HomeMy Public PortalAbout20170213plCC701-32
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: 2/13/2017
Document dates: 1/25/2017 – 2/1/2017
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/27/2017 6:14 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, January 27, 2017 1:41 PM
To:Neilson Buchanan
Cc:Keene, James; Planning Commission; planning.commission@menlopark.org; Council,
City
Subject:Palo Alto's Troubled Annual Citizen Survey
Dear Public Officials and Citizens in Menlo Park and Palo Alto,
Please scan the weblink below. Two opportunities are in front of
local cities and citizens. Please post your comments on Palo Alto
Online at the end of the article below.
#1 Here is my opinion.
Palo Alto City Council gives lip service to supporting an informed and involved public. Objective citizen opinion is
suppressed well after each Council election. Six month old citizen opinions should not be tolerated in a region known
for real time information science.
How much longer will nine councilpersons openly promote CYA and suppress resident(aka voter) opinion? Unlike all
other surveys thrown at City Council, this survey is professionally driven and is limited to residents only.
The past response from Council has been that survey company must process the data from late summer to January in
order to draw valid comparison to other cities. This is BS. Intercity data is secondary. Palo Alto yearly trend
information is critically important for citizens to elect most qualified candidates. Intercity comparisons, in fact, are not
very relevant. It is Palo Alto City Council's option to schedule the survey for late spring and publish results in early October each
year. It is time for Council to push for timely information and for a more informed and involved citizens.
#2
I encourage resident leaders in nearby cities to press their Councils
to participate in the objective National Citizens Survey and learn
what their citizens collectively think. Objective citizen feedback
would create new priorities and funding for local and regional
solutions lagging far behind common sense and sense of
community.
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/01/27/trouble-in-paradise
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/27/2017 6:14 PM
2
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 | 1/27/2017 6:12 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Friday, January 27, 2017 9:54 AM
To:Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James
Subject:council priorities
I thank everyone for the hours you put in to serve the city and look forward to coming to the priority
session tomorrow.
My top four priorities are:
--reducing SOV use at peak periods
--working with Stanford on development issues on their city land
--expanding housing choices and new units
--expanding the great service the council and staff provide by having study sessions
I believe all of these will advance goals in the Comp Plan and lead to a better informed and better served
city
Reducing SOV at peak periods
A lot of attention has been paid to RPPs and garage options. But numerically and in terms of policy
reducing peak hour SOV use has the highest impact and makes the other choices easier and residents
happier.
There is a wide menu of areas facing council in 2017 to make progress here including
--the TMA funding and operation--especially helping service workers with irregular schedules
--expanding peak hour service for PA workers on Caltrain and VTA and all the associated Caltrain issues
--the chance to weigh in on the Dumbarton corridor options
--an upcoming ballot measure in SM County that will also make it easier to get to PA by public transit
--PA shuttle options
Working with Stanford
Stanford lands in the city boundaries house the largest number of employees.
Potentially these lands contain large opportunities for housing
Stanford has the best TDM program and the employees on their lands provide additional opportunities to
reduce peak SOV use
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/27/2017 6:12 PM
2
At the same time they need to make their regional assets--SRP, SHC and the medical complex competitive
and up to date in an increasingly competitive world
A mutual and collaborative relationship can bring benefits to all
Expanding housing choices and new units
This has been a priority and more so in recent months
Council will make decisions in the Comp Plan and at the project level in 2017 and beyond.
Let's show ourselves that we really mean housing is a priority by reducing barriers and development,
providing incentives and clarity as to location and type of units
More study sessions
My initial suggestions would be
--helping residents and council understand changing retail patterns and realistic options and the
relationship between the number of customers, access and successful retail. hear from the business
community in this endeavor and retail experts
--helping residents and council understand the fiscal outlook and issues and how Comp Plan and council
choices affect the city budget
--understanding how the housing system for low income residents works and what choices are available.
In general focus in broadening information in preparation for when it is relevant to specific council
decisions. Bring in experts to help us understand a rapidly changing environment for city choices
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/27/2017 6:12 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net>
Sent:Friday, January 27, 2017 12:51 PM
To:Council, City; Keene, James
Subject:2017 Priorities @ Retreat
Honorable City Council members:
I urge you to make the item titled" "Living up to City promises/agreements" one of your top priorities. This is a Quality of
Life prime issue and unfortunately too often enforcement of Actions that the Council spends hours on deliberating and then designing, fall victim to budget cuts or worse, just lack of Staff time. While traffic and housing are always important,
please make fundamental commits to residents via actioned promises and agreements your top priority. I have fellow residents who talk about this condition all of the time so I can write with confidence that "we" residents will appreciate your
doing this.
Jim, I know you live with this daily and we have connected several times about how to deal with it in my area, but you deserve to have Council make it a top priority that you have the resources you need to implement these actions. I will cite
as not living up to agreements the requirement that you outsource street sweeping as a prime case of lowered quality of life.
I had hoped to send this note in to you sooner but the agenda was not made public until Thursday PM and I cannot attend
as I will be tied up all day Saturday at my Alma Mater.
Richard Brand 281 Addison
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
BETH MINOR, CITY CLERK
JANUARY 30, 2017
2
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2-Selection of Applicants to Interview on February 1,
2017 for the Historic Resources Board, the Parks and Recreation Commission,
and the Planning and Transportation Commission
The City Clerk's Office has learned that Planning and Transportation Commission Applicants
Hope Chang and Tracy Herrick are no longer able to serve on the Planning and Transportation
Commission.
The revised list of Applicants to consider for an interview includes information pertaining to
previously conducted interviews.
Historic Resources Board (3 Terms) -10 Minute Interviews
1. David Bower (Incumbent) -Interviewed November 30, 2016
2. Beth Bunnenberg (Incumbent) -Interviewed November 30, 2016
3. Brandon Corey-Interviewed November 30, 2016
4. Patt DiCicco (Incumbent) -Interviewed November 30, 2016
Parks and Recreation Commission (4 Full Terms/1 Unexpired Term) -10 Minute Interviews
1. Grant Dasher
2. Rebecca Eisenberg
3. Jeff Greenfield -Interviewed November 30, 2016
4. Doug Hagan -Interviewed November 30, 2016
5. Jeff La Mere
6. Steven Lee
7. Alice Mansell -Interviewed November 30, 2016
8. Ryan McCauley -Interviewed November 30, 2016
9. Don McDougall
10. Keith Reckdahl (Incumbent) -Interviewed November 30, 2016
11. Ellen Turbow
1 of2
CITY. OF
PALO
ALTO
Planning and Transportation Commission (1 Unexpired Term) -15 Minute Interviews
1. Dexter Dawes
2. Claude Ezran -Interviewed September 27, 2016
3. Brian Hamachek -Interviewed September 27, 2016
4. David Hirsch -Interviewed September 27, 2016
5. Natasha Kachenko -Interviewed September 27, 2016
6. Gabriel Kralik -Interviewed September 27, 2016
7. Susan Monk
8. Christian Pease -Interviewed September 27, 2016
9. Jessica Resmini -Interviewed September 27, 2016
10. Reshma Singh -Interviewed September 27, 2016
11. Curtis Smolar
12. Greer Stone
13. Srinivasan Subramanian -Interviewed September 27, 2016
~A~
Beth Minor 1
City Clerk
2 of2
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/27/2017 6:15 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Carnahan, David
Sent:Friday, January 27, 2017 2:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: City of Palo Alto: Planning and Transportation Commission Recruitment
Attachments:Palo Alto City Council Votes for Planning & Transportation Commission.pdf
Good afternoon Council Members,
Find correspondence from Rebecca Eisenberg below and attached.
David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk, MPA
O: 650‐329‐2267 | E: david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org
From: Rebecca Eisenberg [mailto:rebecca@privateclientlegal.com]
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 10:48 AM
To: Carnahan, David
Cc: greshmasingh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: City of Palo Alto: Planning and Transportation Commission Recruitment
Hi David,
Thanks so much for checking in.
For the opening on the PTC, I would be grateful if you could pass on to the council my strong
recommendation for Reshma Singh. Reshma applied last time, and she received a few votes but
ultimately was not selected. I have cc'd Reshma on this email to show her my support!
Should Reshma choose not to be considered, I urge the council to appoint a woman, and ideally a
minority woman, given that the PTC currently is entirely white and almost entirely male. I think it
is important that such an important Commission reflect the diversity of our community. I hope that
the Council will prioritize diversity in its next appointments. If you are curious, I attach last
council's vote breakdown for reference.
As to me .... instead of seeking a role on the PTC, I would like to apply for the Park & Rec
Commission. I filled out an application for that commission as well last time, but I withdrew it to
focus on the PTC. Do you still have that application or should I re-complete it?
Thanks again!
Best regards,
Rebecca
415-235-8078
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/27/2017 6:15 PM
2
Rebecca Eisenberg, Esq.
Principal & Founder
Private Client Legal Services
www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg
rebecca@privateclientlegal.com
415-235-8078
PLEASE NOTE: The information in this e-mail message is confidential. It may also be attorney-client privileged and/or
protected from disclosure as attorney work product. If you have received this e-mail message in error or are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use, copy, or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained
in it. Please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Thank you.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Carnahan, David <David.Carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Good evening Rebecca Eisenberg,
Thank you for your application for the Planning and Transportation Commission. On January 9, the City
Council directed Staff to open a recruitment for a vacant term on the Planning and Transportation Commission,
ending December 15, 2018. This term was made vacant by Adrian Fine’s election to the City Council
Please respond by the application deadline: January 27, 2017 at 4:30pm
1. Would you like to be considered for this position?
2. Would you like another opportunity to interview with the City Council?
Your Application is attached. If you would like to submit a revised Application please reapply online,
http://bit.ly/bcapplications, by January 27, 2017 at 4:30pm
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/27/2017 6:15 PM
3
Please let me know if you have any questions about this recruitment,
David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk, MPA250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
O: 650-329-2267 | E: david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org
Palo Alto City Council Votes for Planning & Transportation Commission
Third
RACE/SEX of DIVERSITY First First Appointee
COUNCIL Council RATING Appointee Race/sex of Appointee Race/sex of Second Race/sex of (shorter Race/sex of
MEMBER Member (%) ••• Vote A Applicant Vote B Applicant Appointee Applicant term) Applicant TOTAL
Berman/Wolbach voting group: 2 votes for minority women, 1
vote for white women, 1 vote for white men. TIED WITH
68.75% -D-white minority minority WOLBACH FOR MOST DIVERSE VOTING RECORD -but not good
Marc Berman white male plus Knauss female Singh female Singh female Gardias white male enough.
Berman/Wolbach voting group: 2 votes for minority women, 1
white minority minority vote for white women, 1 vote for white men. TIED WITH BERMAN
Cory Wolbach white male 75% -D-plus Krauss female Singh female Singh female Gardias white male FOR MOST DIVERSE VOTING RECORD -but not good enough.
Vice Mayor 43.75% -white minority 1 vote for minority women, 1 vote for white women, 2 votes for
Greg Scharff white male Fail Krauss female Singh female Gardias white male Gardias white male white men.
white conservative 1 vote for white women, 1 vote for conservative white women, 2
Liz Kniss white female 25% -Fail Krauss female Gardias white male Summa white female Gardias white male votes for white men.
12.5% -conservative conservative DuBois/Filseth/Holman/Schmid voting agreement: 2 votes for
Tom DuBois white male Fail Lauing white male Summa white female Summa white female Gardias white male white men, 2 votes for conservative white women.
12.5% -conservative conservative DuBois/Filseth/Holman/Schmid voting agreement: 2 votes for
Eric Filseth white male Fail Lauing white male Summa white female Summa white female Gardias white male white men, 2 votes for conservative white women.
12.5% -conservative conservative DuBois/Filseth/Holman/Schmid voting agreement: 2 votes for
Karen Holman white female Fail Lauing white male Summa white female Summa white female Gardias white male white men, 2 votes for conservative white women.
12.5% -conservative conservative DuBois/Filseth/Holman/Schmid voting agreement: 2 votes for
Greg Schmid white male Fail Lauing white male Summa white female Summa white female Gardias white male white men, 2 votes for conservative white women.
0% -Fail I
subject to 4 votes for white men. Mayor Burt was the ONLY member not to
Mayor Pat Burt white male expulsion? Lauing white male Gardias white male Gardias white male Gardias white male cast ONE vote for a woman.
conservative 2 white men, 1 white woman with a record of opposing efforts to
APPOINTMENT LAU ING white male SUMMA white female GARDIAS white male increase diversity.
Comments:
•• Reshma Singh was by far the most qualified candidate. A minority woman, she received 3 votes in the first round & 2 in the second and was not appointed. This is a loss for our city.
•• Michelle Krauss, the only other non-conservative woman to receive any votes, is a nationally-renoun government affairs executive who also would have been a very valuable addition to the Commission.
••Why did all 9 members of the council vote for Przemak Garcias, the incumbent who turned in his application late? Did it hold no symbolic value, even, to vote for a qualified woman?
•• Berman and Wolbach joined the unanimous 3rd vote for a white male incumbent who missed the application deadline, dropping their support for Singh and Knauss. Was this lip service?
••Why did Liz Kniss vote for Doria Summa, one of the earliest proponents of the unconstitutional ban on sleeping in cars? This is something to consider in November.
•• 4 Members of the Council formed a voting block and cast the same votes each round: DuBois/Filseth/Holman/Schmid --is this standard for them?
••Mayor Burt voted for NO women and NO minorities. Does he represent our city? Does he care if our Planning Commission is all white male?
***Diversity rating score in the context of an all-male, 83% white panel, where the addition of women is most urgent:
(Out of a possible 100): minority female: 100; white female: 75; minority male: 50; white female with record of opposing diversity: 25; white male: 0
••Again: these scores are in the context of an all-male existing panel, and where ample qualified female applicants were available.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Natasha K. <nkonlybox@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 30, 2017 7:10 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Carnahan, David
Subject:Fwd: FW: Recommendation for Natasha Kachenko - Planning and Transportation
Dear City Council members, please find attached Mr. McGee recommendation letter for you consideration.
Respectfully,
Natasha Kachenko, PTC candidate
From: Max McGee [mailto:mmcgee@pausd.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 1:33 AM
To: Carnahan, David
Subject: Recommendation for Natasha Kachenko ‐ Planning and Transportation
Dear Mr. Carhahan,
Natasha Kachenko has applied for selection to the City of Palo Alto’s Planning and Transportation Committee, and I am writing
to offer my enthusiastic endorsement in support of her application. Last year I tapped Ms. Kachenko to co‐chair Palo Alto
Unified School District’s Enrollment Management Advisory Committee (EMAC) and worked closely with her for the ten month
duration of the Committee. She proved herself to be a hard‐working, collaborative leader, and her team’s final report was
exceptional in every detail. As the co‐chair she brought a wide range of skills including thoughtful analysis, meticulous
organization, thorough preparation, systems thinking, and a collaborative mindset. Also, despite her busy professional career,
she only missed one meeting out of more than thirty we had the entire ten months and was always available for consultation,
agenda planning, and follow up phone calls. Most importantly, the EMAC had a wide range of viewpoints, and she proved
herself to be a careful listener and then guide the group toward consensus. I was especially appreciative of how she based her
decisions and profound analysis on both numbers and narratives, meaning that she attended closely both to numerical data
and the deep emotions that surfaced from parents and teachers when we conducted focus groups.
I have worked with numerous community volunteers during my 28 years as a superintendent of school in both Illinois and
California and Natasha is without question one of the top five. The Planning and Transportation Committee and citizens of
our fine city of Palo Alto would be well‐served by her work as a commissioner. Thank you for giving her your fullest
consideration.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:46 AM
2
Most Sincerely,
Glenn W. “Max” McGee, Superintendent of Schools AND resident of Palo Alto
3189 Berryessa Street #4
Palo Alto, CA 94306
224.234.6129
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/27/2017 6:14 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Art Liberman <art_liberman@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, January 27, 2017 2:20 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Corrao, Christopher; Richard Placone; de La Beaujardiere, Cedric
Subject:We need Bicycle Speed Limits to insure multi-city bicycle routes on shared paths are
safe for pedestrians
Council members - On the subject of Item 4 on the Council Agenda "Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto in Collaboration With the Cities of Redwood City, Menlo Park, and Mountain View
Directing Staff to Participate in Sub-Regional Planning on Bike Routes"
I support this proposal for Palo Alto to join a collaboration of several cities to work together on
delineating bicycle routes and for planning new Class IV bicycle routes ....with one caveat - Palo Alto needs to establish a maximum speed for bicycles on existing shared paths. These paths, called Class
I Bikeways in the DOT vernacular, are also used by pedestrians; some of our existing shared paths in
Palo Alto may be selected and identified as part of the North-South route in this proposed program.
As a resident and member of the Bol Park Pathway Committee, I and others have noted a safety issue with the shared path in Barron Park that runs from Arastradero through Bol Park. Some cyclists
ride at a speed that is unsafe for pedestrians. There is too small a space, too small a safety margin.
Several accidents, with very serious and tragic consequences for the pedestrian and the cyclists
occurred in Marin County not long ago ( Mill Valley calls for shared path safety measures after child
injured in collision with cyclist http://www.marinij.com/article/ZZ/20140912/NEWS/140917837 )
Share the Path Marin
“Ride at safe speeds. On multiuse paths managed by the County of Marin, the speed limit is usually 15 mph and is always whatever is safe under the conditions. In some congested areas identified by signs, the posted speed limit is 10 mph. Be prepared to slow when nearing or passing others. Your speed and style of riding should not endanger other users. If you want to ride at a speed greater than that allowed on the pathway, please use alternative routes better suited to
your preferred speed.”
http://sharethepathmarin.org/
Two cities in Santa Clara County - Mountain View and San Jose - have previously recognized this
problem.They have established speed limits of 15 mph for bicycles on the shared paths in their
jurisdictions. This is becoming a standard in California: next to Sea World is Mission Bay, a green
park with a 4 mile shared pedestrian/bike path that has a speed limit of 15 mph. And there are many others. I call on you to ask Staff, with some urgency, to draft an ordinance that would make 15 mph the maximum speed for cyclists riding on shared paths in Palo Alto.
Now electrically powered/assisted bicycles are available, which can allow more cyclists to travel at
high speed, and this will likely exacerbate the problem. Type 1 and Type 2 e-bikes have maximum speed of 20 mph, and Type 3 e-bikes have maximum speed of 28 mph.These speeds are too high when the path is also used by pedestrians (in fact type 3 e-bikes are prohibited by California state law
to access shared paths). Imagine yourself walking, at 3 or 4 mph, when a bicycle at 5 or 6 times your
speed whizzes by, a few inches from you, sometimes approaching silently from the rear without the
cyclist making any notifying signal. Regrettably, this is now not an uncommon occurrence. There are
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/27/2017 6:14 PM
2
hazards to cyclists as well, for example from people who walk their dogs and permit them to wander
across the path, with their leash sometimes not visible soon enough to a cyclist riding at high speed
to allow him or her to slow down in time to avoid an accident. I hope you will address this issue soon. Let's not wait, as MIll Valley unfortunately did, and act before
an accident or a tragedy occurs.
Thank you - Arthur Liberman 751 Chimalus Drive
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/27/2017 6:16 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Friday, January 27, 2017 5:33 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Art Liberman; de La Beaujardiere, Cedric; Corrao, Christopher; Alaee, Khashayar
Subject:Proposed Bike Speed Limit
Council members:
I am writing to endorse and support Art Liberman's letter to you on the subject of Item 4 on the
Councils Agenda, and Art's request that the city establish a Shared Pathway bike speed limit of
15MPH. The data Art presents has been discussed by the Bol Park Pathway committee, of which I am the Chair. In fact, several months ago five members of that committee met with Chris Corrao and
Josh Mello of the Transportation Division. The purpose of that meeting was to design a plan for the
immediate installation of temporary safety signs and other measures to address the problem of
speeding bikes on this narrow shared pathway. As part of the agreement reached, it was agreed by
committee members and city staff, that staff would initiate a proposal to Council that a shared Path speed limit be established. This was around October, 2016. We were told that it would take at least
two months for the Council to enact such an ordinance. Here it is nearly four months later and the
Council in only now considering a proposal to adopt this ordinance.
Based on messages in my files from residents of the Barron Park community who are regular users of thebpathway, the incidents of near misses are many. It would seem that an accident is
inevitable. On behalf of the Bol Park Pathway Committee and the users of the shared pathway, I
urge the Council to quickly adopt a speed limit ordinance for the safety of all uses of the pathway.
Thank you for your attention.
Richard Placone
Chair
Bol Park Pathway Committee
A Barron Park Association Committee
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/27/2017 6:13 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:LWV of Palo Alto <lwvpaoffice@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, January 27, 2017 1:26 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Plan Update Jan. 30
Attachments:LWVPA COMP Plan LTR .docx
Dear City Council,
Enclosed please find a letter from the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto with regard to the Comprehensive
Plan Draft Elements, Land Use and Community Design and Transportation, that you will be considering on January 30, 2017.
Mary Alice Thornton
First Vice President
--
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
3921 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 209
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 903-0600
January 30, 2017 Greg Scharff, Mayor, and City Council Members 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Comprehensive Plan Draft Elements on Land Use and Transportation Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto (LWVPA) congratulates the Citizens Advisory Committee and the planning staff for all their hard work in bringing these draft Comprehensive Plan Elements to you tonight. We also applaud the City for involving a broad spectrum of the public to weigh in on this process consistent with LWVPA’s position of ensuring maximum opportunity for public input at all stages of this update process. You are being asked to provide guidance on multiple policy issues. In particular, as you evaluate the many options before you within the draft Land Use and Community Design Element, LWVPA encourages you to consider the League’s longstanding positions on housing. These include improving the diversity of housing opportunities for all economic levels, ages and ethnicities, increasing the number of multiple family units in areas that provide access to transportation services and shopping, support of mixed use development with a combination of diverse housing types, office and retail, and, most importantly, efforts to encourage the development of housing that is more affordable for all. To accomplish these important goals, the zoning code should be geared for increasing the housing supply by allowing smaller units, accessory dwelling units, realistic parking requirements and rethinking height limits where appropriate. As you provide guidance on the draft Transportation Element, we encourage you to consider LWVPA’s positions that support measures and actions to promote the efficient flow of traffic, minimize the use of single occupancy vehicles and encourage the use of alternative transportation modes. LWVPA also supports a transportation system that offers viable alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle use, that is multi-modal, efficient, convenient, reliable, cost-effective, equitable, accessible to all people, particularly those who are transit dependent, and safe for vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. Thank you for considering our comments. Very truly yours, Mary Alice Thornton First Vice 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 | 1/30/2017 11:34 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Annette Glanckopf <annette_g@att.net>
Sent:Monday, January 30, 2017 11:05 AM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary
Subject:Comments on tonight's Land Use and transportation Element
Attachments:land use cooments to council jan 2017.doc
Please consider these comments in your deliberations. I will also speak to a few of these later.
Annette
Annette Glanckopf
2747 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, Ca 94306
January 30 2017
Dear Council Members
I would like to express some comments on the land use element. Although I am on the comprehensive plan
advisory group, these comments are mine alone. Since most of the time will focus on the areas staff asked you
to consider, here are my choices.
A. Cumulative Cap – Option 2 The cap should be citywide not just selected areas
B. Annual Limit – Option 2 Policy L1.14 or second choice Option 4 - Policy L1.16
C. Housing sites
a. I do not support housing at the Stanford Shopping Center or the Research Park..
b. I think housing along San Antonio, especially “affordable” is a good location
c. I do not support housing in Town & County NOR MIDTOWN/CHARLESTON Plaza
d. Option 5 – maybe depending on location
D. Building Heights – I support Option 1 - Policy L.6.7 – Keep 50 foot height limit & preserve our quality of life
a. Retail on the ground floor of multifamily housing, will most likely be neighborhood serving - café,
convenience store, nail or beauty salon or physician office etc. These types of retail do not need
expansive heights as would a clothing store, or rug gallery or technology store. I do not support
removing the height limit and that it be expressed in number of stories.
E. Downtown Cap: Option 4 I support Program :L1.16.4
F. Development Requirement and Community indications
a. I support Option 3. That the comp plan not address these. While there are some good ideas in the
tables, this is unproven. I would prefer to keep to caps. Many of the items in the table, would be
very expensive to track and monitor.
G. Child Care in Midtown and Charleston Plazas- Option2 – Child care does not belong in a busy neighborhood
shopping area. We need more neighborhood retail not less. Children need yards to play in. In these busy
centers, the danger of having a child be hit by a car, is very high. Midtown already has an over supply of kid
friendly business. To name a few: school of rock, United School of Defense, Kimon Learning. Young
Builders, MyGym
H. Land Use Comments
a. Point 9: front setbacks should not be right at the street/sidewalk along El Camino
b. Point 10: Recommend council act immediately to start a concept plan for Fry’s site.
c. Point 11: I support restoring existing Policy L-6 language as satted in itlaics in staff report.
In Goal L2; Policy 2.2; Program L2.2.1: I do not support placing small scale retail in residential areas (other than
were theya re now – downtown for a number of reasons. It is intrusive - noise, light, traffic (even foot traffic).
Just look at 7-11 and the number of times it has had robberies.
On Page packet 98. I support retaining language of Previous Policy l60
Preserve the scenic qualities of Palo Alto roads and trails for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and
equestrians.
Annette Glanckopf
PHONE 650-321-1280
email <annette_g@.att.net>
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Steve Raney <steve_raney@cities21.org>
Sent:Monday, January 30, 2017 8:56 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Jan 30: Comp Plan Housing: affordable zero-car microunits
Attachments:SiliconValleyMicro-Apartments.pdf
Dear Council, Microunits not currently allowed in PA. Please consider adopting a surgical Zoning Overlay to allow a “pilot” of 60 or more zero-car TOD unsubsidized affordable microunits:
$1,300/mo rental (unsubsidized moderate income affordable). 160 square foot micro-studio.
Zero car parking, lots of bike parking, carshare.
Transit oriented development. Walking distance to Caltrain. Located within walkable downtown areas with restaurants and activities.
Compared to current lousy housing options, microunits are twice as good for thousands of Bay Area folks.
Per-capita GHG is 25% of suburban Bay Area average.
Stackable steel housing units are manufactured in China and are erected in the Bay Area with union labor like legos. The local spend is twice the off-site spend. Per square foot, this process is 30% less costly than other methods.
Can exploit small lots of 7,000 square feet or less.
As of now, there is no reason for a microunit developer to acquire control of a PA parcel to bring forward a proposal. PA should provide enough zoning “freedom” for such a proposal to become a possibility. The Zoning Overlay can constrain
the number of units and would presumably be increased after a pilot project succeeds in PA.
As far as the process of adopting of such a Zoning Overlay, I expect that some Palo Altans will travel to 1321 Mission St. in SF to take a tour of microunits, and that a flatbed truck with a 8x20 microunit will one day be parked near City Hall to
allow up-close inspection of such microunits. Attached is a four-pager with more details.
Best regards,
- Steve
============================= Steve Raney Pitman Ave, Palo Alto
Silicon Valley / Peninsula Micro-Apartments
Opportunity to build unsubsidized moderate income homes.
Link to this google doc: http://bit.ly/micro-apts
1. EXAMPLE:
The Panoramic: 160 microunits, 0 cars, 0 car parking, 180
bikes. 761 DU/acre. 11 stories, 120’.
1321 Mission St., SF.
http://www.panoramic.com/cityspaces-location/mission-san-francisco/
2. WHY: Housing crisis
According to WSJ, for the past six
years in SF and Silicon Valley,
300K jobs added with only 40K
new homes:
Silicon Valley has a nationally-prominent housing crisis/shortage. There is a market failure whereby
for- and non-profit developers have not built moderate income (80% to 120% of area median income)
housing.
California (SB375, etc) and the Bay Area (Plan Bay Area 2040) have adopted ambitious GHG
reduction policy objectives, but have not taken credible steps in the housing policy domain to
implement and meet those objectives.
3. A NEW HOUSING PRODUCT:
Two micro-units, as they would ship from overseas
Ergonomic interior of 8’ x 20’, 9’ high micro-studio
●$1,300/mo rental (unsubsidized moderate income affordable). 160 square foot micro-studio.
Two other configurations are available, including 650 square foot four-bedroom apartment.
●$8 per square foot monthly rent provides high return for investors
●Zero car parking, lots of bike parking, carshare.
●Transit oriented development. Walking distance to Caltrain or BART. Located within walkable
downtown areas with restaurants and activities.
●Compared to current options, microunits are twice as good for thousands of Bay Area folks.
●Per-capita GHG is 25% of suburban Bay Area average.
●Stackable steel housing units are manufactured in China and are erected in the Bay Area with
union labor like legos. The local spend is twice the off-site spend. Per square foot, this process
is 30% less costly than other methods.
●75’ tall provides the best affordability, but other heights work
●Can exploit small lots of 7,000 square feet or less.
●Most often, the design is not comprehended by a city’s general plan and zoning, so a City
Council legislative act is required to approve.
●Our aspiration is to pioneer microunits in the Peninsula and South Bay.
●This innovative housing concept is challenging to approve as there are no examples. City
staffs expect that their City Councils will require a market study to demonstrate sufficient
demand for these units. As far as city staff and developer opinion, there is consensus that
these micro-apartments will rent quickly given that other housing options are 2X the cost.
●In San Francisco, private colleges obtained 20-year leases on units and now rent them to their
students. Likewise, a city, employer, or non-profit could lease units and then rent them. One
possibility is for a city to create a housing fund, lease units at $1,300, then subsidize rent to
rent at a low-income or very-low-income level.
●Compare to Feb 2015 NY Times story: New York’s first micro-apartments.
●September Chronicle story about San Francisco microunit political difficulties of microunits.
4. MARKET FAILURE
Google and Facebook have determined that the public sector cannot make a dent in the housing
crisis, so they are reluctantly forced to get into the housing business.
The low and very-low income affordable housing sector is virtuous, but requires subsidies. Subsidies
limit housing production to tiny number that does not make a dent. Per our economic system
(Capitalism), unsubsidized moderate income affordable can be financed and scaled.
For San Mateo County, $1,300 is unsubsidized moderate-income affordable housing.
http://housing.smcgov.org/sites/housing.smcgov.org/files/2016smcSTATS.pdf. AMI is Area Median
Income.
Compare to local SSF studios for rent:
http://www.apartmentguide.com/apartments/California/South-San-Francisco/0-beds-1z141wj/
5. PIONEER BIO:
Patrick Kennedy is the owner of Panoramic Interests. Since 1990, Panoramic has completed 15
mixed-use, smart growth infill projects in and around downtown Berkeley and San Francisco —
adding more than 689 new units of housing, and 100,000 square feet of commercial space.
http://www.panoramic.com/about/
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Steve Raney <steve.raney@jointventure.org>
Sent:Monday, January 30, 2017 8:31 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Jan 30: Comp Plan Transport: Bay Area Fair Value Commuting Demonstration
Attachments:FTA MOD Project Description - Palo Alto.pdf
Dear Council, 1. The Comp Plan Transportation Element should reflect that, in pursuit of evidence-based traffic and GHG reduction, City of Palo Alto is the lead agency / awardee (I am the Principal Investigator) for the: $1.1M Bay Area Fair Value Commuting Demonstration Project, part of: the FTA Mobility on Demand Sandbox program. Stanford’s commute program reduced SOV from 75% to 50%, eliminating construction of $107M worth of parking structures. Stanford uses carrots and sticks, about $3/day stick for SOV and $3/day carrot for alternatives. Using Stanford as a starting point, we’re creating a next-generation, regionally scalable commute system for future policy consideration. System components include enterprise & smartphone apps, carrots/sticks, electric scooter/bike, microtransit, and advanced ridesharing. Our 24-month project runs Jan 2017 thru Dec 2018, with 11 employers (including PA staff) piloting our system. The term “Fair Value Commuting” pertains to combining carrots and sticks to more-accurately reflect full costs and benefits.
FTA’s two-pager is attached. 2. Please also consider having the Transport Element align with adopted state/regional policy:
Per capita VMT reduction Transit goal Bike goal
California Transport Plan 2040, Scenario 3 17%Double Double
Caltrans Strategic Management Plan 2020 15%Double Triple
SB 375 2030 Bay Area Target 15%
Plan Bay Area 2040 15%Double Double
Best regards,
- Steve
=============================
Steve Raney Pitman Ave, Palo Alto
Executive Director, Smart Mobility Joint Venture Silicon Valley www.jointventure.org/maas
Teamed with City of Palo Alto on FTA Mobility on Demand Sandbox
Mobility on Demand (MOD) Sandbox Summary
Page 1 of 2
MOBILITY ON DEMAND (MOD) SANDBOX
City of Palo Alto
Bay Area Fair Value Commuting Demonstration
TEAM, BUDGET, AND WAIVERS
Key Partners: Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network, Redwood City, City of Fremont, City of Mountain View, San
Mateo County, City of Cupertino, RideAmigos, Luum, Moovel, Lyft, GenZe, EcoReco, Microsoft, Google,
Commute.org, C/CAG, samTrans, VTA, Bay Area Council, Transportation for America, Palo Alto Transportation
Management Association (TMA), SPUR
Project Supporters: State Assembly District 22, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Transform, Sierra
Club, and Association for Commuter Transportation – NorCal Chapter
Budget Summary: The budget from the applicant is summarized below:
MOD Sandbox Demonstration Federal Amount ($) MOD Sandbox Cost Share ($) Total Cost
$1,085,000 $1,964,800 $3,049,800
INNOVATION: PROJECT APPROACH
The proposed solutions seek to reduce Bay Area single occupancy vehicle (SOV) commute share from 75% to 50%
through a Fair Value Commuting (FVC) solution. Stanford University’s commute program provides the conceptual
FVC starting point. Stanford reduced SOV from 75% to 50% (with transit share increasing from 8.0% to 31.1%),
eliminating the need for $107M in new parking structures. FVC consists of five components:
Component #1: Enterprise Commute Trip Reduction (ECTR) software automates employer commute programs. ECTR
will integrate with public transit by filling up transit fare cards (Bay Area’s Clipper) and allowing pre-tax commuter
benefits purchase of transit passes. Project partner vendors are Luum and RideAmigos
Component #2: Mobility Aggregation (MobAg) app is a mobile multimodal trip planning app with a seamless
combination of public/private transit, bikeshare, rideshare, carshare, and electric scooter/bike “loan-to-own,” with
e-payment. MobAg integrates MOD products such as Lyft line, UberPOOL, Waze Carpool, Scoop, ZipCar, and Car2Go.
MobAg apps include Moovel, Urban Engines, Whim, Moovit, Transit App, TripGo, Swiftly, Ventra, Siemens, and GoLA.
The project integrates MobAg with ECTR. MobAg integrates with public transit by providing multimodal trip planning
featuring transit via the GTFS open standard interface.
Component #3: A “revenue-neutral workplace parking feebate” charges a fee for SOV commutes and rebates that
revenue to non-SOV commutes, structured so that there is no cost to employers. ECTR vendors take their fee out of
SOV revenue.
Component #4: “Gap Filling” describes analytics to identify commutes with poor alternatives and subsequent
attempts to improve them. Lyft/Uber services integrate with public transit by providing first/last mile - 20% of Lyft
trips are first/last mile to transit. E-scooter loan-to-own integrates with transit by providing first/last mile. Bike
network improvements integrate with transit by providing first/last mile. Public microtransit such as VTA Flex is
already public transit and also provides first/last mile to transit.
Mobility on Demand (MOD) Sandbox Summary
Page 2 of 2
Component #5: Alleviating systemic obstacles such as: a) enable better public transit routes that cross county
borders (the region has 24 transit agencies), b) better integrate transit fares within multi-agency trips, c) modernize
transit e-payment, and d) develop a healthy, interoperable mobility software ecosystem, following open standards.
The project will: a) collaborate directly with the top vendors that contribute to FVC by enhancing software/hardware
feature sets and interoperability, b) pilot FVC at 11 employers with more than 27,000 employees, and c)
collaboratively analyze commute patterns and develop/pilot new gap-fillers such as low-income subsidy and loan-
to-own.
CHALLENGES PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS
Scale Challenge: In car-loving portions of the Bay Area, transit commute mode share is an anemic 3.3% and Lyft/Uber
serves less than 1 out of every 1,000 trips. For a zip code with 31,550 residents, of which 500 are downtown Palo
Alto workers, there are fewer than 8 people to match in each 20-minute peak hour commute interval. SOLUTION:
At regional scale FVC creates 465,000 new customers for non-SOV mobility.
Gap Challenge: There is a need for “Gap Filling” to identify commute vectors with poor alternatives and subsequently
improve options. SOLUTION: FVC fills gaps with: low-income transit subsidies, e-scooter first/last mile, Uber first/last
mile, bike network analysis/improvements to reduce stress, e-bikes for 8-mile commutes, on-demand P2P rideshare
(Lyft Carpool), microtransit (VTA Flex, Bridj), and telecommuting.
Integration Challenge: A handful of suburban employers have reduced commuting from 75% to 50% SOV, but no
suburb or suburban county has adopted city-wide or county-wide technologies/policies that have reduced SOV
commuting by even 5%. SOLUTION: FVC addresses demand and supply side challenges. FVC’s integrated five-
component solution combines technologies and policies, providing a “credible success narrative” that mode shift
from 75 to 50% may be achieved.
Mobility for All Solution: FVC provides equitable pathways to jobs as follows: 1) The Palo Alto TMA low-income
commute gap-filling work task. 2) The FVC “feebate” serves as a progressive wealth transfer from high-income to
low income. Compared to other congestion reduction policies, FVC scores high for social equity. 3) 25% mode shift
away from SOV in suburbia will result in multimodal expansion to the great benefit of the disability community.
Systemic Challenge: The Bay Area has a series of systemic obstacles that need addressing, including: a) enable better
transit routes that cross county borders, b) provide better transit fares for multi-agency trips, c) e-payment, d)
interoperable software ecosystem. SOLUTION: One of FVC’s five components reduces systemic obstacles.
ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES, BENEFITS, IMPACTS
Capstone deliverables: 1) a real-time commute mode dashboard aggregated from 11 employers using two different
ECTR apps and 2) a consortium-wide conclusion about far along FVC has progressed from 40% ready towards 100%
ready to become a regional-scale solution.
Potential Bay Area-wide Benefits / Impacts include:
Creating $670M/year new transit, biking, carpool, and mobility service funding out of thin air
Benefits lower income workers more than higher income workers
Reducing 1M car trips/day, 1.3M tons/GHG/year, 3.4B VMT/year at a “negative cost” of -$558/ton GHG
reduction
Creating a large new pro-transit voting constituency.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 30, 2017 8:24 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Height limit
It was created by a vote and should be changed by one. Does that not
appear appropriate.
Paul Machado
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:56 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Diane Morin <dianejn.morin@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, January 29, 2017 8:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:PALO ALTO FORWARD Strongly supports the below listed policies, which we
respectfully ask you review and include for Monday Night
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice-Mayor Kniss and Honorable City Council Members,
Palo Alto Forward’s Board of Directors has consistently championed
broader housing options for residents of all incomes, ages, and abilities, AND
policies to offset development impacts like parking and traffic, while providing all
community members with the greatest range of mobility options (driving, biking, walking
and transit).
Our belief is that providing shelter and improving mobility enhances the quality of life of all Palo
Alto community members. We strongly favor compact development with mixed uses and green
infrastructure to create livable places, a vibrant economy. This simultaneously protects our existing
open spaces and advances our bold sustainability goals by reducing GHGs emissions and
conserving energy/water resources.
After reviewing the full staff report for Monday night, we voice strongest support for:
Land Use Policies:
Expand Housing Sites such as:
o Multifamily housing at Stanford Shopping Center (Policy L-4.7),
o Multifamily housing at Stanford Research Park’s El Camino frontage (L5.4.1),
o Increasing housing densities Downtown and near Cal Ave (new)
o Option for housing at Town & Country (L-4.12)
o Multifamily housing near Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Research
Park’s western frontage (new),
Keep Height Limit Flexible in select areas
o Preference for Policy L-6.10 for an unspecified building height limit over 50’ to offer
a mix of multifamily housing in areas served by transit, services and retail.
o Secondary support for Policy L-6.9 to increase the 50’ height limit to 65’ in
commercial /mixed use areas
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:56 AM
2
Development Requirements should be determined and implemented separately from Comp
Plan, not part of current Comp Plan process. (ie traffic and parking metrics, green building
and housing cost burden) (pages L-37-43)
Retain Child Care as a use in neighborhood commercial centers, like Midtown, Charleston
and Edgewood shopping centers. Young families are already struggling with child care (on top of housing). We should not take away potential child care sites, especially as retail is on
the decline and retail space can be used for other important community functions. (page L-
25)
Create a Retail/Residential mixed use designation, as noted in Policy L-6.12, but increase
allowable square footage for residential space, especially for below-market rate housing.
Encourage mix of housing types and options (like cottage clusters and missing middle
housing) to encourage greater affordability and reduce displacement of existing
residents (Policy L2.3 & L3.4, Policy L3.5, Policy L-3.3)
Transportation policies:
Parking policies that provide adequate parking supply where needed, but do not incentivize
people to drive more than required
Implement or go beyond the bike network set forth in the 2012 Bike Pedestrian
Transportation Plan.
Emphasize travel time improvements across a transportation network (VMT), rather than a
strict focus to preserve intersection travel times (LOS). Sometimes a few second increase at
an intersection can actually help reduce travel times across a whole network
o Menlo Park’s M2 proposal includes a new grocery store and pharmacy so residents
are closer to these services. This will improve access and overall travel time for such
services (5 min instead of 25), even though it may take a couple minutes more to get through the stores’ main intersection.
o Menlo Park’s existing LOS thresholds required additional EIRs for a couple mixed use + housing projects near the train station and services, preventing construction of
much needed housing for several years
Land Use/Transportation Linkages:
Locate jobs near transit to reduce peak hour commute trips. Housing is good for reducing
overall volume of trips, but has less effect on reducing peak hour commute trips.
Coordinated Area Pans are critical to aligning land use with sustainable transportation goals:
Strong TDM and and management of parking resources/pricing are important to pair with
proposed land uses in area plan. Please update Policy L-4.2 with the following Coordinated
Area Plans:
o Downtown (including North, South and SOFA)
o California Ave (not just Fry’s)
o El Camino Real (North and South)
o San Antonio Corridor
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:56 AM
3
Focus Transportation Demand Management (TDM) + paid parking where the highest
volumes of jobs are (Please see Business Element data below which lists top employers and
highest commute volumes)
Thank you for reviewing this very important topic,
Palo Alto Forward Board of Directors
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:57 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Geri Mc Gilvray <geri@thegrid.net>
Sent:Sunday, January 29, 2017 4:57 PM
To:Moitra, Chitra; Council, City; Keene, James; josh.mello@cityofpaloalto.org
Cc:Geri Mc Gilvray; A-MIKE BECHLER; Dorian Manke; Mary Triggs
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting on Landuse and Transportation Elements
Hi,
Thank you for letting me know about your meetings. (some of my ideas)
As you build and build, please have consideration for those of us who are already
here suffering EXCESSIVE SPEED AND NOISE. on our residential arterials. We have been given an unfair burden since the
ENTIRE traffic division was abolished in 2011.
It's a small town to have over a thousand car crashes a year. only about four miles each direction....
IDEAS FOR OUR CITY OF PALO ALTO
The rule of law COULD be restored to the traffic calming effort. This requires direction from our city leaders, especially
our city manager. The traffic division could be fully restored and, told to ENFORCE the rules, EVEN ON MIDDLEFIELD IN
MIDTOWN.
If the people knew about the number and severity of car crashes, they might be shocked into action and help make
everybody's families safer on ALL of our streets.
At meetings, the council folk could speak a bit louder, and, shorten their responses to every single item a bit. we could
announce the meetings on channel 26. I hope there is a good TV audience like me.
The traffic warning (yellow) lights could be a uniform 4 or 5 seconds so folks would know HOW
NOT to run a red light, because Palo Alto's are set at two seconds and less. THEN, SAFETY COULD BE FAIRLY ENFORCED.
TICKETS SHOULD NOT COST SO MUCH! AT ALL! not more than 100 dollars. It doesn't take much REGULAR enforcement
to cause beneficial change. Word gets around. People liked being courteous.
In Midtown, the little Round Table has been blocked at every turn from expanding its TINY kitchen after 43 years of
service to us, UNLESS he spends hundreds of thousands to "retrofit "the whole place! Come on, folks ! Now, the city
wants him to sort and save everyone's plate garbage, which attracts rats, and to pay fines when peoples dope needles
are put in it out back. Is there anything more we can do to interfere with a small business owner ? I don't know if all of
this is still happening there, but I like our salad opportunity places SO much.
SPEEDING inside our town should not be accepted AT ALL! Crashes occur every day! Excuses should not be made for a
driver hitting a little girl near Walter Hayes school, or for a bus driver killing a woman near Webster. SHSSSSS, WE
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:57 AM
2
MUSN'T TALK ABOUT THAT ! The 25 mph should be enforced all along Middlefield.
BUT, it has gotten worse and worse since empowered neighborhood cops have disappeared in Midtown after
September of 2011. Big trucks and city vehicles drive as if they are completely above the law at all times.......This does
not a better city make.
Permits should not be given for the basement de watering. They can build on higher
ground. An expert told me that a regular basement takes 3,600 truck loads from the home. This would be a 25 foot
truck carrying 2500 gallons a load. Of course it just goes down the storm drain. SOONER OR LATER, EVERY CITY MIGHT
NEED ITS OWN POTENTIAL WELL WATER. Day and night, night and day, these pumps are going. The owner pays 64
dollars a month for the right to waste all this water.
Regarding VTA: THEY ARE HUGE, EMPTY, AND, DO SPEED by my own house often. It's a shame they have JEALOUS
control of our Caltrain, which has standing room only, and is used by THOUSANDS, and thousands.
These busses should NEVER ever dominate EL Camino, taking new lanes or blocking visibility for anyone at all, not even
to get their 80,000,000. dollar grant. Your jitney program had worked so well.
My car WAS needed for the frame shop yesterday, Rice, Happy Doughnuts, the cleaners, the florist and the car wash
along here. Keep the small shops with easy access.
So, I send another note,
Geri MCGILVRAY
EVERYDAY SAFETY AND WALKABILITY, ALL OF MIDDLEFIELD ROAD,
INCLUDING MIDTOWN at MIDDLEFIELD AND MARION STREETS.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 26, 2017, at 3:13 PM, Moitra, Chitra <Chitra.Moitra@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
Good Afternoon
This email serves to inform you of the upcoming City Council meeting on the Comprehensive
Plan Update:
1. The City Council will be discussing the Draft Land Use and Community Design Element
and the Transportation Element on Monday, January 30th 2017. The meeting will be
held at the City Council chambers. This item (agenda item #5) is tentatively scheduled
to be discussed at 6:10 PM, but is subject to change. At this meeting, the City Council
will discuss the Draft Land Use and Community Design Element and the Transportation
Element. The City Council initially reviewed the Draft Transportation Element in
September 2016 and Land Use and Community Design Element in November 2016.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:57 AM
3
2. The meeting materials are located on the city’s website
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55582
There are many ways to share your ideas:
you can either emailing your comments to staff (chitra.moitra@cityofpaloalto.org )
send your written copies to the Planning Department (see address in signature line)
Thank you for your continued interest in the Comprehensive Plan Update process and we look
forward to hearing from you.
Have a great weekend!
Chitra Moitra
Planner
Planning and Community Environment Department
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Email: chitra.moitra@cityofpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:57 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Sunday, January 29, 2017 11:29 AM
To:Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary
Subject:Land use and Transportation Element
thank you for the opportunity for residents to hear and participate in the discussion of council priorities for
2017
I heard two discussions that have high level implications for the two Comp Plan elements you are giving
direction on tomorrow.
One is the new priority about fiscal health. Land use choices have fiscal implications along with many
other impacts so I hope the counil's land use choices take fiscal impacts into account.
We are a city with high service levels, service levels that like trees and other amenities affect our "brand"
and attractiveness for residents and businesses. We also have large infrastructure priorities and like most
cities the challenge of funding retirement benefits.
This makes the fiscal implications of land use choices very important to achieve our service goals. This is
especially clear with regard to hotel space, which brings in tax revenue and visitors who spend in the city.
The second take away I spoke about yesterday and that is the great opportunities posed by a collaborative
and engaged relationship with Stanford with regard to their properties on city land. These are properties
that Stanford will want to remain vital and competitive but which also offer opportunities for housing and
TDM programs.
I hope the land use element choices position the city to take advantage of these opportunities to achieve
many Comp Plan goals.
As a planning concept looking to 2030 I favor flexibility and minimum restrictive land use policies.
With regard to housing sites i support the five choices presented in the staff memo.
With regard to building heights for housing, I support option 4 and note that a majority of the CAC
supported some flexibility in the height limit.
If the council decides to leave height limits out of the Comp Plan, I hope the council indicates that this is a
preference to look at the ordinance separately and not an indication that housing designs over 50 feet are
not welcome.
I support the inclusion of child care option 1 to welcome these uses
With regard to performance standards and community indicators, indicators are best practice now as an
information source for residents and i am confident that staff and council can find a way to achieve this
goal that is not onerous or contentious. I think performance standards require separate consideration if at
all.
With regard to caps they are not consistent with a flexible approach and as written would prohibit uses
asked for in other parts of the Comp Plan, such as small office space (which is best provided in large
buildings sometimes). start ups, non profit uses--all of which exist in office space.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:57 AM
2
The document and public discussion does not adequately distinguish between large single occupancy
buildings and the myriad of other uses of office space.
Staff has just presented a summary of business registry data. For businesses in Palo Alto
1737 have fewer than 25 employees
263 have 26-100
73 have 101-500
9 have 501-1000
10 have 1000-5000
1 has more than 5000
Our largest efforts should focus on reducing the congestion and parking impacts of existing workers as i
said yesterday. It is the high impact goal.
Your discussion yesterday included many programs that address this high priority goal.
Stephen Levy
365 Forest Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 12:00 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:16 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:land use
Downtown, Cal Ave, El Camino, South El Camino are mentioned in the
report for increased housing/density. Our third downtown, Midtown, I
could see soon being in the mix, as could Middlefield Road, arguably our
second corridor. Perhaps even the Charleston/Arastradero corridor which
has already had traffic calming measures installed as a response to
increased traffic/density should be included.
Regardless of when or where density appears, it should not be built
without safeguards that it will not increase traffic, parking and in general
destroy the quality of life across the city, particularly in those areas in
close proximity to the proposed new density. To date city policy appears
to be to build first and then mitigate any negative effects later.
Lastly, perhaps all the new housing should not be just rentals. Their are
arguable benefits to having a significant portion of your citizens being
owners rather than having developers own all the new developments.
Thank you for your consideration.
Paul Machado
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 3:14 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Hilary Glann <hglann@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 30, 2017 12:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comp Plan Feedback
Dear City Council Members:
I wanted to take a moment to comment on the land use and transportation elements of the Comp Plan. Unfortunately,
I’m unable to make the City Council Meeting this evening.
Like most residents I believe we can do more to reduce traffic, congestion and greenhouse gasses by building housing in
places that reduce car trips and take advantage of Caltrain (being on the Caltrain corridor is a terrific resource that we
should take more advantage of, both for residents and for those who work in Palo Alto).
I also believe that we need to do much more to ensure we have more housing that is affordable in our City. We need
this not only for safety reasons – ability of our City Workers and First Responders to live in our City – but also to maintain
a vibrant community in which younger people can afford to live, and where they can contribute to the well‐being of our
entire community. And since many Millenials are not as car centric as Gen X and Baby Boomers like me, we can add
Millenial residents to the City with much less of an impact on traffic and congestion.
I also want us to be creative in how we address our housing needs. Here in the birthplace of Silicon Valley, let’s be
willing and able to try new things and amend regulations that no longer serve us. Let’s make our building codes more
flexible around height limits, for example, so we can accommodate more housing in our new buildings. Let’s open up
permitting options to make it easier for residents to add extra rooms or mother‐in‐law units. Let’s explore options
where we partner with Uber/Lyft, with Zip Car and others to reduce our single occupant trips around the city and
beyond. Let’s continue to bike friendly and add more bike parking spaces in popular public spots like the library where
often you can’t find a bike parking space.
Thank you for listening – Hilary Glann, 946 Ilima Way
‐
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 3:14 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Patty Irish <irishpw@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 30, 2017 12:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing and height limits here in Palo Alto
Dear Council members,
I am a resident of Channing House on Webster St. in Palo
Alto. It is a senior housing building with 11 floors. It is a
great use of space. We are downtown - within walking
distance of services and over 250 seniors live here. It is a
building built higher than the limit and serves a great
purpose.
I hope you will consider other building like Channing House
to increase housing that uses less ground level land.
I also encourage you to find ways to build more affordable
housing. As I hope you know Palo Alto Housing builds and
manages very high quality housing spread around the city.
The housing allows workers to live in our community and
attend our schools, and use our services. Building
affordable housing takes working with many funding
sources and requires putting many pieces together. I hope
you are committed to finding ways to make that happen.
We are a city with many demands on our land. We need to
have a balance of services and efforts for seniors and
people living on smaller incomes (such as the over 100
employees working at Channing House) so that Palo Alto is
a mix of people.
Thank you for your consideration of these ideas,
Patty Irish
850 Webster St. #628
Palo Alto, Ca 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 3:14 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Tiffany Griego <tgriego@stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, January 30, 2017 2:27 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Cc:Jean McCown; Lucy W. Wicks; Whitney McNair
Subject:Item 5: Comprehensive Plan Update Land Use Element
Attachments:2017-01-30__Proposed Land Use Policy - Stanford Research Park.pdf
To the City Clerk,
Please distribute at places to the members of the City Council for tonight’s hearing. Thank you.
Dear Members of the City Council,
Stanford University would like to provide our thoughts about the future of the Stanford Research Park in relation to
some of the proposed Comp Plan language you will be discussing tonight. As you know, the Stanford Research Park
does not favor annual development caps or trip caps. As to the potential for multifamily housing in the Research Park,
which is discussed in section C of tonight’s staff report, we believe the City and Stanford would benefit from a broader
discussion of how to build a true community in the Research Park. Enclosed in this letter is our proposed policy
language for initiating that conversation in the future.
Thank you for your consideration,
Tiffany
Tiffany Griego
Managing Director, Asset Management
Stanford Real Estate
Direct: (650) 724‐4787
tgriego@stanford.edu
www.StanfordResearchPark.com
Take advantage of our transportation programs:
www.SRPgo.com, a service of Stanford Research Park
Stanford Research Park · 3160 Porter Drive, Suite 200 · Palo Alto, CA 94304
January 30, 2017
Members of City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94031
RE: Item #5: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Dear Members of the City Council,
Stanford University would like to provide our thoughts about the future of the Stanford Research Park in relation
to some of the proposed Comp Plan language you will be discussing tonight. As you know, the Stanford Research
Park does not favor annual development caps or trip caps. Regarding the potential for multifamily housing in the
Research Park, we believe the City and Stanford would benefit from a larger discussion of how to build a true
community in the Research Park, as described below.
Relevant items in the Staff Report:
Housing in Stanford Research Park is discussed in the Staff Report, Pages 2-3, Item C, #2 and #5. There, the
Staff Report indicates that Program L5.4.1 could become the place to discuss housing in the SRP, or that a new
program could be included.
Pages L-57 – L-58 of the current draft Housing Element state:
Goal L-5: “High quality employment districts, each with their own distinctive character and each contributing to
the character of the city as a whole.”
Policy L-5.1 “Encourage Employment Districts to develop in a way that encourages facilitates transit, pedestrian
and bicycle travel and provide mixed uses to reduces the number of auto trips for daily errands.” [Previous
Policy L-42] [L94]
…
Policy L-5.4: “Develop Stanford Research Park as a Foster compact employment centers served by a variety of
transportation modes.” [Previous Policy L-44] [L97] (revised from previous draft that focused on the Stanford
Research Park)
Program L5.4.1.: “Create and apply zoning standards and design guidelines for commercial hotels, and
conference centers, and possible residential or mixed-use projects in Stanford Research Park, particularly near
El Camino Real.” [Previous Program L-45] [L98]
Page 2
Stanford’s proposed Policy and Program
We suggest that the Policy L-5.4 and Program L.5.4.1 be revised to state a clearer joint mission for the Stanford
Research Park and plan a broader exploration of the Research Park’s potential as a community:
L-5.4: “Develop Stanford Research Park as a vibrant compact employment center able to attract and retain
innovative businesses that support the City’s economic goals.”
L.5.4.1: “Explore with Stanford University various development options for adding to the Stanford Research
Park a diverse mix of uses, including residential, commercial hotel, conference center, commercial space for
small businesses and start-ups, retail, transit hub, and other community-supporting services that are
compatible with the existing uses, to create a vibrant innovation-oriented community.”
Our Rationale
The vision for the future of Stanford Research Park is to foster a vibrant work and living environment that
contributes to the local economy and offers a unique sense of place. Future development plans can facilitate
these goals through incorporating a mix of land uses that support one another, transit infrastructure and services,
and interconnected street and pedestrian networks. Encouraging the inclusion of a wider variety of commercial
spaces and sizes in Stanford Research Park would support continued scientific discovery and innovation by the
entrepreneurial business community. These areas can be designed as active, civic places that inspire business
and residential community members to interact.
Thank you,
Tiffany Griego
Managing Director, Stanford Research Park
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 3:55 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Karen Schlesser <karenschlesser@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 30, 2017 3:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:City Council meeting Tonight
Dear City Council,
I'm writing to urge you to focus on increasing housing supply in the Land Use and Transportation Elements for the Comprehensive Plan tonight.
Our area is in desperate need of more housing of all kinds. Particularly given the national situation, Palo Alto
must make a strong commitment to inclusive policies. This includes zoning for multi-family complexes,
students, and seniors. The most vulnerable members of our community are the ones most likely to be displaced by restrictive zoning policies.
Thank you,
Karen Schlesser
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 9:53 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jennifer DiBrienza <jdibrienza@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 30, 2017 10:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Jessica Resmini for PTC
City Council members,
I am writing in support of Jess Resmini serving on the Planning and Transportation Commission. Jess will make a great addition to the PTC, as she has both the professional and personal skills to serve well. Jess has offered
her architectural expertise to our community in many ways, including helping Ohlone navigate various site
planning issues. Additionally, she has been a leader in our Core Values Committee which works to align,
clarify, and implement our choice school values. This work includes facilitating difficult conversations between
stake holders who have firm beliefs and differing perspectives. Jess is thoughtful, hard-working, and an expert in her field. She has deep roots in the community and is
committed to the evolution of Palo Alto as a vibrant, diverse community.
The city will benefit from Jess' perspective on the commission.
Thank you,
Jennifer DiBrienza
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 9:53 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Suesan W. Taylor <suesantaylor@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 31, 2017 2:44 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Jessica Resmini for Palo Alto Planning &Transportation Commission
I only know Jessica Resmini as an architect and friend. Not only is she an astounding architect--something she
fails to adequately call out in her application--but a woman absolutely dedicated to her community, her family,
friends, colleagues. She has boundless energy, works hard, is people/team-oriented and is always determined to solve the big and small problems alike whether they're mathematical, engineering-oriented, social, political--she
works to bring a successful solution. Best of all, her joie de vivre is irresistable!
Sincerely,
Suesan W. Taylor
SWT Consulting
________________________________
Suesan W. Taylor
850 Esplanada Way
Stanford, CA 94305
650 858-0979
650 245-1824
suesantaylor@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 9:54 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lisa Aozasa <laozasa@smcgov.org>
Sent:Tuesday, January 31, 2017 3:03 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Recommendation for Jessica Resmini for Planning and Transportation Commission
Attachments:noreply@smcgov,org_20170131_154911.pdf
Hello –
Please find the attached letter of recommendation for Jessica Resmini, who has applied for a position on the City’s
Planning and Transportation Commission. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best,
Lisa Aozasa
Deputy Director
SMC Planning and Building Department
COUNTYoFSAN MATEO
PLANNING AND BUILDING
January 31, 2017
City Council Members
City of Palo Alto
Sent via Email
Dear Council Members:
County Government Center
455 County Center, 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
650-363-4161 T
650-363-4849 F
www.planning.smcgov.org
SUBJECT: Recommendation in Support of Jessica Resmini for the Palo Alto Planning and
Transportation Commission
I am writing to provide a strong positive recommendation for Jessica Resmini, who has
applied to be a member of the City's Planning and Transportation Commission. Jessica
served for 5 years from 2008 to 2013 as the Chair of San Mateo County's Coastside Design
Review Committee (CDRC), and I worked with her closely in that capacity.
Jessica was a true leader for the CDRC, which is comprised of two architects and residents
from the unincorporated communities of Montara, Moss Beach , El Granada and Miramar.
Residents of these communities are known for being passionate about the preservation of
their community's natural and built environment, and are very vocal, articulate and
knowledgeable regarding the County's design review regulations. Jessica presided over the
CDRC's monthly meetings with poise and compassion, keeping the often spirited debate over
proposed development projects on topic and on time. In particular, Jessica used her
architectural training and expertise and knowledge of the regulations to help develop
alternatives that both the applicant and community members could agree on, which often
resulted in an approved project that satisfied all parties to the greatest extent feasible.
I am certain that Jessica would be a valuable addition to your Planning and Transportation
Commission, and would be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding
Jessica 's service on the CDRC . Please feel free to contact me at 650/363-4852 or
laozasa@smcgov.org.
Sincerely,
d~u {Ce,~{111c,__
Lisa Aozasa
Deputy Director
LAA:aow -LAABB028 WAN.DOCX
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 10:04 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Shelley Ratay <shelleyratay@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 31, 2017 11:30 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Jessica Resmini for Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Committee
Dear Mayor Scharff and Palo Alto City Council Members:
I'm writing to express my enthusiastic support for Jessica Resmini as a candidate for Palo Alto's Planning and Transportation Commission. I've had the pleasure of knowing Jessica for the past 4 years as our children have
attended elementary school together. In addition to possessing strong professional credentials and a wealth of
volunteer experience, Jess is an engaged and devoted community member who cares deeply about the future of
our city. What may not be evident from her application is that Jessica is also incredibly creative, collaborative
and fair. She has a great talent for bringing people together to find solutions. I have seen her proactively step forward time and again to help our school community in countless ways, giving generously of her time, energy
and talents. She approaches her volunteer work with positive energy and an open mind, making her not only
effective but also a joy to work with. I have no doubt that Jessica would serve our city extremely well, and I
respectfully urge you to appoint her to the Planning and Transportation Commission.
Thank you for your consideration, and for all that you do for our community.
Sincerely,
Shelley Ratay
323 Maclane St
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 10:04 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Daniel Garber <dan@fgy-arch.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 12:04 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Jessica Resmini - Candidate for PTC
Council Members-
My friend, Jessica Resmini informed me that she has submitted her name as a candidate for one of the open
PTC seats. I recommend her.
I first met Jessica many years ago when she was the chair of the Coastside Design Review Committee in San
Mateo County. At the time I met her, Jessica was behind the dais managing with fairness and considerable cool,
a small but contentious group of local citizens and a hot headed applicant who were not seeing eye to eye on a
beachside project. I was impressed with how she keep the meeting positive and moved the item forward.
I believe that she lived in La Honda then; she moved to Palo Alto about 10 years ago. Her two kids are now in
Ohlone Elementary School where she serves on the school's Core Values committee and is one of the school's
PiE Representatives.
Jessica is a licensed architect and a LEED accredited professional and works for the PAUSD helping manage
the 23M Bond Capitol Improvement Modernization project at Hoover Elementary. Her next assignment is about to start; the master planning
of the Multi Purpose rooms at Walter Hayes Elementary School. In whatever time she has left, she helps the Palo Alto Little League
plan their capital improvements, pro-bono.
Jessica is a professional and brings important planning, and technical capabilities to the PTC. She has been and
is very much part of our community; she understands what we value. And she has real experience that very few
others can bring; she has served on a civic board before. She understands policy and how municipalities work.
She is a highly qualified candidate to sit on the PTC and will serve our community well. Please consider supporting her candidacy.
-dan
Daniel Garber, FAIA
Fergus Garber Young Architects fgy-arch.com 81 Encina Avenue
Palo Alto CA 94301 o 650.473.0400
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 10:04 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Kristina Toland <kristina_toland@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 9:45 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Jess Resmini - Planning and Transportation Commission
To the City Council:
Our friend Jessica Resmini has applied for a position on the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission. We have
known Jess for about 5 years and think she would be a great choice for the commission. We have worked with her in a
volunteer capacity at three different schools (Friends Nursery, Ohlone, and Greendell / Young 5s) and Palo Alto Little
League, and have always been impressed by her energy, creative solutions, and follow‐through. She has a positive
attitude, is willing to roll up her sleeves and tackle difficult jobs, and is great at recruiting volunteers.
Her architecture background would be very relevant to the issues facing the Planning and Transportation Commission,
and she is involved in many aspects of the insfractructure of Palo Alto ‐ schools, sports, and professionally. She would be
a real asset to the Commission and our City and we are excited at the prospect of her involvement.
Sincerely,
Patrick and Kristina Toland
164 Park Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 3:15 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Timothy Kassouni <timothy@kassounilaw.com>
Sent:Monday, January 30, 2017 2:54 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Lait, Jonathan; APetersen@m-group.us; Gitelman, Hillary; Yang, Albert
Subject:Kipling Post LP correspondence; 14PLN-00222
Attachments:Kipling Post LP correspondence to Mayor Scharff 1-30-17 pdf.pdf
Dear Hon. Mayor Scharff and City Council,
Attached please find this firm's correspondence of today's date om behalf of Kipling Post LP, which is also being
delivered via Federal Express overnight delivery. Thank you for your attention.
Timothy Kassouni
‐‐
Timothy V. Kassouni
Kassouni Law
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 2025
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 930‐0030
KASSOUNI LAW
Via E-Mail and Federal Express Overnight Delivery
January 30, 2017
The Hon. Mayor Gregory Scharff and City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Mixed-Use Development at 429 University Ave., 14PLN-00222
Dear Hon. Mayor Scharff and fellow Council members:
This firm represents Kipling Post LP, which owns 429 University A venue and seeks your
approval of a mixed-use development that will add housing and attract top retailers and
businesses to downtown Palo Alto (the "Project"). This letter sets forth the legal grounds
compelling your approval of the Project and your requisite denial of the related appeal (the
"Appeal"). All prior correspondence, documents, photographs, Public Records Act responsive
documents to this firm's prior requests, and comments from Kipling Post LP and its
representatives are incorporated herein and deemed part of the record.
First, neither you nor the Architectural Review Board ("ARB") disputes that the Project complies
with all objective zoning and other related objective ordinances, policies, and regulations. And as
to subjective criteria, the Palo Alto Municipal Code's subjective compatibility and contextuality
references are unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous, as evidenced by case law and comments
from the ARB. Indeed, the Appeal is based solely on subjective considerations. The City should
reject the Appeal's legally untethered approach.
Second, it is clear from a review of the transcripts and minutes of the Architectural Review
Board, as well as e-mail communications from City Planning staff, that the City has granted
Michael Harbour, who owns a nearby parcel ("Appellant"), impermissible and illegal veto power
over the Project's design. In May it will be two years since you removed the appeal from your
consent calendar, since which time our client has been stuck in approval purgatory. During this
time, Kipling Post LP has not only forfeited potential rental income but has also spent hundreds
of thousands of additional dollars, all in an effort to build a beautiful, mixed-use, code-compliant
building where an old, dilapidated structure now exists. Our client has also patiently made
numerous additional design revisions, only to have the City's imposition of vague, subjective
621 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 2025
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
TELEPHONE 916.930.0030
FACSIMILE 916.930.0033
The Hon. Mayor Gregory Scharff and City Council
January 30, 2017
Page 2 of7
criteria changed again and again-despite the ARB' s initial unanimous recommendation for
approval and approval from your own staff.
Third, if you continue to deny the Project's approval then you will continue to impermissibly
deny our client's investment-backed expectations. And finally, any further denial or delay will
increase and exacerbate the multiple Equal Protection violations that our client has already
endured. It is hoped-for both my client and the City-that the City Council will put an end to
this unnecessarily long and needlessly expensive process.
1. The City has withheld approval based on unconstitutionally vague standards.
It is a "fundamental rule in zoning ... that an ordinance must establish a standard to operate
uniformly and govern its administration and enforcement in all cases." Redwood City Co. of
Jehovah's Witnesses v. City of Menlo Park (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 686, 697-98. An ordinance is
invalid where it "leaves its interpretation, administration or enforcement to the ungoverned
discretion" of the decision-making body. Id. Indeed, as the United States Supreme Court held in
Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972) 405 U.S. 156, 170, laws that permit and encourage
"arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement" violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Id.; see also Yick
Wo v. Hopkins (1886) 118 U.S. 356, 373 (An ordinance which clothes a government actor with
unbridled discretion "hardly falls within the domain of law, and we are constrained to pronounce
it inoperative and void.").
Moreover, in Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Pub. Co. (1992) 486 U.S. 750, 769, the Supreme Court
further held that even in limited circumstances where a law might constitutionally allow an
administrator or agency to exercise discretion to protect "the health, safety or welfare of the
public," such a law is unconstitutional if it does not place "explicit" textual limitations on the
exercise of such discretion. Id. at 770. In Lakewood more specifically, the Court struck down a
law that permitted the mayor to deny approval of newspaper stand permits if the mayor found the
approval was "not in the public interest," because the law did not expressly limit or define what
the mayor could determine to be in such "public interest." Id. at 769.
Like the laws at issue in the cases mentioned above, the Palo Alto Municipal Code-in particular
sections 18.18.010, 18.18.110, and 18.76.020-is unconstitutionally vague and provides no
explicit textual limitations on the City's discretion to deny a development project's approval, and
thus leaves the door open to arbitrary and discriminatory decisions. Unbridled discretionary
grounds are inherent in phrases such as "harmonious transitions," "rhythmic patterns," and
"design linkages." None of these terms is defined, nor could they be as they are so vague as to be
virtually meaningless. As even the City's Planning Director Hillary Gitelman conceded at the
May 4, 2015 City Council hearing, "compatibility is in the eyes of the beholder."
The Hon. Mayor Gregory Scharff and City Council
January 30, 2017
Page 3of7
Moreover, a law that not only fails to place clear textual limitations on the discretion of a
government agency, but also grants the agency authority to go beyond the few limitations the law
provides, "hardly falls within the domain of law." See Yick Wo, supra, 118 U.S. at 373. In short,
"[A] statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application,
violates the first essential of due process of law." Smith v. Goguen (1974) 415 U.S. 566, 572.
Laws that fail to meet this standard violate due process because they do not provide an individual
with a fair opportunity to know what the law is and how to conform his actions to it. See
Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972) 408 U.S. 104, 108-109.
2. The City has illegally granted Appellant de facto veto power over the Project's
design.
Our firm's review of the record to date, including correspondence with the Appellant and the
City, project plans, and minutes and transcripts of prior ARB hearings, reveals impermissible and
illegal deference to the whims of the Appellant. See Arne! Development Co. v. City of Costa
Mesa, 126 Cal. App. 3d 330, 337 (ordinance was invalid because it was not "rationally related to
the general regional public welfare, but, at best, to conserving the interests of the adjoining
property owners and residents of the immediate area."). As the Court of Appeal held in Ross v.
City of Yorba Linda (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 954, 968, "[I]n restricting individual rights by exercise
of the police power neither a municipal corporation nor the state legislature itself can deprive an
individual of property rights by a plebiscite of neighbors .... Such action is arbitrary and
unlawful."
Here, evidence revealing that the City has granted Appellant veto power over the Project
includes the following:
• At the August 4, 2016 ARB hearing, ARB Vice Chairman Lew commented
that he did not believe Appellant would be satisfied until the building was
smaller.
• In an e-mail dated August 31, 2016, between the City's Manager of Current
Planning Jodie Gerhardt and the Appellant, Ms. Gerhardt seeks the guidance
and approval of Appellant regarding design changes: "If you can also describe
what a compatible building would look like that would be helpful. Should it
only be two stories next to a one story existing building and step up from
there, is three stories ok if the roof line is minimized??" (Ex. A.) That Ms.
Gerhardt asks Appellant "what a compatible building would look like" also
highlights the unworkable vagueness of the City's subjective design criteria.
The Hon. Mayor Gregory Scharff and City Council
January 30, 2017
Page 4 of7
• In another August 31, 2016 email regarding an upcoming ARB study session
for the Project, Ms. Gerhardt wrote to Appellant: "I would encourage you to
come with your ideas for changes as well." (Ex. A.)
• In a November 22, 2016 e-mail to me personally, Planning Director Hillary
Gitelman wrote: "I hope that your client will preview her new plans with
appellant to see if she can resolve his ongoing concerns about transitions on
Kipling." (Ex. B.)
• At the March 1 7, 2016 ARB hearing regarding one of the numerous design
revisions, Chair Gooyer stated: "I think we're in a situation-we've heard
from the person who appealed it to the City Council, if we [recommend] a
building like this, he'll appeal it again."
It is also troubling that City Council Member Tom DuBois, despite having assured our client that
he had not had any ex parte communications with Appellant, sent an email encouraging
Appellant to apply for a position on the City's Planning & Transportation Commission. (Ex. C.)
In Ross v. City of Yorba Linda, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th 954, the plaintiff owned a piece of
surrounded by smaller parcels. Despite its larger size, however, zoning ordinances restricted the
plaintiffs property to one dwelling, while permitting two dwellings on the surrounding smaller
parcels. The plaintiff sought to have his property rezoned to allow two dwellings, yet the city
council denied approval after neighbors voiced opposition. The plaintiff prevailed in the trial
court and again on appeal. The Court held that a city cannot "deprive an individual of property
rights by a plebiscite of neighbors .... Such action is arbitrary and unlawful." Id. at 968, quoting
Benner v. Tribbitt (1948) 190 Md. 6 [57 A.2d 346, 353.] Notably, the Court reached its decision
after it exhaustively canvassed the applicable case law. Id. at 967-968. While the Court
recognized that a city council might consider the objections of neighbors, such objections are no
substitute for the constitutional obligation to consider "what those objections are worth-not the
mere fact that they are made." Id. at 966 (emphasis in original). In short, an exercise of approval
power cannot be made to depend upon a "count of noses." Id., quoting Mettee v. County
Commissioner of Howard County (1957) 212 Md. 357 [129 A.2d 136, 140.) (See also Hardin
County v. Jost (1957) 897 S.W.2d 592, 595 ["[b]asing zoning decisions solely on the complaints
of neighbors ignores the basic premise of planning and zoning ... "].)
The Hon. Mayor Gregory Scharff and City Council
January 30, 2017
Page 5of7
3. Any continued denial of the Project's approval will further violate my client's Equal
Protection rights and continue to interfere with its distinct investment-backed
expectations.
When governmental restrictions interfere with a property owner's "distinct investment-backed
expectations" for developing property, the government generally must compensate for the loss.
Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd (1997) 16 Cal.4th 761, 775; see also Penn Central
Transportation Company v. New York City (1978) 438 U.S. 10. The First District Court of
Appeal recently affirmed this rule in Lockaway Storage v. County of Alameda (2013) 216
Cal.App.4th 161. There, the plaintiff had purchased a parcel of land for which the County had
granted a Conditional Use Permit allowing the property to be used for "storage of recreational
vehicles and boats." Id. at 168. After the plaintiff purchased the property, however, the County
refused to issue the permits that were necessary for the plaintiff to construct such a storage
facility. The County justified its denials by claiming that the proposed construction would be
"inconsistent with the County's [newly adopted] general plan." Id. at 171. Nonetheless, the Court
still found a taking, in part, because the County's actions had denied the plaintiff its "reasonable
investment backed expectation" that it could use the property as a storage facility. Id at. 186.
Similarly here, the City Council's perpetual delay in approving the Project has interfered with
Kipling Post LP' s "reasonable investment backed expectation." The denial of an investment
backed expectation is ad hoc-a fact-specific inquiry that necessarily considers all circumstances
surrounding the denial. The City's utter obeisance to the design whims of the Appellant, coupled
with the Municipal Code's unworkably vague standards and the utter disregard for Kipling Post
LP's property interest in Transferable Development Rights (TDR's), will only result in further
depriving Kipling Post LP's investment backed expectations. Kipling Post LP devoted 2011 and
2012 to amassing and processing the TDRs, and the City cannot now take away that interest
without just compensation and without violating Kipling Post LP's investment backed
expectations under state and federal law. 1
4. The Equal Protection Clause requires municipalities to treat similarly-situated
properties alike.
Finally, the law forbids the City from treating one lot differently than its neighbors. Hamer v.
Town of Ross (1963) 59 Cal.2d 776, 782 (a city may not create "an island" of restricted uses in
an "ocean of substantially less restrictive zoning.) The Equal Protection Clause also requires that
1 Exhibit D contains true and correct copies of the TDR' s, which were duly recorded and reviewed by the City
Attorney.
The Hon. Mayor Gregory Scharff and City Council
January 30, 2017
Page 6 of7
the government treat similarly-situated individuals alike. Plyler v. Doe (1982) 457 U. S. 202,
216; Cooley v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 228, 253, 127. When the government crafts
laws that treat similarly-situated individuals differently, it must provide a reason for the disparate
treatment that is rationally related to the protection of the public and the general purpose of the
law. Reed v. Reed (1971) 404 U. S. 71, 75-76. In the case of development permit applications or
zoning restrictions, that means that any designation or classification that causes one developer or
development to bear a greater regulatory burden than another, must further a legitimate purpose
of the law. Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (1985) 473 US 432, 446-447.
Put simply, a parcel of land may not be "restricted and given less rights than the surrounding
property." Ross v. City of Yorba Linda (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 954, 960; Reynolds v. Barrett
(193 8) 12 Cal.2d 244, 251 ("a city cannot unfairly discriminate against a particular parcel of
land."). The Supreme Court has also held that this sort of arbitrary tweaking can constitute a
taking under the Fifth Amendment. City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd.
(1999) 526 U.S. 687. In that case, the plaintiff repeatedly applied for, and was repeatedly denied,
a development project permit for a parcel of land that the plaintiff owned. Id. at 693. Each time,
the City would deny the permit and suggest additional changes to the project. The plaintiff would
make these changes and re-apply. Id. Yet each time the City would concoct additional reasons to
deny the permit. The Court found that these repeated denials, in the face of the plaintiffs good-
faith efforts to comply with the law, were sufficient to show that the City intended to deny the
plaintiff the right to develop its property. Id.
In our case, the Project is well within the size of neighboring projects. It is also substantiated by
two traffic studies, parking and circulation studies, shadow studies, historical studies, acoustical
studies, lighting studies, and landscaping plans by professional consultants hired by both the City
and Kipling Post LP. The Project was further scrutinized by the City's public works, traffic,
parking, utilities, planning, and building staffs. And there is no legitimate City Council mandate
regarding the design and size of the Project, notwithstanding Appellant's false belief that there is.
The Project also complies with all Municipal Code regulations, 2 none of which can
constitutionally dictate issues of design and style. As to size, the Project's square footage is
1,843 less than the allowed maximum. Why even have TDRs and floor area bonuses if you will
not permit developers to use them? Why specify square footages and floor area ratios and height
limits and setback requirements if those numbers are unpredictably subject to change at the
2 Any proposed changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan or City ordinances do not apply to this Project.
The Hon. Mayor Gregory Scharff and City Council
January 30, 2017
Page 7of7
City's unbridled discretion? Notably, the value of 1,843 square feet of rental income is
substantial-millions of dollars over the lifetime of the building-yet our client is willing to
sacrifice it.
Kipling Post LP has continuously worked with the City to advance this Project both before and
after its initial approval in February 2015. The time has come to grant your approval.
Sincerely,
~d=-
cc: Hillary Gitelman
James Keene
Jonathan Lait
Adam Petersen
Albert Yang
Exhibit A
Cervantes, Yolanda
From: Gerhardt, Jodie
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:16 AM
Michael Harbour
Cc: Adam Petersen
Subject: RE: Urgent reply requested
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Michael,
Follow up
Ftagged
These are great comments to make at the hearing. If you can also describe what a compatible building would look like
that would be helpful. Should it only be two stories next to a one story existing building and step up from there, is three
stories ok if the roof line is minimized?? Just ideas. This will also be the second to last hearing with the ARB.
Jodie Gerhardt, AICP
Manager of Current Planning
City of Palo Alto
Phone: 650-329-2575
E-mail: jodie.gerhardt@citvofpaloalto.org
From: Michael Harbour [mailto:dr.mharbour@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:11 AM
To: Gerhardt, Jodie
Cc: Adam Petersen
Subject: Re: Urgent reply requested
HI Jodie and Adam,
I will be there at the meeting.
To be clear and transparent, the majority of the 2821 sq, foot size reduction is only from the 4th floor. There
has been nothing done to address the building's transition to its one story neighbors. In addition, there has been
nothing done to address the massing of the building. The developer has had 16 months and numerous
submissions to develop a plan to incorporate the city council's mandate. They have failed to do so, and have
wasted your and the ARB's precious time and resources.
Michael Harbour
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 8 :31 AM, Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie. Gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Michael,
I will ask Adam and our support staff to reload the Aug 4th plan set. We are doing a study session this time around
because Mrs. Wong reduced the building by 3,000 sf and said she is willing to listen to the ARB about what other
changes may be needed in order to gain approval. I would encourage you to come with your ideas for changes as
well. Mrs. Wong will then have an opportunity to turn in revised plans and have a final hearing with the ARB.
274
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2017 12:52 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Timothy Kassouni <timothy@kassounilaw.com>
Sent:Monday, January 30, 2017 4:50 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James; Lait, Jonathan; APetersen@m-group.us; Yang, Albert
Subject:Kipling Post LP correspondence; 14PLN-00222
Attachments:Kipling Post LP correspondence II to Mayor Scharff 1-30-17 pdf.pdf
Dear Hon. Mayor Scharff and City Council,
Attached please find this firm's supplemental correspondence of today's date on behalf of Kipling Post LP, which is also
being delivered via Federal Express overnight delivery. Thank you for your attention.
Timothy Kassouni
‐‐
Timothy V. Kassouni
Kassouni Law
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 2025
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 930‐0030
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 10:05 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 9:07 AM
To:Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Keene, James; Yang, Albert; Adam
Petersen; Gerhardt, Jodie
Subject:Communication with Applicant on 429 University Ave
Dear Mayor Scharff, City Council Members and Staff Members,
Good morning.
The purpose of this email is to ask you to call or to meet with Applicant to talk about 429 University Ave, as it would be especially fair if such priviledge was or will be granted to the Appellant, Michael Harbour.
Thank you for your consideration.
Elizabeth Wong
650 814 3051
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 10:05 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Virginia Iris McVeigh <veedawgy@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 31, 2017 11:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Approve 429 University for Construction
To Whom it May Concern:
As a resident of Palo Alto and a longtime worker in downtown Palo Alto, I respectfully ask the City Council to deny the
appeal of 429 University and approve the mixed‐use project for development.
The compatible (with University and Kipling) development will replace the unattractive and outdated building with
attractive retail and commercial space. It will also add apartments to downtown Palo Alto, which currently suffers a low
inventory of housing.
It's an energy‐efficient project that promotes green building design with green walled features, balconies, and rooftop
terraces.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Virginia McVeigh
2591A Alma Street
Palo Alto, Ca 94301
(925)325‐9253
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 10:05 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Dana Rokowski <drokowski@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 31, 2017 11:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Approve 429 University for Construction
I work in downtown Palo Alto and I ask the City Council to deny the appeal of 429 University and approve the mixed‐use
project for development. The proposed project is compatible with University and Kipling, and will add apartments to
downtown while promoting green building design as an energy efficient building.
Thank you,
Dana Rokowski
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 1:21 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Marlene Saltos <msaltos27@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 11:31 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Approve 429 University for Construction
I work in downtown Palo Alto and I ask the City Council to deny the appeal of 429 University and approve the
mixed-use project for development.
The development will replace an outdated building with attractive retail
and commercial space.
Sincerely,
Marlene Saltos
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 1:21 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:jake loewenheim <jloewenheim@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 11:44 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Approve 429 University for Construction
To whom it may concern:
I am writing this letter as a resident of downtown Palo Alto, to voice that I stand behind the proposed project of a mixed-use facility to be constructed at 429 University Ave.
I respectfully request that you approve of this project and deny the related appeal.
My reasons for this request are as follows:
This project helps to solve the problems related to the shortage of available rental residences in Palo Alto.
This project helps to upgrade an outdated building with a sustainable green, energy-efficient, and
earthquake-safe building. Thus creating a safer and more eco-friendly downtown.
This project also includes its own parking facility which will help to alleviate the existing stresses related to Palo Alto's downtown grid and downtown north commercial and residential parking
congestion (RPP).
The newly created retail space will generate increased revenue and tax base for the city.
The project helps to improve the appearance and aesthetics of this corner of Kipling and University
while maintaining the same footprint. This matches previous downtown improvements and construction including the new building at 278 University Ave (corner of University and Bryant St).
Thank you for considering my request.
Sincerely,
Jake Loewenheim
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 1:21 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Annie Aronson <thismusicisreal@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 11:50 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:approve building project at 429 University
Dear City Council,
I live in Palo Alto and I respectfully request that you approve the mixed-use project at 429 University and deny the related appeal.
The building will promote energy efficient and green building features which I enthusiastically support. It will also be a contemporary
design with green walls, balconies and rooftop terraces.
Thanks, Annie Aronson --
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 12:00 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Amy Christel <amymchristel@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, January 28, 2017 12:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:2017 priorities for Council
Dear Council Members,
Thank you for serving the residents of Palo Alto.
As a citizen since 1975, I have seen change in abundance but in the last
decade, increases in office development has changed the landscape and stress
levels in our community. There are too many workers for us to ever house
without becoming a full-fledged big city. My husband and I did not settle in SF
or San Jose; we purposely chose a sleepy college town that was Palo Alto.
Even in 1979, it was still one of the most expensive places to live in the
USA. We rented, lived in co-ops, and saved with two incomes for 6+ years to
buy our starter home. We lived in the Willows where it was cheaper. We
gave up square footage and vacations to raise our kids in Palo Alto schools.
Please don't let PC goal of providing "a home for all who would come" cloud
the reality--if you cave to developers and increase density, the traffic worsens,
the pollution increases, the strain on services and infrastructure diminishes the
quality of life for all who manage to make PA their home. More is not always
better.
National Citizen Survey should not be used to inform policy by ascribing
intention to responses (based on a pro-development bias). If the question
simply asked one to rank PA with regard to affordable housing, of course the
marks would be low. But ask, "Should Palo Alto build more so housing costs
come down?" and those living here would likely say, it's not possible!
I support:
1) a full moratorium on new office space and freeze on density of
workers/existing space
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 12:00 PM
2
2) full enforcement of existing codes: leaf blowers, abandoned vehicles, RVs,
basement pumping violations, use permits, leash laws, etc.
3) increases in housing only if they provide full off-street parking for residents
(street parking makes bicycling UNSAFE!)
4) attending to the impact of aircraft overhead. Establish a Committee to
address jets as well as the private planes at PAO, our very own airport. PAO
has been largely ignored by Council, and this facility is degrading quality of
life for residents on the peninsula. Would you promote a City Rec program
that encourages driving around for pleasure? That is what is primarily
happening at PAO. Council needs to examine the impacts of piston airplanes
circling the Baylands, and buzzing our open spaces. Please study and mitigate
impacts of arrivals/departures PAO private planes take over homes--at very
low altitudes with noisy engines and polluting fuels. These effects are real and
undermine the City's commitment to being a healthy and sustainable city.
Council has been inattentive to PAO negative impacts. Growing
taxi/commuter services at PAO will exacerbate these impacts. Rather than
allow expansion of services at PAO, we should be working to close this relic
of the past. Before claiming benefits to the community from PAO, get
facts. How many flights per week (actual, not estimated) are life-saving
flights? FAA data shows a tiny percentage of all helicopters over us landing at
the Medical Center. San Carlos airport is hardly distant from Medical
facilities. The vast majority of operations at PAO are training or site-seeing.
Our skies are already overcrowded with jets. These small planes are NOT the
future of transportation we, as a Peninsula city, should be promoting.
Thank you for representing the people of Palo Alto.
Sincerely,
Amy Christel
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/27/2017 6:16 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net>
Sent:Friday, January 27, 2017 3:23 PM
To:editor@paweekly.com; Council, City
Subject:A perspectiveon uber and Lyft...from VtA's own consultant
It is interesting that VTA suggests we should “fill in Palo Alto’s transit and paratransit gaps” with Uber and Lyft.
Please note these blog posts written by Jarrett Walker, the consultant who created VTA’s Next Network study and recommendations:
http://humantransit.org/2016/10/lets-quit-pretending-about-uber.html http://humantransit.org/2016/08/more-on-uber-competing-with-transit.html
http://humantransit.org/2016/08/more-on-uber-competing-with-transit.html
The auto and oil industries lobbied heavily against alternative transportation years ago. They effectively broke down a strong public transportation system and paved the way (literally) for the auto-centered transportation system we struggle
with today. We know that Uber and Lyft trips (for now) are heavily subsidized by private investors. Their pricing will change. It has to. Investors won’t fund public transport forever. When will pricing change? By how much? How might a
short-term, privately subsidized price competition strategy affect viability of public transit for the long-term? What does history tell us about this? Are these rideshare models a feasible option (including for low income people) in the long
term? How much government subsidy might be required per trip to make rideshare a useful alternative to public transit? Is this feasible?
Serious study of the economics is needed here. As the city contemplates how to incorporate rideshare in the Comp Plan
Transportation Element Update, let’s have a robust discussion about the heavy dependence of rideshare companies on private investors’ money and what this means for community engagement with them.
Penny
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 1:21 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Molly Norton <norton_molly@hotmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 10:22 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:City Council Banking
Hello City Council,
I am watching a live stream right now of the Seattle City Council about to vote to remove it's money from
Wells Fargo because of their relationship to the Dakota Pipeline.
I am curious if you could let us know what bank the City of Palo Alto uses for its banking?
I know the Council has submitted a request to CalPERS to divest of fossil fuels and I am so appreciative of that
effort. But who does payroll and general banking for the council?
Thanks!
Molly Norton
Emerson St.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2017 12:54 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, January 30, 2017 7:22 PM
To:Neilson Buchanan
Subject:Facebook campus seriously under parked
Attachments:IMG_1145.JPG
Last year someone suggested that I understand the Facebook
impact upon its own campus. Today I drove around and through
Facebook's parking lots.
There is only one way to describe Facebook parking lots. Parking
lots are jammed and almost impassable...... more gridlocked than
routes to Facebook.
Almost every aisle in the vast parking lots jammed and
impassable. Blue jacketed, valet runners are readily available to
shuttle employee vehicles back and forth.
Is this important to Palo Alto? Yes. Assumptions are being made
about Stanford Research Park. Facebook's campus today might be
SRP of the near future.
Facebook parking might be an indication of what happens when a
new economy employer is successful. Despite all of Facebook
buses and TDM measures, the parking overload is profound.
I did not witness Facebook's early stage success. Its employees'
vehicles intruded severely into Palo Alto's College Terrace
residential neighborhood.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2017 12:54 PM
2
Perhaps Facebook has a learning disorder. Menlo Park City
Council has not been exercising due diligence. A deeper hole has
been dug. Parking is worse. Traffic is worse.
Please see the photo below...... merely a glimpse into the future as
transportation solutions are kicked down the road.
OK...How to resolve this knot. Head tax or payroll tax on
employers is the only way to infuse capital. Nothing is possible
without new capital.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
To: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 2:51 PM
Subject: Facebook campus seriously under parked
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2017 12:54 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 31, 2017 10:08 AM
To:Neilson Buchanan
Subject:Gentry "Not" for people
More oxymoronic behavior in the chase for ROI. This would never
happen on our Peninsula?
A Rebrand Goes Wrong in a Gentrifying Chicago Neighborhood
A Rebrand Goes Wrong in a Gentrifying
Chicago Neighborhood
First known as “The Gentry,” a new project has residents in the mostly
Hispanic neighborhood in Chicago’s Lower ...
We have local magazine Gentry aimed for the elite.
I wonder how many new urbanists will subscribe as Belle Haven
and EPA neighborhoods adapt to Facebook's proximity.
18 Media GENTRY Magazines
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2017 12:54 PM
2
18 Media GENTRY Magazines
By Alan Smith Graphic Designer
Welcome to 18 Media, the leading publisher of San Francisco, the Peninsula,
and Silicon Valley. Read our celebra...
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 | 1/31/2017 12:52 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Judy Kleinberg <Judy@paloaltochamber.com>
Sent:Monday, January 30, 2017 6:14 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; editor@paweekly.com; Gennady Sheyner;
news@padailypost.com; Mario Dianda
Subject:Land Use and Community Design Element and Transportation Element
Dear Mayor Scharff and Council Members,
The Chamber of Commerce, on behalf of our over 500 members, wishes to offer some general comments as
you review the draft Land Use and Community Design Element and draft Transportation Element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan update.
The business community shares the City's and residents' legitimate concern with the impact of commercial
development in our city's commercial areas. The post‐WWII history of Palo Alto reveals a near‐constant
concern over the decades with the impact of growth in what was once a sleepy college town ‐ not the
destination, world‐renowned city it is today. The impact on mobility, whether by car, public transit or bicycle,
has a negative effect on the quality of life not just for residents and visitors, but also for the employees who
provide the services our community needs and enjoys. Everyone, including local businesses, want policies that
will mitigate the congestion in our transit corridors.
Commercial development that serves the needs of our community and the innovation economy has
contributed to our high quality city services, programs and amenities. The vitality of the downtown and
California Avenue areas has brought a vibrancy to our community that is the envy of other cities in the Bay
Area and far beyond. Finding ways to protect that vibrancy while dealing with the concommitant traffic
and jobs/housing imbalance is an opportunity for creative, sustainable innovation in city planning and design.
We encourage the City Council to develop progressive polices and incentives for commercial developers and
property owners to improve and upgrade their buildings, especially to modify old buildings and design new
buildings with more sustainable systems. One way to do that is to allow for flexibility in the building height
limit in transit‐oriented, commercial zones to allow for the addition of much needed below‐market and
market‐rate housing. Development of new, mixed use buildings that serve these purposes should be
incentivized.
Businesses will support fair share policies that promote and pay for improvements in City transportation
infrastructure. The difficulty of attracting and retaining employees at all skill levels and job descriptions is a
major challenge for local businesses, whether a Fortune 500 enterprise or a small restaurant, due in large part
to the lack of enough affordable housing (market rate and BMR) and effective public transportation systems,
both local and regional. For those that must drive a car, shared transporation strategies and additional garage
parking must be priorities.
Continuation or expansion of the current limitation on new building development or extending a building cap
to the entire city will not solve these problems and may contribute to commercial zone stagnation. More
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2017 12:52 PM
2
housing in commercial zones near transit and improvements in public transportation infrastructure should be
the City's focus.
Two important priorities in our land use regulations should be promotion of carefully planned and regulated
accessory dwelling units in our residential neighborhoods, and more affordable office space for nonprofit
organizations. Critical services for our residents are moving farther away from our community, adding more
car trips to our streets. Incentives and bonuses for developers who provide below‐market rate office space
for nonprofit service providers and housing for their employees would be a benefit for our whole
community. Accessory units will provide needed housing for local employees, as well as students, caregivers,
seniors and others needing more compact and affordable housing in our community rather than adding to car
traffic by commuting here when public transit doesn't meet their needs.
Our business community's commitment to improvements in land use, housing and transportation systems is
the reason that the Chamber of Commerce is a major supporter of the new Transit Management Authority
(TMA), and enthusiastically endorsed and worked for passage of both the County's Affordable Housing Bond
(Measure A) and the VTA's new sales tax (Measure B ) for highway and transit improvements here in Palo
Alto and throughout Santa Clara County.
We encourage the City Council to adopt progressive policies that continue to make Palo Alto an attractive
venue for business to locate and prosper so they can continue to contribute to the high quality of life that
residents enjoy.
Sincerely,
Judith G. Kleinberg, JD
President & CEO
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
355 Alma Street
Palo Alto, CA. 94301
Tel: 650‐324‐3121
Direct: 650‐300‐6040
www.paloaltochamber.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 1:21 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kyle Takaki <ktakaki70@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 11:46 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
To: Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council.
RE: adoption of the county tobacco ordinance.
My name is Kyle Takaki and I’m the owner of Palo Alto Shell and I wrote to the Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council back in
November 2016 regarding my opposition to the agenda and adoption of the County of Santa Clara’s tobacco ordinance. I
did not attend the meeting but listened to all the comments regarding this agenda online after the meeting occurred.
I wanted to reiterate my position on this subject after hearing all the comments.
Many of the comments seemed related to smoking in and around certain properties and the adoption of future licenses
being obtainable upon sale of a business within “x” distance from another retailer and or schools, I believe. Those all
seem like valid and considerable options to adopt, but the adoption and implementation to ban the sale of certain
flavored tobacco just makes no sense.
I understand the thought and reasoning for this, but children if they are going to be tempted to try a tobacco product
they will try whatever they can get their hands on. It may be flavored or it may not, but they will not seek out a certain
flavor or brand if they are feared that someone might find out what they are doing. They will take what they can get,
and if you ban flavored tobacco they will take unflavored.
Please consider this, the city of Palo Alto already hinders the ability for businesses like mine to grow with the ever
increasing demand of convenience stores. Many cities in the bay area have already removed ordinances that control C‐
store operations at gas stations. The outcome of that has been increased tax revenue, a bright and safer establishment,
cleaner and more environmentally friendly business, versus the auto repair businesses currently operating in this city.
The ban of flavored tobacco as I mentioned in my last email is roughly 50% of my tobacco sales and 20% of my total
store sales. The loss of these purchase will definitely take good percentage of my overall sales out of my business. The
loss of these sales are not the only impact this ban could have on my business. The adults that buy these products come
to my business for other products as well, including gas which is 75% of my entire business and what keeps me
profitable. If my sales on gas, other store items and flavored tobacco all decrease it would cause a hardship to my
business.
I know the county did not want to deviate from the bylaws and ordinance details of this ban if they were going to have
to control licensing of tobacco sales in the city. I don’t understand the reasoning in adopting an ordinance that is in place
by the county for unincorporated areas. If I’m not mistaken the county does not enforce this ordinance within urban
areas within the county and if this is so why would the city of Palo Alto allow this to happen?
There are 29 tobacco retailers within 26 square miles of this city which is roughly one retailer every square mile. I don’t
see the need for this ordinance and feel it is just another city operation/responsibility that is be relinquished to the
county government to control because the city does not want to handle this internally.
I am one voice and I’m sure that all the retailers in the area would express my same thoughts if they were made aware
of this ordinance and the possible impact of it.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 1:21 PM
2
Please consider another option to this ordinance. It makes NO sense!
Sincerely,
Kyle Takaki
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:41 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, January 30, 2017 9:41 AM
To:John Hanna
Cc:Dave Price; Jocelyn Dong; ted@wobber.org; RACline@menlopark.org
Subject:More on the willowly cloverleaf
John, thanks for the reply. I dont see Menlo Park lane reduction on
Willow as the root cause. Willow could be double decked 6 lane
expressway and it would still dead end into Middlefield.
The immediate issue is the simple absence of forward looking
projections showing the escalating congestion AND
spillover. What would happen if the general public understood the
future traffic on the entire suite of streets.. Ravenswood, Willow,
Middlefield, Woodlands, University, Hamilton, Hawthorne, Everett,
Forest and Channing?
Various apps will be diverting more and more peak hour traffic to
side streets. Any "street smart" citizen can logs onto apps and see
traffic congestion and spillover on almost real time basis.
Menlo Park and Palo Alto City Council are actively setting priorities
and allocating resources. Will those Councils change anything
related to Willow cloverleaf's impact?
Ironically citizens like you who live in Crescent Park and work on
University Avenue experience only a microscopic dose of what
longer distance commuters slog thru each day.
Lost productivity and employee dissatisfaction will very soon bite
developers and employers who expand without major investment in
transportation systems.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:41 AM
2
My take: The recent traffic debacle on Dumbarton Bridge is just a
wake-up call for elected officials.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
From: John Hanna <jhanna@hanvan.com>
To: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Cc: Dave Price <price@padailypost.com>; Jocelyn Dong <jdong@paweekly.com>;
"ted@wobber.org" <ted@wobber.org>; "RACline@menlopark.org" <RACline@menlopark.org>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 9:08 AM
Subject: RE: tragic tale of two cities: a willowly cloverleaf
Not having yet seen the proposed new plan, I can only hope that Cal Trans has learned something from the
traffic fiasco it created when it removed the 101 south bound off ramp at University Avenue to make way for
the Four seasons Hotel. More than anything else, that has contributed to the traffic jams at University Avenue and Bayshore. Menlo did not help things by turning Willow road from a 4 lane arterial into a two lane traffic jam.
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.
From: Neilson Buchanan [mailto:cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 11:41 PM
To: Neilson Buchanan
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:41 AM
3
Cc: Dave Price; Jocelyn Dong; ted@wobber.org; RACline@menlopark.org
Subject: tragic tale of two cities: a willowly cloverleaf
Kudos to Mr. Wobber and Mr. Cline,
See honest exchange in email chain below.
Lets use new cloverleaf at 101/Willow as a learning opportunity.
Ironically, this past weekend Menlo Park and Palo Alto Councils
began setting new priorities with resources mismatched to their
ambitions.
Has anyone published on the public square the post construction
impact on Ravenswood, Woodsland, Chaucer, Willow, University,
Hamilton, Forest, Channing, Everett and Hawthorne? Only Palo
Alto Avenue will escape negative impact because it is impossible to
access.
If there could be an Oscar for "Willful Blindness", Menlo Park would
win the Oscar with Palo Alto as runner-up.
The issue is not the net impact from the cloverleaf. The issue is
failure to notify the electorate about lag between transportation
solutions and the accumulative negative impact of over-
development. Cloverleaf may benefit 101 traffic for a short period,
but negative impact on Willow and downstream will be
instantaneous.
A new clover leaf for horseless carriages is only a temporary
salve. This late blooming cloverleaf is a expensive distraction from
local government's failure to plan and fund transportation
infrastructure.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:41 AM
4
Furthermore, failure of the Peninsula's grade crossings within a few
years will dwarf this one cloverleaf. If I am overstating the
situation, I welcome your feedback.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
From: Ted Wobber <ted@wobber.org>
Subject: Fwd: pending Willow interchange disaster
Date: January 29, 2017 at 9:03:39 PM PST
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Cline, Richard A <RACline@menlopark.org>
Date: Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: pending Willow interchange disaster
To: Ted Wobber <ted@wobber.org>
Hello Ted, thanks for your note.
There are a few different points of view on this project. The three council members who
were first approached by Caltrans (state agency owns the interstates and highways and overpasses) were told in 2011 that the overpass is deemed unsafe and needed to be
repaired or reengineered. The kickers was that Menlo Park would have to foot part of
the bill - several millions of dollars.
If we did not comply, no retrofit and no improvements - and exposure to litigation should there be failure.
We spent a year fighting this and getting state reps on board and we secured funding
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:41 AM
5
from state agencies.
Caltrans came in 2012 to MP with three designs - and held meetings to discuss the designs with staff and public.
After debate - Caltrans determined the current design and the council approved having
no data that showed increased delays. We were told this was safer and since we did not
want to lose the project we acquiesced. Again, we don't own it. But new info from a resident has shown that recent projects, such as the Marsh interchange, have resulted in more traffic accidents. No data shows delays.
The decision for MP to demand a new review when Caltrans has invested into design
and engineering and the bid is ready to out - is a decision whether we want to risk losing the funding.
I have asked staff to pursue a meeting to formally address new data we have now seen.
I did not agree that a vote by our council would effectively send a message. It doesn't
work that way.
Long answer - we need to sit down with Caltrans and get right on the data. We need to
understand impacts of proposed changes and construction.
We need to communicate to our community those impacts.
I hope this helps, Ted. It's not the answer you want, but it is an honest summary of
where we are today. I don't see how this project will be built without major negative
impacts for 2 years.
It may cut all traffic from Willow for a long time and could change traffic patterns.
Half full take.
Cheers,
Rich Cline
On Jan 25, 2017, at 3:53 PM, Ted Wobber <ted@wobber.org> wrote:
Dear Councilmember Cline --
I just learned about the proposed partial cloverleaf Willow Road interchange remodel
and I can't believe what I read. Is it really the plan to inflict 15-20 minute delays on
Menlo Park residents traveling north on 101 then westbound on Willow? This will double the time for my commute, and it won't do anything about the root cause of
eastbound traffic. I expect the line for exit at Willow will now extend back beyond
University Ave. It is your intent to force commuters onto surface streets rather than
101?
Was there any attempt to reach out to Menlo Park residents who actually use this
interchange on a daily basis?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:41 AM
6
(I regret that I learned of this too late to attend the meeting last night.)
Sincerely,
Ted Wobber
Santa Monica Ave.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 10:05 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 5:32 AM
To:Watson, Ron; Keene, James; Stump, Molly; Perron, Zachary
Cc:Council, City; Lum, Patty
Subject:My Mother
Ron,
I don't want you getting near my mother under any circumstances.
Mark Petersen‐Perez
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:58 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:aram james <abjpd1@icloud.com>
Sent:Saturday, January 28, 2017 11:43 PM
To:citycouncil@menlopark.org; Council, City; Lee, Craig; Kan, Michael; Kilpatrick, Brad;
joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org;
mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.yeager@bos.sccgov.org; Palo Alto Free
Press
Subject:NYTimes.com: Nearly 8 Decades Later, an Apology for a Lynching in Georgia
From The New York Times:
Nearly 8 Decades Later, an Apology for a Lynching in Georgia
The police chief in LaGrange, Ga., who is white, apologized for the death of a young black man by a white mob in 1940.
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/us/lagrange‐georgia‐lynching‐apology.html?mwrsm=Email
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/26/2017 2:03 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kathleen Alley <kathleenaalley@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 25, 2017 5:44 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Animal Services
I'd like to express our great dismay that the city is choosing to stop their support and turn the Palo Alto Animal
facility/services over to an independent organization.
Over the years, we have adopted one wonderful dog and 3 super kitties from this shelter and have returned there
for immunizations, as well as referred many friends and neighbors. After living in Palo Alto 25 years, we are
now Mt. View residents but continue to appreciate this super group of people, their efficient administration and
record-keeping and especially their special care of the many animals they so carefully place in new homes.
Is this model not working for the city of Palo Alto? Why is it being abandoned? From what we understand,
anyone new coming in will NOT provide the services and care so many peninsula folks appreciate. If there's a
financial problem, could other surrounding cities contribute? Are there no creative solutions for keeping such a
good thing (for people and pets!) going?
One could imagine that the dollars spent on studies/consultants about this could cover the operations of this
facility for a least a year....
Would a petition make a difference? Happy to start one!
Thank you,
Charles & Kathleen Alley
(We've had a couple visits to the Silicon Valley Animal Shelter, and although a nice modern facility ~ in our
opinion, there's no comparison with the efficiency, warmth and caring staff of the Palo Alto Shelter.)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/27/2017 6:11 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Doug Snyder <snidleywhiplash@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 26, 2017 2:10 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:palo alto groundwater
Palo Alto’s groundwater is a community resource too valuable to freely pump and dump down storm drains
simply for the construction of residential basements. I request the City of Palo Alto to require that
developers/owners building basements in areas with high water tables use best construction practices such as limiting the duration and depth of dewatering and/or using “silent piling” and other techniques to minimize the
amount of water extracted during this construction. Furthermore, I request that all water extracted be used, for
example, for irrigation, for fire hydrants and other non-potable uses and/or recharged back to the aquifer.
Thank you,
Doug Snyder 1032 Maddux Dr
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2017 12:52 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:aldeivnian@gmail.com on behalf of Adina Levin <adina.levin@friendsofcaltrain.com>
Sent:Monday, January 30, 2017 5:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Land Use and Transportation Element
Honorable Council Members and Staff,
Friends of Caltrain supports Caltrain modernization, in the context of an integrated transit network on the Peninsula Corridor, and policies supporting increased use of sustainable transportation.
A few comments for your consideration regarding the Land Use and Transportation Elements of the
Comprehensive Plan. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55582
Vehicle Level of Service
It is reasonable to keep vehicle delay as an advisory metric to make sure that the transportation system is
functioning and to avoid situations such as 10 minute delays at key intersections for users including car drivers,
shuttle/transit passengers, cyclists and pedestrians.
However, it no longer makes sense to maintain LOS as the main metric to assess the performance of the
transportation system. The State of California has removed Level of Service as a measure of transportation
impact under the California Environmental Quality Act and replaced it with Vehicle Miles Traveled.
The state removed LOS as a transportation metric under CEQA because it correlates very poorly with the
greenhouse gas emission and other pollutant environmental impacts.
Also, LOS as a primary metric serves to discourage changes that improve access and travel time. For example,
if housing and services are added near jobs, there will be fewer long-distance car commutes, and more short trips that can be taken on foot or by bicycle, or shorter car trips. If housing and services are added near jobs,
these changes are likely add delay for drivers at the intersections. Someone may take 3 minutes instead of 2
minutes to get across the intersection - but in exchange, they have reduced the amount of time to get to work
from 60 minutes to 5 minutes, and to get groceries from 25 minutes to 5 minutes. There will be some more local
congestion but much better access.
And LOS as a primary metric can serve to discourage changes that would increase safety and access for people
walking and bicycling, even if there are minor tradeoffs in driving delay.
A more robust explanation of the state law changes can be found in the introduction to this document about the state law changes:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/Revised_VMT_CEQA_Guidelines_Proposal_January_20_2016.pdf
Therefore, on the subject of metrics we offer the following recommendations
Maintaining vehicle delay as an advisory metric to ensure that the road system continues to function for users of multiple modes
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2017 12:52 PM
2
Adding “corridor travel time” as a key measurement. For example, if a change adds 10 seconds of delay
to a trip that takes 5 minutes, but significantly increases safety or reduces conflict between vehicles and
other modes
Considering person-throughput, not just vehicle throughput as a measure of transportation effectiveness
(for example, changes to facilitate buses or shuttles that carry more people would be weighted strongly
compared to changes that only facilitate cars)
Exploring the use of access metrics, which are emerging as a tool, to assess changes that improve access
among services, jobs and housing
It would be counterproductive to increase the sensitivity of fine-grained thresholds that would require
lengthy new transportation studies and encourage project reductions in order to prevent the slowing of
cars at an intersection by less than a second, as has been historically the case in Menlo Park (Menlo Park
is now revising its thresholds as part of the implementation of its new General Plan)
Continue to refine metrics for walking and bicycling, particularly for bicycling considering the size and area covered by a “low-stress network” of routes providing access to people of all ages and a wide spectrum of abilities
Area Plans and Performance Metrics
Overall, Friends of Caltrain supports locating housing, services and jobs near each other and near transit, to
increase the use of sustainable transportation.
In our observation of city planning activities on the Peninsula Corridor overall, we see significant benefits in a variety of corridor cities from conducting coordinated area plans that take a comprehensive approach at
addressing issues of jobs/housing balance, transportation services and TDM, parking policies, and provision of
key amenities and infrastructure such as park space, water, wastewater, etc.
Therefore, we strongly support the recommendation that Palo Alto use a coordinated area plan approach to plan for land use changes while addressing transportation and other infrastructure issues according to Policy L-4.2,
including but not limited to the Downtown University Avenue, California Avenue District and Frye’s.
Thank you for your consideration,
Adina
Adina Levin
Friends of Caltrain
http://greencaltrain.com 650-646-4344
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 12:00 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net>
Sent:Saturday, January 28, 2017 11:10 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Priorities
Importance:High
Though I can’t attend this morning…I have these comments. Housing. I was struck in Stanford’s preliminary outreach meeting this week by the absence of
any related to the number of new people they are planning for. They say they don’t know, but
of course, we know that you can’t estimate square footage as they’ve done without estimating
numbers of people and what they’ll be doing in the space. They know. Let’s push for those
numbers. We need to know what percentage of the new Stanford staff, students, faculty and
their families will be housed on Stanford campus. This is important information for city
planning. Our streets and our schools will serve this development.
Housing will be a big issue in the coming year. Housing growth will encounter opposition if
the city can’t demonstrate that it has feasible plans in place to address the impacts of
growth…and that means we need to talk about many other issues, among them schools and
traffic.
Multi-Modal Mobility
As Council considers the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Transportation Elements it will be
important to understand and communicate how the city’s comprehensive, multi-modal approach
to planning benefits ALL road users and addresses growth–related traffic congestion and safety
problems.
Traffic and congestion have increased throughout the Bay Area, including Palo Alto. We have
been able to take thousands of car trips off our city streets each day by creating street
environments that invite people to use other modes of transportation. We need to do a better job
communicating the benefits we are delivering to all road users as we move forward.
Moving forward I hope we will prioritize a commitment to implementing the vision for Multi-
Modal Mobility Management which includes Safe Routes to School and the projects outlined
in the city’s new Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan as well as city-wide TDM, parking,
transit, signalization and road improvement projects. I hope we will consider ride share
options—but with some caution—given the extent to which these nascent businesses are
currently subsidized by investors.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 12:00 PM
2
Please make Multi-Modal Mobility Management, including Safe Routes to School, a city
priority.
Thank you for considering my comments and for your service to our community.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:59 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Saturday, January 28, 2017 1:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Quality of Life
Dear City Council,
Thank you for your decision last Monday for the RPPP for Evergreen Park and for including the Mayfield neighborhood.
We are in a paradigm shift of major proportions as shown by our last election. We collectively are
being shown, with little subtly, that the old ways, shown by the extremes in Washington, will no longer work if we want a healthy citizens, and a healthy planet. The major concept we need to embody is cooperation with each other and with the planet so She can begin to heal Herself. There are two
books, authors that I invite you to read, Charles Eisenstein, Sacred Economy and The Wonderful
World We All Know is Possible, which is the story of where the concept of Separation has gotten us,
to be replaced by 'interbeing', the connection between all things, charleseisenstein.net , You may want to check out his essays.
The other author is Sarah Van Gelder, cofounder of YES Magazine, which you may be familiar with. It
is 20 years old now, and supports positive, innovative, and creative possibilities. Her book The
Revolution Where You Live, is the story of her 12,000 mile trip around this country. She interviews and interacts with all kinds of people, native Americans, to Appalachia. The stories of real people and communities are inspiring and go around and beyond what might be thought of as impossible. The
power of the people to make a difference in their 'Place', their economics, living conditions is
inspirational and empowering.
The quality of life in Palo Alto has degenerated according to many of our residents. I agree with everything that was communicated this morning, from the issues of our groundwater and the waste
and effect on the land. Does anyone need a 20 foot basement? Enforcement of the city codes is
another major concern including traffic violations, noise violations, assessing and collecting
appropriate fines, adherence to project plans, conditional use permits, and conditions of approval. I was glad to hear that there is some movement on the excess air traffic over our city, their pollution,both in noise and air quality is a major concern.
The biggest elephant in the room to me is the excess building of office space. Even with stipulations that parking will be included the ratio is not enough. These businesses do not pay their fair share of
taxes. They contribute in a major way to our gridlock, and the traffic they generate is a source of more
pollution. P.A. prides ourselves on being Green, but to really be Green we need to shift our
priorities. Create more parks for one thing rather than offices. The Bank of America building being torn down with something new and "environmentally correct" to replace it is to me unconscionable
when you think of the negative effect that tearing down that building will have.. In Europe they
renovate existing buildings. This is something we could readily initiate as part of being Green,and
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:59 AM
2
which would support our Quality of Life.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Keehn
4076 Orme St.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/26/2017 2:03 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 26, 2017 9:04 AM
To:Council, City; Planning Commission
Cc:Dave Price; Bill Johnson; Emily Mibach; Jocelyn Dong; Rob George; Wendy Silvani;
Kleinberg, Judy; Paul Machado; Karen Machado; Wolfgang Dueregger; Tommy Derrick;
Christian Pease; Dedra Hauser; Dan Decamp; Patrick Slattery; Terry Holzemer
Subject:Race to the Bottom
What will be Palo Alto's longer term ROI on the recent "VTA" sales
tax increase? Today there seems to be a Palo Alto race to the
bottom..... a race between VTA and TMA for the poorest funded
TDM projects.
New shuttle routes added throughout county - San Mateo Daily
Journal
New shuttle routes added throughout county -
San Mateo Daily Journal
New shuttle routes added throughout county -
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 | 1/27/2017 6:15 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, January 27, 2017 3:13 PM
To:jrosen@da.sccgov.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; citycouncil@menlopark.org;
Council, City; joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org;
mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org
Subject:Ray Samuels Letter Presented to the Palo Alto Taser Task Force : Free Download &
Streaming : Internet Archive
https://archive.org/details/raySamuelsOnTasers
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:57 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Friend, Gil
Sent:Sunday, January 29, 2017 2:05 PM
To:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Bobel, Phil; North, Karin; Sartor, Mike; Esther Nigenda
Cc:Council, City; Rita Vrhel; Keith Bennett; Dailey, Karla; Luong, Christine
Subject:Re: Blueprint for One Water
Thanks for sending this, Esther. I look forward to reviewing it, and discussing it with our team.
With best regards,
Gil
Gil Philip Friend
Chief Sustainability Officer • City of Palo Alto, CA
O: 1-650-328-2447 • C: 1-650-924-6166 • gil.friend@cityofpaloalto.org
LinkedIn | Twitter | About.Me
From: Esther Nigenda <enigenda@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 8:30:03 AM
To: Friend, Gil; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Bobel, Phil; North, Karin; Sartor, Mike
Cc: Council, City; Rita Vrhel; Keith Bennett
Subject: FYI: Blueprint for One Water
In case you haven't seen it yet.
"Blueprint for One Water is a practical guide for agencies seeking to manage water resources
holistically and sustainably. One Water is an integrated planning and implementation approach to
managing finite water resources for long-term resilience and reliability, meeting both community and
ecosystem needs."
http://www.waterrf.org/PublicReportLibrary/4660.pdf
I hope you find it useful,
Esther Nigenda, Ph.D.
Save Palo Alto's Groundwater
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 9:55 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 31, 2017 8:20 PM
To:Constantino, Mary; Keene, James; HRC; Council, City; Stump, Molly; Reichental,
Jonathan; Perez, Lalo; jnowell@padailypost.com; gsheyner@paweekly.com; Dave Price;
bjohnson@embarcaderomediagroup.com; Timothy Gray; Tony Ciampi;
sdremann@paweekly.com
Cc:Aram James
Subject:Re: Being Different Together – Taking the conversation deeper
Mary,
I will release my placement on the list. I don't care to carry on this conversation any deeper...because I believe, I've hit rock bottom and have discovered unintelligent life forms of unknown origin.
Keep up the good work on waiting taxpayers money...
Sincerely, Mark Petersen-Perez
Palo Alto Free Press
Palo Alto, Ca - Ticuantepe, Nicaragua
650 646-5737 Local 505 8781-3384 Intl. And be sure not to follow-us on Twitter because you can't
Ps. Ms.Nowell Here's a story we think you can handle... And if the Weekly gets ahold of it, the vast majority of
the comments are bound to be censored. Shocking Censorship Data by Paloaltoonline.com revealed
http://paloaltofreepress.com/shocking-censorship-data-by-paloaltoonline-com-revealed/
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2017, at 7:10 PM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote:
Mary:
Why is it....No one cares or wants to take this conversation deeper?
How is it Mary, you clearly communicate with Aram his placement as number five, and you
don't' indicate my placement in this email string. Anywhere. Why?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 9:55 AM
2
BTW it was Aram who requested the enrollment form for this event from me...Meaning my form
was sent in first.... You seem to have the following process in place: Eeny, meeny, miny, moe?
Again, try this http://www.evite.com/
Ps: Jonathan.Reichental@cityofpaloalto.org Truly an embarrassment only because Palo Alto is touted as the center of innovation and technology and you sir, with all your degrees and the
millions you've spent on upgrades...iIts seems you've missed this basic process...
"Your fired" .. President Trump!
Thank,
Mark
Re: Being Different Together – Taking the conversation deeper
Hello Aram, Currently you are number five on the waiting list. I have added your name to the mailing list. You will receive an email regarding the March 2 forum soon.
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 31, 2017, at 3:36 PM, Constantino, Mary <Mary.Constantino@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
Hello Aram, Currently you are number five on the waiting list. I have added your
name to the mailing list. You will receive an email regarding the March 2 forum
soon. Mary
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:55 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 30, 2017 11:53 AM
To:Palo Alto Free Press
Cc:Mello, Joshuah; Gitelman, Hillary; Keith, Claudia; Stump, Molly; Keene, James; Council,
City
Subject:Re: City of Palo Alto Traffic Signal Information
Mark,
Thanks for handling this issue.
Aram
On Jan 30, 2017, at 11:03 AM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank You, Mr. Mello. Are you able to send this in a PDF file format? I believe this is what you
communicated to me when we spoke on the phone this morning....
Thanks again,
Mark Petersen‐Perez
Editor Palo Alto Free Press
Palo Alto, Ca ‐ Ticuantepe, Nic Central America
505 8788‐3381 Intl.
650 646‐5737
Follow us on Twitter: However, you are currently "Blocked" to due non‐recognition of us as news media
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 30, 2017, at 10:12 AM, Mello, Joshuah <Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
Mark:
As requested, I have included a table below with the retiming and coordination schedule
for all of our City‐maintained traffic signals.
ICU Intersection Corridor Most Current
Traffic Count Coordination
10 Sand Hill Rd at Oak Creek Apts Sand Hill SynchroGree
11 Sand Hill Rd at Stockfarm Rd Sand Hill SynchroGree
12 Sand Hill Rd at Clark Wy‐Pasteur Dr Sand Hill SynchroGree
13 Sand Hill Rd at Durand Wy‐Blake Wilbur Dr Sand Hill SynchroGree
14 Sand Hill Rd at Clark Wy‐Vineyard Ln Sand Hill SynchroGree
15 Sand Hill Rd at Arboretum Sand Hill SynchroGree
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:55 AM
2
16 Sand Hill Rd at Ronald McDonald‐Plum Dr Sand Hill SynchroGree
17 Welch Rd at Pasteur Dr Stanford Med Future (constru
18 Quarry Rd at Vineyard Ln Stanford Med
19 Quarry Rd at Welch Rd Stanford Med
20 Arboretum at Stanford Shopping Center
(Orchard) Stanford Med
21 Quarry Rd at Arboretum Rd Stanford Med
22 Arboretum at Palm Dr at Arboretum Rd Stanford Med
23 Middlefield Rd at Lytton Av Middlefield Future
24 Middlefield Rd at University Av Middlefield Future
25 Middlefield Rd at Hamilton Av Middlefield Coordinated (pe
26 Middlefield Rd at Homer St Middlefield Coordinated (pe
27 Middlefield Rd at Channing Av Middlefield Coordinated (pe
28 Middlefield Rd at Addison St Middlefield Coordinated (pe
29 Middlefield Rd at Melville Av Middlefield Coordinated (pe
30 Channing Av at Waverly St Independent No
32 Middlefield Rd at N California Av Middlefield 2016 No
33 Lytton Av at Alma St Downtown 2014 No
34 Lytton Av at High St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
35 Lytton Av at Emerson St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
36 Lytton Av at Ramona St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
37 Lytton Av at Bryant St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
38 Lytton Av at Florence Av Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
39 Lytton Av at Waverly St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
40 Lytton Av at Cowper St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
42 Lytton Av at Webster St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
43 University Av at El Camino Real (NB) Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
43 University Av at El Camino Real (SB) Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
44 University Av at High St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
45 University Av at Emerson St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
46 University Av at Ramona St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
47 University Av at Bryant St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
48 University Av at Florence Av Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
49 University Av at Waverly St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
50 University Av at Kipling St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
51 University Av at Cowper St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
52 University Av at Webster St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
53 University Av at Guinda Av Downtown 2014 Possible Futu
54 University Av at Chaucer Av Downtown 2014 Possible Futu
55 University Av at Lincoln Av Downtown 2014 Possible Futu
56 Hamilton Av at Alma St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
57 Hamilton Av at High St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
58 Hamilton Av at Emerson St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:55 AM
3
59 Hamilton Av at Ramona St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
60 Hamilton Av at Bryant St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
61 Hamilton Av at Gilman St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
62 Hamilton Av at Waverly St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
63 Hamilton Av at Cowper St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
64 Hamilton Av at Webster St Downtown 2014 Coordinated (2
65 Embarcadero Rd at Waverly St Embarcadero 2016 Coordinated (pe
66 Embarcadero Rd at Middlefield Rd Embarcadero 2016 Coordinated (pe
67 Embarcadero Rd at Newell Rd Embarcadero 2016 Coordinated (pe
69 Embarcadero Rd at Louis Rd Embarcadero 2016 Coordinated (pe
70 Channing Av at Newell Rd Independent No
71 Embarcadero Rd at Greer Rd Embarcadero 2016 Coordinated (pe
72 Embarcadero Rd at Bryant St Embarcadero 2016 Coordinated (pe
73 Embarcadero Rd at St Francis Dr Embarcadero 2016 Coordinated (pe
74 Embarcadero Rd at E Bayshore Rd Embarcadero 2016 No
75 E Bayshore Rd at Laura Ln Independent
76 Embarcadero Rd at Geng Rd Embarcadero No
80 Middlefield Rd at Bryson St Middlefield Coordinated (pe
81 Middlefield Rd at Colorado Av Middlefield Coordinated (pe
82 Middlefield Rd at Lorna Verde Middlefield Coordinated (pe
83 Middlefield Rd at Walgreens Ped Xing Middlefield Coordinated (pe
84 Stanford Av at Hanover St‐Escondido Dr Independent
85 Hillview Dr at Porter Dr‐Hanover St Independent
86 E Meadow Dr at Cowper St Meadow
87 Middlefield Rd at Mayview Dr Middlefield Coordinated (pe
88 Charleston Rd at Middlefield Rd Char‐Aras Coordinated (pe
89 Middlefield Rd at Montrose Av Middlefield Coordinated (pe
90 San Antonio Rd at Nita Av San Antonio 2014 SynchroGree
91 San Antonio Rd at Middlefield Rd San Antonio 2014 SynchroGree
92 San Antonio Rd at Leghorn Dr San Antonio 2014 SynchroGree
93 San Antonio Rd at Charleston Rd San Antonio 2014 SynchroGree
94 San Antonio Rd at E Bayshore‐Bayshore San Antonio 2014 SynchroGree
95 Charleston Rd at Fabian Wy San Antonio SynchroGree
96 Middlefield Rd at E Meadow Dr Middlefield Coordinated (pe
97 Alma at Homer St Alma
99 Alma St at Churchill Av Alma 2016 No (Preempti
100 E Meadow Dr at Bryant St (FUTURE) Meadow
101 E Meadow St at Waverly St Meadow
102 Alma St at E Meadow Dr Alma 2016 No (Preempti
103 Alma St at Charleston Rd Alma 2016 No (Preempti
104 Alma St at San Antonio Ave Alma No
105 Arastradero Dr at Gunn High School Char‐Aras 2014/15 Future
106 Arastradero Dr at Donald Dr‐Terman Dr Char‐Aras 2014/15 Future
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/30/2017 11:55 AM
4
108 Arastradero Dr at Coulombe St Char‐Aras 2014/15 Future
109 Charleston Rd at Wilkie Wy Char‐Aras 2014/15 Future
111 Charleston Rd at Carlson Ct Char‐Aras 2014/15 Future
112 Charleston Rd at Nelson Dr Char‐Aras 2014/15 Future
113 Sand Hill Rd at London Plane Wy Sand Hill SyncrhoGree
114 Quarry Rd at Pear Ln‐Palo Rd Stanford Med
115 Quarry Rd at Sweet Olive Wy Stanford Med
116 Embarcadero Rd @ Town Country‐Paly Embarcadero 2015 Future
117 Welch Rd at The Farm Stanford Med <2013
118 Welch Rd at Blake Wilbur Dr Stanford Med <2013
119 Alma St at Alma Plaza Alma No
Regards,
<image001.jpg> JOSHUAH D. MELLO, AICP
Chief Transportation Official
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
Transportation
Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org
office: 650.329.2520 fax: 650.329.2154
Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix. Download the app or click here to
make a service request.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2017 12:53 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ken Joye <kmjoye@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 31, 2017 10:08 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:removing programs from Comprehensive Plan update
I read in the Palo Alto Weekly’s online version today about the debate last night regarding inclusion of
“program” details in the Comprehensive Plan.
First, I should say that I appreciate the work that members of the city council do in reviewing the work of the
CAC. It is a monumental task and I thank you for taking it on. I recognize that you-all devote many hours to
this process.
At the same time, you run the risk of a perception problem by choosing to relegate the program language to an appendix or otherwise take it out of the scope of the Comp Plan review.
Full Disclosure: I am one of the many citizens who offered input to the CAC on the Comp Plan update; my
focus was on the Transportation Element and I paid very close attention to the program language.
thank you for your service,
Ken Joye
Ventura neighborhood
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/31/2017 12:53 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net>
Sent:Monday, January 30, 2017 11:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Yes! An other night! 11 pm feels later than usual tonight,
And, please bring traffic CALMING City WIDE back into the discussion.
Ah! Meeting was just adjourned. Thank you for your work.
Geri Mcgilvray
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 10:03 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 31, 2017 8:54 PM
To:HRC; Council, City
Cc:Keith, Claudia; Keene, James; Reichental, Jonathan; jnowell@padailypost.com
Subject:"Your community voice, has either been altered, deleted or simply and conveniently
made to disappear" - Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
Aren't you proud of your community newspapers that deposits tons of trash right to your doorstep
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
1/31/17, 8:46 PM
"Your community voice, has either been altered, deleted or simply and conveniently made to disappear" bit.ly/QlibhE #censorship pic.twitter.com/6DFgSsFbgu
t~:fi) -:z l\..UUJ;.Ll"j~'"'._ 1 ,. .. ._...
[ ] Placed Befure Me_eting
~ved at Meeung
Stanford University Comments -Comprehensive Plan Land Use & Transportation Elements 1/30/2017
Whitney McNair, Director, Land Use and Environmental Planning (first speaker)
As a member of the Palo Alto community with a vested interest in both the economic prosperity of the city
and shared goal to ensure growth occurs in a thoughtful and sustainable manner, Stanford has been closely
following the Comprehensive Plan update process.
Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan update process is designed to build community consensus as to how
we manage future growth while preserving quality of life for city residents. This critical endeavor
includes actively engaging with a variety of stakeholders, including Stanford University, for a positive,
mutually-beneficial outcome.
This brings me to Item Bon the list of questions Staff has asked you to answer tonight. That question is
which policy should be carried forward in the Comprehensive Plan regarding an annual limit, if any, on new
non-residential development.
You see the options at page 2 of the Staff Report. The option that causes us the most serious concern for
the future of the Research Park, and that we ask you to reject tonight, is Policy L-1.15. Under that policy,
the Research Park would be subject to a citywide 50,000-square-foot annual cap unless "a cap on peak
period auto trips to the Research Park is established and enforced."
We've asked at the CAC what this trip cap would consist of and how it would work. These questions have
not been addressed, and we respectfully suggest that that's because a trip cap for the SRP is not feasible.
The Research Park is comprised of nearly 150 companies --not a single employer like the Stanford
academic campus, Google or Facebook. In addition, the Research Park is spread out across a 700-acre
suburban land area, which is anchored on a major County expressway. Traffic counts on Page Mill and
Junipero Serra indicate nearly 60% of traffic is cut-through traffic -not attributable to Research Park
employers.
Because we are concerned that a trip cap concept would not be feasible, we are concerned about
making promises to the community that we and the City cannot keep.
To address the possibility that the Council would want either an annual development cap or a limit on
trips, in September, we suggested an alternative that was tailored to the Research Park, its large parcel
sizes and its remaining growth capacity. This alternative, which is described at page 2 of your staff report,
would initially accept a cap of 50,000 sf annually and to allow any unused square footage in any given year
to rollover for use in future years.
But in the same proposal, we suggested the City authorize an exemption for the Research Park, in whole
or in part, from the growth cap if the City and Stanford could reach mutual agreement on defined
performance standards related to addressing auto trips.
Tiffany Griego, Managing Director of the Stanford Research Park, will provide more information about
our proposal.
1
Tiffany Griego, Managing Director, Stanford Research Park
We are committed to providing alternative transportation to get Research Park employees out of their cars.
Research Park companies tell us, and have demonstrated t hrough their support of our TMA, that they need
better transportation alternatives so they can hire and retain top talent. In our present ation to you on
March 6, you'll hear about the programs Stanford and its tenants have initiated through the TMA and early
data on our efforts.
Research Park companies also tell us that development caps and trip caps undermine confidence that they
could continue to adapt and thrive while staying in the Research Park.
Therefore, we are actively exploring transportation measures for the Research Park and want to engage
with the City as partners in this effort. We believe any Research Park-wide traffic program requires and
deserves careful thought and analysis so that we support the health of our businesses while building trust
and improving the quality of life within our community.
We appreciate your recognition of the Research Park as warranting a unique solution. We agree that the
Research Park is unlike any other part of town and presents unique opportunities and challenges.
With nearly 150 individual businesses spread across 700 acres, there is no "off the shelf' approach to trip
mitigation in the Research Park. We could not implement the exact program that we have on the academic
campus, nor could we implement trip reduction programs offered by single employers like Facebook and
Google. Establishing an effective TOM program takes analysis, experimentation, and long-term
management effort, including input from the Research Park employers.
Based on what we've been learning from our TMA efforts, we expect individual businesses seeking
development permits to be able to work with the "no net new trips" concept for new development that we
see in the draft Transportation Element in Program Tl.2.2.
In fact, we are working on some proposed minor revisions to Tl.2.2 to improve its effectiveness. We believe
we can design a policy for the Research Park that would mitigate new peak trips from the new discretionary
growth through a combination of offering TOM programs to employees of the project, and having our
businesses partner with Stanford's TMA to offset the remaining trips.
We have begun our analysis of this concept, and we are eager to work with the City to fulSy vet the idea.
We urge the City to partner with Stanford to find a mutually agreeable program that would support, rather
than compromise our current TMA's efforts.
Stanford Research Park and the City of Palo Alto have long since benefited from a partnership approach.
The Research Park is a vital economic and fiscal engine for Palo Alto. 'n 2015 alone, Research Park
companies paid $6.9 million in transfer and use taxes to the City itself and $11.2 million in property taxes to
the Palo Alto Unified School District. And the City has played a deliberate part in making this success
possible, by establishing predictable land use policies that allow Research Park companies to innovate and
adjust to a changing world. Let's work together to develop a transportation program in this same spirit.
2