low-income residential units on 3.432 acres,
or 20 units per acre, consisting of 8 one-bedroom units; 38 two-bedroom
units; 17 three-bedroom units; 3 four-bedroom units; and two previously
existing houses. (See plans attached to Resolution No. 5326 that modified
PC-2836.)
3
The 50,500 square foot site at 980 Middlefield Road could have 17
residential units under RM-15 zoning, or 22 units after applying the 35%
density bonus allowed by Chapter 18.15 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
If re-zoned RM-20, the site could have 23 units, or 31 units after
applying the 35% density bonus.
The main obstacle to building low-income housing is the cost of land.
Marissa Mayer can obtain a significant tax deduction by donating the
subject property to be used for low-income housing that is compatible with
the adjacent Webster Woods and the surrounding neighborhood. The value of
the land has appreciated substantially since it was purchased by the
applicant five years ago, so the tax deduction can be greater than the
purchase price of the land.
The Woman's Club
The proposed project on the subject site is primarily for women, but there
already is a women's club only two-and-a-half blocks from Marissa Mayer's
residence.
Instead of creating her own club, she should consider joining The Woman's
Club.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
Randall Weingarten, M.D.
945 Middlefield Rd.,Palo Alto, CA. 94301
September 26th, 2018
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Ave.,
Palo Alto, CA. 94301
Tele: 650.321 .5467
Fax:650.321-0922
Dear Members of our Palo Alto City Council,
Please know that I am firmly opposed to the proposed plans for
creating an exclusive Women's Club at the former location of the Roller,
Hapgood, Tinney Funeral Home.
My opposition to this proposal is based not only on issues related to
reduced parking, accessibility to professional offices in the adjacent area,
increased traffic flow, and noise from partying, but on the grounds of moral
politics and community well-being. This is not an opposition to the exclusive
gender membership being proposed.
In my mind, this proposal represents an obnoxious elitism and
exclusivity. It does not address the growing gap between affluence
and modest -to-low or no incomes in our community at large.
It is an insult to our growing need for housing-affordability for teachers,
providers of service and skilled labor, students and young adults, and for those
people on fixed income based on disabilities, age and illness.
It represents in my mind a callous disregard or indifference to the
value of living and being -well in our community. The proposal might just as
well be from a conductor of an orchestra who is also tone-deaf
Si~rely, _
/( ti#(_~d;...,J..-~.
Randall Weingatf'n, M.D.
n£2 co -.......
0 -i-< -< n no ..... ,-n
I ~~ ::::s;r
> Q)O :x o ·l>
'!! -ii!: -rt-. __ o
~ n~ a rriC"":> l>
1
Carnahan, David
From:Don Thorson <donthorson@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 28, 2018 12:41 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Linda Waigand
Subject:980 Middlefield. Roller Hapgood Site
Dear Council,
We are very much OPPOSED to the proposed rezoning of 980 Middlefield.
We have owned our home on Channing Ave, not far from the site in question, for 24 years. We are recently retired and
have been looking forward to finally being able to enjoy the peacefulness of the neighborhood.
We have tolerated the occasional use of this property as a special “party” venue for years in an effort to be good and
tolerant neighbors but the prospect of the noise disturbances becoming sanctioned and ongoing is TOTALLY
UNACCEPTABLE.
Beyond our wish to maintain a peaceful neighborhood, the amount of increased traffic this project would create, coming
and going, near the school represents a significant danger to the children, bike riders and pedestrians.
In our opinion, this type of project does not belong in a residential neighborhood. Please help us by denying any change
in zoning, especially for one as disruptive and dangerous as this.
Don Thorson
750 Channing Ave
650‐387‐7929
2
Carnahan, David
From:jeff@bonforte.com
Sent:Monday, October 1, 2018 10:06 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:In support of The Corner House (CoHo)
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a working parent with three young children. I recently learned about the proposal for The Corner
House on Addison St, there there is currently an out of business mortuary and funeral house. I wanted to
express my excitement and support for the proposed Corner House, and I believe it will be both an asset to
working parents and their young families, as well as to the community.
I am sorry I could not be at the public hearing this evening, as I am working late in San Francisco and
cannot make it back in time.
3
Carnahan, David
From:Simone L. Berkowitz <simone.berkowitz@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 1, 2018 11:45 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Corner House
To Whom It May Concern,
As a working mother, I support the Corner House on Addison and hope that the project can move forward.
Best,
Simone Berkowitz
1
Carnahan, David
From:Brown, Jeffrey D. (ARC-TSS)[Analytical Mechanics Associates, INC.] <jeffrey.d.brown-1@nasa.gov>
Sent:Monday, October 1, 2018 12:12 PM
To:Jon Graves; Council, City
Subject:Re: Meeting at City Hall
Hi Jon and City Council,
I'm out of town until Wednesday evening and won't be able to attend tonight. But, I stand firmly with you guys, and I
know of others who do also.
I think that describing the planned future use of the mortuary property as a "private club" understates the likely traffic,
parking, noise and safety impacts to result: on residential neighbors, on Middlefield Road, and on Addison students and
families walking/biking to and from the school. My yet‐limited understanding of the “vision” is for there to be regular
“events” that would each bring dozens, if not hundreds, of people to the facility – people with no connection to the
school or the neighborhood – to the site.
I’m quite sure that Ms. Meyer has the resources – and certainly would if she sold the property (perhaps, eventually, to
be repurposed to affordable housing for teachers and city workers) – to exercise her vision at any number of other
existing, suitably situated and equipped venues around Palo Alto or the mid‐peninsula. It just wouldn’t be a block from
her home.
Best,
Jeff
On 10/1/18, 11:44 AM, "Jon Graves" <jchgraves@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
As you may or may not know, there is a new suggested plan for the use of the Mortuary on Addison, owned by
Marissa Meyer. This plan will add untold traffic and parking issues for our neighborhood, as she is planning a private club
for professional women.
There is a meeting at City Hall today starting at around 5.30pm, if you would like to join a group of about 15 residents
of the area, objecting. Sorry for the late notice, Marci and I will be attending to make our objections clear.
Best
Jon
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Hap Abbott <hapabbott@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 1, 2018 12:41 PM
To:jeffrey.d.brown-1@nasa.gov
Cc:jchgraves@gmail.com; Council, City; Lucinda W. Abbott
Subject:Re: Meeting at City Hall
Dear Jon and Jeff, thanks for letting me know, We have read
through the proposal and think that is not suitable for our
neighborhood. We already are over subscribed with traffic and as
the proposal suggested that we live in a walk-able neighborhood,
that means that parking and traffic would be greatly impacted. We
already have overloaded the infrastructure an more traffic and
people would only make a bad situation worse. I will try to make it
over this evening. I would not try to dictate a person use of their
property, but we have had parties over there with ice skating and
the like where cars and buses were parked on Lincoln and noise
was beyond reasonable. This area will not accommodate more
parking and traffic. We all have to live together and the number of
events coming from Addison street is unacceptable. I really hope
the council will put the kibosh on this!
Best,
Hap Abbott
646 Lincoln Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 12:12 PM Brown, Jeffrey D. (ARC‐TSS)[Analytical Mechanics Associates, INC.] <jeffrey.d.brown‐
1@nasa.gov> wrote:
Hi Jon and City Council,
I'm out of town until Wednesday evening and won't be able to attend tonight. But, I stand firmly with you guys, and I
know of others who do also.
I think that describing the planned future use of the mortuary property as a "private club" understates the likely traffic,
parking, noise and safety impacts to result: on residential neighbors, on Middlefield Road, and on Addison students and
families walking/biking to and from the school. My yet‐limited understanding of the “vision” is for there to be regular
2
“events” that would each bring dozens, if not hundreds, of people to the facility – people with no connection to the
school or the neighborhood – to the site.
I’m quite sure that Ms. Meyer has the resources – and certainly would if she sold the property (perhaps, eventually, to
be repurposed to affordable housing for teachers and city workers) – to exercise her vision at any number of other
existing, suitably situated and equipped venues around Palo Alto or the mid‐peninsula. It just wouldn’t be a block from
her home.
Best,
Jeff
On 10/1/18, 11:44 AM, "Jon Graves" <jchgraves@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
As you may or may not know, there is a new suggested plan for the use of the Mortuary on Addison, owned by
Marissa Meyer. This plan will add untold traffic and parking issues for our neighborhood, as she is planning a private
club for professional women.
There is a meeting at City Hall today starting at around 5.30pm, if you would like to join a group of about 15 residents
of the area, objecting. Sorry for the late notice, Marci and I will be attending to make our objections clear.
Best
Jon
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Stefania Pomponi <stefania@realclever.com>
Sent:Monday, October 1, 2018 12:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:I 100% support the Corner House!
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I'm writing to voice my support for the Corner House project proposed for the property on the corner of Addison Ave.
and Middlefield Rd. As both a work‐at‐home parent and mother of a child who attends Addison Elementary School, I am
all for a business centering around mothers and children.
I would very much welcome a space where I can work outside of my home that isn't a noisy cafe that would also provide
meaningful networking opportunities with other working mothers. I also love the idea that I could this do while my child
is engaged in enriching opportunities.
Please consider rezoning the property so that our community can benefit from this wonderful potential opportunity.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Stefania Pomponi
‐‐
Stefania Pomponi
Founder, President & Chief Evangelist
San Francisco Bay Area
(415) 254-2866
Right-click or tap and hold here to download pictu res. To help protect your priv acy , O utlook prev ented automatic download of this picture from the In ternet.CLEVER_logo
www.realclever.com
San Francisco Bay Area | New York City | Los Angeles | Chicago | Dallas
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Annie Bedichek <annie@bedichek.org>
Sent:Monday, October 1, 2018 1:21 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please support building the new Parent's Center CoHo
There are so few family friendly places in Palo Alto compared to the vast amount there used to be. When I was a kid,
downtown was alcohol free and supported 4 movie theaters, 3 bookstores, cheap cafes you could hang out in all day,
and there were a lot more kids hanging out. University Ave has turned into a place for adults, though you have
wonderful events in the parks. It would be wonderful to have another place where people could hang out for extended
periods of time in downtown Palo Alto with their children. Please support the redistricting of the funeral home. It was
always an odd thing to have all those dentist and medical offices, and then a funeral home. Moving that site to
something more family friendly would greatly benefit the community in so many ways, not the least of which is it’s
walking distance from so many family homes, close to Addison, and easy to get to.
Thanks for your consideration,
Annie Bedichek
3rd generation Palo Altan
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Marissa Mayer <marissamayer@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 1, 2018 1:26 PM
To:Stefania Pomponi
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: I 100% support the Corner House!
Thank you!
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Stefania Pomponi <stefania@realclever.com> wrote:
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I'm writing to voice my support for the Corner House project proposed for the property on the corner of Addison Ave.
and Middlefield Rd. As both a work‐at‐home parent and mother of a child who attends Addison Elementary School, I
am all for a business centering around mothers and children.
I would very much welcome a space where I can work outside of my home that isn't a noisy cafe that would also
provide meaningful networking opportunities with other working mothers. I also love the idea that I could this do while
my child is engaged in enriching opportunities.
Please consider rezoning the property so that our community can benefit from this wonderful potential opportunity.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Stefania Pomponi
‐‐
Stefania Pomponi
Founder, President & Chief Evangelist
San Francisco Bay Area
(415) 254-2866
Right-click or tap and hold here to download pictu res. To help protect your priv acy , O utlook prev ented automatic download of this picture from the In ternet.CLEVER_logo
www.realclever.com
San Francisco Bay Area | New York City | Los Angeles | Chicago | Dallas
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Lucinda Abbott <lucindawabbott@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 1, 2018 1:55 PM
To:Jon Graves
Cc:Council, City; Hap Abbott
Subject:Re: Meeting at City Hall
Dear Jon and City Council
Jeff Brown forwarded your email to me and I am in firm agreement with your concerns.
I find Ms. Mayer’s proposal to be breathtakingly presumptuous and completely out of touch with the character,
challenges and needs of the existing neighborhood.
—Our neighborhood is composed almost entirely of residential buildings (a fact noted in the Page and Turnbull report),
an eclectic mix of historic and new structures, small to large houses, apartments and BMR residences. Lots tend to be
small and parking is at a premium. With Addison School as its center, the area is heavily traveled by locals on foot and on
bike. We are walking our dogs, on our way to school or visiting a friend's home. Locating a private club with 150
members (and potentially many additional visitors) within our space would be enormously disruptive and unsafe.
—The city abandoned the use of Planned Community zoning in large part because of abuses by developers. This project
is in clear violation of both the original multifamily zoning and the PC that allowed the mortuary to be established, so
why give way to yet another PC abuse?
—The notion that the proposed use would be no more or even less impactful than the mortuary is ludicrous. I’ve lived
here for twenty‐five years and never once even been aware that a funeral was in progress. I am also a life long Palo
Altan, and have had my mother, father and a brother‐in‐law buried from Roller, Hapgood and Tinney. Funerals are quiet,
solemn affairs, not likely to need sound amplification nor do they run as late as midnight.
—Our neighborhood is experiencing heavy impacts from traffic and parking. A portion of the area around the school has
been added to the permit parking zone, with potential for adding the rest. The staff report blithely notes that the
neighborhood is walkable —suggesting that neighborhood streets would make an ideal parking lot.
—Both Lincoln Avenue and Middlefield Road carry increasingly heavy traffic volumes from commuters and ride‐share
cars seeking shortcuts to 101. The staff report suggests a staggering number of new visits to the neighborhood if the
proposed development is approved. There is simply no room for an additional 150 to 400 visitors, even were they all
bussed in from a remote location. We have very narrow streets here and multi‐passenger vehicles have difficulty
maneuvering.
—My concern is not just traffic from attendees. I’ve observed Ms. Mayer’s events at her home on Addison and at the
mortuary, and they involve multiple trucks and vans delivering and setting up food, decorations and entertainment. The
same maneuvering issue as for busses applies here. There is no mention of this traffic impact in the project description.
For these and for many other reasons, Ms. Mayer’s proposal is simply a non‐starter and I hope it will be treated as such.
Respectfully,
Lucinda Abbott
646 Lincoln Ave.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 12:12 PM Brown, Jeffrey D. (ARC‐TSS)[Analytical Mechanics Associates, INC.] <jeffrey.d.brown‐
1@nasa.gov> wrote:
Hi Jon and City Council,
2
I'm out of town until Wednesday evening and won't be able to attend tonight. But, I stand firmly with you guys, and I
know of others who do also.
I think that describing the planned future use of the mortuary property as a "private club" understates the likely traffic,
parking, noise and safety impacts to result: on residential neighbors, on Middlefield Road, and on Addison students and
families walking/biking to and from the school. My yet‐limited understanding of the “vision” is for there to be regular
“events” that would each bring dozens, if not hundreds, of people to the facility – people with no connection to the
school or the neighborhood – to the site.
I’m quite sure that Ms. Meyer has the resources – and certainly would if she sold the property (perhaps, eventually, to
be repurposed to affordable housing for teachers and city workers) – to exercise her vision at any number of other
existing, suitably situated and equipped venues around Palo Alto or the mid‐peninsula. It just wouldn’t be a block from
her home.
Best,
Jeff
On 10/1/18, 11:44 AM, "Jon Graves" <jchgraves@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
As you may or may not know, there is a new suggested plan for the use of the Mortuary on Addison, owned by
Marissa Meyer. This plan will add untold traffic and parking issues for our neighborhood, as she is planning a private
club for professional women.
There is a meeting at City Hall today starting at around 5.30pm, if you would like to join a group of about 15 residents
of the area, objecting. Sorry for the late notice, Marci and I will be attending to make our objections clear.
Best
Jon
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Lauren Williams <laurenwilliams7@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 1, 2018 2:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Project at 980 Middlefield Road
Members of the Palo Alto City Council ‐
I am writing you to relay my deep concern with the plans being presented to you this evening by the owners of 980
Middlefield Road.
I am an Addison Elementary School community member ‐ a parent of two current students and a very active member of
the parent volunteer group at the school, my concern largely stems from the impact this project will have on the school
and surrounding neighborhood.
My children are in 3rd and 4th grade at Addison. Our school was fortunate to receive a private donation to provide the
needed funds to complete renovations on our aging campus. Construction began in June of this year. The excitement of
knowing our school will be better for the next generation of Addison students outweighs the inconvenience of dust,
noise and extra chaos that now comes with drop‐off and pick‐up.
Should the the proposed "Corner House" be approved, there is no excitement or benefit that can outweigh the constant
chaos that our school will experience at drop‐off (same time as the proposed opening hour), the ongoing traffic obstacle
that will come with a traffic cut out planned for Addison Avenue or the obstacles that will come with double parked
vehicles, idling delivery trucks and equipment staging on a street designed for residential traffic volume each time a
special event is planned. The fact is, our community has had a preview into what it will be like to have the "Corner
House" on the proposed site. Over the past 5 years I have personally had to avoid double parked trucks and listened to
the noise of idling trucks & machinery and struggled to find street parking each time Ms. Mayer has hosted events at
the site. The most accurate description of the impact of these events shared by a neighbor of the school is "Each time
Ms. Mayer has a party it's 3 hours for her, however it's 3 days for us." Ironically, as I drove to Addison earlier today, I
turned off Addison Avenue to avoid the double parked trucks in front of Ms. Mayer's home to avoid the trucks parked in
front, blocking traffic heading away from the school.
I don't dispute that a business such as the one Ms. Mayer is proposing will help a segment of the Palo Alto community ‐
however I don't believe it will benefit anyone if allowed to operate at 980 Middlefield Road. The proximity to the
school and residences will not protect the quality of life standards which Palo Alto strives to promote and protect.
I urge you to consider the impact this project will have on Addison Elementary School and ask Ms. Mayer to explore
other uses for this property.
Thank you for your consideration.
Lauren Williams
115 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
t: 415‐652‐9281
e: laurenwilliams7@gmail.com
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Juliet de Baubigny <jdeb@kpcb.com>
Sent:Monday, October 1, 2018 2:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:The Corner House on Addison
To whom it may concern,
As a working mother, the opportunity to have a site where women can work while having their children participate in
enriching experiences in one place would truly be an incredible benefit to any community. I strongly support The Corner
House on Addison and believe that this community center will bring peace of mind to those balancing work and home life.
Thank you,
Juliet
-
Juliet de Baubigny
Senior Partner | Kleiner Perkins +1 650 336 4466 | jdeb@kpcb.com | @JulietdeB1
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jon Graves <jchgraves@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 1, 2018 3:39 PM
To:Lucinda Abbott
Cc:Council, City; Hap Abbott
Subject:Re: Meeting at City Hall
An excellent letter Lucinda, thank you for taking the time to articulate so much of what we all feel.
Sincerely
Jon
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 1, 2018, at 1:54 PM, Lucinda Abbott <lucindawabbott@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Jon and City Council
Jeff Brown forwarded your email to me and I am in firm agreement with your concerns.
I find Ms. Mayer’s proposal to be breathtakingly presumptuous and completely out of touch with the
character, challenges and needs of the existing neighborhood.
—Our neighborhood is composed almost entirely of residential buildings (a fact noted in the Page and
Turnbull report), an eclectic mix of historic and new structures, small to large houses, apartments and
BMR residences. Lots tend to be small and parking is at a premium. With Addison School as its center,
the area is heavily traveled by locals on foot and on bike. We are walking our dogs, on our way to school
or visiting a friend's home. Locating a private club with 150 members (and potentially many additional
visitors) within our space would be enormously disruptive and unsafe.
—The city abandoned the use of Planned Community zoning in large part because of abuses by
developers. This project is in clear violation of both the original multifamily zoning and the PC that
allowed the mortuary to be established, so why give way to yet another PC abuse?
—The notion that the proposed use would be no more or even less impactful than the mortuary is
ludicrous. I’ve lived here for twenty‐five years and never once even been aware that a funeral was in
progress. I am also a life long Palo Altan, and have had my mother, father and a brother‐in‐law buried
from Roller, Hapgood and Tinney. Funerals are quiet, solemn affairs, not likely to need sound
amplification nor do they run as late as midnight.
—Our neighborhood is experiencing heavy impacts from traffic and parking. A portion of the area
around the school has been added to the permit parking zone, with potential for adding the rest. The
staff report blithely notes that the neighborhood is walkable —suggesting that neighborhood streets
would make an ideal parking lot.
—Both Lincoln Avenue and Middlefield Road carry increasingly heavy traffic volumes from commuters
and ride‐share cars seeking shortcuts to 101. The staff report suggests a staggering number of new visits
to the neighborhood if the proposed development is approved. There is simply no room for an
additional 150 to 400 visitors, even were they all bussed in from a remote location. We have very
narrow streets here and multi‐passenger vehicles have difficulty maneuvering.
—My concern is not just traffic from attendees. I’ve observed Ms. Mayer’s events at her home on
Addison and at the mortuary, and they involve multiple trucks and vans delivering and setting up food,
decorations and entertainment. The same maneuvering issue as for busses applies here. There is no
mention of this traffic impact in the project description.
2
For these and for many other reasons, Ms. Mayer’s proposal is simply a non‐starter and I hope it will be
treated as such.
Respectfully,
Lucinda Abbott
646 Lincoln Ave.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 12:12 PM Brown, Jeffrey D. (ARC‐TSS)[Analytical Mechanics Associates, INC.]
<jeffrey.d.brown‐1@nasa.gov> wrote:
Hi Jon and City Council,
I'm out of town until Wednesday evening and won't be able to attend tonight. But, I stand firmly with
you guys, and I know of others who do also.
I think that describing the planned future use of the mortuary property as a "private club" understates
the likely traffic, parking, noise and safety impacts to result: on residential neighbors, on Middlefield
Road, and on Addison students and families walking/biking to and from the school. My yet‐limited
understanding of the “vision” is for there to be regular “events” that would each bring dozens, if not
hundreds, of people to the facility – people with no connection to the school or the neighborhood – to
the site.
I’m quite sure that Ms. Meyer has the resources – and certainly would if she sold the property
(perhaps, eventually, to be repurposed to affordable housing for teachers and city workers) – to
exercise her vision at any number of other existing, suitably situated and equipped venues around Palo
Alto or the mid‐peninsula. It just wouldn’t be a block from her home.
Best,
Jeff
On 10/1/18, 11:44 AM, "Jon Graves" <jchgraves@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
3
As you may or may not know, there is a new suggested plan for the use of the Mortuary on Addison,
owned by Marissa Meyer. This plan will add untold traffic and parking issues for our neighborhood, as
she is planning a private club for professional women.
There is a meeting at City Hall today starting at around 5.30pm, if you would like to join a group of
about 15 residents of the area, objecting. Sorry for the late notice, Marci and I will be attending to
make our objections clear.
Best
Jon
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Matt Ocko (archcap) <matt@archcap.com>
Sent:Monday, October 1, 2018 3:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:"CoHo" project for Addision/Middlefield former funeral home
To whom it may concern on the Palo Alto City Council:
I am a resident of Palo Alto (Crescent Park) who has known Marissa Mayer for almost ten years, and know her to be a
responsible, thoughtful, pro‐quality‐of‐life Palo Alto citizen with the best interests of the City at heart.
From the time that Marissa and her husband, Zack Bogue, rescued the funeral home from developers’ plans to build
high‐density, high‐traffic condos to today, I have seen her make thoughtful, pro‐community, pro‐Palo Alto plans step by
step for the property.
The “CoHo”, or Corner House, will provide an inclusive, community‐wide opportunity for parents and children to interact
in a day‐long, high‐quality enriching and educational environment, on the back of material investment by Marissa. This
is a huge benefit to the City, and will precipitate dramatically less traffic and noise than any other possible option.
I strongly recommend you move Ms. Mayer’s proposal forward.
All the best,
Matt Ocko
Crescent Park, Palo Alto
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Andrea Newcomb <andrea_newcomb@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 1, 2018 4:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Expression of Strong Support for the CoHo
City Council Members,
Unfortunately I am unable to attend tonight's City Council meeting. In lieu of attending, I want to write a letter of strong
support for The Corner House (CoHo).
I personally would find tremendous value in a family club type environment to be able to go to, and believe it would be
very positive for the community as it supports family, enrichment, community, and productivity, as well as an overall
valuable resource for busy and working parents, among other things.
I plan to attend the next Council meeting. In the meantime, please consider the allowing the CoHo to move forward.
Best,
Andrea Morokutti
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jim McFall <wjmcfall@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, September 27, 2018 11:44 AM
To:Council, City; Keene, James
Cc:Tom Vlasic; Shepherd, Nancy; Keith Ferrell; Christine Shambora; bobstiller@gmail.com; Hur, Mark;
Peter Shambora
Subject:Southgate RPP-program extension, CC meeting 10/1/18
Mayor Kniss, Council Members and City Manager Keene-
The Southgate Parking Committee understands that Council will be voting (on consent calendar) this
coming Monday, October 1, regarding a six month extension of the pilot program for the Southgate
RPP. We are pleased that Caltrans has approved annexing El Camino Real into the RPP and
additional employee parking permits will be available for the nearby professional offices.
In reviewing the staff report, there are a number of items not specifically mentioned in the report that
the Southgate Parking Committee would like to confirm will be implemented in the proposed
extension of the Pilot Phase and included in the final ordinance. These are items which we have
previously reviewed with staff and which staff has confirmed would be part of the RPP:
1. The 15 additional employee parking permits will be limited and for use only in the annexed area on
El Camino Real (District "S1")
2. These 15 additional permits will be distinguishable from the neighborhood resident parking permits.
3. The signage to be placed on El Camino Real will be noted to be District S1 to provide clarity for
parkers.
4. No change in the current 10 employee permits located in the neighborhood.
5. Clarify language in the ordinance on re-parking to state no re-parking is permitted during the
enforcement hours of 8am to 5pm.
None of these items are included in the current staff report so we feel it's important to confirm and
document them. Further, we are hopeful that these components of the RPP will provided in the
documentation that you receive prior to the Council meeting.
Thank you
Jim McFall
Escobita Avenue
Palo Alto
wjmcfall@gmail.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ng, Judy
Sent:Friday, September 28, 2018 2:45 PM
To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email
Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Minor, Beth; O'Kane, Kristen; leConge
Ziesenhenne, Monique; Gaines, Chantal; Tanner, Rachael
Subject:10/1 Council Agenda Questions for Item 10
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries
made by Council Member Tanaka in regard to the October 1, 2018 council meeting agenda.
Item 10: Approval of Contract for Artwork at the Junior Museum and Zoo and Acceptance of
Payment – CM Tanaka
Item 10: Approval of Contract for Artwork at the Junior Museum and Zoo and Acceptance
of Payment – CM Tanaka
Q. 1. What is Section 9 supposed to be?
A. 1. Section 9 pertains to cost estimates for public works projects. Since public art
is not considered a public works project (it is designed and fabricated offsite), the
section does not apply to public art contracts. Legal removed this clause from public
art contracts in 2016.
Q. 2. Is the city liable for any injuries that could be produced from the children riding
or pushing the pendulum swings?
A. 2. The City would be potentially liable for the injuries, however; the artwork has
been designed to minimize the risk of injury. As with any public artwork installed
in the City, the artist team provides stamped engineered drawings that must be
approved by the Building Division to ensure applicable safety and ADA standards
are followed. Public Art is working closely with the project engineers, construction
team, and Building Division to ensure the safety of the public and integrity of the
sculpture. The artist also carries liability insurance for the duration of the
fabrication and installation of the piece, as well as the life of the sculpture in order
to meet the provision stated in contract Section 20. The onsite contractor will
complete the installation or hire an experienced, professional outside installer for
this art project who also will be required to retain the proper insurance coverage
naming the City as additional insured.
Thank you,
Judy Ng
Judy Ng
City Manager’s Office|Administrative Associate III
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: (650) 329‐2105
Email: Judy.Ng@CityofPaloAlto.org
By Electronic and U.S. Mail
molly. stump@cityofPaloalto.org
Molly S. Stump
City Attorney
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton A venue, 8th Floor
Palo Alto, California 94301
September 27, 2018
Reply to: San Jose Office
Sender's Direct Dial No.: ( 408) 918-2826
Sender's Email Address: spahl@pahl-mccay.com
Re: Legality of Proposed Ordinance on Relocation Assistance
Dear Ms. Stump:
This office serves as General Counsel to the California Apartment Association ("CAA"),
the largest statewide trade association of multi-family owners and managers in the nation. We
are writing to you today regarding the significant concerns that exist with respect to the amended
ordinance up for a second reading which imposes an obligation on landlords to pay substantial
tenant relocation assistance, regardless of need, when implementing no cause terminations (the
"Ordinance"). 1 While CAA appreciates that the City is attempting to balance significant,
conflicting policy concerns, the proposed amendment denies a fair rate of return, is an
unconstitutional punishment, violates equal protection, and is not structured to achieve its stated
goals of assisting low-income residents. We are confident that a more tailored approach which
addresses the issues below can be reached if all concerned continue to work together towards a
solution. For the reasons outlined below, we request that the second reading of the Ordinance be
postponed to allow for this cooperation to take place.
The Ordinance Violates the Equal Protection Clause
In general, the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. and California Constitutions prohibit
the creation of a classification that affects similarly situated groups in an unequal manner.
1 By providing the below analysis to the City, neither CA nor its counsel intend to waive the attorney-work product
privilege or the attorney-client communication privilege with respect to any other analyses or communications
exchanged between CAA and Pahl & McCay, a Professional Law Corporation.
Molly Stump
September 27, 2018
Page 2
Walgreen Co. v. City and County of San Francisco, 185 Cal. App. 4th 424, 434 (2010). The
question in an equal protection case is whether the contrarily-treated groups are similarly situated
for purposes of the law.
As raised in communications we understand the Council has received from other sources,
we agree that an arbitrary distinction has been made in the classes of landlords affected by the
Ordinance. Here, the stated purposes of the Ordinance are to address "no fault" terminations in
the City of Palo Alto, which are difficult for its low-income residents because of the high cost of
living in the City. Then a "finding" is stated that no cause evictions in buildings with 50 or more
units reduce the amount of rental housing available; however, the Ordinance affects a landlord
who issues 50 no cause termination notices, as well as the landlord that issues a single notice.
There is no evidence that the issuance of no cause notices reduces the number of rental units in
the City. Further, there is no explanation, finding, or evidence that a landlord with a 44 unit
building using no cause terminations affects housing in the City any differently than a landlord
with a 56 unit building. The reason no explanation was given is that there is no actual difference.
In the Walgreen case cited above, the court analyzed whether there was a real difference
between a Walgreens store and a supermarket when it came to the selling of tobacco products
where both stores included licensed pharmacies. The court's conclusion was that there was no
true difference, and no reason to treat supermarkets differently by providing an exemption.
Here, the reason for the Ordinance is to retain rental units in the City. In the same way there is
no difference between a Walgreens (drug store/department store/grocery store) with a licensed
pharmacy and a supermarket with a licensed pharmacy, there is no difference in a one-bedroom
unit in a 40-unit building, when compared to a one-bedroom unit in a 52-unit building. For these
reasons the Ordinance will not withstand constitutional scrutiny under the Equal Protection
Clause.
The Ordinance Is Unconstitutional Because It Denies Landlords a Fair Rate of Return
The California Supreme Court has affirmed that a landlord's right to a fair rate of return
on its investment in real property is a property right protected by both the U.S. and California
Constitutions. See Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 16 Cal. 4th 761, 771 (1997).
For example, rent control that reduces the rental rate initially lawfully implemented to pre-
legislative rates is an unconstitutional taking ifthere is no prompt methodology for providing an
adjustment in the rate that provides a landlord with a fair rate of return. Kavanau, 16 Cal. 4th at
772; Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 17 Cal.3d 129, 171-73 (1976). The California Supreme
Court in Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, found that a roll-back was improper because landlords
could only obtain an adjustment on a case-by-case basis for each affected unit, which would
result in undue delay given the number of rental units affected by the ordinance in the City of
Berkeley. Id.
Molly Stump
September 27, 2018
Page 3
Here, the Ordinance violates the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the U.S.
Constitution by charging a landlord to exercise the vested rights of those that have issued notices
without the ability to petition for a fair return review. The Ordinance effectively invalidates
notices issued under state law, which notices were instituted after deliberation of the need for a
fair rate of return. Since there is not even a process for those landlords that issued notices that
expire after the effective date of the Ordinance, there cannot even be any fact finding to
determine whether an investment into a property would produce a fair return, whether the timing
of the notices was required to obtain the fair return, or any other element that would affect the
return. Without a fair process for all landlords to receive a fair rate of return, the Ordinance will
not withstand Constitutional scrutiny.
The Ordinance is Unconstitutionally Retroactive
Generally, there is a presumption against retroactive legislation because, as the United
States Supreme Court has noted on several occasions, "considerations of fairness dictate that
individuals should have an opportunity to know what the law is and to conform their conduct
accordingly; settled expectations should not be lightly disrupted." Landgraf v. USI Film
Products, 511 U.S. 244, 265 (1994). In other words, laws that regulate based on past conduct
will be found invalid if they violate due process, constitute an illegal taking, or act as punishment
of a specified group under the United States Constitution. See U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437
(1965); Western Security Bank v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. 4th 232, 243 (1997).
For legislation to be impermissibly retroactive, it must "attach new legal consequences to
events completed before its enactment." Spoklie v. Montana, 411F.3d1051, 1058 (9th Cir.
2005) (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 269-70). A change in a law that removes a vested right
from a landowner will be found to be invalid as long as the landowner has relied to its detriment
on the existing laws and complied with their requirements for obtaining the right (the "vested
rights doctrine"). See City of West Hollywood v. Beverly Towers, 52 Cal.3d 1184, 1190-91
(1991) (finding that once a tentative map was approved, a developer would take actions that
would limit the alternative uses of a project, thus making retroactive changes to such
requirements by a City unfairly burdened a developer's investment and expectation). A
landlord's right to a fair rate ofreturn on its investment in real property is a property right
protected by the United States and California Constitutions. Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent
Control Board, 16 Cal. 4th 7 61, 771-72 ( 1997).
As also mentioned in the other communication received by Council, the retroactive effect
of the Ordinance removes a vested right of landlords who have issued notices that expire after
the effective date. We wish to reiterate that the landlords issued their notices in reliance on state
law that allowed them to terminate month to month tenancies; however, these landlords must
now pay every vacating resident a relocation payment without the ability to challenge the
required payment and with the threat of a misdemeanor if the payment is not made by the date
Molly Stump
September 27, 2018
Page 4
the tenant vacates. This also creates the possibility that a landlord will be automatically guilty of
a misdemeanor on the date the Ordinance becomes effective due to the voluntary act of a tenant
that vacated a unit prior to the expiration of a notice to terminate.
The prohibition on bills of attainder in the United States Constitution was to prevent the
infliction of punishment on named individuals or an easily ascertainable group without a judicial
trial. Brown, 381 U.S. at 448. A punishment includes the deprivation from the privilege of
appearing in the courts. Id. Section 2(a) of the Ordinance provides that it applies solely to those
properties with 50 or more rental units. Section 2(f) allows for landlords to request a waiver
based on constitutional grounds 90 days prior to termination; however, Section 3 indicates that if
a landlord has provided a notice of termination prior to the effective date of the Ordinance, the
landlord must pay the relocation payments regardless of whether it affects a constitutional
violation. Under Palo Alto Municipal Code section 1.08.010, failure to comply with any
mandatory requirements of the Municipal Code is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine,
imprisonment, or both, and that each day a violation continues another penalty accrues, unless
otherwise stated in the Code. By limiting the Ordinance to landlords of properties with 50 or
more units, preventing landlords who have already issued notices from obtaining waivers, and
requiring the landlords to pay or be subject to potential imprisonment, the City is clearly
punishing an ascertainable group of landlords. Based on the above, the Ordinance is prohibited
by the Bills of Attainder Clause of the United States Constitution.
Additional Ambiguities and Inequities
While not a constitutional concern, there are other internal inconsistencies and inequities
which should be resolved prior to the enactment of the proposed emergency ordinance.
First, Section 2(b )(8) provides that a no fault eviction shall include an action to recover
possession of a unit to perform work on the building or buildings housing the rental unit that will
render the unit uninhabitable. Landlords generally are not taking actions to render the unit
uninhabitable.
Second, requiring relocation payments to be paid before a tenant surrenders possession is
fraught with peril for the landlord. Under the Ordinance, a portion of the relocation payments
are due upon the service of the notice to terminate, not the actual termination of the tenancy.
Under proposed section 2( c )(1 ), if the tenant receives a notice to terminate, then the landlord
must pay "at the time that the landlord provides notice of its intent to seek no-fault eviction."
The payment date, however, is not tied to the actual surrender of possession. An owner of a
three-bedroom rental is required to pay at least $8,500 to the household on the date the tenant
receives notice, with the potential addition of a $3,000 payment, and yet, if they do not vacate,
they still get the $11,500 payment and the landlord will need to file an unlawful detainer action
in order to regain possession. Under such a scenario, the tenant will have the relocation
payments and the unit for which they were paid to vacate, until the landlord can obtain
Molly Stump
September 27, 2018
Page 5
possession through the courts. The Council should not pass an ordinance that may so easily be
abused.
Third, the Ordinance requires minors who occupy a unit that receives a no cause
termination notice to provide written notice to the landlord of their existence and then have the
landlord write the minor a check for the additional $3,000 relocation payment. Section 2(c)(2)
provides that "in order to receive this additional payment a qualifj;ing tenant must provide
written notice to the landlord of his or her eligibility along with supporting evidence within 15
days of landlord's notice" (emphasis added). A qualifying tenant is defined as a "tenant who is
60 years of age or older ... or a minor" (emphasis added). The payment for qualifying tenants
must then be "divided equally among the qualifying (i.e. low-income, elderly, disabled, or
minor) tenants." This section creates absurd results that would prevent most households with
minor children from acquiring the benefit of the section as a small child would not be able to
produce a written notice, let alone acquire supporting evidence of their status as a minor.
Fourth, the Ordinance seems to have at its core a desire to address affordable housing
issues for residents of the City and, yet, there is nothing in the proposed ordinance that is tied to
need, the income of tenants, the length of time someone has resided within the City or a
particular unit, or the current rent being paid. Under the proposed ordinance, even the wealthiest
residents of the City will be entitled to three months of free rent if a landlord decides not to
continue their tenancies. Surely, it is not the intention of the Council to require landlords to
subsidize rents and relocation costs of all tenants within the City, regardless of their need.
Finally, the Ordinance would produce the absurd result ofrequiring landlords to provide
payment to problem residents. It is a common industry practice to terminate problem residents
who cause behavior-related problems through a "no-cause" 30 or 60-day notice, especially in
cases where neighbors affected by the issues refuse to testify for fear of retaliation by the
resident. In this situation, a landlord is doubly charged to assist its residents by addressing a
threat to the residents' quiet enjoyment of a property.
Conclusion
Again, we at CAA continue to recognize the various policy concerns the Council is trying
to balance and we are confident that, if all stakeholders continue to work together, we can find a
reasonable and lawful solution that more fairly resolves the City's concerns. The Ordinance as it
stands, however, is not that solution and we urge you to postpone its second reading until such
time an ordinance that does not violate the United States and California Constitutions can be
drafted which equitably addresses the concerns of the City.
Molly Stump
September 27, 2018
Page 6
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss this
matter further.
Sincerely,
PAHL&McCAY
A Professional Law Corporation
SDP:JAL:t
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Judy Adams <judyblueeyes1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 1, 2018 4:40 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Resolution 9653/CEDAW principles
Stop delaying the decision to pass gender equality (CEDAW/Resolution 9653). You can do that and move forward to
bring equity in how the city treats women. This should have been one of the founding principles of city
government. Shame on you if you don't honor this basic principle!
Judy Adams
former Janice Way and College Terrace resident
now living in Menlo Park
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:E Nigenda <enigenda1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 1, 2018 2:02 PM
To:Council, City; Planning Commission
Subject:ADUs
Dear City Council,
I regret I am unable to attend this evening’s City Council’s discussion of ADUs. As aging parents of a
special needs son, my husband and I hope to build an ADU in the near future.
That said, I strongly support the Planning and Transportation Commission’s (PTC) recommended
additional sentence “No basement shall encroach within a required rear yard setback”.
As one of their many functions, soils provide the water‐retaining capacity we need to modulate the flow
of stormwater. When we remove soils for underground construction we:
1. Decrease our ability to manage stormwater and we increase the probability of flooding.
2. Decrease the value of green infrastructure as there’s no place for the water to go other than
storm drains.
3. Alter the paths of groundwater flow.
As sea level rises, the groundwater level will rise also. Our groundwater levels east of Middlefield Road
are already about 15 feet below ground surface and much less as we get closer to the Bay. As we
increase underground construction and decrease available water‐retaining soil, where will the
stormwater go? Above ground as a start.
Relevant to flooding concerns it also makes sense to proscribe habitable basements where we expect
flooding within the next 30 years. Some USA cities that have suffered recent flooding are adapting to
climate change by mandating elevation of houses. Although Palo Alto clearly needs more housing, I hope
our zoning and building policies will take climate change and its impacts to health and safety into
account.
For these reasons in addition to those referred to by the PTC, I encourage you to retain the PTC’s
recommended sentence regarding basements.
Thank you for considering my comments,
Esther Nigenda, Ph. D.
1
Carnahan, David
From:ANDREA B SMITH <andreabsmith@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Monday, October 1, 2018 10:53 PM
To:City Mgr
Cc:Council, City
Subject:City of Palo Alto Tree on Walter Hays Drive
Hello everyone ‐
The City tree in front of my house, which was planted on or about 1950, was finally cut down in January 1018. The
fungus was eating through the tree and had been present for 15 or so years.
The flyer from Public Works said that it would take up to 6 months to take out the stump.
The 6 months has come and gone.
I suggested to Public Works that the flyer should state “up to 1 year” before the stump was removed.
I went to City Hall for help; that did not seem to work either because the damn stump is still in my front yard.
I even talked to the Police Department.
Now I know why a neighbor up the street was out using his pick ax.
It has been suggested that I use a stick of dynamite. Will I be jailed for destroying City property? I feel that I am about to
try.
Can ANYONE help out here?
I am 77 years old and a low‐income person.
Andrea Smith
194 Walter Hays Drive
1
Carnahan, David
From:Dr. Lim <drlim@duetplasticsurgery.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 2, 2018 2:51 PM
To:City Mgr; Council, City
Cc:Medical Director Plastic Surgery Center; Jennifer Weintraub
Subject:Considering small businesses affected by the Southgate RPP
To the Palo Alto City Council and City Manager,
As we head into fall and approach the end of the yearlong Southgate pilot parking program, I wanted to reach out to all
of you at the City Government. With both local and national news whipping about at breakneck speeds, it is not
unsurprising that everyone's attention has been diverted from the parking situation in Palo Alto. I have not seen any
notification of rediscussion of the Southgate RPP at City Council meetings, but we all just received emails and postcards
alerting us to the imminent expiration of our parking permits.
Nothing has changed since the small businesses of Southgate last appealed to Council, and we were told that the
program would be reviewed after the year's pilot. We are still dealing with the issue of too few six‐month permits
allotted for the number of small businesses and employees. If you compare the permits available for the businesses in
Southgate with that of any other Palo Alto RPP, the ratios are not anywhere near similar. We are not asking for
preferential treatment, just fair treatment.
Right now many of our employees are parking along El Camino Real because of the expense and inconvenience of using
the daily permits. As the days grow shorter, I worry about myself and the many other female employees walking along
El Camino in the dark to get to and from work, with cars hurtling past at high speed and a total absence of pedestrian
signaling at the ECR/Churchill Avenue intersection. Our days at the surgery center start very early and end late so that
we can take excellent care of our patients, and in today's politically charged environment, you have to share our concern
about our safety as women as well. Allowing the businesses to have access to more six‐month permits would make it
significantly safer for women to come to work.
Small businesses are incredibly vital to a city, and I hope you will consider readdressing the way the small businesses are
being unfairly treated by the current limits of the Southgate RPP.
Thank you for your time and careful consideration,
Angeline Lim, M.D.
‐‐
Angeline Lim, M.D.
D U E T Plastic Surgery, A Medical Corporation
1515 El Camino Real, Suite D
Palo Alto, California 94306
650.380.0415
1
Carnahan, David
From:Andre Vanier <andrevanier@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 2, 2018 2:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Corner House of Addison Project
I am writing to support the proposed zone modification for the Corner House of Addison Project. Though I am currently
a resident of Menlo Park, I lived in Palo Alto for many years and I believe that the vision of a family club would be
beneficial to the broader community.
In particular, the plans entailing enrichment classes for kids and adults would complement Palo Alto's broader
focus on both early childhood education and continuing education. In addition, the supervised play areas
would provide a good venue for indoor activities, especially useful during the rainy winter months when
playtime visits to outdoor areas are impractical.
Best regards,
Andre Vanier
Menlo Park Resident
1
Carnahan, David
From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 26, 2018 1:06 PM
To:Cindy Chavez; Sara Cody
Subject:Eggs --2018 Flu Shot 20% Effective
Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com
“The vaccine has been changed for 2018-19, but unfortunately it still contains two critical mutations that
arise from the egg-based vaccine production process,” which affects its efficacy.
* Full efficacy data for the 2017-2018 flu season will be around 19 percent against H3N2, the type of
influenza. In 2016, it was 20%.
* A 20 percent efficacy means that in a population, 20 percent fewer vaccinated people will get the flu
compared to the unvaccinated people.
Rice U. Study predicts 2018 flu vaccine
will have 20 percent efficacy like past 2 years
JADE BOYD – APRIL 19, 2018
http://news.rice.edu/2018/04/19/study-predicts-2018-flu-vaccine-will-have-20-percent-efficacy-2/
A Rice University study predicts that this fall’s flu vaccine — a new H3N2
formulation for the first time since 2015 — will likely have the same reduced efficacy
against the dominant circulating strain of influenza A as the vaccine given in 2016
and 2017 due to viral mutations related to vaccine production in eggs.
The Rice method, known as pEpitope (pronounced PEE-epih-tope), was invented more
than 10 years ago as a fast, inexpensive way of gauging the effectiveness of proposed flu
vaccine formulations. The latest pEpitope study, which is available online this week
in Clinical Infectious Diseases, suggests pEpitope is a more accurate predictor of vaccine
efficacy than long-relied-upon ferret tests, particularly for data gathered in the past decade.
The pEpitope method accounts for 77 percent of what impacts efficacy of the vaccine in
humans.
Long Description
Michael Deem and Melia Bonomo (Photo by Jeff Fitlow/Rice University)
pEpitope is a computational method that measures critical differences in the genetic
sequences of flu strains. In the new study, the method accurately predicted vaccine
efficacy rates for more than 40 years of flu records. These included the past two flu seasons
in which vaccines offered only limited protection against the most widely circulating strain
of influenza A.
“The vaccine has been changed for 2018-19, but unfortunately it still contains two
critical mutations that arise from the egg-based vaccine production process,”
said Michael Deem, Rice’s John W. Cox Professor in Biochemical and Genetic Engineering
and professor of physics and astronomy. “Our study found that these same mutations
halved the efficacy of flu vaccines in the past two seasons, and we expect they will lower the
efficacy of the next vaccine in a similar manner.”
2
Full efficacy data for the 2017-2018 flu season are still being compiled, but
pEpitope has predicted it will be around 19 percent against H3N2, the type of influenza
A that infected most people in the U.S. in each of the past two years. The Food and Drug
Administration chose the same vaccine formulation in 2017 and 2016, in part because the
dominant circulating strain stayed the same. In 2016, the vaccine had an efficacy of 20
percent, almost identical to the efficacy of 19 percent predicted by pEpitope.
What 20% efficacy means
Efficacy is the measure of how effective a vaccine is at protecting the overall population. A
20 percent efficacy means that in a population, 20 percent fewer vaccinated people will get
the flu compared to the unvaccinated people.
Annual flu vaccines are formulated to protect against one type of influenza B and two
strains of influenza A, one H3N2 strain and one H1N1 strain. The H and N refer to
hemagglutinin and neuraminidase, two proteins that cover the outside of invading flu
particles that can cause infection when inhaled. The human immune system targets these
particles for destruction based on their H and N sequences, and flu viruses constantly
evolve the sequence of amino acids in these proteins to evade detection.
“Very often there are egg adaptations,” he said. “There were a couple of these in the
vaccine strain the past two seasons that wound up making it a little bit different from the
actual circulating virus strain.”Most flu vaccines are produced with a decades-old process
that involves culturing viruses in hundreds of millions of chicken eggs. Because the strain
of flu that infects people is often difficult to grow in eggs, vaccine producers must make
compromises to produce enough egg-based vaccine in time for fall flu shots. Unintended
effects of this process have reduced vaccine efficacy against H3N2 the past two years,
Deem said.
While other papers have examined these mutations using expensive and time-consuming
experiments on live ferrets and laboratory cell cultures, Deem and Melia Bonomo used
the pEpitope method to rapidly calculate how much the egg-passage mutations would
decrease vaccine efficacy in humans.
“In fact, it’s pretty substantial,” said Bonomo, a doctoral student in applied physics. “The
original strain used as a reference for the vaccine was basically a perfect match to the
dominant circulating strain, and the predicted efficacy would have been around 47 percent.
We found that the mutations in two amino acids out of more than 300 in one key
region of the hemagglutinin protein were enough to lower efficacy to 19 percent
against all circulating strains.”
Deem said egg adaptations like those that reduced the efficacy of vaccines in 2016 and
2017 are unavoidable as long as flu vaccines are produced in eggs. He and Bonomo
compared the efficacy of the egg-based vaccine with an experimental vaccine produced from
insect cells via reverse genetics. The cell-based vaccine, which did not have the egg-passage
mutations, had a predicted efficacy of 47 percent, the average value of a perfectly matched
H3N2 vaccine, Deem said.
For decades, scientists have relied upon ferret models to gauge how flu viruses and flu
vaccines will behave in people. But Deem said ferret studies over the past 10 years have
been considerably less predictive of human effects than they were in the preceding three
decades, and it is unclear why.
“It’s been apparent over the last 10 years that egg adaptations have affected the efficacy
of flu vaccines,” he said. “It’s also been apparent that the ferrets have done a really bad job
of predicting the reduction of the efficacy due to the egg adaptations. Additionally, it’s been
3
difficult to get data from ferrets because the ferrets’ immune systems have not recognized
the vaccines particularly well over the past 10 years.”
Deem said the ferret-based measures are one-third as predictive as the pEpitope method
that has consistent performance over decades of flu data.
“When we look at our model over all data and over the last 10 years, we get the same
answer,” Deem said. “Whether we use the last 10 years of data or the last 50 years, our
theory is very robust.”
The research was funded by the National Science Foundation via Rice’s Center for
Theoretical Biological Physics and by the Welch Foundation.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ted Zagat <tzagat@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 3, 2018 10:43 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Parisa Sabeti Zagat
Subject:endorsement: The Corner House ("CoHo") on Addison
Dear City Council,
My wife, Parisa, and I are Menlo Park residents and home owners. We are writing enthusiastically to endorse The Corner
House on Addison.
We believe The Corner House would be a fantastic addition to our community. It's the type of family environment which
brings people together and fosters local, in‐person connection ‐ something we need more of these days. We wish it had
been available for our kids (now 7 and 5).
We understand that The Corner House plan requires some rezoning. We hope the City Council will permit this rezoning.
We believe this is a perfect example of the type of environment that our city government should be trying to foster.
Please let us know if you have any questions or if we can do anything to help.
Best,
Ted
_______________
Ted Zagat
tzagat@gmail.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Wednesday, September 26, 2018 1:35 PM
To:Dan Richard; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Mayor; Mark Standriff; Daniel Zack; huidentalsanmateo;
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; popoff; Council, City;
scott.mozier; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; boardmembers; steve.hogg; hennessy;
robert.andersen; Cathy Lewis; Doug Vagim; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Steven Feinstein; jerry ruopoli;
Jason Tarvin; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Mark Kreutzer; Leodies Buchanan; leager;
midge@thebarretts.com; nick yovino; nchase@bayareanewsgroup.com; russ@topperjewelers.com;
Steve Wayte; Joel Stiner; terry; info@superide1.com
Subject:Fwd: Vast trove of articles re transportation
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: Vast trove of articles re transportation
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 1:20 PM Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
Mr. Dan Richard
Chairman of the Board
California High Speed Rail Authority
Dan‐ Here is more than you care to read most likely. Recommend that you assign it to staff to go over since many
interesting ideas are mentioned.
Esp. see the article re how the gas‐tax repeal folks will also try in 2020 to pass a repeal of California HSR. They
sound like losers to me, conceivably funded by the auto, airline and highway lobbies.
https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail
I just spent 20 min. scrolling down through it. What it shows is the HUGE interest in public transportation in the
U.S. Your long career there would serve you well in a run for the Presidency in 2020.
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Marilyn Messer <marilyncmesser@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, October 2, 2018 8:52 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Marilyn Messer
Subject:I attended 10/1/18 meeting re: "The Corner House"
I was at the event to listen and learn.
The “public benefits” are limited to families with children. The target population does not include me or my other
retired neighbors on Guinda Street. But we would hear the noise from the “parties” at night.
What would the membership fees be used for?
I agree with people who stated that Myers plan does not address the city goals on traffic, parking, public safety and
housing.
Parents can go to the YMCA and have childcare and exercise with kids. This helps working mom’s and kids. In addition
the public library has programs to include parents and children.
I urge the city council to keep in mind it’s own goals and reject the plan of Marisa Meyers.
Marilyn Messer
1050 Guinda Street
Palo Alto 94301
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 3, 2018 12:36 AM
To:chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com;
dcbertini@menlopark.org; Jonsen, Robert; council@redwoodcity.org;
michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; apardini@cityofepa.org; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; HRC;
stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; Kilpatrick, Brad; Kniss, Liz (internal); paloaltolife@gmail.com; Keene,
James; Stump, Molly; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; Council, City; Kan, Michael; cromero@cityofepa.org;
rabrica@cityofepa.org; Minor, Beth; Lee, Craig; Perron, Zachary; Tony Dixon; myraw@smcba.org;
hayden@yourcriminaldefender.com; Binder, Andrew; citycouncil@menlopark.org
Subject:Kavanaugh white male privilege on steroids?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/opinion/kavanaugh‐white‐male‐privilege.html
Shared via the Google app
Sent from my iPhone
1
Carnahan, David
From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 1, 2018 9:12 PM
To:Architectural Review Board; Lait, Jonathan; Gerhardt, Jodie; Adam Petersen
Cc:Peter Ko; Morse, Rosemary; De Geus, Robert; Council, City; William Brown
Subject:Letter to ARB related to 429 University
Attachments:arb10418.pdf
Dear ARB and email recipients,
Please see the attached letter related to the October 4, 2018, ARB Minor Level review of 429 University Ave.
Thank you.
Elizabeth Wong
650 814 3051
September 26, 2018
Re: 429 University ARB Minor Review -3rd Meeting Scheduled for October 4, 2018
Dear ARB Members:
1. Background
On October 4, 2018, the ARB will have a third ARB Minor Review meeting on the following items
regarding 429 University: (i) a "west wall" decorative design treatment, feature or element, (ii)
landscape details and plans, and (iii) exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship-related
detailing, as required by Approval No. 2017-2 Record of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Land Use
Action for 425 and 429 University Avenue: Major Architectural Review Application [14PLN-00222]. This
project was approved by City Council on February 6, 2017. Despite many requests in writing to Planning
requesting scheduling for the ARB review requirement, the first ARB Minor Review was scheduled by
Planning for August 16, 2018 eighteen months later. This is a notable delay considering that Applicant is
required to obtain a Building Permit within a year of the approval date.
A second hearing was scheduled for September 6, 2018, but had to be continued to September 20,
2018, because quorum was not achieved with only two of the three non-recused members present. At
such hearing, the ARB members felt that a third hearing was necessary, and it is now scheduled for
October 4, 2018.
2. Modifications in Response to the Second ARB Minor Review
In preparing for the various reviews by planning, ARB and other entities, we have endeavored to keep
first and foremost, the concept that our project has to be of the highest quality, both in design and
appearance, as well as execution of materials and workmanship. The City's concern over design and
execution matters is understandable and aligned with our intent. With that in mind, we present what
we have done in response to your recommended changes listed in an e-mail from Adam Petersen,
contract planner for the City of Palo Alto, attached as Exhibit A.
a. Recommended Change: 'The grey color is too dark, lighten the grey color. The ARB needs to be
able to view the difference in the grey color between the stucco and concrete. The beige may
possibly be lighter as well. The ARB suggested to split the color scheme between the first two
floors and the top two floors, which would include making the concrete floors/ceiling between
levels consistent with the floor levels."
Response: Our architectural preference is the original colors on the materials board presented
at the second ARB Minor Review. They mirror the grays and beiges on the facades of adjacent
buildings, and the colors prevalent on University Avenue and Kipling Street storefronts. Also, we
understand from our concrete expert at Bill Brown Construction, integral color concrete,
especially if it contains slag replacement for cement, will burn out and pale in time. This can be
observed first-hand in the building at 102 University Avenue which was built by Bill Brown
Construction.
In deference to the ARB members' preference, we have included an alternative color board with
lighter gray and lighter sandstone tones.
b. Recommended Change: "Increase the number of planters on the fourth level, and first level.
Also, increase the support on the green wall; have an actual green screen on the rear wall and
fourth floor area where the vine is proposed."
Response: To increase the greenery at the project, we have enlarged the "B" planters proposed
for the first level from 12" to 16" tall and the "E" planters on the third level from 18" to 20" in
diameter. On the fourth floor, "F" planters are also enlarged from 12" to 16" tall.
In a dramatic response to ARB's recommendation for additional planting on the fourth floor, we
added 16 new "G" planters around the perimeter guardrail of the terrace which will alter the
perception of the building in the view of passersby. The large "G" planters are 30" long, 18"
wide and 20" tall and will be anchored for earthquake safety. We propose three five-gallon,
profusely-flowering California fuschia or foothill penstemon per planter.
Instead of a wire-based vine support built into the wall, we will provide trellises at the garden
wall on the first floor and at the elevator planters on the fourth floor, as recommended.
c. Recommended Change: "Better integrate the west wall with the building, particularly the top
two floors."
Response: We are proposing Option B for the "western wall". It consists of bold horizontal
bands echoing the colors of the building, in sandstone and gray. It complements the modern
architecture of the building, with horizontal bands, highlighted by metal recessed in a stucco
plane.
Alternatively, the western wall design could be the tree motif presented at the previous ARB
Minor Review. It consists of an abstraction of trees, a nod to the various street trees
surrounding the project site on University Avenue and Kipling Street. The trees are rendered in
rectilinear metal recessed on a stucco plane, providing color, material and shadow-line contrast
to the stucco. We believe that: (i) the view of the wall will be mostly from a great distance, (ii)
the wall treatment as viewed from University Avenue will be filtered by street trees, and (iii) it is
recessed 8 feet from University Avenue and 10 feet from Lane 30.
d. Recommended Change: "Have a minimum of two high quality photo renderings: the first
rendering from University Avenue, looking towards the west wall; the second rendering from
Kipling Street, showing the Kipling Street and the Lane 30 elevation. The ARB strong encouraged
additional high quality photo renderings."
Response: We are providing high-quality photo renderings of the building from University
Avenue and from Lane 30 to help the ARB visualize what the building and its western wall will
look like when completed.
3. Some Thoughts Regarding ARB Review
Although the ARB had seen this project through various presentations and study sessions, and had been
familiar with the changes and delays over time, the composition of the ARB has changed. Of the five
ARB members of the current board, Wynne Furth and Peter Baltay have recused themselves because of
their different connections to the project before they became members. One of the three remaining
members is new to the Board and has had no familiarity or project memory on 429 University.
Even though the normal standard for an ARB Minor Review approval is agreement by two of five
members (a 40% requirement), the Applicant is faced in this case with needing the consent from two of
the remaining three members (a far more stringent 66% requirement).
Thank you for your consideration of this project.
Elizabeth Wong, Manager
Kipling Post LP
cc.: Peter Ko, AIA
Jonathan Lait
Jodie Gerhardt
Adam Petersen
Rosemary Morse
Rob De Geus
City Council
Molly Stump
Bill Brown Construction
Attachment: Exhibit A
Pf:l-111?;1-/ ,4
This email is a follow up to the ARB hearing on 429 University Avenue. It contains three items.
The first item is in regards to a new scope of work and budget that are attached to this email. This new scope and budget,
and consequently additional deposit, are needed for the third ARB hearing because the initial scope of work for the post-
entitlement ARB review was only for two ARB hearings.
Second, I wanted to provide a list of the four items that the ARB requested for the third hearing.
a. The grey color is too dark; lighten the grey color. The ARB needs to be able to view the difference in the grey color
between the stucco and concrete. The beige may possibly be lighter as well. The ARB suggested to split the color scheme
between the first two floors and the top two floors, which would include making the concrete floors/ceiling between levels
consistent with the floor levels.
Can you confirm that you retrieved the color and materials board from the Planning and Community Environment
Department? When you return the color and materials board, include all materials -concrete, stucco, CMU, and glass -with
colors that reference and correspond to all notes on the updated color elevation plan sheets.
b. Increase the number of planters on the fourth level, and first level. Also, increase the support on the green wall; have an
actual green screen on the rear wall and fourth floor area where the vine is proposed.
c. Better integrate the west wall with the building, particularly the top two floors.
d. Have a minimum of two high quality photo renderings: the first rendering from University Avenue, looking towards the
west wall: the second rendering from Kipling Street, showing the Kipling Street and the Lane 30 elevation. The ARB strong
encouraged additional high quality photo renderings.
Lastly, please email me the date you anticipate having a plan set prepared. I have been informed that the deadline to
receive plans for the October 4, 201 a ARB hearing is tomorrow (9/25/18). The materials board is not needed until the
meeting date, but I would like an opportunity to review it at least two days in advance.
Sincerely,
ADAM PETERSEN I SENIOR PLANNER
POLICY DESIGN ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORIC · ENGAGEMENT STAFFING
CAMPBELL SANTA ROSA NAPA HAYWARD
1
Carnahan, David
From:Eric Rosenblum <mitericr@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 1, 2018 5:39 PM
To:Council, City; Palo Alto Forward Board
Subject:Palo Alto Forward: output from panel on ADUs in Palo Alto
Hello City Council
Palo Alto Forward is excited that you are making improvements to the City’s ADU ordinance tonight. We held
an educational event on the subject of ADU construction in Palo Alto, and there was an overwhelming
response (over 150 RSVPed, and we had to turn away many interested parties-- if you’d like to see the video
from the event, we have posted it on our Youtube channel here).
From that event, several of our expert panelists created a summarized list of “useful improvements to Palo
Alto’s ADU ordinance” for your consideration:
1. Impact fees: Eliminate, greatly reduce or prorate development impact fees. Perhaps a new structure
has a greater impact than a conversion. A JADU has little or no impact.
2. Setbacks for HVAC: with the setbacks for HVAC equipment by using decibels instead of distance
from the property line. The new equipment is barely audible even when you’re standing next to it.
3. Clarifications:
a. Clarify, in writing, what “conversion” means
b. Clarify, in writing, what the Green Building requirements are for each type of ADU (and
consider eliminating the Green Building Professional requirement-- see below)
4. Green Building Requirement: Eliminate the Green Building Professional requirement for ADUs.
This does not mean that the project would not need to comply with the CalGreen Codes, but as is
typical in many other cities, not having the Green Building Professional requirement would mean one
less step and fee for the homeowner to deal with.
5. Requirements, prerequisites, and electives: many of the requirements, prerequisites, and
electives do not apply to Accessory Buildings, and were designed with a brand new single-family
home in mind.
. The City should provide specialized GB-1 sheet that applies to Accessory Units. For
example, most ADU’s have little to no landscaping work-- does it make sense to apply
MWELO design and documentation requirements if the landscaping doesn’t exceed some
minimal amount of square footage (say 100 sq.ft.?) around a new ADU?
a. The alternatives for compliance are to install a rainwater or greywater system.
6. Administration:
. Consider a dedicated inspector for ADU’s who has adequate training. Using contract
inspectors without training is very suboptimal
a. Consider a dedicated planner for review
Obviously this list is just a starting place for your consideration.
We are looking forward to a productive discussion,
Eric Rosenblum
President, Palo Alto Forward
1
Carnahan, David
From:Adequacy Assurance <adequacyassurance@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 2, 2018 10:20 AM
To:adequacyassurance@gmail.com
Subject:"PEOPLE FOR CASH" EXJUDGE STEVE BAILEY, RUNNING FOR CALIF. ATTORNEY GENERAL? What?
DISGRACED "PEOPLE FOR CASH" EXJUDGE STEVE BAILEY,
RUNNING FOR CALIF. ATTORNEY GENERAL? What?
"Ole Juryless, Constitution Out The Window Bailey"--, CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE FROM THE
"PROBATE BENCH"
THIS "STINKS"----DESPITE BEING CHARGED WITH RIGGING CASES AS PROBATE JUDGE. "PEOPLE FOR
CASH" TYPE CHARGES, EX PROBATE JUDGE STEVE BAILEY while facing a CA ethics committee during the current
election season, is the GOP nominee for California attorney general. Former probate judge Steven Bailey has been
accused and evidence presented of his using his judgeship for election purposes, illegally receiving gifts, and rigging
cases to direct business and funds to a firms where his son and nephew worked and benefited from......ALL IN
VIOLATION OF LAW. Bailey served as an El Dorado County judge from 2009 through the end 2017.
https://cjp.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2018/05/Bailey_Amended_NFP_05-07-18.pdf
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/steven-bailey-gop-nominee-for-california-attorney-general-faces-ethics-panel/
Steven Bailey, GOP nominee for California
attorney general, faces ethics panel
Former judge Steven Bailey is accused of using his office to further his
statewide campaign, improperly acceptin...
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 1, 2018 5:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Project review tonight
Due to various personal priorities and travel of some of the active resident leaders, we have not
pulled together a position on the former funeral home site at corner of Addison and Middlefield. We
understand the need to study uses for the property but we share staff concerns about parking and
traffic impact.
In the near future resident leaders will have more comments, but now we are focused short-term on
preserving the RPP which potential to further reduce negative commercial traffic and parking in the
vicinity of Middlefield/Addison.
Here are considerations for future staff work.
a. What are less impactful uses for the property, especially housing compatible for the neighborhood?
b. How would future use interface with the long-term improvement of Downtown RPP? Nearby
business such as dentist and other healthcare professionals are already experiencing traffic and
parking problems.
c. Analysis of downtown parking capacity and mitigation via TMA, pricing, etc is incomplete,
especially parking garage capacity at night. Event venues might evolve in the University Avenue
commercial core.
d. Assumptions [about alternative means] to access the site for large events are crude and unproven.
e. Basic scenarios for Caltrain grade crossings have not been narrowed down. Various road
closures would have major impacts on nearby roads such as Middlefield, Alma, Hamilton, Channing,
Homer, Unversity and Everett.
f. A major event venue seems incompatible for residential neighborhoods, roads and parking.
Thank you for seeking early comment from the adjacent neighborhoods.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mike Forster <mike@mikeforster.net>
Sent:Tuesday, October 2, 2018 3:00 PM
To:Council, City; Transportation
Cc:'Mike Forster'
Subject:Rail Committee, Connecting Palo Alto - Schedule Recommendation re Palo Alto Ave
Importance:High
October 2, 2018
Palo Alto Rail Committee
Connecting Palo Alto
Subject: A Schedule Recommendation for Palo Alto Ave Grade Separation, Electrification, and El Palo Alto
Council Members and Staff:
Based on presentations at the community meeting and the recent Rail Committee meeting, I suggest the
following accelerated schedule of events:
1 Pause electrification work near El Palo Alto.
Electrification poles near El Palo Alto might become the last ones installed.
2 Complete a study analyzing the El Palo Alto root structure on the Caltrain right-of-way.
This would include impacts on El Palo Alto by the hybrid western tracks option for the Palo Alto Ave grade
separation.
3 Obtain City Council approval to proceed on planning for the hybrid western tracks option for the Palo
Alto Ave grade separation.
This would include obtaining concurrence from Menlo Park and likely from the Stanford Park Hotel, from
Caltrain for a 1.3% slope, and from Palo Alto Utilities regarding the underground water storage tank. This
approach moves the tracks and therefore the catenary poles up to 40 feet further from El Palo Alto.
4 Obtain Measure B funding for this project.
5 Complete the design, EIR, and construction of the hybrid western tracks option.
6 Complete the construction of the electrification work near El Palo Alto.
This sequence would:
1 Continue a vehicle / ped / bike connection from Alma to El Camino, separated from rail traffic.
2 Protect El Palo Alto.
3 If done quickly, still satisfy Caltrain electrification completion by 2022.
2
Mike Forster
420 Stanford Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94306-1148
mike@mikeforster.net
650 464 4925
1
Carnahan, David
From:Charlene Liao <xcliao@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, September 29, 2018 5:51 PM
To:Arthur Keller
Cc:Kniss, Liz (external); Tom DuBois; Brettle, Jessica; Council, City; Alison Cormack; Pat Burt gmail;
allanseid@gmail.com; Ken Dauber; Jennifer DiBrienza; Terry Godfrey; Charlene Liao
Subject:Re: City of Palo Alto stands behind and supports Dr. Christine Blasey Ford
Dear Arthur,
I agree. An official proclamation from City Council is primarily symbolic. I do not know
if there are other tangible things our city and school district could do, such as providing
a safe parameter around her residence, increasing police patrol around her
neighborhood, working with the school administrators and teachers of her children to
protect them from harassment at schools or to give them homework or school breaks.
I am copying PAUSD Trustees Ken Dauber, Terry Godfrey and Jennifer DiBrienza here
for their consideration of what the school districts could do, too.
Charlene
On Saturday, September 29, 2018 5:42 PM, Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org> wrote:
Thanks, Charlene, for spearheading this effort and Mayor and Council for honoring one of our bravest
citizens. We must ensure she endures in safety and health.
Best regards,
Arthur
On Sep 29, 2018, at 5:34 PM, Charlene Liao <xcliao@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Kniss,
Thank you for our response. I also admire your courage to speak out on
your personal experiences. We believe survivors.
Kind regards,
Charlene
On Saturday, September 29, 2018 5:17 PM, Liz Kniss <lizkniss@earthlink.net> wrote:
Dear Dr Liao
2
Thanks for this. We'll be putting a proclamation together tomorrow. And we'll call to talk
with
you about content as well.
We are so proud of her!
Thank you,
Liz Kniss
Mayor
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 29, 2018, at 12:19 PM, Tom DuBois <tomforcouncil@gmail.com> wrote:
Great idea!
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:20 PM Charlene Liao <xcliao@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to ask you to make a declaration, a proclamation
or a resolution in support of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, a
resident of our city, and in support of all survivors of sexual
assaults.
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is a pride of our city. She
demonstrates the characters and values expected of all of our
responsible citizens. She fulfills her civic duty and upholds the
belief of freedom of our country with great personal sacrifice.
In light of so many rumors, personal attacks, death threats to
her, and new accusations about the GoFundMe campaigns
(intended to support her security and legal expenses for her and
her family), a proclamation from the city she lives and the city
she has chosen to live in order to escape the person who
assaulted her, and to escape the geographic association of her
assault, will go a long way to assure her and people around the
world that our city is indeed a safe place for her.
There have already been so many caring neighbors sending her
cards and offering tangible supports to her and her family. The
official pledge of support from our city will go a long way to
comfort her, to represent, and express solidarity of, the
majority of our residents, and to dissuade a small number of
vocal local residents who further propagate rumors, attacks and
accusations towards Dr. Ford.
Please do so at your next City Council Meeting or ASAP.
4
Carnahan, David
From:Allan Seid <allanseid@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, September 29, 2018 5:40 PM
To:LIAO, CHARLENE
Cc:Kniss, Liz (external); tomforcouncil@gmail.com; Brettle, Jessica; Council, City;
alisonlcormack@gmail.com; arthur@kellers.org; Pat Burt
Subject:Re: City of Palo Alto stands behind and supports Dr. Christine Blasey Ford
CHARLENE,
COUNT MARY AND ME ON SUPPORTING YOUR GREAT IDEA !.
ALLAN and MARY SEID
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 5:36 PM Charlene Liao <xcliao@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Kniss,
Thank you for our response. I also admire your courage to speak out on your personal
experiences. We believe survivors.
Kind regards,
Charlene
On Saturday, September 29, 2018 5:17 PM, Liz Kniss <lizkniss@earthlink.net> wrote:
Dear Dr Liao
Thanks for this. We'll be putting a proclamation together tomorrow. And we'll call to talk with
you about content as well.
We are so proud of her!
Thank you,
Liz Kniss
Mayor
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 29, 2018, at 12:19 PM, Tom DuBois <tomforcouncil@gmail.com> wrote:
Great idea!
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:20 PM Charlene Liao <xcliao@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
6
Carnahan, David
From:Tom DuBois <tomforcouncil@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, September 29, 2018 12:20 PM
To:xcliao@yahoo.com
Cc:Council, City; Alison Cormack; Arthur Keller; Pat Burt gmail; allanseid@gmail.com
Subject:Re: City of Palo Alto stands behind and supports Dr. Christine Blasey Ford
Great idea!
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:20 PM Charlene Liao <xcliao@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to ask you to make a declaration, a proclamation or a resolution in support
of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, a resident of our city, and in support of all survivors of
sexual assaults.
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is a pride of our city. She demonstrates the characters and
values expected of all of our responsible citizens. She fulfills her civic duty and upholds
the belief of freedom of our country with great personal sacrifice.
In light of so many rumors, personal attacks, death threats to her, and new accusations
about the GoFundMe campaigns (intended to support her security and legal expenses
for her and her family), a proclamation from the city she lives and the city she has
chosen to live in order to escape the person who assaulted her, and to escape the
geographic association of her assault, will go a long way to assure her and people
around the world that our city is indeed a safe place for her.
There have already been so many caring neighbors sending her cards and offering
tangible supports to her and her family. The official pledge of support from our city will
go a long way to comfort her, to represent, and express solidarity of, the majority of
our residents, and to dissuade a small number of vocal local residents who further
propagate rumors, attacks and accusations towards Dr. Ford.
Please do so at your next City Council Meeting or ASAP.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Charlene Liao
Middlefield Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
7
Carnahan, David
From:Kou, Lydia
Sent:Saturday, September 29, 2018 12:17 PM
To:Charlene Liao
Cc:Council, City; Alison Cormack; Arthur Keller; Pat Burt; Allan Seid; Ken Dauber
Subject:Re: City of Palo Alto stands behind and supports Dr. Christine Blasey Ford
Agree wholeheartedly!
Lydia Kou
650.996.0028 | LydiaKou@kw.com
www.JohnandLydiaHomes.com
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 29, 2018, at 12:15 AM, Charlene Liao <xcliao@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's employer and affiliated organizations support
her. Her city should support her too.
Please see attached letters from the President of Palo Alto University, and
the Dean of Stanford Medical School.
<PAU page 1.jpg>
<PAU page 2.jpg>
<PAU page 3.jpg>
<Stanford Med.jpg>
Charlene
On Friday, September 28, 2018 9:20 PM, Charlene Liao <xcliao@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to ask you to make a declaration, a proclamation or a resolution
in support of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, a resident of our city, and in support
of all survivors of sexual assaults.
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is a pride of our city. She demonstrates the
characters and values expected of all of our responsible citizens. She fulfills
her civic duty and upholds the belief of freedom of our country with great
personal sacrifice.
In light of so many rumors, personal attacks, death threats to her, and new
accusations about the GoFundMe campaigns (intended to support her
security and legal expenses for her and her family), a proclamation from the
city she lives and the city she has chosen to live in order to escape the
person who assaulted her, and to escape the geographic association of her
9
Carnahan, David
From:Charlene Liao <xcliao@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, September 29, 2018 12:15 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Alison Cormack; Arthur Keller; Pat Burt; Allan Seid; Charlene Liao; Ken Dauber
Subject:Re: City of Palo Alto stands behind and supports Dr. Christine Blasey Ford
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's employer and affiliated organizations support her. Her city
should support her too.
Please see attached letters from the President of Palo Alto University, and the Dean of
Stanford Medical School.
10
11
12
13
Charlene
On Friday, September 28, 2018 9:20 PM, Charlene Liao <xcliao@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
14
I am writing to ask you to make a declaration, a proclamation or a resolution in support
of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, a resident of our city, and in support of all survivors of
sexual assaults.
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is a pride of our city. She demonstrates the characters and
values expected of all of our responsible citizens. She fulfills her civic duty and upholds
the belief of freedom of our country with great personal sacrifice.
In light of so many rumors, personal attacks, death threats to her, and new accusations
about the GoFundMe campaigns (intended to support her security and legal expenses for
her and her family), a proclamation from the city she lives and the city she has chosen
to live in order to escape the person who assaulted her, and to escape the geographic
association of her assault, will go a long way to assure her and people around the world
that our city is indeed a safe place for her.
There have already been so many caring neighbors sending her cards and offering
tangible supports to her and her family. The official pledge of support from our city will
go a long way to comfort her, to represent, and express solidarity of, the majority of our
residents, and to dissuade a small number of vocal local residents who further propagate
rumors, attacks and accusations towards Dr. Ford.
Please do so at your next City Council Meeting or ASAP.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Charlene Liao
Middlefield Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
1
Carnahan, David
From:Andrew Sharpe <asharpe@andrewsharpe.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 2, 2018 8:34 PM
To:Minor, Beth; Carnahan, David
Cc:Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal)
Subject:Re: Voting records for each council member
Let me be very clear about my purpose here. I need this information to determine which of you I will vote back into
office. I can find out what my representatives in congress voted on, and I can find out what my senators voted on. I
cannot even find a search box for the past Minutes on the Palo Alto Council pages. Can you really suggest that the Palo
Alto City Council is less transparent than one of the worst federal legislatures in my lifetime?
Thank you for your consideration,
Andrew Sharpe
On 10/2/18 5:16 PM, asharpe@andrewsharpe.com wrote:
> Thank you for your replies. How might I determine the voting record of
> the members on one specific issue, like the intersection constriction
> planned by
> https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62349 ? How
> would I find those Minutes?
>
> Andrew
>
>
> On 2018‐10‐02 16:49, Minor, Beth wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> This is not a record that we keep. You would have to go back and
>> look at each meeting that they attended and write down their votes on
>> each item.
>>
>> Thanks and have a great day.
>>
>> B‐
>>
>> Beth Minor, City Clerk
>> City of Palo Alto
>> 250 Hamilton Avenue
>> Palo Alto, CA 94301
>> (650)329‐2379
>>
>>
>> Good afternoon Mr. Sharpe,
>>
>>
>> Minutes for City Council meetings can be found on the City Council
2
>> Agendas/Minutes webpage. The Minutes for each meeting contain the
>> vote taken by each Council Member, the Mayor, and Vice Mayor.
>>
>>
>> Minutes from other City of Palo Alto legislative bodies, including
>> City Council Standing Committees can be found on the general Agendas
>> and Minutes webpage.
>>
>>
>> David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk, MPA
>> O: 650‐329‐2267 | E: david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org
>>
>>
>> ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
>> From: asharpe@andrewsharpe.com <asharpe@andrewsharpe.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 4:36 PM
>> To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Kniss, Liz
>> (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>
>> Subject: Voting records for each council member
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to know where I can find the voting record of each council
>> member, including the mayor and vice mayor, on every issue that was
>> brought to a vote. Can you help me find this?
>>
>> Thank you very much,
>> Andrew Sharpe
From:Kate Crane
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Private truck use of city property / noise / hazard
Date:Friday, September 28, 2018 11:41:47 AM
Attachments:IMG_0044.MOV
IMG_0047.MOV
Dear City Council,
After my letter a couple days ago, I heard from a lieutenant in the Palo Alto PoliceDepartment, who asked that I send some video. I have sent Lt. Maloney four different videos
in the past hour alone, and I sent him two yesterday from the one-hour window that I was inmy apartment, mid morning.
I would like to share these with you so you have a sense of what is happening here on my
block, Webster between University and Hamilton.
I attach two videos, and a photo – right now there are three big trucks outside my window, allof which have been beeping. This is an unofficial private truck depot in a city driveway, next
to a residential building.
Best,Kate Crane
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:53 AM Kate Crane <katecrane@gmail.com> wrote:Dear City Council,
I hope this finds you well. I am wondering if you can help me and my building with an
ongoing problem.
In January of this year I moved into 530 Webster St., a building just below University, thatis very close to the Webster Cowper parking garage. In fact, one of the entrances to this
garage is adjacent to my building, and the side of the building where I sleep.
Monday through Friday, from about 7 AM until the end of the day, massive commercialtrucks reverse into the public accessway to the garage. Reverse means one thing: backup
beeps. The sound is deafening. I sleep in earplugs, but earplugs can’t block out trash trucksor back up beeps.
Trash trucks are an essential and valuable part of city life. They are also once or twice a
week. These commercial trucks, eight hours a day, using public space without, I’mpresuming, paying for it, are not. For every truck that reverses into that space, the backup
beeps go on for about a minute.
I work typical Silicon Valley hours and I’m not home much during the day. But I amroutinely woken up by these private trucks, as I tend to work until one or two in the
morning. And it simply is not an option for me to spend a day at home during the week or towork from home. Because these trucks are too loud!
In addition to the noise, these trucks present a ridiculous and unnecessary traffic hazard.
Every day I see cars having near collisions trying to navigate the single lane that’s left whenthe trucks take up (more than) one lane. It’s scary to be a pedestrian trying to navigate this –
which is often me on my way to Caltrain.
Could you please help put a stop to this? I would love to stay in this building for severalyears. My property manager is LeVett – the very best. And it’s a beautiful building in a great
location.
Kind regards,Kate Crane
1
Carnahan, David
From:Leigh F. Prince <lfp@jsmf.com>
Sent:Thursday, September 27, 2018 11:03 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:yurong han; sheldon@mplanninggroup.com; Gerhardt, Jodie; Lait, Jonathan; Ted O'Hanlon
Subject:Request to Modify Timing of BMR Housing Fee Payment (567 Maybell Ave)
Attachments:Letter to Council re Fees.pdf
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Attached please find a letter on behalf of Golden Gate Homes requesting that the City Council modify the timing of the below market
rate housing fee payment. I understand this item will be on the October 15, 2018 Council agenda and I am respectfully requesting that
the attached letter be included in the agenda packet.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best Regards,
Leigh
________________________________
Leigh F. Prince
Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP
1100 Alma Street, Suite 210
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(650) 324-9300 – office
(408) 309-3349 – cell
wtLUU L •cCUIRE
.IOll• L FLEGEL
OAJI IC. SIEGEL
DIAJIE S. GREEllBERG
.IElllllFER R. FRIED•All
m•o1e s. RO•A•OWSll'I'
DAYIDLACH
GREGOaT IC. llCLI•GSPOR•
•I COLAS A. FLEGEL
l(RISTI•A A. FE•TOll
CAR.A E. SILYEil
.JE•RIFER A. 8E'l'ERS
IU•BERLY B. S-'EK
0. ADAll LAZAR
JORGENSON. SIEGEL. llcCLURE & FLEGEL, LLP
ATTORllEYS AT LAW
1 lflt AUIA STREET. SUITE 2t0
llE•l.O P~ CAUFOIUllA M'J2~392
tH•> :n44sa•
FACSJ•ILE (HI) ll£-9ll7
---Jsaf.com
September 27, 2018
Mayor and City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Subject Request to Modify Toning of Below Market Rate
Housing Fee Payment (567 Maybell Avenue)
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council:
OFCOU•SEL
KE•T •ITCHEU.
LEIGH F. PRINCE
RETIRED
J011• D. JORGENSON
•ARGARET A. SLOAR
OE CEASED
llARYIN S. SIEGEL
(19H -:H121
.IOHll R.COSGROVE
(t9St -28171
I am writing on behalf of Golden Gate Homes \GGHj to request that the City Council
approve a modification to the timing of the below market rate housing irHieu fee payment
This is not a request to reduce the below market rate housing fee; it is simply a practical
request GGH finds itself in the unique situation that atthough when the project at 567
Maybell was approved the timing of the irHieu fee payment was upon the sale of the homes,
since that time intefVefling actions by the Cily of Palo Alto f'CityJ have changed the timing
to fee payment upon issuance of the first building permit.
GGH will pay lhe below market rate housing fee in full_ However. just as wi1h all other
development impact and/or in-tieu fees, GGH would like to defer payment until final building
inspection. This deferral of fees would be memorialized in an agreement that creates a lien
against the property to ensure the City receives full and complete payment of all fees. This
smaD change in timing would aUow GGH to sell the homes and have the necessary liquid
assets avaiable to pay 1he City 1he below market rate housing fee. which is not insignificant
and is estimated at around FIYe Minion Dollats. The City would experience only a small less
than 18-month difference in the timing of when it receives Ille fuU in-lieu fee payment if the
Council agrees to the deferral. Therefore, GGH respecttuDy requests that the City approve
the defened below market rate housing fee payment
Discussion
On June 20, 2016. the City Council approved GGH's project to construct 16 single family
homes on the property located at 567 Maybell Avenue. The Council approved the payment
of an in-lieu fee to satisfy the City's below market rate housing requirement At the time of
the approval. Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.14 was applicable to the project and ttle
irHiell fee was calculated at time of sale based upon a peREf1lage of the sales price.
Mayor and City Counal
September27,2018
Page2
In the spring of 2017. the City Counci repealed Chapter 18.14 and adopted Ordinance No.
5409. The Otdinance established a housing in-lieu fee on a per square foot basis payable
at the time of building pennit issuance. similar to an impact fee. Pursuant to Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 16.64.030, impact fees may be deferred until the date of final
building inspection. When 1he City adopted Ordinance No. 5409, however, it did not include
similar deferral language. Instead. 1he Regulatory Agreement Regarding Below Malket Rate
Units rRegulatory Agreemenr), attached hereto for your reference, specifies in Paragraph
1.2 that the fee will be paid at the time of building permit issuance ·or at a time othetwise
specified by city council Ofdinance or resolution.· Therefore. the Council can act by
resolution to allow deferred payment and the Regulatory Agreement can be amended.
GGH is requesting that the fee payment be deferred in accortlance with the other agreement
it is entering into with the City, the Agreement Creating a Lien to Secure Payment of Oeferred
Payment of Development Impact Fees and/or In-Lieu Fees rAQreement"). a copy of which
is attached. This Agreement defelS payment of fees until 1he date of final buikling inspection
approval. It requires aD fees to be paid before final occupancy approval may be granted.
To ensure approval, GGH is granting to Ute City a lien against ttte property to guarantee
payment in full. Because all other development impact fees. inclUding public art. parkland,
community centers, transpor1ation. government facilities and libraries, may be deferred
pursuant to this Agreement. GGH's request to include the below market rate housing fee
under this umbrella is reasonable.
This project has been and continues to be a unique project in the Palo Alto community. GGH
appreciates the collaborative working relationship it has with the City to solve issues like this
one. GGH looks forward to the Council's approval of the deferral of the below market rate
housing fee payment to maldl the timing for payment of all other fees. In the meantime, if
you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Enclosures
cc: Yurong Han <yhan@goldengatehomes.us>
Sheldon AhSing < sheldon@mplanninggroup.com>
Jodie Gelhardt <Jodie.gerhardt@cilyofpaloalto.org>
Jon Lait jonathan.lait@cityofpafoalto.org
Ted O'Hanlon < ted.ohanlon@gmail.com>
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Palo Alto
Office of the City Attorney
250 Hamilton A '\-enue. 8th Floor
Palo Alto. CA 94301
No fee for f'econ:ling pwsuant to
• Government Code :Section 273&3
23754549
Regina Alcameadras
Sal\t. Clara ec..-ty -Clerk-Recorder
19/15/2917 92~59 Pft
CONFORMED COPY
Copy or ckic:wlent recorded Has not been campared with original.
REGULA TORY AGREE1\1ENT .REGARDJSG BELOW-MARKET-RA TE UNITS
{567 Maybell AYeDue)
This Regulatory Agreement Regarding Below-Market-Rate Units {the "Agreemenl") is
made and entered into as of July 25~ 2017 by and between the City of Palo Alto, a charter city
and municipal coiporatie>n (the .. Citv .. ) and Golden Gate Homes, LLC a Limited Liability
Cmupany {the "Developer").
RECITALS
A. On June 20, 20J 6 the Oty Council adopted a Rccocd -Of Land Use .Action to
approve Developer's construction of sixteen {16) for-sale housing units (the -Oe\'clopment•) on
that certain property tn the City,. generally lcnown and dec;crlbed :is 561 M:t)-be11 Avenue.. Palo
Alto, California (the ,.Property'') and more particulariy dcscn'bcd in Exhibit A attached to this
Agreement and incorporated by reference.
B. The Development is subject to me City's Below-Mad.:ct-Rate ("BMR..")
requirements as contained fo Progtam ll3.1 .1 of the 201.5-2023 JlottSing Element (tl1c •Housing
Element•} that ccw for-sale housing development indudc at least fifteen percent ( 15%) BMR
dwelling units.
C. The City agreed 10 pcanit the Developer to satisfy the requ.in:ments of Housing
Bement Progr:.un H.J.1.2 by making a casll payment tc the Cirys Rc..'1&ntial ltous.ing Fund in
lieu .of pmvini:ng 2.4 on-site BMR units, as provided in Palo Alto Municipal Code ("'P .AM~
Chapter 18.14.
D. Subsequently, the City repealed PAMC Otaptcr 18J4 and atdcd Chapter lv.6S
and adoplcrl Ordinance No. 5409 setting the bousmg impact and in-lieu foes for residential
development
E. To emur.e that dk> en~ Ik\.·elopment will be completed in &."CUroance with the
above descn"bed conditions. dte C ity and Developer wish to enter into this Agreement
F_ De\'Clopcr acknowledges and agrees that in connection with its approval of the
D.c'\"clopment. the City provided adequate and proper .notice pursuant to Government Code
Section 6602D of Developer':S right tu prolest any requirements for fees, dedications,
~aby A9rttmenl
S~Paga
Sti\l filli7953ll
reservations, and other exactions as may be included in this Agreement, that no protest in
compliam::c with Section 66020 was made \\ ithin 90 day;, of the date that notice was given. and
that the period has expired in which Developer may protest any and all fees, dedications,
reservations, and other exactions as m.1y be included in this Agreement.
THEREFORE, the Ctty and Devdopcr agri!e and acknowledge that the above recitals arc
true and accurate, and arc incorpornkd into this Agn.-cmcnl by this reference, and they hereby
agree as foHows.
ARTICLE I
CALCULA TIO'\i AND PA 't Ml:NT Or IN-LIEU FEES
1.1 Cakulation of In-Lieu Fees. ln lieu of pro iding the requin.-d 2.4 BMR units on-
silc and to satisfy its BMR obligations as contained in Program H.3.l.2 ol the Housing Element,
Developer agrees tu pay in-hcu fees at rdtcs established by the City Council by ordinance or
resolution. In-lieu fCl...-s shall be calcukt.cd using the rat(...-S in effect at the llmi: of (>'l)'tnCnL Rah.."S
in effect at ihc time of this Agreement arc provided in Ordinance 5409 attached as Exhibit B.
The cstimakJ in J1cu foe il> a~ fol1~m' f'our Mi1lion, Seven tlumlr~d Si.: \Coty-Om: Thou'Wml,
Three Hundred Fifty dollars and no cents ($4.771.350.00) fOf' Si:dy-Thrce Thousand. Six
Hundred Fightccn (63.618) square foci of 11\abtc area at a rare of Scvcnly·fivc <loflar-. and no
cents (.$75.00) per square fool
1.2 Pavment of In Lieu f eeo;. The . ·1-heu foe..; shall ~ paid rrior to tir-.t building
permit issuance or at a time otherwise specified by city council ordirnmcc or resolution.
Nothing in this Agn .. -cmcnt sh~IJ obligate the Developer to proceed with the Dcvdopmcnt.
ARTICLE2
Q.[Nl:.RAL PROVISIONS
2.l Succ\.'S!>or. Titi~ Agr~cmcnl is bindin,:. on any :.1.1cccssor. h1.:i1 or as:.ign of
Developer. whether a change in interest OCCW'S voluntarily or involuntarily. by operation of la\\'
or othcrwii;;c. except a'\ cxpr~sly rdca<;cd by the City.
2.2 Tenn. Any aml all obligations or re~'iibilities of the De\'eloper under thi~
Agreement sb:all tem1in:ate upon payment of the required foe.
2.3 Default. Failure of the Developer to satisfy any of Developer's obligations under
the tenns uf thi:> Agreement within 30 dayb after the dehvcry of a notice of default from the City
"111 constitute a default under this Agreement. In addition to remedies for breach of th.is
Ag.eement. the C1ty may exetd~ .my and all remedies availabk lo it under law or equity,
including but not limited to:
(a} wtthholdmg, conditionmg. suspending or revoking any pemul, license,
~ubdi\.ision approval or map. or olber entitlement for the Project, including without limitation
final mspcctions for occupancy Mldlor ccnificatcs of occupancy;
Regulstcry Agmmnent
Signuturo Page
l\115 !ti 1!741533 l
(b} instituting against the De\-eloper. or ether parties, a civi! action for
declaratory relief. injunction or any other equitable relief. or relief at law, including without
limitation an action to rescind a transaction and/or to require repayment of any funds received in
connection with such a violation;
(c) where one or more persons ha~e received financiai benefit as a result of
violation of this Agreement.. the City may assess, and instirute legal action to recover as
ncccssacy, a penalty in any amount up to and including the amoant of financial benefit received.
jn addition to recovery of the benefit received; and
(d) any other means authorized under the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code.
2.4 Remedies Cumulative. No right., power, or remedy given to the City by the tcnns
of this Agreement is intended to be exclusive of any other righ.~ power, or remedy; and each and
every such right, "PO-w.=r, or remedy shalt be cumulative and in addition to every iJtner right.
power, or remedy gh•cn to the City by the tennS of any such document, or by any statute or
ordinance or otherwise against Developer and any other person. Neither the failure nor any
delay on the part of the City to cxcrc™= any such rights and remedies shall operate as a waiver
thereat: nor sbaU any single or partial exercise by the City of any such right or remedy preclude
:my other or further cxcrci~ of such right or remedy. or any other right or remedy.
2.5 Indemnification.
(a) To lhe full extent permitted by law. the Dcvciopec shall indemnify, defend
at its own expense, and hold the City and its elected official3, officers, employees and agents in
their official capacity (collcchvcly .. 1ndcmnitccs") harmless against any and all claims, suits,
actions. losses and liability of every kind. nature illld description made against rt and e~pe~
(including reasonable attorneys• fees) \\hich ari~e our of or in connection wjth this Agreement,
except to the extent such claim arises from the grossly negligent or willful misconduci of the
Cily or fndcmnitces . .f.ach party shall notify tlie other party immediately in wriung of any claim
or damage related to activities pcrfonncd under this AgrocmcnL The parties shall cooperate v.ith
each other in tl1e investJgation and disposition of any claim ansing out of the acti \ ities under thi"
Agreement. pro\ ided "that nothing shall require either party to disclose any documents, records or
communication.~ that are protected under the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product
privdege.
(b} The provisions of this Section shalt suf\ive the expiration of the Tenn :and
any release of part or all of the Property from the btmlens of this Agceemenl
2.6 Records. Dc"\clopcr shall retain all records related to compliance with obhgations
under this Agreement for a period not less than five years ftom the date of origmation cf such
record:., and make them <waitable to City employee-; or orhers designated by the City for
inspechon <llltl copying on five business day::.' wntten notice.
2.7 Recording and fdmg. The Developer shall rt."COnl tins Agreement, and ali
amendments and supplements to it. in the Official Records of Santa Clara County againsl lln!
Property prior to the recordatmn ot any parcel map or fin:il ~bd1v1sion mar nr w;uanoe of any
buildmg permit for the Project. whichever occurs fusL
Regula1cty Ag,_,,...,.
Sigrature Pag9
ll9S 16 UPJ 13 ~ t
2.8
California.
Govi:rnim! Law. This Agreement is govern~d by th!! laws of the Sl..1te of
2.9 Prevailing Party. If an} 1egal action js commenced to interpret or enforce this
Agreement or to coUect dama,g~ as n result of any breach of t11is Agreement. lht! pre\ ailing party
shall be entitled to recover all reasonable attoml!y'!. f~ and co.>ts incurred in such action from
the other p-.uty.
2 to Waiver of RcguiremenR No waiver of The requirements of this Agreement shall
occur unless expressly waived by the City in \Hiting. No wah.:r will be implied from any delay
or fuilurc by the City to take action oo any breach or dl!fauh of Developer or to pursue any
remedy pcml1Ucd under rhis Agreement or applicable law. Any -extension of time granted to
nc,·cloper ro perform any obbgation under tllis Agreement \\ill not operate ns a waiver or release
from any of its obligalions under this Ae,'l"eemenL Consent by the City lo any ad or omb.smn by
De"•eloper shall not be coDStrucd lo be consent to any other or subsequent act or omission or to
w.iivi: thi: rcqum~ment for the CitYs written COll!>l."fll tn future waivers.
2. t 1 Amendments. This Agreement may be amcndl.-d only by a Y.Tinen instrum~nt
executed by all the parties l1ereto or lheir successor.. in title, and duly recorded in .ilic real
property recorru> of the County of Santa Clar~
"!.12 Notices. All notices required herein shall be :sent by certified mail. rcmm n.-ccipt
requested, express dcfo·cyY service with a delivery receipt. or personal dl!focry witl1 a dcfr~cry
receipt and shall be deemed to be elJa."tive as of the dale received, the date deli\'ery was refliSed,
or the date cl!turn~d ai; undeliverable as indicated 011 the return receipt as follows:
City: City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton A\•enuc
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Ann: City Manager
Developer: Golden Gate Homes. LLC
'.!125 E Baysbore Road, Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Attn: Yurong Han, Manager
Such addresses may be changed by notice to the other party given in I.he same manner ~
pm,·ided abme.
11
II
It
Rcgulalory "greemen't
Signal!A'e Page
89) tfl !i179S33. I
2J.3 S>everabilitv. If any provision of this Agreement is found invalid, illegal or
llllcnfurccablc, the validity. legality and enforceability of the remaining portions of this
Agreement .shall not in any way be affected or impajred thereby.
2.14 Multiple Originals: Counteroarts. This Agreement may be executed m multiple
originals. each of which is deemed to be an original. and may be signed in countctparts.
IN W1TNESS WHEREOF. the City and Developer have entered into this Agreement. as
of the date first wriuen above.
OTY:
CITY OF PALO ALTO. a charter city and
mWlicipal oorporntion
APPROVED AS TO FORM
By~
Deputy Cicy Attorney
Regulatory Agreement
~~all.Ire l'ag;1
S9S U• 1Si'l.H3 I
DEVFLOPER:
Golden Gate Ho~ LLC, a Limiti!d
Liability Company
By: Yurong Han
Its: Manager
A notary public or Qtbcr officer compictUlg this c~ificatc verifies -0nly tbc
identity of the indhiduat who signed the document to ''hich this certificate is
anached, and not the truthfulness. accuracy~ or validity of that document.
STATEOFCALTFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ' S<,:it..tt tl (Jar1 ~
On fd I.; j 7, ~u I faerore me. L:JW b? lf !1~.,!'J .ett , Notary Public~ personaJl~ <ippcared _ I U. fl<>AJ & fi 11.IJ , who proved to me
on th!! b:J.>is of satisfactory C\ idencc to be ttl:; person~ who.Si! namc'(s@arc subscribed to the
within instrument and acknuwkdgcd to me tr.at hc~cy executed the same in hisQhcir
authorized capacity~nd that by bi~cir !>-igruiturcN_ on t~ instnuncnt the pcrson(Sl.. or
the entity upon behalf of which the personN) .acted, execuledfue in5trument
I certify UNDER PENAL 1 Y Of PERJURY under the laws of the State of Califomia that
the fon .. -going par.igrap11 is true and corrccL
WITNESS my band and official seal.
11?5 16 •l !7'J533 I
Name: _f..0-J t (..... l r 1'\.!( ;-1.,J..;: 'F _
Notary PubJic
CERnHCATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code§ 1189)
AnotarypoblconJ!h!!reffia3rm,nptetiusthiscetllic:atev.eri5i5oiilytheidenbt.yaf~indNidual•ho signedthe
cloama!DttD'lllllW:htlais~rtificateisattat.bi!d,andnottbeo-~.~.ornlidtyofttstdocument.
STATE Of CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY Of SANTA Cl.ARA )
~~ 1h_1z._...,,'lt!_,,nA-/1. ~f !!;;p!Jblic.,andfvrsaid
County, personally appeared .....-1li • ene . who proved to me 00 the
basis of satisfactory e\lidence to be the per; Whose na subscnoed toAe within
instrument and acknowledged to ~ J ~~executed the same in ~
authorized capaci~nd that by ~~re(s}d1 the instrument the personb),/
or the entity upon behalf of whida the peisonJ$t1icted, aecuted the instrwnent.
I CBtify under penalty of perjury under -the laws of the State of Ollifumia that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 3, 2018 10:44 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Resolution Praising Palo Alto Resident
City Council
City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, CA
Elected Council Members:
I do not support any resolutions by the nine-member Council about issues outside the jurisdiction of the City, and certainly
outside the knowledge of any specific Council Member, or the Council as a whole.
Wayne Martin
Palo Alto, CA
1
Carnahan, David
From:magdalena_maese <magdalena_maese@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 2, 2018 10:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:RV Parking
To whom.it may concern;
Re: RV Parking
I am a homeowner in the City of Palo Alto. I would.like to know why I am.only allowed one free parking permit
as a resident living downtown, yet RV dwellers are permitted to occupy residential streets at no cost? Often the
RVs occupy up to 3 cars spaces, yet they are given more leniency than a tax payer. As I saw on the news this
evening; if the RV dwellers are nurses, Uber drivers, and are mostly employed then they should also be
required to purchase a parking permit and register the vehicle with the city. They should also be restricted
to parking on El Camino Real and not be permitted in residential areas.
Sincerely,
Maggie
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S® 6.
From:Jen Zufelt
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for the Corner House on Addison
Date:Tuesday, October 2, 2018 10:40:25 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Hi,
I'm sending in an email of support for the Corner House on Addison. As a working mother and juggling two kids,it’s extremely difficult to find resources to support working families in general. The Corner House provides a pathto great resources and community that can help support working families (moms in particular). This place willfoster community and create a safe place for moms and kids to come together – promoting family club with so manyother families, what better way to build a community and raise kids! Please take this in consideration. Thanks,Jen Zufelt
Vice President, Corporate Financial Planning &Analysis
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 1, 2018 1:45 PM
To:UAC
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City; CAC-TACC
Subject:08-28-18 UAC meeting about resiliency -- video excerpts and comments
Commissioners,
On 08-28-18, there was a workshop about resiliency.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66517
Below the "######" line, I'd like to provide some excerpts from the video,
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66517
and make some comments (paragraphs beginning with "###").
I'd also like to make some GENERAL COMMENTS.
At UAC's 09-05-18 meeting, at Commissioner Comments (between 0:14:00 and 0:21:00 on this video), commissioners
commented about the 08-28-18 workshop.
http://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-31-09052018/
Commissioner Forssell thought that too much time was spent on presentations and not enough time was spent on
listening to the public. Commissioner Schwartz sort of agreed with that and also thought the scope should have focused
more on scenarios we can do something about. I note that the agenda for the 08-20-18 workshop didn't have a staff
report to provide a framework for what the public should think about and then talk about.
If the City is interested in improving the resiliency of the telecommunications alternatives available to government and the
public, it should seriously consider making progress on citywide municipal FTTP. The network should be designed with
redundant paths, something that's within the City's control.
Members of the public who haven't thought hard about the problem may have the impression that wireless is more
resilient than wired (fiber) because earthquakes can't break connections over the air. But that's an illusion. These days,
the wireless we're used to depends on wired (fiber) backhaul for bandwidth.
From time to time, the incumbents' networks experience massive failures. For example, on 09-24-18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIg82AmC_Vc
and 09-25-18.
https://www.phonearena.com/news/Verizon-outage-affecting-much-of-
U.S._id109230?mc_cid=fd6f586d63&mc_eid=99443c82f8
We wouldn't want one of these massive failures to coincide with a natural disaster.
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
###################################################################################
EXCERPTS AND COMMENTS:
2
08-28-18 video:
http://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-31-08-28-2018/
0:14:10:
1st expert -- Regional Overview -- Corinne Bartshire, Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI)
http://www.bayareauasi.org/node/1174
0:26:15:
2nd expert -- Economic Impacts -- Josh Schellenberg, Nexant
http://www.nexant.com/about/leadership/josh-schellenberg
0:26:30:
Nexant focuses on electric utilities.
0:32:14:
Clients -- for resiliency --
0:32:50:
EPB (Chattanooga)
0:41:58:
3rd expert -- Integration Issues -- Benson Joe, ABB Enterprise Software
https://www.linkedin.com/in/bensonjoe
0:49:14:
Benson Joe: And I don't know if this true or not. And maybe Debra can tell me. But I was told that there's only a single
line that connects the City of Palo Alto to the California ISO. So, what only separates -- I mean, you could have as much
power supply lined up as possible. But the truth is, if you lose that transmission line, due to some event -- a transformer
blowing, a substation, a terrorist event -- you're going to be out of power for weeks, most likely.
### On 02-17-10, just before 8:00 am, an airplane crash disconnected the City from the power grid. Power was
restored by about 6:00 pm. But further repairs continued after that.
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2010/02/19/palo-alto-has-studied-extra-powerlines-costs
0:49:45:
### At this point, I think Debra Lloyd said, "Three lines, one corridor." (But the audio didn't pick it up.) Any consultant on
whom Palo Alto relies for consulting about transmission lines has to know this.
0:49:48:
Benson Joe: Three lines. OK. OK.
0:50:19:
Benson Joe: I'm going to skip some of these slides. But the takeaway here is that when you have a lot of renewables on
the system, the reliability of the system gets tougher and tougher. So -- And I think that's -- that's one of the takeaways I
would like the community to understand -- is that, yes, we can do more renewables, but it makes things tougher for
reliability and grid resiliency. Because you don't have the traditional resources -- like natural gas -- that are available
instantaneously.
### Instantaneously? I thought that in general, electric generation sources that use heat would prefer to be baseload
sources. Peakers aren't very efficient.
3
Short of energy storage. But, of course, there are cost considerations.
1:02:53:
Hamilton Hitchings: When I was on the Comp Plan a couple years ago, we had a single-point-of-failure coming into the
City for electricity -- either one line or a set of lines -- that the entire City would lose power. You seemed to -- One of the
staff members seemed to be implying it's not as bad as it sounds. But -- So, I would -- The second part of my -- The first
part of my question is, is it possible to do an impact -- a fiscal impact analysis? And the second is, what is the actual state
of that single point of failure? That could be subject to sabotage, or an earthquake, or an accident -- like, we had a plane
fly into the power lines and had a power outage?
Mindy Craig (facilitator): Let me have you hold that, because our next panel is going to talk right about specific Palo
Alto. So if it's specific Palo Alto, we're going to do that in the next thing. If it's about these guys ...
1:06:50:
Specifically-Palo-Alto Part -- 1st speaker -- Ken Dueker
1:12:56:
Ken Dueker: In February of 2010, a small plane took off from Palo Alto airport. The pilot zigged when he should have
zagged. Flew into the one and only high-tension connection that we have to the grid. Whether or not there are three
conductors on that tower doesn't really matter to me.
### It matters to anyone who has to estimate the likelihood that the system will fail.
What mattered to me is that we were without power. Now, in that case, some really, really great work by Utilities and our
supporting partners, including PG&E, allowed restoration in about 14 hours.
### The article cited above (at 0:49:14) said 10 hours.
1:19:27:
Ken Dueker: After that [02-17-10 plane crash] happened, the City, quite reasonably, started thinking, well, should we
spend millions of dollars to mitigate the risk? As the prior panel said, it seems like, well, that would be an easy exercise to
go through, and yet, it's not. It's very nuanced. And so, where we are today, we haven't done it. We have
options. Right? It could -- Some estimates are as high as $500 million to run a second transmission line.
### Technically, we already have three transmission lines, but they're in the same corridor. So I suppose the question is
whether we should run a fourth transmission line, but this time in a second corridor.
### This 02-19-10 article said (I think) that that would cost $45 million, but would require permission from the Department
of Energy.
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2010/02/19/palo-alto-has-studied-extra-powerlines-costs
### This 01-25-16 staff report (5 pages) estimates a total cost of $50-90 million.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50608
So does this 01-27-14 staff report (5 pages).
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/38670
But wouldn't it be embarrassing if the City spent all that money to connect to the same grid, and the grid fails farther
upstream, for reasons we can't control, or even anticipate.
---
1:20:25:
Ken Dueker: Again, I'm going to harp a little bit on telecommunications. All right? It's one thing to take a cold
shower. It's one thing to get dressed in the dark. It's another thing to have no communications with your loved ones. I
really think, from a public safety perspective, if you want to see a quick unraveling of our current culture, take away your
smart phones for a while. See how that goes.
4
### On 05-21-18, Council approved Verizon's application to deploy eleven "small cell" nodes, with NO backup
power. Council was persuaded that the backup power would make them too noisy.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=53707.18&BlobID=65890
Karla Dailey: In the Safety section of the Comprehensive Plan, we talk a lot about community awareness. And that
certainly plays into what we're doing here today -- getting folks in the community together to talk about these
issues. There are a number of specific projects outlined in that section, including:
* the solution of adding a transmission line,
* exploring off-grid technologies,
* continuing to underground our utilities, which definitely makes our distribution system more resilient,
### I think it's not obvious that undergrounding our utilities makes them more resilient. If it does, then maybe we should
figure out how to move forward with undergrounding, even through that has the effect of making fewer utility poles
available to the incumbent wireless providers for deploying their antennas.
1:27:01:
Debra Lloyd: And, also, with communications, it's not just about being able to check in with your family. It's about us --
the Utility or the City or our emergency services -- being able to communicate to everybody about what is happening, and
whether we need evacuations. So, you know, the communication is also a vital part of resilience and emergency
planning. On the electric side, I think Catherine will probably be very upset if most people here don't know that we are
100 percent carbon-neutral on our electric supply.
### There's an ongoing discussion at UAC about whether this is being measured correctly, given that we're still using
some electricity generated from fossil fuels. Anyhow, how is this related to resiliency?
So, we have been looking at kind of diversifying on the supply side. So, there's -- you know, so, that's the one part of
it. The supply side, diverse resources, and also local resources, especially, you know, as we've seen with the water utility.
1:30:06:
Debra Lloyd: But we are trying to harden -- build in redundancy. We try -- On the electric system, we try not to load all
the systems up 100 percent, so that when something goes wrong in one area, we can switch, and keep things going.
### In Chattanooga, the electric system has "intellirupters" that switch automatically, in milliseconds, to isolate failures,
to minimize the size of electric outages. The intellirupters communicate via a citywide FTTP network (that's also used for
Internet, phone, and TV services).
1:30:34:
Debra Lloyd: And then, also, has been addressed is -- We live in a world where cybersecurity is a real issue. And ever
since I've been in my -- Let's see, the last five years that I've been working here at the Utility, I've have the pleasure,
about once a year, about going to a conference and being scared witless about what's going on with cybersecurity. And,
yes, you know, they are in our systems. And I think the saying now, it's not that you've either been hacked or you're going
to be hacked. It's either you know you've hacked or you don't know yet. So, we go with the assumption that people have
access to our systems.
1:31:18:
Debra Lloyd: So, PREVENTION STRATEGIES [slide title] again. Fire issues. Moving overhead to underground.
### Again, it's not obvious that undergrounding utilities makes them more resilient.
1:33:31:
Debra Lloyd: And, then, SURVIVABILITY [slide title]. What do we do when everything goes out? So, we have, you
know, station batteries to keep electronics up at the substations.
### The presentation slide said, "SUBSTATIONS -- station batteries provide power to low voltage electronics for up to 8
hours." That doesn't sound very ambitious. RFP 152569 (07-03-14) for a "Fiber-to-the-Premise Master Plan"
5
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/42930
asked to "evaluate network resilience and survivability such as solar power and other emergency back-up power and
network architecture to ensure operability for at least seven (7) days with no grid power ...." I'm not saying that's the right
duration either. Maybe there should be a discussion about what the right goal should be.
1:44:24:
Hamilton Hitchings: Thank you. My first request is, could the City of Palo Alto Utilities provide a rebate for Tesla wall
packs, or batteries? So, when you get the solar system. I don't currently believe they have a rebate or any kind of
financial assistance for that. But that would really help the resilience. If you were to make your home essentially to be
able to operate offline. Because not only would it help you but it would help your neighbors after an earthquake.
### Commissioner Ballantine is always pointing out that when the grid goes down, a house's solar cells, the way they're
typically installed, can't power the house. Wouldn't backup batteries have the same problem? Anyhow, why would it help
the neighbors?
So that's my first request. The second one is -- maybe it's a little bit more targeted at Ken -- but I know in LA, there's --
they passed an ordinance saying that they want to have longer-term power for the cell towers, so it's not just 2
hours. That would be huge. And I think that's fairly low-hanging fruit.
### I think Mr. Hitchings might be referring to a 05-08-15 LA ordinance. But according to this 05-08-15 article, the
ordinance is about the structural integrity of (new) cellphone towers, not about backup power.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-quake-cellphone-20150508-story.html#
CHERRI LL SPENCER'S REMARKS TO PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AN ORDINANCE FOLLOWING THE
CEDAW.15t0ctober2018 ~re.ti~
Good evening City Councillors and members of the public.
I am Cherri II Spencer, a resident of Palo Alto for the past 44 years and someone who has been advocating
for the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW) since 1985. Our US Senate has not gotten round to ratifying this United Nations' CEDAW so we
are having cities and counties affirm their commitment to the principals of the UN Convention.
Others have spoken about the Palo Alto city staffs recommendation on how to proceed, so let me mention fl..L..
how committing to the convention works at the local level and point out that County of Santa Clara and
" some northern California cities have already passed ordinances. It is not a difficult document to draft.
The various articles of the convention mention a wide variety of areas where discrimination must be
addressed, including a lot of things that are particularly relevant at the local level, such as ensuring a legal
framework and policies that protect against discrimination, ending discrimination in employment and in
public life, and ensuring equal access to recreational activities, social services and health services .
The great thing is that there is a lot of room to customize the Convention to what we would want to see in
Palo Alto, in services run by the city. We have ample organizations that are ready and willing to assist the
city staff in d l ' & 115.., •Ii r1 rlcarrying out the gender analysis. I am a member of both the United
Nations Association and of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and the local
ch~~)o~~ding organizations have expert volunteers ready to help get this;:••:!' r r ~
w4*eAAd I "*''the ~itvy c of Palo Alto.
.. " Let's make Palo Alto a model city to live and work in. lJ::::s "'2-. ~ J....A.J: ·Lk ~
Thank-you for your actions towards a Palo Alto CEDAW ordinance. ~ (~ . ~ S
~~~· Cherri!! Spencer, cherrill.m.spencer@gmail.com
Los Robles Avenue, Palo Alto
//) I /'6 I COUN~tUTING
[ ]
1Plac:d Before Meeting
~ved at Meeting
Hi my name is Tom Mees. ICOUJ;IJ. MEETING
lo '111'6
[ ] ~ Before M~eting
[ ~eceived at Meeting
Thank you for the opportunity to speak about this critical issue
facing our community.
I have lived three and a half blocks from the site of the former
funeral home for twenty-four years.
My wife and I have two children who attended Addison
Elementary ... and then Jordan and Paly.
Many of our closest and longest standing relationships were
formed with other Addison parents ... who continue to live in
our general neighborhood.
The sense that I get when talking to our friends and neighbors
about the proposed rezoning of the former funeral home
property so that it could be repurposed as a private club is that
it is completely inconsistent with our neighborhood as it exists
... and as we would like it to continue.
You, as Palo Alto City Council members, have been elected by
us to be the stewards of our city. And the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan was developed to guide you in your work.
In lay terms, the Palo Alto Municipal Code requires that any
amendment to the Planned Community Zoning related to this
parcel 111ust "result in PUBLIC benefits not otherwise
attainable" AND that any use permitted by the amendment be
consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan AND shall be
compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites
or within the general vicinity.
I have a hard time conceiving how significant PUBLIC benefit
will be derived from a PRIVATE club. And the subtraction of
this parcel from the land currently zoned for multi-family
housing in Palo Alto seems like a big PUBLIC detriment.
As for the 538 pages of the Comprehensive Plan, the themes
which dominate this "guidebook for our city's future" are 1)
affordable housing, 2) traffic and parking, and 3) public safety.
This proposed rezoning not only fails to improve our city in any
of these areas ... it makes all of them significantly worse. If
allowed, it would reduce the stock of potential sites for
affordable housing while dramatically increasing traffic and
demand for parking in the surrounding neighborhood. As for
safety, some of the nearest properties to this site are a grade
school and a senior living center. It would seem that our
children and our elderly neighbors are among those who would
be most vulnerable to the dangers posed by such a dramatic
increase in traffic and the commercial activities proposed for
this site.
Speaking both on my own behalf but also for my friends and
neighbors, some of whom are here tonight and for many of
who could not attend, I implore you to take your
responsibilities to the city and ALL of its citizens seriously as you
weigh the consequence of this request.
..... . . .
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
18 OCT -r PM 4: 36
3
October 1, 2018 eceived Before Meeting
Received at Meeting
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
OCTOBER 1, 2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #3
980 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD [18PLN-00129]
Dear City Council:
This letter supplements my previous email letter of September 26,
2018, about the subject property.
Inspections and enforcement of adopted Planned Community zone
districts have been inadequate, because they require the
cooperation of applicants to abide by the approved uses and
conditions of each PC zone district, and because they require
sufficient staff resources to inspect and respond to complaints
about prohibited uses.
The same problems occur with Use Permits.
For example, on Sunday, October 26, 2014, Marissa Mayer used the
subject property in a manner that is not permitted by its
current PC zone district, as reported by the Daily Post in its
issue of October 28, 2014, a copy of which is attached.
The existing PC zone district for the subject property, PC-2152
permits only "a mortuary and necessary related facilities" and
does not include any conditional uses.
Therefore, the only proposed uses other than a mortuary that can
take place on the property without a zone change to a new PC
zone district are uses allowed by a Temporary Use Permit.
I submitted a Public Records Request on September 16, 2018, to
obtain copies of all the Temporary Use Permits granted during
the time period when the property has been owned by the
applicant.
The response to my request was a single Temporary Use Permit
that was denied.
I confirmed today that there has never been a Temporary Use
Permit granted to the property while it has been owned by the
applicant.
The event held on October 26, 2014, did not apply for and did
not receive a Temporary Use Permit.
Two years later, on September 29, 2016, the Director of Planning
and Community Environment denied a request for a Temporary Use
Permit for an outdoor holiday party on December 10. 2016.
Attached to this letter is the September 25, 2018, response to
my Public Records Act request, including the September 29, 2016,
letter denying the application for a Temporary Use Permit for
980 Middlefield Road.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
s~
Herb Borock
Attachments:
1. "Yahoo CEO's 'funeral home' party riles neighbors" by
Breena Kerr, Daily Post, October 28, 2014.
2. September 25, 2018, response by Yolanda Cervantes to my
Public Records Act request of September 16, 2018.
3. Director of Planning and Community Environment's denial of
Temporary Use Permit application 16PLN-00307 for 980
Middlefield Road. (3 pages)
:}."
:1
'\ J
TUESDAv;·oct. 28, ·2014 ·7 .Ne>. 1 in· Palo Alto and the Mid-Peninsula---..
_,
"--------------Loca_llyownod, .i-:1d~pon,de'1!
Yahoo CEO's 'funeral home' party riles n~ighbors
,, BY BREENA KERR CEO M.arissa Mayer was having a Sunday. They told police there was Police slid no citatiops were giv-
MAYER
. Dally Post Sta.ff Writer pari:y, author~ties said yesterday. too much noise coajng from a Hal-en and that the revelers promised to
Palo Alto _police got called by The rep,ort of loud partying at the· loween party going on in the park-shut the shindig down by 10 p.m.
neighbors who said there was property may be a first.. Police re-ing lot. The funeral home closed for busi-
too much noise coming from the ceived the call from neighbors who Police confirmed that . the bash ness on Nov. l, 2013. Mayer bought
'now-defunct Roller & Hapgood & live near the former funeral home was being hosted by Yahoo's chief the property last year and lives near-
Tinney funeral home, where Yahoo at 980 Middlefield Ave. at 9:10 p.m. executive officer. by on Addison Avenue.
' '
--···--····-·-··-·---------------·-··--·-·--··-··----·-·-------·····--·---------·--·-··-------··-··----··--····----······----------·-·-··---·-·-·----1
~ On 9/25/2018 2:22:03 PM, Palo Alto Public Records Center wrote: ·
09/25/2018 I
RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of September 16, 2018, .
Dear Herb,
I am writing in response to your requests for documents under the California Public Records Act
(Govt. Code§ 6250 et seq.) received by the City on 9/16/2018.
Your request mentioned: Temporary Use Permits Granted
Addresses: 980 Middlefield Road, 637 & 645 Addison A venue
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 120-05-077, -076, -052.
Time Period: January 1, 2013 to September 17, 2018
Response: The City has reviewed its files and has located records responsive to your request. Please
log in to the Records Center at the following LINK to retrieve the appropriate response.
If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this further, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Yolanda Cervantes
Administrative Assistant
Planning and Community Environment
· ___ ...... ·-----·-----·----·-·-----·-----·--·-------·--------··--·------·--·-----------·----·-----------·------·-~
60v0\ Page 1
..
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650.329.2441
September 29, 2016
Robert Fountain
Robert Fountain International
411 Vermont Street
San Francisco, CA 94107
Subject: 980 Middlefield Road [16PLN-00307); Temporary Use Permit
Dear Mr. Fountain:
On September 29, 2016, the application referenced above was denied by the Director of
Planning and Community Environment pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)
Section 18.42.050. This determination is based on the review of all information contained
within the project file and the review of the proposal in comparison to applicable zoning and
municipal code requirements. The findings for this denial are set forth in the attachment.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request by Robert Fountain of Fountain International on behalf of 980
Middlefield, LLC to host an outdoor holiday party on December 10, 2016 from 6pm to midnight.
The event includes a tented pavilion, an ice skating rink, a snow play area for sledding, catering,
alcoholic beverage services, amplified music, and a roaming acoustical singer. The event would
include approximately 300 guests and 100 staff members. Event setup and takedown would
take approximately 16 days in total and would include loading and unloading of various flatbed,
box, and semi-trucks within the public right-of-way on Middlefield Road and Addison between
Sam and 6pm on weekdays and Saturdays prior to and following the event.
If you have any questions regarding this determination, please do not hesitate to contact me at
claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org or by calling (650) 329-2116. This decision Is not appealable.
Sl~f----
Claire Hodgkins
Project Planner
..
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FINDINGS
Temporary Use Permit denial Is based on the findings indicated under PAMC Section 18.40.050:
1. The granting of the application will be detrimental or Injurious to property or improvements
In the vicinity, and will be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience.
The proposed project Is located immediately adjacent to multi-family residential uses to the
north and west; single-family uses to the east; and Addison Elementary school to the south.
Middlefield Road and Addison Road both have one lane of traffic In each direction. Setup
and takedown for the event would require temporary lane reductions along these roads to
accommodate loading and unloading of flatbed, box, and semi-truck trips at various points
throughout the day on weekdays and Saturdays 'from 8am-6pm. Lane reductions on these
roadways could result In traffic Impacts to nearby residents and to other through traffic.
During past, unpermltted events of a similar nature at this site the City of Palo Alto Police
Department received complaints from residents regarding increased traffic resulting from
loading and unloading of vehicles for the event.
The applicant has identified the use of Palo Alto High School as a parking area for up to 100
vehicles during the event but does not provide evidence of agreement from the property
owner, Palo Alto Unified School District, to use their property. Regardless, parking for up to
100 vehicles for an event with up to 400 guests and staff members Is Insufficient and could
result in parking spillover within nearby neighborhoods; impacting residents.
The operation of a generator and chiller (each generating noise levels of approximately 78
dBA), the use of amplified music, and general ambient noise from approximately 400 person
people from Gpm until midnight adjacent to residential uses would be detrimental to the
public's general welfare and convenience; as discussed in further detail below. During past,
unpermitted events of a similar nature at this site the City of Palo Alto Police Department
received noise complaints from residents.
Therefore, staff has determined that the granting of this application would have an impact
on public safety, general welfare, and convenience and the findings for approval of a
temporary use permit cannot be made for the proposed project.
2. The proposed use will not be located and conducted in a manner In accord with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 18.
Th~ subject property Is zoned PC-2152 for which the permitted use Is a mortuary and
necessary associated facilities. Surrounding uses are primarily single-family and multi-family
residential.
The proposed event includes the use of electrical equipment, Including a generator, chiller,
and amplifier throughout the event. Use of this equipment conflicts with Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 9.12.010, which restricts the use of electrical equipment
16PLN·00307
Page 2 of 3
City of Palo Alto
. ,. ' .
more than one hour after sunset (which would be approximately GPM on the day of the
proposed event).
In addition, PAMC Section 9.10.040 states that "No person shall produce, suffer, or allow to
be produced by any m_achlne or device or any combination of same, on commercial or
Industrial property, a noise level more than eight dB above the local ambient at any point
outside the property plane." Ambient use in the surrounding residential neighborhoods Is
approximately 60 dBA, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment
Element. The manufacturer's specifications for the chiller and diesel generator state that
each of these pieces of equipment generates noise at a level of approximately 78 dBA. Each
piece of equipment alone would generate noise levels more than double the ·increase in
dBA allowed for commercial sites (and almost triple that allowed for residential sites).
Operating concurrently and adjacent to each ·other; the combined noise level would li~ely
be even higher. The Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment Element states that exterior
noise exposure in residential areas above 75 dBA Is "unacceptable" because "mitigation is
usually not feasible to comply with these noise policies." Therefore, even with the addition
of a barrier around the generator and chiller the noise levels from this equipment would
unlikely be reduced to an acceptable level. This noise combined with the ambient noise
from over 400 employees and guests at the event as well as amplified music would not be in
accord with Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan or the purposes of Title 18 and would conflict
with surrounding uses. Therefore, the findings for approval of a temporary use permit
cannot be made for the proposed project.
16PLN-00307
Page 3 of 3
City of Palo Alto
COUNCIL MEETING ~
October 1, 2018 14
IZJReceived Before Meeting
For this reporting quarter, the majority of the ADU applications were for one bedroom units.
The unit sizes ranged from 175 to 900 square feet, with an average unit size of 540 square feet.
There were two projects proposed utilizing the floor area bonus allowed under the City's
ordinance. The City has not yet received an application for a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Additional details about the units reviewed and proposed are provided in the attached table
(Attachment A).
With the implementation of the State regulations in 2017, the City experienced a significant
increase in ADU permit activity; prior to this implementation there was an average of four ADU
permits per year. In the second quarter of 2018, the City received 20 ADU applications, bringing
the total for the calendar year to 26. Below is a summary of the ADU activity since the 2017
State regulations became effective.
Table 1: ADU Applications Filed Since January 1, 20173
Total Number Applications Applications Application
of Applications Approved Under Review4•5 Withdrawn/Not
Approved
April 1-June 30 20 0 20 0
102-2018\
January 1-March 31 6 4 2 0
(Ql-2018}
Sept 9 -December 31 20 15 4 1 (Not Approved)
(04-2017\
June 9 -September 8 4 1 2 1 (Withdrawn)
(03-2017\
January 1-June 8 6 5 1 0
(Ql/Q2-2017}
Total 56 25 29 2
Source: Planning Department Accela Data 2018. Includes all projects with Building Permit applications filed from
January 1, 2017.
ADU Code Updates
3 Applications filed in 2016 and receiving Building Permit approval in 2017 are not included in this dataset.
4 This category includes projects pending applicant resubmittals.
5 The data in this report suggests ADU application processing times may be increasing and some of this may be
related to vacancies in the Planning department. While there are a variety of reasons why some applications take
longer to process than others, staff has initiated a review of completed and pending applications to learn if there
are administrative solutions to improve application processing times. Staff will report back on these findings for
the next quarterly report or sooner if able.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
I support Castilleja's proposal to
increase enrollment and modernize its
campus because ...
4 Ila('#~ mat Co~~
~~~ bat~ ~ Q_ k!ock ~
f ah> 111.Jo '1hd-~nA-JpAJty ~~..ar:·-
. ---µ J;/c ~ f!A ftflo.
n~ ---t ~-< ('")~ r-~~ :::xr-
J:. enc
Office of the Clerk ~ ~~
Please distribute to all Cir!:,Cou~~mbers
250 Hamilton Avent& 7t~r
Palo Alto, CA, 94301
/]~ -_J_ v -
C;S/24 j111i111iji11i11i1l11111ii1;1i11ijiii11j1i1jiij11i11ijji1j1;1ii1i
RETURN ADDRESS: 1>~lt> ~ ~~IA.\
campus because ...
:r QO-~<e;\ C~\C.& ttV
~\()1..) • ~o~ ~ ~>
p£.-t; ~-M"(.. 10 ~e ~
~\.c.-e.
~ ~\A~IG -..;/OU-. \k(.\V~ 'f°O
I""\'>~ trt.110 t~0ove.
'flt~ l.S"i((l~,'t>u ~ 9"1>(
~DJl,~'l~
--I~ -~~~....._~,
ti ~ -~':-J'~'-Ji.~
~ ---------=-------;___ -n!! CD --1
0 ~-< ("") ...... o ~ .. .,,
I r-
N ~~ :;:ii;r
l:a c.no ::x ol>
'!! ~!:i
Office of the Clerk .s:-n ~
Please distribute to all ePv Co~embers
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto, CA, 94301
• 11 •II' uh h' II 1II11I1I•I•1 I' Phl•I' ltflJI •1'l'1'11111l111l 11J1