HomeMy Public PortalAbout20171106plCC701-32
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: 11/6/2017
Document dates: 10/18/2017 – 10/25/2017
Set 1/2
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
I
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
October 23, 2017
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
OCTOBER 23, 2017, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #3
SIDEWALK ASSESSMENT CONTRACT
Dear City Council:
Before awarding a sidewalk assessment contract, the City needs
to complete the repair of sidewalks that protects the City from
liability by repairing sidewalks according to the criteria used
prior to 1991 for all sidewalk districts that have been repaired
under the new criteria since 1991, as described in the attached
nine pages consisting of:
July 31, 2006, letter (2 pages)
CMR:204:91, March 21, 1991 (4 pages)
City Council Minutes, 5/06/91, pages 66-138 through 66-140 (3
pages)
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely
Herb Borock
Attachment: July 31, 2006, letter from Herb Borock to Palo Alto
City Council, with attachments (total nine pages)
9.S :6 WV £Z 130 LI
3::11;!.:10 S.).liJ31J A.Ll:J
VJ '011\f 01\ld :W AllJ
erb Borock
P. 0. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
July 31, 2006
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
JULY 31, 2006, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #3
EVENUE GENERATION AND COST REDUCTION
ear City Council:
I urge you to continue the current policy for funding sidewalk
replacement and repairs until every neighborhood in the city has had
its sidewalks replaced· as described in city staff report CMR:204:91
(March 21, 1991) and city staff remarks at the City Council meeting
of May 6, 1991.
ttached are copies of CMR:204:91 and related Council minutes of May
6, 1991.
The City began a program to replace sidewalks in each neighborhood
throughout the city in 1982.
f ter sidewalks had been replaced in the neighborhoods north of
Oregon Expressway, Council approved staff's recommendation to change
the criteria for sidewalk replacement to reduce the amount of
sidewalks replaced in south and west Palo Alto.
The change in criteria meant that 44% of the sidewalks that would
ave been replaced under the old criteria would not be replaced under
the new criteria.
Instead of replacing the sidewalks under the new criteria, staff
ould make temporary repairs to the sidewalks until staff finished
replacing sidewalks throughout the entire City, and then staff would
o back to the neighborhoods in south and west Palo Alto and complete
sidewalk replacement under the old criteria:
Mr. Miller said one pass-through the community would take eight to ten years. After the areas
f most damage were addressed, staff could reassess the repair policies, reduce the criteria, and take
are of the areas missed the first time around. (Council minutes, 5/06/91, page 66-138, last paragraph.)
Mr. Miller said the staff would go through an entire neighborhood and note the areas which were
etween or greater than 1 inch. [Nate: The criteria changed from 1 inch to 2 inches.] After the
omplete cycle of the City, staff would come back and address the areas the second time around.
(Council minutes, 5/06/91, page 66-139, third full paragraph from bottom of page.)
Page 1 of2
The last neighborhood to have its sidewalks replaced under the old
criteria was the Downtown Commercial district between Alma Street and
iddlefield Road, and between Lytton Avenue and Hamilton Avenue,
nder the 1990-91 Sidewalk Replace.ment Project, CIP #18903. (This
neighborhood may also have had its sidewalks replaced once before
during the program that started in 1982.)
efore the Council changes the criteria and funding for sidewalk
replacement, the Council should obtain a map and table from staff
that shows the neighborhoods that have had their sidewalks replaced
nder the old criteria, the neighborhoods that have had their
sidewalks replaced under the new criteria (44% less sidewalk
replacement than under the old criteria) , and the neighborhoods that
have yet to have their sidewalks replaced.
f ter all remaining neighborhoods have had their sidewalks replaced
nder the new criteria, staff would need to go through these
eighborhoods again "and take care of the areas missed the first time
around".
Only .then, when all neighborhoods have been treated equally, should
Council consider changing the funding for sidewalk replacement and
repairs.
Staff may also be replacing sidewalks based on existing criteria
throughout the City independent of the neighborhood-by-neighborhood
sidewalk replacement program.
Council should find out from staff what percentage of the sidewalk
replacement and repair program in each year is used outside of the
eighborhood(s) scheduled for that year's Capital Improvement
Program.
There may be a problem of equity and liability if sidewalk
replacement and repair is def erred in an entire neighborhood to spend
oney on ad hoc basis throughout the City.
hank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
~
erb Borock
ttachments:
1. CMR:204:91, "City Sidewalk Replacement Program". (total of 4
ages)
2. City Council Minutes, 5/06/91, pages 66-138 through 66-140.
(total of 3 pages)
Page 2 of2
. ,
r •
March 21,
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
~ ' .......
Attention: Finance and Public Works Committee
City Sidewalk Replacement Program
Members of the Council:
Report in Brief
.---~-... --~--.
This report recommends that Council revise portions of the criteria
for City sidewalk replacement. The proposed revision would reduce
the amount of damaged sidewalk currently targeted for replacement
(rather than repair) by 44 percent, and would allow staff to
concentrate on replacing sidewalk where it is the most cost
effective.
Background
In l978 Council reviewed and adopted criteria for sidewalk
replacement. In 1982 Public Works staff surveyed the City to
de.termine the amount of damaged sidewalk that met the adopted
criteria for replacement. As a result of the survey, Council added
$200,000 to the Public Works Department Operations Divisi0.n budget
to supplement in-house sidewalk replacement programs. In 1985
Public Works staff resurveyed the city to d~terrnine what effect the
additional funding had on sidewalk requiring repair. In 1986 staff
met with the Finance and Public Works Committee to provide the
results of the Citywide resurvey and review the criteria used for
sidewalk replacement.
Also in 1986, Council directed staff to pursue various alternatives
for additional funding for sidewalk repairs, including a 50/50
cost-sharing program and use of general obligation bonds
(CMR:l59:6). Council chose not to implement these alternatives.
When the Utility Users' Tax was passed in FY 1987-88, Council
approved $850,000 in additional funds. This, combined with the
$200,000 in the Operations Division operating budget, provided an
annual contract sidewalk replacement program of $1,050,000 for both
FY 1988-89 and FY 1989-90. The increased funding resulted in
approximately 200,000 square feet of sidewalk replaced annually.
In FY 1990-91 the annual funding for contract sidewalk repairs was
reduced by $500,000, leaving $550,000 for annual contract sidewalk
replacement.
-1-
CNR:204:91
Discussion
' . ' . , ..
: '
(1 ... ..,.
Due to the reduction in funding for contract replacement, staff
evaluated the work completed .on sidewalk replacement contracts over
the last five years, and reviewed the 1982 survey to determine what
percent of the sidewalk met the established criteria for
replacement by defect type. Listed below are the current criteria
for replacement and the pcrcentnge of damaged sidewalk Citywide
meeting that criteria:
Criteria for Replacement
Step or Lip
(> 3/4 inch)
Sunken or Lifted Slope
(> 1 inch per foot)
Spalling > 3/4 inch
Opening
(> 1 inch)
Temporary Patched
(Step/Lip < 3/4 inch)
1982 % of Damaged Sidewalk
Citvwide
19.0%
36 .ai-
25.6%
8.6%
10.0%
Staff propo~es to revise the replacement criteria to reduce the
amount of sidewalk replaced citywide. The current and proposed
criteria are:
Ty:Qe of Deficijgncy current Criteria Pr0J2osed Criteria
Step or Lip > 3/4 inch Replace No change
Sunken or Lifted Slope Replace Clanged from
> 2 inches in 12 inches l" to 2"
Opening = > 1 inch Replace Repair
Spalling > 3/4 inch Replace Repair
By revising the criteria from "replace" to "repair" in three
categories, approximately 44 percent of the sidewalks surveyed in
1982 would not be replaced, but would be repaired. This would
allow staff to concentrate on those replacements Citywide which
present the greatest need.
Repairs of the sidewalk deficiencies formerly replaced
ir.clude using concrete to level spalling and fill openings.
-2-
CMR:204:91
,..,..,.. ___ ,__ __________ --..... ---·-·---. -· ·--·-·--·---· -......... -. -..
. --~-.-... ~~ .. ,.-:-:;';~;~~:'~-'·'\:; .... ·: s·/: I •
would
Steps
' I", j
. ' 1 ... • I -1 . .,_ •• • ... -;;:.: ~·..:'... ·:~:-. ,. ·-• ...... .
• .........•• 11.
I·.~ .,
or lips less than 3/4 of an inch would be either ground down or
temporarily patched with asphalt and not replaced.
Recommendations
Staff recommends that council direct staff to revise the current
criteria for sidewalk replacement and repair as follows:
1. Step or lip greater than 3/4 inch -replace.
2. sunken section greater than 2 inches in 12 inches
3. Lift greater than 2 inches in 12 inches -replace.
4. Opening greater than 1 inch -repair.
5. Spalling of surface greater than 3/4 inch -repair.
Respectfully submitted,
, -,//i/ '// L/.At.-.. ~~~/ .~,~~~
MICHAEL H. MILLER
Deputy Director, Public Works Operations
Q/Mr)Jj flJ~
DA.VIC G. ADAMS
Director of Public Works
~~~,
City Manager
Attachment: Criteria for Sidewalk Replacement and Repair
Related CMR: 159:6
-3-
CMR: 204.: 9J.
replace.
·------------------·--------·------' .. ~.
' 0:-f•I
• f!>'·:·
• •,I •. -.
OtUEn1c.11 POST REOnOltR HO. ft76l0
sQwALK REPLACEME~
~.· · :·~ .. · .. ·. · · .. ~. · :.;~·.t~~~·~ ....... : · ·.">·~·: :: = ... ~:~J.:./ ::>"T73 ~-·--~·~ .... ~'liiii'~·~.-·.,.....:...· -.:..----..,..,:-=..,.-.:'"'~!1""'~¥:. • . ~ •-...r.-. r
STEP OR LIP GREATER THAN 3/ 4 INCH
SUNKEN SECTION GREATER THAN 2 INCHES IN 12 INCHES
LIFT GREATER THAN 2 INCHES IN 12 INCHES
SI DEWALK REPAIR
OPENING GREATER THAN 1 INCH
~~~ .. -.=C ·:.· ::· ·,·:·.:: ".::·:·=: :: .: ..... :... ..;;7.-.. ·.:"~:: ~·.· :·.:.·~~ ... ;:. ·.: .. -.·.::_.:~ .. ~
. . [.
SPALLI NG OF SURFACE GREATER THAN 3/ 4 INCH
flELD llOOI\ -
l'AGE DATE
°""''"' Cl!CCltt:o
U\'1C1'l'CO
CRITERIA FOR SIDEWALK
REPLACEMENT & REPAIR
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CALIFORNIA
Al'f'1'0VED: ______ IV
ENGINEER
REVISIOH:
----r--------------. -.-.. -... _.... ... ~~~ ... .-.. -----·-----·
: < ~:·,\·:~~l~~:..:·11.~ ... f.:
1
;:·1·,, .· .-,,~"-'~·;.~·\ll, · .... . •• ,., • ·1· ··; •• ,--\, • -• .. -. • ...._
'
SCALE: 1· • f
OW~. NO.
4.
Contract with Coopers & Lybrand to Audit the City'e 19 90/1991
:r·iuoncial Statements
Finance and Public Works Co1il!ilittee recommends to the City
Council that it approve the City Auditor's Revised Work Plan
for the Third and Fourth Qu~rt~r~ 1 990/1 ~~1 (406-03)
1-IOT!ON PASSED 9-0.
[&ENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
City Manager Bill Zaner announced that Item 5 would become 5A.
SA. (Old Item 5) Finance and Public Committee recommendation re
revision of criteria for sidewalk replacement and repair
(1011) (CMR.:204:91)
MOTION:_. Council Member Mccown for the Finance and Public Works
Committee moved to approve th.e revision of criteria for sidewalk
replacement and repair as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Step or lip greater than 3/4 inch -replace
Sunken section greater than 2 inches in 12 inches
Lift greater than 2 inches in 12 inches -replace
Opening greater than 1 inch -repair
Spalling of surface greater than 3/4 inch -repair
-replace
Council Member Renzel referred to Item C and the lift greater than
2 inches in 12 inches which was a change from 1 inch in 12 inches.
She did a lot of walking in the downtown area and there were places
where trees had lifted the sidewalks. She was concerned because
even a 1-inch lift would mean over a 2-inch rise in the sidewalk
sect:io:n and a 2-inch lift. could mean there would be 4 or 5 inches.
She did not believe the 2-inch lift was acceptable.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Andersen, to
leave the criteria for a lift greater than 1 inch in 12 inches.
Deputy Director of Public Works ¥ichael Miller said the lift of 2
inches in 12 inches was common in the older sidewalk areas. The
previous criteria of 1 inch in 12 inches was set several years ago
and the new criteria would help the staff move through the
community fa~ter and repair the worst sidewalks first.
Council Member Andersen queried whether the situation was temporary
and whether the criteria would be altered once there had been a
pass-through of the entire 'City, and whether the procedure :iv-as
sufficient to meet the community's needs.
Mr. Miller said one pass-through the community would take eight to
ten years. After the areas of roost damage were addressed, staff
could reassess the repair policies, reduce the criteria, and take
care of the areas missed the first t~me around.
66-138
5/06/91
r I
I
II
I
I
I 111 I
Council Member Andersen queried whether the procedure prevented
statf from repairing sldewalks which would otherwise be done with
the policy change.
Mr. Miller said the extent to which the schedule would be revised
with a policy change had ~ot been determined. The ten-ye~r work
schedule was based on the $550,000 funding. The percentage of an
area would not be known until the work began and whether it would
be 1 inch in 1~ inches or 2 inches in 12 inches. Because of the
drought in the last three years, some of the areas had risen since
surveyed in 1985. A figure could not be given at the present time
as to the addition or deletion of time.
Council Member Woolley queried the number of sidewalks not repaired
during the last year and how many the public believed should not
have been repaired. -
Mr. Miller said the projected revision of the criteria was for the
group, and the incorporation of the changes would reduce the
replacement by 44 percent.
Council Member Renzel was concerned about removing lifts of over 3
inch·es from the criteria of areas that needed repair and queried
the procedure followed.
Mr. Miller said thel'."R ~·:culd be some batching of work and staff
would physically cover a larger area than in the past becaus·e not
as many sidewalks would have be replaced. The criteria were
revised to increase productivity.
l
Council Member Renzel queried whether there wouJ:d be a lesser
percentage of sidewalks which would meet the criteria as opposed. to
making scheO.tJle cha.r1ges; and queried if the criterion was left~: at
.1 inch in 12 inches to quality for replacement and the area 'was
between 1 and 2 inches, would the sLaff put the area at the end of
the line and come back the next time around.
Mr. Miller said the staff would go through an entire neighborhood
and note the areas which were between or greater than 1 inch.
After the complete cycle of the City, staff would come back and
address the areas the second time around. Once a pass-through was
made, the worst problems would be addressed percentage-wise and
area-wise based upon the criteria. The staff could move through an
area faster because one less type of replacement would be dealt
with.
Council Member Renzel believed the lesser criteria should be left
and staff should handle the scheduling. It was important to mark
the areas to be dealt with in the future.
Council Member Woolley queried whether the City would be libel if
the sidewalks were inventoried.
city Attorney Ariel Calonne said when there was notice of a .~
dangerous condition, action needed to be taken within a reasonable
66-139
5/06/91
time. If the inventory was a dangerous condition, there would be
notice and action needed to be taken.
Mayor Sutorius understood Council Member Renzel's concern. If the
step or lip was greater than 3/4 inch, he concurred but not when a
lift or sunken area d.i.U. noi.: cause a person to bump into it. He
would support the recommendation of the Finance and Public Works
(F&PW) Committee and staff.
~ENDMBNT PA!LED 1-8, Renzcl ll<:a'\t'n. " """1..:...
MOTIOM PASSED B·-1, Renzel lino. II
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
h ~~~t~~ rl~~ f~~ cc~~~~ity ~~u~c~ Leus~ uL ~ne Cubberley High
School site located at 4000 Middlefield Road (continued from
4/22/91) (300) (CMR: 25 6: 91)
l
Mayor Sutorius said the item was continued from the Council Meeting
of April 22, 1991, after conclusion of the public hearing.
MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, to adopt a
negative declaration and take the following action with respect to
the Cubberley Master Plan:
1. Approve the Cubberley Master Plan in concept as a policy of
the Council, and incorporating the concepts of the Alternative
Field design.
2. Approve the implementation of Phase 1 of the Master Plan (the
Implementation Plan), subject to the availability of funds fer
that implementation.
3. Affirm that any implementation of the Master Plan beyond Phase
1 will be subject to the normal city review and approval pro-
cesses.
4.
5.
Establish the policy that the existing open space at Cubberley
will be preserved in its entirety, and not be used as a
parking reserve.
Instruct staff to determine and report back to the Council for
consideration and possible action: (a) the degree to which
public/private partnerships can be used to generate financial
support for the Master Plan implementation, (b) potential
mechanisms for the creation and imple~entation of such
partnerships.
66-140
5/06/91
l
l ~1
II J
J ;
·---~_.I.·-.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:06 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 22, 2017 5:43 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:October 23, 2017, Council Meeting, Item #3: Sidewalk Assessment Contract
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
October 22, 2017
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
OCTOBER 23, 2017, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #3
SIDEWALK ASSESSMENT CONTRACT
Dear City Council:
Please remove this item from the Consent Calendar and defer action on a
sidewalk assessment contract until the City repairs all sidewalks to the
standard that will protect the City from liability regarding dangerous
sidewalks.
Prior to 1991, the City replaced sidewalks based on a standard that would
protect the City from liability.
In 1991, the City changed that replacement standard so that 44% of the
sidewalks that would have been replaced under the old criteria would not
be replaced under the new criteria.
Staff intended to make temporary repairs to that 44% until staff finished
replacing sidewalks throughout the entire City, and then staff would go
back to those neighborhoods to complete sidewalk replacement under the old
criteria.
By stating the City's intent to repair sidewalks under the old criteria,
the City protected itself from liability.
Now that all sidewalk districts have been completed under the new
criteria, the City needs to go back and finish repairing sidewalks in
those districts under the old criteria before awarding any contracts for
an assessment that is not based on objective measurements of sidewalk
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:06 AM
2
replacement and repair criteria such as steps, lips, sunken sections,
lifts, openings, and surface spalling.
I will provide you at places a copy of the legislative history of sidewalk
repair that documents the change in repair criteria and the intent to
repair all sidewalks based on the old criteria.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
TO:
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MEMORANDUM
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
10/23/2017 ID#: 8339
SUBJECT: Approve Agreement for Sidewalk Assessment Study
3
The City conducts sidewalk repairs based on complaints (in-house crews) and through the CIP
program (annual contracts). Both of these programs utilize standards that are intended to
ensure that sidewalks are safe for public use. Temporary repairs are only made through the
complaint-based program, and there is no inventory of temporary repairs awaiting a full
replacement. Under the current program, sidewalks with temporary repairs are replaced when
the CIP program does work in the sidewalk district. The sidewalk assessment includes
evaluation of the City's standards for sidewalk repairs.
C) c: • D6cf?
~ J. Michael Sartor
Director of Public Works
/!"-James Keene
City Manager
• CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
TO:
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MEMORANDUM
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager
October 23, 2017
10/23 Council Meeting Agenda Item 4: 2018 Municipal Fee Schedule
continued to the November 13, 2017 council meeting.
4
Item 4: 2018 Municipal Fee Schedule will be continued to November 13, 2017 to allow staff additional
time to do further analysis before being brought to Council.
c~
ED SHIKADA
Assistant City Manager
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:11 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 10:23 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:3001 ECR
Dear City Council:
I am out of town visiting my sick mom; otherwise I would grace the chambers with my presence this evening.
Please do not grant 3001 ECR a DEE for parking. In a nutshell a DEE is used to improve the appearance of a
building, not make it easier to park the building. The developers want
more parking spaces. It’s that simple. Why should the neighbors be asked to forfeit the setback that is there for
their protection?
Granting the exception will only encourage the developers of developments in the pipeline to continue to ask
for more entitlements to which they are not entitled. You know we have seen a rash of developers seeking the
maxima!
Please discourage this trend by denying the DEE.
Also are they really going to put up an outdoor movie theater screen that faces into the neighborhood? That
must be a violation of the codes as well.
Thank you for your kind attention and thank you for your service to our fair city.
Becky Sanders
Ventura Neighborhood
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:11 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Pearlin Yang <pearl_at_home@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 22, 2017 9:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:3001 El Camino Real
Dear Council Members,
I strongly oppose the Design Enhancement Exception. It does not seem necessary for this setback to
encroach upon single family residences. I believe that the architects are smart enough to figure out a
solution that does not adversely affect the neighbors.
Also, I strongly disagree with the Director’s Parking Adjustment. This area is currently used as a
parking lot by employees in the surrounding businesses. Even if adequate parking is provided for this
development, where are all the current cars going to go? Obviously into the surrounding Ventura
neighborhood. I do not agree with the analysis that the parking situation will not be impacted by this
development.
I like this development is great. I just do not like all the variances they are seeking. I believe that the
development can be done in a way that does not anger surrounding residents.
Thank you,
Pearlin
Ventura resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:11 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:David Adams <david_94306@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 22, 2017 1:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:3001 El Camino Real
Dear Horourable members of the council,
Living close to this address, this development will impact my family more than most. I would like to think that zoning and
building regulations are enforced in Palo Alto and it is for this reason that I urge the council to reject the applicant's
request as it requires a design exception and a parking adjustment. Please consider the impact of this development
request on the local community of Olive Avenue.
The quality of life on Palo Alto is, in part, due to zoning and building codes being enforced historically. Every time a
variance is approved this quality of life is diminished for all of us.
Regards
David Adams
275 Olive Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/19/2017 10:04 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 18, 2017 7:49 PM
To:Scharff, Greg
Cc:Council, City; Stop the Ban Google Discussion Group; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto;
dprice@padailypost.com; Sue Dremann; Peter Jon Shuler; Eric Kurhi; Jason Green; Josh
Koehn; jenniferw@metronews.com; Paul George @ PPJC
Subject:The MV VOICE article we disagreed over at the PACC meeting on Monday
Mayor Scharff,
This is the quote of yours to which I referred Monday night and which you denied.
The link to the whole article follows the quote. The article was in the MV VOICE of August 4, 2017.
Mountain View's neighbor, the city of Palo Alto, went a different direction by designating only
one area, in the California Avenue region, as a PDA, opting against volunteering its downtown
or El Camino Real corridor as candidates for high growth through the regional plan. Palo Alto is
one of only a few cities along the entire stretch of El Camino Real that opting against designating
the thoroughfare as a PDA, leaving a small Midpeninsula gap on a near-unanimous plan to
concentrate development in the area.
Palo Alto Mayor Greg Scharff told the Voice last month that the decision was made in order to
retain complete control over the city's future development, and that electing to add more PDAs
means the city could be pressured by the state to build more housing than its residents are
comfortable with in the coming years.
"We want to be able to chart our own destiny," Scharff said. "If you choose to make something a
PDA, you're saying 'Give us more development.'"
https://www.mv-voice.com/print/story/2017/08/04/regional-plan-aims-to-ease-traffic-by-boosting-
housing
Now that we can see what you're quoted as saying, would you care to explain yourself?
And also please explain why you withdrew us from the Mayors for Peace program?
Thank you,
Chuck Jagoda
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/19/2017 10:04 AM
2
Chuck
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/19/2017 10:04 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Carl Van Wey <carl.vanwey@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 18, 2017 5:41 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:carl.vanwey@gmail.com
Subject:Comprehensive plan upcoming meeting
Dear City Council,
I am unable to attend the upcoming meeting but wish to express my concern about approving the
proposed growth. I do believe that a town's citizens have an obligation and right to control density
and hence the quality of life. I believe our fair city is already bursting at the seams and would
prefer to not further expand the amount of office space. The increased density and traffic will
lower our quality of life. There comes a time when one has to just say no. Don't "Manhattan-ize"
Palo Alto.
thanks for your consideration,
Carl Van Wey
resident of Crescent Park
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/19/2017 10:04 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Almond <rjalmond@stanford.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, October 18, 2017 4:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Plan
To the Council:
I live on University Avenue, near Lincoln. Daily the traffic on University towards East Palo Alto is backed up,
and moving at a snail's pace between 3 and 7 pm. On several occasions in the last two months a problem to
the East of us has backed traffic up further on local streets, so that I have left my car to walk home. This
situation holds for Willow Rd in Menlo Park, also. Without addressing this problem the PRESENT construction
will probably make the situation completely unmanageable. What is the plan to mitigate this? Expanding
public transport will take a very long time, involving both construction and changing users' thinking. The
reports on the City staff's interest in this situation seem to indicate bureaucratic deafness. (See articles in the
Weekly over the past months.)
And yet, the Council is set to consider massive additions. Even if housing mitigates jobs, there will be much
more traffic. The argument seems to be "we need the tax dollars." But if it is impossible to access the City or
leave it, businesses will be discouraged. I strongly urge no expansion built into the Plan until these issues are
addressed.
Thank you for your attention,
Richard Almond, MD
1520 University Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Eric Rosenblum <mitericr@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 19, 2017 9:19 PM
To:Elaine Uang
Cc:Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); board@paloaltoforward.com; Filseth, Eric
(Internal); Diane Morin; Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Fine, Adrian; Council, City;
DuBois, Tom; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz (internal)
Subject:Re: Letter regarding PTC recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan to be heard on
Monday October 23, 2017
+1 thanks!
On Oct 19, 2017 9:16 PM, "Elaine Uang" <elaine.uang@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you Diane!
On Oct 19, 2017 8:41 PM, "Diane Morin" <dianejn.morin@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
On behalf of the Board of Palo Alto Forward, I would like to offer a huge “thank you” to you as Council Members, to the City
Staff, to the Citizen’s Advisory Committee, and to the PTC for the great effort to draft this Comprehensive Plan. There was
clearly a lively debate and a well‐supported discussion that included many viewpoints.
For Monday Oct 23, we urge you to adopt most Planning and Transportation Commission PTC recommendations for the
Comprehensive Plan, certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and continue to move quickly to implement principles
into practice.
We commend the council for prioritizing housing in the Comp Plan Discussion, and urge you to support several housing
supportive policies in particular:
Housing, Housing, Housing, Housing
• How much: The Comp Plan set a housing creation goal of 3,545 to 4,420 housing units through 2030 (or about
236‐294 units/year). While we championed a larger goal of 6,000 last year, we urge Council to take the 3,545‐4,420
goal seriously ‐ to help current residents suffering from our city’s housing crisis (and traffic snarls), and to
complement regional efforts. (Our neighbors in Mountain View are approving proposals for 9,850 homes in North
Bayshore, and 5,500 homes in Menlo Park’s M2 area)
• Who: The affordability crisis is so severe that housing is needed at all market levels to preserve a diverse range
of residents and provide options throughout one’s lifespan. The Comp Plan Land Use and Housing policies strongly
support affordable housing, which we hope includes workforce and middle income housing in addition to below‐
market rate subsidized housing.
• Where: We also encourage you to support the PTC recommendation to prioritize the Downtown Coordinated
Area Plan, in addition to the North Ventura plan adjacent to California Avenue. These are two of the best walk‐
able, bike‐able, transit accessible areas of our city. Recommendations to consider housing in Stanford Research
Park, Stanford Mall, and others locations are also good. Town and Country should also be considered.
• How: For several decades Palo Alto has zoned for our housing allocations, but not actually constructed the
housing. This Comp Plan sets forth important policies and programs to give our community the flexibility and
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
2
creativity to spur greater housing production. After approving this Comprehensive Plan, we also hope you will
immediately prioritize the zoning changes recommended to construct more housing, especially along our mixed use
commercial corridors.
Reduce Barriers to Housing Creation:
• Parking: Good parking policy is especially important for housing in mixed use projects and a sustainable city.
Too much parking can increase housing construction costs and encourage automobile dependence. The
Comprehensive Plan reaffirms Palo Alto’s “3 legged parking strategy”:
1 Residential Parking Permits ‐ to prevent “spillover” neighborhood street parking
2 Transportation Management Association ‐ to create transportation incentives and programs for businesses,
visitors and residents that reduce car usage.
3 Paid Parking ‐ in downtown areas to manage parking spaces better and prevent greater demand to drive. The
PTC struggled with the downtown paid parking discussion—we hope that you will firmly back paid parking
implementation.
• Transportation Impact Metrics: The Comprehensive Plan supports infill housing development adjacent to in key transit
locations. But the two transportation impact metrics in the Comp Plan, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service
(LOS), view infill housing differently:
1 VMT supports infill by accounting for all modes of travel (car, bus, bike, pedestrian) and evaluates transportation
impacts on a local level (intersection wait times) and systems level (total travel time)
2 LOS discourages infill by measuring only automobile wait time at an intersection. To mitigate a negative LOS
impact, infill projects are asked to expand roads to reduce wait time, making projects more expensive and roads
less safe and pedestrian friendly.
The Comp Plan notes VMT as a primary impact assessment tool, but LOS metric will still be measured. The PTC compromise
to note LOS time delay at each intersection in seconds instead of letter grades (A‐F) seems like a reasonable compromise.
All in all we are excited for the adoption of this new Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for pushing the work this far. We are
supportive of the direction, and look forward to seeing the plan begin to get implemented.
Sincerely,
Diane Morin, Board Member Palo Alto Forward,
on behalf of the Board of Palo Alto Forward
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Subhash Narang <snarang012@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 19, 2017 8:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Plan
Transportation mitigation is critical to accommodate the growing number of commuters who cannot afford to
live in Palo Alto.The city is unable to provide low cost housing opportunities to people with limited
income.These people in the service sector need help in reducing their commute time.We need the business community to pitch in, in a substantial way, to ease the commute time.This means long term contribution of
funds to enhance the quality of life of their employees working in Palo Alto.Otherwise, the businesses should
move out to areas where these employees reside.However, Palo Alto businesses need the lowest paid employees
in Palo Alto to serve others daily needs.Its tough enough for these support staff personnel to spend a
burdensome part of their income on transportation, the city needs to lean heavily on local businesses to help ease their commute experience.
Subhash Narang
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Jim Colton <james.colton10@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 19, 2017 5:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Plan needs revisions
As a long-time resident of Palo Alto, I have been concerned about the accelerating growth in number of office
workers in the past 10 to 15 years. Employers have been cramming more office workers into existing
space. Not much we can do about that. However, we as a city have been building office space at a record clip. This has led to the housing/jobs imbalance and to the pressure on infrastructure, particularly roads and the
resulting traffic issues we see every day. We simply have to address the traffic problem before we add more
office space. Since businesses are bringing employees to Palo Alto every working day, those businesses should
pay a larger share of the costs of mitigating our traffic problems.
We do need more low-income housing for non-tech workers in Palo Alto whom we need for our city to run
properly. This includes teachers, police personnel, retail and maintenance workers. Again, local businesses that
are benefitting from their Palo Alto address should be paying more to address this housing issue.
Regards,
Jim Colton
670 Georgia Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Moss <bmoss33@att.net>
Sent:Thursday, October 19, 2017 10:55 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Pla, Oct. 23 Agenda Item 6
Comprehensive Plan EIR, Agenda Item 6 Oct. 18, 2017
Dear Mayor Scharff and Council Members;
There seem to be some inconsistencies between the draft Comprehensive Plan and the limits on
growth and development expressed by a majority of residents, the Planning Commission, and some
opinion surveys of the community. They should be corrected before this document is approved.
Policy L-8 that limited non-residential development to 3 million sq. ft. should not allow more non-
residential development. Total allowance was 3 million sq. ft., and since 1.3 million sq. ft. has been
built or is approved for construction, It allows 1.7 million square ft. of new non-residential
development. This amount of development will be offices, since retail uses are stagnant and office
values are higher for developer profits. There is no reason to keep the old allowable square footage
of un-built non-residential development, without considering potential negative impacts such as
worsening the job-housing imbalance, added traffic and parking problems, and spill-over parking.
Adding 1.7 million sq. ft. of offices will increase employment by more than 11,000 people, further
worsening the jobs-housing imbalance. A better approach is to reduce the total allowed non-
residential development allowed to 2 million sq. ft., deducting 1.3 million sq. feet of nonresidential
projects either built or underway. Future non-residential develop should not exceed 0.7 million sq. ft.
Both new and existing businesses employing 50 or more people should be required to reduce
commuter traffic to their business to 0.4 trips/employee. That can be done by adding buses or
carpools, and letting them work from home using computers and the Internet. There also should be
an enforcement method and penalties for failure to reduce single-occupant worker trips. Program
T1.2.2 tried to address this.
The issues of increasing population and number of housing units significantly is not discussed in staff
report 8106, but these issues are significant. It has been proposed that population will increase by
11,000 to 13,000 or 16 to 20%. Housing stock is projected to increase by 4700 to 5,600 units, or 17
to 21%. Unmentioned is that every housing unit costs $2700/year more for services than it generates
tax payments to the city. Adding even the low end 4700 units would cost our city budget
$12,690,000/year. At the higher end the cost will be $15,120,000/year. Where will money to pay
these costs come from? Also unmentioned is the impact such housing growth will have on our
schools, which will be significant.
Of course, all this housing will also increase traffic. Trips/day range from 8 to 10/unit for housing, so
at the low end 4700 housing units will add 37,600 to 47,000 trips/day. At the high end 5600 units will
add 44,800 to 56,000 trips/day. You may have heard that traffic and parking are big problems
already.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
6
Please do not approve this version of the Comprehensive Plan. and EIR Reconsider the proposed
growth in commercial space, jobs, and housing and adopt a plan that does not have such serious
negative impacts on our community and way of life.
Yours sincerely,
Bob Moss
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
7
Carnahan, David
From:zbrcp1@comcast.net
Sent:Friday, October 20, 2017 2:13 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Neilson Buchanan
Subject:Comp Plan Policy T-5.1
Re parking demand for new development: I respectfully urge you to restore the word "meet"
recommended by the
Citizens Advisory Committee and delete the word "manage" which someone has
inserted before the words "parking demand." It's long past time for Palo Alto to require developers to
provide
100% of the parking needs of their projects.
PLEASE.
Joseph Baldwin
850 Webster Street #524
Palo Alto CA 94301
650-324-7378
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Sue Dinwiddie <sued@daise.com>
Sent:Friday, October 20, 2017 2:16 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Plan
Honorable Council,
We feel it is imperative make sure the Comprehensive Plan includes measures to address the present problems with inadequate parking, specifically in residential areas, as well as traffic downtown and major arterials. All
new structures - whether dwelling or office - should be required to provide off-street parking for occupants, or
help fund construction of city garages.
We would also like to see expanded shuttle service with wider coverage and more frequent schedules. A fee for builders could be one mechanism to help fund this much needed services.
Sue and Ken Dinwiddie
543 Jackson Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Jim Holmlund <jjh2000@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, October 20, 2017 7:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:To Develop or not to Develop, that is the question ...
Whether 'tis nobler for us to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous new development, Or to take arms against
a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them?
No New Development or Housing
Traffic is bad now, but why would it get worse if there is no new development and no new housing ? Can't
think of a reason. Palo Alto is a desirable place to live so our existing houses will continue to be full (well,
except for ghost houses - why don't you make a law against them?). But, a downside that I have been noticing is that businesses with low wages appear to be having a hard time finding employees - the people can't afford to
live here and commuting from Modesto would be a real drag. So, some of these business will have to close
down. And big employers might find it desirable to move to Fremont or some such place so their employees
would be more likely to find affordable housing within a reasonable commute distance.
So, Palo Alto might shrink a bit. House prices will come down and be more affordable. Why would that be bad? Traffic and parking would get better.
Lots of New Development and Housing
I know there is a meme going around that if new jobs and new houses come to Palo Alto, then the people in the new jobs will live in the new houses. I don't believe it. Techies move around a lot. I have lived in Palo Alto
since 1988 and never had a job here - Mountain View, Cupertino, Menlo Park, San Mateo, Santa Clara -
yes. Palo Alto no.
So I think that new jobs and new houses will just have more people traveling into and out of Palo Alto at rush
hour. And all over Palo Alto all the time. Can't imagine housing will get cheaper so that low wage earners can afford to live here.
And, the new development can't keep going on forever - Palo Alto is not going to become the Manhattan of the
west!
At some point it will stop - it will be so overcrowded here that the conditions mentioned above will come into play, and Palo Alto will shrink. Maybe a lot. Who knows
So if it is inevitable that Palo Alto will hit a limit, why not stop now and save us from making all the traffic and
parking worse?
I am curious as to who the development supporters think will benefit by new development? Well developers of
course, but who else? Who will benefit from even worse traffic and parking than we have now?
Jim Holmlund
73 Erstwild Court
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
10
Carnahan, David
From:TC Rindfleisch <tcr@stanford.edu>
Sent:Saturday, October 21, 2017 1:34 PM
To:Council, City; Keene, James
Subject:Comments Against the Current Comprehensive Plan
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council, first I thank you for addressing the complex and divisive issues
covered in the new Comprehensive Plan. I will make this as short as possible, simply to register my "vote"
against the current Comprehensive Plan and in favor of very limited growth.
In our Crescent Park neighborhood discussion of these issues among residents, the point has been clearly made
that there is no obligation or reason to fundamentally change the nature of Palo Alto -- to let development
outrun the capacity of our schools; parking facilities; road system; infrastructure elements (water supply, power,
sewers, flood control); and the neighborly ambiance that has characterized Palo Alto. We have no reason to
facilitate the exploitation of our city by local developers to continue building more unneeded office space. Data show that the average annual non-residential square footage growth from 1989 to 2008 was approximately
38,000 square feet per year. This rate of growth tripled from 2008 - 2014 to an average of approximately
112,000 square feet per year -- along with attendant increases in workers crowding into the city and
corresponding demands on resources and infrastructure. These changes have already seriously compromised the
quality of life in Palo Alto in terms of crowding, traffic, parking, housing, and other dimensions. There is simply no reason to accommodate the rest of the world's seemingly unlimited demand to work and live here.
Our problem is not a housing or resource crisis; it is a demand crisis.
As an example, the Council's continuing disregard for the parking mess that has embroiled Palo Alto in recent
years has shown up in the recent rewording of a provision of the Comprehensive Plan from:
All new development projects should meet parking demand generated by the project, without the
use of on-street parking, consistent with the established parking regulations. As demonstrated
parking demand decreases over time, parking requirements for new construction should
decrease.
to:
All new development projects should manage parking demand generated by the project, without
the use of on-street parking, consistent with the established parking regulations. As
demonstrated parking demand decreases over time, parking requirements for new construction
should decrease.
This change essentially nullifies the intent of the provision.
Much of the justification for on-going future growth in the Comprehensive Plan (outside of making money for developers at the expense of the community) seems to be based on imagined successful mitigation of growing
capacity needs and impacts on schools; parking; road system; infrastructure elements; and the neighborly
ambiance mentioned above. Perceived options for mitigation like parking permits and restrictions; or
transportation "innovations", like Uber, Lyft, and shuttles; or bike paths painted green, etc. point to increased
traffic and parking problems, not decreased. The correlation of economic boom times with increased infrastructure capacity problems is strong and well-established. It is senseless to believe that promised means of
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
11
housing, transportation, etc. will accommodate the proposed growth in business space. Who will pay for the
consequences of the proposed development -- residents, not businesses.
I believe history has shown that the notion that we will find eventual solutions and know how to "manage" the problems resulting from visions of unchecked development to be a modern version of the old saying, "if wishes
were horses, beggars would ride". Please correct the Comprehensive Plan and its vision for unchecked future
growth so that it addresses in realistic terms the key current shortcomings:
Excessive non-residential growth
Weak or missing traffic and parking mitigations
Inadequate participation of businesses in paying their fair share of the consequences of their own
development -- infrastructure, schools, traffic and parking, etc.
Insufficient attention to a realistic plan for community sustainability -- how long can this kind of
exploitation of precious community resources continue
Thank you for your attention,
Tom Rindfleisch
31 Tevis Place
Palo Alto 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
12
Carnahan, David
From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net>
Sent:Saturday, October 21, 2017 5:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comp Plan
Please count me among the many who favor the adoption of a Comp Plan that provides for sensible, realistic,
and well-planned development. The plan should be specific about required mitigations so that new development does not overwhelm our built environment and exacerbate existing problems. The jobs:housing
issue is complex and arguably not something that can be brought into balance within our existing
infrastructure.
I urge you to not approve any part of the plan that is not “fully baked” but to instead take whatever time is needed to clarify and improve so that the end product is as good as it can be. For instance, the land use element
should not increase density or relax the current height limit given that our current infrastructure (particularly the
parts that involve roads, transportation, and parking) so obviously cannot sustain even the existing level of
development. This can be revisited in the future if ever we improve our infrastructure.
Please also keep politics and personal ambition out of the decision making process. The decisions you make and
votes you cast will shape what Palo Alto becomes. I am well aware that more people want to live here than
currently do; natural forces and economic forces will create some opportunity for that. Adopting a Comp Plan
that facilitates densification might serve some immediate purpose but the residual impact is not worth the short
term gain. This City needs to achieve significant improvements to its infrastructure before additional demands are placed on it. This is unfortunate given the need for housing, but we have been on a development rush that
has resulted in myriad problems. It’s time to acknowledge that we need to have an adequate foundation prior
to embarking on further development so that the outcome is beneficial (or at least neutral) rather than
destructive. Said differently, it is time to pay the Piper.
Annette Ross
Resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
13
Carnahan, David
From:brucecrocker <Bruce.c@pitango-us.com>
Sent:Saturday, October 21, 2017 6:32 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:crocker1@pacbell.net
Subject:Comprehensive Plan Review
To the Council Members: We are unable to attend the meeting Oct 23 but would
like to register several comments and concerns with the council. Overall, we do
not believe the plan as it now stands should be approved and encourage the
council to rethink key aspects.
Our specific comments focus on the following:
1. Implement or maintain caps on office/commercial development in
downtown areas. Palo Alto should maintain its character as a residential
community with commercial services for residents. We have no obligation to
fundamentally change the nature of the city, or let development outrun the
capacity of our schools, parking and road capacity, water supply, etc.
2. Increases in office and commercial space MUST require adequate and
realistic parking in the building or constructed nearby and paid for by the
developer. We need to get employee cars out of our neighborhoods and not
add to the city’s parking burden. This requires conservative and realistic
assumptions about transportation preferences—not unrealistic assumptions
about changing peoples’ behavior.
3. Planned increases in residential population need to recognize the full
community cost to support such growth—utilities, schools, roads, and other
city services. We are concerned that the current plan does not do so. Any
development needs to carry these additional costs directly.
4. Current traffic planning is inadequate (e.g. University Avenue to access 101
on any weekday). This provides little confidence that the proposed plan is
dealing with traffic in an intelligent and realistic manner. We do not need
more congestion.
5. And a final pet peeve, the city is talking about a long range comprehensive
plan yet has been unable to solve the risk of flooding from San Francisquito
Creek at the Chaucer Street bridge. How can we talk about expanding city
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
14
requirements when we cannot solve a visible annual risk to homeowners in
the 19 years since the major flooding event in 1998 (and I have heard all the
excuses for 19 years).
Thank you for your consideration. Please focus on the residents who live
here in redoing the proposed plan with residents—not developers—in mind.
Suzanne and Bruce Crocker
1250 Hamilton Ave
O/H‐‐650‐321‐7514
C‐‐650‐862‐4032
Bruce.c@pitango‐us.com
Crocker1@pacbell.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
15
Carnahan, David
From:Rohini Chakravarthy <rohini.chakravarthy@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, October 21, 2017 6:48 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive plan - MORATORIUM on new development until traffic/ parking are
addressed first
Dear City Council:
We are writing to express our deep concern about the 3M square feet of office development built into the 15 year plan.
As residents of Crescent Park, we are already struggling with commute traffic for downtown workers, Stanford worker
traffic and Stanford game/ event traffic on a regular basis and we are seeing our neighborhood overtaken by employee
cars parked all day long. The freeways around us are all clogged as commute traffic struggles to enter and exit, creating
huge back flows into our neighborhood.
We believe strongly that there should be NO new business development until traffic and parking for EXISTING
development is addressed such that there are NO backups during commute hours and NO overflow parking on
neighborhood streets. The traffic is truly unbearable already and we dread the thought of 10,000 more cars plowing
through our neighborhood each morning and evening for the new employees you are hoping to attract to downtown.
New businesses downtown will likely attract workers from all over the Bay Area, not just people who will live and work
in Palo Alto. And Caltrain is NOT a reliable method for most workers (people who need time flexibility rather than 9‐5,
people with kids who need to stop at multiple points each way etc etc). And it is not a good system even for Palo Alto
residents even for airport trips, trips to SF etc. Please focus on connecting transit better into major transportation hubs
and to parts farther north into SanFrancisco to East Bay via Fremont before you add development ‐ without added
infrastructure FIRST, we will have a traffic disaster here.
Rohini Chakravarthy
Arvind Purushotham
1370 Pitman Ave
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
16
Carnahan, David
From:Mary Dimit <marydimit@sonic.net>
Sent:Sunday, October 22, 2017 4:08 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Plan Comments
To the Palo Alto City Council:
The proposed Comprehensive Plan (Plan) is biased toward businesses instead of toward a more balanced community for those who live and for those who work in Palo Alto. Our affordable housing, traffic, and
parking problems will only get worse unless we limit office development, encourage more affordable housing
(including Below-Market-Rate or BMR) and better address transportation and parking management.
With Palo Alto's increasing non-residential growth (especially as we already have a 3-to-1 job to employed residents ratio), the Plan should require businesses to increase their share of funding for
BMR housing,
mitigation of traffic congestion, and
reduction of parking encroachment into nearby neighborhoods.
Residents should not subsidize business growth. Residential neighborhoods should not be used to park office employees, instead require new buildings to be fully parked for any parking demand they create.
Two additional points, as the Planning and Transportation Commission notes in its General Consensus
comments in the staff report related to "Land Use Element Overall/General:"
The Element should place more emphasis on creating neighborhoods, not just building housing units.
Goals, policies, and programs throughout should be clear and actionable, and the City should be able to
track progress toward achievement.
Thank you,
Mary Dimit
University Ave.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help prprivacy, Outlook prevented automatic download ofrom the Internet.
Virus-free. www.avg.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
17
Carnahan, David
From:Janine Bisharat <janine@karunaadvisors.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 22, 2017 8:55 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:traffic
Dear City Council:
Thank you for fixing the middlefield corrider – I am happy that it has reduced the accidents on middlefield and
everett and middlefield and hawthorne.
I have lived on Hawthorne and Byron for 25 years, and before that, Everett and Byron. I have seen the commuter
traffic on these streets increase to the point of I tell everyone now that I live on a highway. There are so many cars
continuously turning right from middlefield on to Hawthorne all the time now – especially during the week after
3:00. I do hope you might consider installing a no right turn sign into the neighborhood between 4 – 7.
If I could, I would move out of Palo Alto as the quality of living has gone way down due to the cars and traffic
congestion and I don’t see any consideration by the Council to stop the growth and include a plan for the residents
of downtown and the traffic calming.
Please stop allowing large companies with over 1,000 employees to take over Palo Alto downtown. That is now
what our City was built for – smaller companies and retail are now missing and having to close down.
Janine Bisharat
Business Owner
Janine Bisharat
1550 El Camino Real, Suite 250
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Phone: 650‐328‐2758| Cell: 650‐248‐1335
Janine@karunaadvisors.com | www.karunaadvisors.com
This email and any attachments may contain private, confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please immediately delete this email and any attachments.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
18
Carnahan, David
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Sunday, October 22, 2017 12:15 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary
Subject:A blog I posted on your EIR review tomorrow
On Monday October 23rd the city council will begin review of the final Environmental Report (EIR) of the new
Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan).
The EIR has three mandated obligations:
--To identify impacts of the project (here the project is various levels of job and population growth)
--To propose mitigation measures when significant impacts are possible
--To identify where significant and unavoidable impacts could remain after mitigation
The final EIR, while including information on all alternatives considered by the council, focused on the so called “preferred
alternative” of between 8,435 to 10,455 additional residents, 9,850 to 11,500 additional jobs and 3,545 to 4,420 additional
housing units. The job and population growth represent increases of 10-15%.
The Pluses in the Final EIR
The EIR faithfully completed their mandated tasks and should, therefore, be adopted so that the Comp Plan can be
completed and we can move forward to implementing policies and mitigations.
The EIR found potentially significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to air quality and traffic/transportation but also
no significant impacts with respect to land use, population and housing, water and school enrollment.
However, the mandate of the EIR process has a design flaw that affects how the results should be interpreted with
respect to Comp Plan policies and impacts. The impacts that could be unavoidable when looking only at the growth
impact could be offset by changes in the behavior of existing residents and workers/companies and the advance of
technology and innovation.
The EIR Design Flaw
The EIR focuses on the impacts associated with various levels of future growth.
It is common sense that new jobs and population, by themselves, will add to water use, air pollution, GHG emissions,
school enrollment and traffic.
But that is different than saying that in 2030 Palo Alto will have more water use, poorer air quality, more students in school
and worse traffic.
The EIR analysis by design does not focus on what happens with the existing residents and jobs. It only focuses on the
incremental growth.
Imagine an EIR done 20-40 years ago. Looking at incremental growth, it would have predicted worse air (air quality is
much better), more water use (water use in Palo Alto is below previous levels), more kids in school (there are thousands
fewer than at the peak enrollment when population was lower) and worse traffic (that assessment would have proven
correct).
What happened?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
19
With respect to water use, energy use, and pollution from cars, we have become much more efficient. We have installed
low flush toilets, reduced flow showers, more water and energy efficient appliances, cars that get better mileage,
commercial facilities that emit fewer emissions and voluntary conservation from an increasingly aware and caring public.
In addition the City has a comprehensive Sustainability and Climate Change Action Plan to move forward with resource
efficiency measures. And we are moving forward on various transportation management plans.
With respect to school enrollment birth rates have fallen from near 3 children per family to 2.3 and now fertility rates are
near 1.7, below replacement levels. So as existing homes turned over, there were on average fewer children per home.
So there were more people and homes but fewer school children.
This is likely to continue in the future. The county is projected to have 300,000 more residents in 2030 but fewer school
age children. The current homes and recent projects filled with children from the 2.3 fertility cohort will be replaced on
average by children from the 1.7 fertility cohorts.
Conclusion
So the EIR has done its mandated job and should be approved.
My thoughts as someone who came here in 1963 and benefited from the forward thinking of people like Ray Bachetti and
Aggie Robinson is that It is time to move forward to adoption of the Comp Plan. Then we can use the information from the
EIR along with our existing plans, ingenuity and can do welcoming spirit to leave a great city to future generations, one in
which we find ways to make room for middle class folks like we were when we were young and address the challenges of
living in the heart of Silicon Valley with a positive and realistic but not fearful attitude.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
20
Carnahan, David
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Sunday, October 22, 2017 1:49 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary
Subject:recent ads--process and content
I got back from the birth of our granddaughter on Friday to see several ads and emails with four points
--Businesses should pay more for housing
--Businesses should pay more for traffic mitigation
--The council should put more traffic mitigation into the Comp Plan
--The council should stop "excessive non-residential growth"
I was a member of the CAC and attended or watched most follow up PTC meetings.
Both bodies discussed the Comp Plan extensively and did not reach the conclusions listed above though
both bodies and the EIR plus recent TMA actions do include many traffic mitigation measures already that
have strong support.
As a citizen volunteer I am disappointed that the ads attempt to change a long process of reaching agreement among parties with different views. Why should anyone volunteer to serve again if two years of work can be tossed aside at the last moment?
The businesses should pay more issues are certainly appropriate for council to discuss but are not to my
mind Comp Plan issues. I will discuss the content below.
There are in my mind two points with respect to non-residential growth that I would appreciate staff
clarification on.
First, the words non-residential (which includes store retail, restaurants, hotels, day care centers, an increasing demand for senior and non profit services as well as medical and professional offices is used
seemingly interchangeably with the words office/R&D and commercial. So there are plenty of non
residential uses besides office that residents value and want more of.
So a clarification of what the caps apply to would be helpful as well as a clarification that the cap is 1.7
million new feet as the SMC increases are already moving ahead.
Two, given the strong feelings about office uses, could the city staff clarify where recent job growth has occurred and how much--for example, downtown versus various Stanford lands in the City and how much comes from new space.
As to who should pay for expenditures, I have 3 points.
One, the City had a fiscal analysis conducted as part of the EIR contract. The result was that studied
expansions of people and jobs had a small but POSITIVE fiscal impact. Assertions that the city will lose
money on growth are NOT supported by the fiscal study.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
21
Two, as to who subsidizes expenditures of others, I am pretty sure I and other long-time homeowners do
a lot of subsidizing of new residents and new businesses. My property taxes go up by a max of 2% while
city costs go up faster. We make up the difference by adding other taxes and fees but in the end it is the
new homeowners paying the really high property taxes. I know this is not a politically popular position but I believe it is true.
Businesses pay a lot of fees already but i am certainly open to more analysis. Right now though I believe the tax business more folks do not know the direction of subsidies if any and are playing on a popular
political position everywhere in the country--let the other person pay more.
Three, one thing is clear about school financing and subsidies. Existing residents never put more than 2%
a year more into the pot while new homes AND NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT contribute to our
schools and push the property tax growth rate far above 2%.
I support council member Filseth's concern and careful analysis of retirement benefits for public employees and hope he and the council will be as careful in assessing and talking about who should be
paying for our public services and where there are unfair subsidies if any.
Stephen Levy
365 Forest Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
22
Carnahan, David
From:Evan Goldin <evan.goldin@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 22, 2017 2:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Pass the comprehensive plan
Council members,
I wanted to write to urge you to pass the comprehensive plan and make it easier to build housing in Palo Alto. More
housing is needed at all market levels, and today, new housing supply is so rare that every unit becomes a luxury unit. As
someone who is only able to live on the Peninsula because councils of the past allowed for a single-family home to be
converted into an apartments in the 60s, I can personally say that zoning changes and prioritizing new supply can make a
difference.
I also wanted to encourage you to support the PTC recommendation to prioritize housing construction downtown and near
California Ave — along with additional locations like the mall, SRP and Town and Country. This crisis is severe, and we
need to be creative in battling it.
Having grown up in Palo Alto, I've seen so many of my classmates move away because they can’t afford the Bay. My
high-school girlfriend moved to Michigan, where she bought a home at age 25 on a medical resident’s salary. My parents
left four years ago, so they could have the money to retire. My best friend lives in New York City, where he pays less in
rent than I do on the Peninsula.
One creative way that you can both bring down housing costs and minimize traffic/parking: Encourage new developments
that have near-zero parking. Council should try to bring housing downtown or to California Ave, and aim it at residents
who don’t have cars. Don’t allow the developers to provide parking and don’t give out parking permits to these residents,
and you will (A) significantly lower the construction costs (B) force them attract residents who don’t own cars. Doing those
two things will allow for truly inexpensive housing at a market rate!
I urge you to help bring down the cost of housing here. Your city, your children and future generations deserve better
options than my generation has. You can really bring change to Palo Alto.
- Evan (Paly, 2003)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
23
Carnahan, David
From:Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 22, 2017 3:15 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com; Hetterly, Jennifer
Subject:Comprehensive Plan Update Input for Monday Night's City Council by Hamilton
Hitchings
Currently Palo Alto is a great place to live with its family neighborhoods, and to work with its leading technology
companies like Tesla. I hope it will still be like that in 15 years. However, Palo Alto faces several major
challenges due to its popularity.
Resident Concerns
The National Citizen Survey is conducted every year for the Palo Alto city government to provide a statistically
sound measure and solid data on how its residents feel about Palo Alto. These areas have recently been
declining sharply in key areas of livability.
In 2012 residents rated the quality of life as good or excellent for 94% of respondents and by 2016 that
had dropped to 85%.
As a place to raise children it fell from 92% in 2012 to 84% in 2016
As a place to work it fell from 88% in 2012 to 82% in 2016
Why? Well according to the survey, the following areas highlight the major concerns
Availability of affordable quality housing was rated as good or excellent by only 6% of residents
Cost of living in Palo Alto - 7%
Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto - 28%
Traffic flow on major streets - 30%
Ease of public parking - 33%
Land use, planning and zoning - 37%
Thus affordable housing, traffic and parking are major areas of dissatisfaction for Palo Alto residents and
should be more effectively addressed by the Comprehensive Plan Update.
The Cause - Recent Office Boom
This has been caused by the office boom where recently about 20 office buildings have been built relative to
only a couple of small multi-unit apartments in part because office is more profitable. The recent office building
boom can also be quantified with data. According to the City of Palo Alto’s 2014 Existing Conditions Report,
page 8-33, the average annual non-residential square footage growth from 1989 to 2008 was approximately
38,000 square feet per year but it’s rate of growth tripled from 2008 - 2014 to an average of approximately
112,000 square feet per year in the 9 monitored areas.
Housing Affordability Challenges
While many argue that building smaller, market rate housing units will improve affordability, the evidence on
the ground locally doesn’t bear that out. For example, the new apartments at San Antonio Shopping Center
called Carmel The Village are between 547 and 638 square feet and rent for $3,000 to $5,000 dollars per
month. In Palo Alto, these smaller units will still be luxury and unaffordable to middle class folks without the
inclusion of a practical number of BMR units.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
24
The Comprehensive Plan Update allows for 3 million more square feet of office to be built over the next 15
years, crowding out housing. Thus we need to rezone some of that to housing.
Traffic
In addition to frustrating residents, growing traffic and parking problems hurt all Palo Alto businesses. Traffic
congestion and poor Level of Service (LOS) at intersections result in not only longer commute times but
shorter employee retention and an increased difficulty of attracting top talent. For retail, they also hurt their
ability to attract customers. That is why it’s critical we achieve our TDM targets in T1.2.2 and not increase
peak hour motor vehicle trips as we continue to grow.
CalTrain trenching will absorb the majority of our transportation dollars for the next 15 years so we need to be
careful to limit our overall building to what our transportation infrastructure can realistically support.
Parking
In terms of parking, as long as we are using residential neighborhoods to park office employees, unlike almost
all other cities in the Bay Area, we should require new buildings to be fully parked for the parking demand they
generate and loading zone usage.
PTC
Lastly, I’d like to address one of the Highest Priority Changes recommended by the PTC. That is to study to
converting parts of University Ave to pedestrian only (PTC High Priority item #5 on page 11 of the City Council
Staff Report 10/23/2017). I think introducing a major change this late in the process is too radical and was not
discussed as a program during the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizens Advisory Committee, which would
have been the time to bring it up. University connects Stanford and 101 and until we have solved our parking
and traffic problems and dealt with Caltrain grade separation it’s premature to study this.
Summary
In conclusion, our growth challenges can be effectively addressed by:
Rezoning from office to housing, with an emphasis on affordability including BMR units
Limiting our growth so peak hour motor vehicle trips do not increase
Reducing our reliance on parking office workers in residential neighborhoods
If we do all this, I believe Palo Alto can still be an amazing place for families to raise their children and for high
tech workers to innovate at ground breaking companies.
Note: these comments are soley my own and I plan to stop including this disclaimer because the Citizens
Advisory Committee for the Comp Plan Update has ended.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
25
Carnahan, David
From:Ellen Smith <ef44smith@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 22, 2017 4:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Plan update
Dear Councilmembers:
While I support expanding housing opportunities in Palo Alto through increased density near downtown, California Ave., and along El Camino, with a strong emphasis on units that can be restricted to low and
moderate income residents, I am opposed to further expansion of office space and employment. We already
have a skewed jobs-to-housing ratio, which generates traffic problems and has woefully insufficient parking for
those who work here now. I would like to see the vaunted traffic demand management plans begin to reduce
existing traffic levels before any thought is given to increasing employment.
Ellen Smith
1469 Dana Ave.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
26
Carnahan, David
From:Linnea Wickstrom <ljwickstrom@comcast.net>
Sent:Sunday, October 22, 2017 6:52 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Linnea Wickstrom; Peter Maresca
Subject:We support the Comprehensive Plans
Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss, and Council Members Please adopt the Comprehensive Plan developed with so much community involvement.
In particular, we support your positive consideration of the Colleagues Memo on encouraging new
housing: allowing for re-zoning to allow much more dense housing in commercial areas near transit and
services. Please help bring Palo Alto adapt.
Linnea Wickstrom and Peter Maresca Monroe Drive Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
27
Carnahan, David
From:Elaine Uang <elaine.uang@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 22, 2017 9:18 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary
Subject:Agenda #6: Comprehensive Plan
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for reviewing the Comprehensive Plan’s Planning & Transportation Commission(PTC)
recommendations & Environmental Impact Report (EIR). While the Comp Plan is not perfect, I urge you to
accept the PTC’s recommendations and certify the EIR, as staff has recommended.
First, please respect the process and time that has gone into the new Comp Plan.
Palo Alto should be honored with a “Longest Comp Plan Process” award. Any further delay in approving the
Comp Plan is an affront to the wonderful people who have been involved.
This process started 12 years ago with a PTC draft, but was reset 3 years ago, with a Community
Summit and Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to provide citizen input.
The staff has invested a lot of time and taxpayer resources to develop this document and shepherd
the whole process.
Along with 22 other industrious CAC members, I have personally spent countless hours reading staff
packets, attending CAC meetings, and engaging in Subcommittee Meetings (Transportation and
Subcommittee).
Our PTC has dedicated 90 days and 4 meetings reviewing this Comp Plan.
Second, as the blueprint of our city, this Comp Plan directly impacts everyone in our community. In the 7 years
since the last Comp Plan ended, our housing shortage and affordability crisis has gotten worse and extreme
transportation challenges have arisen. Council can improve the lives of everyone in our community by
approving the Comp Plan ASAP. In that spirit, I submit the following points for your consideration:
# Housing Units
o While the #of housing units in the Preferred Scenario (3545 – 4420) is not as high as I would like,
it does increase the historic rate of housing growth in Palo Alto.
o We should expand our definition of affordable housing – below market rate units are critical,
but expensive to build. Many middle class families and individuals are being squeezed and
need options too, including market rate
o Palo Alto is not an island and our neighbors are approving many more housing units (9850 in
Mountain View’s North Bayshore, and 5500 in Menlo Park’s M2) If we do not keep pace, we will
make Palo Alto’s housing affordability even worse.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
28
Infill Housing + VMT
o PTC has recommended the Comp Plan prioritize infill housing and walkable communities. In
order to prioritize both, our CEQA transportation impact policy should measure both VMT + LOS,
but prioritize VMT.
o Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) supports infill by accounting for all modes of travel (car, bus,
bike, pedestrian) and evaluates transportation impacts on a local level (intersection wait times)
and systems level (total travel time)
o Level of Service (LOS) discourages infill & walkability by measuring only automobile wait time
at an intersection. To mitigate a negative LOS impact, infill projects are asked to expand roads
to reduce wait time, making projects more expensive and roads less safe and less walkable.
Sustainable Transportation
o We have strong Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction goals in our Sustainability and Climate
Action Plan, but 66% of our current GHG are from commuters driving into our city. To reduce
those emissions, we need to change inbound commutes from single occupancy vehicle to
carpool/transit AND increase local housing options to enable bike/walk commutes.
o To decrease inbound car trips, our comp plan policies should consider automobile trip caps
for future non-residential development, instead commercial square footage caps AND
encourage paid parking policies, especially in employment districts.
Jobs & Transportation
o To meet sustainable transportation goals, reduce reliance on automobiles and decrease
parking demand, Comp Plan policy should prioritize a greater proportion of non-residential
development next to transit rich areas, like Downtown PA which has CalTrain, VTA, Sam Trans
and AC Transit.
o Palo Alto is not an island - Capping PA non-residential growth at 1.7 million square feet, means
future commercial growth will be pushed to MV, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara baylands with poorer
transit access. This only destroys ecosystems and exacerbates regional traffic congestion.
o Case studies: Box reduced driving and parking demand when it moved to downtown
Redwood City from Los Altos. At Lytton & Alma, Survey Monkey had a 37% drive alone rate and
wanted to stay in Palo Alto but recently moved to Bay Meadows. If they had been allowed to
occupy a taller building at their former location, they would have stayed.
Third, please take the following interim actions in support of the Comp Plan:
Downtown Coordinated Area Plan – while Frys is important, the Downtown area is the most transit rich
(CalTrain, VTA, Sam Trans and AC Transit) and service rich area. It is the BEST place for housing, jobs and
other non-residential uses. And a Coordinated Area Plan for Downtown would create the best growth,
community design with the least impact.
Zoning Ordinance Changes – to incentivize housing in commercial mixed use districts. In particular,
the big four that need review are:
o Density Limits
o Height Limits
o Square Footage (FAR)
o Parking Requirements
Initiate Discussions with Stanford about Housing @ SRP, Stanford Medical Center, and Stanford Mall –
these are all ideal places to locate housing near jobs. SUMC and Stanford Mall in particular are adjacent
to the transit rich downtown area.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
29
My voice is only one of many, but in your discussion tonight, I hope you consider broader community interests,
including the voices you do not hear from directly.
Sincerely,
Elaine Uang
Kipling Street
Comp Plan CAC Member
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
30
Carnahan, David
From:Nounou T <nounout@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 22, 2017 9:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Final Environmental Impact Report for the new Comprehensive Pla
I'm sorry I cannot attend in person, but would like to reiterate the issue raised by many of my neighbors in Crescent
Park. Please address parking, congestion and unacceptable traffic spilling into our neighborhood, before approving more
business allocation to downtown.
Thank you
Nounou Taleghani
Fulton Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
31
Carnahan, David
From:Harish Belur <hbelur@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 12:43 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Concerns about the Comprehensive Plan
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
As residents of Crescent Park, we are writing to express our very significant concern about the alarming increase in traffic, parking and general congestion in downtown Palo Alto and surrounding areas.
In general, we tend to be pro development, but continuing development without addressing traffic, parking and
other issues that impact residents does not appear to be reasonable, sustainable or fair. Its our city too.
We strongly urge you to reconsider the very large commercial developments being proposed over the next 15
years, particularly with respect to the impact on parking and traffic congestion coming into the city.
Thank you,
Harish Belur
Arevig Antablian
483 Fulton Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
32
Carnahan, David
From:John Hanna <jhanna@hanvan.com>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 11:03 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:editor@paloaltomatters.org; Crescent List serve; letters@padailypost.com;
letters@paweekly.com
Subject:Comprehensive plan
My top three issues facing Palo Alto are:
1. Affordable Housing
2. Traffic
3. Parking
Affordable housing: This is the BIG ONE. Some of the more enlightened members of the City Council are
beginning to understand that the key to making anything more affordable, including housing, is supply and demand. The
City controls the supply through many different devices and strategies, including: zoning; density; FAR ratios; height
limits; lot size minimums; restrictions on condos in certain neighborhoods; second unit limitations; high building permit
fees; impact fees on new home builders; regulatory and processing delays which cost money and cause new home
prices to rise. These things, and more, all impact the cost of developing new housing, slow the process of creating new
housing, and raise the cost. Only a comprehensive effort to address all of these barriers and obstacles to making
housing more plentiful and less expensive, will have any material effect on the availability and cost of housing.
The other principal obstacle to affordable housing is the tendency of a majority of our property owners (while they
support the concept of affordable housing), to oppose any project that impacts their neighborhood in a way they deem
against their personal interests. The Maybell project is the prime example of this.
Traffic: Much of the frustration related to traffic results from a failure to control traffic flow. Consider the
continual back‐up on University
Avenue. There are two primary reasons for that: First, the off‐ramp from 101 was cut off by the permitting of the Four
Seasons Hotel and office buildings. That project could have been designed to retain the traditional cloverleaf design of
the intersection, but the decision was made to cut off one leaf, so that traffic exiting Palo alto must stop to wait for
traffic entering Palo Alto from the North and for traffic exiting University from East Palo Alto and heading South on
101. The second reason is that the stop lights at Woodland and University and the light controlling the traffic coming
from East Palo Alto or coming South on 101 are not controlled by the same entity. One is controlled by Palo alto, and the
other by Cal Trans, and they are not synchronized.
The major irritation to locals, as well as those traveling through Town, is the delay resulting from traffic lights that are
not synchronized.
The technology exists to have central control of all traffic lights throughout the entire city, so that the time cars sit
idling waiting for red lights to turn green is minimized. (traffic engineers sometimes use the term “Wasted Green” to
describe what occurs when an intersection light remains green for the duration of the preset cycle while lines of cars sit
with idling engines facing a signal that does not turn green because it has not been told by someone (the traffic control
computer) that it’s time to turn green. Such a system, controlled either by cameras or a satellite, could take care of
most of these issues, but it won’t happen until the City adopts this as a priority and calls for bids and proposals from the
private sector to create and supply the control system.
Parking: The City has repeatedly passed up opportunities to create more garages at no expense to the City.
Rather than sell the air rights above City owned surface parking lots to developers who will create more housing, in
return for building a City owned and operated garage on the land beneath (as was done years ago in the case of the
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:08 AM
33
Abitare Condominium project on High and Alma, and the City garage on Ramona), the City builds its own garages at
great taxpayer expense, and gets no use out of the valuable land so used, except for parking. In so doing it passes on the
opportunity to have more housing downtown, more people who can walk to work or to shop and can leave their cars in
the garage, to create more customers for downtown merchants and restaurant owners, and to generates more
property tax revenue for the City.
The means to address these problems do exist. What is required is the will to adopt them.
John Hanna
John Paul Hanna, Esq.
Hanna & Van Atta
525 University Avenue, Suite 600
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (650) 321‐5700
Facsimile: (650) 321‐5639
E‐mail: jhanna@hanvan.com
This e‐mail message may contain confidential, privileged information intended solely for the addressee. Please do not read, copy, or
disseminate it unless you are the addressee. If you have received this e‐mail message in error, please call us (collect) at (650) 321‐
5700 and ask to speak with the message sender. Also, we would appreciate your forwarding the message back to us and deleting it
from your system. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:10 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Don McDougall <mcdougall.don@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, October 20, 2017 10:24 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Plan Update dated June 30, 2017
Attachments:Comprehensive Plan Update dated June 30.docx
Mr. Mayor and Palo Alto City Council,
Palo Alto City Council should accept the recommendations of the PTC, , adopt the various and appropriate
resolution and move toward approval of the Updated Comprehensive Plan dated June 30, 2017
The Process
The Comprehensive Plan Update was not created in a vacuum. It was created by over 20 interested, involved,
conscientious Palo Alto Citizens. It was created with long (some might say too long) and open debate. It was
created with an open invitation and participation by citizens and stakeholders of Palo Alto.
Planning department and other staff should be commended and thanked for their guidance, insights,
contributions and efforts well beyond normal office hours to write and rewrite (and rewrite) the documents.
The Plan
Topics important to the future of Palo Alto were discussed; housing, traffic, environment, parks, diversity, education, retail, business, and yes sustainability. Every side of each of these topics was openly discussed and
debated. There was meaningful, thoughtful and robust debate in the many subcommittee meetings that were
also open to and frequently attended by the public. Co-chairs Garber and Keller should be proud of their
management of the open debate and agreed conclusions in the large monthly meetings.
This is a very good, not perfect document that will serve the city of Palo Alto well, not as formula, not as a set
of rules, but as a compilation of guidelines and intentions that this Council and Councils for the next 15 years
can follow to ensure a livable, diverse, manageable and yes, sustainable Palo Alto.
Your Support
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:10 AM
2
This is not a plan that is perfect. This is not a plan developed by special interests. This is a plan developed by a
diverse group of interested, concerned and involved local citizens.
Serious effort to create a serious document should be respected and supported.
The document addresses reality and not ideology, has practical and sustainable policies and programs that are
not uni-dimensional and integrates a complete range of considerations.
Please proceed to adopt the draft Comprehensive Plan Update.
Don McDougall
270 Channing Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Regards,
Comprehensive Plan Update dated June 30, 2017 Palo Alto City Council should accept the recommendations of the PTC, , adopt the various and appropriate resolution and move toward approval of the Updated Comprehensive Plan dated June 30, 2017
The Process The Comprehensive Plan Update was not created in a vacuum. It was created by over 20 interested, involved, conscientious Palo Alto Citizens. It was created with long (some might say too long) and open debate. It was created with an open invitation and participation by citizens and stakeholders of Palo Alto. Planning department and other staff should be commended and thanked for their guidance, insights, contributions and efforts well beyond normal office hours to write and rewrite (and rewrite) the documents. The Plan Topics important to the future of Palo Alto were discussed; housing, traffic, environment, parks, diversity, education, retail, business, and yes sustainability. Every side of each of these topics was openly discussed and debated. There was meaningful, thoughtful and robust debate in the many subcommittee meetings that were also open to and frequently attended by the public. Co-chairs Garber and Keller should be proud of their management of the open debate and agreed conclusions in the large monthly meetings. This is a very good, not perfect document that will serve the city of Palo Alto well, not as formula, not as a set of rules, but as a compilation of guidelines and intentions that this Council and Councils for the next 15 years can follow to ensure a livable, diverse, manageable and yes, sustainable Palo Alto. Your Support This is not a plan that is perfect. This is not a plan developed by special interests. This is a plan developed by a diverse group of interested, concerned and involved local citizens. Serious effort to create a serious document should be respected and supported. The document addresses reality and not ideology, has practical and sustainable policies and programs that are not uni-dimensional and integrates a complete range of considerations. Please proceed to adopt the draft Comprehensive Plan Update. Don McDougall 270 Channing Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:10 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:LWV of Palo Alto <lwvpaoffice@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, October 20, 2017 10:49 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:October 23, 2017, Agenda Item No. 6
Attachments:CC ltr CompPlan.docx
Dear City Council Members.
Attached please find a letter from the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto regarding the October
23, 2017, Agenda Item No. 6: Planning & Transportation Commission Comments on the
Comprehensive Plan Update.
Thank you.
Bonnie Packer President
--
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
3921 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 209
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 903-0600
October 20, 2017
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members,
Re: October 23, 2017, Agenda Item No. 6: Planning & Transportation Commission Comments on the
Comprehensive Plan Update
Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members,
The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto (LWVPA) supports efforts by the City to increase the supply
of housing for all, particularly for those with lower incomes. For that reason we encourage you to adopt
the recommendations of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) which address housing. In
particular LWVPA supports PTC recommendation 7: Land Use Element Overall/General: “Recommend that the Council include language that expresses a strong preference for affordable housing and housing that is affordable and a commitment to increasing Housing supply over time consistent with the goals set by the City Council through the Housing Element Process.“ Palo Alto had, until recently, been a leader in providing opportunities for the creation of affordable housing. While our neighboring cities have been noticeably responsive in addressing the housing crisis, our City has fallen woefully behind. You can reverse this trend by adopting a Comprehensive Plan that unequivocally encourages a meaningful increase in housing supply. But you do not need to wait until the updated Comprehensive Plan is certified. The existing Housing Element Goals H2 and H3 provide you with sufficient tools to begin to address the housing crisis through creative zoning changes. You recently directed the Planning Department to draft language for a zoning overlay for affordable housing projects. We urge you to move full speed ahead with that first step. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Bonnie Packer
President
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
THE LEAGUE
OF WOMEN VOTERS
OF PALO ALTO
3921 E. BAYSHORE RD., SUITE 209 • PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303 • 650-903-0600 • www.lwvpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:20 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Eric Rosenblum <mitericr@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 11:17 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for adoption of Comprehensive Plan, and moving forward to implementation
To City Council
I am writing as an individual resident of Palo Alto, not as a Planning and Transportation Commissioner nor as a Board Member of Palo Alto Forward.
I would like to urge you to ratify our Comprehensive Plan, and move on to the next important steps: prioritizing projects for implementation.
I believe that the plan strikes a decent balance between members of our community who have differing visions for our city’s future. At this
point, I believe that you should respect that process and the hard work put in by the Citizen’s Advisory Committee, the Planning and
Transportation Commission, City Staff, and all of the other groups that worked to get this draft to your desks. Your most valuable
contribution will be to ratify and aggressively prioritize the projects implied by this Comp Plan.
On a more personal level, I have some quibbles with the final draft. As noted, I believe that we should respect the process, and move forward, but for the record, I would like to note some of these areas:
Housing/ zoning: I wish that we had been more aggressive with our supply target (after decades of running a deficit, this plan will still be
below our RHNA number), and had been more willing to make the kinds of zoning changes (especially with regard to density and parking
requirements) that would have made housing more affordable. Study after study has shown the relationship between housing supply and
overall affordability, as well as the destructive impact of parking minimums and density maximums on affordability we have essentially
incentivized developers to build big, expensive units when we want smaller, inexpensive units. We’ll get what we zone for
Parking: our parking strategy to date has been regressive on almost all fronts. We don't assign any value to it (ie., we give it away for free), so it is always overutilized. We force every building to fully park itself, so we don’t have any liquidity (ie., we don’t encourage pooling our development fees to build garages that have any scale). City Staff has plans to address both of these issues, but they will need support
Impact metrics: I think that retaining “Level of Service” (“LOS”) in its current form is an obvious mistake. There is a reason that
California is moving to “Vehicle Miles Traveled” (“VMT”) LOS has disfavored infill development, and has pushed communities to simply widen roads in response to new developments. The use of LOS as a metric has been destructive to city planning and overall quality of life for residents. I had recommended at least getting rid of LOS’ letter grades (A-F), while retaining its data (ie. the expected delay at each intersection)
Development Cap: I believe that the use of an annual square footage cap to meter development is a mistake and a loss of a prime
opportunity: we should have defined the impact metrics that we are trying to achieve (especially around increases to traffic/ parking needs)
and then worked against those. We have now built a system with no upside for developers or for Palo Alto residents (unless the upside is just
“no more growth”).
What’s next
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 11:20 AM
2
Rather than spending time and effort reviewing individual Comp Plan elements, I would prefer to see Council time on prioritizing the projects that are suggested by the Plan, and moving rapidly to study and implementation.
Chief among these (IMHO) are
Coordinated Area Plans for our University Ave Downtown and North Ventura
Implementation of Paid Parking (after appropriate input from local merchants)
Study and plan for our rail corridor
Study of zoning impacts on housing affordability (in particular parking, density, FAR and height) with an eye to actually meeting our RHNA goals going forward
Thank you for your hard work and consideration!
Eric Rosenblum
154 Bryant Street
Right-click download help protecOutlook prautomatic dthi s pi ctu reIn ternet.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 12:52 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Beth Guislin <beth.guislin@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 12:07 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed Comprehensive Plan
Council Members,
I am one of the signatories on the paid advertisement to “Look into Palo Alto’s Future” and “push for a vibrant
residential community”.
COMMERCIAL GROWTH. The draft Plan would add up to three million square feet of non‐residential space
over the next 15 years. This translates into an average of twice the annual growth rate experienced during the
past 27 years in Palo Alto. Last year, the City’s Annual Citizen Survey showed that more than two‐thirds of our
residents consistently express high levels of concern about congestion, traffic and parking. Please cut back the
excessive non‐residential growth in the Plan.
TRAFFIC MITIGATIONS. Transportation mitigations in the Plan have all been under active discussion since the
late 1980s with very limited success. Traffic mitigations work only if there are clear definitions, objective
monitoring and strict enforcement. Please include statements in the Plan that deal effectively with current
traffic congestion, increased accidents, and low traffic enforcement, before we have more growth.
BUSINESS FUNDING. Residents should not be subsidizing businesses. Transportation mitigation is impossible
without commitments of funding from the business community. Please require businesses to make long‐term
commitments of mitigation funding equivalent to the 50‐year commitment from the Stanford Medical Center.
PAYING FOR HOUSING. The City has a clear obligation to subsidize Below‐Market‐Rate housing. But the
majority of current subsidies come from new housing, not on the much more rapidly growing job centers. The
very high ratio of jobs to employed residents means that the Plan should require businesses to increase their
share of funding.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 12:52 PM
2
Beth Guislin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 12:52 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 12:42 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Clerk, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Daniel Garber; Arthur Keller
Subject:Comp Plan review
October 23, 2017
Dear City Council,
Subject: New Comprehensive Plan Tonight
I hope citizens get a full 3 minutes for public comments tonight. Here are my condensed public
comments. To add clarity I have added brief footnotes to elaborate on my comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I extend my appreciation to staff and citizens for bringing the Comp Plan into debate tonight and Nov
13..
I have one narrow comment about senior housing and four higher level comments.
#1 The Plan could be more specific and directive about the housing for the aging baby boomers…not
nursing home care but proven congregate housing concepts such as Channing House, Vi and PA
Commons.
#2 The current comp plan contains a critically important value statement.
“It [Comp Plan] encourages commercial enterprise, but not at the expense of the
City’s residential neighborhoods.”
I cannot find this statement in the proposed plan. The Comp Plan is seriously defective without this
value statement. Without this value statement the Plan humanistically defective .
#3 The plan overuses the vague term “Affordable Housing”. This is not only vague economics but it
is pure political pandering. Ill-defined words will create a divisive housing wedge issue for years to
come. The Council has stewardship responsibility to define affordability before Nov 13. In the
months to come council has the power to create public debate: affordability for whom. Palo Altans
deserve debate and clarification early in 2018 not later. Housing policy will devolve quickly into a
swamp without definition and focus.
#4 Traffic and transportation issues are 911 issues. The Stanford GUP admits traffic is deteriorating
and unlikely to be improved. Near crisis is a common belief among every citizen I know. F-rated
intersection are deteriorating. Spillover traffic is impacting residential streets and
neighborhoods. Assuming the economic growth continues, Palo Alto’s destiny is a very small city
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 12:52 PM
4
with inadequate financial and staff resources to manage its housing and transportation issues. We
are in hole and are digging it deeper. The Comp Plan voids this reality.
#5 Responsible public and private organizations actively monitor public opinion. On Oct 1, 2017 the
National Citizen Survey was sent to citizens. By October 31 the survey company should have
collected hundreds of citizen opinions in a scientific manner. Is it prudent to approve a 20 year Comp
Plan without taking the advantage of October 2017 Palo Alto citizen opinion survey? Do
Councilpersons understand trends in the past citizen surveys before acting on the Comp Plan? Is
Staff and Council really going to sit on October 2017 survey results for several months and reveal it
publicly in Jan or Feb 2018. Every Council member I know has extreme pride in Palo Alto as the
leader of Silicon Valley and its information science industry…yet objective Palo Alto citizen public
opinion is embargoed for political convenience.
Brief Appendix
1. Within ten years the mid-point baby boomers, born in 1955, will be 72 years old. This is the
age that demand for congregate life care housing develops. It includes solid financing of wide
range of services centered around independent living, assisted living and skilled nursing. Based
on market data today…. 25-30% of men and women in their mid-70s create active demand for
these one-stop services. Ironically Palo Alto and Dr. Russell Lee many years ago set the
standard for congregate life care by creating Channing House.
2. Current Comp Plan page I-3: It [Comp Plan] encourages commercial enterprise, but not at the
expense of the City’s residential neighborhoods.
3. Let’s get practical….expertise to publicly explore affordability for whom resides among a
handful of select Palo Alto developers and Stanford economists.
4. I predict by 2018 residents in Palo Alto will be monitoring, measuring and reporting the most
severe traffic conditions independent of city staff. Drone based photography and analysis is
highly probable. When city planners and analysis fail, humor is one useful fallback. I hate to
admit it but we need more turkeys in Palo Alto. See newspaper wisdom below published by Jojo
P. in Pleasant Hill, CA.
“….in our neighborhood that has been swamped by Waze shortcutters ..we have been
encouraging the turkeys (birds , not the drivers) They will stand in the street and not move at all.
Love ‘em. A 50-pound bag of cracked corn is only $10 at Tractor Supply. Sprinkle around where
traffic is worst.”
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 12:52 PM
5
A new word has been created in Palo Alto…Carmageddon. This refers to total collapse of traffic
usually after unusual event during our expanded rush hours. Recently I abandoned my vehicle in
hotel parking lot in Menlo Park and walked home. Carmageddons are likely to be more frequent if
I correctly read Stanford’s recent traffic analysis.
5. There are two reasons stated by city staff for withholding scientific citizen survey results. First,
quality assurance. Second, comparison with peer group small cities. Peer group comparison is
not meaningful. Few other cities have the same array of issues as Palo Alto. Intercity
comparison and norms are not necessary to understand trends of Palo Alto citizen opinions and
attitudes. Modern survey techniques should not require extensive quality assurance delays.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55618
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 12:52 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Bill Quackenbush <wlquackenbush@att.net>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 12:51 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Crescent Park Neighbor Association
Subject:Comprehensive Plan
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to express my great concern about the proposed Comprehensive Plan for Palo Alto allowing the addition of
3 million sq ft of non‐residential (office and laboratory) space to the city by 2030. While cast as a business issue, the
decision on how much non‐residential space space to allow to be added is also, and more importantly, a quality of life
issue for the residents of Palo alto.
Attention has been focused on the amount of space to be added. Nowhere have I seen an attempt to analyze the
number of jobs that will be created to utilize the added non‐residential space. And given that the ratio of jobs in Palo
Alto to employed Palo Alto residents is at least 3 to 1, essentially all of these added jobs will be filled by individuals living
outside of Palo Alto who must commute to work.
In an attempt to estimate the growth of jobs within the Palo Alto city limits, I offer the following:
In a Mercury News article published 3/23/17 and updated 3/28/17,
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/23/amazons‐big‐east‐palo‐alto‐lease‐means‐1300‐new‐tech‐jobs/,
it was reported that Amazon has leased 214,000 sq ft of office space in East Palo Alto which Amazon says will add at
least 1000 jobs to the city. The Mercury News said that 1300 jobs would be added. Using simple arithmetic, 1000 jobs in
214,000 sq ft is 214 sq ft per job. If there were 1300 jobs in 214,000 sq ft, then there would be 164.6 sq ft per job.
It is my understanding that the Palo Alto parking space requirement for non‐residential space is 250 sq ft per employee,
a number that the city often does not enforce for some "community benefit" while ignoring the community DISBENEFIT
of less parking space for residents on their own streets and for customers of Palo Alto stores.
Using the above numbers, one can make rough estimates of the additional jobs that will be created and the number of
people the city will have to handle each working day. The city says that 1.3 million sq ft has already been approved for
the Stanford University Medical Center leaving only 1.7 million sq ft to be approved in the future. So the computation is
made for 1.3, 1.7 and 3.0 million sq ft of added space.
Number of jobs added in Palo Alto
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Added non‐residential space
‐ sq ft
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Area per job ‐ sq ft 1.3 million 1.7 million 3.0 million
250 5,200 6,800 12,000
214 6,075 7,944 14,019
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 12:52 PM
7
165 7,879 10,1303 18,182
I doubt seriously that Palo Alto residents want 10,000 or more jobs added in the city by 2030, if ever. I don't.
In the last few years, issues/problems with parking and traffic in Palo Alto have been increasingly worse. These
problems will only continue to increase as the number of jobs in Palo Alto and the number of commuters increase as the
city has shown minimal if any progress in substantively dealing with these issues.
In my view, the creation of new non‐commercial space in the city should be stopped entirely until the problems we
currently have are solved to the satisfaction of the residential community and a path forward satisfactory to the
residential community adopted.
It is often said that a business is either growing or dying. That may or may be true for businesses. But like it or not, Palo
Alto is finite. And continuous growth of non‐residential space in will increasingly degrade our quality of life and make
the city less and less attractive as a place to live which will not benefit its residents.
Thank you,
Bill Quackenbush
Hamilton Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 1:57 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:aldeivnian@gmail.com on behalf of Adina Levin <adina.levin@friendsofcaltrain.com>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 1:37 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan - in support of Area Plans
Honorable Council Members and staff, As you know, Friends of Caltrain is a 501c3 nonprofit supporting successful Caltrain modernization in the context of sustainable transportation on the Peninsula Corridor.
This note is in regard to the Palo Alto City Council review of the city's Comprehensive Plan update and Environmental Impact Report for
approval.
The Comprehensive Plan includes a policy (L-16) supporting the use of coordinated area plans. Following this policy the staff report includes
recommendations for near-term actions to Initiation of a Coordinated Area Plan for the North Ventura area (the Fry’s site). The
Comprehensive Plan also includes a program to create a Coordinated Area Plan for the Downtown area in the future. Based on following a variety of cities on the Caltrain corridor, the process of creating area plans is a valuable and constructive practice that allows cities to gather a community vision for an area, to plan systematically for the public spaces, transportation, and other infrastructure and amenities needed for success. We strongly support the policy of pursuing area plans, to be proactive rather than reactive in shaping change. In addition, the staff report calls for initiation of discussions with Stanford University about the potential for developing housing in the Stanford Research Park, Stanford Shopping Center, and Stanford University Medical Center vicinity. This initiative is potentially akin to
initiatives in cities including Menlo Park and Mountain View that are have plans to evolve single-use commercial areas into mixed use
neighborhoods with housing, services, and jobs.
Environmental review for such plans projects that adding homes near jobs and services reduces the amount of expected driving per person;
today, two thirds of Palo Alto’s greenhouse gas emissions are generated by inbound commuting. Pursuing this strategy has the potential to
improve sustainable transportation while providing housing to address the city’s goals. Thank you for considering these beneficial directions. Sincerely, Adina Levin Friends of Caltrain http://greencaltrain.com
650-646-4344
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 3:09 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:farrell@kunabasin.stanford.edu on behalf of Phil Farrell <subscribe@pgfarrell.com>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 2:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please! NO net commercial growth in Comp Plan!
Dear City Council Members,
I am a homeowner and resident of Palo Alto since 1983. I have raised my family here. I am writing to you to state
strongly my belief that the new Comprehensive Plan to guide the city's development for the next 15‐20 years should
include a provision allowing ZERO net growth in commercial space (excluding retail).
While I have lived in Palo Alto, I have seen congestion constantly increasing. This is because for decades the city has
welcomed continuous increases in commercial office space, which brings more workers, while allowing only small
increases in housing. The result is that our jobs to housing imbalance is now greater than 3 to 1.
And our neighboring cities also are out of balance, so the new workers have to live further and further away, creating
more and more traffic and pollution and driving the prices of housing in Palo Alto to insane levels. None of my three
children, even though they work in high paying jobs, can afford to live in the city of their upbringing!
We cannot improve this situation by continuing to allow more and more commercial growth. We must STOP all
commercial growth and concentrate on increasing the housing stock during this next planning cycle. Then, in 10 to 15
years, we can see if the jobs to housing imbalance has been at least partially ameliorated and only then consider
allowing growth in commercial space.
I believe we need a policy of ZERO net growth in commercial office and industrial space. Space can be improved, but
should not be increased. Retail has been disappearing, so we should permit growth in retail space.
Companies are not going to flee if they cannot expand. Palo Alto is the hub of innovation. It will always be a coveted
location.
But Palo Alto is also a city of people who are suffering greatly from the unchecked growth of technology companies. It is
time to work for a better balance.
Thank you for considering my thoughts as you develop the next Comprehensive Plan.
Sincerely,
Phil Farrell
Loma Verde Ave.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 3:09 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sandra Slater <sandra@sandraslater.com>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 2:52 PM
To:Council, City; Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); board@paloaltoforward.com;
Filseth, Eric (Internal); Diane Morin; Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Fine, Adrian; DuBois,
Tom; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz (internal)
Cc:Keene, James
Subject:Petition re Adoption of Comp Plan Tonight!
Attachments:PAF petition to Council- Comp Plan.pdf
Dear Palo Alto City Council--
Please accept our thanks and support for guiding the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to this point.
You received a letter from the Palo Alto Forward Board on October 19th (signed by Diane Morin) with our
comments on specific areas of focus we feel necessary. We are looking forward to its speedy adoption and to
see your attention move towards implementation.
In addition please see attached, a petition with 184 of our fellow residents who have signed on to
support this current draft as of 2 pm on 10/23/17. It’s time to move forward!
Thank you for your time and deliberations,
Sandra Slater
President, Palo Alto Forward
)&)&.)#.3)/( #&
1)/& #,-.&#% .)."(%3)/5." #.#4 (<- 0#-),3)''#.. 5#.3. ( ."
),"/! ),.#(! ..#(!." )'*, " (-#0 &( , . 7" , 1- & ,&3� &3
. ( 1 &&8-/**),. #- /--#)(7
/,! 3)/.) )*.." )'*, " (-#0 &(-)1 (')0 ),1, .)#'*& ' (.."
'(3!)) # -.)*,#),#.#4 2*( #(!")/-#(!-/**&3( ), #&#.3 /#& #(!)(
)/( #&<-, (. .#)(.)'% #. -# ,.) --),3 1 &&#(!/(#.-:-;
(
*,.# /&,6
"#& 1 ( .) 2*( ")/-#(!! ( ,&&3.)'% /* ), 2#-.#(!-"),.! -
( *&( ),!,)1."5*,#),#.3-")/& !#0 (.) 2*( #(!." -/**&3) ")/-#(!
), & .)&)1( ') ,. #( )' '#&# -7
.#-#'*),.(..), ' ' ,.".'(3
, -# (.- #(!- 0 , ")/-#(! "&& (! -, (). &#!# & ), &)1',% .,. ")/-#(!
0 (# 1 )/& ,'.# &&3#( , - -/**&37
-/**),.." &) .#)(-# (.# # #(." )'*&(88 )1(.)1(5( ,&
0 5&)(!&'#()( )(.( ), &( -#(." #.3#( &/ #(!." -")**#(! (. ,7
)( (.,.#(!( 1")/-#(!" , 1#&& /#& /-.)' , - ), 2#-.#(!, .#& (. ,-5
*,). .-#(!& '#&3( #!" ),")) -( *,)0# --.)- ,0# -5-")**#(!5.,(-#.(
, / ." ( ),'(3()(1),% ,.,#*-7
" )'*&(( ." , (. )&& !/ -<' '))(")/-#(! )(.#('(3
!)) # - ),-. ( )/( #&.) /#& )(7
." , , /./, 4)(#(! "(! -9#( &/ #(!
- & .#0 -#(!) )/," #!"., -.,# .#)(-88.".1#&& , +/#, .)" &*' .)/,!)&-5
1 ")* .".3)/1#&&*,#),#.#4 ." - 7 -/**),.'/&.#8*,)(! **,) "#( &/ #(!
, ')0#(! ,,# ,-.) /#& #(!")/-#(!5 )*.#(!*)&# # -.".&)1 ,." )-.) /#& #(!
")/-#(!-)'), ), & , (.-, *)--# & 5 2*( #(! /( #(! ), &)1',% .,.
")/-#(!( , 0#-#.#(!# - ),-., (!." (#(! 2#-.#(!, (. ,*,). .#)(- ) /- )( #,
().# 5$/-. /- 0# .#)(*,). .#)(5( ' #.#)(7
"(%3)/ ),*/-"#(!." 1),%."#- ,7
.<-! .." )'*&( )*. -)1 (
')0 .)#'*& ' (.")/-#(!*)&# # -.)#'*,)0 -/**&3( ), #&#.37
#( , &35
( ,&. ,
:)( "& ) ." &)&.)),1, . ,#(!)''#.. ( ." /( ,-#!( ;
0# '),( , &.)( "#,#, " .,# # #,
#&&#( ,( 3 3& ),&( .",#( #&& , ) (4&/
# %,.#( &&# 3-*3 ,#(
)0 , " % ( 3)**
#( # , /& . #,#').'( & #'(
,"&''
&),#"/# "
)(4& 4 # 3. &- 3&,, &&
, &# % &&,3& " % !()!,.3 ,# &($,, 4
#&&#'#!!- 0# #,- " & ,# .#(! , , ( "& -- ,
.# '(!,
),- 3-- 0# & #'(
-.#(# -.,." ")
' ." ,#( -- <&& 3.)/' (
#% ,( 3 ."3/,"' )3 0,)1 )(.)/' (
(% ."# 2. ,1 - #% , ( # & #&&#' ,
1(#&&'( " , -" ( ,) ,.'#&&0 .,# %# " ..
/-.#( /,. ,3(#&0 ,."),( && (*,#(! , (%)." #'
, 3&4'( ( 3)(.8 3(/ (1 - , '3 ) '(
# #' ,&#(! ."3 )"(-)(
." ,#( ,3-.&
)-. , ,%/-,)'" ,4
-)(#./- ,&3(/#-)-)*)
/,# * ." ,)&(" ,
77 )"(-.)( ,)&
')(. ,& ( , ( ,!-.
, #(.)( # .),#"),* , ()/!&- 44# &&# %
--# &,% , !),3. 0 (-
), ..-. &&() /&("/
,% "'#.4 #,.#%/ "( (# /&# , '3/(!
& 1*),.8
,, ',#(( '/ && , . *"(# ,.#(-)( # % & 3
,3&&!" , , )"& ,
",# '( ",#-.#(( ((#-)(
",#-.#( ) "'  ."
' #, ,!, .)- ( &))' #( #& 3
( /(!
( & % # )&
, , #(&'
& 2( ,-3*&#%"#( #&,# ),3 ,-
#- - " % 8 ) .
( .. #")0 1, #&&, && ('#." #( ),#(
#&&#'/,"' #' ,&3)."
( (,),
:,(-#; )(,,
0# "( #&"
3((# & ( ((# ,)(-&0 -
0! (#330)0 . 0 # , && (), - ,3/ "3
%)) (/ (- /&)&&#(- ,0 3 "&)--
,3#(() ,3&!!)..
#-.( , #% / "((
/-# 1(! #$
/- ,#(% )(3,,- ) & %-( ,).#
((# ,#,# (4 .." 1
1#- && (", ,) % /&)$-
. *"(# & 0()& #( 2#'#&#( * 43(-%# ,- ) &4&
,(.-" , ",#-)&)"( #!,# #(-%3 )-"
", ,
0# )& ,3 )
03 ,%&#( ,3 #
#*-)(
 ."
-%3
#( (#!#( , ( #&(-%3 ",& -&')(
'# -".)( &'"#&&#*- $) ,)& )"( && 3
, ! && ",#-
)!( #( )&
/ #(
(# " %
,%& 83')( ,3 .",#( #& &%" &#( (!
. 0 (.( )- ( ( 3'#." #-"#, "8%,#3 " #&"--(#
, ,(-. #( /.")(-/& )((# % ,
" #& &0#( , "#&&3 )(# .)( ( ,&. ,
&#( #!". '#&)*)0
#4 /-'( (( ..
- -)(
. ,, - .3 ),!# 0 . 0 ,7 #0, ,#
#(( # %-.,)' , 1,( / 3 '-
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 3:53 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jennifer Hetterly <jchetterly@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 3:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comp Plan Update
Attachments:October 23 Comp Plan Comments.docx
October 23, 2017
Honorable Mayor Scharff and City Councilmembers:
I, like you, am quite looking forward to the end of the comp plan debate. The current version has a lot of good
stuff in it, worth the time it took to get here, but as the PTC indicated, still doesn’t quite hit the mark. I hope
you’ll take the marginal additional time needed to make sure you get it right for current and future residents.
When locking in plans for 15 years, expediency alone cannot be the goal.
I was sorry to see that your agenda tonight sets aside less than three hours to hear from the public and provide
final direction to staff. As you know, this plan is controversial. It’s a shame to cut short public comment AND to
leave yourselves such little time for final adjustments.
That said, I have the following comments and recommendations:
Understandably, you’re trying to expand housing but according to the EIR that, combined with the office growth
targets you set, will create substantial unmitigated negative community impacts.
Schools
School impacts are of particular concern. Because CEQA doesn’t protect communities from school
overcrowding (due to SB50), there are no mitigation measures offered in this plan either to alleviate or manage
school impacts.
Nonetheless, you and we, need not be blind to them and cannot afford to merely assume that our schools can
continue to offer a superior quality of education in healthy and safe environments without any plans to address
enrollment growth and overcrowding.
According to the EIR analysis, Elementary and Middle School enrollment will well exceed the physical capacity
of our schools, even at the low end of your housing goal range and using conservative assumptions about
housing types and PAUSD’s ability to operate at maximum physical capacity (which they’ve told you they
cannot). Yet there are no provisions in this plan to:
1. Assess current and future enrollment pressures in neighborhoods specifically targeted for housing
growth (downtown, cal ave and ventura/barron park in particular);
2. Zone for space to accommodate future school expansions;
3. Focus transportation planning on school related traffic impacts in those areas; or
4. Bring bicycle and pedestrian improvements there to a level of safety appropriate for school commutes.
A 15-yr plan that fails to take those steps, simply because they are not legally required, runs contrary to the
values of this family-oriented community. I encourage you to direct staff to add them tonight.
Monitoring Data and Enforcement
We talked a lot at the CAC about performance measures and community indicators to monitor and manage the
impacts of growth over time on community quality of life. We offered three policy options for your consideration,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 3:53 PM
2
all of which included community indicators. Unfortunately, when Council rejected performance measurement in
March, you threw out the community indicators as well.
It may be hard to imagine how the impacts outlined in the EIR will actually feel. But you already know how
residents feel about the current impacts of recent office growth. A transparent city-driven effort, on a fixed
timeline, to track community impacts (and not just traffic/parking) along with a mechanism to trigger
subsequent community dialogue would go a long way toward shoring up public trust and city-citizen
partnership.
In addition, without performance measures, there are few tools in this plan to assess the effectiveness of
development requirements. I urge you to add some teeth to monitor and enforce the promise of those
requirements.
For example, you could add policies/programs to require published data on TDMs and scrutinize their
effectiveness as well as close monitoring of spillover parking associated with new developments. Impose
sizable penalties for non-compliance to go toward additional mitigation. And tie future (or continued) growth to
demonstrated success of mitigations. If they work, great, we can accommodate more development or less built
parking. If they don’t, the community will know that our city leaders will re-examine their strategy.
Parking
The city is pursuing innovative and multi-pronged strategies to reduce parking congestion. I’m hopeful they will
bear fruit. However, when it comes to reduced on-site parking requirements for new development I urge you to
proceed with caution. Buildings are permanent. Once they takes up space formerly set aside for parking,
there’s no going back.
There’s no such thing as a reduced parking “pilot” if there is no room to adjust for it’s potential failure. I hope
you’ll opt for a more flexible strategy that incorporates landscape reserves when testing such “pilots” or an
escrow of sorts for “windfall” profits attributable to reduced parking requirements (if spillover impacts prove
minimal, say two years out, the developer gets the fee back, if not it goes to a mitigation fund.)
Thank you for your concerted attention to the Comprehensive Plan Update. As we approach the light at the
end of this long tunnel, I hope you’ll fill in these final gaps and adopt a Comp Plan that we can all live with in
the years to come.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Hetterly
1
October 23, 2017
Honorable Mayor Scharff and City Councilmembers:
I, like you, am quite looking forward to the end of the comp plan debate. The
current version has a lot of good stuff in it, worth the time it took to get here, but
as the PTC indicated, still doesn’t quite hit the mark. I hope you’ll take the
marginal additional time needed to make sure you get it right for current and
future residents. When locking in plans for 15 years, expediency alone cannot be
the goal.
I was sorry to see your agenda tonight set aside less than three hours to hear
from the public and provide final direction to staff. As you know, this plan is
controversial. It’s a shame to cut short public comment AND to leave yourselves
such little time for final adjustments.
That said, I have the following comments and recommendations:
Understandably, you’re trying to expand housing but according to the EIR that,
combined with the office growth targets you set, will create substantial
unmitigated negative community impacts.
Schools
School impacts are of particular concern. Because CEQA doesn’t protect
communities from school overcrowding (due to SB50), there are no mitigation
measures offered in this plan either to alleviate or manage school impacts.
Nonetheless, you and we, need not be blind to those impacts and cannot afford
to merely assume that our schools can continue to offer a superior quality of
education in healthy and safe environments without any plans to address
enrollment growth and overcrowding.
According to the EIR analysis, Elementary and Middle School enrollment will well
exceed the capacity of our schools, even at the low end of your housing goal
range and using conservative assumptions about housing types and PAUSD’s
ability to operate at maximum contractual capacity (which they’ve told you they
cannot). Yet there are no provisions in this plan to:
1. Assess current and future enrollment pressures in neighborhoods
specifically targeted for housing growth (Downtown, Cal Ave and
Ventura/Barron Park);
2. Zone for space to accommodate future school expansions;
2
3. Focus transportation planning on school related traffic impacts in those
areas; or
4. Bring bicycle and pedestrian improvements there to a level of safety
appropriate for school commutes.
A 15-yr plan that fails to take those steps, simply because they are not legally
required, runs contrary to the values of this family-oriented community. I
encourage you to direct staff to add them tonight.
Monitoring Data and Enforcement
We talked a lot at the CAC about performance measures and community
indicators to monitor and manage the impacts of growth over time on community
quality of life. We offered three policy options for your consideration, all of which
included community indicators. Unfortunately, when Council rejected
performance measurement in March, you threw out the community indicators as
well.
It may be hard to imagine how the impacts outlined in the EIR will actually feel.
But you already know how residents feel about the current impacts of recent
office growth. A transparent city-driven effort, on a fixed timeline, to track
community impacts along with a mechanism to trigger subsequent community
dialogue would go a long way toward shoring up public trust and city-citizen
partnership.
In addition, without performance measures, there are few tools in this plan to
assess the effectiveness of development requirements. I urge you to add some
teeth to monitor and enforce the promise of those requirements.
For example, you could add policies/programs to:
• require published data on TDMs and scrutinize their effectiveness as well
as close monitoring of spillover parking associated with new
developments;
• impose sizable penalties for non-compliance to go toward additional
mitigation;
• tie future (or continued) growth to demonstrated success of mitigations. If
they work, great, we can take on more development or less built parking. If
they don’t, the community will know that our city leaders will re-examine
their strategy; and
• strengthen the partnership between the city and business community
(including commercial developers) in support of city-wide TMA efforts.
3
Parking
The city is pursuing innovative and multi-pronged strategies to reduce parking
congestion. I’m hopeful they will bear fruit. However, when it comes to reduced
on-site parking requirements for new development I urge you to proceed with
caution. Buildings are permanent. Once they takes up space formerly set aside
for parking, there’s no going back.
There’s no such thing as a reduced parking “pilot” if there is no room to adjust for
it’s potential failure. I hope you’ll opt for a more flexible strategy that incorporates
landscape reserves when testing such “pilots” or an escrow of sorts for “windfall”
profits attributable to reduced parking requirements (if spillover impacts prove
minimal, say two years out, the developer gets the fee back, if not it goes to a
mitigation fund.)
Thank you for your concerted attention to the Comprehensive Plan Update. As
we approach the light at the end of this long tunnel, I hope you’ll fill in these final
gaps and adopt a Comp Plan that we can all live with in the years to come.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Hetterly
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 3:54 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeralyn Moran <jeralyn.moran@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 3:35 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comments on the Comprehensive Plan
Dear Palo Alto City Council members,
I regret not being able to attend your meeting this evening offering time for public input
on our City's Comprehensive Plan -
Alternatively, I offer thoughts I feel strongly about here:
Climate Disruption is a top priority for addressing in all communities right now, not just
Palo Alto. This plan as written does not emphasize LOCAL HOUSING enough to properly
address the current & future workers here. MANY workers are forced to commute in to
our City due to lack of housing, therefore contributing to greenhouse gas emissions in a
huge way -- so HOUSING is the glaring point here. Commercial development is over-
emphasized in this plan, at the expense of this GHG/humanitarian issue.
Please consider cutting back on more commercial development, prioritize housing (&
consequent strict ALTERNATIVE transportation) in our community!
Sincerely,
Jeralyn Moran
-- jeralyn.moran@gmail.com
..... the Time for Climate Action Is Now.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/23/2017 3:54 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Barry Hart <hartb88@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 3:21 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Solve traffic/pollution problems before adding to them
Dear Council Members -
Palo Alto already has an extreme imbalance of jobs to housing. As a result of this, new jobs will bring
more traffic and more pollution.
The new office space allowed in the comprehensive plan will add jobs that will be filled by commuters
often driving long distances and pollution our local area.
The current traffic situation is not good for residents of my street and in Crescent Park. We are
located between the downtown offices and the freeways home. Many commuters cut though our
neighborhood and on our street. They race from stop sign to stop sign and come wave after wave
during commute hours.
Adding new office space in the comprehensive plan will make this situation much worse.
We have a large amount of office space "in the pipeline" with no real solutions for the problems that it
will create.
Work on solution before adding to the problem - no additional office space in Palo Alto until we have
addressed the severe infrastructure issues to accommodate these new workers
Barry Hart
920 Palo Alto Ave
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
BETH MINOR, CITY CLERK
OCTOBER 24, 2017
1
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1-Interviews of Candidates for the Architectural Review
Board, the Historic Resources Board, and the Planning and Transportation
Commission
On October 23, 2017, Sarah Flamm withdrew her application for the Planning and Transportation
Commission. On October 24, 2017, Kate Jason-Moreau withdrew her application for the Planning and
Transportation Commission. Find the revised interview schedule below.
Planning and Transportation Commission -15 minute interviews
1. Rebecca Eisenberg 6:00 PM
2. William Riggs 6:30 PM
3. Lisa Peschcke-Koedt 6:45 PM
4.
5.
6.
7.
Rishiraj Pravahan
David Hirsch
Michael Alcheck
Rebecca Parker Mankey
7:00 PM
7:15 PM
7:30 PM (Incumbent)
7:45 PM
Architectural Review Board -10 minute interviews
1. Osma Dossani Thompson 8:30 PM
2. Amie Neff 8:40 PM
3. Wynne Furth 8:50 PM (Incumbent)
Historic Resources Board -10 minute interviews
1. Michael Makinen 9:00 PM {Incumbent)
2. Roger Kohler 9:10 PM (Incumbent)
3. Margaret Wimmer 9:20 PM (Incumbent)
4. Rita French 9:30 PM
5. Martin Bernstein
6. Carl Darling
~7coll
Beth Minor
City Clerk
9:40 PM (Incumbent)
9:50 PM
10:00 PM
1of1
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:07 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:William Ross <wross@lawross.com>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 5:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Action Item No. 6 Comprehensive Plan EIR Certification and Plan Adoption; October 23,
2017 Special City Council Meeting
Attachments:Scharff (Agenda Item No. 6) 10-23-17.pdf
Please see the attached communication.
William D. Ross, Esq.
Law Offices of William D. Ross
A Professional Corporation
400 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
October 23, 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: Action Item No. 6 Comprehensive Plan EIR Certification and Plan Adoption;
October 23, 2017 Special City Council Meeting
Dear Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council,
I. INTRODUCTION
It is respectfully suggested that the standard for determining the baseline under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub Resource Code section 21000 et seq.,
“CEQA”) for review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan (“Comp Plan”) revision is in
error and that the Comp Plan presentation has not been found to be internally consistent or
integrated as required by General Plan law.
II. ANALYSIS
A. The “Baseline” For Examining The Comprehensive Plan’s Impact On The
Physical Environment Is Not CEQA Guideline Section 15125(a)
FEIR page 5.3 states that CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a) governs the
environmental setting of the EIR and the determination of a baseline against which the
implementation of the Comp Plan would have on the physical environment as being the
time of the notice of release of the EIR’s preparation, the Notice of Preparation (“NOP”),
or May 30, 2014.
The Honorable Greg Scharff, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
October 23, 2017
Page 2
A different environmental baseline is appropriate if it is known to the lead agency
that certain surrounding environmental conditions will either improve or degrade by the
time the project is implemented.
The FEIR p. 5-4 references proposed changes to the Stanford General Use Permit
(“GUP”) and other significant housing projects in the region as large projects since the
NOP was issued that are not evaluated.
With the issuance of the DEIR on the Stanford GUP it is now clear that the
environmental conditions surrounding that project alone for proposed academic growth and
density, the adequacy of fire services, and impact on traffic suggest that a current CEQA
baseline is more appropriate to evaluate the Comp Plan.
The same is true with respect to the at-grade crossing issue – now a primary concern
related to existing traffic congestion which was not a part of the environmental settings in
May 2014.
The City’s consideration of the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance earlier
this year is also the type of action that could either improve or degrade the physical
environment since May 2014.
This is not a technical or insignificant issue. The levels of intensity of growth in
academic areas by Stanford University, an entity that is referred to throughout the Comp
Plan with respect to City Goals and Policies, should serve as the basis for accurate impact
assessment under CEQA that uses current baselines, not those of three and one-half years
ago.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a) directs that the lead agency “normally” use the measure of physical conditions “at the time Notice of Preparation is published” to evaluate
settings. However, courts differ noting that the “date for establishing baseline cannot not
be a rigid one.” Environmental conditions may vary from year to year and some cases it
is necessary to consider conditions over a range of time periods. Save Our Peninsula
Committee v. Monterey County Bd. Of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 99, 125.
More to the point, to the extent the departure from the norm of an existing conditions
baseline (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)) promotes public participation and more
informed decisionmaking by providing a more accurate picture of a proposed project’s
The Honorable Greg Scharff, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
October 23, 2017
Page 3
likely impacts, the CEQA Act permits the departure. Neighbors for Smart Rail v.
Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal. 4th 439, 452. Rationale for
a current baseline was advanced by the City Council in its workshop review of the Stanford
GUP on October 16, 2017.
The Stanford GUP’s impact on housing demand, traffic and fire services were
commented on by the Mayor, the Vice Mayor and Councilmembers. See Council Video beginning at 1:08 through 1:28. Several Councilmembers referenced traffic, housing and
open space impacts, some referencing the need to solve them regionally. The Vice Mayor
referenced uncontrolled growth within the area. A critical issue raised by the Mayor was
with respect to fire services.
If you keep the FEIR NOP date of May 2014, these issues will not be evaluated.
A. There Is No Internal Consistency Analysis Of The Draft Comprehensive Plan,
Nor Is It “Integrated” As Required By Government Code Section 65300.5
It is well-established that a general plan must be integrated and internally consistent
both among the mandatory elements and within each element: Government Code Section
65300.5;1 See, Concerned Citizen of Calaveras County v. The Board of Supervisors, (1985)
166 Cal. App. 3d 90, 97-98.
The rule applies to optional elements and mandatory elements and if there is an
internal inconsistency then the general plan is legally inadequate and the required finding
for legally inadequate. This section of the Land-use law has been held to specifically to
apply to charter cities such as the City of Palo Alto: See, Garat v. City of Riverside, (1991) 2 Cal. App. 4th 259, 286. The issue was raised before the CAC on several occasions including at the
September 2015 CAC meeting. At that time, and subsequently, the City Planning Director
indicated that internal consistency “would be dealt with later.” It was also raised on several
occasions before the Planning and Transportation Commission without response by Staff.
There is an inconsistency in the information presented in the Comp Plan Safety
1 Section 65300.5 provides: In construing the provisions of this article, the Legislature intends that the general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statements of policies
for the adopting agency. [Emphasis added.]
The Honorable Greg Scharff, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
October 23, 2017
Page 4
Element with respect to high fire risk area in that your Council adopted a different
designation at your October 16, 2017 meeting with respect a Local Hazard Mitigation
Adaptation Plan. At that meeting, under Consent Item No. 6, you adopted a Local Hazard
Mitigation Adaptation Plan. It contained both a fire severity hazard map which listed very
high fire hazard areas within the City limits as well as a composite fire risk/hazard
assessment dated 5/18/16 which showed extreme areas of wildland risk assessment within
the City limits. However, in the proposed Safety Element Map 5-8 under wildfire hazard zones, the entire area south of Highway 280 is reflected on the Element Map as “non-very
high fire hazard severity zone.” Which is it? Staff needs to clarify which is actually the
case. Personal observation would suggest that the high fire zone designation is more than
appropriate given the intensity of both forested lands to the east and west of Page Mill
Road as it proceeds to the south to its intersection with Skyline Blvd.
This is also critical with respect to how the lack of fire service to Stanford University
is portrayed as there is Plan policy S2.14-1 that provides:
Evaluate measures for optimal service delivery to improve
efficiency, development of automatic or mutual aid agreements
with other jurisdictions, including Stanford, to improve
efficiencies. (Emphasis added.)
How can that determination be evaluated under a CEQA baseline of
May 24, 2014?
This insufficiency and the inconsistency within the City’s Comp Plan documents as
well as the lack of any plan associated with the much more intense development contained in the Stanford GUP is another pragmatic and practical reason why the baseline for environmental analysis should be a current date and that your consideration of the Comp Plan be deferred until you can establish internal consistency and integration as required by
Government Code section 65300.5.
III. CONCLUSION
Council should continue the proposed certification of the Comp Plan FEIR until its
impact on the physical environment can be evaluated with a current baseline to ensure
evaluation of housing, transportation and fire safety on a regional basis.
The Honorable Greg Scharff, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
October 23, 2017
Page 5
Council should also continue this matter until the internal consistency of the Comp
Plan Elements can be demonstrated and integrated with the yet to be reviewed
Implementation Element.
Very truly yours,
William D. Ross
WDR:bk
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lenore Cymes <lenraven1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 4:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Your letter
Dear City Council Members.
Unfortunately I cannot attend the meeting tonite, and want to add my voice to those Palo
Altans who are fed up with the way the Council is taking the city into the
future. Many letters about this have been sent as emails to neighborhood groups as well as to
you. There is an extensive ground swell of frustration and disgust with the way the planning for
the next 20‐30 years will affect our city. And very importantly how this is being presented and
voted upon.
You were all elected to the Council ‐ some of you were on “slates” ‐ that bent in certain
directions ‐ however when you were sworn into the council you agreed to govern “according
to” what is best for the city and to LISTEN to those that elected you. Many of you have not
even bothered to hide the backroom deals and pre‐ordained decisions when you sit on
the dais as a formality. It shows. To read in the local newspaper that almost all the rules by
which growth will happen were thrown open to the wind ‐ without community input is not
what you were elected to do.
Palo Alto will change and get even more congested than it is today. There is an expectation
that elected officials, whose main responsibility is to be responsible to us (Palo Alto
residents) will really listen. There was great upset over how you passed the ADU ruling. Many
in the audience asked for additional discussion of the issue and the Council insisted on an
immediate vote. Is this another moment of predetermined decisions? I hope you rethink your
responsibility to the community. There are many smarter people than I am with facts and
figures that present ideas in creating a plan prior to voting ‐‐‐‐‐‐that puts growth into well
planned development and sensible programs that doesn’t throw out the “baby with the bath
water”.
Thank you
Lenore Cymes
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
2
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and contains information that may be privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and notify
us immediately.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Patricia Jones <pkjones1000@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 4:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Plan
I am very concerned about the direction that your proposed Comp Plan would take us. The draft plan does not
deal with growth. Rather, it moves us toward becoming a business-oriented center instead of maintaining the
balance of residents and workers needed for a vibrant community.
"The draft Plan would add up to three million square feet of non-residential space over the next 15 years. This translates
into an average of twice the annual growth rate experienced during the past 27 years in Palo Alto. Last year, the City’s
Annual Citizen Survey showed that more than two-thirds of our residents consistently express high levels of concern
about congestion, traffic and parking. Tell the City Council to cut back the excessive non-residential growth in the
Plan.”
I agree with all the arguments below and ask that you factor my concerns, which are highlighted in red, into a
revised Comp Plan.
• COMMERCIAL GROWTH. “The draft Plan would add up to three million square feet of non-
residential space over the next 15 years. This translates into an average of twice the annual growth rate experienced
during the past 27 years in Palo Alto. Last year, the City’s Annual Citizen Survey showed that more than two-thirds
of our residents consistently express high levels of concern about congestion, traffic and parking.”
Please cut back the excessive non-residential growth in the Plan.
• TRAFFIC MITIGATIONS. “Transportation mitigations in the Plan have all been under active
discussion since the late 1980s with very limited success. Traffic mitigations work only if there are clear definitions,
objective monitoring and strict enforcement.”
Please put statements in the Plan that deal effectively with current traffic
congestion before we have more growth. This is REALLY important!
• BUSINESS FUNDING. “Residents should not be subsidizing businesses. Transportation mitigation is
impossible without commitments of funding from the business community.”
Please require businesses to make long-term commitments of mitigation
funding equivalent to the 50-year commitment from the Stanford Medical Center.
• PAYING FOR HOUSING. “The City has a clear obligation to subsidize Below-Market-Rate
housing. But the majority of current subsidies come from new housing, not on the much more rapidly growing job
centers.”
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
4
The very high ratio of jobs to employed residents means that the Plan
should require businesses to increase their share of funding.
Thank you very much.
Patricia Jones
1407 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Penny Proctor <pennyproctor@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 4:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Dewatering damage to neighbors
Dear Members of the City Council,
I was concerned to read of the change in the FEIR so that avoidance of "dewatering impacts on adjacent properties and
public resources" has been eliminated. Many neighbors of dewatering projects have had expensive damage as a result.
Public infrastructure such as water mains and sewer lines can be damaged too.
Penny Proctor
Greer Road
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Larry Jones <john.x.wyclif@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 4:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Plan
I am very concerned about the direction that your proposed Comp Plan would take us. The draft plan does not
deal with growth. Rather, it moves us toward becoming a business-oriented center instead of maintaining the
balance of residents and workers needed for a vibrant community.
"The draft Plan would add up to three million square feet of non-residential space over the next 15 years. This translates
into an average of twice the annual growth rate experienced during the past 27 years in Palo Alto. Last year, the City’s
Annual Citizen Survey showed that more than two-thirds of our residents consistently express high levels of concern
about congestion, traffic and parking. Tell the City Council to cut back the excessive non-residential growth in the
Plan.”
I agree with all the arguments below and ask that you factor my concerns, which are highlighted in red, into a
revised Comp Plan.
• COMMERCIAL GROWTH. “The draft Plan would add up to three million square feet of non-
residential space over the next 15 years. This translates into an average of twice the annual growth rate experienced
during the past 27 years in Palo Alto. Last year, the City’s Annual Citizen Survey showed that more than two-thirds
of our residents consistently express high levels of concern about congestion, traffic and parking.”
Please cut back the excessive non-residential growth in the Plan.
• TRAFFIC MITIGATIONS. “Transportation mitigations in the Plan have all been under active
discussion since the late 1980s with very limited success. Traffic mitigations work only if there are clear definitions,
objective monitoring and strict enforcement.”
Please put statements in the Plan that deal effectively with current traffic
congestion before we have more growth. This is REALLY important!
• BUSINESS FUNDING. “Residents should not be subsidizing businesses. Transportation mitigation is
impossible without commitments of funding from the business community.”
Please require businesses to make long-term commitments of mitigation
funding equivalent to the 50-year commitment from the Stanford Medical Center.
• PAYING FOR HOUSING. “The City has a clear obligation to subsidize Below-Market-Rate
housing. But the majority of current subsidies come from new housing, not on the much more rapidly growing job
centers.”
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
7
The very high ratio of jobs to employed residents means that the Plan
should require businesses to increase their share of funding.
Thank you very much.
Larry Jones
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
8
Carnahan, David
From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 5:37 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Plan - You must do better
City Council Members:
RE: Comp Plan – Transportation element
Below are the percent of excellent/good ratings for transportation topics in 2016 Annual Survey and historical
data from 2006. Three (3) scores are in the top ten (10) of lower (worse) ratings.
2006 2016 CHANGE
1. Ease of travel by public transportation 60% 28% -32% #1 in top 10 drop
2. Traffic flow on major streets 39% 30% - 9% #10 in top10 drop
3. Ease of public parking N/A 33% N/A
4. Ease of travel by car 60% 44% -16% #5 in top 10 drop
5. Ease of travel by bicycle 78% 74% - 4%
6. Ease of walking 87% 80% - 7%
If you missed our “Carmageddon” event on Dec 1,
2016 https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/12/16/gridlock-frustrates-local-drivers-and-residents, then
this dramatic decline in resident ratings should tell you that action is needed to address one of our biggest
challenges - traffic congestion. However, what I see from Council and in the Comp Plan is a series of unrealistic
forecasts for accelerated growth that miraculously show no negative impact on traffic congestion.
A wishful thinking, pie-in-the-sky approach will not relieve the almost constant traffic congestion on our streets
today. The traffic on my street doubled from 2013 to 2016 (source: City data). City officials appear (at best)
unaware and (at worst) uninterested in this traffic growth.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
9
My neighbors and I plan our vehicle travel around the worst traffic times but the worst traffic times are rapidly
becoming any time.
Perhaps the recently released Stanford EIR will be a wake-up call. What it tells me is that we simply do not
have tools that can deliver traffic mitigation on a scale that is needed.
Pie-in-the-sky proposals deliver no relief to the people living in Palo Alto today.
They do nothing to relieve the worsening traffic congestion
They will not stop the trend of turning our residential neighborhoods into commercial parking lots
They fail to prevent families from being priced out of their rentals.
The only proven approach you have before you is to dramatically limit growth and continue to investigate
solutions that attempt to address the current problems.
If you fail to act now to limit growth this council will be remembered for supporting a further dramatic decline
in our quality of life.
Sincerely,
John Guislin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Penny Proctor <pennyproctor@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 5:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Overcrowding
Dear Members of the City Council,
I am concerned about the proposals for so much more office space, and not requiring projects to provide parking.
Our quality of life is going down with the economic boom, tremendous development, traffic, and parking problems.
Please don't let that happen!
Penny Proctor
Greer Road
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Magic <magic@ecomagic.org>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 9:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Plan
Dear Councilmembers,
Twice before, once in the early 1970's and once in the early 1990's I've written your predecessors to opine that
comprehensive plans then being formulated were virtual guarantees that existing residents of Palo Alto were
going to be adversely affected by allowed growth. Today, nearly half a century later the accuracy of those
predictions has been confirmed by the annual National Citizen Surveys on which you rely.
Like your predecessors you plan to grow our way out of difficulty, chasing a bloated and still inflating—with
your blessing—non-residential sector with more housing destined to fall far short of what is needed for balance.
Having met each of you and acknowledging that you are by many measures intelligent people, I find difficult to
understand your impending decision that the solution to what we've created by excessive non-residential
building here is yet more non-residential building.
As I did twice before, roughly forty and twenty years ago, I predict today that if you indeed pursue this course,
life quality for Palo Alto residents will continue to decline. Given your commitment to continuing commercial
growth, the only question is how much you'll allow and how much decline will accompany it.
Thank you for considering these views.
Respectfully,
David Schrom
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
12
Carnahan, David
From:wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com on behalf of Wolfgang Dueregger
<wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 9:27 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (external); Lydia Kou
Subject:New comprehensive plan
Dear City Council,
regarding the new comprehensive plan I want to point out that parking, traffic, affordable housing and enforcement
policies need to be priorities.
Recently our town was on an office-development spree which was beneficial to a few developers and now we the
residents have to live with the consequences which are multiple in nature.
Bumper to bumper traffic along El Camino, Alma, Oregon and San Antonio. Page Mill is a disaster. And do not
believe any of these grand ideas like adding a 3rd lane to Page Mill between Foothill and 280 would solve any
problem. At best it would move the problem further east towards El Camino. el Camino and page mill intersection is
rated as one of the worst intersections in the county already.
how does the comp plan address these problems?
We had over the years more and more commercial and non-resident parking flooding all of our neighborhoods.
some neighborhoods succeeded in a permit parking program. other neighborhoods are still struggling. Many new
developments get waivers so that the developers can build projects without providing the required parking spaces.
Despite the city's acknowledgement that this is a problem and its promise to reign in on granting developers all
these parking exemptions, there is no progress to report on this front.
how does the comp plan address these problems?
Currently everybody has gotten onto the bandwagon of "we need housing"; really? after the city approved all these
commercial projects in and close to residential neighborhoods across town, now we are waking up and become
aware there is a housing shortage? and the only solution is to plaster entire blocks with high density apartments like
the new projects along the southern part of El Camino (south of Arastradero) and along San Antonio? It is very sad
and frustrating to see how misguided planning over many years starts to destroy the green character and
the livelihood of Palo Alto.
how does the comp plan address these problems?
have you ever thought about why Palo Alto cannot move any new office development east of 101 (like Menlo Park
and Mountain View have been doing for many years) and at the same time (by moving companies over to the east
side of 101) freeing up existing real estate that can be used for housing.
in addition, we can bore a tunnel underneath our city (Tesla claims they know how to do this and they have their HQ
in Palo Alto on Dear Creek Road), free up the land on top which would provide ample space for needed housing -
and tons of recurrent property tax and other tax income for the city.
is the city council ready to solve a problem that is solvable but without destroying the nature of Palo Alto?
The city has enacted many laws (traffic, parking, leave blower, building code, etc.); how much of that is
actually really enforced? is the city up to this task? we live an a residential neighborhood with a permit parking
program. it happens frequently that non-resident cars are parked during the day for many hours and they don't
get ticketed. Gas leave blowers are active, dead oak trees are lingering around because they are protected even
when they are completely dead.
ow does the comp plan address these problems?
thank you Wolfgang Dueregger