Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180219plCC 701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 2/19/2018 Document dates: 1/31/2018 – 2/7/2018 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. Attachment B Topic CM Scharff Mayor Kniss V. Mayor  Filseth CM Wolbach CM Fine CM DuBois CM Holman CM Kou CM Tanaka Total Finance/Budget 11 111111 8 Transportation (Mobility,  Circulation, Traffic  Mitigation)11 111111 8 Housing 11 11111 7 Grade Separation/Rail  Corridor 1111116 Infrastructure 11 111 1 6 Code Enforcement 11 2 Vibrant City 1 1 Parking 1 1 Preserving Neighborhood  Safety and Peace 1 1 Noise, Air Quality, and  Preservation of Natural  Resources 1 1 Unfunded Pension and  Healthcare Liabilities 1 1 Implement Net Promoter  Score Feedback  Mechanisms for all City  Service 1 1 Retention 1 1 2018 Council Priorities Tally Dear Fellow Council Members, I regret I can not join you at the retreat Saturday - I have a family commitment which keeps me in Sacramento this weekend. While a letter is a poor substitute for being present all day, I do want to provide a few comments on the recent survey of our citizens, our priority process, our priorities for 2018 and the 2018 work plan for non-priority items. CITIZENS SURVEY Starting with the 2018 Citizens Survey, it was good to see that several negative trends appear to have been arrested and either improved or at least did not worsen. There remains a treasure trove of insights in this statistically representative survey, the highest quality data we have each year. The large drops in satisfaction in these areas stood out to me: 1. Variety of housing 2. Difficulty in travel by car 3. Sense of community 4. Affordable food Several issues arise repeatedly - traffic flow, signal timing, ability to park, affordable housing and workplace housing. 70% of our residents support preserving our single family neighborhoods and 70% support increasing below market affordable housing - at the top in these question areas. East Meadow and Bayshore jump out as the area most preferred for more multi-unit housing at 79% (please note there is a math error on page 21 of the community survey - should show 79% for Bayshore). The concern about affordable food highlights the need to continue to try to have affordable food choices in town includes groceries and restaurants. 2018 PRIORITIES In terms of priorities, our own rules encourage us to have a single priority for only 3 years in a row and to limit ourselves to 3 priorities. This discipline is good and doesn’t mean we don’t work on other things - simply that three areas receive special focus. Our top problems have been on the list for more than 3 years - parking, housing, infrastructure. I think we should allow that, but try to keep to only three priorities. At Policy and Services, it was clear that there is widespread agreement on the top level - Housing, Finance particularly of our Infrastructure projects and pensions, and Transportation including Grade separations. ​Those are my top 3 priorities. Transportation issues were the highest and totalled 14 - 20 votes in transportation, mobility, circulation, traffic mitigation and grade separations. If you look at Council comments and the community, Transportation concerns center around mobility, congestion, circulation. I don’t believe people are necessarily saying we should eliminate cars. I strongly disagree with prescribing that solution as the priority. Instead, I think it’s high time that added some explicit focus on vehicle circulation - improving the flow of our arterials by prioritizing vehicle flow on these key routes through our street network. Doing so will improve on of the largest problems as confirmed by years of data from our citizens. We need to stop narrowing and slowing these key arterials, which simply pushes traffic on to local streets. Instead of traffic calming we are road enraging. Note the neighborhood scores on traffic by neighborhood, particularly Crescent Park. TDM and bike lanes can only go so far. We must have programs to increase flow, turning lanes, and capacity on our major arterials to relieve local streets. 2018 Workplan Finally the work plan we reviewed in 2016 by department was incredibly useful. We should repeat that process in 2018 at a second working meeting/retreat. Key workplan items in other departments that need major progress in 2018 include our Homeless services, Cubberly Master plan, and Fiber to the Node business plan. I hope you have a productive day and I look forward to reviewing the output of your efforts. Best, Tom DuBois Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:52 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 5:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:City Council Priorities Honorable City Council Members, I will be unable to attend this weekend’s Priorities Session, but I am submitting comments in writing that I hope you will consider. Thank you for the important work you do for us all. Best, Penny Ellson (writing as an individual) Comments for City Council Discussion of 2018 Priorities Transportation Leadership & Groundwork Palo Alto has created a visionary Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan to address the needs of rapidly growing numbers of foot-powered commuters. The city has begun to implement that vision—with some of the uncomfortable disruption that construction always brings. The finished projects will bring improved conditions for commuters. Staff is improving our bike/pedestrian safety education curriculum and materials to include information about how to use new school route facilities like traffic circles, sharrows, bulbouts, and raised intersections. The city and new PTA leadership have been working with PAUSD on updating school district policies related to school commutes to provide a stronger, institutionalized foundation for the Safe Routes to School partnership. Important collaborative relationships with transit agencies, local businesses, and PAUSD officials are being invigorated. We cannot afford to lose momentum. All Modes Matter Our new Comprehensive Plan presents a transportation vision that will “Create a sustainable transportation system, complemented by a mix of land uses, that emphasizes walking, bicycling, use of public transportation and other methods to reduce GHG emissions and the use of single- occupancy motor vehicles.” This vision would create a safe place on the street for all road users—motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, transit users. We spent a lot of time developing the new Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan…and that was needed because it was work that had been neglected for many years. The new Comprehensive Plan fits the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan into the larger multi-modal puzzle and communicates how comprehensive, multi-modal approach to planning benefits all road users. Stay the course. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:52 AM 2 The blessings of an improved economy are many, but its curse is traffic. Traffic and congestion have increased throughout the Bay Area, including Palo Alto. It is no small matter that our community has been able to take thousands of motor vehicle trips off city streets each day by creating street environments that invite people to choose alternatives to driving solo. Every city transportation project is a multi-modal project, and yet we name some of them “bike boulevards”—which, to my mind, is a misnomer. The planned “bike boulevard” network projects will provide significantly safer, improved facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians, but they also systemically address needs of transit users and motorists. We need to do a better job communicating the benefits the city is delivering to all road users as we move forward. Moving forward…Prioritize Multi-Modal Mobility Please prioritize a commitment to implementing a progressive vision for Multi-Modal Mobility which includes Safe Routes to School and the projects outlined in the city’s new Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan as well as city-wide TDM, parking, transit, signalization and road improvement projects. Please make Multi-Modal Mobility, including Safe Routes to School, a city priority. Thank you for considering my comments and for your service to our community. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:52 AM 3 Carnahan, David From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 02, 2018 8:30 AM To:Council, City Subject:Priorities for 2018 Council Members: The Menlo Park City Council recently announced their top priorities for the coming year and 3 out of 5 are focused on transportation issues. The 5 are:  Complete the citywide transportation master plan  Focus on safe routes to school initiatives  Update the city's Downtown Specific Plan  Work toward building a parking garage downtown  Support a proposal to renovate the Guild Theatre into a community-focused event venue. You would be wise to follow their example and make transportation issues a major focus for this year’s priorities. Failure to address transportation concerns, as highlighted by dismal ratings in the annual resident survey, carries greater than normal risks in an election year. John City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/3/2018 7:27 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 02, 2018 5:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Blame Game intensifies Council: I wrote to you when Menlo Park blamed the Willow traffic on Palo Alto. Now we are getting blame from a broader area for our jobs/housing imbalance and how it impacts our neighbors. Please read and understand how this threatens our future. It paints us as rich and unconcerned about our neighbors. And it's only going to get worse. Palo Alto is a poster child for bad (or lack of) urban planning on a regional level. Transit infrastructure is insufficient and cannot be made sufficient without paying billions of dollars just so Palo Alto and Menlo Park can continue creating jobs while leaving other cities to build and provide services for housing workers. Yet with the geographic limits of Palo Alto (hills on one side, bay on the other), and the layout of Palo Alto streets for single family housing it is hard to see how increasing housing to accommodate the number of jobs is possible without creating total gridlock in and around Palo Alto. Which makes it self-evident that further job creation in Palo Alto is not in the best interests of the region, including Palo Alto itself, since widespread resentment may force it to dramatically change itself in unpleasant ways. Some sort of revenue sharing is needed since Palo Alto gets lots of money from businesses while other cities pay for providing city services for Palo Alto workers. http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2018/01/palo-alto-work-live-commute.html City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 8:35 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 04, 2018 2:42 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:February 5, 2018, Council Meeting, Item #3: Parking Regulation Enforcement at Stanford Off-Campus Facilities Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    February 4, 2018    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      FEBRUARY 5, 2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #3  PARKING REGULATION ENFORCEMENT AT STANFORD OFF-CAMPUS FACILITIES      Dear City Council:    I urge you to remove this item from your agenda and continue consideration of it until after the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors acts on Stanford's application for its 2018 General Use Permit (GUP) by approving the project, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report as complete and adequate, and adopting a Mitigation and Monitoring Program that would address the environmental impacts of providing parking outside the County's jurisdiction for the project that is located in the County's jurisdiction.    Stanford has already decided to move some of its commuter parking for campus employees in the County's jurisdiction to the Hoover Pavilion site that is in the City's jurisdiction:    http://med.stanford.edu/news/all‐news/2013/08/hoover‐pavilion‐garage‐opens‐for‐parking‐sept‐2.html Hoover Pavilion garage opens for parking Sept. 2 AUG 19 2013 A new parking garage is expected to open the week of Sept. 2 at 211 Quarry Road at the Hoover Pavilion, across from the Stanford Shopping Center. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 8:35 AM 2 In light of increasingly limited parking capacity on campus, all Stanford commuters are encouraged to consider the Hoover Pavilion garage, officially known as Parking Structure 9, as an alternative. The Hoover garage will offer more than 1,000 parking spaces, including 300 patient/visitor spaces and approximately 700 commuter parking spaces. Commuters enter the garage through the south entrance on Sweet Olive Way. The Marguerite shuttle will provide service between Hoover Pavilion and Stanford Medical Center via a revised Line MC route and a new Hoover Express route (Line H). The Marguerite stop for Hoover Pavilion will be near the steps on the north side of the building, facing Palo Road. New Marguerite schedules, including Line H and revised Line MC, will be available the week of Aug. 26 on all buses, the Marguerite web page and at Parking & Transportation Services. If you need assistance with parking, please contact transportation@stanford.edu or (650) 723-9362. If you have questions about Marguerite shuttles, please contact marguerite@stanford.edu or (650) 724-9339.   Stanford campus commuters who park in the new Hoover Pavilion garage would be outside the traffic cordon used for implementing the No Net New Trips condition of the Stanford GUP and might also receive credit for reducing the number of trips to the Stanford campus.    The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires at least an amendment to City approvals for the Hoover Pavilion parking lot and garage.    CEQA also requires the proposed shifting of parking for campus commuters from the County jurisdiction to the City jurisdiction to be evaluated in the Stanford 2018 GUP Environmental Impact Report.    Failure to address the CEQA issues is a prejudicial abuse of discretion and a violation of CEQA.    Sincerely,    Herb Borock     City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 8:35 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Sunday, February 04, 2018 11:27 AM To:Council, City Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James Subject:Housing Work Plan I have read the proposed work plan and discussion it with Director Gitelman. The work plan includes many items that will help expand housing and affordability options and i encourage you to approve it so we can move forward. I have two items relative to the economic analysis part of the work plan that I believe will be helpful in designing policies and new ordinances. The first addition is to have the consultant exploring an increase in the inclusionary/BMR requirements to add a task that focuses on the economics and impact on housing supply of making a portion of the requirements for "missing middle" housing. The issue of missing middle housing is now on the radar of CASA, SV@Home, the support teacher housing movement and others. No longer is housing just a discussion of BMR and market rate housing but now includes combinations that can include the missing middle. I was particularly pleased to see Palo Alto Housing come out in support of the 2755 project both for its missing middle component and in recognition of the BMR funds that would be provided. The second addition is to seek advice on the viability and impact on housing projects of retail requirements for projects not located in downtown or Cal Ave. I worry that a retail requirement might conflict with the overwhelming sentiment to maximize our opportunities for BMR housing. I think it is too much to include in this work plan but I want to record my support for a Palo Alto low-income housing bond. Stephen Levy 365 Forest 5A Palo Alto 84301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 8:37 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Robert Neff <rmrneff@sonic.net> Sent:Sunday, February 04, 2018 11:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:We need more housing in Palo Alto Dear City Council,    I am glad to see council and staff moving forward toward developing more housing in Palo Alto.  I think we need  hundreds and thousands of new housing units in the area to get better balance of supply and demand.    I encourage you to look at the zoning along El Camino Real. Current the Research Park zoning extends all the way to El  Camino Real, between Barron Park and California Avenue, with large, empty parking lots fronting El Camino Real.  What  a waste!  Please ask staff to consider options to rezone El Camino Real with Grand Boulevard style, high density housing  and mixed use development. It is an opportunity to add hundreds of units of housing in an area with good access to  transit and jobs.  I hope you will reconsider our current height limit, and look at allowing taller, denser developments as  well.  We can go taller than 50 feet!    On our current path of continued job growth in Palo Alto and the region, we must take aggressive action to help our  stock of housing keep up.    Thank you for your service to the City of Palo Alto,    Robert Neff    Emerson Street near Loma Verde      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 4:00 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Steve Raney <steve.raney@jointventure.org> Sent:Monday, February 05, 2018 10:06 AM To:Council, City Subject:Item 7: housing work plan: zero-car microunit overlay zone Attachments:Silicon Valley Micro-Apartments.pdf Dear Council, Related to “developing zoning amendment ordinances with provisions designed to encourage production of a diversity of housing types in appropriate locations,” please consider a zoning overlay for about 50 to 100 zero-car, transit-oriented-development, affordable-by-design moderate income (affordable) microunits. IE some sort of a modest pilot project to show that zero-car microunit housing can succeed in PA. Google is pursuing microunits for North Bayshore, to be built by union labor in Vallejo. For many folks, a market rate 8’x20’ microunit renting at $1,300/mo is twice as good of an option as what they have now. Zoning needs to change to make such “maximally mitigated” housing legal in PA.   Further recommendations:  Ensure that microunit zoning overlay language is vetted by for-profit microunit developers (Panoramic Interests, etc) to validate that the overlay would motivate a developer to acquire control of a parcel and bring a proposal forward. The private sector currently has zero motivation to bring a microunit proposal forward in PA (and in most Bay Area cities).  Microunits are an innovative concept, so FUD should be addressed by forming a blue ribbon microunit learning committee. Activities could include: o Visit a Bay Area microunit site, such as 1321 Mission St. in SF o Visit a unionized Bay Area microunit manufacturer, such as the Vallejo Mare Island FactoryOS facility. o Chat with Google real-estate about their microunit projects.  To further address FUD, put on a local microunit event. This can be modeled after Mountain View’s May 2016 event: o https://patch.com/california/mountainview/mountain-view-host-luncheon-addressing-lack-affordable-housing-options o http://www.mountainview.gov/civica/press/display.asp?layout=1&Entry=1294 o (Palo Alto Forward put on a microunit event at the Institute for the Future in 2015.) More details provided in the attached PDF. Thanks for your consideration, - Steve ============================= Steve Raney Pitman Ave, Palo Alto Silicon Valley / Peninsula Zero-Car Unsubsidized TOD Micro-Apartments Opportunity to build unsubsidized moderate income homes. Link to this google doc: ​http://bit.ly/micro-apts 1. EXAMPLE: The Panoramic: 160 microunits, 0 cars, 0 car parking, 180 bikes. 761 DU/acre. 11 stories, 120’. 1321 Mission St., SF. http://www.panoramic.com/cityspaces-location/mission-san-francisco​/ 2. WHY: Housing crisis According to WSJ, for the past six years in SF and Silicon Valley, 300K jobs added with only 40K new homes: Silicon Valley has a nationally-prominent housing crisis/shortage. There is a market failure whereby for- and non-profit developers have not built moderate income (80% to 120% of area median income) housing. California (SB375, etc) and the Bay Area (Plan Bay Area 2040) have adopted ambitious GHG reduction policy objectives, but have not taken credible steps in the housing policy domain to implement and meet those objectives. 3. A NEW HOUSING PRODUCT: Two micro-units, as they would ship from overseas Ergonomic interior of 8’ x 20’, 9’ high micro-studio ● $1,300/mo rental (unsubsidized moderate income affordable). 160 square foot micro-studio. Two other configurations are available, including 650 square foot four-bedroom apartment. ● $8 per square foot monthly rent provides high return for investors ● Zero car parking, lots of bike parking, carshare. ● Transit oriented development. Walking distance to Caltrain or BART. Located within walkable downtown areas with restaurants and activities. ● Compared to current housing options, microunits are twice as good for thousands of Bay Area folks. ● Per-capita GHG is 25% of suburban Bay Area average. ● Stackable steel housing units manufactured in Vallejo by union labor at Factory OS. This method is 20% less costly than traditional methods. ● 75’ tall provides the best affordability, but other heights work ● Can exploit small lots of 7,000 square feet or less. ● Most often, the design is not comprehended by a city’s general plan and zoning, so a City Council legislative act is required to approve. ● This innovative housing concept is challenging to approve as there are no examples. City staffs expect that their City Councils will require a market study to demonstrate sufficient demand for these units. As far as city staff and developer opinion, there is consensus that these micro-apartments will rent quickly given that other housing options are 2X the cost. ● In San Francisco, private colleges obtained 20-year leases on units and now rent them to their students. Likewise, a city, employer, or non-profit could lease units and then rent them. One possibility is for a city to create a housing fund, lease units at $1,300, then subsidize rent to rent at a low-income or very-low-income level. ● See the Feb 2015 NY Times story: ​New York’s first micro-apartments​. 4. MARKET FAILURE Google and Facebook have determined that the public sector cannot make a dent in the housing crisis, so they are reluctantly forced to get into the housing business. ● One example: Google Will Buy Modular Homes to Address Housing Crunch - ​The Wall Street Journal​ and ​Mercury News article​. Units to be manufactured by union labor on Vallejo’s Mare Island by Factory OS (​https://factoryos.com/​ ), a modular-home startup. The low and very-low income affordable housing sector is virtuous, but requires subsidies. Subsidies limit housing production to tiny number that does not make a dent. Per our economic system (Capitalism), unsubsidized moderate income affordable can be financed and scaled. For San Mateo County, $1,300 is unsubsidized moderate-income affordable housing. http://housing.smcgov.org/sites/housing.smcgov.org/files/2016smcSTATS.pdf.​ AMI is Area Median Income. Compare to local SSF and SF studios for rent (some for $3,000 per month): http://www.apartmentguide.com/apartments/California/South-San-Francisco/0-beds-1z141wj/ 5. ADVOCACY/EDUCATION: Palo Alto Forward ● put on a microunit luncheon at Institute for the Future in 2015. Patrick Kennedy presented. May 2016, Mountain View ●https://patch.com/california/mountainview/mountain-view-host-luncheon-addressing-lack-afford able-housing-options ●http://www.mountainview.gov/civica/press/display.asp?layout=1&Entry=1294 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 4:01 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:LWV of Palo Alto <lwvpaoffice@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 05, 2018 12:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:Housing Work Plan, Agenda item 7 Attachments:CC ltr housing workplan.docx Dear City Council, Attached please find our letter in support of the Housing Work Plan. Thank you. Bonnie Packer, President -- League of Women Voters of Palo Alto 3921 E. Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 903-0600 February 5, 2018 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council Members, Re: February 5 2018, Agenda Item No. 7: Housing Work Plan The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto (LWVPA) supports efforts by the City to increase the supply of housing for all, particularly for those with lower incomes. LWVPA also supports walkable, mixed-use developments and efforts to increase the number and density of multiple-family units especially near transit centers and along transportation corridors. For those reasons we encourage you to adopt the all the recommendations contained in the staff memo submitting the Housing Work Plan for 2018-2019. The excellent proposals in this Work Plan include urgently needed zoning updates that will encourage diverse housing near jobs, transit, and services. LWVPA particularly supports the use of the use the City’s affordable housing funds to stimulate the rehabilitation and development of new affordable housing. We also applaud the recognition of the need to address workforce housing as well. Please do what it necessary to ensure that the Housing Work Plan recommendations, especially the zoning updates, are implemented with all due speed to address the current housing crisis. Thank you. Very truly yours, Bonnie Packer President, League of Women Voters of Palo Alto THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PALO ALTO 3921 E. BAYSHORE RD. • PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303 • 650-903-0600 • www.lwvpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 4:30 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org> Sent:Monday, February 05, 2018 4:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Draft Housing Work Plan Dear Mayor Kniss, Councilmembers, and Staff:    There are plenty of great ways to encourage housing in Palo Alto. What’s ironic is that just a  few days ago, our staff recommended and the majority of the Planning Commission supported  proposals that take us in the wrong direction.    The Draft Housing Work Plan before you tonight points out that the median rent for a 2  bedroom Palo Alto apartment is $3,500 – but the Planning Commission approved a plan for  the VTA lot where small  studio apartments will rent for $3,250.  Just a dozen lucky people  would get a few hundred dollars off the rents and they still would need to earn 40% to 50%  above median area income.  And this is in an underparked building with few amenities right at  one of the busiest intersections in Palo Alto ‐ hardly a desirable location.  The project analysis  revealed not one single other project in Palo Alto with rents as high, including the luxury units  at the MARC.    So while your plan may speak of encouraging affordable housing, your staff and planning  commission are pushing at the same time for unaffordable housing, making our situation even  worse.    Please give the staff directives that turn this around, such as:     Have upzoning only be used to create 100% affordable housing options   Use the Terner Center study (included in your packet) to evaluate construction and  other costs – it suggests the VTA lot project could produce affordable housing, especially  if you do not allow the lot to be upzoned for market‐rate and above‐market‐rate  housing   Have affordable housing providers regularly participate in meetings to share goals and  financial plans   Remove the term “workforce,” as it is likely to confuse – it’s not even accurate, as it  apparently doesn’t actually refer to the vast majority of workers who earn average or  below‐average wages but generally to just the much smaller number of high‐earning  professionals    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 4:30 PM 2 Thank you,    Jeff Levinsky  1682 Hamilton Ave.  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:30 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Carol Scott <cscott@crossfieldllc.com> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 9:20 AM To:Council, City Subject:Letter in Support of Resident's Proposal for Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP Attachments:Scott Letter to City Council 2-1-18.pdf Dear Council Members, I am enclosing a letter for your consideration in the matter of the City's proposal to modify the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP. The City's proposal is on your agenda for your meeting on Monday, February 5, 2018. Thank you for your attention. Carol Scott Evergreen Park resident 1834 Park Blvd. Palo Alto, CA 94306 c.scott1@yahoo.com or cscott@crossfieldllc.com -- Carol Scott February 1, 2018 City Council City of Palo Alto Dear Council Members: On Monday, February 5, you will be asked to vote on Staff’s proposal to modify the Evergreen Park/Mayfield Residential Permit Program. I regret that I will be unable to attend this rescheduled discussion to speak as a resident of Evergreen Park. I do want to offer a few thoughts as you consider this proposal. First, I whole-heartedly support the proposal that has been sent to you by a group of residents of Evergreen Park/Mayfield (Residents’ Proposal). This document is a well-researched analysis of what we learned at the various stakeholders’ meetings and an analysis of permit parking data provided to us by the City. It discusses some of the root causes of the current complaints by non-Cal Avenue District (“District”) businesses on which the City’s proposal is completely silent. I completely agree with the recommendations made in the Residents’ Proposal. They are much more sensible and scaled to the current issues that those presented by the City staff. As discussed in the Resident Proposal, we believe non-District businesses can be better served without increasing the overall number of permits through better communication from the City, a different priority system, and a few tweaks to the allocation system and limit (see the Residents’ Proposal).1,2 This is illustrated with two other observations from the stakeholder meetings: x The City’s proposal states that non-District businesses were able to secure only 38% of all RPP permits sold, but non-District businesses want permits in the zones close to them, and not in Zone C. A new set of rules to provide some priority in the allocation of permits in Zones A and B, as suggested in the Resident’s Proposal, takes this into account. 1 In a related vein, roughly 30 employee permits issued in Round 1 and Round 2 have no RPP address listed in the data the City provided us. Perhaps these are employee home addresses, but not providing them makes it difficult to insure program accountability. Similarly, over 60 residential permits were issued to addresses outside the RPP, including quite a few to business locations in Southgate, College Terrace, and Evergreen Park. Again, perhaps these are addresses of the owners of property in Evergreen Park/Mayfield, but multiple accounts were used to make residential purchases for Southgate businesses and there is no easy way for residents to determine this. In the past, the City has admitted that it issued residential permits to businesses/employees in error. If even a few of the instances I saw in the data are also errors, they should be corrected. 2 As noted by Councilman Filseth in the January 29, 2018 discussion of the Southgate RPP, businesses also have the option to purchase scratcher permits. The City’s data show that 407 scratchers were purchased in the second six- month period of the RPP operation, and that 80 scratcher permits were issued to businesses at one address both in the initial allocation round and in the renewal round. 2 x An analysis of the permit data supplied by the City shows that District businesses dominate Zone C, take a majority of permits in Zone B, and are now taking some in Zone A. A priority system would correct this imbalance. In addition, alternatives along El Camino Real can be explored as well as sharing any privately- owned parking lots.3 The Residents’ Proposal also mentions a willingness to consider temporary measures if these changes cannot take place in time for the next round of permit applications. Unfortunately, as we know, demand for parking will most likely continue to increase at least in the foreseeable future, and perhaps longer than that if businesses have no incentive to engage in activities to reduce the dependence of employees on private cars to get to work. This area may be “transportation rich”, but ironically demand for parking has only grown. Small buildings along El Camino Real and in the District will continue to be replaced with larger buildings, and buildings small and large will continue to be taken over by employee-dense high tech and other firms that thrive on the proximity to Stanford.4 In addition, the construction of the new public garage in the District and the new public safety building will result in the displacement of several hundred cars. They will have to go somewhere. If the solution to ever increasing demand for commercial parking is an ever increasing number of neighborhood parking permits, there is little incentive to be more efficient with one’s own parking lot or to find alternative means of getting to work.5,6 Residents may find themselves back where we started before the RPP, only this time we will be paying for the privilege of parking in our own neighborhoods. This leads me to the most important and disturbing recommendation the Staff is making to satisfy a growing commercial need: to establish a 60% occupancy standard for the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP area and thus the possibility of approving an extremely large number of additional permits simply through administrative action. 3 For example, the building at 1705 El Camino Real in Zone A of the RPP and the generous parking lot on its ground floor appear to be mostly empty. We believe, but are unable to confirm, that this building is now owned by Stanford. At the same time, Stanford Medical Imaging Center at 451 Sherman purchased 7 employee permits in Zone C. Perhaps Stanford would be willing to share its space with the City in return for its permits in Zone C . 4 The business located at 2443 Ash St., for example is housed in an older, modest two-story building near Hotel California. It purchased 21 permits in the renewal round -- 15 in Zone C and 6 in Zone B -- as well as a number of scratcher permits according to data provided by the City. 5 On a walk around the District, I observed a car lift in the garage for one business where the upper level was used for storage boxes and not for cars. According to the City data, this business purchased 9 employee parking permits in residential zones A and B. 6 The City does have one very successful RPP program that has very stringent limits on commercial parking – none is allowed – and businesses have adjusted apparently by taking care of their own requirements. Development along the west side of El Camino Real has continued with several new, large office buildings erected recently despite the knowledge that employees will not be allowed to park in the adjacent neighborhood. When given the mandate to do so, business can thrive and not encroach on residential neighborhoods. 3 According to the Staff proposal, a 60% average occupancy standard, together with the assumption of a 32% show rate, would allow the City to sell up to 745 employee permits in the residential areas (see page 9). I submit that this is a very bold proposal indeed, and one that, to my knowledge, has not been proposed for any other RPP area in Palo Alto – not College Terrace, not Southgate, and not even in Downton to my knowledge. As noted in the Residents’ Proposal, the City proposed this “average” occupancy rate standard in residential neighborhoods on the basis of nothing other than its own feeling of what a neighborhood should tolerate. I strongly agree with the Resident’s Proposal that no such standard – either 60% or some other level – should be approved until such time as more thorough examination and discussion of the consequences is done, given the potentially drastic and devastating effect of it on residential life. A single, late-night discussion at a City Council meeting is hardly enough time to make a determination on such an important issue at this time. In their proposal, City Staff attempt to reassure residents about 60% average occupancy by saying that this would mean that “on average” a block side of a street with 10 spaces could accommodate 6 cars and still give residents 4 empty ones remaining. The only problem with that, however, is that “averages” hardly ever actually occur. Instead, there are ups and downs and bunching in certain places, increasing the likelihood that in many spots at many times of the day, there will be no available spaces. “Averages” can hide many extreme cases, as the “average” does in the Staff’s proposal which shows a wide range of occupancy rates in the RPP area. A neighborhood is not just a parking lot with some houses scattered around to make it look nicer. People do not use parking spaces in a residential neighborhood in the same way they use parking spaces in parking lots. Few people park in residential neighborhoods with the thought to maximize the use of the space, people prefer some blocks over others, garbage cans have to be put out on the street using a parking space one day a week for each home, gardeners, plumbers, guests attending book club meetings, and out-of-town family members visit in neighborhoods. If a couple of homes are remodeled at the same time, or construction work is done on any of the streets, the additional construction workers alone may throw the whole carefully balanced system into a tizzy.7 Residents simply need more flexibility than a true parking lot. The environment is different, the users are different – and this doesn’t even begin to talk about quality of life where kids run across the street to the park, bicyclists increasingly make use of Evergreen Park bike boulevards, and cars increasingly use its streets to short circuit 7 I came home one day this week to find a long and large concrete mixer idling on a side street near my home waiting to be notified by his supervisor of the location on the Stanford campus where he was to appear. He needed at least four contiguous parking spaces. The City’s proposal does not factor in disruptions to the neighborhood by the increasing construction on the Stanford campus. 4 traffic on El Camino Real.8 Residential quality of life is more than just having a few parking spaces available here and there. The City’s optimistic view of life under a 60% occupancy standard is critically based on something it calls the “show rate”, i.e., the percent of all permits issued that are actually on the street at a time of measurement (in the case of Evergreen Park, on one day in October, 2017). Unfortunately, the City has no understanding of what determines the show rate or how likely it might be to change. The City claims that the average (there’s that word again) show rate in Evergreen Park on the single day of observation was 32%, and that this is consistent with what it has seen elsewhere. However as noted in the Residents’ Proposal, a wide range of show rates was observed across different parts of the RPP (p. 4). In the recent proposal to modify the Southgate RPP, Staff state that states that a 32% to 40% show rate has been observed in other RPPs (page 4 of that proposal), but then uses the lower value to estimate the number of permits that could be sold in Evergreen Park. Using the lowest show rate of 32%, however, the City hypothetically could do as the airlines do, and oversell the space to a considerable degree. If everyone actually does show up, however, it will not be pretty. Since we do not know what is driving the show rate, we cannot predict whether it will remain the same or not. Yet, when I asked Mr. Kamhi if he and his staff had done any sensitivity analysis of the impact of overselling parking permits assuming a 32% show rate, he said that they had not. I then asked what recourse the residents would have if he and the staff were wrong, and the show rate for the employees in Evergreen Park turned out to be more toward the 40% show rate noted in Southgate or even higher as experienced already in some parts of the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP area. His answer was that the residents would then have to come back to the Council for yet another proposal to get relief. With all due respect, the thought of having to do that again, after the past 2-3 years we have spent to get the current program in place, is daunting. In other words, the City wants license to oversell the seats, but will offer no compensation if more people/cars show up than expected. The residents will simply be stuck paying for no benefit from an RPP at all. A general policy on just how much incursion into residential life we will allow businesses to make may be desirable so that the number of employee permits does not just rise as apparent demand rises. With no limit, neither the City nor businesses have any incentive to create and use any transportation demand management programs.9 This topic is of extraordinary importance and concern. Given the fundamentally arbitrary and shaky grounds on which the City Staff have chosen the 60% target, I submit that we are not prepared at this time to vote it into law. Since such a standard, once applied, could be spread to other areas of the City, perhaps the entire City should be included in the debate as it was a 8 This is increasingly the case since the City turned Park Blvd. from El Camino Real to California Ave. into a speedway by removing the 4-way stop signs. The replacement traffic circle is so small that no one needs to, or does, slow down going through it. This stretch goes right by the well-used Peers Park. 9 Polices that are relevant here are those which support or create public transit options, car pooling, parking requirements for new buildings, and the like 5 few years ago when there was a City-wide referendum on a proposed development project near Maybell Avenue. We do need a limit so that both the City and surrounding businesses have an incentive to engage in policies and activities that avoid conflict with residents rather than stimulate it. We are just not ready to adopt one at this time, and certainly not 60%. For all of these reasons, I ask that you adopt all of the recommendations of the Residents’ Proposal on Monday evening. We should not proceed by counting down from what a true commercial zone standard should be, but instead start upwards from zero and think clearly from there so as to keep the residential character of neighborhoods, which is not summed up simply by the number of theoretically open parking spaces. I, and most of my neighbors, support efforts to assist local community service providers. On the other hand, I hope that the solution to parking woes cannot be borne solely by the residents, but also by businesses through effective transportation demand management and building in more of its own parking requirements, and the City through innovative and creative transportation programs and policies. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Carol Scott Evergreen Pak Resident 1834 Park Blvd. c.scott1@yahoo.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:51 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com on behalf of Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 9:59 PM To:Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary Cc:Christian Pease; Ahmad Chekeni; Aileen Yang; Andrew liou; Angela Dellaporta; Anne Steinle; Arthur Keller; August D.Juhl; Barbara Gable; Becky Sanders; Ben Lerner; Bernadette; Bradley; Brian Bicknell; Brian Koss; carol l cooper; Carol Larson; Carol Scott; Cheryl Lilienstein; Chi-Kwan; Chris Donlay; Dan Decamp; Dana Knowles; Daniel Bartsch; David Hornik; David Jeong; david keller; David Lischinski; David Schrom; Dedra; Deolinda Avila; Don Post; Summa, Doria; Douglas B. Moran; Ed Supplee; edric wong; Filseth, Eric (external); Frank Ingle; Fred Balin; gary dufrense; Grace Kubinski; Greg Goodwin; Greg Schmid (external); Irene Au; jack leslie; james harris; Jason Yotopoulos; JBCornett (gmail); jeff levinsky; Jeff Salazar; Jim Wall; Joanne Koltnow; Villareal, Joe; Joe Hirsch; John Luhtala; john morris; Joy Ogawa; Karen Machado; Kerry Krauter; Kerry Spear; Lester D Ezrati; Lisa Spiegs; Liz Gaither; Lucinda Breed Lenicheck; Lydia Kou; M Milroy; Magic; margo schaper; Marilyn Mayo; Marlene Strauss; Mary Ryan; Max Galindo; Micheline Horstmeyer; michelle roth; Mike Eager; Mila Goranova; Ming Fie Jennifer Ting; Nancy Traube; Neilson Buchanan; Nelson Ng; Nina /Alex; Pat Marriott; Patrick Slattery; Paul Tarjan; Prad Rao?; Rainer Pitthan; Ree Dufresne; Richard Willits; Rob Lenicheck; Robert Entriken; Robert Marchetti; sally sawhill supplee; Samina Sundas; Sandy Wanner; Sangeeta De Datta; Shannon Rose Mcentee; sharon chin; Furman, Sheri; stan and loa Lavins; Susan spangler and David; Terry Godfrey; Terry Holzemer; Tim Mealiffe; Tina Entriken; Tom Dubios; Vanessa Davies; William Abrams; Wolfgang Dueregger; Ylva and Rick Risano; evergreen-park-discuss@yahoogroups.com Subject:Evergreen Park RPP item 8 on Feb 5, 2018 Dear City Council, I just noticed that the discussion about the future fate of the Evergreen Park RPP has been moved again and is now scheduled at the bottom of the agenda. What is disturbing is not the fact that it has been moved AGAIN, but rather 2 business days beforehand - at essentially zero notice. How do you think this will impact our neighbors who want to present their case in front of you on monday? Many have family, many others have days that start very early in the morning and need some hours of sleep. this is not the first time that an RPP issue - where neighborhood involvement is big - has been rather "discretely" moved to a time slot that makes it impossible for people from our neighborhood to attend. I request that you reconsider your decision (if needed, move the date again), and going forward that you add reasonable transparency to your actions and provide a time slot for such an important issue that allows neighbors to opine. Wolfgang Dueregger City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 1:20 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Joanne Koltnow <joanne.koltnow@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 02, 2018 11:12 AM To:Council, City; Keene, James Cc:Wolfgang Dueregger; Paul Machado; Michael Eager Subject:Evergreen park RPP on 2/5 agenda Dear City Council, I just learned that the discussion of the Evergreen Park RPP has been re-scheduled to the end of Monday night's agenda. The end of a meeting is not a good time for an issue that will draw a large number of community members. I request that you find a time when all interested parties are able to attend. As you know, staff worked hard on this issue, but so have we. We have data, and suggestions, that address the points in the staff memo. You have an opportunity to get RPP right in Evergreen Park--to satisfy the businesses as well as the residents. Please schedule time to hear from us and consider our comments. This past Monday evening, after a long discussion, you made the right decision for the Southgate RPP. Please give us the same consideration and re-schedule the Evergreen Park item. --Joanne Koltnow City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 1:20 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:Magic <magic@ecomagic.org> Sent:Friday, February 02, 2018 11:30 AM To:Council, City Subject:Wish this were April 1st! Dear City Councilmembers, Ah, if only we were two months in the future, movement of the Evergreen Park RPP item to the end of your agenda might be a great joke. Coming as it does three days before the scheduled meeting, this action is all too reminiscent of similar slaps to the face (e.g., scheduling a meeting for neighborhood input at the height of the winter holidays) which signal that asking resident views on this topic is a pro forma ritual rather than an honest attempt to govern responsively. Surely you've a way to reschedule this item to a date and time which encourages your constituents to share our thoughts and feelings with you. Thank you for considering this request. With appreciation, David Schrom ********** Magic, 1979-2018: thirty-nine years of valuescience leadership *********** Magic demonstrates how people can address individual, social, and environmental ills nearer their roots by applying science to discern value more accurately and realize it more fully. Enjoy the satisfaction of furthering Magic's work by making one-time or recurring gifts at http://ecomagic.org/participate.shtml#contribute. Magic is a 501(c)(3) public charity. Contributions are tax-deductible to the full extent permitted by law. THANK YOU! www.ecomagic.org -------- (650) 323-7333 --—----- Magic, Box 15894, Stanford, CA 94309 ************************************************************************************** City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 1:20 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 02, 2018 1:16 PM To:Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Council, City Subject:per city web page there is no change and we are still set for 9PM https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63050 Could this be changed? It is confusing. Thank you Paul Machado City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/3/2018 9:24 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Christian Pease <cgpease2016@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 03, 2018 7:38 AM To:Council, City Cc:City Mgr; Christian Pease Subject:Resident Proposal: Evergreen-Mayfield RPP Attachments:RPP_PrmtCntrt_OcpyRts.pdf Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I write you concerning the City proposal to revise the current Evergreen Park–Mayfield Residential Parking Permit (“RPP”) that you will decide on Monday evening, February 5. Unfortunately, I am not able to attend the meeting. So here, I want to express my complete support for the resident proposal made in response to that of City's and the major changes the City suggests to the RPP. Please consider our response closely. This is the fruit of a great deal of grassroots discussion and work. It is balanced and in itself carefully considers the inputs and needs of our local community serving businesses and non-profits. A more follows below if you have time and care to read it - if not, just stop here as I have made my main point above. Thank you. Sincerely, Christian Pease Summary: - Most RPP residents – especially in Zones A and B – support our nearby community serving businesses and believe they deserve preferential access to parking permits near their locations. In this, they are no different than resident who prefer to park near their homes. - The Evergreen-Mayfield RPP worked reasonably well for both residents and businesses during its first six-month phase – but it failed some businesses at the start of the second round six-month phase. - In MHO this failure grows out of inadequate City communications with our business community, resulting in a poor implementation. Several of close-by businesses lost permits at the close of the RPP’s first six-month period – they had no idea that unlike residents, businesses needed to re-apply after six month. - The City proposal uses these permit losses to attempt to motivate a major re-work of the program going forward. Yet the City is silent on what caused businesses to loose permits. - In that effort, the first ask is for about 40 additional business permits, even as the City ignores a growing concentration of employ permits into the hands of a few business addresses at the expense City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/3/2018 9:24 AM 2 of other business addresses (please see attachment for a bar chart (Zone A) and table (Zones A and C) illustrating this). - But the heart of this City proposal is something else: To bake in and legitimize a target occupancy cap of 60% - characterized as a “standard” – when it is an invention without substantive underpinnings. - To this, the City further pushes to bake in and legitimize a questionably formulated 32% “show rate” and apply that to the 60% occupancy target, in order to convey a notion of capacity for 745 RPP employee parking permits in this RPP – that while not immediately “recommended” – applying a veneer of reasonableness to this number. - Please consider that this show rate can just as easily be explained by a growing concentration of permits into a few hands, resulting in permits being held in reserve in an effort to defeat scarcity, while not actually fully deploying and utilizing them – again, the detriment of other firms who would actually fully deploy them. - Nonetheless – in the recent City proposal to re-work the Southgate RPP and add more business permits, this 32% occupancy figure for Evergreen-Mayfield is already significantly higher than the City’s own measures for the Downtown and Southgate RPPs, each calculated at 22% (please see attachment for a table illustrating this). - At present, the rules for resident RPP permit allocations are clear: Each residential address is eligible for up to a set number of permits. This number varies between RPPs. But no matter if you believe residents get too many or too few permits in any particular RPP, it is a set number – and despite problematic levels of accuracy in City data – it can be adequately traced. - Conversely, when boiled down, business employee parking permits are allocated only on a first come – first serve basis. This drives uncertainty, fear of scarcity, and motivates rational choices that encourage overbuying and under-use of valuable business permits. This is not only inefficient; it is a source argument and ill will. - Yet nothing in this City proposal or any others I have read, attempts to address a central, root cause of problems with the Evergreen-Mayfield program, as well as other RPPs (except College Terrace, which notably prohibits business employee permit parking) by enabling business RPP participation through an allocation process they can perceive as fair and equitable among and between businesses, including non-profit operations. - For now the City appears unwilling or unable to convene a process where a RPP business community can assist to define and agree such rules and terms and conditions that they can accept as fair and equitable for the distribution of valuable employee parking permits. No wonder Palo Alto RPP programs are so unsettling to both for-profit and non-profit operations alike. Taking on this challenge – defining, agreeing, and enforcing an understandable and apparently fair and equitable process for allocating RPP business employee parking permits among RPP business communities, will go a long way towards settling RPP controversies. It will motivate the clarity and certainty that Palo Alto businesses – as well as residents and non-profit operations – want and deserve. And if this comes to pass, perhaps questions about numbers and types of parking permits in a RPP – the mix and prices – will become more focused on balance, mitigations, and alternatives and gathering the will to pursue them. In any case, there will continue to be tension around parking scarcity – at least until the technologies many of us are counting on to truly address the SOV dilemma become an everyday reality; one that is broadly inclusive and accessible, even for those of modest means. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/3/2018 9:24 AM 3 But until that comes to pass, respectful tension is still a huge improvement over bitter conflict – and in that, we will all be better for it. Again, thank you for your thoughtful consideration on this matter. Source: Permit counts provided by City of Palo Alto Parking Department 1795 El Camino also received 1 and 7 permits in Zone C for Rounds 1 and 2 respectively. Businesses at this address also purchased 80 scratcher permits in Round 1 and Round 2 as well as 1805 El Camino received 2 permits in Zone C in Round 1 1895 El Camino received 1 permit in Zone 3 in both Rounds 1 and 2.  #  #  # ! !# " %'#  &$#  &#  &'#  '                  Concentration of Permits Zone C and All Zones Round 2 Business Zone Location Address Business Name if Known Permits in Zone C % of Total C Sold (123) Permits in other Zones Total Permits % of All Permits Sold All Zones (244) CA District 260 Sherman Office Bldg – multiple businesses 24 20% 24 CA District 2443 Ash St. Branch Metrics 15 12% 6 21 CA District 490 S. California Office Bldg. = multiple businesses 9 7% 2 11 CA District 445 Sherman New Office Bldg. 8 7% 8 CA District 318 Cambridge Office Bldg – single unknown co. 8 7% 4 12 Zone A 1795 El Camino Real Premier Plastic Surgery, Mulcahy Dental, Monica Stone Skin Care 7 6% 11 18 CA District 451 Sherman Stanford Medical Imaging 7 6% 7 Total for 7 addresses 78 63% 23 101 41% 15 other businesses 24 20% No RPP address listed Unknown 21 17% Total Zone C Permits Sold 123 100% Permit Data Source: City of Palo Data, Parking Department Business names obtained through personal observation, Google Maps, and City of Palo Alto Business Registry Comparison of Occupancy Rates RPP Program Observation Avg. Occupancy Max Occupancy Min Occupancy Staff Proposal New Zones Target Evergreen Park/Mayfield*1 Zone A 44% 49% 39% 51% 40% 60% Zone B 36% 40% 31% 24% 47% 60% Zone C 53% 60% 46% 65% 54% 60% Cal Ave Off-St.2 Tuesday 68% 88% 38% 85% Saturday 36% 48% 18% 85% Southgate3 1/10/18 (Wed.) 22% 23% 21% None 1/11/18 (Thurs) 22% 24% 20% None Downtown4 Not available Note: Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP area average occupancies are as high or higher than California Avenue off-street parking on a Saturday. 1 Staff Proposal to Modify the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP, Meeting Date (originally) January 29, 2018, Appendix xx. 2 Staff Proposal to Modify the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP, Meeting Data (originally) January 29, 2018. 3 Staff Proposal to Modify the Southgate RPP, Meeting Date January 29, 2018 4 Although tables contained in the Staff Proposal to Modify the Southgate RPP, Meeting Date January 29, 2018, are labeled as being for the Downtown RPP, they actually appear to be for Southgate as the label information at the top left is inconsistent with the table title. Evergreen Park residents do not have access to downtown occupancy rates at this time. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 8:36 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com on behalf of Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent:Sunday, February 04, 2018 9:35 PM To:Council, City Cc:Lydia Kou; Filseth, Eric (external); Tom Dubios Subject:Evergreen Park RPP Attachments:Evergeen Park RPP resident memo (1).pdf Dear City Council, I fully support the proposal by Evergreen Park residents submitted to you for the February 5, 2018 discussion reg/ potential changes to the Evergreen Park RPP. The proposal is attached to this email. We Evergreen Park Residents consider the small businesses that border our small neighborhood along the eastern side of El Camino real (between College Ave and Park Blvd) as part of our neighborhood that support the vitality and quality of life of Evergreen Park. The Evergreen Park RPP was crafted such that these small businesses also have parking available for their mostly low income employees. In the first half of 2017 life was good, everybody was happy. In the second half of 2017, no more. why? Because a few (not-local-neighborhood serving) businesses were able to buy significant numbers of employee permits. As a consequence very few employee permits were left for those small, low income, neighborhood serving businesses that (a) got permits in the first half of 2017 and (b) for which the employee permits were designed for in the first place. We "Evergreeners" understand the frustration of those small, low income, neighborhood serving businesses and therefore agree to give them 40 additional TEMPORARY employee permits. But let me say this very clear: TEMPORARY means that there is a time limit on these 40 spots, and the time expires on 09/30/2018. We hope that City Council will direct staff to come up during this time (almost 8 full months!) with a comprehensive plan how to address the seemingly ever increasing demand for more parking spots in Evergreen Park (but also in other parts of the city). our neighborhood already gives 250 spots away for employee parking. now an additional 40. - what happens if a tenant follows Yandex's departure at 299 N California Ave? This is a huge office building at the corner of Cal Ave and Birch. - what happens if 260 Cal Ave is finally fully occupied? - what happens if the new office building on the 300 block on Cambridge gets developed? these are just 3 examples where tens of additional parking spots EACH will be "required". My point is this: the demand will keep going up - no matter what and how you count. But what is the City's policy to manage that demand? Will we have the exact same discussion again in 6 months or 1 year when staff will inform the residents again at one of these "outreach" meetings that the neighborhood has to cough up an additional number (whatever that number might be) of employee spots? what is the strategic thinking please? And it does not come in too helpful when during these "outreach" meetings with residents and small businesses, staff -1: presents citizens with "facts" such as 41 new employee parking spots are required and upon a question from a lady in the audience why 41 and not any other number, the response was "well we can settle at 40".... this is probably how we got to number 40 ... -2: upon suggestion by some small businesses along El Camino as well as residents to check with CalTrans if there is the possibility to make at least the eastern part of El Camino available for employee parking, staff responded this is not possible; City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 8:36 AM 2 I want to ask you City Council to direct staff to start exploring in all seriousness multiple ways to mitigate existing employee parking demand on the Evergreen Park neighborhood - by looking at various options like parking along El Camino, use of VTA parking lot, use of Caltrain parking lot, and/or providing bus shuttles from remote parking lots. I want to ask you City Council to come up with a long term strategy to limit the growth of employee parking permits by preventing non-neighborhood serving businesses (such as software companies) to purchase employee permits, because: -1: they are non-neighborhood serving (most of them draw global revenue) and there is no direct local benefit for our city, our county or even our state (besides them paying taxes (which we ALL do) - IF they are profitable); and as we know, many startups are not profitable at all. -2: they don't employ low-income workers -3: they are here because Palo Alto is in the heart of Silicon Valley and gives those companies bragging rights; but our neighborhood is not willing to pay the price of being destroyed by being their free parking lot; regarding -3: "strategically" thinking, why is Palo Alto not doing the same as what was done in Mountain View and in Menlo Park? There, companies either already have or are still further developing big office parks east of Highway 101 (FB, GOOG and many other smaller firms). why can't Palo Alto use the former landfill to have a business park there? then the companies that choke our neighborhood(s) with their excessive parking demands would move east of 101 (they can still have their Palo Alto zip code), small-neighborhood-serving businesses could again find parking for their employees, and residents could again live in peace. what is needed is an approach to take somehow the ever increasing (parking) pressure off the valve... We Evergreeners have been very engaged among us, with you the City as well as the small businesses around us. We are convinced we can get this complex issue resolved so that we will be all happy. But it needs good will from all sides. We hope the city will reciprocate with some bold decisions (like building the garage on Cal Ave to full capacity) and come up with a long-term solution how to handle big businesses in small local communities/neighbnorhoods. However, if we choose the path of ever increasing the number of employee permits in the Evergreen Park neighborhood, there won't be any RPP anymore - it would be already dead before even the full trial period is over! Wolfgang Dueregger City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 4:08 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <skeehn2012@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 05, 2018 1:27 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Evergreen Park RPP The Evergreen Park residents have sent you a very detailed letter about the RPP in their  neighborhood and  what has not worked using the RPP in the neighborhood.     I urge you to take their well thought out, and studied document and follow their suggestions.     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    Sincerely,   Suzanne Keehn  4076 Orme St.  94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 9:16 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Ng, Judy Sent:Friday, February 02, 2018 9:14 AM To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Jonsen, Robert; Lum, Patty; Mello, Joshuah; Sartor, Mike; Eggleston, Brad; Raschke, Matt; Padilla, Monica; Swaminathan, Shiva Subject:2/5 Council Agenda Questions for Items 2, 3, & 6     Dear Mayor and Council Members:     On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries  made by Council Member Tanaka in regard to the February 5, 2018 council meeting agenda.     Item 2:  Extending Time Of Use Electric Rates ‐ CM Tanaka  Item 3: Relinquish Parking Enforcement: Stanford University ‐ CM Tanaka  Item 6: Lucie Stern Children's Theatre Mechanical and Electrical Upgrades ‐ CM Tanaka     Item 2:  Extending Time Of Use Electric Rates Q. 1. What other cities in the Bay Area have this pilot program?    A. 1. PG&E provides time‐of‐use (TOU) electric rates throughout its service  territory. The cities of Santa Clara and Alameda, both municipal utilities, do not  currently offer such rates.      Q. 2. Why did only 125 of the 300 customers participating in the Customer Connect  Pilot choosing to enroll in the TOU rates?    A. 2. The Customer Connect smart grid pilot program was closed at 300  customers, among which only 125 expressed interest in participating in a TOU  rate, potentially based on their individual usage patterns. Additionally, those  customers with rooftop PV systems were ineligible to participate in the TOU pilot  rate.      Q. 3. Why is the price $50,000 for every year until 2022? What is the justification for  the cost?    A. 3. The cost represents the operational cost to serve the 300 customers on the  Customer Connect pilot and provide customer access to granular consumption  information. This information will also be used to inform staff on electric  distribution system issues such as voltage along distribution feeders.  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 9:16 AM 2     Q. 4. Why will this program take until 2022 to fully take off?    A. 4. Smart meters are required to offer TOU rates. The City anticipates full  deployment of smart meters by 2022, at which point the City will evaluate the  merits of offering TOU rates for all customers. As reported separately to the city  council, the full deployment of smart meters is dependent on implementation of a  new enterprise resource program and customer information system.       Item 3: Relinquish Parking Enforcement: Stanford University  Q. 1. How much revenue will the City of Palo Alto loose by relinquishing parking  enforcement in the Stanford University lots?    A. 1.  Based on a four year average, the City will lose approximately $54,042 in  Stanford parking revenue per year. The revenue for 2017 was $67,100. Even though  revenues were higher in 2017, this has not been a consistent upward trend. (See  chart below)  Stanford Parking Enforcement Revenue and Cost Estimates     Calendar  Year  Citations Revenue  Estimate  Salary &  Benefits  Cost  Estimate  Other Cost  Estimates  Total  Cost  Estimates  (Salary +  Other)  Net  2017 2,255 $67,100 $58,073 $17,193 $75,266 ($8,166)  2016 1,941 $57,765 $54,716 $16,941 $71,657 ($13,982)  2015 1,978 $58,865 $50,355 $16,694 $67,049 ($8,184)  2014 1,090 $32,438 $50,355 $16,452 $66,807 ($34,369)       Q. 2. How much does it cost for current enforcement?    A. 2. The 2017 cost of Stanford parking enforcement was $75,266. An operating loss  of $8,166.      Q. 3. How much money will we gain or lose from the new areas of enforcement?    A. 3. Projected revenue related to redeploying the .5 FTE is difficult to estimate.  There is currently one Community Service Officer (CSO) dedicated to the California  Avenue District. With the redeployment of the .5 FTE CSO from Stanford to  California Avenue, we will be able to add additional enforcement efforts in this  growing and busy district. Additionally, new hourly parking signage is being  installed along El Camino Real between Churchill and the California Avenue District.  A conservative estimate of additional revenue generated in these two areas is  approximately $43,064 for the first year.  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 9:16 AM 3 Lastly, the CSO will be able to assist with abandoned (vehicles parked in excess of  72 hours) vehicle complaints which have grown substantially over the last three  years and continue to do so.  The number of abandoned vehicle complaints included: 2016 were 696  2017 were 877   2018 estimate 1,142   These complaints are very time consuming. We currently have one CSO assigned to  this task. The average time for this CSO to resolve a complaint and respond to the  complainant is about one week. Redeploying the .5 FTE to California Avenue and  other duties means that there is also the possibility of having a “backup” CSO to  assist with abandoned vehicle complaints when needed.      Q. 4. Would it make sense to use the new technology that Stanford uses to enforce  parking for Palo Alto?    A. 4. From a purely business standpoint, with substantial infrastructure funding and  a lack of policy implications related to privacy, Automated License Plate Reader  (ALPR) technology makes perfect sense for parking enforcement.  ALPR implementation is a part of the Planning and Community Environment  Department, Transportation Division’s master parking plan which is in progress.  The implementation of ALPR Technology is a part of that master plan and will have  a staged implementation. The policy implications and funding will need to be  discussed. Council has seen the parking study, but will be introduced to the  proposed parking master plan, with staged implementation, in the next month. Stanford has already purchased this technology and is moving forward. We are not  prepared to do so at this time.      Item 6: Lucie Stern Children's Theatre Mechanical and Electrical  Q. 1. Please provide more specific examples of “mechanical and electrical upgrades”.  Are these repairs for safety as well?    A. 1. This project will replace and/or upgrade the following mechanical equipment  within the Palo Alto Children’s Theatre:  Air Cooled Chiller (roof‐mounted)  Chilled water pump  Hot water boiler  Hot water pump  Twelve exhaust fans  Four air distribution devices City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 9:16 AM 4  Two roof‐mounted air handling units  Two air handling units located in the basement  Seven horizontal fan coil units  Three vertical fan coil units  One new water cassette unit  Twenty‐six control valves  Twenty pressure controllers  Twenty measuring valves It will also replace and/or upgrade the following electrical equipment:  One 800 amp main switchboard  One 400 amp main switchboard  Nineteen electrical distribution panels The majority of the work in this project will replace equipment that is at the end  of its service life. New equipment is generally much safer than older  equipment.  New equipment is also more efficient and reliable than older  equipment. The scope also includes extending the fire sprinkler system beneath  the exterior walkway canopy throughout the Lucie Stern center. Stubs for these  sprinkler lines were installed during the first phase of work. Lastly, the work  includes replacement of the fire department connection for the Children’s  Theatre. The new fire department connection will be relocated to provide easier  and quicker access for the Fire Department should the need arise for them to  pump additional water into the building sprinkler system.      Q. 2. If the Children’s Theater repairs were cut out of the first project (the whole  Lucie Stern Community Center‐ approximately $2,239,000 for construction only),  why is the cost for just the Children’s Theater repairs (approximately $2,298,000 for  construction only) more than the cost for the whole Lucie Stern Center repairs?    A. 2. The Children’s Theatre mechanical system is very complex and portions are  in very difficult to access locations. In contrast, the mechanical upgrades to the  Community Center building added air conditioning and were relatively simple  with the addition of a new fenced enclosure beside the ballroom.      Q. 3. Why was the cost so poorly estimated for the first project that the whole  Children’s Theater repairs had to be cut out?    A. 3. No bids were received for the first project. Staff then directly solicited a  capable firm for a quote. This was a particularly busy construction time for the  Bay Area. Construction costs for skilled trades were much higher than the design  consultant team had estimated. To proceed with work at that time, the project  was divided in a logical manner to allow the critical life safety systems (fire alarms  and sprinklers) for the whole complex to be replaced, along with electrical  upgrades to the Community Theatre (which was also a safety issue), and the  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 9:16 AM 5 mechanical system upgrades to the Community Center building.      Q. 4. What is the cost per square foot on this project?    A. 4.  The size of the Children’s Theatre is 17,619 square feet. For the work directly  related to this building (i.e. $2,119,306), the cost per square foot is $120. That  value excludes the fire sprinkler work ($179,070) under the exterior walkway  canopies for the whole Lucie Stern complex.      Q. 5. Can I get a copy of the RFP?    Q. 5. Staff assumes that this request is in reference to the Invitation For Bids (IFB)  for the Children’s Theater work.  The IFB is available at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=63243       Thank you,  Judy Ng          Judy Ng   City Manager’s Office|Administrative Associate III 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650) 329‐2354  Email: Judy.Ng@CityofPaloAlto.org                       City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:49 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 7:44 PM To:UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City; CAC-TACC; ConnectedCity Subject:02-07-18 UAC meeting -- staff report -- Fiber Utility Update Commissioners, On your 02-07-18 agenda, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63221 Item IX.5 is a Fiber Utility Update. Here's the staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63216 I'd like to comment (below the "######" line) on the staff report. My comments are the paragraphs beginning with "###.") Note that the item is a "discussion" item, so you can't vote on your advice to Council. If you'd like to take a more action-oriented interest in fiber utility things, please let staff know. Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- PS: On 10-03-16, I commented on a previous revision of ATTACHMENT A. Please see pages 3-13 here. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54495 ############################################################################ 02-07-18 staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63216 --- page 1 --- ### These are PDF page numbers. ATTACHMENT A's "page 1" is PDF page 2, etc. 5 ### This staff report is about Item IX.5 of UAC's 02-07-18 agenda. MEMORANDUM TO: UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION FROM: UTILITIES DEPARTMENT DATE: February 7, 2018 SUBJECT: Fiber Utility Update This fiber utility update provides a summary of highlights of the City's dark fiber optic backbone network, including the current status of various initiatives to expand the network for citywide fiber-to-the-premises and wireless services. This update has been prepared to keep the UAC apprised of the major efforts and issues associated with the fiber utility. Staff City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:49 AM 2 is requesting UAC feedback regarding current efforts related to the fiber-to-the-node/fiber-to-the premises request for proposal (RFP) to retain a management consultant to prepare a business case, in addition to strategic advice regarding the City's future broadband expansion opportunities. The overall objective is to fully leverage the existing fiber network and reserves to support new and future applications and technologies dependent on gigabit-speed broadband, in addition to identifying potential public-private partnership opportunities. Staff is also seeking UAC feedback on the most effective structure for reporting progress and advising the City Council on the work ahead. Attachment A: Fiber Overview and Initiatives PREPARED BY: JIM FLEMING, Senior Management Analyst [initialed] REVIEWED BY: DAVE YUAN, Strategic Business Manager [initialed] APPROVED BY: ED SHIKADA [signed] Utilities General Manager --- page 2 --- ATTACHMENT A ### The following header is repeated on every page, but I won't repeat it on every page of this commentary. Utilities Department Version: 4.0 ### End header. OVERVIEW OF CITY DARK FIBER OPTIC BACKBONE NETWORK FIBER-TO-THE-PREMISES AND WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS INITIATIVES ### Section 2.23.050 of the City's municipal code says that one of UAC's responsibilities is to advise Council about the City's fiber utility. http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$v id=amlegal:paloalto_ca It's been that way since 10-18-10. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/25087 ### Section 2.23.050 doesn't say anything about wireless. Nor should it. Executive Summary This document is intended to provide a summary of the highlights of the City’s dark fiber optic backbone network, in addition to various initiatives to expand the network for citywide fiber-to-the-premises and wireless services. It is only meant to inform the reader who wants to understand the history of the City’s dark fiber network and recent broadband initiatives. City of Palo Alto Dark Fiber Optic Backbone Network The dark fiber optic backbone network (“fiber network”) was originally conceived by the City in the mid-1990s and is maintained and operated by City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CPAU”). The City’s initial telecommunications strategy was to build a dark fiber ring ### Palo Alto's dark fiber network isn't really in the shape of a ring. See the map of the network on page 45 of this document: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/42930 around Palo Alto that would be “capable of supporting multiple network developers and/or service providers with significant growth potential.” City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:49 AM 3 ### It would be interesting to know who said this, and when, and whether Council in effect adopted it. I Googled "site:cityofpaloalto.org 'multiple network developers' 'significant growth potential'" and got eight hits, none older than 2014. So I think the quote might have been invented. ### Historians may wish to peruse the minutes of Council's 08-05-96 meeting, where Council approved moving forward with the dark fiber network. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/citycouncil-archive/1996/19960805.html It mentions "growth" once ("growth market"). It mentions "network developers" twice (but doesn't say "multiple"). It mentions "service provider" (or "service providers") 67 times, but the discussion was about what service providers might do if there were a dark fiber network. In the mid-1990s, most investor-owned and public utilities invested in fiber optics to improve command and control of their utility infrastructure. Many of these networks typically had excess capacity that could be licensed or leased to third parties. ### This doesn't say what was true of Palo Alto's dark fiber network. I believe that Palo Alto's dark fiber network was designed from the beginning to have strands for leasing to customers. In other words, I don't think the idea of leasing strands to customers came about as the result of an accidental "excess capacity." The first phase of the fiber backbone construction occurred in 1996-1997. The initial portions of the network were constructed in a backbone ring architecture in existing utility rights-of-way. The fiber backbone was routed to pass and provide access to key City facilities and offices. The majority of the City’s business parks (e.g. Stanford Research Park) and commercial properties are also passed by the fiber backbone. ### In the fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) context, to "pass" a premises means to provide a connection point close enough to the premises that it could be connected as a matter of routine. The City's dark fiber network doesn't "pass" anything in this sense. To connect a dark fiber customer, the City in general has to do a one-of-a-kind engineering analysis just to see how much it will cost the customer, and the connection might be several blocks long. The original fiber backbone consisted of 33 route miles ### Council's 08-05-96 minutes say "15-mile." https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/citycouncil-archive/1996/19960805.html with 144 or more strands of single-mode fiber along most routes. Since the late 1990s, the fiber backbone has been expanded to approximately 49 route miles of mostly 144- or 288-count single-mode fiber. Fiber network construction was financed internally by the Electric Enterprise Fund through a 20-year, $2 million loan at a 0% interest rate. These funds were used to construct the network and to cover operating expenses. At the end of Fiscal Year 2008, the fiber optics business completed the loan repayment to the Electric Enterprise Fund for all capital and operating expenses from the beginning of the project. A separate Fiber Optics Enterprise Fund, capable of maintaining its own capital and operating budgets and financial operating reserve, was also created. In Fiscal Year 2009, a Fiber Optics Enterprise Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve (RSR) was established. The fiber network was built in part in response to telecommunications service providers such as emerging Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) that would use available dark fiber to provide various telecom services. In the mid-1990s, there was a high demand for fiber transport facilities to support the expansion of bandwidth-intensive broadband services. By the late 1990s, many CLECs left the market either through mergers with other CLECs or bankruptcy; the so-called “dot com bust” also occurred at roughly the same time. As a result, the anticipated demand for dark fiber in the original target market proved to be somewhat limited. By the late 1990s there was a glut of available dark fiber in many areas of the country. Nonetheless, it was evident that a fiber network would be a valuable asset for command and control of City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) facilities (e.g. electric substations) and other critical City infrastructure such as the traffic signal system. The network would also support a wide range of broadband voice, data and video applications for City ### The following footer is repeated on every page, but I won't repeat it on every page of this commentary. Fiber-to-Fiber Premises and Wireless Communication Initiative Page 1 of 7 Date Last Updated 12/28/17 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:49 AM 4 ### End footer. --- page 3 --- departments, in addition to various commercial users, telecommunications service providers, and the community as a whole. In 2000, the City began to license “dark fiber” for commercial purposes. ### According to some articles in the Palo Alto Weekly, by 12-19-97, there were two dark fiber commercial customers, https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/news/1997_Dec_19.LOOP.html and by 02-09-00, there were 17. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/news/2000_Feb_9.FIBER.html Dark fiber is unused fiber through which no light is transmitted, or installed fiber optic cable not carrying a signal. ### That's a nonsensical definition. Dark fiber is fiber which is not lit by the owner of the fiber. The reason the City's dark fiber makes money is that the City's dark fiber customers are able to light it. The basic business model is to provide dark fiber connectivity to users requiring access to large amounts of bandwidth. ### The City doesn't have to know why a customer leases its dark fiber. Maybe it's bandwidth. Maybe it's latency. Maybe it's privacy. Maybe it's reliability. Maybe it's freedom to use non-standard protocols. Customers are responsible for providing and maintaining the equipment to “light-up” or provision licensed fiber strands. Dark fiber is licensed or leased by a provider such as the City without the accompanying transmission service. In contrast, traditional telecommunication service providers only make available certain products (commonly known as “managed services”) within their service options that may not adequately meet the requirements of the specific applications. The fiber network has high market share and brand awareness among commercial enterprises and other organizations that need the quantity and quality of bandwidth provided by direct fiber optic connections. By connecting to the City’s fiber backbone, the customer gains fiber access to their Internet Service Provider (ISP) of choice. ### In general, the dark fiber connection connects any two points the customer wants to connect. Often, but not always, one of the two points is the ISP that the customer wants to connect to. A dark fiber customer can interconnect communications systems or computer networks across multiple Palo Alto locations and can also connect directly to their local and/or long distance carrier(s) of choice with a full range of communications services. Dark fiber customers can also have redundant telecommunication connections for enhanced reliability. Many of the City’s commercial dark fiber customers gain access to the Internet through the Palo Alto Internet Exchange (PAIX, now owned by Equinix). PAIX is a carrier-neutral collocation facility and hosts over 70 ISPs at their facility located in downtown Palo Alto. Equinix has similar facilities in the Americas, Europe, Middle East and Asia. The City currently licenses dark fiber connections to 108 commercial customers. The fiber network also serves the following City accounts: IT Infrastructure Services, Utilities Substations, Utilities Engineering, Public Works, Water Quality Control Plant and Community Services (Art Center). The total number of dark fiber service connections serving commercial customers and the City is 221 (some customers have more than one connection). At the end of fiscal year 2017, the licensing of dark fiber service connections resulted in a fiber reserve of approximately $28 million. ### The 4Q17 Utilities Quarterly Update (01-18-18) https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62954 says it's $25,420,000. According to the proposed Fiscal Year 2018 Budget, the fiber reserve is projected to increase by $1.1 million. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:49 AM 5 ### In a "normal" year, this might be more like $2.3 million, but this year, there are extra expenses for network refurbishing. Annual dark fiber license revenues come from the following customer categories: • City service connections: 27% of gross revenues. Private sector entities licensing dark fiber from the City: • Resellers: 42% of gross revenues. “Resellers” are telecommunication companies that purchase large amounts of transmission capacity from other carriers and resell it to smaller end-users. Examples of resellers are telecom companies that sell broadband, telephony and video services to the commercial and residential markets. ### In the case of the City's dark fiber network, resellers lease dark fiber connections from the City and then allow their customers to make use of those connections somehow. • Various commercial enterprises: 31% of gross revenues. Examples of private end-users are companies involved in various technologies, web hosting, social media, finance, medical, pharmaceuticals, research and development, software, law firms, consulting firms, e-commerce, etc. --- page 4 --- • Service offerings: Dark fiber backbone license fees are based on the number of fiber miles per month. ### This paragraph shouldn't start with a "•" because it's not the next element in the previous list of customer categories. ### The per-month license fee is based on more than just the length of the leased backbone fiber. Utility Rate Schedule EDF-3 (Dark Fiber Licensing Services) base license price is between $213 to $425 per fiber mile, per month. ### See the EDF-3 Rate Schedule for further details. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8108 Typical installation costs range from $500 for a building with existing fiber to $8,000 or more for installations requiring extensive substructure. Available configurations include point-to-point and diverse rings. For more information regarding commercial dark fiber services, refer to the City’s website: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/programs/fibernet.asp ### Note that the initial fee for creating a dark fiber connection isn't discussed here. This pricing overview says it could be "$8,000 or more." https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1508&TargetID=235 The majority of business parks and commercial properties are passed by the fiber backbone. ### The dark fiber network doesn't "pass" any entities, in the FTTP sense that you can make a connection inexpensively, without having to do an engineering exercise. ### Is it good enough to come relatively close to only a "majority" of business parks and commercial properties? In 2014, CPAU completed a project to serve 18 Palo Alto Unified School District facilities with dark fiber service connections (17 schools and the District’s Business Office). Fiber Optic Network Rebuild Capital Improvement Project (FO-16000) In 2016, CPAU retained Celerity Integrated Services, Inc. to provide a one-time comprehensive review and audit of the City dark fiber optic network. Celerity completed the review and audit and provided a physical description of the network; documented the number of fiber strands, in addition to conducting an inspection of 90 fiber nodes/cabinets (i.e. network splice points) to identify what is labeled within the individual nodes/cabinets. The rebuild project will install new aerial duct or substructure (conduit and boxes), in addition to fiber backbone cable to City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:49 AM 6 increase capacity for sections of the dark fiber ring that are at or near capacity. This project will allow CPAU to meet customer requests for services. The project areas primarily cover the Stanford Research Park, Palo Alto Internet Exchange/Equinix at 529 Bryant, and Downtown areas. This project basically “overlays” new fiber over existing fiber routes in the network. Existing fiber will continue to serve City facilities and commercial dark fiber customers. Rebuild Work Completed The route from PAIX at 529 Bryant to the Park Boulevard Substation has been completed. This phase of the project included substructure work, fiber pulling and cabinet installation. The new fiber installed for the backbone rebuild is 312- count single-mode fiber (2 x 144-count single-mode fiber, plus 24-count single-mode fiber). ### Why exactly 312-count? Rather than, say, 432-count (3 x 144-count)? Most of the cost of installed fiber optic cable is in the labor of installing it, not in the cable itself. How can we know our future requirements so precisely? Upcoming work scheduled over the next 12 months: • Route from Park Substation to Hansen Substation • Route from Hansen Substation to Stanford Research Park • Additional phases/routes to be determined. ### The 2Q17 Utilities Quarterly Update (page 23).also says "12 months," but it was written 9 months ago. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57459 The estimated cost for the rebuild is between $500,000 and up to $1,000,000 for substructure work. Another $250,000 for the overhead portion of the work is allocated for the project. CPAU crews are performing the equipment installation, cable pulling and terminations. CPAU’s substructure contractor is installing the conduit and boxes. Other Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) In 2018, the City will complete installation of fiber optics for Public Works’ pump stations and creek monitoring at 17 locations. ### On 03-22-17, the estimate was 8 pump stations plus 3 creek monitor systems. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56603 ### If the City had a citywide municipal FTTP network, wouldn't a FTTP connection be more than adequate for each of these 17 locations? For the Downtown Upgrade CIP (water and gas pipes), fiber optic conduits will be installed to support the Council’s directive for a “Dig Once” strategy to increase the availability of fiber infrastructure in the downtown area. --- page 5 --- Fiber-to-the-Premises For more than fifteen years, the City has worked to develop a business case to build a citywide Fiber-to-the-Premises (“FTTP”) network to serve homes and business. ### If, as claimed, it started in 1999, then that's more like 19 years. A number of business models have been evaluated. The following is a summary of the highlights to develop a network: 1999: A Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued to build citywide FTTP. There were no viable bids. ### According to CMR:331:99 (08-02-99), the technology for the proposed Universal Telecommunications System (UTS) was not required to be FTTP, although that was the ultimate vision. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2084 UTS was considered at Council's 04-05-99 meeting. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:49 AM 7 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/citycouncil-archive/1999/990405.html 2000-2005: In 2000, the City Council approved a Fiber-to-the-Home (“FTTH”) trial to determine the feasibility of providing citywide FTTH access in Palo Alto. ### The minutes of Council's 04-05-99 meeting seem to say that Council approved the FTTH Trial on that date. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/citycouncil-archive/1999/990405.html The FTTH trial passed 230 homes ### I don't think so. To "pass" a home means to make it easy to connect the home later. I think the FTTH Trial was designed to connect to 66 (or so) homes initially and not to connect anything else later. The original plan was to terminate the Trial after only a year. For further details, please see my previous comments (pages 9-10). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54495 and included 66 participants in the Community Center neighborhood. The purpose of the trial was to test the concept of fiber-to-the-home. The FTTH trial proved successful (i.e., proved technical feasibility), ### The Trial proved that the City could run a fiber network, and that customers would like it. It didn't test providing TV service using Ethernet packets. but when initial investment and overhead expenditures were included in the calculation to create a business case, it was not profitable for the City ### It was never intended that the FTTH Trial would provide the cost information that would be used in creating a business case. As an independent exercise, the City contracted with consultant Uptown Services to write, with staff, 1) a FTTH business case (2002), 2) a FTTH business plan, phase 1 (2003), and 3) a FTTH business plan, phase 2 (2004). These documents showed that a citywide municipal FTTH network was feasible financially. But then the City's legal staff became concerned that California law might not allow the network to be financed by revenue bonds backed by the City's electric utility, and that derailed the project. For further details, please see my previous comments (pages 10- 11). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54495 and the trial was ended in December 2005. • Title: UAC Recommendation regarding Fiber to the Home Financing Options https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/5292 ### This 07-19-04 staff report doesn't tell the whole story. (It also doesn't say when UAC said what it said. It was on 07-07-04.) ### On 03-18-04, UAC passed (3.2) this motion: "The UAC recommends that the City Council authorize the formation and construction of the fiber to the home project pursuant to the Fiber to the Home Business Plan Phase I, dated May 7, 2003, and Phase II, dated March 17, 2004, subject to an advisory vote to be placed on the November 2004 ballot. The UAC recommends no additional funding for the project until the project is approved by the City Council. Upon approval by Council, the UAC recommends that an expenditure of up to $120,000 be authorized for public relations and legal analysis but not engineering design." https://cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/uac-meetings/3236.pdf ### On 05-05-04, UAC passed (5-0) this motion: "The UAC returns the fiber to the home project to Council with its original recommendation intact, and requests that staff conduct a more thorough review of Options A and C, along with accessing alternative financing which may be based upon utility related uses, and to, furthermore, research potential partnerships." https://cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/uac-meetings/3455.pdf I don't know where to find documentation on what Options A and C (and the non-preferred Options B, D, E ,and F) were. The staff report doesn't seem to say. https://cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/uac-meetings/3267.pdf There's no staff report for Council's 04-19-04 study session on funding options for FTTH, where the same options may have been presented. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:49 AM 8 https://cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/citycouncil-meetings/3187.pdf From the 07-07-04 minutes (below) Option A apparently was revenue bonds backed by electric revenues, and Option C apparently involved certificates of participation. NOTE: This is the last time UAC minutes were verbatim. ### On 07-07-04, UAC passed (3-2) this motion: "1. Do not place advisory vote on the November ballot. 2. Halt consideration of FTTH until a viable financial option emerges. Direct staff, over the next 6 months, to seek guidance from the investment banking community about possible financing options and continue to monitor the progress of other California cities in securing financing." UAC also passed (3-2) this motion: "Continuing with the FTTH Trial for one year with an evaluation on whether to continue the trial at that time." https://cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/uac-meetings/3745.pdf However, since the minutes were not verbatim, we don't know exactly what the commissioners said. • Title: Recommendation to Terminate Fiber to the Home Trial and Discontinue Monitoring of Financing Methods in Other California Jurisdictions https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/5684 2006-2009: In 2006, the City issued another RFP and negotiated with a consortium of private firms to build FTTP under a public-private partnership model. In 2009, Staff recommended to Council termination of the RFP process and negotiations due to the lack of financial resources of the private firms. 2010: The City responded to Google Fiber’s Request for Information. 2011: Staff worked with two telecommunications consulting firm to evaluate the expansion of the existing dark fiber network for its commercial dark fiber licensing enterprise and also to expand the network on an incremental basis to attract a “last mile” FTTP builder and operator. This is a link to the staff report provided to the Utilities Advisory Commission in June of 2011, and the Council Finance Committee in November of 2011: • Title: Provide Feedback on the Development of a Business Plan for the Citywide Ultra-High-Speed Broadband System Project http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/27421 2012: Staff worked with a telecommunications consulting firm to study the feasibility of an alternative model for citywide FTTP which would rely on homeowners paying on a voluntary basis for some or all of the cost to build-out the existing dark fiber network into residential neighborhoods. The name of this model is “user-financed” FTTP. The analysis concluded that an opt-in FTTP network can be built using a combination of upfront user fees and City financing; however, there is very little probability of the debt incurred being repaid through operations. Ongoing subsidies would be required, very likely in excess of surpluses in the Fiber Optics Fund reserve generated by licensing dark fiber. The --- page 6 --- study was supported by a market survey which concluded there was limited interest among residents in this model. ### The staff report said (PDF page 22) that 36 percent of Palo Alto homeowners would be willing to invest in FTTP, even if the connect fee were $3,000 and the monthly fee were between $50 and $250. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30112 To me, that's not "limited interest." That's significant pent-up demand. This is a link to the staff report provided to the Utilities Advisory Commission in June 2012: • Title: Request for Feedback Concerning the Dark Fiber Optic Backbone Network http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30112 2013 - 2015: The City Council started it’s ### its. “Technology and the Connected City” initiative and directed staff to prepare a Fiber-to-the-Premises Master Plan and a Wireless Network Plan. In 2014, a Citizen Advisory Committee was appointed by the City Manager. The Citizen Advisory Committee is structured in a way for individual citizens to share opinions and perspectives, study issues, and develop recommendations. In 2015, staff worked with a telecommunications consulting firm, CTC Technology & Energy, to City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:49 AM 9 prepare these plans and they were provided in this September 28, 2015 Council staff report: • Title: Discussion of Fiber-to-the-Premises and Direction on Next Steps for Fiber and City Wireless Services http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49073 At the September 28, 2015 Council meeting, staff and the consultant reviewed these plans with the Council Members. As a result, a Council Motion directed staff to pursue several initiatives, which are described in this August 16, 2016 staff report which updated the Council about the various activities from the Motion: • Title: Fiber-to-the-Premises update on City Council Motions and Google Fiber http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53363 2014 - 2016: Google Fiber announced Palo Alto as a potential “Google Fiber City” for a build-out of their fiber optic network. Since early 2014, staff worked with Google personnel to complete an extensive checklist process regarding City infrastructure and processes, in addition to negotiating agreements for a project description, utility pole attachments, encroachment permits, environmental reviews and other agreements for cost recovery for use of staff time. Based on Council direction, staff also worked with Google to develop a “co-build” concept to explore the feasibility of building a City network in parallel with Google’s network. In July 2016, Google announced a delay in their plans for up to six (6) months to build a fiber optic network in Silicon Valley, which also included Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale. Google advised staff that they are exploring more innovative ways to deploy their network, which may include implementing wireless technologies. Co-build discussions were also delayed. At this time, there is no activity related to Google Fiber. ### This paragraph was originally written long ago. By now, it should be clear that Google Fiber is never going to get back to doing FTTP (or what it might claim is a wireless equivalent). In the summer of 2016, the City approved permits for two cabinets so AT&T can begin to deploy their “AT&T Fiber” service. AT&T is exploring deployment of additional cabinets in 2017-18. On December 12, 2016, staff provided Council with an informational update regarding Fiber-to-the-Premises and wireless initiatives: • Title: Update for Fiber-to-the-Premises and Wireless Initiatives http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55016 2017 April 5, 2017: Staff provided the UAC with three options for the City’s fiber utility:1. Future Plans for Fiber and Broadband Expansion; • OPTION 1: Municipally-Owned Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP); • OPTION 2: Municipally-Owned Fiber-to-the-Node (FTTN) Network with Neighborhood/Private Last Mile Provision; • OPTION 3: Pause Municipal FTTP Development Efforts; Increase Transparency and Predictability for Third Party Providers. 2. Expand Wi-Fi to Unserved City Facilities; and Discontinue Consideration of City-Provided Wi-Fi in Commercial Areas https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56779 The UAC made a motion to recommend Council approval of Option 2, taking into account UAC feedback on that option including the idea of a neighborhood beta where the City would build to the node and extend fiber and/or wireless to one neighborhood to gather data, experiment new applications, and explore partnerships. ### I'd recommend reviewing my TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS of the 04-05-17 UAC meeting, Item IX.2 (pages 92-124). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57737 I think Commissioner Ballantine's idea of the beta, which he proposed as an informal amendment to the main motion to do FTTN (2:22:00), and which the commissioners apparently accepted, was that the beta would be FTTP. ("If we all lined up with something that sounded like Option number 2, let's figure out how to also include an element of [Option] number 1, that gets us learning in a direction." (2:19:23)) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:49 AM 10 The UAC also approved the recommendations on wireless expansion, excluding extension of Wi-Fi to the golf course and discontinue consideration of City Wi-Fi in commercial areas. May 23, 2017: Staff provided the Council Policy and Services Committee with a report recommending Option 2 for the Municipal Fiber-to-the-Node Network (FTTN) for Fiber and Broadband Expansion; and (2) Expand Wi-Fi to Unserved City Facilities and Discontinue Consideration of City-Provided Wi-Fi in Commercial Areas • Title: Expansion Plan for Fiber Optic Network and Wireless Network (ID # 7735) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57822 The Policy and Services Committee approved the wireless recommendations and elected Option 2 (FTTN). Staff was also directed to: • Define more clearly the goals of Fiber-to-the-Node (FTTN); • Reach out to other communities on approaches post Google and share strategies and funding models; • Include ROI estimates; • Present a rollout strategy w with an estimate of how may homes will be passed; and ### Yes, Council Member Tom DuBois asked how many homes FTTN would pass. (See the 05-03-17 minutes, page 50.) https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58458 I'm guessing that none would be passed by fiber (in the FTTP sense). Is he asking how many homes would be in a position to be easily connected to the network with the wireless "equivalent" of fiber between the home and a node? • Draft a communication strategy. August 21, 2017: Staff provided the Council with a report for a work plan for Fiber-to-the-Premises and Wireless Network. Staff, UAC and the Policy and Services Committee recommended Council to: 1. Pursue a Municipal Fiber-to-the-Node network for fiber and broadband expansion; and 2. Expand Wi-Fi to unserved City facilities and discontinue consideration of City-provided Wi-Fi in commercial areas. • Title: Work Plan for Fiber-to-the-Premises and Wireless Network (ID # 7616) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61084 --- page 8 --- The Council passed a Motion directing staff to: A. Develop a business case for a municipal-provided Fiber-to-the-Node (FTTN) network for fiber and broadband expansion (“Option 2”); engage a management consultant to develop the business case, funding plans, identify potential partners and/or service providers, and high level network design; and engage an engineering firm to design a FTTN network including an expansion option to build a citywide Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP) network; and B. Expand Wi-Fi to unserved City facilities and discontinue consideration of City provided Wi-Fi in commercial areas; and C. Expediently return to Council with Ordinances that will lower the City’s FTTN construction costs such as a Dig Once, String Once, Multi-unit housing, and Microtrenching. Next Steps Staff has been working with the CAC in preparing a Request for Proposals ("RFP") to retain a management consultant to complete the above-noted items in the Council's directive. It is anticipated the RFP will be issued in the first quarter of 2018. Staff has also been engaged in exploratory discussions with third party telecommunication firms regarding potential fiber and wireless deployment plans and public-private partnership opportunities. Staff is also developing staff reassignments and seeking UAC feedback to expedite advancement of Council’s motion. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:28 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Sarah Graff <sarah.elyse.graff@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 9:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:against the Arastradero/Charleston corridor project Dear City Council members, I want to express my great concern over the proposed project on Arastradero-Charleston. The traffic on this corridor at peak times is already problematic. Spending two years disrupting traffic with very costly construction for superficial improvements seems like a poor use of public funds. I would much rather see this money go toward improving the safety of the train tracks. Thank you for your work for our community. Sarah Graff 1070 Cerrito Way City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:28 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Heidi Axtell <Haxtell@aol.com> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 7:32 AM To:Council, City Subject:Arastradero corridor Please don't move ahead with the next phase of road construction "improvements" on Arastradero.  Leave well enough  alone.  I live on Maybell and have to deal with this area all the time.    I frequent the YMCA on Ross Road and that is a mess.  The sidewalk bulbouts are more dangerous than safe.  The speed  bumps alone get people to drive slower.      Stop Arastradero road construction now and use the $$ elsewhere where real, needed improvements will enhance our  city.  Heidi Axtell  Maybell Ave.   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:30 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:jeffrey lipkin <repjal@att.net> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 8:49 AM To:Council, City Subject:Arastradero/Charleston finances It is ridiculous to spend the millions of dollars contemplated for the next phase of this project. You have better things to  do. Shame on you.    Sent from my iPhone    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:29 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Joe U <joeu1218@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 8:08 AM To:Council, City Subject:Arastradero/Charleston road modifications comment To all council members:  There has been some discussion in our community email group about the planned multi‐million dollar changes  proposed for the Arastradero/Charleston corridor. I am in agreement with many of my neighbors that the  proposed changes are not money well spent. It isn’t clear that spending these monies will in any way help  anyone who drives on Arastradero; it might actually make things worse.      I propose leaving this corridor unchanged for now. I’m sure there are many other traffic related modification  throughout the city that would be a better use for this money.     Please do NOT go forward with your plans to modify Arastradero! Reallocate this money for road  improvements that need it most.  Regards,  Joseph Urbassik  4128 Willmar Dr.  Palo Alto 94306  joeu1218@gmail.com  650‐714‐9610  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:29 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 8:10 AM To:Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; alexanderlew@att.net Cc:Council, City Subject:ARB Hearing for 620 Emerson St on Feb 1, 2018 Attachments:scanarb620em.pdf Please see attached regarding 620 Emerson St. ARB hearing is today 2/1/18. Thanks, Elizabeth Wong 650 814 3051 February 1 , 2018 Architectural Review Board (ARB) City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Objections of YO LLC to ARB Approval of Application 17PLN-00331 620 Emerson Street, Palo Alto YO LLC requests that the ARB deny approval of subject project. YO LLC offers the ARB the following considerations as part of its evaluation of the project that are not discussed as part of the ARB Staff Report (ID# 8690) prepared by the City of Palo Alto . 1) Project Ownership YO LLC has a contract to purchase the property which predates Applicant's ownership of this property. Approval of this application and the proposed demolition and development work proposed to follow may have to be reversed depending upon the outcome of the pending litigation. While litigation remains active for the site, it is inappropriate for any land use decisions to be considered. 2) Elimination of On-Site Parking YO LLC objects to the elimination of the existing parking areas on the property by allowing the applicant to pay in lieu and to construct a building which eliminates such parking. YO LLC's experiences in working with the City of Palo Alto on development projects within the Downtown Core area appear to demonstrate inconsistencies in the manner in which the subject application is being considered by the staff resulting in unfair treatment to the development community. YO LLC's past experience in working with City staff on projects within the Downtown Core show a historically strong preference by the City to preserve on-site parking for development project to help minimize parking demand. The existing site currently has three (3) parking spaces that serve the site from its West side access from the High Street. The proposed site improvements result in the need for four (4) parking spaces. No project within the Downtown Core should receive a recommendation by staff for approval without exhausting all options to preserve either a portion of a site's existing parking or to fully-park a project to the City's parking policies. To: Palo Alto -Architectural Review Board Subject: ARB Application 1 ?PLN-00331 -620 Emerson Street Date: February 1, 2018 Page: 2 of 7 The site design team only considered surface-level parking options. There appears to be no design consideration by the applicant nor request from the City for site design considerations that utilize modern parking technology such as mechanical lifts to partially or fully park the site. The following are recently completed projects within the Downtown Core that were developed in partnership with City staff that take advantage of modern parking equipment such as parking lifts, underground parking lifts, vehicle elevators to access sub grade parking, or rotating equipment to reduce drive aisle widths on-site: • • • 240 Hamilton Avenue (Turn Around Rotating Entry) 102 University Avenue (Car Elevator) 646 Waverley Street (Parking Lifts) Although the cost of parking technology solutions may increase the financial burden of a project to a developer, the additional cost to preserve on-site parking should not be a deciding factor in the final design of a site, especially when the City has a proven track record of requiring developers to consider such solutions as part of their projects to help preserve parking within the Downtown Core. In addition to parking technology equipment, there appears to be no discussion or even consideration by the applicant for subgrade parking that can be accessed easily from the existing High Street access. The use of a Car Elevator providing access to a subgrade parking basement is a viable option for this site to not only preserve but expand parking for the site. Even the use of Subgrade Mechanical Lifts would allow for at least the three (3) existing parking spaces to be preserved on-site. With so many viable parking options still available for consideration by the applicant and the City, YO LLC requests that the ARB immediately reject this application. Furthermore, as a Palo Alto property investor, and developer that is wholeheartedly invested within the Palo Alto community, we find the inconsistencies in the way in which this project is being reviewed and fast tracked through the development process completely unfair and request that the ARB not even consider this project for discussion without additional vetting by the City. We also request that the City provide additional information within future staff reports related to this project as to why the consideration of alternative parking strategies was not considered for this project. In addition to the inconsistencies by City staff in the handling of the review process, we also note the following additional items: (a) The elimination of the on-site parking is not permitted by Code. The site has 3 on-site parking spaces that have been used as parking for Stanford Florists personnel and its delivery trucks for decades. It even has a three car rolling garage door for this purpose. Therefore, it is disingenuous to say that the on-site parking of at least 3 vehicles is not feasible. To: Palo Alto -Architectural Review Board Subject: ARB Application 1 ?PLN-00331 -620 Emerson Street Date: February 1, 2018 Page: 3 of 7 (b) Planning's submittal of the traffic analysis for this site was emailed to YO LLC at 5:31 pm on January 31, 2018, less than 15 hours before this ARB hearing. YO LLC did not have an opportunity to either review or consult with professionals regarding the validity of such analysis. Further YO LLC did not have the benefit of having the drawings received by email to be printed in large, legible form (c) Even if the fourth parking space is unworkable, there remain 3 working existing in-situ parking spaces that should be kept at the project site. (d) Applicant cites the need for space to place the mandatory garbage, recycling and compost bins as the reason why on-site parking needs to be eliminated. It is inconceivable that the mandatory bins would completely prevent on-site parking. In fact, the fourth space, shown in one of the Applicant's parking analysis drawings, could be used to house such bins. 3) Parking Demand by Planned Land Use -Loading Zone Impacts YO LLC recognizes the City's Downtown Core Land Use policies try to provide an equitable approach in the creation or preservation of parking supply but when a new project is proposed that clearly defines its intended land use, Restaurant and Catering, the consideration of parking generated by that Land Use should not be ignored. Restaurant uses require accessible Loading Zones for food deliveries. Emerson Street between Hamilton Avenue and Forest Avenue has no Loading Zones that can be utilized by the proposed Land Use. This will result in double parking impacts along Emerson Street that severely impact the operations of business on this street block. High Street between Hamilton Avenue and Forest Avenue also lacks loading zones. The use of the existing driveway and alleyway will impact existing businesses if blocked by rear-site loading. Hamilton Avenue provides a Loading Zone along the front of the Epiphany Palo Alto Hotel but that site is inconvenient for deliveries to 620 Emerson Street The existing site is not impacted by Loading Zone issues because it provides three (3) existing on-site parking spaces and has additional in-facility access through the rear garage doors that serve the site. The elimination of on-site parking as currently proposed by the site will have a significantly adverse effect to businesses along Emerson Street. 4) Independent Restroom Facilities YO LLC objects because the proposed conditions of approval do not fully incorporate the obligation of the Applicant to restore the subject building with compliant bathrooms if there is a change in ownership of the 620 Emerson property, as set forth in the letter at page 61 of the ARB Packet. To: Palo Alto -Architectural Review Board Subject: ARB Application 1 ?PLN-00331 -620 Emerson Street Date: February 1, 2018 Page: 4 of 7 Any project built within the City of Palo Alto should comply to the requirements of the City's existing land use policies. A newly developed site should include restroom facilities independent of separate structures. Even if it is the intention of the applicant to operate new uses within the subject site in conjunction with adjacent properties, ensuring that the site can operate independently in the future will help allow future land use choices on the site. At a minimum, the adjacent Epiphany Hotel should include in perpetuity access easements for the use of restroom facility or any other utilities that are intended to jointly serve both sides, and those access easements should be presented in conjunction with any proposed land use decision for the subject property. Anything short of such requirements demonstrates a failure of the City Planning Department to uphold the land use policies of the City. 5) YO LLC objects to special treatment the City has granted Nobu restaurant because it is a very popular and well regarded restaurant and to Larry Ellison, the owner, because of his immense status in the business community. YO LLC strives to improve the quality of life Palo Alto for residents and businesses. YO LLC does not receive special treatment by the City in the fast tracking and side-stepping of City Land Use policies, nor should Nobu Restaurant or Larry Ellison. Sincerely, YO LLC, Elizabeth Wong, Manager Copy: Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 4:08 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Richard Karp <dick_karp@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, February 05, 2018 2:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Are abandoned car reports ever acted on? Attachments:0204181620.jpg; 0204181620a.jpg Hello, Attached are two photos of a camper that has been parked on the frontage road on San Antonio just west of Alma St (near the San Antonio caltrain station). It has been there now for about a month in my estimation. The camper has no license plates. I reported this camper using the abandoned vehicle form on the city website about three weeks ago. When nothing happened, I reported it again on the abandoned vehicle phone line about two weeks ago. Nothing still has been done about it, as far as I can tell. . Why bother even having a way to report these vehicles if no action is ever taken? Using our city streets as a long term parking lot detracts from the lifestyle and attractiveness of Palo Alto. It should be even more discouraged near a train station. Council needs to check into this and make sure that staff is doing their job properly. . Thanks, Richard Karp 334 Diablo Ct P.S. There are a number of cars parked behind the camper which also seem to have been there a long time, although I haven't been tracking them specifically. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:28 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:miriam teeter <m.teeter@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 9:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:Bike Blvd construction on Ross Rd.....and I hope NOT on any other road! Disastrous!!! Dangerous!!! Ross Road planning is a disaster!!  How in the world are bikes and cars supposed to fit?  How can this be called  a "bike boulivard?"  It is SO dangerous.  Dangerous to pedestrians, too!!  Who in the world planned  this????  Terrible!  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:49 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Karen Saracino <karen@saracino.com> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 9:21 PM To:sarah.ratliff@gcinc.com; Council, City Subject:Bike Lane on Amarillo Avenue Dear City Council Members and Sarah Ratliff, I am distressed about the slotted hump and raised crossing that is about to be built near my house on Amarillo Avenue. A bike bump to slow traffic down like the ones on Greer Road (North of Oregon Expressway) seems reasonable but the raised crossing is a terrible idea. I drive on Ross Road twice a day and load/unload my kids into my car right near the bump and it feels VERY UNSAFE. I fear for my children's safety as cars swerve out as they exit the narrow bump. Backing out past the hump twice a day on Ross Road has also left me vulnerable to oncoming cars and bikes--- there is a blind spot there where there never used to be one. I DO NOT WANT THIS IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE. Before anymore slotted bumps are built— please consider my request. Another concern is that it is visually unpleasant. The "Bump 5mph" sign that jets out on the street is an eyesore. Not to mention, we will be losing two valuable parking spots. What can I do at this point to STOP this bump from being erected? I did not know it would be this dangerous and ugly until I saw it and drove through it first-hand on Ross Road. I implore City Council to drive and bike on Ross Road. And please, come to Amarillo Avenue and SEE what will happen to our street. Thank you for your time reading this letter. Karen Saracino Take a look at this photo— better yet, go to Ross Rd and LOOK at it in person. It looks terrible. It is hard to see anything and what you do see are ugly dirt patches. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:49 AM 2 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:46 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Lois Lin <mloislin@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 4:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Charleston/Arastradero Dear Council,    Please do not waste money adding unnecessary curbs and islands on the corridor.  The only thing that needs to be fixed  is the corner of Arastradero where it merges onto Miranda/Foothill at the right turn line, which does not work!  Please  don't make our street like the fiasco on Ross Road.  Painted lines work just fine, are inexpensive, and can be altered if  necessary in the future.    Thank you for your consideration of saving money and making our neighborhood better.    Lois Lin, 4049 Orme Street    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:28 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jim Colton <james.colton10@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 9:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:Charleston/Arastradero Dear City Council Member, I travel this corridor multiple times a day. It is a mess, especially the sections that change from two lanes to one and back again which results in drivers trying to get ahead before one of the lanes is ending. I am appalled that we have spend so much money and angst on this section of roadway and we are now about to spend millions of good money after bad. Let's leave this alone and maybe some day we can come up with a better solution. Jim Colton Georgia Ave City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 4:08 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Eugene Zukowsky <eandzz@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, February 05, 2018 10:28 AM To:Council, City Subject:Charleston-Arastradero We’ve lived on Maybell Way since 1969 and have seen the many changes that have occurred in our neighborhood and the entire city. We use the Charleston-Arastradero corridor very frequently and we think that the changes that have been made are a disaster. The traffic backs up frequently. Cars idle and spew emissions into the air and drivers get frustrated. The additional proposed changes will make the situation worse. The cost and the disruption to our lives will be enormous. Palo Alto has a budget shortfall. Is this the way we should be spending money? We urge you not to go ahead with the proposal to spend millions of dollars on this project. Zita and Gene Zukowsky City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 8:38 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Ron Wilensky <rwilensky@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, February 05, 2018 12:22 AM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; DuBois, Tom; Holman, Karen; Fine, Adrian; Kniss, Liz (internal); Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory Cc:Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; jonathan.lat@cityofpaloalto.org; Owen, Graham; Council, City Subject:Comment on CUP Application No. 17PLN-00446 for Community Center at 305 North California Avenue Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council: Please do not approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that would allow the church at 305 North California Avenue to operate as a community center for 500 people or more, Monday to Thursday 9AM to 10PM and Friday and Saturday 9AM to 11PM. A community center of this size and level of activity is inappropriate in quiet, residential neighborhood zoned R-1 (10,000) and does not meet the requirements in PAMC 18.76.010. I urge you to weigh carefully whether people writing in favor of the community center live in the neighborhood or are even residents of Palo Alto. I think you will find that most are not Palo Alto residents and those who are residents do not live nearby. These supporters of the community center are asking for its benefits but do not suffer its adverse effects on bike safety, traffic congestion and parking. Best regards, Ron Wilensky Resident of Old Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:49 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Robin Mullery <robin@cloudmail.us> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 8:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Concern re: Fire department reduction Hello City Council, I am writing to express concern about what I read in this Mercury News article about the 11 firefighter position that have been cut in Palo Alto. https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/19/palo-alto-cuts-11-firefighter-jobs-after-stanford-reduces-contract/. Given that in January, (1) we had several occasions when simultaneous 9-1-1 calls resulted in the PAFD reaching level zero (there were no units available to respond to emergencies!) and (2) there were increased response times I think alternative budget cuts *need* to be seriously considered. My husband and I have two small children and an elderly mother who live in Palo Alto. It seems unconscionable to cut basic emergency services of which the youngest and oldest members of our community are most likely to need. Please take up this issue and look for other budget cuts. Kind regards, Robin City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/7/2018 1:24 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 06, 2018 4:59 AM To:Palo Alto Daily Post Cc:WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; David Werner; Court Skinner; Council, City; info Subject:conscription Dear Editor The Post recently had an article about a journalist who claimed that Jane Fonda shouldn't have criticized US war policy in VietNam. I thought it was good to help the Catholics being persecuted there, but forcing our own young men give up their lives so that some foreign people could live in freedom seemed even worse. When President Clinton, who evaded the draft himself, renewed the draft law and arbitrarily added "medical personnel" , that is, my son, my daughter, my son-in-law and my daughter-in-law, I was sorry I hadn't spoken up for all those other mothers who lost their sons. Today we see thousands of veterans, mentally damaged by the experience of killing and seeing their friends die, jobless and homeless, while the rest of us prosper, and the President plays chicken with his opposite number in N?orth Korea, and the Vice-president brags about how we won't let Venezuela be run by a dictator. That's outrageous!! Shouldn't we as a nation build homes for our veterans on our unused military bases so they can be healed by national love and concern? Who has a better right? Stephanie Munoz 101 Alma, apt. 701 248-1842. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 8:31 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Margie Cain <margiecain@rocketmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 04, 2018 9:43 AM To:Council, City Cc:Owen, Graham; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Cosider Safety First I am writing to the City Council because I am a neighbor of the First Baptist Church. I know that the City Council will be considering a CUP application for the Church to become a Community Center. I am sure the programs currently using the church are wonderful programs that do benefit some portion of the community but I believe the big picture should not be based on the sweetness of the program but on the safety of the community as a whole. I have to ask the Council members if they have actually visited the First Baptist location. If you have then you would notice that there are just 10 parking spaces on the church grounds. Three of the ten spaces are reserved for the nursery school, 1 for the pastor and 1 for the doctor conducting business at the facility. That leaves just 5 open spaces. From what we understand, two days a week iSing has 80 girls dropped off and picked up after school for lessons. We have no idea how many more cars are dropping off and picking up between the parents of the preschool, the patients of the doctors, the music school, Tango lessons and other dancing groups but sharing 5 parking spaces among all of them is ridiculous. Parents are forced to park in the bike lanes and around the surrounding neighborhoods. If you go by on one of the heavily rented days during the school year, you will see parents double and triple parked. They park illegally on corners ( blocking visibility of people trying to make a right or left hand turn onto North California from South Court) and some cars just stop right in the middle of North California to drop their children off and pick them up. You add the fact that Paly students are riding their bikes home from school on Bryant and Jordan kids on North California (both streets are City designated bike routes), and it makes for a crazy situation with an accident waiting to happen. I find it ironic that the City Transportation department is doing their best to make North California safer by adding wide bike lanes in both directions and then you might consider adding hundreds of cars using those same bike lines right during the prime after school hours. In a typical afternoon, you can spot numerous kids running back and forth across the street and kids on their bikes weaving in and out between cars. It is a scary sight. Safety for our youth should be our number one concern. I don't really understand adding another community center considering the city already has 3 centers along a 2 mile stretch of Middlefield Road but if you do decide on this church becoming a community center then please make if safe for everyone. Without sufficient parking, no matter how sweet you think the iSing is, it would be reckless to allow this facility to continue being used the way it is. Thank you, Margie Cain (650) 387-2477 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 1:25 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 3:05 PM To:Gitelman, Hillary Cc:Clerk, City; Council, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Does Verizon have a CPCN Dear Hillary Gitleman, Please consider this my formal request that you provide me with documentation that Verizon currently has a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) valid in Palo Alto. If you do not have such documentation—or if you know that Verizon does not have a valid CPCN—I would appreciate your informing me. Thank you for your cooperation. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming   Jeanne Fleming, PhD jFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:31 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Shawna Doughman <shawnadoughman@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 9:31 AM To:Council, City Subject:Emergency Services I am dismayed to hear of the current situation with emergency service staff levels. If we have already had experiences of  not meeting needs in our community, as well as dropped reciprocity from our surrounding towns, we are in a dire  situation that must be addressed. Please examine our city spendings to see where budgets can be cut without impacting  life saving needs. Thank you.     Shawna Doughman    Sent from my iPhone  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:33 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Dee DeLeeuw <deedeleeuw1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 12:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:Enforcement of Parking Ban on El Camino Good morning,    I’ve been meaning to write this note for over a year and only finally getting around to it.    I’ve been a resident of Palo Alto for years, owning a home in South Palo Alto for the past 7 years.      I am absolutely appalled by the number of camper vans littering El Camino Real and many of its side streets.  I am  writing as a taxpayer and a resident to demand enforcement of various parking laws which prohibit overnight parking (I  believe the max is 3 days) as well as folks living in these vans on city streets. There are literally gas cans, generators etc.  littering the streets.  It would be bad enough if this was simply an eyesore, but it is absolutely a safety issue.  My kids do  not feel safe walking in front of Stanford campus, and I don’t either.   I have read and heard rumors that the city was  finally going to crack down on this known problem, but have not seen anything done at all and the situation is getting  worse.    It is not lost on me as I write a $20k property tax bill and, recently, paid a large fine on a parking ticket I received on  California Avenue (I deserved the ticket, quickly enforced by Palo Alto police within 20 minutes of me parking  accidentally, but illegally) that this lack of enforcement is absolutely unacceptable.    As a resident and taxpayer, I demand to understand, please, the City of Palo Alto’s plan to deal with this.    Thank you,  Dee Dante  (408) 431‐2350  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:49 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Joyce <JNELSEN@msn.com> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 9:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:First Baptist Church conditional use permit When will the above topic be on the Palo Alto City Council agenda?    Thank you,  Joyce Nelsen  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:27 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Loy Martin <loymartin@icloud.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 9:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:First Baptist Church of Palo Alto Dear Council Members, After stints as both an undergraduate and a faculty member at Stanford, I moved to Palo Alto for good thirty five years ago. This is the first time I have written a letter to the governing council of the city I consider my home. I write now after learning that our next door neighbor, the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto, has applied for a conditional use permit as a “community center.” We bought our house at 349 North California Avenue in the spring of 1983. The First Baptist Church next door was a thriving church then and went about its business without unduly disturbing its neighbors. In addition to church services there were occasional weddings and other activities, mostly church related or charitable in nature. The congregants coming and going were, for the most part, familiar to the residents nearby. About a decade ago, things began to change, gradually at first, and in ways that it took us a few years to understand. We now know that this was around the time a new pastor, Randle Mixon, arrived on the scene. We also now know that the original healthy congregation of around eight hundred has, over the intervening years, and by Mr. Mixon’s own estimate, lost nearly ninety percent of its membership. This loss, again according to Mr. Mixon, left the church unable to meet its financial obligations. In recent years the church has addressed its fiscal problems by accumulating secular tenants, renting the church buildings out on several days, and especially evenings, each week, for events often lasting until 11:00 PM. The main activities hall lies less than fifty feet from our home so my wife and I have had ample opportunity to observe the range of tenants involved. These tenants have included a restaurant, a school for ballroom dancing, a folk dancing group, a rock group, a venue for political rallying, a children’s music school and a girls’ choral group—all secular uses having nothing to do with the church as a religious institution. This growth of the property as a commercial business occurred without any municipal permits and, therefore, without regulation. The city government’s recent objection to this practice has resulted in the current application for a conditional use permit to restore the church’s full range of rental options. It’s hard to find words to describe the magnitude of the intrusion into our home and lives brought about by the unrestrained uses of the church in recent years. Times of illness, times of pleasure, times of friendship and the ordinary peaceful times of domestic life—all have been repeatedly interrupted by the persistent clamor of the tenants renting the church’s facility next door. With it’s windows and doors wide open, its amplified sound and its total disregard for the community around it, the church makes a very great difference in the quality of life possible in this neighborhood. These effects are not a secret. They are widely known and, if one of us were to place our home on the market for sale, these unusual conditions would have to be disclosed to prospective buyers as a relevant nuisance. Left unregulated, in other words, activities at the church would materially compromise the property values of the homes that surround it. I hope the council members will understand that our complaint implies no judgment of the value of the various organizations that rent the church facilities. We object to their placement in an area that, in terms of City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:27 AM 2 traffic, parking and noise, is inadequate to accommodate them. In his application for a permit, Mr. Mixon asks to be allowed to continue these activities every day and night for as many as five hundred people. He makes this application “under protest” because he seems to believe that a church should not be subject to normal municipal regulations under the city’s zoning ordinances. Please consider carefully the logic of this position. Mr. Mixon is saying, in effect, that the further the church declines as a religious institution the more it is entitled to privileges that are unique to religious institutions and would be denied to any secular property in the community. I am familiar with the argument that the role of churches has changed over time, that churches need to become more integrated into the values and activities of the community at large and that this integration necessarily involves activities on their premises that are not specifically religious. The mistake would be to identify the First Baptist Church as representative of Palo Alto churches in general. It is not true that most of our churches have declined in their membership as the First Baptist Church has during Mr. Mixon’s stewardship. Indeed some have enjoyed robust gains in the sizes of their congregations during the same period. It is also not true that Palo Alto churches all occupy spaces as physically constrained as this church does. Many have large parking facilities and buildings well separated from surrounding homes Finally we need to ask what this debate is actually about. It is not about the church’s tenants. As the New Mozart School has amply demonstrated, it is always possible to find alternative, and more appropriate, venues for our community’s worthy activities. And it is not about the needs of a robust congregation of worshippers. Mr. Mixon and his supporters wish to use the church property as a commercial business for their own purposes. My argument is that they should not be allowed to do so to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhood. I respectfully request that you deny the First Baptist Church’s application to become a community center. Thank you for your attention, Loy D. Martin 349 North California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:46 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Bonnie Flanagan <bonnie.m.flanagan@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 2:20 PM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Owen, Graham; Lait, Jonathan; James.Stephens@cityofpalo.org Subject:First Baptist Church’s CUP request Members of the City Council: I’m writing about the Baptist Church’s CUP request to operate as a Community Center. Our family has lived across from the church since the mid 1960s. The church had a robust parish for many years & there were large Sunday services, Easter, Christmas, weddings & funerals. There were also social/community services like Alcoholic Anonymous, election polling, etc. The parking & traffic situation was manageable & not reflective of what has occurred with recent organizations operating out of the church — the largest being iSing & the Mozart Music School. The traffic that these businesses have brought to the neighborhood is significant. Most of this occurs when children are returning home from Jordan, Paly & other nearby schools. U-turns in the middle of the street while dropping off & picking up children is a regular occurrence. Classes & events have parents parking cars on nearby streets - South Court, Waverley, California Ave, Bryant & Washington. Other Palo Alto religious organizations have on-site parking; whereas, the Baptist Church has only eight on-site parking spaces: one for the Pastor, one for Joellen Werne, MD, one handicapped spot & one-two used by the daycare as their three designated spaces are for childcare drop off. That leaves three spots for other church-related staff. All other staff & participants must park on nearby streets. With Bryant Street designated as the bicycle path this will exacerbate the traffic & parking issues. Unless there have been changes to this area’s bike plan, we’ve been told between 10-15 street parking spaces will be removed. This is not safe for bicyclist, pedestrians & cars utilizing both Bryant & California Avenues. It presents a very dangerous situation. I’m very concerned for the safety of our children riding bikes in this area & request that the CUP for a Community Center be denied as it significantly increases traffic & impacts the safety of our children. Thank you. Attached below: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:46 AM 2 The June 14, 2017 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report that includes many letters describing safety issues & the impact on the neighborhood: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58205 Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/7/2018 1:28 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Wednesday, February 07, 2018 11:20 AM To:Council, City Subject:Funding the zoo Council Members,  I find it difficult to rationalize your decision to add $7M to fund the Jr. Museum & Zoo, yet there’s no funding allocation  for the disintegrating animal shelter, where hundreds – if not thousands – of needy animals go for care and adoption  every year.                  Pat Marriott      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 8:31 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Saturday, February 03, 2018 2:25 PM To:Mayor; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; terry; thomas.esqueda@fresno.gov; Tom Lang; Council, City; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg; Kirk Sorensen; Steven Feinstein; Joel Stiner; Mark Standriff; robert.andersen; Greg.Gatzka; huidentalsanmateo; info@superide1.com; jerry ruopoli; kclark; leager; midge@thebarretts.com; Mark Kreutzer; mmt4@pge.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; richard.wenzel Subject:Fwd: Big article, 2015, Europe, health effects of smoke On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: Sat. 2-3-18 Dennis, David, Doug, City of Fresno, Francis Collins at NIH, Dr. Irv Weissman at Stanford, et. al. Here is a hair-raising article re the health effects of breathing smoke. "Not many studies have been done on the health effects of breathing forest fire smoke" the article containing this link says, but this is still interesting: http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/46/6/1577 I guess this is from 2015. The journal editors were too stupid to put a clear date on it. I will be urging Stanford, the State of California and the federal government to conduct those studies. It looks to me as though politics has played a role in the dearth of studies. We don't want our customers and our employees fleeing out of the Central Valley of California for fear they will develop serious illnesses from breathing forest fire smoke, so "Mum's the word". Bet they have heard about our plight at Amazon. The Republican-owned TV stations in the Central Valley, broadcasting in the public interest, say in their weather reports that the air quality is just horrible when these fires are raging, and often very bad when they are not. But any talk about the real health impact? No, we don't get into that. One weather man here always says, joyfully, "IT"S OK to burn in Fresno, Kings and Tulare Cos. over the next 24 hours!". He loves the idea of people burning stuff. Just loves it. What a menace he and the station owners are to the people of this valley. He's been doing this for years and I have complained to the station about him. He seems to have toned this down slightly in recent years. When the pollution is too thick, they (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District) forbid burning except in "registered devices". I can go down to the mailbox on "no burn" nights and the wood smoke is just choking. No attempt is made to determine who is doing it. You can walk upwind of various houses and tell who is doing it. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 8:31 AM 2 I recommend that all recipients read it. I'm about to. Remember all of this, and read it again, when thousands of acres of dead and living trees, and a lot more, in the Sierra go up in smoke this spring, summer and fall if you live in the Central Valley. Then consider again the City of Fresno's 2035 plan to add 250,000 more people inside the city limits of Fresno by that year, all of whom will be exacerbating climate change. Fresno, and maybe some of its officials, will be sued and maybe prosecuted into abandoning that plan long before 2035, I predict. Some have suggested that we could cut and haul the 110 million dead trees, as of today, out of the Sierra and convert them to ethanol. I'm guessing, but I think it would take decades to haul that many trees out of the Sierra. Check with the logging operations people in Oregon and Washington, I guess. If we can get substantial numbers out and convert them to ethanol, that would help, and I strongly support that plan. The ethanol would be nice, but the real point of that exercise would be to mitigate what I think is a mounting human catastrophe in the Central Valley of California from humans breathing forest fire smoke. And more trees die every drought- stricken year, as 2018 seems to be developing into. I say cut many of them down, bury them in place, and cover them with 2 feet of dirt. Or just stack them up, and cover them with dirt and fire retardant. Maybe spray them with fire retardant before they catch fire. Maybe we should see the big tankers over the Sierra before fire season starts, at least over vast swathes of orange, dead trees. The lawyers from the Sierra Club will rage in court over the cosmetic impact on the Sierra of doing all of that, but wait till you see cells from your lungs, heart, brain, eyes, kidneys, pancreas and stomach under the microscope after a few more summers of breathing heavy forest fire smoke. Remember, if you can smell it, you're breathing it. If it gets into your lungs, it goes into your bloodstream (that's how it works) and from there to your heart, brain, eyes, kidneys, etc. I'll note that big forest fires occur every summer now in Oregon, Washington, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, in Canada, Australia, Spain and Portugal, and elsewhere, but the smoke from those is not always trapped in a bowl-shaped valley like the Central Valley of California, where the residents are trapped and have to breath it. One finds this: We cannot prove yet that climate change is causing droughts (which kills trees), but we do know that the higher temperatures from climate change dry out the trees and ground cover and that makes it all more vulnerable to fire. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:33 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Santa Clara County Public Health Department <phcdip=phd.sccgov.org@mail27.us4.mcsv.net> on behalf of Santa Clara County Public Health Department <phcdip@phd.sccgov.org> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 11:04 AM To:Council, City Subject:Healthy Cities - February 2018 Newsletter HEALTHY CITIES FEBRUARY 2018 NEWSLETTER 2017 HEALTHY CITIES AWARD WINNERS | 2017 DASHBOARDS | TOBACCO ENFORCEMENT | FEBRUARY 9 SUGARY DRINK POLICY WORKSHOP | TOBACCO POLICY FUNDING | SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL LAUNCH PROGRAM | OLDER ADULT TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC SAFETY REPORT 2017 Award Winners During 2017, a number of cities and towns made significant strides to adopt policies and programs to promote public health and reduce chronic disease and injury risk. Five distinct cities and towns within Santa Clara County earned a total of eight awards in 2017. Congratulations to each of the 2017 award winners! Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:33 AM 2 Best Overall, 2017 Exemplary City for Reduced Exposure to Secondhand Smoke Palo Alto Mayor (2017) Greg Scharff accepted two awards from Public Health Officer and Director Dr. Sara Cody. Los Gatos City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:33 AM 3 Best in Tobacco-Free Communities, 2017 Exemplary City for Safe Routes to School Exemplary City for Inclusive & Comprehensive Planning & Programs Supervisor Wasserman and Public Health staff presented three awards to Mayor Rennie and other employees and residents of the Town of Los Gatos. Cupertino Exemplary City for Safe Routes to School Public Health Officer and Director Dr. Cody presented the Cupertino City Council with an award for its work promoting Safe Routes to School. Morgan Hill Exemplary City for Water Access City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:33 AM 4 Supervisor Wasserman recognized Mayor Tate, Christina Turner, and Chris Ghione for their efforts to promote drinking water access in Morgan Hill. Mountain View Exemplary City for Inclusive & Comprehensive Planning & Programs Mountain View Mayor (2017) Ken Rosenberg and City Manager Dan Rich accepted an award recognizing the City's exemplary work promoting the health of residents and employees of all ages. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:33 AM 5 2017 Healthy Cities Dashboards The 2017 Dashboards for every jurisdiction in Santa Clara County are available for download in a printable format. To access the 2017 Healthy Cities Dashboard specific to your City or Town, or to view a grid with a side-by-side comparison of what each city has achieved, please visit bit.ly/scc-hc-dbf. Cities Stepped Up Tobacco Enforcement in 2017 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:33 AM 6 Ten jurisdictions within Santa Clara County conducted enforcement operations in 2017 to verify retailer compliance with state laws prohibiting the sale of tobacco and tobacco products to people under 21 years of age. In total, 134 retail establishments across the County were checked in 2017, a significant increase from 2016, when only three jurisdictions conducted enforcement with 45 retailers. Jurisdictions that conducted enforcement checks in 2017 include the Town of Los Gatos, the Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale, and the County of Santa Clara. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:33 AM 7 Sugary Drink Policy Workshop Local city elected officials, city managers, and their staff are invited to attend a workshop to learn about the best policies to reduce access to sugary drinks -- and promote the health of residents -- at a policy workshop on Friday, February 9, from 12:30 to 2PM. The workshop is being coordinated in partnership with the Santa Clara County Cities Association and will feature Dr. Jim Krieger of Healthy Food America. Attendance by invitation only. For more details, visit bit.ly/sdpwork. Tobacco Policy Funding for Cities As a result of the passage of Proposition 56 in 2016, the State of California is collecting more taxes from tobacco sales. The Santa Clara County Public Health Department has funding available to distribute to our cities and towns in the interest of strengthening tobacco control policies and reducing tobacco use. For more information, please contact Nicole Coxe at Nicole.Coxe@phd.sccgov.org. Apply for the 2018 Safe Routes to School Launch Program The Safe Routes to School National Partnership just announced the next round of the Safe Routes to School Launch Program for 2018. Building off of a successful 2017 pilot year, they are looking for five new California communities eager to start or grow a strong and City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:33 AM 8 sustainable Safe Routes to School program. See their blog for more information. Interested in applying for the Safe Routes to School Launch Program for your community? Complete their interest form online, or complete a pdf version and email it to Andrew Pasillas at andrew@saferoutespartnership.org. Intake forms will be accepted on ongoing basis until Wednesday February 28, 2018. Older Adult Transportation & Traffic Safety Report A new report, Older Adult Transportation and Traffic Safety in Santa Clara County, was released by the Public Health Department in collaboration with local senior, transportation and traffic safety organizations. The report provides data and recommendations related to older adult driving, walking, transit use, mobility options, and bicycling. Recommendations support jurisdictions’ Complete Streets, Age-Friendly, and Vision Zero efforts. To obtain a printable copy, contact Sue Lowery at susan.lowery@phd.sccgov.org. Healthy Cities Contacts Over the coming months, we will be revising the criteria and policies on the Healthy Cities Dashboard. If you have feedback on the criteria or policies on the Dashboard, or if you would like technical assistance on specific policies, we can help. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:33 AM 9 Active & Safe Communities Alice.Kawaguchi@phd.sccgov.org Healthy Food & Beverage Environments Laura.Jones@phd.sccgov.org Tobacco-Free Communities Nicole.Coxe@phd.sccgov.org Cross-Cutting Strategies Edward.Daligga@phd.sccgov.org For more information about Healthy Cities visit bit.ly/scc-hcp. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/7/2018 1:28 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Suepprgm <sueppr@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 06, 2018 8:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:Help Palo alto become at CEDAW city I strongly urge you to pass anti gender discrimination laws for my city of Palo Alto! Becoming a CEDAW City, in concrete terms, would commit resources to understanding local gender equity issues by conducting an analysis of city operations including workforce, programs, and budget, establishing an oversight body to monitor gender equity, and providing ongoing funding to support implementation of CEDAW principles. I would also ask that the committee review arbitration rules that may prevent victims of discrimination from coming forward. Thank you Sue Purdy ☮ Pelosi LinkedIn Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible. Dalai Lama City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:26 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Tonya Nelson <Tonya.Nelson@palmspringsca.gov> Sent:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 4:45 PM Subject:Inquiry - City Council Policies Importance:High Good Afternoon,     My name is Tonya Nelson and I am reaching out to you from the Palm Springs, City Attorney’s office. I am looking to  obtain some information regarding adopted policies, norms and best practices followed by your City Council members,  as requested by our City Attorney.  Please let me know if you need any additional information or clarification from me,  my contact information is listed below.       Thank you for your time and assistance,     Tonya Nelson, Executive Administrative Assistant  City of Palm Springs ‐ Office of City Attorney  3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262  Office: 760.323.8219 / Fax: 760.322.8332 /  Email: Tonya.Nelson@palmspringsca.gov    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/3/2018 10:22 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Stepheny McGraw <stepheny@sonic.net> Sent:Saturday, February 03, 2018 9:37 AM To:Council, City Cc:skypossepost@gmail.com Subject:Jet Noise Overhead Although I cannot be at today’s meeting, please know that I remain very much disturbed by the high volume of noisy jets  directly overhead.  I support Sky Posse in their efforts to remedy this situation which strongly affects our quality of life — and possibly our health from a higher than normal concentration of jet exhaust — on a daily, 24/7 basis.    Thank you for continuing to work to reroute these planes.  Stepheny McGraw  3303 Thomas Drive  Palo Alto, CA 94303  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:46 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:michael nierenberg <nierenberg@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 2:08 PM To:Council, City Cc:Historic Resources Board Subject:Lack of community representation and input re: Eichler Design Guidelines Project Dear City Council Members: My wife and I have lived in our Eichler for over 40 years and have remodeled it several times. We even added a second story, all with approval, appropriate design considerations, and maintenance of our neighbors’ privacy. Thus, the Eichler Design Guidelines put forth by Page and Turnbull (under contract from the city) will not directly impact us. These guidelines (all the way down to color choice and type of door knobs) are supposedly “voluntary” but do have a process for going beyond voluntary to become mandates if The City Council chooses to do so. What concerns me is that this project to date does not reflect the input of the larger Eichler community. Note the following: >There are about 2700 Eichlers in Palo Alto, which must mean there are at least 4000 adult residents living in them. >Page and Turnbull interviewed only 150 residents while drafting their proposal. >There have been 2 public workshops (one of which my wife and I attended) but only 90 people total attended them. >Only 1 community person was at the last HRB regarding the proposal. >Only 27 people sent email comments to Page and Turnbull (I read all 233 comments, many obviously from the same person). >Many of my neighbors have never heard of the project and I spoke to a well known realtor who sells Eichlers and he had not heard anything about the guidelines project. My present concern is not whether Eichlers should or should not be regulated structurally, but rather that there is inadequate community awareness, which could lead to legislation without representation. Page and Turnbull maintain that there has been adequate attempt to get input. That simply is not true. There are ways of getting the larger public more informed and I would urge that attempts be made to get better input before the Council considers these guidelines. The guidelines are put forth as voluntary by Page and Turnbull, but note that there is a proposed 3-tiered acceptance process, the last of which is having the Council vote to make these requirements mandatory. Before you consider whether or not to do so I hope that you would insist on more input from a broader base. Thank you so much for your time and kind attention. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:46 AM 2 Respectfully, Michael A. Nierenberg, M.D. _____________________________________________________This e-mail message and any attachment(s) transmitted with it are intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.Thank you... Virus-free. www.avg.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/7/2018 1:24 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:jeannie llewellyn <jeannie.llewellyn@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 05, 2018 8:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Lunacy around Ross, Louis, East Meadow roads I've been off-handedly reading the comments about the traffic median / circle on Ross Rd, near Louis Rd, and watching the intersection at Ross and E Meadow constrict. I DO have to ask - what was the plan for the hordes of teen bicyclists at those intersections? They already blow through stop signs, but now they get to do it in front of a car! What are the qualifications of the person or team that designed this new street scene? Jeannie Llewellyn “They don’t want quarter-inch bits. They want quarter-inch holes.” –Leo McGinneva No piece of paper can be folded in half more than seven (7) times. Oh go ahead .. I'll wait... City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/3/2018 2:17 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:David <uduh@aol.com> Sent:Saturday, February 03, 2018 1:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:Mayfield Soccer Complex Hi ‐ the lights at the Mayfield Soccer Complex on Page Mill Road are very insufficiently lit at night. It looks as about 75%  of the lights aren’t even functioning. Please put in new lights that haven’t burnt out. It’s not very safe for youth or adults  to play with these conditions. Thanks and waiting to hear from you.    David L. (Palo alto resident and soccer player/coach)      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:34 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Meghan Mary Fate Sullivan <meghans8@stanford.edu> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 1:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page Hello, My name is Meghan Sullivan. I am a Stanford student writing a story for my journalism class about the upcoming Caltrain grade separation. I attended the City Council meeting 2 weeks ago where residents from Churchill Avenue spoke out against the underpass option, which would cause relocation in their neighborhood. I was wondering if the City Council had an official stance on grade separation or a specific timeline for the project. I can be reached at meghans8@stanford.edu or 907-240-0026. Thank you! Best, Meghan City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:46 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Wendy Harrington <wharringtons@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 6:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Fire Dept This is very disconcerting. I hope the city council will find a better way to allocate funds to ensure our community has the critical services we need for emergencies. Wendy Wendy Harrington 1150 Byron St Palo Alto, CA 94301 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: shira.mowlem@gmail.com [addison_neighborhood_community] <addison_neighborhood_community-noreply@yahoogroups.com> Date: Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:53 PM Subject: [addison_neighborhood_community] Please Help Raise Concern with Palo Alto City Council on Reduction of Fire Department Staffing To: addison_neighborhood_community@yahoogroups.com Hello neighbors, Effective January 2018, PAFD had a reduction in 11 FTE positions (https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/19/palo-alto-cuts-11-firefighter-jobs-after-stanford-reduces-contract/). This article outlines the reduction in staffing to address budget deficits by using a new, statistics-based cross-staffing model that attempts to increase efficiency and maintain service levels. However, this model does not cover the unexpected nor spikes in call volume. We have already seen the negative impact of these changes. In January, (1) we had several occasions when simultaneous 9-1-1 calls resulted in the PAFD reaching level zero (there were no units available to respond to emergencies!); (2) there were increased response times; and (3) Menlo Park and Mountain View dropped mutual aid because we cannot reciprocate at this capacity. As a mother of young children and with retired resident parents and a caring member of this community, we need the services of a fully-staffed Fire Department with first-responders. The budget deficit should be addressed elsewhere to maintain our vital services and ensure the safety and well-being of those in Palo Alto. If you share similar concerns, please let your concerns be heard with our City Council before they meet on Saturday, 2/3 to devise priorities for 2018. You can post a statement on Open City Hall on the following link: City of Palo Alto, CA - News Details or you can write directly to the City Council at city.council@cityofpaloalto.org. Thank you, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:46 AM 2 Shira on Lincoln __._,_.___ Posted by: shira.mowlem@gmail.com 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. 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 | 2/2/2018 10:51 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:ron ito <wsrfr418@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 9:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:pension costs.... California cities say pension costs are high — and will get even higher in the next few years California cities say pension costs are high — and will get even higher ... Citing limited options for raising local taxes, the association representing hundreds of California cities warne... City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:53 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Friday, February 02, 2018 9:10 AM To:David.Rader@pln.sccgov.org Cc:Council, City Subject:Please see letter re Stanford's 2108 GUP Attachments:2-2-18 letter re Stanford GUP.pdf Good Morning: Please see my letter regarding Stanford's 2018 GUP. Thank you Rita C. Vrhel, RN, BSN, CCM Medical Case Management Phone: 650-325-2298 Fax: 650-326-9451 February 2, 2018 County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development Attention: David Rader County Government Center 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110 Phone: ( 408) 299-5779 Email: David.Rader@pln.sccgov.org Re: Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Application and Draft EIR Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors has a Solomon-like task in deciding how to balance the needs of the communities surrounding Stanford University and the needs of the University itself as stated in the GUP and Draft EIR. From attending many meetings on this subject, several points of the GUP and draft EIR require highlighting: • Stanford, in all its endeavors, is greatly appreciated and admired. I'm not aware of a single person who has spoken ill of its contributions to the region or the excellence of its services. • This is the single largest project ever proposed in Santa Clara County. It is critical to the County that the Board of Supervisors not be overwhelmed in scrutinizing it or accept any information provided by Stanford without extremely careful analysis, such as the submitted low job creation multiplier and the equally conservative student generation rate. Also, it would not be at all inappropriate to set measurable milestones for each part of the GUP buildout, measure results on key indicators, such as traffic, housing, school age student increases, etc., and make adjustments as needed to keep the GUP within the Board's approved parameters. • The GUP presents only part of Stanford's ongoing expansion plans, namely less than 50% of the 5.7 million square feet of new non-residential square footage presented in four segmented Stanford developments across multiple perrnittingjurisdictions. As such, We respectfully request the Board look at all of Stanford's expansion plans, no matter under whose jurisdiction, including the requirement for a Stanford maximum build out plan, as well as other non-Stanford development plans announced from July 2017 - February 2018 to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the pressures - transportation, housing, school age student increases, water, etc. -confronting this area. • While the GUP talks of the projected increase of 9600 employees or students, it is unrealistic to assume that a certain number of these employees or students will not be accompanied by some number of family members. Given the demographics of the new employees and graduate students, there is an appropriate multiplier to use in arriving an a more accurate projected population increase. In addition, the County also needs to add the extra jobs from the job multiplier number as well as their likely family members. Only then can the County begin to assess the total impact of the GUP population increase. • Traffic and congestion will increase without significant changes to the proposed GUP and traffic mitigation plans as discussed by Stanford. Each begs the credibility of those who presented and/or believe the stated traffic impacts and continued reliance on the current traffic demand management system. Caltrain cannot reasonably be expected to mitigate Stanford's increased commuter traffic. • The GUP housing plans do not address the housing shortage, or workforce housing, from the influx of 9600 employees or students, employees from the job multiplier number, plus family members. It should be required to do so. • Stanford's offset contributions to the Affordable Housing Fund go to Santa Clara County for distribution, further acerbating the affordable housing crisis in municipalities bordering Stanford. I 00% of these funds should go to these adjacent communities. • Impacts from school aged children are understated in the GUP with the likely outcome of further burdening neighbor municipalities, which will have to shoulder these education costs. Stanford should be required to provide adequate additional on campus school facilities to educate the anticipated number of such students based on the more realistic student generation rate of 0.98 and have such facilities in plac~ prior to their being needed. • Stanford should be required to fund mitigation strategies to offset the impacts of the GUP, including but not limited to housing, education, traffic, infrastructure and separated grade crossings. Such mitigation funding should be reviewed with additional funding assessed, as needed, as the GUP is built out and mitigations required. This avoids the issue of insufficient mitigation funding being available when the mitigation is implemented as such costs usually increase over time. • Stanford as a non-profit is tax exempt. Given the cost burdens placed on the County and nearby municipalities as a result of this and previous GUPs, we encourage the Board to facilitate a conversation with Stanford and neighboring municipalities to explore and negotiate a Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) to be paid annually to such municipalities. PILOTs have been successfully negotiated with other major universities, including Harvard, and would recognize Stanford's financial impact on local taxpayers. Lastly, as you do your due diligence on the Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Application and Draft EIR, no matter where you live in Santa Clara County, please view yourself as a resident and taxpayer who lives in Palo Alto, Los Altos, or any of the other neighboring communities, including those in San Mateo County, particularly East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Do not think of yourself as living in San Jose or Santa Clara. Only by putting yourself in our shoes can you hope to understand our concerns. Thank you for receiving our comments. Sincerely, /lf;:Y tz-/vJ- Rita C. Vrhel 1125 Channing A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-m I /r,~77L ,fR~~e C. Wood 928 Boardman Street Sheffield, MA 01257 cc: Joe Simitian; President, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/3/2018 2:21 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeffrey Lipkin <repjal@att.net> Sent:Saturday, February 03, 2018 2:17 PM To:Lydia Kou Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: 2018 City Council Retreat Thanks for your letter to constituents. In brief, 1. I want to see immediate action on speed humps along Georgia Avenue on both sides of the cut-through to Gunn. This is disgraceful no matter what one’s political predilections. 2. I support more housing along El Camino - between Stanford and Mountain View. Most of the property is way underutilized, and some is wasteland. I would give preference to seniors, police, teachers, civil servants, and firemen. Mountain View has done a much better job in this regard. 3. I think that most citizens are smoking a dangerous form of opium when they support the billion dollar alternatives for grade separations at the tracks. 4. I would eliminate the city airport and golf course, which are wasteful luxuries at city expense, including the lost opportunity to contribute the land to housing (as above) and transportation (to link the development by transportation to California Avenue). Sincerely yours, Jeff Lipkin On Feb 3, 2018, at 1:10 AM, Lydia Kou <lydiakou@lydiakou.emailnb.com> wrote: Letters from Lydia City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/3/2018 2:21 PM 2 Jeffrey -- I want to wish you Happy New Year, and at the same time, I apologize for the late wishes. The holidays turned out to be a forced rest for us – our family had a family cold. We’re all recovered and rested. I hope you are all well. Please put this date on your calendar and help inform City Council what you would consider a priority or priorities for 2018. City of Palo Alto City Council Retreat Saturday, February 3, 2019 9:00 am – 3:00 pm El Palo Alto Room, Mitchell Park Community Center, 3700 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto Agenda https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63222 This year, there is much to be aware of and for you to determine whether this is YOUR vision for YOUR city…a place that you decided to call home for your family, a place that City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/3/2018 2:21 PM 3 you could feel safe in all aspects, a place that you thought you could find peace and quiet enjoyment. There is an aggressive plan/priority to build housing by deregulating and providing flexibility by changing zoning and relaxing the City’s building codes. Much of the negative cumulative impacts are deflected by the rationale that it is a regional matter. Here is a link to the draft Housing Work Plan https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63027. Page 27 will show all the deregulation. How will this impact your neighborhood and quality of life? The City is big on talking about “sustainability”, is this kind of growth sustainable? How will the City address parking? How will the City address the cut through traffic into our neighborhoods? How will the City fund all City services and infrastructure needs? The growth plan below is for the years 2018 – 2035. Many of you already know of Stanford University’s aggressive growth plan, today is the last day to provide your comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Stanford is proposing the following:  2,275,000 net new square feet of academic and academic support facilities;  3,150 net new housing units/beds which amounts to approximately 4 million square feet  40,000 square feet of childcare and childcare related facilities; and  Stanford University proposes that the 2018 General Use Permit include an option to allow Stanford to construct a 2,000-space parking supply reserve, subject to Planning Commission review and approval, if any one of the following conditions apply: 1) Stanford is achieving its No Net New Commute Trip goal; 2) such parking would not result in a substantial increase in peak-hour commute trips; or 3) unforeseen circumstances occur due to changes in background conditions would require provision of additional parking. If you haven’t already done so, it is due today by 5:00pm. Send your comments to David.Rader@pln.sccgov.org The City of Palo Alto has also passed its Comprehensive Plan which will increase traffic congestion and decrease air quality which are identified as “significant unavoidable” impacts. This is what has been adopted in spite of the “significant unavoidable impacts:  Three million square feet of new employment workspace (1.3 million square feet is the new Stanford University Medical Center which is not opened yet and we don’t know what traffic impacts it will bring yet)  10,240 to 11,890 new employees  11,240 to 13,260 new population  4,710 to 5,580 new housing units (no square footage has been provided) The City’s finances are supposedly in good shape, yet there is going to be dips in the coming years starting next fiscal year. The General Fund, your tax dollars is funding the growth mitigation. You have to ask why are we mitigating so much and at the same time, having to physically change our lifestyle in order to accommodate all the negative cumulative impacts. A friend said they were looking to move to Nevada and their friends in Nevada said that there are many from California moving to Nevada, but the Nevada residents do not want to City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/3/2018 2:21 PM 4 openly welcome Californians because 1) the real estate prices will escalate, and 2) Californians who have identified the area to be suburban, quiet and peaceful, no traffic congestions and parking issues will then try to change the area to become urban and metropolitan. This is what happened in Colorado and Washington State. Is this what you want for Palo Alto? Is this why you moved to Palo Alto? Lydia Kou http://www.lydiakou.com/ Vote for Lydia Kou · 708 Matadero Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306, United States This email was sent to repjal@att.net. To stop receiving emails, click here. You can also keep up with Lydia Kou on Twitter or Facebook. Created with NationBuilder, software for leaders. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:32 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Shira Mowlem <shira.mowlem@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 11:00 AM To:Council, City Cc:Arthur Bobrove; Shay Mowlem Subject:Re: Fire Department Staff Reduction Dear Council Members, Thank you for your service. This issue is very important to me as a mother of young children, a daughter of resident parents, a wife, and a caring member of this community - we need the services of a fully-staffed Fire Department with first-responders to ensure the safety and well-being of those in Palo Alto. I understand that there are other potential solutions to the budget deficits and I hope that the City Council can prioritize this issue in the coming months so that we can find an alternative solution and increase the number of first-responders on shifts. I also understand that in 1998 there were120 firefighters on staff, and that number has dropped to 80 in 2018. However, the number of calls have exponentially increased and the number of people and traffic congestion in Palo Alto has also exponentially increased. We need a fully-staffed Fire Department to get them where they need to be! Thank you again for taking our concerns into consideration. Sincerely, Shira Mowlem On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 9:48 PM, Arthur Bobrove <abobrove@gmail.com> wrote: Effective January 2018, PAFD had a reduction in 11 FTE positions (https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/19/palo-alto- cuts-11-firefighter-jobs-after-stanford-reduces-contract/). This article outlines the reduction in staffing to address budget deficits by using a new, statistics-based cross-staffing model that attempts to increase efficiency and maintain service levels. However, this model does not cover the unexpected nor spikes in call volume. We have already seen the negative impact of these changes. In January, there had been several occasions when simultaneous 9-11 calls resulted in the PAFD reaching level zero (there were no units available to respond to emergencies!); (2) there were increased response times; and (3) Menlo Park and Mountain View dropped mutual aid because we cannot reciprocate at this capacity. As the grateful Physician who experienced a dramatic and lifesaving rescue by the Hillview Avenue Fire Station Staff following my fall down a steep ravene in FootHills Park in 2014, I am especially aware of the need to have a fully-staffed Fire Department with first-responders. It would seem more than prudent, that budget considerations be addressed elsewhere to maintain our vital services and ensure the safety and well-being of those that live and work in Palo Alto. Thank you, Arthur M. Bobrove, MD City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/7/2018 1:26 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Tuesday, February 06, 2018 3:09 PM To:Loran Harding; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; Mark Kreutzer; huidentalsanmateo; Cathy Lewis; paul.caprioglio; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; Mark Standriff; Mayor; midge@thebarretts.com; mmt4@pge.com; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Raymond Rivas; francis.collins@nih.gov; Chris Field; david pomaville; allison.wisk@latimes.com; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; bballpod; Council, City; Doug Vagim; diffenbaugh@stanford.edu; Greg.Gatzka; steve.hogg; Irv Weissman; info@superide1.com; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; jboren; johnhutson580; kfsndesk; kclark; kevin cervantes; Leodies Buchanan; leager; Tom Lang; nick yovino; nchase@bayareanewsgroup.com; pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com; russ@topperjewelers.com; robert.andersen; Steve Wayte; terry; thomas.esqueda@fresno.gov Subject:Re: Little Hoover Com. blasts state on forest fires On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 1:53 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: Tues. 2-6-18 To all- California's Little Hoover Commission blasts the State of California for how it handles wildfires and the prevention thereof: This was reported on the noon news today, Tues. 2-6-18 in Fresno. I'm surprised that it was. http://www.kcra.com/article/report-blasts-californias-wildfire-suppression-tactics/16628890 Great to know that the residents of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys are living with a gun to our heads. Wonder when the first huge weeks-long forest fire will occur in the Sierra in 2018 to threaten the health of us all. I dug out some studies on the health effects of breathing forest fire smoke for somebody and sent it out in an email yesterday. I can delete everything in that email except the cites to those reports, and distribute it widely, and I shall. Wait till you see just what breathing that smoke can do to you. One tiny impact: Cardiac arrests, studied in an Australian report that looked at Melbourne during one of their terrible wildfires. MOST cardiac arrest victims die soon after being stricken and never make it to a hospital or ER, so just looking at those visits and admissions cannot capture the impact of forest fire smoke City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/7/2018 1:26 PM 2 on cardiac arrest. Happy thought. So the researchers in Australia looked at ambulance runs transporting cardiac arrest victims and that showed the increase in such victims during a bad forest fire. I think we should have the big fire-retardant tankers flying up and down the Sierra NOW, in February, soaking the 110 million dead trees there before "fire season" starts. One other suggestion: cut the dead trees down now, pile them up, soak them with fire retardant, and cover them with dirt. How well would they burn in that condition? Local news and elected officials in Fresno don't want to bring in experts to discuss the health impact of breathing thick forest fire smoke for weeks on end in California's Central Valley. Might scare off rich customers, less rich employees, and big outfits like Amazon. I hope we can get a handle on this because I see it as a mounting disaster for the people trapped here who have to breath it every summer. The literature says that it is not clear that climate change is causing the droughts in California, but it is clear that the higher temperatures caused by climate change are drying out the soil, the undergrowth, and the trees, and that makes it all more likely to burn. We did not have anything like 110 million dead trees in the Sierra in 2010, but after 6 or 7 years of drought, we do have now. Response from the City of Fresno? Full speed ahead with their plan to add 250,000 more GHG-emitting residents inside the city limits of Fresno by 2035. After all, it is 1948, and we are going to grow. No, it is 70 years later, a mounting catastrophe is befalling mankind as temperatures and sea levels rise, and Fresno will not long get away with their reckless plan for growth. The City leaders of Fresno should turn Fresno into a center for the study of how forest fire smoke impacts human health and to find ways prevent the fires going forward, its exact structure to be determined. Fund that with grants from the Gates Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the EPA, NIH, the U.S. Forest Service, agencies of the State of California, and grant issuing entities at Stanford, etc. perhaps. Involve medical experts from Stanford and other research institutions to study the health impacts, and involve biologists in studying how forest fires can be prevented. We will certainly have lots of people in the Central Valley whose health is being degraded by breathing forest fire smoke. We now also see huge forest fires in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico every summer, and in Australia, Spain and Portugal. So the Center I propose would benefit far more than the victims of this problem in California. Each of those entities could help provide funding if we came up with answers. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 8:33 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Tim Cain <tim.cain@att.net> Sent:Sunday, February 04, 2018 11:05 AM To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Owen, Graham Subject:RE: Unsafe Traffic Hazard Hello again, City Council Members,  Below is the text of the message I sent to James Keene at his email address and also the general city manager address  back in August.  I never got any response from him.    Thank you,   Tim Cain    Hello Mr. Keene, I read your article from the Palo Alto Weekly Friday and found it quite alarming. I really feel like you and the council have missed the point of what is going on in and around the The Baptist Church on North California Ave. It really shouldn't matter how adorable the serenading of the council was or even how much the program benefits those members of the community, it should matter whether or not they are legally allowed to conduct business there and whether it is a safe environment to house these programs. I have lived on South Court ( just a few houses from the Church) for over 25 years. I have always enjoyed living by the church. Church services, weddings and choirs signing in the church have always been welcomed. I didn't even mind when they started to rent out space to the dancing groups in the evenings. However, over the years the number of people renting space appears to be 10 times what it was just a few years ago. For all of its vehicle intensive activities, it has exactly 10 parking spaces. Three spaces are reserved for the nursery school, 1 for the pastor and 1 for the doctor conducting business at the facility. That leaves just 5 open spaces (which accommodates fewer cars than my 1927 garage and driveway). I know for a fact that iSing on Wednesdays and Thursdsays has 150 girls dropped off after school for lessons. Mozart School has said they have 30 students daily. I am not sure how many people are seeing the doctors there or taking part in other dancing/singing lessons or picking up toddlers from the preschool but that is way too many people to share 5 spaces. If you go by on a Wednesday or Thursday during the school year, there are parents double and triple parked. They park illegally on corners ( blocking visibility of people trying to make a right or left hand turn onto North California from South Court) and some cars just stop right in the middle of North California to drop their children off and pick them up. You add the fact that Paly students are riding their bikes home from school on Bryant and Jordan kids on North California (both streets are designated bike routes), and it makes for a crazy situation with an accident waiting to happen. In a typical afternoon, you can spot numerous kids running back and forth across the street and kids on their bikes weaving in and out between cars. It is a scary sight for any parent and the fact that I witnessed a child just narrowly missed being hit by a car makes me sick to my stomach. In the meeting in the council chambers with the planning commission, Pastor Rick Mixon mentioned that he recognized that the lack of parking and the reckless driving/parking was a problem, but I don’t believe he has ever done anything to try to address the safety. Is he more concerned about the church finances than the safety of the children he serves? I find this a bit frightening. More City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 8:33 AM 2 concerning is the idea that this facility with 5 parking spaces could be a good space to be turned into a community center. I hope that your comments were misquoted and that you will thoroughly investigate the situation. I believe that the zoning for the church is not the only issue and the safety of our children should take priority over all. I look forward to hearing back from you on this subject. Thank you, Tim Cain 2261 South Court Palo Alto, Ca 94301 (650) 799-7203     Sent from Mail for Windows 10    From: Tim Cain  Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2018 10:48 AM  To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  Cc: jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org; graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org  Subject: Unsafe Traffic Hazard    Hello City Council Members,  Below is a letter I sent on Dec 22 to Graham and I got a reply from him on Jan 19 acknowledging it and attaching  additional info on the CUP filed by the First Baptist Church.  I want to make sure you all see it again, since the topic of  community center status seems to be on the table and the parking situation seems not to have a solution.  Please pay  special attention to the safety issues and traffic burdens.  I sent a message to Mayor Keene a few months ago and got no  reply.  Thank you,  Tim Cain      Hello Mr. Owen,  Thank you for taking on the analysis of the recent CUP application filed by First Baptist Church.      I was born in 1960 in Midtown and have lived with my wife and kids for the past 26 years at 2261 South Court in an old  Tudor 4 bedroom house built in the late 20s.  We REALLY love the neighborhood life ( that is why we moved here ) of a  quiet street that “T”s off at both ends and our 3 daughters have lived their whole lives at this address.  This is why we  exceeded our upper limit price, took on tougher jobs so we could afford it, and bought our house here in this  neighborhood.  There are just two houses between us and the church, and its changing use has had an enormous impact  on our formerly quiet lifestyle.    We use North California as our connecting route whenever we leave our house (on bike or by car) because the Oregon  Avenue frontage road intersections are too dangerous due to their confusing nature for non‐residents who haven’t  figured out the stop sign‐keep clear‐wait here dance that is required to make the weight sensors work properly with the  traffic signal system.  On North California, the traffic at the church, which is exactly where South Court T’s off, is also  very dangerous, for different reasons.  There is an almost non‐stop flow of frantic cars dropping off and picking up one  student each at the church’s various tenant businesses.  If you tally up all of the music classes being held, you can  multiply that times two to get the total number of trips by car to the curbs nearby, since there is virtually no parking on  the church premises available to these businesses.  North California has been striped to accommodate the huge volume  of kids on their bikes coming and going from Jordan Middle school every day.  The confluence of these middle schoolers  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 8:33 AM 3 in a hurry to get to school or back home, the now much narrower path for cars both ways, and the double parking drop‐ off realities of music student commutes make for an extremely high risk of life and limb at this location.    Additionally, the quiet calm atmosphere we paid a premium for when we moved to South Court has been replaced by all  those cars who aren’t frantically double parking for their drop offs.  These “ahead of schedule” commuters know that  South Court is the closest source of curb space to the classrooms their kids need to get to, so they turn in and find the  closest unoccupied stretch of parking they can find.  Since we live on this block, we have seen it evolve from a quiet  community of kids and pets able to play in their front yards, to a busy flow of parking and leaving on an hourly  basis.  Can you imagine the number of 3 point turns that are made in each of our driveways just so all of these parkers  can come and go from North California, instead of Oregon Ave?  Can you imagine the difference this constant activity  would have on the quality of life for a new family putting down roots on South Court?  We have spent the past quarter  century preserving and enjoying our classic Palo Alto lifestyle, which features a front yard meant for use and enjoyment,  not just parking for a nearby business.  This coming, going, backing up and parallel parking is clearly a big worry for a  new family with small children or pets, and it will surely reduce the pool of potential buyers who want to live here when  we are gone, and it will reduce the price those few would be willing to pay.  What is our personal cost ( in terms of resale  value ) that we must pay for the church’s desire to take in businesses without even the slightest accommodation for the  realities of the traffic dangers they bring?    Please protect our safety and quality of life.    Thank you,  Tim Cain  2261 South Court  (650) 799‐7203 cell      Sent from Mail for Windows 10    From: Ronald Wilensky  Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 3:19 PM  To: Bonnie Flanagan; Laura Seitel  Cc: Sarah; Brunicardi David & Caryn; Sheppard Barbara; david recht; tim cain; margiecain@rocketmail.com; mahen  ranchod; Loy Martin; Debbie Nichols; Karen Ivey  Subject: Re: Baptist Church & CUP....letter just received from City of PaloAlto    Please see attached letter. I assume most (if not all) of you have received it. From: Debbie Nichols <debbiegailnichols@gmail.com> To: Karen Ivey <karenivey@comcast.net> Cc: Ronald Wilensky <ronwilensky@yahoo.com>; Laura Seitel <lseitel@mac.com>; Bonnie Flanagan <bonnie.m.flanagan@gmail.com>; Sarah <sburgrval@aol.com>; Brunicardi David & Caryn <david.brunicardi@gmail.com>; Sheppard Barbara <barbshepp@gmail.com>; david recht <david.recht@gmail.com>; tim cain <tim.cain@att.net>; margiecain@rocketmail.com; mahen ranchod <mahen.ranchod@gmail.com>; Loy Martin <loymartin@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 8:02 AM Subject: Re: Baptist Church & CUP I will attend the meeting. Thanks for organizing it. Debbie Nichols Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 8:33 AM 4 On Dec 19, 2017, at 7:07 PM, Karen Ivey <karenivey@comcast.net> wrote: I will plan to be there at 4 pm as well. Thank you, Karen Ivey From: "Ronald Wilensky" <ronwilensky@yahoo.com> To: "Laura Seitel" <lseitel@mac.com> Cc: "Bonnie Flanagan" <bonnie.m.flanagan@gmail.com>, "Sarah" <sburgrval@aol.com>, "Brunicardi David & Caryn" <david.brunicardi@gmail.com>, "Sheppard Barbara" <barbshepp@gmail.com>, "david recht" <david.recht@gmail.com>, "Nichols Debbie" <debbiegailnichols@gmail.com>, "ivey karen" <karenivey@comcast.net>, "tim cain" <tim.cain@att.net>, margiecain@rocketmail.com, "mahen ranchod" <mahen.ranchod@gmail.com>, "Loy Martin" <loymartin@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 7:01:43 PM Subject: Re: Baptist Church & CUP See you on Jan12th at 4pm. Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 19, 2017, at 6:45 PM, Laura Seitel <lseitel@mac.com> wrote: > > Hi Bonnie, > > Thanks for all of this info. I like your agenda items for the meeting with Hillary, which I hope will happen after we neighbors gather on the 12th. I’m going to propose a start time of 4 PM but can be flexible if that doesn’t work for anyone. > > Also, have you seen the CUP yet? I haven’t been able to access it and I think the city is required to post it publicly. It won’t make much sense to meet as neighbors if we don’t know what we’re facing with the church. > > I’m looking forward to seeing many of you on the 12th. So far, Bonnie, Sarah, Ron, Mahendra, my husband Loy and I will be at the meeting at my house at 349 North California Avenue. Please let me know if anyone else can come. All are welcome! > > Laura > > On Dec 19, 2017, at 6:05 PM, Bonnie Flanagan <bonnie.m.flanagan@gmail.com> wrote: > > All: > > I spoke to James Stephens this afternoon & he’s proposed we have a meeting with he & Hillary Gitelman mid-late January to express our concerns. With the holiday break, we won’t have a date until the 1st week of January, but I wanted to give you a heads- up. > > Evidently, my emails with pictures showing all the cars within 2-3 blocks of both iSing & Mozart classes/events was of interest to Hillary. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 8:33 AM 5 > > I’m hoping all of you are open to a meeting with them. Meanwhile, we can each work on a list of the major concerns/issues that are impacting our neighborhood. > > Two items I mentioned today (& will include on my list) are: > 1) why is there not someone on site overseeing events & controlling issues when they occur - e.g. windows/doors open causing increased noise, illegal parking, dumped garbage bins > > 2) is a permit needed/required when a large event like the recent Iran concert fundraiser takes place > > Since the CUP has been filed & extensions will be permitted, due process required, etc this will go on for as long as the church can stretch this out. > > James said to contact him directly if you need/want more information. His email is: <James.stephens@cityofpaloalto.org> > > Thanks, > > Bonnie > > Sent from my iPhone >       City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:28 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Carol Kibler <cjkib@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 7:47 AM To:Council, City Subject:Redoing arastadero   Hi.   I live next to arastadero.  I live with the the bad decision of bringing this place down to 2 lanes. ( the congestion the inability to get out from our  streets the long lines to get off of arastadero)    Please to don’t spend anymore money to help this Street. No amount is worth the money unless your putting it back to  4 lanes.      Spend the money on another project  I heard there are many areas that need help    Or give the money to help the police station Rebuild    Carol Kibler  Sent from my iPhone    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 8:36 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Mel Kronick <melkronick@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 04, 2018 10:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Reduction in PA Fire Department Staff I recently learned of the reduction of staff of the PA Fire Department effective January 2018. This department has always been an important and valued asset to our community. I strongly recommend that the City Council revisit this issue and reconsider its decision. Palo Alto is growing bigger and more complex and I believe its needs for emergency services is only going to increase in the months and years ahead. Thank you for your consideration of my input. Mel Kronick 1156 Forest Avenue Palo Alto 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 8:38 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Ron Wilensky <rwilensky@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, February 05, 2018 12:19 AM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; DuBois, Tom; Holman, Karen; Fine, Adrian; Kniss, Liz (internal); Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory Cc:Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; jonathan.lat@cityofpaloalto.org; Owen, Graham; Council, City Subject:Request denial of CUP Application No. 17PLN-00446 for Community Center at 305 North California Avenue Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council: Please do not approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that would allow the church at 305 North California Avenue to operate as a community center for up 560 people or more, Monday to Thursday 9AM to 10PM and Friday and Saturday 9AM to 11PM. A community center of this size and level of activity is inappropriate in quiet, residential neighborhood zoned R-1 (10,000). A very important reason to deny the permit is that a community center attracts so many people, and the proposed operating hours will bring heavy traffic and parking congestion that would endanger bicyclists. The applicant has no parking off-street parking available to attendees of activities at the community center. Therefore, the many cars arriving at 305 North California Avenue park on the street, either adjacent to bike lanes or on nearby streets." 305 North California is at the corner of Bryant Street and North California Avenue, which is where two heavily-used bike boulevards intersect. These bike lanes serve students traveling between their homes and Jordan Middle School and Palo Alto High School as well as adults going to other parts of Palo Alto or to the California Avenue bike tunnel under the Caltrain tracks. That intersection is so dangerous that in several months the City will be installing a traffic circle to calm traffic. Neighbors have witnessed many near accidents caused by people parking at 305 North California not paying careful attention to bicyclists riding in the adjacent bike lanes. Because of this danger to cyclists, the community center not meet all the criteria for a CUP defined in PAMC 18.76.010. According to this municipal code in order to issue a CUP the City must find that “granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.” Operation of a community center that is active 7-days per week through most of daylight and evening hours will be detrimental to safety since traffic and parking from people using the community center will endanger bicyclists on the heavily used Bryant Street and California Avenue bike lanes. Thank you for considering my request. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 8:38 AM 2 Best regards, Ron Wilensky Resident of Old Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 8:37 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Robert Neff <rmrneff@sonic.net> Sent:Sunday, February 04, 2018 11:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:Ross Road Bike Boulevard looks good. Dear City Council,    I'm excited to see the progress on the Ross Road Bike Boulevard. I rode it today, and I like the road markings and traffic  calming features. All traffic moved at a moderate speed.    The traffic circle at Ross and Meadow is almost ready!   Much of the street work is done, and the STOP signs should be  replaced with YIELD signs soon.    Thank you for your support of this project.    Robert Neff    Emerson and Loma Verde    Palo Alto      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:33 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Joseph Harwood <joseph.harwood@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 11:09 AM To:Council, City Subject:Ross Road Bike Boulevard Hello, I wanted to ask that the Ross Road Bike Boulevard design be reconsidered. As it's currently being implemented, bike riders will be forced to ride in the middle of the road every few hundred feet. Bike riders are going to be hit by cars because of the current design, especially at night when drivers don't see that the road is narrowing and bike riders are about to be forced to swerve into their path. Thank you. Best, Joseph Harwood City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:34 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:JIM MAPLES <maples@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 12:33 PM To:Council, City Cc:maples@comcast.net Subject:S.U. GUP: If Stanford expands, then it should help with downtown Palo Alto parking I am strongly opposed to Stanford adding any more people to the local area. There are already too many people and too much crowding. However, it appears that some expansion will likely occur, and so we are reduced to finding ways to mitigate the effects of that expansion. One thought that occurs to me is that Stanford can help Palo Alto with parking -- in particular with parking in the University Avenue downtown area. We all know what a nightmare that's become, and it will only get worse with Stanford's increased population. My proposal is that we ask Stanford to open up their parking lots -- in particular the athletic/stadium parking lots in the arboretum -- for use by workers in the downtown area. Some of these lots are already open to the public, but at a high fee -- $16/day. At the present time, these lots are almost completely empty during typical workdays. I believe that Stanford should provide low-cost monthly or annual permits for these lots to anyone who can prove that they work in the downtown area. The university could then easily add a shuttle stop to the existing Marguerite bus lines so that workers could park there in the morning and take the shuttle to work downtown. This would cost Stanford almost nothing, would be a boon for low wage workers in the downtown area, and could greatly help the parking situation. Sincerely, Jim Maples 751 Greer Rd Palo Alto, CA City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/3/2018 9:23 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, February 02, 2018 11:38 PM To:david.rader@pln.sccgov.org Cc:Supervisor Simitian; Council, City; city.council@menlopark.org Subject:Stanford GUP/EIR: Peer Review of TDM and other transportation programs Please require Stanford to fund periodic [not less than every 3 years] peer review of its TDM assertions and programs. Peer review consultant should be jointly selected by SC County and Palo Alto City Council, if possible. For example, See peer review programs provided by firms such as www.altrans.net Peer Review Commonly outlined in a site's EIR, a peer review process is required by the permitting authority (city, county, etc.) to verify whether or not EIR mandated goals have been achieved. The results of a peer review can mean the difference between construction being completed or completely shutting down. ALTRANS has undertaken peer reviews of site-wide TDM plans, as well as reviews of specific components and goals of TDM plans. ALTRANS' experience as a TDM organization lends the advantage of knowing what a successful TDM plan looks like on paper and in practice. Altrans - Alternative Transportation Solutions: Services Altrans - Alternative Transportation Solutions: Services Altrans, Transportation Management Association specializes in traffic demand services for businesses, schools an... Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com On Thursday, February 1, 2018, 9:18:52 AM PST, Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> wrote: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/3/2018 9:23 AM 2 Please consider the following issues in your evaluation of Stanford expansion plans 1. The term, or period of approval, is too long. Nobody can accurately or crudely anticipate work, transit, academic and housing parameters during the years stated in the GUP. The best solution would be mutually reasonably terms to reopen approval every 8-10 years. 2. Stanford is making wild transportation assumptions, especially about improved Caltrain capacity to service to its students, faculty and employees. Development incentives have created a massive wave of housing/commercial development throughout the rail corridor. Caltrain service is almost guaranteed to disappoint the employers and employees assuming live/work benefits along the corridor. There is no data addressing the obvious surge in demand that will chase "boarding" as these projects move toward completion. Planning scenarios are not rocket science and are being willfully avoided by agency and city official whom we blindly trust. 3. Stanford is making questionable demographic assumptions, especially impact upon PAUSD. I fully support the comments submitted by the PAUSD Board 4. Let's keep perspective. Stanford planning process is better than any other private or public process in the entire Bay Area. Let's acknowledge a 90/10 rule. 90% of Stanford planning has proven to have real merit. 10% of its planning is obscure and out of public view. This 10% is not in the interest of citizens impacted by plans presented by Stanford. Stanford questionable claims and short-comings can be addressed by an open audit process involving outside experts to professionally fact-check performance goals in the GUP. 5. Trust; but verify. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/3/2018 9:23 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 02, 2018 4:49 PM To:david.rader@pln.sccgov.org Cc:BoardOperations@cob.sccgov.org; Supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Kristina.loquist@bos.sccgov.org; Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2017012022 Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    February 2, 2018    Mr. David Rader  Planning Department  County of Santa Clara  70 West Hedding Street  San Jose, CA    STANFORD UNIVERSITY 2018 GENERAL USE PERMIT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT  STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2017012022    Dear Mr. Rader:    The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides that the following information is required in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to adequately and completely analyze the project and its reasonable alternatives, because there is substantial evidence that the information is needed to analyze the project and its alternatives.    Failure to supply any of the requested information below in the EIR is a prejudicial abuse of discretion and a violation of CEQA.    TIME POINTS REQUIRED    For each of the requested information the EIR must provide data for the (1) the date of adoption of the 2000 GUP, (2) today's date, and (3) the last date for which the 2018 GUP applies at full build out.      ACADEMIC AND ACADEMIS SUPPORT FACILITIES    CEQA requires that the whole of a project be analyzed.    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/3/2018 9:23 AM 2 There is substantial evidence that Stanford has academic and academic support facilities in the jurisdictions outside the area covered by the GUP, that Stanford is in the process of shifting some of those activities currently in the GUP area to places outside the GUP area, and that Stanford intends to continue placing such facilities outside the GUP area.    For each of the three time points, provide the address, total floor area, and total number of employees for each of the facilities and the specific function (e.g., Chemistry Department, Patent Office) located in each facility. If any of these facilities is coterminous with an Assessor's Parcel Number, provide that number.    For each of the locations provided, indicate whether the land is exempt from taxation, or if not exempt from taxation, whether it is eligible for exemption.      HOUSING    There is substantial evidence that Stanford has student, faculty, and staff housing outside the area covered by the GUP.    For each of the three time points, provide the address, total floor area, the population served by the housing, and the number of students, faculty, and or staff in each location.    If any of these facilities is coterminous with an Assessor's Parcel Number, provide that number.    For each of the locations provided, indicate whether the land is exempt from taxation, or if not exempt from taxation, whether it is eligible for exemption.      MARGUERITIE SHUTTLE    There is substantial evidence that the location of Marguerite shuttle stops affects the traffic counts depending on whether the location is inside or outside of the traffic cordon.    For each of the three time points, provide the average daily traffic for each line; the peak boarding time and peak deboarding time and number of passengers boarding and leaving at peak times for each stop on each line; and whether each stop is inside or outside the traffic cordon.      CALTRAIN AND HIGH SPEED RAIL    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/3/2018 9:23 AM 3 There is substantial evidence that Stanford employees and students are a significant number of Caltrain passengers using the using the Palo Alto (University Avenue) and California Avenue Caltrain stops.    For each of the tree time points, provide the average daily number of Stanford affiliated passengers using each of those two stations leaving and boarding those stations.    In the case of the third time point provide three versions of the data: (1) current Caltrain schedule; (2) completed Caltrain CalMod program; and (3) completed Caltrain CalMod program and completed California High Speed Rail peninsula segment.      STANFORD FOOTHILLS    There is substantial evidence that Stanford has approximately 1,250 acres of alienable land in the Felt Lake - Interdale area in unincorporated Santa Clara County on both sides of Highway 280. Unlike Founding Grant Land, the alienable land can be sold anytime the Stanford Board of Trustees chooses to do so.    Provide the Assessor's Parcel Number and acreage of each parcel of alienable land and a map showing the location each of those parcels in relation the GUP area.    Thank you for providing the requested information as required by CEQA.    Sincerely,    Herb Borock          City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/7/2018 1:26 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:suekemp@AOL.com Sent:Tuesday, February 06, 2018 2:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Street Sweeper I hope this email will go to someone who can suggest a possible change. The street sweeper went by at midday today, his usual time, and brushed as vigorously as usual, but using no water. All he was doing was blowing a big cloud of dirt into the air. What he did made the air worse, and street not much, if any, better. I know using water is a bit difficult, what with our droughts, etc. But blowing a cloud of dirt into the air doesn't help anything. Sue Kemp 271 Seale Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/7/2018 1:28 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Leah Russin <leah.russin@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 06, 2018 8:03 PM To:Council, City; HRC Subject:Support for Palo Alto to be a CEDAW city Dear Commission and Council Members- This Thursday, the Human Relations Commission will consider asking City Council to adopt a local ordinance implementing principles of the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The ordinance would authorize a gender equality task force to conduct an analysis to study the gender equality issues that affect the City of Palo Alto and propose policy and programmatic change, if needed. CEDAW was adopted by the UN in 1979. Today, the only countries failing to ratify it are Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Palau, Tonga and the United States. Cities for CEDAW is a country-wide effort to encourage cities and counties to adopt and implement the principles of CEDAW. 15 years ago, Palo Alto passed a resolution encouraging federal ratification of CEDAW. And now Palo Alto should join other municipalities in becoming a CEDAW City. Becoming a CEDAW City, in concrete terms, would commit resources to understanding local gender equity issues by conducting an analysis of city operations including workforce, programs, and budget, establishing an oversight body to monitor gender equity, and providing ongoing funding to support implementation of CEDAW principles. While resources are always limited, and choosing this may mean another need goes unheeded, Palo Alto must be a leader and demonstrate its dedication to gender equity. The #metoo and #timesup movements show us that the time to implement CEDAW principles is now. I urge you to take appropriate steps to ensure Palo Alto becomes a CEDAW City. Thank you, Leah Russin PS- a version of the language above ran in Monday’s Daily Post as a letter to the editor. See attached. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/7/2018 1:28 PM 2 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/7/2018 1:28 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Joanne Koltnow <joanne.koltnow@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 06, 2018 10:14 PM To:Council, City; Keene, James; Mello, Joshuah Cc:Michael Eager; Paul Machado Subject:Thanks! And a permit allocation suggestion Dear Council members-- Thanks for listening to Evergreen Park neighbors as well as staff--and thoughtfully discussing a very complex issue. Along with you, I'm looking forward to new software that will enable staff to allocate non-resident permits more equitably and better track who's getting them. For the upcoming period, however, I'd like to suggest a workaround to address the 'land-rush' aspect of permit allocation. SUGGESTION  Remind all affected businesses of the permit renewal period.  Initially, distribute only half of the maximum allowed to each business. [Up to five permits instead of ten.]  Establish a short grace period of non-ticketing that matches the time before staff releases the remaining permits. OUTCOME  Permits won't run out before all requests are in.  Staff will get more complete data about who is requesting how many, and what the total shortfall is. DISCLAIMER I realize this suggestion makes the process a little more cumbersome. [For each request over five, staff will have to do two mailings.] But everyone will be treated more fairly--and staff will get more useable data. [Right now, the shortfall is complaint driven rather than captured via the software.] --Joanne Koltnow, Evergreen Park resident City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2018 10:32 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:celia chow <celia.cchow@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 9:55 AM To:Gitelman, Hillary; Stump, Molly Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:The shot clock is running out on Verizon’s Cluster 1 Dear Hillary Gitelman and Mollie Stump: I would appreciate it if you would confirm that you will not allow the shot clock on Verizon’s fifteen “Cluster 1” proposed cell towers to expire before the Architectural Review Board holds a public hearing on Verizon’s resubmitted applications. We at United Neighbors are concerned because: 1. The City’s Wireless webpage continues to report that the Cluster 1 shot clock expires on February 14, 2018. As you know, when a shot clock expires, proposed cell towers are deemed to have been approved. 2. Verizon’s resubmitted applications are not on the ARB’s agenda for its February 1, 2018 hearing. (They are also, by the way, not on the ARB’s agenda for February 15, 2018.)    Thank you for your help, and I look forward to hearing from you.    Sincerely, Celia Chow City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/3/2018 9:23 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Arthur <abobrove@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 03, 2018 8:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Truck blocking Seale. No warning. No effort to move On Saturday morning, 8:36am this is what we faced as we passed Brett- Harte Street. Rules and laws don’t matter! Arthur Bobrove Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/7/2018 1:25 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 06, 2018 8:43 AM To:Council, City Cc:Kniss, Liz (external); bjohnson@paweekly.com; swagstaffe@smcgov.org; Perron, Zachary; Watson, Ron; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; Stump, Molly; Gary.Goodman@pdo.sccgov.org; Scharff, Greg; James Aram; sdremann@paweekly.com; Cullen, Charles; SWebby@da.sccgov.org; gsheyner@paweekly.com; allison@padailypost.com Subject:Truthful stories vs Revenue This where Dave Price now gets most or the vast majority of his news.... What do you think is more important revenue or truthful stories... He’s never followed up on anything and when he is challenged? He shuts down and blocks your emails.. Or he files false and deceptive Federal copyright claims and does not follow due process protocol. Why? The man is the epitome of FakeNews... Mark Petersen-Perez Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2018 8:39 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jim Lewis <jimlewis@aol.com> Sent:Monday, February 05, 2018 6:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:World Peace. Is It Possible? Honorable Mayor Kniss and Council Members: You may ask, why write about World Peace when it may, or may not, be possible. I write, because it will never been possible, unless good people stand up and do something about it. Frankly, if the world population said "enough is enough" to its leaders, prospects for peace would increase. Locally, you may say "it isn't our problem". Wrong ! It's everyone's problem as the slaughter of human life globally directly or indirectly affects us all. Afterall, the expression says "Think Globally, Act Locally". If you don't take a stand locally, then you may wish to consider discussing at a future Palo Alto City Council meeting, whether you wish to actively SUPPORT those that do. Frankly, it's lonely out there standing up to evil. Taking it for granted "as a given" may only perpetuate it. Those whose lives make a difference in protecting ours deserves to know that we are grateful and appreciative for what they do. If you agree, here are a few organizations in which you may wish to provide "49c of diplomacy" by sending a letter of support, or better yet, joining in their efforts, as follows; 1) MAYORS FOR PEACE Over 2,600 mayors worldwide have chosen to join this international organization. If you are not already a member, this group may be one in which you wish to support. Their website is: www.mayorsforpeace.org. Established in 1982, this international organization is dedicated for the promotion of peace. It was nominated for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize. 2) PEACE ONE DAY Started in 1999, this non-profit organization established September 21st each year as a day of non-violence, international unity and cooperation. In 2001, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously passed a resolution supporting this effort. The United States Senate also passed a similar Resolution. www.peaceonday.org If this is important to you, then I encourage you to take the time to take a stand. Your life and mine may depend upon it. Respectfully, Jim Lewis City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/3/2018 10:22 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Saturday, February 03, 2018 10:15 AM To:Council, City Subject:worth reading -- really! Council Members:  I don’t know this blogger, but he writes well‐researched articles about critical issues we’re all facing. Definitely worth  reading. Below are excerpts from just 2 of his posts.                  Pat Marriott  http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2018/01/palo‐alto‐work‐live‐commute.html  Palo Alto: Work‐Live‐Commute   EXCERPTS:  Conclusion:  Palo Alto is a poster child for bad (or lack of) urban planning on a regional level.  Transit infrastructure is  insufficient and cannot be made sufficient without paying billions of dollars just so Palo Alto and Menlo Park can  continue creating jobs while leaving other cities to build and provide services for housing workers.  Yet with the geographic limits of Palo Alto (hills on one side, bay on the other), and the layout of Palo Alto streets for  single family housing it is hard to see how increasing housing to accommodate the number of jobs is possible without  creating total gridlock in and around Palo Alto.  Which makes it self‐evident that further job creation in Palo Alto is not in  the best interests of the region, including Palo Alto itself, since widespread resentment may force it to dramatically  change itself in unpleasant ways.  One reason promoted for increased density is to supposedly bring down housing prices so that more people can live  in Palo Alto near their work. Some hope this would reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.  This runs  counter to experience ‐ if increased density lowered housing prices, reduced traffic, and pollution, why doesn't NYC  have low cost housing, light traffic and clean air?  If you increase the density, two things happen.      First Thing:  More people will be trying to fit on a fixed amount of land so the bidding for land will raise the price of  land.  If you attempt to distribute the increased cost of land over more units by building up to have more rental income  per acre you trigger the second thing.    Second Thing: Building higher gives more rental income from the greater number of units per building.  But, the price of  land is based on the income that the land can generate ("bid‐rent pricing") so the price of land will rise along with the  total apartment building income.  Therefore building up doesn't make rents cheaper because the landowner "captures"  the supposed economies of building up.  As noted, lower Manhattan and Hong Kong are very expensive, despite  (actually because of) their high density housing.    Increasing density won't lower the cost of housing as I showed at length and in depth here   http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2017/02/is‐there‐housing‐crisis.html    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/3/2018 10:22 AM 2 Whom do we blame?    Blame the Residents?  Palo Alto's residents bought nice little houses on a nice quiet streets.  Those streets weren't  designed to handle a lot of traffic or parking and cannot be retrofitted to do so.  They have every reason to not want to  have their house in the perpetual shade of 8 story apartment buildings everywhere.    City Council?  The city council wants the revenue from having businesses and sales tax revenue in town to fund the city  services including pensions that the state legislature authorized in 2000.    Businesses?  If the prestige of a Palo Alto address brings more business why not pay the higher rents?    Workers?  Palo Alto workers sought and accepted jobs there.  Every day they go to work in Palo Alto they are making a  decision to keep on working there.  They are making a trade‐off between high‐rents‐with‐less‐commute and lower‐ rents‐and‐longer‐commutes.  They may not like the trade‐off but they are adults so must accept the consequences of  their fully informed decision.    What you see in the above description is a lot of groups each reasonably seeking their own best interests.  Is there a bad  guy there?    Notice that there is the complete absence of an "adult in the room" to look at the big picture and decided what is best  in the overall long term for everyone.  Housing takes a lot of city services meaning a lot of city money ‐ more than residential property taxes bring in (except in  richer communities like Los Altos Hills).  On the other hand, businesses provide taxes including sales taxes if the  corporate headquarters is located in the city.  Businesses typically require very few city services.  A proper mix of each  makes a community financially stable.      ABAG (now MTC‐ABAG) gets a lot of criticism but not for what they most deserve it for. That is the complete failure to  allocate housing, and jobs so as to optimize commutes.  That is their mission ‐ to set jobs and housing to minimize  VMT and associated pollution at which they have failed miserably.  Just putting up housing doesn't do any good if you  can't get from the housing to the jobs.  Maybe they don't have the power, or the will, or maybe they are getting bad  advice but whatever the reason, Palo Alto is a poster child for bad planning on a regional level.  http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2018/01/housing‐jan‐2017.html   Housing Update 1/31/2018:  EXCERPTS:  At no time in the last 26 years have more than 28% of San Francisco residents been able to afford a house in San  Francisco.  Most of the time it has been bouncing around between 10% and 25%.  SF is expensive now, has been in the  past, and will be in the future.  Even in Sonoma County the percentage of people who can afford a house has varied  from 10% to, at the very most, 50%.  Usually affordability is around 30% meaning only 30% of residents can afford to buy  a house.  This is not a crisis.  This is a permanent condition.  If you want continued growth in high income jobs, then housing will keep rising in cost.  If you want housing costs to stay constant, then you can't have continued growth in high paying jobs.   Perhaps the anger floating around about housing costs can be directed at the companies that can't figure out how to  create jobs outside the SF Bay area.  They can have R&D centers in India but not Indiana?  So how is this boom different?  Mainly in the builders' PR.  By terming this, not particularly exceptional boom, a  "housing crisis" and getting everyone to accept that term, they create a panic‐driven urge to over‐ride all reasonable  zoning limits.  And ignore the problems of getting people to and from work.  ( ;, : : 0 .~ ): > ::: : J ::: : J QJ ::: : J © () Q) (/ ) r+ Cl ) \ \. . . . . Q) :;: > ; : 0 ~ )> ::: : J ::: : J OJ ::: : J (I ) '- - · ;: , ; : 0 :: ! ? )> :: J :: J OJ :: J City Council Retreat Feb 3, 2018 -David Shen, resident of Churchill Ave Mayor Kniss, Distinguished City Council Members, and Staff, I would like to propose some items for your consideration today in setting your 2018 priorities. As a resident of Old Palo Alto, and after reviewing your document 8897 whose Attachment C contained public comments, I see there are a lot of comments regarding maintaining the integrity of our neighborhoods and specifically calling out the traffic problems. I urge the Council to make maintaining the integrity of our neighborhoods as one of the priorities for this year and as a focus in other activities, especially in the grade separation project. If our neighborhoods' sanctity, personality, and most importantly safety are to be preserved, then grade separation options must consider their effect on the surrounding roads and properties. I therefore urge the Council to strongly consider removing eminent domain as an option. By its very nature, eminent domain disrupts the surrounding communities and especially the families directly affected by it. And if eminent domain is triggered, then it is likely that the option chosen will be highly disruptive to the neighborhood during construction and its result, which will likely turn local roads into major thoroughfares, will exacerbate traffic through our previously peaceful neighborhoods. Already we see traffic increasing through our local roads. The responses in document 8897 Attachment C show that many consider this a major issue. I urge the Council to take action in sensible and cost effective ways. For example, our North Old Palo Alto group has proposed that Embarcadero Road be improved at the underpass where it necks down 1 IC~U:ACIL PETING City Council Retreat Feb 3, 2018-David Shen, resident of Churchill Ave ~~efore Meeting eceived at Meeting to 3 lanes, and at the following traffic lights between Paly High and Town and Country. It would seem that improving an existing underpass would be much less expensive and disruptive than creating new ones but yet have a large positive impact on traffic. A second example is our proposal to close Churchill Ave on the west side. If an underpass were to be built at the Churchill/ Alma intersection, that would mean Churchill would by default become a major thoroughfare, thereby adding traffic through the neighborhood. Other more disruptive and destructive, as well as expensive, modifications such as widening Churchill would need to happen to support such a change. Lastly I make an appeal for the children. I have two that attend the local elementary school. Each day I see their safety is compromised when I transport them in my cargo bike and cars are blowing through stop signs in front of me. More traffic through our neighborhood is not going to add to their safety. If eminent domain is triggered, the families whose children attend local schools will have their lives upended if family's homes are seized beyond their control. Likely many of them will not be able to replace their residences in Palo Alto and will be forced to move out of the area. I ask you -what do we tell our young children, who have just become comfortable with local school life and friends, if the City considers their priorities higher than our homes and has seized them out from under us? Thank you for your time. 2 • I I ,_ SIGNATURE NAME ADDRESS Q~l~~~" Com~~~\SL\~ ~6(~'~'-\\~ ~IL 1J J~ /(41ZP/ll M c/il/Jf ; 5 :z o /14mz/pa;-fl-1 PtJ-, I