HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180212plCC701-32
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: 2/12/2018
Document dates: 1/24/2018 – 1/31/2018
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:12 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Terri Weber <tlweber0@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, January 26, 2018 10:40 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Terri Weber; Larry Weber
Subject:Edgewood Plaza ruling
We would like the city council to appeal the decreased penalty ruling for the absence of a grocery store at the
Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center.
Until the penalties were substantially increased, a food market could not seem to be found. Once they were, a tenant
was found relatively quickly. This seems as though this is becoming a pattern with developers, whose primary interest
is to build very high priced condos with a few token low income units.
We are patronizing the new market and are very happy with it after a very long wait.
Terri and Larry Weber
150 Southwood Drive.
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 4:08 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mark G Thomas <mgthomas@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 29, 2018 1:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Edgewood Plaza
The ruling was correct. Don't compound the problem by making it an endless legal campaign. Your legal
council likely knew the suit would fail given how the requirement was drafted. Even an absolute newbie in
commercial real estate understands the difference between a required use and continuous operation. Possible your energy should be focused on how, if at all, the City can help make that new grocery store successful
(parking , access, etc.). There is no causal; relationship between that tenant going into the center and the the
fines that were levied on SH. SH worked extremely hard to find a replacement and took an enormous risk in
putting that tenant in business, but they were going down that path long before the fines were increased. Call
the owner of the Milk Pail if you'd like to confirm. So far The Market is a wonderful enhancement to our neighborhood, and the center in general adds much to our enjoyment.. Somehow making it a 'continuous use'
requirement for a possible replacement tenant if the Market leaves will just result in a broken shopping
center. Do less here and you will serve us better. Don't further empower a neighborhood group that has just
caused endless problems in this process and will not listen to any dissent to their uninformed gospel..
--
Mark Thomas
195 Walter Hays Dr
Palo Alto
1 •
CITY OF PALO ALTO AND SEIU LOCAL 521-HOURLY UNIT
July 1, 2017-June 30, 2021
Section 5. Re-Employment List. ............................................................................................... 14
Section 6. Reinstatement. .......................................................................................................... 14
Section 7 .................................................................................................................................... 14
ARTICLE V. -Personnel Actions PERSONAL PERSONNEL ACTIONS ................................ 14
Section 1. Probationary Period ................................................................................................ 14
Section 2. Personnel Evaluations ............................................................................................. 15
Section 3. Personnel Files ........................................................................................................ 15
Section 4. Release of Information ............................................................................................ 15
Section 5. Full Time Opportunities .......................................................................................... 15
Section 6. Equitable Rotation ................................................................................................... 15
Section 7. Internal Eligibility ................................................................................................... 16
Section 8. Work in SEIU Classified Unit Vacancies ................................................................ 16
ARTICLEVI-PAY ..................................................................................................................... 16
Section 1. Wages ...................................................................................................................... 16
Section 2. Step Increases .......................................................................................................... 17
Section 3. Working Out of Classification ................................................................................ 1 7
Section 4. Direct Deposit. ......................................................................................................... 17
ARTICLE VII -HOURS OF WORK, OVERTIME .................................................................... 17
Section 1. Work Week and Work Day ..................................................................................... 18
Section 2. Overtime Wark." ....................................................................................................... 18
Section 3. Work Shifts .............................................................................................................. 18
Section 4. Lunch and Break Periods ......................................................................................... 18
Section 5. Clean-Up Time ......................................................................................................... 18
Section 6. Call-Out Pay ............................................................................................................. 18
ARTICLE VIII-:: Unifonns UNIFORMS ................................................................................... 18
ARTICLE IX -Heltt:!HOLIDAYS ............................................................................................... 19
Section 1. Fixed Holidays: ....................................................................................................... 19
ARTICLE X-Leaves LEAVES .................................................................................................... 20
Section 1. Sick Leave ................................................................................................................ 20
Section 2. Jury duty ................................................................................................................... 20
ARTICLE XI -VOTING TIME ................................................................................................... 20
ARTICLE XII-,l/orkers Compensation WORKERS COMPENSATION ................................ 21
Industrial Temporary Disability ................................................................................................ 21
ARTICLE XIII BeNeFIT PROGRAMS ARTICLE XIII-BENEFIT PROGRAMS ........................ 21
Page 3 of 46
CITY OF PALO ALTO AND SEIU LOCAL 521-HOURLY UNIT
July 1, 2017-June 30, 2021
Section 1. Medical Insurance Plan ........................................................................................... 21
ARTICLE XIV -RETIREMENT ................................................................................................. 22
Section 1. Part-time, Seasonal, Temporary (PST) Retirement Plan ......................................... 22
Section 2. California Public Employees' Retirement System ("'PERS") ................................. 22
Section 3. Retirement Contributions .......................................................................................... 23
ARTICLE XV Parking PARKING ............................................................................................... 23
ARTICLE XVI Physical Examinations PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS .................................... 23
ARTICLE XVII-SAFETY .................................................. , ....................................................... 24
Section 1. Health and Safety Provisions ................................................................................... 24
Section 2 .................................................................................................................................... 24
Section 3. Safety Committee ...................................................................................................... 24
ARTICLE XVIII -GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ......................................................................... 24
Section 1 .................................................................................................................................... 25
Section 2. Definition ................................................................................................................. 25
Section 3. Conduct of Grievance Procedure ............................................................................ 25
Section 4. Grievance Procedure ................................................................................................ 26
ARTICLE XIX -UNSATISFACTORY WORK OR CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINARY
ACTION ....................................................................................................................................... 28
Section 1.:. Right to Discipline .................................................................................................. 28
Section 2. Written Notice ...................................................................................................... 28
Section 3. Preliminary Notice of Discipline ............................................................................. 29
Section 4. Skelly Meeting ........................................................................................................ 29
ARTICLE XX -NO ABROGATION OF RIGHTS .................................................................... 30
ARTICLE XXI -OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT ............................................................................ 30
ARTICLE J9CII Promotional/Con=n:irsior .. opportunities PROMOTIONAL.CONVERSTION
/CONVERSION OPPORTUNITIES ........................................................................................... 30
ARTICLE XXIII -Provisions of the Law PROVISIONS OF THE LAW .................................. 30
Section 1 .................................................................................................................................... 30
Section 2 .................................................................................................................................... 30
ARTICLE XXIV -Cost Reduction Programs COST REDUCTION PROGRAMS ................... 30
ARTICLE XXV -:='.feHH TERM .................................................................................................. 31
EXECUTED: ........................................................................ : ....................................................... 32
Appendix A -Job Cla~sifications for SEIU Hourly Unit Personnel ............................................ 33
Appendix B-Salary Schedule ................................................. · ...................................................... 45
Page 4 of 46
't ••
CITY OF PALO ALTO AND SEIU LOCAL 521-HOURLY UNIT
July 1, 2017-June 30, 2021
Anv Limited Hourly employee that accumulates 416 hours worked or more within a fiscal year,
shall be converted to the SEIU 521 Hourly Unit by the City of Palo Alto.
Upon conversion of an eligible hourly employee from the Limited Hourly status to the SEIU 521
Hourly Unit status, all wages and benefits due the employee will be paid and provided to the
employee. All current and retroactive wages and/or benefits shall be back dated to their
eligibility date of their status and recognition, as a SEIU 521 Hourly Unit employee.
{a) The emplo·,.ee is hired to work in a covered classifi::a~ion with the expectation of working
an a· .. erage of eight (8) hours per week over eleven (1~) pay periods for a minimum of
four hundred and sixteen (416) hours in a fiscal year
.Q.r
fb) The emplovee act·e1all•t works in a covered class+Aetion for an average of eight (8) hours
per weel< O'ler eleven (11) pay periods for a m;nimum of four hundred and sixteen (416)
hours in any fiscal year beginning fiscal year 2003/2001.
Section 2. No Discrimination. The City and Union agree that no person employed by or applying
for employment hereto shall be discriminated against because of race, religion, creed, political
affiliation, color, national origin, ancestry, union activity, age, disability, sexual orientation, or
gender.
The City and the Union agree to protect the rights of all employees to exercise their free choice
to join the Union and to abide by the express provisions of applicable State and local laws.
ARTICLE II -UNION SECURITY
Section 1. Notice. When a person is hired in a job covered in Article I, the City shall notify that
person that the Union is the recognized bargaining representative for the employee and give the
employee a current copy of the Memorandum of Agreement.
When a group employee orientation is held for new employees of the bargaining unit, a Union
Representative may make a presentation to such bargaining unit employees for the purpose of
explaining matters of representation. The presentation shall not e><ceed 15 minutes. New
employees shall be required to attend orientation. The Director of Human Resources may make
an exception if extraordinary circumstances interfere with the employee's ability to attend. If
the Director grants an exception, the employee and Union shall be granted a thiity (30) minute
presentation maximum of fifteen (15) minutes at the employee's report location for union
orientation.
Section 2. Agency Shop.
Page 6 of 46
CITY OF PALO ALTO AND SEIU LOCAL 521-HOURLY UNIT
July 1, 2017-June 30, 2021
{&}(fl Involuntary Service Fee Agency Fees Deduction Process: The City shall deduct a
seP1ice fee an Agency Fee at a rate specified by the Union from the salary of each
bargaining unit member who has not authorized a dues deduction, service fee Agency fee
deduction or charity fee in writing within the time stated in this Section above. The Union
certifies that it has consulted with knowledgeable legal counsel and has thereby
determined that this involuntary seP1ice fee Agency fee deduction process satisfies all
constitutional and statutory requirements.
f&}(g) Agency shop may be rescinded only in accordance with the provision of state law.
f&}(h) Indemnification, Defense and Hold Harmless: Union agrees to indemnify and hold
harmless the City and all officials, employees, and agents acting on its behalf, from any
and all claims, actions, damages, costs, or expenses including all attorney's fees and costs
of defense in actions against the City, its officials, employees or agents as a result of
actions taken or not taken by the City pursuant to the Agency Shop Arrangement.
~(i) Sign-up forms for deduction of union dues, service Agency fees and charity fees
shall be provided by the Union and approved by the City.
The parties agree to work out administrative procedures when an employee is in non-pay
status. Dues will not be de ducted when circumstances result in a negative paycheck.
Section 3. Documentation. The City shall supply the Union with the information described under
subsections (a) and (b) of this Section:
(a) The City will provide SEIU, when available, with the name, job title, department,
work location, work, home, personal cellular telephone number, personal email
address, and home address of any new employee within 30 days of hire or by the
first pay period of the month following hire.
(b) The City will provide SEIU with the list, enumerated above, of all information for all
employees in the bargaining unit at least every 120 days unless more frequent.
The City shall supply the Union with the documentation required by California Assembly
Bill 119.
(b)f§L/\ monthly print out of the names, membership status, addresses and
classifications of all bargaining unit emplo•;ees; The Union will use this contact
information only for purposes relevant and necessary to fulfilling its obligation to
represent unit employees.
(c)i:!:!:l:=A list of bargaining unit new hires, terminations and retirements which occurred
during the previous month.
Page 8 of 46
, v
' CITY OF PALO ALTO AND SEIU LOCAL 521-HOURLY UNIT
July 1, 2017-June 30, 2021
fet.{gThe Union shall supply the City, and as applicable, the employees, with the
documentation required by Government Code Section 3502.5(f).
Section 4. Payroll Deduction. The City shall deduct Union membership dues, service fees, charity
fees, and any other mutually agreed upon payroll deduction, which may include voluntary COPE
check-off, from the bi-weekly pay of bargaining unit employees. The dues/fees deduction must
be authorized in writing by the employee on an authorization form acceptable to the City and
the Union, except as provided in Section 2(e) and Section 2(h) above. City shall remit the
deducted dues or fees to the Union as soon as possible after deduction.
Section 5. Bulletin Boards and Departmental Mail. The Union shall have access to inter-office
mail, existing bulletin boards in unit employee work areas, and the existing Union-paid telephone
answering device for the purpose of posting, transmitting, or distributing notice or
announcements including notices of social events, recreational events, Union membership
meetings, results of elections and reports of minutes of Union meetings. Any other material must
have prior approval of the Human Resources Office. Action on approval will be taken within 24
hours of submission.
The Union may send email messages only for the purposes set forth above. The IT Department
will maintain the SEIU list and keep it current. The Union access to email is based on the following
conditions: 1) emails to the SEIU list will be copied to the Human Resource Director at
distribution, 2) emails to the SEIU list will only be sent by the SEIU Chapter Chair, Vice Chair, Chief
Steward(s) or Secretary, 3) a maximum of 52 emails may be sent per year and a maximum of 12
emails may be sent per year by the SEIU Chapter Secretary.
Section 6. Access to Union Representatives. Representatives of the Union are authorized access
to City work locations for the purpose of conducting business within the scope of representation,
provided that no disruption of work is involved and the business transacted is other than
recruiting of members or collecting of dues, and the Representative must notify the Human
Resources Department Office prior to entering the work location.
Section 7. Meeting Places. The Union shall have the right to reserve City meeting and conference
rooms for use during lunch periods or other non-working hours. Such meeting places will be
made av~ilable in conformity with City's regulation.s and subject to the limitations of prior
commitment.
Section 8. Notification to the Union. The Union shall be informed in advance in writing by
Management before any proposed changes not covered by this Memorandum of Agreement are
made in benefits, working conditions, or other terms and conditions of employment which
require meet and confer or meet and consult process .
. Page9of46
• CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
TO:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MEMORANDUM
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Item #11
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
AGENDA DATE: January 29, 2018 ID#: 8763
SUBJECT: Adjustment to Southgate RPP Program
Attached is a corrected version of Attachment A: Resolution Continuing the Southgate RPP with
Adjustments.
The Resolution attached in the original staff report inadvertently reduced the maximum
number of resident parking permits allowable per dwelling unit.
Planning and Community Environment
Attachment A:
Corrected Resolution Continuing the Southgate RPP with Adjustments, with Strikethrough Edits
Attachment Al:
Corrected Resolution Continuing the Southgate RPP with Adjustments, Without Strikethrough
Edits
Resolution No.
Attachment A: Corrected Resolution Continuing
Southgate RPP with Adjusted Number of
Employee Permits with Strikethrough Edits
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Continuing the Southgate
Residential Preferential Parking District (RPP} Program Established by
Resolution No. 9688, Adjusting the Number of Permits Available, Clarifying
Specific Provisions, and Restating the Program Provisions
RECITALS
A. California Vehicle Code Section 22507 authorizes the establishment, by city council
action, of permit parking programs in residential neighborhoods for residents and other
categories of parkers.
B. On December 15, 2014, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5294, adding Chapter
10.50 to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic} of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which established the
city-wide procedures for RPP Districts in the city.
C. On May 9, 2016, the City Council directed City staff to implement a Residential
Preferential Parking program in the Southgate area.
D. In July 2016, a stakeholders' group comprised of Southgate residents and business
interests met and made its recommendations to the City on the particular rules to be applied to
the Southgate RPP District.
E. On April 26, 2017, the Planning and Transportation Commission held a public
hearing to consider the proposed Southgate residential preferential parking program.
F. On June 19, 2017, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9688, which established the
Southgate Residential Preferential Parking Program pilot and rescinded existing parking
restrictions that conflicted with the restrictions established by this RPP district.
G. The Council desires to continue the Southgate Residential Preferential Parking
Program pilot established by Resolution No. 9688 with modifications and to restate the
applicable Program provisions for this District in the subject Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES, as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The criteria set forth in Section 10.50.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
for designating a Residential Preferential Permit Zone have been met as follows:
A. That non-resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of on-street
• or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents in that based on observation there
are few available parking spaces available midday, while the streets are relatively
unoccupied at midnight thus demonstrating the parking intrusion is largely by
nonresidents.
B. That the interference by the non-resident vehicles occurs at regular and frequent
intervals, either daily or weekly, in that the parking intrusion is most severe during
daytime hours during the regular workweek.
1
C. That the non-resident vehicles parked in the area of the District create traffic
congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of parking spaces for residents
and their visitors) that disrupts neighborhood life in that based on information from
residents and other city departments the vehicle congestion is interfering with regular
activities.
D. Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical in that the City has
implemented a series of alternative parking strategies in the past and concurrently and
there is still a shortage of parking available.
SECTION 2. Definitions.
A. "Dwelling Unit" shall have the same meaning as it is defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 10.50.020.
B. "Southgate Residential Preferential Parking Program District" or "District" shall be those
city blocks identified in Table 1.
TABLE 1
STREET BLOCKS ENFORCED
Castilleja Avenue 1500 and 1600
Churchill Avenue 12to100
Escobita Avenue 1500 and 1600
Madrono Avenue 1500 and 1600
Manzanita Avenue 200and 300
Mariposa Avenue 1500 and 1600
Miramonte Avenue 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500
Portola Avenue 1500 and 1600
Sequoia Avenue 200, 300, and 400
SECTION 3. Parking Restrictions within the District.
A. Two-hour Parking limit and No Re-parking. Within the District, no person shall park a
vehicle adjacent to any curb for more than two hours. Re-parking a vehicle more than
two hours after initially parking on the same day in the District is prohibited. These
restrictions shall be in effect Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, except
holidays as defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.08.100. Vehicles properly
displaying a valid Parking Permit as described in Section 4 of this Resolution are exempt
from these restrictions.
B. Exempt vehicles. Vehicles exempt from parking restrictions as described in Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 10.50.070{d) are exempt from the restrictions in this section.
2
SECTION 4. Parking Permits.
A. Employee Parking Permits. The City may issue Employee Parking Permits for use by
employees working in the District. Employee Parking Permits shall be subject to the
following regulations:
a. Duration. Employee Parking Permits shall be available in the form of six-month
permits and one-day permits.
b. Form of Permit. The City may issue Employee Parking Permits in any form it
deems practicable, including stickers or hangtags.
c. Commuting Only. Employee Parking Permits are valid only when used by
employees who are working within the District on the day the permit is used.
d. Maximum Number of Permits Issued. A maximum of 25 Six-Month Employee
Parking Permits shall be granted at any given time.
e. Daily Employee Parking Permits. Daily Employee Parking Permits will be available
to employees only, and will not be available for sale to employers. Employees will
be limited to purchase up to four (4) daily parking permits per month, or roughly
one per week. The permit will state the date through which it is valid.
B. Resident Parking Permits. The City may issue Resident Parking Permits to residents of
dwelling units within the District. Resident Parking Permits shall be subject to the
following regulations:
a. Duration. Resident Parking Permits shall be available in the form of ann~al
permits and one-day permits.
b. Form of Permit. The City may issue Resident Parking Permits in any form it
deems practicable, including stickers or hangtags.
c. Maximum Number of Permits per Dwelling Unit. Each dwelling unit within the
District shall be limited to six Annual Resident Parking Permits at any given time.
These permits may be used by residents or guests within the DistrictAnn1:1al
Resiaent Parking Permits shall ee transferaele eetween vehieles operates B'f
resiaents or g1:1ests of a dwelling 1:1nit \Vithin the Distriet. ~aeh dwelling 1:1nit
within the Distriet shall ee limited to §Q One Day Resident Parking Permits per
year, whieh ean ee 1:1sed ey residents or g1:1ests of dwelling 1:1nits within the
Distriet.
d. Daily Resident Parking Permits. Each dwelling unit shall be limited to 50 Daily
Resident Parking Permits annually, which may be used by residents or guests
within the District. These permits may be in the form of scratcher hangtags, an
online issuance system, or such other form as the City determines. The permit
will state the date through which it is valid.
SECTION 5. Fees.
Fee for Parking Permits. The fee for Parking Permits in the District shall be the following:
a. Annual Resident Permit: First Annual Resident Permit sticker is free; secondL
aAG-third and fourth Annual Permit Resident Permit stickers are $50 per
permit per year; transferable Annual Resident Permit hangtags (up to two) are
$50 per permit per year.
b. One-Day Resident Permit: $5 per permit.
3
c. Employee Parking Permits
1. Six-month Employee Permit: $74.50 (or $25 if employee qualifies for
low-income status in accordance with Residential Preferential Parking
Regulations) per permit.
2. One-Day Employee Permit: $5 per permit.
SECTION 6. Existing Parking Restrictions.
In the event City staff should, at a later time, discover conflicting parking restrictions within
the District that conflict with the restrictions of this resolution, but are not expressly
rescinded, the RPP restrictions of this resolution shall control. However, existing parking
restrictions indicated by painted curbs and implemented pursuant to Vehicle Code section
21458 are not superseded by this Resolution and remain in effect.
SECTION 7. Supersede. To the extent any of the provisions of this Resolution are inconsistent
with the regulations set forth in Resolution 9688, this Resolution shall control.
SECTION 8. CEQA. This resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption
and implementation of this resolution may have a significant effect on the environment and
Section 15301 in that this proposed resolution will have a minor impact on existing facilities.
SECTION 9. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
Enforcement shall commence, pursuant to Chapter 10.50 of Title 10 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code and the California Vehicle Code, when signage is posted.
SECTION 10. Pilot Program. The RPP Program shall remain in force until the City Council takes
action to extend, modify, or rescind. The City Council shall reconsider this Southgate RPP
Program by November 1, 2018.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATIEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
4
.....
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
Director of Planning and Community
Environment
5
.. . . . ...
Resolution No.
Attachment Al: Corrected Resolution
Continuing the Southgate RPP with Adjusted
Numbers of Employee Permits
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Continuing the Southgate
Residential Preferential Parking District (RPP) Program Established by
Resolution No. 9688, Adjusting the Number of Permits Available, Clarifying
Specific Provisions, and Restating the Program Provisions
RECITALS
A. California Vehicle Code Section 22507 authorizes the establishment, by city council
action, of permit parking programs in residential neighborhoods for residents and other
categories of parkers.
B. On December 15, 2014, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5294, adding Chapter
10.50 to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which established the
city-wide procedures for RPP Districts in the city.
C. On May 9, 2016, the City Council directed City staff to implement a Residential
Preferential Parking program in the Southgate area.
D. In July 2016, a stakeholders' group comprised of Southgate residents and .business
interests met and made its recommendations to the City on the particular rules to be applied to
the Southgate RPP District.
E. On April 26, 2017, the Planning and Transportation Commission held a public
hearing to consider the proposed Southgate residential preferential parking program.
F. On June 19, 2017, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9688, which established the
Southgate Residential Preferential Parking Program pilot and rescinded existing parking
restrictions that conflicted with the restrictions established by this RPP district.
G. The Council desires to continue the Southgate Residential Preferential Parking
Program pilot established by Resolution No. 9688 with modifications and to restate the
applicable Program provisions for this District in the subject Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES, as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The criteria set forth in Section 10.50.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
for designating a Residential Preferential Permit Zone have been met as follows:
A. That non-resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of on-street
or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents in that based on observation there
are few available parking spaces available midday, while the streets are relatively
unoccupied at midnight thus demonstrating the parking intrusion is largely by
nonresidents.
B. That the interference by the non-resident vehicles occurs at regular and frequent
intervals, either daily or weekly, in that the parking intrusion is most severe during
daytime hours during the regular workweek.
1
. ... . .....
SECTION 4. Parking Permits.
A. Emolovee Parking Permits. The City may issue Employee Parking Permits for use by
employees working in the District. Employee Parking Permits shall be subject to the
following regulations:
a. Duration. Employee Parking Permits shall be available in the form of six-month
permits and one-day permits.
b. Form of Permit. The City may issue Employee Parking Permits in any form it
deems practicable, including stickers or hangtags.
c. Commuting Only. Employee Parking Permits are valid only when used by
employees who are working within the District on the day the permit is used.
d. Maximum Number of Permits Issued. A maximum of 25 Six-Month Employee
Parking Permits shall be granted at any given time.
e. Daily Employee Parking Permits. Daily Employee Parking Permits will be available
to employees only, and will not be available for sale to employers. Employees will
be limited to purchase up to four (4) daily parking permits per month, or roughly
one per week. The permit will state the date through which it is valid.
B. Resident Parking Permits. The City may issue Resident Parking Permits to residents of
dwelling units within the District. Resident Parking Permits shall be subject to the
following regulations:
a. Duration. Resident Parking Permits shall be available in the form of annual
permits and one-day permits.
b. Form of Permit. The City may issue Resident Parking Permits in any form it
deems practicable, including stickers or hangtags.
c. Maximum Number of Permits per Dwelling Unit. Each dwelling unit within the
District shall be limited to six Annual Resident Parking Permits at any given time.
These permits may be used by residents or guests within the District.
d. Daily Resident Parking Permits. Each dwelling unit shall be limited to SO Daily
Resident Parking Permits annually, which may be used by residents or guests
within the District. These permits may be in the form of scratcher hangtags, an
on line issuance system, or such other form as the City determines. The permit
will state the date through which it is valid.
SECTION 5. Fees.
Fee for Parking Permits. The fee for Parking Permits in the District shall be the following:
a. Annual Resident Permit: First Annual Resident Permit sticker is free; second,
third and fourth Annual Permit Resident Permit stickers are $50 per permit per
year; transferable Annual Resident Permit hangtags (up to two) are $50 per
permit per year.
b. One-Day Resident Permit: $5 per permit.
c. Employee Parking Permits
1. Six-month Employee Permit: $74.50 (or $25 if employee qualifies for
low-income status in accordance with Residential Preferential Parking
Regulations) per permit.
2. One-Day Employee Permit: $5 per permit.
3
SECTION 6. Existing Parking Restrictions.
In the event City staff should, at a later time, discover conflicting parking restrictions within
the District that conflict with the restrictions of this resolution, but are not expressly
rescinded, the RPP restrictions of this resolution shall control. However, existing parking
restrictions indicated by painted curbs and implemented pursuant to Vehicle Code section
21458 are not superseded by this Resolution and remain in effect.
SECTION 7. Supersede. To the extent any of the provisions of this Resolution are inconsistent
with the regulations set forth in Resolution 9688, this Resolution shall control.
SECTION 8. CEQA. This resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b}(3} of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption
and implementation of this resolution may have a significant effect on the environment and
Section 15301 in that this proposed resolution will have a minor impact on existing facilities.
SECTION 9. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
Enforcement shall commence, pursuant to Chapter 10.50 of Title 10 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code and the California Vehicle Code, when signage is posted.
SECTION 10. Pilot Program. The RPP Program shall remain in force until the City Council takes
action to extend, modify, or rescind. The City Council shall reconsider this Southgate RPP
Program by November 1, 2018.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
Mayor
APPROVED:
City Manager
Director of Planning and Community
Environment
4
•• h ...
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:29 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, January 19, 2018 6:18 PM
To:Kamhi, Philip
Cc:Council, City; Planning Commission; City Mgr; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Re: Clarification on Report #8763
Philip,
What was the method used to calculate the 581 parking spaces in Southgate? We hand measured the
neighborhood prior to the RPP and came up with 470 usable parking spaces. Our method used a 21' parking
space, per the city, and took into account no parking zones, curb cuts, etc... As an example, if there was 35 feet on one side of a driveway and 28 feet on the other, that would be only two usable spaces, as you could only feasibly park one car on each side of the driveway. However, if you merely added those measurements and
divided by 21', you could come up with 63 feet total and three 21' spaces. The former method is an accurate
reflection of parking availability while the latter method overcounts spaces by 50%. Can you provide me with
the method used and also the supporting documentation? If you would like, I can walk you through our measurements and you can confirm our counts. I would hate for more misinformation to go to council. I am starting to realize that one reason why residents could be constantly frustrated with some of the decisions made
by council is due to the poor quality of information given to them. As the saying goes, "garbage in, garbage
out".
Please provide me with this information as soon as you can given the January 28th meeting date.
Thanks
Keith
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:00 PM, Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> wrote: Phllip,
In your report to council, there's a footnote on 1515 and 1681 El Camino Real which states, "The two
commercial properties at 1515 and 1681 El Camino Real we rezoned RM-15 (multifamily housing) in the
1980s and the Council’s action at that time allowed medical office uses to remain on the sites as long as they did not expand."
Do you have 1) the document stating this action and 2) the number of employees working at the offices at that
time?
If not, how did you get this information and what is the method to check to see if the offices are expanding? Is
it based on employees, square footage, customer base? What is meant by "expand"?
Two other quick points, which I will expand on in a more detailed email, 1) You continue to quote 70
employees. I understand you qualify that with "many" are part-time, but the report still throws out a number that has no meaning. It's irresponsible to say there are 70 employees as a way to sway council into thinking
there's a huge need for permits, when in fact, there are only 25 -30 employees at both addresses on a consistent
basis. I know this, because I counted cars for 2 weeks and took down license plate numbers. So, I have a
record of all cars that showed up more than once over that span. 2) You also continue to tout a 30 - 40% show
rate of employee permits. A quick walk around the offices and you'll find all 10 employee permits every day, that's 100% a show rate.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:29 PM
2
Now that you are presenting false information to council, I find it necessary to attend the council meeting on
January 29th. I had hoped to travel to visit my father for his birthday during that time, but that will have to wait.
I find it frustrating and still can't get my head around the fact that this type of misinformation is allowed to pass
through staff and onto council where they are to make an informed decision. In order to make an informed
decision, there must be an accurate representation of the facts, and this report does not have that. Even worse, you are more than aware that you are presenting false information and yet you continue to do so.
Keith Ferrell
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/25/2018 6:54 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Christopher Wong <christopher.wong76@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 5:19 PM
To:Council, City; Wolfgang Dueregger wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu
[evergreen-park-discuss]
Subject:Re: [evergreen-park-discuss] new 7 floor parking garage in Cal Ave Business District (on
tonight's agenda)
Hi City Council, I am in agreement with Wolfgang. The compromise of removing an underground floor from the project doesn't seem
logical, given the future impact of several buildings ongoing in various phases of construction in the Cal Ave business area. The utilization studies from November 2017 don't take into account the traffic and parking activity these businesses
will account for when they come online this year and next, for example.
If I understand correctly, the net parking space increase was to be a total of 158 spaces, at an updated schematic cost which exceeds 4x the original estimate. Staff recommendation suggestion to remove a subfloor will reduce the net parking
increase down to 64 net spaces, at a cost of 3x the original estimate (assuming the ~$8m is saved). At nearly $40m using the schematic estimate, this seems like an awful lot of money to spend and it's a little alarming that the cost estimate from
4 years ago is so far off today (I would understand a 2x cost increase for improving economy, demand, but this doesn't seem logical). Are we doing due diligence in correctly measuring building cost, or is the city getting fleeced a bit here by
the assumptions that construction costs have gone up this much (everyone loves PA money).
Ultimately, you've got to account for future growth as well. I think this is short sighted at the expense of meeting the budget. This move will push people back into Evergreen RPP, and we'll be back in the same position again a year or two
from now. Don't give Cal Ave businesses and surrounding neighborhoods the short stick for this.
Regards, Christopher
On Tuesday, January 23, 2018, 1:06:34 PM PST, Wolfgang Dueregger wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu [evergreen-park-discuss] <evergreen-park-discuss-noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
as a resident of Evergreen Park I am writing to you today to stick to your own promise last year to go "big" on the new parking
garage, i.e. 2 floors underground and 5 floors above ground. There should be no violation of the existing height limit either. You know very well that the whole parking situation around Cal Ave is very dire, and local businesses have urged you together with us residents to build a new garage so that some relief will be possible,
We are talking about to keep the current parking situation (without any reduction in floors of the planned garage) somewhat under control since numerous new developments are starting and the whole parking situation will get worse. A few years back, downtown got 3 big garages, and the "2nd" downtown does not "qualify" for at least a SINGLE ONE?
we hope that you stick to your promise and words and build the garage with 7 floors (2 underground and 5 above ground).
To cut away a whole floor is slap into the face of the whole Cal Ave Business District, its merchants, patrons and neighbors alike.
if you need the money for the police station, then rethink the design of the police station. But you cannot cannibalize instead an approved project like the new garage building that was presented to businesses and neighbors as a "done" and "great deal" for everybody.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/25/2018 6:54 AM
2
thanks
Wolfgang Dueregger
__._,_.___
Posted by: Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group •Start a New Topic •Messages in this topic (1)
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Have you tried the highest rated email app?
With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB
of free cloud storage.
Join Nextdoor to connect and communicate with neighbors in Evergreen Park and Palo
Alto. https://evergreenparkpaloalto.nextdoor.com
VISIT YOUR GROUP
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Yahoo! Groups • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
__,_._,___
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 9:54 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, January 26, 2018 10:15 AM
To:Kamhi, Philip
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Council, City; City Mgr; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Questions needing answers - Southgate RPP
Hi Philip
There are still quite a few questions that have been left unanswered by you regarding the proposed
modifications to the Southgate RPP. I will list them, again, here (Questions 7-9 and 12 are new, all others have
been asked before at least once):
1) Who was notified of the community meetings? Given that all addresses were notified of the RPP, and mailed
a survey, I would expect that all addresses would also be invited to any community meetings.
2) If not all addresses were notified of the meeting, why were they not notified?
3) Wouldn't it be important for all addresses that would be impacted by the parking be invited to provide input
and hear about the plan?
4) Given that your occupancy survey studied the entire neighborhood, it appears that you recognize that theentire neighborhood would be affected, so why wouldn't the city notify all addresses within Southgate?
5) Back to that survey, why did the survey include the entire neighborhood, when, through past experience, the
city knows that the blocks most affected by employee parking will be those closest to the businesses?
6) How were the number of parking spaces calculated? The number from the survey is vastly different than thatfrom the hand count I did prior to RPP.
7) Is there a block by block occupancy study, as was done prior to RPP and as was done for the Evergreen
Park/Mayfield proposed changes?
8) If not, why not? If there is one, can you send that to me as soon as possible?
9) If there is a block by block study, why not include that in the council packet?
10) Why are you still using a 30-40% showrate? You must know that this number is wrong and comparing our
10 permit showrate to that of downtown or Evergreen Park is an unrealistic comparison. Your recommendation
is based on this showrate and 9-10 cars being in the neighborhood. If you would come out during the day, you
will see that there are already 8-10 employee cars in the neighborhood. Since 9-10 cars is your threshold for
your recommendation, any recommendation to increase permits is faulty.
11) Why is there no mention of parking availability on El Camino for employees?
12) Has anyone checked with PAPD to see if they will enforce the 2-hour parking zones?
I am expecting you have answers to all of these questions and can provide them before noon on Monday.
Thanks
Keith Ferrell
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 9:54 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:wmrboh@gmail.com
Sent:Thursday, January 25, 2018 12:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:street parking permits for the businesses associated with the Plastic Surgery Center
Dear Sirs,
As a physician who works at 1515 Churchill, I write in support of this facility obtaining an adequate number of street
parking permits.
This facility and associated businesses employ many personnel and make substantial contributions to the city’s tax base,
helping to provide the resources that make Palo Alto such a great place to live.
I hope you will give full consideration to agreeing to the requested number of permits.
William Bohman
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 9:54 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 24, 2018 3:12 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Kniss, Liz (internal); DuBois, Tom; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; Filseth, Eric (Internal);
Scharff, Gregory (internal); Fine, Adrian; Wolbach, Cory; Holman, Karen
Subject:Southgate RPP
City Council Members, The resolution to modify the two-month-old Southgate RPP is coming before council on January 29th. I have
sent many letters arguing against this coming to council as it is a poorly researched and not very well thought
out proposal. I encourage you all to visit the area so you are aware of the particulars of the neighborhood and
also the options available for additional parking for employees, or even the ease with which other modes of
travel could be used (e.g. VTA, Caltrain, bike, etc...)
In past letters I have gone through the staff report and spoke to the points they made. They have since scrapped
that original report and wrote a new report. The new report is also rife with inaccuracies and misstatements.
I have also asked staff for clarification on a number of points they make in the report, but have not heard back from them on several of them which I will list below. The staff's ability to answer these questions is essential in
their ability to write an informed report. Without knowing the answers to these questions, there is no basis for a
recommendation.
Comments on Report ID# 8673)
(Page 4, paragraph 3-4) " ... it is estimated that issuing 15 additional transferable hangtag permits (25 total)
should more adequately address employee parking demands. Also, using the 30-40% average showrate staff
has observed in the other RPP program areas, it is estimated that during work hours this would likely result
in nine total employee vehicles parking in the Southgate RPP program area at any given period during the
day. Based on this calculation, staff recommends adding 15 employee permits to the Southgate program."
The key phrase here, is "Based on this calculation, staff recommends..." The calculation that staff is basing
their recommendation on, is incorrect. As the calculation is incorrect, the recommendation is also faulty. I personally performed 18 counts of vehicles in the streets immediately adjacent to the two businesses. Of the 10 employee permits that were issued in Southgate, 8-10 permits were observed on every weekday count. That
would give a "showrate" of 90%.
Staff states that, according to their calculation using their incorrect 30-40% showrate and 25 permits, there will be approximately nine total employee vehicles parking in Southgate. Nine would be entirely acceptable. However, Southgate already has nine employee vehicles parking in the neighborhood. Additional
permits will increase this number by the number of additional permits. The request for permits is for employees
who come to work on a daily basis. If staff feels that nine is an appropriate number of employees to be parking
in Southgate, then no additional permits should be issued as we already have nine or 10 employees parking in Southgate. If employees need additional parking, there is plenty of parking along El Camino Real north of Churchill. There is also parking on the west side of El Camino .
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 9:54 AM
5
Page 2, paragraph 2 - "A separate resolution would create two-hour time-limited parking zones (with no
ability to park for longer with a permit) adjacent to the two commercial properties along El Camino Real and
Churchill Avenue in the Southgate area." These areas are already 2-hour parking through the RPP. Currently, the only cars parked in the area adjacent to
1515 and 1681 are customers and employees with permits. There are no residents that park along this frontage.
Making this 2-hour parking only will force employees with permits, who currently park there, to move outside
of their property and park in front of residences. This is not the goal of an RPP. The frontage of 1515 El Camino has plenty of available parking on a daily basis, in addition to a ten-space parking lot. 1681 has a lot with 5 spaces along with parking along El Camino adjacent to the property.
Please see link to map.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1KhZsOKoViKUhNE0iBCQyqCtwZ9-OPGzh&ll=37.43244428541175%2C-122.154496&z=18
Page 6, paragraph 1 - "It is estimated that the changes in signage in front of the businesses would require
approximately $3,000 in funding."
The signs along the frontage of 1515 El Camino were just changed from two-hour parking to RPP signs on
12/12/17. Now, staff is suggesting that we switch them back at a cost of $3000. Staff has no support as to why
there is a need to change to two-hour parking.
Page 2, paragraph 2 - "some employees and some businesses were unable to secure the total number of
employee parking permits desired."
This is true. The goal is not to provide all employees with permits. Otherwise, if everyone that wants a permit
is issued a permit, why bother having permitted parking? While employees might not be able to park
immediately adjacent to their building, there are plenty of options within easy walking distance.
Page 3, paragraph 1 - "The City recently engaged a consultant to conduct a parking occupancy survey in
Southgate to measure the occupancy of on-street parking spaces and assess the impact of the RPP program.
The consultant measured occupancies on January 10th and 11th , weekdays with both Stanford and Palo
Alto High School in session. The results of this study found that average parking occupancy in Southgate
was approximately 22%. The highest occupancy identified at any time during the study period, was 23.9%
taken at 9:00 AM. Parking occupancy summary data is included as Attachment C."
This survey looks at overall parking occupancy in the neighborhood and does not look at the areas most directly
affected by the employee parking. As staff has learned in other RPP's and as you'll see in their report on Evergreen Park, employees park as close to their office as is available. Evaluating parking on Mariposa, which
is on the opposite side of the neighborhood, and including that as a basis of a recommendation makes no sense.
I have included a comparison of parking occupancy on the streets immediately adjacent to 1515 and 1681 El
Camino with counts that I have done. (attached) These streets tell an interesting story because they are the streets most impacted by the employee parking and the streets that were the least impacted by the Palo Alto
High School student parking. The one exception is Madrono. As you will see in the charts, Madono has seen a
nice improvement since the beginning of the RPP. The other streets, however, have seen little to no
improvement. The areas that experienced a higher occupancy today than prior to the RPP are highlighted in red.
I also have included a chart which shows the effect of adding 15 more permits to the neighborhood. The
permits were divided between the different adjacent streets making sure to keep occupancy below 100% As
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 9:54 AM
6
you see, all areas except one show higher occupancy then they experienced prior to the RPP being
established. I do not think the goal is to increase parking once an RPP is established.
Questions never answered by staff:
1) How many daily employees worked at 1515 and 1681 El Camino at the time they were rezoned?
Looking at the application for rezoning of 1515 El Camino in 1989, Dr Kaplan wrote, ""We had done our own
analysis of our patient census including average numbers of patients per day as well as estimates of maximum use in relation to available
parking, and patient flow in and out of the facility."
Max patients/ hour was 3 between 7am-12pm, 5/hour between 12pm and 5pm and 1/ hr between 5pm and 8pm. In addition, at the time of rezoning, Dr. Kaplan and his two partners were only using 5000sf of the 7200sf total as medical offices. The remaining was used as a small retail shop (600sf) and a residence for the doctors (1200sf).
Even back then, according to the report, "staff received phone calls from concerned residents and that the concerns had mainly been about
providing enough parking so that street parking in the neighborhood wouldn't become more conjested (sic)." 2) How many daily employees work at 1515 and 1681 El Camino today?
Staff throws out 70, but how many are actually in the office on a daily basis? The usage of the facility has
definitely increased from when Dr. Kaplan was there. 3) How were the number of parking spaces in Southgate calculated?
In the June 18, 2017 staff report, it shows 478 spaces in Southgate. According to the counts we did last year,
we counted 470. So, that's pretty close. However, in the current survey there are now 581 spaces in Southgate. That is a 22% increase in spaces. How is that possible?
4) Given the rezoning in Evergreen Park due to known clustering of employee parking, why was
occupancy of Southgate done as a neighborhood as a whole and not focused on streets closest to
businesses? The occupancy data is meaningless. Not only because the number of spaces is wrong, but because you can't
look at occupancy on the far end of the neighborhood and lump that in with the occupancy closest to the
businesses. Please see the attached files for a more accurate view of the occupancy of those blocks.
OCCUPANCY DATA - ACTUAL https://docs.google.com/document/d/11Dx6d9ZqZlErS_XYzURCTiUGqKy2fQAnP0bCVPcm9Xw/edit?usp=s
haring
Quotes from June 2017 Council Meeting when RPP was approved. Here's a link to the video. Transcript can also be found on city website: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-132/
Joshuah Mello - Chief Transportation Official
"We did speak to these businesses. They suggested that they needed closer to 20. We think 10 is more reasonable since they both have off-street parking supplies." (Page 44)
Tom DuBois - City Council Member
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 9:54 AM
7
"...business were zoned R-15 with a Conditional Use Permit. We are creating value for these businesses if we
give them more permits. They both have decent size parking lots so I, too, would err on the smaller side." (Page
51)
No employee or business owner spoke at the meeting.
Six months ago, staff knew the businesses wanted more permits and they felt that there was enough parking
provided in addition to 10 employee permits. How can staff now send this to council and say they need not just the 20 that the businesses wanted originally, but 25? Council members were well aware of the businesses
getting 10 permits and of their parking availability. There is no need for a change at this point.
It is possible that the businesses have grown too large for their facility. Many of the doctors at 1515 El Camino
have offices in other nearby cities. Maybe they should move some of their patients to those offices to ease the volume of usage at the Palo Alto office which might not be able to handle their growth.
Please allow the first year of this program to continue unchanged. In the meantime, staff, residents and business
owners can get together with a real dialogue and also a true study of the situation and possible tweaks can be
discussed after the pilot program ends.
If you have any questions for me, please feel free to contact me.
Thanks
Keith Ferell
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 9:54 AM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Lisa Saunders <lisa@roise.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 24, 2018 4:26 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re Southgate Residential Preferential Parking Program, agenda item #11, 1/29/18
Dear Council –
Thank you for reviewing the Southgate RPP with the goal of increasing the number of employee parking permits for the
business at 1515 El Camino Real. As an anesthesiologist who has practiced at that site since 1992, I respectfully request
that you adjust the number of permits to at least 36 for the employees of that location. Our surgecenter has existed
there for over 25 years – longer than most of the neighborhood’s residents have occupied their homes. We have been a
good neighbor and a thriving business that generates significant revenue for the city of Palo Alto. It seems only fair that
we be accorded parking privileges equivalent to those offered to the residences, i.e. at least 6 spaces per unit for our 6
unit facility..
Thank you for your consideration,
Lisa Saunders, M.D
Associated Anesthesiologists Medical Group
2237 Alma Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 323 0617
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 9:54 AM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Bob Stillerman <bobstiller@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, January 26, 2018 3:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Southgate RPP agenda items for the City Council Meeting on January 29, 2018
January 26, 2018
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
Re: City Council Meeting on January 29, 2018, agenda item 11, regarding the Southgate RPP
I urge you to vote against the staff recommendation for any modifications to the newly instituted Southgate Residential
Parking program. Instead, Council should continue the trial period without any changes to the plan through September
2018 as originally approved. City staff, Southgate residents and Southgate business will have had adequate time to
analyze the plan’s results and propose a joint solution if necessary to any problems or deficiencies that are identified.
As you may recall, because of severe parking congestion in the Southgate neighborhood, residents of Southgate
organized a committee to represent their interests with the city. This was an effort to find solutions to the excessive use
of our streets during the week, predominantly by Palo Alto High School students, Stanford employees seeking to avoid
Stanford parking costs, and employees working in businesses along El Camino. The resolution was passed in June 2017
and implemented in the fall of 2017. Enforcement appears to have begun in mid‐December 2017. Hence, we are just
over a month into the one‐year trial period.
City staff are now recommending a change to the program, namely that an additional 15 business permits be issued to
businesses operating in buildings located on El Camino Real, on the West side of the Southgate neighborhood. The city
staff recommendation is premature in its timing, deficient in its analysis and in its understanding of the needs of the
residents. City staff has not been consistently responsive to the needs of Southgate residents:
The city largely disregarded the Southgate committee in discussions with the school district with respect to Paly
students using Southgate as a no‐cost alternative to school parking permits.
The city conducted its survey of parking conditions in Southgate AFTER the end of the school year. Clearly, the
parking congestion was considerably less than ‘normal’ during that survey.
The city attempted to initiate a two‐hour continuous parking restriction throughout Southgate, completely
misunderstanding the needs of the residents, many of whom park cars in front of their homes all day long.
The city failed to invite Southgate residents to the stakeholder meetings held in December 2017 and January
2018.
Because of my correspondence with city staff on issues relating to the RPP, I was aware of and attended the
January 10, 2018 meeting. I was shocked that there was no agenda, no organized discussion, little decorum, and
certainly no resolution. The meeting pitted residents against businesses, all too reminiscent of the heated
Castilleja School expansion dispute.
At the January 10, 2018 stakeholder meeting a number of valid possible solutions were offered. None of those
suggestions were taken up by city, nor reported in the staff recommendation being presented at the council
meeting.
The city staff recommendation makes no attempt to incentivize businesses to find alternate means of parking
for their employees. I note that our neighbor, Stanford University, offers incentives to its staff to minimize
parking on campus, and charges hefty parking fees for those who choose to park.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 9:54 AM
10
The staff recommendation ignores a solution to the limited parking available at businesses, for example, the
option of parking along the east side of El Camino Real just north of Churchill. I have formally requested public
information regarding parking enforcement on El Camino from the city based on the California Public Records
Act (January 18, 2018 request). As of this date, no information has been made available to me. I am expecting
such information to be useful in arriving at a solution to the issue that the businesses have raised.
To compound the problem, city staff issued business permits to only one of the buildings housing businesses,
setting up a conflict with a second business nearby.
The staff’s proposed two‐hour time‐limited parking zone was not discussed with residents.
There are a number of other issues that the Southgate committee will present in a separate document.
There is an opportunity for Southgate businesses and residents to reach agreement, given sufficient time. Implementing
the city staff recommendation would be a city‐driven, top down, imposed solution, with unknown consequences.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bob Stillerman
Southgate Resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 9:54 AM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Mary Sharma <mary.sharma7@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, January 27, 2018 8:59 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Southgate Permit Parking Program
City Council,
I'd like to weigh in on the Southgate Permit Parking Program. At least on my street, and I think most/all of Southgate, there wasn't really a problem before this program started, with too many people from outside the
neighborhood parking here. The main time this was annoying (but still did not prevent us from parking two of
our cars on the street near our house) is when there were Stanford football games. These games usually happen
outside the hours of the parking program's enforcement hours... So in other words, I don't think this program is
worth the trouble and expense.
Residents are getting penalized with tickets for being forgetful, for example forgetting to put the hangtag on the
correct car, or forgetting to hang it back up after taking it down to drive (since for me at least it distracts me
while I'm driving if it's hanging on the rear view mirror).
Also, I don't think the stickers should say "Southgate". Basically, wherever I drive, anyone can find out what
small neighborhood I live in by a simple google search on "Southgate".
Sincerely,
Mary Sharma
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 9:54 AM
12
Carnahan, David
From:tom@tomvlasic.com
Sent:Monday, January 29, 2018 7:47 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:McFall, Jim; Christine Shambora; Peter Shambora; Shepherd, Nancy; Bob Stillerman;
Gitelman, Hillary
Subject:January 29 Council consideration of Changes to Southgate RPP
Dear Mayor Kniss and Councilmembers, First I want to apologize for not attending the meeting tonight. I had fully intended to be there and speak
in opposition to any changes to the Southgate RPP for the trial year for the reasons set forth in our
Neighborhood Committee's January 26th letter to the council. Unfortunately, a personal family matter has
required that my wife and I travel to Los Angeles today. As a result, I want to emphazie a few points that
I hope will allow you to support our neighborhoods posiiton and request.
1. The city and our committee committed to the neighborhood residents that the RPP would be in place for one year as a trial period without any changes. This commitment needs to be respected. And, I want
to stress the RPP is working as hoped and we are grateful to the council for approving it. After the trial
period it can be properly reevluated, but this should not be a piecemeal process.
2. There has been no factual analysis to support the staff's recommendations, particuarly as they relate to the requested 15 additional business permits. The only basis we can see is that the businesses want additonal permits for their employees to park in our neighborhood so they can keep all their on-site
spaces for clients. This raises serious questions as to the adequacy of the sites for the business uses as
they exist today and these uses appear to have grown significantly since they were allowed to stay "as
they existed" at the time of the 1989 comprehensive plan and zoning amendments.
3. The "stakeholder meetings" were poorly organized with no real objective and only resulted in both the residents and business representatives becoming defensive and extremely frustrated. This turn of events was completely unnecessary and predictable. Further, it has forced the neighborhood to dig into
the history of zoning actions, particularly relative to 1515 El Camino Real and identify issues with this
history. We did not really want to go through this process, but felt forced to do so by the process staff
took to bring the matter to the council in a very piecemeal fashion. 4. The businesses at 1515 El Camino Real appear to have grown considerbly since 1989, when the site was rezoned to multifamily use. The provisions allowing the medical offices to remain "as they existed" as of the effective date of the rezoning are extremely vague and questionable at best, as discussed in our
January 26th letter. There have been site and building changes that appear to impact the scope of the
uses. The use and zoning concerns need to be fully evaluated before any consideration of changes
relative to added business parking permits. Thank you for the opportunity to offer these comments and I hope you can allow the one year trial period to continue with no changes to the RPP.
Sincerely,
Tom with Linda Vlasic
Mariposa Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 9:54 AM
13
Carnahan, David
From:Kaye Storm <kayestorm@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 29, 2018 7:56 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:No modifications to Southgate Residential Parking program
I’m a resident on Madrono Ave and I’m writing to urge you to vote against the staff recommendation for any
modifications to the newly instituted Southgate Residential Parking program. The trial period has only just begun; there
should be no changes until the period has ended and city staff and residents have had a chance to see how the plan is
working and what modifications, if any, are needed.
It seems to me that once again residents (and businesses along El Camino) are pitted against each other because of city
staff incompetence or do‐nothingness. These businesses did not just pop up‐‐‐why were their needs not taken into
consideration during the considerable planning for this program? There is plenty of parking available for employees of
these businesses on the east side of El Camino Real between Churchill and Paly. There would also be double that
amount of parking on the west side, if the city enforced the existing parking restrictions rather than allowing dozens of
campers and trailers to park there permanently. Also I understand city staff issued business permits to only one of the
buildings housing businesses, setting up a conflict with a second business nearby. The city needs to solve this problem
which it created, rather than asking residents to.
It seems the city staff ignores some of the restrictions or policies they themselves approve such as in the case of
Castilleja School with the upshot that many in the community feel entitled to privileges that should never have been
granted in the first place.
Stanford employees work odd hours, walk, bike or take public transportation OR they pay a fee of up to $60/month to
park on campus. Stanford incentivizes its employees to choose these alternatives to parking. Why can’t the businesses
along El Camino do the same, rather than further infringe on resident parking?
It is premature to decide to cater to a few businesses in lieu of all the neighborhood residents.
Kaye Storm
kayestorm@gmail.com
650.326.4800
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:13 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:tom@tomvlasic.com
Sent:Saturday, January 27, 2018 2:45 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Christine Shambora; Peter Shambora; Jim McFall; Shepherd, Nancy; Bob Stillerman;
Keith (via; Gitelman, Hillary
Subject:Southgate Neighborhood Letter re: 1//29/18 City Council Meeting
Attachments:Southgate RPP Comm. Jan 26 Letter to PA CC .pdf .pdf
Dear Mayor Kniss and Council members,
Please find and consider the attached letter relative to the Southgate RPP matter on your Monday night
agenda. We grately appreciate your consideration of our Neighborhood Committee's request and look
forward to your favorable action on it.
Best regards, Tom Vlasic
Submitted on behalf for the Southgate Neighborhood Committee
Southgate Neighborhood Parking Committee
January 26, 2018
Honorable Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Filseth and Councilmembers,
Subject: Item 11, Jan 29, 2018 City Council Agenda
The Southgate Neighborhood Parking Committee would like to address the item before you on January 29, 2018 titled: Resolution Modifying Southgate RPP Program.
We respectfully ask that the City Council allow the one-year pilot program (for which enforcement only
started last month) for our RPP to move ahead without any changes at this time. Any adjustments
should only be made after the one-year period is over, findings from the pilot program considered and
the issues set forth below properly addressed by your staff, including the City Attorney.
It was our understanding that the one-year trial period for the Southgate RPP, which started in November 2017, would run unmodified for 12 months and then be reviewed for possible changes with final council action to fol-low. (RPP Ordinance No. 5294, 10.50.060 (c): “Before the expiration of the trial period…council shall hold a no-ticed public hearing and determine whether the RPP District shall be made permanent as originally adopted, modified or terminated.”) Staff was clear throughout the process that if any modifications were to be made to the district, that would occur at the end of the trial period. This was communicated to us and all Southgate resi-dents were so advised as they voted to accept the trial program. Thus far, the neighborhood is pleased with the program and believes it has addressed the key problems we have faced. We thank the council for its actions to authorize the Southgate RPP.
Regarding the specific requested modifications included in the staff report:
(1) Increasing the number of employee permits from 10 to 25 will have a significant impact on the neighborhood, an impact which the staff report does not address. There are issues that have emerged as a consequence of staff’s failure to include Southgate businesses in the initial consideration of a potential neighborhood RPP as the program was being considered. Nonetheless, the current staff recommendation is simply an attempt at ap-peasement of the businesses. It is void of any analysis of the impact that would result from 15 additional cars in our neighborhood, of any use restrictions that may exist with the business, nor of any alternative parking arrangements for the businesses that would not impact parking in the residential neighborhood. Further, there is no mention of the businesses doing anything, or being required to do anything, to get doctors, support staff or clients out of the cars, which has been a clear objective of City traffic management and project enforcement programs for several years.
(2) Removing 1515 and 1681 El Camino Real from the RPP district. Again this is an effort to create on-street two-hour parking solely for the use of the businesses and their customers. It is only reasonable and fair that if the businesses are part of a parking district, the parking in front of those businesses should be included in the district.
In addition, the business at 1681 El Camino Real, which has been included in the Southgate RPP, is on the same property parcel (per city records) as 1691 El Camino Real. These buildings, which have a continuous parking arrangement through the single property, should be treated as being on the single parcel and, therefore, included in the adjacent Evergreen Park district. Employees at 1681 have previously been issued residential permits to park in Evergreen Park, which makes sense, as the property is more a part of that area and not con-nected to Southgate.
Zoning Issues, 1515 El Camino Real
As witnessed by the number of parking permits requested by the owners of the six or seven businesses (per staff report) at this complex and the staff report estimating a total of “about 70 employees, although many are part-time”, there is an extremely high level of traffic. A review of the zoning approvals for this property in 1988 and 1989 suggests that today there is a much increased intensity of use and calls into question compliance with those previous approvals. Further, we find issues with the approvals that raise concerns relative to conformity with City and State general plan and zoning provisions, including requirements for clearly defining standards for intensity of site use, including parking. These issues need to be analyzed and clarified by staff and will likely
require review by the City Attorney. This should occur prior to any consideration of added parking permits to the business uses.
The 1988 and 1989 City actions associated with rezoning of 1515 El Camino Real “indefinitely” "grandfathered" in the medical uses "as existed at the time of the effective date of the zoning change" without defining the uses or standards for site intensity beyond a single floor area limit. The City, property owner and concerned neigh-bors are left to guess at what was specifically permitted, including what standards are to be used for ensuring parking compliance. This is unacceptable and could well be in conflict with the provisions of State general plan and zoning provisions which call for standards of intensity for site use to be clearly defined in any actions to amend the general plan or zoning ordinance. Specifically, the following questions need to be addressed.
(1) Where in state planning law and the Palo Alto comprehensive plan (CP) and zoning ordinance (ZO) is the authority established to authorize a use that is not consistent with the CP and ZO to "remain indefinitely" as stated in the 11/16/89 staff report that is offered to support the city council CP and ZO amendment actions? The 1988/89 CP and ZO amendment actions taken together would allow the "medical uses as existed on the effec-tive date of the ordinance . . . to remain indefinitely," subject only to not increasing the floor area. These vague actions extended indefinitely, appear inconsistent with the intent of state planning law both for CP and ZO be-cause they arguably "forever" violate the underlying comprehensive plan and zoning designations. Surely a backdoor form of illegal “spot zoning.”
(2) The council action (Ord. 3925) states that the medical office use existing as of the effective date of this ordi-nance may remain, but provides no specific definition of the “existing use.” The 1989 Ord. should have at least specifically defined the details for the “grandfathered” use so that there would be no question as to intent either for the city, property owner or the concerned public. We are all left to guess what was the scope of the “existing” use. Is it as presented to the ARB in 1988, or up to the whim of the property owner? Interpretations will need to be made by staff relative to occupancy, e.g., number of doctors and offices, hours of operation, etc., and these interpretations used to determine standards for parking compliance. Unfortunately, much of this has yet to be addressed and will likely be the focus of debate as to what actually existed in 1989 v. what exists today. (It is also interesting to note that the potential parking impacts on Southgate were raised during the 1988 ARB review of plans for 1515 El Camino. So this is not a new issue.)
In summary, the Southgate Neighborhood Parking Committee respectfully requests that no changes be consid-
ered to the Southgate RPP until the end of the one-year trial period. In addition, the neighborhood committee
suggests that the Council might consider forming a Southgate RPP Committee with representation from current businesses, members of the Southgate neighborhood, and a City representative. The objective of such as
committee would be a joint recommendation relative to any reasonable RPP adjustments prior to the end of the trial period. And, any such recommendations should take into account full factual data addressing at least the
issues raised herein.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject agenda item and we look forward to a favorable action
by the Council on Monday night.
Sincerely,
Southgate Neighborhood Parking Committee
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 4:05 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:abby bradski <abbybradski@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 29, 2018 11:47 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Southgate permit parking program
Attachments:Dear City Council Members.docx
City council members,
I have lived on Madrono Ave in Southgate for 33 years. Attached are comments about my concerns and
suggestions about allowing or not allowing businesses more parking permits.
Thank you for reading this. Abby Bradski
Dear City Council Members,
It distresses me that you are considering changes to the Southgate Parking Program before the
end of the one year trial. How will we know if the program works? Isn’t this the period where
we gather information and at the end of the year after some research, reflection and looking at
data we evaluate if any changes need to be made? The issue of adding employee parking may
seem like a small rather unimportant issue. It is to most of the city, but to the few residents it
affects, it is a huge issue. I would like to leave everything in place until we have had this
program for a year and then evaluate the entire program.
If you decide to issue additional permits to employees, I think it is important that the following
things happen:
1. Look at and review the use permits for the businesses requesting more permits. Have
they grown beyond the size of the parking they were required to have and are no longer
conforming the their permits or zoning?
2. Look at the businesses carefully and what their real parking needs are. Are there enough
spots to park along El Camino to accommodate there needs? Are there employees who
could take public transportation, carpool or bike to work who presently don’t? Do the
businesses have an incentive program to reduce car trips? Next look at how many
parking permits they really need so that they ask for all of those now instead at at a
later date and asking for more permits, having to go through this process yet again.
3. If you decide to issue additional more permits please, please “ zone” them. By this I
mean take all of the permits, including the original ones issued, and assign them a block
or two in Southgate to park on so that one or two streets don’t have to absorb all of the
employee parking. I would feel differently about the additional permits if I knew that
only one or two additional cars were going to be on my street.
4. Southgate is an amazing, friendly, and connected neighborhood. We are acquainted
with each other. We have narrow streets and many single car driveways. There is an
unspoken etiquette about how and where to park. Unless absolutely necessary, we
don’t park in front of other’s houses. We avoid parking directly across from driveways or
too near someone else’s driveway. We bend in our outside mirrors or risk them
accidently being knocked off. We exchange addresses and phone numbers in case we
need them or for emergencies.
I suggest that if you increase the parking permits, or maybe even if you don’t, you call a
meeting of residents and business employees to share needs and etiquette. The
businesses need to know the unspoken kindnesses we share and what can be done to
ease the strain of their parking by our homes. Some of these businesses are in the
medical field. It would be great to have their contacts in case of an earthquake on
another natural disaster. It would be helpful to know whom to call if we have a concern
about a particular parked car before or instead of calling the police.
I hope that we can find a solution that works for all parties that this affects.
Thank you,
Abby Bradski
1543 Madrono Ave.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 4:06 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 29, 2018 12:54 PM
To:Gitelman, Hillary
Cc:Kamhi, Philip; City Mgr; Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Subject:RE: Questions needing answers - Southgate RPP
Thanks
Does the public not get a chance to hear the responses prior to the meeting?
On Jan 29, 2018 12:53 PM, "Gitelman, Hillary" <Hillary.Gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Hi Keith,
We will address most of these issues in our presentation this evening.
See you tonight,
Hillary
Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650.329.2321 |E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
From: Keith Ferrell [mailto:ferrell.keith@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 12:07 PM
To: Kamhi, Philip
Cc: City Mgr; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Gitelman, Hillary
Subject: Re: Questions needing answers - Southgate RPP
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 4:06 PM
2
Philip,
Agreed. Most residents are very upset that this is being proposed. We were assured of a year-long pilot program with 10 employee permits. To have staff attempt to back out of that is more than upsetting.
However, just because your report is completed and is going to council tonight does not negate the fact that
there are still many questions that need to be answered. Many of these questions go to the core of staff's
recommendations to council. Staff can not provide council with inaccurate data and then turn a blind eye once it is completed. We still need our questions answered. This is not a permanent program, so we would like to
have back up for all of the statements staff is making as well as specific data on any survey or information
collected. The information should all be readily available to staff. We are not asking for any new information,
merely asking for answers.
A government can not function properly if those that are making the decisions are given inaccurate and/or
incomplete information. It leaves the taxpayers/residents at a disadvantage. A vast majority of the basis for
your recommendations are incorrect and favor the businesses. A short list includes:
1) Occupancy data is not shown block by block therefore ignoring the fact that employees will park on streets closest to the businesses. In addition, the numbers are blatantly inaccurate. Staff's original occupancy study
showed 100 fewer parking spaces in Southgate. How can two study's be so far off? I would like to see the
back up for the study.
2) Showrate assumptions incorrectly use data from dissimilar neighborhoods (i.e. downtown and Evergreen Park) which have an entirely different business mix as Southgate. Southgate has 7 medical offices, with a
consistent number of full-time employees working 9-5pm. Showrate has been shown to be closer to 90% in the
10+ counts I have done in the neighborhood.
3) Neighbors living in the areas that will be most affected by any increase in permits were not notified of any changes by the city.
4) There is no mention of the parking available on El Camino which many of the employees have been taking
advantage of since the RPP started being enforced.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 4:06 PM
3
Palo Alto residents deserve a government that is impartial, and to a large degree, actually protects the residents,
our neighborhoods and our city.
Please let me know when you can get me answers to my questions.
Thanks
Keith Ferrell
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 8:26 AM, Kamhi, Philip <Philip.Kamhi@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Keith,
It is very clear that you and other resident stakeholders do not support increasing employee permits in
Southgate. Staff has already prepared our report to City Council, and you are welcome to come and present your
position to Council.
Best,
Philip Kamhi
Transportation Programs Manager
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
Transportation
Philip.Kamhi@CityofPaloAlto.org
office: 650.329.2520 fax: 650.329.2154
Use PaloAlto311 to report items you’d like the City to fix. Download the app or click here to make a service request.
From: Keith Ferrell [mailto:ferrell.keith@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 10:15 AM
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 4:06 PM
4
To: Kamhi, Philip
Cc: Gitelman, Hillary; Council, City; City Mgr; Shikada, Ed
Subject: Questions needing answers - Southgate RPP
Hi Philip
There are still quite a few questions that have been left unanswered by you regarding the proposed
modifications to the Southgate RPP. I will list them, again, here (Questions 7-9 and 12 are new, all others have been asked before at least once):
1) Who was notified of the community meetings? Given that all addresses were notified of the RPP, and
mailed a survey, I would expect that all addresses would also be invited to any community meetings.
2) If not all addresses were notified of the meeting, why were they not notified?
3) Wouldn't it be important for all addresses that would be impacted by the parking be invited to provide input
and hear about the plan?
4) Given that your occupancy survey studied the entire neighborhood, it appears that you recognize that the
entire neighborhood would be affected, so why wouldn't the city notify all addresses within Southgate?
5) Back to that survey, why did the survey include the entire neighborhood, when, through past experience, the
city knows that the blocks most affected by employee parking will be those closest to the businesses?
6) How were the number of parking spaces calculated? The number from the survey is vastly different than
that from the hand count I did prior to RPP.
7) Is there a block by block occupancy study, as was done prior to RPP and as was done for the Evergreen Park/Mayfield proposed changes?
8) If not, why not? If there is one, can you send that to me as soon as possible?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 4:06 PM
5
9) If there is a block by block study, why not include that in the council packet?
10) Why are you still using a 30-40% showrate? You must know that this number is wrong and comparing our
10 permit showrate to that of downtown or Evergreen Park is an unrealistic comparison. Your recommendation
is based on this showrate and 9-10 cars being in the neighborhood. If you would come out during the day, you
will see that there are already 8-10 employee cars in the neighborhood. Since 9-10 cars is your threshold for
your recommendation, any recommendation to increase permits is faulty.
11) Why is there no mention of parking availability on El Camino for employees?
12) Has anyone checked with PAPD to see if they will enforce the 2-hour parking zones?
I am expecting you have answers to all of these questions and can provide them before noon on Monday.
Thanks
Keith Ferrell
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 4:06 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 29, 2018 1:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Parking available on El Camino
All,
I just wanted to give you a few visuals of the parking available adjacent to the business in Southgate. 1515 and
1681 both have parking lots and street parking adjacent to their offices. 1515 ECR has a parking lot with 10 spaces,(Photo 1) along with a driveway off of El Camino which could fit an additional two cars that is used for
Surgery patient drop-off/pick-up but is not used every day (photo 2). 1515 ECR has space for approximately 9
cars adjacent to its office on El Camino and Churchill (Photos 3 and 4) In additon, there are 17-19 spaces
available on El Camino north of Churchill (photo 5) 1681 has a parking lot in front of its entrance for 5 cars,
but also, on the same lot is a much larger parking lot. (Photos 6-7). There is also parking along El Camino in front of 1681 El Camino (Photo 8).
It becomes evident that there is ample parking on and adjacent to both properties. There is no need to increase
employee permits. Please maintain the Southgate RPP as is.
Here is a link to the photos: https://photos.app.goo.gl/JojdaPHbQiruqn3H3
Photo 1 - Parking lot for 1515 El Camino Real
Photo 2 - Side Parking lot for 1515 El Camino Real Photo 3 - Parking on Churchill adjacent to 1515 El Camino Real
Photo 4 - Parking on El Camino adjacent to 1515 El Camino Real Photo 5 - East side of El Camino Real, North of Churchill. This van is parked approx. 300ft
from 1515 ECR Photo 6 - Parking lot for 1681 El Camino Real
Photo 7 - Additional parking lot for 1681 El Camino Real Photo 8 - Parking on El Camino Real adjacent to 1681 El Camino Real
Thank you
Keith Ferrell
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 5:00 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 29, 2018 4:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comments from Southgate via NextDoor
Here's a brief rundown of neighbor comments from Nextdoor. No editing on comments.
Meeting at City Hall regarding changes to the RPP for Southgate
Hello neighbors (especially those closest to El Camino), There will be a meeting in the Community Room at City Hall
tomorrow night, January 10 at 6:30. They will be discussing possible changes to the preferential parking program for Southgate.
Several business owners along El Camino are requesting 15 additional employee permits. This would bring the employee
permits to 25 for our neighborhood. This will have a significant impact on parking for homes in the area closest to El Camino.
Are you ok with this? We need Southgate neighbors especially those affected to attend this meeting and give feedback to the
City. This is important so please plan to be there. The City needs to have this representation from the neighborhood.
9 Jan · Southgate in General
Thank
Reply
1 Thank · 11 Replies
Jane Harris, Southgate·9 Jan
Do you know who to contact with feedback for those of us who can't attend?
Thank 1 Thank
Christine Shambora, Southgate·9 Jan
Please reach out to the planning director hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org and philip.kamhi@cityofpaloalto.org. Also
contact City Council members. I will try to find out a general address for the Council.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 5:00 PM
2
Thank
Christine Shambora, Southgate·9 Jan
City Council email is city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Thank
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Frayda Glass
Frayda Glass, Southgate·9 Jan
I can not attend the meeting. I live on the Madrono Ave. right off of Churchill. This block is where all trucks seem to
enter Southgate, and where extra drivers living in apartments (not individual houses) live. Please consider this when you
allow new parking permits. Some streets receive more traffic and parkers than other streets in Southgate.
Thank
1 Thank
Kate McKenzie, Southgate·9 Jan
Isn't restricting the business people from parking in the neighborhood the reason we were given to join the parking permit
program in the first place? For those of us who live close to those businesses, it sort of defeats the purpose for which we
are paying the city to park in front of our own homes.
Thank 1 Thank
Abby Bradski, Southgate·Edited 9 Jan
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 5:00 PM
3
First of all which businesses are asking for permits? How many total permits are we talking about? Are they only the ones
directly in from of Southgate? More importantly, this is suppose to be a PILOT YEAR and as such we and the city should
be collecting data not making changes at this point. The first block off of Churchill still seems very congested as does
Manzanita between Castilleja and Madrono. If we decide to give out more permits next year when we are evaluating this
program, please give out non-resident, if you do, to specific blocks as they do in the Downtown area so one of two streets
don't get all of the impact.
Thank
2 Thanks
Abby Bradski, Southgate·9 Jan
I just expanded on my comments above and sent them to the 3 email addresses Christine gave us. I will try to be at the
meeting tomorrow but I think it is important that they hear from us by email too.
Thank
1 Thank
Zoe Landreth, Southgate·Edited 9 Jan
I was at the first meeting in December to provide my feedback but will not be available to attend tomorrow. I encourage
as many neighbors to attend especially those who live on Portola, Sequoia, Miramonte and Manzanita to learn how this
will impact you. The businesses at the meeting were there in force and aggressively lobbying for a triple increase in
number of permits they were originally provided, which would mean an increase from 10 to 30 permits. As a resident on
Portola this is going to mean going back to a very congested street and minimal parking for residents, defeating the RPP's
purpose. Please either attend or email your concerns.
Thank 1 Thank
Jane Harris, Southgate·10 Jan
I think we really need to stress the safety issue given how narrow our streets are. It’s not just a convenience issue. The
city should seriously consider safety and liability as an increase in permits would exacerbate an unsafe situation - fire
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 5:00 PM
4
trucks and ambulances have difficulty getting through our neighborhood. Businesses can park on el camino and
encourage employees not to drive.
Thank
Right-click here to download pictures. To heprivacy, Outlook prevented automatic downpicture from the Internet.Frayda Glass
Frayda Glass, Southgate·10 Jan
Just sent my email off to the 3 links you gave above. Thanks!
Thank
Tee Moye, Southgate·3d ago
How can we expand until we get the program right first? I'll be calling to complain ASAP. I almost got a ticket in front of
my house - I didn't have my hangtag up but I had only been parked there for 30 minutes when the enforcer came by on his
bike. My understanding is that anyone can park here for 2 hours before getting a ticket. Our painter received a ticket
earlier this week within 20 minutes of being parked. I wish I had been out on the sidewalk both times when this happened
to complain directly to the person in the field.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 5:00 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:doonwig@aol.com
Sent:Monday, January 29, 2018 4:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Evergreen Park -Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking Program
I live at the corner of Leland Avenue and Ash Street.
I am unable to attend tonight's City Council meeting but would like to briefly express my views on the permit parking
situation.
While the adoption of the permit program has somewhat eased the parking issues in my neighborhood, because of my proximity to the businesses along El Camino, I have seen very little improvement for me personally. With the number of
permits given to the El Camino businesses, the areas around my home are completely occupied by cars with permits during the day, Mondays through Fridays.
I completely oppose the consideration of giving the El Camino businesses any additional permits. The City of Palo Alto
allowed many of the buildings along El Camino to be built with insufficient parking initially, to the detriment of the surrounding neighbors. From my observations, I believe some of those businesses are bursting to capacity with
employees, leaving a further need for additional parking for their clients. The neighborhood should not have to suffer because of the initial short sightedness of the City of Palo Alto's City Council.
Please do not grant any further permits to the El Camino businesses.
Cheryl Goodwin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/25/2018 2:14 PM
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Svendsen, Janice
Sent:Thursday, January 25, 2018 2:11 PM
To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email
Cc:Bobel, Phil; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Portillo,
Rumi; Sartor, Mike; Eggleston, Brad; Raisch, Nicholas; Blanch, Sandra
Subject:1/29 Council Agenda Questions for Items 6 & 8
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 January 29, 2018 council meeting agenda.
Item 6: Design Services for Sedimentation Tank Rehabilitation – CM Tanaka
Item 8: Memorandum between City and SEIU 521 – CM Tanaka
Item 6: Design Services for Sedimentation Tank Rehabilitation
Q.1. If three proposals were received from three qualified companies, why were
only two interviewed?
A.1. The proposal from the non‐interviewed firm scored low on the selection
criteria set forth in the RFP. The proposal lacked the technical details and firm
experience on projects with similar scope and complexity. It was not necessary to
give the firm further consideration via an interview.
Q.2. If this project is funded by the Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Capital
Improvement Project, why is one of the tasks to prepare documents for the
application to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (a fund that loans money)?
A2. The Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund does not have the reserves that
would be needed to pay for Major Capital projects such as this. Financial
instruments such as grants, loans or bonds must be sought. Borrowing from the
State Revolving Fund is the first choice because of the low interest rate and low
loan issuance costs. However, because the State program is over‐subscribed, we
are not too likely to be successful; so we are also initiating the process of securing
Bond Funding; somewhat more expensive, but far more certain.
Q.3. Has there been a major repair anytime in the past? Can you provide a list of any
repairs throughout the history of the primary sedimentation tanks?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/25/2018 2:14 PM
2
A.3. Process piping and rotating mechanical equipment have been repaired or
replaced numerous times over the 46‐year life of the units. The Engineering life of
the mechanical equipment and the coating on the concrete tanks have been
exceed. The Facility Assesment and Long Range Facilities Plan (2011) identified
these units as needing rehabilitation. The trigger for action is the age and condition,
as opposed to the number of repairs conducted. One desires to stay ahead of major
problems. Especially in a 24/7 facility, one cannot wait for breakdowns. In this case
the key trigger was the condition of the concrete and its coating. With the coating
deteriorating, the concrete walls could lose their integrity and begin to crumble,
due to the corrosive nature of sewage.
Q.4. In the “Summary of Solicitation Process” table, it mentions that the range of
proposal amounts are from $474,288 to $758,892. Later in the document, it mentions
that the lowest bid was chosen. Why did the amount go from $474,288 to a not‐to‐
exceed $715,369?
A.4. The $474,288 proposal was the cost from the less experienced firm not
interviewed. To clarify, of the two firms interviewed, the cost of $715,369 from
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants is the lower cost proposal.
Item 8: Memorandum between City and SEIU 521
Q. 1. Why should we be increasing wages and spending while the City is projected to
have a deficit?
A. 1. Deficit is the wrong term. The City projects a potential gap under a series of
expenditure and revenue assumptions. The city manager will propose a budget that
is balanced.
Generally ‐‐ employers increase salaries to remain competitive, attract and retain
employees and reflect the local cost of living.
Specific to SEIU‐Hourly ‐‐ the City is obligated to engage in bargaining for wages and
working conditions. For this bargaining cycle, Council provided direction to the
City’s negotiators to include a wage increase within certain parameters. The
negotiators kept the agreement within those parameters.
Q. 2. Why was the past salaries and medical stipend not enough?
A. 2. Several of the classifications were less than the Council‐approved minimum
wage ordinance. In regard to the medical stipend, the actuarial assumption is 8%
annual inflation. The agreement allows 2.5% and employees absorb the difference.
Q. 3. How much do these workers make compare to Mountain View or Menlo Park
hourly workers for equivalent positions?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/25/2018 2:14 PM
3
A.3. A comparison of two primary benchmarks shows that Palo Alto pays
considerably less than Mountain View:
Library Page
Palo Alto $12.34 ‐ $15.15
Menlo Park $12.71 ‐ $15.18
Mountain View $15.00 ‐ $18.00
Recreation Leader I
Palo Alto $12.00 ‐ $14.73
Menlo Park $12.00 ‐ $16.00
Mountain View $16.46 ‐ $19.85
Q. 4. How hard is it to hire these people?
A. 4. Recent experience indicates that part‐time employees at this salary level are
difficult to hire. An example is the Aquatic Center, where the City was unable to
recruit or retain the staff necessary to operate the facility due to difficulties
competing in the labor market.
Thank you,
Janice Svendsen
Janice Svendsen | Executive Assistant to James Keene, City Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650.329.2105 | E: janice.svendsen@cityofpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2018 1:52 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 8:53 AM
To:Kou, Lydia; Holman, Karen; Tanaka, Greg; Fine, Adrian; DuBois, Tom; Scharff, Gregory
(internal); Filseth, Eric (Internal); Wolbach, Cory; Council, City
Subject:Evergreen RPP proposal, from neighborhood leadership group
Attachments:Evergeen Park RPP resident memo(1).pdf
To: Palo Alto City Council
From: Evergreen Park residents
Subject: Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP Program
Date: Public hearing February 5, 2018
Summary
The Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Parking Program (RPP) has met
expectations, reducing
parking congestion on residential streets. During the first six months of the
program, there were few
problems and no reported complaints. In October, 2017, at the start of the
second six-month phase
when permits were renewed, there were numerous complaints from
businesses who were unable to
renew permits or obtain additional permits.
Meetings in December, 2017, and January, 2018, between staff and
residents and business owners were
very productive and identified the root causes of the problems obtaining
employee parking permits, and
several recommendations were made by residents and business owners to
address these problems. At
these meetings, staff agreed with the analysis and proposed corrections.
Nevertheless, the staff report
contains few of these recommendations and instead remains essentially
unchanged from the staff
To: Palo Alto City Council
From: Evergreen Park residents
Subject: Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP Program
Date: Public hearing February 5, 2018
Summary
The Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Parking Program (RPP) has met expectations, reducing
parking congestion on residential streets. During the first six months of the program, there were few
problems and no reported complaints. In October, 2017, at the start of the second six-month phase
when permits were renewed, there were numerous complaints from businesses who were unable to
renew permits or obtain additional permits.
Meetings in December, 2017, and January, 2018, between staff and residents and business owners were
very productive and identified the root causes of the problems obtaining employee parking permits, and
several recommendations were made by residents and business owners to address these problems. At
these meetings, staff agreed with the analysis and proposed corrections. Nevertheless, the staff report
contains few of these recommendations and instead remains essentially unchanged from the staff
proposal drafted prior to these meetings. The staff proposal is based on insufficient information,
unsupported assumptions, and offers a “remedy” of increasing the number of employee parking permits
which does not address the problems actually encountered and which will act to the detriment of the
RPP and the neighborhood. Implementing the staff proposal will not address problems with the RPP
and may set an unwarranted precedent that all problems with the RPP should be addressed by
increasing the parking density in the residential area.
This memorandum discusses the cause of the problems in the second six-month phase of the RPP, when
no such problems were encountered previously, disputes the staff analysis which is based on
unsupported assumptions and standards, and makes specific proposals which are intended to address
both short term and long term issues with the RPP program.
Discussion
Permitting process
The Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP pilot began in March, 2017. As noted in their report, staff reached
out to businesses, particularly medical and dental offices, to assist them in purchasing employee
parking permits when they went on sale. This appeared to be successful, with most businesses
obtaining needed employee parking permits. (Indeed, some businesses have indicated that they
obtained more permits than they actually needed.) There were no significant complaints.
In October, 2017, when the initial permits expired, the staff did not engage in outreach to businesses.
Businesses were not notified of the need to renew permits nor of the deadline to do so. Businesses
have noted that they had difficulty renewing permits online. The staff did not exercise any control over
the number of permits which a single business could purchase. The result was essentially a “land rush”
where the first businesses to apply for permits gobbled them up, leaving the medical and dental offices
unable to purchase permits. Several companies in the California Avenue Business District purchased
many more permits in this second phase than they had initially. Many of these permits are in Zones A
and B where many of the businesses which were unable to purchase permits are located.
The staff report glosses over the effect of the poor management of permit renewals, leading one to
believe that this situation “just happened”. Their previous description of the inability of businesses to
renew permits was that this was due to “increased demand”. This is hardly credible. There was no
significant change in the number of businesses, the number of employees, or a reduction in parking
which would result in any increase in demand.
Parking occupancy survey
The City hired a consultant to conduct a parking occupancy study. This happened one day in October.
Some aspects of the results match observations of both businesses and residents, especially in the
highly parked areas along El Camino Real. Other results, showing low parking density, are disputed by
local residents. It is difficult to extrapolate from a single observation. (This would be like looking
outside and saying that it was 55º and sunny in Palo Alto, and using this to make decisions throughout
the year.) There is no way to know if the conditions on this particular October day were representative
of the other days, or if there were factors which made parking better or worse on this date. We consider
this survey to be a questionable basis for any proposed changes. We believe that a survey conducted
over perhaps three days would offer much more reliable view of parking in the permit area.
Parking show rate
Without question, not every employee who has an employee parking permit will park their car in the
neighborhood every day or for the full day. But, give the haphazard nature of the permitting process
and the single parking survey, we question the staff’s reliance on the values in their table. At the
stakeholder meetings, some businesses mentioned that they actually received more permits than they
needed. There were anecdotal reports that some businesses had purchased and were stockpiling a large
number of permits, currently unused, in case they needed them. This not only exacerbates the problem
of uneven distribution, it artificially lowers the show rate.
Even using the questionable parking occupancy data in the staff report, the show rate ranges from 20%
to 72%. Based on the staff comment at the top of page 8 in the report, where the staff claims that the
number of employee parking permits could be increased three-fold (!!!) without impacting the
neighborhood, the staff appears to assume the validity of the lowest show rate and ignores the highest
show rate.
Parking occupancy standard
The staff proposes a cap of 60% as a parking occupancy cap. Staff has provided no justification for
this number and has stated that it is not an established standard either within city planning or traffic
management. We do not know how this cap would relate to either resident or business satisfaction with
the RPP. We believe that resident satisfaction is the only valid measure that we are aware of. While we
might imagine that 100% occupancy would correlate with resident dissatisfaction, and 0% would
correlate with resident satisfaction, we have no basis for belief that the staff number, or any other
number, represents an acceptable parking occupancy cap. Staff has performed no surveys of RPP
residents to find a relationship between satisfaction with the RPP and parking occupancy. Neither have
they provided any industry study or standard which supports their proposed number, or indeed, any
particular number.
The residents oppose establishing any specific parking occupancy standard, lacking in any supporting
evidence, believing that this is arbitrary and capricious.
We are very disturbed by the views expressed by staff that the Evergreen Park and Mayfield
neighborhoods are a nearly unlimited parking resource which can be used to offset shortfalls in parking
in the commercial districts. The suggestion that employee permits could be increased three-fold and
that the City should adopt an inflated parking occupancy target lead us to remind the staff and City
Council that the discussion at hand involves a Residential Parking Permit program, not a Commercial
Parking Permit program.
Permanent increase in employee permits
The staff recommends permanently increasing the number of employee parking permits in the RPP by
40. The staff claims that this will satisfy current business needs (which we will address below). This
may be true, but it does nothing to address the cause of the problems that businesses encounter. The
staff report offers no credible support for an argument that there are insufficient employee parking
permits; indeed they make no attempt to make this claim.
The root cause of the inability of businesses to purchase permits is not insufficient permits, but the
inconsistent and uneven distribution of the permits. It is difficult to reconcile that there were, from all
appearances, adequate employee parking permits during the first six months, and suddenly a significant
deficit at the start of the second six months, following permit renewals. Adding permits is a “quick fix”
which makes the situation better in the short term, but which will not address the root cause of the
business’ problems.
We are very concerned that an increase in the number of parking permits, without addressing the root
cause of the permit allocation problems, will set an undesirable precedent. Every imagined (or real)
increase in parking demand will be addressed by an increase in the number of employee parking
permits. We see foreshadowing of this in the recent staff proposal to reduce the size of the Sherman
Ave. garage, where the loss of parking spaces was to be offset by an increase in the number of permits
in the surrounding RPP.
New zone structure
The staff proposes to split the current Zone A and Zone B in two, creating six zones instead of four.
While we dispute the estimates of parking occupancy, based on an inadequate survey, we support this
change. Some residents have expressed the opinion that a better division would be to split the current
Zone B along Ash Street, similar to the proposed splitting of current Zone A. This would allow more
focus on the El Camino Real business area and the adjacent impacted residential area.
Parking along El Camino Real
El Camino Real and the adjacent Stanford campus are integral and important parts of the parking
problems in Evergreen Park and should be part of the solution. Currently there are no restrictions on
parking on El Camino Real between College Avenue and Park Boulevard. Drivers going to Stanford or
taking CalTrain who had previously parked in the Evergreen Park neighborhood simply moved to El
Camino Real when the RPP was created. Where it was previously possible for employees and
customers of businesses on El Camino Real to find parking, now all spaces are occupied beginning in
the early morning for the entire day.
The staff recommend establishing a 2 hour parking zone along the east side of El Camino Real. While
this will help address this problem, local business employees who park in this area will have to move
their cars every two hours. The staff doesn’t mention the west side of El Camino Real, which, under
their proposed change, will continue to be long-term free parking for people going to Stanford.
We support the dentists’ recommendation that both east and west side of El Camino Real be
incorporated into the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP. We believe that the staff’s concern that residents
will park on El Camino Real in preference to parking near their homes is unfounded. We also cannot
understand how incorporating this area into the RPP would result in increases in neighborhood traffic,
since, as the staff report mentions, several streets do not have outlets onto El Camino Real.
We also recommend that staff reach out to Stanford to address El Camino Real being used for long
term Stanford parking rather than the many parking areas on the Stanford campus. People visiting or
working on the Stanford campus should have parking permits for Stanford lots, rather than overflowing
into the adjacent neighborhoods.
Employee purchase of parking permits
We recommend that the City only sell parking permits to employers. This matches a recommendation
by area dentists. Selling permits to both employers and employees has allowed certain businesses to
obtain a large number of permits at the same time their employees obtain a large number of permits.
This is one of the causes of the uneven distribution of employee parking permits in October.
Permit distribution
In addition to improving communication between the City and business in the RPP area, including
advanced notice (in writing) of permit renewal, we recommend that permits be issued with the
following priorities:
•Permits should be issued in zones closest to the business location
•Preference should be given to neighborhood-serving businesses, permit renewals, and
businesses which do not participate in the California Avenue Parking Assessment District
•Permits may be issued only to businesses listed in the Palo Alto Business Registry
•Businesses with low income workers are to be given preference
•Businesses with a Traffic Demand Management plan are given lowest priority
•Fair and equitable distribution of permits
◦Based on number of employees per business
◦Avoid concentrations of permits at any one location
◦Consider the number of businesses at any one location
It is our understanding that businesses or buildings which have an established Traffic Demand
Management plan should have programs in place which address both traffic and parking. TDMs were
adopted in exchange for reductions in building parking requirements. The terms of the TDM should be
followed to address parking requirements rather than use RPP employee parking permits.
The staff is encouraged to maintain a listing of the businesses in the RPP area, the number of permits
issued to each business, and to maintain a waiting list for permits. This will establish continuity and
stability in the employee permitting process which is currently absent.
Exigent circumstances
As a result of the problems in permit distribution, a number of neighborhood-serving businesses,
including (but not limited to) medical and dentist offices, have been unable to obtain desired employee
parking permits. Evergreen Park residents appreciate the contribution that these businesses make to the
neighborhood and believe that the businesses have made a good faith effort to accommodate changes in
their businesses as a result of the RPP and to comply with the RPP requirements.
To address these exigent circumstances, the residents propose that the City issue a total of 40
temporary employee parking permits, valid until October 1, 2018, to the businesses along El Camino
Real which have been unable to obtain permits. We believe that these temporary permits will address
the short-term needs of the businesses and allow the staff adequate time to create a permit distribution
system which follows the mentioned priorities and fairly distributes the employee parking permits to
area businesses.
Summary
Evergreen Park residents agree that the successful Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Parking Permit
program should be made permanent. The residents support rezoning the RPP area to allow better
management. Residents support replacing the current “land grab” permit distribution method, which
caused many complaints from neighborhood businesses, with a fair and equitable permit distribution
method. Residents oppose any permanent increase in the number of employee parking permits,
believing that this is not supported by known facts and current circumstances. Residents oppose the
imposition of any arbitrary parking density standard, since this does not have any factual basis.
Residents support issuing a number of temporary employee parking permits to address exigent
circumstances caused by unbalanced distribution of permits.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2018 1:51 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:O'Donnell, Nicholas M. <nodonnell@sandw.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 8:52 AM
To:Scharff, Gregory (internal)
Cc:DeMarzo, Elise; PAC; Council, City
Subject:Adriana Varella and Digital DNA
Attachments:Ltr to Gregory Scharff(B2244587).pdf
Dear Mayor Scharff,
Please see the attached letter for your earliest attention.
Best regards,
Nicholas M. O'Donnell
Attorney at Law
Partner Sullivan & Worcester LLP ZAG/S&W LLP
One Post Office Square Boston, MA 02109
1633 Broadway
New York, NY 10019 T 617 338 2814/212 660 3000
F 617 338 2880 nodonnell@sandw.com
www.sandw.com
BOSTON LONDON NEW YORK WASHINGTON, DC TEL AVIV
VISIT MY BLOG AT WWW.ARTLAWREPORT.COM
LinkedIn Profile
This message is intended to be confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message from your system and notify us immediately. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or omitted to be taken by an unintended recipient in reliance on this message is prohibited and may be unlawful.
City of Palo Alto
Page 2
January 31, 2018
The Proposed Removal Violates Ms. Varella's VARA Rights
Pursuant to VARA, Ms. Varella has the right:
(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of
that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and
any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a
violation of that right, and
(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any
intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that
right.
Both of Ms. Varella's moral rights articulated above are violated by the proposed removal of
the Sculpture. At the outset it is important to note that the Sculpture's meaning and
integrity are linked inextricably to its public display in Palo Alto. The Sculpture's meaning
and commentary on the impact of technology cannot be conveyed anywhere else. To move
the Sculpture is to distort and modify it. To be clear, the City of Palo Alto may not avail
itself of the exception in § 106A(c)(2) of VARA, that "the modification of a work of visual art
which is the result of conservation, or of the public presentation, including lighting and
placement, of the work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification
described in subsection (a)(3) unless the modification is caused by gross negligence." That
provision excludes the placement of art from VARA's protections. The current question
concerns its removal. That additional exclusion cannot be read into the statute. See Kelley
v. Chi. Park Dist., 635 F.3d 290, 292 (7th Cir. 2011). As a result, removing the Sculpture
injures Ms. Varella's reputation by eliminating at a stroke the public display with which she
is associated.
Moreover, Ms. Varella's rights under§ 106A(a)(3)(b) will be violated by its removal. First, it
is beyond dispute that the Sculpture is a work of recognized stature. To constitute a work
of recognized stature under VARA, it need only be considered as such by '"art experts,'
'other members of the artistic community, or ... some cross-section of society."' Cohen v.
G&M Realty L.P., No. 13-CV-05612 (FB) (RLM), No. 15-CV-3230 (FB) (RLM), 2017 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 50943 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2017), quoting Pollara v. Seymour, 206 F. Supp. 2d 333,
336 (N.D.N.Y. 2002). The wide acclaim and reputation the Sculpture enjoys clears this
hurdle easily. Noted art curator and critic Denise Carvalho said of Digital DNA: [It] is an
important piece of contemporary art that should be maintained by the city .... I saw the
piece when visiting Palo Alto years before I met the artist. I remember stopping to show
my son and my husband this intriguing and attractive piece. Later I met Adriana Varella
and invited her to participate [in] various exhibitions I curated, including the Mediations
Biennale in Poland in 2012. She has an important career as a contemporary artist and her
work should be respected and enjoyed."
That leaves only the question of the consequence of that recognition. Here it is clear. The
moment that the Sculpture is removed, it will be destroyed because it cannot be what it is
anywhere else. See Kelley v. Chi. Park Dist., 635 F.3d at 292.
As a result of the foregoing, Ms. Varella asserts her VARA rights and demands that the
Sculpture remain where it is.
City of Palo Alto
Page 3
January 31, 2018
The City Has Failed its Own Deaccession Policy
The City of Palo Alto Deaccession Policy of February 2017 (the "Deaccession Policy") sets
forth criteria and procedures for the removal of any work of art owned by Palo Alto from its
collection. The proposed removal of the Sculpture violates the Deaccession Policy.
Under the City's Deaccession Policy, any deaccession is to be a "seldom employed action
that is taken only after issues such as Artists' rights, public benefit, censorship, copyrights,
and legal obligations have been carefully considered." These criteria were not carefully
considered, nor does it appear that they were considered at all with regards to Ms. Varella's
rights as an artist, as noted above. It appears the only consideration given to the Sculpture
was its present condition, which can only be a reason to remove a work under the
Deaccession Policy if it requires "excessive maintenance" or its repair is "impractical or
unfeasible." As described below, the Sculpture may easily be maintained if the City were to
follow the standard practices for maintaining outdoor plastic sculptures. Moreover,
according to its own report, the City has only spent a little over a thousand dollars per year
to maintain the Sculpture since its installation, which does not constitute "excessive"
maintenance expense. As a result, the Sculpture did not and does not meet any condition
for consideration for deaccession set forth in the Deaccession Policy. Accordingly, the
Sculpture should never have been considered for deaccession in the first place.
In its deaccession request to Ms. Varella, the city makes clear that in the very worst case it
could maintain the work by reapplying a protective coating every "4-5 months." Even if this
were necessary, it is neither overly burdensome nor expensive. Nor did the City of Palo Alto
even follow through on the recommendations it procured from ARG Conservation Services,
Inc. ("ARG"). ARG suggested several relatively straightforward and inexpensive options to
maintain Digital DNA, yet the City's response was simply to abandon the work. This is
entirely inconsistent with the Deaccession Policy. As a city official quoted in the
Hyperallergic article conceded, even if it were eligible to be considered for deaccession,
deaccession of Digital DNA would be legal (notwithstanding VARA) only if the City followed
"the proper procedures" of its Deaccession Policy. Here, the City failed to comply with this
Policy in its most important respects. When the City asserts it is infeasible to maintain an
artwork, its Policy requires it to include in its Deaccession Request "[i]nformation about the
condition of the Artwork and the estimated cost of its conservation provided by a qualified
visual arts conservator." First, the City failed to include an "estimated cost of [the
Sculpture's] conservation" by ARG or any other qualified visual arts conservator. Instead,
the City misleadingly included the total cost of an ambitious project proposed by Ms. Varella
and a collaborator that included a documentary film and new improvements to the Sculpture
that bears no relation to the cost of conservation measures identified by ARG. Moreover,
while the City did include ARG's observations about the Sculpture's weathering, it failed to
include ARG summary assessment that if a "water based coating is applied annually and the
artwork inspected regularly, it will be acceptable to keep [Digital DNA] in its current
location." ARG's summary assessment undermines the City's entire premise for
deaccessioning the Sculpture. Since the City failed to include this information in its
Deaccession Request, no one could make an informed judgment about the City's claims that
the Sculpture requires "excessive maintenance" or that its repair is "impractical or
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:09 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 25, 2018 1:10 PM
To:Architectural Review Board; Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City; Atkinson, Rebecca
Subject:707 Bryant HOA Feedback re: Cell Tower Project
Attachments:City Council and ARB Petition.pdf
Dear ARB and City Council Members,
707 Bryant St consists of a 19 unit condominium complex kitty-corner from City Hall. Please read the attached letter signed by all owners/residents of 707 Bryant St regarding the proposed installation of a new utility pole as part of Crown
Castle's cell tower project (File 17PLN-00433).
We hope that you will:
-support United Neighbors' efforts to keep cell towers away from neighbors' homes -deny the request to erect any new utility poles
-require all equipment (except the antenna) to be fully vaulted underground now and in the future -deny the request of any cell tower site that does not fully comply with Palo Alto's noise ordinance
Thank you for listening to these concerns.
Respectfully,
Chris Robell
on behalf of 707 Bryant St Board of Directors and HOA Members
Dear ARB and City Council, Jan 23, 2018
We, the owners and Board Members of 707 Bryant St HOA, request the following regarding
Crown Castle's proposed installation of cell towers (File Number 17PLN-00433):
1) Install cell towers in commercial districts vs. residential districts. There is no reason why we
need dozens of cell towers in residential neighborhoods. Crown Castle and Verizon have not
provided any compelling evidence to suggest there is a coverage gap that exists nor will exist
that couldn't be addressed by placing towers in commercial districts. They could blanket
Hamilton, University, and Lytton with towers to a greater extent but keep residential streets
further east/west spared.
2) Ensure we continue to be an underground utility district for aesthetic and safety reasons.
The city and residents spent significant sums of money in years past to put utilities underground,
so this effort and investment should not be undone by granting Verizon an exception. We ask
that you:
-deny any requests to erect new poles. Thus, please deny the request for a new pole in front of
332 Forest Avenue (File Number 17PLN-00433). Antennas should only go on existing poles.
-require all equipment (except the antenna) to be fully vaulted underground. We are pleased
the ARB already rendered this decision given undesirable aesthetics and ask that you stand firm
on this point. Moreover, the green utility boxes that currently exist throughout Palo Alto are
already a safety hazard (one of our residents recently tripped over one and had a concussion),
and adding more just increasing liability risks.
3) Deny approval of any cell tower site that does not fully comply with Palo Alto's noise
ordinance. This can be done by eliminating all noise-producing equipment and by fully
undergrounding all equipment except the antenna. It is also important that there is no "back
door" provision whereby noise producing equipment can be added in the future.
As a specific example, Verizon already acknowledged their batteries do not meet the
requirements of Palo Alto's noise ordinances. Please ensure that batteries (and ANY equipment
that may violate the noise ordinance) are not only removed from the initial design, but also also
prevented from being added in the future unless they are (a) fully underground and (b) comply
with Palo Alto's noise ordinances. We don't want a "back door" provision.
Thank you for your consideration of the above points.
Respectfully,
707 Bryant HOA Owners (see attached signatures)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2018 1:50 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:53 PM
To:citycouncil@mountainview.gov
Subject:CDC: Scary Flu Shot Promotions--World Mercury Proj
From World Mercury Project, Jan. 29, 2018, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Atty.
CDC: Science vs Scary Flu Shot Promotions
Brief outline of article contents below:
* Most “flu” is not influenza, and flu vaccine effectiveness is as low as 10%
* CDC uses scare mongering messages on media; Science of flu shots banned from
public
* Flu shots in U.S. reports cause most serious vaccine injuries. One in 110 children
experienced convulsions under age 5 in Australian test.
* (83%) of the vaccine injury cases (275/332) settled in 9 months by NVICP in 2017 were
flu-vaccine-related, (4 deaths). 4 in 10 had life-threatening Guillain-Barre syndrome.
* From 2014 to 2015, the NVICP flu shot settlements increased from $4.9 million to
$61 million—an 1100% increase in one year.
* October 2017, only 14.7% of the almost 447,000 “flu” specimens tested by
clinical laboratories working with CDC have tested 'positive' for influenza.
* Actual influenza deaths rank lower than heart disease and cancer but also are
lower in the mortality rankings than ulcers and hernias.
*Shots may actually make people have serious problems (dengue vaccine) and yearly
shots may lower vaccine effectiveness and increase Alzheimer’s disease.
Caveat Emptor: Science vs. CDC on Scary Flu Shot Promotions . By
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Every year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and pharmaceutical
companies mount an aggressive campaign in the mainstream media to persuade Americans
to get their flu shots. Flu shots are big business: industry analysts estimate that within the
next five years, the U.S. flu vaccine market will be worth almost $3 billion annually.
And profit margins are growing as manufacturers increase price premiums for the newer
four-strain vaccines. The U.S. expects to distribute roughly 166 million doses for the 2017-
18 flu season, up from 146 million doses in the previous year. As pharmaceutical
companies bombard American consumers with ubiquitous billboards, drugstore
enticements and radio announcements to “get your flu shot now,” the CDC has advised
the industry to hike demand through the use of a “recipe” of scare-mongering
messaging. (See Figure 1 on World Mercury Project) CDC recommends “creating
concern, anxiety and worry” among the American public.
Using spokespeople like Paul Offit and Peter Hotez as well as its extensive media
partnerships and captive bureaucrats at CDC, the pharmaceutical industry has effectively
banished the scientific debate about flu shot safety and efficacy from the public square.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2018 1:50 PM
2
What ARE the scientific facts about the flu shot? The science indicates
significant risks and low efficacy, both in the U.S. and internationally.
* In 2010, for example, Australia suspended its influenza vaccination program for children
under five after one in 110 children experienced convulsions and other serious reactions
within hours of getting their flu shots.
* In Italy in 2014, authorities suspended half a million doses of an influenza vaccine
containing a proprietary adjuvant after 13 suspicious deaths occurred in people who got
the shot. Closer to home, local news includes a steady stream of reports about healthy
individuals acknowledged to have died on the heels of receiving their flu shot in recent
years:
* A flu-vaccinated 12-year-old boy died at home after health workers failed to recognize
that he was ill (January 2018, Sterling Heights, MI).
* A popular 37-year-old street vendor received a flu shot and died suddenly of “flu
complications” (January 2015, Spokane, WA).
* A 5-year-old girl succumbed to influenza-related cardiac arrest after contracting “the
same [influenza] strain for which she had been vaccinated” (January 2015, Las Vegas, NV).
* Two female health care workers in their twenties and thirties were required to get flu
shots for their jobs and developed apparent flu-related sepsis (January 2015, Pleasant
Prairie, WI and December 2014, Lee’s Summit, MO).
* Fourteen-year-old and 3-year-old girls who died after receiving flu shots were described
as being “weakened…so severely that secondary complications made it impossible for them
to survive” (January 2015, Des Moines, IA).
* A 7-year-old girl died four days after receiving a flu shot at her annual well-child check-
up (January 2012, Barton, VT).
Many other flu shot deaths may have been missed since the stubbornly incurious media
rarely report the vaccination status of children who die of ‘flu’ or ‘flu-like’ symptoms.
In a typical tragic case, doctors in Visalia, CA “misdiagnosed” the flu in a 12-year-old girl
who died suddenly in January; the listed causes of death (“cardiac arrest and septic shock”)
were remarkably similar to symptoms experienced by other flu shot victims, although news
reports did not disclose the Visalia girl’s vaccination status.
Likewise, authorities could not verify whether a third-grade girl who died in mid-January
of “flu complications” in Alabama had received a flu shot.
Although all vaccines have the potential to cause serious harm to both children and
adults, influenza vaccines—which contain neurotoxic and carcinogenic ingredients such as
thimerosal, aluminum and formaldehyde as well as bacterial endotoxin—lead the pack in
U.S. reports of serious vaccine injuries.
More than four out of five (83%) of the vaccine injury cases (275/332) settled
through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) for the nine-
month period from mid-November 2016 through mid-August 2017 were flu-vaccine-
related, including four deaths.
Notably, almost four in ten of the reported non-fatal injuries for that period were for the
highly debilitating and potentially life-threatening Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS).
Studies have linked GBS to flu vaccines for many years, suggesting plausible biological
mechanisms to explain the relationship. The other non-fatal flu vaccine injuries reported to
VAERS in 2016-17 read like a catalogue of ordinarily rare diseases.
From 2014 to 2015, the NVICP flu shot settlements increased from $4.9 million to $61
million—an 1100% increase. As the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a
voluntary surveillance system, is acknowledged by the government to capture as little
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2018 1:50 PM
3
as one percent of actual adverse events, the flu vaccine injuries and deaths are
substantially underreported.
In a rational world, untainted by Pharma money, low flu shot efficacy would also inform
consumer choice about vaccine risks and benefits. This year in Santa Barbara County,
California, seven out of eight senior citizens who reportedly died from the flu had dutifully
gotten their flu shots and had taken “flu-fighting medications” (which have their own set
of problems).
The County’s public health officer attributed the higher-than-normal mortality to the flu
strain that is “particularly resistant to vaccination.” She still continues to advocate for flu
shots as a “life or death” choice, even though infectious disease experts peg the vaccine’s
effectiveness at an abysmal 10% this year.
Figure 1. Cartoon from CDC’s “Increasing Awareness and Update of Influenza
Immunization” presentation made to the National Academies of Science, Engineering and
Medicine. ( See World Mercury Project website for the cartoon)
Overstatement and deception
CDC’s strategy to use fear to ramp up flu vaccine sales requires the agency to exaggerate
both flu risks and vaccine efficacy. Pharmaceutical companies and public health officials
vastly overstate flu cases and deaths in order to market influenza “as a threat of great
proportions.” Simple fact-checking shows that since October 2017, only 14.7% of the
almost 447,000 “flu” specimens tested by clinical laboratories working with CDC
have tested positive for influenza.
This proportion has remained relatively constant for the past two decades. According to
the British Medical Journal’s Peter Doshi, “Even the ideal influenza vaccine…can only deal
with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with
influenza.” Actual influenza deaths not only rank lower than the major killers such as
heart disease and cancer but also are lower down in the mortality rankings than
ulcers and hernias.
Recent peer-reviewed studies suggest that the shots may actually make people
more susceptible to serious problems…
Incredibly, even though most “flu” is not influenza and flu vaccine effectiveness is
as low as 10%, public health authorities keep telling everyone from six months of age
on up (including pregnant women) that the flu shot is “better than nothing” and the
“best tool we have.”
However, there are many unanswered questions about influenza vaccines that warrant
rigorous investigation. Recent peer-reviewed studies suggest that the shots may actually
make people more susceptible to serious problems (as with the recently recalled dengue
vaccine) and that getting flu shots year after year may be lowering subsequent vaccine
effectiveness as well as drastically increasing risks for Alzheimer’s disease.
Getting vaccinated against one strain of influenza may increase risks for other
severe respiratory viruses. Unfortunately, most members of the public are not reading this
alarming science. The public should make health decisions based on sound science, not
scare tactics.
For more information, see the World Mercury Project’s flu articles, facts
sheet and brochure.
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury
Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
SITE CATEGORIES
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2018 1:50 PM
4
* Kennedy News & Views . * Press Releases . * Videos
DONATE NOW--You make the difference.
MEMBER LOGIN * Username * Password * Remember MeBecome a Member
RECENT ARTICLES JANUARY 29, 2018
Caveat Emptor: Science vs. CDC on Scary Flu Shot PromotionsJANUARY 25, 2018
The Vaccine Program: Betrayal of Public Trust & Institutional Corruption—Part 3 of
7.JANUARY 24, 2018
The Vaccine Program: Betrayal of Public Trust & Institutional Corruption—Part 2 of
7JANUARY 23, 2018
The Vaccine Program’s Unintended Consequences: A Tale of Two Hepatitis B Studies
Forwarded and outlined at the beginning by Arlene Goetze, MA, No Toxins for
Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:06 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Walter Cannon <walterbcannon@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 24, 2018 12:19 PM
To:Council, City; ARB@CityofPaloA
Cc:Cannon Irene
Subject:Cell towers in Old Palo Alto
We urge the City Council and the Architectural Review Board to oppose the installation of the planned Verizon and AT&T
cell towers in our Palo Alto Neighborhoods.
Not only are the esthetics and noise level an issue but the health effect data are concerning and the federal guidelines
regarding the radiation are over 20 years old.
Stop the cell towers!
Walter B.Cannon, MD
Irène Plattner‐Cannon,MD
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 4:08 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:J. Robert Taylor <btaylor@taylorproperties.com>
Sent:Monday, January 29, 2018 1:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Chaucer Street Bridge
Dear Council:
Given the years of discussion about mitigating the flood risk to the City and the comparative lack action by the City to reduce the risk of flooding in the Crescent Park neighborhood, I am requesting the City remove the
bridge at Chaucer St.
This will immediately mitigate the risk in Palo Alto of flood damage to a large portion of the CIty at a very low
cost. It instantly restores a more "natural" riparian corridor which is VERY important.
When the City constructed this bridge it artificially and without intention created a flood risk to areas of
Crescent Park. The City is now well aware that the bridge they constructed creates a significant hazard to both
property and welfare of its citizens.
Perhaps prudently the City waited until certain downstream improvements were made that help to reduce and
downstream impacts from removal of this artificial impairment of the natural flow of water to the Bay. Those
improvements are not substantially completed.
20 years is more than enough for the City and associated agencies to eliminate the bridge. The reroute of traffic will be inconvenient for a short time, but it will adjust quickly. The majority of traffic is just cutting through
the neighborhood for no real purpose except to save time.
Long term I would like to see a utilitarian bicycle/pedestrian crossing in order to keep the neighborhood
connection, this is something I want but am willing to wait a few years for after the bridge is removed.
Can anyone seriously be against this? If you are I would like to understand why. If you are for it, then I urge
you to make a formal proposal to Council to get this done. The costs of doing nothing for another 5 to 10 to
20+ years are too great both in legal costs to the City and to costs to owners/ tenants living in the area.
The bridge could be removed and the riparian corridor naturalized in 2 months this summer. Let's do it.
Sincerely,
J. Robert Taylor 480 Marlowe St
Palo Alto, Ca 94301
To: Palo Alto City Council
From: Evergreen Park residents
Subject: Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP Program
Date: Public hearing February 5, 2018
Summary
The Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Parking Program (RPP) has met expectations, reducing
parking congestion on residential streets. During the first six months of the program, there were few
problems and no reported complaints. In October, 2017, at the start of the second six-month phase
when permits were renewed, there were numerous complaints from businesses who were unable to
renew permits or obtain additional permits.
Meetings in December, 2017, and January, 2018, between staff and residents and business owners were
very productive and identified the root causes of the problems obtaining employee parking permits, and
several recommendations were made by residents and business owners to address these problems. At
these meetings, staff agreed with the analysis and proposed corrections. Nevertheless, the staff report
contains few of these recommendations and instead remains essentially unchanged from the staff
proposal drafted prior to these meetings. The staff proposal is based on insufficient information,
unsupported assumptions, and offers a “remedy” of increasing the number of employee parking permits
which does not address the problems actually encountered and which will act to the detriment of the
RPP and the neighborhood. Implementing the staff proposal will not address problems with the RPP
and may set an unwarranted precedent that all problems with the RPP should be addressed by
increasing the parking density in the residential area.
This memorandum discusses the cause of the problems in the second six-month phase of the RPP, when
no such problems were encountered previously, disputes the staff analysis which is based on
unsupported assumptions and standards, and makes specific proposals which are intended to address
both short term and long term issues with the RPP program.
Discussion
Permitting process
The Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP pilot began in March, 2017. As noted in their report, staff reached
out to businesses, particularly medical and dental offices, to assist them in purchasing employee
parking permits when they went on sale. This appeared to be successful, with most businesses
obtaining needed employee parking permits. (Indeed, some businesses have indicated that they
obtained more permits than they actually needed.) There were no significant complaints.
In October, 2017, when the initial permits expired, the staff did not engage in outreach to businesses.
Businesses were not notified of the need to renew permits nor of the deadline to do so. Businesses
have noted that they had difficulty renewing permits online. The staff did not exercise any control over
the number of permits which a single business could purchase. The result was essentially a “land rush”
where the first businesses to apply for permits gobbled them up, leaving the medical and dental offices
unable to purchase permits. Several companies in the California Avenue Business District purchased
many more permits in this second phase than they had initially. Many of these permits are in Zones A
and B where many of the businesses which were unable to purchase permits are located.
The staff report glosses over the effect of the poor management of permit renewals, leading one to
believe that this situation “just happened”. Their previous description of the inability of businesses to
renew permits was that this was due to “increased demand”. This is hardly credible. There was no
significant change in the number of businesses, the number of employees, or a reduction in parking
which would result in any increase in demand.
Parking occupancy survey
The City hired a consultant to conduct a parking occupancy study. This happened one day in October.
Some aspects of the results match observations of both businesses and residents, especially in the
highly parked areas along El Camino Real. Other results, showing low parking density, are disputed by
local residents. It is difficult to extrapolate from a single observation. (This would be like looking
outside and saying that it was 55º and sunny in Palo Alto, and using this to make decisions throughout
the year.) There is no way to know if the conditions on this particular October day were representative
of the other days, or if there were factors which made parking better or worse on this date. We consider
this survey to be a questionable basis for any proposed changes. We believe that a survey conducted
over perhaps three days would offer much more reliable view of parking in the permit area.
Parking show rate
Without question, not every employee who has an employee parking permit will park their car in the
neighborhood every day or for the full day. But, give the haphazard nature of the permitting process
and the single parking survey, we question the staff’s reliance on the values in their table. At the
stakeholder meetings, some businesses mentioned that they actually received more permits than they
needed. There were anecdotal reports that some businesses had purchased and were stockpiling a large
number of permits, currently unused, in case they needed them. This not only exacerbates the problem
of uneven distribution, it artificially lowers the show rate.
Even using the questionable parking occupancy data in the staff report, the show rate ranges from 20%
to 72%. Based on the staff comment at the top of page 8 in the report, where the staff claims that the
number of employee parking permits could be increased three-fold (!!!) without impacting the
neighborhood, the staff appears to assume the validity of the lowest show rate and ignores the highest
show rate.
Parking occupancy standard
The staff proposes a cap of 60% as a parking occupancy cap. Staff has provided no justification for
this number and has stated that it is not an established standard either within city planning or traffic
management. We do not know how this cap would relate to either resident or business satisfaction with
the RPP. We believe that resident satisfaction is the only valid measure that we are aware of. While we
might imagine that 100% occupancy would correlate with resident dissatisfaction, and 0% would
correlate with resident satisfaction, we have no basis for belief that the staff number, or any other
number, represents an acceptable parking occupancy cap. Staff has performed no surveys of RPP
residents to find a relationship between satisfaction with the RPP and parking occupancy. Neither have
they provided any industry study or standard which supports their proposed number, or indeed, any
particular number.
The residents oppose establishing any specific parking occupancy standard, lacking in any supporting
evidence, believing that this is arbitrary and capricious.
We are very disturbed by the views expressed by staff that the Evergreen Park and Mayfield
neighborhoods are a nearly unlimited parking resource which can be used to offset shortfalls in parking
in the commercial districts. The suggestion that employee permits could be increased three-fold and
that the City should adopt an inflated parking occupancy target lead us to remind the staff and City
Council that the discussion at hand involves a Residential Parking Permit program, not a Commercial
Parking Permit program.
Permanent increase in employee permits
The staff recommends permanently increasing the number of employee parking permits in the RPP by
40. The staff claims that this will satisfy current business needs (which we will address below). This
may be true, but it does nothing to address the cause of the problems that businesses encounter. The
staff report offers no credible support for an argument that there are insufficient employee parking
permits; indeed they make no attempt to make this claim.
The root cause of the inability of businesses to purchase permits is not insufficient permits, but the
inconsistent and uneven distribution of the permits. It is difficult to reconcile that there were, from all
appearances, adequate employee parking permits during the first six months, and suddenly a significant
deficit at the start of the second six months, following permit renewals. Adding permits is a “quick fix”
which makes the situation better in the short term, but which will not address the root cause of the
business’ problems.
We are very concerned that an increase in the number of parking permits, without addressing the root
cause of the permit allocation problems, will set an undesirable precedent. Every imagined (or real)
increase in parking demand will be addressed by an increase in the number of employee parking
permits. We see foreshadowing of this in the recent staff proposal to reduce the size of the Sherman
Ave. garage, where the loss of parking spaces was to be offset by an increase in the number of permits
in the surrounding RPP.
New zone structure
The staff proposes to split the current Zone A and Zone B in two, creating six zones instead of four.
While we dispute the estimates of parking occupancy, based on an inadequate survey, we support this
change. Some residents have expressed the opinion that a better division would be to split the current
Zone B along Ash Street, similar to the proposed splitting of current Zone A. This would allow more
focus on the El Camino Real business area and the adjacent impacted residential area.
Parking along El Camino Real
El Camino Real and the adjacent Stanford campus are integral and important parts of the parking
problems in Evergreen Park and should be part of the solution. Currently there are no restrictions on
parking on El Camino Real between College Avenue and Park Boulevard. Drivers going to Stanford or
taking CalTrain who had previously parked in the Evergreen Park neighborhood simply moved to El
Camino Real when the RPP was created. Where it was previously possible for employees and
customers of businesses on El Camino Real to find parking, now all spaces are occupied beginning in
the early morning for the entire day.
The staff recommend establishing a 2 hour parking zone along the east side of El Camino Real. While
this will help address this problem, local business employees who park in this area will have to move
their cars every two hours. The staff doesn’t mention the west side of El Camino Real, which, under
their proposed change, will continue to be long-term free parking for people going to Stanford.
We support the dentists’ recommendation that both east and west side of El Camino Real be
incorporated into the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP. We believe that the staff’s concern that residents
will park on El Camino Real in preference to parking near their homes is unfounded. We also cannot
understand how incorporating this area into the RPP would result in increases in neighborhood traffic,
since, as the staff report mentions, several streets do not have outlets onto El Camino Real.
We also recommend that staff reach out to Stanford to address El Camino Real being used for long
term Stanford parking rather than the many parking areas on the Stanford campus. People visiting or
working on the Stanford campus should have parking permits for Stanford lots, rather than overflowing
into the adjacent neighborhoods.
Employee purchase of parking permits
We recommend that the City only sell parking permits to employers. This matches a recommendation
by area dentists. Selling permits to both employers and employees has allowed certain businesses to
obtain a large number of permits at the same time their employees obtain a large number of permits.
This is one of the causes of the uneven distribution of employee parking permits in October.
Permit distribution
In addition to improving communication between the City and business in the RPP area, including
advanced notice (in writing) of permit renewal, we recommend that permits be issued with the
following priorities:
•Permits should be issued in zones closest to the business location
•Preference should be given to neighborhood-serving businesses, permit renewals, and
businesses which do not participate in the California Avenue Parking Assessment District
•Permits may be issued only to businesses listed in the Palo Alto Business Registry
•Businesses with low income workers are to be given preference
•Businesses with a Traffic Demand Management plan are given lowest priority
•Fair and equitable distribution of permits
◦Based on number of employees per business
◦Avoid concentrations of permits at any one location
◦Consider the number of businesses at any one location
It is our understanding that businesses or buildings which have an established Traffic Demand
Management plan should have programs in place which address both traffic and parking. TDMs were
adopted in exchange for reductions in building parking requirements. The terms of the TDM should be
followed to address parking requirements rather than use RPP employee parking permits.
The staff is encouraged to maintain a listing of the businesses in the RPP area, the number of permits
issued to each business, and to maintain a waiting list for permits. This will establish continuity and
stability in the employee permitting process which is currently absent.
Exigent circumstances
As a result of the problems in permit distribution, a number of neighborhood-serving businesses,
including (but not limited to) medical and dentist offices, have been unable to obtain desired employee
parking permits. Evergreen Park residents appreciate the contribution that these businesses make to the
neighborhood and believe that the businesses have made a good faith effort to accommodate changes in
their businesses as a result of the RPP and to comply with the RPP requirements.
To address these exigent circumstances, the residents propose that the City issue a total of 40
temporary employee parking permits, valid until October 1, 2018, to the businesses along El Camino
Real which have been unable to obtain permits. We believe that these temporary permits will address
the short-term needs of the businesses and allow the staff adequate time to create a permit distribution
system which follows the mentioned priorities and fairly distributes the employee parking permits to
area businesses.
Summary
Evergreen Park residents agree that the successful Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Parking Permit
program should be made permanent. The residents support rezoning the RPP area to allow better
management. Residents support replacing the current “land grab” permit distribution method, which
caused many complaints from neighborhood businesses, with a fair and equitable permit distribution
method. Residents oppose any permanent increase in the number of employee parking permits,
believing that this is not supported by known facts and current circumstances. Residents oppose the
imposition of any arbitrary parking density standard, since this does not have any factual basis.
Residents support issuing a number of temporary employee parking permits to address exigent
circumstances caused by unbalanced distribution of permits.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 4:08 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:David Brunicardi <david.brunicardi@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 29, 2018 3:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:First Baptist Church -- CUP
Dear Council Members,
My name is David Brunicardi and I am a direct neighbor of the FBC. Although being a neighbor of the church,
and main tenant, the New Mozart Music School, has not always been easy over the years, I have typically avoided contacting the City when things seemed out of compliance and instead tried to resolve things directly
with Pastor Rick Mixon. Rick and I have a neighborly relationship and in his own words I have always been a
"patient" neighbor. After a meeting with James Keene at his office at City Hall, he said that Rick spoke highly
of me in regards to my always trying to find a solution to a problem.
I am writing you today because I feel that I may be able to share some insight into what has been previously been going on at the FBC. It is hard to speak up in a negative light when the subject is a church. But here goes
...
As I discussed with James Keene in the fall, I have never had a problem with iSing, the vegetarian dinner group,
and all the other non-profit groups. They are very respectful and I have enjoyed meeting a few of the principals.
Where conflicts arouse for me was with the for-profit New Mozart Music School.
The school, at this location at least, is a group of independent contractors. Christine the owner is only on site on
weekends, and occasionally for an hour or two on a weekday morning, before classes start. In essence there
would be 9-10 un-managed instructors who did whatever they felt like. Rick, Christine, and the part-time
church manager are not on site when New Mozart classes are being conducted in the evenings.
My family and I front nine of the second floor windows at the FBC. I cannot fully explain how painful it is
when one or more instructors feels entitled to perform their lessons with the windows open. It is a grating
cacophony and it has occurred hundreds of times over the years, and at any hour. I have video documentation of
this even occurring after 10:00 pm., which resulted in me calling PAPD. I also have at least fifty recordings of
this violation and have documented decibel-meter recordings showing an average of 85-90dB's. This is well above the stated limit of what the City of Palo Alto has set for sustained sound emanating from a neighboring
property. Some of these items I shared with James Keene during our meeting.
These sonic invasions would result in me leaving angry messages for all involved. Rick would get mad at the
school the next day, Christine would call or text an apology, but nothing would change. Finally, a few years
ago, I donated thousands of dollars to the FBC to upgrade their windows to a dual-pane sound dampening window system. Seemed like a good idea but guess what, the instructors still opened the windows.
When I found out that the church was zoned R-1 and that the New Mozart School wasn't even legally supposed
to be conducting business there I couldn't believe it. That's when I contacted the City. That school is an absolute
for-profit, neighbors-be-damned entity and it has no place in this location. Wouldn't there even be a case for
other for-profits to utilize the space (eg. mortgage brokers, phone repair, etc.)?
In moving forward with the future uses at church I request that you keep in mind that the hundreds of weekly
evening users are entirely un-managed by the church and this creates ill will with the neighbors. There is no
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 4:08 PM
2
recourse or point person when something goes wrong, allowing simmering tempers to later explode in one way
or another.
Please feel free to contact me if you would be interested in a meeting or would like to observe some of my
documentation.
Also please understand that I would like for the information I am sharing with you to remain out of the press.
All best,
David Brunicardi
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2018 1:48 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 30, 2018 11:30 AM
To:Kamhi, Philip
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Follow up questions from Southgate RPP meeting
Phillip,
I had a few follow up questions and comments from last night's meeting that I'm hoping you can help me with.
1) Can I get a copy of the slides you showed at last night's meeting? I'm most interested in the block by block occupancy and the comparison of neighborhood permit percentages.
2) Can I also get a detail of how the parking spaces in Southgate were determined? The May 2017 survey
counted 478 spaces. In January 2018, the count was 581 spaces. In the meeting last night you mentioned that
the difference was due to not counting El Camino and, I believe, Churchill, is that correct? Jim McFall and I hand counted spaces in 2017 and counted 470, including El Camino and Churchill. The number of spaces along El Camino and Chuchill totals 50 spaces. So, even using the 478 spaces and adding 50, we still are over 50
spaces short of the 581 being quoted. Given that there is a block by block occupancy, there must also be a
block by block availability. Can you send me a copy of that?
3) Staff continues to stick to that 30% showrate. Before the Southgate RPP goes back before council at the six-month mark, I request that a count be done of the showrate of Southgate RPP employee permits.
4) Staff mentioned that the Southgate RPP includes ALL of El Camino Real from Churchill to Park. While that
might be how it shows in the city's parking map, there is a gap in the RPP north from Park for approximately 250 feet. There is no signage in that area, and there are cars parking there without permits. In addition, there was a red curb that has since been painted over with white paint (see photos below). The third photo merely
shows a lack of RPP signage.
I don't see any of this as being an issue, as it allows 1681 employees that ability to park and does not interfere
with any residences. However, I feel staff should refrain from calling this out as part of the RPP when, in fact, it is not being enforced as such.
5) There seems to be a fair amount of confusion as to the specifics of the Southgate neighborhood. It would be
a good idea if residents, businesses and staff (including council members) to take a tour of the area so everyone
is on the same page. It is frustrating to be in the audience of a council meeting and hearing staff and council make statements that are not correct and can be easily clarified/corrected.
Thanks
Keith Ferrell
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2018 1:48 PM
2
Red Curb outside 1681 El Camino (Sept 2017)
Curb painted white outside 1681 El Camino (Jan 2018)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2018 1:48 PM
3
No RPP signage El Camino just north of Park
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:06 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Clerk, City
Sent:Wednesday, January 24, 2018 3:43 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Please Support Castilleja
Thanks,
B‐
Beth D. Minor | City Clerk | City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue| Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650‐ 329‐2379 E: beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org
City Clerks Rock and Rule
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Josee Band [mailto:wordpress@castillejamasterplan.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:46 PM
To: Scharff, Gregory (internal) <Greg.Scharff@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian
<Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Holman, Karen <Karen.Holman@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia
<Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Wolbach, Cory
<Cory.Wolbach@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Please Support Castilleja
Dear Mayor Scharff and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
My name is Josee Band and I live in Palo Alto, CA. I am writing to you as a Palo Alto resident and administrator at
Castilleja, and supporter of Castilleja School.
Castilleja was founded 110 years ago to equalize educational opportunities for women. Today, Castilleja seeks to close
the female leadership gap by gradually adding students over four years. Making this opportunity available for more
young women is central to furthering that mission.
As a Palo Alto resident, I am proud to have Castilleja in our city. The school has been an indispensable community
partner and is committed to maintaining its neighbors’ current quality of life. Castilleja has already implemented robust
Traffic Demand Management initiatives, and has repeatedly pledged to neighbors not only to do more, but that the
admittance of new students will be dependent on the continued success of the school’s traffic programs.
Now more than ever, at a time when national politics has devolved into shouting matches and one‐upmanship,
Castilleja’s mission of serving girls and young women from Palo Alto and other nearby cities is critically important.
Please do not let the loudest voices in the conversation obscure the robust support for Castilleja found throughout our
wonderful city.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:06 AM
2
Sincerely,
Josee Band
jband@castilleja.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:06 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 24, 2018 5:52 PM
To:Gutierrez, Samuel; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan
Cc:John L. Flegel; Kent Mitchell; Nicolas A. Flegel; Council, City; Architectural Review Board;
Stump, Molly; Keene, James
Subject:Fwd: 620 Emerson St
Dear Mr. Gutierrez,
Regarding your Recommendation for the Replacement of Three On-Site Parking Spaces with Three In-Lieu
Spaces for 620 Emerson St (17PLN-00331) which is scheduled for ARB Hearing on Thursday February 1,
2018, please be advised that this replacement is not allowed by Code.
I have requested numerous times to meet with the Director of Planning to discuss this issue and have yet to be
granted the courtesy of a meeting. Neither have my requests to meet with you been granted as I have never
meet you in person.
Further, when I requested an explanation in writing for granting the Replacement, your explanations were deficient and your justification does not lead to any such conclusion.
Again, I request a meeting with Hillary, Jonathan and you before the scheduled ARB hearing on Feb 1, 2018.
Thank you in advance.
Elizabeth Wong
650 814 3051
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gutierrez, Samuel <Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org> Date: Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 5:16 PM
Subject: RE: 620 Emerson St
To: Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com>
Cc: "Gitelman, Hillary" <Hillary.Gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Lait, Jonathan" <Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org>
Hello Elizabeth,
Please let me know what the meeting would pertain to so I can make arrangements and prepare information as needed.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:06 AM
2
Regards,
Samuel J. Gutierrez | MUP | Associate Planner | P&CE Department
250 Hamilton Ave. 5th Floor, Palo Alto CA 94301
Phone: (650) 329 ‐ 2225
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
Online Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code
Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped
Permit Tracking – Public Access
From: Elizabeth Wong [mailto:elizabethwong2009@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 9:32 AM
To: Gutierrez, Samuel
Cc: Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan
Subject: Fwd: 620 Emerson St
Samuel,
I would like to meet with you, Hillary and Jonathan.
Please schedule a meeting as soon as possible.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:06 AM
3
Thank you.
Elizabeth Wong
650 814 3051
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gutierrez, Samuel <Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org>
Date: Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:12 AM
Subject: RE: 620 Emerson St
To: Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> Cc: "Gerhardt, Jodie" <Jodie.Gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org>
Hello Elizabeth,
This project will be going to hearing on Thursday 2/1/2018 (next week). The staff report will be ready by Thursday of this
week and will be on viewable on the ARB website. See the link below and once published I will let you know. As far as
the meeting you are requesting, can you please clarify what the meeting would be for and who you wish to meet with?
In your email you ask to meet with City Staff and Planning Staff, I am not sure who you mean by “City Staff”.
ARB Website
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp
Kind Regards,
Samuel J. Gutierrez | MUP | Associate Planner | P&CE Department
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:06 AM
4
250 Hamilton Ave. 5th Floor, Palo Alto CA 94301
Phone: (650) 329 ‐ 2225
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
Online Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code
Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped
Permit Tracking – Public Access
From: Elizabeth Wong [mailto:elizabethwong2009@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 1:54 PM
To: Gutierrez, Samuel
Cc: Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan
Subject: Re: 620 Emerson St
Please notify in writing of any upcoming pubic hearings on 620 Emerson St., including the ARB hearing. Also
alert me in writing of any staff report produced for this project. Please advice me in writing of the earliest date
that I can have a meeting with City Staff, including Planning staff.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email.
Thank you.
Elizabeth Wong
650 814 3051
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:06 AM
5
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 5:43 PM, Gutierrez, Samuel <Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Hello Elizabeth,
The initial noticing for the for the project does not provide as much details as the noticing for the ARB hearing date. As
this project is nears the hearing date you will receive a notice with additional details regarding the project, including
information regarding parking. Also the staff report which would be available the week prior to the hearing and it would
fully discuss the project and what it involves. I believe that would be the best time to have a meeting as the project is
still under review.
Kind Regards,
Samuel J. Gutierrez | MUP | Associate Planner | P&CE Department
250 Hamilton Ave. 5th Floor, Palo Alto CA 94301
Phone: (650) 329 ‐ 2225
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
Online Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code
Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped
Permit Tracking – Public Access
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:06 AM
6
From: Elizabeth Wong [mailto:elizabethwong2009@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 10:12 AM
To: Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan
Cc: Gutierrez, Samuel
Subject: 620 Emerson St
Dear Hillary and Jon,
I would like to schedule a meeting with you regarding 620 Emerson St. Some of the items that concern me are
the elimination of on-site parking in the proposed project and the lack of notification of its status.
Can any work be done inside or outside this building related to the proposed project be done without permits or
public hearings? Do you have a schedule of its hearings?
Please let me know when you have time to meet.
Thank you.
Elizabeth Wong
650 814 3051
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 4:06 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:George E. Gray <gray850b@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, January 29, 2018 11:15 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Portola Expedition
Try again
George E. Gray
9720 Oviedo St.
San Diego, CA 92129
858-538-3027
gray850b@aol.com
-----Original Message----- From: George E. Gray <gray850b@aol.com>
To: citymgr <citymgr@cityofpaloalto.org> Sent: Mon, Jan 29, 2018 10:22 am
Subject: Portola Expedition
The year 2019 marks the 250 year anniversary of the Portola Expedition which was the
Spanish group that first saw the San Francisco Bay. They spent five days camped near
the Palo Alto Redwood while reconnoitering the bay and before returning to San Diego.
Does your city have any plans to celebrate their visit? I realize this is an early question but
our organization needs to plan ahead
I am a Stanford Grad. and a Member of Los Californianos, which is a group of the
descendants of the Spanish and Mexicans that came to Alto California prior to the end of
the Mexican War.In my case, four of the members of the Expedition are among the
ancestors of my Stanford coed wife.
Please indicate arrival of this message, even if full response requires longer time. At age
90, I am never sure my e-mails arrive at intended destination.
Thank you for your attention. George
George E. Gray
9720 Oviedo St.
San Diego, CA 92129
858-538-3027
gray850b@aol.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:07 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Emily Hung <emilyhung1@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 25, 2018 12:08 AM
To:David.Rader@pln.sccgov.org
Cc:supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org;
supervisor.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; 'Supervisor Yeager'; Council, City; Planning
Commission; Dave.Cortese@bos.sccgov.org; David.Rader@pln.sccgov.org;
Kristina.Loquist@bos.sccgov.org
Subject:Opposition to the Stanford 2018 GUP from Palo Alto Resident
Dear County Supervisors and Staff,
While the community recognizes the University's great intellectual and cultural contribution to the broader S.F.
Bay Area community, our small city (Palo Alto) can not be expected to endure the impact and costs of the dramatic infrastructure requirements that would be required to sustain the proposed growth at acceptable traffic, environment and safety levels. Stanford must pay for the requisite infrastructure improvements prior to the
approval of the 2018 GUP. The institution is growing well beyond our means. I urge you to stop all further
development by Stanford until infrastructure and impact analysis is completed and requirements are placed
upon Stanford to fund the necessary infrastructure improvements that would make their GUP proposals truly
"no net impact" to our community.
Specifically, we find the following concerns with the 2018 GUP:
Stanford's proposal should not be considered in isolation of the significant existing transportation and
traffic congestion problems that the City of Palo Alto is already experiencing given the large
imbalance between local jobs vs. locally employed residents. This ratio is one of the highest in the country, and contributes to an already existing traffic dilemma in our small residential community.
University growth should not be considered in isolation given that it is tied to the Stanford
University Medical Center (SUMC), the Stanford Research Park (SRP), Stanford Shopping Mall, SLAC,
including the development proposed for 500 El Camino Real in Menlo Park (429,000 SF of office, retail
and housing). Looking at each site in isolation does not provide a full picture of the cumulative impacts to Palo Alto.
The GUP claim of "No Net New Commuter Trips" is naive given the millions of square feet of
development proposed. [Many reports detail the naive and poorly formed aspects of these claims.]
The GUP claims that Caltrain usage will offset growth in daily employee road commuting are naive
given that Caltrain is already at full capacity and can only practically address a fraction of total employee commuters.
The GUP totally disregards the looming and alarming transportation and traffic congestion problems
that will be created by imminent Caltrain electrification, increased traffic stops, and the likelihood of
grade separation construction at various intersections, which will only add to the City's financial and
traffic burdens.
The GUP is absent any rigorous traffic impact analysis along the impacted main and secondary impacted corridors already strained by Stanford-bound traffic, including Embarcadero and University, as well as
Churchill and Kellogg avenues.
We need to stop giving Stanford carte blanche rights to development in our community without making them
carry the fair share of the financial burden needed to fund Palo Alto's transportation infrastructure that their
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:07 AM
2
growth requires. I propose that the County require Stanford to fund the following specific projects to offset their
impact prior to the approval of the Stanford 2018 GUP:
1. Stanford should be required to work with the City on mutually agreeable traffic mitigation solutions. 2. Stanford should be required to fund Caltrain grade separation projects at the Churchill and Embarcadero
intersections with Alma given that they're already at capacity and will become unmanageable with the
proposed Stanford expansions.
3. Stanford should be required to fund the construction of pedestrian underpasses at Embarcadero Rd and
Palo Alto H.S. given the already precarious danger facing students by Stanford-bound traffic, as well as the traffic congestion caused by the existing light.
4. Stanford should be required to fund the expansion from 3-lanes to 4-lanes on the 300 yard stretch of the
Embarcadero Road underpass, which already causes gridlock at rush hour and will only be further
exacerbated with more traffic flowing inbound/outbound of Stanford.
5. Stanford should be required to pay for the addition of left-turn traffic signals at the intersection of the Embarcadero Road Underpass and Alma road to facilitate the safe onramp/offramp of inbound/outbound
traffic to Stanford along the Alma corridor.
Please hold Stanford accountable for these significant infrastructure investments prior to any approval
consideration for the 2018 GUP. The City and County can not endure the proposed growth without holding firm
to that requirement.
Thank you for your time,
Emily Hung
Palo Alto Resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:09 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Virginia Fitton <dvfitton@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 25, 2018 10:14 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed Cell Tower at 332 Forest Ave (File 17PLN-00433)
Dear City Council,
We desire to have no new poles erected as is contemplated next door at 332 Forest Ave. and want all equipment placed underground, and no equipment installed that would violate Palo Alto's noise ordinance. Thank you.
Virginia and Donald Fitton
707 Bryant St., #101
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:06 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Warthman Associates <forrest@warthman.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed Cell Tower at 332 Forest Ave (File 17PLN-00433)
I live in the residential district that is right across the street from the proposed cell tower at 332 Forest Ave (File
17PLN-00433). I am strongly opposed to having that cell tower built. It will generate noise and look terrible. It
does not belong in a residential district. If it needs to go anywhere, put it in a business district.
Forrest Warthman
707 Bryant Street #202
Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-494-8555
forrest@warthman.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 4:07 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:California High-Speed Rail <news@hsr.ca.gov>
Sent:Monday, January 29, 2018 10:27 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposition 1A Funds Used to Help Purchase BART's "Fleet of the Future"
To view this email as a web page, go here.
VIDEO RELEASE
January 29, 2018
Ricci Graham
408-277-1086 (w)408-384-3433 (c)ricci.graham@hsr.ca.gov
VIDEO RELEASE:
BART Introduces its “Fleet of the Future”
Proposition 1A Funds Used to Help Purchase New Train Sets
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 4:07 PM
2
OAKLAND, Calif. – On January 19, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rolled out what it is calling its “Fleet of the Future” in a ceremony that drew political leaders, everyday riders and stakeholders who have wanted for years for the system to roll out a more efficient rail cars that will ultimately replace cars that have been in use since the system launched service in the September 1972.
The sleek, energy-efficient rail cars drew rave reviews – they are quieter, cooler, more comfortable, and
featuring a color-coded digital mapping system that informs riders of next stops. The most notable
difference is the trainsets feature three doors on each side of the cars, allowing for more seamless one-
and-off boarding and allowing the system to increase capacity. In all, BART spent $2.6 billion to upgrade
its aging, 669-car fleet, leveraging $140 million in Proposition 1A funds from the California High-Speed
Rail Authority (Authority) to round out its funding package needed to purchase the new fleet. Of the $2.6
billion, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission contributed $1.76 billion in regional funds, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority provided $200 million in funding for BART’s “Fleet of the Future.” The Authority’s $140 million investment in BART’s state-of-the art fleet is part of its Statewide Rail Modernization program that is designed to invest billions of dollars in infrastructure and rail improvement investments throughout the state. The funds will strengthen and improve existing rail networks, while also
connecting them with the high-speed rail system. Ultimately, BART is working to extend their service to
San Jose’s Diridon Station, allowing for a seamless connection to the high-speed rail system that will run
from San Francisco to the Los Angeles.
Watch Now
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 9:58 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Bill Schmarzo <schmarzo@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, January 28, 2018 2:42 PM
To:Council, City; William Schmarzo
Subject:Put Castilleja Expansion on the Ballot
The Castilleja Expansion issue extends well beyond just a "neighborhood issue" with the
planned closure of a lane on Embarcadero during rush hours and the projected increase
in traffic on streets such as Churchill, Coleridge, Bryant, Emerson and Waverley - all
streets heavily used by students biking to school and residents biking to work.
Since the City Council does not appear to want to address the CUP and return Castilleja
to their limit of 415 students, I recommend that you wash your hands of the issue and
put it on ballot as a referendum for all of Palo Alto to vote on.
Let the city determine the appropriate decision because this is not just a neighborhood
issue.
Sincerely,
Bill Schmarzo
1550 Emerson St
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 4:07 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:jcalvagna@netzero.net
Sent:Monday, January 29, 2018 12:58 PM
To:jfleming@metricus.net
Cc:paloaltoca@mycusthelp.net; Clerk, City; Council, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject:Re: Jonathan Reichental's conflict of interest
Wow, don't know the backstory here but it sounds good! Did you do a PRA request for all correspondence and
they tried to talk you out of it? Is Reichenthal a city employee or a consultant? Is the "Joint Ventures Silicon
Valley Wireless Communications Initiative Steering Committee" part of a public agency? Can you PRA
them too, particularly regarding compensation?
I smell a rat as obviously you do too.
BTW, do you know if Vincullums has a CPCN? What is the authority for ROW occupation rights being
claimed?
Jeff
---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Jeanne Fleming" <jfleming@metricus.net>
To: <paloaltoca@mycusthelp.net>
Cc: <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>, <City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org>, "'Architectural Review Board'"
<arb@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Jonathan Reichental's conflict of interest
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 09:20:16 -0800
Dear David Carnahan,
You have requested that I rescind or postpone my request for correspondence to or from Palo Alto’s Chief Information Officer and Chief Technology Officer, Jonathan Reichental, on the
subject of telecommunications or related to the subject of telecommunications. I must decline to do
so because:
Dr. Reichental serves on the Joint Ventures Silicon Valley Wireless Communications Initiative Steering Committee€”service for which he presumably is compensated in some way. Joint
Ventures Silicon Valley is funded in part by Verizon, AT&T, Vinculums, Crown Castle and
Hammett & Edison—firms that are pressing the City of Palo Alto to allow over 100 cell towers
be installed next to residents’ homes here.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 4:07 PM
2
Serving with Dr. Reichental on the Joint Ventures Silicon Valley Wireless Communications
Initiative Steering Committee are:
o Rick Goetz, Site Acquisition Program Manager at Crown Castle. Crown Castle is
currently applying to install cell towers in Palo Alto.
o William Hammett, President and CEO of Hammett & Edison. Hammett & Edison is an engineering consulting firm employed by Verizon to assist in Verizon’s current effort to install cell towers in Palo Alto.
o Sharon James, Manager Government Relations at Crown Castle. To repeat, Crown
Castle has applications pending with the City of Palo Alto.
o Angela Kung, External Affairs Manager at AT&T Wireless. AT&T is currently seeking to
install more cell towers in Palo Alto.
o Patti Ringo, President of the California Wireless Association. The California Wireless
Association is a telecom industry lobbying group.
o Randall Schwabacher, Manager Small Cell Deployment NorCal at AT&T Wireless. To
repeat, AT&T has applications pending with the City of Palo Alto.
The Joint Ventures Silicon Valley Wireless Communications Initiative Steering Committee on
which Dr. Reichental serves says this about its activities: “We will be contributing to open
State and Federal proceedings in order to support changes in law that will encourage faster,
cheaper, and more wireless and broadband infrastructure.†In other words, this group is
pushing to revive California SB649, which would strip municipalities such as Palo Alto of any right to control what a telecom company puts in a Public Right of Way. (The City of Palo
Alto’s official position on SB649 was to oppose it.)
Dr. Reichental reports in his LinkedIn profile that, in 2016, he was named one of the 20 most
influential Chief Information Officers in the United States. It is difficult to imagine that he was
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 4:07 PM
3
invited to serve on the Joint Ventures Silicon Valley Wireless Communications Initiative
Steering Committee—a committee controlled (as I’ve outlined) by the telecom
industry—for any reason other than to influence Palo Alto’s other senior staff and City
Council as they consider the industry’s cell tower applications before them.
I hope this list explains my interest in seeing Dr. Reichental’s correspondence. And I hope, as
well, that it explains why I must decline to rescind or postpone my request for these documents.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2018 1:50 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Tom Vlasic <tom@tomvlasic.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:03 PM
To:Gitelman, Hillary
Cc:Council, City; Keene, James; christineshambora@gmail.com; prshambora@gmail.com;
wjmcfall@gmail.com; bobstiller@gmail.com; Shepherd, Nancy; Cervantes, Yolanda;
Gutierrez, Samuel; Kamhi, Philip; Mello, Joshuah; Lait, Jonathan
Subject:Re: Public Information Request re: 1515 el Camino Real, Zoning Conformity
Thank you Hillary. Look forward to your review. I’m sure it will be extremely helpful for all concerned.
Best,
Tom
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 30, 2018, at 1:18 PM, Gitelman, Hillary <Hillary.Gitelman@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
Hi Tom,
I apologize if I was not particularly articulate at the podium late last night.
When speaking about the two businesses locations in Southgate, I hoped to explain that planning staff
retrieved and reviewed documentation showing that commercial uses were legal on those sites at the
time of the rezoning to multifamily residential and were allowed to remain (see ordinance #3925
adopted December 1989 and resolution #6260 adopted May 1984). I think I was clear that staff has not
spent any effort analyzing the properties further than that. We can do so now and provide you with the
results of our investigation as we would to anyone submitting a zoning compliance complaint of this
kind.
We will also enter your records request into our system and provide any existing records through that
vehicle.
Regards,
Hillary
Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301T:
650.329.2321 |E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Tom Vlasic [mailto:tom@tomvlasic.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 12:03 PM
To: Council, City; Keene, James
Cc: christineshambora@gmail.com; prshambora@gmail.com; wjmcfall@gmail.com;
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2018 1:50 PM
2
bobstiller@gmail.com; Shepherd, Nancy; Gitelman, Hillary
Subject: Public Information Request re: 1515 el Camino Real, Zoning Conformity
Dear Council Members and City Manager,
At last nights council meeting, staff and council members advised, without presenting supporting data,
that the medical office uses as they exist today are “legal nonconforming uses.” Pursuant to the public
information act I request that the city provide all information that supports this conclusion.
Specifically, the 1989 actions to adopt the comprehensive plan and zoning amendments were taken with
a specific requirement that the uses could remain as they “existed at the time of the effective date” of
the amendments. Please provide the clear information as to what existed at that time and the tracking
the city has done to ensure the current scope of use is essentially the same and consistent with the
amendment limitations. Common understanding of “use” includes type of business, number of
employees, hours of operation, client visits, parking spaces, delivery conditions, storage of any
hazardous materials, etc. Please also identify and explain the reasons for any staff, council, planning
commission, etc. interpretations made during the tracking process, including any made recently during
the review of the RPP process.
Further, statements were made that the plastic surgeons provide a neighborhood serving use, which I
assume means the majority of medical office business comes from the neighborhood. Please provide
the supporting information for this conclusion. If there is a definition in the City zoning ordinance that
supports plastic surgery as a neighborhood serving use please provide that.
Lastly, comments were made relative to the parking associated with multi family residential use of 1515
being more impactful in the neighborhood than the medical uses. Please provide verification for this
conclusion. Specifically, if a multi family use were proposed for the site today, what on site parking
requirements would there be and what requirements would there be for transportation management to
reduce traffic, reliance on the single occupancy vehicle, etc.
Thank you in advance for your timely and complete response to this request for public information.
Tom Vlasic
Southgate
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:12 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Saturday, January 27, 2018 1:25 AM
To:Loran Harding; Doug Vagim; Mark Kreutzer; Mark Standriff; Mayor;
midge@thebarretts.com; mmt4@pge.com; robert.andersen; Leodies Buchanan; David
Balakian; bearwithme1016@att.net; Chris Field; Council, City; paul.caprioglio; Cathy
Lewis; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; francis.collins@nih.gov;
Steven Feinstein; Raymond Rivas; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Greg.Gatzka; steve.hogg;
hennessy; huidentalsanmateo; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; kclark;
Tom Lang; leager; nchase@bayareanewsgroup.com; newsdesk; nick yovino;
pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; popoff; rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com;
russ@topperjewelers.com; richard.wenzel; Steve Wayte; terry;
thomas.esqueda@fresno.gov; dennisbalakian
Subject:Re: State of Calif. grants to deal with dead trees in Sierra
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 1:13 AM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 3:25 PM
Subject: Fwd: State of Calif. grants to deal with dead trees in Sierra
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 1:44 PM
Subject: Fwd: State of Calif. grants to deal with dead trees in Sierra To: dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 1:18 PM
Subject: Fwd: State of Calif. grants to deal with dead trees in Sierra
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>,
David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 1:01 PM
Subject: Fwd: State of Calif. grants to deal with dead trees in Sierra
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:12 AM
2
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 12:59 PM
Subject: Fwd: State of Calif. grants to deal with dead trees in Sierra
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 12:53 PM Subject: State of Calif. grants to deal with dead trees in Sierra
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Fri. Jan. 26, 2018
Dennis- Here is info. re grants from State of Calif:
http://www.sierranevadaconservancy.ca.gov/other-assistance/prop1-grantprog
BTW, that Conservancy website says there are 129 million dead trees in Calif., and 85% of them are in the
Sierra. So 110 million there and 19 million elsewhere in state.
http://www.sierranevadaconservancy.ca.gov/
On that website, go down to the third item re tree mortality. See the map of Calif. there that shows the
number of dead trees per acre in the Sierra from 2006 through 2017. That is interesting. Note that most of it is
just north and south of Madera Co. in the Sierra. I mentioned the map to you at the gym but I wasn't sure it
you'd seen it.
Here's the map: http://www.sierranevadaconservancy.ca.gov/our-region/tree-mortality/tree-mortality
If all of that burns, we are going to risk serious health problems. Last summer was bad in the Central
Valley. One day, it wasn't just hazy, you could actually smell the smoke.
Trump was sitting at a table at Davos with some CEOs from various countries and he said that the U.S. is
seeking energy independence. He said that "plants are being built all over now to do that". Not sure of what
plants he meant. Maybe all those ethanol plants in the Midwest.
Not enough of an issue has been made in the news regarding the health impact on Central Valley
residents of burning a huge amount of forest every summer in the Sierra. That should be on the national
news. Now do you love the Republicans who own the local TV stations in Fresno? Mums the word!!!!! They
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:12 AM
3
should have doctors on the national news talking about what all the smoke is doing to the people trapped
in the Central Valley. The smoke gets trapped in the Central Valley and its residents are trapped here to breath it. What are we suppose to do, spend June through October in the South of France? Do you hear public officials raising the alarm? Are they bringing health experts to hold public meetings about it and urge
that we clear 110 million dead trees out of the Sierra? The State of California should be raising the alarm about
it too. This, the smoke, is a local environmental catastrophe. The drought from 2007 to 2016 killed 110
million trees in the Sierra-Nevada mountains and now those dead trees are tinder for huge fires every summer.
They have to be gotten out of there.
There are about 4 million people in the San Joaquin Valley of California with the Sierra range just to our
east. These are in Kern, Kings, Tulare, Fresno, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties. Eight
counties.
There are millions more in what is called the Sacramento Valley, the northern half of that big valley in the
middle of California. They are impacted maybe to a lesser extent by the smoke from vast forest fires in the
Sierra because there are more dead trees at the southern part of the Sierra. The smoke even gets west into the
Bay Area on occasion. But the "Lake fire" a year ago north of SF Bay and then the wine country fire this past
fall no doubt put lots of smoke into the Sacramento Valley. Some of that even got down to Fresno.
Remember, if you can smell it, you're breathing it. If you breath it, it goes from your lungs into your
bloodstream, and from there to places like your brain and your heart. What does the material in smoke from
forest fires do to your pancreas, liver, kidneys, as well as your brain and heart? We should be hearing about
that on the local and national news.
Today, KCBS reports that a hearing was held in Sacramento re forest fires. PG and E said "We burn or
remove a million trees a year". PG and E or somebody? I am told on good authority that it is indeed PG and E.
On the map above, find Monterey Bay. The City of Monterey is at the south end of it. Fresno is where a line running east from Monterey intersects a line coming south from Lake Tahoe. That's pretty close to the location
of Fresno.
LH
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2018 1:50 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Bob Stillerman <bobstiller@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 7:51 AM
To:Stump, Molly; Council, City
Cc:Shepherd, Nancy; 'Tom Vlasic'; 'Jim McFall'; 'Keith Ferrell';
christineshambora@gmail.com; 'Peter Shambora'; Kamhi, Philip; Mello, Joshuah; Keene,
James
Subject:RE: Thank you, suggestion, and request for information
Molly,
I much appreciate your clarification. As our team continues to address possible resolutions, it is important to understand
the parameters under which the city operates.
Since the crux of the council resolutions on the Southgate RPP are focused on creating accessible parking on ECR, I am
simply pointing out that any controls or restrictions that the city is able to institute on ECR at the cited locations that
have the effect of creating daytime parking that the business employees and clients/patients can use would alleviate the
problem for the businesses. Any solution for the business presumably relieves their need for business permits in our
residential area. Since the city was able to institute limited parking on ECR east (4‐6pm restrictions), another alternative
may be 2 hour restrictions during non‐business hours, e.g., 7‐9pm. Alternatively, as we discussed by phone, more active
enforcement of the 72‐hour continuous parking restriction might be an option.
Might you point me to the relevant state law/regulations governing parking on state highways? I’d like to learn as much
as I can about the rules we operate under, as well as the process we use in discussions with Caltrans (cf. my request for
public information regarding the parking restrictions adjacent to Paly).
Thank you.
Regards,
Bob Stillerman
T: +1-650-326-4800
C: +1-209-483-4800
From: Stump, Molly [mailto:Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 6:19 PM
To: bobstiller@gmail.com; Council, City
Cc: Shepherd, Nancy; Tom Vlasic; Jim McFall; Keith Ferrell; christineshambora@gmail.com; Peter Shambora; Kamhi,
Philip; Mello, Joshuah; Keene, James
Subject: RE: Thank you, suggestion, and request for information
Hello Bob –
I write to offer a quick point of clarification for you and your neighbors regarding the legal framework that the City must
work within.
In California, the state legislature has reserved for itself all authority to regulate on‐street parking, except for limited
exceptions where the state has delegated authority to local jurisdictions to adopt specific types of rules. This even
applies to streets in residential neighborhoods.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2018 1:50 PM
2
This means the City can only adopt regulations that are expressly authorized in the state code. The state generally allows
cities to prohibit on‐street parking, but there are very few authorized ways to grant preferences. RPP districts are one of
them. For this reason, while neighbors, City Council Members, and City staff may be able to think creatively of other
types of preferences or regulations that would suit our local needs, if the state legislature has not authorized the
regulation, we cannot put it into place in Palo Alto. I mention this in response to your idea to restrict El Camino Real to
parking for employees of nearby businesses. I’m not aware of any state law that would allow the City to impose that
type of regulation.
I’ll leave it to others to respond, as appropriate, to the other ideas and requests in your email.
Regards,
Molly Stump
From: Bob Stillerman [mailto:bobstiller@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 4:08 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Shepherd, Nancy <nlshep@pacbell.net>; Tom Vlasic <tom@tomvlasic.com>; Jim McFall <wjmcfall@gmail.com>;
Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com>; christineshambora@gmail.com; Peter Shambora <prshambora@gmail.com>;
Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kamhi, Philip <Philip.Kamhi@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Mello, Joshuah
<Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Keene, James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Thank you, suggestion, and request for information
Dear councilmembers,
Thank you for your diligence in working through the proposed changes regarding the Southgate RPP earlier this week. I
am hoping that the resolutions adopted by the city council lead to satisfied Southgate business owners and
residents. The addition of controlled parking on both the west side of El Camino Real (ECR) and the east side of ECR
north of Churchill, would provide business owners access to more than the 15 additional permits they were seeking at
the council meeting. I wish to point out that any additional controlled parking on ECR does not necessarily need to be
part of the Southgate RPP as I don’t believe there is a need for Southgate residents to have access to any of the new ECR
parking spots, while the businesses could enjoy parking in as close proximity to their offices on ECR as they would have
achieved with permits for our residential areas.
I mentioned in my public comment at the beginning of the discussion period on Monday, that the process used by city
staff pitted the residents and the businesses against one another. There was no attempt by staff at finding a negotiated
solution between the two groups. The stakeholder meetings organized by staff were ineffective, and appeared to be
held with the sole objective of being able to say that stakeholder meetings were held. There was no attempt at
collaboration, no explanation of the intended purpose of some of the proposed resolutions, and no attempt to bridge
any differences.
As the discussion at council went on, it became apparent to me that there was even greater discord, with the addition
of the city staff, each group with its own objectives, agenda and desired outcome. It must have been difficult for council
members to have had to act as Solomon and arrive at some decision to allow the program to move forward. As we
move forward, I would find it more palatable, and can imagine a more acceptable outcome if staff could work as a
partner with the parties. Should council find it appropriate to encourage staff to work collaboratively with
representatives from the businesses and from the Southgate residential parking committee, there may be an
opportunity to work together towards a solution. The objective of such joint work would be a new set of resolutions that
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2018 1:50 PM
3
are not divisive, but collaborative. I would much prefer to attend the next council session on this issue and smile as any
newly proposed resolutions get support from all three parties.
My request for information:
The most important aspect of the current action plan is to get Caltrans agreement on allowing a state highway to be
either zoned for business parking, or added to the Southgate RPP. Because of the significance of this task, I would like to
see the Southgate residential parking committee be apprised of all communications, discussions, documents, phone calls
and other interactions between the city and the relevant state organizations with respect to proposals for making ECR
part of a controlled parking area/zone. I would also like to see all communications, discussions, documents, phone calls
and other interactions between the city and the relevant state organizations that took place in the past with respect to
the parking restrictions that are currently in place on ECR east, north of Churchill Avenue and up to Embarcadero Road,
in particular during the period that staff mentioned Monday evening with respect to Paly students’ access to ECR
parking. I volunteer to be the recipient of this public information on behalf of the Southgate Residential Parking
Committee. I understand that this information can be made available promptly, for my review, under provisions of the
California Public Records Act (CPRA). I also understand from my discussions with Molly Stump on Monday of this week,
that there is a form that the city prefers to use so that the city clerk can track such requests. I will be filling out that form
in addition to this request for compliance with city preferences.
In the event that the desired access to ECR parking is not granted by the state, it will be important to address the many
issues that were raised by all parties at the meeting on Monday. Again, I am hoping this can be done in through
collaboration.
Thank you for your consideration of these requests.
Bob Stillerman
Southgate Resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2018 1:51 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Andrew Mellows <amellows@aol.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 10:07 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Road Project
Dear City Council Members,
Council member Tanaka was kind enough to invite a few folk who had written to the council on this subject to a meeting
on January 21st. There was good discussion and several of the people present clearly are very concerned about traffic,
bike and pedestrian safety in Palo Alto. Three or four had been on committees and have devoted much energy to related
activities.
It was clear that I was much more concerned about the Ross Road project that the others present. It is not easy to
gather an accurate estimate of the feelings of people who use Ross Road or are impacted by the changes that have been
made, are being made and are planned to be made. However, simply by discussing the subject with everyone with
whom I come in contact, I can assure you that the vast majority of people feel negatively about the project. Most would
describe it as more than required and unnecessarily dangerous in some aspects. The group of people who met with
Council Member Tanaka were not by any means representative of the people impacted by the changes on Ross Road.
Please consider my earlier suggestion that we stop the project and finish the features that are in place and check that it
is really useful before spending any more money and causing more public concern.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Mellows
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2018 7:57 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Les Proceviat <lesvir1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 29, 2018 6:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Southgate Permit Parking - City Council Meeting Tonight
Attn: City Council Members
I won’t be attending the meeting tonight but wanted to voice my concerns regarding increasing the number of parking permits for the businesses near Southgate.
First, I am disappointed that the city would consider making changes to the Southgate Permit Parking Program
prior to the 1 year anniversary. It was our understanding that the program would be reassessed at the end of 12
months.
Does the council know the number of employees the 2 business locations currently employ? Do they have the mandatory number of parking spaces required on their premises? Do the businesses encourage carpooling or
other modes of transportation? There is parking available on El Camino and more spaces would be free for
them to use if the city enforced the RV parking restrictions.
It is frustrating, as a resident, to finally feel relief from the congestion caused by Paly students, Stanford
employees and employees of these businesses to now be dealing with the issue again.
Many residents worked hard to get this off the ground and we are very appreciative of the city council’s support in approving the RPP. I am concerned, however, that if the additional permits are issued, what happens when
that is not enough and they request more? As the population continues to increase, these issues are not going to
go away.
I appreciate you thoughtfully considering our concerns.
Thank you,
Virginia Proceviat
Southgate Resident (1555 Escobita Ave.)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2018 7:57 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Z <zsarantis@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 29, 2018 6:19 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Southgate RPP meeting Monday
As a resident of the 1600 block of Portola Ave I am concerned with the request to add more permit requests and to limit parking to 2 hours at the front of their businesses: My concerns are: 1: It will directly impact the nearest streets to the El Camino frontage if there is no zoning applied to enable the permits to be distributed across the neighborhood: Portola 1600 is very congested already (even with RPP) throughout the day there is overflow parking bering experienced from businesses who park for 2hours or less without permits. The egress from El Camino to
Portola (El Paso way) is used heavily by the medical center employees and even visiting patients to park, restricting residents
from being able to get into their driveway due to the number of vehicles having to park so close together.
I have attached photos of 1600 Portola on an average day, parking congestion is even more pronounced every Thursday as El
Camino way is a clearway for the garbage trucks from 8 through 2pm which just pushes the traffic on Portola. Congested streets mean we cannot get into our driveways which in turn creates more parking issues. 2: Due to the narrow streets there are safety concerns that also need to be taken into account with emergency vehicles being able to pass through. I was directly effected when I had a family emergency and the fire truck and ambulance had to park on Miramonte one block away from my house on Portola. It also limits visibility when you have cars on either side and you are trying to cross or reverse out of driveways. 3: Many of the business have employees that live either in Palo Alto/close by, I would like to see a program to encourage
alternative forms of transportation just as the Downtown are has with their RPP program. I also like to ask council to look at the original use permits or zoning for the businesses and make sure they have not grown
beyond the parking they were required to have and an evaluation by the businesses or city as to how
many parking permits they really need
4:I would also like to see the West of El Camino 72 hours parking enforced, One of the frustration's I have heard from the businesses
(voiced in the Dec meeting also) is they can no longer park there as its occupied by RV's occupying all day and taking 2 spaces in most
cases. I have not seen any enforcements by the police for several months and would like to understand why thats the case, this would be a
very simple fix to free up parking spots?
Lastly I am opposed to restricting parking to 2 hours and excluding permit holders from parking in from of the businesses as it would just push parking into the neighborhood. Regards Zoe Sarantis 1646 Portola Ave
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of thi s pi ctu re from the In ternet.
IMG_0446.JPG
Ci
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
|
C
i
t
y
C
l
e
r
k
'
s
O
f
f
i
c
e
|
1
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
8
7
:
5
7
A
M
2
Right-
c
l
i
c
k
h
e
r
e
t
o
down
l
o
a
d
p
i
c
t
u
r
e
s
.
T
o
help p
r
o
t
e
c
t
y
o
u
r
p
r
i
v
a
c
y
,
Outloo
k
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
e
d
autom
a
t
i
c
d
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
o
f
thi
s
p
i
c
t
u
r
e
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
In
t
e
r
n
e
t
.
city.co
u
n
c
i
l
@
c
i
t
y
o
f
p
a
l
o
a
l
t
o
.org's
p
r
o
f
i
l
e
p
h
o
t
o
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2018 7:57 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:certifiedhypnotist <certifiedhypnotist@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, January 29, 2018 11:26 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Stanford expansion plans
First, thank you for taking a position on the Stanford plans and for supporting a public meeting open to area residents.
It is a strange feature of geography that because of its location most of those most affected by Stanford's development have little to no voice in the matter. When a vote was held on a major plan, those of us who live close to campus in Menlo
Park and in unincorporated San Mateo County had no vote. Yet our lives and our ability to function in our daily lives is heavily impacted.
I note that Stanford has a history of gaming their agreements in such a way that the outcomes are not what a reasonable
person would expect. One example is their commitment to build a trail on Stanford lands which turned out to be a plan to build a sidewalk along a heavily traveled road. Similarly, evidence was presented at the hearing that they are gaming the
count of automobile trips by having people park near campus to be brought in by bus. I also note that the reply of the Stanford representative to County Supervisor Simitian's question about property taxes on off-campus housing Stanford
provides to staff was less than frank. She stated that they buy their homes. However a resident of Stanford Acres informed me that Stanford holds title to the land on which, as a tax-exempt institution, they pay no property tax. This is
quite different from what we were led to believe.
In light of the enormous traffic impacts and impacts on housing of Stanford development it is essential that there be a definite limit to Stanford buildout. From my point of view any reasonable limit has been passed long ago. Most especially,
the building of more offices further increases the jobs/housing imbalance and makes housing ever more unaffordable to lower income workers. The fact that all this building stresses local resources but does not generate normal taxes hurts us
all. At the very least they must be made to pay their fair share of the expense of educating the children of Stanford students and employees. It is quite appropriate to ask them to build a school. It is also appropriate to ask that any housing
built be affordable to low income workers for whom it seems no provision at all has been made. I am a Stanford alumna and my son is an alumnus. But the development arm is different in nature and in impact from the
academic arm. Please stand up for the quality of life of people impacted wherever they live. Out of control growth in the human body is
referred to as a cancer and many of us feel that Stanford development is out of control.
Gail Sredanovic 2161 Ashton Ave.
Menlo Park CA 94025
Kirk Girard, Director
Department of Planning and Development
Santa Clara County
c/o David Rader & Kavitha Kumar
Santa Clara County Planning Office
70 W. Hedding Street
7th Floor, East Wing
San Jose, CA 95110
Citx of Palo Alto
Office of the Mayor and City Council
January 29, 2018
RE: Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mr. Girard & Staff,
The City of Palo Alto appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report {EIR} analyzing Stanford University's proposal to add 2.275M
square feet of academic and academic support (non-residential) space and 3,150 dwelling
units or beds (1.2 M square feet), and 40,000 square feet of additional building space to their
campus between 2018 and 2035. We also want to thank you, Supervisor Simitian, and other
County representatives for attending meetings of our City Council and our Planning &
Transportation Commission over the last couple of months and for convening related
community meetings in Palo Alto.
The City of Palo Alto enjoys a strong partnership with Stanford University and is
pleased to offer comments on both the County's Draft EIR and the University's proposal. We
look forward to receiving detailed and substantive responses to all of these points. As noted
in the letter, a number of the City's early comments for the Notice of Preparation {NOP} have
not been satisfactorily addressed in the Draft EIR and remain at issue. Also, many of the City's
concerns will require the County to attach meaningful conditions to the ultimate approval
action. We would welcome an opportunity to talk further with County and Stanford
representatives about the proposed project and conditions of approval, as well as anticipated
impacts and mitigation.
Issues of primary concern to the City are briefly highlighted below, and more detailed
comments can be found in the attachments.
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2477
650.328.3631 fax Page 1of4
A. Open Space Protections. While we understand that the University is not currently
proposing development outside the Academic Growth Boundary (AGB), we are
concerned that current open space protections (in the form of the requirement for
a super-majority vote to amend the AGB) will expire in 2025 and are not proposed
for extension or replacement. This is not acceptable to the City of Palo Alto and
undermines both the validity Draft EIR and the community's trust that the
University and the County will be appropriately protective of our collective open
space resources. Palo Alto requests that the County extend the requirement for a
4/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors to 2050. Also, to facilitate the long term
planning efforts of the City as well as the County, the City would request that the
County require Stanford University to prepare a maximum build-out plan (land use
and density) for its future academic and academic support and housing.
B. Housing. The region's housing crisis will be exacerbated by any project that
proposes to add more jobs and more housing demand than housing. We urge the
County and the University to reconsider parameters of the current proposal,
potentially staging the proposed development as housing is built and
transportation solutions are implemented rather than the other way around (i.e.
housing & transit then development, rather than development then housing &
transit).
The University should be required to increase housing within the campus to reduce
its contribution to the regional housing crisis and to reduce commute trips to and
from the University. The University should also provide more funding for
affordable housing proximate to the campus, and should not be permitted to
expand the eligible geographic area for this housing. Funding should include fees
charged on new academic and academic-related square footage and should be
based on current City impact fees, adjusted over time to reflect inflation and
increases in construction costs.
We also call upon the County to partner with the City regarding our Regional
Housing Needs Allocations (RHNAs) for the 2023-2030 Housing Element cycle. The
County and the City were successful in seeking an adjustment whereby the City's
allocation was decreased and the County's allocation was increased by 645 units in
the 2007-2014 cycle based on a recognition that the University was constructing
housing within the City's Sphere of Influence. We ask for a commitment to this
kind of adjustment again, and --if an adjustment is not acceptable to the regional
council of governments -we would ask for a commitment that the County would
seek to form a "subregional entity" with Palo Alto and one or more other cities for
purposes of redistributing the RHNA.
Page 2of4
C. Traffic. Stanford is recognized locally and nationally for its programs to reduce
commute trips by single occupant vehicles and the City is grateful to the University
for their investments in transit and transportation demand management (TOM).
To build on past successes, the City requests that Stanford provide technical and
financial support to partner organizations (e.g. local shuttles and Transportation
Management Associations), and that the County require Stanford to make some
needed adjustments to the University's "no net new commute trips" policy.
As we understand the "no net new commute trips" program, it is aimed at avoiding
increases in commute trips in the peak direction by automobiles during one hour
per day at defined cordon locations around the campus. Pass through trips that
may in fact be drop-offs/pick-ups are deducted, and the University may "meet" its
goal by using credits from trip reductions achieved outside the cordon. Without
additional detail regarding impacts from all auto trips at the cordon (i.e. not just
peak direction trips, and not assuming trip credits), without realistic assumptions
of Caltrain capacity now and with the project, without more specific date on the
use of Marguerite, and without more specific mitigation measures, the City cannot
determine whether the University will effectively address its contribution to
cumulative traffic volumes and congestion in our City. We also urge the County to
examine use of the peak period, rather than the peak hour for this analysis.
While we recognize the need for flexibility, we urge the County to require explicit
and effective mitigation such that the University is required to specify in advance a
range of possible trip-reduction measures and transit capacity enhancements they
will implement as mitigation between 2018 and 2035 and to make contributions to
necessary capital improvements at City intersections and grade separations. We
would welcome an opportunity to engage in conversations about all of these
important issues.
D. Fire Services. As of the date of this letter, Stanford University is not under a going-
forward contract with the City of Palo Alto for fire protection and suppression, or
emergency medical services (EMS). Stanford cancelled their contract with the City
as of October 2015 and both parties have been extending the contract for short
periods of time (6 to 12 months) while attempting to negotiate a successor
agreement. Stanford has not identified a viable or sustainable fire protection and
suppression and EMS model or provider other than Palo Alto. The University does
not have access to the State of California Master Mutual Aid Agreement for fire
protection and suppression -access is only available via public fire departments
who are participants in the agreement -and would have access to EMS ambulance
Page 3of4
Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit
Draft EIR Comments
Introduction to Environmental Analysis and EIR Assumptions
1. 2018 Baseline Assumptions. The additional development comprising the 2018 Baseline scenario as
described on DEIR pages 5-6 to 5-7 is not clearly identified or quantified, and it is not clear whether
the 2018 Baseline includes development under construction in adjacent jurisdictions. As a result, it
is not clear what development is included in the 2018 Baseline and whether all pending and
proposed Stanford development is adequately addressed in the DEIR in either the 2018 Baseline or
Cumulative scenarios. The DEIR indicates that the 2018 Baseline includes all remaining academic
and support development and housing authorized under the 2000 General Use Permit (GUP) that
will be built and occupied at time the County considers approval of 2018 GUP. However, this
remaining development is not quantified, and there appears to be conflicting information where
quantification is provided. Table 5.15-12 (page 5.15-65) identifies 769,354 square feet of academic
space and 416 beds under the 2000 GUP that will-be constructed by Fall 2018. However, the DEIR
also indicates on page 3-19 that Stanford may not have received project-specific approval for
construction of all development authorized under the 2000 GUP when the County considers the
proposed 2018 GUP. As part of the 2018 Baseline description in each DEIR topical section, the DEIR
states that "nearly all remaining academic and academic support development and remaining
housing authorized under the 2000 General Use Permit will be built and occupied at the time of
approval of the proposed 2018 General Use Permit," except for the planned Escondido Village (EV)
Graduate Residences (2,020 net new beds), which are currently under construction, but not
expected to be occupied until 2020.
The City asks that the Final EIR provide a table and map that clearly identifies the size, location and
construction timing/status of projects that are assumed for the Baseline 2018 scenario. The EIR
should also identify whether any projects in adjacent jurisdictions that are under construction (or
that have received a building permit) are included in the 2018 Baseline.
2. Cumulative Impacts. The Final EIR should identify cumulative projects and whether the cumulative
scenario is based on specific projects or growth projections pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
15130(b). The basis for the cumulative scenario as described on page 5-8 is not clearly defined, and
the reader is unable to discern whether all cumulative development has been addressed in the
cumulative analyses, including cumulative growth in neighboring communities. The Transportation
and Traffic section has the best summary of the scenarios evaluated in the DEIR (page 5.15-61) and
indicates that the cumulative scenario includes completion of development authorized under the
2000 General Use Permit, including the EV Graduate Residences, background growth and
reasonably foreseeable projects. Yet neither background growth nor reasonably foreseeable
projects are clearly identified.
The City requests that the DEIR provide a clear identification of cumulative projects and/or growth
in section 5.0 and that the cumulative scenario include and clearly identify:
a. Projected growth in Palo Alto and surrounding communities, including growth expected to
occur during the life of Palo Alto's adopted Comprehensive Plan and analyzed in a related
EIR certified on November 13, 2017; and
City of Palo Alto Comments
Stanford University 2018 GUP Draft EIR Page 1
b. All off-campus approved or planned cumulative development on other Stanford University
owned lands, including off-site housing, non-residential uses in the East Bayshore area,
Stanford Research Park, University Medical Center, the transit center site, projects outside
the Academic Growth Boundary, and the Stanford Golf Course.
3. Long-Term Stanford Growth and Protection of Foothills. The County sh o u Id require
Stanford to prepare an updated sustainability study to define the maximum build-out of
the Stanford campus, including academic, academic support, housing, and support facilities. If this
information is not included in the Final EIR, it should be required by a date certain so that County
and adjacent jurisdictions can plan better plan for the future.
While Palo Alto recognizes and commends Stanford's commitment to the campus' Academic
Growth Boundary (AGB), the City has serious concerns regarding future protection of the foothills
and requests that the County extend its requirement for a 4/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors to
change the AGB to 2050 concurrent with adoption of the 2018 GUP.
Project Description
4. Potential Future Changes in Land Uses or Distribution. The DEIR indicates that additional housing
beyond the proposed limit of 3,150 units and/or changes in distribution of academic, academic
support, and housing may be requested by Stanford as a condition of the permit, subject to
additional environmental review and County approval (pages 1-4 and 3-20). As indicated in the
City's letter on the Notice of Preparation (NOP), the City is concerned that the land use intensity
identified for each development district not change or increase unless clear performance standards
are identified and included as mitigation measures or project conditions of approval. The Final EIR
should identify such performance standards. Since for example, the Historic Preservation
Alternative emphasizes that new development will be pushed to the peripheral areas around the
central campus with potential resulting impacts upon views and tree loss, the flexibility to transfer
uses within development areas under the 2018 GUP raises similar concerns. The City requests that
the Final EIR provide an assessment of the range and magnitude of potential future changes in the
distribution of land uses, potential related impacts, especially related to visual impacts, tree
removal, parking and traffic, and identify performance standards to avoid potential impacts.
5. Location of Future Development. Future development locations in the DRAPER district along El
Camino Real between the Arboretum and the new graduate housing are not defined. Without
better definition of potential building sites, some environmental impacts of the proposed 200,000
square feet of academic and academic support development on adjacent Palo Alto neighborhoods
cannot be assessed, such as impacts on views and the visual character of the area, loss of useable
open space, tree removal, traffic and circulation associated with parking changes.
Visual and Scenic Resources
6. Impacts to Visual Character of Palo Alto. As indicated in Palo Alto's comments on the NOP, the City
is concerned regarding the lack of information on the location/scale of proposed development and
impacts to the visual character of areas adjacent to the City. While the DEIR generally references
Stanford design guidelines and policies, there is no inclusion or summary of these standards.
City of Palo Alto Comments
Stanford University 2018 GUP Draft EIR Page2
a. The City asks that the Final EIR identify a process for City review/consultation on projects
adjacent to the City, including provision of project photo simulations, and to identify
specific performance standards to ensure that the visual character of the City is not
adversely affected, such as: 1) standards for screening development and/or maintaining
vegetated buffer along roads; and 2) specific reference to County or Stanford Design
Guidelines that would address building siting, height, scale, architectural features,
landscaping, screening, etc.
b. To maintain the aesthetic character and open space along El Camino Real, the City requests
that the County include a mitigation that prohibits re-distribution of housing or academic
square footage to the Arboretum Development District or lands designated "Campus Open
Space."
7. Views Along El Camino Real. Of particular concern are impacts to views of the campus along El
Camino Real (State Route 82), which provides a view of open space and is a significant value to Palo
Alto as a vegetated buffer between the City and the higher density development of the central
campus. The proposed development of 200,000 square feet of academic and/or academic support
space in the DRAPER development area is not specified, and current required setbacks do not
provide adequate buffers. Alteration and/or removal of this open space would substantially alter
the visual character of the surrounding area and should be considered a significant impact.
Mitigation should be provided to insure that any future development in this area preserve and
continuation this open view through the 2018 GUP.
8. Lighting Impacts. The City requests that Mitigation Measure 5.1-4 be modified to include specific
performance standards to ensure that future Stanford development results in no offsite
illumination into adjacent neighborhoods within Palo Alto.
Air Quality
9. Emissions.
a) Project Emissions. Since the rate and timing of development under the proposed 2018 GUP
is not known, the EIR should provide a worst-case analysis of operational emissions with
emission calculations of buildout at an earlier year, such as 2025. The EIR also should
identify a mechanism to ensure that all measures and programs built into the air emissions
model assumptions that may help to reduce emissions, such as electrification of bus and
vehicle fleets, are actually implemented with a specified timeframe for implementation.
b) Sensitive Receptors. Figure 5.2-1 should be revised to clearly identify all sensitive receptors,
including residences since there is potential for construction to occur around campus
edges, and the nearest sensitive receptors in Palo Alto are within 80 feet of project
boundaries.
c) Construction Emissions. The DEIR indicates that Stanford agrees to use final California Air
Resources board Tier 4 standards for all construction equipment, except for chainsaws and
pavers, throughout the life of the 2018 GUP. The City asks whether it is feasible/reasonable
to assume that the campus construction contractors will be able to acquire and use all Tier
4 Final equipment (except for chainsaws and pavers), and if not the emissions modeling
and analysis should be revised. Given the amount of development anticipated, construction
activities could be ongoing throughout the period from 2018 to 2035.
City of Palo Alto Comments
Stanford University 2018 GUP Draft EIR Page3
Cultural Resources
10. Review of Landscape Elements as Potential Historic Resources. Full historic protection of the Oval,
Palm Drive and the Main Gate were not addressed in the DEIR. The EIR should evaluate these areas
to determine whether they are historic resources and/or should be considered as part of the Main
Quadrangle historic block. If found to be a historical resource pursuant to CEQA, the area(s) should
be included in Mitigation Measure 5.4.l(a-e).
Hydrology and Water Quality
11. Groundwater Impacts and Recharge. The section lacks documentation/references for assumptions
and conclusions. Impact 5.9-4 does not quantify the amount of increased groundwater use that is
anticipated for the 2018 GUP as requested in the City's NOP letter or assess impacts on the
groundwater basin and vicinity wells as established in the DEIR's Hydrology Significance Criterion
"b." While the impact indicates that project operation could substantially deplete groundwater
supplies, there is no supporting analysis, and the mitigation measure presented addresses
monitoring of recharge, not impacts to groundwater supplies. Because Palo Alto operates municipal
water supply wells in the vicinity, the FEIR needs to provide a full analysis with technical
documentation in order to make a significance conclusion, including addressing the following:
a. Identify whether the project area is within the Santa Clara Valley groundwater basin or
different sub-basin.
b. Identify other vicinity groundwater wells. Figure 2 of the City of Palo Alto 2015 Urban
Water Management Plan indicates that the area adjacent to campus contains groundwater
wells.
c. Provide annual monitoring of groundwater levels to determine an annual average over a
sufficient time to include both wet and dry years.
d. Identify the potential amount of increased groundwater use . It is stated that irrigation
needs would not change substantially (page 5.9-26) without reference to an actual
estimate, and in contradiction with the increase in non-potable water use estimated in
Appendix Water Supply Assessment (WSA). The WSA (as summarized in Section 5.16.5)
makes an assumption about groundwater demand that is not supported by the record
provided in the baseline setting, in which groundwater use is shown to have increased
substantially in the last extended drought, consisting of up to 88% of irrigation water
demands in FY14-15. Section 5.16.5 (pgs. 5.16-16 and 5.16-17) assumes no change in
groundwater supply, and does not apportion the water demand in drought scenarios
between surface water and groundwater. This lack of information prevents a meaningful
analysis of how much groundwater use could increase, and whether it would exceed
significance thresholds.
e. Section 5.16.5 asserts with no supporting evidence that Stanford's wells·can withdraw up to
1,700 AFY (1.52 mgd) without adversely affecting groundwater conditions. Given the wells
have a combined pumping capacity of approximately 4,450 AFY, additional analysis is
required to support the impact conclusions. The analysis and determination of 1,700 AFY as
the sustainable yield needs to be disclosed and available for public review.
f. Most importantly, the EIR should evaluate impacts to adjacent and nearby wells or
groundwater basin due to increased Stanford pumping. The multiple dry year scenario
City of Palo Alto Comments
Stanford University 2018. GUP Draft EIR Page4
under full buildout needs to be addressed with respect to groundwater, and whether there
could be impacts to adjacent wells or the groundwater basin.
g. It is unclear under what circumstances groundwater could be used to meet potable
demands.
h. Assumption that groundwater recharge can only occur in the unconfined zone is not
adequately explained or justified.
12. Storm Water and Flooding. Some of the storm water from the project area is conveyed through
storm drains maintained by the City of Palo Alto that discharge into creeks managed by the Santa
Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The Draft EIR does not include an analysis that clearly
indicates the estimated runoff flows with and without the project and under cumulative conditions,
so it is not possible to determine the significance of the impact on these collection facilities. This is
of particular concern since the City of Palo Alto's storm drain system, downstream from Stanford,
has limited capacity at various locations that can result in localized flooding. Secondly, flows from
Matadero Creek discharge into a flood basin located East of Highway 101. This area is protected by
a levee that will need to be improved in the future to mitigate for sea level rise. Increased flows
into the flood basin would affect the future levee design. The Final EIR must provide existing and
proposed runoff calculations from the project area for both the 10-year and 100-year storm event.
13. Adequacy of Detention Facilities. The DEIR did not respond adequately to the City of Palo Alto's
request in the NOP to provide information on current storm water volumes into the existing
detention facilities generated within the Academic Growth Boundary. Further, how would the
added flow from the 2018 GUP development affect the current detention capacity in the case of a
10-year and 100-year storm event? Without this information it is difficult to determine the
adequacy of current detention basins to meet future needs. The Impact 5.9-6 analysis asserts "the
existing detention facilities are estimated to have the capacity for accommodating an additional
approximate 57 .0 acres (2.48 million square feet) of impervious surfaces in the San Francisquito
watershed, and an additional approximate 194.8 acres (8.52 million square feet) of impervious
surfaces in the Matadero watershed." However, there is no reference to a specific study, such as
the "annual reporting," that clearly documents and quantifies changes in detention capacity as a
result of identified flows from constructed projects. This information needs to be provided in the
Final EIR to substantiate the DEIR's conclusions on capacity and determination that no significant
impact would occur. It is unclear to what degree development under the 2000 GUP (including
Escondido Village Graduate Residences) or other development added to establish the 2018
Baseline scenario has already used the additional available capacity. The Final EIR must provide
documentation of the change in impervious surfaces and runoff volumes for existing
development, development completed as part of the 2018 Baseline, development with the 2018
GUP Project, and cumulative development to adequately assess the impact of increased runoff
and the adequacy of detention facilities and conclusion of a less-than-significant impact.
14. San Francisguito Creek Joint Powers Authority. Stanford should be required to coordinate and
cooperate, including funding, with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority to provide
meaningful large-scale upstream detention facilities to attenuate and manage flows in San
Francisquito Creek.
15. Flood Impacts. The City of Palo Alto's NOP comments include a request for records of past runoff
volumes for the 10-and 100-year storm flow into Matadero and San Francisquito Creeks. This
City of Palo Alto Comments
Stanford University 2018 GUP Draft EIR Pages
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:11 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:June <junewangy@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, January 28, 2018 10:30 AM
To:Council, City; Howard, Adam
Cc:'jennie chan'
Subject:Tennis Courts in Mitchell Park
Hi,
We heard that the city was considering converting the tennis courts 5-7 in Mitchell park and the practice walls in the front to courts for pickleball. We are strongly against this and we would like to let you know.
First, ever since people started playing pickleball on the tennis courts, the tennis players, the recreational
players and the young kids who are taking lessons, have already felt the shortage of available courts. However,
we have always felt that the courts belong to all Palo Alto residents and we should share the courts with others. In fact, we had felt the tennis people and pickleball people had coexisted quite well. We think this sharing should continue.
Second, these three courts are preferred by many tennis players. Not only because they are well maintained but
also because they have shades. Many old players easily get exhausted when playing under the sun. We don't want to deprive them of this more desirable playing condition.
Third, the hand ball and tennis practice walls in the front are essential to us, tennis players. It not only gives
individuals the place to practice and improve their games. But more importantly it serves other two groups of
people: first, the kids, either very young or grown, to learn to play tennis; second some people who want to just get some exercises. If you walk around the place in the afternoon, this will be quite obvious.
Thank you for your attention.
Kaizhi Yue and June Wang
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:06 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Barbara Gross <barbara.ellen.gross@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 24, 2018 3:46 PM
To:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Council, City; Chop Keenan; Russ Cohen; Kleinberg, Judy
Subject:The Chinese think Palo Alto is dumpy | TechCrunch
for your consideration:
although this article may not be the definitive prospective of palo alto, i find it interesting that the opinions
expressed have been cited in several sources
i am sending this as an informational piece that palo alto has many things going for it - and yet we are not bullet proof
regards, barbara gross
https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/20/the-chinese-think-palo-alto-is-dumpy/
The Chinese think Palo Alto is dumpy
Posted 6 hours ago by Danny Crichton (@DannyCrichton)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:06 AM
2
Good news! The great Raw Water Story of 2017 is finally over. Google tells me that searches
went up ten-fold over the raw water craze, but thankfully, humans seem to have filtered out any
more stories or follow ups. Silicon Valley can rest easy.
But wait! There is another crisis brewing, and it isn’t the animal fecal matter in your algae water.
Over the past few days, we’ve seen the creation of a brand new genre of tech press article which might be called “the Chinese are really bored with Silicon Valley.”
(My sources tell me the Albanians are also bored with the Valley, but no one apparently cares
what they think these days. Albania is in Africa, right?).
Apparently, and this is true because the Wall Street Journal reported on it, Palo Alto looks kind of dumpy.
Color me as shocked as the green of this fungal H20. Dumpy? Have they seen the Persian rug
store on University?
As the Journal describes a group of Chinese founders visiting the Valley, “To many in the group,
northern California’s low-rise buildings looked shabbier than the glitzy skyscrapers in Beijing and Shenzhen.” Finally, someone noticed.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:06 AM
3
But it wasn’t just the WSJ that got in on the action. Bloomberg also wrote its own version of the
story, which emphasized the growing financial opportunities and career options on the Chinese
mainland compared to the U.S. From the article: “Yet the search for returnees has spurred a thriving cottage industry. In WeChat and Facebook cliques, headhunters and engineers from the
diaspora exchange banter and animated gifs.”
Banter and animated gifs. My god the Valley is screwed.
This whole trend piece genre is kind of weird, particularly in the context of the other Silicon
Valley freakout this week, which was Mike Moritz’ editorial in the Financial Timeslambasting the laziness of Silicon Valley and how hard the Chinese work. Plus, Moritz and his “western
eye” points out, the Chinese reuse teabags!
So basically, “The Chinese” living in Silicon Valley are sending animated gifs, bantering, and
complaining about shabby Palo Alto buildings all the while dreaming of moving to Asia to reuse
teabags and not see their children.
And people say journalism is dead.
Now, I am being flippant (if you hadn’t noticed, you might want to delete your angry tweet from
a couple of paragraphs ago). There really is an important trend that people should be paying
attention to when it comes to global worker mobility and particularly the mobility of Chinese
tech workers.
But it is deeply amusing to me to see the fear of a brain drain in a region that has probably
drained more brains from the rest of the world than any other place.
China has much to be proud of in its tech sector. The so-called BAT companies — Baidu,
Alibaba, and Tencent — are together worth more than a trillion dollars today. Transportation
services startup Didi Chuxing’s most recent valuation is pegged at $56 billion, and news content platform Toutiao’s valuation is approaching $30 billion. There are dozens of Chinese unicorn
startups according to CBInsights, second only to the United States.
The broader ecosystem is even more compelling. Venture capital dollars are largeand are starting
to rival Silicon Valley levels. The number of startups is also huge, and China is probably home
to more tech startups than all ecosystems but the Valley (and maybe the Valley, too, depending on how you count).
Plus, the government is putting its money where its mouth is. Back in 2008, the Chinese
government launched the Thousand Talents plan to recruit 1,000 overseas researchers to the
mainland. Those recruitment programs have expanded and continue unabated. Furthermore, the
government has placed immense weight on artificial intelligence in its national strategy, and will put billions of dollars to work in related industries.
In short, China together has some of the most interesting, fastest-growing technology companies
in the world right now, and is also giving them the royal treatment. It is hardly surprising then
that given the tremendous growth in its domestic startup ecosystem, overseas Chinese engineers
would start to look back toward China for their next career steps.
For all of the concerns of the press that there is a new brain drain in Silicon Valley, I think we
can rest easy. Despite Palo Alto’s shabby look, lack of mobile payments, and lack of face-
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:06 AM
4
recognition software, America still has many, many desirable qualities. It’s safe and clean.
Corruption is reasonably rare. Universities are still the best in the world. The bureaucracy around
running a business is reasonably simple and well-trodden. Freedom of speech and expression is also strong.
It’s important that America doesn’t rest on its laurels, but neither should we go into full crisis
mode to change a system that has produced some of the most impactful companies in the world.
Maybe a few more Chinese are leaving Silicon Valley these days. Maybe. That sounds like both
a warning, and an opportunity to build and heal the tech divide between two great powers. Maybe both sides can drink some raw water from the Yangtze River.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:11 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, January 27, 2018 4:27 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC; CAC-TACC; ConnectedCity
Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 01-22-18 Council meeting, Item 14, Upgrade
Downtown Project
Council Members,
On 01-22-18, you considered an Item 14 about the Upgrade Downtown Project. Agenda:
https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62863 Staff Report:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62851
Please see, below the "###" line, a transcript of this item, with my comments (paragraphs beginning with "###").
I was most interested in the part of this project having to do with the conduit for fiber. I think that since this particular proposed conduit for fiber is ridiculously expensive and serves no known purpose, Council should have
removed it from the contract. I thank Council Member DuBois for proposing this in a motion. I regret that it did not receive a second.
Thanks also to Council Member DuBois for proposing, and to Council for approving, that staff return to Council with an
item that allows Council to decide how the project's costs will be allocated to the various entities that benefit from it. I hope the result will be to reduce what the Fiber Fund is expected to pay.
As you know, I'm an advocate for citywide municipal FTTP. As part of that advocacy, I recommend spending Fiber Fund
money wisely.
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303 -------------------
###########################################################################
http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-149-2/
========================================================================
3:07:49
Mayor Kniss: OK. I'm going to make an executive decision. And I'm going to suggest that we go -- that we skip number
14 for now, come back to it later --
========================================================================
3:09:04:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:11 AM
2
Mayor Kniss: I am going to bypass number 14 for now, and move us on to number 15.
========================================================================
### Item 14 starts here:
4:58:46:
Mayor Kniss:
While we have a rule to not take up anything, especially after 10:30. Ed has encouraged us to come forward with number 14.
### I think the reason for the rule is so that Council can be at its mental best when it considers issues. What was more
important than that in this case?
The time you get home will depend on how much time you spend on this particular item.
### To me, doing a good job should take precedence over when you get home.
4:59:00:
City Manager Keene: Madam Mayor, while we're switching, I'll switch places with Mr. Shikada. I actually live within the property boundaries of this particular project.
4:59:13:
Council Member Scharff: You just want to go home.
4:59:13:
City Manager Keene: I am recused. And I must admit that I appreciate you reordering the (laughs) items on the agenda
tonight. And you didn't have that in mind at all.
4:59:26:
Mayor Kniss: Sure I did. (laughs)
4:59:30:
Council Member DuBois: Can we discuss whether we do this?
4:59:32:
Mayor Kniss: I have two cards on this.
4:59:35:
Council Member DuBois: So ...
4:59:35:
Mayor Kniss: If anyone else wants to speak on Item 15 [sic], why don't you put a card in?
4:59:39:
Council Member DuBois: Liz, can we -- Can we discuss us continuing this item? It's almost 11:00 pm.
4:59:46:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:11 AM
3
Mayor Kniss: I did. I did, and Ed has prevailed. So, if you are quick with it, we can be out.
### Again, the point should have been whether Council could do a good job, not whether they could get home soon.
4:59:50:
Council Member DuBois: I think it's going to be a fairly long discussion.
4:59:53:
Mayor Kniss: I don't think so. So, I apologize, Tom. But he really said he wanted to get it done tonight.
5:00:00:
City Manager Keene: (unamplified) They've been here for five hours ...
5:00:02:
Mayor Kniss: Yeah. So, let's dive right in. This item, although it may seem as though it be long and cumbersome, I think our discussion earlier today would indicate that it could be fairly easily explained, and we can move on it. So --
### When you click on the video to go to Item 14, you go here, which is incorrect. Item 14 starts at 4:58:46.
5:00:20:
Ed Shikada: Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. I will be quick. We've got a full presentation that we can use as
a resource, should you want to, in terms of your questions. There are just a few -- actually, just a couple slides I would like to make note of, along the way. Let's see if I can do this right. OK. Just a -- First, just a bit of context. As you have
seen in the package, the project includes a variety of elements. At its core, though, what is driving the project -- and the project timeline -- is the basic infrastructure for water and gas utilities. Noted here, just with a nod to Palo Alto Online, a
headline last fall, where we did experience a water main break, which took out of service a number of businesses along University Avenue.
### 09-23-17: "Water main break repaired on University Avenue"
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/09/23/water-main-break-on-university-avenue
So, clearly, this is an example of the priority that we have to proceed with this project at this time. We have a variety of elements as noted,
### Upgrade Downtown
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/projects/upgrade_downtown.asp
including not only the water and gas utilities, but transportation improvement, and some larger-scope concepts that have been discussed in the development of this project. Contrary to the typical knock on City government, where we would
tear up a street, and then tear it up again, and then tear it up again, this has really been -- if you excuse the pun -- groundbreaking work across the departments -- Utilities, Public Works, Transportation -- in order to try and get all of the
concepts on the table at once, so that we could minimize any potential for a re-do on disruption of the street. So, as a result, there are a number of scope elements, such as bike lanes, on University Avenue, that were discussed, but are
NOT -- let me be clear -- are NOT a part of the contract that is before you. We've got a number of, again, resource graphics here.
### Map
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57938
The map of the project. The vicinity. A description of the utility improvements. As well as some of the pedestrian improvements and other motor vehicle elements that are part of the project, as well. I'll flip through these real quick. The
specifics on the street locations. And, notable also for University Avenue, hour restrictions -- hours of work. And timing restrictions, including calendar, on when the work can be done. So, the only other slide I'd really like to draw your
attention to -- which I suspect will be the point of some discussion -- is the cost. This is, as noted, a project of some
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:11 AM
4
complexity. And with the restrictions, the complexity of the project, and the location really being a dense infrastructure
area, that this is a project that we received no bids on. And, as a result, under our municipal code,
### The staff report cites "The Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.30.360(c)." Our online version of the code has the disadvantage that there's only one URL for all of the code.
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca
So it takes three clicks to get to the right page. It says, " (c) Where competitive bids or requests for proposals have been solicited and no bid or proposal has been received, or where no bid or proposal meeting the requirements of the invitation
to bid or request for proposal has been received, provided that, in the case of a public works project, the project is not otherwise required by the charter to be formally bid." I'm not a lawyer. I don't know how to find in the code whether a
formal bid was "otherwise required."
did allow us to entertain and invite bids more informally. And -- to which we did go back to the contractors that had expressed an interest in the project, to invite them to submit bids. And to receive quotes. I would not that while there is,
as noted, significant increase in the project budget necessary to deliver it, it is a result of the back-and-forth discussions we had with the contractor that put in a quote, that reduced their quote by close to $3 million. And it is on that basis --
along with our observations of what has been happening with the bidding climate -- that over the course of the last 3 to 4 years, we had a number of projects -- infrastructure projects -- that have received only a single bid. So, this is not a one-
off situation in which it's really taking advantage of the moment that we have, with a reputable contractor that we have done work with before, and that we know has done good work for other organizations as well, that we're recommending
proceeding.
I know there was some interest in the distribution of the costs among the different -- both utilities, as well as the other elements of the project. In particular, on the fiber optic conduits. I would note that I think in our response to the questions
### 01-18-18: "1/22 Council Agenda Questions for Items 5, 11, and 14"
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62960
that we weren't as perhaps as should have been. That there are incremental costs associated with including fiber as a part of this project. In that, for practical reasons, the fiber's actually laid BELOW the water lines and the gas lines, so that,
in the unfortunate but foreseeable event of a break in the water or gas, that we don't need to cut through the fiber in order to get to the water or the gas. So, as a result, the trench necessary for the installation of these lines is deeper, as the
result of the fiber installation, than it would otherwise have to be, if that were not included. Let's see. And so that was the scope, as we requested the quotes, and that the quotes have been received.
I would note, also, that, as Council knows, the water and gas utilities are both utilities for which we are rate-sensitive. Our
water rates are relatively high, among other communities. And, as we've discussed in your budget, largely due to the cost of our infrastructure rehabilitation it's necessary, given the age of our infrastructure -- water infrastructure in particular.
And, with that -- we do have other slides on outreach and additional information. But with that, let me stop and turn it over
back to you, Mayor.
5:05:56:
Mayor Kniss: All set?
5:05:58:
Ed Shikada: Yes.
5:05:58:
Mayor Kniss: So, with that, I'm going to move this along quickly. We have two people who wish to speak to this. Jeff Hoel and David Le- -- maybe I'm not pronouncing -- maybe I'm not seeing it right tonight -- Levitsky?
### David Levisay.
5:05:16:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:11 AM
5
Jeff Hoel: Jeff Hoel. And I'd like to speak about the fiber part of the project. And, as you know, we have no fiber-to-the-
premises design at the moment. So anything we do on this project that puts conduit for fiber in the ground is just going to be a guess. It's going to be speculative. And the concept of "dig-once" is that digging trenches is so expensive, and
putting conduit into trenches that are already dug is so cheap, that why wouldn't we put the conduit in? But the way it's priced in this project, putting in conduit for fiber is not at all cheap. It's $4 million a mile. And we only have a limited
amount of money in the Fiber Fund. And this is a very extravagant way to spend it. So, my recommendation is, don't do it. I saw, on the Q&A for this project,
### https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62960
that staff is saying, if you take the fiber out of this project, staff will have to start from scratch, and start the negotiations all
over again. Ask them very carefully why the heck that is. This seems like just something you do. I've been told that this will reduce the cost of the project by half a million dollars. And that if you want to put in fiber later, it'll be like $1.35
million. And, to me, that's, that's less than $2 million. So -- I'd like to see lots of details on why the sharing of the digging costs is the way it is. I'd also like to find out if there are any timing constraints on the whole bid. Like, if you send it to
UAC -- that should have seen it already, but hasn't -- and that takes a few months -- does that make the cost of the project go up? Or does that make a leak more likely?
And the material for the conduit -- most people think HDPE is better than PVC. That's a detail. UAC should look at it.
5:08:30:
Mayor Kniss: Thanks, Jeff. And the next speaker is -- ah, I don't want to try your name again.
5:08:39:
David Levisay: (unamplified) That's OK. It's David Levisay.
5:08:42:
Mayor Kniss: Thank you.
5:08:42:
David Levisay: Good evening, Council. Again, My name's David Levisay. I'm representing Daleo, Inc.
### David Levisay is the owner.
http://www.daleoinc.com/ http://www.daleoinc.com/about-us/
We're an underground construction contracting firm that has done many projects for you guys. Water and gas. The
reason I'm hear to speak is, I want to give a little detail in this project. In August 14th this past year, 2017, this project was put out to bid. And, the 22nd, there was a mandatory pre-bid meeting. There was three contractors present: ourselves,
Ranger Pipeline, Conquest. It was noted at the time that the engineer's estimated budget was $11.5 million. September 15th, the bids were due. No bids were received. I think everybody got the same impression of the package. And it was
pretty -- a pretty tough package. October 5th, 2017, we received a questionnaire from the City of Palo Alto. We responded. And gave our answers to the questions. And our opinions of the project. So, in summary -- And here we
are. And that was it, of the end of the project, for my knowledge of the project, as far as the questionnaire.
So, a summary of this is, you're considering awarding a project that started off with an engineer's estimate of $11.5 [million]. Now it's at $16.5 [million]. With no competitive bid. With changes to the scope and schedule of the
job. Because it has already changed, because of the placement of the job. It was supposed to start January 2nd. Now it's going to start sometime hereafter.
Mid-May of 2017, a large portion of this job was put out to bid by the City. And it was mostly the gas main replacement
portion of the project. And it was called "Gas Main Replacement 22." There were four eligible bidders. Daleo was the only bidder to turn in a bid. And we were denied the contract because there was no competitive bid. So, my points to you
are: You're direct-awarding a $16 million bid based on a questionnaire. You're awarding a large contract without a competitive bid, five and a half million over engineer's estimate, and knowing the scope and schedule has
changed. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:11 AM
6
5:12:11:
Mayor Kniss: So, taking this back to Council at this point, before we go on any further, Ed, why don't you comment on that, because that's -- that sheds a different light on it, from somebody who actually bid.
5:12:30:
Ed Shikada: Well, for -- Perhaps to correct that, it did not bid. On this project. There was a prior project that was a
subset, that was repackaged into a larger contract. And that was put out for bid. Again, we received no bids. It was subsequent to that that our municipal code does allow for us to do direct negotiation for pricing and selection, which is the
process that was proceed. Lalo, do you need to correct any of that? (laughs) Or amplify?
5:13:00:
Lalo Perez: Good evening. Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer. I also oversee the procurement process. If there was a concern, a dispute, or a protest, there's a formal protest procedure that must be followed. That is was clearly posted in all
our documentation. Any vendor, person, firm has the right to protest. It starts by writing a formal protest, sending that in to the procurement manager. And then the review starts. With any of the points that the specific individual or firm has
with that particular procurement. We have five days after the conclusion of the investigation to review that. If the individual does not accept the purchasing manager's initial ruling, then the next step is, they have a meeting with myself,
where then I review the case again. And then, if they so wish -- if it's a Council item -- because not everything comes to Council -- then they can come and state their position with you here at the Council. I do not have any record from my
procurement manager that any of those steps were followed in the protest procedure. So, there's -- I have not reviewed any of the points, 'cause I'm hearing them for the first time tonight. ** So, what I do know, and what staff told me was that
there were no bids submitted. And by our muni code, we're then allowed to go out and -- the formal procedure of bidding is no longer required. But what we -- what I was assured by staff was that we wanted to maintain the same scope,
because we did not want to jeopardize and be in a position of a protest.
### Is this the reason staff didn't want to consider removing the conduit for fiber? If so, that's unfortunate.
So, that's what the review of my team did, and that is what I believe we followed.
5:15:19:
**: (unamplified): Can I just ** a follow-up?
5:15:20:
Mayor Kniss: I wanted to say one more thing, though. Apparently, it is -- this did jump from $11 [million] to $16 [million]. Correct?
5:27:27:
Lalo Perez: Ah ...
5:27:27:
Mayor Kniss: Our guess was that is was going to cost ...
5:15:30:
Lalo Perez: Our engineering estimate was lower than what ...
5:15:34:
Ed Shikada: (unamplified)
### Staff huddle -- inaudible.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:11 AM
7
5:15:40
Ed Shikada: We're just double-checking the exact number. But on the order of 12 -- $12 million.
### The staff report (page 8) says $12,401,915.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62851
Again, the engineer's estimate does not constrain the bids. And, in fact, it's not unusual for bids to come in significantly above estimate.
5:15:55:
Lalo Perez: Especially in this current time. We've seen a lot of proposals come in, and people are frankly saying, look, I
have enough work. And if you're willing to pay a premium, here it is.
5:16:05:
Mayor Kniss: Well, do we feel that it must be done at this point?
5:16:11:
Lalo Perez: I believe we followed the process. And there's a process -- a formal process ...
5:16:15:
Mayor Kniss: No, no. I'm saying, is this project something we absolutely have to do? Is it imperative?
5:16:20:
Ed Shikada: It is an urgent project. If that's the question. If you're asking if it's absolutely critical to do it tonight, I, quite frankly, have not seen a reason not to proceed.
### I think it doesn't make sense to spend any money on this particular conduit for fiber, let alone to spend any Fiber
Fund money on it.
5:16:31:
Mayor Kniss: OK, Greg.
5:16:31:
Council Member Scharff: Yeah. So, I think the concern was -- and I think Ed addressed it a little bit -- was that the implication was -- and, I don't know, it was $12 million or $11 and a half [million] -- but that the -- no one bid that,
because the engineer's estimate was so low. And it's been my experience in these, as well, that that doesn't dampen the bids. That the bids come in often way above that. And so, that's not -- And then, I just think that was sort of the elephant
in the room. And I don't think -- I think Council could be misled to think that we didn't get the bids because the engineer's estimate was so low. And so, I really wanted you to comment on what I considered to be the elephant in the room. And
the concerns that Council members may have.
5:17:08:
Lalo Perez: That's correct. And I -- we -- That's just telling the prospective bidders what we believe the project costs. It's up to them to submit what they believe the fair compensation is. And as they come in, we make sure that they comply,
and it's within scope. And then we make the decisions from there.
5:17:30:
Mayor Kniss: (unamplified) Tom, you've got your light on.
5:17:35:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:11 AM
8
Council Member DuBois: Quick question, because I didn't see it in the staff report. Where is the sidewalk widening happening? And what is that?
5:17:45:
Ed Shikada: I think Josh may want to answer. There are a couple of specific locations.
5:17:51:
Joshua Mello: Sure. Joshua Mello, Chief Transportation Official. The sidewalk widening will be done at Tasso and
Kipling. They're "T" intersections. So we're creating curb extensions. It will shorten the crossing distance across University. It will be very similar to the one that's at Florence, in front of the Apple store. Minus the bollards.
5:18:09:
Council Member DuBois: So, Kipling is a like very narrow street. Why are we doing it there?
5:18:12:
Joshua Mello: It's on University, opposite Kipling.
5:18:16:
Council Member DuBois: OK. And are we removing parking to do this?
5:18:19:
Josh Mello: It's a loading zone at one of the intersections, that will be relocated across the street. But there's no parking
allowed within intersections.
5:18:26:
Council Member DuBois: OK. Thank you. Um. So, I had a similar question to what Liz asked, but I wasn't sure of the answer there. So, what is the timing and need overall? I mean, if this is delayed three months, is it the end of the
world? Six months?
5:18:44:
Ed Shikada: Well, the world has a way of going on, under any action of Council. Nonetheless, it is an urgent matter. You know, the reference to a recent water main break -- there have also been gas leaks in the area -- are notable. And so,
this is the next highest priority we have for infrastructure main rehabilitation. The coordination necessary, and then -- has been done, in order to go across the disciplines and the outreach with the businesses. If this were delayed for some, let's
say, extended period of time, it would really need to be restarted. And, you know, it's a really significant project to gear up for.
5:19:25:
Council Member DuBois: Um, So, I asked a bunch of questions. You -- gets partial answers. There's one I want to dig in
a little deeper, I guess. So, the question about how costs were allocated to the different funds. I mean, was there an equation used for the -- How was that spread among the different funds?
5:19:44:
Ed Shikada: It's basically split evenly among the three utilities that will be participating in the trench. The trench costs
were split ...
5:19:54:
Council Member DuBois: So, no -- not based on usage or benefit in any way?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:11 AM
9
5:19:59:
Ed Shikada: Well, again, the -- it was split evenly. Recognizing that there are a variety of ways you could look at it. And, in fact, I would note that if the Council wanted to take another look at the method of allocation among the utilities, that that
could be done separate from the award.
5:20:21:
Council Member DuBois: And there's no electrical work? There's nothing assigned to the electrical?
5:20:26:
Ed Shikada: Not in the trench. The only work is related to traffic signals, which are no longer an electric utility expense.
5:20:33:
Council Member DuBois: OK. Um. And then, I don't know if you know the answer, but is there room for more fiber in these existing fiber conduit on University?
5:20:45:
Ed Shikada: There is not fiber conduit on University. So this would be a new run.
5:20:51:
Council Member DuBois: Oh. OK. I thought there was like fiber like on the other side of the street. Or -- There's nothing
down --
5:20:59:
Dean Batchelor: The only fiber that's on the run right now is just for to the street lights. The traffic signals. That's in the area right now. So ...
5:21:08:
Council Member DuBois: Yeah. So, could you blow more fiber down the ...
5:21:10:
Dean Batchelor: No, those are totally compact. They're full of all fiber. There's no more room in those.
5:21:13
Council Member DuBois: OK. So, um -- So, similar to earlier -- one thing I'm current about -- is this building at the
peak? And, you know, are we paying a lot because of the state of construction right now? So -- Liz and Eric --
### Mayor Kniss and Vice Mayor Filseth were having a sidebar conversation.
I am concerned that we're using about ten percent of our entire Fiber Fund to go about 800 feet.
### 2,748 feet. Still, I agree with the concern.
And, you know, I'm concerned that we're doing this before we get our fiber plan that we asked for coming back to us. You know, if you look at some of the questions I asked, you know, is there a need for this? And the answer was, there's not an
identified need to put fiber here. And, I guess -- One of the other questions, I guess, this idea that we have to go deeper for fiber. I mean, if you're doing an electrical repair, how do you make sure you don't cut into the gas line? I mean, why
couldn't fiber right at the same depth?
5:22:17:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/29/2018 10:11 AM
10
Ed Shikada: I think, as a practical matter, the fiber wouldn't be repaired in that location. I think you'd actually pull it and replace it if it was necessary.
### This isn't answering the question.
4:22:25:
Council Member DuBois: Yeah, but it seemed that there was a concern that you would accidentally cut into it. But if you
were going to do a gas repair or water repair, you don't cut into the other line. Right? For doing a water repair, you don't cut the gas line.
5:22:38:
Ed Shikada: We try not to. But on the way down (laughs), there -- especially under emergency conditions -- it is a risk.
5:22:45:
Council Member DuBois: Yeah.
5:22:46:
Dean Batchelor: I mean, this is going to be the first time that we actually put a fiber conduit, actually, in with gas and
water. It's a joint trench. So, typically, the electric side of the street -- wherever the electric conduits are -- that's where the fiber's located at.
### Interesting. If the City already had a best practices way of doing things -- conduit-for-fiber goes with electric -- why
did staff want this project to do something else?
So, these -- these -- the water main and the gas main, right now, today, they're just going to be offset, a little bit. And there's not a lot of width in that trench line. So, fiber -- Don't want to put the fiber up on top, for life-support. Don't really
want to get into a situation if there is a gas leak or if there's a water main break, then we would -- did not want to hit that fiber line. So we wanted to put it below those two services.
5:23:28:
Council Member DuBois: OK. So, again, you know, the idea of talking about "dig-once" really is a way to lower
costs. And I'm just concerned about how much this pretty short stretch of fiber is going to cost us. And we don't really have a "dig-once" ordinance yet. So I don't think we should necessarily blindly follow this idea, when the cost doesn't
make sense. I do think it kind of points to the need to consider microtrenching. San Francisco is a very urban environment. They passed a microtrenching ordinance to get their fiber costs down. That's probably as complicated as
our environment, if not more complicated.
And then, I know, like East Palo Alto is just moving forward, and they're doing about 10,000 feet, you know, versus 800 feet, of fiber for something like $300,000.
So, I would like to make a motion. And, basically, it would be to remove the fiber optics from this project.
5:24:27:
Mayor Kniss: Give us -- give us a price on that, Tom.
5:24:40:
Council Member DuBois: Ah, ...
5:24:40:
Mayor Kniss: I mean, remove the fiber optics, what are we talking about?
.-I
MONTH
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER
NOVEMBER
DECEMBER
TOTAL
WEBSTER WOOD APARTMENTS
MARKET UNITS 2017
#OF UNITS $25/UNIT TOTAL
18 $ 25.00 $ 450.00
19 $ 25.00 $ 475.00
19 $ 25.00 $ 475.00
19 $ 25.00 $ 475.00
19 $ 25.00 $ 475.00
20 $ 25.00 $ 500.00
20 $ 25.00 $ 500.00
20 $ 25.00 $ 500.00
20 $ 25.00 $ 500.00
20 $ 25.00 $ 500.00
20 $ 25.00 $ 500.00
20 $ 25.00 $ 500.00
$ 5,850.00
'
Payment#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
WWCityPayments 1/25/18
WEBSTER WOOD APARTMENTS
PAYMENTS TO CITY OF PALO AL TO
FOR MARKET-RA TE UNITS
Year Amount
1982 $3,625
1983 5,575
1984 5,175
1985 6,775
1986 6,600
1987 6,550
1988 6,650
1989 7,325
1990 7,675
1991 9,425
1992 9,600
1993 9,250
1994 8,950
1995 8,650
1996 8,300
1997 8,475
1998 8,900
1999 9,650
2000 8,875
2001 9,525
2002 8,750
2003 8,350
2004 5,850
2005 5,625
2006 6,175
2007 6,000
2008 5,625
2009 5,250
2010 4,475
2011 4,425
2012 5,500
2013 5,450
2014 5,175
2015 5,650
2016 5,875
2017 5,850
Accumulated Total
$3,625
9,200
14,375
21,150
27,750
34,300
40,950
48,275
55,950
65,375
74,975
84,225
93,175
101,825
110,125
118,600
127,500
137,150
146,025
155,550
164,300
172,650
178,500
184,125
190,300
196,300
201,925
207,175
211,650
216,075
221,575
227,025
232,200
237,850
243,725
249,575
"' .
SSBPPE Commission -Agenda 11.16.2017
Page 2 of 2
Discussion Items
1. Discuss how to connect the Healthy Berkeley funded agencies with information
about the new Default Drink Policy (Commissioner Scheider) -Attachment 3a-b
2. Discuss Lifelong Medical Care's intentions to utilize the unspent $11,000 in mini-
grant funds. (Commissioner Browne)-Attachment 4
Information Items
1. Updated SSB Tax Revenue Memo -Attachment 5
2. Approved minutes from 9/21/2017 meeting -Attachment 6
Announcements
CONFLICT OF INTEREST INFORMATION: City commissioners, pursuant to Government Code section 1090, are
responsible for recusing themselves from all commission discussions and actions in which they may have a conflict of
interest. If your affiliation, paid or unpaid, with other agencies has changed since the last meeting of this commission,
your ability to participate in commission activities may have changed. Individual guidance is available from the City
Attorney's Office (CAO). Commissioners are encouraged to consult with the CAO if they have questions, concerns, or
would like clarification about matters related to potential conflicts of interest.
The CAO may be reached at:
Email: attorney@citvofberkeley.info
TEL: (510) 981-6950
TDD: (510) 981-6903, FAX: (510) 981-6960
2180 Milvia Street 4th Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704
Office Hours: Mon-Fri, 8am-5pm
There wlll be no meeting In December, 2017. Please visit the City of Berkeley's SSBPPE Commission webpage
for updates on meeting dates in 2018.
AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT DISCLAIMER: This meeting is being held
in a wheelchair accessible location. To request a disability-related
accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or
services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at 981-6346 (V)
or 981-6345 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date.
Please refrain from wearing scented products to this meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS ACCESS INFORMATION: Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions or committees
are public record and will become part of the City's electronic records, which are accessible through the City's
website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if
included in any communication to a City board, commission or committee, will become part of the public record. If
you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver
communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the secretary of the relevant board, commission or
committee. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that
information in your communication. Please contact the commission secretary for further information. Any writings or
documents provided to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for
public inspection at SOUTH Berkeley Senior Center located at 2939 Ellis Street. Berkeley during regular business
hours. The Commission Agenda and Minutes may be viewed on the City of Berkeley website:
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/commissions.
1/29/2018 FW: Sugary Drink Policy Workshop -Friday, 2/9 -event time change
~.·
To reserve your spot, please RSVP by February 2nd by completing a short form at bjt.ly/sdpwork.
NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is
intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are
prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must
delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return
email.
https://www.mail.fhda.edu/owa/?ae=ltem&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAACA3hyJ%2bFrWSJQfWrtXRFLIBwB6Dsytq6%2fNTpnzVdh%2bC1fmAAUfy37YAAA... 3/3
1/29/2018 Albany, California, Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax, Measure 01 (November 2016)-Ballotpedia
Shall an ordinance enacting a one cent per ounce general tax, providing
" approximately $223,000 annually with no expiration date, on the distribution of
sugar-sweetened beverages and sweeteners used to sweeten such drinks, but
exempting: (1) sweeteners typically used by consumers and distributed to grocery
stores; (2) drinks and sweeteners distributed to small retailers; (3) milk products,
100% juice, baby formula, alcohol, or drinks taken for medical reasons, be
adopted?l21
Impartial analysis
"
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Albany City
Attorney:
https://ballotpedia.org/Albany,_ Califomia,_ Sugar-Sweetened_Beverage _Tax,_ Measure_ 01_(November_2016)
Local business tax on the
ballot
November 8, 2016 ballot
measures in California
Alameda County, California
ballot measures
City tax on the ballot
See also
Albany, California
218
1/29/2018 Albany, California, Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax, Measure 01 (November 2016) -Ballotpedia
The City Council has placed before the voters the question whether to approve an ordinance enacting a permanent tax
" of one cent ($0.01) per ounce on the distribution in Albany of sugarsweetened beverages and the added-calorie
sweeteners used to make them. The tax on added-calorie sweeteners would be calculated based on the number of
ounces of sweetened beverage that would typically be produced using that sweetener. The tax would be payable by the
distributor, not the customer. A full copy of the ordinance text is printed in these ballot materials.
Beverages
Sugar sweetened beverages whose distribution would be subject to the tax would include sugar-sweetened beverages,
like soda, energy drinks, and presweetened tea, that contain at least 2 calories per fluid ounce. Certain beverages
would not be subject to the tax:
• Baby formula
• Beverages in which milk is the primary ingredient
• Liquids sold for use for weight reduction as a meal replacement
• Medical beverages (beverages used as oral nutritional therapy or oral rehydration electrolyte solution for infants and
children),
• Beverages containing only natural fruit and vegetable juice
• Alcoholic beverages.
Added-calorie sweeteners
Added-calorie sweeteners would include any edible product that is perceived as sweet and adds calories, and is used
to make sugar-sweetened beverages, including but not limited to sucrose, fructose, glucose, other sugars, and high
fructose corn syrup. Added-calorie sweeteners would not include natural, concentrated, or reconstituted fruit or
vegetable juice or any combination thereof.
Applicability and exemptions
The tax would apply to:
• distribution of sugar-sweetened beverages to stores and restaurants;
• distribution of sweeteners to restaurants; and
• distribution of sweeteners to stores where they are used to make sugar sweetened beverages for customers.
The tax would not apply to:
• distribution of sweeteners to food stores;
•distribution of sugar sweetened beverages or sweeteners to small retailers -those with less than $100,000 in annual
gross receipts.
Expenditure of Tax Proceeds and Annual Audit
Because this measure does not legally restrict the use of tax revenue for any particular purposes, it is classified as a
"general tax". The proposed Ordinance requires the City Council to conduct an annual process for soliciting advisory
recommendations from a variety of organizations and individuals regarding expenditure of the tax proceeds. The City's
independent auditors would provide an annual report reviewing the collection, management and expenditure of tax
revenues.
Duration of Tax
The proposed ordinance does not contain an expiration date.
A "Yes" vote is a vote in favor of the tax. A "No" vote is a vote against the tax. This measure would be approved if a "
majority of the votes cast on it are "Yes" votes.!2l
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here. I Support
Supporters
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:l31
https://ballotpedia.org/Albany,_ California,_ Sugar-Sweetened_ Beverage_ Tax,_ Measure_ 01_(November_2016)
-Albany City Attorneyl31
3/8
1/29(2018 Albany, California, Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax, Measure 01 (November 2016) -Ballotpedia
• Jon Guhl, Albany Restaurant Owner
• Robert S. Lieber, R.N.
• Dr. Patricia Low, Member, Board of Education, Albany Unified School District
• Rochelle Nason, Council Member, City of Albany
• Dr. lmmi Song, D.D.S., M.S.
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:l31
"
Please vote YES to protect our children's health.
Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that consumption of sugary drinks causes widespread health problems,
starting in childhood. In addition to diabetes, obesity, tooth decay and heart disease are also linked to sugary drink
consumption. Two of every five Americans are now predicted to develop diabetes in their lifetimes as the epidemic
spreads.
To help address this, this measure places a 1 cent per ounce tax on distributors (not on consumers) on the volume of
high-calorie, low-nutrition sugary drinks and syrups they sell. It does not tax natural fruit or vegetable juices, milk
products, baby formula, or drinks taken for health reasons. It is NOT a sales tax.
It is estimated that the tax may generally reduce the availability of sugary drinks in Albany and help shift people to
healthier beverages. Additionally, the measure will generate needed revenue for Albany that can be spent on physical
fitness, health and nutrition programs, or on other priorities identified by residents.
These activities can save lives by preventing diabetes and other sugary drink related disease. It is estimated that the
tax will raise $223,000 a year or more.
By passing this measure the City of Albany will unite with the efforts of neighboring cities in our region. Berkeley passed
and successfully implemented a similar measure in 2015 that is now funding nutrition and health programs, and
Oakland and San Francisco are voting on similar measures in this election.
This measure requires the City Council to hold an annual public process to consider how best to spend the funds raised
by tax. Participation by public health professionals, a representative from the schools, several city bodies is called for.
Vote YES for health.121
I Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:l31
• Sanjeev Dhungel, Owner, Everest Kitchen
• Jas Sikand, Owner, Albany Hill Mini Mart
• Sarata Mike Uong, Owner, Royal Grand Coffee
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:l31
https://ballotpedia.org/Albany,_ Califomia,_ Sugar-Sweetened_Beverage _Tax,_ Measure_ 01_(November_2016)
"
4/8
1/29/2018 Albany, California, Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax, Measure 01 (November 2016)-Ballotpedia
1. Alameda County, "November 8, 2016 General Election Local Measures," accessed October 12, 2016
2. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
3. Alameda County, "Measure 01," accessed October 28, 2016
Ballotpedia includes 264,763 encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and
researchers. To contact our editorial staff, click here. To report an error, click here. For media inquiries, you can reach us here.
To support our continued expansion, please contact us here.
https://ballotpedia .org/Albany,_ Califomia,_ Sugar-Sweetened_Beverage _ Tax,_Measure_ 01 _(November _2016) 618
Date:
The Honorable Scott Wiener
California State Senate
State Capitol Building, Room 4066
Sacramento, CA 95814
VIA FAX: 916-651-4911
***CITY LETTERHEAD***
RE: SB 827 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning.
Notice of Opposition (as introduced 1/3/18)
Dear Senator Wiener:
'
:, COUNCIL.J4 Ee..T.J NG ;; t-,,27-to
,. [ ] ~ Before Meeting
·"1 f ...,--Received at Meeting
The City/Town of opposes SB 827 (Wiener), which would exempt certain housing projects
from locally developed and adopted height limitations, densities, parking requirements, and design review
standards.
Specifically, SB 827 would undermine locally adopted General Plans, Housing Elements (which are
certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development), and Sustainable Community
Strategies (SCS). SB 827 allows private for-profit housing developers and transit agencies to determine
housing densities, parking requirements, and design review standards within one-half mile of a "major
transit stop," or along a "high-quality transit corridor" which could be miles away from an actual bus
stop. Under existing law, cities are already required to zone for densities at levels necessary to meet their
entire Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Additionally, SB 827 would provide developers a
means to generate additional profits without any requirement to build affordable housing.
[If you have SQecific exam les of the im act of this bill on your city/town, please include here.]
Exempting large-scale developments from General Plans, Housing Elements, and zoning ordinances goes
against the principles oflocal democracy and public engagement. Public hearings allow members of the
community to inform their representative of their support or concerns when planning documents are
developed. Public engagement also often leads to better projects. Disregarding such processes will
increase public distrust in government and could lead to additional ballot measures dealing with growth
management.
For these reasons, the City/Town of ___ opposes SB 827.
Sincerely,
N
ITLE
CITY/TOWN of -------
cc: Your Senator & Assembly Member
Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, FAX: (916) 445-2209
Senate Governance and Finance Committee, FAX: (916) 322-0298
Nancy Hall Bennett, Regional Public Affairs Manager, nbennett@cacities.org
Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, cityletters@cacities.org
SENATE BILL
Introduced by Senator Wiener
(Principal coauthor: Senator Skinner)
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Ting)
January 3, 2018
No. 827
An act to add Section 65917.7 to the Government Code, relating to
land use.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 827, as introduced, Wiener. Planning and zoning: transit-rich
housing bonus.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires, when an applicant proposes
a housing development within thejurisdiction of a local government,
that the city, county, or city and county provide the developer with a
density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production
of lower income housing units or for the donation of land within the
development if the developer, among other things, agrees to construct
a specified percentage of units for very low, low-, or moderate-income
households or qualifying residents.
This bill would authorize a transit-rich housing project to receive a
transit-rich housing bonus. The bill would define a transit-rich housing
project as a residential development project the parcels of which are al I
within a % mile radius of a major transit stop or a 1/4 mile radius of a
high-qua I ity transit corridor, as those terms are further defined. The bi 11
would exempt a project awarded a housing opportunity bonus from
various requirements, including maximum controls on residential density
or floor area ratio, minimum automobile parking requirements, design
standards that restrict the applicant's ability to construct the maximum
number of units consistent with any applicable building code, and
maximum height limitations, as provided.
99
SB827 -2-
The bi 11 would declare that its provisions address a matter of statewide
concern and apply equally to all cities and counties in this state,
including a charter city.
By adding to the duties of local planning officials, this bill would
impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act
for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that this act
2 addresses a matter of statewide concern and shal I apply equally to
3 all cities and counties in this state, including charter cities.
4 SEC. 2. Section 65917.7 is added to the Government Code, to
5 read:
6 65917.7. (a) As used in this section, the following definitions
7 shal I apply:
8 (1) "Block" has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (a)
9 of Section 5870 of the Streets and Highways Code.
10 (2) "High-quality transit corridor" means a corridor with fixed
11 route bus service that has service intervals of no more than 15
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
minutes during peak commute hours.
(3) "Transit-rich housing project" means a residential
development project the parcels of which are al I within a one-half
mile radius of a major transit stop or a one-quarter mile radius of
a high-quality transit corridor. A project shall be deemed to be
within a one-half mile radius of a major transit stop or a one-quarter
mile radius of a high-quality transit corridor if both of the following
apply:
(A) Al I parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent
of their area outside of a one-half mile radius of a major transit
stop or a one-quarter mile radius of a high-quality transit corridor.
(B) No more than 10 percent of the residential units or 100 units,
whichever is less, of the project are outside of a one-half mile
99
-3-SB 827
1 radius of a major transit stop or a one-quarter mile radius of a
2 high-quality transit corridor.
3 (4) "Major transit stop" has the same meaning as defined in
4 Section 21064.3 of the Pub I ic Resources Code.
5 (b) Notwithstanding any local ordinance, general plan element,
6 specific plan, charter, or other local law, policy, resolution, or
7 regulation, a transit-rich housing project shal I receive a transit-rich
8 housing bonus which shall exempt the project from all of the
9 following:
10 (1) Maximum controls on residential density or floor area ratio.
11 (2) Minimum automobile parking requirements.
12 (3) Any design standard that restricts the applicant's abi I ity to
13 construct the maximum number of units consistent with any
14 applicable building code.
15 (4) (A) If the transit-rich housing project is within either a
16 one-quarter mile radius of a high-quality transit corridor or within
17 one block of a major transit stop, any maximum height I imitation
18 that is less than 85 feet, except in cases where a parcel facing a
19 street that is less than 45 feet wide from curb to curb, in which
20 case the maximum height shall not be less than 55 feet. If the
21 project is exempted from the local maximum height limitation, the
22 governing height limitation for a transit-rich housing project shall
23 be 85 feet or 55 feet, as provided in this subparagraph.
24 (8) If the transit-rich housing project is within one-half mile of
25 a major transit stop, but does not meet the criteria specified in
26 subparagraph (A), any maximum height limitation that is less than
27 55 feet, except in cases where a parcel facing a street that is less
28 than 45 feet wide from curb to curb, in which case the maximum
29 height shall not be less than 45 feet. If the project is exempted
30 from the local maximum height limitation, the governing height
31 limitation for a transit-rich housing project shall be 55 feet or 45
32 feet, as provided in this subparagraph.
33 (C) For purposes of this paragraph, if a parcel has street frontage
34 on two or more different streets, the height maximum pursuant to
35 this paragraph shall be based on the widest street.
36 SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
37 Section 6 of Article XI 11 8 of the California Constitution because
38 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service
39 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
99
SB 827 -4-
1 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section
2 17556 of the Government Code.
0
99
RUTAN
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
David P. Lanferman
Direct Dial: (650) 320-1507
E-mail: dlanferman@rutan.com
January 26, 2018
'
COUNCIL MEE.TING
1-,:Jtf-J"
[ ] Placed Before Meeting
[ ~ceived at Meeting
VIA E-MAIL
Rick W. Jarvis, Esq.
Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson, LLP
492 Ninth Street, Suite 310
Oakland CA 94607
Re: Edgewood SC LLC v. Citv of Palo Alto et al. -Settlement Proposal
Dear Mr. Jarvis:
We understand that the City Council's agenda for Monday, January 29 includes a closed
session for the Council to consider possible settlement of this litigation and resolution of the
related issues. We provide this letter to facilitate the Council's consideration of the issues.
As a starting point, the Court's Decision of December 15, 2017, ruled that Edgewood did
not violate the PC Zoning Ordinances, which do not require continuous operations:
Petitioner was not required under the terms of the ordinance to
ensure the actual operation of a grocery store on an uninterrupted
basis.
(Decision, at p. 11, lines 6 -7.)
Petitioner did not violate PC Ordinance No. 5224 by not ensuring
the continuous operation of a grocery store at the subject property.
Consequently, [the City] improperly assessed penalties against
Petitioner as a matter of law and the Administrative Decision/Order
concluding otherwise was erroneous.
(Decision, at p. 12, lines 11 -14.)
Rutan & Tucker, LLP I Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94306-9814 I 650-320-1500 I Fax 650-320-9905
Orange County I Palo Alto I www.rutan.com
2786/033S63-0002
I 192S286.2 aOl/26/18
RUTAN
RUTAN 6 TIJ.C'MER LLLI'
Rick W. Jarvis, Esq.
January 26, 2018
Page2
As the Court strongly suggested that the Parties settle the remaining issues in this
litigation, we are reiterating a settlement proposal on the following terms:
• Petitioner would withdraw and dismiss its challenge to Citations Nos. 1 -56, and
would not seek recovery of $382,250 paid thereunder or interest accrued.
Petitioner requests that the City direct these funds to benefit the local community
that Edgewood Shopping Center serves.
• Consistent with the Judge's Decision, the City would refund Petitioner $318,250
paid under Citations Nos. 57 -72 plus interest (interest to be donated by
Petitioner to the community), and would withdraw Citations No. 73 -78.
Petitioner requests that the City direct the interest amount to benefit the local
community that Edgewood Shopping Center serves.
• Remaining causes of action would be dismissed and Respondents would not seek
an appeal of the Decision.
All Parties and members of the community appear to appreciate the successful efforts to
find and support The Market at Edgewood. Settlement at this time has the advantage of allowing
the City to avoid further expenditure of public funds, and would eliminate exposure to potential
award of additional damages and attorneys' fees. We believe this is a sensible opportunity for the
Parties to resolve all of these issues.
We would request that copies of this letter are provided to the Council and appropriate
members of the City Staff before the January 29 closed session.
DPL:abr
2786/033563-0002
11925286.2 aOl/26118
Sincerely,
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
David P. Lanferman
South Bay Towns -Bay Area: Resilient By Design Challenge
& Nichol,
Magnusson
Klemencic
Associates, SF
BAY National
Estuarine
Research
Reserve,
Romberg-
Tiburon Center,
SFSU, Andrea
Baker
Consulting,
James Lima
Planning+
Development,
The Bay
Institute,
SeArc/ECOncret
e, HT Harvey
and Associates,
Playhou.se
Animation, and
Adventure
Pictures.
UPDATES
Furthermore, California's complex ownership of the interconnected and
interdependent Salt Ponds create a challenging puzzle for holistic approaches to
addressing sea-level rise, flood risk and ecological resilience in the South Bay.
Completing "resilience" in one place has the potential to magnify stresses and
vulnerabilities of neighboring places - a holistic, coordinated, large scale effort is
needed to be successful.
WHAT
The Field Operations Team sees the South Bay as an opportunity to leverage
design solutions that focus on addressing the various connectivity, equity and
environmental issues in the South Bay. To ensure resilience efforts in the South
Bay are successful, the Field Operations team will work to create a holistic and
multi-scale approach that includes East Palo Alto, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, and
Mountain View.
Additionally, the Field Operations Team will carefully consider how robust, natural
ecological systems of the South Bay and thoughtfully planned urbanization can
address how the local communities relate to the Bay and to one another.
http://www.resilientbayarea.org/south-bay-towns
3 of6
1/29/18, 6: 15 PM "'
Herb Borock
P. 0. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
January 29, 2018
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
JANUARY 29, 2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
MOTT MACDONALD RAIL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Dear City Council:
On January 25, 2018, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP
No. 171057) for Rail Program Management Services.
Mott MacDonald is the current contractor under a contract signed
October 4, 2016, for a two-year term. (Contract No. Cl6163563.)
Mott MacDonald is also the contractor for two Station Area
Planning contracts (Madera and Tulare) funded by the California
High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) .
Mott MacDonald has a potential conflict of interest in working
for the City of Palo Alto, because it receives funds from CHSRA
that are laundered through local agencies.
Mott MacDonald
on rail issues
Sincerely,
~
Herb Borock
Attachments:
should not be working for the City of Palo Alto
that include a corridor to ?~CHSRA.
(?"a.-'d h:>r c!J. ..d •
CHSRA Sustainability Report, December 2017, page 25, Exhibit 5.0.
~ pJtG.e!\
r/:;i-
TCAG Cross Valley Rail Corridor Plan, February 8, 2016, "II.
Purpose", second paragraph. @ f PrGt.es)
CHSRA April 4, 2016, Press Release, last paragraph. (l P~e)
Station Communities
and Communitld Benefit
One of the underlying premises of Proposition 1 A -which was approved by voters in 2008 -was that the
high-speed rail system would link California's major population centers and reinforce existing downtown
cores, while enhancing connectivity to existing rail and transit service. These key community-focused
priorities are reflected in the work of the Authority.
To further these objectives, the Authority has entered into Station Area Planning (SAP) agreements with a
number of station cities and local agencies to help support land use planning, access, and zoning changes
to achieve highest and best use of land nearest to the stations. These agreements allow the Authority to
work closely with station jurisdictions and other mobility service providers to promote city regeneration
opportunities and enable more sustainable district-scale development near the proposed stations. Ideally,
the partnerships developed through station area planning will evolve to serve future development. These
partnerships are vital to implementing urban regeneration on a greater scale than what any individual
organization could accomplish.
Through the station area planning agreements, the Authority helped create intermodal working groups (IWG)
that include local governments and transit service providers. The IWGs will help inform important decisions
around stations and identify funds for first and last mile connectivity projects that will better link nearby
sidewalks and bike paths to stations.
Exhibit 5.0: Station Area Planning Status {as of June 2017)
LAND USE AND ACCESS
CITY SAP FUNDING AGREEMENT CONSULTANT(S) TOOLS, UPDATES &
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Fresno 2012-2018 AECOM 2018
Gilroy 2014-2019 Place Works 2019
Merced 2013-2019 Mott MacDonald 2019
Palmdale 2015-2018 Parsons 2018
Burbank 2015-2019 AECOM 2019
Bakersfield 2015-2018 SOM 2018
San Jose 2016-2018 Kimley Horn 2018 HR&A
Santa Clara VTA 2016-2018 AECOM 2018
Tulare County 2016-2018 Mott MacDonald 2018 Association of Governments
Millbrae TBD TBD TBD
Sustainability Report ii December 2017 25
Tulare County Association of Governments
Request for Proposals for
Cross Valley Rail Corridor Plan
February 8, 2016
I. Background
Tulare County is located in the Central San Joaquin Valley with a population of approximately
450,000. TCAG was formed by a joint powers agreement in 1971; that agreement was executed by the
County of Tulare and the eight incorporated cities: Dinuba, Exeter, Farmersville, Lindsay, Porterville,
Tulare, Visalia, and Woodlake. In 1982, TCAG was designated the Metropolitan Planning Organization
for Tulare County. The designation gave TCAG the responsibility for the continuous, cooperative, and
comprehensive transportation planning process in Tulare County as required by the federal government.
TCAG is responsible for developing the Regional Transportation Plan, Federal Transportation
Improvement Program, and Regional Transportation Improvement Program. TCAG's Board of
Governors is made up of 17 members which includes: one member form each city, five members from the
Tulare County Board of Supervisors, and three members appointed at-large. TCAG's transportation
planning staff includes 7 Tulare County employees to carry out the transportation and planning functions
ofTCAG.
The California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) is responsible for the planning, designing,
building and operation of the first high-speed rail system in the nation. The California High-Speed Rail
System (System) will connect the mega-regions of the State, contribute to economic development and a
cleaner environment, create jobs and preserve agricultural and protected lands. By 2029, the System will
run from San Francisco to the Los Angeles basin in under three hours at speeds capable of over 200 miles
per hour. The System will eventually extend to Sacramento and San Diego, totaling 800 miles with up to
24 stations.
The Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) is requesting proposals from qualified
firms to prepare a Cross Valley Rail Corridor Plan along the existing rail corridor between Huron to the
west and Porterville to the east, connecting the proposed Hanford High Speed Rail station with
communities along this route. Existing rail facilities and Right of Way provide the backbone structure of
a potential passenger rail service. The proposed plan should include site identification and other planning
accommodations for passenger rail stations in each community, areas where double tracking is needed to
accommodate the logistics of moving freight rail through the system at the same time and rail
improvements where rail is deficient or missing. In the end, the plan should be a complete vision and
plan for a regional passenger system. Implementation and construction would be immediately sought
after using federal, state and other funds once the plan is adopted.
II. Purpose
In partnership with the Authority, the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) will
undertake a Station Connectivity Planning effort (the Project) associated with the Kingsffulare Regional
High Speed Rail Station. This effort will inform the design of the High-Speed Rail Station as well as
enable cities and county communities to promote Transit Oriented Development (TOD), economic
development, encourage revitalization, and facilitate growth in surrounding areas in support of the High-
Speed Rail investment. A primary result will be to identify enhancements to multi-modal access
connections between the High-Speed Rail Station and the communities along the intended route. The
Project will define how the proposed High-Speed Rail station will be accessed by multimodal connections
and include an evaluation of TOD, economic development and sustainability opportunities in affected
communities.
The plan will be funded largely by Station Area Planning funds from the California High Speed Rail
Authority, as well as from local contributions. The purpose of Station Area Planning funds is to provide
funding assistance to High-Speed Rail station cities to prepare for the economic development and land
use changes in their communities that will result from the addition of a High-Speed Rail station within
their region. Planning for this type of development is important to the ridership success and development
of the High-Speed Rail system. These Station Area Planning funds provided through the Authority are
intended to support local governments to initiate station area planning and partnering with the Authority.
The work will support and guide design efforts associated with development of the High-Speed Rail
system.
This Project shall result in a Cross Valley Rail Corridor Plan that is consistent with and supportive of the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) grant
guidelines; regional planning efforts required by Senate Bill (SB) 375; the Authority's programmatic and,
as available, project environmental documents; and adopted Station Area Development Policies. It is
intended that this process include public participation to involve the local community and interested
stakeholders in the planning process.
III. Estimated Selection Timeline
Feb 8, 2016:
Feb 25, 2016:
Mar 3, 2016:
Mar 14, 2016:
Mar 30, 2016:
Apr 11, 2016:
Sep 20, 2017:
Distribution of Request for Proposals
Inquiry Deadline (no questions after this date)
Proposals Due to TCAG by 12:00 p.m. (Noon)
Interviews
Consultant Selected by TCAG Board
Work Begins
Project Completion
IV. Budget and Invoicing
The budget for tasks outlined in this agreement is set at $600,000. Invoices with a breakdown of which
tasks have been completed and the percentage of each task completed should be submitted at the end of
each month. All invoices must include a description of work completed and the hourly rate and
expenditures for each employee. Direct expenses should include receipts or an acceptable form of backup.
Ten (10) percent shall be retained from each invoice until the completion of the contract. This retention
will be released to the contractor within 30 days of completion of contract and contract deliverables to the
reasonable satisfaction ofTCAG.
The project budget and scope can be amended up to 50% for additional tasks desired by TCAG.
Please note that funding availability for the project is contingent upon a signed agreement between the
Tulare County Association of Governments and the California High Speed Rail Authority.
23 January 2018
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Office of the Clerk
70 West Hedding Street
10th Floor
San Jose, California 95110
Board of Supervisors:
I ~.; .~ ~t'i! ~.1i I
t:"'t... ,~ ..... ~-..:. \.~ I
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
18 JAN 26 AH IQ: 09
Page 1of4
Please note, that even though I sent the initial correspondence to the City of Palo Alto, I never
intended to ever ask them for the payment which eventually I assume will be forthcoming from the
County of Santa Clara. What I wish for you, is for your public and private employees to enjoy the
benefits of Privatized Social Security. There will never, ever be any money given to me for learning a
little bit more about this!
Albert B. Franklin ~d(). 6-~
2555 Hazelwood Way
Palo Alto, California 94303
22 January 2018
Pensions to Squeeze the City's Budget
City of Palo Alto, City Hall
City Manager
7th Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
City Manager:
A high school friend of mine's, whose maternal uncle that grew up in Palo Alto once wrote a book about
his many life's experience. Back when Parkey Sharkey attended Palo Alto high school, admittedly,
where those now much cheaper than Atherton dirt bygone day to day employment within the hub of
https://3c-lxa.mail.com/mail/client/mailbody/tmai 150c8316f9dcba0c/true 1/23/2018
Page 2of4
Stanford which comparitively was also a place which far was far more inexpensive to both live and to
gain an education than it is today.
More teachers could easily afford the luxury of buying a home, as compared and contrasted to today.
Cubberley High was in full academic operation, alongside the then Los Alto High which today is better
known as Henry H. Gunn High.
While living in Modesto, California, my interest was once piked with my trying to have just a
basic understanding, as to exactly why there are now today only three counties in the United States:
all of them seemingly are in Texas, where Brazoria, Galveston and Matagroda County's
employees deeply enjoy privatized, ( http://c-span.org/video/?16529-1/social-security-reform) Social
Security. Might this be the, therefore, why when I tried to offer counties of this State who should all
be now be in direct connection with a more up to date performance of pensions: why they may think
that no such place, is even on this place called earth?
Back when my family and I, first moved to and then lived in Mountain View, wild greens grew in
abundance, jack rabbits were everywhere, and an jntegral part of life in the Bay Area, which back then,
it was far more reasonable to live for both rich and poor alike. Though we attended church in Redwood
City, and Greyhound was the normal transportation mode instead of county bus systems in oder to get
around with today. Back then, though, everybody walked, and community colleges were filled to the
brim. Before public transportation, enrollment at the College of San Mateo peaked around the 80,000
level per year, but today, well .... Today, more elementary aged students attend in San Mateo County's
Community Colleges, and overall enrollment is so low that I find it hard to even recognize what may be
viewed as to why an academic would ever want to make a genuine setting of any real means test
today!
What might have worked, in the not so distant past, may not always be what is most needed here
under the New Economy. While we are about to forever make a move into the New Year, where in the
not that far off future, the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles, on 21 January 2018, who will be
discussing: :THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION IN LOS ANGELES."
Where the comings and goings of finance are always concerned, at the State level, as many of their
employees, had to discover the hard way that even when you work, for the man,sometimes there are
truly ways and means by which to find yourself really in the dog house.
On page 6, Opinion section, of the Palo Alto Daily Post, a Los Alto Hills citizen wrote: "Dear Editor: A
Lot is written about CalPERS not getting the returns they forecast. This year, the Dow is up 25%,
Nasdaq 30% and the S&P is up 20%. Seems to me that if CalPERS did nothing, with their portfolio,
they would have gotten returns in the 20% range. Now, if they were as good as they think they are
they should have returned 25% or more. Doing nothing or doing something this year is going to get
the portfolio managers one hell of a bonus. What is the contribution, to the retirement fund going to
be?" Those who feel the strain, CalPERS employees, and retired State veterans, may now wish to
double check their financial contribution: http://GetASecondOpinion.com and http://FFEBA.net.
With the city's financial concern which has been debated for quite some time now by the Palo Alto Daily
Post's corespondent Elaine Goodman whom it seems has two which I am aware of stories on this
topic: "City Pension Woes Hit Home as Shortfall Hits $405 Million," which saw circulation in September
of 2017, and then new report was published on 18 December 2017, "Pensions to Squeeze the City's
Budget." I a free and open market, Cal PERS risks its forever loss of those employees who may now be
1 able to discover that there area indeed practicing fiduciary pension minded plans that either produce
not only stronger or return on investments for their State regulated clients.
While mass group identifications make life a little bit easier to better define, where those High Interest,
Not Rich Yet: HINRYs who work hard all of their life, as compared and contrasted with today where
they seem come right out high school, and then make about $300.00 an hour. Which seem to come to
about $90,000.00 a month. On the other end of this spectrum, are the seldom discussed Street
HINRYs who may be thought of as irresponsibly reckless. The Street HINRYs might make a ton of
money, yet it will never relate into very many of them ever owning much of anything of real value, but
in the New Economy, that proverbial swamp is virtually nil when it comes to the day to day generation
of the Vig.
Let's face it, the dollar, as we knew it will very soon become a very much missed thing of the not to
distant past! While governmental outfits struggle with their ways and means in order to deal with the
https://3c-lxa.mail.com/mail/client/mailbody/tmai l 50c8316f9dcba0c/true 1/23/2018
Page 3of4
way of of control homlessness on a national playing field, just where does that bottomless pit end in
the real world? There is actually only one real answer, to that problem, for this means that
governments everywhere must adopt a clear cut program which incorporates a proactive program in
which to get everyone not only with gains making work, but also affordable housing, and everything
which goes along side each and also everything else.
Stated another way, the Hammer and Coffin Society, under the Old Economy could have easily gotten
both sororities and fraternities on a global scale to bend to their will! However, with money today
which is 97% digital where it will ultimately make paying the weekly po-po a sticky wicked indeed ....
Think about it, a Street HINRY today can't even plan an escape out of lockup without the entire
plot first being recorded.
How does one slip a mickey, and then bribe the entire process, while casting fake facts against a judge
in the media? Whose got the vigorish that clears all of the hurdles, when the ultimate bill has got to be
paid?
I Once upon a time, there was penny candy, and the price for a ticket to any local movie theater, for an
adult was just fifty cents, while kids were able to attend for fifteen cents less. With the weekly addition
to digital movies, virtual reality, and high tech surround sound the price today will be nothing short of a
hundred dollars per family, so don't forget to pay that moneyless parking meter. Today,
global governments are gearing up to rebuild the statewide transportation system: and yet, where are
they even thinking about SkyCar? Then again, when the Japanese first announced that they were
about to introduce an automobile (http://qenepax.com/ which runs on water, as that island nation
went on to experience a catastrophic nuclear reactor meltdown which appears to have totally missed
1 the real point in this matter all together.
Fox News online, ran a story on 25 December 2017 which clearly reflects what for some is a
much clearer peek into the not that distant future where the Information Age is the rule of time:
WOMAN HIT WITH $284 BILLION ELECTRIC BILL, and yet, here we are still relying on water power
generated electricity even though that form of power needs to be seriously reviewed. Transportation
systems do need to be rebuilt, but should they become over regulated, under set laws, which currently
do not reflect the way out of step population growth?
While East Palo Alto has for as long as anybody can remember, they have struggled with the lack
of massive employability skills level, in place in order to boost that city's productivity while, for
some, Bay Area rents seem to be way out of control. The 10 January 2018 Palo Alto Daily Post, page,
1, as it was then reported by their staff writer, Emily Mibach where she wrote that, "Residents Protest
Rent Increases --Landlord: New Rates Are Still Below Market," and yet, instead of the City of
1 Redwood City not falling into the very same inventive trap, they appear to be more than willing to do
so .....
Might it be a little bit wiser to allow any real building to maybe become permitted to go on where any
given city's off business hours have begun? Those who garner these most coveted construction
contracts should have the track record which reflects a very much in demand thought leadership.
1 What we see today is man made gridlock, instead of the usual day to day flow of business. With the
now forgotten governmental design of Grand Boulevard where we may be able to see what is
transpiring both up and down the El Camino Real: from one end to the the other!
While financial matters are once again about to really heat up, one might have assumed that by now
educational levels statewide might have by now grown a little bit more compared and contrasted to the
academic levels they appear to be as of this very moment. 11 January 2018's San Mateo Daily
Journal, page 1, as it was then reported by their team staff reporters: Kathleen Ronayne and Jonathan
J. Cooper, "Brown's Final Budget: Governor's Plan Proposes $132 Billion in Spending," and yet, with a
very weak 1 % State funding annual graduation rate one may wish to wander a bit as to what all this
spending is actually buying us in real terms?
Instead of SkyCar, for public transportation, we seem to be stuck on far slower modes of
transportation? Where countywide bus systems are maintained by mechanics who saw their day when
Greyhound ran both up and down the El Camino Real from San Jose to San Francisco. Back then, an
automotive mechanic could have waltzed into any give automobile parts store, and bought tools at half
price. Those who honed their craft went on to outlast the mechanics whom back some odd forty years
ago were actually few and far between per city, but like the StarBucks mentality we seem to
https ://3 c-lxa.mail.com/mail/client/mailbody /tmai 150c8316f9dcba0c/true 1/23/2018
Page 4of4
now demand, the high priced automotive diagnostics that now appears to have not reach any portion
of public transportation when it comes to effective repairs and daily safeguards.
Just set yourselves on any given publicly supported bus system, and see a bit more better. Overall,
they sound terrible, leak oil like the now way out molded Harley Davidson once upon a time used to do,
their air conditioning is shot, but more importantly, these public modes of countywide transportation
may be more apt to die far more often on any given side of the road.
There are many avenues in which both the citizen and governmental employees might want to at least
think about looking into, in order to at least keep pace, with today's ever in upward movement of this
national New Economy.
Albert B. Franklin
2555 Hazelwood Way
Palo Alto, California 94303
https://3 c-lxa.mail.com/mail/client/mailbody /tmai 15 Oc8316f9dcba0c/true 1/23/2018
Southgate RPP. NO NEED FOR 2-.fCitJ'Ff frtl/ l~~f!f;~g
Untitled layer
/.., Frontage of 1681 El Camino
/.., Frontage of 1515 El Camino
!..,
Parking available along El
Camino
0 1515 El Camino
0
Beginning of El Camino
(service road)
!..,
Additional parking along ECR
/.., Additional ECR Parking
1515 El Camino Real
ll 1681 El Camino Real
The request by staff for two-
hour parking along 151 5 and
1681 El Camino is irrelevant
due to currently existing two-
hour parking via RPP.
..
' •
_ _ ry Cl 2018 CNES I Airbus, DlgltalGlobe, U.S. Geological Survey, USDA Farm 5e~l@LAge
---------------------'-
Southgate RPP. NO NEED FOR 2-HOUR
Untitled layer
£.., Frontage of 1681 El Camino
£.., Frontage of 1515 El Camino
.(,
Parking available along El
Camino
9 1515 El Camino
9
Beginning of El Camino
(service road)
.(,
Additional parking along ECR
£.., Additional ECR Parking
1515 El Camino Real
l:l 1681 El Camino Real
The request by staff for two-
hour parking along 151 5 and
1681 El Camino is irrelevant
due to currently existing two-
hour parking via RPP.