HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180305plCC 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: 3/5/2018
Document dates: 2/14/2018 – 2/21/2018
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:53 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mary Dimit <marydimit@sonic.net>
Sent:Tuesday, February 20, 2018 1:33 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Downtown RPP (2/26/18 Council Mtg)
Re: 2/26/18 Council Meeting. Action Item 11. Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program
Status Update
Dear Council Members,
Regarding the Downtown RPP Program, we urge you to:
1. Reduce the number of employee permits to 1,100 (current number of sold permits). This lower level of
demand supports the reduction in the number of employee permits. 2. Limit employee parking in Zones 9 & 10 to those whose businesses are in those zones, such as medical
offices & other small businesses. These neighborhoods (Crescent Park and blocks near Embarcadero)
were never meant to be commercial parking lots.
3. Direct staff to find a solution to more equitably disperse employee parking throughout a zone to avoid
bunching along the zone boundaries closest to the downtown district.
4. Increase the accuracy of the city's data (including their parking map) and collection to improve the value of parking data that is being used to make decisions.
Thank you for your work for our community,
Mary Dimit
President of Villa Capri Aire HOA (60 residents in 28 units living in Zones 4 & 10) University Ave. between Fulton & Guinda Avenues
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:39 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:zbrcp1@comcast.net
Sent:Saturday, February 17, 2018 4:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Downtown RPP District
Ladies & Gentlemen,
Please do NOT approve staff recommendation to allow them to sell
1,400 employee permits in subject area. As a 45-year resident of this city (Professorville, Downtown North, Downtown South) I spent much of the last two decades working to move toward restoration of neighborhoods
which had become free public parking lots.
FINALLY, Council acted to move in that direction. Staff recommended &
Council OK'd reducing employee permits to ZERO in ten years. Proven current demand is less than 1,100. Next cap should be not more than 1000 at most.
For the love of heaven, stop paying lip service to neighborhood residents
while continuing the ever-accelerating mad dash for more and more
commercial development! Joe Baldwin 850 Webster St. Apt 524
Palo Alto CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:40 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 18, 2018 10:27 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Downtown RPP tp be heard on 2/26/18
I note in the staff report for this matter, the demand for parking permits in
the
neighborhoods downtown is several hundred less than what is presently
available. Further downtown parking garages are not full, but the City
staff report still recommends no reduction in the number of residential
permits. Clearly the CITY views the neighborhoods as a parking resource
first and a neighborhood second. Also it is clear the City is not serious
about addressing the traffic congestion that is plaguing our city.
It is requested the number of parking permits in the neighborhood be
reduced to match present demand as a gesture of good faith to the
neighborhoods, that the council is serious about protecting the
neighborhoods from commercial intrusion, as written in the
comprehensive plan, and further the council is intends to reduce the
horrible traffic congestion in the City.
Thank you
Paul Machado
Evergreen Park
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:53 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jonathan <jseder@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 19, 2018 12:04 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Downtown RPP
In light of the successful sales of permits for the Downtown RPP - 732 of 735 permits allocated for the zones
close to downtown - I hope the City Council will maintain or increase the allotted number of permits for
purchase by downtown workers.
On my daily bicycle commute along Everett Avenue, I often see cars with resident permits arriving in the
morning and departing in the evening. I hope the City will investigate ways of identifying and prosecuting
permit fraud. Currently residents can obtain 4 permits worth up to $2,920 on the open market for just $150.
This creates a significant and unfortunate incentive. Perhaps permit issuance should require documentation that the car is registered and insured at the applicant's address.
Thank you for your attention.
Jonathan Seder 270 Fulton Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:37 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Saturday, February 17, 2018 11:38 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
Subject:Neighborhood Parking Permits
Council Members
I am writing in support of residents in neighborhoods near University Ave. This group has shown that the
demand for permits to park in local neighborhoods is far less than the current limit. Even so staff is recommending that the limit be raised above the current limit. The council is supposed to be representing the interests of the residents of this city, and no where is this more important that WHERE WE ACTUALLY
LIVE. While there may well be a problem with parking for employees of the University Ave. area, the
solution is not to destroy the neighborhoods in which we live, whether this is the neighborhood current affected,
Barron Park or any other commuiniity. It is incumbent on the council to listen to your constitutants and REJECT THE STAFF REPORT.
Thank you.
Richard Placone Chimalus Drive Barron Park/Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:40 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lenore Cymes <lenraven1@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 18, 2018 6:19 PM
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Cc:CPNA CrescentPark
Subject:RPP
To City Council
I want to add my voice to ask you to vote to enact a new limit and scale back the original commitment for the RPP. The
existing non‐resident permits must be the limit for non‐residents. There in no one who can deny the severity of the
jobs/housing imbalance. Those of us who already live here and suffer the consequences of this, have earned the right to
require you (as the elected governing body of the City) to vote NO so that we can ease up on what we have to deal with
day in and day out — and you want to build more?
Those of you on the Council that support continued (developers) of office space must have a magic carpet to not get
exhausted with the traffic. Building additional office space will continue to erode the city. There will be NO WAY to ever
get even or catch up with the shortage of housing, affordable or not. Unfortunately, someone earning $100‐200,000 can
barely find a home to buy or even rent. We are getting real real close to smothering the goose that laid the golden egg
of what is Palo Alto for all of us ‐ Council members you are not excluded. Change happens, only you are speeding up
the process WAY WAY to fast without any pause to reflect. . Building additional office space will continue erode the
city. The idea of not allowing more office construction is the sensible and realistic way to go, for the foreseeable future
if not forever.
Sincerely
Lenore Cymes
Wildwood Lane
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:39 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 17, 2018 1:11 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Stump, Molly; Gitelman, Hillary
Subject:1/31/18 P&TC Meeting Process and Conduct - My 2/14 Oral Comments with Video
Links Added
Council Members,
Below is a transcript of my oral communication of last Wednesday (2/14) to the Planning &
Transportation Commission as spokesperson for a group of residents, who allocated their time, so I
might speak beyond three minutes, and who, as required, remained present and did not
speak individually.
The topic, as stated on the speaker card was “PTC Process and Conduct at the 1/31/18 PTC
Meeting.”
Directly following the transcript below, you will find links to the start time of five segments of video of that 1/31 PTC meeting, all directly related to words and actions I have cited.
Kindly read the transcript that follows, and if you have time, view one or more of the video segments,
consider any other relevant information, and form an assessment.
Fred Balin
2385 Columbia Street
----
Chair Lauing, your fellow commissioners,
Fred Balin, 2385 Columbia Street; 25-year Palo Alto resident.
I watched your four-hour, agenda item Number 2 of two weeks ago, January 31st.
Around the dais, it was tough going. And I am not talking about positions, but rather process and conduct.
I let it all settle for a few days and started watching again.
This is my capsule report of how, where, and why the discussion went off the rails.
Chair Lauing opens the hearing and explains the ground rules.
The item will be separated into two distinct sections:
First, a discussion of a proposed “Workforce Housing Combining District,” which would be a new
zoning, and after that, discussion of an application for a project, at 2755 El Camino Real, to utilize
that zoning.
Also, Commissioner Summa will be recused from the second part, the project.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:39 PM
2
Just after the Chair gives the floor to Commissioner Summa, and she states that she is following the
city attorney’s advice, her microphone amplifies two distinct sounds: whack, whack.
Commissioner Alcheck, having arrived late and seated directly to her left, has just flipped over one book, and then another. Why? Not clear, but later he will repeatedly claim that Commissioner Summa
should also be recused from the first part, the zoning.
An hour later, and after the applicant’s presentation and the public’s comments, Assistant Planning Director Lait, restates the separated, two-stage discussion process to follow.
Commissioner Alcheck interrupts to make a point of order.
Point of order is not included in either your or the council’s procedural rules. It will, however, be invoked by Commissioner Alcheck numerous times, and not once by any other commissioner.
Under Robert’s Rules, a point of order is allowed if rules appear to have been broken.
Which rules did he cite that were broken? None.
Commissioner Alcheck merely states that he finds the separation of the two items to be very difficult,
and then, that he wants to make a point before we begin.
At that juncture, it would have been best for the chair to stop him. Because not only does Commissioner Alcheck move on, and out-of-turn, to discuss the zoning, he also references the
project.
The project is a quasi-judicial matter, in which commissioners act like judges and are not to make
statements on it until it is discussed in Part 2.
In closing, Commissioner Alcheck states that since he cannot separate the two matters, he will
reserve his comments for the second half.
After that, he travels around the dais and down toward the staff area. Was something discussed? If so, why was is not made public?
Then he returns in time to twice interrupt the next speaker. That would be Commissioner Gardias, as
formal discussion now proceeds, clockwise around the dais.
Commissioner Gardias expresses dissatisfaction with the proposed zoning, but also wanders into
discussion of the project.
So, at this point, based on the comments of two commissioners, the validity of their participation in
the second part, is arguably open to challenge, because they have spoken about the project.
Next, Commissioner Waldfogel, who poses questions on the proposed zoning and states that the
main potential benefit is an opportunity to collect data.
Vice Chair Monk endorses the new zone, makes a motion to adopt it, together with four amendments.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:39 PM
3
We move past the chair, who will speak last.
New commissioner Riggs seconds the motion and adds an amendment. Commissioner Summa explains why she cannot support the motion and states that after all the
other commissioners have spoken, she will propose a substitute motion.
Then back to Commissioner Alcheck. He begins: “I wasn’t going to speak. but didn’t think you were going to speak [addressing Commissioner
Summa], so I am going to speak now.”
Why would he think that Commissioner Summa would not speak? Did he not understand that the chair stated that she is recused for the second part?
Later he says …
“Again I suggest, that this issue can separated for the purposes of your recusal, doesn’t pass the smell test, …”
A correction: The item was separated into two parts not for the purpose of Commissioner Summa’s
recusal, but to help prevent any commissioner in Part 1 from speaking about Part 2.
He continues …
“… and the fact that you are making a substitute motion now strikes me as inappropriate.”
Later, and possibly most revealing:
“I am concerned that the one individual, who is recused from having a discussion about this project, could tank the entire conversation tonight with a motion to not pass this ordinance ... and I think that
should be unacceptable”
Could it be that in trying to count commission noses, and under the guise of “knowing better” and
“vigorous engagement,” Commissioner Alcheck is afraid that the measured statements of Commissioner Summa might actually have an impact on other commissioners and imperil a result he
seems almost desperate to achieve.
Later, after the main motion is ironed out, Commissioner Summa presents her substitute motion: that
staff return with a revised ordinance, including parameters she specifies.
As soon as the motion is seconded, Commissioner Alcheck interrupts with a point of order on some
convoluted procedural grounds. The Chair states that he is incorrect and explains why.
Commissioner Alcheck rejects the explanation. The Chair replies that the matter was explained to Commissioner Alcheck by staff.
Commissioner Alcheck, not satisfied, responds again. The Chair calmly reiterates his points, and the
meeting finally moves on.
So let’s review:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:39 PM
4
A commissioner will not accept the procedures for discussion set down by staff and the chair.
He preempts all discussion with a false claim of rule violation. He makes reference to the project application, which he is not supposed to do, and which possibly
encourages a second commissioner to do the same, jeopardizing the validity of the forthcoming
discussion on that application.
He repeatedly challenges the legitimacy of another commissioner for participating in any part of the hearing, without basis, and in contradiction with the city attorney.
He expresses surprise that a fellow commissioner would make a substitute motion, and after it is
brought forward, immediately interrupts and insists on the correctness of a procedural challenge, in contradiction with the chair and the assistant director.
He repeatedly violates your procedural rules, including (Section III C 14) that “every commissioner
shall be confined to the question under debate, avoiding all indecorous language and personal
attacks.”
He is disrespectful of the chair, repeatedly interrupts him and other commissioners.
He is disrespectful of staff, although he feels free to travel down toward the staff area at will, without
permission, and without reporting on what was discussed.
And all this is just from within the sections I am reviewing this evening.
It would be nice to think that the Chair with more assertiveness and experience can exercise a better
handle on this situation.
But he tried hard. He was fair, firm, and polite, while not allowing himself to be bullied or bluffed.
Nonetheless, it all came at a steep cost: to the commission’s procedures and processes, smooth
functioning, interaction with staff, and standing among the citizenry.
I believe that all of us are capable of change, but at a certain point, some characteristics can become firmly entrenched. To ignore that here, will lead to other such incidents.
I will send this report to the city council, interspersed with time stamps, and request action.
In the meantime, and to best serve the community, I request that Commissioner Alcheck resign and apply his talents and energy outside of the Planning Commission.
Thank you.
-------
References:
PTC 1/31/18 video links below as direct, specific references to key content sections above
Video Section 1
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:39 PM
5
Commissioner Alcheck (late arrival), Chair Lauing (ground rules), Summa (recusal), Commissioner
Alcheck (books flipped over)
4:00 to 6:35 (2 min, 35 sec), beginning at https://youtu.be/jz7-Ue7denY?t=236
Video Section 2
Assistant Director Lait (restates the separated, two-stage discussion process to follow); Alcheck
(point of order, discusses zoning, references project)
1:03:35 to 1:05:25 (1 min, 50 sec), beginning at https://youtu.be/jz7-Ue7denY?t=3815
Video Section 3
Commissioner Gardias (wanders into discussion of project), Commissioner Alcheck (leaves dais,
returns to interrupt)
1:07:31 to 1:16:40 (9 min, 9 sec), beginning at https://youtu.be/jz7-Ue7denY?t=4051
Video Section 4
Commissioner Summa (will propose substitute motion), Commissioner Alcheck (includes 4 quotes
above)
1:47:44 to 1:51:40 (3 min, 40 sec), beginning at https://youtu.be/jz7-Ue7denY?t=6465
Video Section 5
Commissioner Summa (substitute motion), Commissioner Alcheck (point of order, interaction with
Chair)
2:10:10 to 2:12:34 (2 min, 24 sec) beginning at https://youtu.be/jz7-Ue7denY?t=7810
##
Fred Balin, 2/17/18
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:52 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeremy Robinson <jeremy.robinson67@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 19, 2018 11:50 AM
To:Council, City; Alaee, Khashayar; De Geus, Robert
Subject:A note of graditude
I want to thank you, members of City Council and Staff, for all the time and effort you have put
into this issue surrounding the future of Palo Alto Animal Shelter and
the agreement with Pets In Need to commence management of the shelter.
We have worked together for almost five years as we wrestled with the problem of how to increase
and enhance the benefits of our Animal Shelter to the community. City Staff, led initially by Cash
Alaee and Bob Beacom and now more recently by Rob De Geus, has been committed to exploring
all possible avenues. From the Facilitated Community Meetings with Stakeholders to the countless
meetings with us at City Hall, every conceivable aspect of this issue has been explored. We have
been included in all discussions, we have been treated with respect and patience, even when we
disagreed.
So for this, and much more, I want to thank you. You are as committed the right path for our city
as we are.
We don't know what decision Council will arrive at next Monday when we all meet to discuss this
issue. We will be there to speak in favour of the agreement with PIN and to show our support for
the future of our Animal Shelter. But while we have waited for this day and its outcome, we have
not been idle:
Hoping for the best, as do all optimists, we are planning exciting events this coming year to
welcome and introduce Pets In Need to our community. The first will be the May Fete Parade
where we plan to bring children from the schools and neighbourhoods to join the parade with their
pets, bringing back our former Pet Parade aspect to the day. Because this is The Year of the Dog,
we think this will be quite timely. We are contacting foster groups throughout our area to have a
presence in the parade and at Heritage Park at the end of the parade to encourage adoptions. PIN
volunteers will walk in the parade with their adoptable animals. We are working with Kiwanis concerning the details at the park. We will be bringing in sponsors as well. In short, making May
Fete an exciting and exuberant event that will include more of our community, as well as folding
Pets In Need into our city.
And of course we will continue our regular Saturday morning presence at our table at the entrance
to our Downtown Farmer's Market. There we meet with the public, answer the constant questions
about when we will get a new shelter, and provide a hitching post for dogs while their owners
shop. It has become a very jolly and regularly visited destination for many families. It has also
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:52 PM
2
provided us with a clear pulse on the community. And the consensus has continued to be for a new
shelter!
So we wait, holding our breath, for your decision next week. You know all the facts, you have
been embroiled in this discussion for many months. I just want to make sure you know how much
we appreciate the efforts you have made to be just and fair, not only to this process but to the
animals as well. And animals and children are really what we are all about, anyway.
Kind regards
Jeremy Robinson President
Friends of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:26 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 16, 2018 4:03 AM
To:mldauber@stanford.edu
Cc:molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; swagstaffe@smcgov.org; swebby@da.sccgov.org;
jbeiers@smcgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; James Aram; jrosen@da.sccgov.org;
dangel@da.sccgov.org; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; Philip, Brian; Stump, Molly; Keene,
James; Council, City; Kniss, Liz (external); Scharff, Greg; sdremann@paweekly.com;
bjohnson@paweekly.com; bjohnson@embarcaderomediagroup.com;
Gary.Goodman@pdo.sccgov.org; gsheyner@paweekly.com; Keith, Claudia; kent
Vickery; mickwz@sbcglobal.net; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com;
jeramygordon@me.com; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; pressstrong@gmail.com;
stephen.connolly@oirgroup.com
Subject:Attack the whole system not just one person - Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
2/15/18, 8:02 PM
What Stanford Law Professor Michele Dauber knows nothing about. She should at the very least come to understand the probationary justice legal system and perhaps attack the whole system and not just one person
facebook.com/PAFreePress/po… #JudgeAaronPersky #MicheleDauber #BrockTurner
pic.twitter.com/svSY6fRJGG
Signed Anonymous:
Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions
to the content of publications, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Com's (1995) 514 U.S. 334, 341-342:accord, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton (2002) 536 U.S.150
But I guess you no who this is anyway....The only person who does not believe in this principle, is Daily Post
Editor Dave Price......
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:26 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:John McGilvray <jdmcg@pacbell.net>
Sent:Friday, February 16, 2018 1:18 PM
To:Council, City; Ron Wilensky
Subject:CUP for the First Baptist Church at 305 N. California
Dear City Council --
My wife and I have lived on South Court for 47 years, and until the last few years, there
have been no problems with traffic or parking for traditional First Baptist Church
activities. However, as the church started renting space to paying tenants, traffic and
parking have become major safety, property access and street usage issues. Residents
have difficulty parking on the street, drivers waiting for people using the church’s tenant’s
services block driveways and street corners, and bicycle and general traffic flow on
California Avenue becomes unnecessarily difficult and dangerous.
The church’s proposal to receive a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to continue its currently
unauthorized operations, and be designated as a “community center” with longer hours
and more noise and traffic, makes an existing problem much worse. With only eight on-
site parking spaces, almost all people using the church for purposes other than religious
worship will use the street for parking. Students going to and from Jordan will be
endangered by drivers double parked, opening doors without checking for traffic, and
blocking sight lines at crosswalks and intersections. When you add the planned traffic
circle at Bryant and California, matters become even worse. Other churches may have “community center” status in R-1 districts, but all have significantly more off-street parking.
Although we sympathize with the church’s desire to generate revenue with its unused
space, expanding the permitted functions beyond religious services and activities via a
CUP allowing its designation as a “community center,” will have a dramatic negative
impact on the quality of life in our quiet residential district.
There is no criticism intended for the Baptist Church’s desire to continue or expand its use
of facilities for non-religious functions. The proposed musical and professional services
are a desirable and worthwhile contribution to the benefit of the Palo Alto community. But
that is a totally separate issue from the impact such functions have on the church’s
neighbors and the safety issues it raises for traffic on California Avenue.
Please do not risk the safety and quality of life for the local residents by approving a CUP
for non-religious activities at the Baptist Church.
John McGilvray
2300 South Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:19 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Debbie Nichols <debbiegailnichols@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 14, 2018 10:00 PM
To:Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James; Lait, Jonathan; Owen, Graham
Subject:CUP Request by the Baptist Church in Old Palo Alto
Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council,
The Baptist Church in Old Palo Alto has submitted a CUP request to become a community center. I am opposed to the
idea.
The church, located at the corner of North California and Bryant, is on a bike boulevard heavily used by Jordan Middle
School students. It is such a busy and dangerous corner that the Transportation Department is scheduled to build a
roundabout at that intersection in a few months. Allowing the church to become a community center on a bike
boulevard will exacerbate the dangerous road conditions for cyclists, pedestrians and cars on that busy corner. The
church has only 8 parking spaces on their property. A community center should have a spacious parking lot. As a result,
community center visitors will park in the bike boulevard lanes, forcing cyclists to ride in the middle of the street. Cars
will be pulling in and out of the bike lanes creating dangerous biking conditions, especially for all the young middle
school children bicycling home from school each day.
The church is essentially operating as a commercial building in a residential R‐1 neighborhood. It has multiple “for profit”
companies and organizations illegally housed at the church. There is no professional security officer or church official
stationed at the church at night to monitor the multitude of evening activities. They are inconsiderate neighbors who
heretofore have taken advantage of the goodwill of the residents and have defied city zoning regulations. And all the
while, enjoying a very low property tax rate of approximately $7500 per year.
I urged the City Council to deny the CUP request. Thank you.
Debbie Nichols
A resident of Old Palo Alto
February 14, 2018
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:20 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mari Varma <marivarma@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 15, 2018 11:37 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Mari Varma
Dear City Council Members,
Thank you for your service to our community.
I live close to the First Baptist Church on California and Bryant Street in Palo Alto. I'm deeply opposed to the request made by the
Church to be zoned for a community center for several reasons. The biggest is the parking. Currently the church's programs draw a lot of traffic into the neighborhood and parking becomes a problem. Folks even park in from of the fire hydrant in front of our house!
We love our neighborhood and enjoy the peaceful and quiet. The church's plan would take that away permanently. Let them continue
to offer space for music lessons or other limited events. However, an all hours community center should not be allowed to operate in a residential area.
Sincerely,
Maricela Varma 2299 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:13 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 14, 2018 2:37 PM
To:Planning Commission
Cc:Owen, Graham; Lait, Jonathan; Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:February 14, 2018, Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting, Item #4 :
Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
February 14, 2018
Planning and Transportation Commission
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
FEBRUARY 14, 2018, PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA ITEM #4
AFFORDABLE HOUSING (AH) COMBINING DISTRICT
Dear Planning and Transportation Commission:
I support the adoption of a new AH combining district for projects that
have 100% affordable housing.
Enacting a new combining district for 100% affordable housing projects is
a better solution than relying on the State Density Bonus Law implemented
by Chapter 18.15 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
A 100% affordable housing project begins to look less like an project that
is 100% housing when it is really a mixed-use project.
When the City Council and its Regional Housing Mandate Committee were
considering the language that would appear in Chapter 18.15 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), both the Committee and the Council rejected
the idea of treating projects with 100% affordable housing differently
than other projects when determining the bonuses and concession to include
in Chapter 18.15 to implement the State Housing Density Law.
That is why a new PAMC Chapter is needed to provide more intensive
development standards for a 100% affordable housing project.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:13 PM
2
However, Palo Alto Housing appeared before the Council for a prescreening
of a housing proposal at 3709 El Camino Real [17PLN-00189] that was
designed to take into account the neighborhood commercial land uses that
are required in the CN zone district, and they then chose the option
before you tonight as the best way to get approval for the project that
they have already designed.
Staff and that applicant must also be aware that there has been a pattern
where developers have obtained more intensive development than an
underlying zone district allows by getting some neighbors to advocate for
the intensive development in exchange for a promise to keep some desired
neighborhood retail use regardless of whether that use as designed for the
project would be viable.
I hope you have learned by now that you shouldn't approve a more intensive
use (in this case, the beneficial use of 100% affordable housing) in
exchange for a promise of a retail use that is not feasible.
We already have Chapter 18.15 to make those tradeoffs, although that
Chapter cannot be used to obtain as much housing relative to underlying
zoning as the current proposal can.
If an affordable housing developer wants to develop a 100% affordable
housing project, then the new district should be an all housing only zone
district. Palo Alto Housing, for example, is not a developer of grocery
stores or offices for non-profit organizations like the Palo Alto Chamber
of Commerce.
For example, Palo Alto Housing is the developer of the five-story Eagle
Park Apartments with 61 rental apartments at 1701 West El Camino Real in
Mountain View that will be on the same block as market rate apartments and
grocery stores, restaurants, pharmacies, and public transit.
Similarly, if Palo Alto Housing develops a 100% affordable housing project
without any commercial component, that project would be in the vicinity of
neighborhood serving uses.
It thus makes senses to apply the AH Combining District in response to
specific applications, rather than broadly to a whole area of the City
without relation to a specific application or applications.
I urge you to reject Section 2 of the proposed ordinance that proposes a
wild card zoning provision.
If staff is not capable of telling you what other provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance need to be changed to meet the objectives of the proposed
ordinance, then I am sure some developer knows, especially if the non-
residential use is retained in the ordinance.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:13 PM
3
I believe that Chapter 18.15 should also contain a statement that the
provisions of Chapter 18.15 does not apply to the AH district.
Before you recommend that the Council adopt the proposed ordinance you
should add a new section to amend PAMC Section 18.15.080 to change
subsection "(d)" to "(e)", and to add a new subsection (d) to read:
"The Affordable Housing (AH) combining district provides flexibility in
development standards that allow for a density increase that would in
most cases exceed density bonuses under this Chapter 18.15. Therefore,
this Chapter does not apply to the AH combining district."
Staff should state on the record that the Midtown Shopping Center, the
Charleston Shopping Center, and the properties along San Antonio Road
shown in the map attached to the staff report would not be subject to the
proposed ordinance.
Neither the GM zone district nor the RP zone district should be subject to
the proposed ordinance.
The only properties zoned GM that are located within one-half mile of a
major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor are those GM
properties that are included in the area that is part of the North Ventura
Community Area Plan (NVCAP) that is funded in part by a grant from the
Valley Transportation Authority for a defined Priority Development Area.
We should await the results of the new NVCAP process before deciding on
any zone district changes for those GM properties.
The only properties zoned RP that are located within one-half mile of a
major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor are those that are in
the Stanford Research Park that is owned by Stanford University and near
the Stanford campus that is the subject of an application and
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a new 2018 General Use Permit (GUP).
There is substantial evidence that Stanford has moved academic facilities
to the Research Park and has announced plans to move additional academic
facilities to the Research Park at the same time as Stanford is applying
for a new GUP that would increase the allowable floor area for those
facilities on the Stanford campus.
Also, there is substantial evidence that the requested GUP would not
provide for enough faculty, staff, and student housing for the academic
facilities authorized for the GUP, while Stanford has expressed an
interest in building housing in the Research Park that could be used for,
among others, Stanford faculty, staff, and students.
Accordingly, applying the AH combining district to the RP zone district
would be part of the same California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
project as the 2018 GUP application.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:13 PM
4
CEQA requires that the whole of a project be analyzed in the same EIR.
Separating an application to adopt the AH combining district for any part
of RP-zoned Stanford Research Park from the application for the 2018
Stanford University General Use Permit would be segmenting the project in
violation of CEQA and a prejudicial abuse of discretion.
The definition of "100% affordable housing project" in Section
18.30(K).030 of the proposed ordinance is not sufficient.
The City already has more specific definitions taken from, or referenced
to State law for the income ranges and family sizes of moderate, low
income, very low income, and extremely low income individuals and
families, and the City already has specific language available
for establishing limits on resale prices for affordable for-sale units in
the City's Below Market Rate program.
That specific language should be included in the proposed ordinance.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/21/2018 12:11 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:David Brunicardi <david.brunicardi@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 20, 2018 4:45 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James
Subject:First Baptist Church C.U.P.
Dear Councilmen and Councilwomen,
As I write this email I am finding it difficult to concentrate because of the grating cacophony of a very loud
English horn rehearsal underway a mere 12' from my property. There is no one from the church available to ask
the person to close the window or move to another part of the facility. This is exactly where the function of usage and space at the First Baptist Church breaks down. This is what has the neighbors furious.
I do want the church to succeed and hope that it finds appropriate tenants, but the neighbors must also be
thought of as well when the Council reviews the application for a Conditional Use Permit. This is an R-1 entity
in an R-1 neighborhood. The church has minuscule setbacks from it's neighbors and it is not a modern facility
with soundproofing and sequestered rooms where loud occurrences go unnoticed.
In the application the FBC is asking for hours where activities will be able to operate until 11:00 at night. My family and I will be under extreme duress if this is allowed to happen in the many small classroom adjacent to
my property.
I have video recordings of the latest sound violation and nearly one hundred others. Should any or all of you
like to meet to review them please let me know.
All best, David Brunicardi
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/21/2018 12:13 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Stolee <rstolee@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 20, 2018 10:03 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Draft Email about Parking of RV's on El Camino
Dear Council Members,
It has come to our attention that the Palo Alto Police Department is continuing to only issue warnings to the
many RV's parked on El Camino Real. This is happening even though the RV’s are parked far beyond the 72
hour limit that is currently part of the parking regulations of the city. In Palo Alto residential and business
neighborhoods, citizens are issued parking tickets for violations on a regular basis. Why is the city not enforcing
the 72 hour parking limit?
It is time for the City Council to insist that the Police Department enforce the 72 hr parking regulation on all
vehicles parked on El Camino. The condition of the street has become a disgrace to our community and a real
eye sore.
We understand the problem of those wishing to work and live in the city not being able to afford the high
housing costs. . If an RV is the only way these folks can manage to live here,
then let's find a location for the motor homes that allows for the services and utilities that are needed. Please
work on this issue and put an end to motor homes using Palo Alto streets as RV parks.
Your attention to this issue would be appreciated.
Richard and Eileen Stolee
Palo Alto Residents
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:18 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 14, 2018 7:33 PM
To:Architectural Review Board
Cc:Council, City; Stump, Molly; Keene, James
Subject:Garage D ARB Hearing Feb 15, 2018
Attachments:scanarbgaraged.pdf
Dear ARB,
Please see attached letter regarding Garage D ARB Hearing on Feb 15,
2018.
Thank you.
Elizabeth Wong
February 14, 2018
Architectural Review Board (ARB)
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Subject: Lot D Design Impacts to 550-552 and 558-560 Waverley Street
Design Modifications Requests
17PLN-00360
Thank you to the City for its on-going efforts to increase parking supply for Downtown businesses
and visitors. Lot D, located on the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street, abuts two existing
commercial buildings that front Waverley Street, 558-560 and 550-552 (also known to the City as Lot
85 and Lot 84 respectively). Each building and its restaurant or commercial tenants currently utilize
the existing Lot D surface parking lot to sustain customer base and business operations. This joint
letter from Manhattan Associates, a California limited partnership, O'Keefe Associates, a California
limited partnership, and Euclid O'Connor Associates, a California limited partnership, collectively
"Manhattan Associates" and Waverley Post LP, the property owners, aims to document common
concerns that have been previously expressed to the City with the current design of the proposed Lot
D Parking Garage but for which we have not received any or adequate responses from the City and
its design team. Our traffic engineering consultant, Traffic Patterns, has completed a peer-review of
the site plans dated 12-20-2017 and based on their input we are also requesting the following design
modifications to the Lot D Parking Garage to ensure that existing and future site operations can be
maintained:
1) Grease Trap Clean-Outs
The Tai Pan restaurant (560 Waverley Street) generates grease as part of its restaurant operations
that include accessing the "clean-outs" located within the buildings. The removal of the grease by
contract Fats, Oils and Grease or "FOG" removal companies can currently only be conducted on
the Lot D parking lot side of the building. The City is also currently reviewing a tenant
improvement application for a new restaurant at 552 Waverley Street that includes a proposed
grease trap that will also be accessed for cleaning and maintenance from the Lot D parking lot
side of the building.
The FOG removal companies use large vacuum trucks (Vactor trucks) similar to those used by city
crews to clean out storm drains and used to clean out septic tanks in rural areas. The Vactor
trucks cannot use the existing alleyways as proposed in the current Lot D garage plans. The
Vactor trucks require a minimum vertical clearance of 14-FT to maneuver their vacuum hoses into
the grease traps, preferably 16-FT to accommodate movement of the vacuum equipment. The
existing ground floor of the Lot D parking garage is only 11-FT 6-IN. The existing and planned
grease clean outs cannot be accessed in the current design requiring significant design
modifications to the building.
To: Palo Alto -Architectural Review Board
Subject: ARB Application 17PLN-00360 -Lot D Parking Garage
Date: February 15, 2018
Page: 2 of 6
Waverley Post LP and Manhattan Associates have met with City staff to express concerns with the
proposed lot operations but have not been provided with an adequate response to the grease
trap access issues that will occur both during and post construction of the Lot D parking garage.
The FOG removal companies currently access the grease traps while parked in the Lot D surface
parking lot, entering the lot from the Hamilton Avenue driveways. The alleys behind our
properties operate as one-way with access from Waverley Street. A Vactor truck cannot
maneuver the two 90-degree turns shown in the City's site plan for the Lot D parking garage and
reach into the grease traps as the trucks require rear-access from the trucks to properly maneuver
the vacuum equipment.
We have expressed this issue as a significant design flaw to City staff that will result in significant
business loss to our existing and future restaurant tenants and property value to each of the
buildings that currently rely on Lot D surface parking lot access to remove grease and other waste
from the grease traps. The grease traps are currently cleaned out weekly, or more frequently if
required.
Waverley Post LP and Manhattan Associates request that the Lot D parking garage design be
modified to provide a minimum 16-FT ground floor height that will allow a Vactor truck to
continue to access grease traps in the existing Waverley Street building(s) from the ground floor
of the garage. We recognize that this is a substantial change to the design of the Lot D parking
garage but this access issue was expressed to the City staff several times during meetings with the
design teams without a response. Alternatives to address the higher ground floor requirement
without impacting higher level floors can include lowering the elevation of the ground floor.
2) Dedicated Parking Spaces for Waverley Street Buildings
550 Waverley Street currently maintains the equivalent of two (2) parking spaces at the rear of the
building, one formal and a second informal space through parallel parking along the rear building
frontage. The 560 Waverley Street building operates with one (1) informal parking space
throughout the day but multiple vehicles regularly park in the rear of the building during all times
of the day to deliver food and other supplies to the restaurant. These parking spaces are utilized
for service vehicle loading/unloading, emergency parking operations for building uses and
although formal and informal in nature are critical to the long-term operations of building.
The Lot D parking garage currently proposes the elimination of any parking access along the rear
of each of the buildings for a proposed Pedestrian Access facility. Furthermore, only one parking
space is shown as dedicated to 550 Waverley Street (Lot 84 Stall). This inequity in the
replacement of parking for buildings that share equal impact from the proposed Lot D parking
garage results in substantial business and property value impacts to both buildings.
Waverley Post LP and Manhattan Associates request that the six (6) parking spaces currently
located along the northeast footprint of the parking garage's ground floor be dedicated
To: Palo Alto -Architectural Review Board
Subject: ARB Application 17PLN-00360 -Lot D Parking Garage
Date: February 15, 2018
Page: 3 of 6
exclusively and in perpetuity without any future parking permit fees, to the Waverley Street
buildings.
Our preference would be that the pedestrian access alleyway be removed and the Lot D parking
garage footprint moved west behind the two buildings to maintain a minimum 24-FT clearance
from the buildings to allow a 2-way aisle operation per the City of Palo Alto off-street design
standard (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.54.070) to continue to allow 90-degree parking
operations for service vehicles, including Vactor trucks for grease clean-out operations, but we
recognize the impact to the current design and loss of proposed parking to the garage design.
The requested dedicated six (6) parking spaces allows for replacement of the formal and informal
parking spaces currently located adjacent to the two buildings and allows for dedicated space for
service vehicles, including Vactor trucks, to access the existing grease cleanout facilities through
the use of dedicated (24/7 /365) Commercial Loading Zone operations that can be jointly shared
with other adjacent buildings including 510 and 526 Waverley Streets and CVS. The City has
noted future loading zones along Waverley Street to accommodate existing and future loading
activities along Waverley Street. The baking and cooking facilities of the Waverley Street buildings
are at the rear of each building, this is where loading zones need to be accommodated and are
best situated in the ground floor of the parking garage. Perishable goods should have limited
environmental exposure after they leave a commercial kitchen to protect the food. Exposing
perishables to the environment and through dining rooms of restaurants introduces health risks to
our tenant's customers which will be attributed directly to the City's lack of proper loading zones
and facility access from the rear of the buildings as currently provided, along with business loss
from the loss of sales due to a loss in food quality.
3) Access and Temporary Construction Easements
Waverley Post LP and Manhattan Associates have expressed concerns regarding future
redevelopment of the Waverley Street frontage buildings with the construction of the proposed
Lot D parking garage. Currently, all buildings fronting Waverley Street between University Avenue
and Hamilton Avenue along the west side of the street do not have any curb cuts for private
driveways. This is a unique design feature of Waverley Street to help sustain an enjoyable
pedestrian experience along Waverley Street. It is also a design feature that both Waverley Post
LP and Manhattan Associates seek to maintain as part of upcoming future development plans.
Waverley Post LP and Manhattan Associates have requested that the Lot D parking garage design
include provisions that will allow each property to independently redevelop but allow construction
access and long-term site access to future underground parking in the adjacent buildings from
the basement level of the Lot D parking garage. This will allow future redevelopment to ensure
that no curb cuts along the Waverley Street frontage are required but also allows each parcel to
be able to meet its future parking obligations without adding to the already deficient parking
supply of the Downtown.
To: Palo Alto -Architectural Review Board
Subject: ARB Application 17PLN-00360 -Lot D Parking Garage
Date: February 15, 2018
Page: 4 of 6
The Lot D parking garage designs identify "Potential Future Connections to Lot 84/85" but these
call-outs appear to conflict with the existing shear wall and column support designs of the parking
garage. A wider shear wall with stronger steel support beams that allow for the removal of
column supports will ensure that 2-way operations into the future basement parking garages of
each building can actually be maintained. Waverley Post LP and Manhattan Associates request
that the Lot D parking garage be removed from the ARB agenda immediately until this design
flaw that can accommodate future basement parking garage access to 550 Waverley Street (Lot
84) and 560 Waverley Street (Lot 85) is addressed including specific design details of how walls
can be later removed to allow for the future connections to be built are provided. We see the
lack of these design details as significant impacts to the future redevelopment capabilities of each
site that has uncalculated property value impacts as future buildings cannot be parked without
this access.
Following the completion of these design details, Waverley Post LP and Manhattan Associates
request that before this item is returned back to the ARB the designs include agreed-upon In-
perpetuity Access and Temporary Construction Easements as part of the ARB review plans so that
the design is transparent to the Palo Alto community regarding the contractual obligations that
are required to construct and operate the proposed Lot D parking garage.
4) Refuse Solid Waste Operations
Refuse collection bins for Waverley Street frontage buildings adjacent to the Lot D parking garage
are currently maintained behind each building adjacent to the Lot D surface parking lot. This
allows the bins to be "out of sight" of the public as much as possible, restricts odor generated
from the waste away from Waverley Street, and allows building tenants to efficiently remove
waste from the buildings without significant injury from traveling long-distances to off-site waste
bins.
The proposed design of the Lot D parking garage includes a Trash Enclosure on the northeast
corner of the parking garage on the ground floor. The Trash Enclosure is at an acceptable
distance to 550 Waverley Street but unacceptable distance to 560 Waverley Street of over 100-FT
from the building's southeast corner. Such a distance can result in personal injury impacts to
building tenant employees from carrying large heavy items to the storage bins.
Waverley Post LP and Manhattan Associates request a design modification to the Lot D parking
garage design to include dedicated Trash Enclosures immediately adjacent to each building. A
second Trash Enclosure can be provided immediately adjacent to the garage's stair well facility.
The trash enclosure can be sized to minimize the loss of parking to up to one space if needed.
Most critical though is the need to provided double door access to the storage bins for Green
Waste removal and replacement operations during waste collection and for forced ventilation of
the storage binds to reduce odor.
To: Palo Alto -Architectural Review Board
Subject: ARB Application 17PLN-00360 -Lot D Parking Garage
Date: February 15, 2018
Page: 5 of 6
The current Lot D parking garage design shows the removal of storage bins from the Pedestrian
Access alleyway. As previously noted, a taller ground floor is required for Vactor truck operations.
A taller ground floor facility will also allow refuse solid waste collection vehicles to access the bins
from within the ground floor if Hamilton Avenue remains the continued access point for collection
vehicles. The second set of access doors to the bins will allow the refuse collection vehicle
operators to easily remove the bins without risk of blockage from trash overflow that regularly
results from building operations. The second set of access doors will also ensure that the
pedestrian access alleyway does not experience trash spillage from the removal of trash bins
which will result in odor and rodent increases if not properly maintained by the City. Waverley
Post LP and Manhattan Associates are not interested in experiencing increases in building
operations to power wash the pedestrian alleyways on the city's behalf.
5) Shadow Study
Waverley Post LP and Manhattan Associates have begun to evaluate the Shadow Study
documents prepared for the Lot D parking garage. While our preference is that the City maintain
our requested 24-FT clearance from the building so that our existing parking and refuse/grease
clean-out operations can continue without impact, we recognize that some type of
accommodation is required.
We request a City staff and design team meeting to evaluate the shadow impacts to the buildings.
In addition, the AC cooling systems for both 550 and 560 Waverley Street are located
immediately adjacent to each property's western end, adjacent to the Lot D parking garage. It
appears from the shadow studies that the building will impact the existing cooling systems and
planned solar panels that are currently being explored. The Lot D parking garage structure as
currently shown may remove the ability for each building to install solar panel systems which will
increase each building's on-going operations costs, an impact directly attributable to the future
Lot D parking garage construction.
6) Pedestrian Access Alleyway
Waverley Post LP and Manhattan Associates request the removal of any seating benches or other
design features that can invite the homeless to congregate within the alleyway for the security of
our buildings and safety of employees who regularly take breaks at the back of the building.
Waverley Post LP and Manhattan Associates also request that the City consider stronger design
features to ensure the safety of the public that do utilize the proposed pedestrian access alleyway
including additional lighting features and security cameras.
The pedestrian access alleyway as currently designed with trash enclosure and grease clean out
operations will not produce the anticipated pedestrian experience the City may be trying to
achieve. Trash bins generate significant odor and without daylight and proper ventilation will
To: Palo Alto -Architectural Review Board
Subject: ARB Application 17PLN-00360 -Lot D Parking Garage
Date: February 15, 2018
Page: 6 of 6
result in a public nuisance that will in turn impact the property values of our buildings including
possible rodent control issues.
7) Construction Accommodations
During the construction phase of the Lot D parking garage, Waverley Post LP and Manhattan
Associates request the following accommodations:
• Temporary conversion of the on-street parking spaces to dedicated building use for
commercial loading activities
• The increased costs in grease clean out of the 560 Waverley Street building incurred directly
by the Lot D parking garage project
• Weekly building maintenance provided by the Lot D project to clean windows and remove
dust and other debris from the Waverley Street building to maintain their existing conditions
during and post construction of the Lot D parking garage.
We again request the ARB immediately remove this item from the February 15th agenda so that our
property managers can continue work with city staff to refine the design of the Lot D parking garage
and concurrently develop in perpetuity access and temporary construction access easements.
Elizabeth Wong
Waverley Post LP
cc: City Council
Molly Stump, City Attorney
James Keene, City Manager
Bra 1kian
for Manhattan Associates
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:22 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Allie Judy <alliejudy@me.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 15, 2018 3:15 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Going Native Garden Tour
Attachments:2018 GNGT Press Release-Calendar copy.pdf; 2018-GNGT-Flyer.pdf
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
Just when residents thought last year’s rains made it ‘safe’ to install new sod, this year is shaping up to be
another dry year. California’s cycle of wet and dry years means our residents have to plan for dry years. Our drought is never really ‘over’, it just lies dormant for a few years and then returns. Cities can help educate their residents about the benefits of landscaping with California native plants that thrive in our Mediterranean
climate.
Please help us spread the word about an upcoming Going Native Garden Tour. The tour is 100% organized and staffed by volunteers in the community who are passionate about sharing the benefits of replacing lawn and other water-intensive plants with California Native Plants. The annual tour of these gardens is FREE to the
public. Our members and organization receive no compensation from the Going Native Garden Tour. We are
simply passionate about the benefits and beauty of California native plants.
Since 2003, the Bay Area’s pioneering Going Native Garden Tour has showcased gardens featuring California native plants. This community-based tour is free of charge to the public. Each year’s tour features 40-70
gardens, most of them private home gardens, which are open on tour day in a do-it-yourself, open house
format. The gardens on the tour demonstrate reduced water use, reduced chemical and pesticide use, improved
habitat, and the unique aesthetic appeal of gardens designed with California native plants.
Over the years, we’ve had thousands of visitors view the gardens. Many of these visitors are either familiar
with native gardens or passionate about them. We believe that attracting residents that may not have previously
considered native gardens, will help to educate and inspire them to replace some or all of their water-intense
lawns and other non-native landscaping. According to the USGS https://ca.water.usgs.gov/water_use/ "each Californian uses an average of 181 gallons of water each day. More water is used each day for irrigation than any other water use category.” Encouraging the planting of native plants can significantly reduce that average
and also reduce chemical and pesticide use and improve habitats.
We’re asking Bay Area cities and municipalities to help us spread the word about the tours. Attached are: a copy of our flyer with key details, and a press release. We’d be very excited to have the flyer posted in your
office and have the tour mentioned in any city newsletters or on your website.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Allie Judy
GNGT Volunteer Coordinator
www.gngt.org
www.mgsantaclara.ucanr.edu www.cnps-scv.org
Facebook: GoingNativeGT
Twitter: @GoingNativeGT
The California Native Plant Society-Santa Clara Valley Chapter
in association withUCCE Master Gardeners of Santa Clara County
2018 Going Native Garden Tour
------------CALENDAR LISTING----------
16th ANNUAL GOING NATIVE GARDEN TOUR A free, self-guided tour of home gardens featuring California Nave
Plants that are water-wise, arac ve, low maintenance, low on chemical use, and bird and buer$y friendly. A
variety of home gardens landscaped with California na ve plants will be open to the public Saturday, April 7 and
Sunday, April 8, 2018, 10 am to 4 pm. Locaons throughout Santa Clara Valley and Peninsula. Talks and na ve
plant sales at select gardens. Free admission; registraon required at www.gngt.org; registraon ends at 3pm on
April 8th. Volunteers receive a T shirt and invitaons to visit nave gardens throughout the year. For more
informaon, visit www.gngt.org or email info@gngt.org.
----------------------------------------------------------------PRESS RELEASE----------------------------------------------------------
Are you interested in gardens that are water-wise low maintenance and a-racve to humans as well as birds and
bu-er.ies? Find out more informaon at the Santa Clara Valley's 16th annual Going Na ve Garden Tour on Sat-
Sun, April 7-8, 2018 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. This is a free, self-guided tour of home gardens landscaped with
California nave plants. Gardens from Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Los Altos, Redwood City and San
Mateo are open on Saturday. Gardens in San Jose, Santa Clara, Cuperno, Campbell, Los Gatos, and Gilroy/Morgan
Hill are open on Sunday.
The tour o7ers a variety of gardens for viewing - from town-homes to 1-acre lots, from newly planted gardens to
established ones. Visit as many gardens as you like - for inspiraon and ideas and pictures. Nave plants will be
available for purchase at select gardens. Many gardens will feature talks on nave plant gardening.
What’s special about California nave plants? They are adapted to our soil and climate and are easy to care for.
Many of our nave plants are naturally water-wise and drought tolerant. They support a wide variety of wildlife
that has co-evolved with them and their disncve look and elegant beauty gives your garden a sense of place
that is uniquely Californian.
The self-guided tour is open to all. Admission is free but dona ons to support the Tour can be made at any
garden. To receive the list of gardens on the tour registraon is required at www.gngt.org. Registraon ends at
3pm on April 8th. For more informaon, visit www.gngt.org or email info@gngt.org.
The tour is organized and run by volunteers. Volunteers receive a t-shirt with original art and invitaons to visit
nave gardens throughout the year. To volunteer, visit www.gngt.org and click on "Volunteer Registraon".
Knowledge of nave plant gardening is a plus but not required.
Facebook: @GoingNaveGT Twitter: @GoingNativeGT
Addional informaon contact Penny Pollock - GNGT Coordinator info@gngt.org. pennyph@pacbell.net
SPONSORS:
•Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation
Agency
•Lyngso Garden Materials
•California Nativescapes
•Santa Clara Valley Water District
•Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff
Pollution Prevention Program
•Friends of Master Gardeners
•Gold Rush Nursery
•Yerba Buena Nursery
•East Bay Wilds
•Middlebrook Gardens & Nursery
•Almaden Valley Nursery
•Mediterranean Garden Society
SUPPORTERS:
•Don Edwards San Francisco Bay
National Wildlife Refuge
•Capital Wholesale Nursery
•Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
•Gardening with Natives
•Native Revival Nursery
•Our City Forest
•Larner Seeds
•Western Horticultural Society
To sponsor or support the tour, contact
info@GoingNativeGardenTour.org
Visit any of over 50 beautiful home gardens featuring:
California Native plants
Water-wise landscape
Low maintenance
Habitat-rich environments
Saturday,
April 7, 2018
Northern Gardens:
San Mateo, Redwood City, Palo Alto, Los Altos,
Mountain View, Sunnyvale
Sunday,
April 8, 2018
Southern Gardens:
Cupertino, Santa Clara, Los Gatos, Campbell,
San Jose, Morgan Hill, Gilroy
Plants for sale at some gardens
Talks about native plants at some gardens
Free admission
Register to receive the list of gardens: www.gngt.org
Garden information, maps and directions will be available the week of March 19.
Registration will be accepted until noon on April 8.
For more information visit www.gngt.org or email info@gngt.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:24 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:George Jaquette <jaquette@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 15, 2018 10:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:How many people need to speak out before you will take action?
Gregory, Tom, Eric, Adrian, Karen, Liz, Lydia, Greg & Cory-
Online forums (especially anonymous boards like the PA Weekly) bring out the worst in people, with anonymous insults and ad hominem attacks on city officials. The passion exhibited there indicates the real
conflict that exists, but the conversation fails to provide any guidance on moving forward.
NextDoorNeighborhood is considerably better, with verified users who live in our neighborhoods and generally
much more civil discourse.
Both online discussion groups reflect a growing discontent with the traffic calming investments on Ross
Road. Many of us believe that the changes are dangerous, and that our children have been conscripted as road
warriors in the battle to empower bikers to share the road equally with cars.
I, for one, do not want my eleven-year-old daughter conscripted for a fight she is ill-equipped for. Our kids (and
a thousand like them) ride their bikes to and from school every day on East Meadow, and the changes at the
intersection of Ross Road and East Meadow are baffling and dangerous.
A neighbor suggested that we petition the city to stop this project, or at least hit pause before more damage is done (notably the plans to "enhance" the intersections of Ross and Moreno, and Ross and Louis). 126 Palo Alto
residents (and voters) have signed this petition in the past 24 hours.
https://www.change.org/p/city-council-cityofpaloalto-org-stop-the-traffic-calming-implementation-on-
ross-road-in-palo-alto
My question to each of you -- how many voters need to speak with the same voice before you will listen to
us and stop the project? People have offered to gather signatures at the YMCA, and to get kids to sign a
petition along East Meadow. I am willing to follow through on those efforts if they could make a difference, so
please let me know what that number would be. There are 12,000 students in PAUSD, and roughly 12,000 parents voting in Palo Alto (two kids per family, two voters per family).
What would it take to stop the traffic calming implementation on Ross Road, while the voters of Palo Alto who
are being disrupted by this project have a chance to air their views and discuss alternative solutions? How many
signatures would this petition need to gather?
Thanks-
George
--
George Jaquette
email: jaquette@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/21/2018 12:12 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:J4Tang family <j4tang@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Tuesday, February 20, 2018 9:23 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:In support and gratitude of the Pets In Need partnership
Dear City Council,
I am writing to express my gratitude of the City Council’s dedicated efforts, and my support of the City Council’s
continued efforts, to secure a partnership with Pets In Need in order to renovate Palo Alto Animal Services.
As a longtime Palo Alto resident and cat fosterer for local non‐profits such as Peninsula CatWorks, Fat Cat Rescue, and
Companions in Waiting, I have also had a longtime relationship with Animal Services, where I regularly have my foster
kittens spayed or neutered and vaccinated. I was a Palo Alto resident when Animal Services first began offering its low‐
cost spay/neuter services over forty years ago, and was proud to be a part of a city that pioneered the burgeoning
animal welfare movement. The simplest way to permanently decrease the number of stray animals is through
spay/neuter efforts and through promoting animal adoption, and Palo Alto wisely and innovatively tackled the stray
animal problem using these very tactics.
Now, the animal welfare movement is in full swing, and I am excited that Palo Alto is rising to the occasion. I am grateful
that, since 2012, the city has been carefully deliberating over renovating the outdated Animal Services shelter. Now, I
cannot wait to see the fruits of these efforts as the partnership with Pets In Need promises a renovated shelter.
Thus, I write in full support of action to pursue this partnership with Pets In Need. I fully support funding the $800,000
Phase 1 renovation to improve medical and staff facilities. I fully support funding the $1.2 million Phase 2 renovation to
build state‐of‐the‐art kennels. I support these actions as demonstrations of Palo Alto’s dedication to leading the way in
the animal welfare movement. In Palo Alto, home to glittering libraries, all‐inclusive playgrounds, parking structures
outfitted with charging units to power the ever‐increasing number of electric vehicles fueled by our 100% renewable
energy, we are in so many ways the future. Let us bring our beloved Animal Services into the future as well, equipping it
with the necessary renovations so that it can best serve the extraordinary Palo Alto community.
Thank you,
Jean Hsia
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:35 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Gary Holl <garyholl@mac.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 17, 2018 10:29 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:more housing? why?
All,
I just read about the council adopting a plan to build more housing. I guess I can start planning on who not to vote for at the next city council election.
Allowing developers to overbuild Palo Alto serves no purpose other than to line their pockets with money. I’ve
read all the arguments in favor of the housing and none of them makes any sense.
We do not need more housing which brings more traffic and congestion. The pipe dream that people will take public transportation never happens. The cities aging infrastructure (sewer, water, roadways etc) will not be
able to take all of the new building.
A city owned site for RV parking? This is getting absurd. Have you walked along El Camino? Some of those
RV’s have not moved in months, some are parked on the sidewalk making it difficult to walk on, others have trash around them and many have expired tags. We should be doing everything to ban RV parking on our
streets. If you keep allowing them to park on the streets or provide them with a parking lot you will only
encourage more RV’s dwellers to move here.
We can not solve the regions housing crisis nor should we try. The act of building more housing and allowing RV parking drastically impacts our quality of life and puts stress on our aging infrastructure.
regards,
Gary H.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:21 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:California High-Speed Rail <news@hsr.ca.gov>
Sent:Thursday, February 15, 2018 1:35 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:New High-Speed Rail Executives Visit Central Valley Construction Sites
To view this email as a web page, go here.
News Release
February 15, 2018
Annie Parker
(916) 403-6931 (w)
(916) 203-2960 (c)
Annie.Parker@hsr.ca.gov
PHOTO RELEASE:
New High-Speed Rail Executives Visit Central Valley
Construction Sites
FRESNO, Calif. – Today, the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s (Authority) newly appointed
Chief Executive Officer, Brian P. Kelly, and Chief Operating Officer, Joseph Hedges, visited construction sites in Fresno County and met with workers and small businesses building the nation’s first high-speed rail system.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:21 PM
2
“I am thrilled to be back in the Central Valley to get an up-close look at the work being done to deliver high-speed rail for the people of California,” said Authority CEO Brian P. Kelly. “This transformative project has helped create thousands of jobs and has bolstered economic
activity for hundreds of small businesses throughout the state. Today, Fresno is the epicenter
for this vital economic development.”
CEO Brian Kelly meeting with workers at the San Joaquin River Viaduct and Pergola
COO Joe Hedges introducing himself to workers at the San Joaquin River Viaduct and Pergola
Their tour included a stop at the San Joaquin River viaduct in north Fresno. This 4,700-foot viaduct runs adjacent to Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks and spans the San Joaquin River. A pergola structure is also featured to allow high-speed trains to cross over the top of
UPRR and into the City of Fresno.
CEO Kelly and COO Hedges standing on the top of the pergola with some of the 198 girders behind them
Reaching goals for small business participation and creating good-paying jobs continues to
be a priority for the high-speed rail program. To date, more than 240 certified small
businesses are working on Construction Packages 1-4, with as many as 1,700 workers
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:21 PM
3
dispatched to construction sites. More than 1200 of those workers reside in the Central Valley.
With more than 119-miles of active construction in the Central Valley underway, initial
passenger service is planned for high-speed rail between the Silicon Valley and Central
Valley. Learn more at www.buildhsr.com.
###
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
Unsubscribe
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/21/2018 12:14 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Fellner <robert@transparentcalifornia.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 21, 2018 11:21 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Press Release: Transparent California applauds Palo Alto City Council’s transparency
initiative
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.logotype
Press Release February 21, 2018 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of thi s pi ctu re from the In ternet.Twitter
Transparent California applauds Palo Alto City Council’s
transparency initiative
Transparent California — the state’s largest public pay and pension database — commends Palo Alto Vice Mayor Eric Filseth and Councilmen Tom DuBois, Greg Scharff and Greg Tanak for their proposal to increase transparency in collective bargaining negotiations with government unions.
As was first reported by the Palo Alto Daily Post, the proposal seeks to shed light on “wage, benefit and pension decisions [which] are currently reached through essentially private negotiations, without meaningful opportunity for public examination.”
Transparency in labor negotiations is mandatory for a truly representative government, according to Transparent California CEO & Research Director Robert Fellner:
“We applaud the Palo Alto City Council for recognizing that the status quo of secrecy in labor
negotiations is incompatible with an accountable and representative form of government. Not only does secrecy in negotiations keep the public in the dark about the expenses they are required to pay for, we’ve even seen examples of councilmembers who have approved labor contracts without fully recognizing the extent of the taxpayer-funded perks provided within.
“Providing the public with advance notice of the fiscal impact of proposed contracts provides taxpayers with the information necessary to make an informed decision. The status quo of secrecy, by contrast, requires taxpayers to pay the full costs associated with any labor contract, while denying them the opportunity to have their voices heard. Such a notion is incompatible with a healthy democracy, and
the Council deserves tremendous credit for proposing to bring sunlight into their labor negotiations.”
The Council’s proposal will be heard on February 26, 2018 from 9:15-10:00 PM, according to the agenda.
For more information, please contact Robert Fellner at 559-462-0122 or Robert@TransparentCalifornia.com.
Transparent California is California’s largest and most comprehensive database of public sector compensation and is a
project of the Nevada Policy Research Institute, a nonpartisan, free-market think tank. The website is used by millions of
Californians each year, including elected officials and lawmakers, government employees and their unions, government
agencies themselves, university researchers, the media, and concerned citizens alike. Learn more
at TransparentCalifornia.com.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/21/2018 12:14 PM
2
Copyright 2015 Transparent California. Transparent California is
provided by the Nevada Policy Research Institute as a public service
and provides accurate, comprehensive and easily searchable
information on the compensation of public employees in California.
TransparentCalifornia.com
If you do not wish to receive any further e-mails, please click here Update your subscription preferences here
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:53 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rita Chang <ritachang1@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 20, 2018 8:40 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Question
Hello City Council.
I have some issues with the roads and traffic that I would like to share.
Is this best handled in a meeting where residents are invited to join?
How else can I voice my feedback?
thank you!
Rita
415 32 8244
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:28 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Reichental, Jonathan
Sent:Friday, February 16, 2018 9:57 PM
To:Jeanne Fleming; Clerk, City; Council, City; Architectural Review Board
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:
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
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:28 PM
2
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.
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:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:28 PM
3
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
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
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:28 PM
4
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 | 2/21/2018 12:13 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 21, 2018 8:42 AM
To:Kou, Lydia; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Fine, Adrian; cory.wobach@cityofpaloalto.com
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Mello, Joshuah; De Geus, Robert; Council,
City; Planning Commission
Subject:Re: Rail Corridor: Issue of 2% grades and Local Policy Maker Working Group Meetings
Attachments:PFRUG Letter to Peninsula Cities 11-3-10.pdf; PFRUG Letter to HSRA 11-3-10.pdf;
PFRUG Correspondence JPB BOD 2 2 17.pdf
Two more historical points of reference relating to 2%.
In 2010, the High Speed Rail Authority "accidentally" looked at a 2% grade in Palo Alto. Here's the link to the blog where this was noted back in 2010:
http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2010/08/alternatives-analysis-analysis-part-3.html
From the blog:
Freight grades: we were told all along that 1% is the limiting gradient for heavy freight. Not so in
Palo Alto, where there is a 2% grade shown in the track profiles (page 15). Recall that the
steepness of a grade has no impact on passenger comfort, frequent references to roller-coasters
notwithstanding. (This question of dynamics seems to confuse civil engineers, who deal mostly
with statics.) If a freight train can handle a 2% grade in Palo Alto, it can certainly handle a 2%
grade anywhere else; that's the concept of ruling grade. Considering that steeper grades
would greatly reduce the footprint of any elevated section, for example, the massive Mary
Avenue rail overpass in Sunnyvale shown on page 18, why are 2% grades not the rule?
At the time, HSR blamed freight as the reason we could not look at 2% on the corridor. This was refuted
by the Peninsula Freight User Group (PFRUG).
Their correspondence is attached.
Nadia
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 7:18 AM, Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Rail Committee Members, City Council and Planning and Transportation Committee,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/21/2018 12:13 PM
2
As you know, the issue of whether or not the train can be designed at a 2% grade instead of 1% is
one of the driving factors in both cost and flexibility of alternatives for the grade separations on the
corridor. In the latest Trenching and Tunneling white paper that will be discussed at today's rail committee
meeting, the consultants make reference to the fact that 2% grade would be considered a design
variation.
While this is true, it is also true that these guidelines are outdated and that many elected leaders have requested that a future short-line operator that comes to the corridor (per the latest agreements
with Union Pacific) are able to operate at 2%.
In fact, just this summer, the Mayors of San Francisco and San Jose sent a letter (attached) to Union Pacific specifically requesting that flexibility. They write in part "We ask that Union Pacific, as part of
your RFP, indicate to potential bidders that this change is likely and that the short-line operator will
be expected to operate on a system that includes grades up to two percent. " (bolding is mine)
As additional background (especially for those that are new to the Rail committee or this topic generally), I've included a background information email I sent last year that explains why Union
Pacific will now be selecting short -line operator for the corridor and thus why other cities are
targeting Union Pacific's selection process as the appropriate place to make such comments.
I can't recall if Palo Alto ever sent a letter of support to the comments made by San Jose and San Francisco regarding 2% or if we wrote our own letter, but I know this issue has come up repeatedly
at the Local Policy Maker Working Group Meetings. Given the constraints of this project along the
corridor, it is vital that we send a similar letter (if we're not too late!).
Additionally, we would request that a report back from Palo Alto's member on Caltrain's Local Policy Maker Working Group (LPMG) become a STANDING agenda item for all Rail Committee Meetings
going forward to allow the city council member who attended, or the alternate, to update us on what
discussions are being held in that body as they relate to the planning of our corridor.
Sincerely, Nadia Naik
CARRD
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:46 PM
Subject: Caltrain / UPRR agreement Update
To: "DuBois, Tom" <tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org>, Greg Scharff <greg.scharff@cityofpaloalto.org>,
adrian.fine@cityofpaloalto.org, eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: James Keene <James.Keene@cityofpaloalto.org>, Joshuah D Mello <joshuah.mello@cityofpaloalto.org>,
info <info@calhsr.com>, "Stump, Molly" <molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org>, Pat Burt
<patburt11@gmail.com>, liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org, Karen.holman@cityofpaloalto.org,
greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org, lydia.kou@cityofpaloalto.org, cory.wobach@cityofpaloalto.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/21/2018 12:13 PM
3
Dear Rail Committee Members:
As you know, Caltrain is currently laser focused on obtaining their electrification money from the Feds. While we appreciate the importance
of the electrification funding, we are very concerned about the recently announced deal between UPRR and Caltrain and we're trying to
figure out what to do.
BACKGROUND: The 1991 Trackage Rights Agreement (attached) was (until the new UPRR document was signed recently) THE guiding document in terms of the Caltrain/UP relationship. Under the 1991 agreement, it was generally understood that if Caltrain materially upgraded the corridor in any manner that wold be incompatible with freight (like electrification) then Caltrain reserved the right to kick UP off the corridor. This has always been considered the "nuclear" option - since freight is seen as a valuable asset to some communities. One alternative that was always an exciting prospect was to have a "short line" operator take over freight on the corridor (since we know this SF-SJ route is a money loser for UP) and thus still have freight on the corridor, but have more flexibility on how freight operates on the line. A short-line operator allows the opportunity to have electrified freight (thus compatible with electrification) and to have more
aggressive grade steepness of the tracks and lower height clearances (both of which reduce the cost of grade seps for cities along the
corridor).
The NEW DEAL: A deal was announced at the end of the JPB's January board meeting's closed session. The agenda simply said they would be discussing "two potential suits." The announcement of a deal between UP/Caltrain was, therefore, a complete surprise. The contract was leaked to Clem Tillier's blog - and we have NOT seen the concurrently executed agreements related to this agreement since Caltrain has not posted this publicly. We'd like to thank Councilmember DuBois for asking Molly Stump to help us try to obtain them. What we're missing (and the sections in which they're mentioned)
1.2.1 South San Francisco Agreement
1.2.2 Settlement agreement
1.2.3 Transfer agreement
1.3.2 AAR-PTC Interchange Agreement
1.3.1 PTC Agreement 1.3.4 Electrification Agreement Clem's blog paraphrases the UPRR/Caltrain agreement pretty well:
1. The agreement recently entered into by Caltrain and Union Pacific, stipulating that:
o UP will start looking for a new short line freight service provider.
o Caltrain will ensure that short line locomotives with freight PTC can operate throughout
CBOSS territory, a condition described as "unconstrained interoperability," a great
pretext for more CBOSS program blowouts
o Caltrain will ensure that Caltrain rolling stock can operate on UP's freight PTC equipped
Gilroy branch, or cease operating on the Gilroy branch.
o Caltrain agrees to never electrify UP's Main Track 1 from CP Coast (Santa Clara) through
San Jose to CP Lick (south of Tamien), the land under which Caltrain owns.
o UP agrees not to object to the CPUC safety requirements (1.4 MB PDF) formally adopted
on 10 November 2016 for Caltrain's electrification project.
o UP allows Caltrain's SSF station reconfiguration project to proceed, trading some old yard
tracks and a loading dock for $2 million plus a new Caltrain-funded freight yard track at
Newhall in Santa Clara.
o UP settles some old claims by Caltrain for track maintenance.
2. In the coming months,
o UP will select a Short Line and obtain Caltrain's approval.
o Caltrain will sign a new trackage rights agreement with the short line.
o Caltrain will sign a new trackage rights agreement with UP that replaces the current
trackage rights agreement, concerning the "South Terminal Area" around San Jose.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/21/2018 12:13 PM
4
o The Surface Transportation Board will hopefully approve the whole deal, which is the
entry criterion into phase 3.
3. Upon STB approval,
o Caltrain will own the "common carrier" obligations and be on the hook legally and
financially for abandonment of freight service, should that ever be contemplated.
o The Short Line will own the common carrier obligations on the sidings and lead tracks
not owned by Caltrain.
o UP will transfer to Caltrain the rights for intercity passenger service north of CP Coast in
Santa Clara, but not south of there.
o UP will agree not to pursue legal action against the electrification project.
To clarify Clem's points a bit and highlight our concerns:
#1 - CBOSS : This agreement seems to require that Caltrain continue to develop CBOSS and if they fail to do so by a certain date (which
seems highly likely), Caltrain agrees to not go to Gilroy anymore.
Also, note, UPRR agrees not to purse legal action if and only if, Phases 1-3 of this deal are completed. #2 - What's not in the contract The contract says nothing about changing the freight requirements along the Peninsula (specifically the steepness of the grade and the height clearances). Simply put, we may have just lost our chance to negotiate for steeper grades (from 1% to 2% or more) which significantly lowers the cost of
grade seps (in Palo Alto alone, the Hatch Mott study showed the difference between 1% and 2% to change cost from $1billion for grade sep
to $500 million).
One could make the argument that when UP selects a 3rd party operator, we could have influence over the RFP process, but the contract
makes it clear that Caltrain must, within reason, agree to whomever UP chooses. And if we try to change track conditions, they will likely
say we're changing the conditions on the corridor - so we don't see that as a feasible solution. #3 - How did this happen without input? We are concerned that the Caltrain staff involved simply don't have enough technical expertise to understand the ramifications of what they signed and they lack the political expertise to understand why cities on the corridor might have other things to add to this type of agreement. I've attached the "Tolling Agreements" which apparently Caltrain STAFF had executed with Union Pacific back in 2015 and has been
updating until this deal was reached.
In case you don't know, a tolling agreement allows an entity to retain the right to sue (in this case on the electrification EIR) while they try
to negotiate. In these agreements, UPRR retained its right to sue on the Caltrain electrification EIR. These agreements were entered into on a STAFF level and were never (to our knowledge) revealed to the board. They were also never made public. That means that even through the RFP and contracting of electrification, no one knew that UPRR had preserved their right to sue... The public certainly did not know that litigation was potentially eminent since a tolling agreement was in place or we would have provided extensive comments on what kinds of things the community would like to see if we were negotiating with Union Pacific in any real way. My guess is all the cities would have chimed in with the same feedback - namely that we want flexibility on the "freight requirements" of a 1% grade and certain height clearances that directly impact the costs of grade separations.
Importantly, this doesn't seem to have been a Brown Act violation. Depending on Caltrain's internal rules around contracting, the Caltrain
Staff may have had the authority to enter into Tolling Agreements without the approval of the board. They also may have discretion to enter
into an agreement to settle potential litigation relating to those tolling agreements without letting the board know (within certain
parameters). The board was informed of the decision in the closed session. If they had VOTED on the decision in closed session - it was a Brown Act violation. I'm in the process of getting confirmation of what, exactly, happened in that session.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/21/2018 12:13 PM
5
#4 - Process From a policy perspective, we have the following concerns:
Staff does not have the technical and/or political expertise to have entered into this agreement
Withholding this information from the board means staff allowed the board to enter into agreements with third parties without knowing critical information about potential lawsuits (which seems counter to the spirit of a board, but also raises significant fiduciary responsibilities)
The cities interests along the corridor have not been ultimately represented by Caltrain's staff.
Did withholding information about the tolling agreements from the board and the public actually increase UP's negotiating leverage?
Why do the monthly CalMod update reports fail to mention litigation as a significant project risk?
#5 - Now what? How do we get Caltrain board to understand the ramifications of this deal? What recourse does the board have if they agree that staff entered into an unfavorable agreement? How can we resolve this? Even if we get the FTA money for electrification, we are concerned this agreement is so flawed, it puts the entire Caltrain system at a
significant disadvantage going forward. Not to mention it potentially significantly increases the costs of grade seps throughout the corridor.
This deal actually seems worse than the current trackage rights agreement from 1991 which I mentioned in the background above (see
attached highlighted sections on page 29-30) which seems to indicate if Caltrain changes conditions on the corridor (electrification), it has
the right to kick UP off the corridor.
FYI, there is a Caltrain board meeting this Thursday. Action Items/Policy questions a) Rail Committee/LPMWG It is our understanding that Mayor Scharff is on the Caltrain Local Policy Maker Working Group and that Councilmember Tanaka is the alternate.
It is our request that the alternate for the Rail committee be changed to be a standing member of the Palo Alto Rail Committee. The depth of
knowledge and the ability to understand the nuance of those meetings is essential to Palo Alto's ability to be well represented and a council
member that does not follow the detail presented at the Palo Alto Rail Committee will be much less effective as a member of the LPMWG.
b) Palo Alto should deliberate whether the ramifications of this agreement warrant an objection, with the understanding that the situation around federal funding of electrification is a delicate situation given what's currently going on in the Trump administration. We might need input from the City Attorney to understand what options (if any) we have to rectify the situation if we deem it necessary. c) We recommend this issue be agendized for the upcoming Rail Committee Meeting. We're happy to present our concerns at the Rail Committee meeting formally if that would be helpful. Thanks in advance for your attention to this issue. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Nadia
Nadia Naik
CARRD www.calhsr.com
Peninsula Freight Rail Users Group | 19 Seaport Blvd | Redwood City, CA 94063 1
DELIVERED BY E-MAIL November 3, 2010
Roelof van Ark Chief Executive Officer
California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA)
925 L Street, Suite 1425
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Freight rail compatibility with covered trenches and tunnels
Dear Mr. van Ark:
This letter is in response to recent news reports about your meeting with leaders of several Peninsula cities on October 21. According to the reports, the Authority
takes the position that covered trenches and tunnels will be studied on only a
limited basis in the project EIR because freight trains cannot feasibly run
underground for extended distance. We certainly appreciate the agency’s continued commitment to preserve freight rail on the Caltrain corridor. At the same time, the Peninsula Freight Rail Users Group (PFRUG) believes that this
specific stance, at least as described in the media, gives an inaccurate
representation of freight’s impact on policy choices, and of the Authority’s full
rationale for ruling out below-grade alternatives. It is technically feasible to operate freight trains in covered trenches and tunnels. It
is done successfully in this country and elsewhere. The need for ventilation is real,
but the policy issue concerns the cost and impacts of below-grade options
compared with their relative benefits. It is a simplification to say that ventilation for freight trains accounts for the entire cost differential between below-grade and above-grade options, or that freight rail is the reason the Authority cannot consider
the alternatives that most Peninsula cities prefer.
PFRUG strongly encourages you to be clear with the public about all factors that account for the Authority’s decision not to study more below-grade alternatives in the EIR. It is not a credible position to single out freight as the decisive factor in
the agency’s thinking, particularly after a year or more of public process during
which this issue could have been thoroughly discussed. The Supplemental
Alternatives Analysis itself cites multiple reasons – other than ventilation and life
safety – why the agency considers covered trenches and tunnels “impractical” (in the “Options Not Carried Forward” discussion for Subsection 3A).
Peninsula Freight Rail Users Group | 19 Seaport Blvd | Redwood City, CA 94063 2
We believe it is inappropriate to eliminate below-grade alternatives from the
EIR based on an inaccurate assertion that freight rail rules out these options. Indeed, it is precisely through further study that the questions of below-grade costs, impacts, and compatibility with freight can be transparently vetted and
fully understood. With further study, the agency might even consider
electrifying freight service on the Peninsula. PFRUG does not advocate any
particular vertical alignment, although we are sympathetic to community desires on the Peninsula to continue to study alternatives that are technically feasible.
PFRUG also requests that the CHSRA establish a period for public comment on
the project EIR of no less than 90 days, rather than the legally required
minimum of 45 days. If the agency releases the EIR for comment in December, a 45-day review period would fall during the end-of-year holiday season when many offices are closed, and boards and committees often do not meet. An
extended public comment period will increase the likelihood that all interested
parties have an adequate opportunity to inform themselves, and that that the
resulting document is the result of comprehensive and balanced analysis. PFRUG remains a proponent of high speed rail. We appreciate your
consideration of these comments in the interest of promoting a process that
builds public confidence in the project, and that expresses the complementary
benefits of passenger and freight rail. Sincerely,
Greg Greenway Peninsula Freight Rail Users Group
Cc: Robert Doty, Director, Peninsula Rail Program
Michael Scanlon, Executive Director, Caltrain
Peninsula Freight Rail Users Group | 19 Seaport Blvd | Redwood City, CA 94063 1
November 3, 2010
Open Letter to Cities on the Peninsula re: High Speed Rail and Freight Rail
Dear City Leaders,
The Peninsula Freight Rail Users Group (PFRUG) would like to comment briefly on the issue of freight rail compatibility with high speed rail (HSR), to share information
you might find useful as you participate in the public process around this project.
Diesel trains can and do operate successfully on tracks of greater than one percent
grade;
Diesel trains can and do operate successfully in tunnels or covered trenches with
proper ventilation;
It is possible to electrify freight trains and have them share the same overhead
contact system as electrified passenger trains;
The HSR Supplemental Alternatives Analysis does not identify freight trains as the
reason that below-grade options were eliminated for further study along much of the Peninsula. Instead, it asserts multiple reasons, most of which are unrelated to
freight: “The Covered Trench/tunnel option is impracticable due to major
constructability issues, surface disruption to surface land uses, additional right-of-way requirements, much greater construction risk, high cost factors, and lengthy
construction schedules and construction impacts. The Covered Trench/Tunnel
option also has a greater ROW requirement for construction than the Open Trench option and requires significant ventilation and life safety features.” (page 4-16)
Beyond these technical issues, PFRUG offers a vision of freight and passenger rail that maximizes the economic, environmental, and revenue-generating potential of each.
We encourage both Caltrain and Union Pacific to consider a short line operator for
freight service on the Peninsula. We believe freight rail volume on the Peninsula
can expand several times over without compromising passenger service.
We insist that current regulations mandating a height of at least 22.5 feet for
overhead electrical lines be maintained in order to preserve freight capacity. If “off the shelf” train technology from other countries does not meet this standard,
PFRUG believes that we should expect adaptations from foreign vendors or aspire
to domestic production of technology that meets our needs.
We hope you find these comments helpful.
Sincerely,
Greg Greenway
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:20 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Keene, James
Sent:Thursday, February 15, 2018 7:19 AM
To:Moision, Christy; Council, City; ctymgr@cityofpaloalto.org
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Mello, Joshuah; Kamhi, Philip; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty,
Michelle; Keith, Claudia
Subject:Re: Ross Road Bike Boulevard
Ms Moision,
Thanks much for your email. The transition toward a much more bike friendly community and providing true
alternatives to car travel can be a challenge in American cities. The plan your city has carefully developed over
the past decade will, piece by piece, make bike travel better and open up avenues for bike travel to more
people. I am copying our staff who have been working hard on this project and others to make Palo Alto more bike
friendly for families and people of all ages. Your email was a nice Valentine’s Day card to the City.
Jim
James Keene
City Manager
Palo Alto, California
_____________________________
From: Christy Moision <cmoision@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 9:25 AM
Subject: Ross Road Bike Boulevard
To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, <ctymgr@cityofpaloalto.org>
Dear City Council and Mr. Keene,
I am writing in support of the Ross Road bike improvements. I live on Louis, but I use Ross as a biking route quite often. Even with the construction, I find Ross to be an enjoyable route and I’ve noticed that the cars are slowing down because of the new features.
I rarely rode a bike as an adult before my family moved to Palo Alto four years ago. I was immediately struck
by the number of kids riding to school, adults commuting to jobs, and older people riding around town. I’d never seen a bike boulevard before, but I found that even being new to riding I felt comfortable on the calmer streets. I now try to do as many of my local errands as I can by bike. My whole family commutes by bike and
we value safe and pleasant routes.
I appreciate the measures that the City of Palo Alto is taking to improve our bike network. I am looking forward to the completion of Phase I of the project and the other improvements coming to Charleston/Arastradero.
Thank you for continuing to support improved bike routes!
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:20 PM
2
Christy Moision
Louis Road
--
Christy Moision
626-390-0343 (cell)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:20 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Thursday, February 15, 2018 1:01 PM
To:Loran Harding; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack;
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; Mark Kreutzer; Mark Standriff;
midge@thebarretts.com; Mayor; hennessy; Council, City; terry; bballpod; Irv Weissman;
Joel Stiner; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; robert.andersen; Leodies Buchanan;
Chris Field; Raymond Rivas; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Steven Feinstein; steve.hogg;
huidentalsanmateo; jerry ruopoli; kclark; kfsndesk; leager; nick yovino; newsdesk;
popoff; Steve Wayte; thomas.esqueda@fresno.gov; richard.wenzel; Cathy Lewis
Subject:Re: Stanford: Stem cells could serve as a C. vaccine
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
Thurs. 2-15-18
The researcher Wu was interviewed this morning by KCBS SF for a few minutes. Here is the story on the
Stanford website:
http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2018/02/induced-pluripotent-stem-cells-could-serve-as-
cancer-vaccine.html
So a breakthrough. This will go places.
Wu is Director of the Stanford Cancer Institute, KCBS said.
See the Stanford Cancer Institute here. See the 4:45 video there. They are not comedians: Hope you
never need them.
http://med.stanford.edu/cancer.html
And then the rich Republicans who own the San Joaquin Valley say that Stanford are a bunch of morons and liars, at least when they talk about climate change. How could that be? All that counts is adding
250,000 more people inside the City limits of Fresno by 2035 to enrich their developer pals. Climate change is
a hoax and Stanford doesn't know anything, until you get a brain tumor, at least.
LH
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:37 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Saturday, February 17, 2018 10:40 AM
To:Loran Harding; Mayor; Mark Standriff; Mark Kreutzer; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov;
paul.caprioglio; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net;
bballpod; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Joel Stiner; newsdesk; kfsndesk;
rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com; nchase@bayareanewsgroup.com; Council, City; terry;
hennessy; nick yovino; leager; Cathy Lewis
Subject:Re: The National Rifle Association
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: Sat. 2-17-2018
Doug- I just signed this, without donating $.
Per my earlier mail: If we cannot rein in all the guns and their easy availability, I think one approach is this:
1) Harden the schools. People resist this, don't want our kids going to a school that looks like a prison.
Build walls around the school, towers with men with guns and binocs, lots of razor wire and closed circuit TV, metal detectors which every entrant had to pass through, retinal scans for everybody, etc. I know, there goes the verdant, bucolic campus we like to send our kids to, but look at the reality.
2) I still also like this: arm and train the teachers, administrators. Then every 5th day, each is required
to pack a gun. Require that they all wear clothing every day allowing easy concealment. So 1/5 of the adults there would have a gun on any given day and it would not be obvious who has one at any time.
If both of those were implemented, fewer people would be shot in these, at least on school grounds. I
suppose they could shoot students lined up for a bus, or drive a car into them, or a lot of other things. But it
would cut down on the carnage at schools we see now. So the movie theater in Aurora, Colo., the nightclub in Florida, the concert in Las Vegas. Places of
entertainment, for some reason, and schools and churches. Don't forget post offices, although that has
seemed to abate.
Last night on PBS New Hour it was said that the Republicans are just owned by the NRA, the biggest contributor and lobbier. The counter was this: After Sandy Hook, there was legislation to address the
problem in the Dem. controlled Senate, and it got 40 votes. BUT they give so much money, and nobody
knows where it comes from, that they intimidate any member of Congress in either party into inaction.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:37 PM
2
Did you notice the rather cynical intoning by Trump that we send our condolences and our prayers to the
families, etc. It was sort of in your face. "Notice that I am not saying anything about guns, which we will not touch".
There are millions of gun owners who give money to defeat any official who supports any gun legislation.
Limiting our guns is not the answer, they say. Maybe, given 300 million guns in this country, they are right.
Maybe there are other ways.
You have to remember that Europe or Japan does not have 300 million guns. So way, way less gun
violence there. What would you do, call in all the guns? If you did call in all of the guns, then tough
legislation restricting guns would be easier to pass. That is the idea. I suspect that it would be sort of a repeat
of Prohibition. We have tough laws now against MJ, cocaine, etc. and have they cleaned the country of drugs?
I have even suggested this: Get gun owners to volunteer for this: They would be trained and then
required to pack their concealed gun on designated days anywhere off of their property. Then when somebody
goes to shoot up a theater or mall, he'd know that maybe 10% of the people in there were armed and trained to take him out.
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Jody Hill <moveon-help@list.moveon.org> wrote:
Dear fellow MoveOn member,
I am a teacher and practice "lockdown" drills now on what to do in the event of a
school shooting. I should not have to make my students imagine a deranged gunman hunting
them through the hallways of their place of learning and community.
Every time a tragedy such as Parkland occurs, we wring our hands, debate online, then forget
about it, fail to take action, and it happens all over again while too many politicians are lining their
pockets with tainted money from an evil organization that cares more about profits from gun and
ammunition sales than it does about the lives of innocent men, women, and children.
That's why I started a petition demanding that politicians reject funding and
campaign support from the National Rifle Association (NRA). Click here to sign and
share my petition.
Stop taking money from the NRA.
Sign Jody's petition
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:37 PM
3
After the Sandy Hook massacre of first graders and their teachers, more than 400 people have
been shot in more than 200 school shootings.1
This doesn't even count churches, concerts, and other public spaces where people who have had
too easy access to weapons specifically designed to kill people en masse have used them.
Politicians who take NRA money are complicit in gun violence. It's time that all
politicians reject the NRA.
Click here to add your name to this petition, and then pass it along to your friends.
Thanks.
—Jody Hill
Source:
1. "After Sandy Hook, More Than 400 People Have Been Shotin Over 200 School Shooting," The
New York Times, February 15, 2018
https://act.moveon.org/go/33992?t=17&akid=199083%2E25653292%2EgYID-N
You're receiving this petition because we thought it might interest you. It was created on
MoveOn.org, where anyone can start their own online petitions. You can start your own petition
here.
Want to support our work? The MoveOn community will work every moment, day by day and
year by year, to resist Trump's agenda, contain the damage, defeat hate with love, and begin the
process of swinging the nation's pendulum back toward sanity, decency, and the kind of future
that we must never give up on. And to do it we need your ongoing support, now more than
ever. Will you stand with us?
Yes, I'll chip in $5 a month.
No, I'm sorry, I can't make a monthly donation.
Contributions to MoveOn.org Civic Action are not tax deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. This email was sent to Loran Harding on February 17th, 2018. To change your email address or update your contact info, click here. To remove yourself from this list, click here.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/21/2018 12:12 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Beth Marer-Garcia <bethmarergarcia@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 20, 2018 5:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:REDO OF EMAIL
Apologies,
My previous email “sent” before I had spellchecked or edited.
Below is the corrected email;
I am unable to take off time from my job to attend this Thursday’s Council meeting where Royal Manor / EICHLER
HOME building/renovation proposed“guidelines” will be discussed.
For the record, please note that I am vehemently opposed to ANY “MANDATORY” GUIDELINES.
I respect PROPERTY OWNERS RIGHTS above all other considerations, and whether or not I “like” or “desire” a 2‐story
home nextdoor to me is irrelevant.
Larger 🏠 homes erc are in many aspects a result of our CAPITALISTIC ECONOMY FOR BETTER IR FOR WORSE and to
some I get that they feel that the chickens have come home to roost!
I embrace California Culture; a melting pot from around the world, inclusive, respectful of creative differences and
variety, respect for what is both cross and multi‐cultural , and the wonderful phenomenon that both modern Palo Alto
(and our glorious bay area) are experiencing in this growth boom;
MULTI‐GENERATIONAL LIVING!! The celebration of making a house a home by including aunts, uncles, grandparents,
in‐laws etc which is in my opinion an extraordinary and beautiful style of “modern family”,
and one that brings me great pride in the community —‐and please note ‐ one that often requires a much larger home.
Eichler owners like any home owner bought and own based on NORMAL assessed building requirements that have
been in place for YEARS ‐ and most of us have zero interest in having any of those changed for any reason other than
safety. Even the “safety” changes for homes in designated “flood zones” now requiring additional feet to any new
construction seems fundamentally ridiculous in many circumstances.
I do appreciate and like the idea of “suggested guidelines”, but am opposed to any “mandatory” guidelines.
Thank you,
Beth Marer‐Garcia
3452 Kenneth Drive
Palo Alto, Ca 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:29 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Brian Strope <bpstrope@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 17, 2018 10:12 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:ross road
The changes on Ross Road are terrible. Please remove them.
We've been using that road on bikes, skateboards, and walking almost daily for 20 years, and it's much worse now. It's dangerous and distracting.
Brian Strope
868 Driftwood Dr
Palo Alto 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:29 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Shalini Kamala <shalini.pk@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 17, 2018 8:42 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Road/Meadow Dr intersection
Dear council members,
I live on Evergreen Dr, very close to Ross Rd/Meadow Dr intersection where a roundabout is being constructed right now. I understand that there is nothing wrong about a roundabout, it increases safety for everyone - cars,
bikes and pedestrians. However the size of the roundabout in this intersection is huge! It is very difficult to
maneuver through in this intersection - especially for bikers. If you are driving in a car, and want to take a left at
this intersection, it is very difficult to keep track of bikers/pedestrians while you are trying to drive through
without hitting the roundabout and other cars.
There is a lot of bike traffic in this part - kids biking to JLS. There is quite a lot of pedestrian traffic too. There
is a preschool right at this intersection. The changes introduced do not seem safe to anyone.
I request you to kindly look into this matter urgently. Obviously the whole thing was done with good intentions - to increase our safety, however the execution went wrong.
--Shalini
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:28 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kim <ksuz1981@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, February 16, 2018 7:15 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:SB 827
I sent this letter to my state senator and Senator Weiner and I sent a copy to Joe Simitian. I would like you to
know my views as well:
I ask you to wait on putting SB 827 to a vote.
Our city works diligently on addressing housing
issues, especially relating to transit-rich zones.
Taking control out of the hands of citizens/city
governments is not the way to address housing
in California. The impacts on a small city like
Palo Alto would be tremendous. The loosening
of restrictions on parking alone will negatively
affect the quality of life in my city in a major
way. We are already gridlocked during many
hours of the day and evening because we are a
small area on the way to and from everywhere
on the peninsula. Allowing developers to ignore
the city’s needs is allowing them to make my
city unlivable because this law encourages
development without regard to its impact.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:28 PM
2
There is no way to police homeowners and
renters who own cars despite their proximity to
transit. Increasing maximum building heights to
double current zoning allows for a major
change to the character of a city without regard
to residents wishes and concerns. Please go
back to the planning process and come up with
something that allows us control of our lives.
Kim Lemmer
2282 Amherst St
Palo Alto CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:52 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Sunday, February 18, 2018 7:11 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Smart growth not smart in Portland
Council Members:
There’s a lot of talk about “smart” growth, but I hope we can learn from places who have tried it and discovered it’s not
all it’s made out to be.
Pat Marriott
Smart Growth Not Smart in Portland
Portland has been on the forefront of Smart Growth movement. It has invested greatly in bicycle infrastructures and
light rail lines. It has concentrated density in Transit‐Oriented Development (TOD). The following two articles from
Cascade Policy Institute did a reality check on whether Smart Growth succeeded or not.
Portlands' Regional Transit Strategy is Not Working, December 6, 2016, By John A. Charles, Jr.
What Can Be Learned from Portland Smart Growth Experience?, February 10, 2016, By John A. Charles, Jr.
Surprisingly, the two articles by John A. Charles, Jr. point out that after 20 years of Smart Growth, Smart Growth is not so
smart in Portland:
"The share of all commute trips taken by public transit fell 17% during the past year. The transit share of all
Portland commute trips peaked in 2008 at 15%. Since then it has hovered near 12%, and now rests at 10%."
(This is after adding four new light rail lines, commuter rail and streetcar and an investment of $6.3 billion
dollars)
There is only about 10% drop in SOV (single‐occupancy vehicle) and about 5% and 4% increase in those who bike
or walk respectively.
"On the land‐use front, planners have succeeded in their goal of densifying the region; but there was collateral
damage. Due to density regulations, buildable land is now scarce, driving up the cost of housing. This is
incentivizing many property owners to tear down nice homes and replace them with out‐of‐scale apartment
buildings – many with no off‐street parking. Some Portland Progressives who supported this planning agenda
now wonder why their formerly pleasant neighborhoods are flooded with automobiles."
"In the suburbs, most new projects simply have no backyards." There is no room for kids. "Most dwellings will be
attached units on tiny lots. The larger parcels – averaging only 7,000 square feet – are being marketed as lots for
“executive housing.”"Nice backyards that were once common are now only available to the rich, due to the
artificial scarcity of land that Smart Growth calls for.
Another article "The Evolving Urban Form: Portland", August 3, 2013, By Wendell Cox pointed out the following:
"Portland has developed an extensive rail system, intended to attract drivers from their cars. Yet the share of
commuters using transit has fallen by a quarter since 1980, the last data available before the first light rail line
opened. In short, rail has not changed the calculus of travel in Portland."
Clinging to the fantasy transit can materially reduce automobile travel, Oregon officials have blocked substantial
roadway expansions. Residents have been rewarded with much intensified traffic congestion.
The Texas A&M Texas Transportation Institute Annual Mobility Report (Note 4) reveals Portland to have the 6th
worst traffic congestion in the nation among major metropolitan areas. This compares to a before‐rail ranking
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:52 PM
2
of 39th in 1982. (Portland is less dense than all major urban areas in the 13 western states, with the exception of
Seattle.)
More negative consequences from Portland's not‐so‐smart Smart Growth policies in "Why Denver should avoid
Portland’s not‐so‐smart growth policies", December 28, 2013, by Baruch Feigenbaum:
"The city has engaged in too much traffic calming by deliberately slowing almost every route. This has made it
challenging to travel anywhere during rush hour. ... A two‐minute delay for an ambulance can be a matter of life
and death."
"For another city to adopt a successful urban growth boundary, it needs to have characteristics similar to
Portland for the growth boundary model to work. These include a small close‐knit leadership group, a
homogenous population and little interest in growth. But even if a region were to have these features, would a
region want a model that spends billions of dollars on transit, yet fails to noticeably increase transit ridership?
Would a region want a model that makes its affordability worse than San Francisco or New York City?"
"Portland’s urban growth boundary has not led to increased transit usage. Driving, either alone or as part of a
carpool, is by far the dominant mode. Despite the urban growth boundaries and all the money poured into
construction of light‐rail and streetcars, public transport still accounts for less than 7.0% of all travel in the
urbanized area."
"Despite the hype, Portland’s share of bicycling and walking are not that impressive. Even with all the bike paths
and the extra wide roads in the region, biking only accounts for 2.5% of all travel in the urbanized area."
"growth boundaries have major negatives. They may protect land but they also increase housing prices for the
poorest residents.In fact, considering all factors such as income, college education, demand, etc. Portland was
37th of 37, or worst in housing affordability in the country. Growth boundaries have increased gentrification in
some areas of downtown Portland, where wealthy individuals are displacing poor families."
Have the planners learned from the failures and adjust their plans? Mr. John Charles Jr. states
"Perhaps the most disappointing fact about regional planning in Portland is that very little effort is being made
to learn from the experience. Since 2008, at least four audit reports by the Metro Auditor have criticized agency
planners for this failure."
Has the planners in Santa Clara County learned anything from the failure of Smart Growth in Portland? With very little
investment in transit infrastructure in Santa Clara County, could building high‐density mixed‐use "urban centers" in
every scattered commercial site ever bring us anywhere closer to the utopia of Smart Growth?
Here in San Jose, the ridership of VTA drops even more than Portland:
Despite a Santa Clara Valley population and jobs boom, ridership on buses and light‐rail trains has dropped a
staggering 23 percent since 2001, forcing the Valley Transportation Authority to consider its biggest shake‐up
ever in transit service. (http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/04/17/staggering‐drop‐in‐vta‐bus‐ridership‐may‐
signal‐dramatic‐changes/)
<><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Portlands' Regional Transit Strategy is Not Working, December 6, 2016, By John A. Charles, Jr.
http://cascadepolicy.org/blog/2016/12/06/portlands‐regional‐transit‐strategy‐is‐not‐working/
The Portland Auditor released the 2016 Annual Community Survey on November 30. The responses show that the share
of all commute trips taken by public transit fell 17% during the past year.
This was part of a longer‐term decline in transit use. The transit share of all Portland commute trips peaked in 2008 at
15%. Since then it has hovered near 12%, and now rests at 10%.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:52 PM
3
Taxpayers should be especially concerned about the negative correlation between passenger rail construction and
market share. In 1997, when the region had only one light rail line—the Blue line to Gresham—transit market share was
12%.
After extending the Blue line to Hillsboro and adding four new lines plus the WES commuter rail and the Portland
Streetcar, transit market share is only 10%.
Travel Mode Share for Weekday Commuting
Portland citywide, 1997‐2016
Mode 1997 2000 2004 2008 2010 2012 2014 2015 2016
SOV 71% 69% 72% 65% 62% 61% 63% 60% 61%
Carpool 9% 9% 8% 8% 7% 6% 6% 5% 6%
Transit 12% 14% 13% 15% 12% 12% 11% 12% 10%
Bike 3% 3% 4% 8% 7% 7% 8% 7% 8%
Walk 5% 5% 3% 4% 6% 7% 8% 9% 9%
Other n/a n/a n/a n/a 7% 6% 6% 7% 7%
Source: Portland Auditor, Annual Community Survey
The numbers cited above are for citywide travel patterns. When broken out by sector, the Auditor found that just 5% of
all commuters in Southwest Portland took transit to work in 2016. Despite this lack of interest by commuters, TriMet
and Metro are working to gain approval for another light rail line extension from Portland State University through SW
Portland to Bridgeport Village. The likely construction cost will be around $2.4 billion.
Unfortunately, there is no empirical basis for thinking that cannibalizing current bus service with costly new trains would
have any measurable effect on transit use.
Transit advocates like to claim that we simply need to spend more money to boost ridership, but we’ve already tried
that. TriMet’s annual operating budget went up from $212.2 million in 1998 to $542.2 million in 2016. After adjusting for
inflation, that’s an increase of 72%. Those increases were on top of construction costs for rail, which cumulatively
exceeded $3.6 billion during that era.
It’s time to stop the myth‐making and start holding public officials accountable for a plan that isn’t working.
John A. Charles, Jr. is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research
organization.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:52 PM
4
What Can Be Learned from Portland Smart Growth Experience?, February 10, 2016, By John A. Charles, Jr.
http://cascadepolicy.org/blog/2016/02/10/what‐can‐be‐learned‐from‐portlands‐smart‐growth‐experience/
The annual “New Partners for Smart Growth” conference opens in Portland on Thursday, February 11. “Smart Growth”
refers to an amorphous planning theory favoring (or requiring) high urban densities, mixed‐use development, and non‐
auto travel.
Given Portland’s status as the Mecca for this philosophy, it’s likely that the conference will be a love fest of planners,
activists, and consultants celebrating the “Portland story.” Unfortunately, the reality of Smart Growth is a lot less
glamorous than the PowerPoint slides.
For example, Portland has been a leader in light rail construction for over 30 years, but it hasn’t changed how people
travel. According to the Portland City Auditor, in 1997 – when Portland had only one light rail line terminating in
Gresham – 12% of Portland commuters took transit.
In 2015, transit use was still only 12% of commuter travel, despite (or because of) a multi‐billion rail construction
campaign that added a streetcar loop, a new commuter rail line, and five new light rail lines. During that era bus service
was reduced by 14%, and buses still account for two‐thirds of daily riders.
On the land‐use front, planners have succeeded in their goal of densifying the region; but there was collateral damage.
Due to density regulations, buildable land is now scarce, driving up the cost of housing. This is incentivizing many
property owners to tear down nice homes and replace them with out‐of‐scale apartment buildings – many with no off‐
street parking. Some Portland Progressives who supported this planning agenda now wonder why their formerly
pleasant neighborhoods are flooded with automobiles.
In the suburbs, most new projects simply have no backyards. It’s hard to remember now, but in 1995, the average lot
size for a new home in Washington County was 15,000 square feet. This provided plenty of room for kids.
Those days are over. In the new “South Hillsboro” development, which will be built out over the next decade, most
dwellings will be attached units on tiny lots. The larger parcels – averaging only 7,000 square feet – are being marketed
as lots for “executive housing.”
Nice backyards that were once common are now only available to the rich, due to the artificial scarcity of land that
Smart Growth calls for.
The Portland conference will feature trips to “transit‐oriented developments” (TODs) like Orenco Station in Hillsboro.
Orenco features a housing project with passive solar design along with urban‐scale density near light rail, but both
elements required large public subsidies. It would be difficult to replicate those projects elsewhere.
Perhaps the most disappointing fact about regional planning in Portland is that very little effort is being made to learn
from the experience. Since 2008, at least four audit reports by the Metro Auditor have criticized agency planners for this
failure.
In the 2010 report, the Auditor found that “Metro’s processes to plan transportation projects in the region were linear
when they should have been circular. After a plan was adopted, the update process began anew with little or no
reflection about the effectiveness of the previous plan or the results of the performance measures they contained.”
It’s clear that this was not an accident; it was by design. As the Auditor noted, “systems to collect data and measure
progress towards these outcomes were not in place.”
No measurement means no accountability. That’s not a smart way to plan a region.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:52 PM
5
John A. Charles, Jr. is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research
organization.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:22 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rrrr Yyyyyy <e1616@outlook.fr>
Sent:Thursday, February 15, 2018 2:43 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:souvenirs
Hello
Please send samples souvenirs like ( Fridge Magnets ‐pines ‐ pen ‐ usb ‐ Keychain ‐ T‐shirt ‐ Flag ) , and I would
be very grateful to you
Thank's
My Address is :
‐Name : ABDELHAKIM BOUDJEMAA
‐Street : 09 RUE ABDELHAK KOUIDER EL MADANIA
‐City : ALGIERS
‐Codezipe : 16015
‐Country : ALGERIA
THANK YOU
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:27 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:brucecrocker <Bruce.c@pitango-us.com>
Sent:Friday, February 16, 2018 3:56 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:crocker1@pacbell.net
Subject:Statement opposing higher density
To the Palo Alto City Council and Mayor Kniss:
We applaud the city’s objection to Scott Weiner’s disastrous housing bill. Further
and specifically for Palo Alto, the idea that our council would remove the
restriction on Developers to provide adequate parking for residents and visitors of
new housing developments flies in the face of experience and logic. People will
continue to have cars for the foreseeable future—even if they can use our very
limited public transit to commute to work. If parking is not provided (or is costly),
residents will park their cars on our neighborhood streets. This creates a
dangerous hazard for bicyclists as well as drivers. And Developers will only include
parking if it is mandated—also based on experience and logic.
Planning assumptions for office space in downtown or the California Street area
have been woefully inadequate in estimating parking requirements. Please do not
allow a planning department wedded to magical thinking mislead you again on
housing.
We understand the need for housing in the area. We would support subsidized
housing (with parking) for police, firefighters, and teachers who are essential to
our community. However, we as a community and taxpayers are not obligated to
meet the housing needs of workers who come to Palo Alto daily.
Please listen to the people who live here and vote for the city council!!
Thank you, Bruce and Suzanne Crocker
1250 Hamilton Avenue
Bruce E Crocker
Bruce E Crocker
O/H‐‐650‐321‐7514
C‐‐650‐862‐4032
Bruce.c@pitango‐us.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:13 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Wednesday, February 14, 2018 1:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:THANK YOU!
Council Members:
Big thank you for your letter to Scott Weiner, opposing SB 827 and 828!
Pat Marriott
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/21/2018 12:12 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Joanna Tang <jjtmoses@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Tuesday, February 20, 2018 8:44 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thanks for supporting the animal shelter!
Dear City Council,
As a lifetime Palo Alto resident, I’m writing to express my gratitude to the City Council for your continuing effort to improve Palo Alto Animal Services.
As a born-and-bred animal lover, Animal Services holds a special place in my heart. When I was four years old,
my family began to participate in one of the most adorable forms of community service: fostering kittens. That
was in 2000, and I have since fostered over 200 cats, all of which have gone through the low-cost spay/neuter clinic at Animal Services. Although I have visited the shelter countless times, it is still exciting to walk through
its doors every time because it is a routine – I know I have always been able to take my foster kittens there to
receive efficient and expert care, and always get to say hello to the current grateful temporary residents who
will find themselves in loving forever homes by the next time I visit. Even just this past summer, during my
City of Palo Alto internship at the Municipal Services Center, I spent my lunch breaks socializing and playing with the kittens at the shelter.
As a Millennial, I have grown up in an exciting time for animal welfare. Death-sentence pounds have given way
to roomy, colorful animal sanctuaries; therapy dogs of all shapes and sizes are breaking down breed prejudices;
well-managed cat colonies have assuaged the stigma of diseased and pesky alley cats. Just this year, California became the first state to ban puppy mill sales. Watching the list of shelters that are achieving over 90% adoption
rates grow is simply exhilarating to me, and makes me proud to be a part of a generation of informed and
mobilized animal lovers.
Thus, the opportunity to partner with the pioneering non-profit, Pets In Need (who opened the first no-kill animal shelter in Northern California), in order to renovate our city's shelter is particularly exciting to me. I
appreciate all the work the City Council has done to keep the shelter open and operating throughout the years,
as well as your efforts in seeking out and pursuing this partnership with Pets in Need. During my lifetime, I’ve
seen the renovation of our libraries, community centers, and parking structures, so I am overjoyed that the
animal shelter is next on the list.
For, although Animal Services is a special place for me, it is a building stuck in the past in the midst of a city
otherwise skyrocketing into the future. For a place that provides so much TLC, I’m glad that it is finally time
for Animal Services itself to benefit from some TLC.
With all this in mind, I as a longtime Palo Alto resident and avid patron of Animal Services, would like to
express my support of any action City Council takes to endorse management and renovation of Animal Services
by Pets In Need. Specifically, I support action to fund Pets In Need’s initial renovation projects with the
$800,000 needed for Phase 1 of the renovation, as well as the additional $1.2 million needed for Phase 2. I very
much look forward to seeing Animal Services updated with the proposed renovated medical area, staff area, and kennels, and I am thrilled at the prospect of a bright future ahead for Animal Services. Pets In Need is exactly
what Animal Services needs to become one of the many other progressive and innovative highlights of our
beautiful city, and would put Palo Alto at the forefront of the humane animal welfare movement.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/21/2018 12:12 PM
2
Thank you,
Joanna Tang
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/21/2018 12:13 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sea <paloaltolife@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 21, 2018 4:34 AM
To:letters@nytimes.com; wsj.ltrs@wsj.com; evansa@vmware.com; letters@paweekly.com;
gsheyner@paweekly.com; vinnyraylarkin@yahoo.com; amy@karamconsulting.com;
Council, City
Subject:Tweet by Sea-Seelam Reddy on Twitter
Sea-Seelam Reddy (@SealamReddy)
2/21/18, 04:31
Brilliant students are Kyle Kashuv &alll. Florida Students ROCK. Yet, they need Systems Engineering
approach to design improvement. Gun control is one aspect. School security, mental health are the other. These children are very healthy & activists like UCBerkeley students pic.twitter.com/8bJFTDcAOX
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:25 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:tmerchant@mcmcns.com
Sent:Thursday, February 15, 2018 11:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon Cell Towers in Old Palo Alto
Attachments:VERIZON- STOP TOWERS.docx
Dear City Council members,
Please see the attached letter regarding the Verizon Cell Towers.
And please do consider other alternatives and take every step to defend our neighborhoods'
aesthetics, home values, and peace and quiet and to protect citizens in Old Palo Alto and other
neighborhoods from these ugly, noisy, and radiation-emitting antennas.
Thank you very much!
Sincerely,
Michael and Teresa Merchant
Dear City of Palo Alto Council Members, February 15, 2018
We are home owners at 2360 Cowper Street in Old Palo Alto just north of Oregon Expressway. There has been
a sign on the telephone pole directly in front of our home for some time now, proposing to place a Verizon Tower
atop that telephone pole. We are concerned about:
1) our home’s property value being significantly reduced as a result of the proposed large,
ugly Verizon antenna that the sign suggests is to be added to the pole. We think that our
home’s property value would be heavily eroded by the addition of the unsightly Verizon
antenna, based both on visual and aural aesthetic grounds, as it appears to be not only large
and ugly in appearance, but we also understand that the antenna would emit a continual
buzz. (One of us is a retired music teacher who is home most days, and for whom a continual
buzz emanating from the pole in front of the house would be quite unbearable!)
2) health issues that may result from a radiation emitting Verizon antenna (especially
considering the increase of radiation, in addition to the technology that we already use in and
about our home). We understand that the Federal guidelines that these Verizon antennas
are supposed to meet are over 20 years old and do not take into account the increase in
radiation emitting devices that have entered into our lives (such as smart phones and
routers). Apparently the long-term health impact of daily close proximity to antennas such as
the ones Verizon is proposing is not known. Must we be unwilling human guinea pigs for
health issues that this equipment may cause in the future? And we understand that the
radiation emitted by each of these antennas would only be measured one time- and that that
would occur a year after the device has been installed. Is it possible that the radiation coming
from each antenna might fluctuate or change over time? Is doing this responsible?
3) Palo Alto has moved utilities underground in Crescent Park and North Palo Alto, but is
targeting Old Palo Alto, South Palo Alto, and other neighborhoods because they plan to use
existing utility poles for the proposed Verizon cell towers. Is this fair? And we understand
more cell towers may follow; that AT & T has told the City that they plan to install cellular
equipment here, as well. Is that right?
4) The fact that we met a couple looking at a California home that was for sell who brought a
signal strength meter to check radio signal emissions from cell phones, etc. around that
home. (They had walked away from other purchase opportunities because the other houses
had measurable signal emissions.) Some potential home buyers are definitely sensitive to
signal emissions and radiation.
Are there other alternatives for keeping good cell phone service in Palo Alto without lowering our home’s value,
disturbing our peace with a constant buzz, and endangering our health by exposing us to additional radiation? I.e.
Perhaps using existing telephone poles along Oregon Expressway (some 20-30 yards away) would be an
alternative; so antennas wouldn’t radiate directly into residents (and our) yards and homes. We urge you to
defend our Palo Alto neighborhood’s aesthetics, our home values, and our peace and quiet. Please protect our
neighborhood from ugly, noisy, radiation-emitting antennas. Thank you!!!
Sincerely,
Michael and Teresa Merchant
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/20/2018 3:15 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@right-thing.net> on behalf of
PaloAlto.United.Neighbors@gmail.com
Sent:Wednesday, February 14, 2018 4:18 PM
To:Gerhardt, Jodie
Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City; ksabes@aol.com
Subject:What company did the City hire to measure radiation at 635 Bryant?
Dear Jodie Gerhardt,
In April of last year an owner of the building at 635 Bryant Street in Palo Alto contacted the City because he was concerned about the level of
radiation being emitted by a nearby Verizon/Crown Castle cell tower. In particular, he wrote to you to request that the City obtain an
independent evaluation of radiation levels at the site. You agreed to do so and an evaluation was carried out.
I am writing to ask you to please tell me the name of the company the City hired to assess the radiation levels at the Verizon/Crown Castle
cell tower next to 635 Bryant Street. Please also provide me with a copy of the report on the results of the measurements taken at the
site.
Thank you for your help, and, of course, please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kay Sabin 1990 Webster St.
Palo Alto, 650 326-2364
What happens when a business illegally operates
in a residential neighborhood?
This car crash occurred on February 7, when one parent of an
iSing participant recklessly drove into the car of the parent of
another iSing participant. The collision was violent enough to
cause the air bag to deploy, and required response by the City of
Palo Alto fire department and police officers. The crash happened
when one car was exiting the narrow driveway (visible in photo) of
the First Baptist Church at 305 North California, and the second
car was traveling along the Bryant Street bike lane.
The City of Palo Alto has failed to enforce the R-1 residential
zoning code that is supposed to protect homeowners,
residents, pedestrians and cyclists. The First Baptist Church
is illegally leasing space to iSing, which holds seventeen group
music classes every week, meaning several hundred car trips
per week.
There are only eight parking spaces available for use by the
First Baptist Church and all of their illegal lessees in their lot.
When the bike lane was expanded last fall, the City of Palo
Alto eliminated half of the parking spaces that used to be
available on North California. This spring, the City of Palo
Alto will be removing more parking spaces at the same corner
of North California and Bryant Street when the roundabout is
installed.
The City of Palo Alto has been repeatedly notified over the
past few years of the illegal activities at 305 North California
and the dangerous conditions at the corner of North
California and Bryant. The City of Palo Alto's negligence in
failing to enforce the municipal code will result in the sharing
of liability for future harm and injury caused by the First
Baptist Church's illegal leasing at 305 North California.
g l :Ol WV 9 l S3~ 81
331.-uo s.~~313 A113
V3 'OllV 01\fd :!O All~
June 19, 2017
Francisco Castillo
Director of Public Affairs
Union Pacific Railroad
(916) 789-5957
fcastillo@up.com
Mf!,WNG ~=:--~Z..;..l /:-LO II/#[
[ J)>lace.d Before Meeting [vf Received at Meeting
Fr o.,.., /Va )r 9 ///q ,' /{
Re: Cities' Letter to Union Pacific to inform Short-Haul Freight Operator Request for Proposals (RFP)
regarding Peninsula Grade Separations
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on your RFP process. We look forward to the opportunity to
develop a close relationship with a smaller, specialized short-line freight operator. We believe that this
change will facilitate a collaborative passenger-freight relationship and also allow Union Pacific Railroad
to focus its resources on the operation of its extensive mainline network.
The Peninsula cities consider the Caltrain corridor to be a vital resource for a vastly improved passenger
operation, as well as a coordinated and complementary rail freight service. We note three concurrent
actions along the right-of-way that create significant opportunity:
• Electrification of Caltrain -which will allow higher levels of train service at lower cost;
• Assignment of freight rights to a short-line operator -allowing a coordinated and locally-based
collaboration between passenger and freight service; and
• Eventual grade separation of the Caltrain right-of-way from San Francisco to San Jose, as
appropriate.
We believe that these projects and changes are complementary, and to achieve the most benefit for all
parties, all the parties should work together to develop new "ground rules" that strengthen the
economy and enhance the quality of life of our dynamic region.
The electrification of Caltrain will allow for higher grades, as electric service can easily deal with up to a
two percent grade. At the same time, the short-line operator will be starting service with a "clean
slate." Past design criteria have considered long, heavy freight trains that need limited grades. Short-
line operators generally operate short trains during limited windows of operation, and the grade
restrictions are less severe.
Grade separations, which are in everyone's interest, are more easily and thoughtfully delivered ifthe
engineering criteria allow for grades in excess of those provided for today (one percent). The existing,
restrictive criteria create large projects that consume huge sums and create significant neighborhood
impacts.
In anticipation of Caltrain electrification, the Peninsula cities expect to work with Caltrain to amend the
design criteria to provide for a two percent grade design standard. Grades exceeding two percent are
likely to require design exceptions.
We ask that Union Pacific, as part of your RFP, indicate to potential bidders that this change is likely and
that the short-line operator will be expected to operate on a system that includes grades up to two
percent. Projects exceeding this standard will still require a design exception, for which the short-line
operator will have significant consultation rights.
The undersigned want to see the at-grade crossings eliminated along the entire corridor, to promote the
safety and _health of the railroads, enhance the safety and quality of life of residents and businesses
along the corridor, and create opportunities for smart growth in the historic centers of Peninsula
communities.
Separating train traffic from other modes at intersections will take many year and even more capital
investment than electrification itself, and it will be led by the cities where those crossings remain. To
complete corridor-long grade separation, we wish to partner with Union Pacific, its designated short-line
operator, Caltrain, and regional agencies.
We see the selection of a short-line operator as an opportunity to modernize and improve freight rail,
possibly including an electrified fleet, as well as to make improvements that will benefit everyone along
the corridor.
Working together, we can support the short-line operator, as well as the new Trackage Rights
Agreement, when the matter comes to the Caltrain Joint Powers Board as well as the federal Surface
Transportation Board.
In partnership.
Edwin M. Lee Sam T. Liccardo
Mayor, City and County of San Francisco Mayor, City of San Jose
County of Santa Clara
Department of Planning and Development
County Government Center, East Wing, Tl' Floor
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, California 95110
Palo Alto Mayor
250 Hamilton Ave, 7th Floor
Palo Alto CA 94301
ii.I!!
, . Visit our website for .more lnfonnation:
l!I . http:/t.vww.scx:planning,org
. E.
" ~
2 ..... -<
':t ~of~
~r: C'Jrr"• ~-:;Ii'< .rr. (,/')Cl
ai ..,,,
~ 0 f1"I
049J82050516
$00.47Q
02/15/2018
Mailed From 95110
US POSTAGE
~ c:::2
QQ ...,,
l'T1 co ....-·-,•' • c-1~ ....
N ~,)_..--:..:::,,;. \1(~-\~: -7, Jf:. .~. ':)!f
:z> '\;(.......__ . ..., .... / :x .. .::....::: ... >'
9
B.I
943i:i i $2E"l33 i:;:;::i3 j I 11J11!1 lj I l1i11\11111111J1 J111 l1jl11111I11I11 JI ii II l j 1l 1jj1 j J JI
~ ~
County of Santa Clara
Department of Planning and Development
County Government Center, East Wing, 7fh Floor
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, California 95110
Palo Alto Mayor
250 Hamilton Ave, 7th Floor
Palo Alto CA 94301
Visit our website far more lttlt>oTIUltion:
hltps://www,scx:gay,org/sites/dpd/Oeveloprnent/CUITilllt/Pages/Current.aspx
~
9? _,
-<
:t l~~~f'} ~,~~·. 2-,rr: ,...., ::;:::
Al r"' (.l')ci
0 ...,
"n'1
(,)
t:'"1
049J82050516
$00.47Q
02/15/2018
Mailed From 9 5110
US POSTAGE
~
QC> ...,,
f"'11 OJ
N
;po :x
9 -B.J
~~-,,,.,-; ~; /•;:i...~ ?;~~:~~· \~ 'PT :o; \~.,. ~"'1'l '"" •· <-• .... ,_,...
S43i:: i $2~:~i3 :::::ii:i3 • • p 111iiil\•n11I•l1 11j1 .1111,.11,.ii 11 i111 iij. lj11IJ1 llll11l ih
Zoning Administration
Project: Remove existing Lagunita Diversion Dam on San Francisquito Creek and associated restoration
Property Location: 96 Alta Road, Stanford
Owner/Applicant: Stanford University
File#: 11183-17A-17G
Description:
Consider recommendations for Architecture and Site Approval and Grading Approval for the removal of
existing Lagunita Diversion Dam on San Francisquito Creek and associated creek restoration. Estimated
grading quantities are 2,877 c.y. of cut, and 4,040 c.y. of fill. APN: 142-12-009; Zoning: SCA and OSF; GP:
Land Use Designation: Major Educational and Institutional; Community Plan Designation: Foothills; Project
Area: 3.57 acres; Present Land Use Classification:University Campus/Riparian Corridor; Supervisorial
Districts.
Environmental Determination: Dept of Fish and Wildlife CEQA Exemption,(Class 33, Section 15333)
Project Planner: Kavitha Kumar (408) 299-5783 kavitha.kumar@pln.sccgov.org
Thursday, March 1, 2018, 9:30 AM
County Government Center -Room 157
70 West Hedding Street. San Jose, CA
All Interested persons may appear and be heard. Written communication should be flied with the Planning Office prior to the date of the
hearing. In compliance with the Americana with Dlsabllltles Act, those requiring accommodations for this meeting should notify the Clerk of
the Board 24 hours prior to the meeting at 408-299-6001 or TDD 108-993-8272. For more Information, visit our website at
www.accplanning.org. Para obtener lnformacl6n en Eapaftol, llama a Erica Prado at (408) 299-5707.