HomeMy Public PortalAbout20170410plCC 701-32
DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE:
LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE
MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL
RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS
ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES
ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES
Prepared for: 4/10/2017
Document dates: 3/22/2017 – 3/29/2017
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: HILLARY GITELMAN, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: MARCH 27, 2017
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8: PUBLIC HEARING: 670 Los Trancos Road [16PLN-
00266]: Site and Design Review to Allow the Construction of a new Single
Family House and Guest House With a Total of Approximately 10,960 Square
Feet of Floor Area. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt From
CEQA Pursuant to Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion
of Small Structures). Zoning District: OS
The above referenced agenda item is for the proposed construction of a new two-story
residence, guest house, and associated site improvements on the vacant property at 670 Los
Trancos Road. Some members of the public have provided written comments on the
application, with a few expressing concerns that the project is not compliant with the Municipal
Code due to the proposed accessory structure/guest house and the visibility of the house from
the Arastradero Preserve.
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to some of the key points identified in the
public comment letters.
• Residence Visible from Parkland
A point was raised that the project is not consistent with Open Space Development
Review Criterion #1, which states: “The development should not be visually intrusive
from public roadways and public parklands. As much as possible, development should be
sited so it is hidden from view.” While the proposed project is clearly subject to this
criterion, there is some subjectivity in evaluating the project for compliance. The code
states the development “should not be visually intrusive” and “as much as possible,
development should be sited so it is hidden from view” [Emphasis added]. This language
is distinguished from other more objective code language, such as compliance with a
height limit.
8
The subject property is located at a clearing on a hill, and contains less tree cover than
many of the nearby homes in the Hewlett Tract. There are other property features that
limit the placement of the residence of the lot including the property slope, setbacks,
among others. The applicant has taken steps to mitigate the visibility of the project by
dropping portions of the home below grade and adding landscaping, including ten blue
oaks, to screen the house, but the home will be visible from the Arastradero Preserve. In
its review, The Planning and Transportation Commission found that while the home will
be visible, the project would not be visually intrusive and the applicant's efforts to
minimize the impact were sufficient.
With this action item, the City Council will evaluate the project to determine whether
this issue is sufficiently addressed or if the project requires further refinement or
conditions to comply with this criterion.
• Residence Relationship to the Hilltop Ridgeline
Comments have also expressed concerns that the project is not consistent with Open
Space Development Review Criterion #2, which states: "Development should be located
away from hilltops and designed to not extend above the nearest ridgeline." The subject
parcel is located on a hilltop. In the past, conformance with this standard was
determined based on whether the roofline of a proposed structure was below the
highest portion of the ridgeline when viewed at elevation. The subject project has been
designed consistent with that approach. To achieve compliance, the applicant is locating
the house away from the ridgeline and dropping portions of the home below grade.
From the commenters' perspectives, downslope on the hiking path, the structure does
appear to extend above the ridgeline. The Planning and Transportation Commission
considered the proposed home with respect to this criterion and explored the possibility
of requiring additional trees. However, the Commission ultimately found that further
project modifications were unwarranted and that the project complied with this
criterion. The Council in its review of the project will consider the project's compliance
with this code provision.
• Concern Regarding the Accessory Structure Being Used as an Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU)
Several letters have expressed the opinion that the proposed accessory structure is an
ADU, which would not be permitted on the site given the existing provisions of the
Municipal Code. This issue has been evaluated in the staff report. The proposed
accessory structure complies with applicable zoning regulations and the project plans
have been revised to remove the kitchenette which was previously proposed. Neither
2 of3
the current ADU regulations nor the planned ordinance would permit an ADU on this
property. Further details on this structure are provided in the Council staff report for the
project.
Director
Planning and Community Environment
3of3
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/23/2017 1:44 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Michael Jacobs <doctormbjacobs@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 23, 2017 12:36 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Gitelman, Hillary; Owen, Graham
Subject:Site and Design Review for construction of a new single family house at 670 Los
Trancos Rd.
To City Council of Palo Alto,
My wife and I write to you as residents of the PA OS district for the past 38 years, frequent users of the Pearson‐
Arastradero Preserve, and (hopefully) prospective neighbors of Guy Gech and Noa Grant.
After multiple iterations (taking into account input from many City of Palo Alto agencies, as well as virtually all of their
future neighbors), Guy and Noa have created an exquisite site‐use that satisfies all Open Space Development Criteria,
and which will have minimal impact on the neighboring Preserve and other surrounding Open Space lands.
Because of some apparent opposition to construction on this building site, and to see for ourselves what the “to‐do” is
about, my wife and I hiked virtually all of the Preserve trails on the afternoons of 3/22 and 3/23. It was immediately
obvious that the visual impact of the planned home was minimal to nil. When one hikes these trails, it is the beauty of
the vistas and the immersion in the natural surroundings that repeatedly draws one back to this jewel of a
preserve. The few visible existing homes off in the distance are really not a distraction in the least, and the addition of
the Gecht‐Grant structure will have no impact whatsoever.
We are strongly in favor of a positive decision from the Site and Design Review.
Jane Morton
Michael Jacobs
614 Los Trancos Rd.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/24/2017 8:23 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Patrick Barry <patrickbarry@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 24, 2017 8:05 AM
To:Council, City; Planning Commission
Subject:Please do not approve proposed addition to 670 Los Trancos
Please do not approve the proposed house at 670 Los Trancos. As a life long Palo Alto resident and regular
visitor to the Arastradero Preserve, I am concerned that the rooflines of the proposed structure will significantly
damage the beauty, views and character of the open space. This seems unfair to the thousands who use the park and out of step with the mission of the open space. There must be a way to build a suitable house on that
property without creating a looming structure that turns the Woodrat trail into someone's personal backyard.
Patrick Barry
2591 Ramona Street
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/24/2017 8:23 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Maureen W Bard <mwestenberger@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 23, 2017 11:10 PM
To:Council, City; Planning Commission
Subject:Proposed house at 670 Los Trancos Rd. adjacent to Open Space/Arastradero Preserve
Dear Members of City Council and Planning Commission, Please do not approve the proposed house at 670 Los Trancos. Please consider visiting Woodrat and
Meadowlark Trails in Arastradero Preserve to get an accurate feel for what the house will do to the park.
The photos provided by the homeowner show only what the house will look like from the very small Bowl Loop Trail just below it. I’ve attached photos of the perspective on the house from a park high point at
Woodrat/Meadowlark Trail--a spot that currently provides a lovely panoramic view of Windy Hill, stands of oak, and native grassland, with only a few, barely visible houses. A large oak at the top of the trail offers a beautiful frame to the view of the Bay below, but having a huge, highly visible house placed on the native grasses at the
border of the park just behind you will destroy the feeling of getting away from it all. The projected house appears closer to the trail and more exposed than any other house bordering the preserve.
The house’s proposed landscaping trees will take 20 years to hide it from below, which is a very long time for
the rest of us. Moreover, the trees will screen the house primarily from below, not necessarily from across the way higher up at Woodrat Trail, where one stands to admire the view. The house will occupy one of the few
grassy hills in view. The existing trees on the sides of the property will do nothing to disguise it from the trails
across from it. Please examine my photos of the preserve's map and 3-D topographical model to try to get a sense of how it would be hard to screen a house in this location. I might also point out that many people in
Palo Alto make do with a house the size of this house's proposed 1500sf guest house. A small house rather than a showcase one could be better screened by existing trees.
Finally, I would like to make you aware that the timing of the story poles has impinged on public awareness of
and legitimate protest against the project. Many of the trails with views of the proposed buildings have been closed due to rain. If the trails had been open, most likely many more park visitors would be upset over the
potential building. Furthermore, I would guess that many preserve visitors do not realize they have the right to object to this development. According to Palo Alto’s Open Space Review Criteria, the house should not be permitted because it is “visually intrusive from … public parklands.” Although the house might not exactly
occupy the hilltop, it will effectively appear to do so to the hikers on the trail, and would seem to violate the OSRC that “development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend above the nearest
ridgeline.” (The property owner’s submitted photos reveal this perspective.) I am sure that if other hikers knew
they could have a say in the matter, they would speak out against this project.
Like many local residents, I walk Arastradero Preserve at least once a week. It’s a lovely place to escape the
development around us, a respite from suburban life, and Woodrat and Meadowlark Trails especially offer the sense of unspoiled nature. Please don’t allow the desires of one family to ruin the beautiful vista for the many who visit the preserve.
Sincerely, Maureen Bard
Woodrat Trail approaching Meadowlark. (My mark-ups are based on photos of the story poles on the property.)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/24/2017 8:23 AM
3
Woodrat Trail without the mark-ups. Please note how the grassland between the groves of trees is essential in
maintaining a sense of open space. Trees planted below the house are unlikely to screen a two-story building.
This is the view facing the oak tree in the photo above, with your back to the proposed house.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/24/2017 8:23 AM
4
This is a view of the proposed house from Bowl Loop. Note how it appears at the ridge top and how close it
feels to to the park
border.
Topographical model in visitors center. I stuck some Monopoly houses in the grassland area where the house is
projected. Obviously, this is not to scale, but the story poles make it look as though the house will stretch across
the grassland between the trees. Standing at the oak and looking across at the house, it would be very hard to
screen the view of the house.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/24/2017 8:23 AM
5
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/24/2017 1:37 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:John Danby <john.danby@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 24, 2017 11:59 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Regarding 670 Los Trancos Road
Dear Palo Alto Council
I am writing because I will be unable to attend the open hearing on the 27th on this property but I have substantial concerns.
I am a frequent user of the Arastradero open space, and this development proposal will have a marked negative
impact on the area. Ignoring the ideological issues with the 1980 exemption the subdivision was given allowing
it to develop at all on open space, there are several both legal and use-impact concerns I have. I have listed them below.
- The proposal appears to be well over the impervious surface requirements of 4%.
- There is a secondary dwelling (guest house) in the proposal, which I do not believe is permissible on a
property under 10 acres - The construction will cut off, for the duration of the project, a "green lane" of undeveloped space between
Arastradero and Foothills Park
- A swimming pool within 60 yards of a popular but secluded trail and an unsightly dwelling blocking the view
of the santa cruz mountains both seem to not be in the spirit of originally zoning the area as open space.
I don't believe Palo Alto needs another vulgar mansion in the area, and instead should work to protect what
open space we have.
Thank you for your consideration
John Danby
408 398 3518
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56500
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 8:28 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Karen Gregory <KK.Gregory@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 26, 2017 11:12 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:PA City Council - Strong Support for the Gecht Building Plans at 670 Los Trancos Rd
Attachments:Gecht Property - Letter to PA City Council.pdf
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members:
We are not able to attend the March 27 City Council Meeting regarding the development of the Gecht family home at
670 Los Trancos Road. We would like to express our strong support of the development plans through our note to the
planning commission.
Our home is located across the street from the planned Gecht family home. We moved to this site, located between
Arastradero Preserve and Foothill Park, in 1993 specifically for the privilege of living in the open space environment with
the incredible and abundant wildlife, the natural beauty of undeveloped land and the privacy, peace and tranquility this
provides. We love our parks and preserves and support them with our time, energy and advocacy, devoted to keeping
them preserved and accessible for the community. All five of our family members are frequent and passionate trail
hikers/equestrians who thrive as outdoor enthusiasts. Specifically, Karen is a current Equestrian Patrol Volunteer for
SCC and SMC Parks and MROSD, David volunteered for POST and our children have run/hiked regularly each week
growing up here. We treasure the gift of open space and all that it entails.
As passionate advocates for open space, we are grateful for and pleased with the consideration the Gecht Family gave to
our neighborhood and the surrounding community, including visitors to our lovely Arastradero Preserve, in designing
and building their new home and their intention to leave the surrounding land uncultivated. Preserve visitors (including
our family) enjoy “the view” as part of their park experience, and there is, understandably, regret for any level of
development. We believe the Gecht’s intended home design, with their priority for minimizing the impact of their
development on wildlife and the natural beauty of the area, will be relatively low profile and respectfully discreet from
the park, especially given what could have been built on that pristine and precious site. It is clear that the beauty of this
natural area is what drew them to this lot, and they have taken great measures to honor, preserve and prioritize as
much as possible the grandeur and natural feel of the natural landscape in their home design.
We are convinced the Gecht Family will follow through on their assurances and plans to be responsive to their neighbors
(and specifically guests visiting Arastradero Preserve), respectful and as unintrusive as possible in terms of preserving
the beauty, peace and tranquility that make this piece of land unique and precious. Their plans honor the location as
part of the breathtaking sanctuary of Arastradero Preserve for which so many people gratefully rely on for a wilderness
retreat, exercise, a mind‐clearing recharge, a silent refuge, and other attractions of the solitude and serene beauty that
hallmark exactly the distinctive features that brought the Gechts to this location.
It is our hope that you will approve the Gecht’s plans for their house. We look forward to having them as our next door
neighbors and fellow enthusiasts for our park lands.
Sincerely,
Karen and David Gregory
701 Los Trancos Road
March 2017
Dear Palo Alto City Council:
We are not able to attend the March 27 City Council Meeting regarding the development
of the Gecht family home at 670 Los Trancos Road. We would like to express our
support of the development plans through our note to the planning commission.
Our home is located across the street from the planned Gecht family home. We moved to
this site, located between Arastradero Preserve and Foothill Park, in 1993 specifically for
the privilege of living in the open space environment with the incredible and abundant
wildlife, the natural beauty of undeveloped land and the privacy, peace and tranquility
this provides. We love our parks and preserves and support them with our time, energy
and advocacy, devoted to keeping them preserved and accessible for the community. All
five of our family members are frequent and passionate trail hikers/equestrians who
thrive as outdoor enthusiasts. Specifically, Karen is a current Equestrian Patrol Volunteer
for SCC and SMC Parks and MROSD, David volunteered for POST and our children
have run/hiked regularly each week growing up here. We treasure the gift of open space
and all that it entails.
As passionate advocates for open space, we are grateful for and pleased with the
consideration the Gecht Family gave to our neighborhood and the surrounding
community, including visitors to our lovely Arastradero Preserve, in designing and
building their new home and their intention to leave the surrounding land uncultivated.
Preserve visitors (including our family) enjoy “the view” as part of their park experience,
and there is, understandably, regret for any level of development. We believe the Gecht’s
intended home design, with their priority for minimizing the impact of their development
on wildlife and the natural beauty of the area, will be relatively low profile and
respectfully discreet from the park, especially given what could have been built on that
pristine and precious site. It is clear that the beauty of this natural area is what drew them
to this lot, and they have taken great measures to honor, preserve and prioritize as much
as possible the grandeur and natural feel of the natural landscape in their home design.
We are convinced the Gecht Family will follow through on their assurances and plans to
be responsive to their neighbors (and specifically guests visiting Arastradero Preserve),
respectful and as unintrusive as possible in terms of preserving the beauty, peace and
tranquility that make this piece of land unique and precious. Their plans honor the
location as part of the breathtaking sanctuary of Arastradero Preserve for which so many
people gratefully rely on for a wilderness retreat, exercise, a mind-clearing recharge, a
silent refuge, and other attractions of the solitude and serene beauty that hallmark exactly
the distinctive features that brought the Gechts to this location.
It is our hope that you will approve the Gecht’s plans for their house. We look forward to
having them as our next door neighbors and fellow enthusiasts for our park lands.
Sincerely,
Karen and David Gregory
701 Los Trancos Road
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 8:29 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Katharina Stromeyer <katharina.stromeyer@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:36 PM
To:Council, City; Planning Commission
Cc:George Stromeyer
Subject:Proposed house at 670 Los Trancos Rd. adjacent to Open Space/Arastradero Preserve
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council and Planning Commission,
I am writing to you as a frequent hike in the Arastradero Preserve in regards to the proposed house to be built on
670 Los Trancos Road. My husband George and I have serious concerns about the following:
the house would be right at the border of the Arastradero Reserve
the house would occupy one of the few hills with grasslands and would be visible from many trails in
the preserve; thus changing the open view scenery completely
the plans call for a substantial structure of 9,363 feet which does not include the 2100 sq feet for the basement. Please refer to the Blue Oak Development and what a significant (and negative) impact it had for the area in terms of views , destroying open space and wild life corridors.
due to the significant amount of rain, many of the trails of the Arastradero Reserve are currently closed
and thus many of the usual hikers and bikers are not aware what the disastrious impact the proposed
house would have.
Before considering the application, please make sure that some of the committee members walk the trails
leading up to the proposed constructions to see and experience first hand how much the preserve and with the
experience for thousands of hikers and bikers would be changed by this one house now and forever.
I appreciate your attention to this important matter.
Katharina Stromeyer
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 9:51 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:susan mcnealy <susan.mcnealy@me.com>
Sent:Monday, March 27, 2017 8:54 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Scott Glenn McNealy; Gitelman, Hillary
Subject:670 Los Trancos Road
To Whom It May Concern,
We are writing to express our support for the proposed building project of Noa Grant and Guy Gecht due to the minimal
impact it has upon the enjoyment of other hikers and the fact that prohibiting them from building would be an
egregious infringement upon property rights that should trouble all citizens of Palo Alto.
Contrary to the complaints of the hiker, the proposed development project has minimal impact upon the preserve. Mr.
Gecht and Ms. Grant calculated that their house would be visible from only two percent of the twenty‐five mile long
trail. Surely, this cannot cause enough of an inconvenience to a hiker that it is worth preventing two wonderful people
from building the house of their dreams. Furthermore, the design of the house is compliant with all city rules and
regulations to the tee, without even requesting a variance. Furthermore, many people would argue that artistic houses
can add to scenery: Pebble Beach's 17 Mile Drive would not be as well‐renowned without the beautiful houses to
complement the natural scenery.
More importantly, prohibiting Ms. Grant and Mr. Gecht from building their house would be an inexcusable breach of
their property rights. While they paid money to buy the rights to the land, the hiker did not pay for the right to hike the
trail and look at the Gecht and Grant property. Also, as previously mentioned the design of the house fully complies with
the already stringent regulations of the City of Palo Alto. Stopping the construction of a house that legally can be built is
equivalent to stating that the complaints of few people are more important than the law and the rights of Mr. Gecht and
Ms. Grant. Prohibiting the construction of the house would thus set a startling precedent which will allow for further
corrosion of the rights of the individual, which is something we cannot tolerate as Americans. Thus we implore you to
interpret the law as it is written rather than re‐write on the fly at your convenience.
On a side note, shouldn't the city of Palo Alto be excited about the proposed development? It will bring jobs to a
construction crew, and upon completion the house will be a source of tax revenue for the city which will benefit all of
us.
We planned to come speak tonight at the meeting but when the agenda was pushed back we could no longer attend
because of a prior commitment to a charity event for education.
Thank you for your time,
Susan and Scott McNealy
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 3:40 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 27, 2017 3:40 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:March 27, 2017, Council Meeting, Item #8: 670 Los Trancos
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
March 27, 2017
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
MARCH 27, 2017, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #8
670 LOS TRANCOS ROAD (16PLN-00266)
Dear City Council:
The applicant has provided visual simulations that demonstrate that even
after five years the development will be visually intrusive from the
Arastradero Preserve in violation of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
18.28.070(p)(1).
Surely, the visually intrusive structure can be sited somewhere else on
the 5.42 acre site where it would not be seen from public parklands.
One way to mitigate the intrusiveness of the structure that is still
labeled as a Guest House in the staff report (ID # 7878) is to abide by
the law and limit the structure size to 900 square feet and require it to
use the same driveway as the main house as required for second residences,
instead of just using the same driveway throat that immediately leads to a
separate second driveway to the second structure.
The applicant would have to wait until an ordinance that becomes effective
that removes the current requirement that second dwelling units require a
site with a minimum of 10 acres.
The change to the site development regulations for the Open Space zoning
district that now require a minimum of 10 acres may have been suggested by
staff in response to a request from this applicant, but if so they should
at least wait until the new regulations take effect.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 3:40 PM
2
The applicant and staff have told us different stories to try to convince
us that the second structure is not a dwelling unit.
At first this dwelling unit, that they said wasn't a dwelling unit,
included two bedrooms, two baths, a living room, a dining room, and a
kitchenette.
But, they said the Guest House is only a yoga retreat that could be used
by occasional guests.
Now, the revised plans say there is a Hobby Room with plumbing fixtures
for a private bath. A Hobby Room for a yoga retreat and occasional
guests.
The fact is that there are sufficient plumbing connections to convert this
Hobby Room to a kitchen as soon as the building inspector leaves.
There has been only a token reduction in the size of the structure.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/24/2017 10:40 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:LWV of Palo Alto <lwvpaoffice@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 24, 2017 10:28 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:March 27, 2017, Agenda, Item No. 16: Public Hearing: Housing Impact Fee Ordinance
Attachments:LWVPA LTR 3.27.17.Final.CC.Housing Fees.docx
Dear City Council,
Attached please find our comments on the March 27, 2017, Agenda, Item No. 16: Public Hearing:
Housing Impact Fee Ordinance.
Thank you.
Bonnie Packer
President
--
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
3921 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 209
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 903-0600
March 27, 2017 Greg Scharff, Mayor, and City Council Members 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: March 27, 2017, Agenda, Item No. 16: Public Hearing: Housing Impact Fee Ordinance Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto (LWVPA) appreciates this opportunity to revisit the proposed Housing Impact Fee Ordinance. In January, LWVPA applauded the City’s continuing efforts to provide mechanisms for the provision of housing for those with very low, low and moderate incomes and noted that LWVPA has historically and consistently supported both Palo Alto's inclusionary housing program and the assessment of housing impact fees for the Affordable Housing Fund. For this reason, LWVPA supports the proposed ordinance; however, we urge you to consider the following changes. LWVPA notes the difficulty in balancing the desire to ensure there is a robust Affordable Housing Fund to support development of multi-unit housing for those with very low, low and moderate incomes versus the desire to have a certain amount of below market rate (BMR) housing units sprinkled throughout the City. The current housing crisis demands a more aggressive approach to providing more multi-family housing. LWVPA urges you to adopt an ordinance that favors a robust Affordable Housing Fund. Table 6 of the staff report shows that in a 20-unit development of detached single-family homes that sell for over $3M each, it is unlikely the developer would be able to provide a truly BMR home. The in-lieu fee of $50/sf would generate $3M for the Affordable Housing Fund, while a fee of $95/sf would generate $5.7M. These amounts could easily leverage 10 or 20 times more units that this developer could provide. To make it easier to collect in-lieu fees in such circumstances, LWVPA supports the staff recommendation to add new Section 16.65.080(B)(3). LWVPA also recommends deleting Section 16.65.080(A)(5) as that overly burdensome and draconian section clearly favors units over fees. As noted above, Table 6 shows that the proposed in-lieu fee of $50/sf would generate $3M for the Affordable Housing Fund, which is less than the $4.56M that the existing in-lieu fee would generate today on a similar project. Although the higher impact fee of $95/sf on detached, single family developments would generate $5.7M on such a project, it is uncertain whether such a high fee would have a chilling effect on housing supply in general. Because the effect of the proposed impact fees on the City’s affordable housing policies and goals is unknown and uncertain, LWVPA supports the staff recommendation to reevaluate the impact fees within the next several years. LWVPA believes this should be done within the next 3-5 years. Thank you for considering our comments. Very truly yours, Bonnie Packer, President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
THE LEAGUE
OF WOMEN VOTERS
OF PALO ALTO
3921 E. BAYSHORE RD., SUITE 209 • PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303 • 650-903-0600 • www.lwvpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 8:21 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Dennis Martin <dmartin@biabayarea.org>
Sent:Friday, March 24, 2017 3:24 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page RE: BMR Program
Attachments:BIA comments to Palo Alto CC re IZ AHIF 3.24.17.pdf
Please accept the attached letter of comment regarding March 27 meeting Agenda Item #9 Update of the City’s BMR
Program.
Thank you,
Dennis Martin
BIA Government Affairs
408‐294‐5687
24 March 2017
Mr. Gregg Scharff, Mayor
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: March 27, 2017 Agenda Item #9: Commercial Linkage Fees
Dear Mayor Scharff,
NAIOP Silicon Valley has commissioned an analysis of Commercial Linkage Fees by Development Financial Advisors (DFA) titled
“Linkage Fees: Strategies & Policy Recommendations in Silicon Valley. As detailed in DFA’s analysis, the following issues are of
serious concern to the commercial real estate community relative to actions to assess ever increasing impact fees on
commercial real estate investment throughout the Silicon Valley region. The DFA analysis and industry concerns were also
presented to the city’s Planning & Transportation Commission in July 2016.
Increasing commercial impact fees will raise the cost of development and influence the decision making process of commercial
real estate developers and investors. Today, economic investment decisions are made within a world-wide competitive playing
field. For Silicon Valley to continue to attract investment capital it must maintain reasonable development costs in order to
attract high tech, highly skilled jobs.
The Bay Area’s substantial lack approved new housing development over the past decade is a significant contributing factor to
the continually escalating cost of residential housing. In fact, in the years since 2011 the nine county Bay Area region produced
over 575,000 new jobs and yet permitted only 109,000 new dwelling units. As noted within a study produced by the Joint
Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, the two principal forces behind housing affordability are (1) restrictions on
residential development and (2) the growth in low-wage and part-time employment. Throughout the Bay Area restrictive land
use regulations, infrastructure costs, impact fees and rising labor costs all contribute to the serious affordability crisis the region
is facing.
Housing affordability is a significant challenge confronting our region since the dissolution of redevelopment resulting in
increased reliance by cities on in-lieu fees and impact fees for affordable housing. In November 2016 Santa Clara County voters
approved a $950 million bond measure which will be levied on all property owners generating millions of dollars to address
housing affordability in Palo Alto and surrounding cities. Additional efforts to address affordability contained in the DFA
analysis include:
Identifying additional funding sources for supplying affordable homes
Providing financial alternatives to assist with linkage fee cost impacts on certain employment generating developments
Review current housing and zoning ordinances and programs to expand housing development opportunities within local
jurisdictions
Review current housing and zoning ordinances and programs to examine for opportunities to make homes less expensive
to build and more affordable
NAIOP believes the City of Palo Alto has been very effective in attracting economic investment and securing a stable revenue
base. For these reasons NAIOP Silicon Valley recommends the City not exceed the current maximum linkage fee implemented
in neighboring cities of $25/sq. ft. for office/R&D. The adoption of a reasonable Commercial Linkage Fee will enable the city to
maintain its ability to continue attracting economic investment.
Sincerely,
Patricia E. Sausedo, Executive Director
NAIOP Silicon Valley
Attch: DFA Linkage Fees: Strategies & Policy Recommendations in Silicon Valley
cc: City Clerk
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 8:21 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Pat Sausedo <psausedo@naiopsv.org>
Sent:Friday, March 24, 2017 3:36 PM
To:Scharff, Gregory (internal)
Cc:Clerk, City; Council, City
Subject:March 27, 2017 Palo Alto Council Agenda Item #9
Attachments:PA Council 27Mar17.pdf; Commercial Linkage Fees Strategies and Policy
Recommendations Nov14.pdf
Mayor Gregg Scharff, Council & City Clerk
Please accept the attached comment letter on Agenda Item #9 on the March 27, 2017 Council Agenda and Linkage Fees
Strategies & Policy Recommendations by DFA.
Thank you.
Patricia Sausedo, Executive Director
NAIOP
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION
SILICON VALLEY CHAPTER
psausedo@naiopsv.org
(408) 294‐5682 office
(408) 316‐4352 cell
Linkage Fees: Strategies and Policy
Recommendations In Silicon Valley
Prepared for
Patricia Sausedo, Executive Director
NAIOP Silicon Valley
November 2014
Linkage Fees: Strategies and Policy Recommendations In Silicon Valley | 1
Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2
The Basis for Jobs-Housing Linkage Fees.......................................................................... 2
Existing Public Policy and Impacts to New Development ................................................. 4
Affordable Housing Policy Recommendations .................................................................. 5
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 8
Attachment 1: Comments to the Housing Mitigation Nexus and Fee Study - City of
Sunnyvale
Linkage Fees: Strategies and Policy Recommendations In Silicon Valley | 2
Introduction
The concept of a jobs-housing linkage fee on commercial development is to mitigate the
impact of commercial development on the demand for affordable housing. The
developer is asked to either provide the benefit directly or to pay fees that are directed
towards providing the benefit. For example, the developer is asked to either build
affordable housing units as part of the new development or pay in-lieu fees that will go
towards providing affordable housing units. This White Paper provides: (i) an overview
of the use of jobs-housing linkage fee programs in Silicon Valley, (ii) describes the
impact associated with increasing fees on commercial development and, (iii) explores
supplementary or alternative funding options to help absorb the increasing cost associated
with affordable housing.
The Basis for Jobs-Housing Linkage Fees
As indicated by the Housing Opportunity Index (HOI) prepared by the National
Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and Wells Fargo, cities in the Silicon Valley1
continue to lead the nation in offering the least affordable homes. The HOI shows San
Francisco as the least affordable city in the nation from 1991-2001 and has taken the
crown back from the New York and Los Angeles housing areas since 2012.2
Figure 1
Housing Opportunity Index in Silicon Valley MSAs
End of Fourth Quarter
Source: NAHB/Wells Fargo
1 Cities in the Silicon Valley include San Francisco, Burlingame/Hillsborough, San Mateo, Foster City, Menlo
Park/Atherton, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Los Altos, Fremont, Milpitas, San Jose, Cupertino, Saratoga and
Los Gatos. Source: Silicon Valley Regional Center. www.siliconvalleyeb5.com
2 “The NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index: History of Least and Most Affordable Areas” available at
www.nahb.org.
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara
National
Linkage Fees: Strategies and Policy Recommendations In Silicon Valley | 3
According to the NAHB and Wells Fargo, the HOI for the second quarter of 2014 is 11.1
in the San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City MSA (or 11.1% of homes sold in the
second quarter were affordable to families earning the area’s median income of
$100,400) and 21.5 in the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA (or 21.5% of homes
sold in the second quarter were affordable to families earning the area’s median income
of $100,900). The national average in the second quarter of 2014 was 62.6 (or 62.6% of
homes sold in the U.S. in the second quarter were affordable to families earning the
national median income of $63,900).
Since the loss of redevelopment agencies and the State court prohibition of rental
inclusionary zoning, cities have increasingly relied on impact fees to support affordable
housing. To provide additional resources to increase affordable housing unit production,
commercial linkage fee programs have been implemented by several cities in the Silicon
Valley area. Revenues generated by the fee are intended to help fund the development of
affordable housing units within accessible commuting distance to the center of
employment. Linkage fees vary by type of commercial development, such as office,
hotel, retail or industrial and different development types maybe charged separate rates
per square foot of development, due to the differing levels of impact. The size of linkage
fees varies by construction, with office and R&D development categories generally
having higher linkage fees than other building categories. This is seen in Silicon Valley
cities, as shown in the table below.
Table 1
Jobs Housing Linkage Fee Programs (2014)
Jurisdiction Building Category Fee per SF Exemptions /
Threshold
City and County of San
Francisco
Office
R&D
Entertainment and Retail
Integrated PDR and Small Enterprise
$24.03
$16.01
$22.42
$18.89
25,000 GSF
threshold
City of Palo Alto Commercial and Industrial $19.31 Not-for-profits,
education, hospitals,
recreation
City of Menlo Park Office and R&D
All other
$15.19
$8.24
Not-for-profits,
education, hospitals,
recreation
City of Sunnyvale* Office/R&D and Light Industrial
(located within industrial zoning
districts)
$9.74 Applies only to
portion of project in
excess of allowable
FAR
City of Mountain View Office, Industrial and High-Tech
Hotel, Retail and Entertainment
$10.26
$2.60
Fee is 50% less if
meets threshold:
Office<10,000 SF
Hotel<25,000 SF
Retail<25,000 SF
City of Cupertino Office, Industrial, Hotel, Retail, R&D
Planned Industrial Park Zones
$6.00
$3.00
No minimum
threshold
*Sunnyvale: Updated study underway at the time of preparation of this paper.
Linkage Fees: Strategies and Policy Recommendations In Silicon Valley | 4
Jobs-housing fees significantly impact the decision making process of commercial
developers and builders, including “go” or “no go” decisions to move forward on projects
when deciding among various locations.
Existing Public Policy and Impacts to New Development
Public policy towards linkage fees attempt to strike a balance between the impact of
growth in non-residential development to accommodate job expansion and stimulating
affordable housing for workers.
The assignment of ‘responsibility’ behind the lack of housing affordability and the
derivation of linkage fees is subject to debate. Policy regarding the use of linkage fees
should consider the origin of affordability problems. What causes or perpetuates the need
for affordable housing? According to the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard
University, “evidence is mounting that the two principal forces behind housing
affordability problems are restrictions on residential development and the growth in low-
wage and part-time employment.” “Affordability problems are most acute in housing
markets with the strictest land use regulations.” Are these problems associated with the
development of nonresidential land uses? Do linkage fees look at the big picture
regarding the positive economic impacts (new tax revenue) new development provides to
a local economy?
Funding affordable housing via linkage fees often creates an inequitable environment
because it only applies to new development and not to existing property. A significant
amount of initial costs to fund the gap in affordable housing is burdened by new
development, sometimes without consideration for other funding sources. At times, this
inequity among “new” and “existing” developments is further exacerbated due to
different tax provisions. According to a study prepared by the California Tax Reform
Association in 2012, “hundreds of acres of prime commercial land are taxed at very low
values.”3 The study points out that in some areas of commercial lands, assessed values
and property taxes for major companies are fixed at a level from a generation ago. It
provides an example of Intel, which is located on 36 acres of desirable land taxed at 2
cents per square foot, or $980 per acre; another is IBM, which pays $202 per acre on 200
acres of land. In comparison, Google recently bought commercial land that generates
$1.35 in tax per square foot, or $58,000 per acre in tax, about 60 times Intel’s tax. Public
policy can assist with providing for a more equitable approach to funding public benefits
and provide a more competitive playing field within their respective jurisdictional
boundaries.
Linkage fees can be a variable in the decision-making process of land buyers. Linkage
fees raise the costs of development, or might be reflected in lower prices paid by
developers for land. The rise in development costs can have an opposite effect on the
desire for more local employment growth as well as affordable housing units. One
3 Goldberg, Lenny and David Kersten. “High Tech, Low Tax: How the Richest Silicon Valley Corporations Pay
Incredibly Low Taxes on Their Land.” California Tax Reform Association March 2012
Linkage Fees: Strategies and Policy Recommendations In Silicon Valley | 5
cannot discount the landowner possibly changing his or her original intention for the
land, which is to retain the property to generate income; however, a profit-driven
landowner may seek an alternative use that will also generate income and reduce total
development costs (for example, building a parking structure instead of office and/or
retail buildings or mixed-use residential housing). A study prepared by the U.S. Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) argues that although fair and reasonable levels of impact
fees can be an efficient way to pay for growth-related infrastructure costs, impact fees
“pose the greatest barrier to affordable housing when they are regressive or
disproportionate to actual development costs.”4
Affordable Housing Policy Recommendations
Impact fees and in-lieu fees for affordable housing collected by cities in Santa Clara
County totaled over $25 million, or 53%, of the total $47.3 million funds received for
affordable housing in 2013. This is in contrast to the 17% contribution share of impact
fees and in-lieu fees for affordable housing in 2008 before the loss of redevelopment
funding.5 There are numerous, practical approaches to supply housing at all levels of
affordability that can be supported by various means. For example, housing policies can
have a significant impact on the effectiveness of providing affordable housing. Charter
cities, especially, can have a profound impact to local housing policies, as they have
relatively more autonomy in regards to governance than general law cities. In contrast,
general cities are bound by the State’s general laws. Zoning ordinances of charter cities
are not required to be consistent with the city’s general plan, unless the city has adopted a
consistency requirement, for example.
Several actions and policies that may be considered and benefit affordable housing in the
long term include:
• Identifying additional funding sources for supplying affordable homes.
- Aggressively apply for available external funding. Both Federal and State
resources can alleviate affordable housing funding gaps. Resources such
as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Community
Development Block Grants and HOME Investment Partnerships Program.
These funds are used to finance a wide range of affordable housing
activities. HOME’s requires participating jurisdictions match 25 cents of
every dollar in program funds.6
- Dedicate a percentage of tax revenues, such as tax increment, or levy new
tax to fund affordable homes. As an example, in November 2012, voters
4 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Why Not In Our Community? Removing Barriers to
Affordable Housing.” An Update to the Report of the Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable
Housing. 2005 February.
5 Mohsen, Raania, Kevin Zwick and Shannon McDonald. “Affordable Housing Funding Landscape and Local Best
Practices.” Cities Association of Santa Clara County and Housing Trust Silicon Valley 2 December 2013.
6 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/affordablehousing/programs/home/
Linkage Fees: Strategies and Policy Recommendations In Silicon Valley | 6
in the City of Bellingham, Washington, approved Proposition 1, a low-
income housing levy, by a majority vote. This imposes a tax of 36 cents
per $1,000 of property value. It is expected to generate $3 million
annually over seven years, for a total of $21 million to the Bellingham
Home Fund to provide housing for lower-income families, seniors,
veterans, and others at-risk or experiencing homelessness.7
- Consider issuing bonds, as part of the mix to fund affordable housing. In
2012, Houston voters approved Proposition E, which authorized the
issuance of $15 million affordable housing bonds for the acquisition,
construction, rehabilitation of affordable housing and the levying of
taxes.8
- Utilize existing State financing mechanisms to fund affordable housing. In
1990, California enacted the Infrastructure Financing District Act, which
authorizes cities and counties to create infrastructure financing districts
(IFDs) and issue bonds to finance public improvements. Properties in the
IFD do not have to be located in blighted areas and can overlap existing
redevelopment project areas. IFDs may also receive tax increment from
property within the district. In September 2014, California passed the
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts Act (Senate Bill No. 628),
giving communities more authority to build infrastructure they deem
would achieve their growth and sustainability goals. Jurisdictions may
utilize provisions under SB No. 628 to support affordable housing.
Affordable housing provisions are specified in Sections 53398.52,
53398.53, 53398.56, and 53398.63. In particular, Section 53398.53 states
that an infrastructure financing district “may reimburse a developer of a
project that is located entirely within the boundaries of that district for any
permit expenses incurred and to offset additional expenses incurred by the
developer in constructing affordable housing units pursuant to the Transit
Priority Project Program established in Section 65470.”9
- Introduce a transfer tax for the sale or transfer of commercial real estate.
Although the City of Santa Monica, California in the November 2014
election failed to raise its transfer tax on real estate transactions of at least
$1 million from the current $3 per $1,000 to $9 to support affordable
housing, the bill (Measure H) can nevertheless be emulated in the Silicon
Valley region.
7 Bellingham City Low-Income Housing Levy Proposition (November 2012). www.ballotpedia.org
8 Mellon, Ericka and Monica Rhor. “Voters approve most, possibly all, of city’s $415 million bond package; HISD,
Metro HCC also succeed.” Houston Chronicle 6 November 2012.
9 California Legislative Information. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0601-
0650/sb_628_bill_20140929_chaptered.htm. Text of the Transit Priority Project Program Section 65470 can also be
found on http://www.leginfo.ca.gov.
Linkage Fees: Strategies and Policy Recommendations In Silicon Valley | 7
• Reviewing current housing and zoning ordinances and programs to examine for
opportunities to make homes less expensive to build and more affordable.
- Provide incentives to residential developers that encourage a healthy
supply of market rate homes, which could prevent home prices from
significantly rising.
- Introduce mechanisms that expire linkage fees if certain agreed-upon
milestones are not met.
- Eliminate regulatory barriers that hinder construction of affordable
housing. A report by HUD cites several barriers affecting the construction
of affordable housing, which includes increased environmental
regulations, misuse of smart growth, excessive subdivision controls,
expansion of impact fees, and obsolete building and rehabilitation codes,
such as requiring the use of expensive materials. For example, New
Jersey adopted a housing rehabilitation code that reduced rehabilitation
costs by 25% and increased the number of rehabilitation by about 25%.10
- Promote the use of surplus property for affordable housing construction,
which would eliminate land costs and help in the affordability of housing.
Further, while “affordable by design” such as smaller units, may not be
necessarily affordable for lower income households, it may benefit entry-
level workforce housing.11
- Evaluate density bonus ordinances to consider greater flexibility for
production of more low income housing.
- Exempt new development that does not create a new impact. A new
development that replaced an existing one does not increase its impact,
unless the new development is bigger than the previous one. If the new
development is bigger than the previous one, the linkage fee should be
adjusted to reflect the incremental impact of the new development.
- Eliminate or reduce linkage fees for rehabilitating blighted areas. The idea
here is to encourage new development in economically depressed regions.
For example, the City of Albuquerque has in their ordinance a full or
partial waiver of impact fees for affordable housing projects that meet
economic-based development projects.12
- Amend an existing or prepare a “smart growth” plan that can reduce cost
of development, with input from developers, the community and public
agencies.
10 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Why Not In Our Community? Removing Barriers to
Affordable Housing.” An Update to the Report of the Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable
Housing. 2005 February.
11 Mohsen, Raania, Kevin Zwick and Shannon McDonald. “Affordable Housing Funding Landscape and Local Best
Practices.” Cities Association of Santa Clara County and Housing Trust Silicon Valley 2 December 2013.
12 City of Albuquerque Code of Ordinance Section 14-19-15 (“Exemptions”).
Linkage Fees: Strategies and Policy Recommendations In Silicon Valley | 8
• Providing financial alternatives to assist with linkage fee cost impacts on certain
employment generating developments.
- Consider waivers or subsidies to specific commercial developments that
may warrant subsidies. For example, the City of Mountain View may
waive linkage fees if the nonresidential development project is constructed
for a specific use that will not have employees or fewer than one employee
per 2,000 square feet of gross floor area. Additional criteria include
having the building designed and built such that it cannot be converted to
a use that can house a larger number of employees, except by major
reconstruction.13 Commercial building construction for certain industries
may also be given some form of credit towards linkage fees. Commercial
construction for the technology sector, which utilizes office and/or R&D
spaces, could be given linkage fee waivers or subsidies. Jurisdictions
providing economic subsidies will require dissemination of certain
information to the public regarding the subsidy pursuant to Assembly Bill
No. 562.
- Provide economic incentives that fulfill specific criteria established by the
jurisdiction. The City of San Diego, for example, created Policy No. 900-
12, which provides incentives such as expedited permit review processes
and reimbursement of all or a portion of building and/or development-
related fees as long as the business provides “significant revenues and/or
jobs, promote the stability and growth of City taxes and other revenues,
encourage new business and other appropriate development in older parts
of the City, or respond to other jurisdictions’ efforts to induce businesses
to relocate from San Diego.” The business must also be consistent with
the City’s Community and Economic Development Strategy.14
- Consider amending Floor Area Ratio (FAR) restrictions.
- Provide linkage fee deferral options consistent with timing of employment
impacts (based on occupancy).
Conclusion
Linkage fees on commercial development continue to be used as a way to alleviate the
low levels of affordable housing in the Silicon Valley region. The demise of
redevelopment funding in California has increased reliance by cities on impact fees and
in-lieu fees for affordable housing. Current housing policies may be outdated, warranting
their review to examine for costly barriers to constructing affordable housing. These
policy reviews and changes include a combination of using external funding, revising
zoning ordinances, engaging in public-private collaborations and providing financial
incentives to stimulate desirable economic activity and the construction of affordable
housing.
13 Ordinance to repeal Chapter 36 (Zoning Ordinance) and Add a New Chapter 36 (Second Reading). City of Mountain
View 10 December 2013.
14 City of San Diego Council Policy No. 900-12. Effective date May 15, 2001.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 8:36 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Saturday, March 25, 2017 3:15 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Impact Fees for Housing and the Economy
Impact fees to provide funding for subsidized housing for low and moderate income residents should, in
my professional opinion, have two objectives:
To maximize the number of units that can be funded, taking into account the possible disincentive
effects of fees that are out of line with neighboring jurisdictions and
To maintain funding from future development for the city budget, again taking into account the disincentive effects of being out of line with neighboring jurisdictions.
The staff report does indicate that the proposed fees are in most or all cases above those in neighboring
jurisdictions.
I support the staff recommendation to make it easier for new housing developments to pay in lieu fees
instead of providing units. I support the recommendation of the housing professional that fees can be
leveraged to obtain additional funds and that building larger developments can reduce the cost per unit form economies of scale versus having developers build two or three units on each site.
I support fees on non-residential developments that are comparable to those in neighboring jurisdictions
but do not support fees that are much higher compared to neighboring jurisdictions especially the large
differences in the proposal before council and even more so for hotels, which bring in substantial revenue
to the city and for infrastructure.
If the council approves fees that are well out of line with our neighbors, I support the PTC recommendation for phasing and do not find the staff argument that phasing would be burdensome to outweigh the potential loss of city revenue from disincentive effects of high fees.
The local and regional economy has had a sustained period of growth and that has led some to believe
that development in Palo Alto is impervious to out of line fees.
I find that to be a risky and unsupported argument and forgetful of the property market following the dot
com bust or following the 2007 recession.
Residents are requesting a high level of local services and council should understand the connection between funding these services and revenues from new developments, even if residents disregard or do not care about these connections.
It is a mistake in mu professional opinion to assume that new developments will occur no matter how high
our impact fees are compared to those of our neighbors.
Stephen Levy
Director
Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 8:36 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net>
Sent:Saturday, March 25, 2017 5:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Agenda Item #9 - Keep BMR on-site housing
Attachments:PastedGraphic-1.pdf; PastedGraphic-3.pdf
Winter Dellenbach
La Para Ave.
Barron Park
Dear City Council Member - I understand the economics of money of for-sale BMR homes versus in lieu fees for multi-family
apartments. However, there are also reasons to act cautiously on this matter. Please consider the following.
I include below relevant excerpts from the packet and current municipal code.
The language that staff is suggesting must become defined into a standard unless, if adopted, this simply becomes a de facto loophole
that most developers will utilize to pay rather than provide on-site BMR housing.
While in lieu fees are often a good choice to get more bang for the BMR buck, there are also reasons to build on-site BMR units. Please
consider:
1. Larger families children seldom qualify for BMR rental apartments because few are built with enough bedrooms. Apartment projects
are usually built with in lieu fees. So otherwise qualified families will not find housing they can afford unless we allow some access to
on-site BMR ownership housing which typically has more bedrooms.
2. Given how loose the suggested language is here, it's hard to imagine any on-site BMR units will ever be offered to anyone again.
Developers will choose to pay in lieu fees because they will want to keep their project all market rate, and free of buyers attitudes about
class issues.
3. Our blocks and neighborhoods then becomes less inclusive and more segregated as we have fewer BMR units integrated into market
rate ownership projects.
4. As market rate projects of all types come online, the BMR units are the proverbial birds in the hand rather than in the in lieu bush, to
be built at a date uncertain. Should we not get affordable housing built when it can be rather than if and when it can be?
My recommendation is that we keep the doors open to both options and consider each on a case by case basis, staying flexible. It's not
as though there are so many housing projects that you will become over-burdened by thinking this through each time.
So be very careful if you loosen the standard for in lieu preference over on-site BMR housing. Only do so with strict definable
standards. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Thank you -
Winter
Page 5, agenda packet: Page 6, Agenda packet: (last sentence cut off when copied by staff):
Muni Code Section 16.65.080 (A)(5): in your packet - at top of page it says - NOT YET APPROVED
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 8:36 AM
2
3. THE NEW SECTION WOULD GO HERE
Also, if the Counci l is interested in addressing public comments expressing concerns regarding
the availability of funds for construction of new affordable housing, it may wish to consider
add ing a new section to the ordinance in Attachment A making it easier for the City Council to
accept in lieu fees rather than inclusionary units in special situations. Staffs recommended
language is provided below:
Section 16.65.080(8)(3):
Notwithstanding Section 16. 65. 080 (A) (5), the City Council may accept fees in lieu
of the alternatives in paragraph 1 provided it makes a finding that special
circumstances justify payment of fe,es over provision of ownership units, such as a
finding that the fees generated would result in more affordable units than those
required to be provided on site or that funds are needed to finance a pending
l'I' I ' I I • . .
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 3:30 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 27, 2017 3:08 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:March 27, 2017, Council Meeting, Item #9: BMR Housing Program
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
March 27, 2017
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
MARCH 27, 2017, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #9
BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING PROGRAM
Dear City Council:
I urge you to retain the current 7.5% BMR in-lieu fee for all market rate
housing, both single-family, and multi-family, and to implement current
Housing Element PROGRAM H1.2.1 and PROGRAM H3.1.1 to impose a
proportionally larger in-lieu fee for sites of five acres or larger that
must set aside 20 percent (instead of 15 percent) of all units as BMR
units, and for projects that cause the loss of existing rental housing
that require 25 percent (instead of 15%) BMR units. In other words, a
10.0 % in-lieu BMR fee for sites of five acres or larger and a 12.5% BMR
in-lieu fee for projects that cause the loss of existing rental housing.
The staff proposal and prior City Council action to charge an in-lieu BMR
fee based on floor area that equates to a much smaller percentage of sales
price than the current fee is just a way to increase developer profit.
The proposed fee will not increase the supply of housing and will result
in a substantially smaller BMR fee total from all projects that will
result in much less affordable (i.e., subsidized) housing being built.
At the February 13, 2017, Council meeting, architect Ken Hayes said the
sales prices expected for the proposed project at 4146 El Camino Real
would be between $1,000 and $1,500 per square foot, and he said the
proposal for the VTA site at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino
Real two years ago assumed sales prices of $1,000 per square foot.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 3:30 PM
2
The current 7.5% in-lieu BMR fee equals $75 per square foot for a sale
price of $1,000 per square foot, and $112.50 per square foot for a sale
price of $1,500 per square foot.
Those prices are for proposed condominiums, while the sale prices for
single-family detached homes would be higher.
For example, the Palo Alto Weekly 2016 Spring Real Estate issue reported
that the average sale price of single-family homes in 2015 was $1,536,
which when multiplied by the current 7.5% in-lieu fee equals $115.20 per
square foot.
The sales prices of both homes and condominiums has increased
substantially since 2015.
By contrast, the proposed in-lieu fees of per square foot of $20, $50, and
$95 would be obtained using an in-lieu fee of 7.5% of the sales price from
single-family and multi-family residences of $267 per square foot, $667
per square foot, and $1,267 per square foot, respectively.
Further, the current method of fee calculation tracks the market, while
the proposed method lags the market, so using the proposed method starts
by bringing in less money for affordable housing and then falls further
behind the amount that would be collected using the present method.
Perhaps a real world example would help you understand how much less in-
lieu fees would be collected with the proposed changes to the BMR in-lieu
fee.
The developer of the 16 homes at 567 Maybell asked you to allow him to pay
an in-lieu fee of 7.5% of the sale price of the 16 homes instead of
providing a BMR unit or two on site.
Mayor Greg Scharff in a Palo Alto Online video program "Behind the
Headlines" published on January 27, 2017, said that these 16 homes "are
going to sell at five to six million dollars." (video at 20:00)
The plans for the 16-unit development are online and I have calculated
below the average selling price per square foot based on an average sale
price of $5,000,000 and $6,000,000.
These prices would require fees calculated using the total livable floor
area of more than $101 per square foot and $121 per square foot,
respectively.
Using the proposed fee of $50 per square foot would result of an in-lieu
BMR payment of less than $3,000,000, while a fee of $95 per square foot
would result in an in-lieu BMR payment of $5,616,685.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 3:30 PM
3
Using the current in-lieu fee of 7.5% of the sales price would yield
$6,000,000 if the average sales price was $5,000,000, and $7,200,000 if
the average sales price was $6,000,000.
Thus, the loss to the BMR program would be between $3,000,000 and
$4,000,000 if the fee was only $50 per square foot, and the loss would be
over $1,500,000 if the fee was $95 per square foot and the average sale
price was $6,000,000. The money lost to the BMR program would become
windfall profits to a developer who was willing to pay an in-lieu BMR fee
of 7.5% of the sale price, and is waiting to file a Final Map, because the
filing of that map triggers the application of the fee.
567 MAYBELL AVENUE PLAN SET SUBMITTED TO ARB
UNIT TYPE LIVING NUMBER TOTAL LIVING
FLOOR AREA OF UNITS FLOOR AREA
#1 3,921 X 3 = 11,763
#2 3,886 X 1 = 3,886
#3 4,061 X 5 = 20,305
#4 4,227 X 2 = 8,454
#5 3,872 X 1 = 3,872
#6 3,260 X 1 = 3,260
#7 3,774 X 1 = 3,774
#8 3,809 X 1 = 3,809
TOTAL LIVING AREA FOR 16 HOUSES: 59,123
AVERAGE LIVING AREA PER HOUSE: 3,695
AT $5,000,000 PER HOUSE YIELDS $1,353/ SQ. FT.
AT $6,000,000 PER HOUSE YIELDS $1,624/ SQ. FT.
$1,353 x 0.075 = $101.475 per square foot.
$1,624 x 0.075 = $121.80.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 10:35 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Esther Nigenda <enigenda@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, March 27, 2017 10:13 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Bobel, Phil; Keith Bennett; Rita Vrhel; Shikada, Ed; Beatrix Cashmore; Daniel Garber
Subject:Re: 3-27-17 Action Item No. 10: 900 N. California Ave.
Attachments:Dewatering Sites 2015-16.png
Dear Council Members,
We appreciate that the applicant reduced the number of dewatering sites from
3 to 1 for the proposed construction at 900 North California.
As you can see from the attached map, 900 N. California is very close to the
FEMA designated flood zone (green lines). With sea level rise and consequent
groundwater level rise, we expect this basement to soon be in the flood zone
but we assume the applicant knows the risks. We would hope this risk is
conveyed to future buyers.
Based on Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater measurements and the City’s data
from last year, we expect that if special care for the dewatering is not taken at
this site, the water level will be lowered 13 - 14 feet below ground surface (3 to
4 feet below sea level) as far as 145 feet from the pumping site. The expected
ground water level at 900 N. California this summer will be 5 - 6 feet below
ground surface. Therefore, there is risk of lowering the water table by 8
feet. As there are likely virgin (always wet) clays in this area, settling is highly
likely, since virgin clays shrink when dried and do not expand back when the
water table recovers at the end of pumping.
We respectfully suggest that the dewatering applicant be required to ensure
that the water table is lowered no more than 3 feet at the property boundaries,
regardless of the method the applicant chooses to use for dewatering, in order
to minimize the possibility of harm to our canopy, nearby infrastructure and
neighbors’ properties. With careful planning and design this should not be an
onerous requirement for the applicant.
Thank you for considering our suggestion,
Esther Nigenda for Save Palo Alto's Groundwater
http://www.savepaloaltosgroundwater.org/
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/29/2017 1:03 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lew, Michele <MLew@stanfordhealthcare.org>
Sent:Wednesday, March 29, 2017 10:16 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Agenda Item #7 of 4/3/17 Council Agenda
Attachments:032917 City of PA ltr.pdf
Attached please find a letter from Stanford Health Care regarding Agenda Item #7 on your upcoming 4/3/17
Council agenda.
Respectfully submitted,
Michele Lew Local Government & Community Relations Director
Stanford Health Care Location: 1510 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304
Mail: 300 Pasteur Drive, MC 5547 • Stanford, CA 94305
O: 650.498.4639 C: 650.206.3410 F: 650.497.6983
mlew@stanfordhealthcare.org
Confidential Information: This communication and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information for the use by the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or the attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact me and destroy all copies of the communication and attachments. Thank you.
Stanford
HEALTH CARE
STANFORD MEDICINE
March 29, 2017
The Honorable Greg Scharff
Mayor
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
GOVERNMENT & COMMUNITY RElATIONS
RE: Agenda Item #7 on 4/3/17 Council Agenda
Dear Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council:
Stanford Health Care strongly supports a new multi-level parking garage at 350 Sherman
Avenue. As you may know, Stanford Health Care operates an imaging center at 451
Sherman Avenue. and parking for patients and employees is a major concern.
As you consider various options for the garage, Stanford Health Care hopes you will
consider (a) maximizing the number of parking spaces, (b) implementing a robust
parking mitigation program during parking garage construction, and (c) dedicating spaces
in the new garage for area employees. Among the dedicated employee spaces, we
encourage priority for medical office employees.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at (650) 498-4639 with any questions or c.oncerns.
Thank you for your consideration.
Michele Lew
Local Government and Community Relations Director
300 Pasteur Drive I Stanford, CA 94305-5547
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/23/2017 7:52 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jon Stoumen <jon@stoumen.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 22, 2017 3:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Notes
Attachments:ADU Notes_SS3J2.pdf
Dear Palo Alto City Council:
As an architect and resident of Southgate, I support your efforts to encourage the construction of second dwelling units in our
community. I have designed a number of ADU's and have been a long time advocate on this topic. It is an effective and important arrow in the quiver of solutions to the urgent need for new housing options. Unless I am mistaken, there may be an unintended consequence in the newly proposed concept, as I understand it. If one were to
convert a garage to a second dwelling, I have been told (by planning) that the applicant would then have to provide an additional covered parking space. This will discourage construction of the units we are trying to facilitate by any new ordinance.
If the goal is to retain the future possibility of one covered space on each property, just require that the granny unit be designed in such
a way that there is still a minimum seven foot access to a clear space of ten by twenty within the unit.
Best regards,
Jon
Please see the document below for further thoughts.
Jon Stoumen, Architect LEED AP www.stoumen.com jon@stoumen.com
650 996 0101
Palo Alto has a long history with the garage. From HP and Apple to the startup down the
street, garages have had a unique impact on the success of this city and on Silicon Valley.
And with the success of those very enterprises, has come increased demand for housing
in our area. Not only do people from around the world flock to Silicon Valley, but our
own children and students seek to remain and find work here. Although various projects
are underway to address the scarcity of housing, the rate has not kept up with the demand.
This often results in dense housing projects along busy streets that don’t always promote
a Palo Alto neighborhood feel.
Enter the humble garage. Turning garages into living spaces could help meet a portion of
housing demands. There are about 14,000 single-family homes in Palo Alto, most of
which include garages. A subset of those garages are built in a way that could provide
space for dwellings. A Garage/Dwelling (my term) is a detached structure which can
serve as either a garage or a dwelling. It encloses a minimum clear 10'x20' space with
adjacent bath and kitchen.
Current Second Dwelling Unit regulations, in Palo Alto has resulted in only ~35 “granny”
units since 2007. We have an ethical obligation to do better. With some modifications to
the current zoning policy, Garage/Dwellings could create many new of living spaces in
Palo Alto. We should be encouraging homeowners to develop these units, by making the
process as user friendly as possible and keeping fees reasonable. For a successful model,
we can look to the city of Portland, another leader in green and bicycle friendly design
and planning. Portland has approved measures that allow, encourage, and incentivize the
creation of Alternative Dwelling Units (their terminology) on over one hundred thousand
residential properties throughout the city. Other areas encouraging ADU’s include
Truckee and Sonoma County.
Beyond allowing Garage/Dwellings to play a role in the plan to increase the housing
stock there are additional benefits: enabling aging family members or caretakers to stay
in or next to their homes, maintaining the look and feel of existing neighborhoods, and
providing safe and affordable living spaces. Not to mention the low carbon footprint and
sustainability of re-using and re-purposing existing construction. Additionally, the
Garage/Dwellings offer a distributed solution which would meet the needs of some new
and current residents, such as children returning home, seniors, students, hospital & tech
staff, etc.. One of the qualities of life here is an openness of living spaces to the outdoors
and gardens. Most residents enjoy these qualities, the Garage/Dwelling offer solutions
with a connection to natural light and garden environments. These multi-use, sustainable
and affordable living solutions are waiting right in many backyards, dispersed throughout
Palo Alto. When not needed, they remain available for a car.
For those who might worry that garages are too small, think of the design trends towards
“small is beautiful” studio apartments. With the low housing supply in San Francisco, and
the resulting high rents, the mayor of San Francisco has just approved the first wave of
The Palo Alto Garage/Dwelling A Proposal Thursday, February 26, 2015
Jon Stoumen, Architect LEED AP & Resident of Southgate Neighborhood 1
studio apartments as small as 225 square feet. This is the size of a single car garage in
Palo Alto.
To address concerns about stress on City services, consider the additional revenue to tax
base and use fees, etc. to be brought in by Garage/Dwellings. A percentage of rental
income could offset some of the costs relating to police, fire, library, park, services etc.
Leases could be for a minimum of 60 days/other to prevent short term usage and rapid
turnover, which would not be permitted for this housing type. Off street parking would
be permitted in the setback. If a property cannot accommodate a third off street car, then
an “in lieu fee” or permit can serve as mitigation. This low impact housing solution will
reduce commuting and carbon footprint.
Finally, what about changing the feel of Palo Alto neighborhoods, consider that many
existing homes and garages can already physically accommodate some form of an extra
living unit within current volumes. This means that new construction is not always
necessary -- and properties would still have the same driveway, utility hookups, and
amenities. Already, in place are bicycle and pedestrian friendly routes to the University,
the Hospital and many local jobs. Increased prevalence of small cars, electric vehicles of
all types, car sharing and walking are now embedded in the Palo Alto lifestyle. Our
shopping and cultural services are well distributed. Even with the rapid proliferation of
Garage/Dwellings the densities that result are significantly less than those of new and
proposed projects being built and/or approved throughout Palo Alto. In addition, Garage/
Dwellings provide a much greater percentages of open space per person.
The issue of scarce housing is significant--and one that will not go away overnight.
ABAG requires entitling some 1700 units in Palo Alto in the next eight years. The
nuance here is that they only need to be zoned. Virtual housing does not really meet the
needs of a growing area. Enabling and encouraging Garage/Dwellings will actually
increase the number of units available, while balancing density and high quality of life.
Garage/Dwellings do not impose a disproportionate burden to any one street or
neighborhood. These sustainable and affordable living solutions are in our garages,
waiting for conversion. Palo Alto’s celebrated garages are the envy of the world and are
too important only for cars.
Portland ADU regulations: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/36676
The Palo Alto Garage/Dwelling A Proposal Thursday, February 26, 2015
Jon Stoumen, Architect LEED AP & Resident of Southgate Neighborhood 2
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/23/2017 7:55 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Stanley Karabats <stanleykarabats@outlook.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 22, 2017 9:23 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:April 3, 2017
This is notice I will be attending the above mentioned meeting .
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 8:28 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rohit Relan <rohitrelan7@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 27, 2017 7:47 AM
To:Rohit Relan
Attachments:FBILetter2017.pdf
Please see attached.
Rohit Relan
March 27, 2017
1818 Emerson Street
Palo Alto CA 94301
To:
Mr. James Comey
Federal Bureau of Investigation
CNN
The New York Times
TASS
Sputnik
Radio New Zealand
New Zealand Herald
The Sydney Morning Herald
Daily Post
Palo Alto Online
San Francisco Chronicle
The Mercury News
CC:
Los Angeles Times
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara
The Mayor and City Council of Palo Alto
The President and Board of Trustees of Stanford University
Senators Blumenthal and Feinstein
Mr. Comey:
What is the status of my complaint against the Sheriff’s Department of the County of Santa Clara, Palo
Alto Police and the Stanford University Department of Public Safety.
Unless you choose to disabuse us, your office’s involvement in this matter resembles that of your current,
previous - and (unsurprisingly) long list of previous heads of state - pitiably duplicitous.
Is it possible that you also (unsurprisingly) arrive at the conclusion that your involvement in this matter has
resulted in the severest possible repercussions in international relations.
Rohit Relan
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/23/2017 7:53 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net>
Sent:Wednesday, March 22, 2017 3:48 PM
To:Council, City; 'board'
Cc:'Christy Moision'; Safe Routes
Subject:FW: [SaferCommutePTA] Fairmeadow Walk & Roll Day
Dear City Council and Board of Education Members, On this cold, wet, rainy day, Fairmeadow Elementary School children turned out to Walk & Roll anyway. Check out this Google album from PTA Safe Routes to School champion Christy Moision (link below) to see pictures the children drew of the adventures they had walking and biking to school on a rainy day. Fun stuff. BTW…Also, bike racks were well used and there was empty auto parking at Gunn today. Most of our intrepid foot-powered school commuters get out there rain or shine! Enjoy. Penny
From: SaferCommutePTA@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SaferCommutePTA@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Christy
Moision cmoision@gmail.com [SaferCommutePTA]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 12:35 PM
To: SaferCommutePTA@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [SaferCommutePTA] Fairmeadow Walk & Roll Day
Hi all,
We had a successful W&R Day today even with our uncooperative weather. We gave out wristbands and had
bicycle hand stamps, and we used Penny's idea of an "Adventures on my way to School" poster which was well
received. I made a Google album with photos you can check out. I had several parents make a point of stopping by to say
how much they liked the kids' drawing activity, and I was happy to mix it up and not have a raffle this time.
Also, I had a parent say she was inspired to only drive half-way to school and walk with her three girls the rest of the way. Progress!
Thanks again to Penny for the helpful weather-related advice!
Christy Moision --
Christy Moision
626-390-0343 (cell)
__._,_.___
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 2:42 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:roberta ahlquist <robertaahlquist@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, March 27, 2017 12:21 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fw: MVCC Help for Mountain View's Homeless & NHN Programs/Services...
Attachments:NHN-ABOUT US-2015 (1).docx
Dear Council Members:
What is Palo Alto's record of assisting the homeless? Please distribute a report that can be used in comparison to
Mountain View's progress.
Thank you.
Roberta Ahlquist,
Palo Alto resident and
Women's International League for Peace & Freedom member
Date: Thursday, March 2, 2017, 1:24 PM
Help for Mountain View's Homeless
RE: NHN A GOOD RESOURCE FOR UNHOUSED in MV & Nearby Cities...
Dear NHN Collaborators and Friends,
Just wanted to share with you the impressive information and tools City of Mountain View has assembled for low
income unhoused people in MV. We want to applaud MV and their efforts to address the needs of the growing
displacement of residents and chronically unhoused.👍
You will read below that the figures for number of homeless is 276 in Mountain View. And we do agree the numbers of
UNHOUSED people has dramatically increased. In mid 2013, there were 350 vehicle dwellers enrolled in NHN basic
needs programs. However, NHN knows something different today, 2017. Our client data indicates that there are
1200+ UNHOUSED households enrolled in NHN basic needs programs plus consistent 5000 enrolled in our housing
networks monthly. Since early 2015, there has been 600 of the 1200 unhoused from Mountain (mostly middle & lower
upper income) enrolled in NHN programs. There still exists gaps in services to the unhoused population. NHN
primarily serves middle to lower upper income people who need help. And they do not qualify for many traditional
social service programs.
There is no income restriction for NHN programs and services. In mid 2013, NHN augmented our programs to
better serve the unhoused population. NHN remains "boots on the ground" in assessing, providing services and guidance
to those without room, apartment, house or mobile home.
Please know that NHN is committed to helping preserve housing for those 'at risk' and financially over burdened.
Plus, we will continue to adapt programs and services to best match the needs of the unhoused.
Below is copy of City
of MV webpage, Help for Mountain View'sHomeless.
Sincerely,
Caryll‐Lynn Taylor , Executive Director
NeighborsHelpingNeighbors2013@gmail.com
650‐283‐0270 (No Texting, please)
Help for Mountain View's Homeless
Homelessness and the regional housing crisis are significant issues for communities throughout the Bay Area, including
Mountain View. According to the 2015 County homeless census, there were 6,556 homeless persons countywide, with
276 in Mountain View — nearly double the number from 2013.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 2:42 PM
2
Increasing housing availability and affordability remains a top priority of the City Council, and the City continues to
examine a broad range of options for increasing supply and assisting displaced residents. As a result, Mountain View is a
recognized leader in addressing the regional problem of insufficient housing supply in the Bay Area. The City is working
collaboratively with Santa Clara County, the Community Services Agency(CSA) and other non‐profits locally on
homelessness, including those living in Recreation Vehicles (RVs) andother vehicles, with both short‐term and long‐term
actions.
For the long‐term, the City is increasing the overall housing supply and has passed several ordinances this year that
provide assistance to renters and encourage pathways to keep people in their homes, such as dispute resolution. More
information about these programs can be found in the Neighborhoods and Housing Menu to the left.
Short‐term strategies provide basic human services designed to start those in need on the path to more permanent
future housing. Services authorized by City Council on October 4, 2016 include (Council Agenda ‐ Item 7.1): mobile
showers and laundry coordinated byCSA;free waste‐tank caps to prevent leaks;regular street cleaning in areas with RV
parking;an ADA compliant portable toilet with servicing in Rengstorff Park;support for exploring rotating shelter or safe
parking programs by faith‐based organizations;on‐going review of RV parking areas to assess visibility and safety;a
mobile Outreach Worker based at CSA and a Caseworker for the chronically homeless in coordination with the County to
link homeless individuals to services;and further analysis of options for a local RV waste‐dump site for those living in
vehicles. City staff continues its review of this complex set of issues and will return to City Council on March 7, 2017,
with an update on the recently funded initiatives and additional options for expanding the availability of programs for
residents in need of more stable housing.
For more information about these programs, contact the City Manager's Office atcity.mgr@mountainview.gov,
call (650) 903‐6301, or use AskMV and choose "Homeless/Living in Vehicles" from the menu. You may also see updates
by following the City's social media channels, which you can access through www.mountainview.gov/social. Mountain
View Code on living in vehicles The City Council recently authorized the short‐term initiatives and continues to look at
the long‐term options to address homeless residents living in vehicles. The shorter‐term efforts will meet some of the
basic care needs of those in vehicles and maintenance of the City. The longer‐term options will take time in support of a
continuum of strategies to expand the availability of housing programs for the homeless and unstably housed residents.
It is helpful to understand that vehicles used for sleeping are not illegal if the vehicle complies with other laws.
Enforcement of the Mountain View City Code Chapter 19, Article IX Section 19.111(c), which prohibits vehicles parked
on public streets from being used for dwelling purposes has been suspended in light of recent case law on this issue.
In Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a similar provision of the City of Los
Angeles City Code was unconstitutional. Helpful Resources for Our Neighborhoods The City understands concerns about
maintaining the quality of life in Mountain View and balancing interests of those living in vehicles with those of our
neighbors. While most residents living in vehicles abide by laws, Mountain View has continued to enforce other code
provisions when applicable, such as illegal waste dumping or trespassing. Both residents living in vehicles and neighbors
are encouraged to contact the Mountain View Police Department (MVPD) when experiencing any emergency or safety
threat by dialing 9‐1‐1.For non‐emergency concerns, call the non‐emergency line at (650) 903‐6395.You may also report
vehicles parked for more than 72 hours by calling our hotline at (650) 903‐6358. HelpFul Resources for Our Homeless
Neighbors Community Services Agency HandoutCounty Homeless Help CardCounty Quick Guide to Services (English
County Quick Guide to Services (Mandarin)County Quick Guide to Services (Spanish) Medical, Mental and Substance
Abuse HandoutRV Safety Tips (English) RV Safety Tips (Spanish) RVWaste Disposal (English and Spanish)Vehicle
Maintenance Leak Handout Where to Dispose of Hazardous Waste (English)Where to Dispose of Hazardous Waste
(Spanish)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Caryll‐Lynn Taylor , Executive Director
NeighborsHelpingNeighbors2013@gmail.com
650‐283‐0270 (No Texting, please)
P.O. BOX 113 Palo Alto, CA 94302
Facebook: https://facebook.com/NeighborsHelpingNeighborsPaloAlto
Watch "Love Is All" | YouTube, It's our NHNtheme song...https://youtu.be/q4T37EaW4eU "We may not have all the
solutions. NHN will do our best to fill the gaps."
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Stop the Ban Discussion" group.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 2:42 PM
3
>
> 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.
>
NEIGHBORS HELPING NEIGHBORS
We may not have all the solutions. NHN will do our best to fill the gaps.
Serving: Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View and Los Altos.
Coming to other cities soon.
What We Do: We are a group of non paid volunteers
striving to provide basic needs & counseling to middle income ($150K
to $24K) households who do not qualify for 'safety net' programs. And
those who receive other inadequate social services.
All programs & services are free.
Our trained volunteers who are retired & working counselors,
healthcare & credit professionals, provides counseling and referrals for
other life's challenges (housing, healthcare, professional counseling,
legal issues, etc.) for those who may need help. NHN has a variety of
programs & service to assist most everyone with their basic needs. Plus
we offer emergency case management for those families and
individuals in crisis.
Ray Bacchetti, City Palo Alto-Human Relation Commission,
“You know I admire your work”.
Like us on face book to get more details Click this link,
https://www.facebook.com/NeighborsHelpingNeighborsPaloAlto
GROCERIES – we provide fresh, canned and packaged food items
so housed ‘at risk’ and un‐housed who have access to cooking facilities may
prepare seven days of meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner, snacks and dessert)
once per month. We strive to include whole grain foods, low or no fats,
sugars or sodium and adhere to our clients’ dietary restrictions.
Housing Networks – Rental listings are provided weekly.
Room Rentals and 1‐2‐3 Bedroom rentals. Support, moving supplies
& more…
Home Sharing Program – For participating landlords
with rentals. Support, blank forms, rental agreements, all renters
screened & vetted.
Jobs Networks –Quick Cash, Part Time, Full Time – Temp &
Permanent.
Volunteer Opportunities: All ages welcome. Age appropriate
tasks & physical limitations observed.
Jonathan Lyons, founder, Plontz, http://www.plontz.com “I hadn't heard
of your organization but this is terrific.”, “I would be happy to feature your
organization and work on my company's blog, this is exactly the type of group I want
our team to support.”
Contact Us:
For general info.
NeighborsHelpingNeigh
bors2013@gmail.com
650-283-0270 (No Texting,
please)
P.O. BOX 113
Palo Alto, CA 94302
Peer Counseling Team
Ph: 650-283-0270 (No Texting, please)
NHN.FamilyAmbassador
@gmailcom
HOUSING
COORDINATOR
NHN.HousingProgram
@gmail.com
PH: 650-283-0270
(No Texting, please)
Home Sharing
Program -
Housing Coordinator
Landlord Inquires – Room Rentals/other rentals. NHN.HomeSharing2015@ gmail.com
Backyard Bounty
Coordinator
NHN.Backyard.Bounty.
Program@gmail.com
Go to this link,
cityofpaloalto.org
Click on the heading
"Community Partners" scroll
to "Non-Profits"
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/23/2017 7:54 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 23, 2017 7:53 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Davies, Richard F; DiFrancia, Michele; Gary Toth; Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James; Mello,
Joshuah; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Fwd: San Jose to Merced Project Section Community Open House Meetings April 18 -
May 1
Fyi - the new alternatives for Palo Alto includes a 3rd track.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: CA High-Speed Rail: Bay Area SJ - Merced <san.jose_merced@hsr.ca.gov>
Date: Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 4:56 PM
Subject: San Jose to Merced Project Section Community Open House Meetings April 18 - May 1 To: <nadianaik@gmail.com>
VIEW AS A WEBPAGE | FORWARD TO A FRIEND
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/23/2017 7:54 AM
2
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/23/2017 7:54 AM
3
California High-Speed Rail Authority San Jose to Merced Project Section san.jose_merced@hsr.ca.gov
(800) 455-8166
IF YOU NO LONGER WISH TO RECEIVE THESE EMAILS, CLICK HERE TO UNSUBSCRIBE
Forward View in Browser Mark as Spam Unsubscribe
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/24/2017 1:37 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Petersen-Perez <bayareafreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 24, 2017 11:50 AM
To:Perron, Zachary; Council, City; Watson, Ron; Scharff, Greg
Subject:Fwd: Unsubscribed
please confirm our request we do not want any of your racist news releases
Mark
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Sumida, Cynthia" <csumida@dao.sccgov.org>
Date: March 24, 2017 at 11:18:25 AM PDT
To: Mark Petersen‐Perez <bayareafreepress@gmail.com>
Cc: "Webby, Sean" <swebby@dao.sccgov.org>
Subject: Unsubscribed
As requested, your information has been removed from our media distribution list.
Cynthia Sumida
Public Information Officer
Santa Clara County Office of the District Attorney
70 West Hedding ‐ West Wing
San Jose, CA 95110
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/24/2017 8:23 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeanette Mihov <owwuxoyeghmqoef@ujoin.co>
Sent:Thursday, March 23, 2017 6:43 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: jeanette0429@gmail.com <Jeanette Mihov>
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,
Jeanette Mihov
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 2:41 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Hannes Magnusson <awxaueoxfrokiad@ujoin.co>
Sent:Monday, March 27, 2017 2:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: hannes.magnusson@gmail.com <Hannes Magnusson>
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,
Hannes Magnusson
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 3:38 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Queena Lok <fnwpgwrizqzmgsb@ujoin.co>
Sent:Monday, March 27, 2017 3:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: queena.lok@gmail.com <Queena Lok>
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,
Queena Lok
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 8:28 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 26, 2017 9:35 PM
To:Perron, Zachary; Watson, Ron; Bullerjahn, Rich; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; Philip, Brian;
Council, City; Keene, James; Stump, Molly; Scharff, Greg;
michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com
Subject:Independent police audit reports Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
I have repeatedly documented and requested that you update the audit reports and you Sir have ignored all my
requests
Zach as you know, your very well isolated from prosecution but you have a mandated responsibility (reporter)
to assist Junkco in correcting the audit reports
thank,
Mark
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
3/26/17, 8:05 PM
We have repeatedly requested corrections per contract and @MGennaco and @PaloAltoCityMgr have
refused with impunity #PaloAlto pic.twitter.com/Z0JQv3Kc4b
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 8:24 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nancy Garcia <ngarcia94301@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 24, 2017 3:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Your e-mail to City Council was received
My letter should have been addressed to the School Board - You've my apologies!
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e‐mail will be forwarded to all nine Council Members
and a printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council packet.
If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call 329‐2571
to confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting.
If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an explanation or
else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification.
We appreciate hearing from you.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/24/2017 2:50 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nancy Garcia <ngarcia94301@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 24, 2017 2:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Jordan/Terman
Dear council members - you've made my choices for the next city council election easy - no present
member who voted to change the names of the Jordon and Terman Middle Schools. What a waste of time,
money and resources. And what arrogance and bigotry to judge people of another time by our present day standards! Although I should not be surprised after the heavy handed neighborhood parking legislation that has
created, at the least, an inconvenience, if not a burden for so many of us -
Nancy Garcia
601 Addison Ave. Palo Alto, Ca.
94301
650 328-3995
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 8:35 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 25, 2017 7:03 AM
To:supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Council, City;
jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; Dave Price; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org;
bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; Philip, Brian; James Aram; Tony Ciampi; Bullerjahn, Rich;
Stump, Molly; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Bonilla,
Robert; Lum, Patty; donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov; jnowell@padailypost.com;
Scharff, Greg; Gary.Goodman@pdo.sccgov.org; Gsaldivar@scscourt.org;
gsheyner@paweekly.com; bjohnson@embarcaderomediagroup.com;
bjohnson@paweekly.com; swebby@da.sccgov.org; csumida@da.sccgov.org; Keith,
Claudia; Ryan, Dan
Subject:Karma Twitter - Mr. Simitian
Is it not true councilor that at one time you assisted the mayor of East Palo Alto in spring her son out of
jail? You never gave me the time of day after numerous visits to your office located in Town n Country...
Karma Mr. Simitian I even approached you at the farmers market....but I was just a nobody in your eyes a
Nicaraguan citizen you were unwilling to assist Mr. Simitian
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
Supervisor Joe Simitian is just a career politician thats ready for the used tire
heap bit.ly/2o1G6WO #PaloAlto @PaloAltoPolice pic.twitter.com/oZjAld3ggD
Mark Petersen-Perez
Ps. You should pay more attention to your constituents Mr. Simitian rather then just brushing them off like
dandruff flakes
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 8:29 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Dave Wills <pacc@davewillsinc.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 26, 2017 11:03 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Leaf Blowers
Hello Mayor and Council members,
I know and understand that you have many, many things that are more important than leaf blowers at the moment. But I also know that leaf blowers and enforcing existing laws were common comments in the last
survey of residents. Please take a few minutes to read the article in the New York Times on this subject at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/realestate/on-banning-on-leaf-blowers.html?_r=0
If you don't have time to read this, please consider the following quotes. With regards to noise:
"A 2017 Center for Disease Control and Prevention report lists leaf
blowers as a common noise that can contribute to permanent hearing loss."
Consider this quote regarding health affects:
"The gas and oil mix together, and about a third of it does not
combust. As a result, pollutants that have been linked to cancers, heart
disease, asthma and other serious ailments escape into the air."
In the past, the Council has pushed through various initiatives to reduce our carbon footprint. There is evidence to show that leaf bloweres have a severe impact on Palo Alto's carbon footprint. Please consider this quote:
"In 2011, Edmunds, the car reviewer, compared a two-stroke-engine leaf
blower with a Ford F-150 Raptor pickup truck, finding that a half-hour of
yardwork produced the same amount of hydrocarbon emissions as a
3,887-mile drive in the truck."
Thanks for your time. I hope this short article helps you in future decisions.
Regards,
Dave Wills
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/23/2017 7:55 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Petersen-Perez <bayareafreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 23, 2017 6:33 AM
To:Lum, Patty; Perez, Lalo; Keene, James
Cc:Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Council, City; Scharff, Greg; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay
Boyarsky; Dave Price; jnowell@padailypost.com; James Aram; dangel@dao.sccgov.org;
DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov;
sbrown@fairandimpartialpolicing.com
Subject:Out of a Job out. Out of Bullets Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
I've forecasted as a bona fide accountant you'll be out of a job real soon.... Wagner your next....., then Bonilla,
Ryan...well he's technically gone...but his Calpers pension should go away... Sam Minty...We will track that
SOB down private investigator....
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
Ps...Watson....Your the icing on the cake!!!!!
Mark Petersen-Perez
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPad
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: HILLARY GITELMAN, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: MARCH 27, 2017
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8: PUBLIC HEARING: 670 Los Trancos Road [16PLN-
00266]: Site and Design Review to Allow the Construction of a new Single
Family House and Guest House With a Total of Approximately 10,960 Square
Feet of Floor Area. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt From
CEQA Pursuant to Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion
of Small Structures). Zoning District: OS
The above referenced agenda item is for the proposed construction of a new two-story
residence, guest house, and associated site improvements on the vacant property at 670 Los
Trancos Road. Some members of the public have provided written comments on the
application, with a few expressing concerns that the project is not compliant with the Municipal
Code due to the proposed accessory structure/guest house and the visibility of the house from
the Arastradero Preserve.
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to some of the key points identified in the
public comment letters.
• Residence Visible from Parkland
A point was raised that the project is not consistent with Open Space Development
Review Criterion #1, which states: “The development should not be visually intrusive
from public roadways and public parklands. As much as possible, development should be
sited so it is hidden from view.” While the proposed project is clearly subject to this
criterion, there is some subjectivity in evaluating the project for compliance. The code
states the development “should not be visually intrusive” and “as much as possible,
development should be sited so it is hidden from view” [Emphasis added]. This language
is distinguished from other more objective code language, such as compliance with a
height limit.
8
The subject property is located at a clearing on a hill, and contains less tree cover than
many of the nearby homes in the Hewlett Tract. There are other property features that
limit the placement of the residence of the lot including the property slope, setbacks,
among others. The applicant has taken steps to mitigate the visibility of the project by
dropping portions of the home below grade and adding landscaping, including ten blue
oaks, to screen the house, but the home will be visible from the Arastradero Preserve. In
its review, The Planning and Transportation Commission found that while the home will
be visible, the project would not be visually intrusive and the applicant's efforts to
minimize the impact were sufficient.
With this action item, the City Council will evaluate the project to determine whether
this issue is sufficiently addressed or if the project requires further refinement or
conditions to comply with this criterion.
• Residence Relationship to the Hilltop Ridgeline
Comments have also expressed concerns that the project is not consistent with Open
Space Development Review Criterion #2, which states: "Development should be located
away from hilltops and designed to not extend above the nearest ridgeline." The subject
parcel is located on a hilltop. In the past, conformance with this standard was
determined based on whether the roofline of a proposed structure was below the
highest portion of the ridgeline when viewed at elevation. The subject project has been
designed consistent with that approach. To achieve compliance, the applicant is locating
the house away from the ridgeline and dropping portions of the home below grade.
From the commenters' perspectives, downslope on the hiking path, the structure does
appear to extend above the ridgeline. The Planning and Transportation Commission
considered the proposed home with respect to this criterion and explored the possibility
of requiring additional trees. However, the Commission ultimately found that further
project modifications were unwarranted and that the project complied with this
criterion. The Council in its review of the project will consider the project's compliance
with this code provision.
• Concern Regarding the Accessory Structure Being Used as an Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU)
Several letters have expressed the opinion that the proposed accessory structure is an
ADU, which would not be permitted on the site given the existing provisions of the
Municipal Code. This issue has been evaluated in the staff report. The proposed
accessory structure complies with applicable zoning regulations and the project plans
have been revised to remove the kitchenette which was previously proposed. Neither
2 of3
the current ADU regulations nor the planned ordinance would permit an ADU on this
property. Further details on this structure are provided in the Council staff report for the
project.
Director
Planning and Community Environment
3of3
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 8:30 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Greg Albrecht <greg.albrecht11@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 26, 2017 12:19 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Pearson-Arastradero Preserve parking
Attachments:Map.tiff; 4.jpg; 3.jpg; 2.jpg; 1.jpg
Hello,
As a citizen of Palo Alto who enjoys the outdoors, I'd like to suggest a city improvement idea to the council.
The project: Extend parking at Pearson-Arastradero Preserve into the unused area adjacent to the current lot (see
attached map).
See the additional pictures as well, the parking lot was full today at 11am on Saturday March 25th. Thanks,
Greg
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/29/2017 7:30 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Maureen Roddy <maureenroddy@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2017 8:21 PM
To:rzimbler@related.com; Council, City; tgriego@stanford.edu
Cc:Fine, Adrian; phebert@housing.org
Subject:Please help my sister move back home to Palo Alto at Mayfield Place
Dear City Council Members, Ms. Griego, Ms. Zimbler, and Mr. Hebert,
I hope you can help me. My sister Katherine Roddy applied for housing at Mayfield Place last
summer. Mayfield Place has been developed through a partnership with Related California, the City
of Palo Alto and Stanford University with renters like my sister in mind. She has submitted all requested supporting documentation many times and meets the age, income and even priority
requirements of the rental organization but she has often been stalled in her application. At first she
was told she made too much money, but then it was discovered that their formula used to calculate
her income (1 week's salary multiplied by 52) didn't account for her summers and school holidays not
working (she is a contact teacher at Peninsula School). She was told she then seemed to meet the requirements for housing but there have been many other delays and promises to show her
application to a supervisor, but this doesn't seem to happen. She was recently told that her
application wasn't passed up to the supervisor because the staff had to quickly move when their office
lease ran out before their new office was available. Katherine is patient, calls, writes and waits, she
does not complain but I'm very afraid they just will put her off until her last chance to move back home to Palo Alto is gone.
Can you please help us? Katherine Roddy grew up in Palo Alto, lived here recently before needing
to move to Redwood City, tutors children in Palo Alto, has a Masters Degree in education and a
California teaching credential, she is a senior and meets the income goals for Mayfield Place. Please let me know if there are other people I should be directing my questions to.
Thank you for helping us -- this would make such a difference to my sister and my family and the
many children in Palo Alto that Katherine tutors!
Best regards,
Maureen Roddy
978 Van Auken Circle
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 8:30 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 26, 2017 5:10 AM
To:bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; dangel@dao.sccgov.org; Scharff,
Greg; Council, City; Perron, Zachary; Wagner, April; robert.miller@oirgroup.com; Bonilla,
Robert; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Bullerjahn, Rich; Philip,
Brian; Lum, Patty; Jay Boyarsky
Subject:Rape- Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
This far from being over Mr. Mayor
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
3/26/17, 4:55 AM
Botched sexual investigation @PaloAltoPolice @SantaClaraDA married 25ys and all of a sudden start #RAPPING women and children #PaloAlto pic.twitter.com/OGVjtlNSu2
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/28/2017 9:33 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Norman Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, March 27, 2017 3:52 PM
To:'Norman Beamer'; Council, City; Mello, Joshuah; Gitelman, Hillary
Subject:RE: [CPNA] RPP in Zone 10
I never got a response to the email below, regarding confusion as to allocation of employee permits during the next
phase of the downtown RPP. I see that tonight’s council meeting includes approval of the action minutes of the March 6
meeting. The minutes clearly reduce the employee allocation to 1500 (1400 allocated, 100 held in reserve.) However,
Table 1 of Exhibit B of the Proposed Resolution still provides for an allocation of 1800. As elaborated on below, a new
Table is needed to reflect the results of the motion passed March 6, and the allocation for Zone 10 should be no more
than 74.
From: 'Norman Beamer' via Crescent Park PA [mailto:crescent‐park‐pa@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 11:20 AM
To: City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Joshuah Mello <joshuah.mello@cityofpaloalto.org>; Hillary Gitelman
<hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: CPNA CrescentPark <crescent‐park‐pa@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [CPNA] RPP in Zone 10
I believe the amendments to the RPP resolution left somewhat unsettled the allocation of non-
resident permits to Zone10.
- The current actual non-resident permit sales in Zone 10 is 35.
- The current number of non-resident permits released for sale in Phase II is 105 -- i.e., 70 were
available but were not sold. - The current number that would have been available in Phase II if all blocks had opted in is 370 (the
total allocation of 2000 includes this 370 number).
- The resolution before amendments for some reason KEEPS the current available to 105, even
though the total number of RPP non-resident permits was to be reduced from 2000 to 1800.
- The resolution before amendments lowers the total allocated to Zone 10, including the eligibility area, to 351 -- a 5% decrease. But all of the decrease is allocated to the blocks that haven't opted in
yet. I.e., an illusory decrease.
- Although I have not yet seen the minutes, I believe the amendment passed Monday lowered the
total allocation for the next year of the program from 1800 to 1500, with 100 of those held in reserve
for the blocks in Zone 9 and 10 that have not opted in. I believe there was also direction to carry out the reduction evenly rather than prioritizing inner or outer zones.
- From this I can't figure out if the percentage decrease is based on 1500 (25% decrease) or 1400
(30% decrease). I would think it should be 30% applied to the current allocated numbers for each
zone, with the extra 100 permits in reserve to be allocated evenly to the eligible blocks in Zones 9 and
10 if and when they opt in. - So the total number of non-resident permits allocated to the current blocks that are actively in Zone
10 should be 70% of 105, or 74 -- well in excess of the demonstrated demand thus far.
- This result would fall reasonably well into the "better than nothing" standard articulated by me after
midnight during the February 2016 meeting and referred to again at the Monday meeting -- assuming
Council carries out as soon as possible the expressed intention of converting Zone 10 and further-out areas of Crescent Park to resident only status on a block-by-block opt-in basis.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/28/2017 9:33 AM
2
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent-park-pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/crescent-park-pa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 8:35 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Petersen-Perez <bayareafreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 25, 2017 2:35 AM
To:supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org
Cc:Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Council, City; Scharff, Greg; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay
Boyarsky; Stump, Molly; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; SWebby@da.sccgov.org;
CSumida@da.sccgov.org; Keith, Claudia; Bullerjahn, Rich; Brian Welch; Philip, Brian;
James Aram; Tony Ciampi
Subject:Re: MAV Body Cam Transparency
We gave you plenty of opportunity to respond. We also confirmed from your secretary who is BTW from El
Salvador 🇸 My neighbor Sir that your one very slippery politician
we also understand and or alleged that you may have conspired with Dave Price and the PAPD in bring Palo
Alto Free Press down on a copyright infringement or DMCA false claim?
Mark Petersen-Perez
Editor: Bay Area Free Press
Ticuantepe Nicaragua 🇳🇮
650 646 5737
Nica 505 87843381
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 24, 2017, at 12:28 PM, Mark Petersen-Perez <bayareafreepress@gmail.com> wrote:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 8:35 AM
2
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 8:35 AM
3
Please comment in light of your recent media comments; Santa Clara County to Equip Sheriff’s Deputies, Correctional
Officers with Body
Cameras http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2017/01/
26/santa-clara-county-to-equip-sheriffs-
deputies-correctional-officers-with-body-
cameras/
Thanks,
Mark Petersen-Perez
Editor; Bay Area Free Press
Ticuantepe, Nicaragua
650 646-5737
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 8:33 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Tim Pierce <c27.pierce@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 25, 2017 9:11 PM
To:Palo Alto Free Press; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org
Cc:DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; Gary.Goodman@pdo.sccgov.org; Gsaldivar@scscourt.org;
James Aram; Jay Boyarsky; Stump, Molly; SWebby@da.sccgov.org; Tony Ciampi; Perron,
Zachary; bjohnson@paweekly.com; Philip, Brian; Council, City; dangel@dao.sccgov.org;
Scharff, Greg; gsheyner@paweekly.com; jrosen@da.sccgov.org;
michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; mickwz@sbcglobal.net; Bullerjahn, Rich; Bonilla,
Robert; robert.miller@oirgroup.com; Watson, Ron
Subject:Re: Statue of Limitations Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
Well, After reading this,
Just call me giraffe, because my neck is way the hell out there...
Good news in realing Dan Ryan (and Dennis Burns) in on his shit as it has finally caught up to him....you will
be reading about it in 2017. I promise!
Patience Grasshopper, patience. It is going to hit the FAN! Tim Pierce
(Ps. I spoke again with the FBI 2 weeks ago)
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:50 AM Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote:
BTW I view most of you as the Taliban but, I sincerely believe that for the most part your all judicial terrorists
but with a few exception. no one likes to stick there neck out...
Mark Petersen-Perez
cowards personified you know who you are....
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2017, at 4:40 AM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote:
Brian: See if you can reason with these idiots and have them....
please issue a certificate of exoneration and a check for 5k which covers property stolen by the PAPD namely Dan Ryan and his posse
thank,
Mark Petersen-Perez
Jay, you need to go back to law school dude and focas on exculpatory evidence
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 8:33 AM
2
Brian, again why would I be interested in the statue of limitations when I committed no
crime. Answer that one. I can't get the PAPD to respond to any, any of my concerns and
issues..
what the hell is wrong with you guys..
thanks
Mark Petersen-Perez
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
3/25/17, 3:58 AM
@SantaClaraDA Problem with this statue is that of no closure for those who have been falsely accused @innocence @PaloAltoPolice #PaloAlto pic.twitter.com/DH7YrjtiiL
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/28/2017 9:33 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2017 3:15 AM
To:Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Lum, Patty; Bullerjahn, Rich; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org;
Philip, Brian; dangel@dao.sccgov.org; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; Council, City;
csumida@da.sccgov.org; Stump, Molly; swebby@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky;
jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Wagner, April; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com;
mickwz@sbcglobal.net; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; Scharff, Greg;
gsheyner@paweekly.com; Gsaldivar@scscourt.org; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org;
Tony Ciampi; James Aram
Subject:Re: This is the best PAPD offers Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
Correction: weapon renovad should read "removed" years of dyslexia... thanks for your understanding
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 3:03 AM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> weapon renovad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/28/2017 9:33 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2017 3:03 AM
To:Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Lum, Patty; Bullerjahn, Rich; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org;
Philip, Brian; dangel@dao.sccgov.org; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; Council, City;
csumida@da.sccgov.org; Stump, Molly; swebby@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky;
jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Wagner, April; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com;
mickwz@sbcglobal.net; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; Scharff, Greg;
gsheyner@paweekly.com; Gsaldivar@scscourt.org; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org;
Tony Ciampi; James Aram
Subject:This is the best PAPD offers Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
1. Count one: Coercion and false police reporting in the matter of City of Palo Alto vs. Tony Ciampi
2. Count two: Chris Lund releasing confidential recordings to which she was reprimanded and given a
promotion. Hand to believe but factual.
These are the types of officers DA Rosen backs 100%. Keeping in mind that Rosen is nothing more than a "Top Cop" and a slick one at best!
Do your do diligence city council this officer is corrupt to the core and should have her badge and weapon
renovad including decertification (California only state where no legislation exists ) from law enforcement
Mark Petersen-Perez
Make our Justice System Great Again and terminate police corruption and district attorneys who support them...
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
3/28/17, 2:41 AM
This PAPD officer heads up the #Sex team @PaloAltoPolice she has a history of false PAPD reports
coercion and was reprimand in civil court twitter.com/pafreepress/st…
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/24/2017 8:24 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Petersen-Perez <bayareafreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 24, 2017 4:14 AM
To:Dave Price; jnowell@padailypost.com
Cc:Lum, Patty; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Council, City; Keith,
Claudia; CSumida@da.sccgov.org; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; mickwz@sbcglobal.net;
Scharff, Greg; SWebby@da.sccgov.org; Keene, James; Jay Boyarsky;
DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; dangel@dao.sccgov.org
Subject:Re: Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
You have ZERO credibility on any First Amendment Rights Mr. Price. Your fake new and a fraud to the Palo
Alto community.
New York Times vs Sullivan is still the law of the land you piece of Shit
Mark
Sent from my iPhone On Mar 24, 2017, at 4:03 AM, Mark Petersen-Perez <bayareafreepress@gmail.com> wrote:
Over 1.5k views and will not be removed by a vicious attack by Dave Price. #DMCA Title 17
Turn in your weapon and badge Ms. Lum. Elder abuse should not be tolerated by anyone period.
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
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 8:26 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 25, 2017 8:00 AM
To:Becky Sanders; Christian Pease; Eric Wu; Holzemer/hernandez; Karen Machado; Neilson
Buchanan; Norman Beamer; Paul Machado; Stan Bjelajac
Cc:Glanckopf, Annette; Beth Rosenthal; Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James; John
Guislin; Malcolm Beasley; Michael Hodos; Peter Taskovich; Planning Commission;
Brand, Richard; Furman, Sheri
Subject:Re: Unnecessary Panic about Calif Ave Permit Parking
Dear City and neighbors,
The evergreen park RPP should commence, i.e. Being enforced the last week of April. When are the signs going to go up?
Hopefully not another delay?
Thanks
Wolfgang
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:50 PM Norman Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com> wrote:
Not panic so much as griping by the weekly because they are in that area and mad that their free parking is going away.
From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
To: Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com>; Karen Machado <karen.machado@gmail.com>; Christian Pease <cgpease2016@gmail.com>; Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com>; Holzemer/hernandez
<holz@sonic.net>; Eric Wu <wuorthodontics@gmail.com>; Stan Bjelajac <stan85b@gmail.com>; Becky Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>
Cc: John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>; Malcolm Beasley <beasley@stanford.edu>; Norman H. Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>; Beth Rosenthal <bbr550@gmail.com>; Sheri Furman <sheri11@earthlink.net>; Peter
Taskovich <ptaskovich@yahoo.com>; Annette Glanckopf <annette_g@att.net>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Michael Hodos <mehodos@mac.com>; Richard Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net>;
Planning Commission <planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Hillary Gitelman <hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Keene <james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 10:41 PM
Subject: Unnecessary Panic about Calif Ave Permit Parking
Change is hard for everyone. Time to make amends. Time to
communicate and move forward. No more kicking the can.
My personal plea to City Council: Be prepared to stand your
ground.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 8:26 AM
2
City Council and Staff have no excuse for their years of willful
blindness and policy neglect. They created this massive
imbalance between parking supply and demand.
Everyone in position of power and leadership knew that California
Avenue commercial parking imbalance was more severe than
University Ave.
The over-development policy is embarrassing and obvious. City
Council must not be allowed to renege on Evergreen Park/Mayfield
Permit Parking.
Panic won't help. Move ahead. New, powerful solutions have
been lurking in the background.
University Avenue RPP was launched with similar confusion and
problems were ironed out.
If a line is not drawn now and if permit parking falters,
neighborhood conditions around California Avenue will simply
deteriorate.
Editorial: Failure to communicate | Town Square | Palo Alto Online
|
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 8:26 AM
3
Editorial: Failure to communicate | Town
Square | Palo Alto Online |
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/square/2017/03/24/editorial-
making-amends
Editorial: Making amends | Town Square |
Palo Alto Online |
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/24/2017 8:47 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Petersen-Perez <bayareafreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 24, 2017 8:40 AM
To:Perron, Zachary; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; Scharff, Greg;
swebby@da.sccgov.org; Council, City; Cynthia Sumida; HRC; Stump, Molly;
molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; Gary Goodman; Gsaldivar@scscourt.org;
sbrown@fairandimpartialpolicing.com; Watson, Ron; Bullerjahn, Rich; Brian Welch;
Philip, Brian; Dave Price; David Angel; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org;
jnowell@padailypost.com
Subject:Re: We believe
On circunstancial evidence will we prove our theory that the Palo Alto Police Department has engaged in an ongoing
patten of discrimination of Palo Alto Free Press.com from the very moment we launch (Sandra Brown) to which the
PAPD has never, never apologized for nor city council nor the HRC to whom be approach on countless time..... Outlining
and presenting their own anti‐discrimination business policies
Mark Petersen‐Perez
PS. You are one racist organization(s) and we will prove this beyond all reasonable doubt. Once we are back on‐line in
Nicaragua
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 24, 2017, at 8:07 AM, Mark Petersen‐Perez <bayareafreepress@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You sir conspired with the Daily Post in disrupting and bringing our Twitter site, Website, and FaceBook sites down.....
on a bogus #DMCA claim.....
>
> Yea....Rosen, who are you going to believe the cops 👮 or me?
>
> Mark
>
> Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/27/2017 8:34 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Petersen-Perez <bayareafreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 25, 2017 4:08 AM
To:bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; Perron, Zachary; Watson, Ron; Scharff, Greg;
jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org;
dangel@dao.sccgov.org; Council, City; James Aram; Tony Ciampi; Stump, Molly; Lum,
Patty; Philip, Brian; Bullerjahn, Rich; Dave Price; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org
Subject:Statue of Limitations Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
RAPE
This is of a big concern...Way to many issues in your letter to me counselor on statue of limitations
Jay this your best work? This is a piece of shit
Mark
ps New York Times vs Sullivan
still the law of the land buddy
but in reality your no friend of mine... I liken most of you as the Taliban
Mark
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
3/25/17, 3:58 AM @SantaClaraDA Problem with this statue is that of no closure for those who have been falsely accused
@innocence @PaloAltoPolice #PaloAlto pic.twitter.com/DH7YrjtiiL
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/23/2017 1:46 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kass <vz22@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 23, 2017 11:56 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Traffic calming
To the PA city council:
Calming traffic to 25 miles per hour, the current speed limit on most city streets is very important, which I fully support. On the other hand, why slow speeds on major through streets to 15 miles an hours, as has been done (with bumps, not humps) on Ross Road near Oregon Expressway and
Colorado near Middlefield. This could be really dangerous if there is a situation that requires a rapid
response by fire or police departments.
When was a speed limit of 15 miles an hour, as marked on signs on these streets, approved for these streets?
Respectfully,
Kathleen Goldfein 27 year resident and landlord in Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/24/2017 8:23 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 23, 2017 10:49 PM
To:ParkRec Commission
Cc:Council, City; Keene, James
Subject:We support making Peers Park a dog park.
Hello.
My partner, dog and I all support making Peers Park a dog park because it's within walking distance of our home at 1699
Middlefield Road .
As has been noted repeatedly, traffic on Middlefield continues to back up for much of the day so where it's very difficult
and time‐consuming to take our dog to to Mitchell or Greer park in the late afternoons.
Problems include but aren't limited to the constant gridlock, frequently malfunctioning traffic lights and turn signals at
Middlefield and East Meadow and the backed up traffic near Jordan due to the bottlenecks created because left turns
onto N. California are now barred and there's no way to go around those attempting to turn due to the giant Botts Dots.
As has been repeatedly mentioned, rush hour traffic on northbound Middlefield often backs up to and INTO Oregon
Expressway when a car is waiting to make a left turn on N. California.
An article by Diana Diamond in the PA Daily News within the last 2 weeks again noted that nothing has been done about
this in the 18 months since this new bottleneck was created and that there's still been no response from the city on
what's being done about it.
Several times we've requested at meetings and via email being able to take our dogs on the Palo Alto Shuttle to go to
one of the parks.
By making Peers park a dog park, you can do 2 things for the
residents: 1) you can give our dogs and us a nearby park where our dog can run free and 2) you can keep us out of rush
hour traffic since all our requests to be able to talk dogs on the PA shuttle have been ignored.
Most sincerely,
Jo Ann Mandinac
1699 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Jo Ann Mandinach
Need To Know Info Solutions
http:.//www.needtoknow.com
650 329‐8655 or cell 650 269‐0650
Palo Alto, CA 94301
10 ~ ~cJo A~ C"~ Co.a.nC4 \
J
-::C. ~ '-?' ·,("\ 'Yo-b.A\\-o.1 ... ~El Casrv-e.lo_,Jor..Jo.,...,
?oJ'j ~ ~) '""' ~ LDcnl.s/ o.-l~ --h~ res\~!
I lov-e... ~~.\\ ~~.r'c... o.r4 11-e.. ~ ~ sp: .. CJ<..
~~. -:c: c.YY' ~~ ~rui.d-+~+ 0-hov._si,~
~+~p~~u~~ *~~P~ ~ l' . (~~,~~') ~~ ~\\\ ~\n ~ .... ~°':J~+ d-~'j ~~ .~ 4e_,
~ ~ a+--0-e. ~"'-· <¥~ ~ 4-\,s f'~
~~ pvo~ l;... f\-5 ~c±. ~ ~ U-::id 't::-be.a1;...,.s:.
S't ~CJLJ-e)~
./
.. ~~-.... ~
s~~
ic;y ~~O\
? JJlo -A-rm err c, v '3~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
C ITY OF
PALO
ALTO
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
ROB DE GEUS, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
MARCH 27, 2017
5
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5-Approval of a Contract With Artist Mary
Lucking in the Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $100,000 for the
Design Development, Fabrication and Installation of Artwork
Associated With the Highway 101 Bike and Pedestrian Bridge.
The contract with Mary Lucking (Attachment A), was not yet executed by the artist at the time
this Agenda Item was prepared for the Council Packet. The Agreement was executed by Mary
Lucking on March 16, 2 7. Find the signed contract and signature page attached.
Director
Community Services Department
1 of I
•
TO:
FROM:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MEMORANDUM
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
CITY AUDITOR
AGENDA DATE: March 28, 2017
I PS MEETING [!]
03-28-17 1
0 Received Before Meeting
10#7464
SUBJECT: Revision to language in the updated Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline
Administration Policy
On packet page 13, section 9, "Discipline" will be changed to "Corrective Action" in the
updated City Employee Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Administration Policy.
HARRIET RICHARDSON
City Auditor
900 N. califomia Ave. Project https:/lemall.fhda.edu/owa/?ae=Ite~IPM.Note&Jd=Rg
1of1
900 N. California Ave. Project
Beatrix cashmore
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 3:22 PM
To: rogerOlcDlller-archlb!cts.com
Dear Mr. Kohler,
Would you and Greg Xiong be Interested In a meeting with me, my husband Pabick, Nicholas Kaposhilln, Peter
Underhill and Christy Crews to discuss solutions to the current fmpasse we seem to be In? We feel that a private
discussion without the llmltations of the Oty Hall venue would be preferable and much more productive.
Please let me know ff this Is something you would like to pursue.
Sincerely,
Beatrix c.ashmore
(928 N. c.allfomla Ave.)
Beabix J. cashmore, M.S., L.M.F.T.
Counselor/Professor Emerib.ts
Student Resource Center/Disability Resource Center
Foothill College
650-949-7017
650-917-1064 {fax)
cashmorebeabix@foolhlll.edu
3/22/17, 4:51
The appellants will withdraw the appeal. conditional to the ac ptance of one of
the following two options for the construction of the basement at lot #2:
1.) The use of a shallow Cutoff Wall. which can have a depth of as little as 15
feet for the excavation of the basement in place of broad area dewatering.
The advantages of using this method include:
A. Avoiding the cost of an enhanced geotechnical report -upwards of
$10,000.00.
B. Avoiding the $10,000.00 City fee for storm drain use. plus the cost of
ongoing monitoring of dewatering.
C. If the water extracted within the Cutoff wall is percolated back into the
ground by use of a percolation pit on site, there will be no risk
threatening neighboring properties, no need to install a pumping
station at the dewatering site. no weekly cost of capturing and trucking
groundwater for various purposes -watering parks, neighboring yards,
etc.
D. By demonstrating the effective use of the environmentally sustainable
Cutoff Wall technology the applicant will be rendering the
neighborhood and the City a valuable service. considering that in all
probability this method will be mandated in 2018.
2.) If the applicant declines option #1, and still chooses to broad area
dewater, he agrees to:
A. All of the stringent monitoring including surveying land elevations and
marking structures on neighboring properties
B. Obtain the enhanced geotechnical report
C. Adhere to a drawdown or no more than 3 feet in the groundwater level
at the closest neighboring properties, understanding that the
underground clay layer when drying out. will compress from 1.5 -
3.0%.
D. Maintain a consistent rate of dewatering that insures the 3 feet
drawdown level.
E. Discuss the location of piezometer holes with the neighboring property
owners.
F. Share the results of the enhanced geotechnical report with the
neighboring property owners.
We suggest a meeting of the appellants. the applicant, the project
manager and any other relevant staff or participants as appropriate, to
draw up a written agreement.
3/12/2017
The Story of the Hewlett Subdivision
• Entered into contract in 1980 between Palo Alto, State of
CA and the owners of the tract.
• The Contract divided the original 129 Acre land:
• Gifting 33 acres out right to the preserve .
• Designating 45 acres of unspoiled common areas (each parcel
owns 10%) and transferring development rights from the
common areas to the individual residential lots (total 77 acres)
• Clustering 10 residential parcels on 51 acres
• The land gift and the creation of the common areas were
designed to connect Foothill park with Arastradero
Preserve, and created separation between the parks and
the clustered residential lots.
Bill
Hewlett ~:ur.c; -
(liJ
.... _ ... ~
~
cu
i:
!
cu
en
cu
..
.
c.
cu
.c
..
.
,
bO
c
·-
'"
C
c
::
:
J
0
..
.
..
.
::
:
J
en
en
cu
~
cu
c.
0
..
.
c.
-cu
>
cu
'
'"
C
c
::
:
J
bO
c
24 months design journey
• Evaluated more than sq different models and concepts
• Balanced site constrains, Open Space criteria, neighborhood privacy and our
own preferences led us to the current siting and design
• Worked closely with city staff and integrated all of their comments
• Working additional tweaks based on PTC comments (5:1 vote in favor)
5
Working closely with the City of Palo Alto
• Started the dialog with the city before acquired the land in April 2015
• Studied previous open space projects submissions and comments
• In the months leading to the submission met with city personnel multiple times, including:
• Planning dept. -Jodie Gerhardt, Graham Owen, Russ Reich
• Site visit with Graham Owen and Dave Dockter
• Fire department Gordon Simpkinson, Lee Bach, Karl Schneider and James Henrikson
• Outcome: In full compliance with Palo Alto Open Space Guideline
Our Design Team
Mcclean Design (Paul Mcclean) -Experienced residential design firm focusing on simplicity
and an openness to the surrounding landscape that blends the boundaries between indoor and
outdoor space. Their hillside topography homes emphasize texture and natural materials.
Rana Creek Design (Paul Kephart) - A renowned ecological design firm specializing in landscape
and living architecture, environmental planning, native plant propagation, and habitat
restoration.
Kevin Kiety (arborist) -An enthusiastic naturalist with extensive experience working with the
city of Palo Alto, Portola Valley .and Woodside protecting trees during complex construction
projects.
1-