HomeMy Public PortalAbout20181210plCC 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: 12/10/2018
Document dates: 11/20/2018 – 11/28/2018
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sandy Voorhees <sandyvoorh@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 20, 2018 12:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:New City Housing Ordinance
To the City Council of Palo Alto,
I am opposed to the proposed new Ordinance. We already know that there is too much traffic, too many office
buildings, and not enough parking in Palo Alto. This will not create more housing, just more of the same. It will increase
the problems already existing the city.
Please vote no on the proposed Ordinance.
Sandy Voorhees
1
Carnahan, David
From:Claire <>
Sent:Tuesday, November 20, 2018 1:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:City Council Meeting, Monday Nov. 26
City Council,
Regarding proposed changes to city zoning laws and parking changes:
‐ Do not approve the proposed ordinance
‐ Require meaningful housing reform, such as allowing future office construction only when sufficient new housing is
built; consider eliminating commercial entitlements
‐ Offer incentives only for new housing, not to existing buildings
‐ Require a proper Environmental Impact Study that includes impact on parking and open space
‐ Acknowledge current parking shortages, do not make them worse and find real solutions
‐ Do not create new additional loopholes and developer giveaways; eliminate existing loopholes and developer
giveaways
‐ Wait for the VTA project results to see if increasing density and reducing parking succeed in lowering housing costs
Claire
Palo Alto, CA
1
Carnahan, David
From:j <> on behalf of Jim <j >
Sent:Thursday, November 22, 2018 10:21 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed Housing Ordinance
IE
Summary Title: 2018 Comp Plan Implementation/Housing Ordinance
I received the text shown below in an email about the new Housing Ordinance Proposal.
The email encouraged recipients to ask the City Council to
> Not approve the proposed ordinance
> Insist on meaningful housing reform, such as allowing future office construction only when sufficient new housing is
built as well, or taking away commercial entitlements.
> Offer incentives only for new housing, not to existing buildings
> Require a proper Environmental Impact Study, including of parking and open space reductions
> Acknowledge current parking shortages and not make them worse
> Don't create more loopholes and developer giveaways
> Wait for the VTA project results to see if increasing density and reducing parking succeed in lowering housing costs
What I don't understand is , how is more housing going to make life in Palo Alto better? Traffic is already bad. Parking
places can be hard to find. What used to be nice residential streets, have in many cases become lined with parked cars. I
guess maybe if you build more housing but did not allow the occupants to have cars, that might be ok (well for us, but
not for them). If you build a new unit, and its occupants have one or two cars, then that is probably normally one or two
cars more cars on the street. If you build a new office building, and a new housing unit, what are the chances that a lot
of the people employed by the new office will live in the city? Do we have any data on that? I bet the chances aren't
too good. Similarly, what are the changes that the occupants of the new housing unit will be employed in the
city? EVEN if there is a 1 ‐ 1 mapping I bet that most of those occupants will drive cars to work. And/or will drive their
cars for non‐work related issues.
We can't build more roads. The new caltrain changes are going to make east <‐> west traffic even worse.
We can't build subways. I highly doubt that you can get enough people on bicycles, scooters, shank's ponies, etc. So, I
think you should stop all new non‐retail commercial development. I guess it isn't clear to me why you allow it in the first
place? For more tax money?
Aren't we just on a downward spiral? It seems to me that no matter what you do, low income people are not going to
be able to afford to live here. I already see 'Help Wanted' signs in most retail businesses. Won't things continue to get
worse, causing more and more people to leave? Although,I suppose that IS a solution ...
=================
Anyway, here is the text of the email, which really makes this Housing Proposal seem like a bad idea
City staff admit a proposed major zoning overhaul aimed at stimulating housing construction may actually not generate
2
any. Disturbingly, the housing proposal could make parking even worse for many Palo Alto neighborhoods.
> The proposed parking changes are a major part of an overhaul of city zoning laws to be discussed and possibly adopted
by the City Council on Monday, November 26. Although advertised as addressing the city's housing issues, the proposal
doesn't indicate how much housing, if any, these changes will produce.
Staff repeatedly caution that the proposed changes may not alter the incentives for developers who prefer commercial
construction, citing where even tripling the amount of residential housing that can be built on a site “is not likely to
persuade a land owner redeveloping their property to build residential housing instead of commercial.”
For that, staff say different reforms may be needed, such as decreasing how much office space can be built.
Perhaps most telling, the proposal includes no economic analysis showing that the proposed parking reductions and
other changes would stimulate housing development or that construction cost savings would be passed on to residents
as lower rents or purchase prices.
Rents also reflect land and operating costs, and land prices go up when construction costs go down. So the net benefit
from reduced parking to tenants and home buyers may be minimal.
> Despite little expectation that the new ordinance will stimulate housing production, the proposal does convey
substantial and lucrative entitlements to potential developers. Many zoning changes in the proposal were suggested at
16 meetings the City conducted, primarily with architects and developers, in early 2018. The City held no similar
meetings with residents or their advocates. Not surprisingly, the proposal offers little insight or evaluation of community
impacts.
> In particular, the negative impacts on parking and neighborhoods may be substantial. The proposal would allow a
building with both retail and residences to provide no parking for 1,500 square feet of the retail portion. For a 1,500
square foot restaurant in most zones across town, this eliminates the current need to provide 25 parking spaces (the
proposal erroneously claims just 18).
Imagine a block with just three such restaurants: it would have 75 missing parking spaces, easily pushing that many cars
to park in front of residences on side streets, as happens now with the underparked Sundance Mining Company and
Hong Kong Restaurant on El Camino. The proposal isn't specific as to which 1,500 square feet in a building gets the
exemption, so it can go to whichever retail use needs the most parking spaces.
> Although the proposal claims this exemption will incentivize housing production, existing buildings are eligible too,
freeing them to take existing parking away from customers and lease the spaces to nearby future office projects, which
then can save money by building less parking onsite. So the proposal will make money for retail owners and office
developers while harming neighborhoods and creating no housing.
> The proposal will also reduce parking requirements for apartment buildings and condominiums below what's needed
and put more cars on the street. For example, the Midtown Court Apartments behind CVS has 31 one‐bedroom and 15
two‐bedroom units. The proposal will require a building like it to provide 61 parking spaces, although it can likely have
that lowered to 49 if it adopts a transportation management program.
To help see if that would be enough, the City commissioned a study
https://paloaltomatters.us15.list‐
manage.com/track/click?u=28792edbb1967f9a6e6e3897a&id=1c04791f43&e=2675d6aa00
by Fehr & Peers Associates (see page 42) of just nine apartment buildings, selected by staff, out of thousands of parcels
that have or could have multi‐unit buildings. The study may have undercounted cars, because it only checked each
building twice, didn't have a good methodology to determine which cars on nearby streets belonged to residents and
their guests, and surveyed only a few residents about their parking habits.. Even with these shortcomings, the study
found that Midtown Court had 59 cars parked at peak night hours, meaning that the proposed parking requirements of
49 to 61 spaces will not likely suffice for such buildings.
3
Meanwhile, rising housing demand is forcing more residents to share apartments, upping the parking needs per unit, so
new parking requirements should be higher than just current needs.
> https://paloaltomatters.us15.list‐
manage.com/track/click?u=28792edbb1967f9a6e6e3897a&id=e8209f5cd9&e=2675d6aa00
> The proposal will likely create parking shortages for senior housing and affordable housing as well. For example, a
building like the 57 unit Sheridan Apartments for seniors near California Avenue will have to provide 43 parking spaces.
That’s considerably below the 54 parking spaces the building actually uses, according to the Fehr & Peers study plus
street parking permits purchased by residents.
The 45 unit Colorado Park Apartments affordable housing complex near Greer Park will have to provide 71 spaces (or
only 40 spaces, if the building were in a mixed‐use zone), which seems too few given that Fehr & Peers reported it
needed 68 spaces and that likely underreported peak needs.
> As with the retail parking, the proposed reductions in apartment and condominium parking requirements will apply to
existing buildings as well, even though that creates no new housing. Rather, it creates an incentive for existing
apartments to try to earn more money, such as by converting parking spaces no‐longer required into storage areas and
charging tenants extra for those. Reducing parking at existing buildings will in turn force more tenants to park on the
street and we could see more overflow into neighborhoods as happens already around the Newell Bridge and Edgewood
Plaza from East Palo Alto renters unable to find nearby parking.
> Normally, such major proposals to reduce parking would be much studied and discussed. However, city staff claim "no
substantially greater or more severe impacts are anticipated" beyond what was already studied for the Comprehensive
Plan, the overall city plan adopted in 2017.
But that plan and its Environmental Impact Report never considered what would happen if dozens of additional cars
tried to park on blocks near retail and multi‐unit residences.
Although the city is currently allowing a pilot project of high–density, underparked small units at the former VTA parking
lot at the corner of El Camino and Oregon Expressway, we have yet to see if that actually lowers construction costs,
rents, and parking needs. Why make changes city‐wide before having the results of the test the Council agreed to?
> The proposal has many other shortcomings. It generally reduces on‐site open space requirements for multi‐unit
housing, even for high‐end units, putting more pressure on our public parks, which already fall short of Federal
guidelines for open space per resident.
The proposal includes a Housing Incentive Program heralded as a way to discourage developers from using the state's SB
35 law but the state's law only applies when at least half of the proposed units are affordable, the project is 2/3 housing,
and construction workers are paid union wages, while the city's alternative has no such requirements and could be used
for luxury condominiums atop an office building.
The proposal also relaxes the 50 foot height limit in certain cases, despite a strong history of community support to
maintain it.
> Remember "trickle‐down economics?" It's the claim that delivering substantial financial benefits to those at the
highest income levels eventually stimulates overall economic growth and yields commensurate benefits to the rest of
society.
As tried by Reagan in the 1980s, Republican Governor Brownback in Kansas in 2012, and congressional Republicans and
Trump in 2017, trickle‐down economics is largely considered a failure.
The housing proposal coming to Council is Palo Alto's own version of trickle‐down economics, offering numerous cost‐
savings and benefits for developers but no guarantee that more housing will be built or rents reduced.
It cloaks giveaways to a small favored group as if these will help the general public, who then get little benefit but are
4
saddled with long‐term impacts.
It's the wrong approach.
Jim
1
Carnahan, David
From:Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, November 20, 2018 9:37 PM
To:Bill; Council, City
Cc:evergreen-park-discuss@yahoogroups. com Use THis One; Paul & Karen Machado; Neilson
Buchanan; Arthur Keller; Carol Scott; David Schrom; Christian Pease; Aileen Yang; Irene Au
Subject:Re: [evergreen-park-discuss] proposed housing ordinance
Hi Bill,
I don't see the connection to NIMBYs. When you own a home in Palo Alto you can build your home or ADU according to
current law and rent it out at low rent to low income workers. Who would be opposed to that? I fully support you.
The real issue at stake is essentially what are you mentioning in your email: An INCREASE in height limit which destroys
the character of Palo Alto which we all call home. I fully support your request to lower the height limit.
Provide housing to low income workers. Not 100% sure if all Stanford workers qualify as low income, but quite a few of
them surely do. And workers at tech companies, well, not so sure either if their salaries and stock options qualify for low
income.
and yes, build transit. Dear City Council, how are we doing on that in the meantime? Did you get a quote from the
Boring company for a bid to tunnel underneath Palo Alto a pipe that can accomodate high frequency electrified
Caltrains, as well as potentially HSR?
Wolfgang
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 7:45 AM Facehiker <facehiker@gmail.com> wrote:
Wolfgang: I strongly disagree. Time for Palo Altans to stop being NIMBYs. Drop the height limit, encourage housing for
the workers of Stanford and tech companies. build transit.
Bill
On Nov 19, 2018, at 9:58 PM, Wolfgang Dueregger wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu [evergreen‐park‐discuss]
<evergreen‐park‐discuss‐noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
We residents in Evergreen Park strongly oppose any housing ordinance that decreases quality of life
through increased parking inundating already saturated neighborhood streets, higher density, more air
pollution through eve increasing traffic congestion.
You approved already high density projects along El Camino Real. The intersection of El Camino Real
and Page Mill is one of the worst intersections in the whole county.
We told you many times before and I repeat: if you are really serious to provide low income housing,
then provide LOW income housing. LOW income housing is not high density housing where developers
strike it rich at the expense of whole neighborhoods for decades to come.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Trish Mulvey <mulvey@ix.netcom.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 20, 2018 2:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing Ordinance for 2018 Comprehensive Plan Imprementation 11/26/18
Honorable Mayor Kniss and Council Members:
As you have heard from others, I am very concerned that, if approved, this proposed ordinance: will continue
to erode quality of life in our city.. And it is not a NIMBY matter…….this will affect the entire city. We need
housing and so far, this is one of the most congestion creating solutions to‐date for our roads, schools, parks,
libraries. etc. This does not solve parking or [provide] the much needed affordable housing.
I urge that you not rush action on this proposal. Please:
Do not approve the proposed ordinance
Insist on meaningful housing reform, such as allowing future office construction only when sufficient
new housing is built as well, or taking away commercial entitlements.
Offer incentives only for new housing, not to existing buildings
Require a proper Environmental Impact Study, including of parking and open space reductions
Acknowledge current parking shortages and not make them worse
Do not create any more loopholes and developer giveaways
Wait for the VTA project results to see if increasing density and reducing parking succeed in lowering
housing costs
Sincerely,
Trish Mulvey
527 Rhodes Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303
2
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 20, 2018 2:14 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC; CAC-TACC
Subject:Smart meter comments
Council members,
Last evening (at 10:45 pm), Council considered a smart meter item and voted 8-0 (Fine absent) to accept staff's plan.
Agenda:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=40667.1&BlobID=67628
Staff report:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67639
I didn't notice that this item was coming until about 3:30 pm yesterday. So my comments at the meeting were sort of
disorganized. Sorry about that. The latest 12-month rolling calendar
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66868
predicted it would be in December. So did staff at UAC's 10-16-18 meeting (See my transcript & comments of this
meeting, pages 123-170 -- specifically, page 156, at 2:34:10.)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=40248.17&BlobID=67624
I agreed with Council Member DuBois' suggestion to continue the item to a different date, preferably earlier in the evening,
when it could receive the discussion it deserved. But Mayor Kniss did not agree.
---
Here's what I was trying to say.
COST
Staff says the smart meter plan should break even, more or less, over 18 years. That's one way to look at it. I think the
plan commits the City to raising electric, water, and gas utility rates in order to pay for a lot of smart meter equipment,
software, etc. But staff thinks that if a customer is diligent about using the information his/her smart meters provide,
he/she can conserve enough electricity, water, and gas that his/her monthly bill doesn't go up, even though the rates went
up. Note that when people conserve, the rates have to go up even more, to cover the City's fixed costs for these utilities.
CVR
The plan proposes to implement conservation voltage reduction (CVR), which will result in some conservation of
electricity. Yesterday evening (during Council's closed session) I asked Shiva Swaminathan whether CVR required smart
meters, and I think the answer was no. CVR requires feedback from some kinds of equipment, but that equipment is
different from smart meters. This equipment is networked via fiber by the City's SCADA network. If CVR can be
implemented independently from smart meters, shouldn't the resulting electric conservation be attributed to CVR, not to
smart meters? That would change the cost-benefit analysis for smart meters.
TOU
The City's smart meter pilot implemented time-of-use (TOU) pricing, but it charged more for electricity during the day than
at night. But going forward, we think that electricity will cost the City more at night than during the day, and will be most
expensive from, say, 4 pm to 10 pm. So a lot of what the City learned from the pilot about how well TOU can work was
with an inappropriate schedule.
OPT-OUT
3
The City's plan says there must be a way for people who don't want smart meters to opt out. I think it would be good to
consider multiple ways of opting out.
* If a customer doesn't get smart meters, then can he/she be credited what it would have cost to install them?
* Could a customer read his/her own analog meters, to avoid paying a fee to have the City come to read them?
* Could analog meters be read, say, only every other month, to halve the cost of having the City come to read them.?
* Could a customer opt for the electric smart meter not to try to talk with home appliances? (Shiva says this would be the
default, but a customer could opt in if he/she wanted this feature.)
TRANSMISSION FREQUENCY
Last evening, Shiva said that the plan (not documented in the staff report) was to record electric consumption every 15
minutes but to transmit only 4 times per day. Previously, I had learned that the plan was to record water and gas use
every hour but to transmit only twice per day. So, I suppose that amounts to 8 transmissions per day per premises,
counting all three meters, and not counting a particular electric meter's transmissions that are just forwarding data from
other meters. That's fewer transmissions per day per premises than I was expecting. I don't know whether it would allay
the concerns of people who are worried about RF radiation.
LATENCY
Last evening, Shiva said the plan was for smart meters to transmit only when polled to do so. I asked whether a meter
might ever initiate a transmission, for example, to report a leak. Shiva thought not. I think we might be missing an
opportunity.
The staff report says that consumption information will be available to customers the day after it's measured. I don't
understand why it should take that long.
CYBERSECURITY
If the system is attacked, how bad could things be? Should remote disconnect be a feature for electric meters? (The staff
report says remote disconnect is not a feature for water and gas meters.)
OBSOLESCENCE
The plan assumes the smart meters would last 18 years. Lots of sources question whether that's realistic.
RELIABILITY
The plan seems to be depending on an incumbent's wireless phone network to connect clusters of meters to the central
office. There have been reports in the news recently of some spectacular outages of incumbents' wireless phone
networks. If the City had a citywide municipal FTTP network, that would be much more reliable. Broadband
Communities' interactive database says 19 munis use their FTTP networks for smart grid.
http://www.bbpmag.com/search.php?s0=1&cols=-co-me-st-ve-gr-te-se-ty-in&st=&ve=&gr=&te=&se=-uti&ty=-
mun&qco=&qme=&qan=&qus=0&qmu=&qsu=&qpa=&qin=0
---
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loren Brown <loren.brown@vancebrown.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 21, 2018 11:50 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:November 26, 2018 City Council Agenda Item 12 - Housing Ordinance
Attachments:Attachments A-C.pdf
11‐21‐2018
Dear City Council Members,
I request that you give consideration to the following proposal that is not addressed in the housing ordinance drafted by
City Staff:
PROPOSAL TO FURTHER INCENTIVIZE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN PALO ALTO:
I. CONCEPT: Expand the geographical area contained within the PTOD (Pedestrian Transit Oriented District) boundary
included in the City’s existing municipal code (Chapter 18.34 ‐ Exhibit A).
A. Expand the PTOD Boundary to specifically include parcels located at 3101 Park Blvd., 3197 Park Blvd. and 3241 Park
Blvd (currently zoned GM ‐ GM zoning does not allow any housing unless accomplished through a PTOD zoning overlay)
B. Option: Expand the PTOD Boundary to include other appropriate parcels generally located within 1/2 mile of the
California Avenue Cal Train Station (City Staff to review and recommend additional parcels for consideration by City
Council).
II. PROPOSAL PURPOSES/BENEFITS:
A. To further incentivize the quantity of multi‐family housing built in Palo Alto in locations that make sense with
regional housing/transportation goals (within close proximity to major transit hubs ‐ i.e. California Avenue Train Station).
B. To reduce commercial R&D/Office development (in favor of multi‐family housing).
C. To expand the PTOD purposes outlined in Chapter 18.34 of the Municipal Code.
D. Consistency with City’s Housing goals and objectives.
III. PROPOSAL PROS:
A. The City has already determined that PTOD projects are appropriate in the City of Palo Alto as evidenced by Chapter
18.34 of the Municial Code.
2
B. The City has already determined that transit oriented projects located within 1/2 mile of the California Avenue Cal
Train Station are appropriate as evidenced by the approval of 2755 El Camino (Workforce housing project located at the
corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road).
C. The Park Blvd. area is an area where PTOD projects work as evidenced by Harold Hobach’s Park Place project located
at 2655 Park Blvd.
D. The three parcels in this proposal encompass a total of approximately 2.5 acres of land which represents a significant
opportunity for increasing the housing supply in Palo Alto. Note: One or two of these parcels are ready for fairly
immediate redevelopment. The third parcel located at 3101 Park Blvd. is propably more of a longer term
redevelopment project given the age of the existing building and the length of the existing tenant leases.
E. The City process to allow PTOD development on these sites would be simple (i.e. Re‐draw the PTOD Bounday map
associated with Chapter 18.34 of the Municipal Code).
IV. PROPOSAL CONS:
A. No obvious cons; the properties are all entitled already under existing GM zoning regulations and this proposal to
allow these properties to develop multi‐family under the PTOD zoning would be optional to the property owners.
V. ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL: Consider increasing the housing densities currently allowed under Chapter 18.34 of the
Municipal Code to further incentivize housing development of PTOD projects over solely‐commercial use projects.
VI. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Annotated City of Palo Alto Zoning Map showing existing PTOD boundary, proposed PTOD boundary, etc.
B. Existing City of Palo Alto PTOD Boundary Map from Ordinace 4914 (2006).
C. City of Palo Alto Map showing 1/2 mile radius from California Avenue Cal Train Station.
Thank you for your consideration.
Loren Brown
Partner in the Real Estate Entities owning 3101 Park Blvd., 3197 Park Blvd., and 3241 Park Blvd.
(650) 849‐9900 Work
°""'s<1~ '?'TC\> ~~i
Y-. It. ?A t:it,.,e1~ A
ieo'th ?~~ Y>'-~ ~
Ex'6""N' ?)Ot:>
f"P.O ~
?t\O!'O'S"'\.: f\,.,~ ?\' 0 t> '60\1~1 "'° '"""'""""" ~ ...
-; ~c.~'> .*'
~\O\ V~~ 'a\.-10. ~ \(\ 1 Y•il-v... CC'-.,,,.
?>1'-' f>,,a..'1-$~·
The Ci1y or
Palo Alto
This"'""· :·-,. 15 8 product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
--
,.
j
/
Legend
c::::J Half Mile Radius from Cal Ave Caltrain Station
_,,,,,.,-VTALines 101, 102, 103, 182
...,.-·• El Camino Real Bus Routes (Rapid (522 VTA) and Local Routes (22 VTA))
•• • •' •' Dumbarton Express Route and 104 Bus line Route VTA
Iii Caltrain Stations
(;::!City Jurisdictional Limits Boundary
-Project Site -Parcel to be rezoned to PF (WH)
;I( LOCA'f\ON tJr 310\, ?>\~1 A'f'IO 32.4' ~)(..
eLVP.
The City of
Palo Alto
> ' .
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
eoo
MJ.•r1, 1G" ~nm 11 r•~ 2.15.-_ EC Ill: Zoning Mlp Amendmer'll Map C\'Cc•mtP,.~"l!PtM'IMn:iitiV?t·llO!\IPJl:l'ti'r&111o mo) ~~ 11 1 ~nptnttWillJnCINr•lt:1tl •T ·:tt1 .-)Vl(lr' ~OM C:Jn' OF PAtO ~\..~ S'Ka~ ~~ ~St. 2.7$ ~L C~JJVOlMC'(~~;)(.;.;;,_°";~;j~~;:N-:;) ...
1
Carnahan, David
From:LWV of Palo Alto <lwvpaoffice@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 21, 2018 1:43 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:November 26, 2018, Agenda Item No. 12: Ordinance amending Title 18 sections related to housing
Attachments:Housing Zoning Changes LWVPA-CCLetter-11-26-18.pdf; P&TC-LWVPA-Letter-Zoning-9-26-18.pdf;
LWVPA_P&TC_Letter-HousingWorkplan-8-29-18.pdf
Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Attached please find a letter from the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto regarding the November 26,
2018, Agenda Item No. 12: Ordinance amending Title 18 sections related to housing.
Also enclosed, are our August 29 and September 26 letters that were previously submitted to the Planning and
Transportation Commission, for your reference.
Thank You,
Aisha Piracha-Zakariya
President, LWV Palo Alto
‐‐
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
3921 E. Bayshore Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Phone: (650) 903-0600
Web: www.lwvpaloalto.org
Facebook: www.facebook.com/PaloAltoLeague/
Twitter: www.twitter.com/lwvpaloalto
3921 E. BAYSHORE ROAD, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303 - (650) 903-0600 - www.lwvpaloalto.org
November 26, 2018
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Re: November 26, 2018, Agenda Item No. 12: Ordinance amending Title 18 sections related to housing
The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports efforts to increase the number and density of
multiple-family units, particularly for those with lower incomes, especially located near transit centers and
along transportation corridors. Our support for specific items in the Housing Work Plan is outlined in two
letters we submitted to the Planning and Transportation Commission on August 28 and September 26, 2018,
attached.
The proposed ordinance before you tonight goes a long way toward reaching these goals by creating realistic
incentives to increase the housing stock. We urge you to approve this ordinance with the following very
important exception.
Reject the requirement that 100% affordable housing projects on or near El Camino Real and in the
Ground Floor and Retail combining districts be subject to the retail preservation ordinance. The
requirement to preserve retail creates a serious financial and practical barrier to the production of affordable
housing. It jeopardizes funding for the affordable portion; creates a need for additional retail parking
resulting in less parking for the residential tenants; and may, in fact, make a 100% affordable housing project
infeasible. It makes little sense to impose this disincentive to affordable housing on a transit rich corridor such
as El Camino Real. This flies in the face of the Council’s commitment to provide more opportunities for
affordable housing particularly along transit corridors. We urge you to summarily reject that portion of the
ordinance.
With regard to the additional considerations on page 25 of the staff report, we ask that you not reinstate a
requirement for guest parking stalls for the reasons stated in the report.
And finally, but very importantly, we encourage you to request that the Planning Department return to
Council with an ordinance to increase density and heights for 100% affordable housing projects in Downtown
and California Avenue areas as described on page 25 of the staff report.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Aisha Piracha-Zakariya
President, League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
Enclosures: August 29 and September 26 letters to Planning and Transportation Commission.
3921 E. BAYSHORE ROAD, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303 - (650) 903-0600 - www.lwvpaloalto.org
Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission September 26, 2018
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Chair Lauing and Commissioners,
Re: September 26, 2018 Hearing on the Housing Workplan Ordinance Framework
On August 29, 2018, the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto (LWVPA) submitted a letter to this
commission urging you to embrace all of the staff recommendations for the housing-related zoning
changes that would encourage the production of a diversity of housing types in appropriate
locations. Tonight, we urge you to do the same when you consider your recommendation to City
Council on October 10, 2018.
In particular, LWVPA supports the proposed modifications of the zoning code to:
●Maintain density standards in the form of FAR (Floor to Area Ratio) which would increase the
number and affordability of residential units
●Allow residential development in commercial districts to use all of the existing FAR allowance
●Establish minimum density in multi-family zones and change the RM-15 district to RM-20.
●Establish a maximum unit size to provide an incentive for small and moderate-sized units in
downtown.
●Allow open space requirements to be on roof tops to free up space for more dwelling units
●Remove the discretion regarding parking reductions so that an affordable housing provider
would be automatically eligible for parking reductions based on income level of the residents
●Streamline the review process for residential and residential mixed use projects
●Establish the Housing Incentive Program with all of its excellent features as described in the staff
report
●Exempt 100% affordable housing projects from the retail preservation ordinance
●Allow 100% residential uses along high density nodes along certain sections of El Camino Real
●Consider increasing affordable housing densities and building heights in downtown
When this comes back to you on October 10, we urge you to recommend adoption of these sorely
needed changes.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Aisha Piracha-Zakariya
President, League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
3921 E. BAYSHORE ROAD, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303 - 650-903-0600 - www.lwvpaloalto.org
Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission August 29, 2018
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Chair Lauing and Commissioners,
Re: August 29, 2018 Study Session on the Framework for the 2018 Comp Plan/Housing Ordinance
On February 5 of this year, the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto (LWVPA) submitted a letter to City
Council in support of the Housing Work Plan for 2018-2019 applauding the efforts by the City to increase the
supply of housing for all, particularly for those with lower incomes.
For those reasons we encourage you to embrace, without delay, all of the recommendations contained in the
staff memo submitting the framework for housing-related zoning changes which encourage the production of
a diversity of housing types in appropriate locations.
In particular, LWVPA supports the proposals to modify the zoning code to:
●Eliminate residential density standards in commercial and PTOD districts (Item A.1)
●Establish minimum density of 8 dwelling units (du)/acre and a maximum of 20 du/acre in RM-15
districts (Item A.2)
●Allow residential development in commercial districts to use all of the existing FAR allowance (Item
A.3)
●Modify open space requirements to allow the production of more dwelling units (Items B.4 and 5)
●Adjust parking requirements for senior and affordable housing, housing near transit and mixed use
projects to reflect demand based on empirical data (Items C.6) and for ground floor retail in a mixed
use project. (Item C.7)
●Streamline the review process for residential and residential mixed use projects (Item D.8)
●Allow “by right” height and density bonuses in PTOD combining districts for 100% affordable housing
projects (Item D.9)
●Exempt 100% affordable housing projects from the retail preservation ordinance (Item E.10)
●Allow 100% residential uses along high density nodes along certain sections of El Camino Real (Item
E.11)
As stated in the staff report, these recommendations are supported by the Comprehensive Plan and the
Housing Element, each of which was approved after considerable community input and review.
LWVPA also supports the ideas set forth in items 12 through 16 of the staff report which, if implemented
would provide greater opportunities for needed housing projects.
When the modified zoning ordinance comes before you on September 26, we urge you to move expeditiously
to ensure that the City Council can act on this before the end of the year. The housing crisis in our area
demands no less from you.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Aisha Piracha-Zakariya
President, League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
1
Carnahan, David
From:Eric Rosenblum <mitericr@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 21, 2018 2:28 PM
To:Council, City; Palo Alto Forward Board
Subject:Palo Alto Forward letter of support (and comments) for the Housing Workplan
Honorable Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Councilmembers
We are excited to see Palo Alto’s Housing Work Plan make it to your agenda on November 26. We believe that
staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission have done an admirable job in creating a pragmatic
blueprint that fulfils the intent of our new Comprehensive Plan.
We support the twin goals of the housing work plan--to reduce the cost and lengthy approval time barriers that
make many housing projects infeasible and to improve the incentives for housing development compared to
office uses. We are excited to see that the council wants to take positive steps to make housing more attractive
to build in Palo Alto.
We hope that you will adopt the plan virtually unchanged. However, there are a few items that staff had
suggested as possibilities that we believe should also be adopted.
1. Exempt Affordable Housing Projects from the Retail Preservation Ordinance. The retail
requirement and associated parking requirements add to the costs of projects reserved for low-income
residents and can make them infeasible especially in areas where there is little viable retail demand
such as the Wilton Court project. We should remove this barrier for 100% affordable housing projects.
2. Affordable Housing Parking requirement: As has been noted in study after study (for example, your
5/30/2018 study), heavy parking requirements are one of the main culprits for non-affordability. In
addition, as submitted by Palo Alto Housing and other affordable housing providers, occupants of
affordable housing in transit centric areas empirically have low car ownership rates (so, developers are
being forced to build expensive parking that is not even used). Parking requirements should be
simplified and reduced.
3. Higher density and height for Affordable Housing projects in the University Ave and Cal Ave
downtowns: the staff report had suggested up to 4.0 FAR and 60 feet of building height in Downtown
CD(C), and up to 2.5 FAR and 50 feet of building height in California Avenue CC(2). We believe that
both suggestions are worthy of consideration.
4. In-lieu parking: creating shared garages for multiple projects is better that requiring every
development to dig their own underground parking. To be more direct given the small plots and density
downtown, not allowing in-lieu parking is completely at odds with the Comp Plan’s intent to see more
multi-family, affordable housing downtown.
5. Retail: ground floor retail needs to be protected in our downtown cores and retail oriented
areas. However, requiring retail everywhere (including substandard locations) inhibits development of
anything, including housing.
The above are some of the practical steps that had already been suggested in the PTC’s staff report, and
which merit due consideration.
All in all, we are encouraged by the degree of thought put into the Housing Workplan by staff and the PTC. We
are highly supportive of the major programs, and hope that you will vote to adopt in short order.
With gratitude,
Eric Rosenblum
President, Palo Alto Forward
‐‐
Eric Rosenblum
206 604 0443
3
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Moss <bmoss33@att.net>
Sent:Wednesday, November 21, 2018 5:07 PM
To:Council, City; Keene, James
Subject:Revisions to Housing Element
Mayor Kniss and Council members Nov. 21, 2018
Agenda Item 12, Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element
After reviewing the proposals for revisions to the Housing Element and Comprehensive Plan I have concerns
about several of the proposed changes and am asking that they not be adopted. These are the concerns that I
have about the proposed changes and ask that this ordinance not be adopted in it's current form.
Eliminating the need for parking for the first 1500 sq. ft. of retail will make the parking problem downtown
worse. There is a lack of parking downtown, that council and staff recognized by approving a new garage
opposite the post office. It will take awhile, but over time downtown retail projects will draw in more
customers and cars, and they will need parking. Of course all of the present council members will be termed
out by then so it will be someone else’s problem, but it will be a problem. Do not make this change..
Removing the limit on unit density is another bad idea. It will remove any limits on number of units in an area,
and the impact this wild card zoning will have on traffic, parking, and city services. Remember that as City
Manager Keen reported several years ago, each housing unit costs the city over $2800/year more for services
than it pays in taxes. At least with a known unit density the potential impacts on traffic, parking, and finances
can be estimated. Remove the density limits and rational planning and impact analysis also is removed.
Increasing floor area above what is allowed by zoning also is a very bad idea. It removes any controls on
density, development impacts, and the validity of zoning regulations. Making it possible with only the Director
of Planning takes the community (and the Council) out of the process and is another example of wild card
zoning.
Raising the residential FAR from 1.0 to 2.0 and 3.0 also creates uncertainty over what future development
might be, and how compatible it will be with nearby structures. The increase to 1.5 in CN and CS zones will
have a negative impact on existing nearby homes. It also will have negative impacts on traffic, parking, and
nearby residential districts. Complying with SB 35 alone will increase density. Why go even further?
On El Camino development of the ground floor should remain retail only, whether the housing is market rate or
BMR. It essential that retail vitality on El Camino be preserved, not removed. Years ago policies were adopted
to encourage retail retention and development along El Camino to encourage residents in nearby neighborhoods
to be able to walk to shopping. We have done that for decades, but over time some retail has been replaced by
offices even though they aren’t allowed in those locations, with absolutely no enforcement of this zoning
violation despite repeated complaints from residents..
Staff noted that developers are unhappy with current limits on floor area, density and parking
requirements. That is wonderful, as anything that makes developers unhappy will probably make residents
happy. Did staff ask residents or neighborhood associations if they want more density, height, or loss of retail
in commercial areas? The report doesn’t mention such engagements with the community. Zoning and land use
regulations ought to be created to preserve the community, viability of local businesses and residents, and the
best interests of Palo Altans, not developers.
4
Please review these proposed changes carefully, do not adopt the currently proposed changes, and send it back
for reworking and revision.
Yours sincerely,
Bob Moss
1
Carnahan, David
From:Allen Akin <akin@arden.org>
Sent:Wednesday, November 21, 2018 6:09 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com; jguislin@gmail.com
Subject:Housing Standards Ordinance (Nov 26, 2018; Item 12)
Attachments:2018-11-21-housing-ordinance-comments.pdf
Council Members: Please see PDF file attached.
Have a great Thanksgiving!
Allen Akin
This ordinance tries to treat housing, commercial growth, and transportation as separate issues, when in
fact they’re interconnected. As a result it’s unlikely to yield a meaningful improvement in housing
availability or affordability, and is likely to increase parking conflicts and traffic congestion. While the
work that went into it can be applied to future efforts, it should not be adopted in its current form.
As Staff notes in several places, existing policies and market conditions favor commercial development
over housing, and that would still be true even if the ordinance were adopted. The fundamental issue
here is that financial interest in commercial development is vastly greater than financial interest in
housing development, therefore commercial development will be strongly preferred over housing
development, even given the small improvements in housing profitability provided by the ordinance.
This situation is driven primarily by the desire of companies to expand in the Bay Area, the exceptional
profitability of companies which gives them the financial ability to expand here, and the perfectly
rational choice of companies to pass as many costs of this expansion as possible onto other parties.
The ordinance does nothing to moderate the amount of commercial expansion or the funding available
for it, but does push some costs of the expansion onto new and existing residents without equivalent
compensation.
A more effective solution would tie the costs of commercial development to the costs of housing
development and transportation infrastructure development.
At the moment, head taxes seem to be the most-frequently discussed method for doing this. However,
I’d like to point out that it’s not just the number of employees that is driving housing demand and
displacement of lower- and middle-class residents; it’s also the number of dollars that those employees
can use to bid up the price of housing. A tax based on total compensation might be more fair and more
effective.
A less heavy-handed approach would be to require that commercial expansion be housing- and traffic-
neutral; for example, so long as the jobs/housing ratio and total VMT are above specified levels, no
commercial expansion would be approved. This gives companies incentive to address housing and
transportation issues by investing in housing development, by providing private transportation
solutions, or by participating more actively in developing public solutions for both housing and
transportation.
Again, as Staff notes in several places, the ordinance does not address the transportation effects of the
housing development that it encourages. Traffic is not considered at all (it’s deferred to future projects
in the Transportation Department), and parking is hand-waved by a token apartment-complex study.
I won’t go into the methodological flaws of the parking study here, because it suffers from a more
fundamental error: It measures the wrong thing. The requirements of today are not relevant. The
requirements over the future lifetime of the developments are what we need to estimate. This is true for
both parking and transportation.
Doing this requires a transportation model that is not even envisioned by this housing ordinance. Let
me give you some examples to help explain what I have in mind.
•The ordinance assumes that Caltrain ridership rates of residents in the future will be similar to
Caltrain ridership rates today, and that parking demand is related in certain statistical ways to
proximity to Caltrain stations. However, we don’t know this will be true, and we have some
reason to believe it won’t. Caltrain capacity is already saturated much of the day, and planned
expansions will be absorbed wholly or significantly by groups other than Palo Alto residents.
(Notably Stanford.) This would force more residents to use other transportation modes, likely
increasing both traffic and parking demand.
•Currently about 2/3 of Palo Alto workers commute to jobs outside the city. As commercial
expansion occurs at a greater rate outside the city than inside it, in the long run a greater
fraction of residents will have jobs outside the city. Thus we can expect that the need to
commute will increase, not remain at current levels.
•As the geographic distribution of new jobs continues to be widespread, rather than concentrated
exclusively on the Caltrain corridor, even if the capacity of Caltrain were unlimited it would not
be able to provide service to other areas that need it. The use of transportation modes other than
Caltrain would increase.
A better approach would be to task the Transportation Department with developing or participating in
the development of an appropriate transportation model, setting up the mechanisms necessary to
maintain the accuracy of that model over the long run, and then develop ordinances that permit
development only when we meet objective requirements for parking and traffic as guided by the model.
As an aside, I’d like to mention that parking requirements for new housing need not be met by spaces
on site. Residential garages could be shared by multiple developments, and could more easily be re-
purposed or replaced as parking demands shift over time. Note that I’m not simply suggesting in lieu
parking fees; I’m suggesting that we require physical parking places, which developers would then
have incentive to provide as inexpensively and flexibly as possible. I understand that this approach has
been successful elsewhere.
It appears that there’s considerable desire to adopt this ordinance in order to show that we’re making
“progress” in providing housing. I think we can do much better, with respect to both increasing the
amount of housing and decreasing the negative consequences for both new and existing residents.
Please aim higher.
Allen Akin
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kass <vz22@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 25, 2018 11:10 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:New housing ordinance
Hi all,
There is much that is good in the new ordinance you are considering to increase housing. But please remember that it is
affordable housing we need, not expensive luxury housing.
I would fully support it with two changes:
1) Do not reduce any parking requirements for any residential or commercial projects (especially the Presidential Hotel
conversion). Do not let anyone buy their way out of parking requirements.
2) Increase required moderate income housing to 20% from 15% ‐ no exceptions ‐ for rental housing. Do not allow
anyone to buy their way out of providing moderate income housing.
I totally agree with the following analysis published on the PA Weekly website by Be sensible:
We must NOT reduce the parking requirements for any new residential projects. Because the cost of living is so high for both owners and renters, MORE people are cramming into both rental and owner-occupied homes and condos. My 55-unit condo building (16 2-bdr units, 39 1-bdr units and 1 studio) has seen an enormous shift in demographics. In the 25 years I've lived here, the number of residents in a 1-bedroom unit has increased dramatically. We have families of three and four crammed into 1-bedroom condos, including adults with teenage children. Head of households are technocrats, attorneys and other professionals. Their need for parking isn't going to decrease and we will never be able to build enough new housing to stop or even slow down this trend. Yes, we need meaningful housing reform, but it needs to include more, not less, parking per unit! And we don't want tenements in Palo Alto -- we need sufficient setback and green space for any new housing.
Kathleen Goldfein
Palo Alto Resident
2
Carnahan, David
From:Sue Dinwiddie <sued@daise.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 25, 2018 9:54 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed Zoning Change
Honorable Council Members:
We urge you not to approve the proposed zoning revisions. It is true Palo Alto , like all Bay Area cities,
needs to build more affordable housing. However, the proposed zoning change will not achieve this goal.
• It will only make our inadequate parking worse, while not guaranteeing any more affordable
housing. This zoning revision is a giveaway to developers. It is not meaningful housing reform.
• Offering incentives for existing buildings will take away parking, thereby increasing the parking
problem. It does nothing to guarantee that any additional affordable housing will be added.
• With housing so expensive, many apartments hold more residents than planned for. It is naive to think
most people who live in these apartments will not need cars. The apartments across the creek from
Edgewood Drive provide a perfect example of what happens when the number of cars per unit exceed
the parking spaces provided. Please acknowledge the current parking shortage - don’t make it worse.
• This zoning revision does nothing to prevent commercial development from taking away building sites
that could otherwise be used to build affordable housing.
• Furthermore, until we see the VTA project results, no one will know for sure if increasing density and
reducing parking even succeeds in lowering housing costs and meeting the needs of the residents. In
most situations it is still difficult to live in Palo Alto and get to work without a car.
• What is needed is a proper Environmental Impact Study, including results of parking and open space
reductions.
This zoning revision should not be passed. It is not meaningful housing reform.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ken and Sue Dinwiddie
543 Jackson Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303
3
Carnahan, David
From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net>
Sent:Sunday, November 25, 2018 8:53 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Zoning Changes
Regarding the proposed zoning changes that are supposedly designed to spur housing development, I urge you to pay
attention to what Jeff Levitsky has to say on the subject before you proceed. Mr. Levitsky has a good track record of
offering accurate advice. And as was learned recently with regard to the President Hotel, he has thorough knowledge of
this city’s zoning ordinances.
It is concerning that you might change zoning without any evidence that the changes will yield the desired result of
increased housing inventory. Even Staff cautions that there’s no evidence the proposed reforms will move us towards
that goal. Why the year‐end rush? What we don’t need is more problems. If memory serves, the City once had an
incentive that allowed downtown buildings to be under‐parked. We are still grappling with the problems caused by that
one. It sometimes seems as though possible solutions are, like pasta, thrown on the wall to see what sticks. That’s
hardly a good way to problem solve.
I cannot attend the meeting tomorrow but I expect many people will because this is a major, divisive issue. Please do not
limit comments to 60 seconds. If approved, residents will be highly impacted by these changes; at the very least
residents should be shown respect and allowed to speak for 3 minutes, even if that means the meeting runs late.
Annette Ross
Palo Alto
4
Carnahan, David
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Saturday, November 24, 2018 3:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed Housing Ordinance
To the City Council,
This coming Monday, Nov. 26th you want to pass an ordinance that would directly
impact our
neighborhoods with more congestion and traffic. This has certainly been under the
radar, and is very untimely being in the midst of the holiday season. This proposed
ordinance should not be decided by this Council, but by next years 2019 Council. We
ask that this discussion and vote be
postponed to January, when there is time for residents to learn about it, and we're
through the holidays.
This ordinance largely gives more 'breaks' to developers, does not produce much
housing or help
renters. It reduces on-site space requirements , which puts more stress on our parks,
which already fall short of Federal guidelines for open space per resident. This changes
so many requirements and have economic and environmental impact studies been
done? Other reforms
such as not allowing office growth on sites suitable for housing are being ignored.
Lastly, protect the75 units and residents of the President Hotel, do not revise or repeal
the laws that keep the hotel from becoming another high priced hotel, which we don't
want or need in downtown Palo Alto, more parking issues etc.
Suzanne Keehn
4076 Orme St.
94306
5
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Saturday, November 24, 2018 12:35 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Eggleston, Brad
Subject:Stop Lame Duck Action
Council Members:
I rarely write to you with strong objections to your actions. But you are currently considering taking
action on a number of ordinance issues that will have long lasting consequences. I hate to say it, but
I wonder if you folks have succumbed to Trumpism as a way of governing. We just had an election
and we Palo Alto voters made it clear what our choices are for council membership. Given this, we
believe that you must put these matters aside and let the new council make these
decisions. Moreover, if the information below in correct, you need to do some in depth study before
you lock our city into traffic and housing situtations that will likely be unworkable. Even before
reading the information below, I have been seriously concerned about the reduction in parking
standards for new construction. We are already living with past council mistakes in planning for the
future, which is now here. You all can do better that that.
Sincerely,
Richard & Jeanne Placone
601 Chimalus Drive
Palo Alto
alo Alto City Council to Consider Major Land Use Proposals
Display problems? Open this email in your web browser.
6
Oppose Lame Duck Council Actions
Council to Consider Major Land Use Proposals
After a fairly quiet election season on the city policy front, the final month of the legislative year
is packed with council action and community meetings. City Council will dive into the lame duck
session with major land use decisions, including:
7
a proposed housing ordinance that would loosen development standards and parking
requirements throughout the zoning code (November 26);
repeal or revision of the two laws that currently stand in the way of converting the 75-
unit President Hotel Apartments to a boutique hotel (December 3);
Monday, November 26th, the City Council will vote on a proposed Housing Ordinance that
directly impacts our neighborhoods with more congestion and parking woes.
Why would anyone want that?
The proposed Ordinance has many flaws:
a “trickle-down” strategy that will largely profit developers and produce little or no
housing or benefits for renters.
proposed parking reductions for multi-unit housing will put more cars on our
already-clogged neighborhood streets.
reduces the on-site open space requirements for multi-unit housing, putting more
pressure on our stressed public parks, which already fall short of Federal guidelines for
open space per resident.
Thorough economic and environmental impact studies have not been done.
Reforms such as not allowing office growth on land suitable for housing are being
ignored.
To learn more details, read the Commentary by Jeff Levinsky, Co-chair, Palo Alto
Neighborhoods (PAN) Zoning Committee
This Council – which is a “lame-duck” group – should not decide or vote on this major
zoning change, that could change neighborhoods forever, until the new Council has a
chance to review the Ordinance and decide in January.
8
Send a message to current Council
(city.council@cityofpaloalto.org)
Speak at next Monday’s Council Meeting, 7:15 pm
Express your views on a critical Ordinance, affecting all neighborhoods.
Your support is needed and appreciated!
To stay informed about issues affecting Palo Alto,subscribe to our newsletter.
You might also want to subscribe to Jen Hetterly’s newsletter, Palo Alto Matters.
Unsubscribe | Manage subscription
Add your postal address here!
9
Carnahan, David
From:Jim Cornett <jbcornett@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, November 23, 2018 9:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Staff Housing Proposal
Dear City Council,
As noted in a recent article by Jeff Levinsky, Co‐Chair Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN) Zoning Committee, the
current proposal from Staff to provide incentives for developers of housing in Palo Alto appears to be missing
the mark: increase the amount of affordable housing without adversely affecting parking.
I concur with Mr. Levinsky that Council will best serve the residents of Palo Alto by:
Not approving the proposed ordinance;
Insisting on meaningful housing reform, such as allowing future office construction only when sufficient new
housing is built as well, or taking away commercial entitlements;
Offering incentives only for new housing, not for existing buildings;
Requiring a proper Environmental Impact Study, including of parking and open space reductions;
Acknowledging current parking shortages and not make them worse;
Don’t create more loopholes and developer giveaways; and
Wait for the VTA project results to see if increasing density and reducing parking succeed in lowering housing
costs.
Sincerely,
James Cornett
420 Sequoia Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94306
10
Carnahan, David
From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, November 23, 2018 4:48 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:Zoning Ordinance is yet another give-away to developers
Council Members:
More Profits for Developers – More Pain for Residents
Heads they win – Tails we lose
More than a month after the Special Traffic Town Hall* on Monday City Council will look at a zoning proposal
that will increase traffic congestion and parking problems in our neighborhoods. And worse, the city has no
idea how much, if any, new housing the zoning changes might create.
What is for certain is that developers’ profits will increase as the number of parking spaces they must provide
will be reduced for both new and existing buildings.
Lack of balanced input
The City conducted 16 closed-door meetings on the zoning changes, primarily with architects and developers.
No similar meetings were held with resident leaders, only one community-wide meeting early in the process.
No meaningful economic data analysis or environmental study
For a city at the heart of Silicon Valley, we are notably averse to collecting good data and performing careful
analysis. This zoning change forecasts no increase in housing units, only more wishful thinking.
Return to trickle-down economics
The zoning proposal contains numerous cost-savings and benefits for developers but no guarantee that more
housing will be built or rents reduced or that any housing will be “affordable.”
Profits over people
The zoning proposal cloaks giveaways to a small favored group as if these actions will help the general public,
who in reality get no benefit but are saddled with the long-term impacts.
Send this zoning proposal back to staff for a more thoughtful and equitable process. Require staff to
engage residents in the process.
* Since the Oct 22 Special Town Hall, the City has issued no summary of residents’ concerns, presented no
action plan, formed no advisory group nor given an indication that anything was learned or will change.
John Guislin
11
Carnahan, David
From:Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net>
Sent:Friday, November 23, 2018 4:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:2018 Comp Plan Implementation/Housing Ordinance
Dear Council Members ‐ A few points about this ordinance:
1. It doesn't make sense that this Council is the one to decide this matter given three of your nine members are lame‐
ducks, and therefore unaccountable to the public for their actions. Just last week, Council members were so concerned
about the lame duck situation that you thought it better if the next Council consider any changes Procedures and
Protocols rather than you all. And you have many members recused on parts of the item. Surely you will do the same
here given the enormous impact your decisions would have on our City and its residents. Elected officials are to be held
accountable for their actions, yet a third of you won't be, should you take up this matter Monday night. Are you really
going to fill the chambers with the deafening sound of quacking? Quack, quack, quack.
2. Supply side, trickle down, market rate housing to cure our ills is as sham. It's housing for the very privileged who can
already find and afford housing here, with not much of anything left over but peanuts for the people who actually can't
afford or find housing here. This is as big a racket now as it was in the 1980s when it was called Supply side Economics
and was later proven a to be nothing more than a sham along with the trickle down effect. If you are sincere in wanting
to build housing for those who can't afford it, build BMR.
3. I continue to hear ill‐informed remarks from some on Council, some on P&TC, one person at Palo Alto Housing, and a
neighbor of mine who cited inaccurate "facts" to describe the mom and pop retail shops, services and restaurants along
El Camino as "eyesores", "blight" and "failing". They largely are none of these. They are actually play a vitally important
role in making Ventura and Barron Park walkable neighborhoods, where we don't always have to get in our cars to go to
the cleaners, go to a restaurant, gas station or get our car repaired, go to a coffee bar, get a hair cut or go to a hair salon,
copying shop, etc. There are a huge number of types of shops we can frequent and they are thriving. In this ordinance, it
allows these retail to be lost to development despite the Retail Protection Ordinance.
4. I was in chambers twice when the VTA lot project was considered then passed by this Council. It was touted as a
selling point to have everyone view it as a "pilot project". An experiment supposedly to see if under‐parking the units
worked or not. The VTA project hasn't broken ground, yet there is now absolutely no intention on waiting to see if it will
even work or create parking problems on surrounding streets. Yet this Council may go ahead and codify under‐parking,
consequences be damned.
I recommend you refuse to hear this matter entirely. You are a one‐third lame duck Council. You have many individual
recusals on parts of this item on this Council ‐ more certainly than on the next Council. Avoid the Quack.
Winter Dellenbach
Barron Park
12
Carnahan, David
From:Shannon Rose McEntee <shannonrmcentee@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, November 23, 2018 1:07 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Proposed Zoning Requirements for Home Developers
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
Your proposed revisions in our zoning codes are a huge mistake. We must NOT reduce the parking
requirements for any new residential developments. Because the cost of living is so high for both owners and
renters in Palo Alto, MORE people are cramming into both rental and owner‐occupied homes and condos. My
55‐unit condo building (16 2‐bdr units, 39 1‐bdr units and 1 studio) has seen an enormous shift in
demographics. In the 25 years I've lived here, the number of residents in a 1‐bedroom condo has increased
dramatically. We now have families of three and four crammed into one‐bedroom condos, including adults
with teenage children! Head of households are technocrats, attorneys and other professionals. Their need for
parking isn't going to decrease and we will never be able to build enough new housing to stop or even slow
down this trend.
Yes, we need meaningful housing reform, but it needs to include more, not less, parking per unit! And we
don't want tenements in Palo Alto ‐‐ we need sufficient setback and green space for any new housing.
Sincerely,
Shannon Rose McEntee
410 Sheridan Avenue
13
Carnahan, David
From:Cybele LoVuolo-Bhushan <cybele88lb@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, November 23, 2018 12:11 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Land use
Dear Council Members, Please remove the land use item from Mondays agenda. There is a need to reevaluate the
direction of land use development in Palo Alto. Affordable housing needs to be a priority and the present plans do not
have enough consideration for this need. Thank you, Sincerely, Cybele
14
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Moragne <mwmoragne@mac.com>
Sent:Friday, November 23, 2018 9:08 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing Workplan
Dear Council,
As a Palo Alto resident I support increasing building heights and density of 100% affordable housing projects along with
eliminating the first floor retail preservation ordinance on all 100% affordable housing projects in and around downtown
and California Ave.
Sincerely,
Mark Moragne
15
Carnahan, David
From:Marilyn Bauriedel <babamarilyn@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 22, 2018 10:15 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Nov. 26, 2018 Council Meeting proposed zoning ordinance changes
Dear Mayor Kniss and Council Members:
Although I will be out of town and not able to attend the Nov. 26 Council meeting, I am concerned about this Council's
taking action, as proposed in the agenda, to change substantially any land use zoning ordinances, including those that
would reduce parking requirements for new developments. I think any such changes should be postponed for
discussion and action by the incoming new Council with its recently elected members in January 2019. The meeting on
November 26 is just after many residents who might want to be in on the discussion and attend the meeting may be
unable to do so after traveling on this long Thanksgiving holiday weekend and will not have had time to read staff
reports.
I understand that you will be considering a proposed housing ordinance that would loosen development standards and
parking requirement throughout the zoning code. This is a rather sweeping proposal whose consequences should be
carefully considered and not rushed as a year‐end matter but taken up in the new year when holidays have passed and
more residents can consider the implications and attend the meeting. As a long‐time resident of Palo Alto I have
watched our city be degraded in terms of traffic and parking woes that have resulted from policies developed as far back
as the 1970s that have consistently underparked developments. I don't think the current housing crisis we face will be
substantially relieved by additional ordinances that decrease parking requirements or that developers of the kind of
housing we need will be more inclined to provide such housing resources as a result of further decreases in parking
requirements.
Please do not take action next Monday on this quite radical change in zoning/parking rules.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Bauriedel
3673 South Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94306
‐‐
Marilyn U. Bauriedel
16
Carnahan, David
From:Lois Lin <mloislin@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 22, 2018 8:57 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:PARKING!!!
It is absurd that fewer parking places for new buildings, especially housing developments, is being considered. I agree
that we need more housing, especially for seniors and those unable to pay ridiculous rents, but the allow builders to
lower the number of parking places available for new housing is wrong! We already have a parking crunch with
overflow into neighborhoods, and this idea to “help” the developers, who are already making fortune at our expense, is
a terrible one. Wise up, council, and listen to your constituents for a change. Maybe then some of you won’t be
thought of as being in the pockets of the developers.
Respectfully,
Lois Lin, Orme Street
17
Carnahan, David
From:Cheryl Lilienstein <clilienstein@me.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 22, 2018 8:09 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:No rezoning everywhere
Dear City Council,
Scheduling a substantial change in voting codes for Nov 26 council meeting is inappropriate.
The determination of residents to fight rezoning that entitles developers and does nothing to resolve the housing
problems will not stop.
Isn’t there a better way to fulfill the vision of having a more livable city?
How many residents of this city do you think would support more cars polluting our streets while circling to find
parking?
Do you hear residents asking for MORE commuters parking EVERYWHERE?
How many residents of this city do you think want fewer restrictions on office space development?
Let’s please not have another referendum. Below you will find a summary— which staff should have produced but
didn’t— of the effects of this proposal. If you read it I think you would agree that the results of changing the zoning
codes will be unacceptable to voters.
Thank you,
Cheryl Lilienstein
https://paloaltomatters.org/get‐informed/newsletters/november‐19‐newsletter/#commentary
18
Carnahan, David
From:Ray Dempsey <rademps@aol.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 22, 2018 8:06 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Lame Duck actions
If you want to be known as the Donald‐Trump‐Ourageous Council, proceed with the land use ordinances that allow
businesses to contribute to the decline of quality of life for residents, a continuance of actions that resulted in the
changes made in the recent elections. Or accept that the residents want change and allow the new Council to be
effective from the beginning of their tenure. The majority of residents made it clear they want a balanced view.
Ray Dempsey
1036 Bryant Street
Palo Alto
1
Carnahan, David
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Sunday, November 25, 2018 11:48 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing Work Plan
Attachments:CASA Draft Compact.pdf
Dear Mayor Kniss and Council members,
During the past year I have attended the CASA technical committee meetings, presentations by the Terner
Center at Berkeley and SV@Home on the challenges facing non-profit and for profit housing developers
and followed the Palo Alto housing work plan from the colleagues memo to the several PTC meetings and
the community meeting at the downtown library.
Here is what I have learned.
1) The challenges identified in the colleagues memo and addressed in the housing work plan are the same challenges that led to the creation of the Committee to House the Bay Area (CASA) and before that Silicon Valley at Home. These challenges are real, virtually universal throughout the region and accepted
by CASA committee members (including equity and environmental stakeholders) and led by housing
advocates for low and moderate income residents like Leslye Corseglia who co-chairs CASA and leads
SV@Home and Derecka Merhens the Executive Director of Working Partnerships who was co-chair of the CASA committee that examined how to increase production of housing.
There is broad agreement on these challenges.
2) The challenges addressed by CASA and SV@Home fall into the three main "buckets" addressed by the
housing work plan
--high costs of constructing housing including costs imposed by local governments
--costs associated with the long time it takes to get most housing projects approved
--and financial constraints that need to be overcome for any project--non-profit or for profit--to be feasible.
Market rate developers face financial targets set by equity partners (must meet a target rate of return) and lending partners (must meet an income to debt service ratio target). These are in addition to the rate
of return for the project to be feasible for the developer.
Non-profit developers face additional challenges--the need to keep costs low enough to qualify for tax
credit financing partners and, of course, the scarcity of funds to support housing reserved for low-income
residents.
3) The housing work plan, like the draft CASA compact (attached), addresses these issues by
--identifying targeted locations near services, shopping, transit and jobs) where higher densities can help
lower costs per unit while increasing housing production
--identifying areas where evidence suggests costs can be reduced with regard to parking, retail and other
requirements
2
--reducing the costs of developing housing by streamlining approval processes while retaining final legislative review.
4) My personal take as a resident and professional is
The proposals in the housing work plan are one first needed piece of achieving the housing goal of 300+
units a year adopted by council after a lengthy public process and extensive environmental review.
I encourage the council to ask staff what additional steps can be taken now such as the suggestion at the
bottom of page 25 on further efforts to increase density.
The housing work plan did exactly what it was expected to do--identify barriers to building more housing to meet the adopted Comp Plan.
There are no surprises here. If anything, staff could have included more polices as their narrative
underscores that theses proposals are only a first step if we are serious about the Comp Plan goal.
Palo Alto has taken leadership steps in encouraging ADUs and adopting overlay zones for housing for low-
income and missing middle housing residents in specific locations.
By strengthening and adopting the staff proposal the council will show that Palo Alto understands the challenges of increasing housing production for all residents and is wiling to step up to the plate and lead.
Stephen Levy
365 Forest Avenue
Palo Alto
November 2018 Draft CASA Compact Page 1
CASA Draft Compact 15-Year Emergency Policy Package
to Address the Bay Area’s Housing Crisis
11.13.18
Contents
Preamble (to be added later) i
TENANT PROTECTIONS
Compact Element #1: Just Cause Eviction Standards 2
Compact Element #2: Emergency Rent Cap 4
Compact Element #3: Right to Legal Counsel for Eviction Proceedings 6
HOUSING INCLUSION AND CAPACITY
Compact Element #4: Remove Regulatory Barriers to ADUs and Tiny Homes 8
Compact Element #5: Minimum Zoning for Housing Near Transit 10
SPEED PROCESS FOR ZONING-COMPLIANT PROJECTS
Compact Element #6: Good Government Improvements to Local Housing Approvals Process 12
Compact Element #7: Make State Housing Streamlining Laws Work (SB 35) 14
Compact Element #8: Greater Use of Public Land for Housing Production 16
REGIONAL FUNDING AND COORDINATION
Compact Element #9: Regional Housing Enterprise 18
Compact Element #10: Funding and Financing the CASA Compact 20
November 2018 Draft CASA Compact Page 2
Compact Element #1: Just Cause Eviction Standards
Desired Effect: Just cause would protect tenants from arbitrary evictions. Studies show that eviction can cause health issues, emotional trauma, school disruptions for children, longer and more costly commutes and reduced wage earnings for adults. By preventing no-cause evictions, just cause eviction protections promote tenant stability—particularly in low vacancy and expensive housing markets—and limit
eviction-related monetary, health, school and other costs. Eviction-related costs can pose a particular burden for tenants who are low and fixed income, have physical disabilities, or are elderly.
Scale: State legislation applied to 9 Bay Area counties
Models: New Jersey statewide Just Cause Law; Large cities in CA (SF, Oakland, San Jose, LA)
References: Action Plan 2.1
Bucket /
Category of
Detail
Summary Areas for Further Negotiation Additional Commentary
Permissible causes for eviction
Fault:
• Failure to pay rent
• Substantial breach of a material term of the rental agreement
• Nuisance (define)
• Waste (define)
• Illegal conduct (define)
No fault:
• Owner-Move-In (OMI). Owner defined as owner and immediate family.
• Withdrawal of unit from rent or lease market (e.g., Ellis Act/condominium conversion)
• Unit Unsafe for Habitation: Recovery of unit for health and safety reasons
• Demolition or substantial rehabilitation
Coverage
Applies to all rental units except the following:
• Government owned and government subsidized housing units or housing with existing government regulatory that govern rent increases in subsidized rental units (e.g., Section 8)
• Transient and tourist hotel occupancy as defined in Civil Code Section 1940(b)
• Only applies after a tenant has been in occupancy with or without a lease for some period of time in 12 months
• Need to determine if any adjustments
should be made for small landlords that
November 2018 Draft CASA Compact Page 3
• Housing accommodations in a nonprofit hospital, convent, monastery, church, religious facility, or extended care facility
• Dormitories owned and operated by an institution of higher education or a high school or elementary school
• Unit where tenant shares a bathroom or kitchen facility with the owner who maintains their principal residence there
• Single owner-occupied residences including when the owner-occupant rents or leases 2 units (including ADU and JADU) or bedrooms
• Resident-owned nonprofit housing
In the event that a local ordinance conflicts with a state or federal ordinance, the others should prevail. Housing is exempt from any fees that might be levied by the localities to implement this program or cap to some nominal amount.
own few units, and if so, what
mechanisms would be used to ensure that such small landlords could be distinguished from larger landlords that
own many small buildings in separate ownership structures.
Notice Requirements Tenant Rights: The owner must provide notice to tenants at the beginning of each tenancy as to tenant rights with copy of lease. This notice should be in the form of a lease addendum that is signed by the tenant at the time the lease is signed.
Evictions: The grounds for eviction must be set forth in the notice to terminate tenancy.
If the reason for the termination is for cause, the owner must provide an initial notice with an opportunity to cure
before the notice of termination. This should only be for insufficient funds, nuisance or other types of curable lease violations. If the lease violation is related to specific illegal activity that presents the potential for harm to other tenants, there should not be a right to cure. Separate provisions should be made for domestic violence situations.
Relocation Assistance Eligibility: Applies to all no-fault causes where Tenants have been in occupancy for 12 months
Owner move-in shall not be required to pay relocation assistance.
Timing: Provided directly to the tenant at the time of service of the notice to quit where Tenant has been in occupancy
for 12 months.
Notice: The landlord shall notify the tenants of their rights under this section at the time of service of the notice to quit, including relocation payments owed based on unit size.
Amount: Set amount per tenant household tiered relocation based on bedroom size. Use San Jose model.
• Should relocation assistance be means-tested?
• If so, how would it be administered?
Preemption of Local Ordinances
This law does not preempt more restrictive local ordinances.
November 2018 Draft CASA Compact Page 4
Compact Element #2: Emergency Rent Cap
Brief Summary: Establishes reasonable annual increases in rent.
Desired Effect: High impact. An emergency rent cap would prevent extreme rent increases in rent on a year-to-year basis, thereby decreasing the number of households who are at risk of displacement and homelessness, decreasing the number of households who are rent burdened, and promoting tenant and community stability. Extreme rent increases can pose a particular burden for tenants who are low and fixed income. Can be extended
Scale: State legislation applied to 9 Bay Area Counties
Models: Existing State Anti-Gouging Law in States of Emergency (cite)
References: Action Plans 1.1, 1.2, 1.3
Bucket /
Category of
Detail
Summary Areas for Further Negotiation Additional Commentary
Annual Rent Increase Limits For an Emergency (15-year) period, no landlord shall increase rent by more than the allowable increase, as defined below, in any year of tenancy (yearly increase).
Between 5% + CPI, notice of allowable rent increase to be provided annually by Regional Agency.
Cap applies to face rate, and shall not control reimbursement of expenses or amortized returns on
capital improvements
• Annual rent increase limits
• Should it be a flat rate - easier for everyone to track?
• What is the limit to pass thru capital improvements to renters?
Vacancy Provision Vacancy de/control. Cap applies to renter not unit.
Coverage Exempted from rent cap:
• Affordable housing properties governed by regulatory agreements from the State of California, the CA Tax Credit Allocation Committee, the CA Debt Limit Allocation Committee, and the
Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development and the US Department of Agriculture
• Owner occupied properties with ADUs.
• Dormitories
Costa Hawkins is irrelevant
to state legislation and does not limit coverage in this instance
November 2018 Draft CASA Compact Page 5
Banking and
Capital Improvements
Landlord can bank up to 4 years of unused rent increases and take these unused rent increases future
years.
Following year(s) where rents have not been raised, landlord may draw on banked unused rent
increases, and may annually increase rents above the cap for a certain number of years. Even when drawing on banked unused rent increases, there shall be a cap on annual rent increases to recognize “annual household payment shock,” for example between 1.5x-2x otherwise applicable annual cap up
to maximum annual increase of within a range of 10-15%.
Cap applies to face rate, not expense pass-throughs or
capital improvement reimbursements and returns (details of pass-through allowances to be determined). Return on investment of CPI +5%
Some protections need to be
in place so that landlords cannot “bank” an unreasonable amount of rent
increases and then issue an exorbitant aggregated rent increase all at once.
Preemption of Local Ordinances
This law does not preempt more restrictive local ordinances.
State of Emergency Rent cap shall be evaluated before any extension is granted to study impact of rent cap on housing market overall.
November 2018 Draft CASA Compact Page 6
Compact Element #3: Right to Legal Counsel for Eviction Proceedings
Brief Summary: All tenants facing eviction would have the right to legal counsel, leveling the playing field and protecting tenants from illegal evictions.
Desired Effect: Access to a lawyer can be the difference between losing a home and keeping it. Ensuring that all tenants facing eviction have the right to legal counsel would create a fairer justice system; prevent evictions and homelessness; improve health, stability and opportunity for thousands of residents, including children; and preserve existing affordable housing. With proper implementation, research suggests that the right to legal assistance for eviction proceedings can reduce evictions by 77% to upwards of 94% (according to a pilot program in California) and lead to a net savings for local jurisdictions.
(e.g. in New York City cost savings are estimated at $2 for every $1 spent on legal assistance)
Scale: State legislation supported by regional funding
Models: SF Prop F passed in June, New York City
References: Action Plan 3.1
Bucket /
Category of
Detail
Summary Areas for Further Negotiation Additional Commentary
Coverage • All tenants who are faced with legal proceedings to evict them from their residence
have the right to legal counsel except when eviction proceedings are brought by a landlord or master tenant who resides in the same dwelling unit or property with tenant. If impact of legislation is that courts are over-burdened, local or regional agencies may need to establish renter’s courts funded by regional funding sources.
• Landlord obligation limited to providing an addendum notice of this rights in lease
and eviction notice. Landlord has no payment or any other obligations. Tenant failure to exercise right to counsel will not impede eviction proceedings for landlord.
• Cap on cost: per
matter or hourly.
• Free counsel should
be means-tested.
• The term “legal representation” shall mean full scope
representation provided to an individual by a designated organization or attorney which includes, but is not limited to, filing responsive pleadings, appearing on behalf of the tenant in court proceedings, and providing legal advice.
• Short-term rental assistance is included in Element #10: Funding
and Financing for the CASA Compact
*Funding
(alternative pathway to achieve right)
Generate significant funds to fund regional right to legal counsel.
Pro-bono counsel for tenants shall be encouraged.
Tenants Together’s recent report, California Evictions Are Fast and
Frequent found the following 3-year averages for unlawful detainer filings by county: (1) Alameda - 5,467; (2) Contra Costa - 3,928; (3) Marin - 432; (4) Napa - 277; (5) San Francisco - 3,275; (6) San Mateo - 1,516; (7) Santa Clara - 3,515; (8) Solano - 2,321; and (9) Sonoma - 1,195, for a total of 21,926 unlawful detainer filings per year. It should be noted that this number does not include the number of eviction notices prior to the filing of unlawful detainer eviction lawsuits. Therefore, if the region were to provide a right to legal
November 2018 Draft CASA Compact Page 7
counsel, the number of cases could be much higher; however, as a
counterpoint, a right to legal counsel would likely deter landlords from serving tenants with illegal eviction notices.
Providers Regional Housing Enterprise identifies and funds local service providers to provide legal
representation. Bay Area Metro funds and conducts education efforts to notify residents of this right.
NYC’s has a coordinator who designates existing organizations that
have “the capacity to provide legal services”
Annual or bi-annual review of the program
November 2018 Draft CASA Compact Page 8
Compact Element #4: Remove Regulatory Barriers to ADUs and Tiny Homes
Brief Summary: Existing single family homes make up a significant portion of the region and according to studies by the Terner Center are under-occupied to their originally designed capacity. Best practices in the region today allow both an ADU, and Junior ADU on single family lots, and multiple ADUs in existing multi-family buildings with ministerial approval. This Compact item proposes to extend these best practices to every jurisdiction in the region by amending existing state ADU law to remove regulatory barriers to building including ministerial approval for ADUs and Junior ADUs in residential zones,
allowance for multiple ADUs in multi-family homes, and creation of a small homes building code (AB 2890 Ting).
Desired Effect: Extremely High Impact; Short Term. Assuming 20% of 1.5 Million single family homes in Bay Area = 300,000 new homes distributed into existing neighborhoods. In PDAs alone would be 50,000 new homes. Distribute green, more affordable homes quickly and uniformly in region. State must reduce zoning barriers to: (1) Create significant, rapid increase in less costly homes including stabilizing vulnerable households including seniors, disabled, and lower income homeowners in all existing neighborhoods (Missing middle housing, Preservation); (2) Reduce GHG by improving utilization of buildings/land build more small, infill, low GHG/sustainable homes (3) ease codes for ADUs and Tiny Homes . Help expand and stabilize labor force and construction.
Scale: State legislation applied to 9 Bay Area Counties
Models: Arlington VA, Portland OR, Seattle WA, Vancouver BC, State of Oregon Tiny Homes Code.
References: Action Plans 10.3, 10.4 UCB Chapple 2015; UCB Terner Center 2017; Legislative history SB 1069, AB 2890
Bucket /
Category of Detail
Summary Areas for Further Negotiation Additional Commentary
Ministerial Approval Allow ministerial approval regardless of zoning standards for:
• Both an ADU and a Junior ADU (JADU), not required to be smaller than 800 sq ft in any zone that allows residential uses; in existing or proposed structures including in rear yard cottage not to exceed 800 sq ft , 16’ tall , with 4’ in side or rear yard setbacks
• Existing unused spaces in multi-family structures or yards may be converted to multiple ADUs.
• ADUs receiving ministerial permits cannot be rented for less than 30 days; subject to local non-zoning housing standards not addressed in this law
• Encourage non-safety code forgiveness
• Provide that remedies for successful project applicant legal challenge include same as in HAA.
• Apply HAA’s provisions for determining project consistency (if there is substantial evidence to support a consistency determination it is deemed consistent)
• Allow division of existing homes by 50% where ADU may be 800 sq ft
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kerry Spear <kerry.spear@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 25, 2018 11:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Staff report feedback for 11/26/18: easy way to decrease permit approval times
Dear Council Members,
I just spent hours reviewing the most recent staff report and its attachments in
preparation for the 11/26/18 meeting.
Let's follow in the footsteps of areas with even higher percentage growth rates than
Palo Alto when it comes to streamlining the permit process for new construction. Make
a small suite of PRE‐APPROVED permit‐ready designs available to the public.
LOOK AT one example from Studio Petretti located in Portland, Oregon:
www.studiopetretti.com/stuga
STUGA (Swedish for small cottage) modular homes are permit‐ready and meet all
City of Portland Zoning and Building Codes. I have no affiliation of any kind with this
company. I simply think we needs to implement cost effective solutions that solve
immediate problems, and this is an example of just that.
Rather than continuing down a FTT (failure to thrive) pathway, I hope we all agree
that our goal is to keep Palo Alto alive.
Sincerely,
Kerry Spear
370 Oxford Ave
2
Carnahan, David
From:abby boyd <abby650@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 25, 2018 9:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed Housing Ordinance
Leave this decision to the new council, you are lame ducks and are not as responsible for the future of Palo Alto.
I oppose the reduction of parking spaces for multi units, and also the reduction of currently required open space.
Parking and traffic and open space are well known and much discussed problems.
DO NOT PASS ANYTHING THAT MAKES THESE PROBLEMS WORSE.
I ALREADY HAVE PEOPLE WHO WORK AT THE JEWISH KORET CAMPUS PARKING ON MY STREET.
Abby Boyd
3998 Bibbits Dr
Palo Alto
‐‐
null
3
Carnahan, David
From:Ryan Globus <ryanglobus@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 25, 2018 9:48 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:November 26, 2018 Meeting - Item 12 (Zoning Ordinance) - Please Vote Yes
To the Palo Alto City Council,
Please vote yes on this ordinance. As you all know, Palo Alto is facing a housing shortage, which has become a crisis. Palo
Alto is known for being an inclusive, welcoming place for professionals and families ‐ but the housing crisis puts that at
risk.
The Council has the opportunity to fight for all families and stand up for its principles of inclusion. This ordinance will not
solve the crisis, but it’s a step in the right direction. Please vote yes.
Ryan Globus
Palo Alto Midtown Resident
4
Carnahan, David
From:Angela Dellaporta <asdellaporta@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 25, 2018 9:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Monday’s decisions
Dear City Council Members,
As you make your decisions Monday night, please keep in mind that the city needs housing far more than it needs
offices. In addition, more offices without nearby housing will increase traffic gridlock.
Thank you,
Angela Dellaporta
Ventura Neighborhood
5
Carnahan, David
From:Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu>
Sent:Sunday, November 25, 2018 8:26 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:De Geus, Robert; Wayne Tanda; Lait, Jonathan; John Guislin; Mary Dimit; Mary Gallagher; Jeff
Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Norman H. Beamer; Margaret Heath; Allen Akin; Kuo-Jung Chang; Fred
Kohler; Gabrielle Layton; Shikada, Ed; Furman, Sheri; jeff@levinsky.com; Joe Baldwin; Kristine Erving;
John Erving; Roger McCarthy; Malcolm Roy Beasley; Nick Peterson; Marion Odell; Vita Gorbunova;
Paul & Karen Machado; Carol Scott; David Schrom; Neilson Buchanan; Christian Pease
Subject:Housing Ordinance
Dear City Council.
‐1: with the proposed housing ordinance it seems you followed a well‐known path: you try to push it out and approve it
with essentially no input from the public ONE day after the long Thanksgiving weekend. Nice job! AGAIN! How often did
the Palo Alto citizens ask you to properly involve the residents in important decisions such as this one? And again and
again, you just ignore it? We request that city council or any city body postpones any decision on Monday, and lets the
new city manager, new mayor and new city council take on this task in January.
‐2: the housing ordinance as it stands is in direct contradiction to the RPP in Evergreen Park and Mayfield. We live in an
already very congested environment with overflow parking from all sides. Our RPP bears a big burden of parking
intrusion from businesses from California Ave commercial core. Any more density with reduced parking requirements
will simply exacerbate the current situation in our neighborhood. We request that no decision being made on this
housing ordinance that will reduce parking requirements of new developments as well as increase traffic in and around
our neighborhood. Page Mill/ El Camino is already one of the worst intersections in the county. The proposition that
people will use mass transit and no longer cars is a noble, idealistic thinking, but it does not live up to reality. You cannot
force anybody not to have a car. I don't know of any law that would allow that. And if that is the case, where should all
these people park ‐ when there is just no parking in the first place?
‐3: This housing ordinance is supposed to solve the issue of affordable housing. Helping people with lesser means to live
in Palo Alto is what probably everybody is supportive for. But where is the fact that just building denser and taller and
creating a tunnel effect along El Camino would create all these units that these poor people could afford? The
developers will build these tiny apartments with no parking. They will only do it if they can maximize profit. The
building owners will keep charging max rent that, AGAIN, nobody of those poor people will ever be able to afford. Do
you have some hard numbers? What is the income threshold that you consider somebody to be eligible for affordable
housing? How many people would that be in Palo Alto? Would only Palo Alto residents be eligible for? How many units
can theoretically be built and then rented out for the next 30+ years at a rate that would indeed help those people? Did
you do a cost analysis? if so, can you share it with us?
‐4: Why don't you create rules that big companies (whatever the # of employees might be to label a company as "big")
move either out of core Palo Alto, maybe some into the Stanford Research Park and others east of 101? Menlo Park and
Mountain View have their big corporations all east of 101. Why not Palo Alto? and if you would do that, this would free
lots of office space that could be converted to affordable housing units.
So no reason to plaster Palo Alto with high density projects that not only destroy the character of Palo Alto but further
increase traffic, parking, air pollution, etc.
thank you
Wolfgang Dueregger
7
Carnahan, David
From:Jeremy Hoffman <hoffmanj@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 25, 2018 7:46 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing Workplan: better housing opportunities for more neighbors
As a member of the Palo Alto community (2003‐2013), I urge you to enact a Housing Workplan that plans for a
sustainable future. That means
1. Addressing our city and regional jobs‐housing imbalance, which drives up rents and forces the people who serve us to
suffer in housing that has a long commute, is too small, is too expensive, or all three. More than half of California renters
pay more than the recommended 33% of income on rent.
2. Addressing the existential threat of catastrophic climate change. The UN IPCC report gave us twelve years ‐‐ TWELVE
YEARS ‐‐ to drastically remake our carbon economy, or face a 21st century with hundreds of millions of climate refugees,
droughts, storms, floods, famine, wildfires, mass extinction, and a lack of clean drinking water.
As you know, people who live in dense urban housing have a much lower carbon footprint than those who live in
exurban sprawl. If you consider yourself an environmentalist, as I do, you should be doing everything in your power to
help lead California so that our descendants, like my son, won't curse our negligence.
Thank you for reading and for doing the right thing.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Hoffman
Stanford '07
8
Carnahan, David
From:Marion Odell <marionodell7@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 25, 2018 6:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:housing ordinance
I urge you to delay the discussion regarding the proposed housing ordinance until 2019 with the new council, and when
more involved citizens are available.
Thank you,
Marion Odell DTN
9
Carnahan, David
From:Kimberley Wong <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 25, 2018 6:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Against changes to the zoning codes
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
As you have now acknowledged that there is a major traffic problem in Palo Alto let us also understand that changing
zoning codes in Palo Alto will exacerbate the problem. It will allow more housing, which in turn brings in more residents,
more cars, more children of residents and a greater burden on our school system. Unless you can tackle reducing the
traffic into Palo Alto everyday, reduce the number of residents commuting within the city and the cut through traffic
through neighborhoods to avoid the traffic, it will grow worse and worse.
I understand that some of the Council Members will be terming out and not have to tackle the worsening traffic that will be
created, but please be understanding of the ones that will remain. The infrastructure to support these changes must be
put in place first or everyone will be lamenting on how it got so complicated! Fix the issues first before piling on new
factors that will make it worse.
I think in the last election, there was a very loud and clear message that most residents are concerned about growth and
the negative effects of growth on the city. Please understand how changes to the zoning code will affect the livability of
our neighborhoods and increase by many fold the traffic problems throughout our city. You are all stewards of the City.
Please listen to your constituents and understand that you are representing our voices.
I wholeheartedly wish that more people can enjoy living in Palo Alto but if problems regarding traffic through the city can't
be solved and you add more residents then nobody can enjoy what Palo Alto will become. Why be another Sunnyvale,
Cupertino or Mountain View where growth has gotten away from them and now are facing gridlock conditions most hours
of the day? Why must we bear the burden of our neighboring cities? Why not be an good example of how to tackle the
issues. Build park and rides, shuttle into the city for eg. Let's create solutions not more problems.
Please do not vote on something now which will make our tomorrow worse.
Thank you,
Kimberley Wong
Emerson Street
10
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 25, 2018 5:55 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:De Geus, Robert; Wayne Tanda; Lait, Jonathan; John Guislin; Mary Dimit; Mary Gallagher; Jeff
Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Norman H. Beamer; Margaret Heath; Allen Akin; Kuo-Jung Chang; Fred
Kohler; Gabrielle Layton; Shikada, Ed; Furman, Sheri; jeff@levinsky.com; Joe Baldwin; Kristine Erving;
John Erving; Roger McCarthy; Malcolm Roy Beasley; Nick Peterson; Marion Odell; Vita Gorbunova
Subject:Let's Get the Housing Ordinance "Right"
The housing ordinance requires greater levels of your stewardship to withstand the transportation, job
growth and parking pressures of the next 30 years.
Please consider the following issues during the adoption of the housing ordinance.
1. Housing ordinance is not aligned with a functional downtown cap to harmonize
office and housing projects.
2. The housing ordinance is in serious conflict with the RPP ordinance. I, as one of
the most involved citizen leaders for permit parking, personally takes
responsibility for not spotting this conflict, but the essence of the problem is that
new owners and tenants residing in the two downtown cores will receive resident
permits and create saturated street faces in zones closest to University and
California Avenues.
3. Unfortunately, current staff responsible for traffic, RPP and parking requirements
are so under-manned and inexperienced that the housing ordinance avoids
obvious traffic and parking conflict. The new Transportation Department has lost
its most experienced personnel and recruitment may take months. Staff and
Council are too dependent on consultants who do not have in-depth knowledge
to fine tune the housing ordinance.
4. Affordable housing is not defined at all. Here is a link to professional analysis
that helps staff, council and citizens understand relative costs. It needs simple
refinement with scenarios and metrics for land costs. This type of information is
outside the capacity of current staff to frame costs, markets and
parking. Properly presented, this type of analysis would calm anxiety about
parking
spillover. https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt2np5t9ct/qt2np
5t9ct.pdf?t=krnyj7&v=lg
5. The consultants' analysis of current parking conditions is shallow and
occasionally misleading. Consultants presented few good conclusions but used
faulty assumptions and weak observations. I do believe that parking for low-
income housing and for developmentally disabled populations is valid. Even if it
is not perfect, the negative impact is within very acceptable limits. However, staff
completely ignored what has created extreme parking congestion in Palo
Alto. For example, Ventura neighborhohod's streets such as Curtner. We will be
doomed to compound parking requirement errors by making assumptions that
11
national estimates for urban areas apply concisely to new occupants of Palo
Alto's market-rate housing developments.
6. Finally the timing of the staff report during the middle of a major holiday
undermines Council's goals for informed and involved citizens.
7. Provisions to exempt retail space from parking requirement places severe burden
on other retail business and neighborhoods.
8. I URGE THE COUNCIL TO CONTINUE PUBLIC DISCUSSION BUT DELAY
THE APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE BY THE NEW CITY COUNCIL IN
2019. IN THIS WAY THE NEW COUNCIL AND NEW CITY MANAGER WILL BE
ACCOUNTABLE FOR FINE TUNING AN ORDINANCE WHICH WILL GUIDE
PALO ALTO FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS.
Here is my strongest argument against the new ordinance. A new housing ordinance is
needed early in 2019, but the proposed housing ordinance is not aligned with the RPP
ordinance which has reduced non-resident parking and added quality to our residential
streets. I have little confidence that Council and staff will be able to retrospectively align
the ordinances because permit parking has been systematically under-managed since
April 7, 1997.*
* Excerpt from April 7, 1997 Council Minutes
Dan Lorimer, 465 Hawthorne Avenue, President of the Downtown North Neighborhood
Association, read a letter (on file in the City Clerk's Office). Color zone parking was a complete
success when measured by the objectives of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce's 13-point
parking plan. By neighborhood standards, it was a complete fiasco. Downtown North was
jammed with cars, and the City lots were freed up for customers. Downtown North did not have
a serious problem with sleeper cars before, except for the cars of the homeless. Through
implementation of the color zones, Downtown North was handed the commercial district's
problem. The parking problem, which was an economic cost of development, should be
imposed upon those who gained, i.e., those who created the parking deficit. Until employers
were required to provide parking for all of their employees, no solution to the parking problems
of the commercial district would do anything other than make Downtown North's problems
worse. ………………more in minutes
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
12
Carnahan, David
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Sunday, November 25, 2018 5:09 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:SLOW DOWN ANY ACTION ON HOUSING/OFFICE UNTIL JANUARY 2019
Dear Council:
Why would the Council approve 5 roof tops for office people at this time? We don't need to
cater again to the corporate developers, but we need to seek out apartment housing for our workers first.
We urge you not to make any zoning or other decisions re. housing/office until the new council
is in place in January.
Why are you not taking back our city pool? Rinconada should serve us, not the other way around.
take back the pool! Must we organize a petition to make the pool serve our kids and our masters swimmers?
Roberta Ahlquist,
WILPF Low‐Income Housing Committee
13
Carnahan, David
From:Joseph Baldwin <zbrcp1@comcast.net>
Sent:Sunday, November 25, 2018 4:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing, Traffic & Parking
Council Members,
Respectfully & strongly urge you postpone any ordinance on subjects until 2019.
Council majorities and city manager created massive problems over many years.
Consultants exacerbated them.
Former competent staff members are just that: former.
New City Manager is not yet in office.
Competent staffers are yet to be hired.
Wait for them.
Allow time for solid recommendations to reach council.
Please do not dig Palo Alto's deep hole even deeper.
Joseph Baldwin
850 Webster Street #524
Palo Alto CA 94301
650-324-7378
zbrcp1@comcast.net
14
Carnahan, David
From:Evan Goldin <evan.goldin@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 25, 2018 4:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please pass the zoning code revisions
Dear City Council,
As tomorrow night approaches, I want to urge you to pass the proposed changes to Palo Alto's zoning code, mentioned
here by the PA Weekly.
As a native Palo Altan who graduated Paly 15 years ago, I've seen most of my friends leave the area for more affordable
places. Even many of the parents I knew who owned homes here, my own parents included, have done the same.
At the same time, we're facing a global catasrophe with climate change, and with the air quality the past few weeks,
we're really starting to personally feel the impact, which will only get more acute. Palo Alto has claimed to care about
climate change and the environment, yet most city policies still encourage very light zoning and pushes people into
owning cars.
With the changes proposed that are up for a vote tomorrow, we can take one giant sweep at both making Palo Alto
more affordable, and making it greener.
‐ Upzoning in our transit‐rich, downtown areas is smart and great policy, including setting minimum density. Building
new single‐family homes near Caltrain stations/businesses should be something Palo Alto does not allow anymore.
‐ Creating easier paths to density bonuses is a great thing.
‐ Most important, in my view, is adjusting our parking policies. As in intern for the city in 2004, I spent an entire summer
collecting data on parking downtown, creating the first study that promoted a permit parking downtown. I later worked
downtown for 5 years. I know parking there extremely well, and I know that to reduce climate change, to make Palo Alto
more affordable and to create more car‐light households, we need to lower parking minimums and establish parking
maximums. Parking minimums force car ownership on people who would otherwise like to have owning a car be an
option, not a requirement. Minimums only raise the cost of housing, encourage more car ownership and add more
traffic to our streets.
I strongly encourage you to pass these much‐needed reforms. It's not to late to reverse course and start to make Palo
Alto a better, and cheaper place to live.
‐ Evan
15
Carnahan, David
From:Mimi Salmon <mimi.salmon@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 25, 2018 11:54 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Zoning changes to support housing development
Hello,
I am strongly in favor of passing the proposed zoning changes in
support of more housing development in Palo Alto.
Without a large increase in the number of housing units available,
only the graying population of Palo Alto can afford to live here.
The proposal being evaluated is actually too modest a set of
changes, but, it is a start.
Please vote yes on zoning changes supporting high rise
development in Palo Alto, especially nearby train stations.
Mimi Salmon
2491 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
‐‐
Mimi Salmon
cell: 650 391 6674
office: 408 954 2497
mimi.salmon@gmail.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:Tina Peak <tmpeak@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 8:15 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing ordinance
Dear City Council Members,
The propose zoning overhaul aimed at increasing housing construction is really a developer giveaway that relaxes
building standards to increase size, massing and density while at the same time reducing parking that will lead to
more cars being dumped in neighborhoods. Also, there is no part of this ordinance that addresses the enormous
urban park deficiency that has built up in the city, nor has the city ever seriously looked at what population of people
can be sustainably supported in this city.
This ordinance should be delayed to give the public time to study it and comment and also requires a proper
environmental impact study to look at parking and open space reductions.
A new city council has just been voted in and a new city manager is coming on board and they should be the ones
to tackle this problem. The current city council doesn’t represent the direction of the last election. Previous “lame
duck” city councils have expressed their anger at elections by cramming pro-development ordinances/civic
appointments down the throats of citizens in what has appeared to be an attempt to “get back at them”, this is
looking like a similar attempt by a pro-growth majority that has been voted out.
I would further add that increasing FAR and requiring more density is a poor decision for a city that is already
plagued by gridlock, overcrowded schools, and lacks over 100 acres of park space that is called for in city
documents for the existing population. Further the Bay area is experiencing sea level rise, increased pollution and
an influx of population that is not supportable by the natural environment. The city council should not be making
conditions worse, rather it should be looking at ways to convert commercial office land that is causing the problem.
Please send this proposal back for further study, or kill it and try again next year.
Regards, Tina Peak
2
Carnahan, David
From:Laurie Jarrett <laurietjarrett@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 7:12 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Long term housing ordinance
Please be advised this ordinance needs more public
discussion. Approval tonight is premature. A delay
until the new Council and City Manager are on board is requested.
Thank you.
Laurie T Jarrett
3
Carnahan, David
From:Jan Holliday <luvlivlaf@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 5:55 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing decision
I respectfully request the you delay any decision on the housing issues before you until the new City Manager and other
key advisors are in place.
Best to and thank you for hearing,
Janice
Sent from my iPad
4
Carnahan, David
From:Brad & Carol Ferkol <bckbferkol@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 5:14 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Letter to City Council members re 11/26/18 meeting
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
I recently read about the pending changes in city zoning laws which will be discussed this evening,
November 26, 2018. I am writing that the Council require all developers, commercial and residential,
to provide adequate parking on their property and not allow them to rely on street parking in
neighborhoods. Part of Palo Alto's beauty lies in its neighborhoods and making them parking lots
lessens the quality of life for the town's residents. This includes safety concerns for children, as well
as all bicyclists and pedestrians, who are at more risk from increased traffic in neighborhoods.
Please do not approve the proposed ordinance, but instead engage in meaningful housing reform,
such as allowing future office construction only when sufficient new housing is built as well, or by
taking away commercial entitlements. I request that the Council consider incentives only for new
housing, not to existing buildings, and conduct a proper Environmental Impact Study of both parking
impacts and open space reductions. Is it possible to wait for the VTA project results to more fully
understand the impact of increasing density and if reducing parking lowers housing costs?
I believe Palo Alto should work hard to protect its historic character as a wonderful, safe place to raise
a family and avoid moving toward increased urbanization. Please work hard to maintain the lifestyle
Palo Alto offers and avoid as much as possible, heading down a path to urbanization from which
there is no return.
Best regards,
Carol Ferkol
14 year Palo Alto resident
5
Carnahan, David
From:Mary Dimit <marydimit@sonic.net>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 3:47 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Delay Approval of Housing Ordinance to Allow Public Discussion
Dear City Council Members,
Please do not approve the proposed housing ordinance tonight to allow more public discussion on this important issue
that will provide long‐term housing guidance for Palo Alto. Approval of the existing ordinance tonight is premature
without more input from Palo Alto residents.
In addition to the the development of affordable housing in Palo Alto, this ordinance will likely exacerbate traffic and
non‐resident parking in several areas of the city, especially downtown and California Ave. neighborhoods.
I urge you to delay approval until both the new Council and City Manager take office to allow time for more input so we
can achieve more meaningful housing reform, such as allowing future office construction only when sufficient new
housing is built as well, or taking away commercial entitlements. And, to provide incentives for new housing and not to
existing buildings.
Thank you,
Mary Dimit
University Ave.
Palo Alto
1
Carnahan, David
From:Elaine Uang <elaine.uang@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 9:28 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing Workplan
Dear Mayor Kniss and Council Members,
After setting Housing as a priority in January and greenlighting the Housing Workplan in Februrary it is finally nice to see
this come back to council after nine long months. Babies that were a mere twinkle in someone’s eye have been
conceived and born since then. We were in a severe housing deficit, and nine months later we’ve not provided any
relief. As a city, our leaders and the Comp Plan say Palo Alto supports more housing, and the Housing Workplan is a
good start . But if we truly support housing, but there are several clauses that in practice, will prevent housing
production and won’t help us reach the 300 annual housing units we needed to produce. Please approve this Housing
Workplan tonight with the following amendments:
1)Eliminate the retail preservation clause for 100% Affordable Housing (BMR) projects, even on El
Camino. It’s Cyber Monday and online shopping is more and more ubiquitous. We cannot expect retail spaces
in low foot traffic areas to come back, so let’s use our most valuable resource – land – to house our community
members, especially those who are struggling most in our housing market– lower and middle income
professionals, veterans, developmentally disabled, and seniors.
2)Relax parking requirements even more– Please house people and not cars! Car ownership is trending
down and will continue to with autonomous vehicles and ride hailing services. When designing housing Form
and Unit Count Follow Parking ‐ meeting the number of required parking spaces is the biggest constraint to
adding more housing. The Parking Study presented on May 30, 2018 noted our existing multifamily properties
are overparked. Creating free parking spaces also induces parking demand and car use, which is in direct
opposition to our Sustainability plan. In this workplan I urge you to:
a.Reduce Senior housing Parking requirements to 0.5 spaces per unit (not 0.75)
b.Reduce parking requirements by 50% for 100% Affordable Housing projects, regardless of income
level
c.Further reduce Multiple Family Residential parking – On RM‐15, RM‐30 or RM‐40 site, smaller
landowners, particularly downtown and near Cal Ave, can provide missing middle housing – duplex,
quadplexes, cottage clusters more flexibly and cheaply than larger multifamily developers. 1 space per
studio 2 parking spaces per 2 bedroom is quite challenging from a site design perspective.
In general, parking “overuse” is not created because we “underpark” buildings. It’s because we underprice our
streets and public parking spaces. If something is free, like street parking, people will use it more. Multifamily
residential projects do need to provide some parking, but the May 30 parking study confirms we have been
providing too much parking and need to align our future standards with future demands. House people not
cars.
3)Allow greater building heights downtown, especially for 100% Affordable Housing (BMR) projects (up to
120% AMI). We have just lost our ONLY residential property on University Ave, but at seven stories and over
80’, the Hotel President was a model for downtown living. Especially for single professionals and an active senior
population, a walkable and car‐lite/car‐free near jobs and services lifestyle is highly desirable and great
environmental policy for our city.
Thanks,
Elaine Uang
Kipling Street
1
Carnahan, David
From:jaclyn schrier <jaclyn@schrier.net>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 10:07 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Vote NO on proposed Housing Ordinance
Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Filseth, and City Council Members:
Please Vote NO on the proposed Housing Ordinance to be considered during tonight's Council meeting.
In short, the proposal is fatally flawed, for example:
There has not been sufficient public comment.
There is no consideration of key contributors to the housing deficit such as office construction, commercial
entitlements, etc.
There have not been adequate economic and environmental analyses.
There are no measures to address housing for those most in need.
Reduced parking requirements will add more cars to our already burdened streets.
Reduced open space requirements will add more pressure to our already crowded public parks.
When the VTA project was approved, it was with the understanding that it would serve as an experiment to help evaluate
the costs and benefits of this type of housing. It is premature to green-light more of the same in the absence of such data.
Finally, this proposal is a blueprint for increasing developer profits while reducing quality of life for existing Palo Alto
residents yet providing no assurance that we will gain the type of housing that is most in need.
Again, please vote NO. We can do much better.
Thank you.
jaclyn schrier
427 Alma Street #307
Palo Alto
2
Carnahan, David
From:beth.guislin@gmail.com
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 10:00 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Request to delay approval of housing ordinance
Council Members,
Please delay any vote for housing ordinance approval until the new city council and city manager are installed and can
be accountable for this decision with long‐term impact. There has not been enough public discussion.
My strong preference is to halt all approvals for additional office space until the traffic congestion and safety issues are
resolved.
Beth Guislin
Middlefield Road
1
Carnahan, David
From:Magic <magic@ecomagic.org>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 10:48 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Action Item #12 November 26th
Dear Councilpeople,
Action item #12 lacks sufficient evidence to warrant a conclusion that it will yield more affordable housing, the nominal
policy goal.
There is copious evidence that it will enable builders and property owners to profit by externalizing costs of more
intensive land use onto residents.
Your staff has drafted this proposed legislation with little notice to, or opportunity for engagement by residents. Rather
they have shaped it in response to lobbying by those who will profit by it at residents' expense.
Council member Fine's recent email to one of my neighbors is a gross mischaracterization of both the process and the
likely outcome of this legislation.
To allow more commercial building in Palo Alto while bemoaning a housing shortage is to aggravate a problem.
To build more of anything here is to degrade both local and larger environments.
If we want to address housing people who provide services that residents use, we'll convert commercial space to
housing and ensure that it's occupied by such service providers.
Thank you for considering these views.
David Schrom
********** Magic, 1979-2018: thirty-nine years of valuescience leadership ***********
Magic demonstrates how people can address individual, social, and environmental ills
nearer their roots by applying science to discern value more accurately and realize
it more fully.
Enjoy the satisfaction of furthering Magic's work by making one-time or recurring
gifts at http://ecomagic.org/participate.shtml#contribute. Magic is a 501(c)(3) public
charity. Contributions are tax-deductible to the full extent permitted by law.
THANK YOU!
www.ecomagic.org -------- (650) 323-7333 --—----- Magic, Box 15894, Stanford, CA 94309
**************************************************************************************
2
Carnahan, David
From:Virginia Tincher <vatincher@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 10:38 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for Summary Title: 2018 Comp Plan Implementation/Housing Ordinance (First Reading)
Hi,
I am writing in support of the Summary Title: 2018 Comp Plan Implementation/Housing Ordinance
(First Reading)
Palo Alto is an urban area with good public transportation and access to shopping and services. We are the kind of
community which should support denser housing options. I support increasing density in already populated areas so we
can maintain our open spaces. Open spaces protect our environment and help to reduce the impact of greenhouse
emissions by absorbing carbon dioxide.
My family moved to the area when I was three. I grew up in Los Alto and Palo Alto, raised my family here and now my
children bring the grandchildren for extended visits. We have almost always had family or friends living with us. So I live
what I support.
Thank you for the extensive and thoughtful process you have completed.
You have my support for increasing density and planning for the fact that fewer cars will be needed in the future.
Regards,
Virginia Tincher
879 Garland Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303
1
Carnahan, David
From:JIM POPPY <jamespoppy@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 11:11 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Preserve our neighborhoods; don't change zoning
City Council,
The people of Palo Alto have spoken loud and clear. Limit commercial development and increase
housing, without adding to the traffic problems that currently exist.
Please leave your personal agenda at home and work to protect our neighborhoods. Do not change
zoning laws to allow for less parking. The proposed parking regulations will put more cars on already
crowded streets.
Scharff, Fine, Tanaka, Kniss, and Wolbach: We know you side with developers over residents, but
this proposed trickle-down strategy will only benefit developers and will not produce housing or
benefits for residents.
A thorough economic and environmental impact study should be done. And if you would stop allowing
residential property to be turned into commercial space, more housing would be available.
Wolbach - show us that your vote for limiting commercial development was not just a ploy to get
votes. Vote no against these measures.
Thank you,
Jim Poppy
135 Melville Avenue
1
Carnahan, David
From:William R. Harrison <wrharrison614@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 11:12 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: [CPNA] Fw: Monday Night's Council Meeting - Call to Action - Many Ways to Help
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Mary Dimit" <marydimit@sonic.net>
Subject: [CPNA] Fw: Monday Night's Council Meeting - Call to Action - Many Ways to
Help
Date: November 26, 2018 at 3:30:24 AM PST
To: "CPNA" <crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "Neilson Buchanan" <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Dear CPNA Neighbors,
Send an email to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org or attend tonight's City Council meeting to let them
know that action on an ordinance which will provide long-term housing guidance needs more public
discussion and that approval tonight is premature without more input from Palo Alto residents. Request
that they delay the approval until both the new Council and City Manager take office.
Please read below for more details as this ordinance will likely increase traffic and non-resident parking
in our neighborhood and will also provide future guidance for affordable housing in Palo Alto.
Your actions can make a difference.
Mary Dimit
----- Original Message -----
From: Neilson Buchanan
To: Neilson Buchanan
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2018 12:28 PM
Subject: Monday Night's Council Meeting - Call to Action - Many Ways to Help
Dear Friends in the Downtown RPP District (Crescent Park, Downtown North,
Professorville and University South neighborhoods)
#1 Please review the informative email below from Rebecca Sanders. It
summarizes the need for you to get involved and attend the City Council meeting
on Monday, Nov 26. 715pm
#2 Here a list of key issues associated with the housing ordinance. These issues are a
compilation of opinions from leaders in Palo Alto. It is not the only list but one of many.
1. Housing ordinance is not aligned with a functional downtown cap to harmonize
office and housing projects.
2
2. The housing ordinance is in serious conflict with the RPP ordinance. Neilson
Buchanan, as one of the most involved citizen leaders for permit parking,
personally takes responsibility for not spotting this conflict, but the essence of the
problem is that new owners and tenants residing in the two downtown cores will
receive resident permits and create saturation street faces in zones closest to
University and California Avenues.
3. Unfortunately current staff responsible for traffic, RPP and parking requirements
are so under-manned and inexperienced that the housing ordinance avoids
obvious traffic and parking conflict. The new Transportation Department has lost
its most experienced personnel and recruitment may take months. Staff and
Council are too dependent on consultants who do not have in-depth knowledge.
4. Affordable housing is not defined at all. Here is a link to professional analysis
that helps staff, council and citizens understand relative costs. It needs simple
refinement with scenarios and metrics for land costs. This type of information is
outside the capacity of current staff to frame costs, markets and
parking. Properly presented, this type of analysis would calm anxiety about
parking
spillover. https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt2np5t9ct/qt2np
5t9ct.pdf?t=krnyj7&v=lg
5. The consultants' analysis of current parking conditions is shallow and
occasionally misleading. Consultants have presented few good conclusions but
used faulty assumptions and weak observations. I do believe that parking for
low-income housing and for developmentally disabled populations is valid. Even
if it is not perfect, the negative impact is minimal and/or within acceptable
limits. However, staff completely ignored what has created extreme parking
congestion in Palo Alto. For example, Ventura neighborhood's streets such as
Curtner. We will be doomed to repeat parking requirement errors by making
assumptions that national trends for urban areas apply concisely to new
occupants of Palo Alto's market-rate housing developments.
6. Finally the timing of the staff report during the middle of a major holiday does not
promote the Council's goals for informed and involved citizens.
7. ASK THE COUNCIL TO CONTINUE PUBLIC DISCUSSION BUT DELAY THE
APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE TO 2019 BY THE NEW CITY COUNCIL. IN
THIS WAY BOTH THE NEW COUNCIL AND NEW CITY MANAGER WILL BE
ACCOUNTABLE FOR FINE TUNING AN ORDINANCE WHICH WILL GUIDE
PALO ALTO FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS.
#3 I strongly urge you to email your own comments directly to Council. It is really
important that you send email and attend the Council meeting, Making your opinions
known to council is the best way to create better housing policy balanced with traffic,
parking and jobs. Council email address is city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Here is my strongest argument against the new ordinance. A new housing ordinance is
needed, but the proposed housing ordinance is not aligned with the RPP
ordinance which has reduced non-resident parking and added quality to our residential
streets. I have little confidence that Council and staff will be able to retrospectively align
the ordinances because permit parking has been under-managed since 1994.
Palo Alto is not the only city fighting for its soul.
3
A dying mall near Apple's headquarters is turning into a fight over Silicon Valley's soul
A dying mall near Apple's headquarters is
turning into a fight over Sili...
As Apple flourished in Cupertino, becoming the first
American company worth $1 trillion, Vallco Shopping Mall
ro...
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>
To: "paneighborhoods@googlegroups.com" <paneighborhoods@googlegroups.com>; "wilton-
neighbors@googlegroups.com" <wilton-neighbors@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018, 11:32:54 AM PST
Subject: [pan: 2697] Monday Night's Council Meeting - Call to Action - Many Ways to Help
Dear Friends:
I hope you had a wonderful day off celebrating Thanksgiving in whatever way your traditions call you. I
am thankful that I live surrounded by passionate, caring folks who can disagree in a respectful and
constructive way. Thank you for spoiling me!
It appears the outgoing City Council is determined to make some sweeping changes to our zoning
code that will greatly affect the livability of our neighborhoods and the navigability of our
commercial areas. Council will be reviewing a new
proposal https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67731 this MONDAY NIGHT,
NOVEMBER 26 at 7:15.
On November 6, we the people voted a slow growth slate and for a "freshman" to politics for the incoming
council which may explain why the old council is eager to vote on relaxing the building standards to
increase size, massing and density while providing less parking.
4
We are so grateful to Palo Alto Neighborhoods’ Code Enforcement Committee Chair Jeff Levinsky
for doing the in depth analysis. Allow me to pop Jeff's summary here but if you want drill down, please
check out the full article in Jennifer Chang Hetterley’s November Palo Alto Matters Newsletter:
https://paloaltomatters.org/get-informed/newsletters/november-19-newsletter/#commentary
Jeff’s thumb nail sketch summary is here:
What does this looks like?
We already have carmageddon on our streets, so does it make sense to relax the parking
standards? Solve the existing parking and traffic crisis first and then talk to us about relaxing the
standards, and do it based on data and not wishes. I for one welcome a facelift for El Camino but do
we really want underparked projects there? It's wall to wall cars down the streets of Ventura, so I'm
particularly concerned for Ventura! Not gonna lie.
So here’s what you can do:
Email the Council at city.council@cityofpaloalto.org and local newspapers. (Gennady
Sheyner gsheyner@paweekly.com and Dave Price price@padailypost.com)
Please also attend if possible the November 26 Council Meeting, where this item is on the agenda for
7:15 pm.
In your own words, urge the Council and public to:
Not approve the proposed ordinance
Insist on meaningful housing reform, such as allowing future office construction only when sufficient new
housing is built as well, or taking away commercial entitlements.
Offer incentives only for new housing, not to existing buildings
Require a proper Environmental Impact Study, including of parking and open space reductions
Acknowledge current parking shortages and not make them worse
Don’t create more loopholes and developer giveaways
Wait for the VTA project results to see if increasing density and reducing parking succeed in lowering
housing costs
Remember we’re never alone if we reach out and share information, resources and a helping hand.
Please forward this to anyone you think might like to know about this. Thanks everyone.
Becky Sanders
PAN Co-Chair
& Moderator for the Ventura Neighborhood Association
--
> Only members of this Group may post messages (anti-SPAM measure).
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Palo Alto Neighborhoods"
group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to paneighborhoods+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to paneighborhoods@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
5
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent-park-
pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/crescent-park-pa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
6
7
Carnahan, David
From:Eric Rosenblum <mitericr@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 10:46 AM
To:Council, City; Palo Alto Forward Board
Subject:Follow-up: Palo Alto Forward letter of support (and comments) for the Housing Workplan
We want to follow up on our earlier note. Firstly, in the past few days, over 130 community members signed on to our
letter (please see below). Please understand how important this Workplan is to our community.
Secondly, the fundamental paradox in Palo Alto is that everyone seems to want housing (as reflected in all of your
recent political campaigns, and in our recently adopted Comprehensive Plan), but few seem to be willing to take steps
needed to make housing viable to be built. The Workplan was staff's attempt to accomplish that worthy goal.
Thank you for your time and effort on this matter!
Eric Rosenblum
President, Palo Alto Forward
Below, please find signatories to our original letter to Council.
Paul Newby
Leora Tanjuatco Ross
Trina Lovercheck
David Easton
Jafi Lipson
Matthew Schaelling
Ryan Globus
Joe And Barbara Evans
Kimber Gaige
Greg Kinman
Adrienne Germain
Mehdi Alhassani
Mark Moragne
Bret Andersen
Sandra Slater
Lois Shore
Randy Mont‐Reynaud
Tanner Swenson
Chad Swenson
Ines Swenson
Elana Olson
Hilary Glann
Elaine Uang
Mariela Morales
8
Sven Thesen
Petya Georgieva
Bill Fitch
Rob Nielsen
Karen Kalinsky
Gretchen Hillard
Grace Lee
Stuart Bernstein
Jan Skotheim
Sarit Schube
Jared Bernstein
Adam Tachner
James Fox
Theresa Chen
Alex Antebi
Linda Lopez Otero
Venkata Raveendra
Pothineni
Jason Teplitz
Siarhei Samuseu
Sylvia Bambra
Rebecca Richardson
Kelsey Banes
Sarah Weissman
Scott Oneil
Petya Georgieva
Michael Soupak
Amie Ashton
Sophie Greenberg
Elizabeth Beheler
Katherine Causey
Vija Lusebrink
Kevin Kiningham
Paul Heft
Gina Dalma
Lynnie Melena
Pek Lum
Steven Baker
Edward Hillard
Carol Lamont
Valerie Stinger
Steve Frances
Patricia Saffir
Alice Schaffer Smith
9
Gary Fine
Dena Mossar
Marc Grinberg
Alison Mcnall
Elijah Spiegel
Anita Lusebrink
Diane Morin
Ted O'hanlon
Callen Rain
Drew Maran
Tim Colen
Sheryl Klein
Raul Rojas
Jennifer Dibrienza
Lisa Ratner
Barbara Kingsley
Markus Fromherz
Jean Dawes
Jeffrey Salzman
Gail Price
Jack Fuller
Steve Pierce
Fernando Cabildo
Catherine Crystal Foster
Jane Huang
Nisar Shaikh
Maximilian Kapczynski
Kumiko Yoshinari
Daniel Dulitz
Bryan Silverthorn
Kevin Burke
Betty Howell
Virginia Marans
Jerry Underdal
Alma Phillips
Stephen Levy
Peter Eckart
Naphtali Knox
Lisa Peschcke‐Koedt
Donald Barr
Patty Irish
Joy Sleizer
David Kleiman
Jan Rubens
10
David Bergen
Michael Anderson
Annette Isaacson
Joy Wright
Elizabeth Lasky
Samuel Bowman
Urs Hoelzle
David Solnick
Margaret Rosenbloom
Ozzie Fallick
Bette Kiernan
Diane Meier
Ruth Consul
Grant Dasher
John Hamilton
Jeremy Hoffman
John Kelley
Lisa Bao
Fred Glick
Marie Anthony
Christine Boehm
Misti Foletta
Eric Rosenblum
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 2:27 PM Eric Rosenblum <mitericr@gmail.com> wrote:
Honorable Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Councilmembers
We are excited to see Palo Alto’s Housing Work Plan make it to your agenda on November 26. We believe
that staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission have done an admirable job in creating a
pragmatic blueprint that fulfils the intent of our new Comprehensive Plan.
We support the twin goals of the housing work plan--to reduce the cost and lengthy approval time barriers that
make many housing projects infeasible and to improve the incentives for housing development compared to
office uses. We are excited to see that the council wants to take positive steps to make housing more
attractive to build in Palo Alto.
We hope that you will adopt the plan virtually unchanged. However, there are a few items that staff had
suggested as possibilities that we believe should also be adopted.
1. Exempt Affordable Housing Projects from the Retail Preservation Ordinance. The retail
requirement and associated parking requirements add to the costs of projects reserved for low-income
residents and can make them infeasible especially in areas where there is little viable retail demand
such as the Wilton Court project. We should remove this barrier for 100% affordable housing projects.
2. Affordable Housing Parking requirement: As has been noted in study after study (for example, your
5/30/2018 study), heavy parking requirements are one of the main culprits for non-affordability. In
addition, as submitted by Palo Alto Housing and other affordable housing providers, occupants of
affordable housing in transit centric areas empirically have low car ownership rates (so, developers are
being forced to build expensive parking that is not even used). Parking requirements should be
simplified and reduced.
11
3. Higher density and height for Affordable Housing projects in the University Ave and Cal Ave
downtowns: the staff report had suggested up to 4.0 FAR and 60 feet of building height in Downtown
CD(C), and up to 2.5 FAR and 50 feet of building height in California Avenue CC(2). We believe that
both suggestions are worthy of consideration.
4. In-lieu parking: creating shared garages for multiple projects is better that requiring every
development to dig their own underground parking. To be more direct given the small plots and
density downtown, not allowing in-lieu parking is completely at odds with the Comp Plan’s intent to see
more multi-family, affordable housing downtown.
5. Retail: ground floor retail needs to be protected in our downtown cores and retail oriented
areas. However, requiring retail everywhere (including substandard locations) inhibits development of
anything, including housing.
The above are some of the practical steps that had already been suggested in the PTC’s staff report, and
which merit due consideration.
All in all, we are encouraged by the degree of thought put into the Housing Workplan by staff and the
PTC. We are highly supportive of the major programs, and hope that you will vote to adopt in short order.
With gratitude,
Eric Rosenblum
President, Palo Alto Forward
‐‐
Eric Rosenblum
206 604 0443
‐‐
Eric Rosenblum
206 604 0443
1
Carnahan, David
From:Christian Pease <cgpease2016@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 12:00 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Paul & Karen Machado; Neilson Buchanan; David Schrom; Wolfgang Dueregger; Wayne Tanda; Lait,
Jonathan; John Guislin; Mary Dimit; Mary Gallagher; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Norman H. Beamer;
Margaret Heath; Allen Akin; Kuo-Jung Chang; Fred Kohler; Gabrielle Layton; Shikada, Ed; Furman,
Sheri; jeff@levinsky.com; Joe Baldwin; Kristine Erving; John Erving; Roger McCarthy; Malcolm Roy
Beasley; Nick Peterson; Marion Odell; Vita Gorbunova; Carol Scott; Christian Pease; Summa, Doria
Subject:Zoning Changes Before the City Council this Evening
Dear Members of the City Council.
I write concerning the proposed zoning changes you will consider this evening.
These changes as proposed cannot be construed as “modest” alterations to land use policy in Palo
Alto. They are not.
That said, I will not use your time here – or mine, for that matter – pointing out their many
deficiencies.
And I doubt doing so would change any minds among this current council and particularly, among its
current majority.
I do however suggest that if these zoning changes are passed on current majority’s votes alone, then
it is not serious about finding an effective, long-term response to housing shortage in Palo Alto.
To do that requires relatively broad and thus sustainable support among our city’s residents and
voters.
Worse, if such a vote is made – as now seems likely - it will yet again pound down and diminish the
odds we will actually and meaningfully address the staggering imbalance between construction of
commercial office buildings and that of new housing.
Therefore I ask you to leave this decision to the newly constituted council that will assume office early
next year.
We just had election.
And while I do not believe anything specific to question of new housing construction – and how to
motivate it – can be discerned from the results of that election, it crystal clear its outcome was no
ringing endorsement the current council and its majority’s record on land-use and development in our
community.
On the contrary, our recent election rendered clear judgment on the state of governance in our city: it
was a decisive repudiation of how the current council majority has chosen to exercise the
prerogatives of its majority power.
2
Why? Let me count but a few ways from my perspective:
- The surprise, often-late night proposals and the taking of lock step, short order votes to ram them
through
- The consistent stacking of key commissions based primarily on political and ideological reliability,
especially with regard to land-use, if not a willingness to regularly show-up for meetings
- The dismissive and sanctimonious responses to those who are seen as opponents (themes run
more or less like this: “we know and are of the future; you are of past to which you cling to it” or “we
are welcoming while you are selfishly not” or how about “you care about housing cars but not
people”).
The residents and voters are tired of the constant and seemly endless bickering and scolding that has
characterized the current city council. And as a whole, we increasingly do not like the direction our
city headed, as is amply apparent in the last several National Citizens Surveys we have participated
in.
While very few of us are free of any culpability in this lack of discourse – I certainly am not – much of
the final responsibility for it and all that grows out of it, must fall on shoulders of this current council
majority, by right of how it has chosen to exercise its power to frame and to decide the most important
of civic questions.
So do please consider this: Let the leaders we just elected pass judgment on these proposed zone
changes and help them move forward to meaningfully address housing in our community.
If you choose to do this you will demonstrate renewed and unquestioned civic leadership and garner
the credit that deserves.
And in doing so, you will also call all of us to find our better selves and the humility and ethic we need
now, more than ever, to work and to find a solution to this hard and complex problem, that most all of
us agree needs and deserves to be rigorously and thoughtfully taken on.
Thank you for your consideration,
Christian Pease
3
Carnahan, David
From:dawilliams@hevanet.com
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 12:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing Ordinance - resident input
Hello – I am unable to attend tonight’s Council Meeting, however I wanted to voice my opinion on the housing ordinance
that is on the agenda for tonight.
I urge you to not approve the proposed ordinance. While I believe a new housing ordinance is needed, the
proposed housing ordinance is not aligned with the RPP ordinance which has reduced non-resident parking and
added quality to our residential streets.
Palo Alto needs meaningful housing reform, such as allowing future office construction only when sufficient new housing
is built as well, or taking away commercial entitlements. We should not be creating more loopholes and developer
giveaways as included in this proposal.
A proper Environmental Impact Study is needed, including an examination of parking and open space reductions. The city
council needs to acknowledge the current parking shortages and not make them worse with this proposal.
We should wait for the VTA project results to see if increasing density and reducing parking succeed in lowering housing
costs before proceeding with this ordinance.
I urge the council to continue public discussion but delay the approval of this ordinance until 2019 when the new
city council will be in place. This way both the new council and new city manager will be accountable for this
ordinance which will impact Palo Alto for many years to come.
Sincerely,
Deborah A Williams
1625 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94303
4
Carnahan, David
From:Linnea Wickstrom <ljwickstrom@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 11:39 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Linnea Wickstrom
Subject:SUPPORT Housing Work Plan
Honorable Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Please approve and support the implementation of the Housing Work Plan prepared by staff. In addition, to make affordable
housing more realistic, please support the staff proposals that would remove additional barriers.
Exempt affordable housing projects from the Retail Preservation Ordinance.
Allow higher density and height for affordable housing projects in the University Ave and Cal Ave downtowns. (I
would add allowing higher density and height along El Camino.)
Simplify and reduce parking requirements, including creating shared parking for multiple developments. (I would
also liberalize the definition of transit to include bus service.)
I support the Housing Work Plan for affordable housing in general – for the many people who work in and support our
community. In particular, I hope that increased affordable housing will be a help to Palo Alto service organizations.
Abilities United, for instance, staffs multiple services for people with developmental disabilities. Their staffing needs
might be more easily filled if the people who work in all their programs could find affordable housing where they work
and where their clients live.
Sincerely,
Linnea Wickstrom
Palo Alto
1
Carnahan, David
From:Minor, Beth
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 12:20 PM
To:Carnahan, David
Subject:FW: Message for Council
From: Caracciolo, Lisa <Lisa.Caracciolo@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 12:15 PM
To: Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Message for Council
Beth,
This below message for Council came in on Facebook:
2
Lisa Caracciolo
Communications Manager
City Manager’s Office
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
Desk: (650) 329‐2473
Mobile: (650) 847‐7762
Email: Lisa.Caracciolo@CityofPaloAlto.org
Twitter | Nextdoor | Instagram | Open City Hall | Facebook
1
Carnahan, David
From:Patricia Jones <pkjones1000@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 2:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please allow more time for discussing the proposed housing ordinance
Dear City Council Members,
I am against the proposed housing ordinance up for discussion tonight until we can allow time for more public
discussion. It would be premature to approve the existing ordinance tonight without more input from Palo Alto
residents.
This ordinance is very likely to exacerbate traffic and non-resident parking in several areas of the city,
especially downtown and California Ave. neighborhoods.
Please delay approval until both the new Council and City Manager take office in order to allow time for more
input.
Thank you very much.
Patricia Jones
1407 Hamilton Avenue
Patricia Jones
www.pkjones.com
pkjones1000@icloud.com
2
Carnahan, David
From:Friedhelm Blobel <fblobel@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 2:39 PM
To:marydimit@sonic.net
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Delay Approval of Housing Ordinance to Allow Public Discussion
Dear City Council Members,
Please do not approve the proposed housing ordinance tonight in order to allow more public discussion on this important
issue which will provide long‐term housing guidance for Palo Alto. Approval of the existing ordinance tonight is definitely
premature without more input from Palo Alto residents.
In addition to the development of affordable housing in Palo Alto, this ordinance will likely exacerbate traffic and non‐resident
parking in several areas of the city, especially downtown and California Avenue neighborhoods.
I ask you to delay approval until both the new Council and City Manager take office to allow time for more input so we can
achieve more meaningful housing reform for Palo Alto including allowing future office construction only when sufficient new
housing is built as well, or taking away commercial entitlements. And, to provide incentives for new housing and not to
existing buildings.
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
Friedhelm Blobel
754 Ashby Drive
Palo Alto
CA 94301
3
Carnahan, David
From:Barry Hart <hartb88@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 2:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:I am opposed to the new zoning changes - we need solutions to our towns existing problems before
we compound them
Dear City Council -
Our town has a parking problem, a traffic problem and a poor public transpiration system - by relaxing
the parking requirements for multifamily development, we will make these problems worse.
It is easy to say "Lets build more housing near transit" the fact is that people living near transit own
cars and drive. That will continue to be the fact. Even with the terrible traffic that we have - FEWER
people are taking the bus. The train is at capacity during rush hour and only runs hourly at off peak
times. To get people out of cars we need to make transit desirable - once we do this lets consider
changing zoning.
Do the hard work first - solve some of our stubborn issues before making changes that will clearly
worsen them.
Barry Hart
920 Palo Alto Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
4
Carnahan, David
From:Colleen Crangle <crangle@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 2:37 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing Ordinance - More Public Discussion Needed
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to urge you to delay approval of the Housing
Ordinance scheduled for tonight. On this crucial topic more public
discussion is needed. In addition, the new Council and City
Manager should be given time to provide input,
especially regarding traffic and parking ramifications of any
housing ordinance.
Colleen Crangle
Kirby Place
5
Carnahan, David
From:Abeezer Essabhoy <essabhoy1@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 2:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Delay Approval of Housing Ordinance to Allow Public Discussion
Dear City Council Members,
Please do not approve the proposed housing ordinance tonight to allow more public discussion on this important issue
that will provide long‐term housing guidance for Palo Alto. Approval of the existing ordinance tonight is premature
without more input from Palo Alto residents.
In addition to the the development of affordable housing in Palo Alto, this ordinance will likely exacerbate traffic and
non‐resident parking in several areas of the city, especially downtown and California Ave. neighborhoods.
I urge you to delay approval until both the new Council and City Manager take office to allow time for more input so we
can achieve more meaningful housing reform, such as allowing future office construction only when sufficient new
housing is built as well, or taking away commercial entitlements. And, to provide incentives for new housing and not to
existing buildings.
Thank you,
Abeezer Essabhoy
645 Center Drive
Palo Alto
6
Carnahan, David
From:Priya Chandrasekar <priya_chandrasekar@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 2:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing ordinance - please don’t pass it tonite
Dear council members ,
I just became aware of this issue being discussed, Please do not approve the proposed housing ordinance tonight , allow
for more public discussion on this important issue that will provide long‐term housing guidance for Palo Alto.
In addition to the the development of affordable housing in Palo Alto, this ordinance will likely exacerbate traffic and
non‐resident parking in several areas of the city.
Please don’t take action in very fast way without putting full thought into this and getting everyone input , I urge you to
delay approval until both the new Council and City Manager take office to allow time for more input so we can achieve
more meaningful housing reform.
Thanks
Priya
649 Seneca st
Pardon any typos , sent from my iPhone .
7
Carnahan, David
From:Faramarz <faramarzb@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 2:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Opposing the new housing ordinance
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I would like to express my strongest opposition to the proposed housing ordinance which will likely exacerbate traffic
and non‐resident parking in several areas of the city.
I urge you to delay approval until both the new Council and City Manager take office to allow time for more input so we
can achieve more meaningful housing reform.
Thanks,
Faramarz Bahmani
1235 Lincoln Ave, Palo Alto, 94301
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
8
Carnahan, David
From:Ted Davids <tdavids@sonic.net>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 2:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:The upcoming housing ordinance and the RPP alignment
Hello,
As a 46 year resident of Palo Alto and 42 year resident of Downtown North, I would like to make the following
comments on the upcoming Housing Ordinance.
I will start by saying I agree with statements that have been made and proposed by Neilson Buchanan:
Housing ordinance is not aligned with a functional downtown cap to harmonize office and
housing projects. That the essence of the problem is that new owners and tenants residing in
the two downtown cores will receive resident permits and create saturation street faces in
zones closest to University and California Avenues.
Unfortunately the current staff responsible for traffic, RPP, and parking requirements
are so under‐manned and inexperienced that the housing ordinance avoids obvious
traffic and parking conflict which is inevitable. The new Transportation Department has
lost its most experienced personnel and recruitment may take months or longer. Staff
and Council are too dependent on consultants who do not have in depth knowledge.
Affordable housing is not defined at all. Neilson gave a link to help citizens understand relative
costs. This type of information is outside the capacity of current staff to frame costs, markets
and parking. Properly presented, this type of analysis would calm anxiety about parking
spillover. https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt2np5t9ct/qt2np5t9ct.pdf?t
=krnyj7&v=lg
The consultants' analysis of current parking conditions is shallow and occasionally
misleading. However, staff completely ignored what has created extreme parking congestion in
Palo Alto. For example, Ventura neighborhohod's streets such as Curtner. We will be doomed
to repeat parking requirement errors by making assumptions that national trends for urban
areas apply concisely to new occupants of Palo Alto's market‐rate housing developments.
Finally the timing of the staff report during the middle of a major holiday does not promote the
Council's goals for informed and involved citizens.
I ASK THE COUNCIL TO CONTINUE PUBLIC DISCUSSION BUT DELAY THE APPROVAL OF THE
ORDINANCE TO 2019 BY THE NEW CITY COUNCIL. IN THIS WAY BOTH THE NEW COUNCIL AND
NEW CITY MANAGER WILL BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR FINE TUNING AN ORDINANCE WHICH WILL
GUIDE PALO ALTO FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS.
Thank you,
W Ted Davids
9
Carnahan, David
From:Bob Wedemeyer <bwedemeyer@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 1:43 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing ordinance is in serious conflict with the RPP ordinance
Palo Alto City Council,
Action on an ordinance which will provide long‐term housing guidance needs more public discussion. Approval tonight
is premature without more input from Palo Alto residents. Please delay approval until both the new Council and City
Manager take office, so they can be held accountable.
Thank you,
Bob Wedemeyer
827 Guinda Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
10
Carnahan, David
From:Lanny and Karen <kconnel@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 1:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:New Ordinance on Housing
Please continue public discussion and delay the approval of the ordinance to 2019 by the new city council. We need the
new city manager and the new city council to be accountable for an ordinance which will guide Palo Alto for the next 30
years. Mayor Kniss needs to step back, take a deep breath and listen to the residents of Palo Alto. Allan A. Connel
11
Carnahan, David
From:Jim Colton <james.colton10@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 1:04 PM
To:Council, City; gsheyner@paweekly.com; price@padailypost.com
Subject:2018 Comp Plan Implementation/Housing Ordinance
To the Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
Please do not approve this proposed ordinance. We are already living with the effects of approving too much office
development without commensurate housing and infrastructure improvements. Let's work on solving the low‐income
housing shortage and infrastructure improvements before more office building. Also, we have allowed too many under‐
parked developments. Let's not make the current bad parking situation worse by approving even more under‐parked
developments.
Jim Colton
Green Acres II
‐‐
JimColtonPhotography.com
12
Carnahan, David
From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 12:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Venturans Are Concerned
Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council Members:
A quick reminder that three weeks ago the voters in this town re‐elected two sensible growth candidates and unseated
an incumbent who held a fast‐growth voting record. The proposal before the council tonight is in direct conflict with the
wishes of the voters, while making unfounded claims that it will spur more housing and NOT add cars to our already
jammed streets. There are many flaws in the proposal. For Ventura, there are five that jump immediately to mind:
1.Relaxed open space requirement ‐ Palo Alto is well behind in open space access for residents. And Ventura's park
situation is abysmal. Reducing open space requirements for new developments means that we get even less open space
for our community. There will more pressure on the parks if new developments have no hang‐out space.
2. Relaxed parking requirements ‐ Why is no one is listening to Venturans? We have stated over and over again that our
streets are already bursting with overflow parking from under‐parked businesses on ECR and with cars left by
commuters who park in Ventura and then bike or skate or walk the rest of the way to work.
3. The new developments will be concentrated along ECR, near commercial areas and near train stations ‐ and this
makes sense in theory. However, without the infrastructure to support the increased massing and density, little sister
Ventura will get the proverbial short end of the stick vis a vis the wealthy neighborhoods. We want sensible
planning based on reality. The trains at commute times are jam packed so how are we going to move these
people? We need more meaningful community bus service that brings folks in from satellite parking in the outskirts of
town and takes folks to work outside Palo Alto and into our shopping areas. And our narrow streets will see even more
cut‐through traffic as folks seek to avoid Carmageddon on ECR & Page Mill?Oregon. Why are semis and big white
commuter buses with tinted windows barreling down my street?
4. We have no school over here anymore, so all our grammar school kids have to cross El Camino to get to the two
schools in Barron Park. It's harrowing when I take my morning walk and see the families risking their lives every day
biking to school, trying to be green and clean. The winter sunlight blinds the speeding drivers and the screeching of
wheels is a commonly heard sound in the morning and in the evenings. Adding more people to the streets, as they are
now, is a real safety concern for us.
5. The disappearance of community serving retail means that even more people will continue to jump in their cars or
Lyft it to do simple errands like get to the tailor or to the grocer or hardware store. I would love for cars to go away, but
there is no data to support that cars are going away in the near term.
The only beneficiaries of this proposed ordinance are developers and property owners. This ordinance allows
developers to drop the amenities and standards that make a community livable, desirable and family‐oriented. These
are homes we are proposing to build, so let's keep the people who will be living there and the people that live nearby
uppermost in mind in our design thinking. We need open space, we need a place to park our cars, we need convenient
retail, we need safe streets and routes to school and Ventura deserve parity vis a vis other neighborhoods.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Becky Sanders
Moderator
Ventura Neighborhood Association
14
Carnahan, David
From:Michael Eager <eager@eagercon.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 12:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Monday November 26 at 7:15 city council chambers
Dear City Council ‐‐
I urge you to follow the PAN Zoning Committee recommendations on the housing proposal to be discussed Nov. 26.
> Not approve the proposed ordinance
> Insist on meaningful housing reform, such as allowing future office
> construction only when sufficient new housing is built as well, or
> taking away commercial entitlements.
> Offer incentives only for new housing, not to existing buildings
> Require a proper Environmental Impact Study, including of parking and
> open space reductions Acknowledge current parking shortages and not
> make them worse Don’t create more loopholes and developer giveaways
> Wait for the VTA project results to see if increasing density and
> reducing parking succeed in lowering housing costs
>
‐‐
Michael Eager eager@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306
15
Carnahan, David
From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 12:08 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Furman, Sheri; Jeff Levinsky; Margaret Heath; gsheyner@paweekly.com; dprice@baydailypost.com
Subject:PAN Concerns Regarding Housing Ordinance Reading Tonight
Dear Mayor Kniss and Councilmembers:
In response to SB35, staff has presented a proposal to loosen development standards, including a major overhaul of
parking requirements through the zoning code, with the goal of stimulating housing production.
As leaders of Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN), we support ways to improve housing for our community, especially
affordable housing. However, this proposal contains no economic analysis demonstrating how it will increase housing
production. Will residents benefit from construction cost‐savings with lower rents or purchase prices? Will eliminating
or reducing parking requirements and the other changes stimulate housing development? Please note that the report
has staff cautioning that may not happen.
These recommendations follow multiple closed door consultations between staff and industry representatives with the
stated intent of incentivizing house development, but provided no opportunity for public scrutiny or input prior to
coming before the Planning and Transportation Commission.
Residents deserve and should expect a thorough, in‐depth, detailed analysis of the impacts, with the same opportunity
for public outreach, scrutiny, and participation that took place when the Comprehensive Plan was updated. In particular,
we need a full and thorough Environmental Impact Report on these proposals before council considers any changes to
our zoning standards. The Environmental Impact Report conducted for the Comprehensive Plan did not considered the
impacts of dozens of additional cars forced to park on blocks near retail and multi‐unit residences. In particular, an EIR is
needed to address specifically what may be substantial negative impacts on parking on already congested streets and in
surrounding neighborhoods. How will neighborhoods be impacted by:
1) Reduced parking requirements for retail in mixed use projects, including downtown and California Avenue, that
require no parking for 1,500 square feet of the retail portion. For example, if parking is eliminated for two or three
nearby restaurants, as many as 75 additional cars will be pushed to side streets and parking in front of residences. That
can mean loud noises late at night, voices, car radios, and slamming of car doors, as happens now at the under‐parked
Sundance Mining Company on El Camino.
2) Incentives that apply to existing buildings to remove customer and resident parking and profit from leasing those
spaces to nearby future office projects, which potentially harms neighborhoods and creates no new housing.
3) Incentives for existing multi‐unit buildings to convert parking spaces, no longer required, into storage areas that could
be rented, again forcing more residents onto the street to park.
4) Rising housing demand that forces more residents to share apartments and houses, thereby increasing parking
demand overall. The Fehr & Peers Associates report did not look at this. Instead, it examined just nine apartment
buildings, selected by staff, out of thousands of multi‐unit buildings. Each property was only checked twice with no
reliable methodology to determine which cars parked on nearby streets belonged to residents or their guests and only a
few residents were asked about their parking habits.
5) Parking shortages for senior housing residents, staff, and caregivers.
16
6) The reduction of on‐site open space in multi‐unit buildings, which will put more pressure on our parks that already fall
short of Federal guidelines for open space per resident.
7) Incentivizing the elimination of retail and the impacts on Palo Alto’s goal of walkable neighborhoods, especially along
El Camino.
The housing proposal before you offers numerous cost‐savings and benefits for developers, but with no guarantee that
more housing will be built or rents reduced. It also streamlines the review process, eliminating any review by the
Planning Commission and City Council, except on appeal.
There is little explanation or assessment of the trade‐offs for the community. It appears to cloak giveaways to a small
favored group as if these will help the general public, who get little benefit but are saddled with long term impacts that
have not yet been studied. In addition, the 50’ high limit is relaxed in certain cases, despite a strong history of
community support to maintain it.
If the City is serious about increasing housing, the Council should accept staff's own cautions that the proposed changes
are unlikely to alter developers’ focus on commercial construction. Rather, the Council should consider different reforms
to stimulate housing production, such as decreasing how much office space can be built and instead having that FAR be
for housing.
Sincerely,
Sheri Furman and Becky Sanders, Co‐Chairs of PAN
Margaret Heath and Jeff Levinsky Co‐Chairs of the PAN Committee on Zoning, Development, and Code Enforcement
17
Carnahan, David
From:David Easton <davidfrankeaston@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 12:09 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing Work Plan
Council Members,
It is very important for you to include the staff recommendations in your consideration and approval of
the Housing Work Plan. In particular, the elimination of the ground floor retail requirement for 100%
affordable housing projects will allow important housing developments to move forward.
The ground floor retail requirement makes affordable housing much more difficult to finance. Tax
credit funding and other sources require that the retail component be financed separately from the
affordable housing. This results in two separate projects; one housing and one commercial. The
required parking for the retail component also has to be separated out and financed without tax credit
or other financing. Typically, the additional parking requires additional excavation which is very
expensive. Also, more parking on site can result in fewer housing units, which is more difficult to
finance. The retail component of the two separate projects can make the affordable housing
infeasible.
Ground floor retail in an affordable housing project also has an impact on the management of the
property. The separation of the construction and on-going management of the affordable housing
property continues for the life of the building.
Please make affordable housing an ongoing reality in Palo Alto. I encourage you to approve the
Housing Work Plan with the staff recommendations.
Thank you,
David Easton
1
Carnahan, David
From:Noah Fiedel <nfiedel@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 3:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Strong opposition to loosening zoning in favor of for profit developers
Our city spoke loud and clear in the recent election: We want sensible, slow growth, that prioritizes keeping and making
Palo Alto a great place for residents.
Please stop the developer giveaways. Please do not relax zoning in favor of for profit developers.
We want livable streets without overflow parking from under parked special projects. We want new developments to
include parking for the realistic parking demand. We want parks, schools, and open space. We want thriving, walkable
retail.
The proposal under discussion is a developer giveaway with no public benefit, that will only serve to line the pockets of
for profit developers. Please do not approve it in any form.
Thank you,
Noah Fiedel
Ventura Park Resident
2
Carnahan, David
From:Tirumala Ranganath <ranguranganath@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 3:42 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:2018 Comp Plan Implementation/Housing Ordinance
Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council Members:
Three weeks ago the voters in our town re‐elected two sensible growth candidates and unseated an incumbent
who held a fast‐growth voting record. The proposal before the council tonight is in direct conflict with the wishes of the
voters, while making unsupported claims that it will spur more housing and NOT add cars to our already jammed streets.
There are many flaws in the proposal. I do understand that two pro‐growth and one sensible growth council member
will be leaving the council at the end of the year and there is a temptation to pass sweeping pro‐growth measures
now. I believe this is a bad idea on many levels. The latest city council members election says we should go easy.
If the currently worded ordinance gets passed, I am sure there will be a strong backlash with a
possible, costly special electon coming up in June!
Back in may PASZ collected ~ 3400 signatures in about a month, to scale back on the increased office
building/development plan that had been pushed through earlier. The sentiment among the people who signed the
petition on such notice was that things like traffic and parking had gotten so out of hand in Palo Alto, that we had to
take swift and strong action. Once the proverbial writing on the wall became apparent, one of the pro‐growth city
council members voted for the scale back that was being proposed in the " proposition ' and the city council wisely
adopted it.
The Comp Plan under consideration this evening does not say anything about how the city is going to address the
questions of parking and traffic congestion ‐ while simultaneously proposing to give breaks (reduced on site parking
requirements) to developers to build. If we need more affordable and below market rate housing but pass the proposed
comp. plan with its consessions to developers ‐ we are saying that the game is stacked in their favor and the problems
of concern for the residents get lip service and no more. This is not going to work. Also, proposing to build high density
housing near transit corridors sounds enticing but is a joke if cross town transportation as well as remote parking
solutions are not being addressed first. Cross town transit must be implemented seriously to demonstrate that traffic
can and is reduced. When this becomes real, you will have more supprot from the residents. The purpose of city
government is not to just cater to business and developer interests ‐ I believe residents' interests and concerns need to
be addressed to continue to keep Palo Alto a sought out place to live.
The essential points to pay attention to :
1. No approving the currently proposed ordinance
2. Offering incentives only for new housing and not to existing buildings
3. A proper Environmental Impact study that inculdes parking as well as open sapce reductions and their affect
on quality of life concerns.
4. No giving away of entitlements to commercial interest at the cost of the above concers.
5. Mayor Kniss didn't think there were traffic problems not too long ago, but I believe the current ordinance
will only worsen the traffic issues.
3
6. No creating of loopholes and developer giveaways, PLEASE
7. Wait for the VTA project results to see if increasing density and reducing parking succeed in lowering
housing costs ‐ not just listen and
rubber stamp assertions of special interest.
So, please be cognicent of these concerns of the residents before being overly generous with serving the interest of
business and developer interests.
Thank you for your attention.
Ranganath
Greater Ventura resident.
4
Carnahan, David
From:Susan Monk <susankmonk@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 3:26 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Kniss, Liz (external); Minor, Beth
Subject:Mayor proposes ending parking requirements for housing developments
Dear Mayor and Council‐members,
You may be interested to see what other cities are doing in order to produce more housing. I recently came across this
article about San Diego for example, which is considering eliminating parking requirements in order to produce housing.
“It is important that the City continues to develop creative ways to make housing at all levels in San Diego more
affordable,” said City Councilmember Scott Sherman. “The mayor’s proposed parking requirement reforms are a game
changer. They will make construction less expensive, provide opportunities for more units to be built and, ultimately and
most important, will reduce the cost for the people living in them.”
Read more: San Diego Community News Group ‐ Mayor proposes ending parking requirements for housing
developments
http://www.sdnews.com/view/full_story/27612513/article‐Mayor‐proposes‐ending‐parking‐requirements‐for‐housing‐
developments?instance=most_popular1
Sent to you in my capacity as a citizen, and not on behalf of the PTC.
Sincerely,
Sue
Susan K. Monk, JD
619.804.4141
susankmonk@gmail.com
Let's Connect!
5
Carnahan, David
From:Sue Dinwiddie <sued@daise.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 3:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:RE: Proposed Housing Reform Ordinance
Honorable Council Members:
We urge you not to approve the proposed zoning revisions. It is true Palo Alto , like all Bay Area cities, needs to build
more affordable housing. However, the proposed zoning change will not achieve this goal.
* It will only make our inadequate parking worse while not guaranteeing any more affordable housing. This zoning
revision is a giveaway to developers. It is not meaningful housing reform.
Offering incentives for existing buildings will take away parking, thereby increasing the parking problem. It does nothing
to guarantee that any additional affordable housing will be added.
With housing so expensive, many apartments hold more residents than planned for. It is naive to think most people who
live in these apartments will not need cars. The apartments across the creek from Edgewood Drive provide a perfect
example of what happens when the number of cars per unit exceed the parking spaces provided. Please acknowledge
the current parking shortage ‐ don’t make it worse.
* This zoning revision does nothing to prevent commercial development from taking away building sites that could
otherwise be used to build affordable housing.
* Furthermore, until we see the VTA project results, no one will know for sure if increasing density and reducing parking
even succeeds in lowering housing costs. In most situation it is still difficult to live in Palo Alto and get to work without a
car.
* What is needed is a proper Environmental Impact Study, including results of parking and open space reductions.
This zoning revision should not be passed. It is not meaningful housing reform.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sue and Ken Dinwiddie
543 Jackson Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Wind in the Strings
Harp and Flute Music for All Occasions
Sue and Ken Dinwiddie
Home: 650-325-3033
Cell: 650-867-0308
windinthestrings.com
sued@daise.com
6
Not approve the proposed ordinance
Insist on meaningful housing reform, such as allowing future office construction only when
sufficient new housing is built as well, or taking away commercial entitlements.
Offer incentives only for new housing, not to existing buildings
Require a proper Environmental Impact Study, including of parking and open space reductions
Acknowledge current parking shortages and not make them worse
Don't create more loopholes and developer giveaways
Wait for the VTA project results to see if increasing density and reducing parking succeed in
lowering housing costs
7
Carnahan, David
From:jkathomas@aol.com
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 2:45 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:norman.beamer@ropesgray.com; nhbeamer@yahoo.com
Subject:Housing Ordinance
To: Members of the City Council,
I understand that a proposed housing ordinance is on the the council's agenda for this evening. Please do not approve the
proposed ordinance.
From everything that I have been able to read thus far, there is no clear, fact-based analysis that supports the idea that
traffic and parking would not become even worse than it is now.
Please arrange many more opportunities for the residents of Palo Alto to participate in public forums to discuss how we
can increase affordable housing without further exacerbating traffic and parking problems.
With increasing frequency there are times when a first responder (whether law, fire, or medical personnel and equipment)
can not move into and through parts of our neighborhoods in response to needs. The city's liability risk is increasing
significantly.
Please take more calendar time -- and use it wisely.
Thank you,
Jeannie Thomas
Center Drive
Palo Alto
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum
TO: City Council
DATE: November 26, 2018
SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 14: Approval of a Five-year Operating and Revenue
Sharing A~reement with Team Sheeper for Operations of the
Rinconada Pool
Staff recommends Item No. 14: Approval of a Five-year Operating and
Revenue Sharing Agreement with Team Sheeper for Operations of the
Rinconada Pool on the November 26, 2018 City Council Agenda be continued
to the December 10, 2018 City Council Meeting .
(~ /)·k d'4-f'
Kristen O'Kane ~
. ~;~ff-oz
Chief Operating Officer City Manager
Community Services Department
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ng, Judy
Sent:Wednesday, November 21, 2018 4:29 PM
To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email
Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Gaines, Chantal; Tanner, Rachael;
Stump, Molly; Reichental, Jonathan; Numoto, Darren; Nose, Kiely; Portillo, Rumi; Blanch, Sandra; Lee,
Frank
Subject:11/26 Council Agenda Questions for Items 5 & 6
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 November 26, 2018 council
meeting agenda.
Item 5: Approval of Contract Amendment #2 with Geodesy – CM Tanaka
Item 6: Employee Assistance Program Contract Amendment – CM Tanaka
Item 5: Approval of Contract Amendment #2 with Geodesy
Q. 1. In the document it mentions how there is the potential for "substantial
disruption to city systems and delay." Can this delay be quantified in dollar terms?
A. 1. The City of Palo Alto Geospatial Information System (GIS) is an integral
part of the city’s day‐to‐day operations, combining digital maps with linked
databases to support the inventory, management, analysis, and display of
geographic information important to the many departments of the City. GIS is
used by 700+ users across many departments including mission‐critical
departmental business processes which includes Utilities, Police, Fire, Planning,
Transportation, Public Works, and the Office of Emergency Services. GIS is the
primary asset management system for the City’s Water, Gas, Waste Water,
Electric and Fiber assets. It would require significant effort to determine the
cost of a delay in dollar terms.
Q. 2. In the documents it mentions how "Geodesy uniquely experienced with
the city’s GIS" but Geodesy has only been contracted for 3 years. How can this be
true?
A. 2. Geodesy’s Encompass based GIS was first contracted and adopted by the
City over 20 years ago in the early 90s. Since then it has been used city‐wide.
Over the years there have been 800+ layers of GIS data that is gathered and
maintained through Encompass software to support citywide GIS business
2
processes. It is a proprietary software therefore no other vendor is able to
support the Geodesy Encompass solutions.
Q. 3. Why was a section called “Department specific data support work” added
this year, when we didn't have it in the previous term ‐ why now?
A. 3. The current contract does not allow for departments to fully leverage
Geodesy for their specific data maintenance work. Currently this work has been
done using Geodesy’s general professional services contract. IT had to balance
how much data maintenance work could be done along with software
enhancement and maintenance work. With the new contract departments can
use their funding to perform additional data maintenance work.
Q. 4. What are we paying for when it comes to the Geodesy software, and how
new is it?
A. 4. We are paying Geodesy for a full‐service proprietary GIS software system
which includes maintenance and professional services. Geodesy software is
dated. The City is well under‐way with an approved GIS modernization program
that will replace Geodesy’s software.
Q. 5. On Geodesy’s website, it shows operating systems supporting Windows
2000/XP. What operating system are we purchasing this for?
A. 5. Geodesy’s desktop software used in the City is primarily run on Windows
7. We have tested successfully on Windows 10 and have started deploying the
software on our new Windows 10 systems.
Q. 6. Taking out the factors of “disruption” and “unique experience”, how does
the Geodesy software and support compare to other vendors, like say InstaGIS?
A. 6. The City completed an assessment of its current GIS and business needs
in 2017. The City adopted the recommendation to move away from Geodesy
and migrate all GIS services to an Esri ArcGIS based platform. The effort is now
under‐way. Once the full migration is complete, the Geodesy contract will be
terminated.
Q. 7. How many customers does Geodesy have, and how many are enterprises?
A. 7. The City IT department is not sure how many other enterprise customers
Geodesy has. The following three are listed on their website as their long‐
standing and founding clients.
The City of Palo Alto (CA),
NASA/Ames (CA), and
Wake County (NC).
Q. 8. In the encompass consortium, how much is the contribution of Palo Alto in
comparison to other agencies?
A. 8. The City of Palo Alto is one of Geodesy’s long‐standing customers and
because of the Citywide adoption of their software we have been a primary
contributor. We don’t have data on other agency contributions.
3
Q. 9. Has staff considered the cost of soliciting a bid from another vendor?
A. 9. The work to identify the future GIS system for the City was completed in
2017. The City chose Esri ArcGIS. The project to migrate to Esri is under‐way.
Geodesy will be decommissioned once the migration is complete.
Item 6: Employee Assistance Program Contract Amendment
Q. 1. The reports mentions that the additional funds (a 35% increase from the
additional contract amount) are needed as a result of “additional variable costs.”
These costs are not explained in the report. Please elaborate.
A. 1. The EAP contract is in place to provide City employees with emergency
and non‐emergency support for issues related to emotional, financial, marital,
family, or substance abuse issues. Generally, employees seek EAP services
when these issues interfere with their ability to be productive at work or have
resulted in distress or trauma. In addition, the EAP serves as a resource for City
management to address sensitive issues or conflict in the workplace. Resources
for Management includes industrial psychologists, subject matter experts and
facilitators for training, mediation, and supervisory support. The “Variable
Costs” refer to the amount of training or support services needed in any
particular time period. The needs vary and cannot be predicted with 100%
accuracy
For the current contract, the City had unanticipated needs for workplace
intervention and training. In addition, EAP trainers were engaged to provide
City wide sexual harassment training. This training would otherwise been
provided by a different training firm under a separate contract.
It should be noted that additional contract authority is needed because
additional services was required.
Q. 2. Why were these additional costs not anticipated?
A. 2. When establishing an EAP contract, HR staff makes the best effort to
identify the needs of the workforce over a multi‐year period. However, it is not
always possible to predict with 100% accuracy the level of services required to
address all issues that may surface throughout the year. From year to year, the
City’s need for professional development services, workplace conflict
mediation or other needs‐based training will vary. For example, given the
significance and sensitivity of the “Me too” movement. It was decided that the
EAP experts were the best resource for the training, rather than in‐house or
other corporate trainers. This could have not been anticipated when the
contract was first established.
Thank you,
Judy Ng
4
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
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 27, 2018 9:36 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner
Subject:SOS for the Rail Committee meeting Nov 27
Attachments:181127 Caltrain 20 year business plan SV Biz Journal Nov 27 2018.pdf
SOS = seriously out of sync
When I read the attached SV Business Journal coverage [Nov 27] of Caltrain and HSR, I had an out
of body experience. Should I even be concerned at age 74; I have actuarial probability of 11.7 more
years of life.
Based on Caltrain record of success, I don't seriously consider Caltrain's 20-year planning.
20-year planning does not have to be totally fact-based but some of Caltrain's HSR options may not
exist for me or anyone else.
It is very hard to reconcile the gap between our Caltrain grade crossings' pressures and the happy-
face projected by Caltrain's senior policy adviser.
I urge Palo Alto and other SC County cities create more order out of this chaos.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
11/27/2018 Caltrain launches public process in San Jose on ambitious 20-year business plan -Silicon Valley Business Journal
FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF CNSBUCHANAN@YAHOO.COM
From the Silicon Valley Business Journal:
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/11/27/caltrain-business-plan-electrification-
ridership.html
Caltrain launches public process on ambitious 20-year business
plan
Nov 27, 2018, 5:57am PST
Subscriber-Only Article Preview I For full site access: Subscribe Now
Electric trains from Gilroy to San Francisco. Speeds topping 100 miles
per hour. BART-like frequencies. No grade crossings.
Caltrain has begun working on its first business plan in years, one that
looks ahead two decades to a time when the railroad could be
carrying nearly a quarter-million passengers a day, four times as many
as now, taking a bigger bite out of the Peninsula travel market.
"This corridor is the envy of nearly every city that has a commuter
railroad," Sebastian Petty, Caltrain's senior policy advisor, said Monday
night at a community meeting in San Jose. The meeting was the last of
three in each of the Caltrain-served counties that's being used to kick
off the public part of the two-year work schedule to develop the plan.
CAL TRAIN
An artist's rendering of one of the new electric trains
that Caltrain has ordered from Stadler Rail AG in
Switzerland. The trains are now being built in
Stadler's Salt Lake City plant.
"There's no way we could build this railroad today where it is because it goes right through the center of
every city we serve."
Not only did Peninsula cities sprout around stations on the 155-year-old line -exactly the kind of
transportation hubs modern city planners dream of -but Silicon Valley's growth has created two-way
commutes filling seats on trains in both directions, efficiencies that simply don't exist on the vast majority
of similar railroads elsewhere in the world.
Petty said plans being explored for the future rely heavily on two assumptions: That the full railroad will be
converted to electric operation and that high-speed rail, which has planned since 2013 for its trains to share
its tracks, will actually be built so that that project can continue to share in the costs of upgrading and
maintaining the line.
"This is really not a 'greenfield exercise,"' Petty said. "The Caltrain corridor is about as far from a green field
as you can get. We're talking about visions, not blue-sky planning, that really exist within this framework of
existing policy decisions. There a number of those but probably biggest one is the commitment to high-
speed rail."
In its most recent two-year business plan, the California High-Speed Rail Authority extended its plan for
"blended service" -conventional and high-speed trains sharing track between Sa n Francisco and San Jose
https://www.bizjoumals.com/sanjose/news/2018/11 /27 /caltrain-business-plan-electrification-ridership.html?s=print 1/2
11/27/2018 Caltrain launches public process in San Jose on ambitious 20-year business plan -Silicon Valley Business Journal
-all the way south to Gilroy, Caltrain's current terminus.
That would save money for high-speed rail construction and allow Caltrain to switch exclusively to faster
electric trains. It's also the kind of improvement that was endangered in early 2017 when California's
Republican congressional delegation temporarily blocked the federal share of funding to begin Caltrain's
$1.9 billion electrification project on the Peninsula because it would help high-speed rail.
Electrification work is now under way with about a third of funding coming from high-speed rail. The first
electric Caltrain service is scheduled for 2020.
Petty said one of the most immediate challenges for the plan to address is how to reduce or eliminate the
42 street grade crossings that still exist on the line, which means traffic backs up when trains pass through
and railroad speeds are limited. It costs about $100 million to convert each crossing to a bridge or
underpass, he said.
Jody Meacham
Reporter
Silicon Valley Business Journal
https:l/www.bizjoumals.comlsanjoselnewsl2018111127 lcaltrain-business-plan-electrification-ridership.html?s=print 212
State Capitol Office ▪ 925 L Street • Suite 1404 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • Phone (916) 447-4086 • Fax (916) 444-0383
Federal Office ▪ 600 Pennsylvania SE • Suite 207 • Washington, DC 20003 • Phone (202) 546-8696 • Fax (202) 546-4555
Southern California Office ▪ 1401 Dove Street • Suite 330 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215
Central California Office ▪ 744 P Street • Suite 308 • Fresno, CA 93721 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215
Northern California Office ▪ 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza • Suite 204 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Phone (510) 835-9050 • Fax (510) 835-9030
MEMO
To: James Keene, City Manager
Ed Shikada Assistant City Manager
Rob de Geus, Deputy City Manager
Heather Dauler, Intergovernmental Affairs Officer
From: Christopher Townsend, President, Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. Niccolo De Luca, Senior Director Alex Gibbs, Senior Associate
Date: November 26, 2018
Subject: Suggested strategy regarding grade separation funding and opportunities
SUMMARY
Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. (TPA) has prepared this memo for the City of Palo Alto outlining
potential opportunities to secure grade separation funding, the various aspects to consider, proposed next steps, and other items.
This memo is intended to provide background, identify some of the challenges we would face, and make recommendations for the City to consider. TPA has secured grade separation funds over the years and we have first hand knowledge on what it takes to be successful.
1. Overview Successfully securing grade separation funding takes time, patience, and persistence. The top priorities for these competitive funds are to support goods movement and address safety and mobility issues. TPA will tell our Palo Alto-specific story, help build up a regional coalition, work with our legislative delegation and others to first educate and then work on funding opportunities.
2. Recommended strategy Phase 1 Due to the competitive nature of these funds, and the large price tag involved, we recommend education as the first phase of advocacy. We need to create briefing materials that explain the problem, what we are doing to address it locally, and why additional outside funding is needed for project completion. We need to be able to clearly articulate what problem we are trying to solve and provide data to
back it up such as estimated design and construction costs, future traffic counts, future bicycle and pedestrian counts, negative air quality from cars idling, the benefits of commuting, as well as any potential negative impact of electrification on neighborhoods.
3. Recommended strategy Phase 2 Once our materials are complete, we recommend multiple advocacy trips to Sacramento to meet
with decision makers, legislators, and members of the new Administration. It would be very helpful if this delegation would include the Mayor or others on the Council.
2
Meetings targets would include, but not be limited to:
• The State Transportation Secretary a. More than likely Governor-Elect Newsom will appoint his own Secretary
• The Executive Director of the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and her top staff
• Caltrans executives who oversee rail
• Palo Alto’s legislative delegation Senator Jerry Hill and Assembly Member Marc Berman
• Neighboring members such as Senator Wiener, Assembly Members Mullin and Ting
• Senate Transportation and Housing Chair Jim Beall and his committee staff
• Assembly Transportation Chair Jim Frazier and his committee staff
• Vice Chair of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
• Vice Chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee After our advocacy trips, we will have briefed many stakeholders and decision makers. From our experience, its prudent to keep them continuously updated and in the loop so they become vested in our efforts. The form of these updates can be in person briefings, email updates, or written updates.
4. Multiple funding sources We recommend identifying multiple funding sources as the final price tag of the overall grade separation needs in the City could be high. This includes federal, state, regional and local funding sources. Funding opportunities including the following existing programs, and, fortunately, with the SB1
funds withstanding a recall, there are other options available, such as: California Public Utilities Commission:
• The Section 130 Grade Crossing Hazard Elimination Program provides federal funds to local agencies (cities and counties) and railroads to eliminate hazards at existing at-grade
public highway-rail crossings.
• The Section 190 Grade Separation Program provides state funds to local agencies to grade-separate at-grade crossings (crossings), or to improve grade-separated crossings. California Transportation Commission:
• Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP). The purpose of the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program is to provide funding to achieve a balanced set of
transportation, environmental, and community access improvements to reduce congestion throughout the state.
• Local Partnership Program (LPP). The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill 1) created the Local Partnership Program, which is modeled closely after the Proposition 1B State Local Partnership Program. The purpose of this program is to provide local and regional transportation agencies that have passed sales tax measures, developer fees, or other imposed transportation fees with a continuous appropriation of $200 million annually from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to fund road
maintenance and rehabilitation, sound walls, and other transportation improvement projects.
3
5. Opportunities for partnerships The electrification of Caltrain will have an impact on Palo Alto and other cities throughout the
Peninsula. This works to our advantage for two reasons. The first is it helps us build a coalition of municipalities and other organizations to frame this as a regional matter. The second is by growing our coalition we can increase the likelihood of securing funding or better yet creating a specific
funding source for cities to access for grade separation projects.
6. Potential barriers
As highlighted in the overview section, it could take multiple years to secure all the funds needed to fully address grade separation locations throughout the City. Other potential barriers could include requests for design exemptions, state wide demand for these funds, and regional needs.
7. Next steps
Depending on the feedback and discussion to the points above impacts our next steps. However, we recommend the creation of briefing documents as soon as possible so we can then shift to briefing and educating decisions makers in Sacramento.
1
Carnahan, David
From:gmahany@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, November 27, 2018 12:08 PM
To:Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Council, City; cory.wolbach@gmail.com; adrianfine@gmail.com; Filseth,
Eric (external); kou.pacc@gmail.com; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; Scharff,
Greg; electcormack@gmail.com
Subject:Viaduct noise cansulation at grade railcrossings
hello all
I know that there is a reflex to say that a viaduct is just an eye sore but for affordability we may
have to accept an eye sore. However, when I am not looking at the viaduct, I do not want to
hear it.
Noise cancellation features to the viaduct design are a must have.
AECOM consultants show sound walls for noise cancellation, this is a good design feature.
Other noise cancellation features like resilient material to isolate the rails from rail platform
should also be used especially on the bridges over Charleston Rd and Meadow Ave.
Gary Mahany
1
Carnahan, David
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Wednesday, November 21, 2018 10:34 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Nose, Kiely
Subject:LRFF item on Finance Committee agenda Nov 29th
Attachments:The Economic Context for the Palo Alto Long Range Revenue Forecast.pptx
Hi,
I am attaching the slides from my presentation to city staff and peninsula finance staff.
The presentation covered economic and revenue trends but did not discuss cost trends or issues or current
budget adjustments.
As an added note Bay Area CPI increases have been over 3% in recent years pushed higher by increases in housing costs. Whether the Bay Area will continue to have CPI increases higher than the national average will depend on trends in regional housing costs, which may be beginning to level off.
Steve
The Economic Context for the Palo
Alto Long Range Revenue Forecast
Stephen Levy
Center for Continuing Study of the
California Economy
November 8, 2018
Overview
•Headwinds for the next two budget years
•Long term growth will slow
•Strong peninsula economy with large
challenges
•Cost issues more likely to affect budget
development than likely variations in revenue
growth
UCLA September 2018 Forecast
2.9%
3.2%
2.5%
3.9%
1.2%
3.9%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
GDP Growth 30 Year T Bond Rate
2018 2019 2020
Other National and State UCLA
Forecasts to 2020
•Rising budget deficits from tax cuts and
spending increases and contributing to higher
interest rates
•Rising trade deficits no matter what happens
with China
•Slowing job and labor force growth as
boomers retire and immigration slows
•Some increases in wage and inflation growth
Job Growth UCLA Sept 2018 Forecast
1.6%
1.4%
0.5%
2.1%
1.6%
0.6%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
2018 2019 2020
U.S.California
Looking Out A Decade
•Retirements will slow labor force growth and
more so if immigration levels drop
•The forecast depends somewhat on house
turnover. What will happen to home prices
and older resident’s decisions?
•We are entering a period of slowing job
growth and rising home construction. What
will that mean?
Looking Out A Decade
•Companies want to expand on the peninsula
•And then there is Stanford—the campus, the
medical complex and the shopping center.
•These will provide a foundation in a period of
slowing growth
•If we can address housing and transportation
challenges
Silicon Valley Population Growth
‐12,867 ‐10,921
54,271 39,784
290,254
140,608
‐50,000
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
2015‐25 2025‐30
0‐15 16‐54 55+
Labor Force Participation is Rising for
Residents 55 and Over
38.9%39.4%
42.8%
37.0%37.3%
38.5%
34.0%
36.0%
38.0%
40.0%
42.0%
44.0%
46.0%
U.S. California Silicon Valley
Sh
a
r
e
o
f
P
o
p
u
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
W
o
r
k
f
o
r
v
v
e
2016 2007
1
Carnahan, David
From:Pepper Person <pepperxigua@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 5:42 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Relaxed Standards Proposal Feedback
Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
As recent elections show, Palo Alto residents are ready to slow down the growth initiatives.
In particular, the current proposal to relax standards needs work.
For example, relaxed open space requirements, relaxed parking requirements, disappearance of community‐serving
retail, and other impacts will create problems in future years. Are we ready for that?
Typically, projects are approved piecemeal. It's easy to understand why this is a problem ‐‐ any project needs to
comprehend the combined effects of all other approved projects, which may not yet be constructed.
It's like offering you a scoop of ice cream. Ice cream may sound good, but if you already ordered a hot dog, some fries, a
salad, a bowl of chili, a slice of pizza, a root beer float, hot wings, tater tots, and a plate full of nachos, then you may not
be able to stomach the ice cream, let alone a slice of pie.
Over the past several years, we've seen parking and traffic grow continually worse, and there are many approved
projects looming on the horizon that have yet to impact Ventura.
Each of those approved projects is like another item on the food order list, which will arrive any minute ‐‐ at some point,
your table will be full, as well as your stomach.
Please rework this plan, so that we can have sensible growth for years to come.
Warm regards,
Jason Robinson, PhD
Jieming Robinson
2
Carnahan, David
From:Henry Mellen <henry_mellen@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 5:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please delay approving new housing ordinance
Dear City Council,
Inasmuch as Palo Alto has yet to resolve its traffic and parking problems, may I ask that you delay approving the current
housing ordinance that will be under consideration tonight?
Palo Alto residents need more time to give input to Council members and the City manager so that a judicious and
prudent decision can be made for long‐term housing.
My suggestion is that the Council defer voting on this issue until the new Council members begin their term in January.
Thanks so much for your service to the City and for your consideration of my request.
Henry Mellen
Crescent Park resident
3
Carnahan, David
From:holzemer/hernandez <holz@sonic.net>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 4:58 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing Ordinance Needs to be Delayed
Dear Council Members,
You should delay any discussion or decision on the proposed new Housing Ordinance until next year ‐‐ In January ‐‐ so more
citizens/residents can attend and voice their concerns about this changes that will affect all neighborhoods in our City.
Earlier this month, residents in Palo Alto sent a clear and undisputed message, which I sincerely hope our Council understands. Our
residents want to be considered "FIRST" ‐‐ not developers, not architects, and certainly not those who would support adding more
traffic, more congestion, to our already clogged streets.
As one of those Palo Altans who live in multi‐family developments, I know first hand the situation we face each and every day. There
is no such thing as "non‐competitive" parking areas. Around my complex in the Cal Avenue area, I have to drive several times ‐‐
sometimes parking several blocks away ‐‐ around my home just to see if I can find a parking space on my own City street. Our
complex, which was built in the 90's, gave us only one designated parking space per unit and that won't work in today's multi‐family
situation where you have at least two wage earners, living and working at different places, requiring two or more cars. To think that
by "reducing" the allowable parking for multi‐family housing projects that will somehow make the street parking situation better is
simply ridiculous and without merit.
Someone ‐‐ your survey folks ‐‐ should talk to those of us who truly live on a daily basis in these types of developments ‐‐ I do!
More meaningful reforms that truly assist in producing more, below market rate housing on parcels suitable for housing are being
ignored.
On top of everything, I find it very strange that Staff claims that they had 16 different meetings with developers to put this
Ordinance together, but ONLY two with the public ‐‐ don't you see the total imbalance of this proposal? Something is wrong with the
ideas and thoughts of developers taking precedent over the those of the public.
Please reject this Housing Ordinance as proposed tonight and work together with the public to make a better one, with the new
Council in place, next year.
Sincerely,
Terry Holzemer
2581 Park Blvd. #Y211
Palo Alto, CA 94306
4
Carnahan, David
From:Lenore Cymes <lenraven1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 5:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Discussion required-
Dear City Council Members,
To keep this short and redundant ‐ many, many letters will express the same sentiment:
These issues must have more discussion
These issues must have the vote and support of the new council with community input
More dense house housing(needed) with less parking (based on foolish assumption that living downtown”ish” will not
need/want/have a car is a strange logic for a place like Palo Alto).
A new city manager must have the right to set policy and be involved with this decision/discussion with citizens. A vote
tonite means he inherits a problem that citizens will not just accept because today’s CM and Council are
shortsighted. Please do not approve the proposed housing ordinance without more public discussion on this important
issue. In fact for some of you, it is okay to leave this situation alone. Thank you for your service‐ and for not making a
negative blemish on an already red hot issue.
In addition to the the development of affordable housing in Palo Alto, this ordinance will likely exacerbate traffic and
non‐resident parking in several areas of the city, especially downtown and California Ave. neighborhoods.
As for new, more, taller office buildings…….slow down, hold off as we can not keep building commercial real estate so
developers can get reimbursed for what they paid for PA land or old buildings. We absolutely must get a better grip on
the work live situation‐ and that takes discussion.
Thank you
Lenore Cymes
Wildwood Lane
5
Carnahan, David
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 4:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Let's Our Higher Natures
To the City Council,
I have already written one email to you all about the housing ordinance on the agenda
tonight at
8:15, the last item, and I have to say that seems to be 'normal' for the most important
item on the agendas. The only public meeting on this item that I remember was in
2017. I'm pretty sure that whatever the public input was, was probably not included in
your plans. The national survey again shows the great concern over congestion, parking,
overflowing into our neighborhoods, because of under parked developments.
Please consider letting the new Council, just elected, to decide on these zone changes
and help this issue to be discussed and implemented next year, including the concerns
of residents, and using their ideas and creativity. We have very valuable and
knowledgeable people in our community.
By doing this you will demonstrate leadership, and people will begin to trust our civic
process
again.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Keehn
4076 Orme St.
94306
6
Carnahan, David
From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 4:52 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please postpone votes on Housing Ordinance - to Allow Public Understanding and Discussion
Dear Council,
Hope you had a good Thanksgiving Holiday.
Traffic and parking problems are getting very challenging for the City. I am very concerned that any changes you are
considering tonight are not part of a strategy or criteria to mitigate traffic and parking problems. I’d like to see a plan for
mitigation in place ‐ has that homework been done? So far, there seems to be no consensus except that the problems
are real but no thoroughly vetted options for mitigations, that’s not a good place to make lasting decisions.
Jennifer
7
Carnahan, David
From:Alice Jacobs <aquayellow@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 4:19 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:RPP for Cal Ave.
Attachments:IMG_20181126_152749.jpg; IMG_20181126_143148.jpg
Dear City Council, I am unable to make it to the meeting tonight but thought I'd give you a peak into what's been going
on around here.
You guys should go check out the parking lot of 150 Grant Ave. It's overloaded and double parked every day. More than half of
these cars are parked illegally. This is what's been happening with these businesses all over. Us residents who live in more
urban areas are being overloaded. And Tinder hasn't even moved in yet to 2555 Park Blvd right in front of this parking lot. Who
knows how much more traffic that will produce. We need to protect our RPP, or provide some incentive for these workers (most
of them single males) to bike or take Caltrain which is right around the corner.
Cheers,
Alice Jacobs
Sent from Droid
8
Carnahan, David
From:kemp650@aol.com
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 4:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:In opposition to adopting the draft ordinance intended to create additional opportunities for new
housing production
Dear City Council Members,
I urge you not to approve the proposed ordinance intended to create additional opportunities for new housing production
at tonight's city council meeting. It is not that I am opposed to new housing production; I support housing production over
increased office space. Rather, I am concerned that certain critical aspects of the ordinance (1) overlook and/or downplay
adequate parking and parks, (2) overestimate Caltrain capacity to carry more commuters and (3) overstate the quality of
VTA bus service in Palo Alto.
I believe City should require a proper Environmental Impact Study, including of parking and open space reductions and
acknowledge current parking shortages and not make them worse. I do not accept the results of the parking study done a
few months ago: there were too few buildings surveyed and their locations and configurations didn't compare realistically
to Palo Alto.
I notice that the City of Palo Alto as well as Stanford's proposed GUP rely heavily on Caltrain to take on additional
commuters in order to mitigate car traffic in Palo Alto. Has anyone on the City Council and/or in Stanford's GUP planning
department tried to take Caltrain from California Avenue or downtown Palo Alto during commute hours lately? Those
trains experience capacity ridership at commuter hours. Where are hundreds more commuters going to sit? We need a
reality test on the 'let them ride Caltrain' solution; not everyone can use Caltrain the way it's currently configured, so where
are those commuters going to go? Also, where are the cross-town shuttles to help incoming Caltrain commuters get to
their place of business? Putting those in place will help reduce automobile traffic. What studies does the City Staff rely on
when recommending increased dependence on Caltrain ridership capacity not only now, but into the future?
City Staff has stated that VTA offers "quality" transit options in Palo Alto. Meanwhile, the folks at the El Camino Grand
Boulevard information sessions at the California Avenue farmers market tell us that VTA bus service in Palo Alto is on-
time less than 50% of the time: how is this considered "quality" transit? Would you be willing to rely on VTA to get to work
on time every day? Why should we allow city staff to present VTA bus service as "quality"? Insist that VTA improve transit
service on-time to better than 50%, and wait for the VTA project results to see if increasing density and reducing parking
succeed in lowering housing costs.
I believe more work is needed to address the above concerns before voting in favor of the housing ordinance proposed
and recommended for approval on Monday, November 26, 2018.
Sincerely,
Susan Kemp
Resident of Ventura neighborhood
9
Carnahan, David
From:Peter Rosenthal <pnr21@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 4:10 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Affordable housing ordinance
Dear Council Members:
I agree with many of you that now is the time to focus on affordable housing!
The proposed ordinance is not the way to do it.
I strongly urge you to not approve the ordinance or postpone the decision on this ordinance until
the new council and the new city manager take office.
The proposed ordinance has many flaws and flies in the face of multiple discussions and council
decisions made after extensive discussion over the past 2 years.
We can’t continue to increase the parking/traffic congestion which this ordinance will do.
The proposed ordinance has not been broadly discussed with the community, but only with
selected developers and council members. Some of you claim that this has been widely discussed
and open to public advocacy for a long time. I follow these issues and have seen little or no
invitations to the public to join the discussion.
It creates many loopholes that benefit developers without insuring that the allowances will
actually lead to more affordable housing.
Let’s wait and see if the VTA project delivers on its questionable promises, before we launch and
new broader initiative.
Look before we leap—
Peter N. Rosenthal
Crescent Park
1
Carnahan, David
From:Norman Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 27, 2018 10:50 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing
To say there is a housing shortage crisis in Palo Alto is misleading. Palo
Alto is very densely packed with a variety of housing alternatives. Driving
around Palo Alto, I see hardly any vacant lots that are undeveloped.
Backyards are the size of postage‐stamps compared to other
communities. Neighbors look into the windows of their neighbors just a
few feet away. There are a number of high‐density, multi‐story
apartments and condominiums. So there is plenty of housing in Palo
Alto. The pro‐development factions who cry housing crisis are just
engaged in demagoguery.
If there is a crisis, it a demand‐for‐housing crisis. It is an essentially
infinite demand, which cannot be satisfied by even the most aggressive
development campaign. It is an irrationally exuberant demand,
motivated by untrammeled overdevelopment of office space, and
packing in more and more office workers in existing buildings. There is a
striving, overachieving notion that Palo Alto is trendy or prestigious or
“the in thing” or some other jumped‐up motivation that – while it may be
a sort of compliment in a sense – simply does not present a compelling
case to fundamentally alter the nature of this town. There is no
obligation whatsoever to kowtow to the strident demands of the
development interests, and their new‐urbanism disciples, in the vain
hope of satisfying this unquenchable demand. Build‐baby‐build will line
the pockets of developers and landlords, but it will not make a dent in
the cost of housing – whether it be to own or to rent.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 10:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:nov. 26 meeting
Dear City Leaders,
Thank you for all your attendance and hard work, listening and studying these challenges.
I am going to watch THE GOOD DOCTOR now.
You are good people.
I love America!
Geri McGilvray
EVERYDAY SAFETY AND WALKABILITY, etc
Sent from my iPhone
1
Carnahan, David
From:gmahany@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, November 27, 2018 9:13 PM
To:Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Council, City; cory.wolbach@gmail.com; adrianfine@gmail.com; Filseth,
Eric (external); kou.pacc@gmail.com; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; Scharff,
Greg; electcormack@gmail.com; wilton-neighbors@googlegroups.com
Subject:Venturens on "Lowering the standards for developers"
Hello All
The fallowing five points are spot on.
Gmahany
Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council Members:
A quick reminder that three weeks ago the voters in this town re-elected two sensible growth candidates and unseated an
incumbent who held a fast-growth voting record. The proposal before the council tonight is in direct conflict with the
wishes of the voters, while making unfounded claims that it will spur more housing and NOT add cars to our already
jammed streets. There are many flaws in the proposal. For Ventura, there are five that jump immediately to mind:
1. Relaxed open space requirement - Palo Alto is well behind in open space access for residents. And Ventura's park
situation is abysmal. Reducing open space requirements for new developments means that we get even less open space
for our community. There will more pressure on the parks if new developments have no hang-out space.
2. Relaxed parking requirements - Why is no one is listening to Venturans? We have stated over and over again that our
streets are already bursting with overflow parking from under-parked businesses on ECR and with cars left by commuters
who park in Ventura and then bike or skate or walk the rest of the way to work.
3. The new developments will be concentrated along ECR, near commercial areas and near train stations - and this
makes sense in theory. However, without the infrastructure to support the increased massing and density, little sister
Ventura will get the proverbial short end of the stick vis a vis the wealthy neighborhoods. We want sensible
planning based on reality. The trains at commute times are jam packed so how are we going to move these people? We
need more meaningful community bus service that brings folks in from satellite parking in the outskirts of town and takes
folks to work outside Palo Alto and into our shopping areas. And our narrow streets will see even more cut-through traffic
as folks seek to avoid Carmageddon on ECR & Page Mill?Oregon. Why are semis and big white commuter buses with
tinted windows barreling down my street?
4. We have no school over here anymore, so all our grammar school kids have to cross El Camino to get to the two
schools in Barron Park. It's harrowing when I take my morning walk and see the families risking their lives every day
biking to school, trying to be green and clean. The winter sunlight blinds the speeding drivers and the screeching of
wheels is a commonly heard sound in the morning and in the evenings. Adding more people to the streets, as they are
now, is a real safety concern for us.
5. The disappearance of community serving retail means that even more people will continue to jump in their cars or Lyft
it to do simple errands like get to the tailor or to the grocer or hardware store. I would love for cars to go away, but there
is no data to support that cars are going away in the near term.
The only beneficiaries of this proposed ordinance are developers and property owners. This ordinance allows developers
to drop the amenities and standards that make a community livable, desirable and family-oriented. These are homes we
are proposing to build, so let's keep the people who will be living there and the people that live nearby uppermost in mind
in our design thinking. We need open space, we need a place to park our cars, we need convenient retail, we need safe
streets and routes to school and Ventura deserve parity vis a vis other neighborhoods.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Becky Sanders
Moderator
Ventura Neighborhood Association
3
Carnahan, David
From:Scott, Carol <carol.scott@anderson.ucla.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, November 27, 2018 11:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank You
Dear Council Members,
Thank you for your patience in sitting through and listening attentively as member of the public provided their
comments on the proposed new housing ordnance.
In the end, however, I don’t think anyone in the room left feeling very good about the evening – not the
residents who spoke for or against, not the City staff, and probably not you. Old against young, current
residents against prospective residents, residents against developers, residents against staff doesn’t generate
good feelings for anyone.
For me as a resident, it doesn’t feel like a very productive exercise to have to closely watch all of the meetings
of various commissions and reports of the staff to figure out what is being planned for my neighborhood and my
city, and then to have to come in feeling very frustrated to speak to something that has been developed by others
with scant official resident participation. I would much rather have spent the summer working with City staff
and other relevant parties to try to come up with a plan to try to solve one of the City’s most pressing issues,
i.e., how to create more housing and yet not become just another concrete fortress gridlocked by traffic and
congestion. To quote a popular current musical, it would feel better to be “in the room when it happens.”
If residents, perhaps in the form of knowledgeable leaders/representatives from the most likely to be affected
neighborhoods, had been given a seat at the table in a working group along with developers and perhaps other
groups, I would like to think that each side might have learned something from the other and that we could have
hashed out something that we all could agree to live with and that we could have come to Council to jointly
support. Keeping everyone apart leads to the demonizing of “the other”, and ultimately poorer decisions. We
badly need a mechanism to bring parties together if we are to create meaningful progress.
For whatever reason, the current City management has preferred to not include resident leaders in the sausage-
making conversation, but instead to treat consultation with them as a box to be checked off their list. I hope that
the next city manager will take a different approach, and that you will support him in efforts to heal the
divisions and to promote jointly arrived at solutions that we all can support and feel good about.
Sincerely,
Carol Scott
Evergreen Park Resident
1
Carnahan, David
From:Michael Harbour <dr.mharbour@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 10:48 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Adam Petersen; Keene, James; Stump, Molly; Architectural Review Board; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Support for Denial of 429 University Ave and Further Deadline Extension--Enough is Enough
Attachments:429 University Ave_Citizen Support for Denial.pdf
Dear City Council Members,
Please see the attached PDF document in support for the Planning Director's denial of submitted plans for 429
University Avenue. It contains details as to why this project should be terminated at this time.
We do not support any further application extension. A one year deadline was already granted. The Applicant has
already had over two years and has failed to comply. The application time has expired. Any extension would create a
bad precedent and encourage others to do the same. This project is technically not even legal because of its
noncompliance with the prior Council Motion.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Michael Harbour, MD, MPH
On behalf of the Neighbors and Community to Protect Kipling St.
November 26, 2018
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, On Monday December 3 you will be asked to uphold the denial for the proposed project at 429 University Ave at Kipling St by the Director of Palo Alto Planning (an action
item). The Palo Alto ARB and the Planning Department both agree that the building
does not meet the design criteria as specified in the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Palo Alto City Council Motion from February 6, 2017. We strongly support the decision to deny the project as it remains incompatible on multiple levels. Despite this, the Director is asking you to grant an additional year for the applicant to submit modified
plans for approval. The applicant was already granted a one-year extension by the
Planning Director at the end of the first year. Thus, she has already had two years to modify the plans and conform to existing city code and the Motion that this council passed. The time limit for this application has been exceeded. We do not support an
extension and urge you to deny this request for a second extension. Now is the
time to enforce your original motion and end this egregious disregard for the rules. It is
time for the applicant to submit a new design that better conforms with the design criteria. I will outline my reasoning below. First, the applicant should be denied an extension because she has no intention of
'suddenly' conforming to the Municipal Code or Council Motion from February 6,
2017. She has failed to comply with the most important part of the Council Motion to receive approval for building materials, colors, craftsmanship and detailing, architectural details and design linkages. She has fought and rejected all prior attempts by the HRB, ARB, and Planning Director who have unanimously and repeatedly rejected this design
proposal. In the Director's denial letter, Mr. Lait specifically cites the applicant's "refusal
on October 15, 2018, of my suggestion to incorporate detailing into the design in an effort to secure a complete project approval." Her outfight refusal and past actions have demonstrated an unwillingness to comply.
The second reason an extension should be denied is contained in the applicant's letter
that was submitted with the appeal. She blames ARB Member, Ms. Thompson, for not being familiar enough with the review process to approve her project. It should be noted the applicant has repeatedly disagreed with multiple members of the ARB. She accused the ARB chairwoman, Ms. Furth, of being "biased against her" and demanded
her recusal. She also hired another ARB member, Mr. Baltay, and then quickly fired
him, so he would have to recuse himself. She has been able to pick off members one by one so that she could single handedly choose the remaining ARB members that can approve her project. She should not be not allowed to stack the court in her favor.
Third, the applicant makes false statements in her appeal letter stating that a denial of
her project would be a violation of the California Housing and Accountability Act
(CHAA). She tries to scare the council with the threat of a lawsuit so that you will cave to her demands. It is well-known that CHAA only applies to "very low, low- and moderate-income households." In addition, it only pertains to mixed-use developments consisting of "at least two-thirds (66.6%)" designation for residential use. This
legislation does not apply to her three luxury apartments that comprise only 32% of total
square footage. Most of this project is office space; the new building reduces existing retail space by 20%. Do not be bullied into fearing a meritless lawsuit. Fourth, the project should be immediately halted because the Applicant has
significantly modified the current plans as compared to those originally shown to the
Council. The Director’s letter completely omits this ‘bait and switch’ tactic. The Council Motion mandated that “approval is subject to the actual Project matching Option 1 as
described by Staff.” The newly submitted project has significantly changed such that it does not meet this requirement. The contentious fourth floor office has been enlarged
16% making it even more visible by the neighbors on Kipling St. In addition, the
landscaping on the first has been eliminated and reduced by 35% on the fourth floor. This has made the building appear larger and starker. The original and final renditions show the eliminated landscaping locations (see arrows) as well as the larger fourth floor.
Option One
Final Submission
The tables show the changes from the original submission and final square footage:
LANDSCAPING Option One 2-6-17 Final 12-3-18
First Floor 53 sq. ft 0 sq. ft (reduction 100%)
Fourth Floor 6683 sq. ft 4344 sq. ft (reduction 35%)
OFFICE SPACE
Fourth Floor 2028 sq. ft 2354 sq ft (increase 16%)
Finally, Kipling St. residents and retailers feel that this project's size, mass, and design is wrong for Kipling St--the smallest street in downtown Palo Alto which is lined by
historic Victorian homes. The entire building has been designed to maximize square footage and rental profit at the expense of thoughtful design for its neighbors. It is
“pedestrian unfriendly” since it does not provide any shelter along any side of the building. As the ARB and Planning Director both stated, the building lacks design linkages to the neighboring buildings including the nearby Varsity Theatre, Birge Clark
building (the old Apple Building) and the President Hotel. It remains an awful, solid square cement block.
Final Rendering of 4 Story Building overshadowing 1 Story Buildings
We urge the Council to deny any further extension to the development of this project and respectfully ask that this project's application be terminated. Do not be fooled by the applicant's false statements, threat of litigation, or future promise to comply with the Council Motion. Any extension would create a bad precedent by encouraging
others to do the same. This project is technically not even legal because of its
noncompliance with the prior Council Motion. Thank you for your consideration. Michael Harbour, MD, MPH On behalf of the Neighbors and Community to Protect Kipling St.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Donna Sheridan <d@dsheridan.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 27, 2018 9:35 PM
To:Kniss, Liz (external); Council, City
Cc:Donna Sheridan; James Sheridan
Subject:NO more irresponsible raises!--please respond
Dear Liz and City Council Members,
The Palo Alto City Council meeting on Monday, Dec 4th at 5pm will be focused on the performance evaluation and
potential pay increase for key leaders in City Hall. This includes Jim Keene, Palo Alto's current City Manager who is
retiring in a month. You may know he is retiring in a month, and his final pay determines the amount of monthly pension
he will receive for the rest of his life (hence a big multiplier effect). I've been told by a City Council member he currently
makes $375k excluding housing allowance. This is more than any other City Manager in the country except for Santa
Clara (which, like Palo Alto, also operates its own utilities but has almost twice the population of Palo Alto). This is also
much more than the $190k salary that the Governor of California receives. Additional context: our city has an unfunded
pension liability of over $600 million. And City Council has yet to close a budget gap in the current year plan of $8
million, so some tough decisions yet to be made.
A raise does not seem appropriate given this reality. He will get a nice pension without a raise and even that is not
funded….OH…and what part did he play in not funding the pensions?!!!!
Donna and Jim
2
Carnahan, David
From:Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 27, 2018 10:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Pay Increase
Dear City Council Members,
I understand you will be meeting on Dec 4th to discuss performance of key leaders including Jim Keene, and I urge
you NOT to grant a pay increase as part of this discussion. His pay is already well in excess of market, and our city
finances require responsible stewardship at this point.
I've been told by a City Council member he currently makes $313K base salary but $375k total (but still excluding a
generous housing allowance). This is more than any other City Manager in the country, except for Santa Clara. But
Santa Clara, which also owns its own utilities, has almost twice the population of Palo Alto and doesn’t have two
highly paid Assistant City Managers.
As a reference, the Governor of California makes $190k and the President of the United States makes $400k.
So my first point is: regardless of what you think of Jim’s performance, his pay is already well in excess of market.
My second point is that it’s not fiscally responsible to be giving raises when our city finances are not where they
need to be, with a budget shortfall yet to be closed and a looming unfunded pension liability that cannot be ignored
forever. And I’m sure you know giving the City Manager a raise one month before he retires costs the city more
money every month given his pension is based on his final salary.
I worked at HP in Finance for 23 years, and there were many instances when pay was frozen and even cut at some
points because of challenging financial times. It seems to me that fiscally tough mentality is appropriate at this
juncture for our city.
Please make the fair and fiscally responsible decision on December 4th.
Thank you,
Chris Robell
Old Palo Alto resident
3
Carnahan, David
From:Lloyd Diamond <tmcdiamond@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 28, 2018 7:36 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Jim Keene - City Manager Pay Increase
Dear City Council Members,
I understand that The Palo Alto City Council meeting on Monday, Dec 4th at 5pm will be focused on the performance
evaluation and potential pay increase for key leaders in City Hall. This includes Jim Keene, City Manager who we
understand is retiring shortly. We've been told he currently makes $375k excluding housing allowance. This is more
than other City Managers in the country except for Santa Clara (which, like Palo Alto, also operates its own utilities but
has almost twice the population of Palo Alto). This is also much more than the $190k salary that the Governor of
California receives. Considering the unfunded pension liability and budget gap that exists, an increase would not be
prudent.
Best Regards,
Lloyd & Isabelle Diamond
1
Carnahan, David
From:JIM POPPY <jamespoppy@comcast.net>
Sent:Wednesday, November 28, 2018 9:49 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Just say no to pay increases for staff, especially Jim Keene
City Council,
There is no reason to increase salaries for staff at this point, especially Mr. Keene who is retiring and
will already be taking $30 million from the City over his lifetime.
It's clear that council members are afraid that staff will snub them if they vote against pay increases.
Well, it's about time you put your grownup pants on and made some tough decisions. How else are
you going to deal with the $8 million budget gap or the $600 million pension gap?
It's really insulting to hardworking citizens that paper pushers are taking home millions over their
lifetime. Please do something to restore some faith in your abilities to govern.
Jim Poppy
135 Melville Ave
1
Carnahan, David
From:William Butler <butlerwd@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 18, 2018 7:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rinconada Pool and Masters Team
Dear Council:
I am writing as a concerned citizen.
It is deeply disturbing what Tim Sheeper is doing to the Rinconada Masters Team and Program.
As you know, the Rinconada Masters, founded by beloved coach Carol Macpherson, is a long time community that has
used the pool for decades.
With a vague claim in the name of safety, something about not enough life guards on duty during workouts, Mr
Sheepers is making a naked power grab to run his own Masters swim program, so he can make more money from his
management of the pool.
He did not have the decency to speak with Carol about his concerns or provide constructive feedback or work with her
on a solution if the current setup is/was in adequate.
Several of us swimmers are CPR certified, and the pool lies within earshot of the fire station, and while it is under
construction, it normally houses trained paramedics. Furthermore, Mr Sheepers employs plenty of people that are
trained life guards. There has to be a solution that allows the current setup to work.
It all seems like a really bad plot from a movie.
The reality is that we like the Team and Program as it is. If there is legitimate safety concern, then there should be a
dialogue to solve it, not a unilateral termination of an agreement that has been in place for decades.
Bottom line, I am not happy with the way the pool has been run, Mr Sheeper is not Customer or community oriented
enough.
This is not his pool, it belongs to us citizens and property taxpayers. He needs to serve us, or stop managing the pool.
Tell him to work out a solution with the Rinconada Masters Team and Program as it is now, and not destroy a
community resource for his own enrichment using his vague concern about safety as a dodge. This is very unbecoming.
Thank you,
William Butler
Sent from my iPhone
2
Carnahan, David
From:kemp650@aol.com
Sent:Sunday, November 18, 2018 5:25 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:LeBlanc, Jazmin; Douglas, Stephanie
Subject:Rinconada Pool Contract - I am a Lap Swimmer with Multiple Concerns about the proposed 5-Year
Contract with Team Sheeper
Dear City Council Members,
I am a longtime lap swimmer at Rinconada Pool and a longtime Palo Alto resident. I have been following the City of Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Department transfer of pool management and operations to the Team Sheeper organization and have multiple concerns about the Rec Department’s recommendation to enter into a 5-year contract with Team Sheeper beginning in January 2019. Team Sheeper's current contract with the City will be ending at the end of next month. Team Sheeper was the one and only bidder on the 5-year contract the Parks and Rec Department put out to bid earlier this year. We swimmers were told the contract would be for 3 to 5 years; I'm not sure why it's all-of-a-sudden a 5-year contract.
My observation is that Team Sheeper has cultivated a cozy and self-serving relationship with Parks and Rec to the
exclusion of other stakeholders (namely, the swimmers) and it is no surprise that Parks and Rec wholeheartedly
recommends this 5-year contract renewal with the one and only bidder.
Meanwhile, lap swimmers I have talked to and other swimmer groups (masters especially) have little to no trust in
Team Sheeper; communications with Team Sheeper management over the past year have been sketchy to non-existent. The pool was closed or late opening multiple times with little to no warning. Other communications about partial pool closings were so confusing that many of us didn't go to the pool, assuming the pool was closed when it wasn't. When the City of Palo Alto ran the pool, one could phone the pool during lap swimming hours and speak to pool staff on-site to confirm whether or not the pool was open; when I tried phoning the pool under Team Sheeper management, no one answered the phone. When I asked a Team Sheeper employee in person whether or not the Team Sheeper front desk personnel at the pool answered the phone during lap swim hours, I was told they didn't because it was ‘usually someone asking about lessons’. That leaves me with option of either skipping my swim or going to the pool in person to see whether or not it was open.
In addition, we've heard stories about thefts of personal property (car keys taken out of swimmers' pockets/bags in
the locker rooms while they were in the pool swimming and those keys used to get into the swimmer's car and steal
personal belongings), but have never heard any words of caution or alerts from Team Sheeper about how to keep
belongings safe during our swim (the locker rooms are not monitored because of privacy, making them prime targets
for anyone bold enough to walk in and pilfer through people's belongings). The front desk under the
Team Sheeper management is not always monitored, so someone can walk in without being noticed while front desk
personnel are switching out roles with the life guard on the pool deck, taking a rest room break, etc. Under the old management, access to the pool was through a different gate and access through to the locker rooms was past many swimmers, life guard personnel, etc., so thefts were rarer. Team Sheeper has told the masters swim organizer that their contract will not be renewed as of January 2019; they gave very little notice and handled the contract cancellation very poorly. Masters swimmers who spoke at the October 23 Parks and Recreation meeting praised the program and said it was for 'everyman'. I am not a masters swimmer, but I sympathize with swimmers who want to approach the sport from any age, condition, etc. My impression of Team Sheeper is that they are targeting a more demanding, high performance and probably younger crowd than the
current users, and they were happy to find a safety issue that they could exploit in order to eliminate the program and
take it over themselves. In the process, trust in both Team Sheeper and Parks and Rec has been downgraded even
more than before.
As for lap swimming concerns, they are as follows:
1. That Team Sheeper will want to mix and match lap swim and masters swimmers during the same times of the day.
When the original contract with Team Sheeper was negotiated, both lap swimmers and masters swimmers attended
Parks and Recreation meetings in great numbers and voiced their concerns loudly and clearly, and both groups agreed
3
that they did not want to mix and match: they each want exclusive use at specified times as we've had at the pool for decades. The sample schedule that Team Sheeper included in the presentation to Parks and Rec on October 23
already shows mixing and matching lap and masters swimmers on some of the current masters only days during the
week while adding masters swim time slots into the previously lap swim only morning hours on the weekend. The
time slots are as short as ½ hour, which is impractical and unlikely to satisfy anyone. Who does that serve except
Team Sheeper - more bodies in the water means more money for them.
2. Speaking of more money for Team Sheeper, the materials shared at the October 23 meeting with Parks
and Rec also showed a 6.7% increase in fees. At the Snacks with Staff’ meetings that the Parks and Rec held with
swimmers on October 16th and October 18th, Jazmin mentioned a price increase that would become effective later on and quoted something like 2%. At the October 23 meeting she mentioned a price increase attributable to operating expenses going up, but did not elaborate. We already pay more now than we did when the City of Palo Alto ran the program. If I am going to be hit with a 6.7% increase, what am I getting for it except a lower quality experience should Team Sheeper execute on the mix and match lap and masters swim hours increase? The increased number of bodies in the pool also means more use of the locker rooms and showers and probably waits for showers during popular morning hours when most swimmers are trying to get showered and off to work. 3. The 5-year contract is extraordinary. There should be as many safeguards as possible to avoid
Team Sheeper totally taking over the program and implementing all the profit-maximizing tools they have. Shouldn't
there be something like 1-year renewals with certain benchmarks and opportunities for feedback before implementing
the next one-year renewal? My understanding is that other City of Palo Alto departments grant 1-year contracts, not
blanket 5-year contracts. Also, what happened to the 3-year contract option that was mentioned at the March 6
community meeting? Again, the easier path for Parks and Rec is to recommend the 5-year contract which makes less
work for them and helps to further solidify the Team Sheeper hold on the operation since who else would want to bid
after 5 years?
4. More on the issue of the positive relationship that Parks and Rec has with Team Sheeper: Jazmin characterized the public feedback at the community outreach forum on March 6th 2018 was positive about Team Sheeper's management of the pool. I attended the meeting and would not characterize it as such. In addition, Parks and Rec stated that future meetings would be held with the community, but those meetings never materialized. The lack of transparency and communication between Team Sheeper, the City and the lap swimmers may be due to Parks and Rec's loss of the lap swimmers email list. I find that suspicious and convenient for them. This explains why many/all of us are in the dark about Team Sheeper's proposal and the steps Parks and Rec have been taking to approve it. Even at the Snacks with Staff meeting that I attended on October 16, I provided my email address yet again and haven't heard a peep despite Jazmin saying that they would follow up with me about my concerns (thefts at
the pool and poor/unclear/non-existent communications about pool closures).
I am disappointed with the choice our city faces with regard to this 5-year contract with Team Sheeper. They were the
only bidder, we not only do not trust Team Sheeper but also now do not trust the Park and Recs Department to
accurately represent our issues and concerns. Ultimately, we are worried that our city gem of a community pool will
be transformed into a pool more like Burgess pool in Menlo Park, that Team Sheeper also manages - one that is
overcrowded and a chaotic and unpleasant experience for lap swimmers – a commercial venue, not a city pool.
Thank you for considering my concerns in making your decision on Monday night, November 19th. Sincerely, Susan Kemp
4
Carnahan, David
From:alemmenes@juno.com
Sent:Sunday, November 18, 2018 4:01 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:ParkRec Commission
Subject:Rinconada pool
Dear City Council and Parks and Rec Commission,
I am a Palo Alto home owner who has been meaning to write this follow up email since the meeting at City Hall on
October 23, 2018. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak and to hear your questions concerning the possible
program changes at Rinconada pool. Life has been busy, but we swimmers still feel just as strongly about the usage of
Rinconada pool.
I am a lap swimmer who uses Rinconada pool as one of my only available ways to stay in shape. I have medical issues
that keep me from some of my former forms of working out, and swimming is fortunately an ideal and effective route
for me. I am currently still working and I am able to swim at Rinconada before heading off to my work day. When I get
to the pool, at about 6:20, all 14 lanes are filled, almost always with two swimmers per lane. I swim for about 30 min.
and during this time the lanes continue to be filled.
When I retire I hope to continue my lap swimming as a way to maintain my health, fitness and sanity. I am also
considering joining the Masters program run by Carol Macpherson of the Rinconada Masters Swim Club. We lead very
busy and stressful lives and it is important to have the type of program that fits your needs. Rinconada Masters, as
currently exists, is providing just what its members want in a Masters program. This should not be taken away from
them. Those who want an extrememly competitive program can easily find a group to join in the surrounding area
(Stanford, Burgess, Foothill...) that will suit those desires.
Team Sheeper's refusal to allow Rinconada Masters to continue as it is seems to serve some other purpose than to
satisfy the people who currently use Rinconada for their Masters swimming. Does Mr. Sheeper have a large, new group
of Masters swimmers clamoring to change the program at Rinconada? Couldn't these swimmers join the group at
Burgess on a reciprocal basis and leave Rinconada's program alone?
Our lap swim group was alarmed by the fact that Mr. Sheeper is being granted a 5 year contract without making clear
what his plans are for the long term usage of Rinconada Pool. We have seen a tentative schedule for January 2019. Is
the city comfortable signing a contract that so limits our vision of the future for this valuable public resource? Already it
looks as though the Sheeper plan is to crowd out the current Masters program. Is a severely reduced lap swim program
next?
Crowding PASA or Master swim times into the lap swim times will defeat the purposes of all. Please maintain Rinconada
pool as a community pool that honors the wishes of those who use it.
Thank you for seriously considering the needs and wants of the community of swimmers at Rinconada pool.
Best regards,
Ann Lemmenes
____________________________________________________________
5
How To Remove Eye Bags & Lip Lines Fast (Watch)
ourhealthpros.com
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3142/5bf1fda08bae57da01a71st02vuc
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.SponsoredBy Content.Ad
1
Carnahan, David
From:Judith Schwartz <judith@tothept.com>
Sent:Monday, November 19, 2018 11:25 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:acribbs@basoc.org
Subject:Masters Program at Rinconada Pool
Dear City Council,
I’ve swum with Rinconada Masters since the mid 1980s. I’ve also swum for several years at a time with Menlo
Masters so I know Carol Macpherson and Tim Sheeper personally and well. I’ve competed for both teams. I
was the 2011 Menlo Masters Swimmer of the Year and I’ve been Carol’s lane mate for many years. I have
strong loyalty and affection for both teams.
I am currently swimming with Rinc as that team’s more low key approach is serving me better right now. MM
is also a great team with a different, more competitive character and wonderful people (many of whom live in
Palo Alto).
I have tremendous respect for Tim who has been unfairly demonized by people who don’t even know him. He
is a solid, ethical guy who encourages his swimmers to give back to the community. Among the initiatives
supported by Menlo Masters under his leadership are a reading literacy program, food drives in Feb., new
shoe drives in the fall, donated gifts for kids at Christmas, and a foundation, Beyond Barriers, that offers swim
lessons to disadvantaged kids. He took on the management of Belle Haven pool in Ravenswood even though
it operates at a loss.
Team Sheeper has demonstrated it can do a good job managing an aquatics program with staff with varied
skills who will work part‐time and seasonally. They have earned the trust of City staff and the Parks and Rec
Commission over several years. I support renewing Team Sheeper’s contract to operate the Rinconada pool
facility.
I also support keeping Rinconada Masters at the pool and would hope a compromise can still be achieved
with the help of a good independent mediator. As you’ve seen, Rinc swimmers are enthusiastic supporters of
our community group and have loyalty to our coaches. For Carol to lose the Master’s team she co‐founded
would be a huge personal and professional loss. Former Olympian Terri Baxter Smith is the daughter of the
other co‐founder and provides skillful stroke coaching that I haven’t found at any other team. Rinconada is a
team with a deep legacy in Palo Alto that continues to provide valuable services, including the Swim for
Fitness programs that prepares people to join a masters team.
An excellent program that retains what’s unique about Rinconada Masters and judiciously adds selected
elements of the Team Sheeper formula and administrative organization, would be a wonderful evolution for
the former, complement to Menlo Masters (and the other area teams) and provide a solution that everyone
could cheer. The transition could be made seamless for the swimmers and demonstrate local communities
can find common ground when we keep the shared goals in mind.
Thank you.
2
Best regards,
Judith
Judith Schwartz
Palo Alto, CA 94301 USA
1
Carnahan, David
From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 20, 2018 8:14 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:What’s up at Rinconada Pool?
Sent from my iPhone
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 19, 2018 10:19 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Extend existing Team Sheeper proposal for one year
Dear City Council Members,
Thank you for hearing all of us who spoke and/or showed up in support of Carol's Master Swim program.
I believe the best solution proposed tonight was:
Please request a one year extension of Team Sheeper's currently existing contact.
Please vote to NOT accept the new RFP bid (next Monday).
‐ This bid removes Carol as the Master's Coach.
‐ This bid eliminates the Swim for Fitness program.
The widespread perception among the swimmers is of a lack of transparency. I attended the Park and Recreation
Commission meeting when the city (Jazmine LeBlanc) presented the proposal. Each and every commissioner had
something negative to say to her ‐ about the process, the timing, the lack of transparency, and/or the lack of trust.
It's up to the City Council to reject the proposal by Team Sheeper. Instead, please offer to extend his existing contract
(and subcontracts) for one year. This allows everyone time to address all concerns and issues. And keeps the Rinconada
Masters and Swim for Fitness programs intact ‐‐ and the swimmers happy.
Thank you,
Ann Protter
/?
To:
Date:
Palo Alto City Council
November 19, 2018
ICOllN<;IL ~ING
11-19-1
[ ] Plac Before Meeting
[ eceived at Meeting
Subject: Proposed contract with Team Sheeper for Rinconada Pool management
Dear Esteemed Council Members:
WHEREAS: the proposed contract with Team Sheeper is flawed in several important respects as
follows:
The Request for Proposals (RfP) was crafted such that only one potential contractor could
respond, namely Team Sheeper.
Not all stakeholders were consulted. A public forum was held on March 6, 2018 to hear
and discuss views of the community. The Rinconada Masters, a significant stakeholder,
were not informed of the forum beforehand, and therefore could not attend.
We were informed on October 16, 2018 that the subcontract between Team Sheeper and
the Rinconada Masters would not be renewed. As of January 1, 2019 the Rinconada
Masters as an organization would no longer have access to the Rinconada Pool facility,
which has been our home continuously since 1973.
It was recommended at a Parks and Recreation meeting on October 23, 2018 that the
proposed contract with Team Sheeper be signed, adopted, and ratified by the City, and
that the process had progressed too far to turn back. In fact the process was conducted
almost entirely behind closed doors, with very little transparency. The process was highly
unsatisfactory, as is the proposed contract.
THEREFORE: We the Rinconada Masters respectfully recommend that the proposed contract
with Team Sheeper NOT be ratified by the Council.
FURTHERMORE: We recommend and request that the existing contract, together with all
subcontracts, be extended one year through December 31, 2019. During this period the
Rinconada Pool facility would continue to operate as it does today.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 20, 2018 2:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rinconada Pool Issues
Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Rinconada Pool Outsourcing Issues
Not being a pool user, the stories about the Rinconada Masters being booted from the pool are a little hard to
follow. Even though there is a fair amount of information in the Staff Report:
https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67729
issued by the City Manager’s Office, justifying the approval of the five-year contract to Team Sheeper, it’s not clear what
exactly is going on, and why this group that claims to have been using the pool for decades is being displaced. One can
only hope that the Council has taken sufficient time to investigate the issues and that the final decision benefits everyone.
There are some other issues about this Staff Report, contract and subsequent operation of the pool that need to be
brought to the Council’s attention. Most notably, the lack of transparency in the operation of the pool by both the City and
the contract awardee.
While a goodly amount of “ink” was provided in the Staff Report about compensation—nothing was provided in terms of
historical revenue/costs associated with pool operation at this location. The revenue sharing tables range from just over
$1M to over $5M, without any documentation as to what the revenue levels have been recently, or what revenue levels
might be over the life of the contract. Why not?
Staff has failed to require pool use reports from the contract awardee, although presumably this information is available
from the monthly payment records. For adequate pool use details to be made available to the public, such requirements
should appear in the City’s contract. Staff could also generate such a report, perhaps quarterly. There seems to be no
such suggestion that the City will make this information available to the public unless forced to do so via a Public Records
Request, or a law suit.
It makes no sense for the City not to make the financials of running a City-owned and operated pool readily available in
usable formats, such as Excel spreadsheets. At the moment, this information does not seem to be easily discerned from
those tasked with managing the pool in the past.
Another point that doesn’t seem to be addressed in the Staff Report, or contract, is a defined way for people to register
complaints with both the City and the contract awardee about pool operation. These complaints should be listed, and a
brief description of the complaint’s resolution be made available in the quarterly pool performance and financial report.
Presumably the City has researched the appropriate policy needs for a private-public partnership for a swimming
pool. There didn’t seem to be much in the way of insurance policy limit justification. It is suggested that some sort of
research be referenced in the Staff Report to justify these limits.
The City hires several hundred part-time people who provide training and other needed skills to the many recreation
programs offered to the public. This includes people who work in/around the aquatics programs. The Staff Report
2
indicates a savings of about $140K, but does not indicate where these savings will be enjoyed. It would seem to have
been a requirement of the Staff Report to identify how these savings would be achieved, and how many part-time people
would no longer be employed by the City, should that be the case.
One final point—this Staff Report does not seem to embrace the principals of Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) which has
been successfully employed in the private sector for decades. Council is encouraged to make pointed suggestions that
Staff Reports should move towards reflecting TCO in the future.
Wayne Martin
Palo Alto
3
Carnahan, David
From:Carol Heermance <cheermance@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 20, 2018 6:44 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Team Sheeper pool contract
To the Palo Alto City Council
Regarding: Rinconada swim program contract with Team Sheeper
We have been residents of Palo Alto and lap swimmers since 1981, and recently attended the Parks and Recreation
Commission meeting and the City Council meeting in which outstanding issues with the contract extension were
presented.
It is clear that the Masters Team is not happy with the changes proposed in the new contract. The team is an important
stakeholder in our community. As lap swimmers, and stakeholders, we do not want our current schedule or available
lanes modified. Unfortunately we have not been able to see the proposed changes for lap swimming. It does not make
sense to sign a 5-year contract that has many unresolved issues. We urge you to extend the current contract, that
includes the existing Masters coach and program, for one more year, during which time these issues can be adequately
addressed and the process can be more transparent.
Thank you for your consideration.
Dick and Carol Heermance
208 N. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA
4
Carnahan, David
From:Barbara Rieder <barieder@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 21, 2018 1:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Approval of 5-Year Aquatics Operating/Revenue Agreement with Team Sheeper
Council Members and Mayor,
Having read the above Staff Report, I note that concerns I expressed in my October 22 email to you have been clarified.
This report likely was not yet available, however, it would have been helpful to stakeholders, to be notified when it was
published.
As Team Sheeper grows programming ( page 5), informing stakeholders, early, before approvals by City staff (page 6) will
avoid or at least minimize the angst that has occurred with this Agreement.
Yes, City staff notified us Spring 2018 about the RFP and auditor. I completed surveys. No, my husband and I (different
last names) were not notified about this report until after the 11/19/18 Council meeting. City staff and Palo Alto Swim and
Sport have our email addresses.
The Data (page 3) is important for maintaining balanced, shared usage decisions as new programs are introduced.
Regards,
Barbara Rieder & Tony Kooij
1728 Cowper Street
Palo Alto, Ca 94301
5
Carnahan, David
From:Marilyn Bauriedel <babamarilyn@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 22, 2018 10:44 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed 5-year Contract with Team Sheeper for Management and Programming of Rinconada Pool
Dear Mayor Kniss and Council Members:
I have read the Staff Report and draft contract to continue the management of Rinconada Pool for 5 years with
perpetual renewal possibilities. I believe you will be postponing this agenda item until December 10 per request of city
staff.
I am a 46‐year swimmer at Rinconada Pool‐‐the first 3 years as a member of Rinconada Masters under Carol McPherson
and Cindy Baxter, and the other years as a regular lap swimmer 2 to 3 times a week.
I am dismayed as are so many other lap swimmers and certainly all the Rinconada Masters swimmers at the unfair
characterization of the Rinconada Masters program in the staff report and at the 11th hour termination by Tim Sheeper
of any further subcontracting with Rinconada Masters as well as the City's full agreement that this long‐time beloved
program should be shut out of Rinconada Pool participation other than as swimmers who enroll in whatever masters
program Tim Sheeper creates‐‐but without their coach and assistant coach. Further, there is no guarantee in the
proposed 5‐year contract as we had with the last 2‐year contract with Team Sheeper that Tim Sheeper will continue to
provide an adequate number of swimming lanes for our lap swimmers at the peak usage times when we are committed
to our regular swims. If this contract goes through as proposed, Team Sheeper has free rein for the next five years plus
extensions to shape the schedules and number of lanes available without any city oversight and despite any preferences
that lap swimmers may have. It would be very difficult for us to see a lane reduction, particularly Tues., Thurs., and
Saturday mornings. Having more than 2 swimmers in a lane presents real problems as we are not a team with similar
speed and stamina.
Despite claims of soliciting sufficient comments from the stakeholders at the pool that the City staff has made in the
Staff Report, I feel that the RFP process was not transparent and that the City's promises last March 6 at a community
meeting that I attended that Community Services Department staff would consult with lap swimmers and other
stakeholders at separate meetings, including the Rinconada Masters, has not happened. The contract has become a fait
accomplit long before the city had a couple of "snack chats" to check up on swimmers' preferences and satisfaction at
the pool on Oct. 16 and 18. This is not consulting with the community's regular swimmers.It was also very difficult to
obtain the staff report and draft contract, which I think is another transparency problem.
Please postpone action on this contract until stakeholders, especially Rinconada Masters and regular lap swimmers have
a chance to be consulted and listened to. There has to be a way (as many Parks & Rec Commissioners expressed at their
October meeting at which I spoke) to include Rinconada Masters own program in Rinconada Pool with whatever
contract comes into force.The City needs to act in good faith in this matter. I recommend that you grant an extension to
Team Sheeper of the current contract for the next year (as Menlo Park has done several times with Team Sheeper) , thus
continuing Rinconada Masters' participation so that there can be time for meetings and consultations to remedy this
situation.
Most sincerely,
Marilyn Bauriedel
3673 South Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94306
1
Carnahan, David
From:Paul Minsker <minskerpaul@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 1:02 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:El Palo Alto Tree
Distinguished members of the Palo Alto City Council--
I hope you all are well.
Primarily, if I may, I would prefer to give you all a brief introduction of myself: My name is Paul Minsker, and I
am a 19-year-old university student originally from central Arkansas and majoring in Geography at San Jose
State that occasionally takes Caltrain to visit your city for some of its countless recreational and retail
opportunities.
The main entity in your city that I choose to visit on my trips, however, I feel needs no introduction to you all:
The El Palo Alto Redwood tree rooted in El Palo Alto Park. From the moment my mother made me aware of a
newspaper article she read discussing famous trees that vaguely mentioned “a Redwood in the city of Palo
Alto that Portola once camped beside” (she knows my love for trees), I was intrigued as to where this tree
existed, how the plant was doing, and what type of prominence such a historically significant tree in your city
would receive.
My first brief visit to the tree in late August of this year (I had limited time as per the tree being so well hidden)
was a learning experience, most certainly, seeing an 1100 year old being in front of me still alive to this day. As
my visits to the tree occurred at later times, and as I began to research this tree online, my knowledge of the
true significance and meaning of this tree only exponentialized by the day. I learned about the tree being
California State Historical Landmark No. 2, the location where the entire Bay Peninsula was essentially
founded as a Spanish mission settlement area, the reason for the city of Palo Alto having the name, and even
the reason why Stanford University has the tree logo as their uniting symbol despite the fact that no official
school mascot evidently exists. I learned about the tree’s appraisal for a meager $55,600, about the misting
system to “fool the tree” that was installed to bring water to the tree’s upper limbs for coaxing the plant back to
health as illness struck, and about the tree being a waypoint for navigators on the original El Camino Real, as
well as the primary distant marker for construction of said roadway, as well as the railroad that Caltrain now
operates on. I read of railroad spikes being hammered into the trunk (they are still there wedged in the trunk
today) to help early Stanford students into the tree’s upper limbs to try and see which one of them could fly
their fraternity / school flag the highest on the tree (I also saw that this tradition ceased as per the acrophobia
of a youth in 1909 that found himself stuck near the top).
I even was able between my visits to gather information about why the tree looks in such a form today, as per
the upper portions of the tree being removed progressively as the cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park lowered
the water table of the area for their citizenry to have water access, slowly killing the tree at the extremities. The
tree was once three-trunked, of course, with a debate still in place as to the second trunk’s demise being by
way of the flooded San Francisquito Creek in a winter storm or by the rail bridge beside the tree being
constructed with equipment that caused the mishap. In all honesty, I even learned as per my research that I
am not the only person that has ever taken the time to write to your organization on the tree’s behalf, as per my
findings that the plant was in such a state of nearness-to-death from lack of water, the polluted and flooding
San Francisquito Creek, and the nearby railroad trestles weighing down the shallow roots that it was brought to
your attention by a Mr. Jim Johnson that something to help the now-largely-human-reliant tree must be done.
Honorable council members, I am, by no means, nearly as qualified in my assertions as Mr. Johnson was in
the late 1980s and early 1990s, but I cannot deny to any of you that my frequent observations of this tree and
the immediate surroundings lead me to bring two crucial elements at play to committee attention.
2
Primarily, in short, please allow for me to take a moment to commend your city on an obvious victory in saving
this tree for the time being from near-death, what with the misting system and reinforcing the northern side of
the trunk with concrete going down into the creek. From what I have read of this tree, the plant has
experienced many years of lack of water, vandals destroying lower branches and defacing the trunk, and
especially the nearby railroad bringing with it a generation of smoke-belching trains killing off the tree’s west
side; added to this presently are daily passenger and freight trains that shake and rattle the ground on the
three walkable sides of the trunk when they chug past (I have personally felt such). Indeed, the tree has taken
a large bounce back to prominent life, despite being more so these days a bushy, stocky tree than the plant
originally was back in the day as a taller, slimmer version of self. The tree is obviously, as solely pertaining to
the trunk and crown structures, in decent form, with the failing roots obviously being supplemented by the
mister, yet I cannot deny to your organization that my praise for your assistance to this tree, from here
onwards, must definitively end.
I write to you today, if I may, to most prominently bring to your immediate and unconditional attention the
second collection of elements of my El Palo Alto comment / concern:
1. The tree is still often being vandalized in between my visits there, especially as per new
markings on the dead section where once stood the second trunk being seen.
2. The tree is still frequented by vagabonds, many of which often verbally hassle me in various
regards as I attempt to have a quiet moment sitting in nature before their running into the
adjacent woods down towards their presumed encampments in the San Francisquito Creek.
3. The tree is still under daily threat from the railroad, as train after train rattles the roots and
threatens to fall the giant should the misting system and nearby ground structure around the
trunk not be maintained.
4. The tree often smells from over five feet away as if humans have urinated upon parts of the
trunk (and, therefore, given that Redwood trees are not naturally known to smell of urine, I
would conclude only one possibility for this observation that needs no further detail on my
end).
5. The tree ALWAYS, upon my visits, has garbage littered around the trunk base: just recently
were broken sunglasses, cigarette butts, and Reese’s wrappers, and traditionally there have
been soda cans, water bottles, alcohol, coats and blankets, mats laid out as if someone caught
a nap and left, and always an insane amount of spread-out newspapers. There is evidence that
the garbage is occasionally removed (I have often done so, myself) by some individual and/or
entity, which I commend, but the above issue of my concern still prominently stands, especially
given that much of the garbage in question simply is “cleared out” by being naturally blown by
passing trains and winds into the creek.
6. This might seem rather silly, I am sure, but the fact that so, so many people that I witness walk
and bike on the trail beside the tree to get between Palo Alto and Menlo Park and seem to give
the great being no mind personally aggravates me, and has shown me exactly how it is in these
present, tech-savvy times how the human ability to connect with nature is oh, so rapidly being
lost. I have not yet done a study of such, I must admit, but let us assume, based on my
observations, that these people pass this tree as if there is nothing significant to see. They are
likely unaware that the tree is the reason for the name of the park. They are likely unaware that
the tree is the reason for the name of the adjacent avenue. They are likely unaware that the tree
is the reason for the Stanford logo existing with a tree. They are likely unaware that the tree is
the reason for the name of the entire CITY. They likely do not bother to notice the tree’s two
plaques, for they may feel that they are not worth the time to read. They are choosing, of course,
as is their right, to remain blissfully unaware of the natural, historical, and literal giant that
stands near them, yet I must assert, in my final concern, that it is the complete, total, entire,
wholistic, and undeniable responsibility of the city of Palo Alto--the city named after THIS VERY
TREE--to educate and inform the citizenry of the living, growing, could-soon-be-dying being
BEHIND the name, BEHIND the Stanford logo, BEHIND their backs as they mosey on by.
As for any potential solutions to any and/or all of these dilemmas at hand, I leave all final decisions as
necessarily proper to your city and your organization, but I must assert, nonetheless, my own personal ideas
3
presently that I feel could directly benefit the tree, El Palo Alto Park patrons, and the city of Palo Alto as a
whole.
El Palo Alto Park should, as soon as reasonably possible, have garbage cans / recycle bins
installed in it along the Palo Alto city side of the trail between Palo Alto Avenue and the bridge
to Menlo Park. This would, most certainly, come at a cost to the city to install and maintain, yet I
can personally feel as if the placement of said garbage cans could only encourage park patrons
to be responsible with their trash and recyclables, as opposed to littering them along the trail,
around the tree, or even directly into the creek, thereby making the next portion of my
proposition, ideally, almost obsolete.
To deal with the present littering / garbage problem that you cannot reasonably deny is at hand,
there must be a reasonable effort in place to hold city and/or community clean-ups in the park
and down in the creek to ensure that the environment here can continue to bounce back ideally
so rather than regress back to the days when the creek (so I have read) used to flood with
garbage clogs at various points along its length. Your neighboring city of Menlo Park, as with
the county of San Mateo--given that the creek is a city AND a county divide--could even likely
take interest in this as well should you, as a city, bring this jointly-brought-about issue to their
attention.
In speaking of entering the creek for garbage cleanup and shoreline maintenance, as per my
observations of various vagabonds entering and leaving the creekbed, it should be a Palo Alto
direct responsibility to take charge--even if Menlo Park shall not--of regularly sending police
into El Palo Alto Park to patrol the grounds and check the creek for any potential transients that
likely are only further contributing to the area’s environmental degradation (as I have read, their
rat poisons sprayed and fecal matter left in the creek bed are not news to your city in that they
occur).
Any and all railroad resurfacing / track maintenance or construction projects on either the
Northbound or the Southbound line occurring directly in the proximity of the tree must be
consulted by a knowledgeable arborist (knowledgeable ESPECIALLY to the history of El Palo
Alto) supplied by the city to ensure that any of said projects do not directly impose any new,
unprecedented strains on the tree / the tree’s roots.
At the cost of the city, in couplement with the pre-existing system of lights and lamps along the
trail beside the tree, I find it best to discourage nighttime questionable activities at the base of
the tree--such as urinating, littering, and/or vandalism--by way of the installation beside the tree
of floodlights that are angled so as to illuminate the lower trunk, and hopefully do such without
distracting passing cars on Palo Alto Avenue and/or train drivers on the nearby tracks.
Installation and maintenance of these lights is a commitment, most certainly, yet I cannot help
but note that this cannot be too much of a stretch with trail lights nearby already existing and
being (as far as I can see) properly maintained.
Provided the city of Palo Alto would desire carrying the above illumination consideration a step
further, the installation of a security camera on the west side of the tree facing east could only
help to further discourage--at ANY time--tree desecration, littering, urinating, vandalism, and/or
illegal vagabond endeavors. This would be a drastic measure, I concede, yet a camera as such
could guarantee--so long as it is operational consistently and properly guarded from tampering-
-needing to dispatch less law enforcement agencies to the park and only doing so on an as-
needed basis if the camera has a live stream to the Palo Alto Police Department or an entity of
the sort.
My final proposition, if I may, is the one that I might personally feel can be where you distinguished
individuals and myself can meet on the most direct ground: I propose that the city of Palo Alto--
perhaps even in a joint effort with the El-Palo-Alto-branded Stanford University--somehow, in
some way, organize and hold in as near of a future as possible an “EL PALO ALTO
APPRECIATION DAY” that can hopefully bring together the people of this great city in a united
effort to fight against losing the living, standing being that is indirectly the reason behind why
all of you exist in the place that you do today. Holding this Appreciation Day would help to
spread the El Palo Alto protection cause, granting your city government (hopefully) hundreds of
new allies that can watch out for the tree and speak out in the case that something regarding
the being that they observe might not seem properly decent (thereby placing the local
4
government and law enforcement in less of a tree “watchdog” role and shifting said
responsibility to the citizenry). The Appreciation Day could also very likely decrease will among
the populus that happens by to randomly vandalize / litter the area once they hopefully realize
the significance of the living history that they choose to alter simply for their own contrived
pleasure. Holding festivities on this day could, as well, provided that an admission is charged
and / or vendor stand permits are granted, grant your city DIRECT funding that could generate
revenue to ensure that any and all of the above considerations of changes could very well get
underway. Holding this Appreciation Day, hands down, if properly advertised, could also even
generate tourist revenue in your city, with people traveling from around the Bay, across the
state, and even potentially beyond to be acquainted with this silent shrine that has seen more
history in life than many of us can even remotely fathom. If people enter the city to see the tree,
they will also likely want to go shopping here as well, and, with the Stanford Mall so close by,
people could use this day to partake in retail excursions as such with the unintended
consequence of also flowing new money into the local economy. Stanford University could also
be economically / socially benefited by advertising at the Appreciation Day for already having a
history so closely tied with the tree (and hopefully a future history where such can only
continue to be so). The economic potentials of this day for your city are undeniable, and I can
certainly only hope that a properly advertised inaugural celebration with vendors, souvenirs,
and speakers from the city, Stanford University, the Palo Alto Historical Association, and even
perhaps general citizens like me that love the tree could help everyone involved reach their own
personal goals while still hopefully not forgetting to help out this magnificent tree.
This is not a direct proposition from me, but I would dare say, respectfully, that I feel as if speaking on
behalf of the tree for a continued life and proper welfare in the face of human environmental threats to
the attendees at an event such as an Appreciation Day ceremony could very well be a highlight in my
Bay Area experience, to know that I--a modest person from Arkansas--can devote myself to help a
living being that means a lot to me, and increasingly more so with each visit to the monumental plant
that I take.
Palo Alto City Council Members, I profusely thank you for your time and consideration, and wish you all only
the best from now until furthermore. I trust that any and all of my considerations regarding El Palo Alto shall be
taken as fully seriously as they are expressed, and that any and all of my propositions emphasized can only be
executed so long as they are deemed by your city to be what is known as best for the health and safety of El
Palo Alto Park patrons and for the continued and healthy existence of the El Palo Alto tree.
Best wishes, and all my best
-Paul Minsker
minskerpaul@gmail.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 27, 2018 9:43 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:595 Emerson
This is actually about a
doomed tree at the corner of Emerson and Hamilton in Palo Alto in front of what used to be Nathan Oliveira’s
downtown studio. But it starts with a Videos from Prince’s self‐marketed album called “Chaos…” ( and I am indebted to
RE for hepping me to this). This kind of works in plastic alto
And it’s kind of a red herring, or a purple people eater hearing but there’s a rapper named Dessa from the band called
Doomtree and I discovered her or them in 2009 while walking across St. Paul and I heard the music and was drawn to
what turned out to be the Macalester College spring fling concert. We also can hear Dessa’s music in the film about
Ruth Bader Ginsberg whose moniker was inspired by a black rapper named biggie smalls and this is about as shaggy as a
dog can get without becoming a cloud, a sound cloud as it were. I’m here all week, try the Ranchero steak omelette.
2
The tag says that the tree is endangering the building but I would rather we tear down the building and save the tree
mark weiss in Palo Alto and in plastic alto the blog
What about music mostly but I did for example post in real time from last nights council meeting about the giveaway to
the 16 developers.
Sent from my iPhone
1
Carnahan, David
From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net>
Sent:Wednesday, November 21, 2018 9:26 PM
To:Council, City; Keene, James; Bonilla, Robert
Cc:lydiakou@lydiakou.emailnb.com
Subject:Fwd: Dyann Espinosa thanked you for your reply
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Nextdoor Midtown" <reply@rs.email.nextdoor.com>
Date: November 21, 2018 at 5:21:49 PM PST
To: geri@thegrid.net
Subject: Dyann Espinosa thanked you for your reply
Still hoping for my street to become safe: here are are two posts from nextdoor tonight. Geri
Dyann Espinosa from Pulgas Gardens thanked you for your reply:
“Just curious why the 40 mile an hour speeding is just fine with
everyone on ANY of our streets HERE IN PALO ALTO at all...
People in ALL kinds of Transportation are hurt every single day here,
no matter their mode since we stopped our traffic calming on 2011.
All we would have to do is call the police desk each day, 329-2413,
and insist on speed enforcement, and red light enforcement.
It takes more people calling.
Safe towns do exist.
The city leaders need to know that we DO care. Then you can drive
any kind of anything.
Geri McGilvray
EVERYDAY SAFETY AND WALKABILITY for ALL of MIDTOWN AND
PALO ALTO
It would be more peaceful everywhere. We deserve it.”
View or reply
Private message
This message is intended for geri@thegrid.net.
Unsubscribe or adjust your email settings
Nextdoor, 875 Stevenson Street, Suite 700, San Francisco, CA 94103
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ben Stolpa <jben@stolpa.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 27, 2018 8:24 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Amy Kacher; John Guislin; Bob Wenzlau
Subject:Fwd: Forest Ave. and Center in Crescent Park, Palo Alto, 6 PM, Nov. 27, a residential street grid
locked.
To City Council Members:
For your information. The traffic problem continues episodically and frequently. It is not a figment of residents’
imaginations. The email below was circulated by me to Crescent Park residents, along with two photos, taken from my
window.
I subsequently found out that my neighbor across the street, whose aged mother is in a senior care facility in Redwood
City and was having problems that needed immediate attention, had to weave her way through back streets to get to
her mother.
Ben Stolpa
jben@stolpa.com
Forest Avenue
=============================================
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ben Stolpa <jben@stolpa.com>
Subject: Fwd: Forest Ave. and Center in Crescent Park, Palo Alto, 6 PM, Nov. 27, a
residential street grid locked.
Date: November 27, 2018 at 6:25:39 PM PST
To: Crescent Park eGroup Post <crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com>
Hello CPNA residents,
If you had not noticed, (?!) once again traffic is making it (near) impossible for residents to return home
or leave their driveways. Drivers are choosing to use both “lanes” on Forest to be in the same direction,
away from downtown. It is now ca. 6 PM, Tuesday, Nov 27. This traffic jam, notwithstanding some
elected city officials’ ignorance of these frequent occurrences, in greater or lesser intensities, is now
once again happening. I did call the NON‐emergeny evening phone number (329‐2413) at which I left
the information. The personable individual acknowledged he was aware of the problem and stated
there had been ten (10) auto accidents in the immediate area tonight. His frustration in his courteous
voice was palpable as he was not in control of the drivers, the weather, nor the established traffic routes
and lights though he did not make any reference to any of them. He merely thanked me for my
information. I was not the first phone call, clearly.
In case you wanted to know……. my evening “entertainment” sadly
Ben
jben@stolpa.com
Forest Ave.
2
Sent from my iPhone
1
Carnahan, David
From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 27, 2018 2:10 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:leave the tree, take the cannoli
Breakfast with Delores
Posted on November 27, 2018by markweiss86
This is actually about a doomed tree at the corner of Emerson and Hamilton in Palo Alto in front of
what used to be Nathan Oliveira’s downtown studio. But it starts with a video from Prince’s self-
marketed album called “Chaos…” ( and I am indebted to RE for hepping me to this). This kind of
works in Plastic Alto (my blog, wordpress).
And it’s kind of a red herring, or a purple-people-eater hearing, but there’s a rapper named Dessa
from the band called Doomtree and I discovered her or them in 2009 while walking across St. Paul,
MN and I heard the music and was drawn to what turned out to be the Macalester College Spring
Fling concert. You also can hear Dessa’s music in the film about Ruth Bader Ginsberg, whose
moniker was inspired by a black rapper named biggie smalls and this is about as shaggy as a dog can
get without becoming a cloud, a sound-cloud as it were. I’m here all week, try the ranchero steak
omelette.
2
This is the tree it looks perfectly healthy to me but the city wants to cut it down because they say it’s
endangering the building. I left a voicemail with the city suggesting they tear down the building
instead. Choose your battles:
3
Prince is dead; my mom is dead. I don’t want the tree to be dead. Dig?
4
and1: If you are reading this post online you might also notice the masthead of my blog which shows
me bowling in that same St. Paul, Minnesota on that same day that I not only bowled but saw a movie,
the Coen brothers A" Serious Man", heard Dessa and saw my cousin's b'nai mitzvah.
Posted in music | Tagged dessa, nathan oliveira, prince | Leave a comment | Edit
Hey, you 16 developers, what else can we do for you?
Posted on November 26, 2018by markweiss86
Live coverage amending tiitle 18 of P AMC -zoning Monday, November 26 9:30 PM
and remind me, How much did we pay the consultant to help us help you?
edit to add, it’s only 9:12 actually:
5
1) lobbyist Duffy Daugherty hopes the city will throw him a bone.
6
2. He’s not leadership, he’s not a journalist he’s just a guy with a computer in gets bored on Monday
nights: (picture of the author, shortly thereafter, i.e. selfie-style, compared to previous, doggy-style).
3. excloo to City of Palo Alto i.e. not in blog itself: Rinconada. Something fishy. Stop the deal. Ask for
more than $10,000 on first $1M or just shutter until we figure out what's going on (as my friend
Linda Perry would say: what's up)
Posted in Plato's Republic | Tagged build baby build, Ken hayes, sobrato, thoits, windy hill | Leave a comment | Edit
- mark weiss, resident of Downtown North -- my actual address is still a public record
1
Carnahan, David
From:Roland Lebrun <ccss@msn.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 28, 2018 1:25 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Nadia Naik; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; apexstr@pacbell.net;
etty.mercurio@aecom.com; millette.litzinger@aecom.com
Subject:London's high speed tunnel diameters and costs
Attachments:Slide1.GIF
Dear Council members,
Further to Nadia Naik's comments about reduced tunnel costs achieved through context‐sensitive tunnel
design, London's high‐speed tunnels were designed with a 23.5‐foot internal diameter and were tested at 160
MPH: https://youtu.be/Uv14ylJjqvM
Please refer to the attached file for the cost of the tunnels, portals (including a freight connection), vent shafts
and the 1/4 mile open trench station 25 seconds into the video
Eurostar test train running at 255 kmh
in London Tunnels
This is the only footage available of a Eurostar test train
running at Maximum Test Speed + 10% (255 km) on the
Section 2 of the London Tunnels on the Channe...
youtu.be
2
Sincerely,
Roland Lebrun
1
Carnahan, David
From:Wayne Michaud <info@idlefreecalifornia.org>
Sent:Tuesday, November 27, 2018 10:17 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:[Madison] Just one driver ticketed in first year of Madison's anti-idling ordinance
Attachments:PastedGraphic-1.tiff
FYI: Madison, WI anti‐idling ordinance
https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime/just‐one‐driver‐ticketed‐in‐first‐year‐of‐madison‐s/article_0abeb275‐7c36‐
57c9‐917d‐6ec36960eeec.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user‐share
Wayne Michaud
Executive Director, Idle‐Free California
6900 Navarro Ct., Citrus Heights, CA 95621
707‐548‐1619
Idle‐Free California website
Idle-Free California Facebook
Idle‐Free California Twitter
Be idle free for our health & planet
1
Carnahan, David
From:Cheryl Smith <cheryl_smith2@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 27, 2018 5:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Pedestrian beaten on Embarcadero bike path - Action ideas
Hi,
I was just reading about the pedestrian that was beaten on the Embarcadero bike path (between Churchill and
University, beside the train tracks. I am so sad! This is a beautiful path and much used and loved. School
children take it to school, I travel on it to go to Palo Alto Medical foundation and if I need to go to University
avenue. There have been other robberies, but the brutality of this one prompted me to write.
Here are some ideas:
Can we please get cops on bicycles or foot patrol to include this on their routes (or increase the frequency if
they are already patrolling here at night?
Can we add more street lamps?
Can we trim the bushes and trees to improve visibility?
Thanks so much for considering it,
Cheryl Smith
1
Carnahan, David
From:John G. <jjgonz8band@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 26, 2018 3:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:save electricity
Many streetlights especially those in areas with little traffic like residential areas and streetlights that are switched on
during certain times of the night may not be needed since there are few cars and people moving along the street. So, it
would be a far better use of energy if the streetlights were to switch on only when they are needed.
This could be accomplished through the use of motion activated streetlights, the lights would only switch on when a car
or a person came within a certain distance of the light pole. Adjacent lights could communicate with each other so that
they could all switch on if the moving object is travelling above a certain speed. Faster cars would require a longer
lighted path in order to travel safely.
https://www.homedepot.com/p/eLEDing‐Solar‐Power‐SMART‐2400LM‐Motion‐Sensing‐Outdoor‐Integrated‐CREE‐LED‐
Brown‐Street‐Area‐Light‐EE815W‐SH15/304124168
This technology is sufficiently easy to retrofit into existing streetlight light cases and if this is combined with low power
consumption LEDs even further savings could be realized.
John G.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Saturday, November 24, 2018 10:17 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Holzemer/hernandez; Greg Schmid (external); Joe Hirsch; Maurice Green; Paul Machado; Ben Lerner;
Mary Gallagher; Fred Balin; Rita Vrhel; Summa, Doria; Christine Rosche
Subject:SMART METERS
I am shocked that you all voted for 'smart meters' 8 to 0, such a vote must mean that
you don't understand their effect on our health. I have a DVD that will explain it to you,
if you
would look at it. PLEASE do your research and due diligence. I have always been so
glad that
Palo Alto didn't use them. They have many ill and long term effects on our bodies,
energy wise,
cancer etc. Please Re look and reverse this vote.
I can refer you to professionals who you can interview and learn why they are not
healthy for
us, or other living things.
Suzanne Keehn
4076 Orme St.
94306
1
Carnahan, David
From:Judith Schwartz <commissioner.schwartz@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 21, 2018 9:05 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Abendschein, Jonathan; Elvert, Catherine; Danaher, Michael; Ballantine, Arne; Batchelor,
Dean
Subject:The use of the term "Carbon Neutral" continues to confuse
Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council
When I read the Palo Alto Weekly story from Tue, Nov 20, 2018, City looks to tap into the value of wastewater: Palo
Alto explores building new plant to treat, sell recycled water by Gennady Sheyner I was struck by the following
reference to our energy supply:
"Reducing our reliance on distant and vulnerable supplies makes us more sustainable and more self-reliant," [former
Mayor Pat] Burt said. In addition, he said, the [advanced recycling] plant would be the first to use 100 percent carbon-
free electricity, a key feature for such an energy-dependent project.”
Mr. Burt’s use of the term “100 percent carbon‐free electricity” as justification for independently worthy projects speaks to my
concerns about how the City is communicating with and potentially misinforming the public. As a Commissioner on the UAC and in
public meetings I have raised the issue multiple times and feel this is an appropriate moment to bring it to your attention again.
100% carbon neutral, the term officially used by CPAU, City officials, and the City Council, is misleading and confusing. It does NOT
mean 100% renewables, nor does it mean 100% carbon free. YET many people—including Mr. Burt apparently—mistakenly believe
it does. A survey recently conducted by the utility with city residents only confirmed the confusion.
100% carbon free electricity would need to come ONLY from nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, and geothermal resources.
100% renewables would require electricity and heat to come ONLY from solar, wind, geothermal, small hydro, plus biofuels and
landfill gas which are not carbon free. In many jurisdictions, large hydro and nuclear are not included in renewable portfolio targets
which arguably is counter‐productive if one’s goal is reducing carbon.
What 100% carbon neutral does mean is that the utility buys enough carbon-free resources to cover all the city’s needs
on an annual basis. BUT because those carbon-free resources are intermittently available at certain times of day or vary
seasonally, we actually purchase and use market electricity, which is NOT carbon-free, in order to keep the lights on at
night and in the early morning hours. The carbon-free electricity that we procure in excess of our instantaneous demand
must be either curtailed at a loss or sold into the market, potentially also at a loss. Only on an annual basis, after
accounting for renewable energy credits and offsets, can we can claim to be a provider of carbon neutral electricity and gas.
Let’s use an analogy that draws on your recent discussion of the water supply. Imagine the City purchases all the Hetch Hetchy
water we would need during the entire year, but we can only use it in the hours each day that the sun shines. At night, residents
must bathe, wash clothes, dishes, and cook with water from treated sewage. Because water can be stored in reservoirs and tanks,
one could segregate and distribute clean water for drinking, bathing, and cooking with a parallel distribution system for non‐potable
use, but the same is not true for a common supply of electricity which must be used “co‐incident” with the moment it is produced.
Today, the “non‐coincident” or instantaneous mismatch between CPAU’s supply of carbon‐free electricity and the demand is
managed by selling excess green power and buying market‐based brown power. Until and unless CPAU stores its green energy or
changes its energy mix, we cannot supply 100% carbon‐free electricity.
Local reliability would be enhanced by deployment of a landfill gas or anaerobic digester plant within the City limits to either provide
electricity to the City, run the proposed water treatment facility, or enable long‐duration thermal energy storage. There would be
significant societal and environmental benefits even if these resources are not zero carbon.
2
We can be proud of the truth of Palo Alto’s current efforts without resorting to hyperbole or confusing slogans.
Judith Schwartz
Vice Chair
Palo Alto Utility Advisory Commission
Sent from Yahoo Mail. Get the app
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 21, 2018 7:12 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC; CAC-TACC
Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 11-19-18 Council meeting -- Item 5 -- Smart Meters
Council members,
Here (below the "#####" line) is a transcript of Council's 11-19-18 meeting, Item 5 -- the smart meter item. I have made
some comments (paragraphs beginning with "###").
This is the video of the meeting.
http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-152-11192018/
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
###########################################################################
AGENDA CHANGES
2:46:58:
Mayor Kniss: So, as we go on to the next item, I'm going to make a change on this one, tonight. This is number 4. This
is an application that deals with a rooftop access, among other things. And because we are now at a quarter to eleven,
I'm going to suggest that we take public comment on this, if there is any, and that we defer this for another meeting. So,
while the water board is getting up, are there any -- is there anyone here that wants to speak to number 4? Which is the
rooftop item.
2:47:41:
Council Member Wolbach: (unamplified) We still need to do -- um ...
2:47:44:
Mayor Kniss: Right. I haven't started the meeting yet. Right? [laughs] I do need to go
back. Right? Um. Nobody? Oh. Well, that makes it somewhat easy, then.
2:47:56:
Council Member DuBois: What about -- What about -- Liz, what about ...
2:47:56:
Mayor Kniss: Could I have a motion to put off 285 Hamilton, etc., which is our public hearing tonight? And to put this on
at a date not yet certain?
2
2:48:11:
Council Member Scharff: (unamplified) So moved.
2:48:12:
Mayor Kniss: Second.
2:48:13:
City Manager Keene: So, technically, you have opened the meeting -- the public hearing -- and continued it to a date
uncertain, by the -- recommendation ...
### Technically, that intent was moved and seconded but not voted on yet. So, no, the public hearing hadn't been
opened.
2:48:20:
Mayor Kniss: Well, if there's no one to speak to us, do I need to do that?
2:48:24:
[multiple speakers, unamplified]
2:48:26:
City Manager Keene: I mean, that's technically your practice.
2:48:28:
City Attorney Stump: We'll have to re-notice it anyway, since we don't have a date. So, it's not important to open a
hearing. You'll have a new hearing.
2:48:34:
City Manager Keene: You don't have to do it, since we're going to have to re-notice it.
2:48:38:
Mayor Kniss: Good. So, I'm hearing we don't have to do that. We can simply postpone this ...
2:48:42:
Council Member Holman: So, ...
2:48:42:
Mayor Kniss: ... to a date uncertain. I have a motion and a second. Could ...
2:48:43:
Council Member Holman: So, ...
2:48:43:
Mayor Kniss: ... you vote on the board?
2:48:43:
Council Member Holman: Well, ...
3
2:48:45:
[multiple speakers, unamplified]
What -- How --
2:48:49:
Mayor Kniss: Sorry. Sorry, Karen.
2:48:49:
Council Member Holman: How long do we think this would really take? How long do we think this would really
take? Because we've got staff and a planning commissioner, who have been waiting all this time.
2:48:57:
Mayor Kniss: I think, then, that ** next item.
2:48:58:
City Manager Keene: ... quite some ...
2:49:00:
Council Member Holman: And then, what about Item 5?
2:49:01:
Mayor Kniss: Yeah. They're waiting for Item 5. We're not -- We're -- We're taking up Item 5, Karen. We're just
postponing Item 4.
2:49:08:
City Manager Keene: Yeah.
2:49:10:
Council Member Holman: [sigh] I'd rather postpone Item 5 and do Item 4.
2:49:13:
City Manager Keene: Well, in any case, you are already past your -- um -- your procedures are -- I would just remind you
-- to have a check-in at 10 am -- 10 pm, excuse me -- and take up no new items, technically, after 10:30. So, ...
2:49:30:
Mayor Kniss: However, in this case -- Because these nice people have been waiting to talk to us, I think we should hear
it.
### It's virtually always the case that some "nice people" have been waiting to talk to Council. The reason for Council's
policy is so that Council members won't be too tired to think clearly about items they'll vote on. If Council has to
disappoint some "nice people," that can't be helped.
And we can see if we can make this brief.
2:49:37:
Council Member DuBois: So, Liz ...
4
2:49:38:
City Manager Keene: OK.
2:49:39:
Council Member DuBois Liz, I think ...
2:49:39:
Council Member Scharff: (unamplified) **
2:49:40:
Mayor Kniss: Number 5.
2:49:41:
Vice Mayor Filseth: (unamplified) Right now, we're voting on 5.
2:49:44:
City Manager Keene: Item number 4 has been moved to be -- number 4. Thank you.
2:49:45:
Mayor Kniss: I'm sorry. Please vote on number 4. I was distracted.
2:49:54:
Mayor Kniss: OK. That passes unanimously -- and now takes us on to number 5.
2:49:58:
Council Member DuBois: So, Liz, ....
2:49:59:
Council Member Wolbach: We still have Changes, Additions, Deletions, City Manager Comments, and Minutes ...
2:50:02:
Mayor Kniss: Cory wants me to go back to the beginning. OK.
2:50:05:
[multiple speakers, unamplified]
2:50:08:
Council Member DuBois: So, Liz, if I could ...
2:50:10:
Mayor Kniss: So, we have Agenda Changes, Additions, Deletions ...
2:50:13:
Council Member DuBois: Liz, I'd like to move that we also postpone Item 5.
5
### Council Member DuBois has been waiting to say this (or something like it) since 2:47:56.
I mean, it's 10:45. And I think it's actually a pretty substantial item.
2:50:22:
Mayor Kniss: Well, actually, I don't think this is going to take more than about 15 minutes. And we have Utilities staff
here, who have been waiting for three hours.
2:50:29:
Council Member DuBois: Well, I mean, we just had -- Amy French just walked out. She's been here for Item 4. And
[PTC Commissioner] Michael Alcheck. That's the point that Karen was making.
2:50:35:
Mayor Kniss: I didn't know she was here for Item 4. Because I asked if anyone was here for Item 4.
### When Mayor Kniss asked (2:46:58), I assumed she was asking whether any members of the public wanted to speak
to Item 4, NOT whether any staff members or commissioners were present for the item.
2:50:39:
Council Member Holman: That's what I mentioned. We'd had the planning ...
2:50:41:
City Manager Keene: Why don't we get through everything, and get to 5, and you decide what you're going to do on 5?
2:50:47:
Mayor Kniss: OK.
2:50:47:
City Manger Keene: Do Agenda Changes, Additions, Deletions, ...
2:50:49:
Mayor Kniss: I don't feel strongly about it. But I feel sorry for staff that's been waiting. OK. So, we had no agenda
changes, additions, deletions. We went through -- Pardon?
2:51:00:
Council Member Wolbach: (unamplified) We just made one.
2:51:01:
City Manager Keene: Yeah.
2:51:02:
Mayor Kniss: Ah -- Yes. That's over and done with. But -- I have to pretend this is seven o'clock.
### Why?
So, City Manager Comment?
2:51:10:
City Manager Keene: It is six hours since we started the meeting. I will pass on City Manager Comments.
6
2:51:17:
Mayor Kniss: What a good idea.
2:51:18:
Council Member Scharff: (unamplified) I'll move approval of the minutes.
2:51:20:
Vice Mayor Filseth: Second.
2:51:21:
Mayor Kniss: Vote on the board for approval of minutes, please. OK. [The vote is 8-0, Fine absent.] I think that takes us
back to our action items. Am I correct.
2:51:37:
City Manager Keene: Yup. You have only one item before you. Right? Item number 5?
2:51:41:
Mayor Kniss: We have one item, which is number 5. And I'm going to suggest we plow through it, because we have so
many other things that have come on the agenda for the end of the year.
2:51:51:
City Manger Keene. OK.
ITEM 5 -- SMART METERS
2:51:51:
Mayor Kniss: So, this is Finance Committee Recommending to Council Accept the Utilities Smart Grid Assessment and
Utilities Technology Implementation Plan. And we do have a presentation by staff. And, thank you, staff, for waiting for
so long.
2:52:05:
City Manager Keene: Madam Mayor, if I could just add one thing here. I appreciate the effort. I'm sure it's a mixed
blessing for our staff, who have been sitting here for hours, waiting. To stay. Hopefully, you can keep it short. This is a
little unusual, in that this is just a recommendation to accept a plan. You have a unanimous recommendation from the
Utilities Advisory Commission. You have a unanimous recommendation from the Finance Committee. And I guess the
Finance Committee felt it was complex or interesting enough for the Council to watch this.
### For more about why the Finance Committee wanted Council to consider this item, please see my transcript of the
Finance Committee's 10-16-18 meeting, for this item -- PDF page 169 here.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=40248.17&BlobID=67624
I just might suggest, if you can, really keep it short. All the Council has to do is accept this. And we could also send you
the link to the Finance Committee meeting. And the Council members could also watch that much more involved
discussion.
### Council members who wanted to know what the Finance Committee thought about this item would have done well to
find out BEFORE voting, not after. Still, finding out now might affect future votes.
2:52:52:
7
Mayor Kniss: Those are great options. So, for the staff who is here, I think you've been encouraged to give us a brief
presentation. And we've also been directed to the website. And I'm also interested in whether or not Council Member
Scharff has any comments to make BEFORE we even hear from staff. As to why it's on.
2:53:18:
Council Member Scharff: Well, I think it's on because it seemed like a big enough number, and a big enough thing that it
should come to Council. And it's a fairly large policy choice. So, that's why we decided it should come to Council. We did
vet it. We had long discussions about it. We basically decided that -- if you look at the staff report, where it talks about
the cost and the break-even, on page 2, which is packet page 54 -- that, yes, given that it's probably likely to break even --
possibly a slight benefit from a -- cost-wise -- or just a minor cost negative, that it's unlikely to raise rates,
### ABSOLUTELY FALSE. The smart meter plan is certain to raise the RATES of the electric, water, and gas
utilities. But staff is saying that if it gives customers the information they need to figure out how to conserve enough, then
their monthly BILLS might not go up. Since Council Member Scharff was part of the Finance Committee's extensive
discussion on this point, I'm sure he understands it. He just misspoke.
that, given all the other qualitative benefits, that it's time to move forward on this. So that was the -- that was basically the
summary of the discussion. And I would urge us to accept the report and move forward. And, actually, I'll make that
motion. Since we don't have any members of the public to speak, do we?
2:54:10:
Mayor Kniss. No.
2:54:10:
Vice Mayor Filseth: One.
2:54:11:
Mayor Kniss: Oh, wait. Jeff Hoel.
2:54:12:
Council Member Scharff: All right. Then I'll make it after Jeff.
2:54:18:
Mayor Kniss: Were you suggesting Jeff come forward now?
2:54:20:
Council Member Scharff: I'm happy to have him come forward if he wants to.
2:54:22:
City Manager Keene: We have ONE slide.
2:54:23:
Assistant City Manager Shikada: Yes. Council members, I would note that ...
2:54:28:
Mayor Kniss: Hang on a minute, Jeff.
2:54:28:
Assistant City Manager Shikada: ... in the spirit of adaptation, staff has boiled everything down to ONE SLIDE. And if you
have the patience, I think we'll do a quick, brisk walk through it.
8
2:54:37:
Mayor Kniss: OK.
2:54:38:
Assistant City Manager Shikada: Very good. All right.
2:54:38:
Mayor Kniss: And, Jeff, we'll call on you as soon as they're done.
2:54:42:
Assistand City Manager Shikada: Should I hand it off to Shiva Swaminathan.
2:54:45:
Shiva Swaminathan: As Council Member Scharff said, we have done an extensive discussion at the UAC and then, later
on, at the Finance Committee. So -- So, if the Council provides approval, we'll start beginning work on this. But the
actual contracts related to the work would come later on. And the budgets will come later on, with Council approval. But
this is start. It's a -- probably a 5+-year process, where we have to implement the City's CIS system and the ERP system
before we can implement. So, this won't be implemented until about 2023. In terms of highlights, on the customer bill, it's
a break-even proposition. A $19 million investment, but break-even over 18 years. If the costs are higher -- and we ran
some sensitivities -- if the cost were higher and the value less, there's a potential for a 1 or 2 percent higher bill for our
customers. But if we reserves, which we currently have, the electric bill is likely to be a half a percent less.
2:55:54:
We could use our fiber-to-the-node infrastructure for part of this traffic for the data from the smart grid. And we'll explore
that down the road.
2:56:10:
So, the decision in front of you is -- And this is the timeline.
### The timeline is on another slide.
Looking at the different implementation of the different software systems we need to implement before the AMI could
come into place. And this is our recommendation.
### The recommendation is on another slide.
2:56:31:
**: (unamplified) ** one slide **
2:56:32:
[laughter]
2:56:36:
City Manger Keene: (unamplified) Well, that's what it looks like.
2:56:37:
[laughter]
2:56:39:
9
Assistant City Manager Shikada: I can't trust anyone anymore.
2:56:40:
[laughter]
2:56:45:
Assistant City Manager Shikada: (unamplified) All right. I think we're ready for questions. Thank you.
2:56:48:
[laughter]
2:56:53:
Mayor Kniss: (unamplified) All set?
2:56:54:
Assistant City Manager Shikada: We are all set. Thank you.
2:56:56:
Mayor Kniss: (unamplified) OK. Jeff. (amplified) I think you're our only speaker on this item. Thanks for being so
patient.
2:57:02:
Jeff Hoel: No problem. So, I just wanted mention a couple of things. The claim is that this thing breaks even in 18
years. But in order to think that that's true, you have to squint your eyes and look at it in a very peculiar way. What I think
is going on is, we're going to buy a bunch of new meters and stuff, and it's going to cost a lot of money. And staff, in order
to pay for it, is just going to raise rates. You have to understand that first. They're just going to raise rates. But then,
they're going to tell the public, oh no, you can still end up not paying any more money, if you just figure out, how do you
use the information you get from these meters to conserve your use of resources. And we're going to say that everything
you conserve was BECAUSE of these meters. I -- I think that's kind of screwy.
2:58:11:
Next point. The pilot project, so far, has a certain amount of data about what people are willing to do. But the rates that --
the time-of-use [TOU] rates that they use for that said electricity was more expensive in the day than during the
night. And we're heading towards an era where exactly the opposite is true. So we have no data on what people are
likely to do if that's what the TOU rates are.
2:58:50:
Oh, yes. I'd also like to put in a good word for opt-out. Some people don't like these meters -- would never have
one. Staff says we've got to have A plan for these people. My claim is, you should probably think of multiple plans. Like,
if somebody doesn't want to get a smart meter, can you have the person read his own meters, and not charge him any
more money? Or, could you have staff read the meters every other month, so that the extra amount you charge for
people like that is half of what it would otherwise be? And so forth. And then, in the case that somebody doesn't really
mind the fact of the meter, except that he'd like to cut down on the amount of transmissions that the meter uses. I have
an impression now that what staff intends for the amount of transmission that the meter -- ah -- uses is pretty small. But
that's not published anywhere. And so, as -- one next step would be to write down, here's -- here's how safe -- how -- you
know, how few transmissions they use. OK. That's all.
3:00:11:
Mayor Kniss: Council Member DuBois, did you have on your light?
10
3:00:14:
Council Member DuBois: No, but I can talk.
3:00:15:
Mayor Kniss: [laughs] Go right ahead.
3:00:18:
Council Member DuBois: Um -- So, overall, thank you for the plan. It looks good. I really just wanted to make one
point. And if it's all right with people, I'll go ahead and move the staff motion. To accept this report.
3:00:37:
Council Member Scharff: I'll second.
3:00:37:
Council Member DuBois: So I guess the slide, you know, said, you know, we should evaluate whether we can leverage
our dark fiber optic backbone.
### The slide said, "Evaluate whether the City can leverage existing dark fiber optic backbone or future Fiber-to-the-Node
(FTTN) network (pending approval of business case)." I don't know what this means. For example, does it mean that
staff wouldn't even consider using FTTN infrastructure for smart meters until after a business case for FTTN had been
approved? Since the City's dark fiber network (a.k.a., the existing dark fiber optic backbone) already exists, why hasn't
staff already evaluated whether it could be used for smart meters?
I would just like to make that a little stronger. And just, you know, strongly encourage that we look into that. And it seems
to be a really unique opportunity. We can multiply use of our enterprise fund, along with our fiber fund, and really benefit
residents in Palo Alto. So, I think as we move to smart grid and to smart city, we really should consider, like, how we can
leverage that money. And if a portion of this project can be used to fund the fiber-to-the-node project, I think it's a win-win.
### In other words, whether smart meters will use FTTN might affect whether FTTN's business case can be approved.
So, you know, I guess, you know, it was in one of the slides. I don't know if we need to add that to the motion, as part of
the plan. I mean, that -- I see staff nodding their heads. So, maybe, Ed, you could just comment. Like, you know, what is
the intention, in terms of trying to leverage the dark fiber network?
### I assume that Council Member DuBois is talking about leveraging FTTN, not the City's existing dark fiber
network. But I'm not 100 percent sure.
3:01:49:
Assistant City Manager Shikada: So, I'll let staff weigh in on this. Personally, I think my two cents would be that, as part
of moving forward with the business case on the fiber-to-the-node next step, that we would need to drill down some on the
design that would maximize the benefit for the utility purposes. And, hopefully -- and I think this is a matter beyond my
knowledge -- that the design associated with that purpose will complement what we are looking to, in terms of the citywide
deployment. And, assuming that that's the case, green light. We'll go.
3:02:30:
Council Member DuBois: I mean, I'd hate to have this project be six months ahead and not use it. So, if we can align
those things, like I said, I think it's a win-win.
3:02:38:
Assistant City Manager Shikada: Agreed. Agreed.
3:02:40:
1
Carnahan, David
From:Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, November 27, 2018 9:07 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Neilson Buchanan; Paul & Karen Machado; Carol Scott; Christian Pease; David Schrom; John Guislin
Subject:tunnel
Dear City Council,
here is an update about what the Boring Company is doing in LA.
Did you receive a bid in the meantime for our tunnel?
https://la.curbed.com/2017/12/4/16734696/elon‐musk‐tunnels‐boring‐company‐map
Wolfgang Dueregger
1
Carnahan, David
From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 27, 2018 12:40 PM
To:Cindy Chavez
Subject:US pays $4 billion for Vaccine Damage
Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com
Children's Health Defense
led by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Atty. Nov. 19, 2018
$4 Billion and Growing: U.S. Payouts for Vaccine Injuries
and Deaths Keep Climbing
* Over the U.S. vaccine court’s 30-year history, individuals and families have filed over 20,000
petitions for vaccine injury compensation.
* $4 billion is just the tip of the iceberg.
* The vaccine court is “not a court at all but…a consumer-funded government claims program . . .
* $4 billion pales in comparison to the billions of dollars’ worth of autism claims that the vaccine court
unfairly dismissed.
* “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported,” many health providers are unfamiliar with the
system for reporting vaccine injuries.
* 1 in 6 individuals who are damaged by a vaccine have a more severe recurrence with subsequent
vaccination
* The 1986 Act and the NVICP encourages manufacturers to develop even more vaccines,
while exempting them from liability for the injuries and deaths
The Health Resources & Services Administration just released new dollar figures
reflecting payouts from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The payouts
for vaccine injuries just went past the whopping $4 billion mark. Using the
government’s own conclusion that only 1% of all vaccine injuries are reported, the $4
billion is just the tip of the iceberg. Despite assurances from CDC and our Federal agencies
that all vaccines are safe, the payouts say otherwise. Vaccine injuries can and do happen—
to previously healthy children and adults. Consumers deserve to know the facts about the
full range of vaccine risks.
By the Children’s Health Defense Team
In most public health communications about vaccination, officials gloss over vaccine
risks, dismissing any possible “side effects” as mild. However, vaccination programs have
always resulted in more serious vaccine injuries for some. In the 1970s and early 1980s,
for example, the diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) vaccine and its whole-cell pertussis
component had chalked up so much vaccine damage that a television documentary likened
receiving a DPT shot to playing “vaccine roulette.”
After the DPT debacle began attracting widespread attention, vaccine manufacturers
started pressuring Congress for protection from vaccine injury lawsuits. Congress obliged.
In 1986, President Reagan signed into existence a radical piece of legislation—the National
2
Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA)—which launched what the Act described as an
“alternative remedy to judicial action for specified vaccine-related injuries.”
A key component of the legislation involved creating the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program (NVICP), which was given responsibility for deciding (through the
workings of a special “vaccine court”) whether specific injuries and individuals would be
eligible for financial compensation.
While government-funded Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers vigorously represent and
defend the interests of HHS and vaccine manufacturers, the consumer-unfriendly system
forces the vaccine-injured to meet an exceptionally high burden of proof.
Over the vaccine court’s 30-year history, individuals and families have filed
over 20,000 petitions for vaccine injury compensation. This month, even as 12% of
filed petitions remained unadjudicated, the payouts crossed over the $4 billion threshold.
This amount was awarded in response to barely a third (31% or 6,276) of the filed petitions.
There is no telling how much more money the taxpayer-funded program might have shelled
out if the court had not chosen to dismiss the remaining petitions (56%)—possibly doing
so fraudulently in at least some cases.
Running the Gauntlet
Over the three decades, despite the stated intent to furnish an “accessible and efficient
forum for individuals found to be injured by certain vaccines,” the NVICP has devolved into
a protracted and litigious David-versus-Goliath battleground. The vaccine court, in
actuality, is “not a court at all but…a consumer-funded government claims
program that uses…employees of Health and Human Services (HHS), rather than judges to
make decisions on compensation.” While government-funded Department of Justice (DOJ)
lawyers vigorously represent and defend the interests of HHS and vaccine manufacturers,
the consumer-unfriendly system forces the vaccine-injured to meet an exceptionally high
burden of proof. For dismissed claims, there is no assurance that the program will even
cover attorneys’ fees and costs.
Children’s Health Defense recently called attention to a glaring example of the NVICP’s
pro-industry and anti-vaccine-injured bias. In 2007 and 2008, DOJ attorneys exhibited
“highly unethical and appallingly consequential official misconduct” during an Omnibus
Autism Proceeding (OAP) orchestrated to determine the fate of 5,400 families who had filed
claims for vaccine-induced autism. The potential value of the claims exceeded $100
billion—an amount that “would have bankrupted the [compensation] program many times
over.”
HHS’s Department of Justice lawyers, “under pressure” to deprive petitioners of their
rightful relief, successfully achieved that aim through allegedly fraudulent means. In
September 2018, Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Rolf
Hazlehurst (parent of one of the vaccine-injured children involved in the OAP) requested
that the DOJ Inspector General and Congress investigate this fraud and obstruction of
justice by HHS and DOJ officials.
Individuals who file claims with VICP must meet specific “medical criteria” and are out of
luck unless their illness, disability, injury or condition is covered in the NVICP’s Vaccine
Injury Table and manifests within a specified time frame. As an illustration of the
difficulties that NVICP petitioners may encounter, consider someone who experiences
myocarditis (heart inflammation) following vaccination. A 2018 article in BMJ Case
Reports recently observed that myocarditis is one of “the more serious vaccine-related
sequela” and “has been reported following many different vaccines.”
3
Another recent article in a European medical journal describes post-vaccination reports of
myopericarditis (inflammation of both the pericardium and the heart muscle) and other
autoimmune disorders and offers two extremely plausible mechanisms “by which vaccines
can cause autoimmune reactions.” In the Vaccine Injury Table, however, the only place
where cardiac symptoms are mentioned is in connection with anaphylaxis—with the table’s
notes indicating that “there are no specific pathological findings to confirm a diagnosis of
anaphylaxis”—and most autoimmune illnesses are also conspicuously absent.
Tip of the Iceberg
By anyone’s accounting, the $4 billion paid out to date by the NVICP is an attention-
getting amount of money. However, that amount pales in comparison to the billions of
dollars’ worth of autism claims that the vaccine court unfairly dismissed. According to
HHS, moreover, “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported,” and studies
confirm that many health providers are unfamiliar with the system for reporting vaccine
injuries.
The shocking underreporting of vaccine injuries also fails to account for the fact that one
in six individuals who experience an “adverse event following immunization” (AEFI)
have a recurrence with subsequent vaccination, often rated as “more severe than the
initial AEFI.” If even a small percentage of these unreported and recurrent vaccine injuries
were brought forward for compensation, the entire NVICP house of cards—and the CDC’s
deceptive claims of unassailable vaccine safety—would crumble.
A Gold Rush: Liability Protection Encourages More Vaccines
Instead, whether intended or not, the end result of the 1986 Act and the NVICP has been
to create a “gold rush” environment that encourages manufacturers to develop even more
vaccines, while conveniently exempting them from liability for the injuries and deaths that
result from their powerful immune-system-altering products. With no incentive to make
vaccines safe and a large and lucrative market guaranteed by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention’s childhood vaccine schedule—as well as a growing effort to foist
unnecessary and dangerous vaccines on adults—vaccine manufacturers appear to have it
made.
The public and vaccine safety advocates must continue to remind the government that
the approximately 6,300 claims that have been compensated over the NVICP’s 30-year
history represent the very tip of the iceberg.
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health
Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health
of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to
CHD’s successful mission.
Republishing Guidelines
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum
TO: City Council
DATE: November 26, 2018
SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 14: Approval of a Five-year Operating and Revenue
Sharing Agreement with Team Sheeper for Operations of the
Rinconada Pool
Staff recommends Item No. 14: Approval of a Five-year Operating and
Revenue Sharing Agreement with Team Sheeper for Operations of the
Rinconada Pool on the November 26, 2018 City Council Agenda be continued
to the December 10, 2018 City Council Meeting .
(~ (~ ·t:.r1~
Kristen O'Kane ~
. ~-Jt:(f-~
Chief Operating Officer City Manager
Community Services Department
Herb Borock
P. 0. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
November 26, 2018
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94302
, coUNC.IJ. M&f.1'1NG ~t /kr!fr__-/ °2S' . 1 fl " cl Before M~ung r~ived at Meeung
NOVEMBER 26, 2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
ELECTION RESULTS
Dear City Council:
Now that this month's local election results are available, I
believe it is useful for Council Members whose terms expire in
two years to examine the public record of defeated candidates so
that incumbent candidates for re-election in two years don't
make the same mistakes made by incumbents who were defeated for
re-election this month.
In the September 2, 2016, Palo Alto Weekly, Council Members from
three adjacent cities authored a Guest Opinion titled, "Our
housing crisis calls for regional cooperation". (fu... o.~f...~
The authors made the assumption that employment in their
corcununities will continue to increase and that we should plan to
build housing for the growing workforce, rather than stop
employment growth until housing production catches up with the
demand for housing from the existing office buildings that
already make it difficult for people to find a place to live in
those Council Members corcununities.
The authors of that article were Menlo Park Council Member
Kirsten Keith, Mountain View Mayor Lenny Siegel, and Palo Alto
Council Member Cory Wolbach.
All three were defeated for re-election on November 6, 2018.
Sincerely,
~
Herb Borock
Editorials, letters and opinions
A lack of community
action
staff and the council. And not ter-
ribly hard to go to public meetings
to address the issues.
community action in Palo Alto?
This is such a critical time
for the Peninsula and Bay Area.
Growth and change are inevitable.
How we manage it is malleable.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Editor, The Palo Alto Weekly encourages comments on our coverage
or on Issues of local Interest. I read with great interest the re-
cent article about preserving the
groupings of four or five smaller
homes with a common driveway.
I think this is such a no-braincr to
protect the character and function
of these groupings. It is very sad
that it was studied 15 years ago
with no action taken.
It is hard to stick with an issue
and see a policy changed, as that
takes months if not years. I think
the staff is occasionally not in
sync with the best interests of the
community. They mean well, I am
sure of that. But they appear mis-
guided sometimes and are prob-
ably handcuffed by Palo Alto's
written ordinances, state law and
the fundamental property rights
of owners and citizens. But solu-
tions to preserve things like these
communities can assuredly be
found. And with such an educated
population and an above average
number of citizens with avail-
able time to work on such issues,
why don't we see more successful
Nornl Picker
Bell Street, East Palo Alto ? Do you support or oppose
the building of micro-
housing (up to 350 square
feet per apartment)
Yes to seascape
Editor,
In any case, what I am writing
about now is that as I read the
comments, I am struck by what
appears to be a Jack of understand-
ing on how citizens can influence
their city staff and government to
do better for them. I sense a lack
of education and will. It is so easy
to write an article comment. But it
is not terribly hard to write to the
I will consider the "new vision
for public art" a failure and a
boondoggle if the seascape in the
underpass for the Caltrain tracks
at N. California is not rejuvenated.
in Palo Alto?
Submit letters to the editor of up to 300 words to lettersCpawee!dy.com.
The seascape is one of the
most enjoyable art projects I have
seen in the city. Other members
of my family also enjoy it every
time we use the pedestrian/bike
underpass.
Submit guest opinions of 1,000 wordS to edilO<Opaweel<ly.com. Include your
name, address and daytime phone number so we can reach you. We reserve the right to edit contrWJons for length, objectionable cootent,
libel Md factual errors known to us. Anonymous letters wift generally not be
accepted. Submitting a letter to the editor or guest opinion constitutes a
granting of permission to the Palo Mo l/Ve&dy and Embarcadero Media to also
publish It onine, including in our onine archives and as a post on Town Square.
For more information contact Editor Jocelyn Dong or Editorial AssiS1ant
Anna Medina at editorOpawee!dy.com or 650·326·8210. Please put its renovation as a
Guest Opinion
Our housing crisis calls for regional cooperation
by Cory Wolbach, Lenny Siegel, and
Kirsten Keith
The housing crisis in our communities
is both an economic challenge and a
threat to sustainability. It is defined
by the rapid escalation of home prices
and rents; it displaces longtime residents;
it drives urban sprawl; and it is rooted in
the imbalanced growth of jobs without ad-
equate housing for our community.
No single city or company can solve these
problems, but together we can establish Cory Wolbach Lenny Siegel
goals to manage and address an increasing-
ly dire situation. The challenges of housing implement changes in the California Envi-
affordability and environmental sustainabil-ronmental Quality Act, it will be easier to
ity share a common set of answers. consider vehicle miles traveled in major de-
The highly publicized resignation of Kate velopment decisions. Environmental studies
Downing from the Palo Alto Planning and will show that the simplest way to reduce
Transportation Commission, due to the vehicle miles traveled is to locate housing
price of housing, is just one more reminder near jobs.
that the rapidly rising cost of living in our Urban sprawl here has gone beyond
region is tearing apart the fabric of our suburban. Demonstrated by jam-packed
communities and undernlining our quality highways crossing the mountains that en-
of life. At the same time, the couple who circle the Bay Area, residential development
created the popular Halloween attraction, serving our workforce continues to displace
the "No Mercy Cemetery" in Old Moun-farnlland, demands more expensive infra-
tain View, announced that they too were structure investments, and gobbles up more
leaving town because their duplex rent was water and energy than compact dcvelop-
doubling. mcnt in established communities. Forcing
We are losing not only the people who people to commute to our cities from Tracy,
mow our lawns and serve our food, teach Los Banos or Santa Cruz isn'tjust wearying
our children and bandage our wounds. The for them. It's bad for the planet.
housing crisis is forcing out many of the Without adequate housing, our commu-
people who lead our PTAs, serve on city nitics cannot sustain themselves. That is,
commissions, and bring the economic, cul-the housing shortage makes it difficult for
tural and ethnic diversity that makes the people who grew up in this area to raise
Bay Area such an exciting place to live. families here. While some young families
A community is not sustainable if em-may prefer to move elsewhere to own a
ployees and family members are forced to quarter-acre, the evidence is that more of
drive great distances through grueling com-them would prefer culturally vibrant, safe,
mutes to remain employed or connected. well-designed urban villages near cmploy-
Excessive automotive commuting wastes ment, good schools and, in many cases, near
time and energy, and it is responsible for their extended families. We have many re-
a strong majority of greenhouse gas cmis-tired people Jiving here whose quality oflife
sions from our area. As new regulations is diminished by the distance they live from
Page 14 •September 2, 2016 •Palo Alto Weekly-www.PaloAltoOnllne.com
their grandchildren. _,_.,.._r... The job-rich com-
munities of Silicon
Valley need to come
-together to establish
a simple common
goal: We will do
what we can to keep
the jobs-housing
imbalance from gel-
ling worse. That is,
Kirsten Keith as employment con-
tinues to increase,
we should plan for, and ensure, the devel-
opment of housing in quantities that serve
that growing workforce. We don't expect
everyone to Jive and work in the same city,
but we want to make it easier for people to
Jive near where they work. We can make it
easier for employees and our own younger
generations to find housing that works for
them, without their being forced far away,
and without their displacing others in bid-
ding wars.
New housing should be built near centers
of employment, shopping and transit. New
apartments, condos and townhouses should
be built where office parks now sprawl or
surface parking lots blight our downtowns.
There is still land available to build medi-
um-density housing without damaging the
character of existing single-family neighbor-
hoods. Infill development is called "smart
growth" because it reduces the demand for
energy, water and transportation to serve the
same number of people. This is why envi-
ronmental groups such as the Sierra Club
support infill over urban sprawl.
As Mountain View is planning in its
North Bayshore Planning Area, new homes
should be accompanied by parks, stores,
restaurants, services, schools/daycare and
transit. Complexes should be designed to
accommodate ride-sharing, delivery and
bicycling. Designed right, "car-light" devcl-
opment can actually reduce traffic. With 11
robust portion of affordable units, we can
serve the mix of seniors, families and work-
ers that our communities need.
Many people fear the dust, noise and traf-
fic diversion associated with new construc-
tion, but those impacts don't have to be part
of the package. Building here is so desirable
that our local governments have the author-
ity to demand the highest-quality construc-
tion techniques to minimize neighborhood
and environmental impacts.
We also have the ability to build more
subsidized housing, both by including be-
low-market-rate units in large market-rate
developments and by funding dedicated
affordable housing. Mountain View has
shown that new, properly located projects
serving families, veterans, low-income
workers, seniors, and even the developmen-
tally disabled can blend well into surround-
ing neighborhoods. All of our communities
have an opportunity to renew our historic
dedication to affordable housing options.
People elsewhere wish they had the eco-
nomic dynamism and technical creativity
of Silicon Valley, not realizing that we are
falling victim to our own success. The San
Francisco Peninsula no longer resembles
the Valley of the Heart's Delight. Indeed,
our communities arc very different than
they were a few decades ago. Change is
inevitable, but through careful planning
we can preserve our quality of life, protect
the environment, welcome newcomers and
retain those who have been here for years.
Our diverse professionals, service workers,
families and retirees aren't just the envy of
the world; they are the heart of our com-
munities.•
Cory Wolbach is a member of the
Palo Alto City Council; Lenny Siegel is
a member of the Mountain View City
Council; and Kirsten Keith is Menlo
Park's mayor pro tem.
-
Alexander Lew
In 2016-2018, ten ARB projects won 13 design awards:
• 385 Sherman Avenue (Visa)
Brick Architecture
Tabula by artist Charles Gadeken
2018 Silicon Valley Business Journal award for public art.
• 500 University Avenue (Accel)
Form 4 Architecture
2017 Silicon Valley Business Journal best urban infill project
• 725 Welch Road (Lucile Packard Children's Hospital)
Perkins & Will
ORece1ved Before Meeting
Received at Meeting
2018 AIA Academy of Architecture for Health national healthcare design award
2018 Silicon Valley Business Journal best healthcare project
• 1050 Page Mill Road (Machine Zone)
Form 4 Architecture
2017 Silicon Valley Business Journal Award for an architectural element
• 1400 Page Mill Road (Morgan Stanley)
Form 4 Architecture
2016 PCBC Gold Nugget Merit Award for net zero energy
2016 Leading European Architects Forum award for best sustainable development
• 1450 Page Mill Road (Infosys Limited)
Studios Architecture
2018 Chicago Athenaeum American Architecture Award
2017 PCBC Gold Nugget Merit Award for best commercial project over 20,000sf
• 1701 Page Mill Road (former Theranos building)
Studios Architecture
2016 PCBC Gold Nugget Grand Award for best commercial project
• 2500 El Camino Real (Mayfield Place)
David Baker & Partners Architects
2018 PCBC Gold Nugget Merit Award for affordable housing 30-60 units/acre
• 3431 Hillview (VMware Phase 2)
Form 4 Architecture
2016 PCBC Merit Award for best commercial project over 20,000sf
• 4175 Manuella Ave (Kol Emeth Synagogue)
Field Architecture
2016 AIA Santa Clara Valley Citation Award
..
Alexander Lew
PROJECT Holly Park Ill, Othello Station, Seattle
SCOPE Master plan of 20 acres with 400 units and 2.5 acres of parks
Building design of219 low income apartments
CLIENT Seattle Housing Authority
FUNDING HUD HOPE VI
AWARDS 2006 Pacific Coast Builders Conference Gold Nugget Award
2005 National Association of Home Builders BALA Award
•
Alexander Lew
~c ~-e.rvtelD~
ICOUNCIL MEETING u/;>-r(1Z
[ ] Placed Before Meeting
~ Received at Meeting
Public Safety Building 250 Sherman St .. ¥.
I've followed this project's design from near total
rejection in October 2017 by the ARB because they
determined collectively that it was extremely austere,
overwhelming, and unfriendly.
A year later, after major revisions, there was a
consensus to approve it with minor modifications
remaining. It had become a friendlier building. My
concern 1aD tliat despite this improvement, it lacked
other important characteristics, which I would hope
to convince fellow ARB members to consider.
In my opinion, a public safety building ought to
objectify stability, strength, capability as well as
civility. All of these elements are there, in this revised
design, and only need to become the focus rather than
hidden by inessential elements -canopies, roof
overhangs, multiple surface materials, unnecessary
columns and piers.
The terrific landscaping provides the scale and
welcoming feature, the pure forms of the building
have all the potentials of a successful and important
civic building to convey the symbolic purpose of the
police, fire and emergency services.
November 26, 2018
Dear esteemed Mayor Liz Kniss and Palo Alto City Council members:
Regarding the future of the Rinconada Masters swim club, we wish to bring to light a few
essential facts surrounding the future of our public Rinconada Pool facility:
The objective of the City to outsource the management of the Rinconada Pool facility is
laudable; however, the Request for Proposals was flawed in several important respects.
Please refer to our letter to the Palo Alto City Council dated November 19, 2018.
Team Sheeper seeks to win a five-year contract for management of the pool facility. This
would effectively include absolute control over allocation of the facility, swim lanes,
schedule, and pricing. Awarding a five-year contract to Team Sheeper would constitute
privatization of this public facility. There are no specified limits to how much Team
Sheeper will increase user fees under the proposed contract.
On October 16, 2018 Team Sheeper informed the Rinconada Masters that our existing
subcontract would not be renewed, citing two concerns: per-lane usage fees and the need
for two lifeguards on duty at all times. We came to him in good faith to negotiate a new
subcontract, but have had no response to date.
The objective of the Rinconada Masters is to continue to use the treasured Rinconada
Pool facility which we have enjoyed continuously since 1973. This appears to be
threatened by the recent events. We currently have 65 members.
The revenue-sharing scheme proposed by Team Sheeper with the City of Palo Alto
provides the city with virtually no income from the pool in all realistic revenue scenarios.
This seems to be grossly unfair to the city.
The main portion of the revenue and profit would be paid by the users of the facility. As
such, we the users deserve a voice in key decisions affecting the future of the facility.
We the Rinconada Masters therefore request that the City consider these facts in any future
deliberations regarding management of the Rinconada Pool facility.
We further request that the existing contract between the City of Palo Alto and Team Sheeper,
together with all existing subcontracts, be extended one year through December 31, 2019, and
that transparent, fair, and proper negotiations be conducted with impartial oversight.
Sincerely yours,
F~~ CO ~If MEETI NG I~ 5c
~ [ ] Placed Before Meeting
. -~ f ~ived at Meeting
es F. Shaw, Chair, Advisory Board, Rinconada Masters, current Palo Alto resident
17ft14f~( ~-9.'l.t>t.M
Timothy R. Groves, Rinconada Masters member, current Palo Alto resident
T WNSEND 11/27/18
RAIL MEETING D
PUBLIC AFFAIR S 0 Received Before Meeting
To:
BT TPA 19.
MEMO
James Keene, City Manager
Ed Shikada Assistant City Manager
Rob de Geus, Deputy City Manager
Heather Dauler, Intergovernmental Affairs Officer
From: Christopher Townsend, President, Townsend Public Affairs, Inc.
Niccolo De Luca, Senior Director
Alex Gibbs, Senior Associate
Date: November 26, 2018
Subject: Suggested strategy regarding grade separation funding and opportunities
SUMMARY
Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. (TPA) has prepared this memo for the City of Palo Alto outlining
potential opportunities to secure grade separation funding, the various aspects to consider,
proposed next steps, and other items.
This memo is intended to provide background, identify some of the challenges we would face, and
make recommendations for the City to consider. TPA has secured grade separation funds over
the years and we have first hand knowledge on what it takes to be successful.
1. Overview
Successfully securing grade separation funding takes time, patience, and persistence. The top
priorities for these competitive funds are to support goods movement and address safety and
mobility issues. TPA will tell our Palo Alto-specific story, help build up a regional coalition, work
with our legislative delegation and others to first educate and then work on funding opportunities.
2. Recommended strategy Phase 1
Due to the competitive nature of these funds, and the large price tag involved, we recommend
education as the first phase of advocacy. We need to create briefing materials that explain the
problem, what we are doing to address it locally, and why additional outside funding is needed for
project completion.
We need to be able to clearly articulate what problem we are trying to solve and provide data to
back it up such as estimated design and construction costs, future traffic counts, future bicycle
and pedestrian counts, negative air quality from cars idling, the benefits of commuting, as well as
any potential negative impact of electrification on neighborhoods.
3. Recommended strategy Phase 2
Once our materials are complete, we recommend multiple advocacy trips to Sacramento to meet
with decision makers, legislators, and members of the new Administration. It would be very helpful
if this delegation would include the Mayor or others on the Council.
@
State Capitol Office• 925 L Street• Suite 1404 ·Sacramento, CA 95814 ·Phone (916) 447-4086 ·Fax (916) 444-0383
Federal Office• 600 Pennsylvania SE· Suite 207 •Washington, DC 20003 • Phone (202) 546-8696 •Fax (202) 546-4555
Southern California Office• 1401 Dove Street• Suite 330 •Newport Beach, CA 92660 •Phone (949) 399-9050 •Fax (949) 476-8215
Central California Office• 744 P Street• Suite 308 ·Fresno, CA 93721 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215
Northern California Office• 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza• Suite 204 •Oakland, CA 94612 •Phone (510) 835-9050 •Fax (510) 835-9030
Meetings targets would include, but not be limited to:
• The State Transportation Secretary
a. More than likely Governor-Elect Newsom will appoint his own Secretary
• The Executive Director of the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and her top
staff
• Caltrans executives who oversee rail
• Palo Alto's legislative delegation Senator Jerry Hill and Assembly Member Marc Berman
• Neighboring members such as Senator Wiener, Assembly Members Mullin and Ting
• Senate Transportation and Housing Chair Jim Beall and his committee staff
• Assembly Transportation Chair Jim Frazier and his committee staff
• Vice Chair of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
• Vice Chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee
After our advocacy trips, we will have briefed many stakeholders and decision makers. From our
experience, its prudent to keep them continuously updated and in the loop so they become vested
in our efforts. The form of these updates can be in person briefings, email updates, or written
updates.
4. Multiple funding sources
We recommend identifying multiple funding sources as the final price tag of the overall grade
separation needs in the City could be high. This includes federal, state, regional and local funding
sources.
Funding opportunities including the following existing programs, and, fortunately, with the SB1
funds withstanding a recall, there are other options available, such as:
California Public Utilities Commission:
• The Section 130 Grade Crossing Hazard Elimination Program provides federal funds to
local agencies (cities and counties) and railroads to eliminate hazards at existing at-grade
public highway-rail crossings.
• The Section 190 Grade Separation Program provides state funds to local agencies to
grade-separate at-grade crossings (crossings), or to improve grade-separated crossings.
California Transportation Commission:
• Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP). The purpose of the Solutions for
Congested Corridors Program is to provide funding to achieve a balanced set of
transportation, environmental, and community access improvements to reduce congestion
throughout the state.
• Local Partnership Program (LPP). The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017
(Senate Bill 1) created the Local Partnership Program, which is modeled closely after the
Proposition 1 B State Local Partnership Program. The purpose of this program is to provide
local and regional transportation agencies that have passed sales tax measures,
developer fees, or other imposed transportation fees with a continuous appropriation of
$200 million annually from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to fund road
maintenance and rehabilitation, sound walls, and other transportation improvement
projects.
2
5. Opportunities for partnerships
The electrification of Caltrain will have an impact on Palo Alto and other cities throughout the
Peninsula. This works to our advantage for two reasons. The first is it helps us build a coalition of
municipalities and other organizations to frame this as a regional matter. The second is by growing
our coalition we can increase the likelihood of securing funding or better yet creating a specific
funding source for cities to access for grade separation projects.
6. Potential barriers
As highlighted in the overview section, it could take multiple years to secure all the funds needed
to fully address grade separation locations throughout the City. Other potential barriers could
include requests for design exemptions, state wide demand for these funds, and regional needs.
7. Next steps
Depending on the feedback and discussion to the points above impacts our next steps. However,
we recommend the creation of briefing documents as soon as possible so we can then shift to
briefing and educating decisions makers in Sacramento.
@
3
November 15, 2018
TO: STATE, CITY AND LOCAL OFFICIALS CITY OF PAL9 ALTO. CA
NOTICE ·oF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMP ANY'S Rt8MSf %5cYffrt~ NEW RA TES FOR
COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC VEIDCLE CHARGING (A.18-11-qff!JNOV 26 AH 11: 0 I
SUMMARY
On November 5, 2018, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E} filed a proposal with the California Public Utilities Commission {CPUC} to offer new rate
options for charging commercial electric vehicles. This application does not represent an increase in rates. This application is requesting to create a new
Commercial Electric Vehicle Charging customer class along with two rate options (CEV-small and CEV-large} specifically for commercial electric vehicle
charging stations.
BACKGROUND
PG&E's application will help California meet the goals outlined in Senate Bill 350: Clean Energy & Pollution Reduction Act (SB 350). The goals of SB 350 are
to reduce dependence on petroleum, meet air quality standards and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In support of these goals, PG&E's application will
help promote the adoption of electric vehicles across the state. In addition, the proposed rate options offer customers access to lower prices for fueling
electric vehicles compared to fossil fuels.
HOW WILL PG&E'S APPLICATION AFFECT ME?
At this time, PG&E does not expect this application to impact existing customer rates. PG&E business customers who install electric vehicle charging
stations will be able to take advantage of new rate plans with lower costs to charge their vehicles during off-peak hours.
HOW WILL PG&E'S APPLICATION AFFECT CUSTOMERS WHO BUY ELECTRICITY FROM A THIRD PARTY?
At this time, PG&E does not expect this application to impact existing customer rates. Direct Access and Community Choice Aggregation customers receive
generation services from a third party provider and customers should contact their provider to learn about the rate options available to them.
Departing Load customers do not receive electric generation, transmission or distribution services from PG&E. However, they are required to pay certain
charges as required by law or CPUC decision. These customers will not be impacted by this application.
HOW DO I FIND OUT MORE ABOUT PG&E'S PROPOSALS?
If you have questions about PG&E's filing, please contact PG&E at 1-800-743-5000. For TTY {speech-hearing impaired}, call 1-800-652-4712. Para mas
detalles llame al 1-800-660-6789 • g!t m if flt 1lt 1-800-893-9555. If you would like a copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits, please write to PG&E at the
address below:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Electric Vehicle Commercial Rate Application (A.18-11-003)
P.O. Box 7442
San Francisco, CA 94120
A copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits is also available for review at the CPUC's Central Files office by appointment only. For more information,
contact aljcentralfilesid@cpuc.ca.gov or 1-415-703-2045. PG&E's application (without exhibits} is available on the CPUC's website at www.cpuc.ca.gov.
CPUC PROCESS
This application will be assigned to an Administrative Law Judge {Judge} who will determine how to receive evidence and other related documents necessary for
the CPUC to establish a record upon which to base its decision. Evidentiary hearings may be held where parties will present their testimony and may be subject to
cross-examination by other parties. These evidentiary hearings are open to the public, but only those who are formal parties in the case can participate.
After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearings, the assigned Judge will issue a proposed decision which may adopt PG&E's proposal,
modify it or deny it. Any of the five CPUC Commissioners may sponsor an alternate decision. The proposed decision, and any alternate decisions, will be
discussed and voted upon at a scheduled CPUC Voting Meeting.
The California Public Advocates Office (CalPA} may review this application. CalPA is the independent consumer advocate within the CPUC with a legislative
mandate to represent investor-owned utility customers to obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. CalPA has a
multidisciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. For more information about CalPA, please call 1-415-703-1584, email
PublicAdvocatesOffice@cpuc.ca.gov or visit CalPA's website at www.publicadvocales.couc.ca.QOV.
STAY INFORMED
If you would like to follow this proceeding, or any other issue before the CPUC, you may use the CPUC's free subscription service. Sign up at:
http://subscribecpuc.cpuc.ca.gov/. If you would like to learn how you can participate in the proceeding, have informal comments about the
application or have questions about the CPUC processes, you may access the CPUC's Public Advisor Office (PAO) webpage at
www.cpuc.ca.gov/pao/.
You may also contact the PAO as follows:
Email: public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov
Mail: CPUC
Public Advisor's Office
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: 1-866-849-8390 (toll-free} or 1-415-703-2074
TTY: 1-866-836-7825 (toll-free} or 1-415-703-5282
If you are contacting the CPUC, please include the application number (Electric Vehicle Commercial Rate Application; A.18-11-003). All comments will be
circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Judge and appropriate CPUC staff and will become public record.