HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180312plCC 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: 3/12/2018
Document dates: 2/21/2018 – 2/28/2018
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
TO:
0
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
3
FROM: BETH MINOR, CITY CLERK
DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2018
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3-Approval of Action Minutes for the February 3 and 5,
2018 Council Meetings
After further review of the February 5, 2018 action minutes, the agenda title for Agenda Item
Number 8-
PUBLIC HEARING: Two Resolutions: Resolution 9739 Entitled, "Resolution of the Council
of the City of Palo Alto to Continue the Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Preferential
Parking (RPP) Program With Modifications;" and Resolution 9740 Entitled, "Resolution
of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing 2-Hour Parking Along a Portion of El
Camino Real Between College Avenue and Park Boulevard; and Finding the Action
Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Continued From
December 11, 2017 and January 29, 2018)."
is incorrect. Council only adopted one resolution, which was to continue the RPP program,
Resolution Number 9739. The corrected title on the action minutes for Agenda Item Number 8
should be-
PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 9739 Entitled, "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto to Continue the Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking (RPP)
Program With Modifications;" and a Resolution Establishing 2-Hour Parking Along a
Portion of El Camino Real Between College Avenue and Park Boulevard; and Finding the
Action Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Continued From
December 11, 2017 and January 29, 2018)."
Below you will find the final motion.
MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor
Filseth to:
A. Adopt a Resolution to conclude the "pilot" phase of the Evergreen Park-Mayfield
Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program established by Resolution 9663 and make
the Program permanent with the following modifications:
i. Create three new zones (for a total of six) to better distribute employee parking
occupancy throughout the district; and
1 of2
• CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
ii. Increase employee permits for employees/employers located outside of the
California Avenue Business District by 40 and distribute these employee permits
within new Zones A, B, C, and D (previously Zone A and B) and move them to Zone
G (see Part B) once approved by Caltrans, if Zone G is not approved, return to
Council for direction within one year from April 1, 2018; and
iii. Add a cap to the employee daily permits, similar to the Downtown RPP district; and
iv. Clarify language regarding re-parking; and
v. Reference the program goals of reducing impacts of overflow parking from the
commercial district on the neighborhood; and
vi. Set fees to match the Palo Alto Municipal Fee Schedule; and
B. Direct Staff to draft a Resolution establishing a new Zone G on the East side of El Camino
Real between College Avenue and Park Boulevard; and
C. Direct Staff to make corresponding changes to the Administrative Guidelines for the RPP
programs; and
D. Find these actions exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15301 (existing facilities) of
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; and
E. Direct Staff to return with a recommendation regarding selling garage and lot permits to
businesses outside the inactive parking assessment district; and
F. Direct Staff to return with an allocation process that prioritizes neighborhood serving
businesses.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 K 'ss abstain
2 of2
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:35 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 21, 2018 8:50 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Mello, Joshuah; Kamhi, Philip; Hur, Mark; Paul
Machado; Wolfgang Dueregger; Carol Scott; Christian Pease; Becky Sanders;
Holzemer/hernandez; Villareal, Joe; Jeff Levinsky; Norman H. Beamer; John Guislin;
Allen Akin; Michael Hodos; Brand, Richard; Elaine Meyer; Elaine Uang; Gabrielle Layton;
Malcolm Beasley; Sally-Ann Rudd; Ronjon Nag; Meg Barton; Harris Barton; Pat
Devaney; Markevitch, Pat; Winter Dellenbach; Pearson, Enid; Renzel, Emily; KJ and Fred
Kohler; Mary Dimit; David Kwoh; Joe Hirsch; Joe Baldwin; Fred Balin; Joanne Koltnow;
Tommy Derrick; Dedra Hauser; David Schrom; Ted Davids; Tricia Dolkas; Janine
Bisharat; Jan Merryweather; Marion Odell
Subject:Downtown RPP
Attachments:Proposal for Downtown RPP Feb 26 Palo Alto City Council Meeting.pdf
We respectfully submit the following proposal to improve the Downtown RRP District
and enabling Resolution 9473.
The recent staff report, if adopted as presented, has the potential to reverse the quality
improvements realized over the past 2 years. The staff report fails to address the most
important issue: What is the credible rationale for staff to authorize issuing non-
resident permits in numbers greater than the established demand?
Furthermore, staff has not yet been able to fully occupy Bryant Street and
Cowper/Webster garages, where non-resident vehicles should be directed before
accessing neighborhoods permits. These two garages have the capacity for 100-150
additional permit sales.
February 26 is the time to address these issues.
The attached residents' proposal is presented to foster continuous improvement of all
RPP programs and to give clarity to merchants, office tenants, property owners and
residents. The action items in the residents' proposal address unresolved issues that
have persisted since the formation of the RPP Stakeholder effort.
Forwarded by,
Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
PALTO ALTO NEIGHBORHOOD PARKING
Time for A Solution
NO MORE KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD
February 21, 2018
INTRODUCTION
We respectfully submit the following proposal to improve the Downtown RRP
District and enabling Resolution 9473.
The recent staff report, if adopted as presented, has the potential to reverse the
quality improvements realized over the past 2 years. The staff report fails to
address the most important issue: What is the credible rationale for staff to
authorize issuing non-resident permits in numbers greater than the established
demand?
Furthermore, staff has not yet been able to fully occupy Bryant Street and
Cowper/Webster garages, where non-resident vehicles should be directed before
accessing neighborhoods permits. These two garages have the capacity for 100-
150 additional permit sales. Now is the time to address these issues.
Residents' proposal is presented to foster continuous improvement of RPP
programs and to give clarity to merchants, office tenants, property owners and
residents. This proposal represents the experience of involved and informed
residents. It address unresolved issues that have persisted since the formation of
the RPP Stakeholder effort.
RESIDENTS’ PROPOSAL
ACTION 1
REJECT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO CONTINUE THE CURRENT DOWNTOWN RPP WITH NO
MODIFICATION.
ACTION 2
ADOPT THE FOLLOWING MOTIONS:
A. REDUCE THE NUMBER OF NON-RESIDENT PERMITS AVAILABLE IN THE DOWNTOWN RPP
PROGRAM TO 1,000 FOR THE YEAR COMMENCING APRIL 1, 2018
B. RETURN TO COUNCIL NOT LATER THAN JUNE 1 WITH AN RFP FOR A NEW RPP MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM FOR ALL RPPS, CITY MANAGED GARAGES AND PARKING LOTS. REALISTIC FUNDING PLAN
MUST BE INCLUDED.
C. DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL NO LATER THAN AUGUST 30, 2018 WITH A
DETAILED PLAN INLCUDING COMMITTED BUDGET AND RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT, MONITOR
AND MANAGE ALL PALO ALTO’S RPP’S.
D. DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO RETURN TO COUNCIL NOT LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 30, 2018 WITH
STAFF REPORT ON HOW TO PRIORITIZE NON-RESIDENT PERMITS AMONG ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS
WITH PRIORITY GIVEN TO NEIGHBORHOOD-SERVING BUSINESSES.
E. DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO CONDUCT AND SUBMIT TO COUNCIL NOT LATER THAN AUGUST 1,
2018 AN INDEPENDENT SPOTCHECK OF ALL DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO ISSUE NON-RESIDENT
AND RESIDENT PERMITS. FOR WORKERS, AT MINIMUM THIS INCLUDES PROOF OF
EMPLOYMENT, VEHICLE REGISTRATION, LEVEL OF INCOME AND THE PERMIT RECORD MUST BE
ASSOCIATED WITH A BUSINESS INCLUDED IN PALO ALTO’S BUSINESS REGISTRY. FOR RESIDENTS,
THIS INCLUDES PROOF OF RESIDENCE AND VEHICLE REGISTRATION.
F. IF IN THE COURSE OF THE UPCOMING PERMIT YEAR (APRIL 1, 2018 TO MARCH 31, 2019), THE
CITY MANAGER FINDS A SEVERE SHORTAGE OF PERMITS, THEN AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO
ISSUE A TRANCHE NOT TO EXCEED 100 OF NON-RESIDENT PERMITS WITH A TERM NOT TO
EXCEED 90 DAYS. AT THE FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL MEETING THERE SHOULD BE AN
INFORMATIONAL ITEM ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA EXPLAINING THE RATIONALE FOR
ADDITIONAL PERMITS.
G. COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE INTENT OF DOWNTOWN RPP HAS BEEN TO DETERMINE
THE DEMAND FOR AND REDUCE THE IMPACT OF COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC AND PARKING ON
NEIGHBORHOODS ADJACENT TO UNIVERSITY AVENUE COMMERCIAL CORE. FURTHERMORE,
COUNCIL HAS SET THE EXPECTATION THAT DEMAND SHOULD BE REDUCED THROUGH
MITIGATION PROGRAMS SUCH AS TMA, TDM, PERMIT PRICING, SHUTTLES, GARAGES AND
REDUCED EXCEPTIONS TO BUILDING CODES. COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGES THAT PARKING
DEMAND IS ALSO DRIVEN BY A BUSINESS SHIFT TO HIGHER NUMBERS OF WORKERS PER SQ FT
AND BY NEW PROJECTS IN THE CONSTRUCTION PIPELINE. FROM THIS POINT FORWARD
COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGES THAT RESPONSIBILITY FOR FUNDING SOLUTIONS TO THE SHORTAGE
OF COMMERCIAL PARKING AND TRAFFIC MUST RESIDE WITH PROPERTY OWNERS AND TENANTS
WHO ARE INCURRING THAT BUSINESS RISK.
H. THERE IS A NEED FOR POLICIES TO ESTABLISH QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE GROWING
NUMBER OF NEIGHBORHOOD RPPS. THE CITY MANAGER IS DIRECTED TO RETURN WITHIN 180
DAYS WITH POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ESTABLISHING REASONABLE STANDARDS FOR RPPS
BUT NOT WITH “ONE SIZE FITS ALL CONSTRAINTS.” SOME NEIGHBORHOODS AND SUB-
NEIGHBORHOODS MAY HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY AND THE DESIRE TO PROVIDE ON-GOING
SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM COMMERCIAL PARKING TO COMMERCIAL INTERESTS WITHIN
PALO ALTO. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL WILLINGNESS TO SHARE NEIGHBOR PARKING WITH LOWER
WAGE WORKERS. THERE IS AMPLE EXPERIENCE TO PROPOSE A POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR
QUALITY FOR ANY NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTED BY COMMERCIAL PARKING INTRUSION.
• What is the minimum number of non-resident permits needed?
• What is the show rate?
• What is the impact of 2 hour parking with no permit?
• How will short-term and all-day non-resident vehicles be distributed along residential
street faces?
• What is Council’s intent? To reduce or maintain the level of non-resident permits? What
is an acceptable standard for commercial parking in residential neighborhoods?
• What pricing policy will effectively dis-incentivize parking intrusion from commercial
zones to residential zones?
I. DIRECT STAFF TO ISSUE PERMITS EQUITABLY TO ALL 10 ZONES IN SUCH A MANNER THAT
PERMITS ISSUED IN THE OUTER MOST ZONES, SUCH AS 8, 9 AND 10, CAN BE REDUCED TO ZERO
NOT LATER THAN APRIL 1, 2019. THESE ZONES SHOULD THEN BECOME RESIDENT-ONLY
PARKING AREAS. [THE ENABLING LEGISLATION RAISES A CLEAR QUESTION OF ADJACENCY IN
THE CASE OF DOWNTOWN RPP.]
Above is a framework for continuous improvement of all of Palo Alto’s Residential Permit
Parking Programs.
Respectively submitted,
Neilson Buchanan and John Guislin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:40 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Margo <margoadavis@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 22, 2018 7:34 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:csnbuchanan@yahoo.com
Subject:LISTEN TO THE NEIGHHORHOOD
Palo Alto citizens and neighbors need to live without massive intrusions into their space!!!!
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:40 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Beverly Brockway <grannyb6@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Thursday, February 22, 2018 8:15 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:parking
Gentlemen: please reject the staff report and consider the proposals set
forth by the neighbors. Traffic and parking are major issues affecting
the quality of life in Palo
Alto.
Sincerely,
Beverly Brockway
1140 Hamilton
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:40 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Gretchen DeAndre <gredea@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 22, 2018 8:15 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:RPP
City Council Members,
As a Palo Alto resident and homeowner, I implore you to approve a limit on Non-Resident Permits equal to the
demand during last year.
I ask that you adhere to the values stated in the Comp Plan: Promote commerce but not at the expense of
residential neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Gretchen DeAndre
130 Southwood Drive
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:40 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Tricia Dolkas <triciadolkas@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 22, 2018 8:38 AM
To:Neilson Buchanan
Cc:Allen Akin; Becky Sanders; Carol Scott; Christian Pease; Council, City; David Kwoh; David
Schrom; Dedra Hauser; Elaine Meyer; Elaine Uang; Renzel, Emily; Pearson, Enid; Fred
Balin; Gabrielle Layton; Harris Barton; Gitelman, Hillary; Holzemer/hernandez; Keene,
James; Jan Merryweather; Janine Bisharat; Jeff Levinsky; Joanne Koltnow; Villareal, Joe;
Joe Baldwin; Joe Hirsch; John Guislin; Mello, Joshuah; KJ and Fred Kohler; Malcolm
Beasley; Marion Odell; Hur, Mark; Mary Dimit; Meg Barton; Michael Hodos; Norman H.
Beamer; Pat Devaney; Markevitch, Pat; Paul Machado; Kamhi, Philip; Brand, Richard;
Ronjon Nag; Sally-Ann Rudd; Ted Davids; Tommy Derrick; Winter Dellenbach;
Wolfgang Dueregger
Subject:Re: Downtown RPP
I vote yes.
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 20:50 Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> wrote:
We respectfully submit the following proposal to improve the Downtown RRP District
and enabling Resolution 9473.
The recent staff report, if adopted as presented, has the potential to reverse the
quality improvements realized over the past 2 years. The staff report fails to address
the most important issue: What is the credible rationale for staff to authorize issuing
non-resident permits in numbers greater than the established demand?
Furthermore, staff has not yet been able to fully occupy Bryant Street and
Cowper/Webster garages, where non-resident vehicles should be directed before
accessing neighborhoods permits. These two garages have the capacity for 100-150
additional permit sales.
February 26 is the time to address these issues.
The attached residents' proposal is presented to foster continuous improvement of all
RPP programs and to give clarity to merchants, office tenants, property owners and
residents. The action items in the residents' proposal address unresolved issues that
have persisted since the formation of the RPP Stakeholder effort.
Forwarded by,
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:40 PM
5
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com --
Tricia Dolkas
triciadolkas@gmail.com
(650)280-0005
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:40 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Carol A. Munch <camunch@comcast.net>
Sent:Thursday, February 22, 2018 10:31 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:jguislin@gmail.com; cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
Subject:Downtown overflow parking
Dear City Council Members,
Like many in our Crescent Park and adjacent neighborhoods I am frustrated by the continual influx of downtown
workers not utilizing the available garage parking, choosing instead to park on neighborhood streets thus forcing the
property owners (taxpayers) to pay for permits to park in front of their own homes or to pay for visitors to do the same.
Yesterday I saw an application poster in front the parking lot across from the Post Office for erecting yet another
commercial building on that site, thus further eliminating parking downtown and potentially bringing more workers into
the area. This is NOT acceptable! Please LISTEN to the representatives from our community, John Guislin and Neilson
Buchanan, who present a valid argument for REDUCING the number of parking permits to be issued for residential
neighborhoods, as per the original plan when they were authorized. Do NOT remove more parking in favor of
commercial buildings which will only compound the current problem! Alas I am unable to attend the 2/26 council
meeting or I would speak to the above in greater detail.
Sincerely,
Carol A. Munch
1125 Hamilton Ave.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:40 PM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net>
Sent:Thursday, February 22, 2018 1:16 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James; Elaine Meyer; Michael Hodos;
cnsbuchanan@gmail.com; John Guislin; Gab Layton; Elaine Uang; Mello, Joshuah;
Brand, Richard
Subject:Downtown RPP Program Status Update ID #8721
Council Members:
This Staff report contains some serious flaws. Therefore I encourage you all to look beyond their
recommendations and create your own update to the plan. This has been the policy of previous Councils
along with recommendations by several of the original RPP Stakeholder architects.
The primary flaw in this new "Update" is the recommendation that the number of permits sold remain at the
same number as 2017. The justifications used by Staff for their recommendation is that permit sales have
declined which they further state: “…suggests that a forced reduction in the number of permits is not
necessary to see continued progress.”
The flaw is that their recommendation does not factor into account the new office developments either
approved or in process at Planning within the district and most likely attributing to the decline. Just in my area
alone, zones 6, 7 and 8, there are several business‐zoned properties that have sat empty for at least a year.
They are the two empty large buildings at the corner of Addison and Alma and also 190 Channing as well as
potential new offices to sit atop of new residential housing near Caltrain. The Staff report correctly reports
that “Although parking occupancies in zones 1, 5, 6, and 7 are higher than other zones, staff recommends
against reallocating permits in these zones, as reducing permits in these zones will do little to reduce parking
occupancies and would instead be likely to cause higher rates of reparking.” That is exactly why the number
of permits in these zones need reduction. Doing it now before these 3 office/business buildings become fully
occupied with employees will encourage the new occupants to offer/find alternatives to employees parking in
our residential neighborhoods.
Another flaw with the Staff report and the overall management of the Downtown RPP program is the
complete lacking of solicitation from Staff of any input from the residents whose streets are directly affected
M – F. As stated in the “Background" (P2) section of the report, “The Citywide Residential Preferential Parking
Ordinance, originally adopted in December 2014 (Ordinance #5294) and amended in February in 2016
(Ordinance #5380), sets parameters for residential preferential parking programs citywide and was enacted to
enable the first such district in the neighborhoods surrounding downtown.” As one of the Stakeholder
architects of that original RPP program I accept that recognition of what we (both residents and business
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:40 PM
8
owners) spent hours providing to our City. Why then has Staff elected to not reach out to solicit our input to
further refine the program especially given the substantial Staff turnover in the program? Instead Staff has
proceed in what I call a vacuum on its own with this new update. The words "Residential Preferential" were
inserted by we Stakeholders for a reason.
Bottom line I encourage you to continue the successful stepped reduction in number of permits sold by at
least 10% from the 2017 number and recommend that it continue to reduce each year. Further I ask you to
include in your program continuation motion, that Staff hold twice yearly public meetings to solicit INPUT, not
just program output/updates like the one meeting held last year.
Respectfully,
Richard C. Brand, RPP Stakeholder
281 Addison Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:40 PM
9
Carnahan, David
From:LaNell Mimmack <lmimmack@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 25, 2018 11:23 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:RPP
We strongly believe the council should stick by us in downtown north and listen to the residents who
negotiated a deal to clear our streets of downtown workers. Please do not renege on your promises.
LaNell Mimmack
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:40 PM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Sharon C <sharonchin@msn.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 25, 2018 11:05 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Parking & traffic
Dear City Council,
I respectfully request you reject staff recommendation and accept residents' recommendation for parking and traffic improvements. While I am an Evergreen Park resident, I strongly feel that traffic and parking are city-wide issues and impact all residents regardless of what neighborhoods we live
in.
thank you, Sharon Chin
Evergreen Park resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:40 PM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Ray Dempsey <rademps@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 25, 2018 12:11 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Parking.
To the Members of the City Council:
Remember the goal stated in the city objectives . . .
Promote commerce but not at the expense of residential
neighborhoods.
Ray Dempsey
1036 Bryant Street
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:40 PM
12
Carnahan, David
From:Irv Brenner <irvbb@pacbell.net>
Sent:Sunday, February 25, 2018 6:09 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Downtown Permit Parking
Dear Council Members:
I can't attend tomorrow's council meeting, so I'm emailing to urge you to retain the current
highly successful parking permit plan for DTN. If changed, our neighborhood would be
severely affected, and we assume that residents' quality of life is of primary concern of
council. The plan is working as originally designed and alternate parking resources for
workers are still available. I hope you'll agree.
Respectfully,
Irv Brenner
250 Byron St.
PA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:40 PM
13
Carnahan, David
From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net>
Sent:Monday, February 26, 2018 7:50 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:RPPP
When you are counting noses tonight, please pretend to see mine. I cannot attend but would if I could and would yield
my speaking time to someone speaking against the staff recommendation to continue the current downtown RPP with
no modification. It costs nothing to modify the downtown RPP to the level suggested by community leaders Buchanan
and Guislin. And doing so lends credibility to your own constant message about public transportation, cycling, pooling,
etc.
It is noteworthy, but not surprising, that residents are taking the laboring oar on this issue. In this instance, two well‐
informed residents have provided the framework for an approach that is in keeping with the Comp Plan’s goal of
supporting retail but not at the expense of neighborhoods. Residents know best the impact of Staff actions and Council
decisions because they live with that impact every single hour of every single day.
Annette Ross
College Terrace
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:40 PM
14
Carnahan, David
From:Lauren B <lauren@thinkgardens.net>
Sent:Monday, February 26, 2018 11:09 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Neighborhood parking permitting
My son and I have classes tonight and as a result none of us can attend the city council meeting.
We ask you to please reject the staff recommendation and accept the residents' recommendation for parking improvements. Sincerely,
Lauren, Richard and John Burton
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:40 PM
15
Carnahan, David
From:Keith Bennett <kbennett@luxsci.net>
Sent:Monday, February 26, 2018 11:55 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:RPP - Follow the Resident's proprosal
To City Council Members:
Please follow the Resident's Recommendation regarding the Downtown Parking Permit Program and reduce the number
of permits for sale for employers, especially employees in offices.
Palo Alto is being over‐run by office workers and new office space. These profitable businesses need to pay their full
share of the impacts on Palo Alto, and that includes parking and transportation to mention only two of the many costs
imposed by these new businesses on residents. More jobs in Palo Alto does not improve our quality of life.
Keith & Atsuko Bennett
2225 Webster St.
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:40 PM
16
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 26, 2018 1:19 PM
To:Kamhi, Philip; Hur, Mark; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Mello, Joshuah
Cc:Carol Scott; Keith Bennett; Planning Commission; Council, City; Flaherty, Michelle; Bob
McGrew; Brand, Richard; Norman H. Beamer; Rob George; Furman, Sheri; Becky
Sanders; Suzanne Keehn
Subject:new non-resident permits and optimizing the biz registry
1. Everyone seems to have received the city's postcard about the cost of non-resident permits. It is
not clear if non-resident permits will be available on a 6 month and 12 month basis. What is your position about the impact on show rates when permits are available on 6 and 12 month basis?
2. There is confusion also about the status of the business registry. It may be possible that the
registry is unable to start on schedule March 31. It is out of sync with RPPs. According to the
website, there is an issue to change vendors. Below in italics is statement on the city website. This information was brought to my attention by
employers who are seeing better management of parking programs.
2018 Registration/Renewal: At this time, the City is not accepting applications. The City is changing payment
processing vendors and will notify businesses when applications are being accepted. Please visit this website in early
March for further updates if you do not hear from the City in advance.
The business registry is an important, mandated cog in the RPP system. Non resident permits
should not be issued for one year without employer participation in the business registry. Furthermore the database of the current registry is far too shallow to support the TMA and robust RPP progams.
The possibility of a new vendor and better management data is exciting. Is there a way you can
convene leadership of the TMA and stakeholders in the RPPs to understand of data capture and to elevate the utility of a stagnant biz registry database?
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 | 2/26/2018 1:42 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Christy Telch <gforman806@aol.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 22, 2018 12:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:STOP Traffic and Commercial Parking in Our Neighborhoods!!!
Palo Alto City Council Members,
I urge you to stop turning a blind eye to the traffic congestion and commercial parking that is significantly impacting safety
and quality of life in our neighborhoods. We have lived on Hamilton Avenue for 23 years and for about the past 5 years have experienced an assault on our peace of mind, both from the continuous traffic that barrels down Hamilton Ave and
from the incessant jet noise that zooms overhead. Pulling out of our driveway has become hazardous as cars refuse to slow down and often will swerve around to pass rather than wait a few seconds. The Council has been all ears to
commercial developers and office space continues to skyrocket at the expense of residents of Palo Alto.
The Council needs to change course and begin to consider the residents of Palo Alto and our priorities, which include a reasonable quality of life free from the bombardment of constant traffic congestion and parking shortages. The Council
needs to reduce and eventually phase out commercial parking in neighborhoods adjacent to downtown core in order to force workers to find alternatives to driving to Palo Alto and reduce traffic volumes.
I hope the Council will begin to take action on the many issues that negatively impact Palo Altans such as traffic, parking
and jet noise and stop the handouts to commercial interests and developers.
Respectfully,
Christy F. Telch
1130 Hamilton Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:43 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 24, 2018 9:39 AM
To:Carol Scott; Paul Machado; Nadia Naik; Patrick Slattery; Joanne Koltnow; Dedra Hauser;
Fred Balin; Jeff Levinsky; RAS; Becky Sanders; Peter Taskovich; Furman, Sheri; Glanckopf,
Annette; Lisa Landers; Nelson Ng; Mary😂- SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD; Rita Vrhel;
Keith Bennett; Mary Anne Baker; Len Baker; Jason Matlof; Neva Yarkin; Wolfgang
Dueregger; Chris Donlay; Suzanne Keehn; Maurice Green; Beth Rosenthal; Peter
Shambora; Roger Petersen; Richard Willits; William Ross; Annette Ross;
jeff@levinsky.com; Norman H. Beamer; Greg Schmid (external); Greg Welch; Peter Giles;
Peter Rosenthal; Drekmeier, Peter; Penny Ellson
Cc:Council, City; Keene, James
Subject:City Council faces hard decision Monday night
Attachments:121116 Kicking The Can Editorial PA Weekly 001.pdf
Dear Friends and Neighbors all over Palo Alto
Although you do not live with the University Ave Downtown Parking Permit District, Council decisions
will impact you directly or indirectly.
I am appealing to you because your long-term neighborhood quality, parking and traffic, is directly
related the Council actions on Monday night. University Avenue neighborhood quality improvements over the past 7 years could be reversed.
Quality of neighborhood is the issue....parking and traffic.
Please read coverage from Palo Alto Weekly from November 2012 and Feb 23, 2018. Attachment and link are below. News coverage on Feb 23 is informative.
City staff and Council on Monday Feb 26 may try to kick the can down the road again. It is
irresponsible to prolong this issue.
CALL TO ACTION:
1. Come to City Council meeting Monday night at 715pm. State your opinion. It is ok to stay or go
home to resume a normal life.
2. If you cant attend, send a simple email to cty.councill@cityofpaloalto.org and ask them to reject
staff recommendation and accept residents' recommendation for parking and traffic improvements
3. Alert 2 friends and neighbors and ask them to speak up.
Thank you. If you have any questions. Email me or John Guislin jguislin@gmail.com
My phone numbers are below. Call me if necessary.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:43 PM
2
Downtown sees fewer workers buying parking permits
Downtown sees fewer workers buying parking
permits
Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto's effort to drive downtown employees' cars out of
residential neighborhoods appears to be gaining mome...
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
Editorial
Kicking the can
down the road
Council approves more studies on downtown parking
problems, leaving residents waiting for relief, again
e again, residents of downtown neighborhoods have been told to
patient about the impacts of employee parking spilling onto their
reets. That's been the city's consistent refrain for years as neigh-
borhoods have been increasingly inundated with employees working in
bustling downtown offices who opt against purchasing parking permits
for city lots and garages.
On Tuesday, the City Council complicated and delayed the day of reck-
oning by combining efforts to address the current parking problems with
an evaluation of overall future development downtown and an assessment
of future parking needs as more development occurs.
To city residents, it's just more of the same. The study plans adopted
by the Council will likely delay any further action on residential parking
issues for at least a year, probably longer.
To be sure, the dynamics of downtown parking are complicated and
affected by many different variables. And some good work is being done
to improve the utilization of existing city garages.
But relief for downtown residents can't wait for the financing and con-
struction of hypothetical future parking garages years from now.
After a long discussion Tuesday, the council voted 8-1 to assess the
potential parking needs for new downtown development and to look again
at utilization of parking-garage space and whether construction of another
garage is warranted.
While these studies will shed some light on what the c.ity can do to
provide adequate parking downtown in anticipation of more development,
there is nothing in either one to provide direct relief for the neighbor-
hoods. The only minor help came when the council narrowly approved
short-term measures creating some loading zones and issuing permits for
the few Professorville residents whose homes do not have any off-street
parking.
As they have before, council members acknowledged that solving the
long-standing parking shortage will be a challenge. Mayor Yiaway Yeh
said the action is "the start of what I know is a significant undertaking."
But perhaps a more telling assessment is the varying points of view
offered by business and neighborhood representatives, who have been
working over the last two years with city planners to find a solution. Russ
Cohen. executive director of the Downtown Business and Professional
Association. expressed support for the parking study and the city's effort
to solve the parking problem.
2.012.
1c af rand. who lives on Addison Avenue in Professorville, was
decidedly less enthusiastic. The council should focus on parking short-
ages in the neighborhood, he said. rather than relating the problems in
Professorville with the downtown as a whole.
Member Karen Holman picked up the neighborhood torch. calling·
downtown parking a "systemic problem" that needs a solution soon, add-
ing that the city should act soon to create a residential permit-parking
program in the downtown neighborhoods. She cast the lone no-vote on
the plan, which she said was due to her dissatisfaction that the plans did
not have a specific timeline.
Council member Greg Schmid said the staff should do more work to
accurately assess the scope of the downtown parking problem. Schmid
called parking a "critical" issue that will require staff resources be spent
on finding out whether the city has a "systemic deficit" in parking.
The council and staff's reluctance to implement a residential parking-
perm it system is in part based on the fear that it will leave employees with
insufficient places to park, and then deprive shoppers of easily accessible
short-term parking in city lots as employees move around their cars.
Those are important concerns, but until there is JOO percent utilization
of all permit-only parking spaces in city lots and garages, the city is not
managing its parking program to maximum efficiency.
That's why the highest priority, as Schmid suggested, should be to
focus on defining just how big a parking shortage we have. Without that
knowledge, the city has no idea how many spaces it will take to meet
downtown demand, present or future, and also entice downtown workers
away from parking in neighborhoods.
Some overdue improvements in the permit system are coming soon
in response to direction given by council in July. Just a year ago studies
showed that 1,200 of the city's 3,000-plus downtown parking spaces
were vacant much of the time due to an unwieldy and poorly managed
permit system and to an unwillingness of employees to buy permits when
they can park free in the neighborhoods. An online management system
is about to be implemented that will enable the city to release permits
weekly, rather than on the old quarterly schedule that increased wait
times. It should improve utilization of available parking space and make
it easier for employees to acquire permits.
But the patience of downtown residents is understandably running out,
and the council should be including the development of a residential
permit-parking system in the staff's work plan. Otherwise, a year from
now we could be no closer to actually solving this problem, in spite of a
large pile of consultants' reports.
Page 18 • November 16, 2012 • Palo Alto Weekly • www.PaloAltoOnline.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:55 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, February 26, 2018 12:46 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fw: Downtown Neighborhoods' Permit Parking Protection: Annual Renewal
Attachments:Proposal for Downtown RPP Feb 26 Palo Alto City Council Meeting.pdf; Excerpt
from Staff Report for RPP Agenda Feb 26 City Council Meeting.pdf
To Our Palo Alto City Council,
I know you all have received this email and the residents proposal. I urge you all to listen to the
Residents, and adopt their proposal. They have studied and given clarity to the issues, and which addresses other unresolved issues.
Please, we have over the years given much more influence to the developers and to business. Isn't it
time to now listen to our residents that have done such a good job of understanding the issues, and actually makes it more
livable for all of us.
Sincerely
Suzanne Keehn
4076 Orme St. 94306,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear City Council,
We respectfully submit the following proposal to improve the Downtown RRP District
and enabling Resolution 9473.
The recent staff report, if adopted as presented, has the potential to reverse the quality
improvements realized over the past 2 years.
The staff report fails to address the most important issue: What is the credible rationale
for staff to authorize issuing non-resident permits
in numbers greater than the established demand?
Furthermore, staff has not yet been able to fully occupy Bryant Street and
Cowper/Webster garages, where non-resident vehicles
should be directed before accessing neighborhoods permits. These two garages have
the capacity for 100-150 additional permit sales.
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
City of Palo Alto
City Council Staff Report
(ID# 8721)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/26/2018
Summary Title: Downtown RPP Status Update
Title: Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Status
Update
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council receive an update on the Downtown Residential
Preferential Parking (RPP) Program and continue the current program without modification.
Executive Summary
Over the last several years, the City Council has directed Staff to approach parking and traffic
congestion in Palo Alto from three different directions: 1) by implementing programs to reduce
reliance on the private automobile (i.e. transportation demand reduction), 2) by adding
supplemental parking supply where appropriate, and 3) by better managing existing parking
resources.
To better manage existing parking resources and reduce impacts of spillover parking in
residential neighborhoods, the City Council approved a pilot residential preferential parking
(RPP) program in neighborhoods encircling Downtown in 2016 and made it ongoing in April
2017. The current program has been successful at reducing and better distributing employee
parking in the neighborhoods, although there are still some street segments that are impacted
by spill-over parking (in many cases, from two-hour parkers).
Overall, staff believes the Downtown RPP program has been generally successful and
recommends that the C Council wait before makin further adjustments until decisions can
be made about managemen rop se o the commercial core, such as possible
implementation of a reduced price garage permit for low income workers (similar to the
reduced price permit offered in the RPP program). If Council accepts this recommendation,
staff will immediately proceed with sale of the new Downtown RPP permits that are required to
City of Palo Alto Page 1
NO!
be sold before April 1, 2018.
Background
For many years, the City has sought to effectively manage parking in the City's Downtown
commercial core and address impacts from spill-over parking into adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
The Citywide Residential Preferential Parking Ordinance, originally adopted in December 2014
(Ordinance #5294) and amended in February 2016 (Ordinance #5380), sets parameters for
residential preferential parking programs citywide, and was enacted to enable the first such
district in the neighborhoods surrounding downtown.
In accordance with this ordinance, the Downtown RPP program was established by separate
resolution and has been adjusted several times. Resolution #9671 adopted March 6, 2017
describes its current parameters and is included as Attachment B. The current RPP
Administrative Guidelines outlining the administrative rules and guidelines for the program are
included as Attachment C.
The City Council last considered the Downtown RPP program on March 6, 2017 and adopted a
motion https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56728 that among other
things, requested that staff return to the Council in one year to:
• Reassess the employee parking permit reduction rate based on the results of the Palo
Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) programs and other parking
management programs; and
• In addition to low income employees, consider ways to prioritize or better serve
neighborhood businesses such as medical, dental, and senior care.
See the Discussion section below for the current status of the Downtown RPP program (number
of employee permits and on-street parking occupancies).
Discussion
The Downtown RPP program has shown continual improvement, and, with programs such as
the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA), a natural decrease in both
parking occupancy and employee permits sold has occurred. For the September 2016 sales
period, the Downtown RPP program had issued 1,335 employee parking permits. Six months
later, for the April 1, 2017 sales period, the city issued 1,155 total employee parking permits. In
the most recent sales period, beginning on September 1, 2017, the City issued 1,090 employee
parking permits. As employee permits are sold every six months, the one-year change from
1,335 to 1,090 represents a 22% decrease in permits sold since the same period last year. On
City of Palo Alto Page 2
July 1, 2017, the fee for a full-price six-month Downtown RPP Employee Parking Permit
increased from $233 to $365. Of the 1,090 permits sold, 38% were reduced-price (low-income)
permits.
Given the reduced number of employees purchasing permits, the City lc!iiloliiu~ld~i!i!iiiiiiiiiiili• YI s,
• an annual rate of reduction without adversely affecting employee permit holders in the near
term. However, the declining number of permits sold every six months suggests that a forced
reduction in the number of employee permits is not necessary to see continued progress.
Parking occupancy studies taken in November 2017 support a conclusion that the Downtown
RPP program is working, with average occupancies ranging from 21% to 60%. On average, the
occupancy study found that approximately 271 employees are parking with permits in the
Downtown RPP program area. Occupancy maps are included in Attachment A and Table 1
below summarizes the results of the occupancy study.
• '~
,;t V'• '·"~ r•cre.s
35 ... ,.,. S"~ Y•t..+·
3 .~35 ......
City of Palo Alto Page 3
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 3:23 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net>
Sent:Monday, February 26, 2018 2:10 PM
To:Neilson Buchanan; Kamhi, Philip; Hur, Mark; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Mello,
Joshuah
Cc:Carol Scott; Keith Bennett; Planning Commission; Council, City; Flaherty, Michelle; Bob
McGrew; Brand, Richard; Norman H. Beamer; Rob George; Furman, Sheri; Becky
Sanders; Suzanne Keehn
Subject:Re: new non-resident permits and optimizing the biz registry
I'm getting a lot of complaints from neighbors who are surprised (some shocked) at a 100% increase in the cost to park
their car in front of their own house. Some don't have driveways. When did this occur? And the increase for employees will only encourage them to "game" the system.
Neilson: In paragraph 1 you have a question about " impact on show rates ". What is a show rate?
Richard Brand RPP Stakeholder
-----Original Message----- From: Neilson Buchanan
Sent: Feb 26, 2018 1:18 PM To: Philip Kamhi , Mark Hur , James Keene , Hillary Gitelman , Joshuah Mello
Cc: Carol Scott , Keith Bennett , Planning Commission , City Council , Michelle Flaherty , Bob McGrew , Richard Brand , "Norman H. Beamer" , Rob George , Sheri Furman , Becky Sanders , Suzanne Keehn
Subject: new non-resident permits and optimizing the biz registry
1. Everyone seems to have received the city's postcard about the cost of non-resident
permits. It is not clear if non-resident permits will be available on a 6 month and 12 month
basis. What is your position about the impact on show rates when permits are available on 6
and 12 month basis?
2. There is confusion also about the status of the business registry. It may be possible that the
registry is unable to start on schedule March 31. It is out of sync with RPPs. According to
the website, there is an issue to change vendors.
Below in italics is statement on the city website. This information was brought to my attention
by employers who are seeing better management of parking programs.
2018 Registration/Renewal: At this time, the City is not accepting applications. The City is changing payment
processing vendors and will notify businesses when applications are being accepted. Please visit this website in
early March for further updates if you do not hear from the City in advance.
The business registry is an important, mandated cog in the RPP system. Non resident permits
should not be issued for one year without employer participation in the business
registry. Furthermore the database of the current registry is far too shallow to support the TMA and robust RPP progams.
The possibility of a new vendor and better management data is exciting. Is there a way you
can convene leadership of the TMA and stakeholders in the RPPs to understand of data
capture and to elevate the utility of a stagnant biz registry database?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 3:23 PM
2
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 | 2/26/2018 3:41 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Eugene Zukowsky <eandzz@stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, February 26, 2018 3:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:recommendation
Dear Council Members:
We urge you to reject staff recommendations and to accept residents’ recommendations for parking
and traffic improvements.
Dr. and Mrs. Eugene Zukowsky
4153 Maybell Way
Palo Alto, CA 94306
TO:
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
12
FROM: ED SHIKADA, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER
DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2018
SUBJECT: 12-APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES 2018 STRATEGIC PLAN
Staff received a request for more detail on the UAC's feedback. Attached are:
• Draft excerpted minutes of February 7th
• Attachment B from the UAC's packet summarizing UAC comments at its meeting on
January 1gth and revisions made to the draft strategic plan document
The complete agenda and packet are available at
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63221.
Ed Shikada
Assistant City Manager
Utilities General Manager
1of1
CITY OF
PA LO
A LTO
EXCERPTED DRAFT MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 7, 2018
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
ITEM 1: ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend
Council Approve the 2018 Strategic Plan
Ed Shikada, Utilities General Manager, noted Attachment B to Item 1 is an itemization of
Commissioners' comments from the January meeting and staff's responses. The tentative date
for presentation of the Strategic Plan to the City Council is February 26.
Commissioner Johnston advised that staff did a nice job of reflecting the UAC's comments in
the Strategic Plan.
ACTION: Commissioner Trumbull moved to recommend Council approval of the 2018 Strategic
Plan. Commissioner Johnston seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0 with
Commissioners Forssell, Johnston, Schwartz, Segal, and Trumbull voting yes and Chair Danaher
and Vice Chair Ballantine absent.
Attachment B
Strategic
Plan Element I Comment and/or Modification Request Response and/or Action
General •
•
•
•
•
•
•
Priority 1 (Pl): •
Workforce
•
Priority 2 (P2): •
Collaboration •
•
•
List KPls with priorities and not as stand-alone item. (Johnston) , •
Delete any reference to the term "millennial". {Forssell) •
List key target dates for initiatives in chronological order. (Johnston) •
Financial responsibility should be included as a value. (Segal) •
Include intent behind KPls. (Schwartz) •
Define all acronyms the first time they are used •
Strategic Direction does not seem to reflect a destination (Segal) •
Housing solutions including co-housing should be listed as an action 1 •
item to help attract and retain employees. (Schwartz)
Workforce priority does not include actions related to working with local
community colleges for workforce development. (Schwartz)
•
Include a strategy/action related to listening. (Schwartz) I •
Supports collaboration related to implementation of CPAU's technology •
roadmap; however expressed concerns about the not having AMI fully
deployed until December 2022 and order of deployment efforts.
(Schwartz)
Would like to see an outage management system in place before June 1 •
2019. (Schwartz)
Add "affected" to KPI addressing number of customers aware of 1 •
programs.
The document has been modified .
The document has been modified .
This information will be provided to the UAC once implementation of
the Strategic Plan begins.
Accountability is intended to include financial responsibility.
The document has been modified as applicable .
The document has been modified to include a table of acronyms.
The Strategic Direction simply provides a shorthand statement of the
focus of the Strategic Plan, the achievement of which would be a great
place to be.
Affordable housing and work-life balance solutions are a priority for
the City overall and for City employees the City Council has identified
this as a Council priority. Developing specific actions related to co-
housing are not within the purview of CPAU, but rather a City-wide
issue and therefore not included in the Strategic Plan. CPAU staff will
work within the City-wide program to ensure viable housing and work-
life balance solutions are considered in the context of recruitment and
retention.
Pl: Strategy 2, Action 3 contains tasks related to working with local
high schools, community colleges, and universities to promote
internship and other opportunities in the field. These tasks are not
included for approval of the Strategic Plan, however will be included in
CPAU work plans and implementation efforts.
P2: Strategy 1, has been modified to including listening .
See comments under Technology
Operations is currently evaluating the existing outage management
system to assess whether the functionalities meets our needs. The
results of this evaluation may lead to exploring other vendor services
or systems. There is no currently forecasted timeline for this endeavor.
The document has been modified .
..
Strategic
Plan Element Comment and/or Modification Request Response and/or Action
Priority 3 (P3): • Use of the term AMI is inconsistent with industry terminology. Should • The Strategic Plan consistently uses the term advanced meter
Technology be advanced meter infrastructure. (Schwartz) infrastructure.
• Encourages staff to learn from and collaborate with other utilities that • CPAU staff participates in several AMI workgroups and recognizes the
have effectively deployed AMI. (Schwartz) need to further explore best practices throughout the industry.
• Concerned about the time it will take to achieve fully deployment of • The AMI deployment schedule as proposed is necessary to ensure
AMI (September 2022). (Schwartz and Johnston) successful deployment given existing resources and the need to
implement and integrate with new enterprise and billing systems.
• CPAU staff needs to recognize that the City is behind and not in pace • Staff strives to understand customers' technology needs and prioritizes
with adoption of new technologies and action should reflect that the cost effective deployment within the existing constraints and
City needs to catch up. (Schwartz) resources. Staff recognizes that AMI deployment and use of other
technology is behind that of other utilities; however will keep Strategy
4, Action 5 as is to reflect CPAU's goal rather than as a statement of
current status.
Priority 4 (P4): • KPI to maintain bills below average or median may not be unattainable • KPls are intended to be goals to strive towards and employee
Financial & if CPAU is also pursuing improvements to infrastructure. And, are performance is not measured against KPls.
Resources employee bonuses determined based on KPI performance? (Schwartz)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 3:32 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lee Birdsey <birdseylee@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 26, 2018 11:27 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Cool Block
Dear City Council members,
I am writing you today to support the Cool Block Program that the City has been doing for the last 2 years. I
am a member of the Webster Street Beta Cool Block group. We finished our work last May. I learned so much more about:
Our City recycling services
City services to improve our home efficiency
Disaster preparedness Reducing our carbon footprint by 30%
I now bike whenever I can, we only put our garage can out once a month because of everything being recycled
(the other 2 cans go out more often), our thermostat is programed for 58 overnight and when no one is home
and 68 otherwise, we use cold water to wash our clothes, we have the supplies for a disaster and we know who in my neighborhood might need extra help in a disaster. We have always had a neighborhood Block Party at
the end of summer on our street but we had a winter gathering at my home in Jan. We have a neighborhood list
with everyone's phone number and email. It really feels like a safe and warm place to live again after this
program.
Please continue to fund this Cool Block program again to help our city reduce it's carbon footprint one home at
a time and make Palo Alto a friendly place again.
Best regards,
Lee and Bill Birdsey
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 3:32 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Bruce Boyd <bruce.boyd@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 26, 2018 9:44 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Cool Block Program
Dear city council members, I'm excited to hear that you are poised to fund the next wave of Cool Blocks in the Beta2 rollout! As early adopters, my wife Julie O'Grady and I can vouch for the importance and effectiveness of the program. Not only did we lower our carbon footprint as a whole by approximately 25% but we deepened our neighborhood relationships and strengthened our community. I highly recommend rolling this out to as many blocks in the future as is possible.
As an early adopter, I plan to attend the Cool Block program funding meeting Monday, March 5 at 8:00 pm.
Sincerely,
Bruce Boyd
1229 Hopkins Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/27/2018 1:52 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Annette Isaacson <annetteisaacson@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, February 26, 2018 7:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Funding the Cool Block Program
Dear City Council Members,
My name is Annette Isaacson. I have been a resident of Midtown for 25 years, and I was a Block Leader for the first round of the Cool Block program in Palo Alto. It was a wonderful experience for me and for my block.
Not only did our team members get to know each other better as neighbors, but we got so much
better prepared for emergencies. We learned how to turn off our gas at the main; we all packed "to go" bags so we'll be ready in case of an earthquake; each of the 33 families on our block buddied up with two other families, exchanging contact information and often house keys or at least sharing
where the house key is hidden so that in case of an emergency we will all have someone to check on
and someone who will look in on us, too. We know, that as neighbors, we will be the first line of
defense.
During the program, we shared tips on reducing our water usage. Neighbors who had taken out their
lawns explained the process; neighbors who replaced their cement driveways told us about using
paving stones; we even started a children's garden so the kids could learn how to grow their own
vegetables using drip irrigation.
For me, the highlight of the program was seeing how seriously my neighbors take the issue of climate
change and how eager they are to save our resources for our children and grandchildren. Since the
end of the program, two families have insulated their attics, one got an attic fan, one is hanging out
clothes to dry instead of using her gas dryer, and one family bought an electric car. One family, with two young children, got a bike that holds both kids so the parents can take them to their pre-school and kindergarten class. Many have started offsetting their miles with Terrapass. We all learned how
to read our utility bill and are now more conscious about our energy usage.
After our program ended, families on the block that had not been able to participate in the first round formed a second Webster St. Cool Block Team. To celebrate the new year, both teams came together for a wine and cheese party. The Cool Block Program has brought new energy and
friendliness to our block.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/27/2018 1:52 PM
2
The Cool Block program fosters community, emergency preparedness and conservation. It's a win
win for the city. I hope you will fund the program so that more and more neighborhoods in Palo Alto
will get the chance to participate.
Sincerely,
Annette Isaacson
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/27/2018 1:52 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Kimberley Wong <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 27, 2018 9:52 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please Support the Cool Block Program
Dear City Council Members,
I was a Beta leader of the Cool Block Program and was very excited to participate in the program. Under the amazing
leadership of Sandra and her team, I was able to gather a number of neighbors from my block and encourage them to participate also. We were impressed with the fact that even though we thought we were being really conservative in our
uses of our natural resources there was so much more that we could do. By participating in the program we picked apart each item and found out how we could do more.
From this we now have a safety coordinator who has taken on her role very seriously, attended training and now has a
walkie talkie to assist us in the event of an emergency. We all spend a way more time walking rather than driving. From Scott Melburg's visit one of our team members hired him to run an efficiency test on his house after which he changed out
a drafty set of doors. Recycling was our favorite discussion. It was surprising just how much could be recycled or composted. We've reduced a full garbage can of waste to a mere handful of items that really can not be composted or
recycled. And I am not afraid to go in there and pull out items that don't belong in the regular garbage can even after the fact! This program has made a positive impact in all our lives and I hope others will follow suit.
I hope that the city will continue this program and encourage others to join. We can save our world's resources one block
at a time!
Kimberley Wong (Melville team)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/27/2018 1:52 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Rod Davidson <rod@deix.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:28 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Cool Block program
We participated in the Cool Block program and found it to be worth our
time. Please fund another group of Cool Blocks.
Rod Davidson
2527 Webster Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/28/2018 1:30 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Karen Michael <ktmichael@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 28, 2018 8:35 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Cool Blocks Program
Hi, City Council. My name is Karen Michael, I live on Ilima Way, and I participated in the Cool Blocks beta
program last summer. Hilary Glann was our Ilima Way Cool Block leader, and she told us that you are poised
to fund another group of cool blocks.
Simply put, Cool Blocks is a great program, and it's perfect for Palo Alto. How can we not love a program that
brings neighbors together to work on shared disaster preparedness and cutting down on our carbon
footprints? It has been wonderful getting to know my neighbors better, and with some simple changes in my
home I have cut my electric bill by over 1/3. I even took advantage of the city's rebate program to replace my old pool pump with an energy efficient and very quiet one. A very popular meeting for our block was the zero
waste/recycle/compost one; we had lots of questions and were all very excited to see our trash shrink
considerably.
It is safe to say that I would not have made these changes without the program. And our block continues to have potlucks just to get together and share our progress, so the results are ongoing.
Hilary was a tremendous leader and an inspiration. She spent a LOT of time supporting us and the program and
is continuing to do so. I think the city would benefit greatly if you can figure out how to harness more of
Hilary's personal energy for the city's benefit. At a minimum, I think she deserves some recognition.
Anyway, as an innovative city Palo Alto should definitely continue funding Cool Blocks.
Thank you,
Karen Michael
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 3:43 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Monday, February 26, 2018 12:49 PM
To:Council, City; Bobel, Phil; Friend, Gil
Cc:Keith Bennett; Esther Nigenda
Subject:California water woes continue
Hello: this is an excellent article on the anticipated problems with California's continued insufficient rainfall.
Anticipating continued drought.
Certainly relates to dewatering and the need for ongoing conservation.Thank you.
The next big front in California’s water war
Rita C. Vrhel, RN, BSN, CCM
Medical Case Management
Phone: 650-325-2298
Fax: 650-326-9451
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/27/2018 1:51 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com>
Sent:Monday, February 26, 2018 6:41 PM
To:Scharff, Greg
Cc:Court Skinner; chuck jagoda; Ruth Chippendale; Council, City;
roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; M. Gallagher;
supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; senator.hill@senate.ca.gov; assemblymember
berman
Subject:discriminatory laws in multiple dwelling units, including condos.
Dear Greg I missed the Council discussion which led to a proposed ban on smoking in multiple
dwelling units, and I'd like your opinion, partly because this issue also applies to the boards which
govern condominiums., which seem to have unlimited power. It's shocking to me that they have
power to assess fines and sell individual's properties without the validation of a judge, and, in general, their intrusive regulations seem to have the effect of quietly nudging out long term owners to replace
them with buyers exercising enormous wealth, with a view to increasing the profit on their own
investment. I'm resigned to a $1,200 monthly condo fee, and somewhat restive about late fines of
over $100 and a new accounting arrangement which demands that the on-time date be counted from
the date of arrival in Arizona rather than the date of posting, particularly since the rental code specifies out of state payments shall be counted as on time if the posting date is on time, and I can't
do anything about the large continuous decor.ating adventures, but I don't see how they can feel
legally secure in demanding interior improvements or behavior modification in individual homes. After
a number of attempts, our board succeeded in getting a partial rental ban (applying only to future
owners). It seems to me that a property without the right to rent it is worth considerably less, and that people who live in this category of building are quite likely to want to move abroad for extended
periods. However, it does seem that this is not only against the owners' interest, but against the city's
interest in preserving rental housing.<<
They passed a law requiring every homeowner to replace the original wall-hung toilets of 6 gallon tank capacity with low flush toilets, on the grounds that "everybody pays for the water." However, the
building is about 60 years old. Over the years the majority of the units have replaced toilets just
because they felt like it, leaving only 27 older toilets to replace out of 202; placing the burden of
compliance on only a few. I have three toilets, and each replacement costs close to $500., with
installation costs another $400-$500. There are hardly any toilets which fit the original installation plumbing. However, one person can't use three toilets' worth of water a day; moreover, the
apartment has been essentially vacant for about ten years since my mother's death; I was living in my
home in Los Altos Hills and only moved back in to work on the luxury SRO project, the bedroom-
bathroom suite with a full room sized balcony, which I hope to convince the Council and the Planning
Commission is an appropriate way to deal with the need for affordable housing for singles, seniors in particular. I would, however, like to have occasional guests--it is, after all, a three bedroom three bath
home, which I can't do because the management, when I had a leaky valve, removed not one but two
tanks.from bathrooms which were back to back. Our keep the peace manager eventually came up
with a proposal for the association to replace the one remaining toilet and be repaid at the rate of $30.
a month, for as long as it takes to repay.from
Now we come to the no-smoking. My step-father smoked, in fact he and my mother bought this
condo because it had a large outdoor balcony where smoking could take place without disturbing the
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/27/2018 1:51 PM
2
non-smokers. The condo association, like Palo Alto, is also interested in forbidding smoking so this is
a good time to ask: doesn't that interfere with property rights, not to mention individual
rights? Smoking is not only legal, it is heavily taxed, which is tantamount to some kind of right. If smoking can be banned, what else? It took a constitutional amendment to forbid alcohol, and another one to reinstate it. Can you also ban soft drinks? junk foods? venery? I'd like to know what legal
findings led to to think you can do it, because it definitely restricts my market. There aren't that many
people who can afford a 2 million dollar condo, and many of them who can, smoke, and won't buy a
home where they can't smoke. Businessmen from the Orient, in particular, who are likely buyers, are great smokers.
I also am concerned about squashing my hopes for luring wealthy widowers and divorced elderly out
of their large homes into my proposed luxury hotel co-housing, so as to leave the large homes for
families to rent or buy. Many older men smoke--it's one of the few pleasures left to them. Can you please give me your opinion on this matter?
Respectfully yours,
Stephanie Munoz
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/27/2018 1:51 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nick Peterson <nrpeterson@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 26, 2018 6:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Downtown North - Residential Parking & Observation about Traffic Safety on Bryant
Street
Dear City Council,
Please reject the staff recommendations regarding the Downtown RRP District and accept the residents' recommendations for parking improvements as articulated by Neilson Buchanan and John
Guislin.
Thank you for implementing the residential parking program which has improved our quality of living. The program has helped to lessen the perpetual over-crowding that previously existed much of
the time.
(Now, if we could just get some additional traffic calming at the intersections of Bryant and Hawthorne
and Bryant and Everett, then we could make some additional progress. It is really dangerous crossing
those intersections on Bryant Street (whether driving, walking or biking) due to many drivers
frequently not stopping fully or at all. I have an autistic adult son and I won't let him walk alone to go
downtown because it is too dangerous for him - sad, but true. The situation improved when the temporary program blocking through traffic was in place a few years back that cut down on
commuters cutting through but that program was discontinued. Please don't discontinue or water
down the residential parking program - it's working.)
Sincerely,
Nick Peterson
Kristine Peterson
171 Bryant Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/27/2018 1:54 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Amy Keohane <amykeohane@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:25 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Growing up in the Eichler neighborhood
Hi It really is important to try to keep to the style of Eichlers in the area when the new houses are going up. I
live in the circles and recently people have remodeled or built and I have seen some real nice remodels or
tear downs to look like the original Eichlers, so I know it can be done. The lot sizes are not meant for large
intrusive homes. Please help the neighborhood to keep the peaceful feel of the Eichlers.
Thanks
Amy Keohane
650‐346‐5306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/27/2018 1:54 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Sandra Park <sandrapark04@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 27, 2018 12:12 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Eichler Guidelines
Dear council members,
My family of five and I would like to convey our concern to protect the design principles underlying Eichlers:
1 Privacy—preventing building too far up so that neighbors can intrude on the privacy of neighboring backyard floor to
ceiling glass.
2 Building size and scale—avoiding outsize houses with very little buffer to neighbors and the street curb.
3 Homes versus real estate speculation—moderating a hot market for real estate deals that aim for profit first and less
regard for neighborhood character.
Palo Alto has a strong sense of place; let’s not give way to trends that would erase the community values and
distinctions that separate us from tract housing and brand new gated developments.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandra Park
3700 Carlson Circle
Palo Alto 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/27/2018 1:54 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Jean-marc mommessin <energy.jmm@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 27, 2018 11:33 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Eichler Guidelines -- Privacy & Neighborhood Character
Dear City Council,
I hope this finds you well and want to thank you for the opportunity to share our voice. I understand that you will be reviewing Eichler Guidelines soon as i wanted to share my thoughts.
We live at 3726 Carlson Circle in a eichler.
I am hoping you can help us protect our backyard privacy as we have 20 ft long of floor to ceiling glass
windows.
I am also concerned about a few monster homes that were just build with almost no backyard. I am hoping you
can also address this.
I seems a basement for those who want more sqft is the way to go.
Many thanks for considering these during your reflexion on this topic.
Best, Jean-marc
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/28/2018 1:30 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Brian . <brianevans@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 27, 2018 3:03 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Eichler feedback
We have lived in an Eichler since 2006 and love it. Right now a large 2-story house is being built behind us and
so rather than seeing tree lines over our fence we see windows. It reduces our privacy and our sunlight.
At the same time I am sympathetic to families that want more floor space. So while I am not strictly opposed to any upward building I would like strict limitations and the size/style of 2nd floors. Is it feasible to say "no
balconies" and have larger setback requirements for 2nd stories? I also would like the new homes to be of
"similar" architectural style as the homes around it. I am not at all a fan of the huge mansions that look nothing
like the other homes in the neighborhood.
Thank you, Brian Evans
3642 South Ct
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/28/2018 1:30 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Joan Tada <aikotada1@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 28, 2018 2:12 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Guidelines for fairmeadow
I have been a homeowner for over 40 years and am sad when huge new houses look so out of place in the
neighborhood. Please help preserve our Fairmeadow Eichler neighborhood and have guidelines that ensure
renovations or new construction is consistent with the look and feel of the existing neighborhood. Thank you very much. Joan Tada 3730 Carlson Circle.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:43 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:ron ito <wsrfr418@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, February 23, 2018 11:29 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:85 foot buildings?
NO...absolutely positively not.
If you let one company or person do it you might as well green light everything.
Does the guy work for a developer?
There must be some motive for proposing such a thing.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:43 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:ron ito <wsrfr418@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, February 23, 2018 11:28 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:85 foot building?
NO..absolutely not.
Tell the guy to take a hike.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:55 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent:Monday, February 26, 2018 12:03 PM
To:Clerk, City
Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject:FPPC Form 700 Public Records Act Request
Dear City Clerk:
Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et
seq.), I ask to obtain copies of the following, which I understand to be held by the City of Palo Alto:
All FPPC Form 700’s (including, but not limited to, resubmissions, refilings, supplemental
materials and addenda) submitted by: Jonathan Reichental, Hillary Gitelman, Edward Shikada,
Molly Stump, James Keene, Gregory Scharff, and Liz Kniss, as well as by James Fleming, Dean
Batchelor, Tom Ting, and David Yuan, between January 1, 2010 and February 26, 2018.
All FPPC Form 801’s (including, but not limited to, resubmissions, refilings, supplemental
materials and addenda) submitted by: Jonathan Reichental, Hillary Gitelman, Edward Shikada,
Molly Stump, James Keene, Gregory Scharff, and Liz Kniss, as well as by James Fleming, Dean
Batchelor, Tom Ting, and David Yuan, between January 1, 2010 and February 26, 2018.
All correspondence, communications and submissions regarding employment outside of the City
by: Jonathan Reichental, Hillary Gitelman, Edward Shikada, Molly Stump, James Keene, Gregory
Scharff, and Liz Kniss, as well as by James Fleming, Dean Batchelor, Tom Ting, and David Yuan,
between January 1, 2010 and February 20, 2018.
All correspondence, communications and submissions regarding or in any way related to gifts,
reimbursement of expenses, payments of any type or perquisites of any type from any party other
than the City from or to Jonathan Reichental, Hillary Gitelman, Edward Shikada, Molly Stump,
James Keene, Gregory Scharff, and Liz Kniss, as well as by James Fleming, Dean Batchelor,
Tom Ting, and David Yuan, between January 1, 2010 and February 26, 2018.
If you have any questions or would like me to clarify what I am requesting, please contact me at 650-
325-5151.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:55 PM
2
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/21/2018 5:25 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 21, 2018 12:09 PM
To:editor@paweekly.com
Cc:WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; roberta ahlquist; Court Skinner; chuck jagoda;
bhushans@aol.com; Council, City
Subject:housing
Thank you for Gennady's thorough overview of Palo Alto housing. Won't we need some help with it? Shouldn't the US government provide housing for veterans on land at Moffett Field? School
districts, also, have land, and it would be greatly to their financial advantage to stabilize teacher
compensation by making part of it in the form of housing. City employees also would like to rent city
owned apartments, and if they were attractive enough, retired employees might want to swap some of
their large-ish pensions for the privilege of living in them. They could be built over public buildings, as well as on underused land. Large employers should be permitted to expand only on condition that
they build employee housing equal to their jobs, and no housing demolition should be permitted.
It is local government's permission which has raised land values; now they should leverage their
power to increase density and extend height limits, but only for affordable housing. When the Maybell project was being fought over, it seemed to me that three times as many elderly in 200 bedroom and
bath suites but the same number of cubic feet would have little or no visual impact on the
neighborhood, nor would raising the height to equal the Tan Apartments immediately adjacent, yet
the city would not consider removing the limit on number of units per acre; the state has removed it in
the present legislation. We should ask what density would permit a private developer to turn a profit if "affordable" meant
$600., which is 2/3 the amount of the minimum Social Security and SSI.
A former VTA property on El Camino is projected to be developed as 60 600 square foot units. How
many units renting at $600. would it take to produce the same rent as 60--600 square foot units?I
If city relaxes the eight limits and/or permits greater density, the units should be under rent control.i
Why would a city, or its residents, object to many people under the same roof? The answer seems to
be that the neighbors want the use of the city streets to park their own cars exclusively. But that
hidden agenda should have been examined more closely. Parking garages should be rented out at
night as well as during the day, and should hold the cars of people--seniors, for instance- who do not have parking next to their homes. Residents in the same location could cheaply and efficiently keep
a van to carry them to the garage and on short errands. Residents who do not have cars should
have preference in renting near El Camino and other streets with public transportation.
Of all the people who can help with the housing crisis, we should most value the self-helpers, the car campers and RV dwellers, and provide them a safe place to park with bathrooms. The state routinely
buys and destroys old cars to get them off the roads--why shouldn't they be made available to the
homeless to rent for a dollar or two per night? Mobile homes should be allotted public land to park
on, and it should be either owned by co-ops or rent controlled.
Stephanie Munoz 101 Alma apt. 701 Palo Alto, CA 94300 650 248-1842
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:43 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, February 23, 2018 5:15 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC; CAC-TACC; ConnectedCity
Subject:How many premises?
Council members, In the February 2018 revision of the City's "Housing Work Plan," which was handed out in paper form at Council's 02-05-18 Retreat, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63027 it says (page 9), "Palo Alto is a community of approximately 28,000 homes. On 02-07-18, in a UAC meeting (at 2:00:38 on this video), http://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-31-2-2-2/ staff said there were roughly 26,000 homes, including apartment dwellings, in Palo Alto. Close enough for government work. NOT. In order to make accurate estimates of how much it will cost to deploy citywide municipal fiber-to-the-premises in Palo Alto, we need to know (among other things) how many premises there are -- how many single family homes, how many "multiple dwelling units" (MDUs), how many business premises. Furthermore, for each of these premises types, we need
to know how many are served by aerial electric and telecom utilities, and how many are served by undergrounded utilities. Furthermore, for the premises served by undergrounded utilities, we need to know whether conduit for FTTP fiber already exists, and, if not, how hard it would be to install. Obviously, these numbers are going to change over time, as premises are added and deleted, as utility districts are undergrounded, etc. Wouldn't it be great if there were a place where the numbers were posted periodically, so that there
was a record over time? I suggest that the City's Utilities Quarterly Update documents would be a great place. These Quarterly Updates are published four times a year -- usually. (And even when they aren't, they should be.) Please considering writing a Colleagues Memo to get this to happen.
Thanks. Jeff
------------------- Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 -------------------
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/21/2018 5:26 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:jan steele <steele.janice@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 21, 2018 1:07 PM
To:Transportation
Cc:Council, City
Subject:MIDDLEFIELD ROAD TRAFFIC PROJECT
I wonder how often the decision‐makers in the Transportation Department drive on Middlefield Road between
University and Willow Road. It’s a mess. This “traffic calmiing project” is creating worse problems for those who use
Middlefield Road in the morning and in the afternoon.
You are allowing ONE BLOCK for northbound traffic to merge in order to continue traveling straight ahead instead of
turning left on Lytton—ONE BLOCK for 2 busy lanes to merge into one. People are constantly cutting in, often with no
advance warning. I would be surprised if there haven’t been any fender‐benders.
In the morning going south, cars are bumper‐to‐bumper from University to Willow Road and beyond—creeping or
standing still, because they are not allowed to turn right on Everett or Hawthorne. Faces reflect frustration and anger.
Are you trying to force people to use a different north/south artery? There isn’t one.
The people who prompted this change bought their homes on Middlefield Road. It was no secret that it is a busy
thoroughfare. They chose to live there! Why should the many people who use this street daily have to be punished for
the short‐sighted real estate decisions made by those residents.
Please return Middlefield Road to the previous traffic pattern.
J. Steele
Homer Avenue
Palo Alto
cc:
Tom DuBois
Eric Filseth
Adrian Fine
Karen Holman
Liz Kniss
Lydia Kou
Gregory Scharff
Greg Tanaka
Cory Wolbach
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/27/2018 1:51 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 26, 2018 6:08 PM
To:paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; rpichon@scscourt.org; jsylva@da.sccgov.org;
sscott@scscourt.org; mharris@scscourt.org; bwalsh@scscourt.org;
apersky@scscourt.org; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; stephanie@dslextreme.com;
seanchiba650@gmail.com; Lewis. james; Keene, James; Letters@sfchronicle.com;
stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; letters@huffingtonpost.com; letters@nytimes.com;
letters@mercurynews.com; essenceoftruth@gmail.com; Benita Ventreca; Zelkha, Mila;
acarlson1018@gmail.com; aflint@scscourt.org; hayden@yourcriminaldefender.com;
myraw@smcba.org; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org;
swagstaffe@smcgov.org; Council, City
Subject:ongoing exchange between Stephanie Munoz and Aram James re the consequence of
the recall election of Judge Persky
Dear Stephanie,
I agree that that this recall is bigger than Persky, bigger then Turner, bigger then Dauber, or
Cordell, et al. And yes, let’s start with the consequences of a recall on the ordinary citizen. I like
a James Baldwin quote here to start the conversation :
James Baldwin —
"If one really wants to know how justice is administered in a country, one does not question the
policemen, the lawyers, the judges, or the protected members of the middle class. One goes to the
unprotected — those, precisely, who need the laws' protection most — and listens to their
testimony.” The Price of the Ticket, “No Name in the Street” (1972)
So here, Stephanie, I think we might agree. It’s the people, not the politicians, not the judges or
lawyers, that most need protection from the impact of our laws.
It is in this spirit, in this context, that I most fear the current recall. I don’t think a recall of
Persky helps the little person.
Quite to the contrary, this witch-hunt, will have the impact of hurting the very ones you most advocate need the benefit of judicial discretion, and the mercy of the courts.
Stephanie, you suggest that I might have overlooked the fact that if Turner didn't have the benefit of white skin, he might have been treated more harshly.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/27/2018 1:51 PM
2
That somehow my initial piece( Don’t judge Persky’s sentence in a vacuum), didn’t address my
deep concern with the impact the recall would have on the poor and people of color.
But here’s a few paragraphs, from my initial piece, that speak directly to the issue of racial
disproportionality. And the fact that a successful recall will exacerbate, not mitigate, the racial
disparity in the system, that you seem so passionately to oppose.
“... Many of the same progressives voices who have spoken out long and passionately against
over incarceration, mass incarceration, the disproportionate sentencing imposed on the poor
and people of color, are now doing an about face in the Turner case.
They are shouting out that more barbarism should have been handed down in the Turner case.
The same mentality that has brought us to our current failed state of mass incarceration.
Instead of blindly demanding that a white male elite be sentenced to prison for his first offense,
the better logic is to demand the same measure of justice and mercy, for similarly situated
defendants of color and the poor....”
( all three paragraphs above, my language)
You state the following in your latest response:
“The violence you recount that happens to people in jails--that's what happens to
women just because they're women.”
Are you suggesting that its okay with you that inmates, can be beaten, raped and tortured,
because, as a general proposition, women are beaten just because they’re women? Do you really
mean that? I’m convinced you don’t.
Isn’t the better solution both in our criminal justice system, and in our misogynistic society at
large, to apply a restorative justice/solution based approach first, before going the way of a
vengeance model.
Your vengeance model has led to the largest prison industrial complex on the plant. Stripping fair minded judges like Persky, of judicial discretion, will only add to our current Jeff
Sessions/Donald Trump lock-um-all-up mentality/climate.
My guess is that if we were dealing with issues of war and peace, of the sort championed by
wonderful organizations like WILLF, a look at diplomacy and restorative justice models would be a first instinct, before pursuing war against a perceived enemy on a whim .
Why not apply the same thinking, a diplomatic/restorative thought process, to the war being
fought by our government, against our own people, a war called the: Criminal Injustice System.
Your support for the recall of Judge Persky, if looked at closely, is really a call for war, without
having first looked at the option of diplomacy or restorative justice, for the parties.
I request that you take a step back and reconsider your support of this recall/rush to judgement
against a good and fair minded judge.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/27/2018 1:51 PM
3
Peace, justice and respect,
Aram
On Feb 24, 2018, at 4:20 AM, Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Dearest Aram: I'm honored that you are taking the time to send me a cogent, intelligent and good hearted message. It's not about Judge Persky. After all, we still call George Washington the Father of our
Country even though he had slaves. It's not about judicial discretion,
which is a very good thing. I wouldn't say it's about white privilege, It's not
even about Brock Turner's punishment, although I think that you'd be the first to admit that if Brock were a man not protected by the magic cloak of white skin he'd be quite harshly treated. It's about the rest of us, simple
non-lawyers, supposed to govern ourselves; we've condoned a great deal
of injustice, and this isn't so much a recall as a referendum on what's
called "the rule of law", which includes the way people behave that's not codified, like The New York Times mentioned a couple of women who went to prison for trying to get their children in a better public school. In
this instance, an elected official in a high position has delivered a
sentence saying violating a woman's physical integrity, acting so as to
impregnate her--which itself has danger, and changes the course of her life, not to mention the enormous injustice to the fatherless child, is about on a par with smuggling in a Bengal tiger cub.
Every woman--well, almost every woman--wants to be the most special
person to a man who will take good care of her and her children, someone
she can make the king of her life, and give that very special gift to, something that she alone can give to a man she loves. A man her children can look up to and trust, not a man who trashes something
wonderful and beautiful. She wants to be a mother, and she needs
somebody who considers his power to father a child as something
tremendous, something sacred. Maybe the person who considers sex sacred might have related qualities that could be hard to live with, and if one of those qualities is a prejudice against a woman who has been
tarnished, too bad.
The violence you recount that happens to people in jails--that's what
happens to women just because they're women. The indifference to the suffering of black people, that's what is happening to women. Recently I talked to two men from different walks of life. Court is a moderately wealth
genius from MIT who spends most of his waking hours volunteering
computer training to the kids of East Palo Alto so they can get good
jobs. You need some money for desks? Here. I was complaining about homelessness being misgovernance and he said "They just don't care."
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/27/2018 1:51 PM
4
and my heart went out to him for the way cruelty to others hurts him. A
week or so later I was at the flea market chatting with Roy, a beautiful
black after-market seller, and we were talking about the homeless and he said the same exact thing, in the exact same way, and I saw in his face the way that indifference has hurt him personally. That must be true for
you, too. You have black children. You're a defender. Don't be one of
"Them", those people who don't care. What is it engraved on the Museum
of the Holocaust? "For evil to prevail, it's only necessary that good men do nothing." love and peace, Stephanie
From: "@" <abjpd1@gmail.com>
To: "stephanie" <stephanie@dslextreme.com>i
Cc: "WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto" <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>, "chuck jagoda" <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>, "roberta ahlquist"
<roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 11:00:50 PM
Subject: Re: representative government
Hi Stephanie,
Thanks for your latest response. Did you read the piece I sent your
way: Don't judge Persky sentence in a vacuum?
I certainly never took the position or does Cordell, in her public
pronouncements, for that matter, that Brock Turner doesn’t deserve to be
punished appropriately.
The thrust of my piece was that young defendants, without substantial
prior records, should be first be sentenced coming from a restorative
justice model, as opposed to a vengeance 1st model of sentencing.
My article makes it clear that the offenses that Turner was convicted of, deserve the most serious consideration:
“... Based on the nature of Turner’s convictions, the terms and conditions
of his probation are multiple, complex restrictive and appropriately
oppressive.( my language).
I point out in the piece that offenders like Turner, who are given jail time
and probation at the outset, face a complex dizzying maze of probationary
conditions, that, if violated, subject the probationer to very lengthy prison
sentences.
I handled literally thousand of felony probation matters in my years as a
public defender, and a huge preponderance of my clients, violated
probation, and were sent off to prison.
Sent off to prison, where they faced horrible circumstances, in violation of
the 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual conditions. Many are raped
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/27/2018 1:51 PM
5
and beaten, tortured, and other unspeakable inhumane treatments
inflicted.
Often, upon release, there are no jobs, no housing, no second chances. And, yes, recidivism and back to prison with new victims, all because good
intentioned folks, didn’t stop and think about what the vengeance 1st
model of sentencing breeds, more of the same.
Why not give a judge like Persky the discretion to stop the cycle, by imposing a restorative-rehabilitative sentence first, while imposing very
harsh conditions of probation, that if the defendant violates ( fails to avail
himself of the rehabilitation offered) is then sent off to prison for public
safety. Remember, the recommendation for 6 months in county jail, with harsh
conditions of probation, was recommended by a very senior female
probation officer, who personally interviewed both the defendant Turner
and the victim.
Remember also, even if Turner makes it through his three years of formal
probation, unscathed, he still faces a life time of sex registration. Failure to
register itself, upon conviction, can result in a separate prison sentence.
This was never a light sentence except in the mind of a Michele Dauber
who has never practiced criminal law, never had to sentence a defendant
after presiding over a jury trial, never read a probation report as part of the
sentencing process, or listened to all of the witness on both sides.
Cordell on the other hand was both a criminal defense attorney, and a
judge, for 20 years or more. She handled and presided over thousands of
criminal matters. Cordell is, and always has been, a very strong and
relentless advocate for all women, gay, straight, and otherwise. I
challenge you to discover otherwise.
As the first African American woman to serve on the bench in Santa Clara
County, I practiced as a public defender during the same time frame-
including in her courtroom, she suffered bullying and attempted intimation
from white male judges on the bench. It was gross, it was racist, and it was simply wrong.
My point: LaDoris Cordell would be the 1st to call out Persky, and call him
out with fury, if he suffered from an over abundance of white male
privilege, as a judge, or in his sentencing practices.
Stephanie, I hope you will reconsider your position and oppose this
outrageous recall campaign.
With deep respect,
Aram
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/27/2018 1:51 PM
6
P.S. I look forward to more discussion re this extraordinarily important
event in the life of our democracy. On Feb 19, 2018, at 6:51 PM, Stephanie Munoz
<stephanie@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Aram, you astonish me. First, your analogy limps. Persky is
a judge, a government official. What he says from the bench has the force of law and, in this country which is supposed to be a democracy, he speaks for all of us ordinary
people. Michelle isn't a judge, or a government official, she
isn't even a lawyer! She's just one of hoi polloi, and the
lower kind of one, a woman, never elected to any honor so she can't be recalled. She's challenging; she's asking for a referendum.Do we agree that rape is no big deal?
You can't agree. You just can't. Would you say to Chief
Justice Taney "Yessir boss, I'm coming right back as soon as I can get that Underground Railway in reverse."? You've claimed that all sorts of people were unjustly
sentenced. I don't understand LaDoris, either. Maybe she's
sort of like a nun and just thinks sex is like brushing you hair,
but you're not like that. You've known women carnally and al least one of them has borne you children. I think you know that a woman doesn't have to think sex in the only goal
in life, but at least she has to be able to tolerate it--a
tolerance that rape takes away, so she can't ever feel that
special tenderness. If she's impregnated, she has to manufacture from her own body a human being who has very little chance of success or happiness in this world
without a father's love and guidance, and living with the
knowledge that his father was a rapist and his mother didn't
want to conceive him. Abortion isn't a 100% desirable solution and even if her culture permits it, she may not be able to get one. She's been reduced to less than a being
with free will who can make a mark on the world, to a
creature who exists only to give sexual satisfaction to men,
however unworthy, and produce cannon fodder for the likes of Trump. No. No. nonononononononononono...Your friend and admirer, Stephanie
By the way, a couple of weeks ago this same act, apparently
of no consequence when performed by a man against his victim's will, was deemed by the high court in California if performed by a woman who has no other skill or resources
and needs the money to stay alive and feed her children for
accepting money for this useful and comforting service to be
a criminal act.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:47 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Pat Blumenthal <patblumenthal7@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 24, 2018 10:38 AM
To:editor@paweekly.com
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto loses more core businesses
As a 35 year resident of Palo Alto, I am deeply disturbed by the recent loss of so
many of our long term businesses. Last week, I was notified that Heinichen's
Garage on High Street, which has served 3 generations of Palo Altans with
honesty and great service, is closing on February 28th due to the sale of their
building and a huge rent increase. My long term State Farm insurance agent, Jeri
Fink on El Camino in College Terrace, is closing her office for the same reason. I
assume that both of these buildings will be developed into more office space
(rather than the affordable housing Palo Alto so urgently needs).
After 35 years in an office on Sherman Avenue, I had to move my psychology
practice group because the building was sold to Windy Hill Property Ventures in
2015. Like other developers, they turned the building (previously home to many
small businesses like psychotherapists, acupuncturists, lawyers and accountants)
into tech offices. They did this by tearing out the entire inside of the building and
reconstructing it into a few large glassed in offices with almost no insulation. Most
of the small businesses were given 30 days notice to leave. A few others with
longer leases, like myself, had to endure 2+ years of constant construction inside
the building. In 2017, as our lease was coming to an end, they offered to let us
renew at $8/sq.ft. which was the rent they were charging the new tech
companies. Since we had been paying less than $3/sq.ft. this increase was
untenable for us. We were fortunate to find a much smaller space in a building on
California Ave. owned by Terry Shuchat, a long term PA property owner, who
offered us a five year lease at a much more reasonable rent for which we are very
grateful. The psychotherapists in my group will be able to stay in PA for at least a
few more years unlike so many other long term PA businesses.
Palo Alto is losing too much of its core.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:47 PM
2
Patricia Blumenthal, PhD
230 California Avenue
Palo Alto 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/27/2018 1:52 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rebecca Stolpa <rebecca@stolpa.com>
Sent:Monday, February 26, 2018 9:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Parking in Palo Alto
To Whom It May Concern:
As a Palo Alto resident since 1973 I am concerned with the direction the city is taking on a number of issues,
traffic, parking and growth to name just a few. The current “issue at hand” is the parking permit issue.
I strongly support the proposal written by Neilson Buchanan and John Guislin and with them, reject the staff recommendation to continue the current downtown RPP with no modification. I would like to say that one more time. I strongly support the proposal written by Neilson Buchanan and John Guislin. During
these times, when residents feel as though their voice holds little weight, these two committed citizens have
worked tirelessly to bring clarity, understanding, and solutions to the many complex issues facing this
community and county.
Please REJECT the staff recommendation to continue the current downtown RPP with no modification.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Stolpa
1365 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/27/2018 1:50 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 26, 2018 5:16 PM
To:Roberta Ahlquist
Cc:Council, City; city.council@cityofpaloalto.com
Subject:Re: Affordable housing: PROTECTIONS FOR TENANTS
Excellent, Roberta! Let us know if you get responses.
Judy
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote: Dear Council Members, City Staff and City Manager:
We want to see more REAL commitment to building affordable housing in Palo Alto.
To allow high income housing and office developments to be built and lower income housing destroyed for such developments is criminal, from our point of view. THEREFORE:
We ask you to act in the interests of low-moderate income tenants: that this large, new project at 565 Hamilton
(three existing buildings of affordable housing for more than 30 people, including kids, and one garage) will
be designated for low-moderate income housing. We don't need more retail, commercial. This is why we argue for a moratorium on all rental housing demolitions, until housing exists for the tenants
who will re evicted. In this case, the tenants are being evicted and have no recourse, NO affordable Palo Alto
housing exists now for these tenants. This is a serious problem. If you are really committed to helping our
tenants who already live here, but in fragile conditions, place a moratorium on demolitions of existing rental housing so that when a new development is proposed, these tenants, many of whom have families and kids in the neighborhood schools, will not be displaced.
Sincerely,
Roberta Ahlquist, WILPF Peninsula Low Income Housing Sub-committee
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:43 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kniss, Liz (internal)
Sent:Friday, February 23, 2018 9:38 PM
To:Penny Ellson
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: And now for some good news...
Great news Penny. Thx
On Feb 23, 2018, at 6:02 PM, Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net> wrote:
Dear City Council,
I was delighted to see this message embedded in PAUSD Superintendent Hendrick’s weekly message today. Have a look at some of the educational materials CoPA Safe Routes to School staff is sharing
with parents and other members of the public.
Nice work.
Penny Ellson
Safe Routes to Schools
We want to help ensure that our students and parents commute safely to and from our
school sites. Please take time to review traffic safety information specific to your school
site(s), as well as City of Palo Alto’s Safe Routes to Schools Education Resource Page.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:41 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent:Thursday, February 22, 2018 10:57 AM
To:Reichental, Jonathan
Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City
Subject:RE: Open response to Jonathan Reichental
Dear Dr. Reichental:
It is difficult not to conclude from your evasive, disingenuous and utterly nonresponsive reply to my
questions that you are indeed on the receiving end of perquisites and other forms of compensation
from the telecom industry.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Metricus.net
650‐325‐5151
From: Reichental, Jonathan [mailto:Jonathan.Reichental@CityofPaloAlto.org]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 9:57 PM
To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Council, City
<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: RE: Open response to Jonathan Reichental
Dear Dr. Fleming: My work for the City does not involve reviewing or making recommendations regarding citing of small
cells or processing applications for pole attachments. If you have questions about Verizon’s application, please reach out
to assigned staff in the Planning department. Thank you.
____________________________________________________________
Jonathan Reichental, Ph.D. :: Chief Information Officer :: City of Palo Alto :: @PaloAltoCIO
Assistant: jeanny.weatherford@cityofpaloalto.org :: 650‐329‐2182
From: Jeanne Fleming [mailto:jfleming@metricus.net]
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 8:36 AM
To: Reichental, Jonathan <Jonathan.Reichental@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Council,
City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Open response to Jonathan Reichental
Dear Dr. Reichental:
Thank you for your email below. I appreciate hearing from you directly.
I hope you will be kind enough to clarify some of the statements you made. Specifically:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:41 PM
2
1. You say “I will be requesting to have my name removed from the Joint Venture’s Steering
Committee on Wireless Communication.” Does this mean you are resigning from the
committee or not? And, more fundamentally, may Palo Alto’s residents take this as your pledge to fully dissociate yourself from the committee and from Joint Venture Silicon Valley’s Wireless Communications Initiative? … I ask because, as you know, Verizon, AT&T,
Vinculums, Crown Castle and Hammett & Edison—companies that together provide
substantial financial support for Joint Venture Silicon Valley—all are parties to applications
currently before the City of Palo Alto to install cell towers here.
2. In your letter, you state that you have received no compensation from Joint Venture Silicon
Valley for your membership on the Steering Committee on Wireless Communication. To be clear, are you saying you have never received any compensation from Joint Venture Silicon Valley whatsoever, or only that you have not been been compensated for your membership
on the Steering Committee for Wireless Communication?
3. How about travel expenses or other perquisites? Have you, for example, ever attended an
out-of-town conference or meeting of any sort where any or all of your expenses were paid by
either Joint Venture Silicon Valley, a company in the telecom industry and/or a telecom
industry-sponsored organization? For example, did Joint Venture Silicon Valley and/or a
player in the telecom industry, either directly or indirectly, pick up all or part of the tab for your trip to Dubai? If not, who did pay your expenses? And who will be paying for you to attend the
conference in Israel that you are going to later this month?
4. You also say Joint Venture’s Steering Committee on Wireless Communication is “something I
have never been involved in.” Yet in an email last August, Jim Fleming, Manager of Telecommunications in the Palo Alto’s Utilities Department, wrote to Assistant Director of
Planning Jonathan Lait: “A couple of years ago, JVSV [Joint Venture Silicon Valley] started its
Wireless Communications Initiative. ... Jonathan Reichental is on Wireless Initiative’s
advisory board and I attend the meetings [bolding added].” I would appreciate it if you
would explain what’s going on here. It certainly sounds as if Mr. Fleming (no relation to me) is attending these meetings in your stead or at your behest. At the very least, he appears to be
attending with your knowledge and approval. Moreover, this email makes it clear that Palo
Alto’s Manager of Telecommunications believes your position on that Board is meaningful, and
not as nominal as you say. (Let me know if you would like a copy of Mr. Fleming’s email.)
5. In your email to me, you state that “I am not involved in any way with the cell towers your email
below cites.” But how could you not be? How could Palo Alto’s Chief Technology Officer not
be involved in the major buildout of telecommunications infrastructure that Verizon, Crown
Castle, At&T and now Mobilitie are proposing?
In this regard, I take note that you are part of the ConnectedCity coalition at City Hall (as is Mr.
Fleming). Plus you publicly champion “smart cities” and 5G, the next generation of broadband
that is the telecom industry’s raison d’etre for wanting to install dozens and dozens of cell
towers next to people’s homes here. Are you suggesting that, even though your public
statements make it clear that you enthusiastically endorse the sort of buildout Verizon proposes, the people Palo Alto has hired you to advise—City Staff and City Council—are not
aware of and guided by your views?
Again, thank you for contacting me. On behalf of the United Neighbors of Palo Alto, I look forward to
your response to the issues I’ve raised.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:41 PM
3
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
From: Reichental, Jonathan [mailto:Jonathan.Reichental@CityofPaloAlto.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 5:52 PM
To: jfleming@metricus.net
Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Council, City
<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Keene, James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: FW: Update from Palo Alto's United Neighbors
Dear Ms. Fleming:
While my name is listed as a representative of the City of Palo Alto on the Joint Venture’s Steering Committee on
Wireless Communication, I want to let you know that I have never attended any of their meetings. This is simply an
uncompensated, volunteer opportunity for which, to date, I have not participated in.
In addition, I am not involved in any way with the cell towers your email below cites. To my knowledge this is being
handled by our Planning and Utilities Departments.
I will be requesting to have my name removed from the Joint Venture’s Steering Committee on Wireless Communication
as it is unfair for me to be associated with something I have never been involved in.
Thank you.
____________________________________________________________
Jonathan Reichental, Ph.D. :: Chief Information Officer :: City of Palo Alto :: @PaloAltoCIO
Assistant: jeanny.weatherford@cityofpaloalto.org :: 650‐329‐2182
From: Jeanne Fleming [mailto:jfleming@metricus.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 2:49 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Update from Palo Alto's United Neighbors
We at United Neighbors thought you might be interested in this email we recently circulated.
Dear Neighbors,
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) will not be holding a hearing this month to consider Verizon’s
resubmitted plans to install its first 15 cell towers in Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods. Verizon
has asked to submit yet another set of plans (we’ve lost count of how many resubmissions this
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:41 PM
4
makes), and the Planning Department tells us that once they’ve received and reviewed these
materials, they will schedule the ARB hearing.
The Planning Department also tells us that the “shot clock” on these installations, which was set to
expire on February 14th, will be set back to a date after the ARB hearing. As you may remember, the
reason this matters is that if the shot clock expires before the City has reached a decision on the
proposed cell towers, the cell towers are deemed to have been approved.
On a related front: Have you ever heard of an organization called Joint Venture Silicon
Valley? Neither had we, until we learned that Palo Alto’s Chief Information Officer and Chief
Technology Officer, Jonathan Reichental, serves on Joint Venture’s Steering Committee on Wireless
Communication. This matters because Joint Venture is funded in part by the same telecom firms that
are pressing Palo Alto to allow cell towers to be installed next to residents’ homes.
Not only that, serving on the Steering Committee with Dr. Reichental are, among other telecom
industry players: 1) William Hammett, President and CEO of Hammett & Edison, an engineering firm
hired by Verizon to assist in Verizon’s current effort to install cell towers here; 2) Patti Ringo,
President of the California Wireless Association, a telecom industry lobbying group; and 3) Randall
Schwabacher, Manager of Small Cell Deployment NorCal at AT&T Wireless, who oversees AT&T’s
current effort to install cell towers in Palo Alto.
This Steering Committee, of which Palo Alto’s Chief Information Officer and Chief Technology Officer
is a member, formally supports the telecom industry’s efforts to revive SB649, the bill vetoed by
Governor Brown that would strip municipalities such as ours of any right to control what a telecom
company installs in a public right of way. To remind you, the City of Palo Alto’s official policy on
SB649 has been to oppose it.
At the very least, it is improper for Dr. Reichental to serve on a board: 1) funded and controlled by the
telecom industry; 2) filled with senior representatives of companies with applications to install cell
towers currently pending in Palo Alto; and 3) committed to goals at odds with the interests and policy
of the city that employs him.
United Neighbors has filed a Public Records Act request with Palo Alto for all correspondence to or
from Dr. Reichental related to the subject of telecommunications. We will let you know what more we
learn when the City responds to our request.
We have also requested City Manager James Keene’s correspondence on the same subject. Mr.
Keene is on the Board of Directors of Joint Venture, and there is reason to believe that he, too, has a
substantial conflict of interest with respect to the Verizon and AT&T applications that are currently
before the City.
That’s what’s happening. Thank you for your consideration and for your continued concern about the
telecom industry’s plans to litter our residential neighborhoods with now 125 large, ugly, radiation-
emitting cell towers.
We’ll keep you posted.
Jeanne, Jerry & Jyo
for United Neighbors
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 3:42 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 26, 2018 3:03 PM
To:Stephanie Munoz
Cc:roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Ruth Chippendale; M. Gallagher; Wendy Peikes; WILPF
Peninsula Palo Alto; chuck jagoda; price@padailypost.com; allison@padailypost.com;
emibach@padailypost.com; ladoris.cordell@sanjoseca.gov; Council, City;
cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org;
mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.yeager@bos.sccgov.org;
dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org
Subject:Re: representative government-ongoing exchange between Stephanie Munoz and
Aram James re the consequence of the recall election of Judge Persky
Dear Stephanie,
I agree that that this recall is bigger than Persky, bigger then Turner, bigger then Dauber, or Cordell, et al. And yes, let’s start with the consequences of a recall on the ordinary citizen. I like a James Baldwin quote here to
start the conversation :
James Baldwin —
"If one really wants to know how justice is administered in a country, one does not question the policemen, the
lawyers, the judges, or the protected members of the middle class. One goes to the unprotected — those,
precisely, who need the laws' protection most — and listens to their testimony.” The Price of the Ticket, “No
Name in the Street” (1972)
So here, Stephanie, I think we might agree. It’s the people, not the politicians, not the judges or lawyers, that
most need protection from the impact of our laws.
It is in this spirit, in this context, that I most fear the current recall. I don’t think a recall of Persky helps the littleperson.
Quite to the contrary, this witch-hunt, will have the impact of hurting the very ones you most advocate need the benefit of judicial discretion, and the mercy of the courts.
Stephanie, you suggest that I might have overlooked the fact that if Turner didn't have the benefit of white skin,
he might have been treated more harshly.
That somehow my initial piece( Don’t judge Persky’s sentence in a vacuum), didn’t address my deep concern
with the impact the recall would have on the poor and people of color.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 3:42 PM
2
But here’s a few paragraphs, from my initial piece, that speak directly to the issue of racial disproportionality.
And the fact that a successful recall will exacerbate, not mitigate, the racial disparity in the system, that you
seem so passionately to oppose.
“... Many of the same progressives voices who have spoken out long and passionately against over
incarceration, mass incarceration, the disproportionate sentencing imposed on the poor and people of color,
are now doing an about face in the Turner case.
They are shouting out that more barbarism should have been handed down in the Turner case. The same
mentality that has brought us to our current failed state of mass incarceration.
Instead of blindly demanding that a white male elite be sentenced to prison for his first offense, the better logic
is to demand the same measure of justice and mercy, for similarly situated defendants of color and the poor....”( all three paragraphs above, my language)
You state the following in your latest response:
“The violence you recount that happens to people in jails--that's what happens to women just
because they're women.”
Are you suggesting that its okay with you that inmates, can be beaten, raped and tortured, because, as a general
proposition, women are beaten just because they’re women? Do you really mean that? I’m convinced you
don’t.
Isn’t the better solution both in our criminal justice system, and in our misogynistic society at large, to apply a
restorative justice/solution based approach first, before going the way of a vengeance model.
Your vengeance model has led to the largest prison industrial complex on the plant. Stripping fair minded judges like Persky, of judicial discretion, will only add to our current Jeff Sessions/Donald Trump lock-um-all-
up mentality/climate.
My guess is that if we were dealing with issues of war and peace, of the sort championed by wonderful
organizations like WILLF, a look at diplomacy and restorative justice models would be a first instinct, before pursuing war against a perceived enemy on a whim .
Why not apply the same thinking, a diplomatic/restorative thought process, to the war being fought by our
government, against our own people, a war called the: Criminal Injustice System.
Your support for the recall of Judge Persky, if looked at closely, is really a call for war, without having first
looked at the option of diplomacy or restorative justice, for the parties.
I request that you take a step back and reconsider your support of this recall/rush to judgement against a good
and fair minded judge.
Peace, justice and respect,
Aram
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 3:42 PM
3
On Feb 24, 2018, at 4:20 AM, Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Dearest Aram: I'm honored that you are taking the time to send me a cogent, intelligent and good hearted message. It's not about Judge Persky. After all, we still call George Washington the Father of our Country even though he had slaves. It's not about judicial
discretion, which is a very good thing. I wouldn't say it's about white privilege, It's not
even about Brock Turner's punishment, although I think that you'd be the first to admit
that if Brock were a man not protected by the magic cloak of white skin he'd be quite harshly treated. It's about the rest of us, simple non-lawyers, supposed to govern ourselves; we've condoned a great deal of injustice, and this isn't so much a recall as a
referendum on what's called "the rule of law", which includes the way people behave
that's not codified, like The New York Times mentioned a couple of women who went to
prison for trying to get their children in a better public school. In this instance, an elected official in a high position has delivered a sentence saying violating a woman's physical integrity, acting so as to impregnate her--which itself has danger, and changes
the course of her life, not to mention the enormous injustice to the fatherless child, is
about on a par with smuggling in a Bengal tiger cub.
Every woman--well, almost every woman--wants to be the most special person to a man who will take good care of her and her children, someone she can make the king of her life, and give that very special gift to, something that she alone can give to a man she
loves. A man her children can look up to and trust, not a man who trashes something
wonderful and beautiful. She wants to be a mother, and she needs somebody who
considers his power to father a child as something tremendous, something sacred. Maybe the person who considers sex sacred might have related qualities that could be hard to live with, and if one of those qualities is a prejudice against a woman
who has been tarnished, too bad.
The violence you recount that happens to people in jails--that's what happens to women
just because they're women. The indifference to the suffering of black people, that's what is happening to women. Recently I talked to two men from different walks of life. Court is a moderately wealth genius from MIT who spends most of his waking hours
volunteering computer training to the kids of East Palo Alto so they can get good
jobs. You need some money for desks? Here. I was complaining about homelessness
being misgovernance and he said "They just don't care." and my heart went out to him for the way cruelty to others hurts him. A week or so later I was at the flea market chatting with Roy, a beautiful black after-market seller, and we were talking about the
homeless and he said the same exact thing, in the exact same way, and I saw in his
face the way that indifference has hurt him personally. That must be true for you,
too. You have black children. You're a defender. Don't be one of "Them", those people who don't care. What is it engraved on the Museum of the Holocaust? "For evil
to prevail, it's only necessary that good men do nothing."
love and peace, Stephanie
From: "@" <abjpd1@gmail.com>
To: "stephanie" <stephanie@dslextreme.com>i
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 3:42 PM
4
Cc: "WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto" <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>, "chuck
jagoda" <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>, "roberta ahlquist" <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 11:00:50 PM
Subject: Re: representative government
Hi Stephanie,
Thanks for your latest response. Did you read the piece I sent your way: Don't judge
Persky sentence in a vacuum?
I certainly never took the position or does Cordell, in her public pronouncements, for
that matter, that Brock Turner doesn’t deserve to be punished appropriately.
The thrust of my piece was that young defendants, without substantial prior records, should be first be sentenced coming from a restorative justice model, as opposed to a
vengeance 1st model of sentencing.
My article makes it clear that the offenses that Turner was convicted of, deserve the most serious consideration:
“... Based on the nature of Turner’s convictions, the terms and conditions of his
probation are multiple, complex restrictive and appropriately oppressive.( my
language). I point out in the piece that offenders like Turner, who are given jail time and probation
at the outset, face a complex dizzying maze of probationary conditions, that, if violated,
subject the probationer to very lengthy prison sentences.
I handled literally thousand of felony probation matters in my years as a public defender, and a huge preponderance of my clients, violated probation, and were sent off to prison.
Sent off to prison, where they faced horrible circumstances, in violation of the 8th
Amendment ban on cruel and unusual conditions. Many are raped and beaten, tortured, and other unspeakable inhumane treatments inflicted.
Often, upon release, there are no jobs, no housing, no second chances. And, yes,
recidivism and back to prison with new victims, all because good intentioned folks, didn’t
stop and think about what the vengeance 1st model of sentencing breeds, more of the same.
Why not give a judge like Persky the discretion to stop the cycle, by imposing a
restorative-rehabilitative sentence first, while imposing very harsh conditions of
probation, that if the defendant violates ( fails to avail himself of the rehabilitation offered) is then sent off to prison for public safety.
Remember, the recommendation for 6 months in county jail, with harsh conditions of
probation, was recommended by a very senior female probation officer, who personally
interviewed both the defendant Turner and the victim.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 3:42 PM
5
Remember also, even if Turner makes it through his three years of formal probation,
unscathed, he still faces a life time of sex registration. Failure to register itself, upon
conviction, can result in a separate prison sentence. This was never a light sentence except in the mind of a Michele Dauber who has never
practiced criminal law, never had to sentence a defendant after presiding over a jury
trial, never read a probation report as part of the sentencing process, or listened to all of
the witness on both sides. Cordell on the other hand was both a criminal defense attorney, and a judge, for 20
years or more. She handled and presided over thousands of criminal matters. Cordell
is, and always has been, a very strong and relentless advocate for all women, gay,
straight, and otherwise. I challenge you to discover otherwise. As the first African American woman to serve on the bench in Santa Clara County, I
practiced as a public defender during the same time frame-including in her courtroom,
she suffered bullying and attempted intimation from white male judges on the bench. It
was gross, it was racist, and it was simply wrong.
My point: LaDoris Cordell would be the 1st to call out Persky, and call him out with fury,
if he suffered from an over abundance of white male privilege, as a judge, or in his
sentencing practices.
Stephanie, I hope you will reconsider your position and oppose this outrageous recall
campaign.
With deep respect,
Aram
P.S. I look forward to more discussion re this extraordinarily important event in the life of
our democracy.
On Feb 19, 2018, at 6:51 PM, Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Aram, you astonish me. First, your analogy limps. Persky is a judge, a
government official. What he says from the bench has the force of law
and, in this country which is supposed to be a democracy, he speaks for
all of us ordinary people. Michelle isn't a judge, or a government official, she isn't even a lawyer! She's just one of hoi polloi, and the lower kind of
one, a woman, never elected to any honor so she can't be
recalled. She's challenging; she's asking for a referendum.Do we agree
that rape is no big deal?
You can't agree. You just can't. Would you say to Chief Justice Taney
"Yessir boss, I'm coming right back as soon as I can get that Underground
Railway in reverse."?
You've claimed that all sorts of people were unjustly sentenced. I don't
understand LaDoris, either. Maybe she's sort of like a nun and just thinks sex is like brushing you hair, but you're not like that. You've known
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 3:42 PM
6
women carnally and al least one of them has borne you children. I think
you know that a woman doesn't have to think sex in the only goal in life,
but at least she has to be able to tolerate it--a tolerance that rape takes away, so she can't ever feel that special tenderness. If she's impregnated, she has to manufacture from her own body a human being who has very
little chance of success or happiness in this world without a father's love
and guidance, and living with the knowledge that his father was a rapist
and his mother didn't want to conceive him. Abortion isn't a 100% desirable solution and even if her culture permits it, she may not be able to get one. She's been reduced to less than a being with free will who can
make a mark on the world, to a creature who exists only to give sexual
satisfaction to men, however unworthy, and produce cannon fodder for the
likes of Trump. No. No. nonononononononononono...Your friend and admirer, Stephanie
By the way, a couple of weeks ago this same act, apparently of no
consequence when performed by a man against his victim's will, was
deemed by the high court in California if performed by a woman who has no other skill or resources and needs the money to stay alive and feed her
children for accepting money for this useful and comforting service to be a
criminal act.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:55 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sonya Bradski <sonyangary@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 25, 2018 7:52 PM
To:Council, City; Mesterhazy, Rosie; Abilock, Maria
Subject:Re: Request San Antonio Pedestrian/Bike Over Pass ASAP!!!
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:55 PM
2
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:55 PM
3
There is a cross walk at that intersection.
On Feb 25, 2018, at 1:14 PM, Sonya Bradski <sonyangary@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear City Council Members:
We need the bike bridge & more safe bike routes built in Palo Alto as soon as possible. I
have two stories to share that happened to me and a member of my family this week.
I attended the League of Women Voters meeting at the Peninsula Conservation
Center yesterday morning on East Bayshore from 9-11AM. I biked to the meeting on the
sidewalk over San Antonio Road because the underpass on Fabian Way is closed at this time of
year.
On my way back from the meeting, I biked over Highway 101 on San Antonio Road on the
sidewalk. I stopped at the ramp where all the cars are coming off of Highway 101 and San
Antonio Road to wait for when it would be safe to cross. A driver wanted to be nice and came to
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:55 PM
4
a complete stop to let me cross the street. This driver’s action caused the four cars right behind
that car to abruptly stop short. He did not notice the cars behind him. The last car was a
white, heavy, fast-moving maintenance truck that had to quickly swerve to the right to avoid
hitting the car stopped in front of him on the off-ramp. He did not have enough room to
decelerate because of the line of stopped cars. This almost caused a five-car collision coming off
of Highway 101. Had I crossed when invited to do so, I could have been killed—perhaps along
with occupants of those cars!!!
This is one of many reasons we need a pedestrian & bike bridge at San Antonio Road as soon as
possible. A bicyclist or pedestrian should not have to cross a highway off-ramp to get to the bay
trails. It has been more than ten years since I first heard about his project. Why is it still not
built?
On Friday my daughter was biking down Charleston to go home from school, and a car wanted
to make a right on Alma and turn around my daughter. My daughter had to stop short to
avoid being right-hooked by that car. The tumble broke her chain guard, making her bike
unusable. Thankfully, the incident was not worse-- as it was for my neighbor, Rosa, who was hit
and injured at that intersection about two years ago and my neighbor, Richard, who was also hit
there.
We need to make Palo Alto safer for bicyclists so we stop using so many cars. There will be
less car traffic if more people are biking.
Please tell me when is the Adobe Bike & Walk Bridge going to be built? When is the Charleston/
Arastradero Plan going to be constructed? I first supported the Charleston/
Arastradero project in 2002. I was present at the meeting when you unanimously approved it, but
we are still waiting.
FYI: As you know we now have Autonomous Robotic cars, Uber, & Lyft so there are going to
be less cars on the road in the future of Palo Alto. We DO NOT need so many expensive parking
garages to be built here!!! We need more bike & pedestrian boulevards so people can get the
exercise that they need for healthy bodies!!!
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sonya Bradski
4082 Nelson Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/27/2018 1:53 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Christine Czarnecki <czarnecki@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Tuesday, February 27, 2018 9:39 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Road and Bryant Street Bike Boulevard modifications
To Mayor Scharff and the members of the Palo Alto City Council:
A few Saturdays ago, my husband and I had the opportunity to bike on Ross Road from Moreno
all the way down to Louis.
We were horrified to encounter the new street modifications, and found them so much more
dangerous than an ordinary street, with or without a bike lane! We are both experienced
bicyclists, but had never encountered anything like this.
The roundabout is fine, except than it will take time for drivers to learn how to navigate
one. The real problem lies with those horrendous concrete bump outs. As we approached
each one, we were presented with one of two unsavory choices: Either try to ride the
approximately 18" wide street gutter on the right, going between the sidewalk and the
sharp, vertical concrete island curb, or, perhaps worse, going left to vie for road space
with the cars coming from behind us. We were there on a Saturday, with little traffic,
and could not imagine what a dangerous combination weekday commuter traffic and small
school children would make.
The construction is mostly done on Ross, and I do not hold out much hope of the city
tearing that out any time soon, but someone posted on Nextdoor Palo Alto that similar
changes are planned for Bryant Street's Bike Boulevard.
One inexpensive and very effective traffic calming method is an oldie, but works every
time: Tall traffic bumps, laid out frequently along a roadway. Bicyclists can go over
these easily, but drivers of cars don't have to go over more than one tooth rattling bump
to get the point: Slow down to the speed limit. This is such a less expensive solution
and such an effective one. Narrowing our residential roads even further is neither safer,
which is the whole point of the modification, nor less expensive to build.
We urge you to put any changes to Bryant on hold until a better, safer solution can be
found to the problems of bicyclists and cars sharing the same roadways.
Thank you,
Christine R. Czarnecki
Marion Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/28/2018 1:30 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lila <>
Sent:Tuesday, February 27, 2018 9:40 PM
To:Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal); Filseth, Eric (Internal)
Subject:Seeking permission for public choir performance
Hello,
I'm Lila and I'm a freshman in high school at I am trying to organize a performance/protest for my choir, Cantabile Youth Singers in downtown Palo Alto in Lytton Plaza on March 24 to protest gun violence. However, my choir director wants me to get approval from a city
official to make sure that it is okay for us to do so, and I was wondering if you may be able to help me
in getting that approval or finding out who to ask. Thank you for your consideration!
Best, Lila
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/27/2018 1:48 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From: Michael Hodos [mailto:mehodos@mac.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 9:49 AM
To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Statement Re: Downtown RPP Status Update
Hi Beth!
For the record, please see the attached file that reflects the comments I made last night to the City Council. It
would be greatly appreciated if you would add the statement to the minutes of the meeting.
Thanks!
Michael
mehodos@mac.com
Statement to the City Council by Michael Hodos
Regarding Downtown RPP Status Update
26-FEB-2018
Mayor and Council Members:
Staff’s recommendation in the “Downtown RPP Status Update” that you
“continue the current program without modification” blithely ignores
two important issues:
1) “Spillover parking (in many cases from 2-hour parkers) continues to
have a significant impact in some areas.”
If there is “significant impact” from 2-hour parkers then why isn’t it
being addressed via more aggressive enforcement? When this question
was posed to staff at a community meeting in January the response was
that the current enforcement vendor lacked the technology to do so.
Okay . . .then why doesn’t the vendor use the good old fashion tire-
chalking method that the City’s enforcement team utilizes so
effectively in the downtown commercial core?
2) The bunching or clustering of parking on many of the block faces
nearest the downtown commercial core continues to be a significant
problem.
This problem is already being addressed in the California Avenue RPP
areas by making the zones smaller and thus easier to manage. If that
can be done there then why can’t the problem be addressed in a similar
fashion in the downtown zones as well?
Such a change could be cost-effective and easy to implement. Simply
subdivide each of the existing zones and add stickers to the existing
signage as required (e.g. zone 7 could be subdivided into 7A, 7B and 7C.)
By the way, many of my Professorvile neighbors feel strongly that both
of these two issues clearly violate the new Comp Plan’s “prime directive”
to “encourage commercial enterprise, but not at the expense of the
City’s residential neighborhoods.” We hope you agree!
Thank You
Michael Hodos
944 Bryant Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:47 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:RICH STIEBEL <w6apz@comcast.net>
Sent:Sunday, February 25, 2018 12:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Too Soon to Close Any Rail Options 022518o
I am concerned that council not prematurely close off any options based on the rail options white
paper. Yes, this report raises problems, but problems have potential solutions.
In the February 23 Weekly, page 10, Council member Adrian Fine raised the possibility of selling development rights as one way of paying for part of the tunneling cost. If some of that development were to business, the city might gain future tax revenue also.
Broadly speaking, there are two sets of problems; cost and technical/political.
Fine’s suggestion is just one possible way to address the cost issue. There may be other ways. For
example, there are large firms whose employees live and commute on the peninsula. They will benefit
from the tunnel approach by having a more desirable place for their employees to work and commute.
Might those firms be induced to help pay for this option? Since a tunnel would be environmentally
positive, might some funding be available from some environmentally conscious groups?
It would seem that there would be a cost saving to Palo Alto if Mt. View and Menlo Park were also to
decide on putting the tracks under ground.
The 1% vs. 2% slope problem might go away if Mt. View and Menlo Park were also to decide that
tunneling is in their best interests also.
What is needed is to take each problem raised by the report and apply “Creative Thinking” to each
problem. This involves looking at each state and regional agency and analyzing each problem from
their point of view and asking questions, such as why is this item an issue? Who benefits from adhering
to that requirement? This approach involves working with these agencies to understand their point of
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:47 PM
2
view and working cooperatively with them to find ways to satisfy their needs while allowing the tunnel
to move forward. Yes, this will take time, but the eyesore and noise of trains above ground will be with
the area for the entire future, if the tunnel approach is not implemented.
Creative Thinking involves “thinking outside the box.” Most people are not used to doing this. Creative
Thinking can be taught, but people have to decide they really want to solve the problems.
The decision of what to do with the tracks affects not only us, but future generations also. Therefore the
cost of this project should be spread out so that we pay some of the cost, but future generations also pay
their share also.
The final decision as to what approach to be taken should be up to the voters.
Rich Stiebel
840 Talisman Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303-4435
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:47 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Parul Sharma <parulsharma79@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 24, 2018 4:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Traffic Light at Louis and E. Charleston
Hello
The intersection of Louis and E. Charleston is jammed at peak traffic hours and cars are often
jumping in, tired of the endless wait. This poses a hazard to cars, pedestrians and cyclists alike.
I believe this is a good place for a traffic light and so do several Palo Alto residents as you can see in
my Nextdoor post about this issue.
Please let me know if there are plans to fix this troubled intersection or how we can raise interest in
fixing this issue.
Thanks
Parul
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/28/2018 1:32 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:California High-Speed Rail <news@hsr.ca.gov>
Sent:Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:44 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Video Release: California High-Speed Rail Continues Important Geotechnical
Explorations in Santa Clara County
To view this email as a web page, go here.
News Release
February 28, 2018 Annie Parker916-403-6931 (w)916-203-2960 (c)annie.parker@hsr.ca.gov
California High-Speed Rail Continues Important
Geotechnical Explorations in Santa Clara County
SAN JOSE, Calif. – As part of the effort to advance the Silicon Valley to Central Valley Line
of California’s high-speed rail program, the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority),
along with its geotechnical consultants Kleinfelder, Inc., and Fugro Consultants, have been conducting geotechnical explorations in the City of San Jose and Santa Clara County starting
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/28/2018 1:32 PM
2
in January and continuing into the spring. This work – which will result in over 60 test locations - is a continuation of the work that began
in 2016 in the Pacheco Pass along State Route 152 that will assist the Authority in
determining geological and hydrological conditions near locations close to the proposed
alignments in the San Jose to Merced project section. A final alignment alternative through
this area has not yet been selected, and will be done so through a public environmental
review process.
Unique to this work, Fugro crews performed geophysical surveys to measure surface wave velocity, also known as Rayleigh Waves, at three locations in the project corridor. Rayleigh Waves are track and ballast movement resulting from train-induced vibrations. The track ballast forms the bed upon which the train rails are laid. These tests will help in determining if the ground and embankment could be subjected to these Waves and whether the ground is strong enough to avoid the Raleigh Wave phenomenon. Learn more about this and the other work going on here:
Click to Watch Video
SEE MORE AT WWW.HSR.CA.GOV
California High-Speed Rail Authority 770 L Street, Suite 620
Sacramento, CA 956814 info@hsr.ca.gov (916) 324-1541
This email was sent by: California High-Speed Rail Authority 770 L Street Suite 620, Sacramento, CA, 95814 US
Privacy Policy
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/26/2018 1:42 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Pria Graves <priag@birketthouse.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 22, 2018 5:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:What the heck?
Gang,
You need to wake up!
We live in a a desert with no more water. And we’re already gridlocked for hours each day.
In fact, almost all Palo Altans are addicted to their cars, adding massively to the carbon footprint of our City.
So why are we talking about adding more housing? More people?
How can we talk about adding housing (where’s the water coming from?).
And how about the trench/tunnel when we have no funding for it and Stanford is assuming that Caltrain has capacity to absorb their extra commuters?
Time to get real!
Pria Graves 2130 Yale
493.2153
-
Gardening is cheaper than therapy… and you get tomatoes!
My name is Stephen Rosenblum and I have lived on Santa Rita Ave in Palo Alto since
1985. I have been involved in the issue ofrail crossings in the City since the arrival of
High Speed Rail on the Peninsula in 2009. At that time HSR was talking about four
tracks through Palo Alto on an elevated structure. After much discussion and intervention
by Joe Simitian and Anna Eshoo, HSR agreed to a 2 track blended system with Caltrain.
At that point HSR attention shifted to construction of the Merced to Palmdale section and
HSR has gone quiet here. However test borings are being done in south San Jose so
construction activity is not far off. This puts added pressure on timely decision making in
Palo Alto and our Peninsula and South Bay neighbors. Unfortunately, I see the same
mistakes being made here in deciding on the rail ROW that were made during the
contentious HSR process.
The so called CSS sessions that HSR used were of the same format as the roundtables
being used in Palo Alto now where "experts" lectured attendees on what they saw as the
advantages and disadvantages of different options and input was solicited from the
attendees afterwards with expert responses to be offered at a later date. This sort of one
way communication with people exposed to the issue for the first time does not lead to
serious public input into the process and will result in serious backlash when unpopular
decisions are made. To this point, why is HMM being removed as the consultant on this
project at this late stage? What will be the marching orders for the new consultant?
The Rail Committee meeting on Wednesday morning last week exemplified this broken
process when, Councilmember Scharff moved right at the outset that the a city wide
trenching /tunneling option should no longer be under consideration as suggested in the
staff transmittal memo for the HMM trenching/tunneling report. Although a watered
down motion was eventually passed, the clear intent of the Scharff motion was to
circumscribe the public discussions to occur at the trenching/tunneling roundtable on
March 6th. At the two previous roundtables I have attended so far the main sentiment of
attendees is that they wanted the train underground and wanted to know what it would
look like and what it would cost. Other options were backups.
To me, there is no technical problem preventing a trench or bored tunnel from being
constructed through the entire city except at the Palo Alto Ave/ Alma crossing. The only
issue is the cost and funding sources. At the November 29th meeting of the Rail
Committee a Financing White Paper was on the agenda, but discussion wasd'.~stp<}.~ to tke-
a later meeting. This discussion has not yet occurred. At the last Wednesda~e~ti'rrg"'M l
Councilmember Scharff waved away the possibility of "value capture" achievable from
recovering almost 40 acres of buildable, transit oriented real estate in Palo Alto over the
covered trench/bored tunnel. At an assumed value of $1 B that would generate $1 OOM per
year in property taxes.
The difference in property takings among the different grade separation options needs to
be made clear at the outset. The construction planning for the Oregon Expressway, which
involved the taking of 90 homes led to a game changing residentialist movement and was
eventually settled by a closely contested ballot measure in 1962. The residentialists are
still here and remain strong.
What are the construction impacts of the different options? It is possible that trains could
continue running on the existing surface tracks while a tunnel was being bored obviating
the need for a shoo fly track along Alma. This is an option that does not exist in any other
scenario.
z G')
The recently approved 2030 Comprehensive Plan would be significantly improved in its
housing and transportation elements if we could put Cal train underground ..
Finally, I recommend to the Council a re-reading of Councilmember DuBois's Guest
Opinion on grade separation published in the PA Weekly on September 29,2017.
February 17, 2018
Dear Mr. Burt,
My name is Charlie-and I am 9 years old. I would like the City of Palo Alto to add a stop sign where Holly Oak Drive and Ames Avenue meet. The locations are 707 Holly
Oak Drive and 785 Ames Avenue. The reason you should add stop signs here is because it is dangerous for bikers since they could get hit by a car that does not stop and wait for
the biker to pass. I know this because it almost happened to myself!
What is wrong
P•ll>Ah I "w ,_ ~Crash!
What is wrong: No stop signs so cars might hit bikers
because they are not forced to stop.
. . ./' lhgrlYIOJ>'f oA
l)ntmin "oC \
Q
e
l:iloA
The Solution: Add stop signs so cars have to stop
making it safe for bikers and pedestrians.
Thank you for looking into this and I look forward to hearing from you.
From,
Charlie-
Grade 4,
Please respond to me at or send a letter t , Palo Alto, CA 94303
'\
What happens next: The cars have t~top ~tb
bikers/pedestrians will be safe. YAY!CO
~ Ea
N
CC> ,,
::c
w ......
I support Castilleja's proposa~ to
increase enrollment and modernize its
campus because ...
1) ~ ~"' htM. ld.l~s I cf~ss
o( d . ·~ P-VL-; Vl V>1!.e.cl ~
pct>v\de.... ~S+~ bY
t"~o\,\. Yc.e.--.J. ) b.<t-t'Y\6"'(e_ i ~
fa ev'lS\.t~ ~o..r~ ~ ~
1~YV\.\~ ~v\v-or'\"°"'~.
,. ) ~+.' I ~o_, w\ \.t ~ v-l\::::. \ ,.,._
_.--~ ---.___,.-· -·--
_.-e::r--~---. ___,--' r*_,,,,__ --.._. -· --· .. i.. ------
~---..-~~A ---------... --.--...
-n~
OOVV\S at.v-~ oJ2.v-~J:>O ~y-~.
• r ~ ~~ ~iiof-onlu
·~ N rri:-o .......J ..J 0\ :ul> .:w.r Office of the Clerk :z:. u;o
'Please distribute to all af CoiA:il>~embers
250 Hamilton AveS, 7~or
Palo Alto, CA, 943~ gt-,
.>
8~11c:l ~~ ~\{J.-. ~ " v..b~ ~ eU~~ V\e.NJ
+to.R~ c.. d.e -. .. ,, -
aJ ?~ ~ "'°'' 02,...2 i 1111i1 1 .. 11i111l'li'l,111'1.1 111p.p .. 1.11i1 .. 1.1.p11 111111p1i
f>,\-t<~'D S~oo\-. ~OJ.__........, ,r--"' .. l"--
on ::c=c -<-< oo r-"Tl
f"Tl :-0 ;::v;t:.;
;J;;r-:tlla ·o :z (,f)
Office of the Cler~ ~~
Please distribute to all t'lty C~Members
250 Hamilton Av'4l1ie, ~loor
Palo Alto, CA, 94301 .>
I support Castilleja's proposal to
increase enrollment and modernize its
campus because ...
_CJJ.:'950
... Ft-11.. l
Office of the Clerk
%11 :I:
6 ..
Please distribute to all City Council Members
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto, CA, 94301
11J1IIliij1jlii1jI\1Ii11111Ii1II\I\111\1 JI i Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii pl\ 111111 h
I support Castilleja's proposal to
increase enrollment and modernize its
campus because ...
Q) ..,,
l"'1 CD
N en
n~ --f ~-<
nO •""" g~
~,-
-<fiO :x cl> ~ ~~
Office of the Clerk ~ nc.,
Please distribute to all cf'Pv Cou~~embers
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto, CA, 94301
I 1! 1•11111iiJj11111l1JJiIJl1 IJiJ lit I' J 11111"'1'1' "11 JI )!1I11111
RETURN ADDRViS·
Barbara Hazlett
1176 Emerson SL
Palo Alto, CA 94301
*
Diane Guinta ':, ·
Paul Goldstein
3588 Arbutus Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94303
>.-.
'{Ile/support Castilleja's proposal to
increase enrollment and modernize its
campus because ...
Co .. sh\\-e.{Q l$ d.Y\ ll'Y\fOdU..\/\t ei;.\lkl't.t!Dt1a..\
1I'\sh1v h-VYI -1\--ca ho.s 'oee.V\ o ~-<Ct.ilr:\ ,;...
OJ( ('Ofr'frnJf'0 1-Tij .fur ~ore. -l::'ha..,.. 10~
~fa(5,
Cn.s+it1'€JQ ha.c; rro<u i+s Cr>-rPrnrtrnb·il
+v reO.'-t..c1'nJ t<ei.f-h"c.. ihe. "'ew ca..""'f,.~
w; \\ fvft\-u" ""1 +i'JGI..~ no 1se .
E.c.\ucu+.'fl~ 'JC~ WO\l)"le-,--whJ ~ roi.P -tv
be.i..D-ll'€ Q9('(\fl"\.;ll\1-\.j J~D.t;(fi' ($ WI~
Office of the Clerk
Please distribute to all City Council Members
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto, CA, 94301
e-J.e,~\cvr~ VQ.~H
'-fhttt <-\{u C,"9 °6 ?t , .. 11111J1l 1l1l 111l1l11l 11111 1l11"11l1llJlllP11lll1lil11)11lill
6..V\c.e.r-e .. J\.f If O\Jr<::. • jJ I °'1,l ~ rp ~
~~~~~~~~~...-~~~~~~~~
·'
RETURN ADDRESS: It