HomeMy Public PortalAbout20170522plCC701-32
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: 5/22/2017
Document dates: 5/3/2017 – 5/10/2017
Set 1/2
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 9:58 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Terry Trumbull <terryt1011@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 9:48 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:re-appoint Lisa Forssell to UAC
Councilmembers-
it has been my honor to serve with Lisa Forssell on the UAC for the past year. She is analytical and independent- an excellent commissioner. I hope you re-appoint her to the UAC.
Terry A. Trumbull
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
BETH MINOR, CITY CLERK
MAY 8, 2018
2
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2-Appointment of two Candidates to the Human
Relations Commission, Four Candidates to the Public Art Commission, and two
Candidates to the Utilities Advisory Commission for Terms Ending May 31, 2020
Staff recommends the City Council consider making an appointment to the Human Relations
Commission for the unscheduled vacant term ending May 31, 2019 from among the
applications received as part of the Spring Recruitment.
On April 30, 2017, the City Clerk's Office was notified Greer Stone resigned from the Human
Relations Commission (see Attachment A). This resignation created a vacant term on the
Human Relations Commission ending May 31, 2019.
On April 28, 2017, the City Clerk's Office received a revised resume from Public Art Commission
applicant, Bette Kiernan (see Attachment B).
~~
Beth Minor
City Clerk
1of1
Greer B. Stone
April 30, 2017
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Resignation Letter
To the honorable members of the Palo Alto City Council,
ATTACHMENT A
751 Layne Ct. Apt. 15, Palo Alto CA 94306
Cell: 6505750405 -gstone22@gmail.com
For the past four years I have had the distinct honor of serving at the pleasure of this Council on the
Human Relations Commission. It has been one of the greatest honors of my life serving the people of
Palo Alto, and bringing attention to some of the greatest problems our most underserved residents face.
When I first joined the Commission, issues of human rights and tolerance were not on the radar of
many Palo Al tans. Four years later, the election of Donald Trump has brought fear and uncertainty
to many in our community. Immigrants fear deportation, nonprofits fret over loss of federal
funding, and deplorable symbols of hate have shaken our peace-of-mind. Today, we are reminded
the shadow of intolerance and hate can exist in all corners of the world, even one as bright as ours.
This must be a constant reminder for us all to stay vigilant, and to fight against hate and
intolerance in all its forms. This Council has taken a positive first step in reaffirming our
commitment to being a "diverse, supportive, inclusive and protective" community. I urge you to
implement these guiding principles in everything we do, and take additional methods to safeguard
our community from those who wish to do us harm.
When I first sought appointment to this Commission, I said to you I believe what defines us as Palo
Al tans is not the number of zeros in our bank account, but rather the set of values we hold as a
community. I believe that more than ever today, and I have seen over the past four years the need
for us to continue to support those who are serving the most vulnerable in our community. The
nonprofit organizations serving those people need our help. They need additional funding, but our
City has failed to provide sufficient increases to our Human Services Resource Allocation Process
(HS RAP). These magnanimous organizations help keep people off the streets, nourish our elderly,
care for our mentally ill, provide counseling and aid to young people, and they do it at an
incredible value for our City. The least we can do is provide them with the funding they need.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to serve Palo Alto on the Human Relations
Commission. I will never forget the people I met, the stories I heard, and the service we have all
shared together. It is with sadness that I tender my resignation to you, effective immediately. I
have been appointed by Supervisor Joe Simitian to represent Northern Santa Clara County on the
County Human Relations Commission. I look forward to continue representing the people of Palo
Alto in my new position with the County of Santa Clara.
Thank you for the honor,
Greer B. Stone
Palo Alto Human Relations Commission, Chair
BETTE U. KIERNAN, MFT
CA License MFT 18408
845 Oak Grove Avenue, Suite 101
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: (650) 324-3639; E Mail: betteuk@aol.com
WWW.betteconsulting.coml
SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE
2015
ATTACHMENT B
Kiernan, B.U. Presented From Neuroscience toward a More Peaceable
World. Compassion Conference. San Francisco State University, June 2015
2014-present
Journalist, Splash Magazines Worldwide
2009
Kiernan, B.U. Examining Sacred Texts. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
International Media Conference. Presented April 2009 and published on line
through MIT
Kiernan, B.U. The Group Dynamics of International Relationships. 17th
International Congress of Group Psychotherapy and Group Dynamics.
Presented August 2009, Rome Italy
1987-2012
Led training groups for group psychotherapists at Northern California Group
Psychotherapy Society Annual Training. Asilomar, CA
2006
Military and Family Life Consultant. Provided brief therapy to soldiers and their
families related to deployment in Iraq. Contract with United States
Department of Defense. Hanau, Germany.
2005
Kiernan, B.U. Fairy Tales and Psychotherapy. Presented April 2005.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology International Media Conference, and
published online through MIT.
BETTE KIERNAN
1994
Psychotherapist. Contract with Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Palo Alto, CA.
Co-directed Psychological, Social and Spiritual Roots of Violence, a symposium
on violence. Rollo May Center for Study of the Humanities, San Francisco,
CA.
Founded Arbor Psychological Health Services, Palo Alto, CA
1991
Co-directed Responsive Witness, a symposium on psychological meanings of
political art. City of Palo Alto Cultural Center
1989
Developed, directed and produced a performance of Creation Mythology: In Story,
Music and Dance. City of Palo Alto, Division of Arts and Culture.
Designed, developed and taught Fairy Tale and Mythology classes for University
of California, Santa Cruz, Extension services.
1987 to Present
Provided Trainings and Critical Incident Stress Debriefings to Silicon Valley
corporations, law firms, and cites including Stanford University Medical
School, SAP, DLA Piper Global Law Firm, Nutanix, AOL, Oracle, Apple, Go
Pro, Pacific Gas and Electricity, Communications and Power Industries, Sun
Microsystems, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati Law, Pillsbury Winthrop
Law, Morrison and Forester Law, DLA Piper Law, Gray Carey Law, Intel,
Intuit, United Defense, JDS Uniphase, Southwall Technology, Yahoo, Tyco,
Bank of America, Greater Bay Bank, Hewlett Packard, Mircrosoft, Jamba
Juice, City of Palo Alto, City of City of Menlo Park Fire Department, Alameda
County Water District, Oracle, Blood Systems, Altera, Co-America Bank,
City of San Jose, Microsoft, Sun Power, Southwest Airlines, Bank of the
West, Alameda County Water District, Valley Transit Authority, City,
Stanislaus County and others
1986-1988
Designed, developed and provided group leadership for two Career Advancement
Strategy groups under the auspices of Federal Women's Program, and
Veteran's Administration Medical Centers, Palo Alto/Menlo Park.
Developed a Fairy Tale course with City of Palo Alto Division of Arts and Sciences.
1983 to Present
Private Psychotherapy Practice. Palo Alto, Menlo Park CA.
1983 to 1987
Designed, implemented and led single parent support system at Palo Alto Unified
School District, Palo Alto, CA.1983
2
BETTE KIERNAN
Led groups in divorcing families' project at Stanford University, Stanford, CA
1978 to 1985
Designed, directed, and evaluated The Child Development and Parenting Project,
a child abuse prevention program, Crittenton Friends, Palo Alto, CA.
PUBLICATIONS/ARTICLES
Thesis: The Development, Direction, and Evaluation of the Child Development
and Parenting Program. San Jose State University, 1979.
Kiernan, B.U. (1987) A Systems Perspective on Soviet-American Relations.
Political Psychology Vol.8, no. 2, 1987.
Kiernan, B.U., Wilson, D., Suter, N., Naqvi, A., Molten, J. and Silver, G.
Comparison of the Geriatric Depression Scale and Beck Depression
Inventory in a Nursing Home Setting. Clinical Gerontologist vol.6 (1) Fall,
1986.
Kiernan, B. U. Systems Processes: Archetypal Pattern that Connects. Paper read
at Association for Transpersonal Psychology Meetings, Asilomar, 1988.
Kiernan, B.U. Fertilizing the Seeds of Compassion in Ancient Texts. Journal of
Compassion Research. June 2009
Kiernan, B.U. Group Dynamics of International Relations. Northern
California Group Psychotherapy Newsletter, fall 2010.
Kiernan, B.U. The Uses of Fairy Tales in Psychotherapy. Santa Clara Valley
Marriage Family Child Therapist newsletter, summer 2010.
PRESENTATIONS/TRAININGS
Listening Better. Communication Training. Presented at DiTech. Mountain View,
CA. 2009, DeVry University, Fremont, CA. 2010
The Uses of Fairy Tales for Group Psychotherapy. Northern California Association
of Group Psychotherapy. Asilomar, CA. 2010, 2008.
Stress Management Techniques. Presented at DLA Piper, Palo Alto, CA. 2008.
Stress Management Techniques. Presented at Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich and
Rosati Law Firm. Palto Alto, CA. 2006
Management Training for Referring Employees CPI. Palo Alto, CA. 2007.
Coping with 9/11. Presented at Pillsbury Winthrop Law Firm. Palo Alto, CA.2001
Myths and Transformation. How Cultural Beliefs Contribute to Global Violence
and Terrorism. Presented at Kozmetsky Global Collaboratory. Stanford
University. Stanford, CA. 2004
The Uses of Fairy Tales in Psychotherapy. Presented at The Work of Stories
Conference. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, MA. 2005
Managed Care and the Socially Responsible Psychologist. Presented at Ortho
Psychiatry Meeting, San Francisco, CA. 1993.
3
BETTE KIERNAN
An Object Relations Perspective on Divorce. Presented at California Association
for Marriage, Family, Child Therapists Divorce Conference, Stanford, CA.
1990.
A Systems Perspective on International Relations. Presented at Association for
Humanistic Psychology Conference, Stanford, CA. 1989.
Fairy Tale Groups; Presented at Northern California Group Psychotherapy
Association, Conference, Asilomar, 1987, 1988,1989,1990, 2008.
Career Advancement Strategies; Presented to Department of the Navy, Western
Division Engineering Facility, San Bruno, CA 1987, and presented at
Veterans Administration Medical Centers, Palo Alto, CA, 1986.
Coping Strategies for Working Mothers; Presented to City of Palo Alto Employees,
1985.
Introduction to Research Methodology; presented at Veterans Administration
Medical Center, Menlo Park, CA, 1986.
Single Parent Groups; Presented at Northern California Group Psychotherapy
Association, Asilomar 1986.
The Shadow of Nuclear Weapons; Presented to Psychologists for Social
Responsibility, Stanford, CA, 1985.
The Need for Supportive Services for Single Parent Families in Public Schools;
Presented at California State PTA, San Jose, 1985.
A Preventive Child Abuse Program: Presented American Psychological
Association. Meetings, Montreal, Canada. 1983.
Small is Beautiful: A Community Based Approach to Social Action Programs;
presented at 1981 Western Psychological Association meetings, Los Angeles
EDUCATION ·
M.A. Psychology. San Jose State University, 1979
M.A. Psychology. Western Graduate School, 1981
B.A. Psychology. Ohio State University, 1965
A.A. Lasell College. Auburndale, MA. 1963
RESEARCH
Veterans Administration Hospital, Menlo Park California. Performed all aspects of
major NIH research grant. 1984-1987
TEACmNG
4
BETTE KIERNAN
Institute for Transpersonal Psychology. Lifespan Development. 2007.
University of Santa Clara. Depth Psychology, 1991 to 2006.
University California, Santa Cruz Extension, Berkeley Extension, Psychological
Theories as Reflected Myths and Fairy Tales. Spring 1989-2001.
John F. Kennedy University, Campbell, CA. Courses: Group Psychotherapy,
Family Systems Theories. 1999-2003.
John F. Kennedy University, Berkeley, CA. Course: Uses of Fairy Tales in
Psychotherapy. March 2017.
AWARD
Superior Performance Award, presented by Veterans Administration Medical
Center, 1987
OFFICES
Board Member, Northern California Psychologists for Social
Responsibility, 1986 -1994. President, Northern California
Psychologists for Social Responsibility, 1991 -199~
www. betteconsulting.com/
5
Ci
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
|
C
i
t
y
C
l
e
r
k
'
s
O
f
f
i
c
e
|
5
/
8
/
2
0
1
7
3
:
1
9
P
M
1
Ca
r
n
a
h
a
n
,
D
a
v
i
d
Fr
o
m
:
Va
n
De
r
Zw
a
a
g
,
Mi
n
k
a
Se
n
t
:
Mo
n
d
a
y
,
Ma
y
08
,
20
1
7
2:
0
9
PM
To
:
ly
d
i
a
k
o
u
@
g
m
a
i
l
.
c
o
m
Cc
:
Sv
e
n
d
s
e
n
,
Ja
n
i
c
e
<Ja
n
i
c
e
.
S
v
e
n
d
s
e
n
@
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
.
o
r
g
>;
Ke
e
n
e
,
Ja
m
e
s
<Ja
m
e
s
.
K
e
e
n
e
@
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
.
o
r
g
>;
De
Ge
u
s
,
Ro
b
e
r
t
<Ro
b
e
r
t
.
D
e
G
e
u
s
@
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
.
o
r
g
>
Su
b
j
e
c
t
:
At
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e
‐
HR
C
me
e
t
i
n
g
s
De
a
r
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Me
m
b
e
r
Ko
u
,
Pl
e
a
s
e
se
e
th
e
ch
a
r
t
be
l
o
w
in
re
g
a
r
d
s
to
HR
C
co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
e
r
at
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e
fo
r
th
e
la
s
t
ye
a
r
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
le
t
me
kn
o
w
if
yo
u
ne
e
d
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
Re
g
a
r
d
s
,
Mi
n
k
a
Ma
r
‐16
16
‐Ap
r
Ma
y
‐16
Ju
n
‐16
Au
g
‐16
Se
p
‐16
Oc
t
‐16
No
v
‐16
De
c
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Fe
b
‐17
Ma
r
‐17
Ap
r
‐17
To
t
a
l
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
77
%
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
92
%
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
85
%
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
92
%
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
69
%
x x x xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
10
0
%
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
92
%
HR
C
AL
H
A
S
S
A
N
I
,
Me
h
d
i
CH
E
N
,
Th
e
r
e
s
a
GO
R
D
O
N
GR
A
Y
,
Sh
e
l
l
y
O'
N
A
N
,
Ji
l
l
SA
V
A
G
E
,
Da
r
y
l
ST
I
N
G
E
R
,
Va
l
e
r
i
e
ST
O
N
E
,
Gr
e
e
r
% of
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
e
r
s
At
t
e
n
d
e
d
86
%
71
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
86
%
71
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
71
%
10
0
%
86
%
71
%
86
%
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 3:09 PM
1
Carnahan, David
Questions about this amendment:
1.What is the benefit of adding a 15-year contract term?
A 15‐year contract term will provide additional flexibility to the CLEAN program, potentially
enabling additional customers (who may not be able to commit their property to a 20‐ or 25‐
year contract term) to participate. For example, a customer who leases their property and
whose lease term has less than 20 years left on it would not have been able to participate in the
program previously. But a 15‐year contract term still gives the electric utility long‐term certainty
about the price and quantity of renewable energy it would be contracting for.
2.Is there any cost to passing this resolution?
No, there is no additional cost to passing this resolution. The overall program terms (e.g.,
contract price and participation cap) will remain the same.
3.Part of this resolution is the continuation of numerous parts of the Palo Alto CLEANprogram. Will those parts NOT be continued if the bill is not passed ?
No, all other components of the CLEAN program will continue in their current form if this
resolution is not passed. The CLEAN program was affirmatively re‐authorized by Council on
2/6/17 (Staff Report 7604;Resolution 9665), and it will continue until the Council de‐authorizes
it. Since the CLEAN program began in 2012, staff has come to the Finance Committee and
Council on an annual basis to allow for a discussion about the program and whether it should be
modified or continued. Staff intends to come back to Council in early 2018 for another such
discussion.
4.Who currently signs the contracts that this bill gives the city manager the authority tosign? What is the benefit of the city manager signing those contracts?
The City Manager currently signs the CLEAN contracts, as authorized (most recently
byResolution 9665). The CLEAN program is an example of a feed‐in tariff program – the purpose
of which is to establish a standard form contract that can be executed by any eligible
customer/supplier if it so chooses. The benefit of this type of arrangement is that it saves staff
time by not having to negotiate individual agreements, and it saves staff and Council time by not
having to review and approve each individual project/contract.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/5/2017 9:34 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Linnea Wickstrom <ljwickstrom@comcast.net>
Sent:Thursday, May 04, 2017 9:54 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Linnea wickstrom
Subject:May 8th Consent Calendar: ADU ordinance, 2nd reading
Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss, City Council Members Please pass the new ADU ordinance with the Consent Calendar at the May 8th Council meeting.
Many citizens, local NGOs, the City Staff, the P&TC, and you yourselves have invested a great deal of time
and energy in the new ordinance – in an effort to meet the letter and spirit of the new state laws. Please
lend your assent.
Thank you, Linnea Wickstrom Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/5/2017 9:34 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Amy Kacher <amyewardwell@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 04, 2017 9:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:In Law Units
Hello City Council,
I am writing regarding the new laws around building accessory dwellings. I understand the goal is to add affordable housing. Can you tell me what research was done on the traffic and parking impacts this will have? Again I feel as though we are adding housing and not accounting for associated traffic
congestion and parking problems.
Thank you, Amy
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:37 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Maria Cristina Urruela <murruela@stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 6:29 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU's
Dear City Council Members:
Once again I write to thank you for all of the hard work you do, and to ask that you approve the ADU
Ordinance on consent without any further delay.
I remain confident that we will work out any difficulties that might arise.
All the best,
Maria Cristina
María Cristina Urruela, PhD
Lecturer in Spanish
650 725‐8657, 260/242 (Pigott Hall)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:37 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Debbie Mytels <dmytels@batnet.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 10:59 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thanks for your support of "granny units" in Palo Alto
Dear Councilmembers,
I was at the meeting a few weeks ago when the Council approved the modified ADU ordinance. While I felt that the original ordinance passed before that was satisfactory, the work done by the Council on April 17 was a
reasonable compromise, and it should now be approved on a final vote.
We are in a desperate situation with the lack of housing. People regularly write me with requests for info and
help about affordable housing in this area; there is little that I can say to encourage them. Opening up the opportunity to build ADU’s in lots of at least 5,000 Sq ft will provide SOME housing relief to students, seniors,
and other low-income people who contribute so much to our community life — and by living closer to where
they work, it reudces the greenhouse gases emitted by cars making long commutes.
Our Earth now requires that humans learn to live more densely, while still retaining green spaces within urban areas. The modified ADU ordinance passed on April 17 will retain Palo Alto’s greenery and over time will add
a modest amount of needed housing.
Please pass the ADU ordinance on the May 8 meeting’s Consent Calendar.
Sincerely,
Debbie Mytels
2824 Louis Road. Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 856-7580 dmytels@batnet.com
"Remembering the Future in our Actions Every Day"
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:37 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Lowys <lowys@jps.net>
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 11:14 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:'Lowys'
Subject:Second dwelling unit (ADU)
It’s a disgrace that those ‘Developer’ backed members of the Palo Alto City Council are ‘cramming down the
collective throats’ of our citizens an ordinance allowing additional housing units in residential areas while
ignoring the community’s concerns. A large majority of residents spoke out against the excessiveness of the
ordinance and about the impact on privacy, parking, set backs, space between units, etc. These council members are even ignoring the city staff’s recommendation not exceed the state law. This is truly outrageous.
They are showing total lack of concern about how this will affect relationships between neighbors. Inevitably,
some people will take advantage of this ‘free rein’ showing total disregard for families living ‘right next door’.
Such disregard by the council for the community is unconscionable and will forever negatively impact many neighbors and neighborhoods.
The council member [a while back] who said something to the effect, ‘don’t worry, Palo Alto would still look
and/or be the same’ didn’t take into account this kind of drastic ordinance.
Ruth and Michael Lowy Thain Way, Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:37 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:jay whaley <whaley_jay@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 9:30 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:sallie whaley
Subject:Second dwelling unit ordinance
Dear members of the Palo Alto City Council,
As homeowners in Palo Alto since 1968, we strongly oppose the codification of the second dwelling unit
ordinance!
We urge you not to exceed what state law now requires.
Sincerely,
R. Jay and Sallie Whaley
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:37 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:n.stein@juno.com
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 8:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Units Ordinance
Dear City Council,
Please do not pass and enact the current ADU Ordinance as it now stands. I favor adding ADU units, but there needs to be more oversight. Currently, a homeowner can rent out to as many tenants as they want. Code
enforcement says the only restriction is it must be for 30 days or more. A small ADU addition could potentially
have enough beds for 10 or more tenants and under the current codes, this would be allowed. This is effectively
changing R-1 zoning to R-2 or a larger density zone, and this is being done in a very un-democratic way.
Nancy Steinbach
____________________________________________________________
1 Simple Trick Removes Eye Bags & Lip Lines in Seconds Fit Mom Daily
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3132/590fe60eb9b96660e28b2st02vuc
Right-click download help protecOutlook prautomatic dthi s pi ctu reIn ternet.Sponsored
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:37 AM
6
Carnahan, David
From:TC Rindfleisch <tcr@stanford.edu>
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 7:46 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Objections to New ADU Ordinance
Dear City Council Members, I do not deny the difficulty of your jobs to satisfy such a diverse community as
Palo Alto, nor the significant commitment you make of your personal time to the community as council
members. Nevertheless, I want you to know that I and many members of the Palo Alto community are frustrated and angry at two aspects of the new ADU ordinance you are likely to pass: (1) the process with which the
ordinance was devised, amended, and voted on without thoughtful review, and (2) the late-night additions to the
state-mandated form for a new ordinance that pose serious risks to the character of our community.
The process was faulty in introducing highly questionable amendments at a late night hour and in a way that
prevented appropriate public discussion and thoughtful evaluation of the consequences of the amendments by city staff and relevant public commissions.
The amendments were faulty (in my mind) because they serve to remove important safeguards to protect the
character of our (R1) neighborhoods and to avoid abuses. In particular, I am concerned about:
1.Reducing the minimum lot size for addition of an ADU to 5,000 sq ft.
2.Minimizing setback requirements to six feet from both side and rear property lines in R1 neighborhoods.3.Allowing extra area for second units that exceeds existing standards of total allowed lot coverage.
4.Allowing unreasonable heights for ADUs that pose a loss of privacy in neighboring lots.
5.Authorizing minimum stays of thirty days by tenants, without any mechanism for enforcing rules against
shorter stays (such as are facilitated by Airbnb or HomeAway).
6.Removing the need for design reviews, so that ADUs conform to reasonable design requirements andcommunity character.
7.Removing all requirements for adequate parking to support the additional load of ADUs on community
streets and neighboring properties.
8.Failing to ensure that ADUs cannot be used for purposes other than for housing.
This whole episode is reminiscent of the recent Republican approach to passing a draft Trumpcare law in the federal House of Representatives, without public discussion and without projection of the functional and
economic consequences of the law.
The community will be watching the future course of this Council's deliberations and actions so they can be
taken into account in the next election...
Thanks for your attention.
Tom Rindfleisch
31 Tevis Place
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:37 AM
7
Carnahan, David
From:David Keefer <davidhkeefer@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 6:25 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Ordinance
Dear City Council Members,
I'm writing to ask you to more fully consider the proposed ADU Ordinance on the agenda for Monday, May 8. The rapidly rushed-through idea seems to have not fully been thought out. It reminds me of the Republican Congress rushing to
repeal the healthcare act just for the sake of a self-imposed deadline. I fear the ill-considered ADU provisions will experience the unintended consequences that we foresee for the Congressional bill. Perhaps, like the Congress, you
want to ram the legislation through just for the sake of it. That kind of process is not what you were elected to accomplish. I further believe that if you really consider the weak spots that are being pointed out, you will realize there's a
wiser course. Please consider the impact on lives and neighborhood that your actions can cause.
Sincerely,
David H. Keefer 622 Melville Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:37 AM
8
Carnahan, David
From:irvbb <irvbb@pacbell.net>
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 6:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADUs
Dear Council Members, and specifically Greg Tanaka, Adrian Fine and Cory Wolbach:
I'm dismayed not only that you felt the need to vastly exceed the letter and intent of state
law regarding ADUs, but did so without acknowledging a majority of dissenters. You have
effectively removed zoning restrictions without following the city protocols for doing so.
Two neighborhood units, both illegal under previous zoning are now suddenly occupied,
both overlooking my back yard and taking up extra parking spaces. I bought this home
because of the single-family zoning and am extremely upset that my privacy, parking and
quality of life has been impacted by your disregard of residents' opinions.
With all due respect, I urge to reconsider your hasty decision and reframe Palo Alto's ADU
requirements to conform with state regulations.
Irv Brenner
250 Byron Street, 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:37 AM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net>
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 5:41 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Annette Ross
Subject:ADU Ordinance
Dear Council Members:
I am writing with regard to the ADU Ordinance. At this point I must ask: what’s what?
We have the Ordinance the Staff developed so that the City would be in compliance with new State
laws, the March 7 Amendments, and the April 17 Amendments. Per Item 6 of the Agenda for the May 8, 2017 meeting, you are having the second reading of the April 17 version of the Ordinance. What is included in tomorrow’s reading? Per the Action Minutes of the April 17 meeting, you passed 7 amendments to the
Ordinance. Per the Action Minutes of the March 7 meeting, you passed 11 amendments to the
Ordinance. Some of the March 7 amendments overlap to varying degrees with the April 17 amendments but
several do not. Can you clarify what you will be acting on tomorrow?
Many earnest and informed members of the community urged you to accept the Ordinance and set aside the amendments until after they had been properly vetted. I think that would have been prudent. Obviously,
you did not choose that approach. I think many in the community would appreciate an explanation as to why
you felt it necessary to move forward as you did.
As is, the amended ordinance may as well be called the Subdivision Act of 2017. If I am correctly understanding all that has transpired, owners of lots of 5000sf or more can add a second dwelling as large as 1200sf and 17’ high that can be as close as 6’ to their neighbor’s property (5’ if the new unit is above a
garage). This essentially eliminates privacy and the peaceful enjoyment of one’s home as the nearness will
mean that neighbors can hear every cough, every spoken word, every flushed toilet. And this could happen on
all 3 sides of a typical lot!
And why no Design Review? Why would the City not want the opportunity to assure that what is essentially a new home meets certain design standards and is compatible?
And why no sprinkler requirement? Why not require that new dwellings be built to a higher safety
standard than an older house built at a different time? If we are coming to terms with our times by updating our
ADU Ordinance, doesn’t it make sense to also come to terms with our times by building the new dwellings to
current safety standards?
And what will the parking rules be? Will existing rules prevail or are you relaxing that as well? If yes
to the latter, that makes no sense whatsoever. One way or the other it seems parking is an issue at every
Council meeting. There’s no point in making a problem worse.
In many ways the amendments are hostile to our neighborhoods. I think we can do better. I urge you to do what dozens of speakers suggested on April 17; the amendments need more work.
Respectfully,
Annette Ross
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:37 AM
11
Carnahan, David
From:bbretirednow@aol.com
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 5:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Additional Units
Dear Council,
It is time for the council to slow down and stop finding ways to pack structures and people into an already crowded city. There is no place to park in many areas. Traffic is impacted and ridiculous. The only time I can drive smoothly and easily through the streets, especially main arteries
(Embarcadero, Oregon, El Camino), is at 7:30 on Sunday morning when I am on the way to church.
Allowing additional dwellings in neighborhoods would only have negative impact on surrounding neighbors as well as the neighborhood as a whole.
Think "breathing room" rather than density!
Barbara Bogner Stephen Bogner 544 Greer Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:37 AM
12
Carnahan, David
From:Jan Holliday <luvlivlaf@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 5:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU
Dear Council Members,
It is time to stand up to the privileged attitude of the people of our city. There is a desperate need for housing.
Ordinary workers are burning fuel and adding to the traffic congestion to work in Palo Alto and live in Tracy and
beyond.
Pollution is a real consequence of our actions. NIMBY people need to get out of their complacent and protective
attitude and see the BIGGER picture.
Do not get intimidated by these short sided views. Stand up and do the right thing.
Jan Holliday
Palo Alto resident since 1972
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:37 AM
13
Carnahan, David
From:Patricia Jones <pkjones1000@icloud.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 5:19 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADUs
I am greatly concerned about the rapid passage of the ADU ordinance. It way exceeds state requirements, and
was passed very quickly without allowing sufficient time for resident responses given its ramifications.
Here are some of the problems with it. The ordinance
a. has no provision for enforcement against the use of ADUs for AirBNB rentals
b. will impact parking in my and other neighborhoods
c. has the potential to impact privacy because units can be built as close as 6 feet from property lines.
I am very disappointed that the council would rush this aggressive program through so quickly when it clearly
goes against the wishes of so many of our residents.
Sincerely,
Patricia Jones
1407 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Patricia Jones www.pkjones.com pkjones1000@icloud.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:37 AM
14
Carnahan, David
From:Christy Telch <gforman806@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 4:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please reconsider the ADU ordinance
City Council Members,
I urge you to rescind your decision regarding the ADU Ordinance at tomorrow's Council meeting. The majority of residents
in Palo Alto oppose this ordinance because it will magnify the already significant parking problems for residents, and further degrade our neighborhoods in terms of privacy and quality of life. The current form of the ADU ordinance far
exceeds what is required by state law and ignores the caveat to consider the character of the community and neighborhoods when implementing the law. Instead, the Council has dismissed the significant negative impact this
Ordinance will have on the character of our community.
Please correct your error in judgment with the April 17th vote and hit the restart button on this ADU issue by taking into account the concerns of the majority of Palo Alto residents.
Christy F. Telch 1130 Hamilton Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:37 AM
15
Carnahan, David
From:Julianne Frizzell <julianneasla@sonic.net>
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 4:15 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU ordinance
To the City Council of the City of Palo Alto
Regarding the ADU ordinance, second reading Monday May 8, 2017
Palo Alto throughout its history has attempted to balance individual property rights and the rights of
the community. The CA State ADU ruling gave cities the opportunity to design an ordinance that
allows ADU while honoring the needs of the community. This council has proposed an ordinance that
favors individual discretion over the greater good of the neighborhoods and our community. Issues of
traffic, parking, aesthetics, privacy and illegal use of the ADU were not addressed. Members of this
council ignored City staff and PTC’s recommendations. I believe that they have mis-read this
community
I strongly oppose the ordinance as it is now written.
Julianne Adams Frizzell
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:37 AM
16
Carnahan, David
From:Thomas A. Vician <tvician@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 3:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance
Dear Council Members,
On the Consent Calendar for May 8, 2017 is the Accessory Dwelling Unit revised ordinance. I ask that you pull
this item and reschedule it to be heard at a later Council meeting only after staff and Planning and Transportation Commission has had an opportunity to analyze these changes. Currently, the Staff Report accompanying the revised ordinance does not include any analysis of the effects of the changes to the
Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance.
The lack of analysis and review of unique neighborhood issues raises significant concerns about the Council’s
governing process to date. I live in Palo Alto Fairmeadow neighborhood, which is comprised of early 300 Eichlers. Due to the unique nature of Eichler design and building/lot placement, privacy and the inherent natural
aesthetic experienced from the indoor/outdoor harmony is at risk in the revised ordinance.
Foremost, there is an immediate existing conflict with the Eichler guidelines development that was kicked-off
last week. The potential Eichler standards initiative is not schedule for conclusion until the end of the year.
Secondly, a primary concern of many Eichler owners is privacy, or more specifically, loss of privacy. My understanding is two story ADUs will not undergo Individual Review and there is not an appeal process.
Further, a single story ADU could have a window at as close as 6 feet from the property line.
If the City Council does not have the item rescheduled after staff or PTC analysis, we will sign a referendum
petition on the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thomas A. Vician, Ph.D.
Elizabeth O. Vician, Ph.D.
850 Webster Street, Apartment 254
Owners and residents of 3718 Redwood Circle from 1962-2016
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:37 AM
17
Carnahan, David
From:Jim Colton <james.colton10@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 11:03 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADUs
Dear City Council Members,
The proposed provisions for ADUs are too radical and depart too much from the State rules. We shouldn't allow ADUs on small lots. We shouldn't allow ADUs 17 feet high that have a view into a neighbors
yard. Would you like one next to your house? And the parking allowed would be a mess.
Also, I'm disturbed by how the Council is operating. Changes to proposals after public comment should require
another round of public comment. Proposed changes should be heard before the public has commented so that the final proposal can be commented on. Also, City staff input either hasn't been allowed or is frequently
ignored.
You were elected to represent the citizens of Palo Alto. So when 60% of the public comments favored staying
with the State regulations for ADUs, why aren't you listening to them?
Jim Colton
670 Georgia Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:37 AM
18
Carnahan, David
From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 10:50 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Mary Gallagher; CeCi Kettendorf; Annette Ross
Subject:Rethink the ADU ordinance and stop rushing it through
Hello
I won't be attending the meeting in person because I don't have the stomach to watch 5 hours of your
maneuvering so you can cast another midnight vote but know I -- like many others -- will be watching.
There are way too many unanswered questions about this ordinance, Just last week several of us wrote to
the more sensible city council members about the tax implications and other aspects of this
ordinance and it was truly discouraging how many questions remain unanswered because they simply didn't
know the answer. AT THIS LATE DATE.
One finally asked an appraiser about the tax consequences and was diligent enough to respond.
At least they were diligent enough to think about the questions and reply unlike the other council members who
ignore constituents' letters and cc info packets.
It is absurd to hold a vote with so many unanswered questions including:
1) Is there an occupancy limit or can an ADU pack in 10 hackers?
2) Is one ADU subject to Fair Housing laws or does the 4-unit stricture still apply.
3) Can I give 1 ADU tenant free rent while charging another market rent or can I be sued for giving free
rent to granny, a relative or needy friend?
4) If I buy a $10,000 prefab shed/cabin and plunk it down on my lot, why should I be taxed for its inflatedvalue rather than the purchase price of $10K as is the case in other municipalities?
5) What recourse do I have is ADU tenants are spying on me, my children through our bedroom /
bathroom windows? What will the city do about that?
The problems with parking, congestion, traffic, noise etc. are -- or SHOULD -- be obvious.
Most sincerely,
Jo Ann Mandinach 1699 Middlefield Road
Jo Ann Mandinach
Need To Know Info Solutions
http:.// www.needtoknow.com 650 329-8655 or cell 650 269-0650Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:37 AM
20
Carnahan, David
From:Simone Otus Coxe <simone@shv.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 8:58 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Second Dwelling Ordinance
Dear City Council members:
I am concerned about the new ordinance being discussed about second dwellings. I understand that the the new ordinance exceeds what the state law requires. If the city wants to go beyond state law, it should do extensive
research on the potential impacts - including parking, privacy, aesthetics, etc. Most residents of Palo Alto do
not know that you are planning this. It is unfair and unwise to pass such an ordinance with both more extensive
analysis, but also without much more community outreach to get feedback. This is our city.
Simone Coxe
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:37 AM
21
Carnahan, David
From:Barbara Kurth <barbarak877@earthlink.net>
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 12:26 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:I oppose the second unit unit because
it will only encourage more crowding of our land and air and won’t significantly add real low income housing.
IT IS A CHEAP SHOT!
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:37 AM
22
Carnahan, David
From:Tricia Herrick <triciah@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 06, 2017 8:06 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADUs
Thank you for working hard to find a compromise allowing residents to build more
ADUs. I believe it's a great solution to a challenging housing environment, as well as a
family friendly option.
I hope to build one eventually for my parents.
All the best,
Tricia Herrick
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:annetteisaacson@comcast.net
Sent:Friday, May 05, 2017 9:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:thanks
Dear City Council Members,
I'm so glad that you are making it easier to build ADUs in Palo Alto. These granny units could provide affordable housing for our young teachers and workers in the city. They could also be used for aging parents or disabled adult children. They could provide extra income for retirees. So many
possibilities....
This is good news for Palo Alto. Sincerely,
Annette Isaacson
Midtown
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:42 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:ginadalma@gmail.com on behalf of Gina Dalma <gina@dalma.org>
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 12:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank you!
Thank you all for leading the charge and ensuring we are creating the diverse and vibrant community we all
want in Palo Alto with the approval of the ADU ordinance.
Kindly,
-- Gina D. Dalma
e: gina@dalma.org
p: (980) 722.2660
t: @ginadalma
l: www.linkedin.com/pub/gina-dalma/0/53/b47/en
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:42 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:GEORGE FORMAN <george.forman@icloud.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 4:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Stop this ordinance
This ordinance is an indefensible action whose impact on our quality of life not been studied adequately. It is
irresponsible that our elected officials would turn a deaf ear to community opposition and not take more time to give
such an important ordinance greater review. I have lived in Palo Alto for thirty years and never have seen such an
outrageous decision enacted.
Extremely disappointed.
George Forman
1140 Hamilton Ave
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:42 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Barbara Lim Hing <luckco@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 10:48 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Ordinance
Hello, City Council Members,
I am writing because I am concerned about the quality of life in the City if ADU are allowed to be erected without limitation, requirements, and applicable rules/ regulations. Currently we are already very crowded and
tight with space. Not much privacy especially in some areas in the City, noise is sometime unbearable and
parking will become worse.
Although I am sympathetic toward people who have made Palo Alto their homes for decades and all of a sudden got priced out, especially when they are retired and on fixed income. Allowing ADU to be built cannot
guarantee a home for these people at a price they can afford without having set up regulations on rent on these
ADU units being allowed to build. My fear is when these units are erected, rents may still skyrocket & continue
to price out the people we set out to help if we do not set up guidelines. For example, we should at least set up
regulations of some kind to oblige owners of ADU to rent only to specified groups of people the
Ordinance is set out to help. ADU should not be permitted to rent to other groups. .
HOLD OFF AND REEVALUATE BEFORE TAKING ACTIONS IS MY PLEA! NO REASON TO RUSH
INTO SOMETHING THAT MAY CAUSE MORE CHAOS TO OUR CITY. LET'S REEVALUATE AND
MAKE SURE WE COVER EVERY AREA AND CORNER. Thank you for giving me a chance to voice my concern. .
Best regards,
Barb Hing
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:29 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Elaine Uang <elaine.uang@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 8:41 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank YOU for Supporting ADUs!
Dear City Council,
Many thanks for supporting and voting for a fantastic new Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance! I hope you all approve the second reading of the new ordinance on consent tonight. Last year, cost of housing was found to be
an extremely important or very important source of concern for 76% of people in our community. Some are
struggling to stay in the community, others who are trying to accommodate changing family needs (caretaking
parents or welcoming adult children) others wondering how they can keep their homes post-retirement. ADUs
can help all of them.
The ADU Ordinance you approved on April 17 provides homeowners - our community members - with much
flexibility to accommodate new small homes in an incremental way, without significantly impacting our
neighborhoods and neighbors.
In particular, I commend you for taking measures to accommodate ADU parking spaces in the front setback and the 6' rear setbacks - this is particularly important because it gives smaller or less deep lots more site planning
flexibility. Because the backyards of most properties are open, placing an ADU in the back, closer to the rear
property line has less daylight impact or privacy concerns than an ADU that looks directly into a house. PA
does have the authority to propose reasonable setbacks, but please note 6' is more than required by building
code for fire safety.
Please remember our Housing Element was certified to zone for 1998 housing units by the year 2023 and
revising ADU standards to achieve this target was a key policy. It is far less impactful, physically, to have
50,100 or even 200 ADUs sprinkled around town each year than several larger concentrated projects in a couple
locations.
Approval of this ordinance cannot come too soon. I personally have heard from countless friends,
acquaintances, and neighbors who have LONG been dreaming for this day to come in Palo Alto. Many
of them have spoken to you too. Please approve this ADU on consent tonight.
Sincerely,
Elaine Uang
PS. If for whatever reasons, you must amend the ADU Ordinance, there is one area that is not in legal
compliance with respect to state law - the language stipulated that door placement must be a different orientation from the main house door is in opposition to the requirement that plans be approved
ministerially. The city risks invalidating this entire ordinance if that is not corrected.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:29 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Mary Gallagher <marygallagher88@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 8:56 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: ADU Ordinance
> City Council Members:
>
> One of life's great lessons was taught to me by my Father.
> "If you're going to do something ‐ do it right the first time."
> Well, with regard to the ADU ordinance it's in dire need of a re‐do.
> One of the most egregious issues is the six foot setback for property lines for ADU's. SIX FEET? REALLY? Simply not
enough. Period.
>
> I'm reminded of Nancy Pelosi's statement when she was supporting the passage of Obamacare. When questioned by a
reporter about some of the specifics of the bill, Pelosi responded "We have to pass this bill so that you can find out
what's in it." At this point, there are far too many unanswered questions. Is this how you as council members want to
lead this city? I hope not.
>
> Please take a step back, take a breath and reevaluate some of the hasty decisions that were made "on the fly" and give
this ordinance a more thoughtful, deliberate approach. You'll likely find that you'll gain more support from the
community and begin to repair the trust that has been severely severed.
>
> Sincerely,
> Mary Gallagher
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:29 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Shannon McEntee <shannonrmcentee@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 9:04 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADUs
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I'm not just disappointed, I'm dumbfounded that your decision-making process has been so corroded.
I know that Councilmembers Wolbach and Fine made a motion on March 7, 2017 to greatly expand where and
how second dwelling units can go. This motion was made after public comment period in the meeting was over,
so the public had no opportunity to hear the motion before giving comment at that meeting. The revised ordinance was slightly improved at the Council meeting on April 17, 2017 but without any further analysis. The
Staff Reports for April 17, 2017 and for May 8, 2017 accompanying the revised ordinance does not include any
analysis of the effects of the changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance.
I oppose exceeding state law in allowing second dwelling units on most residential lots in Palo Alto.
I expect all Council members to represent PA residents, and not to make hasty decisions without public review and comment. Your ADU rules are in stark contrast to state law and residents' wellbeing.
You should be ashamed.
Shannon Rose McEntee
410 Sheridan Ave., #216
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:29 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Betty Jo Chang <bettyjo@msn.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 11:11 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Ordinance - May 8 second reading
5/8/17
To: Honorable Mayor, Council and Staff
Subject: ADUs – second reading May 8.
From: Betty Jo Chang
The purpose of ADU legislation is to encourage development of small-scale, neighborhood compatible, safe
and cost accessible housing and to discourage the proliferation of poorly constructed illegal ADUs. We support in-fill development to help preserve remaining open space, and to foster the use of public transportation within
the city.
In exchange for these community needs, with this ordinance, we are increasing population and street parking
density and decreasing available permeable ground in our R-1 neighborhoods.
It’s important that we insure that these costs to our city/neighborhood environments return the intended benefit of more accessible and affordable housing.
To that end, I request the following.
1. Please remove amendment allowing Absentee Ownership of properties with ADUs. (Page 18 draft
ordinance) Request instead that P/T Commission re-consider this issue during their 6 month ADU
Ordinance review.
This amendment permits lease of properties by absentee owners/developers on condition that no sub-lease for
any ADU is permitted. NO additional more-affordable housing is created by this amendment. Instead, absentee
ownership of even larger and higher priced investment property development is incentivized through additional FAR exclusions for new un-rentable ADU construction; construction which will permanently cover even more
of our city’s permeable soil (a community resource), while offering in exchange, NO community benefit.
This amendment does not belong in the “All ADU” Ordinance section of our proposed ordinance. It’s
incompatible with State AB2406 and page 17 of our own ordinance with respect to Junior Accessory Dwelling
Units (both of which requires owner occupancy of property for JADU permits). It is fundamentally inconsistent with the stated intent of both State and City ADU ordinances which justify higher density R-1
housing impacts in return for more affordable housing.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:29 PM
5
Other communities have already developed approaches to owner residency ADU requirements which appear to
both offer a degree of flexibility to property owners with ADUs, AND which incentivize provision of
more affordable housing Please set this draft amendment aside for a six month P/T commission review. We can do better.
2. Please remove FAR addition for JADU construction. (Pg. 17 draft ordinance)
By State law definition, JADU’s must be footprint neutral. This Palo Alto proposed JADU FAR addition
appears inconsistent with State law (AB2406) which requires that JADUs be constructed within the existing
walls of the structure. And by definition, must include an existing bedroom. There is no justification for increasing FAR for new JADU construction in this ordinance.
3. Everyone wants this Ordinance to be successful in increasing availability of safe, smaller more
affordable housing units – for seniors, disabled, and other residents. We also want it to address the
legitimate concerns of residents who confront effects of the increased density in R-1 zones and the already
problematic illegal conversions in the city that increase fire hazard and reduce public safety. Enforcement of building permit application requirements for ADU/JADUs is critical to success of this important program.
Homeowners who contemplate new construction or repurposing of existing structures for ADU development
want to provide good housing. They need assistance in doing so.
3A. Please request that staff augment existing ADU FAQ information with a detailed ADU manual
and outreach collateral.
We need to encourage ADUs with a robust support program that incorporates ADU/JADU requirements,
design suggestions to minimize neighborhood impact (privacy concerns), low cost design options for improving
elder or disabled tenant access, advice for navigation of building permit processes, options for increased fire
safety (including sprinkler systems), and avenues for code violation complaints.
The city of Santa Cruz, (with a funding grant from State Community Development) developed an excellent template for such an ADU manual. Perhaps we might exploit their 14-year experience with ADUs by tuning
their work to our Ordinance and environment.
3B. Please request that the Planning/Transportation Commission’s 6 month ADU report include
recommendations for bringing existing illegal dwellings in R-1 districts in line with safe housing
standards for our city’s rental housing stock.
Addressing existing illegal conversions is on our Planning Department’s unscheduled “to-do” list for this ADU
ordinance. We need the P/T Commission’s assistance in bringing this project forward by researching
alternatives used in other municipalities and making recommendations to staff.
3C. Please include in requested one-month staff report on this ADU Ordinance, specification of performance metrics for measuring the success of this ADU Ordinance. These might include permit requests and approvals, ADU information requests, un-permitted construction complaints, parking impacts,
owner’s anticipated rental prices for permitted ADUs. Include status updates on instrumentation needed to
collect metrics (such as building permit form updates for ADU rental data), and progress on developing
program collateral (such as ADU manual).
Thank you for your consideration.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:29 PM
6
9. Additional Requirements for All Accessory Dwelling Units v) Occupancy: The owner of a parcel proposed for accessory dwelling use shall occupy as a principal
residence either the primary dwelling or the accessory dwelling, unless both the primary dwelling and the accessory dwelling are rented to the same tenant and such
tenant is prohibited from sub-leasing the primary dwelling or the accessory dwelling.” (PA draft Ordinance 9.v pg. 18).
Attachment A, pg.17, b Junior Accessory Dwelling Units: xii)
through affordable housing covenants which exchange absentee owner permits for covenants assuring rental prices no higher than 60% of area median income for an
ADU.
b. “A lot with a junior accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted to develop an additional 50 square feet of
floor area above the maximum amount of floor area otherwise permitted by the underlying zoning district. This
additional area shall be permitted to accommodate the junior accessory dwelling unit.” (PA draft Ordinance
((8)(b)(2)(iii) Lot Coverage) pg.17
“(4) Require a permitted junior accessory dwelling unit to be constructed within the existing walls of the
structure, and require the inclusion of an existing bedroom.” (STATE law AB2406 SECTION 1. Section
65852.22)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:29 PM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Lisa Van Dusen <lvandusen@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 11:23 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James
Subject:Thank you + please approve the ADU ordinance without delay
Dear Mayor Scharff and Council members,
First, thank you for your support of the recently approved ordinance to make it easier to have more Accessory Dwelling
Units in Palo Alto, in keeping both the spirit and the letter of the related, new state law. Through your “yes” votes, you
are showing critically important leadership on the issue of creating more housing in our community and the Bay Area.
Thank you.
Second, I am unable to be at the Council Meeting tonight ‐ ironically because I am speaking on and moderating a panel
at a conference in San Francisco on the topic of “Cities 2030: What does the Future Hold?” so am writing to urge you to
approve the ordinance as it stands without further deliberation or delay. I very much hope our future holds a Palo Alto
that is inclusive, dynamic, and true to the values of the forward‐looking Palo Alto I know and love. I hope it is a Palo Alto
that includes more ADUs tucked into our neighborhoods where our friend who is starting his Emergency Medicine
Residency at Stanford Medical Center and our friend’s aging mother and so many more can call home too.
With thanks and wind at your back as you bring a new ordinance into being,
Lisa
Lisa Van Dusen
650‐799‐3883
1111 Greenwood Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:29 PM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Barbara Shufro <barbarashufro@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 11:39 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:concerns about implementation of state law on ADUs
Dear City Council Members,
I support finding ways to have adequate housing for young families, family members with disabilities, and
multi‐generational families. Several neighbors on my block, who are also my friends, have legally built
separate dwelling units on their property for this type of family arrangement.
I am concerned about the difficult parking situation that we are already in. At least two of my close neighbors
have paved driveways that go all the way to the back yard and park about 4 vehicles on each. Some can't do
that and neighbors are already at each other's throats about street parking. One neighbor came to our house
on New Year's Eve to scold us for parking in front of his house, but it wasn't our car. We had parked further up
the street, but he was still angry because once in the past we had parked in front of his house for a few
hours.
I also believe that we should stay within the lot coverage rules that we have. An important reason people
move to residential neighborhoods is to provide opportunities that allow their kids to play safely outside. This
includes a reasonable amount of privacy, and room to plant trees for shade, as well as for environmental
reasons. Stable neighborhoods are also an important factor.
I would support implementation of the new state law that takes these concerns into account, but I don't
believe that the current plan adequately does so.
Thank you,
Barbara Shufro
978 Addison Ave.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:29 PM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Elizabeth L <laskyea@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 11:56 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADUs
Dear Mayor Scharff and Council members,
Thank you for your support of the recently approved ordinance to make it easier to have more Accessory Dwelling Units in Palo Alto, in keeping both the spirit and the letter of the related, new state law. Through your
“yes” votes, you are showing critically important leadership on the issue of creating more housing in our
community and the Bay Area. Thank you.
I am writing to urge you to approve the ordinance as it stands without further deliberation or delay. I very much hope our future holds a Palo Alto that is inclusive, dynamic, and true to the values of the forward-looking Palo
Alto I know and love. I hope it is a Palo Alto that includes more ADUs tucked into our neighborhoods so that
many more can call home too.
With thanks and wind at your back as you bring a new ordinance into being,
Elizabeth Lasky
168 Waverley St #2
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:29 PM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Eugene Zukowsky <eandzz@stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 11:59 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU's
Many residents of Palo Alto are very concerned about the City Council’s vote to allow additional dwelling units to be
built in residential areas of the city. Has the council with its vote on this ordinance taken into account the effect that
this will have on neighbors’ relations with one another, the lack of privacy, the degradation of our quality of life, etc.?
Will ADU’s really be used as moderate priced housing or perhaps instead for studies or AiirB&B’s. There will be no
oversight. There are problems too numerous to mention.
Palo Alto has already seen in recent years the tremendous problems we have with parking and heavy traffic. Palo Alto
considers itself to be a “GREEN” city, very concerned about the environment. Adding more residents and more traffic
can vastly add to the degradation of our air quality and our water needs. Palo Alto’s infrastructure can not deal with the
burden of traffic that we already have. It is unconscionable to add more problems to the ones that already exist.
Dr. and Mrs. Eugene Zukowsky
Maybell Way, Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:29 PM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Manu Sridharan <manu@sridharan.net>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 12:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:tonight's vote on the ADU ordinance
Dear City Council members,
I'm writing regarding tonight's vote on the Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance, which was passed recently by
the council. I am strongly in support of the ordinance, as it will help address our deep housing crisis and help generations of families stay together in Palo Alto. I was very happy to see the ordinance being passed by the
council before, and I would like to encourage the council to pass the ordinance without any further
delay. Thank you for your time.
Best,
Manu Sridharan 650-494-4656
734 Seminole Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:29 PM
12
Carnahan, David
From:Sven Thesen <sventhesen@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 12:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Supporter - Granny Units
Good People on City Council,
I am in favor of the ADU ordinance. It may not be perfect but is much better than what we have now. I only wish this
ordinance had been in effect when we build our house back in 2010 as we would have included a granny unit as part of
the project.
We need more housing in the Bay Area and this is incremental progress.
Please vote in support.
Best
Sven
‐‐
Sven Thesen, 415‐225‐7645
EV Consultant & Founder, ProjectGreenHome.org and BeniSolSolar.com; Wonder Junkie
__________________________________________________
Electric Cars are Cheaper than Cell Phones! See:
http://www.projectgreenhome.org/articles.html
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:29 PM
13
Carnahan, David
From:Tom Wasow <twasow@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 12:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Accessory Dwelling Units
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
Thank you for your support of the ordinance to reduce the legal obstacles to the construction of Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADUs) in Palo Alto. The shortage of affordable housing is the most critical issue facing our city, and an increase in the number of ADUs will be a significant step towards a solution.
I urge you to approve the ordinance without delay and without further modifications.
Sincerely,
Tom Wasow
758 Barron Ave. Palo Alto 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:29 PM
14
Carnahan, David
From:Hilary Glann <hglann@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 12:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for your strong efforts on ADUs
Dear City Council: I’m writing first to thank you for your strong ordinance supporting ADUs in Palo Alto. I believe this
resident‐centric development proposal is an important tool in the toolkit of providing more housing in our city. Not only
does this ordinance help Palo Alto start to move towards providing our fair share of housing in the Bay Area, and give
residents a way to provide additional income from their residential property, but it also helps Palo Alto meet its
aggressive carbon reduction goals – something I am very passionate about. Being on the Caltrain corridor and having so
many jobs in Palo Alto gives us a unique ability to contribute housing to the area. I sincerely hope the ordinance will be
fully vetted and ratified at tonight’s Council Meeting.
I will not be able to join the meeting tonight to lend my support as I’m out of state, but please accept my positive
support for this ordinance by means of this email.
Hilary Glann
946 Ilima Way
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:29 PM
15
Carnahan, David
From:shoolery@gmail.com on behalf of John Shoolery <shoolery@datacycles.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 12:09 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto ADU's
Dear Mayor Scharff and Council members,
Once AGAIN, I apparently must write to urge you to approve the ADU ordinance as it stands without further deliberation or delay. (I
receive advisory notices from various parties of the "approval" of the new ordinance - then subsequent notices of a "next hearing".)
I have amended earlier plans for an ADU permit and my contractor, architect, engineers, and designer have been patient to hold for the proper adoption per the State of California mandate of Senate Bill 1069. I don't want to lose them and start all over finding these resources. I very much hope our future holds a Palo Alto that is inclusive, dynamic, and true to the values of the forward-looking Palo Alto we know and love. I hope it is a Palo Alto that includes more ADUs tucked into our neighborhoods so that many more can call home too. With thanks and wind at your back as you bring a new ordinance into being,
John Shoolery
1532 Edgewood Drive, Palo Alto 94303 650-814-6099 shoolery@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:29 PM
16
Carnahan, David
From:Pat Kinney <pkinney48235@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 12:12 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Units
Dear Mayor Scharff and Council members,
Thank you for your support of the recently approved ordinance to make it easier to have more Accessory Dwelling Units in Palo Alto, in keeping both the spirit and the letter of the related, new state law. Through your
“yes” votes, you are showing critically important leadership on the issue of creating more housing in our
community and the Bay Area.
I am writing to urge you to approve the ordinance as it stands without further deliberation or delay. I very much hope our future holds a Palo Alto that is inclusive, dynamic, and diverse.
I am concerned about placing restrictions on entire neighborhoods (such as Eichlers near the flood zone, which
would describe mine) because I believe decisions should be made on a parcel-for-parcel basis. For example,
some of us (again, that would be me) have extra deep lots and are already next to 2-story homes, so our lots would be well-suited for ADUs.
Thank you for your work on this issue,
Patricia Kinney 689 Wildwood Lane
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:29 PM
17
Carnahan, David
From:Grace Hinton <grace_hinton@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 12:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Vote
Please vote FOR granny units this evening!!
Thanks,
Grace Hinton
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:29 PM
18
Carnahan, David
From:cryptoyango <cryptoyango@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 12:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for ADUs
Dear Mayor Scharff and Council members, Thank you for your support of the recently approved ordinance to make it easier to have more Accessory Dwelling Units in Palo Alto, in keeping both the spirit and the letter of the related, new state law. Through your “yes” votes, you are showing critically important leadership on the issue of creating more housing in our community and the Bay Area. Thank you.
I am writing to urge you to approve the ordinance as it stands without further deliberation or delay. I very much hope our future holds a Palo
Alto that is inclusive, dynamic, and true to the values of the forward-looking Palo Alto I know and love. I hope it is a Palo Alto that includes
more ADUs tucked into our neighborhoods so that many more can call home too.
With thanks and wind at your back as you bring a new ordinance into being,
Sincerely, Resident with aging parents and special needs child
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:29 PM
19
Carnahan, David
From:Margaret Rosenbloom <margaret_rosenbloom@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 12:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for ADUs
I was so glad to hear that the council had approved regulations making it easier to have more Accessory Dwelling Units in Palo Alto. I think this is an important step towards enabling residents to play a role in the necessary process
of creating more housing in Palo Alto that will start to mitigate our horrible jobs-housing imbalance. Thank you.
I hear to ordinance is on the agenda again today for possible review and final approval. I am writing to urge you to approve the ordinance as it stands without further deliberation or delay. I want Palo Alto to be a city that includes more ADUs tucked into our neighborhoods so that many more can call home.
Margaret J. Rosenbloom 650‐328‐1712
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:29 PM
20
Carnahan, David
From:Ellen Uhrbrock <ellen.uhrbrock@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 12:43 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Accessory Dwelling Units - May 8
ADUs add housing for diverse populations. Reconfirm the Palo Alto ordinance - and lead by example other
communities on the Peninsula.
This is a positive social trend and Palo Alto will be the leader in California and USA.
Ellen E Uhrbrock
Channing House
850 Webster St. Apt. 808 Palo Alto, CA 94301
Ellen E. Uhrbrock
ellen.uhrbrock@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:29 PM
21
Carnahan, David
From:Katherine Dumont <khdumont@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 1:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:In support of ADUs
Dear Councilmembers,
I want to express my gratitude for your recent ordinance on the creation of more ADUs in Palo Alto. I
applaud your forward thinking on addressing the housing crisis. While I don't expect ADUs to solve
the problem of affordable housing, they will certainly help.
I'm a native of the Bay Area and a Palo Alto resident since 1996. My husband is a transplant from the
Midwest who has lived in Palo Alto since coming to Stanford as a student in the mid 1970s.
We are renters. Our combined income is moderate by local standards, so we have firsthand
experience with the lack of affordable housing here. We would love to have the opportunity to
downsize to an ADU so we can continue to enjoy living near friends and family in retirement.
ADUs create additional housing with a minimal impact to others' quality of life. Allowing more ADUs is
a win-win for the community.
Best regards,
Katherine Dumont
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:29 PM
22
Carnahan, David
From:Michele Miller <m2miller2@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 1:26 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Ordinance Please vote YES
Dear Mayor Scharff and Council members,
Thank you for your support of the recently approved ordinance to make it easier to have more Accessory Dwelling Units in Palo Alto, in keeping both the spirit and the letter of the related, new state law. Through your
“yes” votes, you are showing critically important leadership on the issue of creating more housing in our
community and the Bay Area. Thank you.
I am writing to urge you to approve the ordinance as it stands without further deliberation or delay. My 96 year old mother is quickly going through her resources at assisted living - how nice it would be for her to live on our
property and use her resources more stringently. I very much hope our future holds a Palo Alto that is inclusive,
dynamic, and true to the values of the forward-looking Palo Alto I know and love. I hope it is a Palo Alto that
includes more ADUs tucked into our neighborhoods so that many more can call home too.
With thanks and wind at your back as you bring a new ordinance into being,
Michele Miller
736 Coastland Dr
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 3:06 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Betty Linden <betty.j.linden@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 2:21 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Granny units
I urge council members to adhere to state guidelines in considering Granny units. Modifying these guidelines
will interfere with the rights of neighbors. I intend to monitor your future decisions on this issue.
Betty Linden
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 3:06 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Barbara Kingsley <barbara@abcking.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 2:16 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU support
Dear Mayor Scharff and Council members,
I understand the ADU ordnance up for a second vote. I strongly urge that you support this ordnance “as‐is”, without
further changes. Accommodations have already been made to satisfy those who thought the original was too broad.
I have lived in Palo Alto since 1965 and have witnessed many changes: some for the better, some for the worse. One
change I do not like is the fact that our housing supply is sorely inadequate for the number of jobs being created in the
area, making housing virtually unaffordable for all but a few. (I clearly could not afford to buy the house I own now!)
I know that the ADUs will be a drop‐in‐the‐bucket, but it’s a start. They would provide the opportunity for people to
keep aging relatives close‐by, provide living space for young singles, and allow homeowners to supplement their
incomes with (long‐term) rentals.
I appreciate the work you have done so far to attack the housing problem.
Thanks
Barbara Kingsley
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 3:06 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Charlie Weidanz <charliew@abilitiesunited.org>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 2:11 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU - update
Dear Mayor Scharff and Council members,
Thank you for your recent support and the approved ordinance to make it easier to have more Accessory Dwelling Units
in Palo Alto, in keeping both the spirit and the letter of the related, new state law. Through your “yes” votes, you are
showing critically important leadership on the issue of creating more housing in our community and the Bay Area.
I am writing to again to urge you to approve the ordinance as it stands without further delay. I look forward to a future
that is inclusive, dynamic, and true to the values of the forward‐looking Palo Alto. I hope it is a Palo Alto that includes
more ADUs in our neighborhoods so that many more can call home too.
Sincerely;
Charlie Weidanz
Chief Executive Officer
Abilities United
525 E. Charleston Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
650.618.3312
fax.650.384.0112
charliew@abilitiesunited.org
www.AbilitiesUnited.org
Abilities United advances advocacy, inclusion, and independence
Confidentiality Notice
This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may
contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are
not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of
it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 3:06 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:John H. Cochrane <fjcochra@stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 2:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU
Dear city council:
I write to express my strong support for the ADU ordinance, and to encourage you to pass it tonight.
Thanks for listening
John Cochrane
1020 Bryant Street
Palo Alto CA 94301
****************************************** This email is a personal communication intended for the addressee only. Do not forward it in whole or in part. No part
of this email may be quoted or attributed without my permission.
John H. Cochrane
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution 434 Galvez Mall
Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6010
Tel 650 723 6708 Cell 773 919 3257
Office HHMB 245 john.cochrane@stanford.edu
Webpage: http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/
Blog: http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 3:06 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Lorrie Castellano <castellanolorrie@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 2:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU vote tonight
Please pass the ADU ordinance tonight! This is a great way to allow our children to come back to Palo Alto and
a great retirement spot for us while our kids live in and raise their children in their childhood home. Also great
places for teachers, fire fighters etc to live in this community.
Thank you for all the work you've done to get this passed!
Lorrie Castellano
1320 Byron street
94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 3:06 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Jeralyn Moran <jeralyn.moran@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 1:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank you - ADU ordinance
Dear Mayor Scharff and Council members,
As a Palo Alto resident & advocate for environmental stewardship, I applaud you for
moving the need for more housing forward a step via the recent Accessory Dwelling Unit
ordinance. Climate Change is here now, and providing housing relief for Palo Alto
workers so they can stop commuting many polluting mile every day is fantastic! Thank
you as you put this ordinance into timely action – our City’s proud leadership in care for
the environment continues.
Sincerely,
Jeralyn Moran
--
jeralyn.moran@gmail.com
..... the Time for Climate Action Is Now.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 3:06 PM
7
Carnahan, David
From:ANNIE BEDICHEK <abedichek1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 1:42 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank you for the ADU proposal
And all the hard work you put into it. Please pass it tonight.
Thanks,
Annie Bedichek
884 Loma Verde Ave
3rd generation Palo Altan
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 3:30 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Susie Hwang <shwang@me.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 3:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADUs - thank you!
I just want to thank you for voting to support the new policies to make ADUs more feasible and livable in Palo Alto, and urge you to pass the final ordinance as
quickly as possible.
Thank you.
Susie Hwang
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 3:30 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Pilar Lorenzana <pilar@siliconvalleyathome.org>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 3:13 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:Re: May 8 City Council Agenda Item 6 - ADUs
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
On behalf of our members, we thank you for the work you have put into updating the City of Palo Alto’s ADU ordinance, and we look forward to the positive changes that the new law will bring by increasing the City’s housing stock and creating new housing options for current and future
residents.
We encourage you to pass the ADU ordinance during tonight’s second reading without delay. SV@Home strongly supports your efforts
to establish more flexible regulations that make it possible for more homeowners to build ADUs. In particular, we support the following
changes that were approved at the April 17th City Council meeting:
Reduction of the minimum lot size requirement, with the exemption of ADU conversions and JADUs,
Removal of lot coverage requirements for new ADUs on properties that are no smaller than 10 percent smaller than the standard lot size,
Elimination of off-street parking requirements for all ADUs and JADUs,
Allowing for required replacement parking on an existing driveway,
Reduction of required side and rear yard setbacks for ADUs to 6 feet,
and all changes that bring Palo Alto’s ordinance into compliance with new state ADU laws.
ADUs are an important tool for ensuring that every Palo Alto resident can remain a part of their community and live in a place they are proud to call home. Again, thank you for your work to facilitate the creation of more ADUs in Palo Alto.
Sincerely,
Pilar Lorenzana
Deputy Director
pilar@siliconvalleyathome.org
c. (510) 255‐1253
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 3:30 PM
3
SV@Home
35 W Julian Street, Building 5, San Jose, CA 95110
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 3:30 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:rani Jayakumar <promiserani@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 3:12 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU
Thanks for your hard work on ADUs ‐ please vote today to pass it!
rani Jayakumar
Transitionpaloalto.org
karnatik.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 3:44 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeffrey Salzman <jsalzman3@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 3:37 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU ordinance-Please give final passage
I heartily endorse the ADU ordinance as initially passed by the council on April 17. While I personally prefer a less restrictive ordinance that will
result in more units being built, the rules from the first reading are a solution with broad support on the council. I hope that the 2nd reading can be
approved on the consent calendar.
I would also remind the council that the reason the legislature enacted the state law was to increase the supply of housing by limiting the ability of
cities to apply restrictive local rules. The actions taken by the council in this matter are consistent with the legislative intent.
Jeffrey Salzman 4082 Orme St. Palo Alto, CA 94306
jsalzman3@gmail.com
650-856-6260;p cell 650-776-1152
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 4:06 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ellin Klor <ellinklor@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 3:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Ordinance
I would like to express my opposition to the ADU ordinance that is scheduled to be approved by the Council tonight. The provisions
allowing dwellings to be built within six feet of fence lines without design review and parking provisions will have significant negative consequences on neighborhood life in Palo Alto. Following the guidelines approved by the State of california is fine, but
what you have done has gone too far.
I also wish to state my anger with the repeated attempts by Council members to push through late night policy proposals which have not been evaluated by staff and do not allow for public comment. At least in Palo Alto, that is not how democracy should work.
Taking a page from the Paul Ryan/Donald Trump playbook is beneath you.
Ellin Klor 3056 Ramona St
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 4:06 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 3:50 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gail Price
Subject:Support Adoption of the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance (May 8, 2017)
RE: SUPPORT ADOPTION OF ADU ORDINANCE
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and Palo Alto City Council members,
Thank you for engaging in a thoughtful review and discussion of the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance. The
revisions to the ordinance make sense and support the goal of providing additional dwelling units while
respecting the needs and character of residential neighborhoods. The revisions are reasonable and the development standards are clear; the ordinance provides opportunities to homeowners interested in creating accessory dwelling units on their property. also recognize that the total costs, the process, the time and
disruption required to development ADUs will have a moderating impact on the number and pace of the
development of these units.
Over several years, community members, housing proponents, and elected officials have clearly expressed concerns about the need for a broader range of housing types and sizes in Palo Alto. We simply need more
options and the demand is growing; the population and jobs in the Bay Area continues to increase and we need
to do our share to provide more housing. More housing closer to work and services will provide choices for
commuters and help reduce reliance on cars and have environmental benefits. These outcomes supports our S/CAP goals.
Your discussions and actions, including adoption of the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance, are one of many
means to provide timely responses and solutions.The ordinance is consistent with several bills related to the
creation of accessory dwelling units and it will comply with new State manages regarding ADUs and junior accessory dwelling units. The ordinance helps address the growing housing crisis by easing specific regulatory barriers currently in place in many municipalities.
Thank you for your careful consideration of this ordinance and its adoption. I appreciate your work on this
important issue. Sincerely,
Gail A. Price
4082 Orme Street Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:40 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 5:43 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC
Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 05-03-17 UAC meeting -- Item IX.3 -- smart grid
Council members,
Item 7 on your 06-08-17 agenda (consent calendar) is about approving a contract for UtiliWorks to do smart grid consulting work. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57453
UAC considered smart grid on 05-03-17, but didn't consider who should do the work. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57460
I'm concerned that all of staff's smart grid pilot projects have been implemented using a wireless mesh network to connect them. But communities like Chattanooga, TN, are using a FTTP network for their smart grid. Does UtiliWorks -- or anyone else who bid on this RFP -- have any experience with smart grid supported by FTTP?
Thanks.
Jeff
PS: Below is a transcript or UAC's 05-03-17 meeting, Item IX.3, smart grid. I have added my comments (as paragraphs starting with "###").
##########################################################################
Video http://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-26/
25:00:
Chair Cook: Thank you very much. All right. I think we should -- I'm expecting Commissioner Forssell to be here at any moment. I would just as soon go to Item number 3 now. For discussion.
25:25:
Ed Shikada: OK. Smart grid. Are we prepared to start that conversation?
0:25:34:
Dave Yuan: (unamplified) So, I think there's some -- **
0:25:42:
Chair Cook: And I did hear from Commissioner Ballantine. He won't be able to make it.
0:25:46:
Ed Shikada: Thank you.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:40 AM
2
0:25:55:
Chair Cook: And, just to note, we have two public speakers. So we'll have a staff presentation, and then public speakers
afterwards.
26:06:
Shiva Swaminathan: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Shiva Swaminathan. I will be reviewing with you our plans for a smart grid assessment and developing a technology roadmap in the next six to twelve months, in coordination
with the Utilities Strategic Plan. We have had extensive discussion in the past with the UAC and the Commission -- UAC and the Council -- on this topic. We'll talk about that. What are the lessons we've learned by undertaking some of the
projects in recent times. And discuss the outlines of the consultant's statement of work. And we'll seek your input at a high level.
### I think UAC should be free to provide input at a low level if they want to. UAC's job is to provide advice to Council, but
if staff wants UAC's input, fine, I guess.
0:26:53:
So, back in 2009, there was a joint Council/UAC study session, which evaluated, or ** to learn about different applications and applicability of smart grid application to the utilities. And then they recommended that we do a study of its
applications. We came back with that study results in 2011. Which evaluate that that investment would cost about $15 million to $20 million. But the technology and the readiness was not quite there for us. And we had a relatively efficient
operations here for meter-reading purposes. So the cost savings was not as great as the adjoining municipalities. So they recommended not to -- to defer such investment for a few years, but in the meantime, do the pilot projects. And what
-- we will briefly discuss the outcome of the pilot projects. You've learned about these through our Quarterly Reports, as and when they occur. So this is just a recap.
### Let me put in a plug for agendizing the Quarterly Reports, so that if UAC has anything to say about them, they can do
so in a timely way.
And then the Council approved the $400,000 CustomerConnect pilot, to provide electric, gas, and water meters to 300 homes, and also time-of-use rates. So this is what the prior discussion has been about.
0:28:16:
So, an outline of the pilot projects and the evaluation we've done in the past 4-5 years. We implemented this 300-home
CustomerConnect pilot. Customers will provide the opportunity to see their -- the 300 customers who signed up -- provided the opportunity to view their electric, gas, and water loads. Or -- loads. And granular ** fashion. We were also
able to detect about 50 leaks a year for the last -- each of the years for the last four years. That was a good value the customers got. They were able to view it from -- there was a customer from -- Europe, in the middle of winter, who
detected something. There was some alert. And they kind of were able to fix -- we were able to help them. We also implemented time-of-use electric rates, for -- primarily driven for electric vehicle customers. There were three tiers: a
summer peak, a mid peak, and then off-peak. We also evaluated conservation voltage reduction -- is the ability -- all these smart meters -- all they have the ability to detect voltage where they are situated, so we have visability of voltage
profile along a feeder. And, thereby, the ability to optimize the feeder voltage. And, as a result, reduce energy consumption. And then, we were, for some interested customers, who had in-home displays -- which are devices which
you can instantaneously see what the meter is actually reading from within the home, using a ZigBee radio. That's number four. And then we did a number of projects to leverage distributed energy resources. We have a large
commercial demand-response -- summer demand-response program for large commercial customers. We -- Some of the PV -- larger PV systems also have inverter controls which can inject capacitive -- energy into the system when we
need it. And also remotely controlling -- and turning on and turning off electric vehicle charging stations which the City owned. We've done a number of these efforts, to try to learn, and try to evaluate the value proposition.
0:30:30;
So, what lessons did we learn from this endeavor? We have a greater appreciation of the various technologies and
applications, and how it applies to Palo Alto. Also the cost drivers. So, if some of the costs we have estimated previously when we said it was not cost-effective for us turned out to be lower than anticipated. For example, the mesh in the City
was -- the radio mesh to read the meters -- the estimate initially was about $1 million. But we were able to get it done for
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:40 AM
3
less than $100,000.
### If the mesh network to read 900 or so meters costs less than $100,000, how much would the mesh network required
to read smart meters citywide (perhaps 90,000 meters or so) cost?
So, there are some lessons -- we have learned the cost drivers and the value drivers. Greater appreciation of the expertise and staff resources we need. Not just to implement it but also post-implementation maintenance and
optimization. We clearly have a need, if we were to implement this, to realign internal staffing, training, and focused change management initiatives. And ways to manage implementation risks. And rely on external services, if and when
we need, because we don't have all the expertise. There are many folks who do this day in and day out, whether it be installation, project management, communication, customer engagement, that type of stuff, during project implementation
phase. So this is all kind of related to smart grid related projects. But this assessment is broader than just smart grid. It's the technology as a whole. Smart grid plays a larger role, but --
0:32:10:
So, this is about the smart grid pilots. But the work plan is broader than just smart grid. So, review the pilots, the
consultants we will retain. So, we had 21 proposals. Narrowed it down to 4. And picked one entity: UtiliWorks. They are on contract with the City of Alameda, City of Redding -- NOT Redding -- Riverside. Riverside. City of Riverside. And
they are well-respected. They're part of NCPA, so they're respected, and very versatile on the issues. So they'll kind of help us through this. And we expect to come back with our findings sometime in early next year for discussion with the
UAC. And then if found feasible, the contract also provides for a Phase II and III. If found feasible, and if everything works out, we expect to go back to Council, come back to UAC with a recommendation, go back to Council, begin the
implementation process. So, the consultant could help with Phase II and III as well. If we so choose.
0:33:26:
So, elements of the technology roadmap. It's just not with a go/not-go but also they'll help us with prioritizing, coming up with resource requirements, timelines and sequencing. Whether we are set up organizationally, what are the resource
constraints. And, most importantly, staffing, training, and communication strategies for change management. Also making sure risk management processes are in place, whether it's technology obsolescence --- How do we manage
these contracts? For example, when we initially did an evaluation, we thought those electric meters would last 20 years. But technology changes fast. So -- our cost-effectiveness -- we may probably have to shrink that window. So, we
may -- next time -- we may go to a 10-15-year window, which -- we do a cost evaluation. Because these meters become obsolete. We don't have to necessarily change it, but it may become obsolete. We may be forced to change.
### Maybe the report can speculate about what would make a smart meter obsolete.
And then, incorporate input from the stakeholders, and communicate. So, it's a wide variety of tasks that the consultant
will help with. This is not a customer engagement work plan. But to come up with a plan how to do that. What do we need to do?
0:34:50:
This is a busy chart. This kind of broadly lays down to convey that we are coordinating this effort with other technology
projects which we are undertaking. So this is -- we can come back to this if need be. But this is essentially saying we are in the process of replacing our enterprise resource planning software -- SAP. Which currently serves both the ERP and
price resource planning software, as well as our CIS -- customer billing system -- billing system -- with a new set of software. So, what you see on the top, in yellow, is a citywide effort to replace our ERP system. So, tied to that is our
customer information system, which is our billing system. So, that has to be kind of implemented and be in place before we can implement the AMI/MDM system. What you see at the very bottom there is -- we are hoping to continue at
maintenance mode our 300-home mesh and AMI systems -- 'til like 2020. And by the time this work gets done, it will be the 2020 timeline. So, there you see Phase I, in red. Phase II and Phase III work. Which the consultant will do, to help
us through -- over the next five years or so. So, this contract is a five-year contract, to help us in different phases.
0:36:23
OK. So, in terms of timeline, we are today, provide to seek your input on the work plan. And then there's the contract -- is on track to the Council on May 8th. So we plan to do a project kick-off. And then start reviewing documents in May and
June. And the on-site visits, and coordination with the Strategic Plan, July through October. And then we plan to come
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:40 AM
4
back to the UAC in the winter -- January/February timeline -- for your -- on the preliminary findings and
recommendations. And then on to Council.
0:37:05:
That's all we have to share. I would appreciate high-level input from the Commission.
0:37:09:
Chair Cook: Thank you. And we have two members of the public that have asked to speak on this item. Let's start with Jeff, please, and then Herb after that.
37:24:
Jeff Hoel: OK. I sent you an email message about this, so I'm not going to cover everything there. But just to say, I
would find it helpful to find out how many companies staff asked to bid on the RFP. And then, of the 19 bidders that did bid, it would be nice to know what their names are and the dollar amount of their bids, so we can compare it with the
bidder that staff recommends Council choose.
38:04:
Ed Shikada: If I might interrupt. Sorry, Jeff. This is Ed Shikada. Now that we have quorum, for our second -- I suggest that our Chair call our meeting back to order again, and we could go through the paces -- more formal paces --
0:38:19:
Chair Cook: All right. Jeff, would you mind? We'll get back to you in just a moment. So, I'm going to call the May 3rd,
2017, Utilities Advisory Commission to order. It's late. We're starting at 12:45. Let's do a roll call first.
0:38:40:
Vice Chair Danaher: (unamplified) Danaher.
0:38:41:
Chair Cook: Cook.
0:38:42:
Commissioner Schwartz: Schwartz.
0:38:43:
Commissioner Forssell: Forssell.
0:38:45:
Council Member Filseth: Filseth.
0:38:46:
Chair Cook: All right. Thank you very much. All right. I think we can probably go back to the public comment.
0:38:42:
Ed Shikada: Yes, we can. Thank you very much. Appreciate that.
0:38:55:
Chair Cook: We're starting with Item number 3. And we've got a public comment. Jeff, sorry to interrupt. You -- start
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:40 AM
5
over if you want. Or just go from where you are. Thanks.
0:39:03:
Jeff Hoel: OK. Starting over. I think it would nice if the -- if staff said how many companies were asked to bid on the RFP
for the -- And, of the 19 bids that staff actually got, who sent them in -- who bid them -- and what did they bid? So, by the time it gets to Council, Council can say, well, we now understand why they recommended the one they
recommended. Did anyone other than staff review the bids so far? It turns out, I serve on the Citizens Advisory Committee for Fiber & Wireless. And for some wireless contracts, the CAC actually reviewed the contracts
### Oops. Meant to say "RFPs."
before they went out. And in one case, they actually reviewed the bids that came back. But, as far as I know, the CAC
didn't do anything about this particular RFP. So, that's a resource, in case staff wants to take advantage of it. As far as the performance of the smart grid system itself, I'd be particularly interested to know what we think the bandwidth is that
we'll need. It's kind of easy to deceive yourself into thinking, ah, you don't need much, because they're only smart meters. But the entities that actually run smart grid systems -- like Chattanooga -- say, well, you need more than you
think. So, it would be good if the consultant got into the details of that. And it would be good if the consultant had the expertise to speak with authority on the subject. Another performance item is latency. Some smart grid things require
very low latency. And fiber is better than wireless for that. Reliability -- fiber is traditionally more reliable than wireless for that. Security. So, all of those things, in the consultant's work, should be covered. And when we get the consultant's
report, it will be interesting to see what's said. I think Chattanooga's done a very good job on smart grid. You can argue about whether they needed a $111.6 million grant from the Energy Department in order to do what they did. But in any
case, I think it would be cool if the City benchmarked what it aspires to, and what it actually accomplishes, against what Chattanooga has done. Thanks very much.
0:41:47:
Chair Cook: Thank you. Mr. Borock.
41:56:
Herb Borock: Thank you. When this item was on your commission's agenda, in 2011, I believe, Chair Cook was the only
member of that commission who's still on the Commission. They had a -- When I went to the Council, there was an eight-page staff report, a 170-page consultant's report from EnerNex, and a 40-page survey report from RKS. In terms of what I
found though the survey is that the main concern of customers is privacy and control. And they view that as sort of a marketing concern. That someone may be trying to motivate people that smart grid is a bad thing because of privacy and
control issues, and therefore the City should take that into account in how to market the system. I believe that also technology's important. I believe that a fiber-to-the-premises system provides better privacy on that system than the
wireless. I also believe, in terms of effectiveness of the system, that customers are not going to be wanting to know what happened an hour ago. If there's some spike in usage of some utility, they want to know right away. Because over a
longer period of time, they may be using a number of different appliances -- or different usages. And to have that kind of responsive system, I also believe that fiber-to-the-premises will be better. Finally, in terms of what needs to be done in
other operation technology -- in the back office, in the City -- that's a major concern. Because those processes and technologies have to be changed to meet the time sequence that you'll be having, and that customers would want in a
smart grid. Versus the kinds of systems that we have now, that are geared to the billing cycle. So, at this point, I realize, some people may think, well, there'd be a cost savings, because you wouldn't need the meter readers, who, with salary
and benefits, might be close to $1 million a year by now. But you'll probably need other staff to do these other works. And I don't think that would balance out. Thank you.
0:44:39:
Chair Cook: Thank you. OK. So, this is new business item number 3. It's here for discussion. Commissioners,
questions for staff, or any discussion?
0:44:51:
Commissioner Schwartz: (unamplified) I'm confused. What are we -- are we going back to Shiva's ...
0:44:57:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:40 AM
6
Chair Cook: We are going back to us. His presentation's complete. So we can say whatever we want.
0:45:03:
Commissioner Schwartz: (unamplified) So we're not -- OK. (amplified) I just wanted to know which thing we were on. So ...
0:45:07:
Chair Cook: I was just pointing out, this is item number 3.
0:45:08:
Commissioner Schwartz; OK. So, I would -- I would also love to see the list of who submitted bids. I think that would be
great. And -- So, I just -- So, I have a couple questions. OK? So, in your pilot projects, is there a place where we can see what the results were? So, did they actually provide incentives? Did people shift their load, for example? Was -- Did
it have the desired effect that it created an incentive? And ...
0:45:45:
Shiva Swaminathan: We have some internal, not-too-scientific assessment. But part of the scope-of-work is for the consultant to review that work and publish it.
0:45:53:
Commissioner Schwartz: OK. So, ...
0:45:43:
Shiva Swaminathan: So -- for lead case -- So that's with respect to, did they shift their load.
0:45:58:
Commissioner Schwartz: Um hum.
0:45:58:
Shiva Swaminathan: We have some information, but it's not necessarily data-validated -- statistically valid. It's more of --
it's not statistically valid. But in terms of water leakage section, yes, there is information.
0:46:16:
Commissioner Schwartz: OK. So, -- So, am I -- So, is there anything we can look at ...
0:46:22:
Shiva Swaminathan: Yes.
0:46:22:
Commissioner Schwartz: ... to see what were the results of the pilot, understanding that it has not been fully vetted and reviewed by a consultant yet?
0:46:32:
Shiva Swaminathan: Right. Right. We -- Yes. The Quarterly Reports periodically provides those updates. We can kind
of pull those data together and provide it at one informational report next time.
0:46:21:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:40 AM
7
Commissioner Schwartz: OK. And did you do any kind of qualitative -- interviews, or anything like that, to understand ...
0:46:48:
Shiva Swaminathan: Yes, in fact, we did. Very recently.
0:46:50:
Commissioner Schwartz: OK.
0:46:50:
Shiva Swaminathan: And we can share that.
0:46:51:
Commissioner Schwartz: OK. That would be -- I'd find that very interesting. And then, what platform did you use for the Web portal? And what level of granularity did people see?
0:47:03:
Shiva Swaminathan: So, the platform was called the Customer Management Energy Portal. And it was a Web-based
platform.
0:47:12:
Commissioner Schwartz: No, I -- I mean, did you make your own, or did you buy that ...
0:47:14:
Shiva Swaminathan: No. So, it was a hosted service. A hosted service by a company -- Honeywell-Elster was our prime contractor for this effort.
0:47:25:
Commissioner Schwartz: Um hum.
0:47:25:
Shiva Swaminathan: And they subcontracted with a company called UtiliWorks. UtiliSmart. Sorry. UtiliSmart. From
Ontario, Canada. Who did the portal. We got three portals. One, a customer portal, where customers can see all three commodities -- what their consumption was. Compare -- say, for example, the time-of-use rate, the regular rate, what did
it look like.
0:47:47:
Commissioner Schwartz: Um hum.
0:47:47:
Shiva Swaminathan: And then we had a Utility Portal for us to manage the system.
0:47:51:
Commissioner Schwartz: Um hum.
0:47:51:
Shiva Swaminathan: And, third, we had a Network Health Portal, which we can look at voltages and outages. So, we got
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:40 AM
8
three portals. All Web-based.
0:48:01:
Commissioner Schwartz: OK. And so, for the Consumer Portal, did they see their usage for every hour, or every 15
minutes, ...
0:48:09:
Shiva Swaminathan: Every hour.
0:48:09:
Commissioner Schwartz: So, every hour. OK. 'Cause there's -- there's -- there are schools of thought that think that -- Hourly is a really common number. But there are quite a few schools of thought that say that it's not -- it's not granular
enough for people to be able to understand what's happening. And so sometimes, they use a disaggregation application on top of that. But if -- But there are people who think that if you can see what's happening every fif- -- ten or fifteen
minutes, that is better.
0:48:42:
Shiva Swaminathan: So -- the disaggregation -- We enabled customers who wanted to be disaggregated ...
0:48:47:
Commissioner Schwartz: Um hum.
0:48:47:
Shiva Swaminathan: ... to do that. Through the ZigBee radio. And some customers did try doing that. But we didn't take responsibility for that.
0:48:53:
Commissioner Schwartz: OK. So, one thing that -- When I saw the material from UtiliWorks, it struck me as very -- So,
what they were outlining was a very generic process.
### As was explained later, what Commissioner Schwartz was looking at was written by staff, not UtiliWorks.
You know, it was very detailed, but it was very generic. Was there anything that they provided that specifically looked at what -- or described what they thought was unique or unusual about Palo Alto? That's something that gave you a sense
of reassurance that they understood what was -- Unique is maybe too strong. But unusual and specific to our community?
0:49:45:
Shiva Swaminathan: As I said, we evaluated the top four, and we called them for interviews in Palo Alto -- in person. And
they tailor-made their presentations to Palo Alto.
0:49:53:
Commissioner Schwartz: OK. So, would it be possible to get to see what they called out in their presentations that was specific to our community, and the nature of -- you know, the fact that we have this very technically sophistically, green-
oriented community, in the middle of PG&E territory, where people are bombarded with messages about what is possible -- Is a different thing from if you are, you know, in Lodi, you know, or s- -- you know, you're not going to get the same kind
of -- it's not going to be the same kind of issues. So, consultants can either prepare a proposal that's completely generic, that could be anyplace. Or they can do a proposal that shows they understand the location. And so, I'm saying, if there's
something that's specific, that -- I would really be interested in seeing that.
0:50:48:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:40 AM
9
Ed Shikada: Hum. I have to admit, I'm a little confused. Bec- And perhaps a bit of a clarification might be in order. The item that the commission's being presented with today is really the work plan going forward on our smart grid
sequencing. And next steps with respect to the implementation technology. The UtiliWorks contract is actually not before you today. That will be going to the City Council next week.
0:51:19:
Commissioner Schwartz: Right.
0:51:19:
Ed Shikada: And this is as much, perhaps, practice, and the way that material has been brought forward previously, as
much as anything else. But, such as it is, the contracting decisions are taken directly to Council, and are -- have typically not been brought to the Commission for review. We're talking about the substance of the work, not the selection of the
contractor.
### I was also confused on this point. I guess General Manager Shikada is saying that, because of what was agendized, UAC is not permitted to advise Council about what bidder should be chosen to do the work. If Council wanted UAC's
advice on this topic, they could always sent the item back to UAC to get it.
0:51:42:
Commissioner Schwartz: No, no, I understand that. I understand that. The -- What's been presented to us ...
0:51:47:
Ed Shikada: Um hum.
0:51:47:
Commissioner Schwartz: ... is a -- is a standard process of the way one might lay out a project.
0:51:54:
Ed Shikada: Um hum.
0:51:54:
Commissioner Schwartz: OK? There's nothing -- you could put it on ANYTHING. OK? There's nothing specific to our situation.
0:52:03:
Ed Shikada: Right.
0:52:04:
Commissioner Schwartz: OK? ...
0:52:05:
Ed Shikada: In terms of the work ahead. And this roadmap, which is described ...
0:52:08:
Commissioner Schwartz: ... ** what you've -- It's a -- Right. Right. Right. Right. You can -- you ...
0:52:09:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:40 AM
10
Ed Shikada: And that's -- Just to be clear, it was not developed by UtiliWorks. It was developed by our staff. [laughs]
0:52:13:
Commissioner Schwartz: OK. But -- So, what I'm saying is -- So it's not clear to me who did what, or whatever. But my
point is, it's GENERIC. OK? And so, what I'm s- -- What I'm trying to understand is, what is the -- what was -- in your process, as you did, what was the piece of it that looked at the -- that gave you a sense -- that said this group -- or another
group -- understands our special issues that exist for us as a community? That are not the same as Riverside, or another community? OK? Alameda? Alameda has a bunch of different issues. OK? Some of which are the same as ours, some
of which are different. It would be useful to know if they did that at all ...
0:52:59:
Shiva Swaminathan: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I think that's a literally easy question to answer, in a sense. We provide them all the materials we've produced. They have been in this area. Some of their consultants have lived in the area. So
we -- When we interview people, that's exactly what we're looking for. We are not spitting our something generic. OK? So, ...
0:53:20:
Commissioner Schwartz: OK, so I'm just asking if there's something that indicates that it's not generic, can I see what
they -- what impressed you -- of why you picked -- what they had was not generic.
### And, I'd add, can the public see it? UAC is supposed to make its decisions in public.
0:53:32:
Dave Yuan: I can speak to -- I was on the panel as well. So what impressed me about UtiliSmart -- right?
0:53:37:
Commissioner Schwartz: UtiliWorks.
0:53:37:
Dave Yuan: UtiliWorks -- is their approach. So, they do a lot of -- And they're also experts in the area, and their experience in other municipalities. And they do a whole -- six -- 12-18-month beta testing. So, I think that's what caught
us. That they -- it's very thought-through -- their processes. In regards ...
0:53:56:
Shiva Swaminathan: We can keep going. Each of us can talk about what impressed us particularly about this.
0:53:59:
Commissioner Schwartz: No, no, no. I'm -- OK. but I just want to say this. I'm a consultant. OK? I can -- I understand that consultants can give something generic, or you can give something that's specific. So, what I'm hearing from you is,
it's their process. So, you don't need to go any more. If that's what they gave you, and that's what you accepted. OK?
0:54:15:
No, but -- ** -- we as staff seek out. That's how we distinguish between consultants. And it's our job to make sure that they are uniquely qualified to serve our purpose for this community.
0:54:30:
Jonathan Abendschein: (unamplified) I think one of the ...
0:54:39:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:41 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jennifer Wang <jpwang@slippytoad.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 4:40 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:I support the Bowman School Expansion Project
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to comment on Agenda Item # 9 on the City County meeting on May 8th, 2017, with respect to the Bowman
School campus expansion. We love Bowman School and ask you for your support of this project!
I am a Palo Alto resident and parent to two children who attend Bowman School. My children are currently finishing
kindergarten and 2nd grade, and we plan to invest several more years being part of the Bowman community (through
8th grade). We are so enthusiastic about the quality of the education and full experience that they are receiving there.
Bowman has an incredibly strong whole child curriculum, supporting my kids in not only academics, but also theatre,
physical education, and how to be a good citizen of the community and of the world.
I cannot be more thrilled about the campus expansion project. A key element is that Bowman is not asking to increase
the maximum enrollment, but rather, the new facilities including a gymnasium and amphitheater for performances will
make the education my children receive that much more enriched. The Bowman administration has been working
closely with the local residents to make it a very positive addition to the community.
We are enthusiastic supporters of the project and ask for your support as well.
Many thanks,
Jennifer Wang
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nan Zhong <nanzhong1@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 06, 2017 1:37 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Yun Luo
Subject:Bowman School Site Process
Dear Palo Alto City Council and Mayor,
My name is Nan Zhong, resident on McKellar Lane in Palo Alto.
I am writing to express my strong support for Bowman International School's campus expansion plan. Both of my kids go to Bowman. They love the school and their friends there. After hearing about Bowman's campus
expansion plan, we are excited how their education at Bowman will be further enriched. Both my wife and I
would appreciate your support for the expansion.
Thanks, Nan
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 3:06 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nick Atkins <nicka@slippytoad.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 1:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:I support the Bowman School Expansion Project
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to comment on Agenda Item # 9 on the City County meeting on May 8th, 2017, with respect to the Bowman
School campus expansion. We love Bowman School and ask you for your support of this project!
I am a Palo Alto resident and parent to two children who attend Bowman School. My children are currently finishing
kindergarten and 2nd grade, and we plan to invest several more years being part of the Bowman community (through
8th grade). We are so enthusiastic about the quality of the education and full experience that they are receiving there.
Bowman has an incredibly strong whole child curriculum, supporting my kids in not only academics, but also theatre,
physical education, and how to be a good citizen of the community and of the world.
I cannot be more thrilled about the campus expansion project. A key element is that Bowman is not asking to increase
the maximum enrollment, but rather, the new facilities including a gymnasium and amphitheater for performances will
make the education my children receive that much more enriched. The Bowman administration has been working
closely with the local residents to make it a very positive addition to the community.
We are enthusiastic supporters of the project and ask for your support as well.
Many thanks,
Nick Atkins
1102 Emerson St.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 3:51 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 3:35 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:PTAC_TSC_Chairs@yahoogroups.com
Subject:689-693 Arastradero -- Bowman Parcel Map with Exceptions
Attachments:Bowman Expansion DMND Comments.pdf
Honorable Council Members,
Here are my comments on the Bowman report before you this evening:
Staff Report’s Assertion that the Comp Plan Makes No Distinction Between Public and Private Schools Is Incorrect
In contrast to staff’s interpretation, I think the schools the Comp Plan refers to are not private schools, but
public school facilities. See Page L-16 from the Land Use Element:
Let’s be careful not to set precedent for private schools which are gated and closed to the general public as
qualifying for the Comp Plan benefits of residential proximity. A private school is not a public or civic
“community center” facility. They draw most of their students from out of town, and generally do not offer use
of their playground and building facilities for public use as our public schools do outside of school
hours. Further, unlike local public schools, private schools’ limited TDM efforts have yielded poor result because of the longer distances their families travel. Current Bowman bike counts are low. This is true at Bowman’s existing site on Arastradero. Though carpooling is encouraged, compliance is low.
Contrary to staff’s assertion in the report ---the language in the Comp Plan is, in fact, specific to public schools,
not private schools as the above Comp Plan excerpt makes clear. If you choose to approve the project, I ask Council to please direct staff to strike any language that implies that private schools qualify as contributors to community centers. They do not, and this could set an improper precedent for private school projects.
A Hearing Should Be Held For This Project’s CUP
The CUP for this project will be very important to ensure that impacts on Arastradero school commute safety and operations are addressed. I would be more comfortable with this staff report if the CUP were included. Comments I submitted earlier in the process are attached. I am concerned that spillback congestion from the
new site’s short driveway may encroach on the school corridor’s EB bike lane or impact motor vehicle
operations.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 3:51 PM
2
While I do not oppose the project, the CUP will be a critical component. Let’s be sure to give it due attention.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Penny Ellson
(writing as an individual)
Bowman Expansion Comments
February 21, 2017
The circulation plan in the 1/9/2017 Fehr & Peers Memorandum in the DMND Appendix (p.342
or 378) does not show the island at the 689/693 Arastradero driveway exit that was shown in the
circulation plan we saw at the CSTSC. Which version is current?I prefer the version that was
reviewed at the 2/9/2017 CSTSC meeting because it controls turning movements at the exit
driveway better, and provides better protection for left turns.
Managing Driveway Flow to Prevent Spillback on ArastraderoThe drop–off area is very short. Drop-off/pick-up delays could cause spillback onto Arastradero.
Cars stacking into the public ROW would exacerbate congestion because there is only a single
auto lane at that location.Further,a single backed up car would obstruct the bike lane, forcing
bicyclists to merge with motor vehicle traffic, creating an unacceptable safety hazard.
The most likely cause of driveway back-ups will be human behavior which Bowman has saidthey will manage by leveraging their “strong relationship with parents.”Dropping off very young
children can take time. Children are learning how to separate from parents and are not always
cooperative.What, specifically, will staff do to facilitate drop-off and pick-up flow at the new
campus driveway in order to minimize spillback on Arastradero? I would like to understandbetter how this will work.
Bowman’s document asks us to rely on their “strong relationship” with parents.This is
something we have heard from every private school the CSTSC has ever worked with.We know
from experience with other schools and with Bowman parents’current use of Terman parking lot
that it is not a reliable mitigation.Mitigations are measurable and enforceable.
A CUP should detail exactly what the protocols for drop-off and pick up will be.Challenger
school has some good measures built into their CUP (and they also have a preschool program)
that might provide a helpful model. However, Challenger’s CUP failed to provide adequate
measurable goals and enforcement mechanisms. A Bowman CUP should outline specificallyhow school staff and parents will be required to assist safe, drop-off/pick-up without delays that
cause spillback onto the public ROW.It should include goals, performance measures with
incentives and robust enforcement mechanisms for compliance.
ParkingAccording to the Terman Assistant Principal, Bowman parents are presently using the Terman
parking lot.He has said there are there are regularly more than nine Bowman parents in the
Terman lot.They compete with buses and Terman families for parking spaces during peak times.
How will Bowman address this problem and ensure it is not made worse with the school’s
expansion?
Forty special events will be added to the Bowman Arastradero sites’ schedules. I see that on
page 14 of 17 in the report that 120 Terman parking spaces are counted as available for Bowman
use for many of these events. Has permission been requested and granted from PAUSD for this
significantly increased use? What protocols will be in the CUP for management of parking
needs for special events?
Specific information is not given about: time of day, days of week, how these events will becoordinated around events at nearby schools.With 45-50 attendees (24% of am peak) these
events will create surges of traffic. Consider protocols for controlling the timing of special events
around traffic peaks, public school commute times, and special events of other nearby schools.
Again, use goals, performance measures, incentives and enforcement mechanisms to ensure
compliance.
Intersection AnalysisThecemetery entrance is not an intersection. It is a driveway that is very infrequently used, not a
street. Studying Gunn HS, Donald and Willmar intersections might be more helpful.
Transportation Demand ManagementVTA88 is cited as mitigation. VTA has proposed a service reduction for next year. See the
proposed 288 bus route replacement.
While the project provides bike racks and bike lanes, what percentage of Bowman students/staff
come from a location/distance that is bikable?Has origin/destination analysis been done? Whereare the Bowman families coming from?How many bike parking spaces are at the original
Bowman site, and how many of those are used? That might be a good indicator of potential for
mode shift at the new site. Does Bowman offer in-school bike/pedestrian safety education and
encouragement?Does Bowman currently have a TDM? How is it working? Do they currently
have a carpool matching program? Is it opt-in? What, specifically, are they willing to do toreduce car trips?
TDM should be included in the CUP with goals, performance measures, incentives, and
enforcement mechanisms.
Bell Time
p. 67 says that Bowman has “more control over peak drop-offs and pick-ups.” How does theflexible bell provide greater control?This is not clear.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 3:47 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From: Adina Levin [mailto:aldeivnian@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 1:45 PM
To: Perez, Lalo
Cc: Neilson Buchanan; Kleinberg, Judy; Yoriko Kishimoto; Keene, James
Subject: Re: Finance Committee
Thank you very much.
I have done some research and found information that may be of interest to the parking and TDM discussion for
committee members and staff.
Palo Alto under-prices full-price employee permits compared to other downtown employment centers in the area. Palo Alto's full-price permits downtown are $40-$50. A Cal Ave permit is a surprising low $49.00/quarter, $12.25 per month.
Meanwhile, Redwood City's full price employee parking permits range from $40 to $100 depending on the convenience of the location and times. San Mateo's full price permits range from $30 to $80 depending on convenience. Stanford charges $86 per month for full-price permits.
Palo Alto has ~2500 full-price garage permits downtown. Raising prices downtown by an average of $40 could yield over ~$1Million per year to provide substantial TMA funding. Raising prices incrementally to avoid sticker shock, perhaps $20 per month, would yield enough money with the next increment to substantially advance TMA programs.
Meanwhile a 2-zone Caltrain monthly pass (from San Jose) is $137.80 and Dumbarton monthly bus pass is $151.20, Caltrain 3-zone
(from SF) is $190.80. For balanced incentives arguably the price should be set over time to match a monthly transit pass.
As staff and committee members likely know, using parking permit revenues to pay for TDM programs has been one of the
major factors in Stanford's success at creating robust TDM programs to drive major shift from nondrivealone modes.
http://www.redwoodcity.org/departments/community-development-department/engineering-transportation/transportation-
parking/monthly-parking-permits
Thank you for your consideration,
- Adina
Adina Levin
Friends of Caltrain
http://greencaltrain.com 650-646-4344
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 2:46 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Amy Kacher <amyewardwell@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 8:30 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU's
Council members
I ask that you please halt the ADU approval process and revisit how it is implemented. It will serve our community
however I ask for stricter implementation rules.
I ask you to consider:
Require aesthetic compatibility with primary dwelling (require same materials and style)
Require ADU to be no taller than the primary dwelling otherwise towering units in backyards of single story homes will
be aesthetically odd and not withstand the test of time.
Implement strict fire prevention requirements for the new dwelling
Require 3 month minimum rental
Require a 10 foot setback from neighbors
I am not sure how to implement this but the current cottages in our town are expensive $3000/month for a 900 square
foot cottage. This is not going to fulfill the goal of offering affordable housing.
Thank you
Amy
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 2:46 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Ingrid Aalami <ingrid@adaptsoft.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 8:26 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Ordinance
Thank you for working hard on the ADU Ordinance and hopefully it will pass tonight.
Ingrid Aalami
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 2:46 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Kyla Farrell <kylafarrell@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 8:21 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Ordinance
Dear Mayor Scharff and Council members,
Thank you for your support of the recently approved ordinance to make it easier to have more Accessory Dwelling Units in Palo Alto, in keeping both the spirit and the letter of the related, new state law. Through your
“yes” votes, you are showing critically important leadership on the issue of creating more housing in our
community and the Bay Area. Thank you.
I am writing to urge you to approve the ordinance as it stands without further deliberation or delay. I very much hope our future holds a Palo Alto that is inclusive, dynamic, and true to the values of the forward-looking Palo
Alto I know and love. I hope it is a Palo Alto that includes more ADUs tucked into our neighborhoods so that
many more can call home too.
I am looking forward to helping my parents construct a ADU on their property in Palo Alto which will allow for multiple generations of our family to live together in this wonder community.
Best,
Kyla Farrell
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 2:46 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:carolyngermain@gmail.com
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 7:04 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Adrienne Germain
Subject:Granny Units Measure
Thank you for considering this "Granny Units" measure. I am a grandmother in need. This would solve a real dilemma for
me to be be able to live on my kids property in a small granny unit. I know of so many more people in my situation that
would benefit from the passage of this measure.
Please pass this measure tonight!
Thank you,
Carolyn Germain
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 2:46 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 5:25 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADUs
I think that the concerns of the citizens of Palo Alto are landing on deaf ears. Th a majority of public
speakers
were in support of the staff recommended to comply with but not exceed state law, the Council exceeded state law and approved an ordinance that far exceeds state law. This will significantly change the look of our neighborhoods.
The lack of concern for us in regard about privacy, parking and enforcement, and went with a one size fits all approach.
We deserve much better from a council that is supposed to support us.
Suzanne Keehn
4076 Orme. St
94306