HomeMy Public PortalAbout20170403plCC2701-32
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: 4/3/2017
Document dates: 3/15/2017 – 3/22/2017
Set 2/2
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 | 3/20/2017 4:24 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Amie Ashton <bziaddnupxmsxrg@ujoin.co>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 4:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: aashton@gmail.com <Amie Ashton>
Message:
Save our retail core! We need more residents along University Avenue and California Avenue to save our vibrant shopping districts, those districts are the main reason I live downtown and don't drive anywhere - ever.
With several million square feet of office space being built in East Palo Alto and Mountain View, our freeways
will be clogged and destination shopping will not be a future reality. We need RESIDENTS (high-density near
transit), and lots of them to keep our city vibrant and economically healthy!
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units (between now and 2030) presented in
Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Amie Ashton
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 4:24 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Kirsten Flynn <kir@declan.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 3:59 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support housing growth!
Dear honorable councilpersons,
I strongly support the 6th scenario, or even more growth.
I am a life long Palo Altan, My 84 year old dad still lives in Barron Park, my in‐laws live on Newell, my sister on El Camino
Way, and my sister‐in‐law just off of Greer. My kids are finishing college, and have no hope of living in Palo Alto with our
family. Affordable housing is only thing that will make Palo Alto a viable option for family living, and for our firefighters,
police persons, and teachers to live in the same neighborhood as the people they serve.
I have seen the orchards, the horse pastures, and the empty lots paved over. I have seen the traffic intensify to the
point of gridlock. You might think that would make me anti growth. However, I am informed enough to know that the
primary issue, what exacerbates the traffic and destroys our quality of life, is not more housing, but the jobs‐housing
imbalance. Smart planning can improve this trajectory.
Please build more housing, please legalized ADU’s, please let my children live close to their mom, their dad, their aunts,
their uncles, their cousins, their great uncle, their grand fathers and grandmother. (Slow job growth, also, BTW).
Yours,
Kirsten Flynn
Ventura Neighborhood
650‐855‐9464
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 4:24 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:sherriexy@gmail.com
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 3:58 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:No Scenario 6 please.
Dear City Council,
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought‐out.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better‐priced housing here, but that still stays within the city’s
ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new growth
rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. This is unreasonable and extreme. There is
no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and there’s no evidence the city’s infrastructure, services and
schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more cars, traffic, parking demand, school
enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Even the slowest growth Scenario 2 still accelerates housing over our long term averages. While there are some people
who would like to see unlimited housing everywhere in town no matter what, most of us care about more things than
just housing. We want you to make a carefully considered and wise judgement, especially for the Comprehensive Plan
which has long term effects. All of you ran for council as Moderate. Please choose something more thoughtful than
Scenario 6, that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sincerely,
Sherrie Zheng
A 7 years midtown resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 4:24 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Christian Pease <cgpease2016@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 3:49 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Christian Pease; Carol Scott
Subject:Please say No to Housing Scenario #6
Dear Members of the Palo Alto Council,
We write to urge you not to vote for Housing Scenario #6 as defined in the emerging new
Comprehensive Plan.
This scenario will increase the long-term population growth of our city by a factor of three. Moreover,
it's impacts will extend far beyond Palo Alto's current and reasonably foreseeable infrastructure, city services, police and fire response capabilities, parks and recreation, and PAUSD school capacities to
support without either severely degrading their quality or demanding vast new sources of public
revenues.
We strongly support new housing that will ensure the long-term economic diversity of our community -
and by that we do not mean "below market" housing - which in Palo Alto is still not affordable for many.
In fact, we believe this scenario, if mostly market-based, will accelerate the economic elitism already
at play in our city by favoring those who are already relatively wealthy and highly paid employees of
elite companies and well funded start-ups. This because the Palo Alto real estate market is now
international and as a result inelastic by any practical measure.
Thus, the notion of simply building our way out of this difficult problem is conjecture at best, if not a
complete illusion.
Further, the more vocal advocates of Scenario #6 continue to rely on unproven and unfounded
predictions, such as that "car light" multi-unit developments can in fact be made to be and actually
stay "car light" - or that most residents of new Palo Alto housing will also work in within the the city's "walkable" limits - or that self-driving cars deployed by for-profit ride sharing services are a near-term
reality that will solve many if not most of our mobility problems.
And then there is the small question of who - should you put Scenario #6 into force on the promise
that these infrastructure, services, and schools challenges can and will be addressed - is going to pay
for the massive capital investment that will be required to actually do so?
Will it be those who profit from building all these new residences? Or will their substantial profits be
subsidized by everyone else? This question is not about "raising the drawbridges" and keeping others
out of Palo Alto - it is about basic economic fairness.
In the meantime, there is no real enforcement mechanism in place for Transportation Demand Management Plans associated with new developments in this city. The TMA remains underfunded. And CalTrain is at capacity, using ageing and unreliable equipment kept in service in anticipation of
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 4:24 PM
7
electrification, funding for which has now been eliminated by the new administration in Washington
DC.
That's the same electrification program that rapid market-based growth advocates have continually pointed to as our salvation, along with self-driving cars, bikes for all, and the notion of a new breed of residents who simply will never own a car, etc., etc.
All this, without a mention what is now transpiring with the VTA with respect to its on-going routes and
services. - so, little of it adds up.
Indeed, facts and arithmetic do still matter...
So new housing is good...
And new house that actually keeps economic diversity alive in Palo Alto is even better...
Nonetheless, Scenario #6 is reckless, based on conjecture, and does nothing to address it's own
ramifications with respect the long-term economic health of the city, let alone protecting the quality of
community life for those who live here.
Please consider and choose a more realistic path to expanding housing opportunities in Palo Alto.
Please reject Housing Scenario #6.
Thank you,
Christian Pease and Carol Scott
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 4:24 PM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Shirley Wang <iasked4@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 3:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Against Scenario 6 and 4!
Dear City Council and Mayors,
Scenario 6 and 4 are ridiculous, unreasonable and extreme!
Developers will just take the money and run. We residents will have to take the consequences
including jammed traffics, packed streets, and crowded classrooms for many many years followed. If
Scenario 6 and 4 are not corruptions, what is?!
An angry Palo Altan
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 4:24 PM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Mitchell Mankin <uegvgrmlgindsgh@ujoin.co>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 3:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: mitchrmankin@gmail.com <Mitchell Mankin>
Message:
As a young person who grew up in the Bay Area, and now can only afford to live here through student housing at Stanford, building housing is a big priority to me. My grandparents made Palo Alto their home over 50 years
ago, and my father grew up here. Now I don't see a way for me or the people I grew up with to live here without
working in tech and making $100,000+. Please make it possible for Palo Alto to welcome members of the
younger generation who aren't in the top 10% of earners, the same way it welcomed my grandparents.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units (between now and 2030) presented in
Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Mankin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 4:24 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jason Uhlenkott <jpu1151@uhlenkott.net>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 4:24 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:In Support of Comprehensive Plan Scenario 6
Dear City Council,
I'm writing in support of Comprehensive Plan Scenario 6 which would allow 6000 new homes.
Palo Alto urgently needs more places to live. We call ourselves a welcoming community, but that claim is meaningless if
our housing policies obstruct people from coming here. Even most children growing up in Palo Alto will be unable to live
here as adults.
These problems are fixable. The Comprehensive Plan is a moral document, and we can use it to say yes to people
instead of trying to keep them out. Housing is infrastructure that makes our community better.
Sincerely,
Jason Uhlenkott
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 5:07 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Joslyn Leve <joslynml@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 5:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Growth in Palo Alto
I wanted to let you know what I think, a homeowner in Midtown with two students in the PAUSD. We were
able to buy our home through sheer luck; my husband makes a tech salary, and we've been saving for years,
but it was still luck.
We need to create more housing for people who work here: customer service and retail, restaurant
employees, teachers, fire and police officers. The whole Peninsula region as a whole needs to accommodate
the work force we already have, and that requires housing. We do not, however, need to create more office
space at this time. Yes, we should leave our options open if there is explosive business growth, but we cannot
accommodate the employees who work for the businesses we already have.
I want increased housing along Alma, El Camino and near transit on California Ave; slow growth of office
space; and a commitment to remediating the impacts both would have on the environment, traffic and school
crowding. This means more funds for public transportation, buying land and building a new school as needed,
and requiring builders to use green standards.
If you cannot plan and pay for the obvious side effects of growth‐oriented policies, then you need to
reexamine those policies.
Thank you,
Joslyn Leve
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 5:07 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Randy Popp <atrmuxurdsbjgfn@ujoin.co>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 4:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: randy@rp-arch.com <Randy Popp>
Message:
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units (between now and 2030) presented in
Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Randy Popp
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/16/2017 2:27 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Svendsen, Janice
Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:23 PM
To:Council Members; Council Agenda Email; ORG - Clerk's Office
Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Gitelman, Hillary; Cervantes, Yolanda
Subject:Council Question: March 20, 2017 agenda Item 16: Comp Plan Update
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff response to an inquiry made by
Council Member Fine in regard to the March 20, 2017 council meeting agenda Item 16: Comp Plan Update.
Council Question: Please provide a summary of the implementation programs in the current Comp
Plan and the Comp Plan Update (number per element).
Response: The summary table below was prepared for the Comp Plan CAC meeting occurring on
March 21st and contains the requested information. Please note that the Council staff report
states there are 400+ programs in the draft Comp Plan Update, however this number has been
reduced to 368 by implementing the Council’s January 30, 2017 direction on the Land Use
Element and by combining programs based on input from a CAC subcommittee. Staff and
consultants would be happy to answer further questions about this at the meeting on Monday.
TABLE 1: PROGRAM COUNT IN 1998 COMP PLAN VS. CAC DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN
Element
1998‐2010
Implementation Plan
Programs
Completed
Programs
(As of 2014)
Current CAC Draft
Implementation Plan
Programs
Community Facilities
& Services 27 4 40
Transportation 58 7 75
Land Use 81 16 56
Natural Environment 58 7 106
Safety* 24 3 77
Business & Economics 18 2 14
TOTAL 266 39 368
* Note: The 1998 Comp Plan does not include a standalone Safety Element, but Goals N‐6 (Hazardous Waste), N‐7 (Solid
Waste) and N‐10 (Natural Hazards) in the existing Natural Environment Element form part of the CAC Draft Safety
Element. This table subtracts the 24 programs under those three goal from the Natural Environment program count and
shows them in the Safety row for a more accurate comparison of existing contents to CAC draft contents.
Thank you,
Janice Svendsen
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Transit
Administration
Mr. James Keene
City Manager
City of PaloAlto
250 Hamilton A venue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mr. Keene:
10\1MAR20 AH ta:' a
Executive DirectorRECEWEO 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
t'JHY M~M~OER'S tEP:tGY/ashington, DC 20590
MAR 1 3 2017
Thank you for your letter regarding the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for the Peninsula
Corridor Electrification Core Capacity Project (Project) submitted under the Federal Transit
Administration's (FTA) Capital Investment Grant Program.
At this time, FT A is deferring a decision on whether to execute the FFGA. This will allow the
Project to be considered in conjunction with the development of the President's Fiscal Year 2018
Budget and the companion FTA Report to Congress on Funding Recommendations for the
Capital Investment Grant Program. The Annual Report will include the Administration's overall
Capital Investment Grant Program budget recommendation.
Please find the enclosed letter to the project sponsor, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
(Caltrain), providing notification of this decision.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
U.S. Department
ofTransportatton
Executive Director
Federal Tiansft
Administration
Mr. Jim Hartnett
Executive Director
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
P.O. Box 3006
1250 San Carlos Avenue
San Carlos, CA 94070
Dear Mr. Hartnett:
FEB 17 2017
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
I am writing to provide a status update regarding the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
(JPB) request for a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) from the Federal Transit
Administration (FIA) to support the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (Project).
The 30-day Congressional review period for the FFGA will conclude today, February 17,
2017. At this time, Ff A is deferring a decision on whether to execute the FFGA. This will
allow the Project to be considered ~conjunction with the development of the Prcsident9s Fiscal
Year (FY) 2018 Budget and the companion FT A Report to Congress on Annual Funding
Recommendations for the Capital Investment Grant Program.
As you know, the proposed FFGA would commit FTA to requesting a total of$647,000,000 in
Capital Investment Grant Program Core Capacity funds (49 U.S.C. §5309), provided in annual
installments in the President's budget submissions to Congress through FY 2022 as outlined in
the Project·payout schedule, and subject to annila I appropriations by Congress.
FT A is aware that Cal train is requesting to receive an FFGA during February so that a
notice-to-proceed may be issued to the design-build contractor by March 1, 2017. However, the
considerations described above require additional time to complete review of this significant
commitment of Federal resources.
I appreciate your substantial interest in FT A's consideration of the Project. If you have any
questions on this matter please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 7:29 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 21, 2017 8:33 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:March 22, 2017, Rail Committee Meeting, Item #3: Context Sensitive Solutions Anaylsis
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
March 21, 2017
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
ATTENTION: RAIL COMMITTEE
MARCH 22, 2017, RAIL COMMITTEE MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #3
CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS AND GRADE SEPARATIONS
Dear City Council:
The Policy T-1 of Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan was
amended on January 22, 2013, to incorporate certain findings of the Rail
Corridor Study that considered additional grade crossings. Links to the
Rail Corridor Study, the Study Area Map, and Resolution No. 9316 are here
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/rail_corridor_study.as
p.
The Rail Corridor Study should inform the Context Sensitive Solutions
Alternatives Analysis.
Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD) has a summary of
Context Sensitive Solutions on their website. (The last link does not
work.)
http://calhsr.com/environmental-review/context-sensitive-solutions/
What is Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS)?
CSS is a defined as a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders to develop a
transportation facility that fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic and environmental
resources, while maintaining safety and mobility.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 7:29 AM
2
CSS involves everyone with a significant stake in the project, such as the residents, businesses, community
organizations, civic and neighborhood associations, schools, chambers of commerce, state and federal
environmental and economic development agencies, municipal officials, transportation organizations, and advocacy
and environmental groups.
Rather than approaching stakeholders at the tail end of the design process in an attempt to gain approval, CSS
emphasizes the need to incorporate their early, continuous and meaningful involvement from the very outset of the
planning and design development processes. This involvement also continues during all subsequent stages of
construction, operations and maintenance.
When CSS principles are applied to transportation projects, the process involves a much broader range of
disciplines than traditional transportation design methods, which rely exclusively on the judgment of engineers.
CSS principles have been recognized nationwide since about 1998. The Federal Highway Administration is
committed to CSS . Since 2001, the Director’s policy of the California’s Department of Transportation (CalTrans) is
to use CSS principles when dealing with road projects.
CARRD believes that CSS guiding principles should be used for the High Speed Rail project.
California is a large, diverse state and each community is unique. Stakeholder participation is vital in helping citizens
be part of building their communities for a sustainable and a more livable future.
Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) is one of the engineering firms hired to work on the High Speed Rail project. PB, among
others, authored a detailed report explaining how State DOTs can use CSS principles to ensure success with road
projects. CARRD believes that these same principles can be applied to the High Speed Rail Project to ensure full
support from all stakeholders. The report can be found here.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 7:29 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:ealexis@gmail.com on behalf of Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis <elizabeth@calhsr.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 21, 2017 6:42 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:michele.difrancia@mottmac.com; joshua.mello@cityofpaloalto.org; Gitelman, Hillary
Subject:Rail Committee Quiet Zones
We would like to make sure that the committee again considers the use of way-side horns as an interim noise
reduction method that appears to be as safe, if not safer, than the current locomotive based horns.
These are comments from several years ago. Since that time, wayside horns have continued to grow in popularity.
CTDOT just announced the adoption of wayside horns along a rail line [article].
ACERail did an analysis of wayside horns that demonstrates the real noise reduction benefits [presentation].
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis <elizabeth@calhsr.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:18 PM Subject: Quiet zone comments To: "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: "Hackmann, Richard" <Richard.Hackmann@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Stump, Molly"
<Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org>
Key points:
Horns only have a tangible safety benefit when there are unsafe crossings.
Noise is bad for us.
Lots of people hate the train noise. They just don't think they can do anything about it.
People who don't hate the train noise are still being affected by it; they just don't know it.
Quiet zones are the Federal government's explicit incentive and reward for increasing the
engineered safety of crossings.
Wayside horns are not actually quiet zones; they are just an alternative, probably superior,
type of horn.
There are different types of noise - each with different impacts
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 7:29 AM
2
Noise - loud vs quiet, high pitch vs low pitch, constant vs intermittent
There is the loud rock music or bar that leads to loss of hearing and is impossible to sleep through.
The Met Opera soprano who breaks a glass with her final high C - note.
The dog next door barking incessantly.
Increasingly, though, researchers are focusing on lower frequency noise - particularly moving sources of
this type of noise.
Low frequency / pitch noise
Low frequency doesn't mean infrequent. It means types of noise that generate accoustical waves with fewer cycles in a given period. This type of noise sounds anywhere from a rumble to a hum and sometimes feels more like a vibration than a noise. It is the sound of natural phenomena like earthquakes, erupting volcanoes, severe weather and
thundering herds. It is also the noise generated by industrial sources like diesel engines, traffic and train
wheels.
Low frequency noise can travel long distances without dissipating and can go through solid objects. This
can make it hard to even know where it is coming from. This is why the optimal place for a subwoofer, which is responsible for the low frequency, bass tones in a stereo system, could be anywhere in the room.
If we move or the source of the noise moves, we will actually perceive a change in tone because a
phenomenon called the Doppler effect - without this, it is very difficult to know where the noise is coming
from. An approaching object at these low rumbling sounds is perceived as particularly alarming by our
internal warning systems.
Even at seemingly low noise levels, this particular type of noise does a lot of damage.
1. Irritation
2. Sleep
3. Learning
4. Cardiovascular/ hypertension
5. Fatigue
Individuals definitely vary in how much this type of noise drives them consciously crazy and many people who initially might wake up to train going by or an airplane passing overhead will learn how to sleep
through it.
It turns out, however, that the other negative effects are quite serious. What is striking from the research is
that these effects don't actually go away over time and there is evidence that continued exposure can
actually make us increasingly sensitive over time.
Even if you think you no longer notice the noise, your health says otherwise. Background noise is never really in the background.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 7:29 AM
3
Low frequency noise is tiring. The theory is that it is an early warning system for animals generally of potential danger. While that increase in alertness could save your life, it has a price.
Business travelers almost always use expensive noise cancelling headsets that focus on counteracting low frequency noise on airplanes. These headsets don't do anything to block the screaming baby in row
12, but they do a remarkable job of minimizing the fatigue that comes with travel. If you want a practical
example of the impact of low frequency noise, try and pry a pair of Bose noise-cancelling headsets out of the hands of a frequent flier. Virtually all pilots now use these headsets which they have found simultaneously lower fatigue, while making it easier to hear and concentrate on what other people are
saying.
A summary of the other concerns about low frequency noise:
At night, even at very low volume levels, it impacts the quality of sleep. Children and seniors
appear to be the most affected.
Studies are showing a very real increase in cardiovascular and hypertension risk related to differences in this type of noise exposure.
There have been a number of experiments and real-life examples that have convinced researchers
it has a substantial negative impact on learning, particularly for students with any type of attention
issues to begin with.
Noise is a part of modern life, but just like any form of pollution, there is no excuse not to take reasonable steps to eliminate or offset as much as we can.
The horn rule - 2005
There are 750 railroads in the United States, operating on 140,000 miles of track with over 200,000 road crossings where trains and cars meet. There are 270 deaths a year from collisions at these
intersections. Even with increasing train traffic, this number is half what it was only a decade ago.
Up until 2005, the Federal Railroad Administration - the division of the US Department of Transportation
that regulates freight and passenger rail service like Amtrak and Caltrain where transit mixes with freight, did not actually have any specific rules about sounding horns. safe.
Some trains blasted neighbors with constant horn and in some unpopulated areas trains would choose
not to disturb the peace. In the 1980s, the state of Florida started putting restrictions on train noise and
the FRA was alarmed that this would cost lives. Data was gathered and sure enough, accidents went up.
There were some oddities, though, that prompted further study. It turned out that most of the grade-crossings were remarkably unsafe crossings. Some had no gates or warning systems, others allowed cars to easily drive around them, hoping to avoid the wait for a 100-car freight train to pass.
In that circumstance, the train horns really did make a difference, although there were still a large number
of accidents. The real takeaway was that fairly inexpensive measures to engineer safer crossings could
eliminate virtually all the risk.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 7:29 AM
4
Big open spaces where people can cut across the tracks turn out to be really unsafe. Crossing gates coming down help a lot. Physical barriers so people can not drive around crossing gates matter. Accident
rates say a lot about the effective safety of crossings.
Horns could help somewhat with unsafe crossings, but they were not the solution to the root cause.
Engineering and design, like virtually all traffic safety issues, matter more than anything else.
The railroads (which by and large mean the freight railroads who own almost all the rail corridors in the country) were cheap and were not going to make these improvements - blowing horns doesn't cost anything and besides, it is tradition.
---------------------
It took more than a decade, but the FRA finalized the "Horn Rules" in 2005. These were rules that both
required horns to be sounded and a simplified process to silence the horns through the establishment of
Quiet Zones. It also tried to break the stalemate over crossing safety by providing an incentive to communities to pony up the cash. It did not, however, provide any money for this purpose or tax the
freight railroads to provide a fund for improvements.
Horns on
Trains were required to sound the horns at every crossing in a specific way - they had to be louder than
92 decibels and quieter than 110 decibels. They had to start a certain time before reaching and have a specific pattern. In general, this upped the noise and irritation of trains. This was partly done for safety reasons but was a conscious effort to provide a carrot for communities to get off their butts and make the
grade crossings safe.
Horns off
Horns would not have to be sounded if FRA approved measures were in place. The FRA has tried to
make Quiet Zones as easy as possible to adopt. They have taken specific actions to counter concerns about liability. They don't require lengthy approval processes. They have a free, easy to use, calculator on
their website to give all the required safety metrics for a specific crossing.
The FRA wants communities to do quiet zones, because the object is safety and the engineering
improvements that come along with quiet zones are incredibly effective. They want to eliminate
community angst about increasing train traffic and are aware of the health impacts of noise. Besides, the EIS was premised on many communities adopting quiet zones, which would lead to less noise overall and increased safety.
Quiet zones are safe
The FRA is a very conservative organization. The Quiet Zone rules were based on extensive field testing
that demonstrated the importance of engineering for safety and the quickly diminishing returns to horns as
underlying safety improved.
This is a recent presentation by the FRA that reviews the results of quiet zones actually implemented. They work!
http://static.tti.tamu.edu/conferences/rail13/presentations/bo9-quiet-zones/ries.pdf
http://www.up.com/aboutup/funstuff/horn_signals/
Safer crossings on their way
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 7:29 AM
5
Caltrain, as a requirement for its modernization program, committed to upgrading grade-crossings, explicitly using the FRA quiet zone calculations to achieve safe crossings. The recent multi-million effort
sponsored by VTA was part of this. A program to fence off the corridor has made a real difference. A
couple of grade separations in San Mateo county should move the needle.
It is paying off. Accidental deaths on the corridor are down.
Quiet zones are being adopted on a widespread basis.
The FRA and CPUC have a database that is frequently updated.
There are many, many cities throughtout the country and California which have adopted quiet zones since
the 2005 Horn Rule went into effect.
The City of San Jose actually has quiet zones in places where freight and LRT coexist.
Why doesn't everyone do quiet zones?
Sometimes there isn't the money to make the upgrades. There is often a correlation between communities
with inadequate safety measures and communities without a lot of money.
Sometimes the upgrades have other impacts on intersections that are a problem for technical reasons. In Caltrain's case, some intersections require horns to be sounded to re-activate gates after a train leaves
the station.
Both UP and BNSF have actively tried to make it difficult for cities to put in place quiet zones. The railroad
industry in general is extraordinarily slow to change operating practices, most of which still date from a
century ago. Horns were and are used almost like a morse code system for trains to communicate with train workers. There is not only resistance to specific changes in these operating rules, there is resistance to any change in these operating rules because of a concern that it will put other operating rules in play. There is also often a critical mass of people who feel like train horns contribute a lot to safety. With
unsafe crossings, they are important. With safe crossings, the health impacts of the noise outweigh any
quantitative increase in safety. It is important to remember that even in a quiet zone, a train operator can lay on the horn if they see someone on the tracks or some other unsafe situation.
The ball is in the city's court Mostly, however, it is inertia and lots of misinformation. The law is structured so that the only entities that
can initiate a quiet zone are cities and counties, who are typically not up to date on the latest FRA rules.
Most railroads, especially the freight companies, would prefer to leave things the way they are.
This was predictable and the law allows cities to move forward even without an enthusiastic agency
behind it. On the other hand, it is also typically up to the city or county to go ahead and pony up the cash to make the safety improvements.
The quiet zone regulations were specifically written to motivate cities to make critical safety upgrade
investments.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 7:29 AM
6
But what about the liability?
Right now, liability for grade crossing accidents is borne by the railroads. The internet is full of all sorts mistruths about a city who adopts quiet zones then being responsible. It should be noted that freight companies are not jumping up to correct the record. On a personal note, I find it troubling that the
railroads, who are quite profitable, would rather stick with the status quo with disruptive horns and
unfenced rail lines, even when the financial burden is placed on the cities.
It is important to understand that the FRA, who is all about safety, designed the Quiet Zone rule specifically to avoid transferring liability because they want communities to upgrade safety.
That said, just like today, anyone can sue anyone for anything and a railroad operator can try and extract whatever they can get. There are two different issues regarding liability. 1) Would anyone, including the freight company or Caltrain, be held liable if there was an accident in a
quiet zone BECAUSE a horn was not sounded?
The answer is probably not.
The FRA itself has stated the Quiet Zone rule is " intended to remove failure to sound the horn as a cause
of action in lawsuits involving collisions that have occurred at grade crossings within duly established quiet zones."
If there was a quiet zone, would the city have liability for any accident that happened there,
regardless of the cause? This should be confirmed by our own legal staff, but it appears the answer is no. The city of Santa Rosa
recently looked at this in conjunction with SMART - "A legal opinion has been prepared by the City
Attorney’s Office that confirms the City would not be susceptible to increased liability by taking action to
establish a quiet zone."
There is additional comfort based on:
1. Explicit statements from the FRA.
SMART Corridor white paper: "According to the FRA’s Staff Director of the Highway Rail Crossing and Trespasser Division, the failure of a train to sound its horn should not be a cause of action against a local
jurisdiction that implemented the quiet zone. The same official has publicly stated that if a suit is ever
brought against a local jurisdiction for preventing horns at a crossing, the FRA would likely file an amicus
brief on behalf of the locality...The FRA does not want local jurisdictions to be punished for creating quiet zones, since adherence to FRA requirements should translate to an overall reduction in safety risks.
Unlike some older quiet zones established with whistle bans before the 2005 Train Horn Rule, new quiet
zones can only have been implemented if overall safety risks were reduced to a level at or below that with
trains sounding their horns; or if risk were negligible with or without the horn."
2. Most insurers don't think there is liability - they have been willing to add this to policies without an increase in premiums in multiple jurisdictions. Del Mar staff memo - no insurance cost
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 7:29 AM
7
3. There are a lot of quiet zones now and there have been accidents in them. I'm unaware of any case where the railroad, much less the city, had liability for that reason.
It should be noted that certain rail operators (Metrolink!, Caltrain?) have tried to get cities to sign some vague indemnification, but it is not an inherent feature of quiet zones nor obvious that it has any real
liability. It is also not obvious that they could insist on this, as this was a mitigation in the FRA’s EIS.
Wayside horns
The FRA also discussed wayside horns in its rulemaking. Wayside horns are horns located by the rail
crossing instead of on a locomotive.
The FRA does not consider the use of wayside horns to be a quiet zone, although they can be in quiet zones (this is important). From the FRA’s perspective, they are just another way of sounding a horn.
From the community’s perspective, there is a world of difference. The wayside horn noise does not coming from a moving source, so it only propogates near the crossing. This dramatically lowers the
number of people impacted by noise.
The recent studies of wayside horns, which watch and observe actual driver behavior, show that they
actually typically increase safety because the source of the noise is more obvious and the horns are
sounded more consistently - you take out the human factor of a driver having to remember to sound the horn at the right time. Wayside horns have been designed to be “fail-safe” and are more reliable than a
driver honking the horn manually.
Key quiet zone related websites
FRA Quiet Zone website Quiet Zone inventory (as of November 2014)
CPUC,
Presentations on quiet zones
http://trimet.org/pdfs/pm/CAC/April_16_2009/PMLR_Quiet_Zones_April2009.pdf
-- Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis
Co-founder Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD)
cell (650) 996-8018
www.calhsr.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:16 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kim Atkinson <atkinsonkim@pacbell.net>
Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:52 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:New photos taken on 3/16 re. 670 Los Trancos
Attachments:P1130993.JPG; P1130999.JPG; P1140001.JPG; P1140002.JPG; P1140003.JPG;
P1130998.JPG; P1140008.JPG; P1140006.JPG; P1140005.JPG; P1140011.JPG;
P1140013.JPG; P1140016.JPG; P1140025.JPG; P1140026.JPG; P1140017.JPG;
P1140018.JPG; P1140019.JPG; P1140021.JPG; P1140028.JPG; P1140029.JPG;
P1140030.JPG; P1140034.JPG; P1140036.JPG; P1140035.JPG
Hi Palo Alto City Council,
Thank you for graciously permitting me one more, and final, transmisison of photos to
you, taken today on March 16, from Arastradero Open Space Preserve. These photos provide
you with a compelling illustration of the harm construction on the hilltop (at 670 Los Trancos) will do to visitors' enjoyment of the park, and give you orientation to the trails up there.
Except for the first 3 photos, and photo # 19 of Woodrat trail, every single one of these
photos has flags and poles in it. Every photo. And yet, in many of the photos, you cannot quite
make out the distant flags and poles, because the white flags are not very visible against the bright sky.
Again-- every one of the vantage points that these photos are taken from inside
the park can SEE the flags and poles (except for 4 photos, 1-3 and 19) even if you can't see
them in these photos. The flags and poles are very visible in this part of the park. The walls of construction will be much, much more so.
If any project on this hilltop is allowed to proceed, it will become all too
clear and obvious to all park users where a building will be up there, hurting the
nature experience up there.
Three trails will be badly affected, visually, by the proposed construction: Acorn, Meadowlark and
Woodrat.
The photos illustrate the following for you, in this order:
# 1, 2, 3 show you the beautiful setting near the top of Acorn trail (no flags in these photos)
# 4, 5, 6 show you Acorn trail, with flags & poles visible on the bright-green round hilltop (the one on
the right)
# 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 show you Meadowlark trail (a wider trail, at the top of Acorn), with the flags and
poles in sight
(poles are on the green rounded hill to the left of the trail and left of the trees &
shrubs)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:16 AM
2
#12, 13, 14 show you the narrow trail leading up to the bench viewpoint under an oak, that has a
panoramic
view of the bay area-- coming back down from that viewpoint back towards Meadowlark trail, past the picnic table and horse hitching rail-- the flags and poles are visible from
every single
one of these spots, and are in each of these photos (but hard to see)
# 15, 16, 17, 18 view of green hill with flags and poles from the picnic table and horse-post, and a nearby trail sign
#19 Woodrat trail (near where Meadowlark and Acorn intersect) -- no flags in this photo,
it is just to orient you to a new trail
#20, 21, 22, 23, 24 clear views of the flags and poles as seen from Woodrat trail, against the green
background
Acorn, Woodrat and Meadowlark trails are some of the most beautiful trails in the park. At the top
where
they intersect, and in the entire upper loop area of the park, the construction at 670 Los Trancos will
be horribly visible to everyone using the park. Please do not allow any construction on that hilltop.
Thank you for your time to examine these photos.
Your time and energy devoted to considering this issue is gratefully appreciated,
Kim Atkinson and family
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:16 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Allan Alcorn <al@alcorn.tv>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 11:07 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Gitelman, Hillary; Owen, Graham
Subject:670 Los Trancos Rd
City Council of Palo Alto,
I have lived at 660 Los Trancos Rd now for over 40 years and enjoy the rural nature of the area and being good neighbors
to the Arastradero Open Space. I often hike in the open space but I always drive to the parking lots and hike from there.
We don’t want to create a trail or an illegal entrance to the open space. We can see the upper reaches of the open
space from our house and have been able to report fires and injuries to the park rangers. I speak as both a neighbor of
the proposed project at 670 Los Trancos in the open space but also as a frequent user of the open space.
The Open Space Zoning regulations have done a good job of preserving a semi‐rural environment and the proposed
project is in compliance with those regulations.
The lot next door to us at 670 Los Trancos has been vacant and for sale for many years and we were very concerned
about what kind of project would be built there. We are very grateful that it isn’t an aggressive developer who will push
to maximize the size and value of the development. We have reviewed the plans and I think it will be a beautiful
addition to the neighborhood. It will be visible from a very small portion of the open space and I think it will blend in
and add to the beauty of the area.
Sincerely,
Allan Alcorn
660 Los Trancos Rd
Portola Valley 94028
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 12:58 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Clerk, City
Sent:Wednesday, March 22, 2017 10:33 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: March 27, 2017 City Council Agenda Item 9
Attachments:SVH_ImpactFees_PaloAlto_032717.pdf
From: Nicole Montojo [mailto:nicole@siliconvalleyathome.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 10:21 AM
To: Scharff, Gregory (internal); Kniss, Liz (internal); Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal);
Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Kou, Lydia
Cc: Clerk, City; Leslye Corsiglia; Pilar Lorenzana
Subject: Re: March 27, 2017 City Council Agenda Item 9
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss, and Councilmembers DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kou, Tanaka, and Wolbach:
On behalf of SV@Home, I respectfully submit the attached comment letter regarding Item 9 on the March 27, 2107 City
Council meeting agenda (Adoption of two Ordinances to Update the BMR Housing Program as Recommended by the
Finance Committee: (1) Repealing Municipal Code Section 16.47 (Non‐residential Projects) and 18.14 (Residential
Projects); and Adding a new Section 16.65 (Citywide Affordable Housing In‐lieu Fees for Residential, Nonresidential, and
Mixed Use Developments).
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback.
Sincerely,
Nicole Montojo
Policy Associate
SV@Home
Office: (408) 780‐4758
nicole@siliconvalleyathome.org
350 W Julian St. #5, San Jose, CA 95110
Website I Facebook I Twitter I Become a Member!
Leadership Board
Ron Gonzales, Chair
Hispanic Foundation
of Silicon Valley
Janice Jensen, Vice Chair
Habitat for Humanity
East Bay/Silicon Valley
Kevin Zwick, Treasurer
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Kathy Thibodeaux, Secretary
KM Thibodeaux Consulting LLC
Shiloh Ballard
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
Bob Brownstein
Working Partnerships USA
Christine Carr
Silicon Valley Bank
Rahul Chandhok
San Francisco 49ers
Katie Ferrick
LinkedIn
Amie Fishman
Non-Profit Housing Association of
Northern California
Javier Gonzalez
Google
Poncho Guevara
Sacred Heart Community Service
Jan Lindenthal
MidPen Housing
Jennifer Loving
Destination: Home
Mary Murtagh
EAH Housing
Chris Neale
The Core Companies
Andrea Osgood
Eden Housing
Kelly Snider
Kelly Snider Consulting
Jennifer Van Every
The Van Every Group
Staff
Leslye Corsiglia
Executive Director
350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110
408.780.2261 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org
TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL
March 22, 2017
Honorable Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and Councilmembers DuBois, Filseth, Fine,
Holman, Kou, Tanaka, and Wolbach:
Re: March 27, 2017 City Council Agenda Item 9
(Adoption of two Ordinances to Update the BMR Housing Program as Recommended
by the Finance Committee)
On behalf of our members, SV@Home thanks you for your reopening the discussion on
affordable housing impact fees. While we continue to support the adoption of impact
fees for new residential and non-residential development to increase Palo Alto’s supply
of affordable housing, we believe that the proposed ordinance could be strengthened
through a few revisions. In this letter, we offer our recommendations for improving
the policy that was initially approved by Council in December 2016.
Alternative Compliance
With an eye toward the goal of providing affordable housing for as many households as
possible, we recommend that the Council reconsider Section 16.65.080 of the
proposed ordinance, which outlines alternative means of compliance. As drafted, the
ordinance would establish a process for developers to request an alternative to paying
the required impact fees (or in the case of for-sale residential development, build
inclusionary units) that would be overly cumbersome for both staff to administer and
developers to follow. Instead of the proposed ranked preference process for
residential ownership units outlined in Section 16.65.080(B), we recommend the
adoption of a more flexible process that would allow developers to negotiate with the
City to select the option that works well for the project and supports the City’s goal of
increasing its stock of affordable housing.
In the case of for-sale single-family housing developments, this sort of flexible
negotiation process may result in a greater number of affordable units produced than a
strict requirement that the developer provide a percentage of inclusionary units on
site. Staff’s analysis of the development at 567 Maybell, which was presented to the
Honorable Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council
Re: March 27, 2017 City Council Agenda Item 9
March 22, 2017
Page 2 of 2
350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110
408.780.2261 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org
Planning and Transportation Commission at its July 27, 2016 meeting (7/27/16 PTC Packet Page 328),
provides an example of such a case. The 16 homes being built at 567 Maybell are large, single-family
homes that will be priced in the millions. Under a strict inclusionary requirement, two of the 16 units
would be set aside for moderate-income households, whereas the $1.5 million raised from a $25 per
square foot fee could help an affordable housing developer build deed-restricted housing for as many as
15 lower- and moderate-income households, and $3 million raised from a $50 per square foot fee could
help 30.
Thus, providing flexibility to developers and staff can result in a greater number of affordable units
and/or more deeply affordable units if the developer partners with an affordable housing developer
who can access leveraged funds. It also allows the developer to pursue the option that works best with
the market rate project, recognizing that all developments are different in terms of size, product type,
and pricing. The final ordinance should not preclude the City from achieving these positive policy
outcomes.
Residential Impact Fee Levels
Additionally, we continue to support the adoption of a rental housing fee set at $25 per square foot
(adjusted annually for inflation according to CPI), with the option for developers to mitigate the impact
of the new project through alternative actions. With fees in neighboring communities ranging from $17
to $25 per square foot, a $25 fee is comparable to these jurisdictions -- and with a high demand for
development in the City, we believe that a fee at this level will not deter development of new rental
housing in Palo Alto.
In regard to in-lieu fees for ownership housing, we support an ownership impact fee at $50 per square
foot and recommend that the proposed ordinance adopt a phased approach over the course of five
years, commencing at $25 per square foot and increasing $5 per square foot each year. A phased
approach, accompanied by an annual report to Council, will allow the City to determine the impact of
the fees and may encourage the development community to move forward with proposed
development sooner rather than later.
We thank you for the careful and thoughtful deliberation and the extensive engagement process
undertaken by the Council, the PTC, and staff. We strongly urge you to move forward with adopting a
housing impact fee and a commercial linkage fee as soon as possible, as both will provide the City
additional resources to meet the challenges it faces in adequately housing its current workforce and
residents.
Sincerely,
Pilar Lorenzana
Deputy Director
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/16/2017 2:42 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:mail@changemail.org
Sent:Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:10 more people signed “Enforce the CUP: Keep Castilleja Enrollment at 415”
New signatures
Palo Alto City Council – This petition addressed to you on Change.org has new
activity. See progress and respond to the campaign's supporters.
Enforce the CUP: Keep Castilleja Enrollment at 415
Petition by PNQLnow.org · 10 supporters
10 more people signed
in the last day
RECENT SUPPORTERS
Michelle Zhang
Palo Alto, CA · Mar 16, 2017
Strongly against the expansion of Castilleja!
Catherine Ying
Palo Alto, CA · Mar 16, 2017
Big concern on the safety of kids biking to schools nearby or cross
Embarcadero
View petition activity
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/16/2017 2:42 PM
2
Mona He
Palo Alto, CA · Mar 15, 2017
The proposed expansion will cause even more traffic congestion on
Embarcadero than it is alreay. It will hugely increase the risks for all
people walking, biking and even driving around the entire area of
Embarcadero, Bryant and El Camino. Castilleja should look for other
non-residential areas to expand its campus.
Yuxuan Ruan
Palo Alto, CA · Mar 16, 2017
Hsiuling Maa
Palo Alto, CA · Mar 15, 2017
View all 10 supporters
CHANGE.ORG FOR DECISION MAKERS
On Change.org, decision makers like you connect directly with people around
the world to resolve issues. Respond to let the people petitioning you know
you're listening, say whether you agree with their call to action, or ask them for
more information. Learn more.
This notification was sent to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, the address listed as the
decision maker contact by the petition starter. If this is incorrect, please post a response to let
the petition starter know.
Change.org · 548 Market St #29993, San Francisco, CA 94104-5401, USA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/16/2017 2:42 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:mail@changemail.org
Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2017 7:26 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:10 more people signed “Enforce the CUP: Keep Castilleja Enrollment at 415”
New signatures
Palo Alto City Council – This petition addressed to you on Change.org has new
activity. See progress and respond to the campaign's supporters.
Enforce the CUP: Keep Castilleja Enrollment at 415
Petition by PNQLnow.org · 10 supporters
10 more people signed
in the last day
RECENT SUPPORTERS
Wendy Chen
Palo Alto, CA · Mar 16, 2017
It is a very good girl school. Keep the same size so the quality will stay the
same. In addition, more kids means traffic jam which is not what we
want right now.
Michael SHIEH
Palo Alto, CA · Mar 16, 2017
There will be a lot of traffic added. Not good for the neighborhood and
community.
View petition activity
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/16/2017 2:42 PM
4
Brandy Ho
Palo Alto, CA · Mar 16, 2017
To stop Castilleja expansion
Weili Tseng
Stanford, CA · Mar 16, 2017
ya nan ruan
帕罗奥图, CA · Mar 16, 2017
View all 10 supporters
CHANGE.ORG FOR DECISION MAKERS
On Change.org, decision makers like you connect directly with people around
the world to resolve issues. Respond to let the people petitioning you know
you're listening, say whether you agree with their call to action, or ask them for
more information. Learn more.
This notification was sent to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, the address listed as the
decision maker contact by the petition starter. If this is incorrect, please post a response to let
the petition starter know.
Change.org · 548 Market St #29993, San Francisco, CA 94104-5401, USA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:11 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:mail@changemail.org
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 11:43 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:10 more people signed “Enforce the CUP: Keep Castilleja Enrollment at 415”
New signatures
Palo Alto City Council – This petition addressed to you on Change.org
has new activity. See progress and respond to the campaign's
supporters.
Enforce the CUP: Keep Castilleja Enrollment at 415
Petition by PNQLnow.org · 10 supporters
10 more people signed
in the last 4 hours
RECENT SUPPORTERS
Bonnie Flanagan
Palo Alto, CA · Mar 19, 2017
Traffic already a serious issue coming on Embarcadero from T&C & Paly
when turning on Bryant at Castillija. This will only increase & add
additional safety issue for students, walkers, bikers & cars.
Dan Mahoney
Palo Alto, CA · Mar 19, 2017
They're big enough as it is right now. Becomming larger is a financial
boon for them, but a negative impact to the City services and the
View petition activity
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:11 AM
2
surrounding residents who bought their homes based on the current size
of the school.
Rosalie Shepherd
Palo Alto, CA · Mar 19, 2017
Too much traffic around the school now and all along Embarcadero.
ann Bowers
Palo Alto, CA · Mar 19, 2017
already castilleja has negative impact on the neighbor hoods with
parking spreading out all over. I see no reason that a for profit school
should be allowed to go above the legal limit of students.
kate moreau
Palo Alto, CA · Mar 19, 2017
73% of students are from outside of Palo Alto - their quality of life does
not change by the expansion. The additional traffic and noise..the cutting
done of trees..the additional cement...the 5+ years of massive
construction.
View all 10 supporters
CHANGE.ORG FOR DECISION MAKERS
On Change.org, decision makers like you connect directly with people
around the world to resolve issues. Respond to let the people petitioning
you know you're listening, say whether you agree with their call to action,
or ask them for more information. Learn more.
This notification was sent to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, the address listed as the
decision maker contact by the petition starter. If this is incorrect, please post a
response to let the petition starter know.
Change.org · 548 Market St #29993, San Francisco, CA 94104-5401, USA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:11 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:mail@changemail.org
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 8:31 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:10 more people signed “Enforce the CUP: Keep Castilleja Enrollment at 415”
New signatures
Palo Alto City Council – This petition addressed to you on Change.org
has new activity. See progress and respond to the campaign's
supporters.
Enforce the CUP: Keep Castilleja Enrollment at 415
Petition by PNQLnow.org · 10 supporters
10 more people signed
in the last 3 days
RECENT SUPPORTERS
Maurizio Gianola
Palo Alto, CA · Mar 19, 2017
1) Impacted by traffic congestion, on-street parking. 2) Castilleja is
currently at 73 students/acre, no limit on evening/weekend events. It is
seeking to increase to 90 students/acre. This is TOO MUCH for this
Neighborhood
Keyi Chang
Palo Alto, CA · Mar 16, 2017
View petition activity
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:11 AM
4
The traffic will be out of control, I am worry about the safety for the kids
and the disturbance it creates in Palo Alto. The Castalia school only think
about its expansion.
Yulin Lee
Palo Alto, CA · Mar 16, 2017
Embarcadero is already a bottleneck during rush hours as it is, adding
more cars will bring the driving condition to unbearable. Additionally, we
have 2 kids going to PALY on their bikes, and we are really concerned
about their safety w/ more cars around. I can imagine that as the traffic
on Embarcadero worsens, more cars will try to detour on adjacent streets
as well. This is a bad move all around except for the for-profit school. As
residents of Palo Alto, we put a lot of trust in electing city councils who
will represent the best interest of its citizens. Thank you for listening.
Sophia Liu
Palo Alto, CA · Mar 16, 2017
i am a current Paly mom, with additional kid entering Paly in the fall. my
kids bike to school most of time. i heard several collision accidents
between students and cars during dropping off and pickup times even
with all the good efforts for bike safety from the schools and the district
just the last 12months. Paly students also go to Town and Country often.
years of constraction will add extra safety harzard to them. the
construction noise will reduce student learning capacity and disturb the
nearby neighbors constantly. it is unprecedent in the Bayarea for any
private schools to have such a dense by any measure if the expansion
proposal would be approved. Secondly, the increased traffic anytime
would impact the businesses in Town and Country.
Elizabeth Centoni
Palo Alto, CA · Mar 19, 2017
View all 10 supporters
CHANGE.ORG FOR DECISION MAKERS
On Change.org, decision makers like you connect directly with people
around the world to resolve issues. Respond to let the people petitioning
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:11 AM
5
you know you're listening, say whether you agree with their call to action,
or ask them for more information. Learn more.
This notification was sent to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, the address listed as the
decision maker contact by the petition starter. If this is incorrect, please post a
response to let the petition starter know.
Change.org · 548 Market St #29993, San Francisco, CA 94104-5401, USA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:16 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:mail@changemail.org
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 10:49 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:10 more people signed “Enforce the CUP: Keep Castilleja Enrollment at 415”
New signatures
Palo Alto City Council – This petition addressed to you on Change.org
has new activity. See progress and respond to the campaign's
supporters.
Enforce the CUP: Keep Castilleja Enrollment at 415
Petition by PNQLnow.org · 10 supporters
10 more people signed
in the last day
RECENT SUPPORTERS
Kristen McMichael
Palo Alto, CA · Mar 20, 2017
I'm signing because Castilleja should not be rewarded for violating its
permit and the enrollment cap of 415 is enough based on the residential
location. Castilleja can split its middle and high schools if they want to
increase enrollment further.
Philip Krozek
Palo Alto, CA · Mar 20, 2017
View petition activity
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:16 PM
2
I agree that, if the school wishes to expand, it should split its schools into
more than just the one facility. The school has outgrown its facility and
expanded facilities are not suitable for this residential neighborhood.
Nancy McGaraghan
Palo Alto, CA · Mar 20, 2017
Traffic around the school in the morning is terrible. If Castilleja began
shuttling students from distant parking lots, I would not have a problem
with the expansion.
Kitty Price
Palo Alto, CA · Mar 20, 2017
I feel Castilleja should expand in a new location just like other private
schools such as Pinewood which have multiple locations.
Victoria Reid
Palo Alto, CA · Mar 20, 2017
I think it is unfair to the current residents.
View all 10 supporters
CHANGE.ORG FOR DECISION MAKERS
On Change.org, decision makers like you connect directly with people
around the world to resolve issues. Respond to let the people petitioning
you know you're listening, say whether you agree with their call to action,
or ask them for more information. Learn more.
This notification was sent to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, the address listed as the
decision maker contact by the petition starter. If this is incorrect, please post a
response to let the petition starter know.
Change.org · 548 Market St #29993, San Francisco, CA 94104-5401, USA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 8:29 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jason Hou <ladudejerry@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 5:12 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Adding 6,000 more housing units is NOT the solution
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members,
The new Comp Plan should be a cautious and strategic guide to address areas needing review rather than going big. A
wise City Council knows to not rush into decisions, but to consider, holistically and rationally, benefiting all in this
community.
Current traffic and parking difficulties cannot be resolved without a sensible and paced approach. Identifying policies
and programs must be focused on rectifying the current problems. Continuing the building frenzy will not solve our city's
traffic and parking challenges nor the affordability issues, it will only exacerbate the situation further. Adding 6,000
more housing units is NOT the solution.
I urge you to consider carefully and wisely.
Thank you,
Pei Liu
265 Wilton Ave, Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 8:23 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 22, 2017 7:28 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Jean McCown; wmcnair@stanford.edu; Keller, Arthur
Subject:Affordable Housing for Stanford Staff
Dear City Council,
Stanford has proposed adding housing to Stanford Research Park to help address the housing
affordability crisis. I suggest this housing require a significantly increased percentage of affordable
housing for Stanford Staff (and possibly some for PAUSD teachers). If the city gives 10s or 100s of millions of upzoning to Stanford Research Park for housing, we should make sure it really moves the
needle on affordability for local workers, reduces SOV trips and increases socio-economic diversity. I
believe the suggestion above does all three while creating a win-win with Stanford.
In addition, when providing feedback on the Stanford GUP, I recommend, trying to get Stanford to provide more housing for staff for the same reasons listed above. Also, to ensure school impacts of
the GUP are taken into account. Both PAUSD Superintendent Max McGree and PAUSD Board
Member Tom Collins wrote letters saying they are seriously concerned the GUP does not adequately
address PAUSD school impacts.
Hamilton Hitchings
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 8:28 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Eric Geist <elgeist@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 6:23 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:AGAINST Scenario 6 and 4
Dear Palo Alto City Council
Please vote AGAINST Scenarios 6 and 4 being considered at tonight's city council meeting. We residents will have to
face the consequences of jammed traffics, packed streets, and crowded classrooms for many many years follow.
Scenarios 6 and 4 are corruptions of our local system of government.
Eric Geist
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 8:28 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rui Yun <Rui.Yun@oncomed.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 7:35 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Against scenario 6
Dear Sir/madam,
We are strongly against scenario 6, and also question the real motivation behind the proposal. Why a couple of council
members are being investigated for taking improper contributions from developers! ? What they try to do, money? They
should resign from the position.
Thanks,
Best,
Rui/George
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 8:26 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jan Rubens <uaespvmaplvetzp@ujoin.co>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 10:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: rubens.jan@gmail.com <Jan Rubens>
Message:
Numbers are important but size and sustainability are critical components as well. Fewer mega-homes can make room for living space for more individuals and families.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units (between now and 2030) presented in
Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and
improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Jan Rubens
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 8:27 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nick Martinelli <jfznssvbpcsissj@ujoin.co>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 9:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: nicho.m@gmail.com <Nick Martinelli>
Message:
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units (between now and 2030) presented in
Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Nick Martinelli
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 8:29 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ozzie Fallick <ojsesqouxnmsjta@ujoin.co>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 5:15 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: ozzie.fallick@gmail.com <Ozzie Fallick>
Message:
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units (between now and 2030) presented in
Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Ozzie Fallick
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 8:25 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:aram james <abjpd1@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 21, 2017 12:56 AM
To:citycouncil@menlopark.org; council@redwoodcity.org; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org;
Council, City
Subject:Gorsuch nomination. What to watch for!
Attachments:Aram James (DJ-3.20.2017).pdf
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 8:27 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Diane Sun <dianexsun@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 9:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Highly against scenario 6
Dear Sir/Madam,
As a Palo Alto residence, I am highly against scenario 6, as it is exceeding our city's sustainability , decrease the quality,
safety of the people's life here.
Sincerely,
Diane Sun
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/16/2017 2:45 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:LWV of Palo Alto <lwvpaoffice@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2017 11:26 AM
Subject:League of Women Voters of Palo Alto -- April VOTER
Attachments:Apr VOTER.pdf
The Palo Alto VOTER
The April 2017 issue is attached as a PDF. Please save this to your desktop and enjoy!
On the front page:
A Farm-to-Table Lunch with League
Agriculture's Role in Addressing Climate Change
In celebration of Earth Day, join us for a panel discussion on how we, as individuals and as a society, can lower our carbon
footprint of food
Monday, April 17, 12 - 1:30 pm
at the First Baptist Church in Palo Alto, 305 N. California Avenue
Please RSVP by Friday, April 14 @ https://tinyurl.com/hjxwvdv
--
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
3921 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 209
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 903-0600
LWVPA 6 April, 2017
Housing and Transportation Committee
Our committee follows local housing and transportation issues and advocates in support of LWVPA’s positions such as
affordable housing and access for all community members to public transportation. At our most recent meeting we
reviewed and planned our response to the Stanford proposal for their General Use Plan update. This committee
normally meets on the second Monday of each month. Next meeting is Monday, April 17 at 2:30 pm, in Steve’s Levy’s
office. Email: lwvpaoffice @gmail.com (subject line: Housing and Transportation Committee) if you are interested.
New Voices For Youth (NV4Y) Steering Committee
For the past 5 years, New Voices for Youth has conducted a video class at the Siena Youth
Center in the North Fair Oaks neighborhood of Redwood City. Since January, New Voices has
initiated a program with kids in the East Palo Alto Boys and Girls Club. Our youth spend time
identifying and studying social issues with meaning to them (rising rents and housing
displacements, bullying, and unsupervised youth, to name a few.) They next storyboard, shoot,
and edit videos on these issues. The final products have been shown to parents, teachers,
Service Clubs and at League events. Many of your fellow League members give their time
on this steering committee. Email: lwvpaoffice @gmail.com (subject line: NV4Y) to get involved.
LWVPA Positions Update Nears Completion
At the 2016 annual meeting the membership voted to review all of our LWVPA Natural Resources positions and our Housing position. Specifically we want to know: Are the positions out of date? Do they need to be tweaked to reflect the changes in our knowledge of the subject? Do they reflect what we now know about sustainability and climate change?
Our committee started in the fall by predicting what changes we see happening in the next 5-15 years. Next, we reviewed the specific positions, asking: Will we be able to use this position going forward? Do we want to use this position? Do the specific support statements reflect our current knowledge? Can we support current and future issues using League positions at other levels — Bay Area, State or National? And of course the final question, “Are the proposals so different that we recommend a full study of a specific issue?”
We will be recommending changes, all of which we believe are justified based on current positions at various levels of League. We will not be recommending additional studies. Our recommendations will go to the Board for review in March and the final proposal will be presented at the annual meeting for a vote by the membership. Two recommendations of note are: 1) the deletion of our local Energy position — this position does not discuss energy, and the points mentioned are included elsewhere; and 2) the addition of a statement concerning sustainability and climate change — sustainability and climate change are specifically discussed at all levels of League but we feel the need to comment on the subject at the LWVPA level. Look for full details on our recommended changes in the next VOTERand in your annual meeting packet.Phyllis Cassel
NV4Y Class in session.
Responsible Gun Ownership Committee
Our committee investigates ways Palo Alto could adopt policies which would make citizen ownership of guns safer. We have
analyzed existing local and state regulations on gun ownership and are considering a proposal for which we need community
allies. Next committee meeting will be Thursday, April 13, at 7 pm. Email: lwvpaoffice @gmail.com (put committee name
in subject line) for meeting location.
Sanctuary City Committee
We formed in December 2016 after LWVPA voted to approve the LWVSC County Council’s resolution to support the
County Supervisors’ vote to provide legal assistance funds to undocumented immigrants (in response to the Trump
administration’s executive orders on immigration). We are examining what local actions can be taken in line with the
national League’s position on immigration: to provide due process to immigrants, to keep families unified, and to
oppose the deportation of noncriminal undocumented immigrants, among other goals. The committee met with the
outgoing Chief of Police of Palo Alto in December to interview him on the city’s policy on cooperating with ICE.
The next committee meeting will be on Thursday, April 6, at 7 pm. Email: lwvpaoffice @gmail.com (put committee
name in subject line) for location.
Join an LWVPA Committee - Continued from page 5
Voter Services
Voter Services is actively recruiting new members. If you’d like to participate, please contact J.Lythcott (lwvpaoffice
@gmail.com — subject line: Voter Services)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:11 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rick Lanman <ricklanman@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 2:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Letter in support of renewing Bill Leikam's Baylands' research permit
Attachments:Letter Supporting Leikam Baylands Research Permit 2017-02-11.docx
Please consider the attached letter supporting continuation of Bill's important research. Without him we would
have no understanding of our Bayland's urban wildlife assemblage.
-- Best,
Rick Lanman MD
650-776-9111
1
Re: Letter in Support of Baylands Gray Fox Research Study Permit to Bill Leikam
Date: March 12, 2017
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to strongly recommend the continuation of a permit to enable Bill Leikam to continue his gray
fox study. Although I understand that the Baylands supervising ranger would not like his permit renewed
because of concern about habituating the foxes, this concern is irrelevant as there is no evidence of harm
due to Leikam’s field research, also because the foxes recently died out due to distemper likely
compounded by inbreeding and compressed home ranges. Lastly, it is quite clear that the benefits of
Leikam’s work greatly exceed possible harm to the foxes from habituation.
Is there any evidence that habituation has harmed the foxes in any way? No, there is no evidence that
they are approaching other people and being harmed, nor is there any evidence that they are depending
on him for gathering food. Besides the gray fox, Urocyon cinereoargenteus, is not a threatened or
protected species in California http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/t_e_spp/mammals.html.
Secondly, any concern about habituation is irrelevant because of the recent distemper epidemic. In my
opinion, and I am widely published in medical journals as well as ecology, the foxes succumbed for two
reasons:
1. Their territory is compressed in a narrow strip between US Highway 101 and the Bay, shrinking
home territory sizes (not documented by anyone until Leikam’s work) and increased close contact
and therefore risk of viral contagion through contact with respiratory secretions.
2. Likely inbreeding with genetic weakening (evidence of this also not documented by anyone until
Leikam’s work, e.g. floppy instead of upright ears) possibly contributing to poor survival from the
distemper virus.
Lastly, the benefits of Leikam’s work hold the very keys to prevention of another gray fox die off. Leikam
was the only person to document the home range crowding likely at the root of the distemper pandemic.
He is the only one working on a future solution - by mapping the wildlife corridors that foxes may use to
genetically re-stock the Baylands. He has found narrow choke points at the north and south ends of the
Baylands, and documented that the foxes cannot use the cement-walled creeks (Matadero and Adobe
Creeks) to access fox populations in the Coast Range foothills. Leikam has documented that only non-
engineered, brush-filled San Francisquito Creek is used for access to genetically diverse fox population in
the foothills. I am unaware of any research work by the local ranger to understand what this important
mesopredator needs to avoid genetic inbreeding and compressed home ranges.
Denying the ongoing research would also block an incredible opportunity for ecological research. The fox
die-off has created a one-of-a-kind opportunity to do a natural study of what happens when the dominant
predator is removed from the Baylands animal community. There are already reports of soaring rat and
field mice populations. Leikam’s trailcams have documented and are documenting increased numbers of
fatter rodent populations than in the past. Normally do to research like this you would have to trap and/or
kill the foxes, but the distemper pandemic creates an opportunity for us to study what happens as the
foxes recolonize our Baylands and their critical role in controlling rodent populations.
In conclusion, concerns about habituation of the foxes are unfounded, and in my opinion, border on
harassment. This research would not be happening without the countless volunteer hours of this citizen-
naturalist and must be continued if we are to better understand and protect our Baylands animal ecology.
Sincerely,
2
Richard B. Lanman MD
Vice President, Guadalupe Coyote Research Conservation District (a Santa Clara County Special District)
Chief Medical Officer, Guardant Health, Inc.
Director, Institute for Historical Ecology
Los Altos, California
ricklanman@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 8:26 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:David Zhou <weihua.zhou@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 10:09 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:no for scenario 6
To whom it may concern,
I am writing this email letter strongly against scenario 6. As resident and home owner in Palo Alto, I question
the motivation behind the proposal. It is totally driven by commercial interest and against benefit of palo alto
residents. We should stop it right now.
Thanks,
David
Sent from my BlackBerry ‐ the most secure mobile device ‐ via the T‐Mobile Network
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 8:23 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jackie Yao <jackieyao@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 22, 2017 7:52 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:No to Scenario 6
Dear City Council,
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought‐out.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better‐priced housing here, but that still stays within the city’s
ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new growth
rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. This is unreasonable and extreme. There is
no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and there’s no evidence the city’s infrastructure, services and
schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more cars, traffic, parking demand, school
enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Even the slowest growth Scenario 2 still accelerates housing over our long term averages. While there are some people
who would like to see unlimited housing everywhere in town no matter what, most of us care about more things than
just housing. We want you to make a carefully considered and wise judgement, especially for the Comprehensive Plan
which has long term effects. All of you ran for council as Moderate. Please choose something more thoughtful than
Scenario 6, that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sincerely,
Jackie Y. From South Court, Palo Alto
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 8:28 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Charlene Huang <charleneh68@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 8:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:No to Scenario 6
Dear City Council,
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought-out.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better-priced housing here, but that still stays within the
city’s ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new growth rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. This is unreasonable and
extreme. There is no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and there’s no evidence the city’s
infrastructure, services and schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more
cars, traffic, parking demand, school enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Even the slowest growth Scenario 2 still accelerates housing over our long term averages. While there are some
people who would like to see unlimited housing everywhere in town no matter what, most of us care about more
things than just housing. We want you to make a carefully considered and wise judgement, especially for the
Comprehensive Plan which has long term effects. All of you ran for council as Moderate. Please choose
something more thoughtful than Scenario 6, that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sincerely,
Xiaolin Huang
Green Acres resisdent, Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:14 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Emma Shlaes <emma@bikesiliconvalley.org>
Sent:Friday, March 17, 2017 4:21 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Corrao, Christopher
Subject:Palo Alto Bike Share system
Attachments:170317 PA bike share letterhead.pdf
Dear Honorable Members of Palo Alto City Council,
Please see attached for a letter from the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition regarding bike share in Palo Alto. Let
us know if you have any questions.
Thanks, Emma
--
Emma Shlaes Policy Manager
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
96 N. Third Street, Suite 375
PO Box 1927 San Jose, CA 95109 Office: 408-287-7259 Ext. 228 Cell: 650-703-1191
http://bikesiliconvalley.org
96 N. Third Street, Suite 375
Post Office Box 1927
San Jose, CA 95109
Tel 408.287.7259
Fax 408.213.7559
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Amie Ashton
Phil Brotherton
Gary Brustin, Esq.
Ken Chin
Ian Dewar
Poncho Guevara
Peter Ingram
James Lucas
Daina Lujan
Jim Parker
Alyssa Plicka
Jeff Selzer
Lisa Sinizer
Cheryl Smith
ADVISORY BOARD
Andrew J. Ball
Partner
Ball + Winter
Carl Guardino
President and CEO
Silicon Valley Leadership
Group
Richard Lowenthal
Founder and CTO
ChargePoint
Erica Rogers
President and CEO
Silk Road Medical
Rick Wallace
President and CEO
KLA-Tencor
Tom Werner
President and CEO
SunPower Corp.
PRESIDENT AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Shiloh Ballard
SVBC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit
organization
EIN 77-0338658
http://bikesiliconvalley.org
March 17, 2017
The Honorable Greg Scharff, Mayor of Palo Alto
And Members of the Palo Alto City Council
Re: Citywide Bike Share System
Dear Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council:
I am writing to you as the Executive Director of Silicon Valley Bicycle
Coalition (SVBC), a non-profit organization with the mission to create a
healthy community, environment, and economy through bicycling for
people who live, work, or play in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.
We support bike share expansion in City of Palo Alto and are
disappointed the city didn’t approve the terms of contact with Social
Bicycles in March.
As a Gold-level Bicycle Friendly City, there are many bike projects and
programs that Palo Alto has already implemented; bike share would
provide the extra boost to encourage more people to bike in Palo Alto
and bring it to the Platinum level. Bike share is an excellent option to get
around town, access transit, commute to jobs, or run errands. As the
population of Palo Alto more than doubles from 64,403 full time
population to over 150,000 people during the day (not including Stanford
University employees and students), bike share is a great complement to
transit, reducing the need for people to drive. Research has shown that
the number and density of bike share bikes increases the success and
usability of a system. The expansion of Palo Alto’s system to 350 bikes
and the flexibility of having smart bikes will create a more robust and
attractive system.
We applaud staff for working diligently on this issue for months and years
starting with the original pilot program. They have done a lot of research,
relationship building, and groundwork to bring you the proposal that is in
front of you. The deal they’ve negotiated is truly unique: no ongoing
operating and maintenance costs for the city, a flexible system without
hubs, low membership fees, and a grant to offset some of the capital
costs. With Mountain View, Redwood City, and Menlo Park all waiting to
see what Palo Alto does, the time is now to approve a large bike share
system that will eventually connect to the neighboring cities. In addition,
we know that Stanford Research Park has committed to twenty bikes as
part of the system and is eager to move forward.
We urge you to move forward with this system to create another
transportation option for residents and employees in Palo Alto.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Shiloh Ballard
President and Executive Director
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 10:23 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Marilyn Messer <marilyncmesser@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 9:51 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo alto groundwater
The committee has spent a lot of time and effort to research and make recommendations. It seems like all this is to
appeal to the homeowners
Who have little regard except for their own agenda….. to build a basement I own 2 homes in JPalo Alto, and would not
consider building
A basement because the benefit for me would not be worth it at the expense of the environment, my neighbors and
Palo Alto.
If I were the City Council, I would just say NO and move onto other matters which are more important.
Marilyn Messer
1050 Guinda Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:06 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Petersen-Perez <bayareafreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 4:48 AM
To:Keene, James; Watson, Ron; Council, City; Perron, Zachary
Cc:michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay
Boyarsky
Subject:Police Auditor Report (see attached)
Attachments:13.pdf
Mr. Keene,
It have requested on multiple occasion that Mr. Gennaco correct the attached report and issue a supplement.
Mr. Gennaco has FAILED to respond to my repeated request. In accordance with his lucrative contract with
the City of Palo Alto he takes specific request from no one but you sir.
Zach Perron can fill you in on all the gory details. But please make this happen short of litigation and acknowledge my request.
Thanks,
Mark Petersen-Perez
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 8:27 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Bob Gardiner <gardreni@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 9:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:rail status
what is the status of the grade separations. I am particularly concerned about the safety, noise and traffic at the Alma/el
palo alto train crossing. the train whistle is far too loud.
Bob Gardiner
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/16/2017 2:43 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Petersen-Perez <bayareafreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2017 7:11 AM
To:Lum, Patty; Watson, Ron; Philip, Brian; Bullerjahn, Rich; Council, City;
jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky
Subject:1k hit and counting - Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
Turn in your badge and weapon Ms. Lump of human flesh...
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
2/12/17, 1:17 PM
@PaloAltoPolice Interview on police abuse from our young people who's voice will shape our government
& police depts of tomorrow #PaloAlto pic.twitter.com/WkvPmp55gA
The mother you abused..... If fact you view my entire family as rapist!!!
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/16/2017 2:43 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Petersen-Perez <bayareafreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2017 7:16 AM
To:Lum, Patty; Watson, Ron; Philip, Brian; Bullerjahn, Rich; Council, City;
jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky
Subject:Re: 1k hit and counting - Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
And Rosen....these are type of cops you sir protect.... You disgusting pathetic poor excuse of an attorney!!!!
Mark...
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 16, 2017, at 7:11 AM, Mark Petersen-Perez <bayareafreepress@gmail.com> wrote:
Turn in your badge and weapon Ms. Lump of human flesh...
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
2/12/17, 1:17 PM
@PaloAltoPolice Interview on police abuse from our young people who's voice will shape our government
& police depts of tomorrow #PaloAlto pic.twitter.com/WkvPmp55gA
<image1.JPG>
The mother you abused..... If fact you view my entire family as rapist!!!
Mark Petersen-Perez
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:16 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 17, 2017 12:10 PM
To:support@twitter.com; copyright@twitter.com; copyrightclaims@godaddy.com; Council,
City; Dave Price; jnowell@padailypost.com; gsheyner@paweekly.com; Scharff, Greg;
jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Perron, Zachary; Watson, Ron; Brian Welch; michael wasylyshyn;
Sean Webby; Cynthia Sumida; Keith, Claudia; David Angel; James Aram; Tony Ciampi;
Jay Boyarsky; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov; Stump,
Molly; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; Gsaldivar@scscourt.org; Gary Goodman;
lori.pegg@scscourt.org; jeramygordon@me.com; Lum, Patty; Scheff, Lisa; HRC; Perez,
Lalo; Reichental, Jonathan
Subject:Re: Case# 53573269: Reported Account: DMCA Takedown Notice
Twitter our account is still hosed not functioning properly the direct result of a vicious DMCA bogas claim and
it is impossible to contact you to rectify the the issues.... This is your fault Mr. Dave (1st amendment) fake-news Price....
Mark Petersen-Perez
Sent from my iPad On Mar 16, 2017, at 5:14 AM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote:
Rosen, Twitter, Price, Godaddy, GoMommy come out from behind the curtain you damm
cowards.
Why no cease and desist Price?
If your copyrighted material was that important to you! And Twitter...GoDaddy shame on you.
You're the real criminals here abusing Federal Tiile 17 shutting down a website and twitter account without a thorough review or arbitration and Rosen who lets any form of abuse to exist elder abuse (Patty Lum) or otherwise.. A man for his own selfish interests and political gain!!!?
Mark Petersen-Perez
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 15, 2017, at 6:59 AM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote:
BTW Rosen, your non-action will result in a State of California State Bar Complaint...
Mark Petersen-Perez
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:16 AM
2
On Mar 15, 2017, at 6:56 AM, Palo Alto Free Press
<paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote:
Please respond Twitter.... Thanks....
Mr. Dave Price chime in and clarify your previous vindictive
bogas #DMCA take down which disrupted our reporting...and you
sir never followed through on a cease and desist order required under title 17 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-
title17/html/USCODE-2010-title17-chap5-sec506.htm
Mr. Price like everything, their are legal consequences to your
vindictive illegal take down #DMCA of our site [Palo Alto Free Press] including our twitter
Mark Petersen-Perez
Editor: Bay Area Free Press
Ticuantepe, Nicaragua 🇳🇮
650 646 5737
Ps. Rosen...Please forward this to the FBI as a 3rd party complaint
as mandated by you sir!!!
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 14, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Palo Alto Free Press
<paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote:
Twitter support will you respond on the future
DMCA take down (time capsule) which appears to
have or taking place on Aug 14, 2018... Is the Daily Post going to be in business? We hope not!!!!
Mark Petersen-Perez
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 14, 2017, at 1:36 PM, Palo Alto Free Press
<paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote:
This crazy guy (Dave Price) is
requesting a future DMCA take
down... The guy has lost it!!! PAPD
Take the dude to hospital on a
5150...
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:16 AM
3
== Description of infringement:
The photograph used in this Tweet
appeared in the Aug. 14, 2018, edition of the Palo Alto Daily Post. All content in the Daily Post is
copyrighted. Copyright mark
appears on page 2 of this edition.
I'll be happy to email you the pages of that edition that show the copyrighted photograph and the
copyright mark.
Mark Petersen-Perez
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 14, 2017, at 11:04 AM,
"support@twitter.com" <support@twitter.com> wrote:
== Description of
infringement: The
photograph used in
this Tweet appeared in the Aug. 14, 2018,
edition of the Palo
Alto Daily Post. All
content in the Daily
Post is copyrighted. Copyright mark
appears on page 2 of
this edition. I'll be
happy to email you
the pages of that edition that show the
copyrighted
photograph and the
copyright mark.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:06 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Gail Thompson <gailt1225@earthlink.net>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 7:02 AM
To:'chuck jagoda'; 'Judith Bhushan'
Cc:'Aram James'; Council, City; citycouncil@menlopark.org; council@redwoodcity.org;
Stump, Molly; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; bos@smcgov.org;
cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org;
mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.yeager@bos.sccgov.org; Keene, James;
RJonsen@menlopark.org; Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; dcbertini@menlopark.org;
Bains, Paul; 'Stop the Ban Google Discussion Group'
Subject:RE: Excellent review of Santa Barbara's Safe Parking program, a program desig...
I think we (STB) people tried to get the program going here and we did have some momentum. I know several churches
explored the possibility and some met opposition from neighbors. Also, when one of the Safe Parking Santa
Barbara leaders came to St. Marks and gave a presentation, she mentioned it’s good to start the program at a site that
isn’t surrounded by neighbors, for example a church, business, city lot with a large lot/in a commercial area. Also I
do recall thinking we need city leadership and support to have a successful program.
Gail Thompson
From: stb_discussion@googlegroups.com [mailto:stb_discussion@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chuck jagoda
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 11:12 PM
To: Judith Bhushan
Cc: Aram James; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; citycouncil@menlopark.org; council@redwoodcity.org;
molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; bos@smcgov.org; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org;
joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.yeager@bos.sccgov.org;
James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org; RJonsen@menlopark.org; ron.watson@cityofpaloalto.org;
zachary.perron@cityofpaloalto.org; dcbertini@menlopark.org; Paul Bains; Stop the Ban Google Discussion Group
Subject: Re: Excellent review of Santa Barbara's Safe Parking program, a program desig...
Thank you Cybele and Aram for helping keep this great idea alive.
We studied it with the Safe Parking Working Group under the direction of Curtis for the Palo Alto City
Council in 2012 I believe it was as I'm sure you remember.
We learned a lot: one thing I'll never forget is that churches are very slow moving institutions in the
society. We were trying to get churches to answer far more quickly whether they would support a safe
parking program at their respective churches in far less time than the congregations need to consider
such requests.
It seems to me after our first hand research (visiting Safe Parking in Santa Barbara), seeing it at work
here in Palo Alto and Mountain View and reading about it in other places that there is only one
conclusion to reach: a safe parking program similar to or based on the Santa Barbara Safe Parking
Program is a workable solution to the shortage and expense of housing for poor people.
As the Rolling Stone article (June, 2012) about the death of the middle class makes clear, many of us
who find ourselves homeless USED to part of the middle class, are still part of the working class, but
just cannot afford the hyper-stratospheric rents in most of the Bay Area.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:06 AM
2
I hope the City Councils of Bay Area municipalities and the County Commissioners will never do
anything to block safe parking programs and to facilitate this low-cost, safe, community response to
the needs of those who don't live in traditional shelter.
Thank you both for keeping this useful idea alive.
Chuck Jagoda, Homeless Activist, Shelter Consultant On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:41 PM, <Bhushans@aol.com> wrote:
Aram, I agree. Cybele
In a message dated 3/7/2017 11:43:35 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, abjpd1@gmail.com writes:
Hi Folks,
Here is an excellent short video re Santa Barbara's Safe Parking program. I'm requesting local City Council members and board of supervisor members, consider such a program, in their jurisdictions, as part of a systemic
effort at mitigating and ultimately ending homelessness.
Thanks,
Aram
P.S. Thanks to homeless advocate Chuck Jagoda for forwarding this video my way. As an aside, chuck Jagoda and I traveled to Santa Barbara, approximately four year ago, to visit the Santa Barbara's Safe Parking
program.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Lm1V_dyNgg
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Stop the Ban Discussion" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
STB_Discussion+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Chuck --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Stop the Ban Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
STB_Discussion+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:14 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mike Morganstern <m_morgan@pacbell.net>
Sent:Friday, March 17, 2017 2:46 PM
To:'Mark Chua'
Cc:'paloaltopermits'; Council, City
Subject:RE: FW: I am a bit confused
Great news. Problem solved. I was able to order new permits and print out temporary permits with the correct dates.
Thanks to all who assisted.
Mike Morganstern
567 Lincoln Ave Palo Alto 94301-3233
From: Mark Chua [mailto:mchua@spplus.com]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 9:41 AM
To: Mike Morganstern
Cc: paloaltopermits; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: Re: FW: I am a bit confused
Mike,
I apologize for the delay. We are experiencing a large volume of emails and phone calls. I logged into your
profile and it seems you can purchase your free decal and 3 additional decals for $50.00 and 2 residential transferable permits. Please log into your account to purchase them. If you need password reset help, please follow the attachment below.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:14 AM
2
Thank You,
Mark Chua Supervisor/Bookkeeper
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.SP+_Signature.jpg
e: mchua@spplus.com 115 South Market Street Suite A
San Jose, CA. 95113
About SP+ spplus.com/AboutUs
Download SP+ App spplus.com/App
Connect linkedin.com/company/sp_plus
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 7:11 PM, Mike Morganstern <m_morgan@pacbell.net> wrote:
My previous email six days ago has not been responded to and the phone 440-8074 has its message box full.
Please respond.
From: Mike Morganstern [mailto:m_morgan@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 6:29 PM
To: 'paloaltopermits@spplus.com'
Subject: I am a bit confused
I have two vehicles. The website indicated that parking permits we can now obtain expire March 31, 2017 which is in a few weeks. I cannot purchase or get my free permit online that expires after that.
Right now I have one free permit for one of my two vehicles. I would like a new free permit and would like to purchase
one for my second vehicle. I can do neither.
Please try to use your own website - I does not work.
Please also help me solve my problem. I do not wish to get parking tickets.
Sincerely, Michael Morganstern
567 Lincoln Ave, Palo Alto CA 94301 650 326-0600
Nissan Maxima 3TOR479 Honda Accord 3PYF947
Legal Notice: This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and, unless expressly stated otherwise, is confidential and may be
privileged. If you are not an addressee, (i) please inform the sender immediately and permanently delete and destroy the original and any
copies or printouts of this message, and (ii) be advised that any disclosure, copying or use of the information in this message is unauthorized
and may be unlawful.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/16/2017 2:41 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 15, 2017 1:37 PM
To:Lait, Jonathan; Council, City
Cc:me@judyg.com
Subject:Re: Incomplete Project Documents and Missing Historical Report for Compadres Site
Hey Jonathan:
Thanks for getting those links fixed.
Do you know how we can get an extension to the March 27 comment date. How do I get one of those?
Kind regards, Becky
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Jonathan:
Do you think you can help us? At our meeting of the Ventura Neighborhood Association yesterday, our close to 30 attendees registered their collective surprise at the impending demolition of the Compadres historic
building and the construction of a new complex. We understand we have only until March 27 to make public
comment. This hardly gives us time to prepare a thoughtful response.
At this page:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2488&TargetID=319
there are three broken links Traffic, Geotechnical Environmental
Ironically these are perhaps the most important docs we might need.
And I understand that there is a second historical report that has disappeared. Where is that? How can the public be informed and comment when information is withheld or repressed?
Is there anyway to push back the date for public comment because we don't actually have the information we need to comment?
I have cc'd Judy Gittelsohn who lives on Curtner. She has asked the Association to help her parse this situation.
27 attendees at the meeting voted to empower me to act on their behalf with regard to the Compadres project. We had one abstention and
no "nays." So you can see this is a matter of some urgency and importance.
Thank you for your assistance.
Becky Sanders Moderator
Ventura Neighborhood Association
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 10:36 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Dave Boyce <dboyce@almanacnews.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 22, 2017 10:28 AM
To:Fire
Cc:Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:Re: Ladder truck across train tracks
Correction: I don't actually know the color of the traffic light while the truck was stopped. But I don't recall
noticing a stopped vehicle in front of it.
The truck was across the tracks for a count of at least 10.
Dave Boyce
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Dave Boyce <dboyce@almanacnews.com> wrote:
At about 2:22 p.,m. on Tuesday, March 21, I saw Palo Alto Fire Department ladder truck 66 waiting for the
light to turn green at Churchill Avenue and Alma Street headed east. (I was on my bike and about to head north on the bike path along the west side of the tracks, so I had an unobstructed view.)
The truck was stopped completely and straddling both directions of the Caltrain tracks. My first reaction was a
double take, then I listened for a train whistle. It was hard to believe what I was seeing.
The truck moved off south on Alma when the light changed.
Dave Boyce
-- Dave Boyce Staff writer, The Almanac
450 Cambridge Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Tel: (650) 223-6527 dboyce@AlmanacNews.com
-- Dave Boyce
Staff writer, The Almanac
450 Cambridge Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Tel: (650) 223-6527 dboyce@AlmanacNews.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 8:28 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Meredith Slaughter <meredith.slaughter@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 6:51 PM
To:Minor, Beth
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: Problems w/Live Council Meeting Audio
Sounds good now!!! Thank you so much!
> On Mar 20, 2017, at 6:37 PM, Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
>
> Thank you Meredith, The problem is being looked into.
>
> Beth Minor
> City Clerk
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
> From: Meredith Slaughter [mailto:meredith.slaughter@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 6:27 PM
> To: Council, City
> Subject: Problems w/Live Council Meeting Audio
>
> Hello all! I hope you're having a great week so far. Heads up the MidPen audio for the current Council meeting is bad
(very choppy). This is the case across all devices, including via live TV on Channel 26 as well as iPhones and iPads.
>
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:15 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Petersen-Perez <bayareafreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 6:53 AM
To:Wagner, April; Council, City; Stump, Molly; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Perron, Zachary;
Watson, Ron; Bullerjahn, Rich; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; Philip, Brian; Scharff, Greg;
Ryan, Dan; Bonilla, Robert; Lum, Patty; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com;
robert.miller@oirgroup.com
Subject:Re: RAPE Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
I have been saving my penny's Ms. Wagner and its time to drop a million in going after your Calpers pension
and everyone else, involved in this botch sex rape case... including California State Bar complaints on being negligence in not affording me constitutional due process.
Mark Petersen-Perez
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 19, 2017, at 6:45 AM, Mark Petersen-Perez <bayareafreepress@gmail.com> wrote:
When I eventually get home nurse Wagner, we will expose you for what you truly are
a....Monster in a very bad dream that has lasted well over 10 years http://cbsn.ws/2nmFbCC
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
3/19/17, 6:39 AM
@SantaClaraDA @PaloAltoPolice @innocence An accusation is the prelude to a coerced false confession &
conviction. Must be held accountable pic.twitter.com/vf37p45rE1
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:15 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Petersen-Perez <bayareafreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 6:31 AM
To:Perron, Zachary; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; Watson,
Ron; Council, City; Scharff, Greg; Dave Price; jnowell@padailypost.com; Wagner, April;
Lum, Patty; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Bonilla, Robert;
robert.miller@oirgroup.com; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; dangel@dao.sccgov.org;
Bullerjahn, Rich; Philip, Brian
Subject:RAPE - Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
This is far, far far from being over although I appreciate your involvement / attempts to bring closure. Closure
is a certificate of complete innocence based on the FACTS.... Rosen!!!
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
3/19/17, 6:25 AM
This is the epitome of the entire sexual investigate staff of the @PaloAltoPolice and @SantaClaraDA Depts
cbsn.ws/2nmFbCC #PaloAlto pic.twitter.com/hDktyiNoaw
Mark Petersen-Perez
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/16/2017 2:41 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jean Doble <jean.doble@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Wednesday, March 15, 2017 1:14 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Kniss, Liz (internal);
Kou, Lydia; Scharff, Greg; Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:RETAIN "JORDAN," "TERMAN"
Dear Council member,
I made an embarrassing mistake when I sent my note on this subject to all of you.
If I could pull it back, I would.
Sorry.
Sincerely,
Jean Doble
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/16/2017 2:41 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Jean Doble <jean.doble@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Wednesday, March 15, 2017 1:10 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Kniss, Liz (internal);
Kou, Lydia; Scharff, Greg; Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:RETAIN "JORDAN," "TERMAN"
Dear Council member,
Please don’t waste time and money hiding history.
Every conversation I’ve had—with my slightly elderly middle-class, liberal acquaintances and with my
daughter, a Jordan alumna with school-age children—shares the conclusion that renaming Jordan and Terman is a waste of time and money.
It is an appalling waste of time to try to find a universally accepted name “worthy” of the honor.
People are flawed.
Look hard enough, and every person’s name on a school, hospital, bridge, freeway, and street will have to be changed.
It is a waste of money, indefensibly so in a time of budget cuts.
Spend the money on programs that more directly benefit the students,
with a fraction of the money going to develop the curriculum that uses this discovery as a teaching moment.
Explore man’s imperfections.
Explore changing mores and values through time and circumstance.
What was, was. Pass this, and I will not again donate to Partners in Education.
Sincerely,
Jean Doble
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 8:27 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Stan Hutchings <stan.hutchings@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 8:43 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:re-think your Jan. 30th decision to "gut" the Comprehensive Plan
The City Council should re-think their Jan. 30th decision to "gut" the Comprehensive Plan by separating
Programs from Policies. In many cases, the Policies without the Programs are too vague to be meaningful.
The community trust is broken when the time and effort of the former and current members of the Citizens’ Advisory Committee, Staff and consultants plus the input of many residents, including Save Palo Alto’s
Groundwater members, are not valued.
Thanks
Stan Hutchings
285 Rinconada Avenue, Palo Alto 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 8:28 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Bei Zhou <bz2261@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 5:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Scenario 6
Dear City Council,
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought-out.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better-priced housing here, but that still stays within the
city’s ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new growth rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. This is unreasonable and
extreme. There is no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and there’s no evidence the city’s
infrastructure, services and schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more
cars, traffic, parking demand, school enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Even the slowest growth Scenario 2 still accelerates housing over our long term averages. While there are some
people who would like to see unlimited housing everywhere in town no matter what, most of us care about more
things than just housing. We want you to make a carefully considered and wise judgement, especially for the
Comprehensive Plan which has long term effects. All of you ran for council as Moderate. Please choose
something more thoughtful than Scenario 6, that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sincerely,
Bei Zhou
Palo Alto resident
Regular review and revision is expected.
1
"[T]he general plan should be reviewed
regularly, regardless of its horizon, and
revised as new information becomes
available and as community needs and values
change."
- OPR Guidelines, Page 14
CA says we should review and amend programs annually.
2
“Those portions of the plan having a
short-term focus, such as the implementation
program, should be annually reviewed and
amended as necessary.”
-OPR Guidelines, page 46
CA says to review and revise entire comp plan every 5 years.
3
“At least once every five years, each local
planning agency should thoroughly review its
entire general plan and revise the document
as necessary.”
-OPR Guidelines, page 46
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 8:24 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:aram james <abjpd1@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 21, 2017 1:03 PM
To:dryan@scscourt.org; smanley@scscourt.org; swagstaffe@smcgov.org;
joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org;
mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; aflint@scscourt.org; myraw@smcba.org; Lewis.
james; ppennypacker@scscourt.org; rpichon@scscourt.org;
citycouncil@menlopark.org; Council, City; Stump, Molly; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org;
JKAPP@pdo.sccgov.org; jsylva@scscourt.org; Keene, James; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org
Subject:Silicon Valley De-Bug | Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch Can’t Evade
http://siliconvalleydebug.org/stories/supreme‐court‐nominee‐neil‐gorsush‐can‐t‐evade‐the‐tough‐questions‐it‐s‐the‐
law
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 8:26 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jessica Yang <jessyang325@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 11:15 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Strongly oppose Scenario 6 !
Dear City Council,
As Palo Alto resident, I strongly oppose Scenario 6 of the housing development plan. That plan will cause school overcrowding and traffic congestion. The current resources that the city has does not support such
expansion. It will have significant negative impact on the living environment of the city.
At tonight's meeting, some people argued that they will encourage people not to buy cars and take public
transportation. How can the city enforce that? How can the city guarantee that people living in the dense development area will not buy cars. That is mission impossible!
In addition, rental units do not pay property tax and the city can not recoup the cost spent on school and other
infrastructures.
Scenario 6 can only benefit developers, not the residents of Palo Alto!! The two city council members, Kniss
and Takana, who are under investigation for their improper campaign activities should recuse for any of the
housing development decision due to conflict interest!! I don't trust them and they can not represent Palo Alto
residents!!
Sincerely,
Jessica Yang
408-802-1760
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 8:29 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Tamika Hayes <tamika.hayes@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 5:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for More Housing Options in Palo Alto
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members, Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units presented in Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and
improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to housing FAR in mixed use projects
in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added
customers for local serving retail, exciting mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as
housing would be located near services, shopping and other amenities. The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a top priority for the council. Sincerely,
Tamika Hayes
Palo Alto resident (Barron Park)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/16/2017 2:42 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:aram james <abjpd1@icloud.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:46 PM
To:Keene, James; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; Council, City; council@redwoodcity.org;
RJonsen@menlopark.org; Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; bos@smcgov.org;
cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org;
mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.yeager@bos.sccgov.org; Nick Tasers SF;
citycouncil@menlopark.org
Subject:Taser interview from the archives
http://newamericamedia.org/2015/12/expert-stun-guns-far-from-nonlethal-alternative-to-police-bullets.php
Shared via the Google app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:14 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:James Eron <haas@j-eron.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 12:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank you for ADU reform !!
City,
Thank you for moving forward with ADU housing reform. I believe it is in the right direction to support our community.
Regards,
James Eron
3418 Waverley Street, PA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 8:24 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net>
Sent:Tuesday, March 21, 2017 8:40 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank You
I just read the morning paper and wish to thank you for not endorsing the most aggressive of the plans offered in the
Staff Report.
I also wish to thank those of you who acknowledge the importance of taking Stanford’s growth plans into consideration
when making decisions that impact Palo Alto’s future.
Finally, I wish to thank you for restoring the programs to the Comp Plan.
Excluding my Stanford years, I have lived here since 1981 and I am certain that the current city dynamic is the most
discouraging, divided, and distrusting that I have observed. A sad result is a dilution of Palo Alto’s sense of community.
Much of the burden for remedying this falls to City Council. Hopefully last night’s decisions are a small step in the right
direction.
Annette Portello Ross
College Terrace
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:14 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Andy Miksztal <andy.miksztal@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 12:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:To the Corrupt City Council Members:
Kniss, Tanaka, Fine-
Stop selling out the residents of Palo Alto to developers.
Andy Miksztal
743 Cereza Dr
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:12 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Petersen-Perez <bayareafreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 7:08 AM
To:Lum, Patty; Council, City; Watson, Ron; Bullerjahn, Rich; Philip, Brian; Dave Price;
jnowell@padailypost.com; Perron, Zachary; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky
Subject:Turn in your badge and weapon
If you think for a moment I'm going to sweep your elder abuse under the carpet...You've got another thing
coming.... Lump of human flesh
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:12 AM
2
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/16/2017 2:42 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:14 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC
Subject:UPDATE: SB 649 -- what should the City's position be?
Council members,
Update: The League of California Cities has changed its position on SB 649 to "oppose,"
http://ct3k1.capitoltrack.com/public/search.aspx?id=ad485199‐37cd‐42cd‐8217‐
d19b4d257119&session=17&s=sb%20649&t=bill
as explained here.
http://blob.capitoltrack.com/17blobs/c65a741d‐37cb‐41e4‐aea6‐bac5078181e5
Jeff
‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded Message ‐‐‐‐‐
From: Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
To: City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>; UAC <uac@cityofpaloalto.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 2:59 PM
Subject: SB 649 ‐‐ what should the City's position be?
Council members,
A bill, SB 649, has been introduced in the California Legislature which MIGHT be intended to limit municipal authority to
regulate certain wireless deployments.
See this blog:
02‐22‐17: "Two California lawmakers want to declare cell sites not a municipal affair"
http://www.tellusventure.com/blog/two‐california‐lawmakers‐want‐to‐declare‐cell‐sites‐not‐a‐municipal‐affair/
Blogger Steve Blum says, "The bill that’s in the hopper now doesn’t actually say that small cells will not be “subject to a
city or county discretionary permit”, as collocation facilities are currently privileged to be. But it does set the table for
adding that exemption as SB 649 moves through the legislative sausage machine ‐‐ there would be little point to the bill
otherwise."
Here's the text of SB 649.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB649
Its status is that it "May be acted upon on or after March 23."
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB649
The League of California Cities says its position on SB 649 is "watch."
http://ct3k1.capitoltrack.com/public/search.aspx?id=ad485199‐37cd‐42cd‐8217‐
d19b4d257119&session=17&s=sb%20649&t=bill
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/16/2017 2:42 PM
2
(The League's possible registered positions are: watch, support, and oppose.) https://www.cacities.org/Resources‐
Documents/Policy‐Advocacy‐Section/Legislative‐Resources/Presentations‐Publications‐Papers/Top‐10‐Tips‐for‐
Lobbying‐the‐Legislature.aspx
Is this something the City's legislative consultants should take a look at?
Thanks.
Jeff
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/22/2017 8:26 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kathy Wei <kathywei2008@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 10:37 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Vote Against scenario 6
Dear City Council,
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought-out.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better-priced housing here, but that still stays within the
city’s ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new
growth rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. This is unreasonable and
extreme. There is no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and there’s no evidence the city’s
infrastructure, services and schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more
cars, traffic, parking demand, school enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Even the slowest growth Scenario 2 still accelerates housing over our long term averages. While there are some
people who would like to see unlimited housing everywhere in town no matter what, most of us care about more
things than just housing. We want you to make a carefully considered and wise judgement, especially for the
Comprehensive Plan which has long term effects. All of you ran for council as Moderate. Please choose something more thoughtful than Scenario 6, thatPalo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sincerely,
Kathy Wei
845 altaire walk
Sent from my iPhone
From: Herb Borock
To: Palo Alto City Council
March 20, 2017, Agenda Item #16
Goal
A general, overa11, and u1t:imat:e purpose, aim,
which the City or County will direct effort.
omitted from 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan.)
.~
., .-,
or end toward
(Emphasized words
Objective (There are no Objectives in the 1998-2010
Comprehensive Plan.)
A specific statement of desired future condition toward which
the City or County will expend effort in the context of striving
to achieve broader goal. An objective should be achievable and,
where possible, should be measurable and time-specific. The
State Government Code (Section 65302) requires that general
plans spell out the "objectives," principles, standards, and
proposals of the general plan. "The addition of 100 units of
affordable housing by 1995" is an example of an objective.
Policy
A specific statement of principle or of guiding actions that
implies clear corrunitment but is not mandatory. A general
direction that a governmental agency sets to follow, in order to
meet its goals and objectives before undertaking an action
program. (See "Program.")
Program
An action, ac~ivity, or strat egy carried out in response to
adopted policy to achieve a specific goal or objective.
Policies and programs estab1ish the "who," "how" and "when" £or
carr;ying out the 1'what" and 1'where" or goal.s and objectives.
(Emphasized sentence omitted from definition of "Program" in
1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan.)
Comprehensive Plan Comments 3/20/17
From: Pat Burt
·COUNCIL MEETING
· ~.1_Li 0 !12
-~ [ j ll<lce_d Before Meeting · ft/' Received at Meeting
When making your considerations tonight about whether to continue our longtime practice of including
Programs In the Comp Plan, it is important to review the problem you're trying to solve, the integrity of
the process by which you proceeded, policy issues, and the best actions going forward.
The Problem -The council as a whole, the CAC, and the staff all agree that the Plan would benefit from
streamlining the Programs. In addition, there has been a concern that the current Plan embraces
contradictory objectives. Although I would describe the Plan as having deliberate tensions rather than
contradictions, that problem should be solved rather than abrogated. Either way, the Programs provide
greater clarity rather than less. The baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.
Process -This issue has big consequences for our guiding document. Unfortunately, the issue was raised
at the end of a several hour meeting, without forewarning to the public and without thoughtful and
open discourse by the council. As the mayor emphasized in his State of the City speech, Palo Alto places
high value on transparent and meaningful public participation. Clearly, this action did not meet that
standard.
Unfortunately, there have been miss-representations made about what actually occurred at your
January meeting. Removal of the Programs was not merely a formatting change. As was made explicitly
clear at that meeting, the intention was to eliminate all Programs from the adopted Plan. The Programs
would be referenced as an addendum, but merely as alternatives considered by the CAC and not
adopted by the Council. This is a striking difference from the current Plan where all Programs are
officially part of the Plan. It is true that they are also part of a supplementary implementation
addendum in the Plan, but they only have meaning because they are part of the plan itself.
The Council expressed respect for the work of the CAC and staff. But respect must be conveyed in
actions rather than merely words.
Policy-Elimination of Programs would result in a more ambiguous Plan and greater arbitrariness in
decisions by Councils. In addition, the Programs provide essential guidance to staff about how to review
future projects.
Remedy-Consider the staff and CAC recommendation to return the Programs to the CAC for
streamlining and consider using the PTC to then carefully review those CAC recommendations as was
done with the prior plan and as is their proper purview. Then spend the necessary time as a Council to
carefully consider the remaining programs.
Summary-The Comp Plan is our guiding community document for the next 15 years. To the extent
possible, it needs to be enduring and represent community consensus. That is why last year we did not
rush the Plan forward under the prior Council. We agreed to proceed deliberately allowing the CAC to
work to reconcile different viewpoints.
(b) "Rehabilitation" means the improvement or repair of a structure or facilities appurtenant
thereto, exclusive of general maintenance or minor repairs.
The appellate court ruled that condominium construction at the
site of a dilapidated building, which would preserve only the
building's fa~ade and portions of two side walls, so that only
two of twenty proposed condominium units would incorporate any
part of~~d wall was not "rehabilitation" within the meaning of
the property tax assessment deferral statute. (Orange Street
Armory Associates, Inc. v. City of New Haven, 551 A.2d 759, 17
Conn. App. 166.}
The Connecticut appellate ruling is relevant to the project at
429 University and provides additional substantial evidence that
the term "rehabilitation" does not include the term "demolition".
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely, ~
Herb Borock
Attachment: February 6, 2017 letter with attachments (total of
7 pages).
.,
Herb Borock
P. o. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
February 6, 2017
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 9430i
l'BBRUARY 6, 2017 CITY COtJNClla MBftING
429 UNIVBRSift AVDOB (141?LN-00222)
AGDJDA HEM flA: CLOSBD SESSION CONl'BRBHCB Wll'B CITY AftORNBY
AGENDA llEM fll: APPEAL Oi' ARCBITICTORAL EtEVDW APPROVAL
Dear City Council:
I urge you to vote against going into Closed Session to avoid
the impression that your secret meeting for Agenda Item #lA is
being used to orchestrate the questions, answers, motions,
deliberations, and votes for Agenda Item ftll.
The applicant, appellant, and public ar~ entitl~d to hear,
consider, and comment on the opinions of the City Attorney on
this application and apppeal to enable you to make an informed
decision.
Should you decide to go into Closed Session, this letter
provides information on legal issues that you might want to
consider that are covered by the agenda descrip~ion for the
Closed Session agenda item.
Whether or not you go into Closed Session, the issues in this
letter are also presented for inclusion in the administrative
record for the application and appeal for your consideration in
reaching a decision on Agenda Item #11.
Uphold Appeal. or llaquir• an Environmental l'mpact Report
I urge you to direct staff to prepare a Record of Land Use
.Action to uphold the appeal as described in Recommendation 2 at
the bottom of Packet Page 522 (Page 1 of Staff Report ID #7376).
..
• •
If you don't want to deny the appeal, the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires you to direct that an
Environmental Impact Report (~IR) be prepared for this project
as required by CEQA Requlation 15064(g): "If there is
disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the
significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency
shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR.")
Potentially Significant rmpact: Bonus Seismic Floor Area
The proposed project has an unmitigated Potentially Significant
Impact regarding Land Use and Planning, because the project
conflicts with the Zoning Ordinance (Title 18, Palo Alto
Mun~cipal Code} due to the ;act that the project coupts as floor
area up to 4,207 square feet of transferred development rights
from a demolished building at 340 University Avenue when the
Zoning Ordinance permits only the transfer of development rights
from rehabilitated buildings but not demolished buildings.
This impact can be mitigated by dedu~ting from the allowable
floor area for the non-residential part of the project all floor
area transferred from 340 University Avenue and any other
building that has been demolished instead of being rehabilitated.
If the impact is not mitigated, then approving a project with
the resulting unmitigated Potentially Significant Impact is a
prejudicial abuse of discretion and a violation of CEQA, unless
an EIR is prepared, circulated, and determined to be complete
and adequate.
There is substantial evidence that there is a difference between
how government agencies that are _experts in seismic
rehabilitation treat the two categories of demolition ~nd
rehabilitation.
For example, the August 2015 "Seismic Mitigation Program
Handbook" prepared by the Off ice of Public School Construction
in Section 3 at page 5, "Division of Stat~ Architect Approval
Process", includes a flow chart with two ~ecision points labeled
"Replace or Rehabilitate?" that each lead to different processes
for funding approval for demolition projects and r~habilitation
projects. (See attached 2 pages.)
Also, the Oregon Infrastructure Finance Authority "Seismic
Rehabilitation Grant Program" that "provides funding for the
seismic rehabilitation of critical public buildings,
..
particularly public schools and emerge_ncy services ~acilities"
says projects with ''Structural imprqvements" are eligible -for
th~ grant funding, but "Demolition/rebuild" projects are not
eligible for the funding.
The program description goes on to say that "Buildings with a
mix o~ eligible and ineligible uses can be considered if an
entity pays for the ine~igible portions of the building." (See
attached page.) ·
Thus, there is expert opinion that demolitlon and rehabilitation
are two different concepts and that the term "demolition" is not
included in the term "rehabilitation".
Based upon the above facts, it is reasonable to as~ume that the
ter~. "rehabilitation" in the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance (Title
18, Palo Alto Municipal Code) does not include the term'
"demolition" and, theref~re, no development rights can be
transferred from a demolished building.
Further, standard rules of statutory construction when applied
to the term "rehabilitation" in the transfer of development
rights language in Title 18 demonstr~tes that the term
"demolition" is not included .there. in· the term "rehabilitation!'.
CEQA Regulation 15384(b) says, "Substanti~l evidence shall
include facts, reasonable assumption predicated on facts, and
expert opinion supported by facts."
The above discussion provides substantial evidence that no
development i;ights can be trarisf erred. from a demolished building·,
and that approving a project the purports to include development
rights from a demolished building is a prejudicial abuse of
discretion and a violation of CEQA.
Agenda Description Violation: Ralph M. Brown Act and CEQA
CEQA Regulation 15025(b) says, "The decision-making body of a
public agency shall not delegate the following. functions: (1)
Reviewing and considering ~ final EI~ 9r approving a negative
tj.eclaration prior to approving a projec;:t. ''
The City Council acting as an appellate body is the decision-
rnaking ~ody for this project.
..
Any inference to the contrary in Palo Alto Municipal Code
Chapter 18.31 is overriqden by CEQA.
The Ralph M. Brown Act requires that the agenda item description
for Agenda Item lf:ll ·include the fact that the City Council will
be considering approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaratic;m.
The agenda item description does not include that required
information, although it was included in the description for
your November 30, 2015, meeting on this project.
Therefore you .are prohibited from approving the project and its
Mitigated Negative Declaration at this tim~.
Thank you for your consi.deration of these comments.
Sincerely,
~ Herb Borock
..
To enrich the lives of California's school children as stewards of the
taxpayers' commitment to education.
Seismi ~ Mitigation
Program Ha!ndbook
A guide ta assist with applf.1ng for and obtaining School Fadllty"Program grant
funding through the Seismic Mitigation Program ·
August2015
Prep1red by the
Offi~• of Public School Constnictlo"n
707 Third Slrfft
West Sacramento, CA 95605
9Hl376.1771Tel
!116.3765332 f;uc
www.dgs.ca.gov/opsc
March 15, 2017
TO: STA TE, CITY AND LOCAL OFFICIALS
NOTIFICATION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTIUC COMPANY'S APPLICATION REQUESTING
TO INCREASE RATES FOR COSTS RELATING TO DIABLO CANYON SEISMIC STUDIES AND
RPS PROGRAM COSTS (A.17-02-005)
Summary
On February 28, 2017, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed its 2016 Energy Resource Recovery Account
(ERRA) Compliance application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requesting approval to increase
rates to recover costs related to the following programs:
•Seismic (earthquake) studies performed at Diablo Canyon Power Plant; and
• California's Renewable Portfolio Standard, which includes clean energy, clean air and greenhouse gas reduction goals
for 2030 and beyond.
Related to the programs above, PG&E Is requesting a fatal of $5.69 million to be collected in rates from customers. If
approved, this application would Increase electric rates effective January 1, 2018. This application also Includes a review
of the recorded costs to the ERRA Balancing Account from the prior year.
Background
The ERRA Is used to record fuel and purchased power costs which can be recovered in rates. PG&E recovers these
costs with no mark up for return or profit. The purpose of this ERRA Compliance proceeding is to review PG&E's costs
associated with obtaining energy for customers and approve rate increases for other program costs noted above. The
CPUC will review PG&E's costs to ensure compliance with the previously approved forecast and energy purchasing plans
as well as compliance with the goal of minimizing costs for our customers.
How will PG&E's application affect me?
Most customers receive bundled electric service from PG&E, meaning they receive electric generation, transmission and
distributlon services. Based on rates currently in effect, the bill for a typical residential Non-CARE customer using 500
kWh per month would increase from $110.77 to $110.82 or 0.04%. Actual bill Impacts will vary depending on electricity
usage.
How will PG&E's application affect non-bundled customers?
Direct Access and Community Choice Aggregation customers only receive electric transmission and distribution services
from PG&E. PG&E's application will minimally impact these customers with a 0.003% average increase to rates.
Another category_ of non-bundled customers is Departing Load customers that do not receive electric generation,
transmisslon or C:listribution services from PG&E. However, these customers are required to pay certain charges by law or
CPUC decislon.--PG&E's application will not Impact departing load charges.
How do I find out more about PG&E's proposals?
If you have questions about PG&E1s filing, please contact PG&E at 1-800-743-5000. For TDDmv (speech-hearing
impaired), call 1~800-652-4712. Para mas detalles llame al 1-800-660-6789 • ~ttHiU!cf! 1-800-893-9555. If you would
like a copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits, please write to PG&E at the address below:
-Pacific Gas and Electric Company
2016 ERRA Compliance Application (A.17-02-005)
P.O. Box 7442
San Francisco, CA 94120
A copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits is also available for review at the CPUC's Central Flies Office by appointment only.
For more information, contact aljcentralfilesid@cpuc.ca.gov or 1-415-703-2045. PG&E's application (without exhibits) is
available on the CPUC's website at www.cpuc.ca.gov.
CPUC process
This application will be assigned to an Administrative Law Judge (Judge) who will determine how to receive evidence and
other related documents necessary for the CPUC to establish a record upon which to base its decision. Evidentiary
hearings may be held where parties will present their testimony and may be subject to cross-examination by other parties.
These evidentiary hearing are open to the public, but only those who are formal parties In the case can participate_
1
After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearings, the assigned Judge wHI issue a proposed
decision which may adopt PG&E's proposal, modify it or deny it. Any of the five CPUC Commissioners may sponsor an
alternate decision. The proposed decision, and any alternate decisions, will be discussed and voted upon at a scheduled
CPUC Voting Meeting.
The Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) may review this application. ORA is the independent consumer advocate within
the CPUC with a legislative mandate to represent investor-owned utility customers to obtain the lowest possible rate for
service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. ORA has a multi-disciplinary staff with expertise in economics,
finance, accounting and engineering. For more Information about ORA,'ptease call 1415-703-1584, email
ora@cpuc.ca.gov or visit ORA's website at www.ora.ca.gov.
Stay informed
If you would like to follow this proceeding, or any other issue before the CPUC, you may use the CPUC's free subscription
service. Sign up at: http://subscrlbecpuc.cpuc.ca.gov/. If you would like to learn how you can participate in the
proceeding, have informal comments about the application, or have questions about the CPUC processes, you may
access the CPUC's Public Advisor Office (PAO) webpage at http://consumers.cpuc.ca.gov/pao/.
You may also contact the PAO as follows:
Email: public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov
Mall: CPUC
Public Advisor's Office
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Call: 1-866-849-8390 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-2074
TTY: 1-866-836-7825 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-5282
If you are writing or emailing the PAO, please include the proceeding number (2016 ERRA Compliance Application, A 17-
02-005). All comments will be circulated to the Commfssioners, the assigned Judge and appropriate CPUC staff, and will
become public record.
(")~
-.J -~ -t .
:% -<-1,
~ ('")~ :::::0 r
N r.i-u
0 ::o:t> ~· %9 u;o
:x o:S:-
c.? -riCj ""Tlo
0 c=;-r'Tl(") l>
2