HomeMy Public PortalAbout20170522plCC2701-32
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 2/2
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 2:46 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Maryjane Marcus <maryjane.marcus@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 5:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU consent calendar - support with no minimum lot size
Dear City Council,
I'm just reiterating my support of ADUs as a small step to supporting more small housing here in Palo Alto, and requesting you eliminate the minimum lot size since it is discriminatory and favors those who already have
more resources (those with bigger lots).
Original letter below.
Sincerely
Mary Jane Marcus
College Terrace (where there are many smaller lots but lots of people in need of housing)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Maryjane Marcus <maryjane.marcus@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:15 PM
Subject: ADU follow up: why we need to return to no lot size minimum
To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Cc: "Gitelman, Hillary" <Hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org>
*Note: I know you are tired of this issue but I appreciate you taking the time to read this. It's the
details that matter.
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I would be so grateful if you would reconsider the 5000 sf minimum lot size, and instead require what
was agreed upon March 7th -- that the ADU is allowed on any lot as long as it is within the allowable
square footage.
Why?
1. We wanted to, and now cannot have an ADU (with a lot size of 4750 sf). Having an ADU
would have alleviated some financial stress living here while increasing the housing stock
right where lots of jobs are here near Cal Ave.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 2:46 PM
7
DETAILS: Our home at 2090 Cornell is 4750 sf. The difference (250 sf smaller) is virtually
indistinguishable from the street (it’s 2 feet narrower). I've described our situation before when I
testified before you in March. We have a 3 year old daughter and would love to share our modest space with post-docs and others near Stanford, and help supplement the high expense we face in living here (neither my husband or I are in the tech sector - he teaches at Foothill and I am in
hospitality/nonprofit).
2. 5000 Sf is an arbitrary and discriminatory limit. In fact, smaller homes/lots may be in
greater need of ADUs than larger ones. Note that of the nearly 2500 homes who could build
ADUs now, only a few do each year (partly because they don’t need ADU income or space). It
may be illegal to set this arbitrary limit in fact.
DETAILS:
· Law prohibits arbitrary: “(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that an accessory dwelling
unit ordinance adopted by a local agency has the effect of providing for the creation of accessory dwelling units and that provisions in this ordinance relating to matters including unit size, parking, fees, and other requirements, are not so arbitrary, excessive, or burdensome so
as to….unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners to create accessory dwelling units in
zones in which they are authorized by local ordinance.”
· Discriminatory financial benefit to larger lots: 5000 SF gives a financial benefit to those over 5000 SF (whose lots are already more valuable) compared to those of us with under 5000 SF, both in terms of rental income and resale value in having additional rooms and being
able to convert a garage into housing.
· Discriminates against certain neighborhoods: 5000 SF discriminates against all of us
who tend to have smaller homes on smaller lots. We are probably even more likely to rent out ADUs and offer housing and could also much more likely benefit from a garage conversion since we are in limited space and may have fewer financial resources. It also discriminates
against many of us in College Terrace and downtown North who for historical reasons have
different sized lots.
· Smaller lots even more likely to build ADUs: Smaller lots may be more likely to build and need ADUs. Right now there are almost 2500 homes who could build ADUs, and yet only a
few do every year. It is partly because it is onerous, but it is also because larger homes and
larger lots are in less NEED of ADUs financially and space-wise. Smaller lots also really need
access to the garage space.
* Allows some to convert garages and not others.
* Allowable lot coverage can still restrict what can be built so it doesn't overwhelm the lot size.
3. Allowing any lot size can still be monitored and is unlikely to overwhelm the community
given what we have seen.
Currently, there are 2466 properties that could build ADUs (35% over minimum lot size) and still we
have very few a year.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 2:46 PM
8
You are only doubling the number of properties who can build ADUs. Allowing all R-1 would triple
instead of double what is allowed now (approximately), and so it’s still unlikely we will have that many
more.
CURRENT ELIGIBLE HOMES WHO CAN BUILD ADUs CURRENTLY: 2466
PROPOSED if 5000 SF MINIMUM: 5992 (approx, or +300)
NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE IF ANY LOT SIZE COULD BUILD: 8680
If we really want to make ADUs a benefit to Palo Alto, every Palo Altan should have the opportunity,
not just those with bigger properties.
Closing: What is motivating you to support ADUs? If it is to help people stay in their homes, increase
housing stock, offer more small housing, then I implore you to eliminate the minimum lot size.
Sincerely,
Mary Jane Marcus, Derek and Evvia Gurney
College Terrace, Palo Alto
FROM STAFF REPORT….
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 2:46 PM
9
Table 1: Analysis of Increasing Parcels Eligible for ADUs by Reducing Minimum
Lot Size Requirement at Five Percent Intervals
Percentage over
Minimum Lot
Area
Number of Qualifying
Parcels (all R-1) Zones
Number of
Qualifying Parcels
(R-2, RE, RMD
and OS) Zones
TOTAL
ELIGIBLE
PARCELS
35 % Over 2,302 164
2,466
30 % Over 2,703 113
2,816
25 % Over 3,218 152
3,370
20 % Over 3,732 163 3,895
15 % Over 4,280 177 4,457
10 % Over 4,912 193
5,105
5 % Over 5,773 219 5,992
Total Number
of 8,216 464 8,680
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Source: City of Palo Alto Planning Department, December 2016
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 2:46 PM
10
A reduction of in intervals of 5% would increase the number of eligible R‐1 parcels
between a low of 401 to a high of 3,471 lots. The removal of the minimum lot size
would significantly increase the number of eligible parcels by 5,194 for a total of
8,216.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 2:46 PM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Günter Steinbach <gsteinbach@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 4:58 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance
City Council:
Please do not enact the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance in its present form. There should be public comment and
discussion about the effects of the Wolbach‐Fine additions.
Thank you
‐‐
Günter Steinbach gsteinbach@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 2:46 PM
12
Carnahan, David
From:kyu@acsarchitects.com on behalf of Kyu Young Kim <kyuyoungkim@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 4:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto ADU Ordinance
Honorable Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss, and City Council Members,
I write to you just hours before your meeting this evening to urge you to approve the revised ADU
ordinance as is, without further deliberation and/or delay. You have already spent an incredible
amount of time discussing the new regulations, listening to public testimony, and reading emails,
including my own. My immediate and extended family thank you as we are fortunate enough to stay
in Palo Alto, the city I grew up in.
Sincerely,
Kyu Young Kim
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 2:46 PM
13
Carnahan, David
From:Mark McBride <mark.mcbride@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 4:42 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU progress
I just wanted to let you know that we're very excited the ADU changes are moving forwards. This is a great step
forward for creating a greater volume and diversity of housing stock in our town. We've provided housing to
extended family members who work in Palo Alto, and having a standalone unit would make this a much more comfortable situation. They can't afford a full apartment, and if they hadn't had our spare room they would have
been another vehicle commuting in on Page Mill. Allowing us to provide a really livable structure for them
makes a lot of sense.
---Mark
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 2:46 PM
14
Carnahan, David
From:Elizabeth Fama <fama.elizabeth@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 4:40 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank you for supporting ADUs
Dear Mayor Scharff and Council members,
Thank you so much for supporting the recently approved ordinance to make it easier to have more Accessory Dwelling Units in Palo Alto.
My husband and I chose to buy a home in Palo Alto precisely because of how dynamic, lively, and progressive
the area is, all of which are improved by density.
Moreover, important research into urban planning has consistently shown that increasing density and housing
types also improves age, economic, and racial diversity--goals that my family approves of.
Please keep pushing to improve the ordinance! We are cheering you on.
Yours truly,
Elizabeth Fama
1020 Bryant Street
cell: 773-805-3257
--- http://www.elizabethfama.com/
Plus One (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014)
Monstrous Beauty (FSG, 2012)
Overboard (Cricket Books, 2002)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 2:46 PM
15
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 4:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Ordinance Second Reading
Dear City Council Members:
I feel quite strongly that the Council erred in adopting ADU and JADU reforms that exceed state mandates without a
proper public review of all the consequences. There's no way that the Council or anyone in our community can know how the changes will play out, as City staff was never asked to study nor report on the late night changes made by the Council.
The ordinance being voted on says:
"The Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.17 (Application of Division to Ordinances Implementing Law Relating to Construction of Dwelling Units and Second Units) and CEQA Guideline
sections 15061(b) and 15301, 15303 and 15305 because it simply provides a comprehensive permitting scheme for accessory dwelling units whose construction is exempt from CEQA."
But the state exemption cited merely applies to the state mandates. Here's what it says:
The adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multifamily residential zone by a city or
county to implement the provisions of Sections 65852.1 and 65852.2 of the Government Code as set forth in Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code.
The ordinance being voted on is not merely the implementation of the state mandates. For example, the ordinance
relaxes parking requirements well beyond what the state requires. As such, those additional changes are potentially quite consequential to our city and should first be studied.
Our city often struggles and fails to meet its professed goal of public engagement, which requires that the public have an
opportunity to understand and debate important changes in our zoning rules before adoption. By incorrectly claiming the city is exempt from CEQA on the provisions of this ordinance that exceed state requirements and by not undertaking the
proper CEQA studies, the Council and city staff are not granting the transparency and openness necessary for democracy. Indeed, even were it not legally obligated to conduct CEQA analysis, the city should anyway just to ensure proper caution on matters of consequence and to maximize communication and participation.
Thank you,
Jeff Levinsky 1682 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 2:46 PM
16
Carnahan, David
From:Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 4:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU's
Looks like Arthur Keller is Bob Moss’s understudy. Can’t get elected? Be a gadfly.
We need the ADUs.
Deb Goldeen, 2130 Birch St., 06, 321‐7375
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 2:50 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:John Baum <baumjwb@sonic.net>
Sent:Tuesday, May 09, 2017 9:04 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Castilleja School - A Trustworthy Negotiation Partner?
Dear City Council,
In the recent past Castilleja School has entered into agreements with the City of Palo Alto
and then elected not honor their terms. Before you negotiate with them again, please
consider taking steps that would bind Castilleja School to live up to already existing
agreements for at least the next five years as an act of good faith to show their intention to honor any past and future agreements. Please do not let their wealth and power blind you
to the evidence in hand that such proof is needed before you grant them any more
privileges.
John Baum
922 El Cajon Way
Virus-free. www.avast.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lee Christel <lee_xtel@pacbell.net>
Sent:Sunday, May 07, 2017 4:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Castilleja
Dear Council,
The proposed Castilleja expansion is out of scale and inappropriate for a single family neighborhood, and would set an
ominous precedent for other Palo Alto neighborhoods.
Hundreds of cars streaming out of a garage onto a neighborhood street is not in keeping with Palo Alto's heritage. There is already way too much congestion on Embarcadero Road during rush hours.
There are other options. Harker School opened in Palo Alto in 1893, well before Castilleja. When they wanted to expand, they did not
want to disrupt the neighborhood. They now occupy four campuses in the South Bay.
We appeal to you to think of the larger picture for the broader population of Palo Alto. This project is wrong for Palo Alto.
Please do not approve this expansion.
Lee A Christel
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 3:07 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Amy Christel <amymchristel@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 2:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:CIty support of Polis Amendment to FAA Reauthorization Bill
Dear Council Members,
As you know, the negative impacts of PAO on local communities are often accepted as necessary to the operation of this
general aviation airport. Airport staff and your attorneys will say that the City must accept any and all traffic at PAO no
matter how noisy the approaches, departures, and circling, because the FAA rules do not any local control of such
matters. Now, an proposed amendment to the FAA Reauthorization Bill would restore some rights to owners/sponsors
of GA airports. It has been sponsored by Congressman Polis, from Boulder, CO, where residents have been harassed by
certain types of aircraft operations at their municipal airport. His amendment follows.
‐‐‐‐
Proposed amendment to FAA Reauthorization:
(a) IN GENERAL.—The owner or operator of a general aviation airport is authorized to restrict the number and type of
aircraft operations occurring at the airport, including the days and times of such operations.
(b) COMMUNITY INPUT.— (section under review)
(c) FEDERAL FUNDING.—No Federal funds may be withheld from or denied to a general aviation airport based solely on
an exercise of authority by the owner or operator of the airport under subsection (a).
‐‐‐‐‐
This change would prevent our City from being overrun with helicopters, drones, and the noisiest of private aircraft, and
allow PAO to be a better neighbor to peninsula residents.
Airport owners/cities should have the right to limit GA impacts on communities. Please consider a Council Resolution on
this matter, and urge Congresswoman Eshoo to support the Polis Amendment. Our City lobbyists in Washington, D.C.
should also advocate for passage of this amendment.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Christel
Midtown
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 3:57 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Joan Larrabee <joan.larrabee@att.net>
Sent:Tuesday, May 09, 2017 3:42 PM
To:Sheldon Ah Sing
Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject:Comments on 744-750 San Antonio Road DEIR
Dear Mr. Sheldon Ah Sing,
The Environmental Impact Report Draft for the proposed Marriotts Hotels is incomplete, inadequate and may be
challenged on several key points.
SOILS AND WATER, APPENDIX H, SECTION 3
The soils and water studies were only conducted at 744 San Antonio Road. None were made at the adjoining parcel
748‐750 where the Courtyard by Marriott is planned. This parcel, almost an acre, is even closer to the San Francisco Bay
and has a lower elevation,
The study was completed two years ago, in 2015, prior to one of the wettest rainy seasons on record. Palo Alto received
almost 30 inches of rain in the 2016‐2017 winter, almost 200% of normal. Even so, during the drought, water was
observed during the survey at only 7.5 feet below grade. In historically wet years, water would be found only 4.5 feet
below grade, according to the engineers doing the survey.
The soils and water studies need to be redone.
The excavation and dewatering of such a magnitude, as to provide two levels of underground parking, would affect the
lateral support of the adjoining properties.
The work could also affect the lateral support of San Antonio Road itself. San Antonio Road has storm and sanitary
sewers, phone and computer lines, electrical and gas lines underground, for South Palo Alto and communities to the
west. During the heavy rains this winter, these utilities were affected.
None of this was reported in the DEIR and needs to be addressed.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, APPENDIX I
Table 3, titled "Existing Level of Service," shows that the intersections of San Antonio/Charleston and San
Antonio/Middlefield near the proposed hotels to be level of service D during the evening peak traffic.
And these Levels of Service (LOS) were determined in September, 2012, almost FIVE years ago. More traffic congestion
now!
The engineers observed traffic conditions and saw that it often took two cycles of the signals to clear the intersections,
that traffic overflowed the left turn pockets.
"Level of Service represents an average of all movements at an intersection. Thus, if one movement is congested, but
other movements do not experience lengthy delays, the average level of service can be acceptable."
So, in other words, the heaviest movements might actually be as low as E or F now, "unacceptable by most drivers." As
the proposed hotels are mid‐block, turning movements at the above intersections will be required for access and egress.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 3:57 PM
2
The authors of the DEIR ignored the City of Palo Alto's Engineering and Traffic Surveys for San Antonio Road, from the
East City Limit Line to Alma Street. In all three sections, the primary land use is residential, schools, churches and small
businesses. And the section from Charleston to the East City Limit has twice the accident rate of similar streets in
California.
ALTERNATE USES FOR THE PROPERTY
The land use along San Antonio Road is primarily residences: single‐family homes, condominiums, townhouses,
apartments and senior housing at Oshman Family Jewish Community Center. There are schools, a church, and
businesses. We prefer to see the primary land use, residential, continue.
Incorrectly, the DEIR states that there is no transit service near the property and therefore housing should be located
near the California Avenue and University Avenue Caltrain Stations, not at 744‐750 San Antonio Road. 3.10.2.8
HOWEVER, the Caltrain Station at San Antonio and Alma is listed as traffic mitigation for the hotels. It is pointed out that
during the weekdays, there are "20‐30 minute head ways during the AM and PM commute hours and 60‐minute
headways midday, at nights, and on weekends." So, yes, there is transit.
OSHMAN FAMILY JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER
3921 Fabian Way, Palo Alto, 0.3 miles away, is mentioned several times as a reason to allow the two five‐story hotels.
Oshman provides senior residences, cultural activities and services to the community and is called "six stories tall."
Access to the Center is on Fabian Way, north of the Center, not on San Antonio Road. The main egress is also on Fabian
Way, not on San Antonio. There is a little‐used exit onto San Antonio. It has its own acceleration lane and does not in
any way impede traffic. The Center is an excellent neighbor to all of Palo Alto and does not cause any concerns.
All construction activities for the Center came in from Fabian Way, not from San Antonio Road.
CONSTRUCTION HOURS
2.3.3.3
The DEIR states it would be acceptable to close one lane of the four‐lane San Antonio Road from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm,
Mondays through Saturdays. This is totally unacceptable to anyone traveling on San Antonio Road.
CONCLUSION
The Environmental Impact Report for the two hotels proposed for 744‐750 San Antonio Road is incomplete,
unacceptable and often inaccurate. It should not be certified.
Joan Larrabee
777 San Antonio Road,
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 2:47 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Esther Nigenda <enigenda@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 6:58 PM
To:SAhsing@m-group.us
Cc:arb@cityofpalo.org; Council, City
Subject:Comments on EIR for 744-750 San Antonio: Marriott Hotel Project
Dear Mr. Ah Sing,
I am puzzled by the 744 -750 San Antonio Road DEIR (03-21-17). Page 7 says, “The project proposes to . . .
construct two, five-story hotel buildings with shared amenity facilities and two levels of below-grade parking. Page 15 of the same document states: “The proposed project would require excavation to approximately 20 feet below grade to construct one level of below-grade parking. So which is it? One level or two levels?
Meanwhile, the Geotechnical Report (Appendix E of the DEIR) refers to one-level underground construction
(see Appendix E Project Description, page 1 and all other references to underground construction) throughout.
The current DEIR does NOT support a 2-level garage as it explicitly says, Appendix E, p. 15, “Please note
there are some significantly thick, relatively clean sand layers below a depth of about 20 feet that will generate a
significant volume of water. If possible not penetrating into those layers with the dewatering wells is desirable .
. . Provided that draw down of groundwater is limited to a maximum depth of 18 feet below existing site grades (i.e. about 10 feet below current ground water levels), settlement [of adjacent improvements and structures] due
to dewatering should be low.”
Additionally Appendix E, page 4 says, “Historic high groundwater is mapped at about 5 feet below the existing ground surface in the site area.” The DEIR/Geotechnical Report does not address the impacts of sea level and groundwater level rise due to climate change. In view of the high water table at this location, I believe these
impacts should be addressed in this project’s EIR.
Current dewatering regulations (5-4-17) state that when dewatering is needed, applicants are now required to verify the anticipated drawdown curve with a pump test using actual wells and that the pumping rate and total amount of water to be pumped out is limited to that determined during the verification. The DEIR needs to be
updated to incorporate these requirements.
In summary, this DEIR does not support the currently proposed project with a 2-level garage, does not address the impacts of climate change to this project, does not meet the new dewatering regulations and it does not address the environmental impacts of the scale of dewatering needed at this location.
Thank you for considering my comments,
Esther Nigenda, Ph.D.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 06, 2017 1:54 PM
Cc:Scharff, Gregory (internal); Council, City; Bill Johnson; Dave Price
Subject:CPRA Request | Lytton Gardens' future
Molly Stump, Esq.
Palo Alto City Attorney
Dear Madame:
When will Lytton Gardens move everyone into hotels, and will Lytton Gardens be made into office places?
Pursuant to California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Govt. Code § 6250 et seq.), I request records from the last
five years, starting January 1, 2012, through today May 6, 2017, for the following information.
Regarding:
Relocating Lytton Gardens elderly residents to hotels
Major remodeling, or possible remodeling, of Lytton Gardens
Converting Lytton Gardens to office places
produce all records concerning:
Conversations
Discussions
Meetings
Proposals
between our City of Palo Alto and any of the following parties:
Lytton Gardens Senior Communities
Webster House [formerly Lytton Gardens Skilled Nursing, from 1975 to 2016]
Episcopal Senior Communities (ESC)
JTM Communities
Developers
Contractors
Legal counsel
All stake holders
Our community wants to know the truth behind the practices of Lytton Gardens.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:43 AM
2
Lytton Gardens current lack of transparency and lack of accountability is appauling.
Thank you for your time and help with this important issue.
Sincerely,
Danielle Martell
Palo Alto City Council Candidate, 2016
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/3/2017 5:08 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Kmetec <jkmetec@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 03, 2017 4:37 PM
To:O'Kane, Kristen; De Geus, Robert
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Cubberley - Palantir event consequences
Dear City,
Many neighbors I talk to believe Palantir was allowed to use the Cubberley field as a political payback, in an
undisclosed manner. Only Council can make changes to Policy, and that is what has happened.
The lack of process and the flagrant (and unique?) violation of city policy reinforces this assumption.
Kristen's FAQ distribution did not address the main concern of how this happened.
If it is a bona fide mistake, I suggest this be acknowledged, as it is more likely people will forgive, than they
will forget.
This is particularly true of myself, and my thoughtful, non-antagonistic neighbors....who only seek openness and trust.
Sincerely, Jeff Kmetec
375 Tioga Ct.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/3/2017 5:08 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:piyush.shah@gmail.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 03, 2017 5:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Cubberly use
I am bothered by the use of palantir for cubberly
This last minute displacement is ridiculous .
Our kids play soccer there.
This will turn cubberly into a free for all of large buses and partys.
Have some consideration for the citizens.
Palo Alto citizen
Charlestown gardens
415 866 4194
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 2:46 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:William Ross <wross@lawross.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 5:06 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:JChase@da.sccgov.org
Subject:Demand for Compliance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54960(a),
Consent Item No. 4 Adoption of an ADU Ordinance Implementing State Law
Attachments:Scharff (Brown Act Compliance) 050817.pdf; April 17, 2017 CC Agenda.pdf
Please see the attached.
William D. Ross, Esq.
Law Offices of William D. Ross
A Professional Corporation400 Lambert Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94306; Tel: (650) 843-8080; Fax: (650) 843-8093
E-Mail: wross@lawross.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU
William D. Ross
Karin A. Briggs
David Schwarz
Kypros G. Hostetter
Of Counsel
Law Offices of
William D. Ross 400 Lambert Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94306
Telephone: (650) 843-8080
Facsimile: (650) 843-8093
Los Angeles Office:
P.O. Box 25532
Los Angeles, CA 90025
File No: 1/10
May 8, 2017
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
The Honorable Greg Scharff, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Demand for Compliance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54960(a),
Consent Item No. 4 Adoption of an ADU Ordinance Implementing State Law; April
17, 2017 Special Meeting; Demand for Fair Hearing for the Same Agenda Item
Dear Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council,
This communication demands, consistent with Government Code section 54960(a)1 and
applicable law, that the City Council comply with the Brown Act and properly notice actions
associated with consideration of Consent Item No. 4 from your Special Meeting of April 17, 2017,
an Ordinance Amending Chapter 18 of the City Municipal Code Implementing State law relating
to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Dwelling Units (the “ADU Ordinance”) by properly
agendizing the ADU Ordinance at a properly noticed Regular meeting of your Council after
appropriate review by Staff and the Planning Transportation Commission.
I. ANALYSIS OF BROWN ACT NONCOMPLIANCE
A. The Brown Act; General Purpose
The purpose of the Brown Act is to facilitate public participation in local government
decisions and to curb misuse of the democratic process by secret legislation by public bodies, Cohn
1 Government Code Section 54960(a) is a portion of the Ralph M. Brown Open Meeting Act, Government Code
Section 54950 et seq. (the “Brown Act”). All section references will be to the Government Code unless otherwise
noted.
The Honorable Greg Scharff, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
May 8, 2017
Page 2
v. City of Thousand Oaks (1994) 30 Cal. App. 4th 547,553 (Cohn). It is clear that the times and
dates of all meetings must be noticed and an agenda must be prepared providing a brief description
of all matters to be discussed or considered in the meetings, Sections 54954, 54954.2.
B. Brown Act Agenda Requirements
The agenda content requirements are the same for a special meeting as they are a for a
regular meeting of a local agency. The posted agenda must contain a brief general description of
each item to be discussed or acted upon at the meeting, including items to be discussed in Closed
Session, Section 54954.2 (a).
The Brown Act agenda requirement’s purpose is to inform interested members of the public
about the subject matter under consideration so that they can determine whether to monitor or
participate in the meeting of the involved local agency. This requirement was examined in Carlson
v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1971) 18 Cal. App. 3d 196 (“Carlson”).
In Carlson, an agenda item entitled, “Continuation School Site Change,” was described by
the Court as not being deceitful, but was held to be entirely misleading and inadequate to show the
whole scope of the Board’s intended plans. The Carlson Court parenthetically noted that it would
have taken relatively little effort to add to the agenda that the school site change also included the
discontinuance of elementary education at a specific school and a transfer of those students to
another school (Carlson, supra, 18 Cal. App 3d at 200).
As developed in detail below, even though the ADU Ordinance was originally agendized
as a First Reading under Consent, it became clear from the beginning of the April 17, 2017 Special
Meeting that the matter was to be heard that evening as a regular business item of the City Council
without adequate Staff, Planning and Transportation Commission review, and adequate notice to
the public.
C. Inadequacy of April 17, 2017Agenda Description
The ADU Ordinance on the April 17, 2017 Agenda (a complete copy of which is attached
as Exhibit “A”) to this communication, provides as follows:
4. FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 18 (Zoning)
to Implement a new State Law Related to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior
Dwelling Units and to Reorganize and Update the City’s Existing Regulations.
The Ordinance is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per Public Resource Code Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guideline
Sections 15061(b), 15301, 15303, and 15305 and was Recommended for
The Honorable Greg Scharff, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
May 8, 2017
Page 3
Approval by the Planning and Transportation Commission on November 30,
2016. (FIRST READING: March 6, 2017 PASSED: 6-2-1 DeBois, Holman no,
Kou abstain).
Other provisions of the April 17, 2017 Agenda, which are explanatory to the public include,
also on p. 2, under the heading Consent Calendar the first line, in a reduced print, the following:
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three
Council Members.
Also, on the April 17, 2017 Agenda first page, the following (also in smaller print) is
relevant:
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW
Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the
public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding
remarks after other members of the public have spoken.
The April 17, 2017 Agenda does not mention that the Council could take the matter off the
Consent Calendar and hear it completely later during the same meeting.
The video for the April 17, 2017, Meeting and is available at
http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-124/ (“Video”). In reviewing the beginning of the meeting
on video, Mayor Scharff indicates that:
…due to the number of speakers interested in addressing the Council
regarding Agenda Item No. 4 – First Reading: Adoption of and Ordinance
Amending Chapter 18 (Zoning) to Implement new State Law Related to Accessory
Dwelling Units… this Item will be pulled to be heard as Agenda Item No. 8A.”
City of Action Minutes, Special Meeting April 17, 2017. (Video: 7:37)
Employing the Carlson test, there is no way that a member of the public could review the
plain meaning of Consent Item 4 and know that if it was to be heard by the Council, it was going
to be heard later that evening.
This Agenda failing was raised by the undersigned (Video: 1:18:23) and former City
Council Member, and retired Superior Court Judge, LaDoris Cordell (Video: 1:46:30-1:47:56).
Judge Cordell’s remarks detail the lack of Staff and public review of the ADU Ordinance:
Good evening. My name is LaDoris Hazard Cordell. I am a 46-year resident
The Honorable Greg Scharff, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
May 8, 2017
Page 4
of the City of Palo Alto and a former Palo Alto City Council Member. I am not
opposed to the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units in Palo Alto. I am
opposed to the violation of the Due Process rights of Palo Alto residents that will
result if you approve this Ordinance tonight with the changes introduced by Council
Members Wolbach and Fine. The Wolbach and Fine changes were incorporated to
the Ordinance after the period for public comment had closed. The Wolbach Fine
changes are significant and must be evaluated and analyzed by Staff or by the
Planning or Transportation Commission. It is improper for you to vote to
implement these major changes to housing construction in this City without an
objective and thorough analysis.
I concur with Mr. Ross’ comments that the Brown Act prohibits this Council
from taking action on this Item tonight. Finally, I ask that you further refer the
Ordinance with the changes to Staff and the Planning and Transportation
Commission for objective and thorough analysis and public comment. It is the
right thing to do legally and morally. Thank you. (Emphasis Added.)
After there were at least fifty-eight speakers on the issue of the proposed ADU Ordinance,
the Mayor asked the City Attorney, Deputy Sandra Lee, about the issue of Brown Act compliance
(Video: 3:36:40):
We also heard that we were violating the Brown Act, so I guess I wanted to
dash. We heard it in two ways. One, we heard that tonight we cannot take this up
because it’s not agendized appropriately and we also heard that the amendments
that were made by Staff recommendations on March 6, were not agendized and so
we could not take that out. I really wanted to clear the air on that. I do not believe
that there was any violation to the Brown Act. In fact, I do not believe that there
was any issue with the process at all. And I wanted to ask our City Attorneys to
weigh in on that.
Ms. Sandra Lee, the Deputy City Attorney, responded (Video: 3:37:15):
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We also agree that there were no Brown Act
violations. As for tonight’s Item, the Agenda states consistent with the Council
policy and procedures that any item on consent items may be pulled by a vote of
three Council members. The Council policies provide that that Item can be heard
later that evening or on a later date, so it is appropriate for Council to take that up
tonight even though the matter was agendized on the Consent Calendar.
With respect to the March 7th Meeting, as you said Mr. Mayor, amendments
The Honorable Greg Scharff, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
May 8, 2017
Page 5
get made, ordinances get considered, and the Brown Act recognizes that may occur
because the Brown Act just requires that the Agenda include a general description
of each item of business to be transacted and I believe… ideally no more than 20
words to describe item. There must be enough information to advise the general
subject matter of the item to be discussed and the March 7th Agenda stated that the
Item was in Ordinance to update the Code Sections regarding Accessory Dwelling
Units, so the general subject matter of Accessory Dwelling Units was properly
agendized under the Brown Act. (Emphasis Added)
The City Attorney’s response is incorrect and inaccurate in several respects. First, as noted
above, the only other references in the Agenda were to the matter being taken off Consent and the
limitations on public comment that are set by the Council. There is no mention of Council Policies
and Procedures as stated by the City Attorney. Accordingly, a member of the public would have
to search a document other than the Agenda to even find the Council Policies and Procedures.
Further, the City Attorney cannot advise that the changes made on March 7, 2017 (12:05
a.m.), require an additional First Reading because of the substantial changes to the ADU Ordinance
made then and on April 17, 2017, inconsistently advise that the First Reading of the ADU
Ordinance can be heard on the same night that it appears on the Agenda as a Consent item without
examination by the Staff and by the Planning and Transportation Commission.
The due process violations, including lack of compliance with the Brown Act advanced by
Judge Cordell are exactly on point.
Accordingly, a member of the public would not be in a position to decide whether or not
they should participate in the April 17, 2017 Consent review on the ADU Ordinance because it
was unknown to them from an entire review of the Agenda that the Council would hear it later that
evening. This is a basic violation of the Brown Act which is demanded to be cured consistent with
Section 54960 (a).
The cure for this Brown Act violation would be to rescind the Council Approval of the
ADU Ordinance on April 17, 2017 and to reagendize the First Reading of the proposed ADU
Ordinance at a regular meeting of the Council, subject to 72-hours notice after appropriate review
by Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission as outlined by Judge Cordell.
D. Demand for Fair Hearing
For the same reasons that the Brown Act has been violated, the public has been denied a
constitutionally guaranteed hearing on the matter of the ADU Ordinance consistent with the
holding of Cohn v. City of Thousand Oaks, supra. A second example of the deprivation of due
The Honorable Greg Scharff, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
May 8, 2017
Page 6
process, again an action of Mayor Scharff, occurred immediately after noting that ADU Ordinance
would be heard later the evening of April 17, 2017, he also indicated that because of the number
of speakers, they would be limited to one minute each. (Video: 7:33) In other words, the greater
the controversy the less time is allotted people to speak on that controversy. Among other things,
this would be contrary to the declared legislative policy of making every effort to foster public
participation in land use decisions. See, Section 65033. This is a separate basis for rescinding the
Council approval on April 17, 2017 of the ADU Ordinance.
II. CONCLUSION
Based on the forgoing, demand is made that the Council rescind the April 17, 2017,
approval of the ADU Ordinance both for its failure to comply with the Brown Act and because
of the denial of procedural due process in considering the matter.
Very truly yours,
William D. Ross
WDR:bk
CC: Mr. John Chase
Deputy District Attorney
County of Santa Clara
JChase@da.sccgov.org
Enclosure
Exhibit “A” - Copy of Revised City Council Agenda for Special Meeting of April 17, 2017
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 2:49 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 09, 2017 4:11 AM
To:Dave Price; Perron, Zachary; Watson, Ron; Wagner, April; Bonilla, Robert; Ryan, Dan;
Keene, James; Council, City; jnowell@padailypost.com
Subject:DMCA Title 17
If you think I'm going just dismiss what you did Mr. Price you sir are no different than all the bad PAPD cops of record...
Mark
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/5/2017 9:34 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ralph Cahn <ralphgc66@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 04, 2017 4:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:HOTEL NO / HOUSING YES
Dear Palo Alto City Council Membersl,
My wife and I are homeowners and live in our home at The Greenhouse on San Antonio Road.
Please do not approve the 2 hotels Marriott wants to build here. Designate the space for badly needed housing. It's one area in Palo Alto where more housing is welcome.
Please don't add 294 (already-awful traffic) hotel rooms on this busy street.
The commute time traffic statistics Marriott provided are fake news.
There are already hotels going up like crazy in Palo Alto.
Please!
thank you,
Ralph Cahn
777-119 San Antonio Road
(Treasurer, PAGHOA ) ralphgc66@gmail.com
phone: 650 858.1012
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/5/2017 11:59 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kass <vz22@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, May 05, 2017 11:57 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:It should not be this hard
Please forward this to the appropriate city official.
I was trying to find out if city offices are open or closed today, as they are every other Friday. So I made two phone calls to utilities (I knew they would be open) and no one knew.
I also tried to find the FAQ on the Palantir event. Below
Home Page: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/ There is a calendar - but no info on hours of service or Palantir event Government: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/default.asp links to hot topics, city information and
departments -
Hot topics? No info on hours of service or Palantir event City information: no link to a page - only a list of options Accessibility Budget etc, Open City Hall and Phone Directory had promise
Open city? http://www.peakdemocracy.com/portals/5/forum_home?a=77 only a list of topics
Phone Directory: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/iwantto/contact/phone.asp# Addresses and phone
numbers - but but no info on hours of service or Palantir event I want to http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/iwantto/default.asp long list of subjects - tried Calendar Calendar http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cals/default.asp No info on hours or Palantir but it did
mention the Children's Theatre performance tonight.
There is no link to Community Services
Get frequently requested Information: no link but a long list but nothing on hours or Palantir Called 321-2100: 9 choices - tried the city manager office -finally found out that city manager office is
closed today.
Finally decided to find where to make reservations for fields and tried Community Services. At last, the link to the Palantir FAQ. Not obvious
Don't you think this information should have been on the home page or at least on the I want to Know
page under Calendar or Most Popular or even Government - Hot Topics?
Sincerely,
Kathleen Goldfein
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/3/2017 4:14 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:browntow@pacbell.net
Sent:Wednesday, May 03, 2017 12:26 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:La Comida's Need
I am the vice president of La Comida de California, Palo Alto’s senior nutrition center. As Bill Blodgett,
president and I told you at the city council meeting on April17, 2017, we are in dire straits. Our site at the
Avenidas building not be available after August 31, 2017. To date, we do not have a site where we can operate. We feed over 150 seniors every week day. La Comida has provided healthful meals in a social setting
since 1972. This program should not be allowed to end.
As a long time resident of Palo Alto, I am very disturbed that no one on the council reached out to us. No one
offered to help. Palo Alto should be able to feed our seniors.
Davina Brown
Attached, the original email from Bill Blodgett
FROM: Bill Blodgett, Board President, La Comida Senior Nutrition Program
TO: Palo Alto City Council
Cc: Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director
Minka van der Zwaag, Office of Human Services
La Comida, the senior nutrition center for Palo Alto, needs help. We need help in finding a new
operating location and may also need help funding the use of the new facility.
La Comida has been serving lunch meals to seniors in the Avenidas site at 450 Bryant Street since
1978. We currently serve about 160 lunches per day, 250 weekdays per year. In addition to providing a
freshly prepared hot lunch, La Comida is an important social experience for our seniors.
Avenidas is remodeling and rebuilding the site. The rebuilding is on the site of the La Comida dining
room. It will be torn down and a three story building will be constructed on the La Comida footprint. As
a result La Comida must leave the Avenidas space by September 1. The potential future dining space in
Avenidas was reduced from an occupancy level of 140 to 79‐90, making it unsuitable for La Comida’s long
term needs, since we are serving approximately 160 patrons per day and up to 220 on holiday
celebration days. We have been looking for a new space with no success. We have had some interest, but
no solid agreement as yet and the move‐out date is only four months away!
La Comida is currently in discussion with a site in south Palo Alto which has a number of advantages but
has a maximum capacity of only 100. We are actively exploring the short term and long term use of that
space in the absence of any identified alternative, are hopeful of success, but we have not yet been able to
complete an agreement with the potential landlord.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/3/2017 4:14 PM
2
As we look for another site, we have also encountered a secondary but potentially significant financial
challenge. Our monthly use rate for the kitchen and dining room at the city owned site has been $1285
per month, which covers the maintenance, utilities, and other expenses associated with the dining room
and kitchen use, paid to Avenidas. This is obviously dramatically below market rates in Palo Alto and
lower than use rates we are likely to find from any other organization, non‐profit or otherwise, that might
be willing to let us use their facility. The low facility usage cost has in part enabled La Comida to operate
within the funding provided by Santa Clara County and the City of Palo Alto HSRAP program. Without
additional funding, La Comida may not be able to maintain a sustainable budget in a non‐city owned
facility.
Request for Help
La Comida has to be out of our current location by August 31st , 2017. We do not have a place to move to;
either to cook and serve meals in or to serve catered meals on an interim basis.
Our immediate need is clear: we need help securing a location, preferably in a city owned facility
with a reasonable rent. Our operation in the Avenidas facility must end on August 31. If a city
owned facility is not possible, then we need help finding another short and /or long term
location. We’ve been actively looking for a number of months with no success as yet. Although we
are talking with the potential location mentioned above, no agreement has been reached and the
time available for reaching an agreement is becoming very short. Several churches have also
looked promising but for a variety of reasons, none have been able to commit to a 5 day per week
lunch program Locating a space is the immediate need , however more financial support may
also be required.
The need of the seniors, especially low and moderate income seniors, in our community is real and
growing. We will need your help if we are to continue providing this nutritional and social support to
them.
On behalf of La Comida and the Palo Alto seniors we serve, thank you in advance for your help!
Addendum
A Brief History of La Comida in Palo Alto
For those that may not be familiar with how La Comida came to be in Palo Alto, we have included a short
narrative below.
• 1971 The Rotary Club of Palo Alto did a yearlong survey in Palo Alto to find a service
project. They found a need for nutritious lunches for seniors.
• February 1972 Rotary incorporated La Comida to serve lunches. At that time the state of
California was offering three year declining grants for nutrition programs. Rotary applied for and got a
grant from the state. La Comida was set up in the All Saints Episcopal Church. The meals were cooked at
the Sequoias and delivered by the Red Cross. La Comida served lunch three days a week.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/3/2017 4:14 PM
3
• 1974 The federal government enacted the Senior Nutrition Lunch Program. The funds were
dispersed to the counties. Santa Clara and its Department of Social Services decided to apply for
funds. They came to La Comida and asked us to be the first county lunch program. We were to provide
five meals each week.
• Then La Comida started to cook at All Saints. We provided five meals a week and social
services. Rotary members and their wives continued to provide support.
• 1978 The Senior Coordinating Council was leased the current Avenidas building to coordinate
activities for seniors for $1.00 per year. Dr. David Mitchell, president of the council and Phil Conway, the
executive director came to La Comida and asked us to be collocated with them. Rotary built and
dedicated the dining room to La Comida. La Comida solicited the County of Santa Clara to build and equip
the kitchen for La Comida and they did. The kitchen and dining room were BUILT without city funds.
• 1997/1998 The Sr. Coordinating Council’s name was changed to Avenidas. From the time we
collocated in 1978, we have enjoyed a positive, collaborative relationship with Avenidas. La Comida
brings over 150 people in the door each day for a nutritious meal and socialization. This represents
about 40% of the people who use the facility each day.
FROM: Bill Blodgett, Board President, La Comida Senior Nutrition Program
TO: Palo Alto City Council
Cc: Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director
Minka van der Zwaag, Office of Human Services
La Comida, the senior nutrition center for Palo Alto, needs help. We need help in finding a new
operating location and may also need help funding the use of the new facility.
La Comida has been serving lunch meals to seniors in the Avenidas site at 450 Bryant Street since
1978. We currently serve about 160 lunches per day, 250 weekdays per year. In addition to providing a
freshly prepared hot lunch, La Comida is an important social experience for our seniors.
Avenidas is remodeling and rebuilding the site. The rebuilding is on the site of the La Comida dining
room. It will be torn down and a three story building will be constructed on the La Comida footprint. As
a result La Comida must leave the Avenidas space by September 1. The potential future dining space in
Avenidas was reduced from an occupancy level of 140 to 79‐90, making it unsuitable for La Comida’s long
term needs, since we are serving approximately 160 patrons per day and up to 220 on holiday
celebration days. We have been looking for a new space with no success. We have had some interest, but
no solid agreement as yet and the move‐out date is only four months away!
La Comida is currently in discussion with a site in south Palo Alto which has a number of advantages but
has a maximum capacity of only 100. We are actively exploring the short term and long term use of that
space in the absence of any identified alternative, are hopeful of success, but we have not yet been able to
complete an agreement with the potential landlord.
As we look for another site, we have also encountered a secondary but potentially significant financial
challenge. Our monthly use rate for the kitchen and dining room at the city owned site has been $1285
per month, which covers the maintenance, utilities, and other expenses associated with the dining room
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/3/2017 4:14 PM
4
and kitchen use, paid to Avenidas. This is obviously dramatically below market rates in Palo Alto and
lower than use rates we are likely to find from any other organization, non‐profit or otherwise, that might
be willing to let us use their facility. The low facility usage cost has in part enabled La Comida to operate
within the funding provided by Santa Clara County and the City of Palo Alto HSRAP program. Without
additional funding, La Comida may not be able to maintain a sustainable budget in a non‐city owned
facility.
Request for Help
La Comida has to be out of our current location by August 31st , 2017. We do not have a place to move to;
either to cook and serve meals in or to serve catered meals on an interim basis.
Our immediate need is clear: we need help securing a location, preferably in a city owned facility
with a reasonable rent. Our operation in the Avenidas facility must end on August 31. If a city
owned facility is not possible, then we need help finding another short and /or long term
location. We’ve been actively looking for a number of months with no success as yet. Although we
are talking with the potential location mentioned above, no agreement has been reached and the
time available for reaching an agreement is becoming very short. Several churches have also
looked promising but for a variety of reasons, none have been able to commit to a 5 day per week
lunch program Locating a space is the immediate need , however more financial support may
also be required.
The need of the seniors, especially low and moderate income seniors, in our community is real and
growing. We will need your help if we are to continue providing this nutritional and social support to
them.
On behalf of La Comida and the Palo Alto seniors we serve, thank you in advance for your help!
Addendum
A Brief History of La Comida in Palo Alto
For those that may not be familiar with how La Comida came to be in Palo Alto, we have included a short
narrative below.
• 1971 The Rotary Club of Palo Alto did a yearlong survey in Palo Alto to find a service
project. They found a need for nutritious lunches for seniors.
• February 1972 Rotary incorporated La Comida to serve lunches. At that time the state of
California was offering three year declining grants for nutrition programs. Rotary applied for and got a
grant from the state. La Comida was set up in the All Saints Episcopal Church. The meals were cooked at
the Sequoias and delivered by the Red Cross. La Comida served lunch three days a week.
• 1974 The federal government enacted the Senior Nutrition Lunch Program. The funds were
dispersed to the counties. Santa Clara and its Department of Social Services decided to apply for
funds. They came to La Comida and asked us to be the first county lunch program. We were to provide
five meals each week.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/3/2017 4:14 PM
5
• Then La Comida started to cook at All Saints. We provided five meals a week and social
services. Rotary members and their wives continued to provide support.
• 1978 The Senior Coordinating Council was leased the current Avenidas building to coordinate
activities for seniors for $1.00 per year. Dr. David Mitchell, president of the council and Phil Conway, the
executive director came to La Comida and asked us to be collocated with them. Rotary built and
dedicated the dining room to La Comida. La Comida solicited the County of Santa Clara to build and equip
the kitchen for La Comida and they did. The kitchen and dining room were BUILT without city funds.
• 1997/1998 The Sr. Coordinating Council’s name was changed to Avenidas. From the time we
collocated in 1978, we have enjoyed a positive, collaborative relationship with Avenidas. La Comida
brings over 150 people in the door each day for a nutritious meal and socialization. This represents
about 40% of the people who use the facility each day.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/10/2017 10:39 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:patricia markee <pmmarkee@hotmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 10, 2017 9:36 AM
To:Council, City; Sheldon Ah Sing (408) 340.5642; Architectural Review Board;
joan.larrabee@att.net; Michelle Hogan
Subject:Marriott hotels on San Antonio
I am deeply concerned about the Marriott proposal for two
hotels on San Antonio in South Palo Alto.
These 5‐story hotels might be an eyesore in
our neighborhood. Directly across the street, the Greenhouses are
hidden behind walls and trees. The rest of the neighborhood
consists of one to two‐story businesses, condos, single family
homes, schools, community centers, a park, and a daycare
center. The Jewish Community Center, a multi‐storied residence
and community center, is on the edge of the community, next to
101.
Marriott's report on future traffic states: no impact. I guess their
294+ guests plus employees, including valets, are going to walk.
This proposal would bring at least 294 transients into
our neighborhood on a daily basis, placing our safety and that of
our possessions in jeopardy.
Residences would create a more appropriate growth of
our neighborhood and help to meet Palo Alto's housing
needs, Marriott could place its hotels in the commercial area
on the corner of San Antonio and El Camino Real.
Sincerely,
Patricia Markee
The Greenhouse
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/10/2017 10:39 AM
2
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/10/2017 12:02 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ralph Cahn <ralphgc66@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 10, 2017 11:58 AM
To:SAhsing@m-group.us
Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject:Marriott Report Draft
Dear Mr. Ah Sing,
The Marriott hotels application and EIR for ARB is deceptive, misinterpreting or omitting vital information;
the project does not meet needs of the local community or appropriate goals of the City. It should be
disapproved.
The Primary Issue -- Housing
Regardless of zoning, the overwhelming use of the affected area is Residential. San Antonio Road in the Palo
Alto City area from 101 to Alma includes the longstanding PC Planned Residential Communities Palo Alto Greenhouses I and II (228 homes), as well as the recently built JCC/Oshman complex (hundreds of condo/apartment homes), and condo property south of Middlefield. In addition, there are numerous single-
family homes just off of Middlefield. The residential nature of the area is further evident given the two schools
(Hauser K-8 and Athena Accademy), a religious institution, local garden center, Cubberly and local grocery
stores and public transportation on, or within easy walking distance from San Antonio.
The imposition of overwhelming, 5 story 294 room hotels (squeezed onto less than 2 acres of land) in the midst of the area where no such imposing development exists, will change the nature of the surroundings for the
worse and forever! It will presage further traffic-drawing development of the same ilk and will not meet the
more important housing needs of the City. San Antonio Road is residential – permanent residential housing is
what should occur here.
Traffic impacts Residents on San Antonio far more than the EIR indicates. The Charleston/San Antonio
intersection, with heavy traffic from west and east; the Middlefield intersection, always challenging, and the
steady stream of cars exiting 101 all flow on San Antonio in both directions, day and night. The studies showing
otherwise are out of date and therefore misleading.
The location of the proposed hotels is such that San Antonio – Leghorn U turns would be necessary for those wishing to go from the hotels to El Camino locations, and U turns at Middlefield for those driving south on San
Antonio to reach the hotel from 101, thus many of the individual trips would include travel on both sides of San
Antonio. Adding >1200 trips per day in and out; significantly more by contractors, employees and service
providers onto an overcrowded road exaggerates the problem.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/10/2017 12:02 PM
2
Conclusion. The proposal should be denied. Future development should continue the existing residential nature
of the area: single-family homes, town houses, condominiums.
Ralph Cahn
777 – 119 San Antonio Road
Palo Alto, CA
650.858.1012
--
C TY o:
PALO
ALTO
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
l •. :~ t '-'· ( •• : {)1
May 4, 2017
Dear VTA Board Members,
On Thursday, May 4, 2017, the VTA Board will review the Final VTA Transit Service
Plan, and the City of Palo Alto commendsVTA on its work on a comprehensive transit
service plan. Under this plan, the City of Palo Alto understands that there will be a
service reduction in South Palo Alto. VTA's current all-day Route 88 will be replaced by
lines 288, 28_8L and 288M which will each run only to/from Gunn High School once in
the morning and once in the afternoon, with one additional school run in the
afternoon. Currently, 74% of Palo Alto residents are within walking distance (1/4 mile)
of fixed-route transit service. Under the Final VTA Transit Service Plan, this would be
reduced to 61% of Palo Alto residents.
Prior to the Final VTA Transit Service Plan, the City of Palo Alto had
initiated our own transit study, the Palo Alto Transit Vision Plan (attached). This
plan seeks to expand existing transit service to provide more mobility options in Palo
Alto. Additionally, through the Palo Alto Transit Vision Plan, the City of Palo Alto has
identified an opportunity to partner with the VTA to provide enhanced mobility for the
residents of Palo Alto. This vision expands the Palo Alto Free Shuttle services and
frequencies, and creates a new South Palo Alto Route, which would allow residents to
connect to transit at the Caltrain California Avenue Station, and offsets the reduction in
service that VTA has proposed through the Final VTA Transit Service Plan. The City
expects the cost for the new South Palo Alto Shuttle Route to start at approximately
$625,000 per year to operate. Further, with the full implementation of the Palo Alto
Transit Vision Plan, including the new South Palo Alto route, 77% of Palo Alto residents
would be within walking distance of transit (75% is the City of Palo Alto Draft
Sustainability Climate Action Plan Goal).
VTA staff has been collaborating with City of Palo Alto staff on reviewing shuttle route
concepts and assisting in identifying opportunities for funding prior to Palo Alto service
discontinuation. The City of Palo Alto believes that we can have a mutually beneficial
relationship with VTA in providing our efficient shuttle service in areas where it is
difficult for VTA to. provide service.
City Of Pa I oA lto.org
, 1 ~ I ' •
VTA Board Members
May 4, 2017
Page 2
Additionally, the discontinuation of midday service on Route 88 (to be called 288), will
push paratransit trips from the standard paratransit area to the extended area . Trips in
this area that occur outside of Route 288's hours will raise paratransit customer's fares
from the standard $4 per trip to the extended $16 per trip fare. The City requests that
current users be grandfathered in and do not see a significant cost increase from this
change.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
a:..!([~~
City Manager
cc. Nuria Fernandez, General Manager
Palo Alto City Council
Joshuah Mello/File
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2017 2:06 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Bill Rehm <Bill.Rehm@aus.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 04, 2017 10:34 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Dueker, Kenneth; Robert Lewetzon; JKalkhorst@simon.com; Khartsell@simon.com;
Matt Hensley; trent.virt@simon.com; Bill Rehm
Subject:NOTE OF APPRECIATION
Attachments:PAPD THANKS.pdf
Please find the attached letter of recognition to acknowledge the outstanding support provided by Division Chief Ken
Dueker, and the men and women of the Palo Alto Police Department of the security program at Stanford Shopping
Center.
Bill Rehm
Vice President-Retail Accounts
Allied Universal 3030 N. Central Avenue | Suite 508| Phoenix, Arizona 85012
C: 480-272-1663 | bill.rehm@aus.com www.AUS.com
Note that my email address has changed. Please update your records.
May 3, 2017
Dear Distinguished Members of the Palo Alto City Council:
I would like to take this opportunity to extend my sincerest thanks and appreciation to Kenneth Deuker
and the Palo Alto Police Department, for their untiring support of the security program at Stanford
Shopping Center.
Allied Universal Security is the security provider at the center, and our operations are supported daily by
members of the Palo Alto Police Department. As the Regional Vice President for Allied Universal, my
role is to help the Security Director, Bob Lewetzon, facilitate and foster a safe shopping environment for
our shoppers, and this cannot be done without the support of our police officers. For this, I am grateful
and convey sincerest thank and appreciation on behalf of Allied Universal Security.
Ken Deuker has played an integral role in our successful planning and implementation of emergency
exercises at the property, as well as facilitating the sharing of intelligence and other information
mutually beneficial to our missions. I want to extend a personal thanks to him for those efforts.
As we move forward, I look forward to the continuation and strengthening of an already robust
partnership with Palo Alto Police Department and keeping our citizens and shoppers safe. Our security
program at Stanford has yielded significant results and the work of the men and women of the Palo Alto
Police Department has contributed immensely to that success.
On behalf of Allied Universal Security, I convey my heartfelt thanks.
Cordially,
William Rehm
William Rehm
Regional Vice –President
Allied Universal Security
Bill.rehm@aus.com
480-272-1663
Cc: Josh Kalkhorst, General Manager, Stanford Shopping Center
Trent VIrt, Corporate Security, Simon Property Group
Matt Hensley, Senior Vice-President, Allied Universal Security
Robert Lewetzon, Security Director, Stanford Shopping Center
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/10/2017 7:34 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:R C <rachelle858@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 09, 2017 8:56 PM
To:Council, City; SAHsing@m-group.us; Architectural Review Board
Subject:Note: Support the Proposed Marriott Hotels on San Antonio Road
I am a resident and a business owner in Palo Alto and I fully support the construction of two Marriott hotels on San Antonio Road. I own a commercial building and a condo close to the proposed site. I believe that the hotels would bring in more job opportunities further strengthening the financial position of the City of Palo Alto (producing income/funds
which can be used to create a sustainable neighborhood). The proposal would also establish a more attractive developed area, much better than its current state. I welcome responsible development of the site and hope that the proposal will be considered for approval.
Rachelle Cagampan
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 7:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jerry Dischler <jerry@dischler.net>
Sent:Friday, May 05, 2017 5:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palantir at Cubberley
City Council,
I live in one of the houses that backs up to the Cubberley track. We are very supportive of community use of the facility. I am also a high tech executive and am very pro-Palo Alto business.
I totally understand the logic that allowed the city to support Palantir in a pinch. They're a great company and I
applaud the city's support.
That said, the decision to do this at the Cubberley track in particular, an area very close to many houses, was not
well thought through.
It is so loud right now that we decided to rent a hotel room so my kids can do class work and can get a good
night's sleep. The back bedrooms are literally shaking.
I am sure this is not what you intended when approving this use of the land so wanted to inform you of the
consequences to help inform future use of this and similar facilities in Palo Alto.
Best, -Jerry.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/3/2017 4:14 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kass <vz22@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 03, 2017 12:17 PM
To:O'Kane, Kristen
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Palantir rental of Palo Alto facilties for 17 days.
When was the city council informed of this major change in policy regarding rental of sports fields? If
this was not a change in policy, can you refer me to the section of city procedures allowing rental of
city spaces to commercial enterprises, prior to March 2017?
Your FAQ raises more questions than answers. It is really hard to believe that a major corporation was still looking for a venue for a worldwide event for 1500 employees a week before the event. Nor
do I think it is reasonable to charge a profit-making business the same rates as Palo Alto charges
non-profit organizations whose charter directly benefits Palo Alto children.
Kathleen Goldfein
From: "O'Kane, Kristen" <Kristen.O'Kane@CityofPaloAlto.org>
To: "vz22@yahoo.com" <vz22@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 8:34 AM
Subject: FW: Palantir ripoff of Palo Alto recreation space
Dear Ms. Goldfein,
Thank you for your email and for sharing your concerns about the special event at Cubberley. We have
prepared responses to frequently asked questions about the event and have posted them to the City’s website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57448. If you have a question that is not answered
in the FAQs, please contact me at (650) 463-4908 or kristen.o’kane@cityofpaloalto.org. The FAQs will be
updated regularly as new questions arise, so please check back for the latest information. We appreciate your comments and are grateful we have residents who are so engaged in the community.
Kristen
Kristen O’Kane | Assistant Director
Community Services Department 1305 Middlefield Road | Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650.463.4908 | E: Kristen.O’Kane@cityofpaloalto.org
From: Kass [mailto:vz22@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:38 PM
To: Council, City
Subject: Palantir ripoff of Palo Alto recreation space
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/3/2017 4:14 PM
2
Did you know and approve of the rental of Palo Alto recreation space for a corporate event, displacing
many approved recreational uses?
Did you know that the rental followed none of the guidelines set for the use of Cubberley fields until the rules were retroactively revised?
Did you know that larger diesel generators, which will significantly offset Palo Alto's goals of green
energy and reducing our carbon footprint? How many greenhouse gases will be generated by this polluting equipment?
Please clarify the rules for the use of recreational fields in open council meetings, allowing citizens to
give feedback on this massive change that allows our recreational fields to be arbitrarily rented for
commercial purposes, displacing groups that previously had priority. At least change the cost structure so that if you do decide to give commercial rentals priority over
nonprofits, they will pay market rates, similar to Shoreline Amphitheater, rather than nonprofit rates.
Kathleen Goldfein Palo Alto Resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2017 2:50 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mari Ueda-Tao <mariueda12@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 09, 2017 9:32 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Paw patrol
Hello.
I am a resident of Greenmeadow and came across this article about a new civilian neighborhood watch program in Elk Grove, CA. http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article148861059.html I was intrigued by this
innovative program and was wondering if this is something the city of Palo Alto would want to pilot. I would
be happy to be a part of a pilot program, as I frequently walk around our neighborhood with my dog. I love the
idea of putting our phones down and actively watching our neighborhood. I am curious to see your thoughts on
this.
Thank you for your time, consideration and for all that you do for our city.
Sincerely,
Mari Ueda-Tao 193 Creekside Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94306
(650) 493-8626 (home)
(916) 215-3524 (cell)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 3:47 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:edie groner <ediegroner@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 3:38 PM
To:Gitelman, Hillary; Council, City; Keene, James; Reynolds, Brian
Cc:Karen Schreiber; Nancy Karp; Greenmeadow Community; Reynolds, Brian
Subject:Re: 540 Charleston property probem
Thank you for your actions and communications.
Edie Groner
From: "Gitelman, Hillary" <Hillary.Gitelman@CityofPaloAlto.org>
To: edie groner <ediegroner@yahoo.com>; "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Karen Schreiber <kpsphoto@gmail.com>; Nancy Karp <nkarp@pacbell.net>; Greenmeadow Community <gmca-
discuss@yahoogroups.com>; "Reynolds, Brian" <Brian.Reynolds@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 1:42 PM
Subject: RE: 540 Charleston property probem
Mr. Groner & Ms. Schreiber:
Thanks for your emails this weekend and this morning about the property at 540 Charleston.
Our code enforcement team has an active case regarding this property, meaning that we are aware of the issues and working to see they get addressed. Brian Reynolds on our staff (copied here) is the person to talk to if you need more
specific information, but I can tell you that we have an active building permit application on file to fix-up the house.
Also, Brian contacted the owner today to ask that she immediately clean up the property and give us a status update on the
building plans, since City reviewers requested revisions and resubmittal at the end of March.
Thanks again for your emails.
Hillary
Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650.329.2321 |E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
From: edie groner [mailto:ediegroner@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 9:18 AM To: Council, City Cc: Edie Groner; Karen Schreiber; Nancy Karp; Greenmeadow Community Subject: 540 Charleston property probem
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 3:47 PM
2
I would like to bring to your attention the house at 540 Charleston, at the corner of Nelson and Charleston. Neighbors in Greenmeadow are concerned as the house has fallen into further disrepair since the code violations of 2015. The weeds are overgrown on both sides of the sidewalk at the corner. I submitted a code violation to Palo Alto 311, May 7, 2017. The tracking number is #2610557.
The backstory is here.
Several neighbors first reported 540 Charleston to Brian Reynolds in CoPA code enforcement in 2015. A citation and a
Compliance Order were issued at the time. At the time the city shut off their utilities because the homeowner was making
renovations that violated code in multiple ways (electrical, plumbing, and structural), and had created an unsafe environment.
Without utilities the house is not habitable. In 2015, the owner was considering options, including, demolition, sale of property,
correcting violations.
Since 2015, the house has been sitting vacant. The windows are boarded up and the blue plastic sheeting covers the roof where there seems to be a gap between the roof and the house. The reason for my request is now that the weeds are overgrown in the yard, and on the property between the house's fence and the sidewalk and between the sidewalk and the street, the sidewalk is soon going to become impassable. This is at the corner where the crossing guard escorts children going to school from Nelson to the other side of Charleston. This is the route that Stevenson House residents use to shop at the Piazza's grocery store.
Secondly, Greenmeadow neighbors are increasingly concerned that the vacant house, which is an Eichler, is both are eyesore and increasingly a situation that should be addressed with the owner. Different parts of the neighborhoods in Greenmeadow are
on the national historic register and entering into the Greenmeadow neighborhood from Charleston onto Nelson does not
show the national historic registry of Eichler 1, 2, and 3 sections in a positive light.
I would appreciate the city determining what the owner's plans are for the house and if the owner can take action on the
abandoned house and take care of the yard and area by the sidewalk to keep the weeds mowed.
Sincerely,
Karen Schreiber
I would like to bring to your attention the house at 540 Charleston, at the corner of Nelson and Charleston. Neighbors in Greenmeadow are concerned as the house has fallen into further disrepair since the code violations of 2015. The weeds are overgrown on both sides of the sidewalk at the corner. I submitted a code violation to Palo Alto 311, May 7, 2017. The tracking number is #2610557. The backstory is here. Several neighbors first reported 540 Charleston to Brian Reynolds in CoPA code enforcement in 2015. A citation and a Compliance Order were issued at the time. At the time the city shut off their utilities because the homeowner was making
renovations that violated code in multiple ways (electrical, plumbing, and structural), and had created an unsafe environment.
Without utilities the house is not habitable. In 2015, the owner was considering options, including, demolition, sale of
property, correcting violations.
Since 2015, the house has been sitting vacant. The windows are boarded up and the blue plastic sheeting covers the roof where
there seems to be a gap between the roof and the house. The reason for my request is now that the weeds are overgrown in the
yard, and on the property between the house's fence and the sidewalk and between the sidewalk and the street, the sidewalk is
soon going to become impassable. This is at the corner where the crossing guard escorts children going to school from Nelson to the other side of Charleston. This is the route that Stevenson House residents use to shop at the Piazza's grocery store.
Secondly, Greenmeadow neighbors are increasingly concerned that the vacant house, which is an Eichler, is both are eyesore and increasingly a situation that should be addressed with the owner. Different parts of the neighborhoods in Greenmeadow are on the national historic register and entering into the Greenmeadow neighborhood from Charleston onto Nelson does not show the national historic registry of Eichler 1, 2, and 3 sections in a positive light.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 3:47 PM
3
I would appreciate the city determining what the owner's plans are for the house and if the owner can take action on the abandoned house and take care of the yard and area by the sidewalk to keep the weeds mowed.
Sincerely,
Karen Schreiber
Dear City Council,
I have included Karen Schreiber's letter to the Council which states clearly the facts re. the impact of the code
violations and abandoned house on the neighborhood of Greenmeadow .
According to Penny Ellson's report on the house at 540 Charleston about code violations reported in 2015,the
owner has done nothing apparent to the house or property in two years since. the house was boarded up for
code violations by the city in 2015. Add to it the weed problem on top of it! It is time the city took further
action to do something about this deplorable situation affecting our neighborhood.
What can our neighborhood do about this problem in cooperation with the city of Palo Alto after two years of
inaction by the homeowner to deal with this property in ways that benefit the homeowner and
neighbors? We hope you will give our situation the attention it deserves.
Sincerely, Edie Grioner
2 Attachments
View all
Download all
IMG_5475.JPG
IMG_5480.JPG radimersky on
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/5/2017 9:34 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Greg Scharff <gregscharff@aol.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 04, 2017 10:08 PM
To:Ben Felter
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: Boy Scout Troop 14
Feel free to come to the meeting I would be happy to meet with you prior to to the meeting
Greg
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 4, 2017, at 10:03 PM, Ben Felter <benbfelter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Palo Alto City Council,
>
> I have a couple questions concerning the upcoming special city council meeting on monday 5/8/17.
> I am currently organizing the Citizenship in the Community Merit Badge, and I was wondering if my small group of
scouts and I could come to the meeting. To fulfill the requirements to our merit badge, we must not only come to the
meeting but also interview a council member about a issue in our community. Should we come early to fulfill this
requirement, or will we be able to talk to a council member sometime during the meeting?
>
> Thanks,
> Ben Felter
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:48 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Gitelman, Hillary
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 1:42 PM
To:edie groner; Council, City
Cc:Karen Schreiber; Nancy Karp; Greenmeadow Community; Reynolds, Brian
Subject:RE: 540 Charleston property probem
Mr. Groner & Ms. Schreiber:
Thanks for your emails this weekend and this morning about the property at 540 Charleston.
Our code enforcement team has an active case regarding this property, meaning that we are aware of the issues and
working to see they get addressed. Brian Reynolds on our staff (copied here) is the person to talk to if you need more
specific information, but I can tell you that we have an active building permit application on file to fix‐up the house.
Also, Brian contacted the owner today to ask that she immediately clean up the property and give us a status update on
the building plans, since City reviewers requested revisions and resubmittal at the end of March.
Thanks again for your emails.
Hillary
Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650.329.2321 |E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
From: edie groner [mailto:ediegroner@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 9:18 AM
To: Council, City
Cc: Edie Groner; Karen Schreiber; Nancy Karp; Greenmeadow Community
Subject: 540 Charleston property probem
I would like to bring to your attention the house at 540 Charleston, at the corner of Nelson and Charleston.
Neighbors in Greenmeadow are concerned as the house has fallen into further disrepair since the code violations of 2015. The weeds are overgrown on both sides of the sidewalk at the corner. I submitted a code violation to Palo Alto 311, May 7, 2017. The tracking number is #2610557. The backstory is here. Several neighbors first reported 540 Charleston to Brian Reynolds in CoPA code enforcement in 2015. A citation and a Compliance Order were issued at the time. At the time the city shut off their utilities because the homeowner was making renovations that violated code in multiple ways (electrical, plumbing, and structural), and had created an unsafe environment. Without utilities the house is not habitable. In 2015, the owner was considering options, including, demolition, sale of property, correcting violations.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:48 PM
2
Since 2015, the house has been sitting vacant. The windows are boarded up and the blue plastic sheeting covers the roof where there seems to be a gap between the roof and the house. The reason for my request is now that the weeds are overgrown in the yard, and on the property between the house's fence and the sidewalk and between the sidewalk and the street, the sidewalk is soon going to become impassable. This is at the corner where the crossing guard escorts children going to school from Nelson
to the other side of Charleston. This is the route that Stevenson House residents use to shop at the Piazza's grocery store.
Secondly, Greenmeadow neighbors are increasingly concerned that the vacant house, which is an Eichler, is both are eyesore
and increasingly a situation that should be addressed with the owner. Different parts of the neighborhoods in Greenmeadow are
on the national historic register and entering into the Greenmeadow neighborhood from Charleston onto Nelson does not
show the national historic registry of Eichler 1, 2, and 3 sections in a positive light.
I would appreciate the city determining what the owner's plans are for the house and if the owner can take action on the
abandoned house and take care of the yard and area by the sidewalk to keep the weeds mowed.
Sincerely,
Karen Schreiber
I would like to bring to your attention the house at 540 Charleston, at the corner of Nelson and Charleston. Neighbors in Greenmeadow are concerned as the house has fallen into further disrepair since the code violations of 2015. The weeds are overgrown on both sides of the sidewalk at the corner.
I submitted a code violation to Palo Alto 311, May 7, 2017. The tracking number is #2610557.
The backstory is here.
Several neighbors first reported 540 Charleston to Brian Reynolds in CoPA code enforcement in 2015. A citation and a
Compliance Order were issued at the time. At the time the city shut off their utilities because the homeowner was making
renovations that violated code in multiple ways (electrical, plumbing, and structural), and had created an unsafe environment.
Without utilities the house is not habitable. In 2015, the owner was considering options, including, demolition, sale of
property, correcting violations.
Since 2015, the house has been sitting vacant. The windows are boarded up and the blue plastic sheeting covers the roof wherethere seems to be a gap between the roof and the house. The reason for my request is now that the weeds are overgrown in the yard, and on the property between the house's fence and the sidewalk and between the sidewalk and the street, the sidewalk is soon going to become impassable. This is at the corner where the crossing guard escorts children going to school from Nelson to the other side of Charleston. This is the route that Stevenson House residents use to shop at the Piazza's grocery store.
Secondly, Greenmeadow neighbors are increasingly concerned that the vacant house, which is an Eichler, is both are eyesore and increasingly a situation that should be addressed with the owner. Different parts of the neighborhoods in Greenmeadow are on the national historic register and entering into the Greenmeadow neighborhood from Charleston onto Nelson does not
show the national historic registry of Eichler 1, 2, and 3 sections in a positive light.
I would appreciate the city determining what the owner's plans are for the house and if the owner can take action on the
abandoned house and take care of the yard and area by the sidewalk to keep the weeds mowed.
Sincerely,
Karen Schreiber
Dear City Council,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:48 PM
3
I have included Karen Schreiber's letter to the Council which states clearly the facts re. the impact of the code
violations and abandoned house on the neighborhood of Greenmeadow .
According to Penny Ellson's report on the house at 540 Charleston about code violations reported in 2015,the
owner has done nothing apparent to the house or property in two years since. the house was boarded up for
code violations by the city in 2015. Add to it the weed problem on top of it! It is time the city took further
action to do something about this deplorable situation affecting our neighborhood.
What can our neighborhood do about this problem in cooperation with the city of Palo Alto after two years of
inaction by the homeowner to deal with this property in ways that benefit the homeowner and
neighbors? We hope you will give our situation the attention it deserves.
Sincerely, Edie Grioner
2 Attachments
View all
Download all
IMG_5475.JPG
IMG_5480.JPG
radimersky on
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 1:29 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Alaee, Khashayar
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 1:13 PM
To:RICH; Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Keith, Claudia; Rice, Danille; Svendsen, Janice; Ng, Judy
Subject:RE: Neighborhood Town Hall on Tuesday, May 30, 7 p.m.-9 p.m.
Dear Mr. Stiebel,
On behalf of City Manager James Keene, thank you for your email to the City Council. We will postpone the meeting to a
new date to ensure it does not pose a conflict with the observation of the religious holiday.
Sincerely,
Khashayar “Cash” Alaee | Sr. Management Analyst
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650.329.2230 | E: khashayar.alaee@cityofpaloalto.org
From: RICH [mailto:w6apz@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 4:03 PM
To: Council, City
Subject: Neighborhood Town Hall on Tuesday, May 30, 7 p.m.-9 p.m.
Neighborhood Town Hall on Tuesday, May 30, 7 p.m.-9 p.m.
This is the title of the announcement that starts: “The City Council has adopted an initiative to strengthen city engagement with neighborhoods through a series of neighborhood town hall
meetings.”
I applaud the Council’s desire to get neighborhood input. The choice of this date, however, is not
good for a significant segment of Palo Alto residents. It is the first night of the Jewish holiday of Shavuot. On this night Jews from all branches of Judaism get together to pray and greet the holiday
with an evening of study. This means that these Palo Altans would not have the opportunity to
participate in neighborhood town hall meetings.
Palo Alto prides itself on its ethnic diversity. We have Christians, Moslems, Russian Orthodox, Jews, Asian (Chinese, Korean, +?), and maybe others. Out of respect for our diverse citizenry, council
should try to avoid holding meetings that request public input on the dates of holidays important to
members of the community.
Please consult the leaders of each community and change the May 30th date to a day/time that does not conflict with the holy days of any of our diverse community.
Rich Stiebel
840 Talisman Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303-4435 W6APZ@comcast.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2017 3:08 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Shikada, Ed
Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 2:30 PM
To:Cheryl; pwecips
Cc:City Mgr; Council, City
Subject:Re: road work on Alma
Dear Ms. Berman,
Thank you for notifying the City of your unfortunate experience. I am very sorry that your interaction was so
unpleasant. We are working to identify the persons involved and will follow‐up appropriately with them. At this point I
would simply like to acknowledge receipt of your email, as you requested.
Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further.
Best regards,
Ed Shikada
Assistant City Manager & General Manager of Utilities
_____________________________
From: Cheryl <drcberman@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2017 11:28 PM
Subject: road work on Alma
To: pwecips <pwecips@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: City Mgr <citymgr@cityofpaloalto.org>, Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Earlier this week there was work being done on Alma between University and Lytton, this work was directly in front of
my condo private garage, we were given no notice that our parking garage on Alma St. was going to be blocked all day
into the evening by road work machinery. When I left for work in the morning, I had to wait for a huge long truck to
move out from blocking my garage, when I returned from work that day, Alma St traffic was backed up due to the road
work and when I got to my garage I could not see any way in, I was distressed and trying to get any of the workers
attention to direct me and at the same time aware as I sat there that I was creating more back up. I did not honk my
horn, I was using my arms and hands waving and indicating I needed to get into the garage, I opened the window to
shout out how was I supposed to get in there…. One of the workers on the train side of Alma started yelling at me BE
NICE BE NICE BE NICE, he did not offer to help me. I am 68 years old, I presented no threat, I was distressed and under
duress because I was holding up traffic, I thought about getting out of my car to tell that young man he was out of line
and not being helpful but I was frightened that he might escalate. I am 68 years old I have lived in Palo Alto since 1973 I
have never been treated by a city worker in that way. I expect to get an acknowledgement of this email and I believe the
owners in my condo building should be alerted before the next time when they return to finish this work.
Cheryl Berman
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/10/2017 12:01 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Minor, Beth
Sent:Wednesday, May 10, 2017 10:56 AM
To:Sean Kurtela; Council, City
Subject:RE: Town Council Videos
Hi Sean,
We currently have a contract with the Midpeninsula Media Center to video tape all of our Council, Council Standing
Committees, and Boards and Commission meetings. They are also uploaded to YouTube.
Thank you for your interest.
B‐
Beth D. Minor | City Clerk | City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue| Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650‐ 329‐2379 E: beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org
City Clerks Rock and Rule
From: Sean Kurtela [mailto:sean@kurtelavideo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 10:53 AM
To: Council, City
Subject: Town Council Videos
Hi All, My name is Sean Kurtela. I currently film all of the City of Woodside Town Councils and I was curious if you may be interested in starting
this up in Palo Alto. We currently upload all the videos onto YouTube for the public to view:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNQAOQjAKjLmbCESgzx6ivA
If interested, please feel free to give me a call or respond to this email.
Thanks for your time, Sean
--
________________________
Sean Kurtela Owner // Lead Videographer
Kurtela Video Productions 650-464-0185
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/10/2017 12:01 PM
2
Best of the Knot - Videographers 2016, 2015
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/5/2017 11:49 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Save Palo Alto's Groundwater <PAgroundwater@luxsci.net>
Sent:Friday, May 05, 2017 11:49 AM
To:sahsing@m-group.us; arb@cityofpalo.org; Council, City
Cc:enigenda@yahoo.com; ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net
Subject:Save Palo Alto's Groundwater Comments on the Marriott Hotel EIR
Comments regarding inadequacy / inaccuracies in the EIR for the construction of the Marriott Hotels on San Antonio Road
oin Palo Alto.
The following are the comments of Save Palo Alto's Groundwater on the EIR for the Marriott Hotel proposed for San
Antonio Ave. in Palo Alto. There are several major deficincies.
1) If the garage is 2 stories below ground, the conclusions of the report need to be redone, as the groundwater will almost
certainly be pumped to below 18 feet below ground surface.
2) the claim that "if the groundwater is pumped to 18 feet below ground surface, nearby settling should be low" is not
substantiated, and in fact, given the 2 - 4% elasticity of the soils mentioned in the report, settling could be 1" or more on
nearby properties. If Broad Area Dewatering is used, groundwater will be lowered significantly over a distance of ~1,000
feet from the boundary of the subject property.
3) Using secant (cutoff walls) should significantly reduce the amount of groundwater pumped and discarded, and also
reduce the risks of settling / subsidence. However, cutoff walls exacerbate blockage of groundwater flows after
construction (unless specific and sufficient measures to protect flows and water storage are taken).
4) The large basement significantly reduces the volume of soil available to absorb stormwater runoff (as required for the
project). The applicant should provide a method to capture, store and slowly release on-site runoff on their own property.
Bioswales (or similar) are required for the project, however, the project is not required to provide it's own storage.
5) the large impervious cross- section blocks groundwater flows, increasing flood risks and raising groundwater levels
during storms.
6) Boyancy requirements should be made considering sea level rise and groundwater innudation. The current
requirement of 5 feet below ground surface is inadequate.
7) Greenhouse gas emissions for the structural mass (concrete to prevent the structure from floating in high groundwater)
are not considered.
8) The impacts of climate change and sea level rise are not considered. This properly is in a low-lying area at high risk of
flooding with sea level rise.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/5/2017 11:49 AM
2
Sincerely,
Keith Bennett, Ph.D.
--
Save Palo Alto's Groundwater
PAgroundwater@luxsci.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2017 2:47 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 04, 2017 2:35 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC
Subject:TRANSCRIPT -- 04-26-17 Council meeting -- interviews of UAC candidates
Council members, From the posting of your 04-26-17 meeting on your "home page," http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council/default.asp I infer that an official transcript will not be provided. So, here's a transcript of just the interviews of the candidates for UAC.
Agenda: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57024 Staff report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57020 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-125/ Thanks.
Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- ######################################################################### ==================
3:57:55: Mayor Scharff: Well, welcome, Curtis. 3:57:56:
Curtis Smolar: Thank you.
3:57:56: Mayor Scharff: So, if you want to just give us a brief introduction. And then we'll ask some questions.
3:58:01:
Curtis Smolar: Sure. First, I'm terrible with this microphone. So I apologize. I think last time I got an "F" on operating the microphone. But I'll try again.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2017 2:47 PM
2
3:58:08:
Mayor Scharff: Just press it and leave it on.
3:58:10:
Curtis Smolar: (unamplified) I'm not very good at it. (amplified) There you go. OK. Um. My name is Curtis Smolar I am
an attorney. I'm primarily a real estate attorney. I've been practicing for about 20 years. I do mostly litigation-related -- relating to land use. And anything that touches real estate, I've been -- I've probably been involved with it at some
point. I've been involved with cases that involve the California PUC. I have been -- I'm involved in consumer cases in which -- involving other areas of the PUC that this PUC does not get involved in. I've also been involved in campaigns in
San Francisco relating to the PG&E and San Francisco agreement. Because -- which is unlike the Palo Alto municipal district. Basically, there was, for little while -- San Francisco was thinking about doing a MUD, as I would call it. I mean
"municipal utility district," like you have in Palo Alto. I was involved in some -- trying to help people who are campaigning for that. It didn't go through. That's -- that was that. I've been involved in biodiesel companies. I've also been involved in
electrical -- PRIVATE electrical contracts, that, when they were, during deregulation, in the early part of the -- 2002 to 2006, I think it was. There was deregulation in different parts -- in the U.S. So I was -- I worked with companies that were
involved in deregulation in Texas. I did cases -- I had cases in the northern district of Texas, regarding that. Before there were smart meters. There was all approximation of how much energy people were going to be using, so they'd be buying
against sort of what they thought they were going to be using. That sort of thing. If that makes sense. So, I guess -- bottom line: lawyer. I've done a lot of different things. Most litigation -- I argued in front of the 2nd District Court of Appeal
last week. In LA. I practice -- I'm still currently practicing. I live over in -- I live in Old Palo Alto. On Waverley, between Nevada and Oregon. So, that's the basic me.
4:00:43:
Mayor Scharff: Greg.
4:00:44:
Council Member Tanaka: So, you know that Palo Alto, for decades, has been trying to get high-speed -- or very-high-
speed -- internet to the homes. Right? Through fiber. Without a lot of success. Why do you think that is? And how do you think you could change that?
4:01:00:
Curtis Smolar: Well, I think that there's a lot of different parts to that question. I think that you're dealing with multiple
companies that are competing for that business. I think the question would be, sort of, how -- we'd have to sort of balance how involved Palo Alto itself would be involved in that actual laying of fiber. I don't know if it would be doing -- Palo Alto
wouldn't be doing it itself, is my assumption. There probably would be a private -- there are private companies that are vying for that business -- is my understanding. So I -- my sort of gut feeling of why it hasn't been successful is because
you would want to take -- you want to get the most -- you want to get -- I think it's because have to balance the private versus the public, in this area. I mean, you have companies that want to do that. And so the question would be, how do
you do this, and be fair to different companies who all are vying for that -- same -- the same access.
4:01:57:
Mayor Scharff: So, on the Palo Alto Utilities Strategic Plan, what do you think we've gotten right, and what do you think we may have gotten wrong?
4:02:04:
Curtis Smolar: OK, so, in my review of it, the thing -- from my review of it, and my understanding of what the -- as a
citizen advisor -- what you'd be doing -- Basically, what I think has been done correctly and done very well is the -- and if I'm thinking of the right document -- and I'd have to look, 'cause I took -- I downl- -- I have them organized -- But,
basically, my recollection is, the movement from fossil fuels to other areas of electricity creation. When I was at Thelen (?) back in 1999-2000, I worked for -- we did a lot of coal-fired power plants and natural-gas-fired power plants. Trash-to-
electricity was starting, but was not very successful, in my experience, when we were doing -- when I was working on the contracts then. I think there's been a tremendous move -- in my -- in the charts I was looking at -- in -- if I'm thinking of the
right document -- and, again, I might be -- I'd have to pull my computer out to see that I'm correct -- showing the move
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2017 2:47 PM
3
from the fossil-based -- fossil-based electricity to non-fossil-based. And I think that's incredibly important. And that's --
from my point of view -- what I'm really interested in. And I've worked for -- with the biodiesel companies for the same reason. I think that working to get away from -- from reducing your carbon footprint, A, and, B, just from -- from a lot of
different non - ...
4:03:43
**: (inaudible)
4:03:43:
Curtis Smolar: Sorry?
4:03:44:
**: (unamplified) Go ahead.
4:03:44:
Curtis Smolar: I think there are a lot of reasons to get away from fossil-based -- like -- fossil-based created electricity. If that makes sense.
4:03:52:
Mayor Scharff: Tom.
4:03:54:
Council Member DuBois: So, if you're going to make that transition, what do you do with your gas utility?
4:04:01:
Curtis Smolar: I think -- are you asking -- well, that's a very...
4:04:05:
Council Member DuBois: So, we have a pretty big investment in infrastructure. And we start shifting people off of gas, it
will be more expensive for the people left on gas. So, what do you do?
4:04:14:
Curtis Smolar: Well, I think that the question would then be, how do ke- -- how do you have parity for people who are moving towards -- Well, natural -- natural gas is not going to have the same impr- -- im -- sort of carbon footprint as
coal. I mean, ...
4:04:32:
Council Member DuBois: I mean, more as the owner of the utility -- the City -- what should the City do with the gas utility?
4:04:37:
Curtis Smolar: Oh. I think the gas utility -- I don't think you're ever going to get it to 100 percent. So I mean, you're going to get inroads, but you're never going to get fully. Right? So you're going to get there -- You're basically -- you're -- I
think what you have is that you would, potentially -- and I'd have to look at the numbers, 'cause I don't know the actual -- I don't know the answer to this off the top of my head, but what I'm assuming is that the cost of running this is -- also -- also,
it costs a lot as well. So, the question would be, how do you -- potentially, you could decrease -- that would decrease as well. And you would basically have other -- other potential electrical sources that could help defray that infrastructure cost
that you currently have. The other question is, maybe you could retool those for other purposes as well. I'm not -- you know, I'm not -- I don't know the answer right now. And we're in a City where Stanford is here. And I'm sure that there
are people much smarter than me thinking about that specific issue. And I don't think that -- I don't think, as a citizen
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2017 2:47 PM
4
advisor to the utility, I really would have the impact of actually changing that. But I think that I -- my idea would be to get
cleaner -- cleaner energy. And natural gas is one. I mean, it burns cleaner than a lot of other fossil fuels.
4:05:56:
Mayor Scharff: Anyone else?
4:06:01:
Council Member Tanaka: So, have you ever heard of the idea of "open access"?
4:06:05:
Curtis Smolar: In which context?
4:06:06:
Council Member Tanaka: In the context of broadband.
4:06:09:
Curtis Smolar: Yeah.
4:06:10:
Council Member Tanaka: OK. So, what's your throughts of that, as part of trying to incentivize the public-private partnership of getting high-speed internet to people's home?
4:06:18:
Curtis Smolar: So -- So, I have to, again -- I don't have -- I haven't looked into this deeply. Are you -- Can you give me
the context of what "open access" is, to help refresh my recollection?
4:06:29:
Council Member Tanaka: Well, so -- we have how much time?
4:06:31:
Mayor Scharff: Go ahead.
4:06:31:
Council Member Tanaka: OK. So -- So, one way, of course, is, we could pay for the trenching and put all the -- last mile, right? That's one way of doing it. Or, the other way of doing it -- and the concept of "open access" -- is, basically that the
first person to put line in has to basically allow other people to do it. So that, basically, -- So, it's implemented in countries like Korea -- South Korea. Where, until the last-mile connection, you basically -- Basically, it's like an auction. If other
people want to access it. So rather than just having like a monopoly or duopoly, where you can only -- where -- ah -- where you get kind of monopoly- or duopoly-like pricing, you have more of a competition. So, that's like in Korea, or other
places like that, you have dramatically higher speeds at lower prices, because of the fact that you don't have this duopoly/monopoly-type structure.
4:07:22:
Curtis Smolar: Well, I think that's incredibly interesting structure. I think that the thing to sort of balance there is a similar
sort of situation that we were just discussing, with -- Although you were looking forward to just changing from fossil fuels to clean -- to other, cleaner electricities, when you do that, you have other infrastructure, that we were just talking about,
that's there, that we would have to deal with. My concern -- and I don't know the answer to this, because I think it's a very complex question. But my concern would be, if you have companies like Comcast that are out there that have
tremendous interest in being the ones who are going to be controlling it -- If you have other companies, like Google or
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2017 2:47 PM
5
Apple, or other -- Cisco, even. You know, I can't say which companies it would be. You have the fact that there's going to
be a tremendous amount of interest in being the ones who win -- what I understand you're saying is that you would have, basically, the monopoly. You -- if you're the first one in. Right? So you're saying, the first one in would then allow others
in after them?
4:08:24:
**: (inaudible)
4:08:25:
Curtis Smolar: I mean, basically, my concern is this. My concern is, I don't know how much -- if -- how much the government wants to be getting into the private sector, or vice versa, in that specific area. And I don't know if that would
be something that would be appropriate or not. I think that I would have to look at an actual study of how that would be done in this area. And what the consequences would be. And, again, being a citizen advisor, I don't think I'd be the one
implementing the actual -- the actual -- what would actually be done. But basically be involved in helping to craft the -- what are -- how we move forward. That's my understanding.
4:09:07:
Mayor Scharff: All right. Well, thank you very much. We're sort of out of time.
4:09:10:
Curtis Smolar: Thank you so much. And thank you for staying so late. I appreciate it. Thank you.
==================
4:09:30:
Mayor Schaff: Welcome, Jay.
4:09:32:
Jay Weber: Thank you.
4:09:33:
Mayor Scharff: So, if you want to just give a brief introduction, we'll ask some questions.
4:09:43:
Jay Weber: So, I'm Jay Weber. I'm an eight-year resident of Palo Alto; 28 years in the Bay Area. During that time, my
wife and I have raised two wonderful daughters. Professionally, I have a PhD in computer science. I was an engineering fellow at HP VeriFone. And I've been CTO of four internet startups. One of those was right here in Palo Alto. Besides
professionally -- personally -- I've had some relevant interests. I've had several projects in solar power at my house. I drive an electric vehicle. And I have a project where I collect 8,000 liters of rainwater to do my landscaping around my
house. So, with those personal and professional interests, I think I have something to contribute. And being semi-retired, I have the time and the energy to give back to my community. I'd love to do so. And I'd be happy to answer any
questions about my background.
4:10:57:
Mayor Scharff: Tom.
4:10:59:
Council Member DuBois: Thanks for applying. I wanted to ask you about fiber-to-the-home -- FTTP.
4:11;06:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2017 2:47 PM
6
Jay Weber: Yup.
4:11:06:
Council Member DuBois: What are your thoughts on municipally-owned fiber? And have you -- are you aware other cities, and their efforts in that area?
4:11:15:
Jay Weber: Well, I was very excited about what Google was doing. And what they did do in some towns. And I was a
supporter of the Palo Alto attempt to get on their list. But I do know that Google has shut down their fiber efforts. And so that's -- it's not going to happen that way. I know I keep hearing about AT&T Fiber. And they keep advertising
online. And I keep checking, and it's not available. I do know -- I did watch the video of the last UAC meeting. And I know that there's a decision that needs to be made, whether to keep pursuing FTTP or to go to something -- the fiber-to-
the-node, leaving the option open for doing the last mile later on. And I think -- I mean, the way it's heading, I think FTTN makes more sense at this point. But -- that's what I know.
4:12:28:
Mayor Scharff: So, you've done a lot of efficiency measures in your own home, it looks like.
4:12:34:
Jay Weber: Yes. I have.
4:12:35:
Mayor Scharff: And it's a net-zero house?
3:12:37:
Jay Weber: Well, I still use natural gas for heating and for cooking. And I haven't calculated an offset for that. But with
electricity, I'm a net generator. So, it offsets it somewhat.
4:12:52:
Mayor Scharff: OK. With the photovoltaics.
4:12:54:
Jay Weber: Yeah.
4:12:54:
Mayor Scharff: You also said you lowered you garbage output to less than 20 gallons per month. What was it to start with?
4:12:59:
Jay Weber: Ah, when I first moved into that house, I put out a garbage can every week. But now, it's only once a month.
4:13:12:
Mayor Scharff: So, how did you do that?
4:13:13:
Jay Weber: Well, in -- I'm using -- I'm taking advantage of being able to put food scraps in the compost bins -- a relatively
recent program -- is one thing. I've also steered clear of packaging with Styrofoam. So, I take advantage of Amazon's
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2017 2:47 PM
7
offerings of their simple packaging, and recyclable packaging. That's another big way. I've done that. Also, just being
more mindful of what goes in which bin.
4:13:53:
Mayor Scharff: All right. Karen.
4:13:55:
Council Member Holman: Thank you for all those efforts. Bucking for an award. [laughs] Just kidding. No, you've been doing a lot of model practices. Are you familiar with the issue that comes up now and then, and has for several years, of a
redundant power source? So we're not vulnerable the way we were when the Tesla plane wen down and interrupted our power source?
4:14:20:
Jay Weber: Oh, you mean, the grid? Just the ...
4:14:22:
Council Member Holman: Um hum.
3:14:23:
Jay Weber: I'm not ...
4:14:25:
Council Member DuBois: (unamplified) Connection to the grid, not a power source.
4:14:27:
Council Member Holman: Yeah. I'm sorry. Yes. Sorry. Connection. Yeah.
4:14:31:
Jay Weber: I'm not familiar ...
4:14:31:
Council Member Holman: Well, actually, it's termed sometimes redundant power source, too. So ... Access to ...
4:14:36:
Jay Weber: I remember hearing about how the -- the plane crash, and the problems it caused. But I'm not familiar with
the grid design issues.
4:14:44:
Council Member Holman: OK. OK.
4:14:47:
Mayor Scharff: Um, Eric.
4:14:50:
Council Member Filseth: So -- So, yeah. So -- So, you're really well-versed in solar. Right? You've got it on your house, and so forth. The City -- We're in a position that we can -- we're -- we can pretty much buy as much utility-grade
solar as we want. I mean, we're on track to do about a third of our total power needs. Right?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2017 2:47 PM
8
4:15:12:
Jay Weber: That's good.
4:15:12:
Council Member Filseth: ** solar. And then, of course, we're encouraging people to put it on their roofs as well. Right? It turns out that it's probably actually cheaper to buy the utility-grade solar than it is to put it on your roof, for a variety of
reasons. How should we balance -- How should we think about that, in terms of encouraging local, but also -- you know, it's more expensive? How do we reconcile those things?
4:15:38:
Jay Weber: Well, I know that having panels on the roof -- distributing the power generation -- can be more reliable than
having ...
4:15:50:
**: (unamplified)
4:15:50:
Jay Weber: Yeah. Right. You can have single points of failure with single sources. So that's one reason to encourage solar, apart from the economics of it. I think there's another intangible. It's better to get the community to buy in through
their own actions, that -- you know, taking some responsibility and some control over their power, by installing panels on the roof. Emergency preparedness. I'm in the process of getting a battery backup on my system, for emergency
preparedness reasons, that you get with rooftop solar. You know, it's hard, too, because these systems have a lifetime of 25 years. And you have to project how rates are going to change over that time. You know, I did the analysis before I put
in the panels, and the -- you know, the spreadsheets told me they'd be paid back in about 12-15 years. But the rates -- the assumptions that I made on the rates -- it's gone very differently. Yeah, I have to admit, I always am a little heartened
when I see the rates are going to go up -- like they're going to, apparently, this year. 'Cause it makes my investment better. But, yeah, it's tricky to project that far ahead -- the 25 years -- to understand whether it makes financial sense to
put it on a particular rooftop.
4:17:29:
Mayor Scharff: Greg.
4:17:21:
Council Member Tanaka: Ah, so, speaking of the rates, what's your thoughts about the rates that we pay in Palo Alto versus other cities, in terms of -- I'm not sure if you've been following the rate increases.
4:17:41:
Jay Weber: I've just -- a little bit -- what's been the Weekly.
4:17:44:
Council Member Tanaka: OK. So, what's you thoughts about that?
4:17:48:
Jay Weber: Um. Well, I mean, I'm a believer in passing real costs on to consumers, and not trying to smooth it over too
much. Because that brings people into the equation -- the cost-benefit equation. So, I think that as long as there's a reason -- I understand that the rates need to go up this year because of hydropower purchases that were affected by the
drought. And, I think, as long as there's a legitimate reason given, like that, I think that people should understand that and be willing to pay more. And they'd like to pay less when the rates go back down. As long as there's a mechanism for
having them go down as well as up, based on market factors, I think that's fair.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2017 2:47 PM
9
4:18:49:
Mayor Scharff: Well, thank you very much. We're sort of out of time. I appreciate it.
4:18:51:
Jay Weber: Thank you. Thank you for your time.
==================
4:19:12:
Mayor Scharff: Welcome, Lisa.
4:19:13:
Lisa Forssell: Thank you.
4:19:13:
Mayor Scharff: And thank you for your service.
4:19:16:
Lisa Forssell: Thanks for taking the time to interview us all.
4:19:27:
Mayor Scharff: So, do you want to give us a short introduction about what you're doing on the commission? And then we'll ask some questions.
4:19:31:
Lisa Forssell: Yeah. Yeah. So, my name is Lisa Forssell. I have served on the commission for the last year. And I've
really enjoyed the work. And I'm getting up to speed on the issues. And I have served on the budget subcommittee. And taken particular interest in some of the issues. And I'm hoping to continue.
4:19:53:
Mayor Scharff: Well, I'll ask you Tom's question, that he asked earlier. So we've been talking about moving to
electrification.
4:20:00:
Lisa Forssell: Uh huh.
4:20:00:
Mayor Scharff: And moving away from our gas utility.
4:20:03:
Lisa Forssell: Um hum.
4:20:03:
Mayor Scharff: So, as that goes, obviously -- if we move in that direction -- and, first of all, do you think it's the right course of action -- gas utility prices would go up, as less people use it, but we have those large fixed costs. What do you
see as the long-term future of the gas utility? And how do you think we should deal with the issues?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2017 2:47 PM
10
4:20:25:
Lisa Forssell: Well, it's interesting. I mean, your first question was, do I think it's the right direction to move in. And I think, in a very, VERY long view, to be -- you know, to be maximally sustainable, you use completely carbon-free
electricity as your energy resource, and power everything from there. However, I don't think that 2017, you know, is a year you can make that change in its entirety. I think this is sort of a -- I don't want to say it -- I don't know -- it's measured
in decades ...
4:21:07:
Mayor Scharff: OK.
4:21:07:
Lisa Forssell: ... to make the transition. Both because the stranded assets of the gas infrastructure, and also because the reality of the electricity supply. Right now, our hydro resources can generate carbon-free electricity. Solar only generates
during the day. Storage is not a cost-effective option. More wind is coming online. You know, it's complicated. And to meet our sort of minute-to-minute demand, right now, the way we do it through carbon accounting is to buy offsets. And
we can do that for gas as well. In fact, we're about to start.
4:22:01:
Mayor Scharff: OK. Tom.
4:22:03:
Council Member DuBois: Yeah. So, you've been on for a year.
4:22:07:
Lisa Forssell: Um hum.
4:22:07:
Council Member DuBois: What was the most surprising thing? And what was kind of the, you know, most interesting thing you've learned in that year?
4:22:15:
Lisa Forssell: Um. Let's see. One of the things I thought was interesting was when we evaluated the CLEAN
program. And -- to find out how low the avoided cost of electricity is. So that -- I think it's around 8 cents a kilowatt-hour. And the CLEAN program was offering 15 or 16 cents a kilowatt-hour. And, given that large delta, it didn't seem
reasonable to continue past the sort of commitments that we'd already made. I had thought that it was less big of a -- you know, not as big of a bump -- from our avoided costs to what we were offering. That's one example of something that
surprised me.
4:23:03:
Council Member DuBois: So, I'll ask Eric's question as a follow-up. I mean, are there reasons we should consider local solar generation?
4:23:09:
Lisa Forssell: So, actually, that will be another thing that I learned along the way. You could argue that there's increased
reliability if you're generating locally. Then, in the event of, you know, a power outage outside of Palo Alto, at least we'd be able to generate locally. However, the way the rooftop solar systems are actually implemented, if the grid goes down,
they automatically shut off. Showing that there's not much reliability to be gained. EXCEPT that there's recently been a rule change to -- I want to call it Rule 27 or something that came before us. And the codes are being changed. So, in the
future, new installations perhaps can be -- can add reliability. That they'll be more forgiving. And will be able to stay up
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/5/2017 9:34 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Shantha Mohan <shantha.rm@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 05, 2017 7:34 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Who needs the FCC? Seattle writes its own broadband privacy rule - What say you
Palo Alto?
https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/04/who‐needs‐the‐fcc‐seattle‐writes‐its‐own‐broadband‐privacy‐rule/
Shantha Mohan, PhD.
(650) 799 3162
Shantha.rm@gmail.com
• CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
TO:
DATE:
Finance Committee
May 2, 2017
City of Palo Alto
MEMORANDUM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
5/4/2016
[X] Placed Before Meeting
[ ] Received at Meeting
Item# Sc
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2018 Proposed Operating and Capital Budget Recommended Changes for the
Storm Drainage Fund
This memorandum transmits information regarding the Storm Drainage Fund not available at
the time the Fiscal Year 2018 Proposed Budget was compiled.
In April 2017 the Storm Water Management fee was approved by a majority of property owners
via a ballot-by-mail process, establishing a base rate of $13.65 per Equivalent Residential Unit
(ERU) per month along with a provision that the City Council could increase the rate on an
annual basis by the local inflation rate (as measured by the Consumer Price Index) or 6 percent,
whichever is less. Under the provisions of the ballot measure, the base component of the fee of
$7.48 per ERU per month would be charged monthly until terminated by the City Council.
The attached budget proposal descriptions and Capital Improvement projects (Attachment A)
are the results of staff working with a city manager-appointed blue ribbon committee to
generate programmatic and project recommendations. The recommendations were presented
to Council (CMR 7143) to be part of the Storm Water Management Fee ballot measure. Below
are the recommended changes to the FY 2018 Proposed Budget, which are detailed in the
attachments.
Operating Budget Proposals
Wastewater Treatment Fund
Shift 2.21 FTE to the Storm Drainage Fund, reduction of $346,648 ongoing.
Storm Drainage Fund
Shift 2.21 FTE from the Wastewater Treatment (WWT) Fund, addition of $346,648 ongoing.
5/1/2017
Provide funding for a Green Infrastructure Plan related to Storm Water Management, addition
of $341,000 ongoing.
Add 1.0 FTE Associate .Engineer position and $40,000 for regulatory requirement consulting
services, addition of $188,189 ongoing.
Capital Budget Proposals
Storm Drainage Fund
SD-13003 Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station and Trunk Line Improvements
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 5 Vear Total
Proposed FY 2018-$259,632 $0 $0 $0 $0 $259,632
2022 CIP (4/24/17)
Recommended $259,632 $2,226,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,485,632
SD-06101 Storm Drainage System Replacement and Rehabilitation
FY 2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY 2022 5 Year Total
$450,000 $465,000 $480,180 $496,551 $513,124 $2,404,855
SD-20000 Storm Drainage Pump Station to Adobe Creek
FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY 2021 FY2022 5 Year Total
$0 $0 $500,000 $2,000,000 $0 $2,500,000
SD-22000 Storm Draina e System U grades-East Ba 'Shore Road and East Meadow Drive
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 5 Vear Total
$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,340,000 $1,340,000
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER:
S/1/2017
PUBLIC WORKS
Budget Adjustments
Watershed Protection Funding Alignment (Shift
2.21 FTE from Wastewater Treatment Fund 2.21
ATTACHMENT A
346,648 0
This action reallocates 2.21 FTE from the Wastewater Treatment (WWD Fund to the Storm Drainage Fund. The Storm
Drain Blue Ribbon Committee recommended that staff who are working on watershed protection activities should be
funded from the Storm Drainage Fund to better align their job duties and functions with the appropriate source of
funding. This will also ensure these positions are working on compliance with new Municipal Regional Storm Water
Permit regulations related to watershed protection. (Ongoing net costs: $346,648)
Performance Results 0
This will align watershed protection staff with the appropriate funding source and ensure increased compliance with
Storm Water regulations related to watershed protection.
2 Green Infrastructure 0.00 341,000 0 341,000
This action provides $341,000 to develop a Green Infrastructure Plan related to Storm Water Management, as required
by the new municipal regional permit, and implement the plan in subsequent years. The goals of this plan will be to shift
storm drain infrastructure to more-resilient, sustainable systems that slow storm water runoff by dispersing it to
vegetated areas and promote bioretention to clean storm water runoff. (Ongoing net costs: $341,000)
Performance Results 0
This will promote the use of storm water runoff to water vegetated areas around the City, lessening the need to use
sprinkler systems and potable water. In addition, cleaner storm water runoff will reduce the need to futher clean the
water when it gets to the WWT plant.
3 Storm Water Management Regulatory
Requirements 1.00 188,189 0
This action adds a 1.0 FTE Associate Engineer position as well as $40,000 for consulting services to ensure the City is
complying with all municipal regional storm water permit regulatory requirements that were implemented by the Regional
Water Board as of January 1, 2016. The revised regulations require the creation and implementation of a green
infrastructure plan, litter assessments, C3 compliance, and increased storm water inspections. The City is currently out
of compliance with the stormwater permit, specifically the increased requirements with C3, so this action will allow the
City to return to compliance through increased monitoring of the permit requirements. (Ongoing net costs: $188, 189)
Performance Results 0 0
This additional position and funding for contractual services will allow current staff to return to focusing on the
operations and capital improvement projects associated with storm water management, while the new position ensures
the City is in compliance with the expanded regulations under the municipal regional storm water permit.
PUBLIC WORKS • CITY OF PALO AL TO FISCAL YEAR 2018 PROPOSED BUDGET
ATTACHMENT A
STORM DRAINAGE FUND
Loma Verde Trunk Line Improvement Location
Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump
Station and Trunk Line Improvements
Description
This project provides funding for construction upgrades to the Matadero Creek Storm Water
Pump Station and the trunk storm drain pipelines along Loma Verde Avenue from Louis Road to
Maddux Drive that flow to the pump station. The Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station
serves a low-lying 1250-acre area of southeastern Palo Alto.
Justification
The streets in this area are lower than the creek water level during storm events. Upgrades to
the pump station and the storm drain pipeli nes leading to it will allow storm runoff to be
pumped into Matadero Creek regardless of the creek level. improving drainage system perfor-
mance in the Midtown and Palo Verde neighborhoods.
Supplemental Information
Construction o f the pump station improvements began in January 2017 and is expected to be
completed by fall 2017. This improvement is consistent w ith the priorities established with the
property owner-approved storm drain rate increase in 2005. Budgeting for the trunk storm
drain pipeli nes leading to the pump station can now be programmed in Fiscal Year 2019 since
the storm drain funding ballot measure was passed in spring 2017.
STORM DRAINAGE FUND • CITY OF PALO AL TO FISCAL YEAR 2018 CAPITAL BUDGET
ATTACHMENT A
STORM DRAINAGE FUND
Significant Changes
2017-2021 CIP: Based on cost estimates for the upgraded storm water pump station prepared
during the preliminary design state, the project element to improve trunk storm drain pipelines
leading to the pump station has been deferred to Fiscal Year 2018.
2016-2020 CIP: This project was previously accounted for in SD-13002. As part of the 2016-
2020 CIP, a new project identification number was created for internal tracking purposes.
Funding Sources Schedule
Funding Source -----------Stonn Drainage Fund
Total I 321,553 6,168,521 1 6,168,5201 259,6321 2,226,0001 0 0 01 2,485,6321
321,5531 6,188,521 6,188,520 259,632 2,226,000 0 0 0 2,485,632
0 8,975,705
0 8,975,705
Expenditure Schedule
Proiect Phase -----------Construction 0 6,114,400 6,168,520 259,632 2,226,000 0 0
Design 321,553 54,121 0 0 0 0 0
Total 321,553 6,188,521 6,188,520 259,632 2,226,000 0 0
Operating Impact
This project is not anticipated to impact operating expenses in the future.
Relationship to Comprehensive
Plan
Primary Connection
Element: Natural Environment
Section: Water Resources
Goal: N-4
Policy: N-24
Program: N-36
Environmental Impact Analysis:
Potential Board/Commission
Review:
Storm Drain Oversight Committee
This project is expected to have an exemption from CEQA under Section 15302.
0 2,485,632 0 8,654,152
0 0 0 321,553
0 2,485,6321 0 8,975,705
STORM DRAINAGE FUND • CITY OF PALO AL TO FISCAL YEAR 2018 CAPITAL BUDGET
ATTACHMEN'T A
STORM DRAINAGE FUND
Storm Drain Repair & Rehabilitation
Storm Drainage System Replacement
And Rehabilitation
Description
This project provides funding for annual replacement and rehabilitation projects. identified by a
previous condition assessment. to help maintain the integrity of the storm drain system, includ-
ing the replacement or rehabilitation of deteriorated storm drain pipes, manholes . and storm
drain inlets. For Fiscal Year 2018, the project scope will include replacement and rehabilitation of
existing storm drain pipelines, manholes, and catch basins.
Justification
The project implements the recommendations established by the 1993 Storm Drain Condition
Assessment Report. The specific pipes and drainage structures selected for replacement and/or
rehabilitation were determined based on their 1993 condition score, and recommendations by
field maintenance staff. The pipelines and structures need to be replaced since they are
approaching the end of their intended useful life.
Su pplemental Information
The proposed improvements are feasible due to the passing of the Storm Water Management
Fee ballot measure.
Significant Changes
201 8-2022 CIP: Funding allocated for the replacement and rehabilitation of the existing storm
drain pipelines. manholes and catch basins.
STORM DRAINAGE FUND • CITY OF PALO AL TO FISCAL YEAR 2018 CAPITAL BUDGET
ATTACHMENT A
STORM DRAINAGE FUND
2017-2021 CIP: Funding allocated for installation of additional trash capture devices at the
Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station to prevent trash from entering the creek and
upgrades to pump controls at the Airport and Adobe Creek Storm Water Pump Stations.
2016-2020 CIP: Funding allocated for installation of additional trash capture devices in the
storm drain system to prevent trash from entering local water bodies.
2015-2019 CIP: Funding allocated for implementation of upgrades to the communications net-
work, linking the storm water pump stations to the central monitoring facility.
Funding Sources Schedule
Funding Source -----------Stonn Drainage Fund I NIA 2,110,7991 2,110,799 450,000 465,000
1
480,180 496,551 513,124 2,404,8551 01
Total N/A 2,110,799 2,110,799 450,000 465,000 480,180 496,551 513,124 2,404,855 0
NIA
NIA
Expenditure Schedule
Proiect Phase -----------Construction N/A 2,105,229 2,105,229 450,000 465,000 480,180
Design NIA 5,570 5,570 0 0 0
Total N/A 2,110,799 2,110,799 450,000 465,000 480,180
Operating Impact
This project is not anticipated to impact operating expenses.
Relationship to Comprehensive
Plan
Primary Connection
Element: Natural Environment
Section: Water Resources
Goal: N-4
Policy: N-24
Program: N-36
Environmental Impact Analysis:
Potential Board/Commission
Review:
Storm Drain Oversight Committee
This project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15302
496,551 513,124 2,404,855 0 NIA
0 0 0 0 NIA
496,551 513,124 2,404,855 0 N/A
STORM DRAINAGE FUND • CITY OF PALO AL TO FISCAL YEAR 2018 CAPITAL BUDGET
ATTACHMENI A
STORM DRAINAGE FUND
Storm Drainage Pump Stations to
Adobe Creek
Description
The inverts of the existing storm water pipes on East Bayshore Road and West Bayshore Road
are lower than the outfall located on the Adobe Creek. As such. these areas are subject to flood-
ing problems. This project w ill provide funding for the design and construction of two new
storm water pump stations to reduce the flooding in these areas. This project does not include
replacement of the existing storm drain pipes that w ill drain into the pump stations. The storm
drain pipe replacement will be completed under a separate project.
Justification
The storm drain pipe invert elevations that discharge into Adobe Creek from East and West
Bayshore Road are lower than outfall on Adobe Creek. In addition, the current engineering
design at the outfalls prevents storm water runoff discharge into the creek when the creek flows
are high. The proposed pump stations would force storm water ~nto the creek and reduce the
flooding potential in these areas. The existing storm drain pipes on East and West Bayshore
Road w ill also need to be up-sized. However, due to budget constraints those li nes cannot be
increased as part of this project.
Supplemental Information
This project was included in the proposal for the Storm Water Management Fund, Staff Report
#7285.
80 STORM DRAINAGE FUND • CITY OF PALO AL TO FISCAL YEAR 2018 CAPITAL BUDGET
ATTACHMENT A
STORM DRAINAGE FUND
Funding Sources Schedule
Funding Source -----------Storm Drainage Fund
Total I 0 1 ol of ol ol 500,0001 2,000,000! o 2,500,0001
o o o! o o 500,ooo 2,000,000! ol 2,soo,000
Expenditure Schedule
0 2,500,000
o I 2,500,000
Project Phase -----------Construction 0 o ol o 0 0 2,000,000
Design
Total :I :I : :I
Operating Impact
0
0
500,000 0
500,000 2,000,000
This project is not anticipated to impact operating expenses in the future.
Relationship to Comprehensive
Plan
Primary Connection
Element: Natural Environment
Section: Water Resources
Goal: N-4
Policy: N-24
Program: N-36
Environmental Impact Analysis:
Potential Board/Commission
Review:
Storm Drain Oversight Committee
This project is expected to have an exemption from CEQA under Section 15302.
0 2,000,000 0 2,000,000
0 500,000 0 500,000
0 2,500,000 0 2,500,000
STORM DRAINAGE FUND • CITY OF PALO AL TO FISCAL YEAR 2018 CAPITAL BUDGET
ATTACHMENT A
STORM DRAINAGE FUND
Storm Drainage System Upgrades
East Bayshore Road and East
Meadow Drive
Description
This project will replace the existing storm drain pipes at two locations: East Bayshore Road and
East Meadow Drive. On East Bayshore Road between Corporation Way and Adobe Creek. the
invert elevation of the existing storm drain pipes is lower than the outfall. As such. this area is
subject to chronic flooding problems. Sim ilarly, the existing pipes on East Meadow Drive
between East Meadow Circle and Adobe Creek do not have the capacity to convey the 10-year
storm. Up-sizing this line will eliminate flooding in this area. This project will provide funding to
up-size approximately 700 linear feet of 21-inch p ipe and 400 linear feet of 36-inch pipe on East
Bayshore Road and East Meadow Drive respectively.
Justification
The existing 21-inch and 22-inch diameter storm drain pipes along East Bayshore Road are
undersized and do not convey all of the runoff from this area into Adobe Creek. To achieve the
10-year level of service and to improve the existing drainage system in the Palo Verde area, the
existing pipes need to be upsized to 30-inches minimum. For construction sequencing pur-
poses and hydrology flows. the storm drain pipes should be replaced after the East Bayshore
Road pump station is installed and operational.
Similarly the existing 30-inch pipes on East ·Meadow Drive do not convey the 10-year storm run-
off. Upsizing these p ipes to 48-inches will reduce flooding and contain runoff from a 10-year
STORM DRAINAGE FUND • CITY OF PALO AL TO FISCAL YEAR 2018 CAPITAL BUDGET
TO:
• CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
DATE:
Finance Committee
May4, 2017
City of Palo Alto
MEMORANDUM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
05/4/2017
[ ] Placed Before Meeting
[X] Received at Meeting
Item# Se - -
SUBJECT: Additional Information Pertaining to the Fiscal Year 2018 Proposed Operating Budget
This memorandum transmits additional information requested by the Finance Committee in regards to
the Fiscal Year 2018 Proposed Operating Budget.
Airport Fund Loan Repayment to the General Fund {Finance Committee Budget Hearing May 2"d;
Agenda Item #6)
At the May 2"d Finance Committee meeting, the Committee inquired about a longer term forecast for
the Airport Fund and the ability of the Airport Fund to repay loans from the General Fund. Below is a five
year forecast for the revenue and expenditures in the Airport Fund and details regarding the loan
repayment to the General Fund.
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Estimate Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected
Beginning Fund Bal. $390,376 $251,464 $515,092 $393,516 $397,549 $689,800
Operating Rev. 1,145,800 2,341,579 2,443,326 2,510,544 2,579,657 2,650,719
FAA Grant Rev. 2,442,768 4,860,000 9,135,000 2,880,000 297,000 225,000
Loan from the GF 704,150 200,000 200,000 ---
Sub-total Revenue 4,292,718 7,401,579 11,778,326 5,390,544 2,876,657 2,875,719
Total Sources 4,683,094 7,653,043 12,293,418 5,784,060 3,274,205 3,635,039
Operating Expenses 1,224,967 1,711,200 1,749,903 1,816,169 1,877,012 1,938,542
Capital Expenses 3,206,663 5,426,751 10,150,000 3,200,000 330,000 250,000
GF Loan Repay -- -370,343 377,394 802,706
Sub-total Expenses 4,431,630 7,137,951 11,899,903 5,386,511 2,584,406 2,991,247
Ending Fund Bal. 251,464 515,092 . 393,516 397,549 689,800 574,272
Since Fiscal Year 2011, the General Fund has loaned the Airport Fund approximately $2.9
million with an additional $0.4 million anticipated in Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019 ($0.2 million
each year) for a total loan of $3.3 million. The Initial loan from FY 2011 was originally
anticipated to be repaid by December 2016; however, the Federal Aviation Administration
provided more grants for capital improvements at the airport than originally estimated. In
order to accept the funding for these grants, the Airport Fund is required to provide 10 percent
matching funds. As a result, funding that could have been used to begin the repayment of the
General Fund loan was instead recommended to be used to provide funding for the Airport's 10
percent grant match in order to improve the overall airport facility. Based on the current
projections, it Is anticipated that the Airport Fund will have sufficient fund balance to begin loan
repayments, Including interest, in Fiscal Year 2020. Based upon the revised repayment
schedule, the Fiscal Year 2014 loan will be repaid by the end of Fiscal Year 2023, which aligns
with the original repayment schedule for the Fiscal Vear 2014 loan. Subsequent loans will also
be repaid according to their anticipated schedules, with the final Fiscal Year 2019 loan being
repaid by the end of Fiscal Year 2028. The loan repayment schedule will be reevaluated and
revised as part of future year budget cycles.
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER:
5/4/2017
$45.00
$40.00
$35.00
$30.00
$25.00
$20.00
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
$-
2017 Refuse Monthly Rate Comparison
Minican -20 gallon cart
$24.50 $25.40 $25.47
$20.05
$27.96 $28.84
$26.48
$35.52 $36.88
$40.43 $50.00
$40.00 $38.23 $38.29
$30.17 $31.00 $32.07
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
$-
What happened to Menlo Park?
Their minican rate ($13.99) is currently being evaluated to
ensure that it complies with Proposition 218 requirements.
The current rate does not include many costs embedded
within the Palo Alto rate, including: Zero Waste Services,
Street Sweeping, and Landfill costs.
ZERO WASTE PROGRAM COSTS
FY 2018 ESTIMATE $30.6 MILLION
Zero Waste Services
5%
Added Services
9%
Includes HHW and
Street Sweeping
Includes Landfill
Related Expenses
April 17, 2017
----Baseline Services
Solid Waste
25%
__ Recycle
13%
__ Compost
18%
Allocated Charges
8%
Salary & Benefits
9%
1
Zero Waste Rate Comparison and Breakdown -Draft . . .
Palo Alto's Refuse Fund Supports a Wide Array of Zero Waste Services
!• •
Zero Waste Services (Not normally offered at every jurisdiction)
• Process all solid waste (the black cart) at the Sunnyvale Material and Recovery Transfer (SMaRT) Station to recover recyclable and
compostable materials before being transferred and landfilled.
• Provide Commercial and Residential Food Scrap Collection, which is not widely offered in Santa Clara County. The material is processed at
a dry anaerobic digester facility producing both energy recovery and compost.
• Fund four environmental outreach staff at GreenWaste who provide zero waste technical support services to businesses and multifamily
customers on how to sort waste properly and easily. They provide comprehensive outreach collateral (such as newsletters, posters,
container tags, door hangers, collection guides), while educating customers on the City's Zero Waste programs and requirements.
• Provide technical support for special events throughout the City.
• Fund and support the Santa Clara County Composting Education Program providing free compost bins to Palo Alto residents who attend a
workshop.
• Support a variety of Food Waste Reduction efforts, which include, connecting grocery stores and restaurants with local donation options,
assisting in the development of a Countywide food rescue plan, training residents on Food Waste Reduction at the themed Family Fun
Day at the YMCA, and funding cooking workshops to help reduce food waste in homes.
• Fund and support single-use disposal reduction programs, which include the plastic bag ordinance, GoBox for to-go packaging, Rethink
Disposables for restaurant waste, Citywide Yard Sale, and City-sponsored Zero Waste Party Packs that have been used 164 times in 2016
for approximately 4,000 people for place settings.
• Encourage the reuse of goods by Providing financial and logistical support to the Repair Cafe Palo Alto and Transition Palo Alto's Share
Faires.
• Train community members on proper sorting through the Zero Waste Champion program supporting neighborhoods, schools, and City
departments and the neighborhood Cool Block program.
• Support RecycleWhere, an on line search tool to help residents and businesses find out where to reuse, recycle, and properly dispose of
just about everything.
Additional Services (Not normally offered by every jurisdiction)
• Provide Same-Day-Response for trash pick-up related issues.
• Fund two additional GreenWaste Supervisors to enhance responsiveness for residential and commercial customers (total of 5 supervisors
-residential routes, commercial/roll-off routes, pool; operations supervisor, mechanic shop supervisor, plus general manager)
• Provide four customer service staff at GreenWaste to respond to customer and refuse bill inquiries, which includes three customer
service representatives and one supervisor
• Allow residential customers to have three recycling and/or compost carts at no additional charge and provide four cart sizes for all three
waste streams (solids waste, recycling, and compost). This necessitates GreenWaste to carry a larger inventory of carts. Many Cities offer
variety of sizes for garbage only.
• Provide kitchen buckets for food scraps to all residential customers and recycle buddies for multifamily households.
• Allow for the recycling of electronic waste curbside in the blue, recycling cart.
• Provide backyard service and residential alley collection (the standard is curbside collection for other cities).
• Provide collection service to residential hard-to-service areas at no additional cost.
• Provide physical limitations collection program at no charge for garbage, recycling and compost for residents who cannot physically move
their containers to the curb.
• Bill for Refuse on a consolidated Utility Billing with the water, wastewater, gas, electric, stormwater, and fiber Utilities for customer
convenience.
• Support a fast response to illegal dumping by City staff.
• Provide a construction and demolition discount at Zanker Recovery to Palo Alto residents that is typically distributed on newsletter once
per year.
April 17, 2017 2
$45.·00
$4Cl00
$35.·00
$30.00
$25.00
$20.00
$15:00
$10.00
$5.00
$-
2017 Refuse M onthly Rate Compa rison
M inican -20 ga llon cart
$35.52 $36.88
$2450 $25.40 $25.47 $26.48 $27..96 $28..84
$2tl.OS
$40.43
~ q,4. (I} 0 .(} ~., 0 4,e ... ~ o'b c."c ~o ~... ~ .. 7>~ ~4. _....\ ~1t> G~, ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~~(;-~e 7>~ .... 'b '<<.,'l> q_~o r:;\. <:i ~ .... o o?i ~~ '? 7>(;--~7> b ~ -"'o '? ~ -..,o ~· c.,7>
q;,714,, .... ~e'
~ ·O~ ~~
I ("'f•''"'--'-
I CUCI II El l MEETING o~/ovt. /1 ~
DReceived Before Meeting
Received at Meeting
2017 Rates for Cltie.s with Only 32 gal
carts Compared to Palo Alto's
Weighted Average (mi111ican + 32gat}
$50.00
$40.00 $38.23 $38.29
$3!J.17 $31-00 $32.07
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
$-
~ 'b~ ~o~
04. e cf '\o'> c.,'b~
~;;;.e '§.o ~~· 'V'"
c.,"'><:>-~.:S.o
What happened to Menlo Park?
Their minlcan rate ($13.99} is currently being evaluated to
ensure that it complies wil:h Proposition 218 requirements.
The current rate does not include many costs embedded
within the Palo Alto rate, including: Zero Waste Services,
Strttt Sw!!t!!plng, and landfill costs.
Zero Waste Program Costs FY 2018 Estimate $30.6 Million
Zero Waste Services -----Baseline Services
5% ~-Solid Waste
Added Services -~~~ 25%
9% Recycle
Includes HHW and Services 13%
Street Sw eeping
Compost
18%
Allocated Charces
13% ·:··.:.;·:·;.;-:-:·>' 8% -=~~~~:~::··
Incl udes Landfill
'Y.--;.~ Salary & Benefits ----9% -----Related Expenses __ .--------_,._.-
...
;'-~..,a. ... -.• ·1 ~;i..1_r l -· . ~~ ... ~ !• ~ ' ~' .f ,
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
CI TY 0 F
PALO
AL 0
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
6
HILLARY GITELMAN, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
MAY 8, 2017
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6-SECOND READING: ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 18 (ZONING) TO IMPLEME.NT A NEW STATE LAW
RELATED TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR DWELLING UNITS AND
TO REORGANIZE AND UPDATE THE CITY'S EXISTING R.EGULATIONS. THE
ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA) PER PUBLIC RESOURCE CODE SECTION 21080.17 AND CEQA
GUIDELINE SECTIONS 15061(B), 15301, 15303 AND 15305 (FIRST READING:
APRIL 17, 2017 PASSED: 7-2 HOLMAN, KOU NO)
Please find attached the updated ordinance for the changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit
regulations. This is the same ordinance that was made electronically available and posted to
the online agenda on Thursday, April 27, 2017 (with one additional change noted below);
however, the hard copy of the May 8, 2017 packet inadvertently included a previous version of
the ordinance. The attached updated ordinance incorporates the changes discussed in the staff
report as clarifications needed to comply with State law and the Municipal Code. The changes
include discussion regarding setbacks for existing garages, basement floor area and parking in
the front setback.
There is only one new provision in the attached Ordinance, which was not previously discussed
by the City Council. Specifically, although the City Council voted to re-incorporate subsection
(a)(7)(vii) of Section 18.42.040 related to the orientation of the entranceway to the accessory
dwelling unit (ADU) and exterior stairs to a second floor ADU, staff at the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) subsequently expressed concern
that the door orientation requirement as then drafted would potentially inhibit the conversion
of a garage to an ADU if the garage had only one exterior wall that faced the same lot line as
the entrance to the primary dwelling unit. The City Attorney's Office recommends modifying
the subsection to add an exception in order to address HCD staff's concern and ensure
I of2
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
compliance with state law. Section 18.42.040{a)(7)(vii) is now proposed to read as follows
(additions in underline):
(vi) Except on corner lots, the accessory dwelling unit shall not have an
entranceway facing the same lot line (property line) as the entranceway to the
main dwelling unit unless the second entranceway is located in the rear half of
the lot or the accessory dwelling unit has only one exterior wall on which an
entranceway in compliance with the building code can be placed and that wall
faces the same lot line as the entryway to the main dwelling unit. Exterior
staircases to second floor units shall be located toward the interior side or rear
yard of the property unless the second floor unit does not have an exterior wall
facing the interior side or rear yard on which an entranceway in compliance with
the building code can be placed.
Plannin and Community Environment
2 of2
Not Yet Approved
Ordinance No.
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18 (Zoning) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement New State Law Requirements Relating
to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units and to Reorganize
and Update City's Existing Regulations
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. Housing in California is becoming increasingly unaffordable. The average California
home currently costs about 2.5 times the national average home price and the monthly rent is 50%
higher than the rest of the nation. Rent in San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, and Los Angeles are
among the top 10 most unaffordable in the nation. With rising population growth, California must
not only provide housing but also ensure affordability.
B. Despite a high median income in Palo Alto, nearly,30 percent of all households
overpaid for their housing (more than 30 percent of their income) in 2010;
C. It is estimated that 63 percent of extremely low income renter households and 75
percent of extremely low income owner households overpaid for housing in 2010. Of the
estimated 1,520 low income households, 75 percent of renter households and 44 percent of
homeowner households paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing.
D. The Palo Alto City Council, recognizing the severity of the regional housing crisis,
requested that the Planning and Transportation Commission review constraints affecting the
production of second (accessory) dwelling units and recommend modifications to the City's
development standards.
E. While existing law enables accessory dwellings as a source of housing, recent studies
show that local standards like Palo Alto's, perhaps unintentionally, prevent homeowners from
building ADUs with standards like lot coverage, large set-backs, off-street parking, or costly
construction requirements.
F. In September 2016, Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill 1069, Assembly Bill
2299 and Assembly Bill 2406 relating to the creation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior
accessory dwelling units.
G. These new bills were intended to address the housing crisis by easing regulatory
barriers for homeowners who choose to build affordable housing in their own backyards.
H. This ordinance is adopted to comply with these new State mandates regarding
AD Us and junior accessory dwelling units, and to reduce regulatory constraints affecting their
production.
SECTION 2. Section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) ofTitle 18
(Zoning) is amended to read as follows:
2017-04-19_Palo Alto ADU 1
Not Yet Approved
18.04.030 Definitions
(4) "Accessory dwelling unit" means an attached or a detached residential dwelling
unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall
include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same
parcel as the single-family dwelling is situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the
following:
a. An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code.
b. A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code.
In some instances this Code uses the term second dwelling unit interchangeably with accessory
dwelling unit.
(46.S) "DwelliAg l:lAit, seeoAd" FF1eaAs a separate a Ad coFF1plete dwelliAg l:lAit, other thaA
aR6 s1:1bordiAate to the FF1aiA dwelliAg 1:1Ait, whether a part of the saFF1e strnct1:1re or detached, OR
the saFF1e residential lot.
(74.5) "Junior accessory dwelling unit" means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in
size and contained entirely within an existing single-family structure. A junior accessory dwelling
unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing
structure.
{132) "Single-family use" means the use of a site for only one dwelling unit and,
where permitted, an accessory second dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit.
SECTION 3. In Section 18.10.010 (a) substitute the term "accessory dwelling unit(s)" for
"second dwelling unit(s)".
SECTION 4. Section 18.10.030 Table 1 and Footnote (2) are amended as follows:
TABLE 1
PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES
[P =Permitted Use --CUP= Conditional Use Permit Required]
R-E R-2 RMD Subject to
Regulations in:
ACCESSORY AND SUPPORT USES
Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted p p p 18.10.080 uses (no limit on number of plumbing fixtures)
Home Occupations, when accessory to permitted residential p p p 18.42.060 uses.
Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food products for p p p
consumption by occupants of the site.
Sale of agricultural products produced on the premises (1) p 18.10.110
2017-04-19_Palo Alto ADU 2
Not Yet Approved
SeeeRel Accessorv Dwelling Units p p(2) pl2l 18.42W.0470
Junior AccesSO!Y Dwelling Units E Elli Elli 18.42.040
AGRICULTURE AND OPEN SPACE USES
Agriculture p 18.10.110
EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, AND ASSEMBLY USES
Private Educational Facilities CUP CUP CUP
Religious Congregations and Institutions CUP CUP CUP
PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC USES
Community Centers CUP CUP CUP
Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility services to the
neighborhood, but excluding business offices, construction or CUP CUP CUP
storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards.
RECREATION USES
Neighborhood Recreational Centers CUP
Outdoor Recreation Services CUP CUP
RESIDENTIAL USES
Single-Family p p p
Two-Family use, under one ownership p p
Mobile Homes p p p 18.42.100
Residential Care Homes p p p
RETAIL USES
Cemeteries CUP
Commercial Plant Nurseries CUP
SERVICE USES
Convalescent Facilities CUP
Day Care Centers CUP CUP CUP
Small Adult Day Care Homes p p p
Large Adult Day Care Homes CUP CUP CUP
Small Family Day Care Homes p p p
Large Family Day Care Homes p p p
Bed & Breakfast Inns p(l)
P =Permitted Use CUP= Conditional Use Permit
2017-04-19_Palo Alto ADU 3
Not Yet Approved
(2) Second Accessory Dwelling Units in R-2 and RMD Zones: An accessory second dwelling
unit or a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit associated with a single-family residence on a lot in the R-
2 or RMD zones is permitted, subject to the provisions of Section 18.10.07018.42.040, and such
that no more than two units result on the lot.
SECTION 5. Section 18.10.040 (Development Standards) of Chapter 18.10 (Low-Density
Residential (RE, R-2 and RMD) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as follows:
18.10.040 Development Standards
(a) Site Specifications, Building Size, Height and Bulk, and Residential Density
18.10.040(a) Table 2, Footnote
(5) Maximum House Size: The gross floor area of attached garages and attached second
accessory dwelling units arid junior accessory dwelling units are included in the calculation of
maximum house size. If there is no garage attached to the house, then the square footage of one
detached covered parking space shall be included in the calculation. This provision applies only to
single-family residences, not to duplexes allowed in the R-2 and RMD districts.
(B) Flag Lot Development Standards
(i) Individual Review
The Individual Review provisions of Section 18.12.110 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be applied
to any single-family or two-family residence in the R-2 or RMD districts to those sides of a site that
share an interior side lot line with the interior side or rear lot line of a property zoned for or used for
single-family or two-family dwellings.!../ e><cept where architectural revie•.v l::ioard review is required for
Of! accessory second dv.•elling on an RMD zoned site. The individual review criteria shall be applied
only to the project's effects on adjacent single-family and two-family uses.
SECTION 6. Section 18.10.060 Table 3 is amended as follows:
2017-04-19_Palo Alto ADU 4
Not Yet Approved
TABLE 3
PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR R-E, R-2 AND RMD USES
Use Minimum Off-Street Parking
Requirement
Single-family residential use (excluding second accessory 2 spaces per unit, of which one must be
dw~lling units) covered
Two family (R2 & RMD districts) 3 spaces total, of which at least two must
be covered
2 spaces per unit, of which one must 13e
covered
Second Accessory dwelling unit, attached or detached+
>qso sf in size 1 space per unit, which may 13e covered or
qqso sf in size . uncovered
No garking reguired
Junior accesso!Y dwelling unit No garking reguired
Other Uses See Chapter 18.40
SECTION 7. Section 18.10.070 (Second Dwelling Units) of Chapter 18.10 (Low-Density
Residential (RE, R-2 and RMD) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is repealed in its entirety and a new
18.10.070 is added to read as follows:
18.10.070 Accessory and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Accesso!Y Dwelling Units and Junior Accesso!Y Dwelling Units are subject to the
regulations set forth in Section 18.42.040.
SECTION 8. Section 18.10.120 (Architectural Review) of Chapter 18.10 (Low-Density
Residential (RE, R-2 and RMD) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as follows:
18.10.120 Architectural Review
Architectural review, as required in Section 18.76.020, is required in the R-E, R-2, and RMD
districts whenever three or more adjacent residential units are intended to be developed
concurrently, whether through subdivision or individual applications. Architectural re·1iew is also
required for seeenEI Elwelling 1:1nits of more than 900 square feet, when located in the Neighl3orl=lood
Preservation Com13ining District (~IP).
SECTION 9. Section 18.10.140 (Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP)
2017-04-19_Palo Alto ADU 5
Not Yet Approved
Standards) of Chapter 18.10 (Low-Density Residential (RE, R-2 and RMD) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning)
is amended to read as follows:
18.10.140 Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP) Standards
(b)(2) Design Review Required
For properties on which two or more residential units are developed or modified, design
review and approval shall be required by the architectural review board in compliance with
procedures established in Section 18.76.020 for any new development or modification to any
structure on the property and for site amenities. No design review is required for construction of or
modifications to single-family structures that constitute the only principal structure on a parcel of
land or for accessory dwelling units or junior accessory units.
No elesign revie· .... is requireel for construction of seeenEI El'o':elling YRits on a 13arcel exce13t
wRe-R the seeenEI Ynit exceeels 900 square feet in size.
SECTION 10. Section 18.10.lSO(e) (Existing Second Dwelling Units on Substandard Size Lots)
is deleted in its entirety and reserved for future use.
SECTION 11. Section 18.12.0lO(a) is amended as follows:
(a) Single Family Residential District [R-1)
The R-1 single family residential district is intended to create, preserve, and enhance areas
suitable for detached dwellings with a strong presence of nature and with open area affording
maximum privacy and opportunities for outdoor living and children's play. Minimum site area
requirements are established to create and preserve variety among neighborhoods, to provide
adequate open area, and to encourage quality design. Seconel Accessory dwelling units, junior
accessory dwelling units and accessory structures or buildings are appropriate. where coi:isistent with
the site anel neighborhooel character. Community uses and facilities, such as churches and schools,
should be limited unless no net loss of housing would result.
SECTION 12. Section 18.12.030 Table 1, is amended as follows:
2017-04-19_Palo Alto ADU 6
Not Yet Approved
Table 1
PERMITIED AND CONDITIONAL R-1 RESIDENTIAL USES
'f~~ ;\. .~ I~ lR~1~!JilRR~1l ~r; ":Su_t>je~f"Q)
·~~ t>'.-: '~~6~ .Ji~gMati0n11ffir:~ l .. 11:11 .. ~ '"' '
ACCESSORY AND SUPPORT USES
Accessory facilities and uses customarily p 18.04.030(a)(3)
incidental to permitted uses with no more than 18.12.080
two plumbing fixtures and no kitchen facility, or
of a size less than or equal to 200 square feet
Accessory facilities and uses customarily CUP 18.12.080
incidental to permitted uses with more than
two plumbing fixtures (but with no kitchen), and
in excess of 200 square feet in size, but
excluding second accessory dwelling units
Home .occupations, when accessory to p 18.42.060
permitted residentia I
Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food p
products for consumption by occupants of the
site
l!ieeeAel Accessoty Dwelling Units pill 18.42.040±;!.Q7Q
Junior Accessoty Dwelling Unit p(l) 18.42.040
EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS AND ASSEMBLY USES
Private Educational Facilities CUP
Churches and Religious Institutions CUP
PUBLIC/QUASI PUBLIC USES
Community Centers CUP
Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility CUP
services to the neighborhood, but excluding
business offices, construction or storage yards,
maintenance facilities, or corporation yards
RECREATION USES
Outdoor Recreation Services CUP
RESIDENTIAL USES ..-
Single-Family p
Mobile Homes p 18.42.100
Residential Care Homes p
SERVICE USES
Day Care Centers CUP
Small Adult Day Care Homes p
2017-04-19_Pa lo Alto ADU 7
Not Yet Approved
Large Adult Day Care Homes CUP
Small Family Day Care Homes p
Large Family Day Care Homes p
P = Permitted Use CUP= Conditional Use Permit Required
(1) An Accessory Dwelling Unit or a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit associated with a single-
family residence on a lot is permitted, subject to the provisions of Section 18.42.040, and such that
no more than two total units result on the lot.
SECTION 13. Section 18.12.040 Table 2, footnote (8) is amended as follows:
(8) Maximum House Size: The gross floor area of attached garages and attached accessory second
dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are included in the calculation of maximum house
size. If there is no garage attached to the house, then the square footage of one detached covered
parking space shall be included in the calculation.
SECTION 14. Section 18.12.060 Table 4 is amended as follows:
Table 4 shows the minimum off-street automobile parking requirements for specific uses in
the R-1 district.
Table 4
Parking Requirements for Specific R-1 Uses
Use Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirement
Single-family residential use (excluding second accessory 2 spaces per unit, of which one must be
dwelling units) covered.
2 spaces per unit, of which one must be
Second Accessory dwelling unit, attached or detached covered
No parking reguired
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit No parking reguired
Other Uses See Chs. 18.52 and 18.54
2017-04-19_Palo Alto ADU 8
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
TO:
• c1rvor
PALO
ALTO
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City of Palo Alto
MEMORANDUM
Finance Committee
May 9, 2017
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
05/9/2017
[ ] Placed Before Meeting
[X] Received at Meeting
Item# 1
Additional Information Pertaining to the Fiscal Year 2018 Proposed Operating
Budget
This memorandum transmits additional information requested by the Finance Committee in
regards to the Fiscal Year 2018 Proposed Operating Budget.
General Fund Overtime and Salary Comparison (Finance Committee Meeting Budget Hearing
May 4th)
At the May 4th Finance Committee meeting, the Committee inquired about General Fund
Overtime and General Fund Salary by department. Included with this memorandum are two
charts detailing General Fund overtime by department (Attachment A) and General Fund
salaries by department (Attachment B). Detailed in the charts are FY 2015 Actuals, FY 2016
Actuals, the 2017 Adopted Budget, and the 2018 Proposed Budget. AS staffing levels are a key
driver of changes in salary levels, the attachment also includes a list of full-time equivalents
(FTE), including both full-time and part-time positions, for the FY 2017 Adopted Budget as well
as the FY 2018 Proposed Budget. These FTE changes include 1.25 positions added to the City
Manager's Office as part of CMR 7227 on October 24, 2016, as well as proposed changes as
outlined in the City Manager's FY 2018 Proposed Budget released April 2017.
Comparison of Neighboring Airport Tiedown Rates and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Grant Assurances (Finance Committee Meeting Budget Hearing May 4th; Agenda Item #Se)
At the May 4th Finance Committee meeting, the Committee inquired about the tiedown rates at
the Palo Alto Airport compared to the rates at the neighboring San Carlos Airport, as well as
information regarding the FAA Grant Assurance documentation that the Palo Alto Airport
adheres to as a result of accepting grants from the FAA. The San Carlos Airport charges $137
per month for tie-downs and $0.56 per square foot is the average monthly rate for hangars,
whereas the tie-down rate at the Palo Alto Airport is $159.50 per month and the average
monthly rate for a hangar is $0.80 per square foot. Palo Alto Airport tie-down and hangar rates
are established based on industry market value and take into consideration neighboring
airports, land value, user accessibility and location. The FAA grant assurance documentation
1
can be found here https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant assurances/media/airport-sponsor-
assurances-aip.pdf.
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER:
City Manager
Attachment A: General Fund Overtime by Department
Attachment B: General Fund Salaries by Department
2
5/9/2017
ATTACHMENT A
General Fund Overtime By Department .-:_
Non-Public Safety
Administrative Services 35,716 45,516 33,723 33,723 0 0.0%
City Clerk 6,748 5,237 6,696 6,696 0 0.0%
City Manager 126 ---0 N/A
Community Services 119,244 178,845 101,795 101,795 0 0.0%
Development Services• 93,806 317,769 47,500 47,500 0 0.0%
Human Resources 1,603 1,451 --0 N/A
Library 43,747 36,276 68,783 68,783 0 0.0%
Office of Emergency Services 480 260 --0 N/A
Office of Sustainability 450 -- -0 N/A
Planning and Community Environment 44,233 59,226 60,753 60,754 0 0.0%
Public Works 208,125 222,549 172,085 172,085 0 0.0%
Sub-total Non-Public Safety: 554,278 867,129 491,334 491,334 0 0.0%
Public Safety
Fire•• 2,171,315 2,595,138 1,413,714 1,396,436 {17,278) -1.2%
Police 1,893,220 2,019,330 1,500,000 1,700,000 200,000 13.3%
Sub-total Public Safety: 4,064,535 4,614,468 2,913,714 3,096,436 182,722 6.3%
Grand Total: 4,618,813 5,481,597 3,405,048 3,587,770 182,722 5.4%
• The FY 2016 actuals are significatly higher since they reflect charges associated with backfill activities for the Fire Department. This is an accounting error that was
subsequently adjusted in final financial reporting.
**The FY 2018 Proposed Budget for Fire Department overtime reflects the net impact of a recommended increase to align with negotiated salary increases approved
by the City Council in April 2016, offset by a reduction to reflect potential changes in deployment pending completion of negotiations.
General Fund Salary By Departmi:,nt
------~ .............--._.. m
Administrative Services 3,777,732 4,120,344 4,280,155 4,212,658 (67,497)
City Attorney 1,258,097 1,289,893 1,734,929 1,772,423 37,494
City Auditor 562,385 612,070 641,056 659,949 18,893
City Clerk 470,239 425,956 584,996 616,225 31,229
City Council 67,310 69,965 86,400 108,000 21,600
City Manager2 1,028,485 1,436,369 1,558,120 1,715,490 157,370
Community Servlces3 7,738,298 8,036,627 9,064,569 9,289,484 224,915
Development Services 3,402,255 3,299,985 4,082,729 4,293,217 210,488
Fire4 10,943,398 11,197,348 12,861,242 13,745,200 883,958
Human Resources 1,686,158 1,667,000 1,811,523 1,857,392 45,869
Library 3,495,803 3,851,473 4,278,886 4,409,306 130,420
Office of Emergency Services 364,197 366,326 375,206 402,563 27,357
Office of Sustainability 146,842 300,642 176,259 296,681 120,422
Planning and Community Environment 2,866,179 3,116,093 3,396,040 3,207,363 (188,677)
Police 15,500,707 15,715,984 17,342,746 18,396,666 1,053,920
Public Works 4,407,539 4,551,665 4,972,445 5,362,831 390,386
Grand Total: 57,715,624 60,057,740 67,247,301 70,345,448 3,098,147
1 FTE numbers include both full·time and part·time positions.
·1.6% 41.50
2.2% 11.00
2.9% 5.00
5.3% 6.23
25.0% 9.00
10.1% 9.00
2.5% 144.26
5.2% 39.91
6.9% 109.21
2.5% 17.44
3.0% 63.58
7.3% 3.48
68.3% 1.00
·5.6% 32.44
6.1% 158.38
7.9% 57.85
4.6% 709.28
ATIACHMENTB
40.06
11.00
5.00
6.23
9.00
10.25
145.04
40.00
109.21
17.20
63.58
3.48
1.96
31.65
158.38
58.16
710.20
(1.44)
1.25
0.78
0.09
(0.24)
0.96
(0.79)
0.31
0.92
2 As part ofCMR #7227, approved by the City Council on October 24, 2016, 1.25 Positions were added to the City Manager's Office. When comparing salary growth to this FY 2017 Modified Staffing
Level, the percentage change is 3.6%, or approximately $98,000.
3 This FY 2018 figure assumes 1.0 FTE is held vacant for the year.
4rhis FY 2018 Figure assumes approximately $580,000 in salary reductions; however, no change in authorized FTE is yet included pending completion of negotiations.
Analysis from Council member Tanaka
Received 5/9/2017
Comparative Budget Analysis 2018: Police
http://www.losaltosca.gov/sites/
default/files/fileattachments/Fin
ance%20and%20Technology/pa htto://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Portals/O
htto://www.mountainview.gov/c ge/64112015-/Sunnyvale/FIN/16-
htto://www.cityofualoalto.org/ci ivicax:/filebank/blobdload.aspx? 17 adopted budget 150728 we https://menlopark.org/ArchiveCe 17R%20Volume%201%20-
05/07/2017
City:
vicax/filebank/documents/57411 BlobID=20643 b.pdf nterNiewFile/Item/4483 %20part%202.pdf
Palo Alto Mountain View
Population
Daytime Population
Full Time Employees
Total Budget for Police
Budget per Resident
Budget per Daytime Person
Residents per Employee
Daytime Person per Employee
$/employee
66,853
129,975
155
$42,332,980
$633.22
$325.70
431
839
$273,116
Police Budget per Resident in Palo Alto and Other Local
Cities
$700.00
$600.00
$500.00 •Palo Alto
$400.00 •Mountain View
$300.00 •Los Altos
•Menlo Park
$200.00
•Sunnyvale
$100.00 •
$0.00
1
80,453
122,483
142
$36,294,626
$451.13
$296.32
567
863
$255,596
I
I
Los Altos Menlo Park Sunnyvale
$280,000
$270,000
I $260,000
$250,000
$240,000
$230,000
I $220,000
$210,000
30,671
31,580
46
$10,694,342
$348.68
$338.64
667
687
$232,486
33,449
52,028
70 NIA
$16, 729 ,666
$500.15
$321.55
478 NIA
743
$238,995
151,754
180,165
$31,219,384
$205.72
$173.28
#VALUE!
Police Budget per Employee in Palo Alto and Other
Local Cities
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~-~~~~--~~~~~~~
1
'
•Palo Alto
• Mountain View
•Los Altos
•Menlo Park
Working Draft
Analysis from Councilmember Tanaka
Received 5/9/2017
Lomparat1ve .Hudget Analysis lUllS:. ~·ire
05/07/2017
City:
Population
Daytime Population
Full Time Employees
Total Budget for Fire Department
Budget per Resident
Budget per Daytime Person
Residents per Employee
Daytime Person per Employee
$/employee
http://www.mountainview.gov/c
http://www.cityofualoalto.org/ ci ivicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx? http://www.redwoodcity.org/ho
vicax/filebank/documents/57411 BlobID=20643 me/showdocument?id=8577
Palo Alto Mountain View Redwood City
66,853
129,975
107
$31, 773,872
$475.28
$244.46
625
1,215
$296,952
80,453
122,483
85
$24,207,180
$300.89
$197.64
947
1,441
$284,790
85,288
96,270
126
$28,762,681
$337.24
$298.77
677
764
$228,275
Fire Department Budget per Resident in Palo Alto and
Other Local Cities
Fire Department Budget per Employee in Palo Alto and
Other Local Cities
$500.00 $350,000
$450.00 ---$300,000
$400.00
$350.00 $250,000
$300.00 $200,000
$250.00 •Palo Alto •Palo Alto
$200.00 •Mountain View $150,000 • Mountain View
$150.00 • Redwood City $100,000 • Redwood City
$50,000
$100.00
$50.00 -
$0.00 $0
1 1
Working Draft
Analysis from Councilmember Tanaka
Received 5/9/2017
Working Draft
Comparative Budget Analysis 2018: Emergency Services
05/07/2017
City:
Population
Daytime Population
Full Time Employees
Total Budget for Emergency Services
Budget per Resident
Budget per Daytime Person
Residents per Employee
Daytime Person per Employee
http://www.losaltosca.gov/sites/
default/files/fileattachments/Fin
ance%20and%20Technology/pa http://sunnyyale.ca.gov/Portals/O
htt,p:/lwww.mountainview.gov/c gel641/2015-/Sunnyyale/FINl16-
htt,p:l/www.citvofualoalto.org/ci ivicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx? 17 adopted budget 150728 we htt,ps:/lmenlopark.org/ArchiveCe 17R%20Volume%201%20-htt,p:l lwww .redwoodcitv.org/ho
me/showdocument?id=8577
Redwood City
vicax/filebank/documents/57 411 BlobID=20643 b.pdf nterNiewFile/Item/4483 %20part%202.pdf
Palo Alto
66,853
129,975
3
Mountain View
$1,038,721 Included in Fire
$15.54
$7.99
22,284
43,325
80,453
122,483
2 NIA
40,227
61,242
Los Altos
30,671
31,580
NIA
Menlo Park
$30,050 Included in Fire
$0.98
$0.95
33,449
52,028
NIA
Sunnyvale
151,754
180,165
NIA
$358,496 NIA
$2.36
$1.99
85,288
96,270
Analysis from Councilmember Tanaka
Received 5/9/2017
Comparative Budget Analysis 2018: Community Services
http://www.losaltosca.gov/sites/
default/files/fileattachments/Fin
ance%20and%20Technology/pa
http://www.mountainview.gov/c ge/641/2015-
http://sunnvvale.ca.gov/Portals/O
/Sunnvvale/FIN/16-
http://www.citvofualoalto.org/ci ivicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx? 17 adopted budget 150728 we https://menlopark.org/ArchiveCe 17R%20Volume%20I%20-
05/07/2017
City:
vicax/filebank/documents/57411 BlobID=20643 b.pdf nterNiewFile/Item/4483 %20part%202.pdf
Palo Alto Mountain View
Population
Daytime Population
Full Time Employees
Total Budget for Community Services
Budget per Resident
Budget per Daytime Person
Residents per Employee
Daytime Person per Employee
$/Employee
66,853
129,975
78
$27,461, 731
$410.78
$211.28
852
1,657
$350,188
Community Services Budget per Resident in Palo Alto
and Other Local Cities
$450.00 ----· ------
$400.00
$350.00 ---
$300.00 ·-· •Palo Alto
$250.00 • Mountain View
$200.00 ---•Los Altos
$150.00 . ---•Menlo Park
$100.00 ----•Sunnyvale
$50.00 ---• Redwood City
$0.00
1
80,453
122,483
84
$20,869,695
$259.40
$170.39
958
1,458
$248,449
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
Los Altos Menlo Park Sunnyvale
30,671 33,449
31,580 52,028
8 50
$2,526,277 $8,164,779
$82.37 $244.10
$80.00 $156.93
3,834 669
3,948 1,041
$315,785 $163,296
Community Services Budget per Employee in Palo Alto
and Other Local Cities
1
•Palo Alto
• Mountain View
•Los Altos
•Menlo Park
•Sunnyvale
• Redwood City
151,754
180,165
63
$18,710,357
$123.29
$103.85
2,409
2,860
$296,990
Working Draft
http://www.redwoodcity.org/ho
me/showdocument?id=8577
Redwood City
85,288
96,270
71
$16,831,488
$197.35
$174.84
1,201
1,356
$237,063
Analysis from Council member Tanaka
Received 5/9/2017
Comparative Budget Analysis 2018: General Fund Capital
Parks and Open Spaces:
05/07/2017
City:
Population
Daytime Population
Full Time Employees
Total Budget for Parks
Budget per Resident
Budget per Daytime Person
Residents per Employee
Daytime Person per Employee
$/employee
Land (acres)
Acres/employee
$/acre
http://www.losaltosca.gov/sites/
default/files/fileattachments/Fin
ance%20and%20Technology/pa http://sunnyyale.ca.gov/Portals/0
http://www.mountainview.gov/c ge/641/2015-/Sunnyyale/FIN/16-
http://www.citvofpaloalto.org/ci ivicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx? 17 adopted budget 150728 we https://menlopark.org/ArchiveCe 17R%20Volume%20I%20-
vicax/:filebank/documents/57411 BlobID=20643 b.pdf nterNiewFile/Item/4483 %20part%202.pdf
Palo Alto Mountain View Los Altos Menlo Park
66,853
129,975
27
$10,474,748
$156.68
$80.59
2,476
4,814
$387,954
162
6
$64,659
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
Cll ... ~ $40,000 ....... -vi.
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
80,453
122,483
35
$6,369,338
$79.17
$52.00
2,285
3,479
$180,896
187
5.310991196
$34,061
30,671
31,580
13 N/a
$2,333,625 NIA
$76.09
$73.90
2,359
2,429
$179,510
45.45
3.496153846
$51,345
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
33,449
52,028
54
Open Space and Park Budget per an Acre of Developed Park
Land in Palo Alto and Nearby Cities
------------•Palo Alto
• Mountain View ------
•Los Altos
--·---~--
•Menlo Park
---•Sunnyvale
• Redwood City
Cites
Sunnyvale
151,754
180,165
51
$9,737,822
$64.17
$54.05
2,976
3,533
$190,938
476
9.333333333
$20,458
Working Draft
http://www.redwoodcitv.org/ho
me/showdocument?id=8577
Redwood City
85,288
96,270
72
$16,853,000
$197.60
$175.06
1,190
1,343
$235,180
226
3.153781747
$74,571
Analysis from Councilmember Tanaka
Received 5/9/2017
Public Works (not airport):
05/07/2017
City:
Population
Daytime Population
Full Time Employees
Total Budget for Public Works
Budget per Resident
Budget per Daytime Person
Residents per Employee
Daytime Person per Employee
$/employee
http://www.losaltosca.gov/sites/
default/files/fileattachments/Fina
nce%20and%20Technology/pag http://sunnyyale.ca.gov/Portals/0
e/641/2015-/Sunnyyale/FIN/16-
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/ci 17 adopted budget 150728 we 17R%20Volume%20I%20-
vicax/filebank/documents/57 411 b.pdf %20part%202.pdf
Palo Alto Los Altos Sunnyvale
66,853 30,671 151,754
129,975 31,580 180,165
58 45 184
$17,029,985 $7,364,400 $39,712,529
$254.74 $240.11 $261.69
$131.03 $233.20 $220.42
1,149 682 825
2,235 702 979
$292,813 $163,653 $215,829
Working Draft
Analysis from Councilmember Tanaka
Received 5/9/2017
Comparative Budget Analysis 2018: Public Safety
05/07/2017
City:
Population
Daytime Population
Full Time Employees
Total Budget for Fire Department
Budget per Resident
Budget per Daytime Person
Residents per Employee
Daytime Person per Employee
$/employee
http://www.mountainview.gov/c
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/ ci ivicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx? http://www.redwoodcity.org/ho
vicax/filebank/documents/57 411 BlobID=20643 me/showdocument?id=8577
Palo Alto Mountain View Redwood City
66,853
129,975
265
$75,145,573
$1,124.04
$578.15
252
490
$283,568
80,453
122,483
229
$60,501,806
$752.01
$493.96
351
535
$264,200
85,288
96,270
172
$39,488,603
$463.00
$410.19
496
560
$229,585
https://menlopark.org/ArchiveCe
nterNiewFile/Item/4483
Menlo Park
33,449
52,028
70
$16,729,666
$500.15
$321.55
478
743
$238,995
Public Safety per Resident in Palo Alto and Other Local
Cities
Public Safety Budget per Employee in Palo Alto and
Other Local Cities
$1,200.00 -----------
$1,000.00 ----· ----------------·
$800.00 ------· ---------
$600.00 --··-
$400.00 -------
$200.00 ----· -----·-
$0.00
1
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
•Palo Alto
• Mountain View I I s15o,ooo
• Redwood City I I $100,000
•Menlo Park
• $50,000
$0
-
1
•Palo Alto
• Mountain View
• Redwood City
•Menlo Park
•
Working Draft
Analysis from Councilmember Tanaka
Received 5/9/2017
Comparative Budget Analysis 2018: Planning and Community Environment
05/07/2017
City:
Population
Daytime Population
Full Time Employees
Total Budget for Community Developme
Budget per Resident
Budget per Daytime Person
Residents per Employee
Daytime Person per Employee
$/employee
http://www.losaltosca.gov/sites/
default/files/fileattachments/Fina
nce%20and%20Technology/pag
e/641/2015-
http://sunnyyale.ca. gov /Portals/O
/Sunnyyale/FIN/16-
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/ci 17 adopted budget 150728 we https://menlopark.org/ArchiveC 17R%20Volume%20I%20-
vicax/filebank/documents/57411 b.pdf enterNiewFile/Item/4483 %20part%202.pdf
Palo Alto Los Altos Menlo Park Sunnyvale
66,853 30,671
129,975 31,580
30 13
$8,459,697 $2,791,918
$126.54 $91.03
$65.09 $88.41
2,228 2,359
4,333 2,429
$281,990 $214,762.92
33,449
52,028
27
$6,183,765
$184.87
$118.85
1,239
1,927
$229,028.33
151,754
180,165
42
$8,678,824
$57.19
$48.17
3,613
4,290
$206,638.67
Working Draft
Fire Department Value Benchmarking FY16/17
Fire Department as a Percentage of General Fund, Net Cost from Revenue, Costs Per Capita, Cost per Call, Cost Per FTE
Criteria for comparison:
1. Cities, Santa Clara County Fire, and Menlo Park Fire District
2. Only compares general or operating funds for FY16/17. Capital, enterprise and utility funds excluded
3. Population uses 2016 US Census Quick Facts data
4. ALS Ambulance indicates whether the fire department provides ambulance transportation
5. Revenue collection were identified in budgets and confirmed in personal communications with Fire Chiefs
All other Fire Net Fire Fire Resident Resident Net FD as% Daytime General Fund Fire Department Ambulance Department Daytime City Budget FY16/17 Budget Revenue Department Department as% of of General Population Population 2 Population
Revenue Cost Fund 2016 1 per FTE Population per FTE General Fund
Palo Alto 194,16_6,000 28,940,00Q 3,050,000 9,092,967 16,797,033 15% 9% 90,029 824 153,541 1,406
Mountain View 114,932, 746 24,207,180 n/a 1,031,830 23,175,350 21" 20% 80,435 952 122,483 1,450
Redwood City 181,350,816 28,782,681 n/a 7,159,731 21,622,950 16" 12% 85,288 917 96,270 1,035
Santa Clara County Fire 118,919, 729 118,919,729 n/a 2,853,500 116,066,229 100% 98" 226,700 727
Menlo Park Fire District 45,065,330 45,065,330 n/a 4,120,319 40,945,011 100% 91% 90,000 735
1. Palo Alto population includes City of Palo Alto and Stanford University. Palo Alto Fire provides Fire, Rescue and Emergency Medical Services to Stanford under contract.
2. Palo Alto daytime population Including Stanford University taken from Palo Alto at a Glance: http://www.c1tyofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp7Newsl0=596&Target10=52
DATA SOURCE: FY 16/17 approved city budgets taken from official city web sites. Call data from 2016 web sites from Fire or City Budget. Ambulance service determined from County EMS web sites.
Fire Department Value Benchmarking FV16/17
Fire Department as a Percentage of General Fund, Net Cost from Revenue, Costs Per Capita, Cost per Call, Cost Per FTE
Criteria for comparison:
1. Bay Area fire agencies that provide Paramedic Ambualnce transportation with Firefighter/Paramedics
2. Only compares general or operating funds for FY16/17. Capital, enterprise and utility funds excluded
3. Population uses 2016 US Census Quick Facts data
4. Revenue collection were identified in budgets and in personal communications with Fire Chiefs
All other Fire Fire Net Fire Net FD as% Daytime General Fund Fire Department Ambulance Department Population Population Daytime City Department Department of General Population Budget FY16/ 17 Budget Revenue as% of 2016 1 per FTE Population 2
Revenue Cost General Fund Fund per FTE
Palo Alto 194,166,000 28,940,000 3,050,000~ 9,092,967J 16,797,033 15% 9% 90,029 824 153,541 1,406
Piedmont 3 25,260,871 5,518,350 225,000 140,000 5,153,350 22% 20% 11,082 436
Berkeley4 161,500,178 36,240,349 4,474,423 7,548,042 24,217,884 22" 15% 116,768 834
Albany 5 23,965,969 4,993,492 700,000 1,069,545 3,223,947 21% 13% 19,192 1,010
South San Francisco 96,320,075 25,689,589 1,950,000 1,033,357 22,706,232 27" 24% 67,271 726
City of Alameda • 75,460,000 29,280,000 included in all 3,019,000 26,261,000 39" 35% 78,630 775
San Ramon Valley Fire Distric 63,736,084 63,736,084 3,282,824 2,561,055 57,892,205 100% 91% 169,900 909
Novato Fire District 27,447,818 27,447,818 2,100,000 1,136,506 24,211,312 100% (88% 65,000 844
1. Palo Alto population includes City of Palo Alto and Stanford University. Palo Alto Fire provides Fire, Rescue and Emergency Medical Services to Stanford under contract.
2. Palo Alto daytime population including Stanford University taken from Palo Alto at a Glance: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?Newsl0=596&Target10=52
3. Piedmont's ambulance runs 40% of its EMS ambulance calls into Oakland, Berkeley and Albany (direct communication with Fire Chief). Also receives funds from Alameda County EMS Tax to support ALS Engines
4. Berkeley has two special property taxes, one for paramedic service and one to keep fire stations open. Also receives funds from Alameda County EMS Tax to support ALS Engines_
Cost per
Capita
$ 321
301
337
525
501
Cost per
Capita
$ 321
498
310
260
382
Jn
375
422
5. Albany has a city special paramedic tax and receives funds from Alameda County EMS Tax to support for ALS Engines. 340 EMS Ambulance calls are run Into Berkeley, Oakland, Piedmont and Emeryville (direct communication with Fire Chief)
6_ Ambulance revenue is included in All Revenue column as their budget does not detail revenue, only the total
DATA SOURCE: FY 16/17 approved city budgets taken from official city web sites. Call data from 2016 web sites from Fire or City Budget. Ambulance service determined from County EMS web sites.
Net Cost per Funded FTE Operate ALS Cost per Net Cost per Calls Cost per Call Net Cost per (Sworn, Ambulance
Capita Capita Capita 2016 2016 Call 2016 Civilian, Cost per FTE Net Cost per FTE Transport (Daytime) (Daytime) Contract) Y/N
'$ 187 $ 188 $ 109 8,882 $ 3,258 $ 1,891 109.20 $ 265,018 $ 153,819 Yes -'f288 198 189 5,703 4,245 4,064 84.50 286,476 274,264 No
254 299 225 10,078 2856 2,146 93.00 309,491 232,505 ' No
512 17,745 6,702 6,541 312.00 381,153 372,007 No
455 8,547 5,273 4,791 122.50 367,880 334,245 No
Funded FTE Operate ALS Cost per Net Cost per Net Cost per Calls Cost per Call Net Cost per (Sworn, Ambulance Capita Capita Cost per FTE Net Cost per FTE Capita 2016 2016 Call 2016 Civilian, Transport (Daytime) (Daytime) Contract) Y/N
$ 187 1$ 188 $ 109 8,882 $ 3,258 $ 1,891 109.io $ 265,018 $ 153,819 Yes
465
_,.. l 1,238 4,457 4,163 25.40 217,258 _202,888~ Yes -.J
207 15,028 2,412 1,612 140.00 258,860 172,985 Yes
168 1,853 2,695 1,740 19.00 262,815 169,681 Yes
338 6,502 3,951 3,492 92.68 2n,18& 244,996 Yes
334 ~ ~ 6,656 4,399 3,945 101.SD 288,473 258,n9 Yes
341 . 8,671 7,350 6&n 187.00 340,835 309,584 Yes
372 5,479 5,010 4,419 77.00 356,465 314,433 Yes
I
1
FY 2t'.l18 Ptoposed Operating Budget
' , ,
May 4~h ·.Re:cap
Finance Committee
May 9, 2017 .
A c1rv OF
WPALO ALTO
Date Draft Adjustments to Bud2et
l ! Beginning Balance
Date FY 2018 Council Contim!ency I 5-MayiBalance
2
BUDGET PROCESS
FY2018 Deot Date Parking Lot Issues Amount Dept
I $ 273 ~ 2-MaylCMO (A2CM and the role in relationship to ! ! CMO
........................ J.~£QD.Qffi~.£ .. Q.~Y~!.QP.ffi.~D.!l. ...... -....................................................... J .................... -..................... J.. ............................ .
2-May jNon-Departmental (in whole) j 1 NON
--········· .. ········.1. ............................................................................................................................................... i .............. _ ............................ i .............................. .
~May !Tree Trimming and Urban Forest Master Plan ! ! PW
....................... ..1. ...................................... -.............................................................................................. -.... i. ..................... -................. J ................ -......... .
4-MayjVehicle Maintenance and Replacement i ~ PW
$ 253
$ 225,000
Total: $ -
~CITY OF
¥PALO ALTO
3
FY 20::1 ~!· ~,fO,Rp$e'd.;~" Qp~rating Budget
SjpeCi fal· Re;wenue l1f=:unds
Operating Budget pp. 97-112
. Finance Committee
May 9, 2017
4
Significant Budget Proposals
Community Development Funds
• Capital Improvement Projects: $1.6 million
Federal and State Revenue Funds
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): $818,000
• 0.48 Hourly Management Specialist
Special Districts Funds
• Staffing Reallocations (-0.60 FTE)
• 25 -75 % Revenue Increases
• Expense reallocation: Tree lights & Downtown Streets Team ($76,000)
• Transportation Management Authority ($135,000)
• Capital Improvement Projects: $1.3 million
5
Significant Budget Proposals
In-Lieu Funds
• Revenue alignments to Housing In-Lieu Fund (-$1.0 million) and Traffic
Mitigation and Parking In-Lieu Fund ($-1.3 million)
Stanford University Medical Center Fund
• Capital Improvement Projects: $5.8 million
6
FY 2018 Proposed Operating Budget
Planning and Community Environment
Department
Operating Budget pp. 315 -326
Finance Committee
May 9, 2017
7
Accomplishments
• Initiated about 50% of City Council action
items
• Citizen Advisory recommendations for Comp
Plan Update
• Ground Floor Retail protection ordinance
• New RPP Districts: Evergreen Park/Mayfield
and Southgate
• El Camino Real Pedestrian Safety Grant
Initiatives
• Complete Comprehensive Plan Update
• Downtown Paid Parking Phasing and
Implementation Plan
• Construct approved Bicycle Boulevard
Projects and Connections between the
Transit Center and SUMC
A c1rv OF
¥PALO ALTO
8
Significant Budget Proposals
Staffing Requests
• Net Zero Realignment: General Fund (-0.79 FTE), Capital Improvement
(+1.35 FTE), and Special Revenue Funds (-0.56 FTE)
• 0.48 Management Specialist (Hourly) -CDBG Fund
Operating Requests
• On-Call Contractual Services (ongoing net costs: $0)
• San Mateo County Transit District Funding Agreement match ($22,613,
one-time)
9
FY 2018 Proposed Operating Budget
Community Services Department
Operating Budget pp. 193-212
Finance Committee
May, 9, 20t7.
10
Accomplishments
• Park renovations, including Byxbee Park
• Completion of the Parks Master Plan
• Completion of the Public Art Master Plan
• g5th Anniversary of Children's Theatre
• 45th Anniversary of the Palo Alto Art Center
• HRC community forums
Initiatives
• Complete Golf Course Renovation Project
• Cubberley Master Plan
• Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
• Begin construction of a new Junior Museum
and Zoo
• Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study
A c1rv OF
WPALO ALTO