HomeMy Public PortalAbout20170220plCC701-32
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: 2/20/2017
Document dates: 2/1/2017 – 2/8/2017
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 | 2/1/2017 4:29 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Natasha K. <nkonlybox@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 2:30 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Carnahan, David
Subject:City of Palo Alto: Commission Interview on February 1st - Natasha K.
Attachments:PA PTC closing NK.pdf
Dear City Council members, please find attached closing note for you consideration.
Respectfully,
Natasha Kachenko, PTC candidate
Natasha Kachenko. PA: PTC Commission candidate 2Feb2017
Dear council members,
During my MBA years I have done thesis on CA Population growth, one of the research segment
was on Transportation impact. California’s population now: 38 million. By 2035: 50 million. We
unable build highways & airport runways to accommodate the demand. Mobility - Means Economic
Strength, Economic power stems from the ability to move people and goods throughout the state,
and thus PA.
I don’t have brilliant ideas, I thinks there are plenty of it thus far to sift & work with. I see my role in
driving resource alignment upon council’s directions & strategies. As wagon is pulled out in too many different direction yet. I rather see incremental results committee delivering to council than boundless debates on great projects could have been taken! Leading engineering teams at global
company for over 20 years I have seen first-hand how corporate governance has become a more
significant component for a company’s economic growth. Given my years of experience in the
international market, this is a value-add I would bring to any new role I would undertake. My analytical skill bring a value in facilitating valuable committee’s experts to executing council directions and developing alignment with workforces of Palo Alto Forward & LWVPA (The League
of Women Voters of Palo Alto) that I am an active member of. Serving on a commission is my way
to contribute to PA community.
As I see it, improving safety, efficiency and experience for bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists and
transit users impacts PA mobility accommodations and is affected by economy and will become
challenging as population grow. I agree with few council members who suggested during election
last year that collaboration for instance with TMA (Transportation Management Association) could
be one of the approach to consider developing programs / incentives and other realistic methods
on providing solutions to shift the travel modes of PA commuters and residents. How these
programs be monitored for effectiveness is the task to resolve.
Work commute is an indefensible practice and I agree that it is vital that Palo Alto partner with
businesses, commuters and the community, engaging with TMAs / share-bike entrepreneurial /
explore Uber style services and make Palo Alto mobile. Setting work-frame enabling alignment /
voice heard with Palo Alto Forward and LWVPA will enhance the effort, educate the public and
reduce time to execute.
It is great seeing planning addressing Embarcadero Road corridor which provides a direct east-
west connection between US 101 and Stanford University for visitors to the city and supports local
travel. The segment of Embarcadero Road between High Street and El Camino Real known to be
an area of community concern for many years.
However, south part that I represent, becomes area of community concern rapidly. Noticeably it
becoming fastest growing commute problem. It is direct connection from 101 to lots of businesses,
Los Altos & MV, Caltrain. it is also probably most saturated residency region (highest
concentrations of condominiums complexes, that represents more families – more cars and more
needs to commute), important community centers (Jewish, Cubberley), 3 schools, Foothill College
and Google move 100 San Antonio (that brought business shuttles) and new residency plaza on
going at El Camino – San Antonio. It however has very low visibility on city management work and
need to be addressed.
6 B Liberty, Suite 210 • Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Phone: (949) 581-9370 • Fax (949) 581-9444 www.phoenix-planning.com
February 1, 2017
Ms. Marla Felber
FK Design Group
8341 Halford Street San Gabriel, CA 91775
RE: Review of : 203 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto
Dear Ms. Felber and the Esteemed Members of the City Council of Palo Alto;
It is with great concern that this project is now an item for an appeal. This project review has been ongoing for several years, and in the last revisions received in November of 2016, it appears
the previous Architect of Record has been removed from the drawings, yet the images remain that
he prepared. (This assessment is by comparison of drawings from the final submittal to previous submittals.)
This should be verified/confirmed by City Staff, but in our firms past submittals to Planning Departments and Commissions, an Architect of Record must be directly responsible for the
preparation of the project design submittal package. That their name and company logo is now
removed from the drawings is concerning.
This project has been reviewed multiple times by the ARB, and the Planning Department has
deemed that it does not meet City codes for development. We, along with FK Design Group, have reviewed it in relation to its direct neighbor. We have listed valid questions or concerns to
find them continue to go unanswered, and in some cases, responded to with a change of design even more massive than the original volume that was already dwarfing neighbor properties.
In our November 16, 2016 letter, I outlined several non-compliant code and potential constructability issues that still require modifications to the project that was submitted. Full
resolution of any code related items could affect the project design, relationship to the public
way, and the overall massing of the said project. Until those items are resolved, we cannot fully understand the full impact the project will have to the corner, to the neighbor properties to the
streetscape at large.
Our review was based upon dimensions provided, and where none are shown, on graphic
assumptions based upon standard sized element(s) such as a door size for graphic assessment.
Fully dimensioned plans would be required for a completely thorough evaluation. The full list of code and constructability concerns/issues is contained in the November 16, 2016 letter attached
for your reference.
6 B Liberty, Suite 210 • Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Phone: (949) 581-9370 • Fax (949) 581-9444 www.phoenix-planning.com
Your City Planning Department has provided ample citations in their Staff Report regarding this
projects non-compliance with zoning codes including: neighborhood character, aesthetic, public
space / identification and vehicular circulation across public paths of travel. With each “revision or response” to the Staff comments, the project has failed to compromise or to respond to the
items of non-compliance. It is our opinion that not only have they not resolved the issues, but it
has seemingly done the opposite; make issues of mass and blending with the neighborhood worse.
Respectfully, the opinion and stance of the ARB should be maintained, and this project denied.
Sincerely,
Phoenix Planning and Construction Services, Inc.
BY: _Stephanie M. Laylon, AIA______________
TITLE:_______President_____________________
SIGNATURE:
6 B Liberty, Suite 210 • Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Phone: (949) 581-9370 • Fax (949) 581-9444 www.phoenix-planning.com
November 16, 2016
Ms. Marla Felber
FK Design Group
8341 Halford Street San Gabriel, CA 91775
RE: Review of : 203 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto
Dear Marla; We have reviewed the drawings identified as Revision 4, Response to Planning 5/11/15.
The following items are areas that we have noted that may not be in compliance with the California Building Code or have potential constructability issues. As this building is adjacent to
your client’s property, full resolution of any code related items could affect the project design,
relationship to the public way, and the overall massing of the said project.
Our review is based upon dimensions provided, and where none are shown, on graphic
assumptions based upon standard sized element(s) such as a door size for graphic assessment. Fully dimensioned plans would be required for a completely thorough evaluation.
One item to note that doesn’t pertain to building code issues is that from the previous set of plans dated 1/20/15 to this set, the Architect has been removed from both the consultant list on A0.1
and on all borders except sheet TSP-1.
Accessibilty Issues:
1) It is not understood with the current drawings if the ground floor commercial pair of
doors is the only needed entrance/exit. Should the single man door be required, there is not the 5 foot “level landing” required in the direction of the door swing for ADA access.
The curb along the handicap parking access aisle (though not dimensioned) makes this entry landing graphically too small. 2) The Handicap stall and access aisle: CBC and the ADA require that the handicap parking
and access path be on the most direct, shortest route. Looking at the TSP-1, it appears that curbs flank the parking stall and access aisle. This suggests that the designed path of
travel is per the blue line on the attached pdf, from the access aisle, back onto the public
sidewalk on Forest, on the public sidewalk on Emerson then onto the property again to the pair of doors. This design would not be considered the most direct path.
3) A parking bumper is required in the handicap parking stall.
4) Because the cost of this construction project would clearly exceed the 2016 DSA published “Valuation Threshold for Alterations, Structural Repairs or Additions to
Existing Buildings” ($150,244.00, attached for your reference) the entire building would
need to be brought to ADA compliance. Therefore the existing office/commercial areas on both the ground and mezzanine level would need to be upgraded to meet current ADA
standards and codes. This would include both restrooms on the ground floor and the
restroom on the mezzanine, the existing break room on the ground floor, existing stair handrails within the commercial space, all door hardware and door clearances. There is
6 B Liberty, Suite 210 • Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Phone: (949) 581-9370 • Fax (949) 581-9444 www.phoenix-planning.com
not enough information within the provided drawing set to confirm that these elements
are within compliance or not. Graphically, they appear to be non conforming.
Code/Constructability Issues: 1) The trash enclosure appears to be too small for normal public waste bins that a Waste
Management would be able to use or access. Has the local Waste Management Company
signed off on this enclosure? 2) The plans state that the project will be fully fire sprinklered, yet there is no Fire Riser
room or Fire Department access /control provided. 3) There is an incredibly small elevator shown to provide access to the residential floors. The outside dimension of the elevator shaft is shown as 5’-2-11/16 inches. We are
unaware of an elevator that would fit within this shaft. This shaft would need to be a rated shaft enclosure to meet CBC requirements.
4) There is no elevator machine room shown.
5) The long stair that is in the addition along Emerson, does not have a door leading to the exterior. Sheet A2.3 clearly shows it heading up from the exterior public entrance, and
elevation 1 on A3.3 clearly confirms that this is graphically the intent of the direction of
the stair. How does the stair exit to the exterior? Current design does not provide door at the bottom of the stair for the residential unit to use to exit. It would have to be designed
as an accessible exit.
6) The clear width of a stair from face of handrail to face of handrail is 4 feet. Though not dimensioned, this graphically appears to be deficient.
7) There is a door shown on A2.3 and again on Section 1/A3.7 that indicates access under
the stair at the ground level to a “room”. This could be under stair storage. This storage room is not indicated on the square footage calculations on A1.1 and could be large
enough to bring the FAR (floor area ratio) out of compliance.
8) A3.6 has floor to floor elevations dimensioned. Although the structural depths of members are not identified, adequate head room clear heights need to be confirmed after
depth of structure, mechanical or lighting distribution and insulation. 9) There are numerous solar panels shown on the different roof elevations, but no room is
identified where a transformer or other required electrical equipment would be housed.
In reading the City Staff Report, they have identified numerous items/elements regarding
neighborhood character, aesthetic, public space and identification, vehicular circulation across
public paths of travel and other items that this assessment has not investigated in relation to Palo Alto zoning codes.
Sincerely,
Phoenix Planning and Construction Services, Inc.
BY: _Stephanie M. Laylon, AIA______________
TITLE:_______President_____________________
SIGNATURE:
I K d sign gro 1p
,\fl 11111·1 111r.il 111 s1g11 t:.. !H 'itoration
February 2, 2017
Mr. Adam Petersen
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Proposed project 203 Forest Avenue
Dear Mr. Petersen and the Esteemed Members of the City Council of Palo Alto,
..._ II (J< Jfll
FK Design Group and Phoenix Planning and Construction Services, Inc. have been retained by the
Tseng Partnership 1 LLC to provide impute on the proposed project on 203 Forest Avenue. The
Tseng Partnership owns 647-651 Emerson Street, Palo Alto 94301.
In my November 16, 2016 letter, I outline some concerns about the proposed project. The usage
of materials seems incompatible with context of neighborhood and proposing a solid wall with
no fenestrations or overhangs does not create a pedestrian friendly experience. The scale and
overall massing appears to be in conflict with Palo Alto's Overlay Zones.
The City Planning Department has provided ample explanations and citations in their Staff
Report regarding this project's non compliance. It appears with each re-submittal the project
has failed to compromise or to even respond to the concerns addressed. Until these items are
addr~sed and resolved we cannot fully understand the project and therefore the impact at
large.
It is therefore.our opinion that until the Staff comments are properly addressed this stance of
the ARB should be maintained and the project denied.
Thank you,
Marla Felber
'
< 12 « l I .. 00.! l
(>'bbl.. ()1, i 1,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:16 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Minor, Beth
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 12:25 PM
To:Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Petersen, Adam; Yang, Albert; Stump,
Molly; Elizabeth Wong (elizabethwong2009@gmail.com); Keene, James; Shikada, Ed
Subject:429 University Documents
Attachments:429 University Compatibility Figs.pdf; 429 University Compatibility Note.pdf
Please see attached from Elizabeth Wong regarding 439 University. These will be at places on Monday also.
Thanks,
B‐
Beth D. Minor | City Clerk | City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue| Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650‐ 329‐2379 E: beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org
City Clerks Rock and Rule
To:Hon. Mayor Scharff and Fellow Council Members
From: Elizabeth WongSubject: 429 University Compatibility
Dear Mayor Scharff and Fellow Council Members,
Attached are pictures of 12 existing and under construction commercial buildings downtown and their adjoining structures. At the bottom of each picture are noted the style, height, year built, and description of its adjacent building.
Picture 13 is a picture of our project and its adjoining structures. As shown, 429 University is as, if not more, compatible, than the sample pictures shown.
Thank you for your attention.
Elizabeth Wong
650 814 2051
Attached: 13 pictures
428 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, PALO ALTO
Style:MODERN
Detail:DIRECTLY ACROSS 429 UNIVERSITY PROJECT
Height:OVER 50 FEET
Adjacent to:2-STORY HISTORIC STOREFRONTS
Year Built:2004
Figure 1
Style:MODERN
Detail:ALL GLASS
Height:30 FEET
Adjacent to:TRADITIONAL 1 AND 2 STORY
Year Built:2013
340 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, PALO ALTO
Figure 2
Style:MODERN
Detail:CORNER BUILDING
Height:OVER 50 FEET
Adjacent to:HISTORIC HIGH RISE
285 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO
Figure 3
Style:MODERN
Height:50 FEET
Adjacent to:TRADITIONAL 1-STORY
Year Built:2016
611 COWPER STREET, PALO ALTO
Figure 4
Style:MODERN
Detail:CORNER BUILDING
Height:50 FEET
Adjacent to:TRADITIONAL 2-STORY ON BRYANT STREET SIDE
Year Built:2013
278 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, PALO ALTO
Figure 5
Style:MODERN
Detail:CORNER BUILDING
Height:50 FEET
Adjacent to:TRADITIONAL 2-STORY ON RAMONA STREET SIDE
Year built:2016
240 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO
Figure 6
Style:MODERN
Detail:CORNER BUILDING
Height:50 FEET
Adjacent to:1-STORY POTENTIAL HISTORIC ON HAMILTON AVENUE SIDE
Year built:2016
240 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO
Figure 7
Style:MODERN
Detail:CORNER BUILDING
Height:50 FEET
Adjacent to:1-STORY HISTORIC ON HAMILTON AVENUE SIDE
Year built:2016
550 HIGH STREET, PALO ALTO
Figure 8
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 4:29 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jacob Avila <jake.m_89@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 2:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Approve 429 University for Construction
To whom it concerns,
My name is Jacob Avila, I've working in Palo Alto at Pampas for the last 5 years. I have watch the downtown slowly evolve over the years and now I am emailing to advocate the further evolution of downtown specifically the 429 University proposal by Jo Bellomo. Palo Alto has been the hidden gem
of Silicon Valley making a home for many .com startups throughout the years and this project is
pushing to keep up with that trend of modern feel while still maintaining the outdoorsy feel people
choose to reside in Palo Alto. Not only will this project give more space for retailers or possible small companies, it will provide more apartment housing which is something that is desperately needed throughout all of the Bay Area. 429 will be promoting green building designs while the same time
maximizing the usage of the vertical space allowed by the City of Palo Alto by designing rooftop
terraces in their plans.
I highly advise that the City council to deny the appeal of 429 University and approve the mixed-use project for its development
Sincerely
Jake A.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 11:13 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kenneth Wilner <kmwilner@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 6:30 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Approve 429 University for Construction
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I am a Palo Alto resident and I respectfully request that you approve the mixed-use project at 429 University and deny the related appeal. The development will replace an outdated building with attractive retail and
commercial space and provide much needed apartments. The proposed project is energy-efficient and promotes
green building design.
Sincerely,
Kenneth M Wilner
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 11:13 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Kirt McMaster <kirt@cyngn.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 7:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Approve 429 university for construction
Hi.
I live in downtown Palo Alto on Kipling and I respectfully request that you approve the mixed-use project at 429 University and deny the related appeal.
I am tired of looking at the ugly structure that is there.
This new bldg adds much new value to the area including:
⁃ The development will add apartments to downtown Palo Alto.
⁃ The development will replace an outdated building with attractive retail and commercial space.
⁃ The proposed project is energy-efficient and promotes green building design.
⁃ The building will have cool features like green walls, balconies and rooftop terraces.
⁃ The proposal is compatibile with both University and Kipling.
⁃ The development will add apartments to downtown Palo Alto.
⁃ The development will replace an outdated building with attractive retail and commercial space.
⁃ The proposed project is energy-efficient and promotes green building design.
⁃ The building will have cool features like green walls, balconies and rooftop terraces.
⁃ The proposal is compatibile with both University and Kipling.
Get Outlook for iOS
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 11:13 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Phil Campbell <phil@philcampbell.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 11:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:approve 429 University for construction
Dear City Council,
I am a longtime Palo Alto resident and I wish to express my support for the mixed-use project at 429 University Ave. It is my hope that you will approve this project (and deny the related appeal).
I have seen the proposed design and think that it will be an asset and enhancement to the University
and Kipling area.
Sincerely, Philip Campbell
Like my band at http://www.facebook.com/hobbyhorse.music
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 6:06 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Timothy Kassouni <timothy@kassounilaw.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 1:13 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Yang, Albert; APetersen@m-group.us; Keene, James; Lait, Jonathan
Subject:Kipling Post LP correspondence; 14PLN-00222
Attachments:Kipling Post LP correspondence to Mayor Scharff 2-2-17.pdf
Dear Hon. Mayor Scharff and City Council,
Attached please find this firm's 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
KASSOUNI LAW
Via E-Mail and Federal Express Overnight Delivery
February 2, 2017
The Hon. Mayor Gregory Scharff and City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: 429 University Avenue [14PLN-00222]; Rebuttal of City Council Staff Report (ID#7376)
Dear Hon. Mayor Scharff and fellow Council members:
This office represents Kipling Post LP, the Applicant for the above referenced Project. This
letter rebuts the Staff Report ID #7376, prepared on the above-referenced Project for the Council
hearing scheduled for February 6, 201 7.
OPTION 3 ONLY
With reference to the three designs presented as Options 1, 2 and 3 in the Staff report, it has been
made abundantly clear to the Staff by my client and its architect at the submission on December
8, 2016 (called Option 3 in the Staff report), again by Mr. Joseph Bellomo on December 21, and
by this office multiple times in January of 2017, that the submission presented to Staff on
December 8, 2016, is the only submission that my client will consider for submission to the
Council hearing. Consideration of any of the previous 13 revisions which include Options 1 and
2 will only confuse Council and only serve the interest of the Appellant and not Kipling Post LP.
Exhibit A is the series of emails on this matter.
OPTION 1
Option 1, which had been presented at an ARB Study Session on September 1, 2016, was
rejected by the Appellant after my client made an extraordinary effort to seek Appellant Michael
Harbour's cooperation by reducing the number of residences from 4 to 3 units, and reducing
square footage by approximately 3,000 residential square feet. Exhibit Bis Mr. Harbour's email
to Jodie Gerhardt rejecting Option 1, and Ms. Gerhardt's reply seeking the Appellant's input on
what design changes would be satisfactory to him.
OPTION2
After the solid rebuff of Option 1 by the Appellant, my client submitted one more design at the
follow-up ARB hearing on October 20, 2016 (Option 2), which restored the residential square
footage. This was based on Vice Chair Lew's comment that: "The building could contain more
square footage, and people would not notice the increased square footage if the design were
better."
Upon denial of Options 1 and 2 at ARB, it became clear that the ARB felt compelled to satisfy
the Appellant. The minutes to the September 1, 2016, Study Session state that: "Chair Gooyer
621 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 2025
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
TELEPHONE 91 6.930.0030
FACSIMILE 916.930.0033
The Hon. Mayor Gregory Scharff and City Council
February 2, 2017
Page 2of5
clarified that the Board wanted to approve a project that also satisfied neighbors," giving undue
deference to the Appellant's wishes, and that: "The Board was also following Council's
mandate." All quotes are from Exhibit C. Such deference to the Appellant is unreasonable,
unfair and unworkable given that the Appellant is steadfast in his opposition, despite efforts by
four well-established architects employed by my client to work on the Project, at great
investment of time and money. (See this firm's correspondence submitted on January 30, 2017.)
OPTION3
Option 3 is the singular option being presented. Option 3 addresses the housing shortage in Palo
Alto by adding back the residential square footage and restoring the fourth dwelling unit. All 3
sitting members of the ARB understood Council's concern is with apparent massing and not with
the size of the building. At its March 17, 2016 meeting ARB Vice Chair Lew stated that he:
" .. felt the key word was 'apparent' in the massing of the building... He did not hear a clear
directive from the Council to remove mass." "Board Member Kim agreed that the square
footage should not be relevant. The visual appearance and visual massing were the important
concerns." "Chair Gooyer agreed." (Exhibit D.) This understanding, however, was not shared
by the Appellant, whose wishes ARB believed it had to satisfy. ARB was, therefore, unable to
make a finding for approval.
With the exception of drawing A2. l which calculates the new square footage, every page of
drawings had previously been presented to the ARB as shown by the date stamp on each page
under "ARB Submittal."
PROJECT RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
On February 25, 2015 the Director of Planning approved the Project. In the determination letter,
the Director presented as Attachment A the Findings for Approval (Exhibit E) citing specifically
that the proposal complies with massing and compatibility requirements in the Municipal Code
and included ARB findings that the Project complied with applicable elements of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Project also complies with requirements in the Downtown Urban
Design guide. It is worth noting that the Comprehensive Plan states in page I-4 that its Goals
and Policies are not mandatory. (Exhibit F.) Similarly, as stated on page 1 of the Downtown
Urban Design Guide, it is " ... intended to guide (original underscored) downtown development
and amenities and is not (original underscored) intended to be binding or regulatory in nature."
(Exhibit G.)
It is incomprehensible that the Planning Staff can now find that the Project no longer complies
with the same Municipal Codes, Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Urban Design Guide upon
which it granted the original approval.
For example, the Project fully comports with the Downtown Urban Design guide as follows:
The Hon. Mayor Gregory Scharff and City Council
February 2, 201 7
Page 3of5
Page 26 .... " Develop and enhance the qualities of University Avenue which make it an exciting
outdoor and pedestrian environment, including vibrant and eclectic architecture ..... "
Page 26 .... "The architectural style of the retail storefronts is mixed."
Page 27 ..... "Create ground floor architectural interest with windows and displays."
Page 28 ...... "Maintain zero setback lines ... "
Page 33 ...... "For new development, building heights at street corners can rise to three to four
stories to help anchor street corners ..... "
As part of its approval process, Planning commissioned Dudek, an outside firm, to prepare a
draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. Dudek reviewed voluminous materials including multiple
traffic, circulation and historic reports, a noise study, two shadow studies, various environmental
and geotechnical studies, plus sources and references of its own. The Project was twice found to
have "No" or "Less Than Significant" impact on all 18 categories labelled A through R, once in
the Initial Study report in November 2014 and again in the August 2015 update prepared for the
second Council hearing. Some of the pertinent categories in Dudek's report are listed below:
Page Category Line Item
6 A. AESTHETICS d)
25-26 J. LAND USE AND e)
PLANNING
31 M. POPULATION d)
AND HOUSING
33 P. TRANSPORTATION
AND TRAFFIC a)
Description
Violate existing Comprehensive
Plan policies regarding visual
resources?
Be compatible with adjacent
land uses or with the general
character of the surrounding
area, including density and
building height?
Create a substantial imbalance
between employed residents
and jobs?
Cause an increase in traffic which
is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system?
Potential Impact
Less than Significant
Less than Significant
No Impact
Less Than Significant
The Hon. Mayor Gregory Scharff and City Council
February 2, 2017
Page 4of5
OVERREACHING CONDITIONS FOR OPTION 1
Staff Report presents a series of "Recommended Conditions of Approval" for Option 1. As
explained above, Option 1 is not an acceptable alternative to Kipling Post LP. Option 3 is the
only option that Kipling Post LP requests that Council consider and act on. It is responsive to
the needs of Downtown commercial, provides livable, walkable residential options, and is
responsive to Council's massing and contextual compatibility concerns.
These Recommended Conditions of Approval trample the property rights of Kipling Post LP,
and trammel the architect's expression and design for the Project. As but one example, other
Palo Alto developments exceed the 50 ft. height limit in their elevator shafts and rooftop
mechanicals, yet for this project a purely arbitrary and illegal 50 ft. height limit is imposed
including elevator shafts and rooftop mechanicals. Placing strict limitations on 429 University
would place undue burdens on the Project, and would greatly increase its cost, especially since it
has been a protracted approval process.
Staffs recommendation for removing the "library," modifications for roof line, and dictates on
the railing, are other examples of changes that would greatly harm the design presented by
Joseph Bellomo Architects, and are attempts to reduce massing and square footage when this
was not the requirement from Council.
FINDINGS FOR OPTION 3 APPROVAL
Option 3 dated Jan 23, 2017, is a stunning design that is welcoming of retail customers, office
tenants as well as residents. In deference to the Appellant, its fourth floor is set back from
University Ave and from Kipling Street, giving it the appearance of a three-story building.
Again in deference to the Appellant, the comer of the alley and Kipling Street is set back 10 feet
from the alley, the concrete stair wall is replaced with transparent glass for greater visibility,
additional bicycle racks were added next to the alley, the stair tower is reduced to three stories
high, and the terrace is moved from University Ave to the Kipling Street side to reduce massing
on the Kipling Street side where Appellant owns a historical building rented out as office space.
My client's architect, Joseph Bellomo, has a proven track record in Palo Alto. This Birge Clark
Award recipient's building designs include homes, office, retail, and mixed-use. He has
completed many projects Downtown, including the parking garage on Alma Street near
Hamilton A venue and the multiple BikeArc bicycle parking racks around town. He understands
Downtown sensibilities having lived and worked for over 30 years on Kipling Street just north of
the Project site. He is adept at managing Downtown construction logistics. His elegant touch
will exquisitely detail the building with multiple delightful details such as lighting embedded in
the ground, garden walls, carefully selected art and organic materials.
The Hon. Mayor Gregory Scharff and City Coun ci l
February 2, 2017
Page 5of5
IN CONCLUSION
My client respectfully requests that Council follow the recommendation of Planning as stated at
the top of page 9 of the Staff report for Option 3, for Council : '· ... to evaluate the proposal
without referring the mailer back to the ARB ... " The ARB is unable to judge this Project on its
architectural merit. When asked to judge the building on its architectural merit, Chair Gooyer
responded that:" ... if the applicant felt the building had to be addressed on its merits, then the
applicant needed to develop an argument to convince the City Council." (Exhibit C.) ARB
perceived it bad '·council's mandate'· to approve a project that was '·also approved by the
Appellant'· and which included AppelJant's own subjective requirements for massing and
compatibility. As such, ARB was incapable of rendering an unbiased review of the Project.
In Option 3, council is presented with a highl y evolved Project that meets or exceeds not only the
objective requirements but also the subjective requirements in the Municipal Code, the
Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Urban Design Guide. It seeks no exceptions and no
variances. Kipling Post LP first proposed the Project to then Planning Director Curtis Williams
in 2011. It then endeavored to accrue the necessary TDR's, and finally received Planning
approval in February, 2015, only to be held in purgatory by the Appellant and the City for two
more years. My client respectfully requests that Council deny the appeal and approve 429
University. My client intends to pursue all available legal remedies if the approval is denied.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
~/ .
Timo~
cc: Hillary Gitelman
James Keene
Jonathan Lai1
Adam Petersen
Albert Yang
Exhibit A
1/29/2017 Gmail -Drawings for the City Council Hearings
M Gmail
Drawings for the City Council Hearings
5 messages
Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com>
Pratima Shah <pratima@bellomoarchitects.com> Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 11 :39 AM
To: Adam Petersen <APetersen@m-group.us>
Cc: "Gitelman, Hillary" <Hillary.Gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org>, Jo Bellomo <jo@bellomoarchitects.com>,
"Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org" <Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org>, iimothy@kassounilaw.com"
<timothy@kassounilaw.com>, Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com>
Good Morning Adam,
We are planning to submit the 15 copies of the drawings today for the City Council hearing scheduled in January 2017
The drawings are from the ARB study session of September 1st, 2016 with the fourth floor plan as submitted to ARB on
August 4th 2016; which included an office and one residence on fourth floor.
This proposal has total of 10, 750 square foot of residential area which is 250 square floor less than the permitted.
Please let me know if you need any other information/ drawings from us.
Thank You
Pratima Shah
Architectural Designer
Joseph Bellomo Architects
102 University Avenue, 3 C
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 326 0374ext1
www.bellomoarchitects.com
www.bikearc.com
Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> Thu, Dec 8, 2016at12:17 PM
To: Adam Petersen <APetersen@m-group.us>
Cc: .. Gitelman, Hillary" <Hillary.Gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org>, Jo Bellomo <jo@bellomoarchitects.com>,
"Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org" <Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org>, ''timothy@kassounilaw.com"
<timothy@kassounilaw.com>, Pratima Shah <pratima@bellomoarchitects.com>, .. Keene, Jamesn
<james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Silver, Cara" <cara.silver@cityofpaloalto.org>
Good morning Adam,
Please acknowledge receipt of the 15 sets of the drawings to be subrritted to City Council in January 2017. a • These drawings are essentially the ARB Study Session of Sept 1, 2016, subnission with the fourth floor replaced with the
fourth floor of the ARB August 4, 2016, submission.
The fourth floor now has a residence which adds to the much needed residential stock in Palo Alto.
Thank you.
Elizabeth Wong
[Quoted text hidden]
https:/ lmail.google.comt maillca/ul0/?ui;;;:2&ik=e6faa34986&view=pt&q=jo%40bellomoarchitects.com&qs-.-uue&searcb=query&th=158d.5a.5bf e314513&siml=158d5... 1/4
1/2912017 Gmail -Drawings for the City Council Hearings
Adam Petersen <APetersen@m-group.us> Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:58 PM
To: Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com>
Cc: "Gitelman, Hillary" <Hillary.Gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org>, Jo Bellomo <jo@bellomoarchitects.com>,
"Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org" <Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org>, "timothy@kassounilaw.com"
<timothy@.kassounilaw.com>, Prati ma Shah <pratima@bellomoarchitects.com>, "Keene, James"
<james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Silver, Cara" <cara.silver@cityofpaloalto.org>
Good Afternoon Elizabeth,
I've received the hard copies and electronic plans.
Thanks,
Sincerely,
ADAM PETERSEN ! SENIOR PLANNER
M-GROUP A NEW DESIGN ON URBAN PLANNING
POLICY · DESIGN · ENVIRONMENTAL · HISTORIC · ENGAGEMENT · STAFFING
CAMPBELL I SANTA ROSA l NAPA I HAYWARD
307 ORCHARD CITY DR. SUITE 100 I CAMPBELL I CA i 95008 1408.340.5642 ext. 106 I c. 530.574.0857
M-LAB;· A THINK TANK FOR CfTIES: JOIN THE CONVERSATION.I
From: Elizabeth Wong [mailto:elizabethwong2009@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, Decembers, 201612:17 PM
To: Adam Petersen <APetersen@m-group.us>
Cc: Gitelman, Hillary <Hillary.Gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jo Bellomo <jo@bellomoarchitects.com>;
Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org; timothy@kassounilaw.com; Pratima Shah
<pratima@bellomoarchitects.com>; Keene, James <james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org>; Silver, Cara
<cara.silver@cityofpaloalto.org>
Sut>tect: Re: Drawings for the City Council Hearings
[Quoted text hidden}
Adam Petersen <APetersen@m-group.us> Wed, Dec21, 2016at12:28 PM
To: Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmall.com>, Jo Bellomo <jo@bellomoarchitects.com>, Pratima Shah
<pratima@bellomoarchitects.com>
Cc: "Gitelman, Hillary" <Hillary.Gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org"
<Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org>, "timothy@kassounilaw.com" <tirnothy@kassounilaw.com>, "Silver, Cara"
<cara.silver@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Gerhardt, Jodie" <Jodie.Gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org>
Good Afternoon Elizabeth,
The primary differences between the December 8, 2016 plans and the August 4, 2016 ARB plans are that
the December 8 plans: remove three parking spaces (but still satisfy the parking requirements), have slight
modifications in the square footage of commercial (7,518 sf v. 7,393 sf) and office (12,889 sf v. 13,014)
space, slightly reduces the pedestrian overlay (358 sf v. 451 sf), and proposes other minor changes to the
square footage of various areas.
https:/lmail.google.com/mail/ca/u/O/?ui=2&ik=e6faa34986&view=pt&q=jo%40bellomoarchitects.com&qs=true&search=quety&th=l58d5aSbfe314513cbim1=158d5... 2/4
1/29/2017 Gmail ~ Drawings for the City Council Hearings
The primary fac;ade differences from the September 1 ARB Study Session Plans are: The third and fourth
floor have a different concrete color than the first two floors, the fourth floor office is narrower in the 12/08/16
plans, and the University Avenue elevation incorporates signage on the 12/08/16 plans.
our confirmation that these plans are submitted with the intent of receiving
Thank you for your time, and feel free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
ADAM PETERSEN l SENIOR PLANNER
M-GROUP A NEW DESIGN ON URBAN PLANNING
POLICY · DESIGN · ENVIRONMENTAL · HISTORIC · ENGAGEMENT · STAFFING
CAMPBELL\ SANTA ROSA I NAPA I HAYWARD
307 ORCHARD CITY DR. SUITE 100 I CAMPBELL I CA I 95008 1408.340.5642 ext. 106 I c. 530.574.0857
M-LAB: A THIN!< TANK FOR CITIES: JOIN THE CONVERSATION!
From: Elizabeth Wong [mailto:elizabethwong2009@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 201612:17 PM
To: Adam Petersen <APetersen@m-group.us>
Cc: Gitelman, Hillary <Hillary.Gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jo Bellomo <jo@bellomoarchitects.com>;
Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org; timothy@kassounilaw.com; Pratima Shah
<pratima@bellomoarchitects.com>; Keene, James <james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org>; Silver, Cara
<cara.silver@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Re: Drawings for the City Council Hearings
Good morning Adam,
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
Jo Bellomo <jo@bellomoarchitects.com> Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 4:17 PM
To: Adam Petersen <APetersen@m-group.us>
Cc: Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com>, Pratima Shah <pratima@bellomoarchitects.com>, "Gitelman, Hillary"
<Hillary.Gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org" <Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org>,
lttimothy@kassounilaw.com" <timothy@kassounilaw.com>, "Silver, Cara" <cara.silver@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Gerhardt, Jodie"
<Jodie .Gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org>
Good afternoon Adam,
Thank you very much for your email. I hope your holidays are kicking off to a great start.
Elizabeth is traveling so I wante o ahead and confirm that we have submitted these drawings with the intention to
Thanks so much again for your email.
Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions.
https://mail.google.com/mail/ca/u/O/?ui=2&ik=e6faa34986&view=pt&q=jo%40bellomoarchitects.com&qs=true&search=quecy&th=l 58d5a5bfe314513&siml= 158d5... 314
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:50 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:dedra <dedra@pacbell.net>
Sent:Saturday, February 04, 2017 9:33 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Proposed development at 429 Kipling
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too big and
massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses. Approving this kind of development will be a step towards turning downtown into a soulless gridlocked place that everyone tried to avoid. I am also extremely disappointed and worried by your latest moves to strip the land-use plan of most of the implementation procedures deveoped by community members and city staff. Removing the 50 foot height limit is just one example of turning the land use plan into a vague, toothless document that allows the council to run rampant over the wishes of the community at large. This move gives credence to the claim that payments from developers are influencing
the decisions of Greg Tanaka and Liz Kniss.
Dedra Hauser
410 Stanford Avenue Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:50 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:nicole garratt <nicolegarratt1@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 10:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Development plan for 429 Kipling
City Council, I am writing as a concerned resident of Palo Alto for the character of our neighborhoods. The proposed plan for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street should be denied. The massive building certainly does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm Kipling Street, increase traffic, and continue to turn our quaint town into an office park. It will negatively impact the quality of life in Palo Alto and specifically impact Kipling Street's residents, pedestrians and businesses. Thank you,
Nicole Garratt
832 Waverley St, PA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:50 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Jared Jacobs <jaredjacobs@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 10:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please vote NO on 429 University Ave
Dear Honorable City Council,
I respectfully request that you reject the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The proposed building would be too big and massive and doesn’t meet the criteria set forth in your earlier
mandate. The building would overwhelm the homes on Kipling Street and slow traffic. It would have negative
impacts on area residents, pedestrians and businesses.
Sincerely, Jared Jacobs
123 Sherman Ave
Palo Alto CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:50 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Beth Gmail <bbr550@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 5:59 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Veto of proposed Kipling/ University structure
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is
too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November
30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will
cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents,
pedestrians and businesses.
Beth Rosenthal, PhD
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:50 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:jake loewenheim <jloewenheim@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 7:22 PM
To:devinhawkins@gmail.com
Subject:Approve 429 University for Construction
To whom it may concern:
As a property owner and resident of the Downtown North neighborhood in Palo Alto, I respectfully request that you
approve the proposed project for a mixed‐use facility to be constructed at 429 University Avenue and deny the related
appeal.
In my opinion, this project will upgrade an outdated building with an attractive retail and commercial space that
promotes green building design.
Thank you for considering my request.
Sincerely,
Devin C. Hawkins
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:50 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Kathleen Dugan <kduganrn@mac.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 4:16 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:deny the developer's proposed plan for 429 University Ave
Dear City Council,
Just read about the financial contributions made to council members Ksniss, Tanaka and Fine and
find them disgusting. Now I know why Palo Alto each day looks more like New York City than the
beautiful city I have loved for so long.
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The
building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council
mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street
and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life
on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses.
Thank you,
Kathleen Dugan 3383 Waverley St.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:50 PM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Jim Colton <james.colton10@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 3:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University Ave
Dear City Council,
Please do not approve the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The
proposed building is obviously too big next to the Victorian homes on Kipling. If approved, heaven
help those residents that live on Kipling with increased traffic and an eyesore to boot. The plan does
not meet the criteria specified by the Council when it was last proposed and should not be approved.
Regards,
Jim Colton
670 Georgia Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:50 PM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Ana Carvalho <anaxpcarvalho@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 3:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University Ave at Kipling Street
Dear City Council, I'm generally for reasonable development of downtown but in this case I urge you to strongly deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building , if approved would create enormous traffic congestion beyond what already exists and it's already a bad situation. There is an alleyway across from the building in question and several small business on Kippling who would be at
disadvantage if you decide to approve the building. I don't think that the rationale for approval set forth is consistent with good
urban practices.
The building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. Respectfully,
------------------------------------------------ Ana Carvalho
335 Everett Avenue
Palo Alto CA 94301
650 391 9710
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:50 PM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Elaine Meyer <meyere@concentric.net>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 3:16 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University Ave.
Honorable City Council:
Please deny the 429 University Avenue project.
That corner of Kipling has been, and can continue to be, very profitable without the construction of an oversized
inappropriate building.
Our downtown is being overwhelmed by ostentatious oversized structures that make life unpleasant for the people who
live and work around them.
Kipling is one of the few small human‐scale streets that feed into University Ave. Don't destroy it!
Please, don't add still more traffic to the already jammed street we have to cope with every day.
Elaine Meyer
609 Kingsley Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:50 PM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Linda Anderson <andersonlinda911@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 1:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University
Dear City Council Members,
Please deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. It will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic causing unending traffic jams and will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses.
Thank you,
Linda Anderson
401 Webster Street #306
Palo Alto CA 94301-1251
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:50 PM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Michael Harbour <dr.mharbour@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 1:23 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:REJECT 429 University Ave Proposed Development
Dear City Council,
I am one of the appellants who is fighting the submitted plans for the proposed development of 429 University
Ave. As appellants, we are not opposed to the owner's right to develop her parcel. We are, however, opposed to the size and massing of the currently proposed plans. The applicant has not followed the city council
mandate from November 30, 2015. The building does not meet the city municipal code for context and
compatibility. It does not fit into the comprehensive downtown guidelines or the Kipling St. business district
plans. The building is not designed in consideration of the existing Victorian homes on Kipling Street or the
businesses on the alleyway. The ARB worked with the applicant for almost one year, but she refused to budge. As a consequence, the ARB unanimously rejected her plan. The HRB has also unanimously rejected
her plans. The plans before you are NEW and HAVE NOT even been seen by the ARB. It is unfair that the
city council would even be asked to approved these plans without the proper vetting of its own ARB. This is a
very risky proposition for the city council and one which could put jeopardize the ARB and the City Council in
the future.. We humbly ask that reject these plans. The applicant must adhere to the city council mandate from November 30, 2015 and put forth a plan that works for all.
Thank you,
Michael Harbour for the Appellant Team
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:50 PM
12
Carnahan, David
From:mwg1378@gmail.com on behalf of Mike Greenfield <mike@mikegreenfield.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 1:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 Kipling St
Dear City Council-
I'm writing to express my support for the proposed project at 429 Kipling Street, a block and a half from my house.
I'm excited for the possibility of having beautiful retail spaces and offices, not to mention several new
residences. The existing structure is shabby and in need of a refresh, and University Avenue is a perfect spot for
much needed additional housing.
Personally, I wish this building could be more than four stories tall, given that it's right on University Avenue
and a stone's throw from the far taller President Hotel -- but I see four stories as a reasonable compromise.
This project has been in the works for a long time. I can't wait to see it get built!
Thanks
-Mike Greenfield
321 Kipling Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:50 PM
13
Carnahan, David
From:JC Andrade <jc.vinolocale@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 1:11 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University Ave at Kipling St.
Attachments:IMAG0405.jpg; IMAG0406.jpg
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses. My mother lives in Mountain View, across from the new development on the corner of El Camino real and Castro St. This is a major intersection with 3-4 lanes and it almost ruined 5 businesses that had plenty of parking but still patrons could not access these businesses because of the traffic it caused. We already deal with a lack of parking and a very narrow street, this project would ruin us. attached is a picture of what traffic looks like on a average day. Thank you,
JC Andrade
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:50 PM
14
Carnahan, David
From:Andres Mediavilla <andres.mediavilla@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 12:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University Ave
Dear City Council, I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015.
The applicant, Elizabeth Wong, has made no effort to compromise or work with the City of Palo Alto to meet the few conditions set forth by
the mandate. She has made a mockery of the due process by ignoring all the recommendations after multiple reviews by the ARB and City
Council. Instead, she has resorted to threatening to sue the City of Palo Alto, exhibiting belligerent behavior at every City Council and ARB
meeting, and trying to buy City Council candidates with her donations. And after all of this, she had the arrogance to state to the press that
she cares for the prosperity of the City of Palo Alto.
The residents of Palo Alto already spoke and successfully appealed this project. The few changes residents were asking will not make a difference on the level of prosperity in Palo Alto. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses. Thank you, Andres Mediavilla
Palo Alto Ave.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:50 PM
15
Carnahan, David
From:Venkatesh Karnam <venkateshkr@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 11:34 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please DENY 429 University Ave project
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The
building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council
mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street
and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life
on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses.
Thank you,
Venkatesh
2771 Waverley St
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:50 PM
16
Carnahan, David
From:Heike Fischer <hef5683@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 11:17 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed Development on the Corner of Kipling and University Ave
Dear City Council,
I am writing to ask you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street, as stated in the
previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will further change the originally quaint character of
University Avenue, tower over the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic
jams. It will negatively impact the appearance of our city's most visited street, as well as quality of life on Kipling Street for
residents, pedestrians and businesses.
Thank you,
Heike Fischer
120 Cowper Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:50 PM
17
Carnahan, David
From:Katherine Clark <kclark@clarklaw.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 11:03 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University Ave development
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too big and massive and does
not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian
homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling
Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses.
My husband and I have owned our home in Crescent Park since 1984. I have seen traffic increase to the point that I cannot back out of my
driveway during the afternoon commute hours. I invite any of you to personally witness the traffic on Center Drive between University and
Hamilton between the hours of 5 pm and 6 pm any week day night. Commuters from downtown are driving down Hamilton Avenue to
avoid congestion on University Avenue. There should be a moritorium placed on any new business developments in downtown Palo
Alto. We need to preserve the village feel of downtown Palo Alto. We are losing it!
Thank you,
Katherine S. Clark
555 Center Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:50 PM
18
Carnahan, David
From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 9:15 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University
Dear City Council,
Please deny the proposed development plans for 429 University
Ave.. The building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria
set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The
building is not compatible with the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and
will increase traffic. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling
Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses.
This project has repeatedly been rejected at multiple hearings, but always
returns with similar or worse plans. It is time to end this project.
Thank you,
Paul Machado
Stanford Ave.
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:51 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:kathleen spillane <kspillan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 9:44 PM
To:Yang, Albert; Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Petersen,
Adam
Subject:Letter Supporting 429 University
Attachments:429 University comments.pdf
Hello,
I am submitting a letter in support of the proposed project at 429 University.
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Spillane Resident of Palo Alto
February 6, 2017
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
My name is Kathleen Spillane and I am a resident and voter in Palo Alto.
I am in support of 429 University. The contributions this proposed building will make to Palo Alto's
tax revenue should not be overlooked. The proposed building will pay much higher taxes to Palo
Alto than the current structure, and sales-tax revenue stands to be materially higher due to the
improved retail space designed to attract higher-end and higher revenue-generating tenants. In
addition, the project will contribute to Palo Alto's tax revenue immediately with development and
impact fees . Our city needs all of this revenue.
I view this building proposal as beneficial for Palo Alto. The proposed building is more attractive
than the current structure, it conforms with all regulations and codes, and it provides needed retail
space, office space, residential units, parking areas, and tax revenue.
This project was presented to the Planning Staff over four years ago, and it was first reviewed by
the city of Palo Alto over three years ago. The proposed building was approved by the planning
staff nearly two years ago in February 2015; however, it has been delayed since that time by an
appeal. These four years of review have squandered significant city resources, and delayed a
project that will ultimately be a tremendous benefit for Palo Alto. The owners have also invested
significant time, effort, and money in this conventional, non-historic project. After so much delay
and scrutiny, it is time to approve this project and allow Palo Alto and its citizens to realize the
many benefits of this project.
Kathleen Spillane
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:55 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Alice Jacobs <aquayellow@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 5:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please stop
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is
too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will
cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents,
pedestrians and businesses.
I'm am saddened that the city of Palo Alto's cityscape has been completely re landscaped. The new buildings going up are down right ugly and not timeless at all. Are you really happy with what's going on? Please ask
yourselves that? I understand and comply with growth, but not so rapid and not distasteful growth. Us residents
who have been here for more than a decade are unhappy.
Thank you,
Alice Jacobs
123 Sherman Ave.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:57 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ted Davids <tdavids@sonic.net>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 3:19 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave
Dear City Council,
As a long time resident of Downtown North I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at the Kipling Street corner.
The building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate
of 30 November 2015. It will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and cause worse traffic
congestion than is already present in the area. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses. Kipling is a narrow street and is lined by the historic Victorian Homes
that have kept the existing architecture through various renovations and owners. It is the major walkway from
Johnson Park and beyond to downtown. The proposed multistory building and garage would permanently
negatively affect this street. It does nothing to enhance the street. On November 30,2015 the Palo Alto City
Council agreed with us that the proposed development plan was too large and massive. They sent the project back to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for modifications. The changes are not compatible with the
councils previous directions.
Thank you,
W T Davids
475 Everett Avenue
Palo Alto.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:57 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Timothy Kassouni <timothy@kassounilaw.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 3:23 PM
To:Gitelman, Hillary
Cc:Stump, Molly; Cervantes, Yolanda; Council, City
Subject:Re: Monday's Hearing
Ms. Gitelman,
Thank you for the information and the update provided in your e-mail below. On behalf of Kipling Post LP, we
will be proceeding with the hearing as scheduled and not requesting a postponement. Thank you for your
attention.
---
Timothy V. Kassouni
Kassouni Law
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 2025
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 930-0030
On 02/03/2017 1:18 pm, Gitelman, Hillary wrote:
Mr. Kassouni:
This email is to confirm our conversation just now. The revised agenda for Monday’s hearing that was
posted yesterday indicates that Councilmember Kniss will be participating from a remote location on
the east coast.
Councilmember Kniss was called to the east coast for a family emergency, and I now understand that she has decided she cannot participate in Monday’s hearing.
Hillary
Hillary Gitelman | Director | P&CE Department
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301T: 650.329.2321 |E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:57 PM
3
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:59 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ross Taylor <rosstaylor@abaxis.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 2:01 PM
To:Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Petersen, Adam;
albert.yang@cityofpaloofpaloalto.org
Subject:Letter regarding Feb. 6 hearing on 429 University Avenue building proposal
Attachments:429 Letter - RT.pdf
To members of the Palo Alto city council and government:
Please see my attached letter regarding the building proposal for 429 University Avenue and the February 6 hearing to
review this proposal.
I am unable to attend the hearing on February 6, 2017, as I will be travelling out of state on business.
The text of my letter is also pasted below.
I appreciate your consideration. Thank you.
February 6, 2017
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
My name is Ross Taylor. As a resident of Palo Alto, I am in support of the building proposal for 429 University Avenue.
The proposed building is in keeping with the neighborhood aesthetic and will provide much needed benefits to Palo
Alto. These benefits include: an attractive space for high-end retail tenants; residential units to assist in alleviating our
housing shortage; offices; parking; and significant tax revenue for Palo Alto.
It is important that Palo Alto carefully plan its future. Significantly, this proposed building has conformed with all building
and code requirements since its inception. The owner is not requesting any exceptions or variances to Palo Alto’s building
regulations. The building is within Palo Alto’s height restriction of 50 feet, and it is shorter than 428 University, the
building directly across the street. It is nearly 1,900 feet smaller than the regulatory limit, and it provides the parking
required for its tenants. (Furthermore, the proposal provides additional bicycle parking as well.)
In addition to conforming with all of Palo Alto’s regulations, the owner took special care to design this proposed building
to be attractive and compatible with the environs. For example, the store fronts and entrance lobby are transparent glass,
reducing the perceived mass of the building. Moreover, there are large setbacks on the upper floors. The fourth floor is
essentially invisible from ground level, as a result of the 19.5 foot setback of the fourth floor on the University Avenue
façade and setbacks that range from 11 feet to 37 feet on the Kipling Street façade. Plantings, trees, and public art will all
further enhance the seamless integration of this building into its surroundings.
I urge you to approve this building without delay.
Ross Taylor
February 6, 2017
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
My name is Ross Taylor. As a resident of Palo Alto, I am in support of the building proposal for 429
University A venue.
The proposed building is in keeping with the neighborhood aesthetic and wi JI provide much needed benefits
to Palo Alto. These benefits include: an attractive space for high-end retail tenants; residential units to
assist in alleviating our housing shortage; offices; parking; and significant tax revenue for Palo Alto.
It is important that Palo Alto carefully plan its future. Significantly, this proposed building has conformed
with all building and code requirements since its inception. The owner is not requesting any exceptions or
variances to Palo Alto's building regulations. The building is within Palo Alto's height restriction of 50
feet, and it is shorter than 428 University, the building directly across the street. It is nearly 1,900 feet
smaller than the regulatory limit, and it provides the parking required for its tenants . (Furthermore, the
proposal provides additional bicycle parking as well.)
In addition to conforming with all of Palo Alto's regulations, the owner took special care to design this
proposed building to be attractive and compatible with the environs. For example, the store fronts and
entrance lobby are transparent glass, reducing the perceived mass of the building. Moreover, there are large
setbacks on the upper floors. The fourth floor is essentially invisible from ground level, as a result of the
19.5 foot setback of the fourth floor on the University Avenue fa<;ade and setbacks that range from 11 feet
to 37 feet on the Kipling Street fai;ade. Plantings, trees, and public art will all further enhance the seamless
integration of this building into its surroundings.
I urge you to approve this building without delay.
Ross Taylor ;;
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:01 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Alex Brousilovsky <alexbr@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 04, 2017 8:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed development at the corner of University Avenue and Kipling
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too big and
massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The
building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic
jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, and of Palo Alto downtown pedestrians
and businesses.
Thank you,
‐ Alex Brousilovsky
650‐493‐5119 (home)
650‐207‐9866 (mobile)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:01 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:DEbottoms@aol.com
Sent:Sunday, February 05, 2017 11:05 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Property at 429 University Ave. Palo Alto
From: DEbottoms@aol.com To: citycouncil@cityofpaloalto.org
CC: elizabethwong2009@gmail.com Sent: 2/5/2017 10:56:38 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
Subj: Property at 429 University Ave. Palo Alto
Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members:
My husband and I have lived at 3101 Alexis Dr. in Palo Alto since 1981, and congratulate the Council on the priorities identified on being elected. City Finances and increasing revenue are necessary to mitigate the
projected deficits in the City and School Budgets.
The proposed four story, mixed use building at the corner of University and Kipling St. has been under review since 2013 and has undergone revisions 3 times to meet concerns of the ARB and Planning Staff. It has been
approved. The building meets all code requirements and conforms to height and square footage permitted, and provides needed parking. The building is attractive, and upon completion will increase property taxes, and sales
taxes which the City needs. It provides attractive Retail Space, Second Floor Office Space and also creates four housing units and parking!. This is the type of project the City of Palo Alto should be happy to approve. It will
enhance University Ave.
The owners of this property, who are Palo Alto residents, have worked tirelessly to meet the requirements to approve the project. Please end this drawn out process which has wasted the time of all city departments and
approve the application. It will be a Win for the City!
Sincerely, Diane Bottoms
Bill Bottoms
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:01 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:ian.irwin@sbcglobal.net
Sent:Sunday, February 05, 2017 12:32 PM
To:Council, City; City Attorney
Subject:429 University Avenue
Dear Ms Stump and Council members,
I fully support an investigation by Molly Stump into the “post campaign” disclosures of contributions from areadevelopers and real estate interests to Greg Tanaka, Adrian Fine, and Liz Kniss. Further I demand a public council
meeting dedicated just to discuss and air the issue of conflict of interest consequent to these donations.
The post campaign disclosures of contributions from developers and real estate interests, which were accepted by
council members Fine, Tanaka, and Kniss to influence, and determine the outcomes of, pending land use and city planning issues that will be decided by this council. These late contributions not only denied voters important
pre-election information about these candidates but they also raise important questions about who these council
members will actually represent. Will they represent the residents of Palo Alto or will they cater to the developers
and real estate interests, many of whom do not live in this city. These developers do not represent the citizens of
Palo Alto but represent the bottom line of their investors and financial interests.
Furthermore the arrangement between these council members and developers appears to represent the likelihood
of quid pro quo votes on important issues facing the council and impacting the future of Palo Alto.
Of special concern is the upcoming vote on 429 University Avenue. Since Greg Tanaka received direct contributions from the Wong family, he should recuse himself from this vote, as should any other council
members who have received money from the Wong family.
Sincerely,
Ian Irwin
Resident of Palo Alto since 1996
800 Cowper Street
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:01 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Carol Kiparsky <ckiparsky@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Saturday, February 04, 2017 7:27 PM
To:City Attorney; Council, City
Subject:429 University: Tanaka must recuse himself!
Dear Ms Stump and Council members,
Recent news about the campaign contributions to Greg Tanaka and others have been quite disturbing. Particularly timely is the contribution from a member of the Wong family of $5000.00 after it was
too late for voters to notice. Then, once the local press noticed, Tanaka very publicly announced he was giving
the money back.
Ms Stump is wisely considering whether Tanaka should recuse himself from Monday’s agenda item concerning the project proposed to enrich the Wongs at their property at 429 University Avenue. I don’t think this is a very
complicated question. Clearly Tanaka
owes something to the property owner, who will find another way to hand over the money in exchange for a
highly profitable vote in favor of the project. Furthermore, any other beneficiaries of the Wongs on Council
should also recuse themselves.
To avoid sinking into the mire of corruption that has become fashionable in Washington DC, I urge you to
ensure that this recusal happens in Monday’s hearing on the Wong project.
Respectfully,
Carol Kiparsky
800 Cowper St
650.321.1426
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:01 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Irv <irvb@pacbell.net>
Sent:Saturday, February 04, 2017 4:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University
Dear City Council,
The proposed development for 429 University remains too massive for that location. The
developer hasn't shown a good-faith interest in reducing it's size after reasonable requests
by previous councils to do so. As a senior pedestrian and cyclist who traverses this
already dangerous intersection, my own safety (and quality of life) would measurably
decline. Moreover, the immediate neighbors would be negatively impacted by such an
inappropriate, ill-conceived design adjoining the lovely Victorian homes on Kipling.
Respectfully,
Irv Brenner
250 Bryon Street
Palo Alto, 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:01 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Don smorkmosh <mrmosh9@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 04, 2017 3:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:429
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The
building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council
mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street
and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life
on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses.
Don Melosh
4236 Juniper ln
Palo Alto,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:01 PM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Don smorkmosh <mrmosh9@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 04, 2017 3:43 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:deny 429
Do not allow this development to take place.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:01 PM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Kerry Spear <kerry.spear@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 04, 2017 2:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:NO SUPPORT on 429 University project plans
Dear City Council, DON'T approve the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too big and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. Don't give in to this developer! Their game playing isn't amusing and wastes tax dollars
by not following Council's directions.
PLEASE stand up for a more liveable, walkable Palo Alto - this is what we all want!
Such a large project will cause unending traffic jams in the near term and adversely affect the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents,
pedestrians and businesses for decades. Thank you, Kerry Spear
370 Oxford Ave
Palo Alto, Ca 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:06 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 10:46 AM
To:padaily post
Cc:Stump, Molly; Council, City
Subject:Tanaka Needs to Recuse
Dear Editor: Congrats to Councilman Tanaka for returning the donation from the Wong family (429 University project). Now he also must recuse himself from the voting on the project Monday night in order to eliminate any possibility of conflict of interest. While this donation is being returned the intent has already been shown by the family to influence Mr. Tanaka's vote and to be favorable potentially to provide more donations for future campaigns by Mr. Tanaka. Richard C. Brand 281 Addison Ave. 323-7044
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:06 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Mike McCue <mikem@flipboard.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 2:34 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Marci McCue
Subject:Proposed Development plans for 429 University Ave.
Dear City Council, I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses. Thank you, Mike & Marci McCue
1055 Forest Ave. Palo Alto CA 94301
650-714-7000
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:06 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Joanne Koltnow <joanne.koltnow@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 04, 2017 10:00 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University Ave
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is
too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will
cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents,
pedestrians and businesses.
Joanne Koltnow
317 Leland Ave
Palo Alto 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:06 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Magic <magic@ecomagic.org>
Sent:Saturday, February 04, 2017 11:06 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University
Dear City Councilmembers, The proposed building at 429 University Avenue is more of what is destroying Palo Alto. So long as you allow builders to externalize costs, they'll intensify land use and degrade the quality of life in this community for us, your constituents. Full cost accounting that takes into account traffic, parking, loss of sun and view by neighbors, demands on utility services, etc., will make a building like this unprofitable.
The building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. Some
of you have benefitted directly from lavish contributions from the applicant, and are clearly conflicted, whatever the law says. Please send it
away and demand something more in keeping with the interests of Palo Alto's residents, your constituents.
Thank you, David Schrom Oxford Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:06 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Malcolm Roy Beasley <beasley@stanford.edu>
Sent:Saturday, February 04, 2017 11:17 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Malcolm Roy Beasley
Subject:429 University
Dear City Council:
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The size of this project looming over Kipling Street would degrade one of the most charming small streets in DTN. If you chose to defend this project, you owe it to the citizens you represents how to address specifically how this project meets the principle in the present Comprehensive Plan that development must be balanced with the quality of adjacent residential areas. Thank you, Mac Beasley
125 Bryant Street
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:06 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Peter Brewer <peter@brewerfirm.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 04, 2017 11:23 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed Development Plan for 429 University Ave
Honorable Councilmembers: I am concerned about the project proposed for 429 University
Avenue at the corner of Kipling. I ask that the size and mass of the proposed project be
carefully scrutinized. It appears that it may be entirely out of character with the
neighborhood and contrary to the directions of the previous Council on November 30,
2015. Please ensure that it does not contribute to the growing gridlock and parking scarcity
that impacts the friendly usability of our downtown.
In particular I ask that Councilmembers who may have a conflict due to campaign
contributions from interested parties consider abstaining from any action on this project. The
following was recently reported in Palo Alto Online:
But even if Tanaka and Fine aren't exactly "pro-developer," new campaign-disclosure documents suggest that many local builders and property managers are very much pro-Tanaka and pro-Fine. In the weeks before and after Nov. 8, each candidate received
several large contributions from builders, real estate professionals and developers,
including in Tanaka's case one whose controversial project is about to be reviewed by
the council. Much like incumbent Liz Kniss, Tanaka received a windfall from developers after Oct.
22, the date by which contributions needed to be reported before the election. As such,
these payments were not required to be disclosed until late January.
For Tanaka, a former city planning commissioner who finished second after Kniss in an 11-candidate field, the late contributions totaled $47,895, more than half of the $84,670
total that he received during his campaign and far more than any other candidate
reported in the final filing period, which stretched from Oct. 23 on Dec. 31.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Peter N. Brewer
Peter N. Brewer, Esq.
Law Offices of Peter N. Brewer
2501 Park Blvd, 2nd Flr.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
(650) 327‐2900 x 12
www.BrewerFirm.com
BayAreaRealEstateLawyers.com
Real Estate Law – From the Ground Up®
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:06 PM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Lina Crane <lina.crane@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 04, 2017 11:16 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:development
I am shocked and depressed by the actions of the 5 council members who upended 2 years and many dollars
worth of input on the comprehensive plan.
They should be recalled.
--
LFC from lina
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:06 PM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Cindy Ziebelman <2cindy@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 04, 2017 12:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University Ave.
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too big and
massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The
building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic
jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses.
Thank you,
Cynthia Ziebelman
644 Maybell Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:06 PM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Dan DeCamp <dan.decamp@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 04, 2017 1:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University Ave
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too big and
massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The
building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will cause unending
traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on
Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses.
Thank you,
Dan DeCamp
326 Leland Ave.
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:06 PM
11
Carnahan, David
From:lrgc@sbcglobal.net
Sent:Saturday, February 04, 2017 3:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:URGENT: Re. 429 University Ave.
Dear City Council, I am a resident of Downtown North and live in a historic home which "contributes" to the character of our city. Over the past few years, I have seen the quality of life and character of the city eroded by new construction that is inconsistent with Palo Alto's character, design and architecture, destroying what is unique and desirable about the city. I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too big and massive
and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm
the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the
quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses.
Thank you, Leslie Goldman Caine 119 Bryant St. Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:09 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Margo Davis <margoadavis@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 11:42 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Extrememly disappointed
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The
building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council
mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street
and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life
on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses.
Margo Davis
Margo Davis margoadavis@gmail.com 650 714 2146
www.margodavisphoto.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:09 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Saturday, February 04, 2017 11:40 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fw: Please help your downtown neighbors
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too big and
massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The
building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic
jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses.
In addition, I believe that council members Kniss, Scharff, Fine, and Tenaka who have received large donations from
developers late in the election campaign, should be required to recuse themselves from consideration of this
project. They are clearly biased and not likely to consider the community.
Thank you,
Richard C. Placone
601 Chimalus Drive
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:14 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sheri Furman <sheri11@earthlink.net>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 1:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Agenda Item 11: PAN Urges Support for the 429 University Appeal
Attachments:429 University PAN.docx
Please see the attached letter regarding the Feb 6 Agenda Item 11. Thanks, Sheri Furman
Agenda Item 11: PAN Urges Support for the 429 University Appeal
February 3, 2017
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss, and City Council members:
Per a unanimous vote of members attending our January meeting, PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) requests that you support the appeal of the 429 University Ave project and
ask the applicant to modify the plans to conform with city laws.
The issues before you are of enormous interest to our community. 92% of responses to
PAN’s most recent survey ranked local architectural issues as important. Yet the 2016
National Citizens Survey found that only 37% of Palo Altans rated the city’s current land use, planning, and zoning positively. This project gives the Council an opportunity to help turn that
around.
Council members, the ARB, appellants, and neighbors have already enumerated the many
problems with the proposed 429 University project, so we’ll note just a few:
• The four-story building will dwarf the low one-and-two story homes and small businesses
on Kipling and not achieve the “visual unity of the street” required by the Municipal Code.
• The alley will become an (undersized!) loading zone for the building without the mandated
landscape buffer rather than the pedestrian- and bike-friendly access serving residents and other businesses as prescribed in the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines.
• The historic New Varsity and Kipling buildings that rank high among our city’s landmarks
will be confronted by a highly incompatible massive structure.
• Although the building claims to be legally parked, thanks to an improperly-issued
exemption, the additional cars it will bring to the city have no place to park except in
neighborhoods, thus violating the Comprehensive Plan.
• Two of the three designs in the current Council packet were not reviewed by the ARB, undercutting its role and the opportunity for public participation.
We encourage the Council to use this appeal to insist on a higher-quality architectural
solution that conforms with all laws. By doing so, you will benefit both business and resident
constituencies, minimize neighborhood objections, address city-wide concerns about zoning
compliance, expedite project development, and still provide excellent income opportunities for the owners. It’s a win-win way to proceed and we urge the Council to adopt it.
Thank you,
Sheri Furman
PAN Co-Chair
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:16 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Cheryl Lilienstein <clilienstein@me.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 12:53 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Supervisor Simitian; Emily Thurber; Anna Eshoo; Pat Burt Gmail
Subject:Corruption of Palo ALto city council 429 University vote
Dear City Council (with copies to respected electeds),
We have a problem here in Palo Alto. What follows is an example of an immediate problem that Democratic
Party endorsement processes created. Simply: you are respected officials who allowed your names to be used by candidates who were never vetted by you. A Republican who changed party affiliation just for this election was endorsed by you.
I doubt you would have done that had you known.
So now we have this corruption problem, which you had an unwitting hand in creating. And I hope you will contact the Palo Alto City Council — and its attorney— with your opinion on this matter.
Here’s the issue:
The developer of 429 University wants to build a massive overwhelming building and has not made the changes the appellant Michael Harbour requested, and ARB and the Council mandated. The building is overwhemingly
massive, and will negatively impact the area around it. The city council should reject the developer’s plan
because the required changes have not been made.
Instead of complying, the developer donated money to help elect a more favorable council. As the Democratic Party favors clean money policies, you can understand that cleaning up the party endorsement processes is
important, and I hope you will step up to the plate once you read what follows.
Greg Tanaka (who you "endorsed") is “returning" bribe money from the Wong family, just days before the vote on their project at 429 University (which can of course can be returned to him after the city council vote) and he claims it’s not a problem for him to sit on the voting body. Ethics laws demand Councilmembers who accepted
these contributions or have an appearance of a conflict of interest need to recuse themselves ENTIRELY from
the discussion. If Tanaka is really a Democrat now, he should do the same.
Further, there was an illegal gigantic TANAKA campaign banner mounted at the busiest city corner of
University and Alma — on a building OWNED by the architect of 429 University — further make
councilmember TANAKA appear to be engaging in corrupt behavior. It beggars the imagination to hear him
say he "did not know about it.” Or that he does not see a problem with it. But perhaps given the behavior we
now see in the Republican party, it’s not a surprise.
If respected public servants who are Dems allow opportunist and ethically challenged Republicans to use their
good standing for corrupt purposes, doesn’t this call into question the Democratic Party itself? We need you to
bolster public morale by doing the right thing.
None of you should tolerate Greg Tanaka sitting on the council for this vote. Please make the call.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:29 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 10:43 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Undeliverable: Once again, NO to this huge development at 429 University!
Once again, NO to this huge development at 429 University!
Subject: Once again, Say NO to this huge development at 429 University!
Dear City Council Members:
I urge you to again DENY the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is far too big, too
massive, and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. This huge building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses. I hope that the Council can get this message after months of explanation. Let's keep the downtown at a more human scale, with low-income housing alternatives instead of big corporate enterprises. Sincerely,
Dr. Roberta Ahlquist
Palo Alto Resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 7:50 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Margaret Feuer <portulaca24@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 7:30 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University
Dear Mayor Scharff and members of the council, The density, inappropriate architecture and potential for unsolvable traffic issues which 429 University will create make it imperative that you deny this project.
I hope that the 5 vote majority who decimated the Comp Plan last week will show Palo Alto residents that they are able to restrain
developers who do not care for the quality of life in our city.
Margaret R. Feuer
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 7:50 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Shauny Moore <smooreva@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 1:26 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University Ave. Development
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is
too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November
30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will
cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents,
pedestrians and businesses.
Thank you,
Shauny Moore
666 Kellogg Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 7:50 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Moss <bmoss33@att.net>
Sent:Sunday, February 05, 2017 10:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University Proposal
Mayor Scharff and Council members;
Please deny the proposed development at 429 University and make it clear that the site must be re-developed
with a structure that is consistent and compatible with the adjacent residential buildings. The height, mass, and overall design are inconsistent with good design and compatibility with nearby buildings, especially along
Kipling. This project has been rejected several times, by the city council and by the ARB, but the applicant has
failed to make any significant changes to the original project, and has generally ignored concerns and objections
raised by neighbors, the ARB and the council.
Building height would be 50 feet. That is significantly higher than the residential buildings along Kipling and is
not compatible with scale and appearance of nearby residential and retail properties. Although there are
commercial buildings nearby that are taller than 50 feet, they were built before the 50 foot height limit was
adopted. The design of the proposed building is completely unlike that of the other buildings near the site, and
is especially incompatible with the nearby residential buildings.
I believe there are rules or guidelines for design compatibility of new buildings with nearby existing
buildings. Attachment A of the staff report lists 16 design elements that must be satisfied for a project to be
approved. This proposal badly fails that requirement. The design is not compatible, it does not give a
harmonious transition to off site buildings, access to the building has problems, it is under-parked, and it have details and designs that fit with adjacent buildings and the overall area. Objections to the design and concerns
about lack of compatibility were raised by the city council and the ARB but few efforts were made to correct
these serious errors. Instead the developer and several others associated with the developer contributed to
various council members campaigns. It was appropriate for council member Tanaka to return his contribution to
help avoid any appearance of conflicts of interest.
Few design or functional issues that were raised by the city council dating or ARB were addressed, and only a
couple now are approved by the ARB and neighbors. The site owner does not appear to have taken seriously the
objections and concerns raised by the ARB or by council members since the latest design is hardly changed
from the original submittal. This lack of responsive is not a good sign, and suggests that few efforts will be made to comply with any requirements requested by Palo Alto residents.
Please reject the proposal for the project at 429 University, and make it clear that when the city council asks to
have a project or the project's design redone and made more compatible with the area, failure to comply has
serious consequences.
Regards, Bob Moss
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 7:50 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Carol Hubenthal <carolhubenthal@me.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 05, 2017 10:15 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 university avenue
Dear Council,
The proposed project for this site looks out of place on that corner. I'm on that street every Monday for a yoga class and
can't imagine what an underground parking garage would do to that tiny street that dead ends on University Avenue.
Please consider other more fitting options.
Sincerely,
Carol Hubenthal
1228 Byron Street
Palo Alto
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 7:50 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:drew wanderman <dwanderman@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 05, 2017 10:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed development plans for 429 University Ave - please say no!
Dear City Council members ‐
Please do not approve this development ‐ the building is too massive for the street it's on.
Thank you,
Drew Wanderman
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 7:50 AM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Ben Lerner <balerner@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 05, 2017 9:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please DENY 429 University Ave
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I would like you to completely deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street – i.e. I want
to see this project KILLED and not just sent back for further revisions. The building is too big and massive and does not
meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the
Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact
the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses. The petitioners, the Wong family, have had
ample opportunity to bring this project into line with Palo Alto Values. That they haven’t yet done so means it’s time to
pull the plug on this inappropriate proposal.
Furthermore, Councilman Greg Tanaka should recuse himself from the deliberations and vote on this project as he has
been shown to have cozy ties to the Wong family. Likewise for any other Council Members who have ties to this
petitioner. Any improprieties in the handling of this petition, whether in fact or in appearance, will raise questions as
to the legitimacy of any Council decision and subject it to the possibility of legal challenge.
Thank you,
Ben Lerner
3482 Janice Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 7:50 AM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Larry and Zongqi Alton <lalton@pacbell.net>
Sent:Sunday, February 05, 2017 9:13 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Zongqi Alton
Subject:development plans for 429 University Ave
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the
Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic jams on this extremely narrow and already congested street. When trucks park on Kipling to do business it is a one way street. It will negatively impact the quality of life on
Kipling Street and surrounding areas for residents, pedestrians and businesses. Thank you,
Larry and Zongqi Alton
453 Hawthorne Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 7:50 AM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Leask <leask@befcfinance.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 05, 2017 9:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University Project
Dear City Council,
I am strongly‐opposed to the development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is much
too large and will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street, add to traffic problems and degrade the
neighborhood. The only winner here is the developer. Enough is enough!
Thank you,
Richard Leask
1235 Webster Street
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 7:50 AM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Alan Cooper <akcooper@pacbell.net>
Sent:Sunday, February 05, 2017 9:04 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please vote NO on 429 University Ave at Kipling Street
Dear City Council, I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and be yet another step toward "the canyons of Palo Alto downtown". The building will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses.
Thank you,
Alan Cooper
270 Kellogg Ave
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 7:50 AM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Steve Tjiang <steven.tjiang@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 05, 2017 8:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is
too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will
cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents,
pedestrians and businesses.
Several members of the city council should recuse themselves from the vote on 429 university as they have received campaign contributions from the owner of the property.
Thank you,
Steven Tjiang
380 Oxford Ave Palo Alto, CA 94306
--
Steve (sent from nexus 6 on Project Fi)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 7:50 AM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Susan Miller Hornbeek <smillerhornbeek@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 05, 2017 2:24 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University Ave.
Dear City Council, I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses.
Thank you,
Susan Miller Hornbeek and Gary Hornbeek
345 Poe St.
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 7:50 AM
12
Carnahan, David
From:Stephen D. Pahl <spahl@pahl-mccay.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 05, 2017 2:50 PM
To:Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Petersen, Adam; Yang,
Albert
Cc:Louise A. Pahl
Subject:429 University Avenue
I write this correspondence to reflect my support for Jaime and Elizabeth Wong's application to redevelop the property
at 429 University Avenue. Having undergone the City's development process twice recently (as President of Palo Alto
Hills G&CC and as co‐owner of 1845 El Camino Real), I fully understand the frustration endless hurtles which our City
puts its ownerships through in striving to make the community a better place.
Mr and Mrs Wong have spent considerable time and effort to craft a structure which will fit well on the "Avenue," and
will be a old single story retail property which has long passed it's useful life. I know that the Wong's has worked hard to
incorporate the City's numerous changing requests, and the resulting product is certainly not the "first choice" of the
applicants, but is a effort to meet the fluid opinions of the individuals within the City responsible for the approval of
developments, including City Staff, ARB and others. Additionally, neighbors wanting a structure to fit their personal
tastes have inserted themselves into this development process.
As noted above, this project has been before the Council on numerous occasions over the last four years. I understand it
meets ALL building and code requirements, including all requirements of providing on‐site parking. The scale and
massing has been addressed by the project architect and now proposes substantial setbacks on its upper floors, making
the 4th floor essential invisible from the street.
I don't know if the City understands the time and expense the Wong's has endured in trying to secure this project.
Others would have simply sold off the parcel and gone somewhere else more understanding to property developers.
However your applicants own other parcels in downtown Palo Alto and are dedicated to the City, even if they
sometimes question whether the City is dedicated to them? One hopes that when the Council reviews this application,
they will provide the analysis as to the motivations of those opposing the project as they will undertake in evaluation of
the proponents of the project.
I urge the Council to review and approve the application as proposed. If you have any questions or comments, please do
not hesitate to contact me at the numbers below.
Stephen D. Pahl
Pahl & McCay
225 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 1500
San Jose, California 95113
Direct: (408) 918‐2826
Cell: (408) 210‐0500
E‐mail: spahl@pahl‐mccay.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 7:50 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Maria Rita Haber <mariaritahaber@me.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 7:31 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Stump, Molly; Yang, Albert; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan;
adam.petersen@cityofpalo.org
Subject:project at 429 University
Dear City Mayor and City Council,
Please approve the project at 429 University.
The project the Wong’s propose at 429 University will fit beautifully downtown. It is an exciting design. It is a
mixed use building with improved retail, four residential units and, equally important, two layers of
underground parking.
The entrance on Kipling Street will really improve the side street, and the utility alley that is now a place for
garbage bins will be greatly enhanced by the new building at 429 University.
This is good for Palo Alto. They have followed all the rules; they deserve to have their vision approved.
Sincerely,
Maria Rita Haber
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 8:41 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 05, 2017 11:28 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Stump, Molly; Yang, Albert; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Adam
Petersen
Subject:Supporters of 429 University Ave
Attachments:scansignatures.pdf
Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members,
Attached are original signatures of supporters of the project at 429 University Ave. In addition, other supporters
have directly sent emails and letters to the City.
Also attached is a letter from Denny Levett who owns 405 University Avenue, a building in the same block
where Appellant owns his property. No property owner in that "Victorian" block, except the Appellant, supported the appeal.
Thank you for your attention.
Elizabeth Wong
City Council Members
City of Palo Alto
Email: city.council@dtyofpaloalto.org
Subject: 429 University Avenue Appeal
We urge you to stop the appeal of 429 University Avenue, Palo Alto. and to approve the project.
59{56AL£: 11=Llf:', f'/-1.
Signature Name Palo Alto Address
~~4' &~kW~~ z.o<t1 uJ.Jo.siu~.~:-tir.
gt!ature Nam~\ Palo Alto Address
J. 61~ 4._ Thev.~_sz_ ~~ /,PY/[. {sJ:,f ifv;z_ f,,f;-
Signature Name Palo Alto Address
zoeo Ta..U-o $1 Ptt-
ra10 Alto Address
s. grc-v~ ;11tM~ ~fevtri /l/J~rius
Signature Name
.. \2A<-J)L
Signature
7.s~
Name Palo Alto Address
8.
9 ·~¥ \l~( H•)-A#\j Stgna , Name , 10~cf'Yk--'Rodehck 'liicr11e
Signature Name
b~ g-Lo ~2 .<l I Av--t-. P-A ,
Palo Alto Address
G7-S L{) Ws:J \ t\v ~ .Y'f\
Palo Alto Address
City Council Members
City of Palo Alto
Email: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: 429 University Avenue Appeal
We urge you to stop the appeal of 429 University Avenue, Palo Alto, and to approve the project.
Signature
5.
Signature
6.
Signature
7.
8.
9
· 1L fkJ1
Signature
IO. kt,, Signature~
a·h· rt Name
Name I I
Name
1Zl en ard uflc!Y
Pao71L
Name
Name
Name
Name
4b!i" ~j~ Ave
Palo Alto Address
LI-IA 1J 0 r--fiG ~ ",,_ i/:ve...
Palo Alto Address
Palo Alto Address
q ~~ Hrtrn'?vn
7 0AfA d an , cA
Palo Alto Address
5~i !Mi~ Pai a , cillo , 61-q '13'13
Palo Alto Af1<iress, , : . .. -f-1 re iw ,e .. '-~a /o A It C/I f 'fJo:i
Palo Alto AddreSJ
5 d 8"1 ~ ~t 't€.Y!J JrR
Palo Alto Address
~~I J-.1tl~ ~,(,t,"6
Palo Alto Address
City Council Members
City of Palo Alto
Email: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: 429 University Avenue Appeal
We urge you to stop the appeal of 429 University Avenue, Palo Alto, and to approve the project.
1.
r. 'I
-gJJ.~ Si re
2.• I. /_ 02/l 1/4~
Signature
3. Signa1/f;s =
\
.... Ja'f\
Name
JJ « L h 0 /t.· 5 ,.YI, /(c_ ..
Name
Name
4.
...-.(J;..._· 1 .. L.__.L_· t_.t. £_~ _L__£_-l4 ___ G_eu._· /1_.c"_L e_e__
Signature Name
5. (/1IPCJ /.1:,d,.~, ~j('<bt ~
Signature Name
6.
Signature Name
7.
Signature Name
8.
Signature Name
9.
Signature Name
10.
Signature Name
s:s11·p4.dct4 ·~frljp 9V~3
Palo Alto Address
41-~-o e.£0-u0 9 y 3 0
Palo Alto Address l'rn ·
'-11-5 ~r;go 'l. AV'€... '1'f3ol
Palo Alto Addre s
Palo Alto Address
Palo Alto Address
Palo Alto Address
Palo Alto Address
Palo Alto Address
City Council Members
City of Palo Alto
Email: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: 429 University Avenue Appeal
We urge you to stop the appeal of 429 University Avenue. Palo Alto, and to approve the project
1.
2.
3.~~
Signature
4. rl~_ ~ = Signature
5. ·\Jd--
s~
6.
Signature
7.
Signature
8.
Signature
9.
Signature
10.
Signature
Name
~ law.f'el C? (,,,,,. o~ '1tiO'f
Palo Alto Address
Name I
9Pf ~r,tf tf/p, /Jr. f If-<J11Jo fj
Palo Alto Address
1-ft'd..d fe. ~I'\_ D "f4L3of. pr Jn cket4u .. -1-h. #~ ~o fHft>
Name Palo Alto Address
Name
Name Palo Alto Address
Name Palo Alto Address
Name Palo Alto Address
Name Palo Alto Address
Name Palo Alto Address
City Council Members
City of Palo Alto
Email: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: 429 University Avenue Appeal
We urge you to stop the appeal of 429 University Avenue, Palo Alto. and to approve the project.
Signature
3.~ ·~
4. ~ ~Atb
Signature
5. ~
Signature
··~ Signature
7.
Signature
8.
Signature
9.
Signature
10.
Signature
Name
Jo\\o l. Goel ;o
Name
[)}11A ;-/ ( "-? ~
Name /
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
J6J1 ~>s £, t:l.J/ f ~ A,....,
Palo Alto Address '7<t:~6)
~ 8 ~or"'es C. t 1Std'u,,.d. Ca..
Palo Alto Address
L\'1-Oltl!.TC\..n ~~1 S..~~~.1 (71\
Palo Alto Address
q-:; lr1I iv/Pt! Ct-
Palo Alto Address
Palo Alto Address
Palo Alto Address
Palo Alto Address
Palo Alto Address
Palo Alto Address
City Council Members
City of Palo Alto
Email: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject 429 University Avenue Appeal
We urge you to stop the appeal of 429 University Avenue, Palo Alto, and to approve the project.
~WI ature I
z. ~lLAAJ.-=
'§'fgllature
~ :c.e <(tt.
Name
£3W~~d-
Palo Alto Address
Name Palo Alto Address
3.~ N\d\ h¢°'-rY\(A;Y'Y
Name Palo Alto Address
4. ~ s~ l\-\~ s~.
Palo Alto Address
5. 53q +\\~ g-_
Palo Alto Address
7.
~ Palo Alto Address
8. -:Ttr~ ,> /tttv) b'{:,o WO. \X!.,rl~ :;-~_,-
Name Palo Alto Address
9.
Signature Name Palo Alto Address
10.
Signature Name Palo Alto Address
-City CoUndl Members
···Cityof PaloAJto _ .
Email: dty.council@dtyofpaloaltoAJrg.
. . . .
. · Subject: 429 University Avenue ApPeal
2.
.·.· .-.. -
:
~eRJ
~. fer>;fr
Name-
~ )z.o tv11Mle.f :.c,./ J f.-J_
Palo~Address
City Council Members
City of Palo AJto
Email: city.council@cityofpaloaJto.org
Subject: 429 University Avenue Appeal
We urge you to stop the appeal of 429 University Avenue. Palo AJto, and to approve the project
l. r[)M~ f<t.'10 ~~ S1"Rar
Signature Name Palo Alto Address .
z.~1-._ .r) \__."--\. t-(;1 u,, f\\;"\t,\L ~~i~.£_ lC\la Lt·~~-v~
Signature Name Palo AJto Address
City Council Members
City of Palo Alto
Email: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: 429 University Avenue Appeal
We urge you to stop the appeal of 429 University Avenue. Palo Alto, and to approve the project. /-~ ~~
2.~
(Jli~---
3.
Signature
·t
Signature
5.
Signature
6.
Signature
7.
Signature
8.
Signature
9.
Signature
10.
Signature
Palo Alto Address
Palo Alto Address
Name Palo Alto Address
Name Palo Alto Address
Name Palo AJto Address
Name Palo Alto Address
Name Palo Alto Address
Name PaJo Alto Address
Name Palo Alto Address
Name Palo Alto Address
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 8:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Stephen Reller <sreller@randmproperties.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 12:21 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Elizabeth Wong
Subject:429 University
Attachments:Unanimous approval.docx
Dear City Council,
Please see the attached letter asking you to approve the project at 429 University Ave. Thank you for your
consideration.
Regards,
Stephen Reller
www.randmproperties.com
Dear City of Palo Alto City Council, I write this letter to encourage you all to approve the project at 4 University Ave. It’s a beautiful building and would be a great improvement for this prominent corner in our bustling downtown. It’s really quite simple – the building should be approved because it’s design follows all of the design rules explained in the municipal code. Per the zoning, the proposed building is not too tall, not too large, not too close to the sidewalk, does have enough parking and is neither historic nor in a historic district. Furthermore, it is on our main downtown street where there are many much taller, much larger buildings with far less parking. The former council’s denial of the project was a mistake. The claim that the building, while not too big, just didn’t fit in with the smaller buildings surrounding it, ignores the fact that the zoning allows all of what is designed and them some. The claims from concerned citizens that there is not enough parking and that the applicant is using a “greedy developer loophole” are incorrect. The use of TDRs is not a loophole. TDRs have been an integral part of the code for many years and have proved very successful at preserving many historic buildings downtown. The ridiculous claims of one neighbor that the building is destroying his historic street with a contemporary design and too many car trips being created are laughable. He should have known, per the zoning, when he purchased his property that the Wong’s building on University could one day be much larger. One NIMBY neighbor should never be given such power. Please don’t let this one sway you one way or the other. Please put aside your views of pro growth, neutral or anti growth and adopt a policy of fairness. Doing so will ensure this project finally gets the approval it deserves. Respectfully, Stephen Reller
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 9:33 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Joan Rudloff <joanrudloff@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 8:43 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed development
Dear City Council, I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses. Thank you, Joan Rudloff
223 Homer Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 9:33 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:eduardo haber <haberedu@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 7:55 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Stump, Molly; Yang, Albert; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan;
adam.petersen@cityofpalo.org
Subject:Project at 429 University
Honorable Mayor, members of City Council:
The project proposed at 429 University should receive Council’s full support.
You worry about retail; this project will help retail – it will provide an exciting space for any retailer for years to come. Remember when University Avenue was practically dead? The Greenheart project in Menlo Park and many new additions in the Stanford Shopping Center will draw retailers and the customers they need away from
University Avenue, unless there is revitalization of downtown, which this project does.
A destination retail center like University Avenue requires strong, elegant architecture. That is, signature
buildings, strong corners, a streetscape that attracts attention. This building provides all that. Downtown is a retail core – no place to be wishy-washy.
The row of houses that are rented as commercial space on Kipling Street will benefit from this project on the
corner. It will bring walking traffic around the corner from University.
I find it embarrassing how my City has treated the Wongs. The many delays and interminable hearings were
uncalled for. Just approve it.
Sincerely,
Eduardo Haber
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 10:12 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Karen White <kwhite.karenl@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 10:09 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University Ave.
Dear City Council members,
I am opposed to the project proposed for 429 University Ave. I hope that the developers have not succeeded, with the
post-election donations, in influencing the vote of the City Council for this project that would have not passed a few
months back. Please do not vote for this project.
Thanks,
Karen L White
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 10:12 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Lin Jiang <linzjiang@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 9:52 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Massive and out-of-scale project at 429 University Ave.
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I am in strong opposition of the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave. at Kipling Street. From what I read, Kipling Street is the narrowest street in downtown Palo Alto. It is a quaint street and is lined by
historic Victorian Homes. It is the major walkway from Johnson Park to downtown. The proposed 4+ story
building with 2 additional floors of underground parking is way too big and massive and does not meet the
criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. If approved, this development
would further aggravate traffic problems in downtown, clash with the beautiful Victorian homes, and in turn negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses.
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street.
Thank you.
Lin Jiang
601 Webster St.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 10:12 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 9:40 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Say No to Underparked Buildings 203 Forest and 429 University
Dear City Councilmembers:
Incredibly, you have on Monday’s agenda not one but two underparked buildings!
203 Forest (the former Cardinal Cleaners) is currently underparked by six spaces. That’s
because when it converted its upstairs storage space into office use, it never added the six
necessary parking spaces. Although the staff report claims the shortfall is grandfathered,
there is actually no grandfathering exemption for parking for this building because it’s in the
Downtown Assessment District. Rather, as required by §18.52.070, it must rectify any
outstanding parking deficiencies, just as 261 Hamilton (aka University Arts) did recently. There
is no legal basis for granting 203 Forest a parking exception and the proposed plans do not
comply with the Municipal Code.
429 University (aka Shady Lane) will create a net deficit of 16 parking spaces under its Option
1. That’s because it received a seismic rehabilitation TDR exemption (which it actually didn’t
qualify for) for 20 spaces and the proposed underground garage will create an excess of four
spaces. The proposal will thus push 16 additional cars into neighborhoods near Downtown,
taking away spaces from residents and businesses already hard‐pressed to find parking.
Inadequately‐parked projects that harm neighboring commercial and residential properties do
not comply with the Comprehensive Plan and create significant environmental impacts. The
project offers no mitigation for these impacts and thus the required findings cannot be made.
Combined, these two proposals represent 22 missing parking spaces. At roughly $61,000 per
new garage parking space, other businesses and/or residents will have to pay over $1.3 million
to provide these missing spaces. Why should we pay for projects that refuse to follow the
rules? Please say no to both.
Thank you,
Jeff Levinsky
1682 Hamilton Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 12:23 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Becky Sanders <venturapaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 10:49 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re - 429 University Avenue
Dear City Council:
Ventura is taking a stand against the 429 University Ave at Kipling Street development. Even though it is not in Ventura, we really
empathize with downtown citizens and other citizens who oppose the project that is too large and imposing and is completely out of culture
and context with the surrounding neighborhood.
We believe that Ventura is struggling against size, proportion and massing as well on its borders, so we want to help others in their rally to hold Council to the promises of the previous council which were not at all outlandish or exceptional. And it really smells to high heaven that Tanaka has money from the Wong family. Regardless of his intentions, and his hasty return of the money once the story broke. I mean Greg seems like a really nice, soft spoken guy. However, stuff like that donation debacle, really compromises his and other council members votes who have accepted money from developers. Please please please do not okay 429 U.
Thank you,
Rebecca Sanders
on behalf of the Ventura Neighborhood Association 369 Margarita Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 12:23 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Magic <magic@ecomagic.org>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 10:49 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:459 University
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street.
I have lived in Palo Alto since 1987, my entire adult life. I have been consistently appalled by our approval of
policies and projects that fail to provide adequate parking, further exacerbate our jobs housing imbalance, and
promote growth.
Like other projects of this ilk I’ve seen approved and built over the past almost 30 years, this one promises to
reduce residents' quality of life with more traffic, more people commuting into Palo Alto, more crime, more
anonymity, and, perhaps most importantly our failing to address global issues that already fall hard on others
and will eventually fall hard on us.
I’m tired of empty rhetoric about transit-oriented development and "smart growth" the latter so painfully
reminiscent of "Brave New World" that I cringe. I see both locally and globally that we are wrecking our lives
and the planet with actions like these that simply make the rich richer while contributing to the collective
impoverished of all as we steal from the future.
Let’s take a stand together to end growth! We know we will someday. We've plenty of evidence that we're past
the point of negative returns. Why wait one minute or one project longer?
Thank you,
Hilary Hug
Oxford Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 12:23 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Cecilia Willer <willercm@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 10:46 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: 429 University Ave Development Plans
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is
too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30,2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will
cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents,
pedestrians and businesses.
I am also concerned that if this development happens, it will be the first of many. Do not set a precedent here! Focus more on making downtown more attractive like Redwood City has been doing!
Thank you,
Cecilia Willer
1270 Byron Street Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 12:23 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Annette Glanckopf <annette_g@att.net>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 10:44 AM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:429 University
Dear City Council Members,
I want to add my voice to the steam of letters that you are receiving.Sorry out of time today to write a
more thoughtful response. This project goes against the comp plan policy of appropriate mass and
scale of commercial next to residential. This is a key city policy - IMHO.
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The
building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council
mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street
and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life
on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses.
Thanks for voting against this project.
Annette
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 12:23 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Becky Sanders <venturapaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 10:38 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ventura Speaks On Campaign Finance Transparency
Dear City Council:
The Ventura Neighborhood Association held its monthly meeting yesterday. We had a good visit with Adrian Fine and we touched upon some Ventura-centric concerns and a bit upon the recent article in the Weekly
regarding Council members accepting donations from developers.
After Adrian left, that we decided we would ask Council to create a policy that any Council member who
accepts donations from developers recuse themselves from considering and voting on any project that the developer is involved with. This will allay any anxiety on the part of citizens that developers have more
influence than anyone else, but in particular, more influence than the voters themselves.
What do you think of that idea? What can you do?
Tonight 429 University is up for discussion and we are watching that very closely.
Kind regards,
Becky
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 12:23 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Magic <magic@ecomagic.org>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 10:18 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University Avenue
Dear City Council, I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. I’ve lived in Palo Alto for 30 years. We are ruining this beautiful place by allowing developments like this one. Please act with foresight and courage to stop growth in Palo Alto.
With appreciation,
Robin Bayer
Oxford Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 12:23 PM
7
Carnahan, David
From:pearl karrer <pearlk@covad.net>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 11:31 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: 429 University Ave building plans
Importance:High
From: pearl karrer [mailto:pearlk@covad.net]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 11:24 AM
To: 'citycouncil@cityofpaloalto.org'
Subject: 429 University Ave building plans
Importance: High
Dear City Council Members: We urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street.
The building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth
in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm
the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses.
Thank you.
Ed and Pearl Karrer Palo Alto residents for over 50 years
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 12:23 PM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Deborah Wexler <wexwest@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 11:36 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: 429 University Ave
Begin forwarded message:
From: Deborah Wexler <wexwest@pacbell.net>
Subject: 429 University Ave Date: February 6, 2017 at 11:19:16 AM PST To: citycouncil@cityofpaloalto.org
Dear City Council,
This project and and everything that has happened at the last city council meeting, feels like we are stepping back into time. As those signs at the Women’s March noted, “I thought this s**t
was decided already!” I am dismayed that Palo Alto is showing the same symptoms as the
nation. I thought we were better than that.
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the
previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the
Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic
jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and
businesses.
Thank you,
Deborah Wexler
1078 Forest Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 12:23 PM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Nancy Traube <ntraube26@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 11:40 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University Ave.
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street
for residents, pedestrians and businesses.
Thank you,
Nancy Traube
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 12:23 PM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Vita <vitago@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 12:04 PM
To:citycouncil@cityofpaloalto.org; Council, City
Subject:Re: 429 University Ave project
Dear new City Council, I support the appeal of the proposed building at 425-429 University Avenue. I applaud an effort of previous council to listen to the residents' concerns and hope you will continue the good work.
I'm also very grateful for the work the appellant, Michael Harbour, is doing for the benefit of the community.
Even after "revisions" this building is still 4 story humongous brick replacing half of the block of single story buildings.
Instead of the 5 distinctly different shop fronts after it's build you would walk half a block past repetitive glass/panel/glass wall.
I know that Palo Alto is not exactly famous for great architecture, instead we are making headlines with the most expensive ugly shacks sold.Lets brake this trend of buildings made as big and as cheap as possible?
The whole project looks like smoke and mirrors:
1. It's called "429 University", when in reality it's more like 4 buildings. Is it done to disguise the fact that 2 buildings (5 store fronts) are replaced with 1 huge monotonous wall? 2. The building design is constantly refereed to as "modern", when in reality it's last century's way of building cheep. 3. Renderings of the proposed building shows it from impossible angles cutting off much smaller neighbors and and not showing the next door small buildings.
The list is long.
Owners have money. Architects have expertise, connections and money. Developers laugh all the way to the bank.
Residents have to count on you to protect our city.
Thank you, Vita Gorbunova (559 Everett Ave)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 12:23 PM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Einar Sunde <einarsunde@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 12:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed project @ 429 University
Dear Council Members:
My wife and I have lived near downtown for 45 years (on Everett and Channing). We know the affected area
well.
I have never written to the Council before this, but now urge you to not approve the proposed project at 429
University; that building is out-of-scale in that environment, not to mention contributing further to the
transportation, parking and related problems that were ignored by past Councils and have not been adequately
addressed, much less solved.
In addition, scale and diversity of buildings (residential or commercial) matter and strongly influence the
desirability of place, particularly street life and the intangibles that attract people to a place.
Obviously, the downtown will grow over time and I appreciate the pressures that money (lots of it) bring. But decisions like this one are for the very long term and there are important interests involved beyond dollars that
need to be seriously considered. Please think creatively and imaginatively; your vote will send a clear indication
of where you want to take the downtown area and the city generally.
Thank you.
Einar Sunde 675 Channing Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 1:37 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeffrey Hook <tribaljeff51@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 1:03 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please DENY proposed development at 429 University Avenue
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will cause
unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians
and businesses.
Please recognize that there are quality of life issues which can never be mitigated by money, whether in
increased property tax or contributions to councilmembers' campaigns. The character of the Kipling Street
neighborhood is one of these issues.
More tangible issues are traffic, demand for electricity, water sourcing and sewage, and other city services. It is certainly true for traffic, and probably true for the others, that increased density of development does not pay the
marginal cost of these services. Far from it. Rather than improving the lives of existing residents, developers
extract a cost from them without consent. Please cease to engage in the illusion that additional property tax
revenue is sufficient to cover incremental costs.
Thank you,
JeffreyHook
381 Oxford Ave
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:34 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 3:31 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Stump, Molly; Yang, Albert; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Adam
Petersen; Timothy Kassouni; Joseph Bellomo; Pratima Shah
Subject:Response to Mr. Harbour's email of Feb 3, 2017
Attachments:Historic Report Carey & Co - Aug 2015.pdf; Letter from Martin Bernstein Architect.pdf;
Freight Loading Zone by Traffic Patterns Aug 31 2016.pdf; Shadow Study - update
letter Sept 22 2016.pdf; Shadow Study Analysis Sept 23 2015.pdf; Landscape Report
with drawings 12122016 (2).pdf
Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council members,
Mr. Harbour's email to council was forwarded to me less than one hour ago.
Here is my response:
The ARB HAS indeed seen ALL the drawings with the exception of page A2.1 which adjusts the square footage based on small adjustments to the plans. The date of the ARB hearing on which ARB saw the specific
drawings appears on each page under "ARB SUBMITTAL".
The attached Memorandum from Carey & Co, Inc., a well recognize historical consultant in San Francisco hired by the City, rebuts the appellant's contention of negative impact on the "Victorian" homes (there is an assortment of style of homes) on Kipling Street where he owns a building used as offices. Further, Mr. Martin
Bernstein, a member of the HRB, stipulates in his attached letter that "contemporary architectural styles (may)
be located near neighboring properties that are listed on a local historic register".
I question who Mr. Harbour considers his "Apellant Team" as none of the property owners on Kipling Street other Mr. Harbour have joined his appeal. Mr. Denny Levett, a property owner in the same block as Mr.
Harbour's property, enthusiastically supports 429 University.
For your information I have attached other reports that respond to Mr. Harbour's frequent objections. The reports are:
Traffic Patterns Report on loading zones
Shadow Study by JT Architecture + Design
Landscape Plan form Davey Resource Group
Thank you for your attention.
Elizabeth Wong
Traffic Patterns PO BOX 25 Danville, CA 94526 info@trafficpatterns.net (408) 916‐8141
August 31, 2016
Adam Peterson
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Subject: 429 University Avenue
Loading Zone Evaluation
Traffic Patterns prepared this evaluation at the request of the 429 University Avenue developer to
evaluate the opportunity for Freight Loading Zone activities either on the project site or adjacent
facilities.
Project
429 University is located on the corner of University Avenue & Kipling Street in Downtown Palo Alto.
The site is currently undergoing a site development for a proposed new 33,000 SF mixed‐use 4‐story
building and that is the reason this evaluation is being requested.
Freight Loading Zones
Freight loading to the existing building is provided through the use of on‐street Freight Loading Zones
operated and maintained by the City of Palo Alto. Freight Loading Zones within the City of Palo Alto are
operated by time‐of‐day, normally between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Freight Loading Zones
vary in length but are typically equivalent to two car length (~40‐FT) to accommodate delivery vehicles
of different lengths.
A Freight Loading Zone is designated with Yellow color curb markings and/or Yellow color Freight
Loading Zone signs typically mounted on sign posts. The City of Palo Alto went through an evaluation of
all of its Freight Loading Zones in 2011 to identify and provide standard signage for all Freight Loading
Zones and in Downtown Palo Alto and to repaint yellow curbs. The signs both define time‐of‐day
freight loading operations (8:00 AM to 6:00 PM) and provide a time‐limit for which the freight loading
activities are limited to, 20‐minutes, to help limit use of the Freight Loading Zones as long‐term parking
spaces for delivery vehicles. Freight Loading Zones become public parking spaces outside of the freight
loading operations period.
To: Adam Peterson
Subject: 429 University Avenue – Freight Loading Zone Evaluation
Date: August 31, 2016
Page: 2 of 4
Traffic Patterns PO BOX 25 Danville, CA 94526 info@trafficpatterns.net (408) 916‐8141
The three (3) closest on‐street Freight Loading Zones to the 429 University Avenue site are:
1. Kipling Street – North of University Avenue
Located on the east side of Kipling Avenue immediately north of University Avenue, Yellow curb
markings and signs identify this location. This Freight Loading Zone is located the closest to the
site approximately 40‐FT from the building.
2. University Avenue & Kipling Street Intersection
Located on the south side of the University Avenue & Kipling Street intersection, this Freight
Loading Zone is designated with Yellow curb markings and signs as well. This Freight Loading
Zone is approximately 60‐FT from the building.
3. Lane 30 E Alley
Lane 30 E is a one‐way alley servicing buildings that front the north face of University Avenue
between Waverley Street and Kipling Street. One‐way operations move in the eastbound
direction (from Waverley Street to Kipling Street). The north side of the alley immediately east
of Waverley Street is a designated Freight Loading Zone with sign posting only, no curb
markings and is located approximately 150‐FT east of the project site.
Traffic Patterns finds the 429 University Avenue site to be well serviced by the three adjacent Freight
Loading Zones. Additional Freight Loading Zones are located throughout Downtown Palo Alto as noted
in the following figure from the City of Palo Alto’s 2011 Freight Loading Zone evaluation, see Figure 1.
Figure 1
Downtown Palo Alto Parking Map with Freight Loading Zone Highlights
FLZ
FLZ
FL
Z
FL
Z
FL
Z
FL
Z
To: Adam Peterson
Subject: 429 University Avenue – Freight Loading Zone Evaluation
Date: August 31, 2016
Page: 3 of 4
Traffic Patterns PO BOX 25 Danville, CA 94526 info@trafficpatterns.net (408) 916‐8141
East Lane 30 Freight Loading Zone Activities
As noted above E Lane 30 operates as a one‐way street, eastbound, and includes a designated Freight
Loading Zone near its Waverly Street entrance. The street width is approximately 20‐Feet, which
although technically is wide‐enough for parking one side of the street and one travel lane, parking is
most restricted on the alley with the exception of the Freight Loading Zone at the Waverley Street
entrance. The parking restrictions are in place to accommodate the storage of refuse collection bins, to
facilitate refuse pick‐up operations along the north side of the alley, and for fire access.
Behind the proposed project at 429 University Avenue, the north side of E Lane 30 is signed with No
Parking restrictions. The No Parking restrictions accommodate existing angled parking operations on
the site. Under the proposed site operations, build‐out to the property line is planned providing
consistency with other existing buildings along the alley, and a new underground parking garage is
planned with ramp access from the alley.
At the Waverley Street alley entrance, freight loading operations are typically limited to passenger‐size
vehicles and there are no parking operations on the opposite side of the alley at that location. When
larger size vehicles do park in the Freight Loading Zone, it can limit alley access if the freight vehicles are
not properly positioned in the Freight Loading Zone limiting alley access. No formal restrictions limit the
size of freight access to the alley but Traffic Patterns recommends restricting any new Freight Loading
Zones on or adjacent to the alley, including at the 429 University Avenue site, to discourage any
opportunities for large vehicles to limit fire access and refuse collection activities along the alley.
Large Vehicle Parking
Large Vehicle Parking is defined by the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapters 10.47. The Large
Vehicle Parking chapter discusses the definition of large trucks and the criteria which should be used
when evaluating No Large Vehicle Parking Zones:
Safety hazards, potential nuisance and the compatibility of the zoning district with activities
relating to large vehicle parking
Pedestrian and vehicular visibility from intersecting streets or driveways
Width of street(s) in the affected zone
Number of vehicles parked on the street in the affected zone at the time of study
Other relevant data including, but not limited to, citizen complaints, volume and speed of traffic,
and the size of vehicles parked in the affected zone
These are the criteria considered by Traffic Patterns in its prior recommendation to restrict new Freight
Loading Zone activities on E Lane 30 or on private property adjacent to the alley. Large vehicles
accessing the alley for freight loading activities pose safety hazards when not properly parked by limited
fire and refuse access. At the proposed project site, any new freight loading activities near the Kipling
Street & E Lane 30 intersection would limit sight distance between motorists in the alley and pedestrians
on Kipling Street posing potential hazards to the community and liability to the city. The width of the
alley is only 20‐Feet, the minimum width required for emergency vehicle access, including fire trucks.
For these reasons no new freight loading activities on or along E Lane 30 should be provided.
To: Adam Peterson
Subject: 429 University Avenue – Freight Loading Zone Evaluation
Date: August 31, 2016
Page: 4 of 4
Traffic Patterns PO BOX 25 Danville, CA 94526 info@trafficpatterns.net (408) 916‐8141
429 University Avenue Site Operations
Traffic Patterns offers the following additional recommendations as part of the redevelopment of the
429 University Avenue project:
E Lane 30 STOP Sign at Kipling Street
A STOP sign on E Lane 30 is recommended to control vehicles entering Kipling Street. The STOP
sign will limit the speed of vehicles crossing the sidewalk and provide an opportunity for
motorists on E Lane 30 and Kipling Street to make eye‐contact before entering the intersection.
The STOP should be marked with a White limit line behind the sidewalk onto the alley, a STOP
legend, and a STOP sign that can be mounted on the new building structure.
E Lane 30 One‐Way Signage for 429 University Avenue
One Way signs for E Lane 30 are currently posted on Kipling Street. One Way signage should be
mounted either on the building behind 429 University Avenue (on the north side of the alley) or
on a sign post adjacent to that building. The One Way sign should face the new 429 University
Avenue ramp access on E Lane 30 to remind motorists of the one‐way alley operations.
E Lane 30 at Waverly Street
No One Way signs or pavement markings currently designate E Lane 30 as a one‐way street. E
Lane 30 should be signed and marked to designate its one‐way operations at Waverly Street.
This is an improvement that the City should consider implementing on its own ahead of the
proposed development, along with an evaluation of all Lane 30 intersections.
Findings and Recommendations
Traffic Patterns finds that the 429 University Avenue site is well serviced by existing Freight Loading
Zones on Kipling Street, University Avenue, and E Lane 30. No new Freight Loading Zones are
recommended on‐site or adjacent to E Lane 30, including at the 429 University Avenue site, citing the
city’s own considerations in the Municipal Code Chapter 10.47 for Large Vehicle Parking. Additional
operations improvements for the proposed 429 University Avenue project include STOP control
operations on E Lane 30 at Kipling Street and One‐Way signage to regulate the new ramp access for the
building.
August 14, 2015
Historic Resource Analysis
429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project
Palo Alto, California
HISTORIC RESOURCES MEMORANDUM
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
The City Council introduced the five items below for the historic resources analysis as part of the CEQA
environmental review of a proposed project at the northwest corner of University Avenue and Kipling
Street. Carey & Co. has reviewed the Initial Study for the project and the historic resources evaluation
reports for 425 University Avenue and 429-447 University Avenue prepared by Preservation
Architecture. We also reviewed the Evaluation Table associated with a historic resources survey
undertaken by Dames & Moore, Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory1 and Downtown Urban Design guidelines.
We also reviewed a plan set for the project.2
On July 10, 2015, Carey & Co. conducted a walking tour of University Avenue between Cowper Street
and Waverley Street, and Kipling Street between University Avenue and Lytton Avenue. During the
walking tour, Carey & Co. observed the project site, its relationship to surrounding properties, noted the
types of buildings and their architecture, and verified the integrity of historic resources on University
Avenue and Kipling Street. Please note that the walking tour took in an area greater than the proposed
Area of Potential Effects (see Item B below).
The following memorandum addresses the Historic Resources Board (HRB) action items presented in the
final City Council motion. Those five items are listed below.
A. The Preservation Architecture report focuses on whether there are criteria for a historic district.
There is no need for existence of a district for there to be historic considerations. The HRB should
determine whether there are other factors that should be considered.
B. What is the applicable “area of potential effect” under CEQA analysis?
C. There are a number of historic structures near (e.g. on Kipling), one next to the proposed project and
several across the street. How will the project impact these structures?
1 The inventory also identifies properties that are California Registered Historical Landmarks and those listed in the National
Register of Historic Places.
2 The plan set is dated August 3, 2015.
Attachment C
Carey & Co., Inc. 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project
August 14, 2015 Historic Resources Memorandum P2
D. Whether the mass, scale, and compatibility of the proposed project has an impact on the existing
historic properties should be analyzed.
E. Whether the proposed building would change the setting under CEQA has an impact on the historic
properties on Kipling or University.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Carey and Co. agrees with the Initial Study prepared by the City of Palo Alto (January 2015) which
analyzed the proposed project’s potential impacts on 425 and 429-447 University Avenue and
concluded that no impacts to historic resources would occur since both properties were not eligible for
listing on local, state or national registers.
Carey and Co. recommends that a study area larger than the project site may be analyzed in order to
evaluate potential direct and indirect impacts to nearby historic resources that are not part of the project
site. A total of eight properties are included in the study area.
Carey & Co. agrees that the proposed project would not have any direct impacts on three historic
resources within the study area with the application of standard code regulations. The properties are 423
University Avenue, 436-452 University Avenue and 443 Kipling Street.
Carey & Co. finds that through an evaluation of six of the seven aspects of integrity, the proposed
project’s design, mass, scale, and use of materials could not have an indirect impact on the integrity of
historic resources. The seventh aspect, setting, is evaluated separately.
Carey & Co. finds that the proposed project would not change the setting of historic properties on
Kipling Street or University Avenue.
ITEM A. THE PRESERVATION ARCHITECTURE REPORT FOCUSES ON WHETHER THERE ARE CRITERIA
FOR A HISTORIC DISTRICT. THERE IS NO NEED FOR EXISTENCE OF A DISTRICT FOR THERE TO BE
HISTORIC CONSIDERATIONS. THE HRB SHOULD DETERMINE WHETHER THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS
THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.
University Avenue between Alma Street and Cowper Street is the center and retail core of downtown Palo
Alto. Although a number of individual historical resources are located on the avenue, they do not form a
historic district.3 Buildings are typically two- to four-story high and have a 25-50 foot wide pattern of
storefronts or similar sized structural bays. Most buildings do not have setbacks and rise to a parapet wall
without a distinct roof. The architectural style of the buildings and retail fronts are mixed but recessed
doors, window displays, and outdoor seating is typical of the Avenue. Presumably to accommodate
outdoor seating, some storefronts have been recessed. This more recent feature contrasts with the smaller,
3 Preservation Architecture, 425 University Avenue, Palo Alto, Historic Architectural Evaluation, September 22, 2014, 5-6 and
429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto, Historic Architectural Evaluation, September 22, 2014, 5-6.
Carey & Co., Inc. 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project
August 14, 2015 Historic Resources Memorandum P3
recessed entries typically found on historic buildings. The Palo Alto Office Center, the Varsity Theater
and the Stanford Theater are among the local landmarks.4
The blocks around the proposed project at 425 and 429-447 University Avenue have similar features as
described above. Across University Avenue from the project site, the southern two-thirds of University
Avenue between Cowper and Waverly Streets have Spanish Revival style buildings with ground floor
retail uses. These buildings, including the Varsity Theater, are listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory.5
The remaining one-third of the south side has two contemporary buildings: the four-story 428-432
University Avenue and the one-story 400 University Avenue, neither of which complements the
architectural style and/or material use of the adjacent buildings. Most of the buildings on the northern 400
block of University Avenue (including the project site) are one or two stories high and have stucco
cladding. On the north side, only 415-419 University Avenue and 423 University Avenue are listed on the
Palo Alto Inventory as “contributing resources.” Although the buildings on the north side share some
features, they are not exemplary of an architectural style and do not relate to the character of the historic
buildings in the area. We feel that the overall historic character of these two blocks has been
compromised by intrusions including incompatible materials, height, massing, and architectural features.
Kipling Street between University Avenue and Lytton Avenue is a more of a transitional area between the
commercial downtown and the residential neighborhoods north of it. Directly east of the proposed
building at the corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street is a two-story commercial building with
no distinguishing style. Further north, the block has six single family houses, five of which are used for
office and retail. These detached one and two-story buildings are set back from the street and have
landscaped front yards. Five are listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory as “contributing buildings.”6
The western side of the street is a mix of architectural styles and uses: a one-story contemporary
commercial building (440 and 444 Kipling), a two-story vernacular building (430 Kipling, listed in the
Inventory and converted to offices) and a parking lot at the western corner.
Kipling Street was defined as one of the “secondary districts” in the Palo Alto Downtown Urban Design
document for having its own distinct characteristics: the development of the block was suggested to be
promoted by retaining the single family houses and the architectural character they provide.7 The
redevelopment of the parking lot at the corner of Kipling and Lytton was also encouraged in the 1993
document, but has not happened at this time.
4 This paragraph was summarized from City of Palo Alto, “Historic Inventory Category Information,” last updated June 16, 2007,
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=539&TargetID=127 (accessed on July 13, 2015).
5 Buildings on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory are 436- 452 University Avenue (Category 2), Varsity Theater at 456 University
Avenue (Category 1), 460,-476 University Avenue (Category 2), and 480-498 University Avenue (Category 2).
6 405 Kipling Street, 411 Kipling Street, 421-423 Kipling Street, 430 Kipling Street, 431-433 Kipling Street, and 443 Kipling
Street (City of Palo Alto, Master List of Structures on the Historic Inventory, 2012). 437 Kipling is listed on the Dames and
Moore Survey as “NRHP eligible under criteria A and C” (City of Palo Alto, email correspondence, July 16, 2015).
7 City of Palo Alto, Downtown Urban Design, October 1993, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6514
(accessed on July 14, 2015).
Carey & Co., Inc. 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project
August 14, 2015 Historic Resources Memorandum P4
Lane 30E, the service alley that runs Kipling to Waverly Street, is used for parking and serves the
buildings that front onto it. The Urban Design Guide defines these alleys as “shortcut alleys which should
be encouraged to use by pedestrians on a regular basis while maintaining their service functions.”8
We see this block of Kipling Street as a transitional area with mixed uses, building types, and different
architectural styles. It does not have the density or total commercial character of University Avenue, but
neither does it present itself as an intact residential street.
ITEM B. WHAT IS THE APPLICABLE “AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT” UNDER CEQA ANALYSIS?
Item B calls for defining an “area of potential effect.” An Area of Potential Effects (APE) is a term used
in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to define a geographic area within which a
proposed project may cause changes to the character of historic properties9. For purposes of this
memorandum, we will use the term “study area” instead of APE to avoid confusion between the two
historic resource review processes.
The CEQA analysis prepared for the Initial Study considered the study area to be the site of the proposed
project. Preservation Architecture evaluated the potential historic significance of the two properties that
form the site of the proposed project and concluded that the properties did not possess historic
significance. The Initial Study used those conclusions to determine that the project had a less than
significant impact on the environment.
The City Council has asked what an appropriate study area would be for CEQA purposes. The study area
is influenced by the scale and nature of a proposed project and its surroundings. In our opinion, an area
larger than the project site may be analyzed in order to analyze potential direct and indirect impacts to
nearby historic resources that are not part of the project site. Although a study area can be just the site of a
project, say a farm property in a rural area, the proposed project is in a dense urban area with immediately
adjacent buildings that could be affected by the proposed project. In this case, there are several historical
resources adjacent to the proposed project, but no historic districts. We recommend that the study area
may consist of the proposed project site and immediately adjacent properties which are 423 University
Avenue, 428-432 University Avenue, 436-452 University Avenue, 451 University Avenue, 443 Kipling
Street and 440-444 Kipling Street (See Figure 1). Only one of these properties is immediately adjacent to
the proposed project, 423 University Avenue, and could be directly affected by the proposed project. The
others are across University Avenue, Kipling Street and Lane 30E. These latter properties are included
due the potential of indirect impacts. Since a study area is defined early in the CEQA review process,
potential impacts are only speculative as no impact analysis has been undertaken at that point. Therefore
properties are included that may or may not be affected by the proposed project.
8 City of Palo Alto, Downtown Urban Design, October 1993, page 16,
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6514 (accessed on July 14, 2015).
9 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of projects they
carry out, approve or fund on historic properties. Since there is no federal involvement in the proposed project, a Section 106
review is not required.
Carey & Co., Inc. 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project
August 14, 2015 Historic Resources Memorandum P5
Figure 1. The recommended study area; the project site is outlined in yellow.
ITEM C. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES NEAR (E.G. ON KIPLING), ONE NEXT TO
THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND SEVERAL ACROSS THE STREET. HOW WILL THE PROJECT IMPACT
THESE STRUCTURES?
Item C refers to historic resources on Kipling Street and University Avenue. Using the study area
recommended in Item B, the previously identified historic resources within the boundaries of the study
area include the following:
423 University Avenue: Palo Alto Inventory, Category 3 (contributing building); State Historic
Preservation Office, Category 5S2 (individual property that is eligible for local listing or designation),
436-452 University Avenue: Palo Alto Inventory, Category 2 (major building); State Historic
Preservation Office, Category 3S (appears eligible for the National Register as an individual property
through survey evaluation),
443 Kipling Street: Palo Alto Inventory, Category 3 (contributing building); State Historic Preservation
Office, Category 5S2 (individual property that is eligible for local listing or designation).10
10 City of Palo Alto, Master List of Structures on the Historic Inventory, revised July 24, 2012,
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/3504 (accessed on July 13, 2015); Office of Historic Preservation,
Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Santa Clara County, August 15, 2011; California State of Historic
Preservation, “California Historical Resource Status Codes,” updated December 8, 2003,
http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/chrstatus%20codes.pdf (accessed on July 15, 2015).
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:38 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Joan Campbell <joancampbell@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 2:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Kipling and University proposal
Dear Members,
I hope that you will refuse to have the proposal go through for the project at Kipling and University. Our residential
street of Kipling will be forever changed. Four + stories are not what make Palo Alto the charming town it used to be.
Please consider the residents request to limit the size of the project.
Thank you,
Joan Campbell
1021 Cowper ST
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:38 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Andrew Gottlieb <andrewjgottlieb@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 3:30 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University Avenue
Dear City Council, I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses.
Thank you,
Andrew Gottlieb
828 Addison Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:38 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Alexei Andreev <andreev.alexei@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 3:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University Ave project on agenda for 2/6/17 City Council Meeting
Dear City Council, I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave. The proposed building is still too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015.
It will negatively impact the quality of life for residents, visitors and businesses and do irreparable damage to our downtown.
Thank you,
Alexei Andreev,
(559 Everett Ave, Palo Alto)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:38 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Caryn Huberman <yackybooks@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 3:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:NO ON 429 UNIVERSITY MEGA-BUILDING!!
Dear City Council,
I strongly urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The
building is massive. It does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November
30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will
cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents,
pedestrians and businesses.
Enough already!
Thank you,
Caryn Huberman
567 Lincoln Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650‐326‐0600
***
http://www.carynyacowitz.com
I Know an Old Lady Who Swallowed a Dreidel
Arthur A Levine Books, Scholastic
A Junior Library Guild Selection
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:49 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:DOONWIG@aol.com
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 3:42 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University Avenue
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too big and
massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic jams. It will
negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses.
Thank you, Cheryl Goodwin
City of Palo Alto Resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 6:14 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Cheryl Lilienstein <clilienstein@me.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 4:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University shadow: massive and overwhelming
Dear City Council
RE: 429 University
From: Cheryl Lilienstein
429 University is overwhelming.
A shadow study was done that claims there is no significant impact, and yet the study’s own drawings show
otherwise. See below.
Further undermining the veracity: The study claims that existing trees have THE SAME shadow print as the
solid proposed building, and on the drawn elevation non-existant VERY LARGE TREES have been drawn in.
Please see page figure 8 of the Dudek elevations showing the fictional trees. It’s hard to say if they were used in
the shadow study, but the text does refer to them as having the same shadow as the buildings, does it not? Is
there any one of you who believes that shadows from buildings is the equivalent of shade from (deciduous?) trees?
Here are 4 important illustrations of adverse shadows demonstrating overwhelming massing which violates
design guidelines that (I believe) the city council voted to require as of 2016.
Existing winter solstice shadow: note that there is no shadow intrusion on residential buildings on Kipling.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 6:14 PM
2
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 6:14 PM
3
Proposed building at 3 PM winter solstice: the garden on the alley and least 3 residential buildings are affected.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 6:14 PM
4
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 6:14 PM
5
At 9 AM, the adjacent buildings, their entrances and walkways are not impacted
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 6:14 PM
6
EXISTING
BUILDINGS
(Site Only)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 6:14 PM
7
At 9 AM nearly the entire alley is shaded.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 6:14 PM
8
PROPOSED
BUILD,ING
(Site Only)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 6:14 PM
9
Carnahan, David
From:holzemer/hernandez <holz@sonic.net>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 4:25 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Against proposed 429 University Building
Dear City Council Members,
I just wanted to express you my strong beliefs and feelings against the currently proposed 429 University Avenue Building.
I believe this building, as proposed, is too massive for this location and will severely impact the entire neighborhood around it. It's
time to tell this owner (once and for all) that major design changes are needed before this project can move forward. The owner has ignored the requests of the neighborhood, the Planning Commission, the Architectural Review Board, and is still trying to "push" this
project through at all costs. It's time to stop this building process, tell the owner to go back and work with the neighborhood, and find a real solution that all work for all parties concerned. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Terry Holzemer
2581 Park Blvd. #Y211
Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 6:14 PM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 4:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University Ave
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street.
The building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council
mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street
and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses.
I feel most of us do not want oversize buildings that overwhelm our neighborhoods. i believe that Kipling St. is the narrowest in Palo Alto. Let us keep Kipling a lovely historic area.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Keehn
4076 Orme St.
94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 6:14 PM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Jessica Yang <jessicay@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 4:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Regarding 429 University Ave development plan
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is
too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will
cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents,
pedestrians and businesses.
Thank you, Jessica Yang
3732 Grove Ave
Palo Alto,CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 8:47 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Svendsen, Janice
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 8:44 AM
To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Cervantes, Yolanda; Svendsen, Janice; Lait,
Jonathan
Subject:Council Question: February 6, 2017 council meeting agenda Item 12: ADU Ordinance.
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to an inquiry made
by Council Member Fine in regard to the February 6, 2017 council meeting agenda Item 12: ADU
Ordinance.
This item is now being proposed for continuance until March 6, so follow‐up questions would be
welcome by email.
Council Question 1: How many lots in the city are sub‐standard? How many of these are very
close (0‐10%) below standard?
Staff Response: For R‐1 and R‐1 subdistricts, there are 14,412 total lots; 11,146 meet or
exceed the minimum lot area requirement; and, 1,640 are within 10% of meeting the
minimum lot area requirement.
Also, please note that in compliance with State law, the proposed ordinance permits
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) within existing buildings without regard to lot size (see
proposed section 18.42.040(a)(5)). Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) are also
proposed to be permitted within existing buildings without regard to lot size. Only one ADU
or JADU (not both) would be allowed per parcel.
Council Question 2: Do easements (such as water district) affect this calculation? i.e. I have
a 10,000 sf in the R1‐10,000 zone, but 1,500 sf is taken by the district's creek. Do I still meet
the minimum lot size requirement?
Staff Response: Easements do not affect evaluation of a parcel’s lot area in this context. In
the example above, the project site would meet the lot area minimum requirement for an
ADU.
Council Question 3: Where do we stand on updating fees/utility hookups? Will they at least
match the new state standards?
Staff Response: After adoption of the ADU ordinance, staff will need to follow up with
another ordinances to bring the city’s fee schedule into alignment with state law. In the
interim, state law will have precedence over city fee/utility requirements.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 6:01 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Gitelman, Hillary
Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 5:12 PM
To:Linnea Wickstrom; Moitra, Chitra
Cc:Council, City; Lee, Elena; Lait, Jonathan
Subject:RE: City Council Hearing on Accessory Dwelling Units
Ms. Wickstrom:
Thank you for this email to our project planner. I wanted to let you and others who are interested in the subject of
ADUs know that the public hearing scheduled for Monday, February 6th is being proposed for continuance to March 6,
2017 due to a very full agenda. We will be sending out an email about this to our list of interested parties tomorrow and
will take the opportunity to correct and clarify the information provided earlier.
As you have pointed out, the proposed ordinance has been crafted to respond to Council direction and will bring the
City’s Municipal Code into compliance with new State Regulations (SB 1069, AB 2299, and AB 2506). The proposal
reduces the minimum lot size requirement for ADU eligibility in the R‐1 zoning districts (allowing ADUs on all R‐1
conforming lots), reduces or eliminates parking requirements (under specific conditions) and allows ADUs and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units in existing buildings regardless of lot size.
To review the City Council staff report and new State laws regarding ADUs, please visit
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55691
Many thanks,
Hillary
Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650.329.2321 |E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
From: Linnea Wickstrom [mailto:ljwickstrom@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 7:33 PM
To: Moitra, Chitra
Cc: Council, City
Subject: Re: City Council Hearing on Accessory Dwelling Units
Importance: High
Chitra,
I take exception to this misrepresentation of the proposed changes to the ordinance. This interpretation
has already produced notices to a large neighborhood association in which the sender has highlighted the
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 6:01 PM
2
last sentence in red. I request that you immediately amend and resend this description to more accurately
represent the proposal as it stands, with a notice that you are amending your description.
the minimum lot size is NOT being eliminated. The proposal is to allow ADUs on lots that are the
standard size for the zoning.
The proposal moderates parking requirements based on a number of community factors, primarily on proximity to public transit
providing for Junior Accessory Dwelling units under specified conditions
Linnea Wickstrom
Monroe Drive
Palo Alto On 2/1/17 5:10 PM, "Moitra, Chitra" <Chitra.Moitra@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
Hello Everyone
The City Council will be discussing a Draft Ordinance on Accessory Dwelling Units at the
Monday, February 6, 2017 meeting tentatively scheduled to begin at 8:45 pm (item
#12). The draft ordinance has been recommended for approval by the Planning and
Transportation Commission (PTC). The changes are proposed to respond to Council direction and
to bring the City’s Municipal Code into compliance with the new State Regulations (SB 1069, AB 2299, and AB 2506). The proposal includes eliminating the minimum lot size requirement for
ADU eligibility in the R-1 zoning districts, reducing or eliminating parking requirements and
allowing Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (conversion of an existing bedroom into a smaller
ADU).
To review the City Council staff report and new State laws regarding ADUs, please visit
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55691
The project website is at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/accessory_dwelling_units_regulations_upd
ate.asp <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/accessory_dwelling_units_regula
tions_update.asp>
Please email your questions or comments to the project planner Chitra Moitra at
Chitra.Moitra@CityofPaloAlto.org <mailto:Chitra.Moitra@CityofPaloAlto.org> . You can also
contact Chitra at (650) 329-2170.
Updates on future meetings will be posted on the project website.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 11:20 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Apolak Borthakur <apolak_borthakur@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 7:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fw: Accessory Dwelling Unit
I do not support creation of more housing in Palo Alto. We already have a lot of congestion, traffic and lack of parking.
Adding more housing would only make the problems worse. And it will lower house prices. I think the city council should prioritize the needs and wants of the house owner taxpayers (rather than the folks who live in apartments and do not pay
real estate taxes). I do understand that several folks who cannot afford Palo Alto but want to live here, are trying to get cheap mass housing units approved. But, should we really cater to those folks who have the sense of entitlement, at the
cost of making traffic, parking, congestion, and house values worse in PA?
From: "Chitra.Moitra@CityofPaloAlto.org" <Chitra.Moitra@CityofPaloAlto.org>
To: apolak_borthakur@yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 7:10 PM Subject: Accessory Dwelling Unit Mail List Sign-up
Thank you for submitting a request to be added to the Accessory Dwelling Unit
Mail List.
You will receive periodic updates as they are sent out.
For more information, please contact: Chitra.Moitra@CityofPaloAlto.org
Thank you,
Planning and Community Environment Staff
First Name Apolak
Last Name Borthakur
Email Address
apolak_borthakur@yahoo.com
Phone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 11:20 AM
3
The project website is at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/accessory_dwelling_units_reg
ulations_update.asp
<http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/accessory_dwelling_
units_regulations_update.asp>
Please email your questions or comments to the project planner Chitra Moitra at
Chitra.Moitra@CityofPaloAlto.org <mailto:Chitra.Moitra@CityofPaloAlto.org> .
You can also contact Chitra at (650) 329-2170.
Updates on future meetings will be posted on the project website.
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 | 2/2/2017 11:20 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Linnea Wickstrom <ljwickstrom@comcast.net>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 8:55 PM
To:Moitra, Chitra
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: City Council Hearing on Accessory Dwelling Units
Importance:High
Chitra,
Oh yes. Please add to the amended description the fact that the proposed changes are to conform to the
new California state laws that went into effect on January 1, 2017.
Linnea Wickstrom
On 2/1/17 7:33 PM, "Linnea Wickstrom" <ljwickstrom@comcast.net> wrote:
Chitra, I take exception to this misrepresentation of the proposed changes to the ordinance. This interpretation has already produced notices to a large neighborhood association in which the
sender has highlighted the last sentence in red. I request that you immediately amend and
resend this description to more accurately represent the proposal as it stands, with a notice
that you are amending your description.
the minimum lot size is NOT being eliminated. The proposal is to allow ADUs on lots that are the standard size for the zoning.
The proposal moderates parking requirements based on a number of community
factors, primarily on proximity to public transit
providing for Junior Accessory Dwelling units under specified conditions
Linnea Wickstrom Monroe Drive Palo Alto
On 2/1/17 5:10 PM, "Moitra, Chitra" <Chitra.Moitra@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
Hello Everyone
The City Council will be discussing a Draft Ordinance on Accessory
Dwelling Units at the Monday, February 6, 2017 meeting
tentatively scheduled to begin at 8:45 pm (item #12). The draft
ordinance has been recommended for approval by the Planning and
Transportation Commission (PTC). The changes are proposed to
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 11:20 AM
5
respond to Council direction and to bring the City’s Municipal Code into
compliance with the new State Regulations (SB 1069, AB 2299, and
AB 2506). The proposal includes eliminating the minimum lot size
requirement for ADU eligibility in the R-1 zoning districts, reducing or
eliminating parking requirements and allowing Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (conversion of an existing bedroom into a smaller ADU).
To review the City Council staff report and new State laws regarding
ADUs, please visit
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55691
The project website is at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/accessory_dwelli
ng_units_regulations_update.asp
<http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/accessor
y_dwelling_units_regulations_update.asp>
Please email your questions or comments to the project planner Chitra
Moitra at Chitra.Moitra@CityofPaloAlto.org
<mailto:Chitra.Moitra@CityofPaloAlto.org> . You can also contact
Chitra at (650) 329-2170.
Updates on future meetings will be posted on the project website.
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 | 2/2/2017 6:01 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:KMeier <meierk@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 5:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Ordinance
Dear City Council Members,
As a mother of a teenage son with Down syndrome, I am writing in support of a modern ADU ordinance for Palo Alto that will allow people with disabilities an affordable way to stay in Palo Alto near their families.
For us, this means letting our son have the independence and freedom he deserves with the safety of living near
family and assistance. For others this may mean caring for aging parents or disabled friends or siblings.
Please match the California State standard for parking or even ease those requirements. My son will never be
able to drive a car. We live two blocks the #35 bus line. Companies like Lyft and Uber will make getting around
without a car easy and affordable.
Please allow ADUs on standard lots so that regular families have an option to help their families stay nearby.
Please make the permitting and utility fees proportionate to the project and specify them in the draft.
Please allow garage conversions and amnesty for current illegal conversions.
Please allow flexible designs, especially for units for people with disabilities who may need special
considerations in building designs.
I worry a lot how we will be able to stay in Palo Alto once my son becomes an adult. I am a long-time Palo
Altan. I attended high school here, I work here and planned to stay here with my friends and family after I retire. I love Palo Alto, but the overpriced housing market crushes those of us who have to provide housing for
relatives with disabilities who need family assistance. People with disabilities enrich our diversity and our
community -- please consider them and their families when considering a modern ADU ordinance.
I have to work on Monday nights; otherwise, I would bring my son to the meeting a speak to you directly about this.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, Kristin Meier
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:57 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:LWV of Palo Alto <lwvpaoffice@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 2:58 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:February 6, 2017, Agenda Item No. 12: Ordinance Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
Attachments:CC ADUs final 2-6-17.docx
Dear City Council,
Attached please find our letter regarding the February 6, 2017, Agenda Item No. 12: Ordinance Regarding
Accessory Dwelling Units. Thank you.
Bonnie Packer
President
--
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
3921 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 209
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 903-0600
February 3, 2017 Greg Scharff, Mayor, and City Council Members 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, Re: February 6, 2017, Agenda Item No. 12: Ordinance Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto (LWVPA) supports increasing the density of single family residential areas in various ways to improve the diversity of housing opportunities for all economic levels. Allowing accessory dwelling units is one way to do this. For this reason, LWVPA supports the changes to the existing ordinance to meet new state requirements permitting accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and defining junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs). LWVPA supports the inclusion of junior accessory units in this ordinance. In particular, an ADU within the envelope of the existing unit will not change the mass of the main single family home and allows no more residents than are currently permitted in the home today. A separate entrance allows for privacy from the principal unit. The reduction in parking numbers and placement of the units is more realistic than the current requirements. LWVPA also strongly supports the elimination of the requirement that a lot be at least 35% greater than the minimum lot size in R1 and R1 subdistricts. This creates many more opportunities for ADUs. While LWVPA supports the greater flexibility for ADUs in the proposed ordinance, we feel there is room to provide even more incentives to create these additional housing opportunities. Thus, we urge the Council to seriously consider those recommendations from members of the public that encourage the creation of more of ADUs. Thank you, Bonnie Packer President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
THE LEAGUE
OF WOMEN VOTERS
OF PALO ALTO
3921 E. BAYSHORE RD., SUITE 209 • PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303 • 650-903-0600 • www.lwvpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:04 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Linnea Wickstrom <ljwickstrom@comcast.net>
Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 8:07 PM
To:Gitelman, Hillary; Moitra, Chitra
Cc:Council, City; Lee, Elena; Lait, Jonathan
Subject:Re: City Council Hearing on Accessory Dwelling Units
Hillary, Thank you for your email. I very much appreciate your evaluation of my comments and will look forward to the amended announcement accompanying the continuance to March 6th. Regards,
Linnea
On 2/2/17 5:11 PM, "Gitelman, Hillary" <Hillary.Gitelman@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
Ms. Wickstrom:
Thank you for this email to our project planner. I wanted to let you and others who
are interested in the subject of ADUs know that the public hearing scheduled for
Monday, February 6th is being proposed for continuance to March 6, 2017 due to a
very full agenda. We will be sending out an email about this to our list of interested
parties tomorrow and will take the opportunity to correct and clarify the information
provided earlier.
As you have pointed out, the proposed ordinance has been crafted to respond to
Council direction and will bring the City’s Municipal Code into compliance with new
State Regulations (SB 1069, AB 2299, and AB 2506). The proposal reduces the minimum lot size requirement for ADU eligibility in the R-1 zoning districts (allowing
ADUs on all R-1 conforming lots), reduces or eliminates parking requirements
(under specific conditions) and allows ADUs and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units in
existing buildings regardless of lot size.
To review the City Council staff report and new State laws regarding ADUs, please
visit http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55691
<http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55691>
Many thanks,
Hillary
Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:04 PM
2
T: 650.329.2321 |E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
From: Linnea Wickstrom [mailto:ljwickstrom@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 7:33 PM
To: Moitra, Chitra
Cc: Council, City
Subject: Re: City Council Hearing on Accessory Dwelling Units
Importance: High
Chitra,
I take exception to this misrepresentation of the proposed changes to the ordinance. This
interpretation has already produced notices to a large neighborhood association in which the
sender has highlighted the last sentence in red. I request that you immediately amend and resend this description to more accurately represent the proposal as it stands, with a notice that you are amending your description.
the minimum lot size is NOT being eliminated. The proposal is to allow ADUs on lots
that are the standard size for the zoning.
The proposal moderates parking requirements based on a number of community
factors, primarily on proximity to public transit
providing for Junior Accessory Dwelling units under specified conditions
Linnea Wickstrom
Monroe Drive
Palo Alto
On 2/1/17 5:10 PM, "Moitra, Chitra" <Chitra.Moitra@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Hello Everyone
The City Council will be discussing a Draft Ordinance on Accessory Dwelling Units at
the Monday, February 6, 2017 meeting tentatively scheduled to begin at
8:45 pm (item #12). The draft ordinance has been recommended for approval by
the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). The changes are proposed to
respond to Council direction and to bring the City’s Municipal Code into compliance
with the new State Regulations (SB 1069, AB 2299, and AB 2506). The proposal includes eliminating the minimum lot size requirement for ADU eligibility in the R-1
zoning districts, reducing or eliminating parking requirements and allowing Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units (conversion of an existing bedroom into a smaller ADU).
To review the City Council staff report and new State laws regarding ADUs, please
visit
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55691
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:04 PM
3
The project website is at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/accessory_dwelling_units_reg
ulations_update.asp
<http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/accessory_dwelling_
units_regulations_update.asp>
Please email your questions or comments to the project planner Chitra Moitra at
Chitra.Moitra@CityofPaloAlto.org <mailto:Chitra.Moitra@CityofPaloAlto.org> .
You can also contact Chitra at (650) 329-2170.
Updates on future meetings will be posted on the project website.
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 | 2/2/2017 6:02 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jessica Resmini <jessresmini@me.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 8:46 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank you! Thank you!
Attachments:City_of_Palo_Alto_Planning_and_Transportatio.pdf; Liza Aozasa_SMC.pdf; Dan
Garber.pdf
Dear City Council Members,
I know we haven’t had a chance to work together yet, but I’m confident my unique skill set and experience will
serve our city well.
Please find my application and two letters of recommendation attached for your reference.
Thank you for your time tonight!
Cheers,
Jess _______________ Jessica Resmini Architect, LEED AP Project Manager fs3|Hodges
Palo Alto Unified School District 25 Churchill Ave., Building D Palo Alto, CA 94306 4 1 5 . 8 2 3 . 3 2 1 3 _____________________________________________________________________ "Our solutions can only be as good as the information we collect and the goals we set.”
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 firs 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 qualifi d 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
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,
Lisa Aozasa
Deputy Director
{Cc
LAA:aow -LAABB028 WAN .DOCX
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 6:06 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Clark <richardcclark@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 11:55 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:jessresmini@me.com
Subject:Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission - applicants
Dear P&TC Members,
A short note here to say that Jessica Resmini (applicant) is a friend and has been a neighbor of mine for many
years. I find her to be articulate, thoughtful and likely a good candidate for this position. Please let me know if I can answer further questions about Jessica.
Regards,
Richard Clark
-- Richard C. Clark
2300 St. Francis Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650-245-8003 see who we know in common
http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardcclark
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 6:06 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Greer Stone <gstone22@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 2:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank you for your consideration
Good afternoon, honorable members of the Palo Alto City Council.
Thank you all for your continuing consideration of my candidacy for the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission. I appreciated the opportunity to speak with you last night and to answer your questions. If there
are any further questions any of you have please do not hesitate to contact me.
Warm regards,
Greer Stone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:05 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Susan Monk <susankmonk@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 11:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank You!
Attachments:Susan Monk PTC application.pdf
Dear City Council Members,
I am extremely grateful for having been given the opportunity to meet with you last night. I hope I was able to
convey the benefits to the PTC and Council of my legal expertise, mediation training, and background in corporate communications.
In addition, I think there is value in the added diversity and viewpoints I would bring as a renter and a woman to
more accurately represent the makeup of our community.
I've attached a copy of my application for your reference.
Thank you very much for your time and for your consideration.
Yours, Susan
--
Susan K. Monk, JD
619.804.4141
susankmonk@gmail.com
Let's Connect!
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:05 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lisa Van Dusen <lvandusen@mac.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 12:22 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Recommendation for Sue Monk for Planning & Transportation Commission
Dear Honorable Council Members,
I am writing to urge you to appoint Sue Monk to the Planning and Transportation Commission.
I have gotten to know Sue through various campaigns in Palo Alto and have been impressed by the combination
of her commitment to understanding the inner - and outer - workings of the Palo Alto community. I have been
impressed with her nuanced and holistic understanding of the issues facing our community and our region as
well as her grasp of the granular level of both problems and solutions. She is even handed, thoughtful and kind. Sue is also tenacious, determined and strategic . Her creativity combined with keen problem-solving abilities
would make for a winning combination on the PTC.
Here are a few reasons I hope you will appoint Sue to the PTC:
I realize that there are many qualified applicants, primarily in the fields of architecture/design, engineering and law. What distinguishes Sue from the others is her deep understanding of Palo Alto,
hard-earned by talking with people and developing close relationships with many community leaders, as
well as her legal analysis background and mediation skills. The range of perspectives represented
literally “at the table” matters. Sue would bring important diversity to the Commission by as both a woman and a renter, allowing her to better represent our community’s demographics.
Sue stands apart as the kind of attorney - and person - who is highly detail oriented and will read and
analyze everything presented. Since the devil is in the details, we will all be grateful that Sue digs way
deeper than most, well into the “weeds” on our behalf and in service of helping the council make informed decisions.
Ordinances need to be drafted, proposals need to be analyzed and I'm confident that she will give the
most critical review of any proposals presented, conducting community outreach to get varying
opinions, uncovering all possible pros and cons in the most objective light.
Sue is a creative problem-solver and is action-oriented. She gets things done and facilitates others
moving to action. Once she has studied the options herself, she would be a ready and thorough guide to
the Council, backing up her views with a clear and transparent rationale for her recommendations to the
City Council. Sue is ready to be both a pragmatic commissioner and true public servant.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:05 PM
2
Sue is a pleasure to work with. That, alone, is an important criteria and in combination with her other
strengths, can provide you with the confidence that this important position will be in excellent hands with Sue Monk.
Thank you for your consideration of Sue’s application. I urge you select her for the PTC.
Sincerely,
Lisa
Lisa Van Dusen
lvandusen @mac.com 650-799-3883
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:28 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jennifer Lee <yunmay@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 8:51 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:in support of Jessica Resmini for Planning and Transportation Commission
To Whom It May Concern;
I am writing to recommend Jessica Resmini for a position on the City of Palo Alto's Planning and Transportation Commission. In addition to her qualification as an architect, Jessica is an engaged, active
member of the community. I have known Jessica for three years, first through her efforts to build community in
our preschool, then as a friend. I have watched and admired her tenacity and her continued, active participation
in the Ohlone Elementary School community and in Palo Alto Little League.
I speak, not as an city planner or policy-maker, but as someone who has lived in a number of cities: Washington, D.C., Ann Arbor, Seoul, and Shanghai. The latter two have undergone tremendous changes in the
last decade, and given me plenty of opportunity to think about the social/community impacts of transportation
and zoning policies. I have also noticed that the way I understand a city changes depending on how I move
through it: whether on foot, by bus/subway/taxi, or by personal car. The way I know a city has changed as I've
had children and had to take care of aging elders. My understanding of the city changes as I move from tenant to homeowner and landlord. As I see it, the best qualification for this position (beyond technical qualifications)
is the ability to solicit and really understand the myriad shapes that a city has, and all the different ways in
which it must function for different groups of people.
Jessica is the rare person who is a good listener and is always thinking proactively. She has her ear to the
ground, identifying potential sources of conflict before they become serious problems. She thinks outside of the box and is able to solicit and think deeply about the perspectives of a variety of parties. Her diverse experiences
as business owner, contractor, stay-at-home mom, owner, and tenant, make her well-equipped to take on this
role. Furthermore, she has a strong commitment to public education and to alternate forms of transportation (in
particular, biking).
Palo Alto is a unique place, a crossroad of gown, town, and Silicon Valley, home to a diverse population, growing and changing at an astounding rate. Jessica will be an incredible, active, and conscientious member to
the Planning and Transportation Commission.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your attention,
Jennifer Lee yunmay@gmail.com
650-492-3545
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 9:38 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kathy Riley <ksr94306@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 8:34 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Wayne Riley
Subject:4146 El Camino zoning
Dear City Council Members,
We strongly object to the upzoning of the 3/4 acre parcel at 4146 El Camino. This area of El Camino/El Camino
Way/and Maybell is already very congested and negatively impacted by traffic. There are already multiple
properties with high density housing is this area. It is difficult to get through the traffic light at El Camino and
Maybell/El Camino Way any time of the day, and during commute hours, traffic is backed up for blocks.
We urge the council to NOT change the zoning that will further impact this neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Wayne and Kathryn Riley
4122 Thain Way
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:46 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Cheryl Lilienstein <clilienstein@me.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 08, 2017 12:21 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:4146 El Camino
Dear City Council, RE: 4146 El Camino Real
The zoning is RM 15. It should stay that way.
Why?
First: housing pressure here is created by Stanford, among other forces, but I bring this up because the GUP is happening now and Stanford continues to expand its educational facilities without
commensurate expansion of housing: it has the land, the endowment, and the capacity to build
housing that would free up space elsewhere. THAT is where the pro-density housing pressure should
be applied (from PAF and PALANTIR), and this city council should be asking Stanford to step up and provide housing ON CAMPUS to decrease housing pressure elsewhere.
Also: If BMRs are added the RM15 density would result in >RM15. State density rules for BMR units will also apply here if you allow it to be upzoned to RM 30. Certainly the neighborhoods will fight this
and the resulting increase in traffic on El Camino from RM30. El Camino is a choke point, not a
"transit corridor.” (only in developers’ fantasies)
How about some consistency? On Monday the council voted to allow a monolith to be built at 429
University. Does it contribute to the housing? No. Why was it not compelled? Because it complies
with zoning if not the design regulations ALSO required. No housing was actually required there, even
though the location WAS in a transit corridor.
Thus, I wonder if city council will similarly apply and uphold the EXISTING zoning standard here? RM
15 is the zoning that the owner purchased, and not more.
Note: what is the data for Uber’s impact on traffic congestion? What are the ridership trends on El
Camino buses? What is the effect, if any, of the Traffic Management efforts? Where's the
measurement?
Further: "pedestrian friendly" -- which one would naturally think has to do with enabling an
environment that is not harrassed by noise, pollution, and traffic, and provides needed neighborhood-serving retail...
This is terminology that has been used to trick unwitting citizens (in the past, I was one of them) into
supporting the "pedestrian friendly" idea. I grant you, it's a GREAT CONCEPT. WOULD THAT IT
FLOURISHES >> Yet, how does providing NO retail and building ON the road provide friendliness to the pedestrian? (It doesn’t)
Keep the zoning as is. RM 15.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:48 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Carnahan, David
Sent:Wednesday, February 08, 2017 7:33 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: 4146 ECR Public Letter/Comment
Attachments:4146 ECR.pdf
Good morning Council Members,
Find correspondence pertaining to the February 13 Study Session for 4146 El Camino Real attached.
David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk, MPA
O: 650‐329‐2267 | E: david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org
From: Cervantes, Yolanda
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 4:19 PM
To: Carnahan, David
Subject: 4146 ECR Public Letter/Comment
Hi David,
Attached is the letter that was dropped off today regarding 4146 ECR. The item is a study session that will be heard on
2/13/17.
Thanks,
Yolanda
Yolanda M. Cervantes
Administrative Assistant
Planning & Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Main Line: 650.329.2441| Direct Line: 650.329.2404
Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org
liillary Gitelman, Director of Planning
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave., 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
SUBJECT: 4146 El Camino Real
Jeffrey Eustis
P.O. Box 60991
Palo Alto, CA 94306
TEL: (650) 856-6823
e-mail: Jeffnel212@gmail.com
February 6, 2017
APPLICATION: l6PLN-00239 Zoning Change Request from RM-15 to ~-30
Dear ~is. Gitelman:
I am writing as a neighboring property owner to the parcel at4146 El
Camino Real. This letter shoul d supplement my previous letter of August 31,
2016 on the same subject. I unde rstand that the Palo Alto City Council will
soon be cons iderinb a ~onlng chan£;:: f rou l<I.1·· i.5 to RN-30. The proposal involves
three story buildings on a very small (.76 acre) parcel adjacent to the Barron
Square condominiums, where I owu a unit.
I believe many of the impacts to Barron Square and the neighboring community
are currently unknown, and are not fully documented in the pending application.
Specifically, I believe it is neces s ary to have a detailed visual impact study,
and a shadow study, provided by the applicant early in the process. These
studies should focus on specific locations at the Barron Square buildings and
common areas closest to the proposed construction.
I understand that the proposal calls for 21 units, which is almost twice
the currently allowed 11 units. Given the small size of the parcel, and its
proximity to Barron Square, the project may appear massive. If this is the
case, then it could involve a permanent negative impact on both the quality of
life and property values in the neighborhood. These impacts might include a
reduction in sunlight to Barron Square during significant portions of the year.
Because approval of the zoning change would likely result in a multi-million
dollar benefit for the developer, it seems only reasonable that the necessary
studies be provided at the earliest possible date. Once these are received
and analyzed, it should then be possible to determine if the zoning change is
compatible with the surrounding community. Thank you for your review of these
comments. I would be most apprec i ative if you could provide copi es of this
letter to the Council members.
Very truly yours,
Jeffrey Eustis
Received
FEB 0 6 20\7
Department of Pl.anning t
& Community Enwonmen
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 4:28 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:laurie liston <lauriejo850@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 12:15 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:RPP permits
I was born and raised in Palo Alto. At 81, I am now a resident of Channing House with my wife Joanna who has
lived in Palo Alto since 1947.
We are concerned about the planned reductions in the Residential Preferential Parking permits. Most residents
have one car and many have none. However, we have and will continue to need about 160 employees to help
with our health care, maintenance, food service, housekeeping, and administration. A continuing reduction in
the RPP permits will cause severe disruption in the 52 year functioning of Channing House.
Please consider our concerns during your deliberations.
Thanks,
Lawrence W. (Laurie) Liston
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 4:28 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Laura Card <laura_card@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 12:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Parking permits
I grew up in Palo Alto and now reside at Channing House. Parking for our staff is essential. Please do not limit
employee permits to 200. Thanks. Laura Card
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 4:28 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Carolyn G Mitchell <lynnmit@mac.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 12:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Concern about RPP on Channing House employees
Dear City Council Members, Thank you for the time and attention you provide to our city and your help in making it a true community. As a citizen of Palo Alto for 50 years when I retired I wanted to stay in my community and moved into Channing House. The advantages of living downtown are immense and I'm grateful everyday. Although I lived in Crescent Park, I now walk everywhere including the Palo Alto Medical Clinic. I am helping lessen traffic and parking issues. Many of us are giving up our cars and learning to use Uber and Go Go Grandma.
It is not just the convenience to services which make my retirement years better it is also the services provided to me and the other 249 residents of Channing House by our employees. Necessary services which keep us independent and strong.
The city plan to reduce employee parking permits by 200 every year will severely impact Channing House's ability to attract and retain our our employees. Many employees have part time jobs, and they do not have the time to use public transportation or park out by the Baylands. You are aware of the other issues impacting middle and lower income workers in our city so please do not enact this restrictive parking process on those of us who are the most vulnerable - lower income employees and seniors. Thank you,
Lynn Mitchell
850 Webster Street Apt 1018
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 4:28 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Ann Clark <annhclark1@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 2:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto's RPP program effect on employee parking
Dear City Council Members,
Thank you very much for the all the time and attention you give to Palo Alto. You help greatly in making it a true community. As a citizen of Palo Alto off and on for the past 50 years, when I
retired I wanted to stay here. Thus I moved into Channing House. The advantages of living
downtown are enormous, and I'm very grateful to be here. But its not just the proximity to shops
and restaurants which make my retirement years better. It is mainly the services provided to me
and the other 249 residents of Channing House by our employees in the dining room, house
keeping, maintenance and administrative staff. These are necessary services which keep us
independent and strong.
The city plan to reduce employee parking permits by 200 every year will severely
impact Channing House's ability to attract and retain our employees. You are aware of the other
issues impacting middle and lower income workers in our city so please do not enact this restrictive
parking process on those of us who are the most vulnerable - lower income employees and seniors.
Thank you very much for your consideration,
Ann Hammond Clark
Ann Hammond Clark
850 Webster Street Apt 720
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 4:28 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Michele Grundmann <michele.grundmann@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 2:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Residential Preferential Permits
Dear City Councilmen of Palo Alto: Mr. DuBois, Mr. Filseth, Mr. Fine, Ms Holman, Ms Kniss, Ms
Kou, Mr. Scharff, Mr. Tanaka and Mr. Wolbach,
My name is Michèle Grundmann, my husband and I came to live in Palo Alto in 1962. We bought an Eichler
house on Greer Road and lived in it until we sold that house in 0ctober 2013.
0ur friends, the Comstocks, lived in our cul-de-sac, Kirke became mayor of Palo Alto while Joe Simitian was at
the time still a student at Palo Alto High.
Palo Alto has changed a lot since 1962 and yes there is an increase of residents but an even greater increase in
traffic. More workers drive to Palo Alto and need to park their cars.
I am well aware of that situation since my husband and I came to live in Channing House. We like and need the
employees of Channing House. I worry that by losing 200 residential parking permits every year, not only our retirement home will not be able to function properly but we, elderly retirees with some under medical care,
need the skilled services of those employees
I am hopeful that the City Council will find a solution so that those wonderful employees can keep their jobs at
Channing House and keep the perking permits they have now.
Respectfully yours,
Michèle Grundmann
850 Webster St. Apt. 918 Palo Alto, CA 94301
Ph: 650-324-7474
mobile: 650-796-4180
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 4:28 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Helene Pier <hpier@comcast.net>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 3:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:reduction of parking permits
Dear Council Members.
My name is Helene Pier, and I am a 42‐year resident of Palo Alto. For the last four years I have lived at Channing House.
I understand the parking problems in the residential areas and your efforts to solve the problems. However, reducing
parking permits by 200 every years creates a terrible problem for our employees and therefore for all our residents. I
ask you to take into account the difficulties this would cause for all of us. I hope you can look for other solutions.
Sincerely yours,
Helene Pier
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 4:28 PM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Patty Irish <irishpw@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 4:24 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Employee Parking Permits for Channing House employees
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
I am writing as a resident of Channing House. I have lived
here for the last 10 years and before that I lived in south
Palo Alto. Channing House enables about 250 senior
citizens to live in downtown Palo Alto where we can often
walk to the many services within a few blocks. We have
life care so will be taken care of for the rest of our lives.
Channing House has over 100 employees working a
number of shifts and hours. There salaries are modest and
many hold more than one job. That means they need a car
nearby to go to their second job.
We provide a number of incentives for those without
second jobs that encourages ride sharing and use of public
transit.
Your consideration of decreasing employee permits makes
our hiring and retention much more difficult. As it is we
have many challenges to keep our workers - and we have
a very strong record of employee retention but we need
your help!
We need you to help our workers when they need it - to
secure parking near our work site on Webster between
Homer and Channing.
Thank you for your consideration of this very difficult
issue.
Patty Irish
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/1/2017 4:28 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:peter stangl <petersss@stanford.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 1:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Employee parking permits
Attachments:PastedGraphic-1.pdf
Dear City Council members,
We have been a part of the Palo Alto community for 45 years. Five years ago we moved into Channing House,
choosing it over other retirement homes because of its wonderful location near downtown Palo Alto. It is a wonderful place to live, thanks, to a large extent, to our wonderful staff who make life so easy and pleasant for us, seniors.
I am concerned about the future however. The prospect of you annually reducing the number of employee
parking permits will mean increasing hardship for our employees and for Channing House, where we cannot function without the current level of staff support. Without the parking permits Channing House will have no choice but to increase monthly fees substantially, so much higher salaries or ride subsidies can be financed, and
this will mean a hardship for our senior community.
I do hope you will take this into consideration and abandon the plan for reducing the number of employee permits.
Respectfully,
Live life to the fullest: Immaturity! Self righteousness! Denial! John the Duke Peter Stangl Channing House
850 Webster St., Apt 935
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650-862-7809
stangl@stanford.edu
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 11:13 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Barbara Gordon <bbgordon703@me.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 5:12 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Parking permits
Dear Council Members,
Palo Alto has been my home for 49 years. I have been active in the school district and some city events.
I now live at Channing House and was able to manage without a car. Thank you for providing the Free Shuttle.
It’s a different story for our employees. They need their cars, especially when they must have two jobs.
WE NEED OUR EMPLOYEES.
Cutting back employee parking permits by 200 every year would hurt us badly..
Please keep this in mind when making plans for next year.
Thank you in advance.
Sincerely,
Barbara Gordon
850 Webster St. #703
Palo Alto. 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 11:13 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:A Moon <albert.moon@comcast.net>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 5:30 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:RPP parking
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am a resident of Palo Alto where I have lived at Channing House for almost 9 years. As an older resident, along with
others in the same situation, I rely on employees to do things for us that we are no longer able to do.. Like many other
businesses and institutions around here we employ staff who have to commute long distances, and many of them have
more than one job. We need parking to accommodate these employees and we have been informed that the reduction
of 200 permits will adversely affect us and our employees.
Albert Moon
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 11:13 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Dave Mitchell <davewalm@pacbell.net>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 9:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Parking permits for Channing House employees
Dear City Council Members:
I have resided in Palo Alto for more than 51 years, and have lived in Channing House for 17 months. My wife and I
previously lived in South Palo Alto for 16 years and in Crescent Park for 34 years. We love being able to retire within
Palo Alto, walk everywhere downtown and as far away as Stanford easily. We also appreciate being in a community in
which, because of the services here, we can live for the rest of our lives.
Channing House has also been here for more than fifty years. It is very dependent—and always has been—on its
significant number of employees to provide services. Many of the employees are part time and even some fulltime
employees have two jobs. Almost none of them can afford to live in Palo Alto, and they are dependent on their cars,
which must be conveniently parked to get from home to one or more jobs. The city plan to reduce employee parking
permits by 200 every year will severely impact Channing House’s ability to attract and retain our employees. Surely, the
intelligent staff of the City can design a plan that would not so severely impact employers who have been in the
community for many decades.
Thank you for all you do in serving the City.
Sincerely,
David Mitchell
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 11:13 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Florence Haas <grannyrocker@hotmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 9:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Employee Parking Permits reduction
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
I have been a resident of Channing House for over 4 years. We who move here come for the help and
support needed as we age, and therefore have a very real need for our employees and sincerely value their
services. The support of our staff provides us with good quality of life as we age.
Your idea to reduce the number of parking permits by 200 every year will impact Channing House's ability to
attract and retain our employees. We ask you to please not enact this restrictive parking process on those of
us who are the most vulnerable, i.e., middle and lower income workers and seniors.
Thank you for your time and attention to read my letter and for considering our need.
Florence Haas
850 Webster Street #511
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: 650‐324‐7387
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 11:13 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Laurie Spaeth <laurie607@aol.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 10:12 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:parking
Dear Council Members; I am a resident of Channing House. It is very important that we have parking for our employees.
It is bad enough that they can not afford to live near by and use public transportation.
Laurie Spaeth
850 Webster St
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 11:13 AM
6
Carnahan, David
From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 10:48 AM
To:Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James; Norman H. Beamer; Peter Taskovich;
Glanckopf, Annette; Furman, Sheri; Jeff Levinsky; Gabrielle Layton; Brand, Richard;
Michael Hodos; Neilson Buchanan
Subject:RPP - Do not let it be hijacked by misinformation in dental petition
ALL:
The petition below, posted to Change.org by Palo Alto dentist Christian Lee, is saturated with
misinformation and scare rhetoric. It is a clear attempt to disenfranchise residents in favor of
commercial interests.
The RPP program was created to address a long-standing and worsening problem of
commercial parking intrusion into residential neighborhoods. The parking problem is just one
of several issues created by over-development of commercial properties.
Below are corrections to some of the misinformation posted in this petition (excerpts from
petition in italic).
Fiction: The area of enforcement is ever expanding and will soon cover all, if not, most of the
city.
Fact: There are now three established Residential Preferential Parking zones in Palo Alto.
They were created by residents requesting relief from the commercial interests monopolizing
parking in residential neighborhoods. There is no plan to extend the RPP zones to all of Palo
Alto.
Fiction: This is an existential threat to your local access to care.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 11:13 AM
7
Fact: Business owners have been granted time to develop parking solutions to support their
businesses. Instead, some choose to complain that it is unfair to make them assume a standard
cost of doing business by providing employee parking. Thoughtful business owners will work
to develop solutions such as building parking facilities paid for by businesses or they will find
facilities that offer adequate parking. It is highly unlikely that dentists will abandon the
desirable market Palo Alto represents.
Fiction: Today there are fewer dentists in Palo Alto than ever before.
Fact: There are new dentist offices starting all over Palo Alto because this is a lucrative market
for them. A quick search of Yelp lists 136 dentists in Palo Alto in the first 20 pages. Perhaps
someday our Business Registry will give us reliable data.
Fiction: Unlike most businesses, we are located away from areas of heavy congestion the RPP
program tries to address.
Fact: If the dental office were located away from congested areas, it would not be impacted by
RPP rules. These special districts are only located where there is documented severe congestion
impacting residential streets.
Fiction: In addition, most, if not all offices in Palo Alto provide designated parking spaces for
our patients further reducing the parking congestion.
Fact: Well, yes, they should provide patient parking. But these offices also need to provide
employee parking, just as other for-profit businesses do.
Full text of Change.or posting:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 11:13 AM
8
The City of Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) program will drive dentists and other small
healthcare offices out of Palo Alto. As it stands, dental and health care offices in greater Downtown and
Evergreen Park will lose their employee parking privileges. The area of enforcement is ever expanding and will soon cover all, if not, most of the city. At a time when our skilled staff commute sometimes hours to provide
care to the Palo Alto residents, taking their parking away without a functional mass transit infrastructure results
in healthcare employee attrition and ultimately practice closures. This is an existential threat to your local
access to care.
OUR COMMUNITY IMPACT
The City of Palo Alto dental community has been around for over 60 years providing routine and emergency
care to Palo Alto residents. Due to rising real state costs, today there are fewer dentists in Palo Alto than ever
before. Our months-long wait lists illustrate the demand and support of our Palo Alto patients. Unlike most
businesses, we are located away from areas of heavy congestion the RPP program tries to address. More
importantly, dental and other small medical facilities are neutral in growth. As one practitioner retires another takes over the care of the patients with little to no change in employee numbers over decades. In addition, most,
if not all offices in Palo Alto provide designated parking spaces for our patients further reducing the parking
congestion. In addition:
1) We do not limit your care to 30 min- 2 hour proposed time limits
2) We treat most time-sensitive emergencies right away here in Palo Alto
3) In the event of natural disaster, most of our offices are fully equipped to provide first aid and our teams have
been trained to treat medical emergencies
3) We allow for safe arrival and departure of our elderly patients and families with kids
4) We help alleviate neighborhood traffic by taking hundreds of cars off the road every day (these are patients
who would be looking for parking around town)
5) We continue to operate as one of the most neighborhood friendly "commercial" establishments with many
offices dating back for decades.
WHAT WE ARE DOING
We have worked to inform the City of unintended consequences of such an all-encompassing and restrictive
RPP policy. We have provided the City Council with our data pointing to shortcomings of previous surveys and proposed solutions. We have requested the City to continue to offer parking permits for healthcare providers
indefinitely. We continue to work with our neighbors and are humbled by the support we have received thus far.
We have urged the Council to provide for meetings of stakeholders and healthcare providers so that together we
can come up with a better solution without losing invaluable healthcare services.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Please ACT NOW and ask your Palo Alto City Council to amend the RPP program and allow your dentists and
healthcare professionals to continue to purchase permits for their employees indefinitely and save your local
access to care.
This petition will be delivered to:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 11:13 AM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Harry and Susan Hartzell <hshartzell@earthlink.net>
Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 10:48 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:parking for employees
Five years ago, we sold our house in Palo Alto which we had owned for forty years and moved into Channing
House for our declining over eighty years. This has been a wonderful move for us. There is no more
maintenance, no more cooking and cleaning up, and health care is available as we become more dependent. However this means that we are dependent on employees who provide the services, house keepers,
kitchen helpers, servers and maintenance people. These people can’t afford to live here. They drive 20 or 30
mils to work every day. Where do they park? Can we develop some alternatives? peripheral lots, local vans
from the train station? We re trying to reduce the number of cars owned by residents, but we need more help
for our employees. Regards, Harry and Susan Hartzell
Harry and Susan Hartzell
850 Webster Street Apt 430
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 11:13 AM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Munter, Mary M. <Mary.M.Munter@tuck.dartmouth.edu>
Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 11:02 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Regarding the RPP
Dear City Council Members,
We fully sympathize with Palo Alto residents' desire for the RPP program. And we fully commend your efforts to
encourage new businesses to provide parking for their employees.
However, surely a non‐profit organization that was established in 1961 should be "grandfathered," and its employees
allowed to park on the streets? Channing House simply cannot function without its employees, so please allow an
exception in the interests of both lower income employees and seniors.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mary Munter and Robert Polhemus
850 Webster Street, Apt. 909
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 5:59 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Steven Scharf <scharf.steven@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 5:54 AM
To:Neilson Buchanan; Council, City; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board;
Rob George; Bob McGrew; Zelkha, Mila; Wendy Silvani; City Council;
ce@youngteeth.com; office@youngteeth.com
Cc:Bill Johnson; Dave Price; Jocelyn Dong; Emily Mibach; Gennady Sheyner; Jason Green
Subject:Re: "Christian Lee" United Dentists and Palo Alto Business Community need City
Council help
The problem is that developers have lobbied for cities to ignore the parking ratio for commercial buildings, and
cities have gone along with it, using a variety of excuses. Invariably, the result is that adjacent neighborhoods
are flooded with cars and then permit parking is instituted, which pushes the problem just to the border of the permit parking area.
There is really no space for more freeways unless we start double-decker freeways. The northern and western
parts of Santa Clara County are pretty much ignored when it comes to any plans for mass transit.
Can we at least get back to the 1920 level for rail?
On 2/2/2017 12:06 AM, Neilson Buchanan wrote:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 5:59 PM
2
Please read Dr. Lee's email below. Dr. Lee sets perfect
context for the Peninsula's collapsing transportation
systems.
Christian Lee's email is the moment I have been waiting
for. Residents in Palo Alto understand the quandary but
Dr. Lee must think he is unique. He is just one of
hundreds of businesspersons hitting the parking and
commute wall. Dr. Lee and the entire business
community must accept responsibility for their own
transportation problems.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 5:59 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Mary Grace Bertsch <mgbertsch@earthlink.net>
Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 11:19 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Plan to reduce permits in downtown area of palo alto to zero after a number of years
Dear Council members
Please do not follow through with this decision. We have lived in Palo Alto since 1961, graduating from a small apt.
to larger houses as more kids arrived and ending up finally selling our last house and moving into Channing. Our son
and his wife live in Palo Alto and raised their four kids here.
Channing house is dependent on many full and some part time employees. These folks need their cars to get home
as most of them can no longer afford to live near Palo Alto. Some of them work half time here and have a second job
elsewhere as well. With no street parking permits available to them they will have to look elsewhere for jobs. We
senior citizens at Channing will be in real trouble. Who will be available to help those of us here at Channing?
Please change your minds about withdrawing the parking permits.
Sincerely,
Mary Grace Bertsch
850 Webster St. Apt 259
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 5:59 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:SEAMERRILL@aol.com
Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 12:57 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:mmatsumoto@channinghouse.org
Subject:RPP
After 10 years in Green Gables, we moved to Crescent Park for the next 45 years. After 5 years at Channing House, we realize how important parking is for our employees. Few of them can live nearby or near effective public transportation and many are forced to hold 2nd jobs, which makes car pooling difficult to organize. Reducing employee parking permits and requiring employees to park further away is creating a great problem for those we depend upon. This planned annual reduction in permits has the effect of making it even more difficult to gain and retain the staff upon which we depend. Please consider this side effect when making decisions about the RPP.
Merrill Newman 850 Webster, Apartment 1032 Palo Alto, CA 94301 seamerrill@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 5:59 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Leo & Marlys Keoshian <keoshian@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 2:03 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Marlys Keoshian; Channing House Bulletin Board
Subject:Residential preferential parking
Hello.
I’ve been a resident of Palo Alto since 1952. I now live in Channing House and am happy to call it home.
Naturally I have seen an increase in traffic congestion in Palo Alto, but I am happy to put up with living in the Downtown
area because there is so much for us to do on foot here. Most of residents are Palo Altans and many have lived here all
their lives. Several of us are the children of Channing House residents. I am in that group. I have seen the way in which
Channing House cares for those residents who are more aged than I at this point. We have many residents who are no
longer able to get around by foot, and they depend on the workers (many of whom are long term employees of 16
years, 20 years, etc.) for their needs.
Please take this into consideration. We were here before any of the congestion and we have not been the ones to
increase it. Many of the workers have worked out ways to ride share. Our needs are simple but we do require the
assistance of these caregivers to enhance our lives. Please do not take their parking away.
Very truly yours,
Marlys Keoshian
Channing House resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 5:59 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:robell <robell999@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 4:11 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:RPP
Esteemed Council Member,
My name is Mary Robell, and we bought our first home at 3909 Louis Road in 1964. While we did move out of state for some years, our hearts were here and we returned some nine years ago.
Now we are permanent residents of Channing House where we are finding our employees are struggling for
parking. This hurts us, and it seems so out of character of the PA Council to ignore the needs of seniors. Please
do not reduce parking permits by 200 every year.
Thank you for your service to our community, and for considering this request.
Mary Robell
850 Webster St. - apt. 923
Palo Alto, CA 94301
--
Please note my new email address:
robell999@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 5:59 PM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Tommy <lynnde1@earthlink.net>
Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 5:01 PM
To:Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary
Subject:EPRPP
Hillary and council members,
The petition currently being circulated by a group of Palo Alto dentists contains a number of factual errors, "alternate facts", and false claims in an attempt to produce fear in their clients and the city council.
1) There is no shortage of parking spaces available to the clients of these dentists except where their employees fill all the spaces near their offices and block their patients from parking close by.
2) The installation of the EPRPP does NOT reduce available parking for their clients. In fact it makes much more two hour parking available within a block or two of their offices.
3) They claim to be far away from the "area of congestion" that the EPRPP is attempting to address. In reality, their employees, parking all day, are the major cause of parking saturation in an area that was a prime instigation in the
request for the development of the district. It is the dentists' failure to provide adequate parking for their staff that is the problem. Their clients, who park for short periods of time, are NOT the problem and are welcome to park in our
neighborhood. 4) They claim to take hundreds of cars off the road every day, "those driving around looking for parking", The truth is, the
EPRPP district will provide close in parking for their clients and WILL reduce the driving around that occurs now because their employees have taken all those close in spaces for all day parking.
5) They ask for more stakeholder's meetings. In the meetings that took place, not one proposal was offered beyond: give us what we want (unlimited neighborhood parking) or we will threaten to move away. A good business plan will provide for
adequate parking for employees. If they can not do that when free parking is provided for their clients, then someone who can produce that plan should replace them.
6) They claim to provide "designated parking spaces for clients and thus reducing parking congestion". When this is done by having their employees park all day on neighborhood streets, the claim is quite bogus and is representative of the
attitude of trying to mislead and create fear in order to get what they want. 7) They claim to have provided data to show the shortcomings of surveys and solutions. None of their claims are
supported by facts. This is another attempt to try to create confusion to try to stop the development of the district and place the responsibility back on them to provide parking for their employees.
I readily agree that the businesses that have used and abused free parking on neighborhood streets as a way to increase their profits, have a significant problem that they need to address. It is because their employees have crowded out the
residents from parking in front of their homes, have blocked driveways, have belligerently responded to requests to not block curb space on street cleaning days, and made a general nuisance of
themselves that we need them eliminated from neighborhood streets to restore the safety and neighborhood character of our neighborhood streets.
I urge the businesses and council to meet and confer to find a way to provide new parking for these employees or better yet, find a way to reduce the need for this parking.
It is a task long overdue and complaining about it not being done before will not solve the problem. Only creative thinking and hard work will solve it now.
Tommy Derrick Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 6:02 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 12:07 AM
To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; Rob George; Bob
McGrew; Zelkha, Mila; Wendy Silvani; City Council; ce@youngteeth.com;
office@youngteeth.com
Cc:Bill Johnson; Dave Price; Jocelyn Dong; Emily Mibach; Gennady Sheyner; Jason Green
Subject:"Christian Lee" United Dentists and Palo Alto Business Community need City Council
help
Please read Dr. Lee's email below. Dr. Lee sets perfect context for
the Peninsula's collapsing transportation systems.
Christian Lee's email is the moment I have been waiting
for. Residents in Palo Alto understand the quandary but Dr. Lee
must think he is unique. He is just one of hundreds of
businesspersons hitting the parking and commute wall. Dr. Lee
and the entire business community must accept responsibility for
their own transportation problems.
The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan states that Palo Alto promotes
commerce but not at the expense of residential neighborhoods.
I invite Dr. Lee to attend Mayor Scharf's State of the City Address
Feb 8 and learn how Greg Scharf will balance the issues.
Finally... after years of avoidance Mayor Greg Scharf and his new
City Council have reluctantly and finally confronted reality.
DECADES ON UNLIMITED COMMERCIAL PARKING IN PALO
ALTO'S RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IS OVER. LIMITED
COMMERCIAL PERMIT PARKING IS ESTABLISHED CITY
POLICY.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 6:02 PM
2
Kudos to the dentists...they forced failed city policy into focus by
realizing that they do not have unlimited access to residential
neighborhood parking.
United Dentists' attention must focus first on their fellow business
persons and landlords who have failed them. Do they realize City
Councils have persistently approved development with inadequate
on site parking?
City Council and Mayor Scharf are now accountable to the dentists.
How much more parking within residential neighborhoods would
Palo Alto's dentists want? Dr Lee and United Dentists do not
understand the math. Nor do they realize that they are competing
with other business for finite parking capacity.
All nine members of the Palo Alto City Council must face their
policy failures on Feb 13.
#1 Palo Alto TMA is a dead man walking with no city funding. TMA
is the primary solution to mitigate traffic and parking constraints.
#2 Council imposed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is
vaporware without the TMA... Any other solution is pure
BS. Stanford University and Stanford Research Park understand
the right stuff. Palo Alto's TMA does not have to invent
anything. Just slowly adopt best practices at Stanford and SRP.
#3 Palo Alto City Council is to be commended for approving
neighborhood parking permit programs: College Terrace,
Downtown North, Crescent Park, Newell Bridge, Downtown South,
Professorville, Mayfield and Evergreen Park. This is the stimulus
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 6:02 PM
3
for investment in TMA and transportation systems for the horseless
carriage.
ce@youngteeth.com
Christian K. Lee DDS MS
734 Middlefield Rd Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 289-9200 office@youngteeth.com
Visit our website
Dear Families,
I am emailing a request for your help in ensuring that Palo Alto dentists and other
small healthcare offices can continue to provide our great services to you.
SITUATION:
The City of Palo Alto has implemented a Residential Parking Permit (RPP) program
whereby people who commute to work in Palo Alto purchase a parking permit near
their workplace. It currently involves the Downtown Area but is gradually encompassing other areas.
Like many other dentists in the area, I purchase parking permits for my staff and I to
park on the streets. The parking spaces behind my office are thus made available for
patients.
Dentists have served Palo Alto and used street parking for over 60 years without
causing problems for residents. We have actually decreased in number in Palo Alto
over time, so we are not a contributor to the growing parking problem.
PROBLEM:
The City plans to decrease the number of parking permits sold by 10% every
year. The math tells us eventually there will be no street parking for my staff and
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 6:02 PM
4
I. Many members of my staff must drive for over 1 hour to help me serve you. Most
need to pick up their kids from daycare right after work, so alternative means of
transportation are not feasible.
It is difficult to recruit quality staff members to work here. Telling staff that they
cannot drive to work will cause severe attrition of the dental staff pool and force
practices to either eliminate onsite patient parking, or move out of Palo Alto
altogether.
This is not just affecting my practice, but likely your general dentist, orthodontist, and
other local doctors who take care of your family.
HOW YOU CAN HELP:
1. Please click the following link to Change.org and sign the petition for an
amendment to the RPP that allows dentists and other small healthcare providers to
continue purchasing parking permits for their staff.
https://www.change.org/p/palo-alto-city-councilmen-urgent-help-keep-your-palo-alto-
dentists-and-health-
professionals?recruiter=53447640&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink
2. At City Hall on Monday February 13, there will be a City Council Meeting to vote on
the issue. If you can personally be there or even speak to the Council, that will have a
huge impact on the Council decision. The council meeting starts at 6pm but it is not
known what time the parking issue will be discussed. It is possible to watch the
meeting on Facebook then go to the Council Chambers when the issue gets started if
staying for the whole session is difficult for you.
I don't like to impose on you these types of requests, as simply your trust and
patronage is already such a treasure to me. Nonetheless, I do consider this issue to
be a threat to dental services in Palo Alto, including my own practice. Thanks in
advance for your help!
Warm regards,
Dr Chris Lee and the Youngteeth Team
Appointments
Review Us
Refer a Friend
Preferences
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 6:02 PM
5
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
Having trouble viewing this email? Open in a web browser
This email is provided as a service by Christian K. Lee DDS MS. Click here to Unsubscribe.
This message contains information which may be confidential and/or privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), you may not read, use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) thereto without retaining any
copies. Christian K. Lee DDS MS, 734 Middlefield Rd Palo Alto, CA 94301 .
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:04 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Cathy Dolton <cathyjd@comcast.net>
Sent:Saturday, February 04, 2017 8:04 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Employee Parking
I have been a Palo Alto resident for 34 years. Parking is now a huge problem for everyone
who lives here. It is especially an important issue for the people who work for Channing
House. Many have been priced out of the real estate market now and must drive anywhere
from 1 to 3 hours to get to work.
Channing House is an excellent adult CCRC Resident community. A large number of theresidents were long-time Palo Altons before they chose to live at Channing House like
myself. I have just become a resident.
For the last several months I have been working with many different employees. They are so attuned to working with aging adults. They are kind, thoughtful and hard-
working. Excellence on the job is their mantra. Consequently, the people who live at CH
feel dignified, respected and positive about the quality of life it offers. They continue to
make valuable contributions to the City
Channing House and Palo Alto are major factors that give our community the reputation for desirability. Unfortunately, that desirability is eroding because of traffic and lack of
parking. Reducing parking permits by 200 every year will seriously affect the hiring of
employees. The now treasured life style offered for aging adults will suffer enormously.
Please consider how you can keep adequate parking for employees who provide special
services in the ageing adult care communities. Their employees mostly can’t ride their
bike. Public transportation is not adequate for them to leave their cars at home. Many
work long hours or need to be on call 24/7. They do not take their jobs lightly.
Please think of the unintended consequences of using numbers only as a way of reducing
car travel in and to Palo Alto.
Sincerely,
Catherine Dolton, a new member of the CH community
1570 Dana Ave. PA (I move in March)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:04 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Nancy Kiely <wnk54@comcast.net>
Sent:Saturday, February 04, 2017 9:50 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Matsumoto Mel; 'Liston' via Chbb
Subject:RPP
My late husband and I lived at 98 Erstwild Ct. for many years, and raised our family in Palo Alto, a city we’ve
grown to love. As a widow, I felt fortunate to be able to move to Channing House, within the neighborhood so to speak,
to spend the rest of my years. To be within walking distance of Palo Alto with all its amenities was a very big part of my
decision.
It’s been amazing to discover how virtually all of the residents actively volunteered to support the activities of
those less fortunate than we. Working at different projects, from participating
in problem‐solving at the city level to organizing or being active in one of the many, many groups designed to help those
younger, poorer or even older than we to boost their well‐being, the residents as a whole have put in uncountable
hours, giving their best back to their communities, wherever they lived. There is a great legacy of giving to others here
at Channing House, just as there is in Palo Alto, and we are proud to be part of it. We are grateful to our current home
in a unique way, I think, because we share in its responsibilities. And we are equally grateful to its employees, who are
helping us continue to live heathy, productive lives and, eventually, to survive. They are diligent, competent people.
Their problems are our own. They work long shifts, day and night. Many of them work two jobs. And most of them
have long commutes because of the scarcity of affordable housing.
Can they please be part of a solution which allows them to park somewhere close by?
Sincerely,
Nancy H. Kiely
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:04 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:lovecatsgrace@comcast.net
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 4:26 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:CHBB850@googlegroups.com
Subject:RPP
Living at Channing House is a team effort. As a resident, I expect the very best. AFTER ALL, this is
Palo Alto and it SHOULD BE the best. However, we are losing employees over the parking issues
as most of them travel from afar to work here. If there is no parking for our many staff members, we
cannot attract quality help. The city must make exceptions to the hard parking rules of downtown,
primarily caused by large commercial buildings allotted inadequate parking sites within their structures. Channing House opened in 1961, when on-site and neighborhood parking was not an
issue.and Palo Alto was always a desirable place to work and live. Channing House is one of the
most esteemed retirement communities in the U.S. and it is in one of the most desirable college
towns in all of America. It will not continue to be so now that too many buildings have been built in
recent years with insufficient parking and therefore congesting our streets.
Please do not place RPP restrictions on this amazing place named Channing House. We are "aging
in place" here. We cannot do it without a happy work force.
Thank you for recognizing our unique needs.
Grace Agardy
Apt #431
850 Webster Street
Palo Alto
408-338-9993
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:04 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Joan Norton <violady5@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 12:52 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Channing House Bulletin Board
Subject:RPP
Dear City Council Members,
Thank you for the time and attention you give in trying to accommodate the often conflicting agendas and needs of our growing city. I am a native Palo Altan and am fortunate to live now in Channing House. It is distressing to observe that the continued construction of large buildings without provision for adequate parking has caused
a need for a parking permit program that is projected to become ever more stringent. This has impacted not only
the ambience of our neighborhoods but seriously threatened the livelihoods and services of employees who
cannot afford to live even nearby. Here at Channing House, we greatly appreciate our diligent and caring staff and are concerned deeply for their welfare as well as our own. To quote some of my fellow-residents:
"Many of the workers have worked out ways to ride share. Our needs are simple but we do require the
assistance of these caregivers to enhance our lives. Please do not take their parking away.”
“[Please consider the] needs of those employees taking care of us. Many work
double shifts or at two different jobs and do all they can to get to work on
time. Obviously, being able to park within walking distance to work helps them a
lot. They do their best to serve us cheerfully and with compassion. We can only hope to
return their good will. Please do not take their parking permits away over the next
several years. This would be a terrible disservice to those of us who have served this
community for so long and for those who are now serving us.”
Sincerely,
Joan Norton
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:04 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Allan Seid <allanseid@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 10:25 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:PARKING PERMITS
COUNCIL MEMBERS,
WE HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS OF PALO ALTO SINCE 1962. WE HAVE LIVED IN CHANNING HOUSE SINCE 2009.
WE URGE YOU TO GRANT A WAIVER TO NON- PROFIT SERVICE AGENCIES SUCH AS
CHANNING HOUSE TO
BE EXEMPT FROM THE proposed YEARLY REDUCTION OF PARKING PERMITS TO ITS AREA. SUCH A WAIVER IS CRITICAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF CHANNING HOUSE DUE TO ITS NECESSITY
TO MAINTAIN A CONSTANT NUMBER OF MINIMUM WAGE EMPLOYEES WITH PARKING
PERMITS.
SINCERELY'
ALLAN & MARY SEID
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:04 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Barbara <barbara@1035b.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 9:03 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Parking Permits for Channing House Employees
To the Palo Alto City Council,
There are more than 250 seniors in our residence, and most of us have lived in Palo Alto for many decades; we
still volunteer in the community, we staff the polling places and we vote. In an era in which the world is
grappling with providing care for the elderly in countries around the world, you have an exemplary model right
here in downtown Palo Alto. In retirement, we have the time to manage many of our transportation needs with
the shuttle, VTA, and CalTrain. That is not feasible for our caregivers.
Those of us who are privileged to live in Channing House recognize our dependence on the caring employees
who enrich our lives every day. It is unlikely that our cooks and cleaners, nursing staff, drivers and office staff
can afford to live in our fair city. Please do not make their commutes more difficult by eliminating their
parking permits with the RPP. Please consider your obligation to your senior citizens and maintain an
awareness of the need for on-street employee parking near Channing House.
Thank you for your consideration.
Barbara Bowden
barbara@1035b.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:04 PM
7
Carnahan, David
From:wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com on behalf of Wolfgang Dueregger
<wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu>
Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 6:30 PM
To:Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James; Norman H. Beamer; Peter Taskovich;
Glanckopf, Annette; Furman, Sheri; Jeff Levinsky; Gabrielle Layton; Brand, Richard;
Michael Hodos; Neilson Buchanan; John Guislin; Irene Au; Christian Pease; David
Schrom; Paul & Karen Machado; Tommy Derrick; Elaine Uang
Subject:Evergreen Park RPP - misinformation by dentist
Dear City Council,
as we the residents have pointed out multiple times in writing and also at the public hearings, the RPP will actually make it possible for the cobblers, bakers, dentists and other small businesses find again parking close to
their businesses - since the longterm parkers like employees from startups, people from Stanford University as
well as those who use our neighborhood as their airport parking lot, will hopefully be gone.
It is strange and misleading from the dentists to picture the RPP as a threat to their business - it is the opposite, it will give them the opportunity to park again close to their businesses.
I also want to point out that the yearly fee for a permit of $149 (?) - as some council members already have
pointed out - in Evergreen Park is too low and for fairness should be set at the same rate as for downtown.
Wolfgang Dueregger
Evergreen Park
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:07 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Simon Cintz <simoncintz@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 04, 2017 5:59 PM
To:Scharff, Gregory (internal); DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Holman, Karen; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Wolbach, Cory; Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City
Cc:Mello, Joshuah; Gitelman, Hillary; City Mgr
Subject:Impact of RPP employee permits on residential neighborhoods
Attachments:Parking Survey BEFORE RPP.pdf; RED blockfaces with 25% or less RPP Emeployee
Permit Parkers.pdf; Red Blockfaces within 1 block walking distance of commercial
district.pdf
Dear Mayor and City Council Members -
I met briefly with Josh Mello on Feb 1, 2017 to discuss the City's recent RPP Parking Survey Maps. I followed
up with an email to Josh, attaching my markup/analysis of maps that he and I discussed.
I am now forwarding that email with my markup/analysis of these maps to Council members.
In addition to the information below, I would like call your attention to the parking survey map on page 70 of
the Staff Report prepared for the Feb 13th Council meeting. That map shows the occupancy percentage of RPP
employee permitted parkers on residential blockfaces during the peak parking period of 12noon-2pm. Please note that that map is almost entirely GREEN, meaning that these green blockfaces have less than 50% RPP
employee permitted parkers. If you look more closely, the vast majority of these green blockfaces have less than
a 25% impact by employees who have been issued RPP permits. See map on page 70 in Staff Report at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55817
It is also important to point out that according to the City's parking survey count on 12/1/2016, only 32% of all the RPP employee permit holders actually were parked ("show-rate") on residential streets. See Staff Report, page 4. [Note: This "show-rate" was previously reported to be 20% at the PTC meeting, 12/14/2016]
Please take a few minutes to read the short email below and look at the attached maps. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me via email or telephone (831-247-2387).
TYPO: In KEY POINTS item #6 below, the sentence should read "The 10 year draw down plan ...". I
inadvertently left out the word "down".
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:07 PM
2
Thank you,
Simon Cintz
Cintz Commercial Properties, LP
P.O. Box 1216
Palo Alto, CA 94302
831-247-2387
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Simon Cintz <simoncintz@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 3:27 PM Subject: Markup of Downtown Parking Survey Maps To: "Mello, Joshuah" <joshuah.mello@cityofpaloalto.org>
Josh -
Attached are scans of the three maps that I presented to you today.
KEY POINTS:
1. RPP already has reduced the impact of overparking in residential neighborhoods by over 50%.
2. 40% of the RED blocks in the residential area have 25% or less RPP employee permitted parkers.3. Over half of the RED blocks in residential areas are within one block walking distance of the
Downtown/SOFA commercial districts.
4. The CAP has already been reached or exceeded in all RPP zones except in remote zones 8, 9, 10, forcing
employees who want an RPP permit to walk long distances to and from work.
5. The City Planning/Transportation department has no backup plan for parking employees when demandexceeds supply because of CAP reductions.
6. The 10 year draw plan makes overly aggressive assumptions and is therefore not realistic or workable.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Reducing the CAP will do VERY little to reduce overparking in residential
neighborhoods ... BUT ... will cause great harm to employees and businesses in Downtown/SOFA.
I hope the Planning/Transportation Dept will make recommendations that are consistent with the facts and I
hope the City Council will act accordingly based on these facts.
Simon Cintz
Cintz Commercial Properties, LP
P.O. Box 1216
Palo Alto, CA 94302
831-247-2387
~ -f
~
g
;
n .J
~ 1
~
J
'vi'
._:},
u
_j
_J\
M
.
\..
("
..... "'
'Ml•MllMI
'.f.11•40UAI
'r.••41111.MI
"4U•dl11Atl
'Ml•dCIHll .J
..... I •rJtlM
'IUl•dtlllO
'll.l•doUMI
'Mt• .... UACI
91\'I;/ DU!UUB48'
• ~
-..u.dl.UAU
'ltl•dtUACI
........ ,...,
/\'l;/911!"19V'l
'M.Sl•doW.I
r
11.K•dlllAI
91\'I;/ u1oou11
'llt•dtl/All ,
.
......... I/All
lS JSWOH
~l ......... fl "4MI !lf'llMI "<111" ...... ., ....
91\V JS9JO::J
r 1111·~~l .I• llt AW
e11v UOlllWE!H
l l l I
'JloU•lllJAI '""
. DufilledGN Ulo•••IA,1• "'-----
' ,. . Y.U•dlJAf ~·dtl.u
91\'I;/ ~l!SJ9/\!Un
'l'.t'll•dl/Aft
........ ,, .... , 'Jl.U•dtl/Af'I
91\\/ 119J9/\3
LlOZ/lE/l ZlU!J ·s Aq dew s,Al!J 10 dmpew
'SP!JlS!P 5upped 1epJaWWOJ 'v'::IOS/UMOlUMOG S! e;uy :ino paAeJ9
~:>Uednooo 8u1~•ed +%00~ • %G9 -
~ouednooo Bu1~•ed %•9 • %OS
~ouednooo 8u1~•ed %6• • %0 -
0Av 05o110>l
'MICU•dUIAU
I '"" ..
,. ~, "'" ___ _,
,. "' . "
i
''!Ml1 <1UllJ
Ml • -111 ~t 1
•.11n1rf1111"'1
'Hl•deLIAl. '"•"UM
i ii5 ii5 c
! (ll ~ ~ c: = c: = ! o •
5 0' IJJ/t E~ ..... ; Q) ~
(ll ~ E-0:: -w
'ttlOl•dlJ.U 'MU•dt/M
"\ ""•dw.\t' 'Ml.I edg/AI
'11.UL•dtiAl MllU•lf6'AI
'IAOl•dtl/A.ll
-.. ,,.
'IC.tll•dt/AI
ii5
(ll E Ci:
..... l
"\
~ s ~ A
! i ~ -
'IHl Ml
< ii
,.
0
... Rl•dt'IAS '"\
'Jlotll•dt.!AI
"'-Oll•dttAI ... H•dt:IAl \..
~
paluawa1dw! dd~ aJOJas
J
~oz '0£ !!J di) V'Jdoo:z -V'Jdoo:z ~
AaAJns DU!)IJBd uMoluMoa
Ol!V O!Bd JO Al!J
G I RQ .Q £ ~a~ {c_ ~--c ~ s--hJ-& l. IL. RJ ~Lc.e-r._~~ ~,+L, 2-E RO P.P(f)eit'""f~()'~ ~12_.J'~~r~,k~cr
\ Z ~ ~\De~ ~'-<;-+>S u--,+~ ~ ZS?:: ~ f' f' Ji?_'-"""f' ~(__ f~ vt-. ,+ {'o ~~{~vs
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
12/1/2016
Markup of City's map by S. Cintz 1/30/17 -J Red Blockfaces with ZERO RPP employee permit parkers
ULJULJLJI -I' -12 PM -2PM
"?'I-----
c;w..do
~
I -~i i i ·~ ~
50'!I. Ed
U~o<IL
Cl-.,
~
l~ -gi It -:-~ j l ·t~ I
~on St ~ :.-~~ 1 1 ~
80'<
-· .... I • .----I ---,I
__ . _ .
11 I ~ ~-
It""
I~ ~.
CJ ""
-D
I I
I ILJI 0 ~
~
IL'" '" I I ~ jD D D D I Ir'--""! t: fl•-""I ~ ti ID I I ~IG i'1iiC-:' ~ ~-::i I ,,,.. +-J fi I l__j I 11 I ~~ -sn-=n .. ·-
. I IOI IDDDla · --
DDD DDO c
zn. Alma
Red Blockfaces with 1-25°/o RPP employee permit parkers
li
i i c OvVl"""".:ll"'<., cJ.. D ... s-\v,.1<"--t-
ts<)~ ..... I t\<-'c.<-u,,~./,(._
I'-' ~!::.~ ~~~--~
c ~ ~\,~<;.__£, 1<.E.~ ~G.<-~S-
0 IA ~ '('QJ." I .:L 1ot-ti ~
~Ao<"-~
Legend
-0% -49% Parking Occupancy
50",(, -84% Parking Occupancy
-85% -100%+ Parking Occupancy
City of Palo Alto
Downtown Parking Survey
12/1/2016
12 PM-2PM
Markup of City's map
by S. Cintz 1/31/2017 D RPP Residential areas within approx. ONE block of
Downtown/SOFA commercial districts
LJ LJ LJLJLJU ~ ~=--:::..--=---~-__,_
i ~ a r
i ~ t
.. I t!' 'L 1 ~1 1 ~ • ---.-.i~i~ :-=· i ,. =-ij l ~ : 1 1 ~ .... ·:::::::::~= .. ~·. '11 ~ ~,D ..
~ H _.._
1 -m
MlddlofleldAw -~-~ ,11 I ~ ~ j J
,. L....!""--.... -1lE:l .. ' I , 1_: I ~ i ~ 1 ~ I~ I ' ... :?ll'<___J ; ! ......, .. -~-~I•~
-~ "'" c ~ I Ed :] ~r I~ I -.._.-, =' ~~-~ i n r.-.> ~ -r---.56"--5"' .-
Webtt•St -~ _:;-Wollotor [_---I .... ~ ""' ~ ......
' I r -i ~ ~ I
~ . ii i ; ' ii ~ ~~ !
l'ri . ~ I I r ~ h .r-ai;:-~ I !._ 11"1 ~c---~ .. •r ••• I r.-.~w,...--.,----.;.._
'-SI ,,_
"" H ~-,-. D ..-c.:::.-~ ~ D ·-·~ "" . f. -~-~ ..
~~~ -.J H:..!:::: . .......... ~ O ' ~ ~ I~ I .,,. D ,. -__.
5 ~ I ' ~ t i
"" . "'" •JW. -w--..St . W-'---j' t""'"""" I I
-· _...._-·--..... _ 50% -ll'10
~ . ~ ~ J I~ ·7,--: ~ ~ I~ ! I~ ~ 1: ;o I I i r ~ i--1oo-iw--i -..---~ I .. ,, ...... -rnc---............ --
l -loo 10 1• =-~ Ll CJ z ~ j ~ I t I --"],. -i -:•...::: ii ··-·St ~--i C _J1_--~ .. ~ <
·1 ID < -,. '-~ : ~ . I I j i ~ ~
~-.. ~-
'--St IOI D O ™ :, ' I _ =-~ I ID ~ u .. ~ -
;9'0
--St ~ DDD DD Ll I ]i I rm 1 I J
~
:C
~!
~ JI ~
Legend
a
~
c ~ v"\ v-..fi!-\J\ c ,J. 0 I s.+V:t ~+
.JS C> .!" J1..v ~ V\ ''l--C" c:.. '3 1."o-t
-,V\ ~ ... v-Q_ y~
~ M,s.J l< GO \o{<:.t..~r
G :-~-4?.-' l c,Q.._...._.f-~
io Lz.:.c. (.::. s. .
-0% -49% Parking Occupancy
50% -84% Parking Occupancy
-85% -100%+ Parking Occupancy
c=-------us I Aba5t t: 52 % --{ ~ E o l, Lz:.c (c_ ~ ( t_, ~ Almo o ~ -block·~ LA.Jff~; v-..
ol ( s:--k-..:\.A c:._,<:_
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 7:50 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:KENT MATHER <kentmather@mac.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 05, 2017 2:08 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Lydia Kou
Subject:Residential Preferential Parking (RPP)
February 5, 2017
To: Palo Alto City Council
I have been a resident of Palo Alto for over 23 years and since July, 2016 have been enjoying life in an Independent
Living apartment in Channing House (CH). My wife and I have chosen CH mainly because of its location and convenience
to downtown Palo Alto. We take advantage of this situation every week with downtown visits for shopping, food and
drink and/or entertainment. Needless to say many of our fellow 200 plus residents also do the same.
Channing House has been a Palo Alto institution serving the city and its residents for over 50 years. It is operated as a
private non profit corporation and its physical site development, including limited parking, is based on regulations in
place since 1961. Its successful operation is dependent upon quality staff that is needed on site 24 hours a day. Many of
our staff work two jobs, some of which are both at CH, and they come and go at different hours of the day.
In order to make the best use of our available on‐site parking CH has been working hard to educate staff and residents
on all the alternatives to needing their own private cars such as public transportation, Uber service, car pooling, etc. and
supporting the use of Clipper cards, car sharing, Avenidas Door to Door, etc. This effort is reducing the amount of CH
parking that is required. However, the city plan to reduce employee parking permits in our neighborhood by 200 every
year (ultimately to zero) was never envisioned by Palo Alto or CH when planning this facility and would create a hardship
to its continued successful operation if imposed now.
I support the need for a RPP in the neighborhoods. For it to work well we will also need to continue the ongoing process
of refining the system in order to find a good balance so that we can all be good neighbors.
Thank you,
Kent Mather
R. Kent Mather, Architect
850 Webster Street, Apt 535
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: 650‐324‐7372
kentmather@mac.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 7:50 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Miriam DeJongh <mimanddon@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 05, 2017 6:42 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:RPP Program
Dear City Council Members,
As a Palo Alto resident since 1984, I have deep concerns about the Residential Parking Permit program and implore you to examine it closely.
My late husband and I owned our home on Bryant Street in Old Palo Alto for more than thirty years. I
made the move to Channing House in order to continue enjoying the benefits of life in Palo Alto.
Since its founding in 1960, Channing House has been a mainstay of life here, serving our town's amazingly productive population as it moves into retirement.
Please do not jeopardize the health of our Channing House community through restrictive parking
regulations that will prevent our employees from continuing to serve us. They are dedicated members
of our family, coming from all around the Bay Area because they cannot afford to live here. Reducing the employee parking permits as proposed, by 200 a year, would make their jobs here intolerable. Many of them are on tight schedules because they also work other jobs to make ends meet.
With a 60-year record of service to Palo Alto, and established at a time when parking was not an
issue, Channing House should receive special consideration. We are not another start-up technology firm wishing to capitalize on the vibrancy of downtown Palo Alto. We are a body of core citizens, and more generations like us will follow. Please safeguard the health of our residence by ensuring that we
can continue to hire and retain dedicated employees.
With thanks for your consideration, Miriam DeJongh
850 Webster, Apartment 527
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 7:50 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Tungkuei Hsu <eyhsuster@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 05, 2017 7:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:RPP
Dear City Council Members, I have lived in Palo Alto since 1959. My husband and I raised our three children here. They went to Palo Alto public schools. I taught high school math here for 25 years, and after my retirement, I was a volunteer tutor for underprivileged children. My long life in Palo Alto has been a happy one.
Dr. Russell Lee's pioneering concept for a retirement home--Channing House--inspired me when I first heard about it, and I have now lived
here for the past 27 years. It continues to be a healthy community for retirees, and it is entirely supported by a conscientious, loyal staff,
almost all of whom must commute here to work. While I support requiring new businesses to provide on-site parking, it is impossible for
Channing House to do so; and Channing House would not be able to function without our hired staff.
As you consider the issue of workers' parking permits, please take into consideration our particular situation and needs. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Tungkuei (Toni) Hsu 850 Webster Street, Apt. 618 Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 7:50 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:HELEN GOLDEN <hsgolden@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 05, 2017 9:24 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Employee Parking Permits reduction
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members:
We have been residents of Palo Alto for over a half century, the last three years of which we have chosen to
live in Channing House in the downtown area. We selected this senior residence as it would allow us to
maintain an active lifestyle in the midst of a vibrant city.
In order for us to thrive, we are assisted in all facets of our lives by dedicated employees. However, it is
becoming increasingly difficult to attract and retain employees because of the growing parking restrictions
in our area. We chose to remain in Palo Alto, in the community we love and now are very concerned that the
parking measures planned by the City will negatively impact the quality of life in the downtown area.
We ask you to consider this challenge to our lives and to the success of surrounding businesses as you make
additional decisions regarding reducing the number of parking permits by 200 every year.
Thank you.
Helen Golden
850 Webster Street,
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 7:50 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Joy Sleizer <joy.sleizer142@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 05, 2017 10:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Residential Preferential Parking (RPP)
Dear Members of City Council,
I have lived in Palo Alto since 1962 moving here in my 20s & raising my family in South Palo Alto. Five years ago, I was fortunate enough to move to Channing House which appealed to me because of the location. Being
able to walk downtown was an attraction to me.
While I sympathize with neighbors who find it difficult to park in their neighborhoods, I am concerned about
the employees at Channing House. We have over 100 employees, and as you can imagine, they do not live in Palo Alto. Many of them work 2 jobs and transportation is necessary for them. I do know that many carpool
when coming from the same area. I certainly hope, that you will think about our employees as you decrease the
number of employee parking spaces. Channing House is willing to pay for spaces for the employees, which I
hope would be in our favor. When I see the number of cars parked outside the RPP area, I am assuming that not
all employers are willing to do that.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Joy Sleizer
850 Webster St Apt 706
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 9:37 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:chieko yoshida <chiekosarahy@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 8:33 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:RPP program
Dear City Council Members,
We, Frank & Chieko Yoshida became residents since last March, 2016.
Before choosing Channing House as our final residence we studied various facilities of various towns. We are very happy
to choose Channing House and very pleased to become residents of Palo Alto where progressively concerns for all
residents in town. However, we heard the program of limiting parking permits' for employee. If so the Channing House
will not be functional as now because our daily lives are depending on many faithful hard working employees who
commute far distance and need to park near by Channing House.
So when you discuss regarding worker's parking permits please consider and understand our desperate need of workers
parking permits for elderly people. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely Yours,
Frank & Chieko Yoshida
850 Webster Street, #261
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 9:37 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:philruth78@aol.com
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 7:56 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Employee Parking Channing House
Dear Council Members:
Channing House needs parking for its employees in order to continue to run its non-profit
senior residence which is one of the best .
Our residents are very proud of where we live in the Winter of our lives and hope that it
continues to be an example for the rest of the country.
We are of the age of many of your parents and need your help in continuing to make
Channing House run efficiently.
PARKING FOR OUR EMPLOYEES IS A MUST.
Thank you for your cooperation in making this happen!
Come visit and see for yourselves a place where your parents might live, as well as
yourselves!
Philip and Ruth Meyerson
850 Webster #620
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:34 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mary Ann Michel <maryannm7@gmail.com> on behalf of Mary Ann Michel
<mamichel@alumni.duke.edu>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 2:58 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:RRP
Dear Council Members,
Palo Alto has been my home since 1962, currently I am living at Channing House. You have heard from a few of us here
at CH.
So I will make this short. About 250 residents require a large employee staff and given the expense of living in PA not
many of our staff live in PA. The people who need parking are the employees. Please remember that as you plan for
the future. I gave up my car last year, others here have gone from 2 to 1 car . It is not the employees that are impacting
parking in PA, it's the residents who have one to 3 or 4 cars and no garages at their homes.
Thank you for your service.
Mary Ann Michel
850 Webster st
PA 94301
6503247384
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:34 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:thomas fiene <tjfiene@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 3:15 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:chbb850@googlegroups.com
Subject:Parking
Dear Council Members
We are residents of Palo Alto residing at Channing House for the last 6 months. We moved to Palo Alto in 1962 and
lived at 342 Kellogg Ave where we raised our 4 children who all went to PA schools. After a 17 year interlude in Portola
Valley we have returned to Palo Alto and Channing House.
At Channing House we depend on the services of a large variety of workers including food service, maintenance, nursing
and administration. all of whom live at some distance from the institution and must drive to work. Ride sharing is
encouraged but PARKING remains a significant issue for these essential workers. We hope that you will give this
situation serious consideration in your deliberations.
Sincerely,
Tom and Nancy Fiene
850 Webster st
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:34 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Joanne Koltnow <joanne.koltnow@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 3:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Dental/medical petition for relief from RPP
Dear Council members:
I see that members of the dental and medical community are collecting signatures on a Change.org petition that asks for a modification to the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP. They are also writing letters to their own clients
and supporters. While I do not question their right to do this, I want to point out that both the petition and the
letter from Mulcahy Family Dentists contain distortions of fact and actual untruths.
I urge you to stand firm on your vote to implement the program as formulated, observe its impact, and determine [at a later date] what changes need to be made.
--Joanne Koltnow
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:53 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:philruth78@aol.com
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 11:03 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Employee Parking Channing House
-----Original Message----- From: philruth78 <philruth78@aol.com>
To: city.council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Sent: Mon, Feb 6, 2017 7:56 am
Subject: Employee Parking Channing House
Dear Council Members:
Channing House needs parking for its employees in order to continue to run its non-profit
senior residence which is one of the best .
Our residents are very proud of where we live in the Winter of our lives and hope that it
continues to be an example for the rest of the country.
We are of the age of many of your parents and need your help in continuing to make
Channing House run efficiently.
PARKING FOR OUR EMPLOYEES IS A MUST.
Thank you for your cooperation in making this happen!
Come visit and see for yourselves a place where your parents might live, as well as yourselves!
Philip and Ruth Meyerson
850 Webster #620
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:47 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ellen Uhrbrock <ellen.uhrbrock@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 07, 2017 9:07 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Council Meeting Feb. 13 - Action Item #15 RRP
If the City Council allows RRP to reduce employee parking permits by 200 every year, the city will discourage
or destroy housing for Palo Alto seniors.
I came west to Stanford in 1954 - I earned my living in Palo Alto, owned a home, and lived independently until
2013.
In 2013 at age 83, and too old to live without assistance, I moved to Channing House. It provides meals,
transportation, and health care.
Without employees to cook, clean, drive, nurse, and maintain the facility, Channing House can not provide
housing for 250 seniors.
Without parking for employees, who commute hours and miles to Palo Alto for jobs - we can not hire, compete, or retain employees.
Please amend RRP to provide essential parking for all non-profit housing and businesses for seniors.
Thank you
--
Ellen E. Uhrbrock
ellen.uhrbrock@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:47 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Janet Wright <wrightjanet@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 08, 2017 10:08 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Resident Permit Parking
I have been a resident of Palo Alto for over 41 years, first as a homeowner and recently at Channing
House. Here, at Channing House, I have found residents who are very civic minded and engaged in life. Our
well-being depends on the many services performed by our staff--health care, food and dining service, maintenance, etc. These loyal folks must drive here and, yes, find parking.
Please consider this and keep the permit parking in our vicinity.
Sincerely,
Janet Wright
850 Webster St., Apt. 252
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:47 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Norman Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 08, 2017 11:00 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:2/13/17 Council Meeting, Agenda Item 15 re RPP program
At the September 6, 2016 City Council meeting, Council directed staff to return to Council this year with
proposed RPP changes to implement at the end of Phase 2 of the program, including:
Freeze sale of Employee Parking Permits in Employee Parking Zones 9 and 10 and allow future
streets in these zones to be added for resident‐only parking, reducing the total number of available
employee permits in all zones by this amount.
Unfortunately, according to the Staff Report for the upcoming RPP agenda item (Report No. 7515), staff has
failed to propose these changes, and has instead proposed the opposite. I urge Council to press forward
with the original changes.
I appeared before council during the September 6 meeting and observed that there was significant non‐
resident parking intrusion into the Crescent Park Neighborhood as a result of the Downtown RPP program.
This intrusion was and is occurring on blocks just outside the RPP district. Basically, commuters who
worked downtown, who do not want to pay for parking permits in the garages or in the actual RPP district,
are parking for free on those blocks. Commuters have been observed getting bicycles or skateboards out
of their trunks and “commuting” the last mile to their places or employment, or taking one of the local
shuttle buses into town. Groups of cars would park, and everyone would pile into one car, and “car pool”
the rest of the way.
Meanwhile, in the Zone 9 and 10 areas that are opting into RPP – i.e., the blocks just inside the RPP
boundary ‐‐ there were and are only a limited number of non‐resident cars. According to the staff report, as
of December, only 35 non‐resident permits have been issued for Zone 10, and only one permit for Zone 9.
As Mr. Mello stated at the September 6 meeting: “[Zones] Eight, 9 and 10 are still undersold. They're not
very popular with employees because of the distance from the Downtown core. . . . I would also like to note
that there's very little demand for zone 9 and 10; we've sold very few permits over the last six months that
phase 2 has been in operation.” (Tr. 91, 104)
All this must be viewed in light of the fact that, historically, before the Downtown RPP program was
implemented, Crescent Park did not have a problem with non‐resident commuter parking. (Although there
was and is a problem with overnight parking on the blocks adjacent to East Palo Alto, which is being
addressed by a separate Overnight Parking Permit program not at issue here.) I and many others in
Crescent Park believe that it is fundamentally unfair and unacceptable to artificially transfer the downtown
parking problem into Crescent Park or other outlying neighborhoods that never had that problem before.
In addition, the very same State Law invoked in the first “Recital” of the proposed Resolution up before
Council, providing the legal basis for an RPP program, forbids such transference of the parking problem to
areas not previously affected by the problem. Vehicle Code § 22507(a) provides that cities may adopt
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:47 PM
4
preferential parking programs that designate “certain streets upon which preferential parking privileges
are given to residents and merchants adjacent to the streets for their use and the use of their guests.”
Even under the most strained and self‐serving construction of this provision, the newly‐inundated blocks in
Crescent Park cannot be considered adjacent to the Downtown business and offices.
At the September 6 Council meeting, there was clear recognition that the galloping annexation of Crescent
Park into the RPP district need a course correction. For example, Councilmember Berman stated “I agree
with as soon as possible freezing the sale of employee permits in Zones 9 and 10. That was never part of the
intention, and that seems to make sense.” (Tr. 103.) The clear consensus was that it is inappropriate to sell
any more non‐resident permits in Zones 9 and 10, and that furthermore the blocks adjacent to those Zones
should be readily incorporated into the RPP district, but on a resident‐only basis. The above motion was the
end result of that discussion.
As I responded to a question from Councilmember Kniss at about midnight during an earlier Council Meeting
(in February 2016), Crescent Park recognizes the need for a Downtown RPP program – the prior situation in
the downtown neighborhoods was untenable. However, as I further responded, given an RPP district, and
given human nature, Crescent Park must be allowed, on a block‐by‐block opt‐in process, to become part of
the RPP district as non‐resident parkers migrate outwards in an attempt to avoid paying for permits. I.e., to
be part of the RPP district is certainly better than to be just outside the district and subject to the overflow
parking. But the question is whether non‐resident permits should be issued in the Crescent Park RPP zones.
The answer is no – or at most a limited number of permits should be issued on a temporary basis. To that
end, the motion passed September 6 is an acceptable result.
Therefore, it is astonishing that Staff now proposes, “In lieu of a reduction in permits in the outermost
Employee Parking Zones initially, as originally proposed, Staff is instead recommending a reduction across
the board in all ten Employee Parking Zones, but a larger reduction in the zones closest to the downtown
commercial area which have a higher concentration of two‐hour parkers.” This not only is in defiance of the
above motion, but it is contrary to the enacted 2/23/16 Resolution 9577, which provides, “The [annual]
reduction in permits will occur in the outermost zones of the Downtown RPP district initially, and affect
inner zones in subsequent years.” (Section 5.C.2.d.) Despite the fact that only 35 non‐resident permits have
been issued for Zone 10, staff proposed to increase the allocation to 351.
Please do what is necessary to implement the September 6, 2016 motion.
Respectively submitted,
Norman Beamer, 1005 University
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:47 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:HARRY CASSIDY <hcassidy2@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Wednesday, February 08, 2017 12:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Parking
To: Palo Alto City Council
We have been at Channing House for 14 months and Menlo Park before that. Our employees, and there are many, commute long distances and then have to hunt for a parking place. Unfortunately
we are short spaces and Channing House, in an effort to free up spaces, is increasing our parking
fee again, This means that we will be parking in the street instead of the garage, and there will still
be a lot of people looking for a parking space--maybe more!
We hope the city of Palo Alto can help us. Thank you.
Ilse Hopkins
Harry Cassidy
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:47 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Rita Donovan <rjd32249@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 07, 2017 8:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:PALO ALTO RESIDENTIAL PREFERENTIAL PARKING (RPP)...
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am a resident of Channing House who decided to move here from
Redwood Shores over a year ago. I explored many options and chose to
live in Palo Alto because of the proximity of friends, shops, libraries,
restaurants and excellent fire and police services. I selected Channing
House because of the fine quality of life, broad range of important services
and the capability for continuing care during my retirement years. I've
been extremely pleased with my experiences.
As I'm sure you are well aware, it takes many capable employees to
perform City services. Likewise, it takes many employees to provide the
multitude of services for 250 residents at Channing House. As you perhaps
have also experienced, hiring lower and middle income workers is
becoming increasingly more competitive in the local marketplace. A large
number of the employees at Channing House who cannot afford to live in
the area work two jobs and thus are not candidates for public
transportation. We feel it is essential to hiring and retaining employees to
be able to offer them parking spaces.
I greatly appreciate your efforts in maintaining Palo Alto as a First Class
City for residents of all ages to work and enjoy. I sincerely ask that you
carefully consider revising the RPP projected reduction of 200 employee
parking permits each year because of how this policy might affect vital
services at Channing House and throughout the City.
Thank you for your attention to my comments,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:47 PM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Leslie M Zatz <lzatz@stanford.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, February 07, 2017 2:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Downtown Parking Ordenance
Before and after living on the Stanford Campus for 42 years, I have lived in Palo Alto for 14 years so I am familiar with
the growth of the area and the parking problems. I am now a resident of Channing House at 850 Webster St. I believe it
is wise and proper for the Council to require that new residences and businesses provide parking for their needs but
Channing House predates the rapid expansion of the parking problem. Because Channing House is a Continuing Care
Residence there are many residents who could not afford to cover increased costs for service employees. Recruitment
of service employees is already difficult in this high wage area. Reducing employee parking permits by 200 per year will
add to the costs that the Channing House residents face in the future.
I appeal to you to continue to allow Channing House to have sufficient parking permits to meet its critical needs.
Leslie M. Zatz
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:47 PM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Diane Allen <dianeallen315@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 07, 2017 1:16 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:RPP
To: City Council Members
I urge you to reconsider the city's plan to reduce the number of employee parking permits.
As a 37-year former resident of Professorville, I understand Palo Alto's street parking issues. As a 4-year
resident of Channing House, I feel lucky to be able to continue living and shopping near downtown. Channing
House is a valuable resource for Palo Alto. In order to live happy active retirement years, we depend on our
staff of nurses, nursing assistants, housekeepers, food service workers, and professional staff. Many of these fine folks are unable to get to work on public transportation.
Street parking in our neighborhood is not crowded. Please continue to allow our employees to park nearby.
Diane M. Allen 850 Webster St #603
Palo Alto 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:47 PM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Barbara Clark <barbaraclark.email@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 07, 2017 9:15 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Parking
I am writing to ask not to increase the parking for the downtown area of Palo Alto.
We here at Channing House, 850 Palo Alto. a senior residence find it is making it hard for our workers, who are
low income to work here. We depend of their service. And as you know public transportation from areas outside of Palo Alto ( where they mostly live) is insufficient or non exsistent.
Dont raise their parking.
I vote in Palo Alto,
Sincerely,
Barbara Clark
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:47 PM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Schwaar <schwaar@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 9:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:RPP Program
To the Palo Alto City Council:
I hope that you will find a way for the employees of Channing House to continue to park on the streets nearby
in the months and years ahead.
After 35 years as homeowners on Churchill Avenue (with no street parking in front of our house), we moved to Channing House 10 years ago. It is a wonderful warm home for us now, owing in large part to the fine
employees. There are some 150 of them to serve our resident population of about 270, giving us care 24/7. We'd
be lost without them.
I wish that there were good alternatives for them to commute to work, but the public transportation possibilities are few and impractical, especially for those employees that juggle two jobs and work irregular and late hours.
Please consider these hardworking people before you decide to reduce the number of parking permits available.
Developers could help by building enough parking spots into their new projects. Thank you.
Robert H. Schwaar
850 Webster St.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:47 PM
12
Carnahan, David
From:Michael Eager <eager@eagercon.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 07, 2017 7:37 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Evergreen Park Residential Parking Permit
Dear City Council ‐‐
I believe that the email about the Evergreen Park RPP from Mulcahy Family Dentistry contains several misstatements.
RPP planning has been a long, drawn‐out process. While I don't know if they received a specific invitation to participate
in the meetings with staff which included Cal Ave businesses, I believe that they did participate in residential meetings
and that they have been well aware of the progress on the RPP, which has been described many times in the local
newspapers.
There are many medical and dental providers in the Palo Alto area.
Yelp lists more than fifty dentists with Palo Alto addresses. To describe the number of providers as having "dwindled"
lacks credibility.
For many years the residents in Evergreen Park have been providing free parking for employees of local businesses.
While we appreciate the businesses, and support them, the responsibility to provide parking for both employees and
customers is, ultimately, that of the business, not the local residents. In a very real sense, Evergreen Park residents have
been subsidizing these businesses.
No one likes it when they lose a subsidy, and indeed, they may believe that the subsidy is their right. The Evergreen Park
RPP takes away this subsidy to some extent. Businesses like Mulcahy Family Dentistry will need to find ways to
accommodate both employees and customers.
Businesses can purchase employee parking permits for their staff.
They might encourage employees to carpool or use public transportation.
They might pay for car fare from the CalTrain station or from a parking garage. There may be nearby businesses from
which they can lease parking space. When selecting a location for their business, business owners need to take into
account all of their company's requirements and not ignore ones which are inconvenient, like employee parking.
Builders need to accommodate their tenants' parking requirements, not assume that the local neighborhood will.
Ultimately, accommodating parking for employees and customers is a cost of doing business.
Unfortunately, instead of describing how they might take responsibility for employee and customer parking, the
Mulcahy letter and petition only suggests that they be given this subsidy in perpetuity.
It appears that Mulcahy Family Dentistry and others have buried their heads in the sand for the past year, assuming that
nothing would happen with the RPP. They now complain that their lack of planning is something which the Palo Alto
City Council should address. I do not believe that the Council should make any substantive changes to the Evergreen
Park RPP. Any accommodation for businesses which have failed to plan for the RPP should be extremely limited and
targeted.
‐‐
Michael Eager eager@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650‐325‐8077
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:53 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jo Bellomo <jo@bellomoarchitects.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 8:07 PM
To:Scharff, Gregory (internal); DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Holman,
Karen; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Cc:Council, City; City Mgr; Keene, James; Stump, Molly; Gitelman, Hillary; Lee, Elena;
French, Amy; Gerhardt, Jodie; Mello, Joshuah; Architectural Review Board; Adam
Petersen
Subject:429 University = Pedestrian-Oriented Design
Attachments:2017.02.06 Jo Bellomo Letter to City Council re 429U.pdf
Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council,
Please see my attached letter regarding our proposed mixed-use project at the corner of Kipling and University.
We look forward to tonight’s discussion. Best,
jo
_ Joseph Bellomo, Architect
102 University Ave, Suite C Palo Alto. CA 94301
VIA EMAIL
February 6, 2017
Mayor Gregory Scharff & Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto City Hall, 7th floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Pedestrian-Oriented Design & the Mixed-Use Project at 429 University
Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council members:
At tonight’s City Council meeting, we will present for approval a sustainable, mixed use,
compatible, contextual, and otherwise code-compliant design that will reinvigorate the
corner of Kipling and University (the “Project”). Of critical significance, the Project site is
located in the heart of our downtown commercial district, a half mile from Palo Alto’s
busiest Caltrain station and even nearer to the Lytton Avenue bus route. The narrow
width of Kipling makes the site even more suitable and desirable for the Project’s higher
density, mixed-use development—a design format invariably more pedestrian-oriented
than low-density development with singular land uses. If Kipling is the narrowest street
in downtown, then the intersection of Kipling and University is currently the best location
for precisely the type of mixed-use development our Project envisions. Indeed, a
quintessential tool for achieving pedestrian-oriented design is reducing street widths
and narrowing vehicular paths of travel.
On a personal note, there are no two streets in this world that mean more to me than
Kipling and University. I lived at 221 Kipling across from Johnson Park for thirty years,
until November 2013—I was there even before Johnson Park and my children were
literally born on that property—and I have had my office at 102 University for nearly thirty
years as well. I have walked the sidewalks along Kipling between Everett and University
countless times. I have witnessed the neighborhood’s positive changes first-hand. And
combined with my extensive architecture, city planning and pedestrian-oriented
development experience, including being the prior chairman of the ARB and a former
member of Planning, my deep understanding of Kipling makes me uniquely qualified to
assess the compatibility and contextuality of this Project. My personal experiences as a
developer of mixed-use projects in downtown Palo Alto have given me an even stronger
understanding of the relevant statutes, Plan provisions and zoning ordinances, and I can
say unequivocally that the Project complies.
February 6, 2017
Page 2 of 3
Today, when people think of Palo Alto, they think of it as the heart of innovation,
sustainability, and progress, not just in technology but in medicine, education and
transportation. In the past, our City has also supported innovation in architecture,
including Birge Clark after he graduated from Stanford in 1914. Like with technology and
medicine, we now know a great deal more about architectural design than we did in
Birge Clark’s prime and we’ve learned even more since his death in 1989. For clarity, I
am not referring to subjective aesthetic preferences (though our expanded knowledge
inevitably affects aesthetic outcomes). I am talking about materiality, structure, and
sustainability. A building made of concrete, steel and glass is not only safer but longer
lasting and more energy efficient. In contrast, covering a structure’s exterior bones with
tiles, stucco and the like uses more of the earth’s diminishing resources. And for what it’s
worth, insisting on such design features is also an excellent way to increase traffic during
construction and pollute the environment while you’re at it—more materials necessarily
require more trucks coming to a job site.
I would like to think Birge Clark would be proud the Silicon Valley chapter of the
American Institute of Architects honored me with its lifetime achievement award bearing
his name (the Birge Clark Award). I am also thankful Palo Alto values, protects and
preserves his architectural accomplishments. His designs were unique and innovative
and capitalized on the body of knowledge available at the time, and his prolific career
contributed substantially to what we know now. It would be a dream come true to one
day have my work honored and protected like Birge Clark’s buildings, and regardless I
strongly support the policies that respect and preserve our architectural gems. What I
do not dream of, however, is having my body of work associated with efforts to prevent
the redevelopment of old, worn-down buildings that had nothing to do with me.
The dilapidated structures that currently comprise the Project site are neither historical
landmarks nor architectural gems, and multiple CEQA and historical reports have
confirmed the Project will not compromise any nearby historical structures. Encouraging
more discussion on this non-issue will only continue to mislead the public, unfairly
prejudice and unduly burden my clients, and further compromise the integrity of the
ARB, HRB, CEQA reviews, historical reports, Planning, and Palo Alto’s comprehensive
plan and permitting process. The Project today is also lighter in scale and massing than
the version approved by the Director of Planning & Community Environment in February
2015. For the City Council to continue withholding its approval is an illegal abuse of
discretion. Having the final word on a matter does not mean you can act unreasonably
and do whatever you want; much to the contrary, well-established law requires
governmental bodies to do just the opposite—to act reasonably—a constitutionally
heightened duty when your decisions affect life, liberty or property rights. Acting
reasonably is mutually exclusive with demanding and then disregarding multiple CEQA
February 6, 2017
Page 3 of 3
reports, traffic studies, shadow studies and historical resource studies, all of which my
clients had to pay for. It is mutually exclusive with the ARB’s two subsequent findings
that the Project is compatible. And, perhaps most importantly, acting reasonably is
mutually exclusive with discouraging efforts that will achieve pedestrian-oriented design.
In any event, regardless of how you proceed this evening, I expect all City Council
members and other City representatives to demonstrate—both in language and tone—
respect and appreciation for my clients’ unwavering commitment to this City’s future.
Like myself, Jaime and Elizabeth Wong care deeply about Palo Alto and have a profound
and sincere desire to keep it awesome and then make it even better. I would hope each
of you is ready and eager to thank them.
Respectfully,
Joseph M. Bellomo, Architect
CC: Tom DuBois, City Council
Eric Filseth, City Council Member
Adrian Fine, City Council Member
Karen Holman, City Council Member
Liz Kniss, City Council Member
Lydia Kou, City Council Member
Greg Tanaka, City Council Member
Cory Wolbach, City Council Member
Jim Keene, City Manager
Molly Stump, City Attorney
Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning & Community Environment
Elena Lee, Interim Advance Planning Manager
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Jodie Gerhardt, Current Planning Manager
Joshuah Mello, Chief Transportation Official
Peter Baltay, ARB Member
Wynne Furth, ARB Member
Robert Gooyer, ARB Member
Kyu Kim, ARB Vice Chair
Alexander Lew, ARB Chairman
Adam Peterson, Project Planner
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:51 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Michael Eager <eager@eagercon.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 07, 2017 7:38 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University Ave
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too big and
massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The
building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling
Street and increase traffic which will cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the
quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses.
In November, 2015, the City Council referred the plans back to the ARB with the goal of reducing the massiveness of the
proposed building. Little has changed in this regard.
I further ask that any Council member who has received a substantial contribution from the property owners, either
before or after the election, recuse him or herself.
‐‐
Michael Eager eager@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650‐325‐8077
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:53 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Fred Bisharat <fredbisharat@att.net>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 8:12 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University Avenue - Proposed development
Dear Council Members:
Please consider denying the plans proposed for the development of 429 University Avenue.
This is an incongruous four story massive building that will displace the present two story buildings
that are so much a part of the true and warm character of Palo Alto.
There are two basements planned to accommodate 40-45 cars that approach the building from a one
way alley. All cars have to exit onto Kipling Street
and funnel into University or Lytton Avenues. Basements always will raise the question of aquifers in
Palo Alto. Those aquifers are needed in case of recurring drought periods raise the question of
aquifers in Palo Alto which are needed in case of recurring drought periods. Pumping all the water
that emerges from digging down, into the sewer, is done without regard to our plight in Palo Alto in
an emergency.
This is a massive development. It will attract a lot of visitors besides the occupants and the workers
that use the building daily.
The impact of the traffic alone on University will be constricting and will add to our traffic woes that
are not being solved as of date. It will have a negative impact on
the quality of life in Palo Alto - for all people - residents and visitors alike.
Fred Bisharat
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:53 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:ian.irwin@sbcglobal.net
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 7:15 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:429 University Avenue
Dear City Council Members,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too big and massive and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November
30, 2015. The building will overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will
cause unending traffic jams. It will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents,
pedestrians and businesses.
Thank you,
Ian Irwin
Palo Alto Resident Since 1978
800 Cowper Street
February 3, 2005
Mr. Mark Peterson-Perez
434 Addison Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mr. PeterSOn-Perez
QL\-lg~., OJ.10
G!,y of Palo Alto.
Police Department
~ Johnsoo It is .my understanding that on February 1, 2005, yml made a ~est to this Depattment to
ChiefofPolia! obtain a copy of Police Report 04-182-0llO. As requirCd in California Government CQde
Section 6255(b ), I am writing this letter to inform you that your request is denied based the .
report investigation type which is exempt from release per Govemment Code 6254(£),
6254(£)(2) and 6254(k)-lli67.5 of the California Penal Code. Although the ·santa Clara
County District Attorney's office has declined to issue a complaint against you ·•t this time.
this investigation is still considered criminal in nature and· therefoR: exempt from n:lease ..
Per Government Code 6254, the only information from the report that ·1s conslden:d public·
infonnation is the information you may aJn:ady know. SJnce the victims.of this case have
invoked their rights under California Penal Code Section 29land GC 6254, thdr names are
exempt from release per PC 293(c) and 293( d). .
Date Reported: .
Time:
Case Number:·
Report Type:
Location:
Synopsis:
julya,2004
1445Hours
~-182-0110 . . . :
·Domestic Violence/Sexual Battery, PC 591 Phone Tampering and
· Emergency Protection Order
~00 block of Addison Avenue
Can for· service to welfare check possible Victims of Domestic
Violence activity. ·· ·
.: . . ~ ·• .' -:
If you have any further questions, please dO not hesitate to con~ me;:.
Records Manager
Palo Alto Police Department
650.329.2553 .. ~ ·: . . : .. . . ..
cC: Chief Lynne Johnson, City Attorney Gary Baum·
275 ForestAverme PaloAlto,CA 94301
S>.329.2406
S>.329.2565 fax
650.617.3120Admirrlstralion fax
VIA EMAIL
February 6, 2017
Mayor Gregory Scharff & Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto City Hall, 7th floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Pedestrian-Oriented Design & the Mixed-Use Project at 429 University
Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council members:
At tonight’s City Council meeting, we will present for approval a sustainable, mixed use,
compatible, contextual, and otherwise code-compliant design that will reinvigorate the
corner of Kipling and University (the “Project”). Of critical significance, the Project site is
located in the heart of our downtown commercial district, a half mile from Palo Alto’s
busiest Caltrain station and even nearer to the Lytton Avenue bus route. The narrow
width of Kipling makes the site even more suitable and desirable for the Project’s higher
density, mixed-use development—a design format invariably more pedestrian-oriented
than low-density development with singular land uses. If Kipling is the narrowest street
in downtown, then the intersection of Kipling and University is currently the best location
for precisely the type of mixed-use development our Project envisions. Indeed, a
quintessential tool for achieving pedestrian-oriented design is reducing street widths
and narrowing vehicular paths of travel.
On a personal note, there are no two streets in this world that mean more to me than
Kipling and University. I lived at 221 Kipling across from Johnson Park for thirty years,
until November 2013—I was there even before Johnson Park and my children were
literally born on that property—and I have had my office at 102 University for nearly thirty
years as well. I have walked the sidewalks along Kipling between Everett and University
countless times. I have witnessed the neighborhood’s positive changes first-hand. And
combined with my extensive architecture, city planning and pedestrian-oriented
development experience, including being the prior chairman of the ARB and a former
member of Planning, my deep understanding of Kipling makes me uniquely qualified to
assess the compatibility and contextuality of this Project. My personal experiences as a
developer of mixed-use projects in downtown Palo Alto have given me an even stronger
understanding of the relevant statutes, Plan provisions and zoning ordinances, and I can
say unequivocally that the Project complies.
February 6, 2017
Page 2 of 3
Today, when people think of Palo Alto, they think of it as the heart of innovation,
sustainability, and progress, not just in technology but in medicine, education and
transportation. In the past, our City has also supported innovation in architecture,
including Birge Clark after he graduated from Stanford in 1914. Like with technology and
medicine, we now know a great deal more about architectural design than we did in
Birge Clark’s prime and we’ve learned even more since his death in 1989. For clarity, I
am not referring to subjective aesthetic preferences (though our expanded knowledge
inevitably affects aesthetic outcomes). I am talking about materiality, structure, and
sustainability. A building made of concrete, steel and glass is not only safer but longer
lasting and more energy efficient. In contrast, covering a structure’s exterior bones with
tiles, stucco and the like uses more of the earth’s diminishing resources. And for what it’s
worth, insisting on such design features is also an excellent way to increase traffic during
construction and pollute the environment while you’re at it—more materials necessarily
require more trucks coming to a job site.
I would like to think Birge Clark would be proud the Silicon Valley chapter of the
American Institute of Architects honored me with its lifetime achievement award bearing
his name (the Birge Clark Award). I am also thankful Palo Alto values, protects and
preserves his architectural accomplishments. His designs were unique and innovative
and capitalized on the body of knowledge available at the time, and his prolific career
contributed substantially to what we know now. It would be a dream come true to one
day have my work honored and protected like Birge Clark’s buildings, and regardless I
strongly support the policies that respect and preserve our architectural gems. What I
do not dream of, however, is having my body of work associated with efforts to prevent
the redevelopment of old, worn-down buildings that had nothing to do with me.
The dilapidated structures that currently comprise the Project site are neither historical
landmarks nor architectural gems, and multiple CEQA and historical reports have
confirmed the Project will not compromise any nearby historical structures. Encouraging
more discussion on this non-issue will only continue to mislead the public, unfairly
prejudice and unduly burden my clients, and further compromise the integrity of the
ARB, HRB, CEQA reviews, historical reports, Planning, and Palo Alto’s comprehensive
plan and permitting process. The Project today is also lighter in scale and massing than
the version approved by the Director of Planning & Community Environment in February
2015. For the City Council to continue withholding its approval is an illegal abuse of
discretion. Having the final word on a matter does not mean you can act unreasonably
and do whatever you want; much to the contrary, well-established law requires
governmental bodies to do just the opposite—to act reasonably—a constitutionally
heightened duty when your decisions affect life, liberty or property rights. Acting
reasonably is mutually exclusive with demanding and then disregarding multiple CEQA
February 6, 2017
Page 3 of 3
reports, traffic studies, shadow studies and historical resource studies, all of which my
clients had to pay for. It is mutually exclusive with the ARB’s two subsequent findings
that the Project is compatible. And, perhaps most importantly, acting reasonably is
mutually exclusive with discouraging efforts that will achieve pedestrian-oriented design.
In any event, regardless of how you proceed this evening, I expect all City Council
members and other City representatives to demonstrate—both in language and tone—
respect and appreciation for my clients’ unwavering commitment to this City’s future.
Like myself, Jaime and Elizabeth Wong care deeply about Palo Alto and have a profound
and sincere desire to keep it awesome and then make it even better. I would hope each
of you is ready and eager to thank them.
Respectfully,
Joseph M. Bellomo, Architect
CC: Tom DuBois, City Council
Eric Filseth, City Council Member
Adrian Fine, City Council Member
Karen Holman, City Council Member
Liz Kniss, City Council Member
Lydia Kou, City Council Member
Greg Tanaka, City Council Member
Cory Wolbach, City Council Member
Jim Keene, City Manager
Molly Stump, City Attorney
Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning & Community Environment
Elena Lee, Interim Advance Planning Manager
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Jodie Gerhardt, Current Planning Manager
Joshuah Mello, Chief Transportation Official
Peter Baltay, ARB Member
Wynne Furth, ARB Member
Robert Gooyer, ARB Member
Kyu Kim, ARB Vice Chair
Alexander Lew, ARB Chairman
Adam Peterson, Project Planner
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:52 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Cheryl Lilienstein <clilienstein@me.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 11:58 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ad hominem is not what you think
As Mr Wohlbach chided the “members of the public" for “ad hominem” attacks, I’d like to offer him the
definition, which hinges on naming someone using a false claim or irrelevant fact. For instance, had anyone
said that someone on the council is a useless clod, that would be an ad hominem attack. But naming an action and the person who did it is not ad hominem. See below. It is completely legitimate to name the behavior that is
not appropriate and to ask for recusal on that basis. In spite of the city attorney’s opinion, the rules of ethical
behavior were violated, and you supported the violation. Mr Wohlbach, I just have to ask: when the Clean
Money Act needs your support, you will vote for it, right? Even though your actions tonight signalled you think
it’s okay for money to influence votes on the city council?
Here is the definition:
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the
basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
Cheryl Lilienstein
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:52 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 8:36 PM
To:paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Council, City; Stump, Molly
Subject:Brock Turner piece --from the archives of Aram James
http://www.siliconvalleydebug.org/articles/2016/07/28/brock-turners-probation
Shared via the Google app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:53 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Galli, Morgan(PB)@HSR <Morgan.Galli@hsr.ca.gov>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 8:30 PM
Cc:Graham, Ricci@HSR
Subject:California High-Speed Rail Authority - Pre-Bid Conference - Friday, Feb. 10
Dear Stakeholder,
On behalf of the California High‐Speed Rail Authority (Authority), I would like to inform you that the Authority will be
holding a Pre‐Bid Conference for five Right‐of‐Way Engineering and Survey Service contracts for the Silicon Valley to
Central Valley Line. The Pre‐bid Conference takes place on Friday, February 10, 2017 from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at
the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Chambers, located at 70 Hedding Street, First Floor, San Jose, CA 95110.
The five RFQs and resulting contracts would be in the following geographical area:
• Pacheco Pass RFQ: San Felipe Road/SR 152 to 1.5 miles
• West of I‐5 not‐to‐exceed contract value of $4 million
• Monterey Highway to Morgan Hill RFQ: West Alma Ave. to San Martin Ave. not‐to‐exceed contract value of $5
million
• Morgan Hill to Pacheco Pass RFQ: San Martin Ave. to San Felipe Rd./SR 152 not‐to‐exceed contract value of $15
million
• Foothills and Wye RFQ: 1.5 miles west of I‐5 to Carlucci Road and Merced‐Madera not‐to‐exceed contract value
of $12 million
• San Jose Approach to Monterey Highway RFQ: San Jose to West Alma Ave. not‐to‐exceed contract value of $2
million
The Pre‐bid flyer and RFQ documents are posted on Cal eProcure and the Authority website and can be found here:
http://www.hsr.ca.gov/About/Doing_Business_with_HSR/contracts_for_bid.html.
If you have any questions regarding the Pre‐bid Conference, please contact Ricci Graham at ricci.graham@hsr.ca.gov.
Best,
Morgan Galli
Northern California Outreach Manager California High-Speed Rail
425 Market Street, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94611 w: (415) 243-4641
morgan.galli@hsr.ca.gov www.hsr.ca.gov
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:50 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nat Fisher <sukiroo@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 07, 2017 12:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:cell phone towers
A Verizon contractor has applied for a permit to install a cell phone tower on the light
pole on Ellsworth Place, next to the apt. bldg at 2901 Middlefield Road. AT&T is also
applying for a permit.
There are citywide about 92 such applications right now with probably more to
come. More than one cell service will probably use the same poles!
I spoke to a planning dept. staff member this morning. For more information phone
Rebecca Atkinson at 329-2596. She is the project manager.
Her email is www.Rebecca.Atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org.
Natalie
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:53 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lois Lin <mloislin@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 1:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:City land-use plan
Dear Council Members
I was shocked that after 3 million dollars spent, years of discussion from all sides, and many compromises, the council
voted to essentially ignore all of the recommendations given by the land‐use committee. This is outrageous! You are
supposed to work for us, not for your own special interests. Please start represented ALL of us, not just the developers.
Lois Lin, Orme Street.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:51 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Saturday, February 04, 2017 12:42 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Council Member Ethics
This message corrects an error I discovered after the first message on this topic was sent. I
inadvertantly left out Council member Kou in the list of four in the last paragraph. R. Placone
Attention Council Members:
Assuming the reporting in the Palo Alto Weekly Online express is accurate (I haven't see the printed Weekly yet), it is now abundantly clear to me that we have five council members who do not meet what should be the expected standards of political behavior and ethics. Three - Council members
Kniss, Fine and Tanaka, were offered and accepted substantial monetary contributions from known
project developers, to their campaigns for election at a time when they did not have to reveal this to
the voters until after the election. It has been reported that one or more of these three used the money to repay themselves for loans they made to their campaign. Nice work if you can get it! In the case of these three, I knew from their record that all were strongly pro developers, and not
necessarily high quality developers judging from past projects they either supported or were involved
in. I did not vote for them
These three along with Council Members Scharff and Wolbach clearly colluded with each other prior to the Council meeting that reviewed the upcoming Comprehensive plan, in order to quickly and
systematically gut it. How did you do it Council members, without violating the Brown Act? Such
coordination does not just happen. I know from experience in my management career and in my past
and current community work in this town, it takes careful coordination and negotiation to get such consensus on a difficult and complicated issue.
So that leaves me with four Council members in whom I can depend upon to give an honest review
of any issue I may bring to the Council. There is likely to be such in the near future, so I will carefully
watch to see who votes and how. To Council members Holman, DuBopis, Filseth and Kou - I tip my hat in gratitude for your adherence to principle and good governance performance - thank you.
Sincerely,
Richard C. Placone Chimalus Drive Palo Alto (Barron Park)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 9:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 5:16 PM
To:Stump, Molly
Cc:Scharff, Gregory (internal); Council, City
Subject:CPRA Request | PA's regulatory agreements (with Lytton Gardens) re HUD regulations
Attachments:Lytton_I_agreement.pdf; Lytton_II_Agreement.pdf; Lytton_IV_Agreement.pdf
Molly Stump, JD
Palo Alto City Attorney
Dear Ms. Stump:
Thank you for providing me with the city of Palo Alto's regulatory agreements with ESC that require housing at
Lytton Gardens Senior Communities be made available on affordable terms to low income persons.
After reading these agreement documents, it's clear that I cannot draw conclusions without reviewing the HUD regulations to which these contract agreements refer. Therefore, pursuant to the CPRA, I request the HUD
regulations documents.
Sincerely,
Danielle Martell
Palo Alto City Council Candidate, 2016
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 9:43 AM
2
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Palo Alto Public Records Center <paloaltoca@mycusthelp.net>
Date: Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:17 PM Subject: Public Records Request :: W000663-011917 To: dmpaloalto@gmail.com
--- Please respond above this line ---
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of thi s pi ctu re from the In ternet.
01/19/2017
RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of January 18, 2017, Reference # W000663‐011917
Dear Danielle,
I am writing in response to your requests for documents under the California Public Records Act
(Govt. Code § 6250 et seq.) received by the City on 1/18/2017.
Your request mentioned Thank you for your response and letting me know that ʺthe city of Palo Alto
has regulatory agreements with ESC that require housing be made available on affordable terms to
low income personsʺ. Pursuant to the CPRA, I request these documents.
The City has reviewed its files and has located responsive records to your request. The responsive
records are attached to this email and also available by logging in to the Records Center at the
following link.
If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this further, please contact me.
Sincerely,
David Carnahan
Deputy City Clerk
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of thi s pi ctu re from the In ternet.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:56 PM Subject: CPRA Request | PA's regulatory agreements with Lytton Gardens To: "Stump, Molly" <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: "Scharff, Gregory (internal)" <Greg.Scharff@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Molly Stump, JD
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 9:43 AM
3
Palo Alto City Attorney
Dear Ms. Stump:
Thank you for your response and letting me know that "the city of Palo Alto has regulatory agreements with ESC that require housing be made available on affordable terms to low income persons". Pursuant to the CPRA, I request these documents.
Sincerely,
Danielle Martell
Palo Alto City Council Candidate, 2016
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org> Date: Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 2:30 PM Subject: RE: CPRA Request | Lytton Gardens of Palo Alto To: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Cc: "Scharff, Gregory (internal)" <Greg.Scharff@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Hello Dr. Martell –
Lytton Gardens is owned and run by Episcopal Senior Communities, a private non‐profit organization dedicated to
providing housing for seniors (http://www.jtm‐esc.org/lytton‐gardens/ ). Although the City of Palo Alto has regulatory
agreements with ESC that require housing at Lytton Gardens be made available on affordable terms to low‐income
persons, the City does not have a role in managing the property and does not acquire or maintain any of the information
that you are seeking.
You might want to contact someone at ESC for more information. Please note, however, that the Public Records Act
does not apply to private non‐profits, and I do not have any information on ESC’s requirements or policies regarding
requests for information from members of the public.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 9:43 AM
4
Molly Stump
Molly Stump | City Attorney
City Attorney’s Office
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650.329.2171 | E:molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you.
This message contains information that may be confidential and
privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose
the message or any information contained in the message. If you received the
message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message.
From: D Martell [mailto:dmpaloalto@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 3:40 PM To: Stump, Molly Cc: Scharff, Gregory (internal); Council, City Subject: CPRA Request | Lytton Gardens of Palo Alto
Molly Stump, JD
Palo Alto City Attorney
Dear Ms. Stump:
Your intervention is required in this issue.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 9:43 AM
5
Due to "no responsive documents" (Palo Alto response) and "lack of records" (County response) both your
office and Santa Clara County Counsel office are unable to answer my CPRA request below.
CPRA requests are designed to be user-friendly for non-lawyers. I am not an attorney and require assistance in
locating where I can obtain the information I seek. If this data cannot be found in Palo Alto or our County,
from whom do I turn to acquire this information?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Danielle Martell
Palo Alto City Council Candidate, 2016
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
From: D Martell [mailto:dmpaloalto@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 4:41 PM To: Williams, James <james.williams@cco.sccgov.org>; Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: BOS <bos@bos.sccgov.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: CPRA request | Lytton Gardens of Palo Alto
James R. Williams, Santa Clara County Counsel
Molly Stump, Palo Alto City Attorney
Dear Mr. Williams and Ms. Stump:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 9:43 AM
6
To facilitate this CPRA request, please collaborate with one another to determine who maintains public records
on issues related to public housing at Lytton Gardens.
Pursuant to California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Govt. Code § 6250 et seq.), I request the most recent
statistics for Santa Clara County's HUD-subsidized Section-8 Housing re Lytton Gardens Senior Independent
Living Community of Palo Alto and their senior residents (62 years and older). —Please answer each following
question directly with either a number, dollar amount, or a breakdown of country of origin.
1. What is the total number of seniors that live at Lytton Gardens?
2. What is the total number of residents that receive government-subsidized housing?
3. What is the total number of government dollars spent on housing for residents?
4. What is the total number of seniors that receive government-subsidized housing who do not have full US citizenship?
5. What is the total number of government dollars spent on housing for residents without full US
citizenship?
6. What is the ethnicity and country breakdown for residents without full US citizenship?
7. What is the average annual income for a resident with full US citizenship?
8. What is the average annual income for a resident without full US citizenship?
9. What is the average apartment rental rate?
10. What is the average out-of-pocket rent that a resident with full US citizenship pays for an apartment?
11. What is the average out-of-pocket rent that a resident without full US citizenship pays for an
apartment?
Sincerely.
Danielle Martell
;,
WHEN· R!iCORDt:';J MAIL TO:
co~~itlwt'r:.:' fiOJJ.S:i:lilG !NC. .JP~. '
cl o t.~1~il.p. & St,'Jeax:s 0 ; ·
285. I-t$1i"l:t:·oli Avenue Q ' · ..
. Palo Alto, J:liilifornia \) . ._.___,...._;!U;_J;n: Mz', ·E:t..tw:tll _______ .__.
' MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO:
Addi·ess~e above
' .J
------------·-----=-~=''·.:"::'~o;;;;;~·-·--·-··--·-·-----~-........... -
· .. ,:;:\... :-. ~ '.:;
4783413
09~n r~i210
FllfiO. FOR REOO•· . i AT ~£QU~$.r or.-\ .
~~~ ·~ ',, ,~· ..•. ;;~\.
~'" ""' "" "~ •0·r~ ~. o..'ij-
ooCuMF.NTARV TRANSFER tAA: $.'.;;~ ;,L .. , . .:~; .. :,;;;;,_. · . > ." . ·: ~~ .. Ccmputorl on th~ comi~Ur~thi~ or.vat~,~ -~i-ptoP~f.IV:~<f_~y~vq~:::qR.·. ;._·;. : .. , ·1 ~
...... Com1>utad on theconitds~atlon _ar·vatue.t~s}len~ or.~·n~uin1>~«11ce)I-· ; ..
remaining et time of sale •. · .. ·•. · · · .. : ·:·., :---·: .1 · ·•·.
_!irst e.rican T;!; e iat.antY. Cofnp~~-_..-_;;
"""' ·-·.. ' '" ·-· ..... -,:~ ' .. , ··.~~,,··=·-·"'""'···-'-=--"'-""-'-~--;;;NT DE;D . . . ~ ,-j 'l
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which i~ffi.erebv. acknowledged, . . .. :'_\·': .. ·-r
.::·.· .. ·
':.', .:.·.
- . \ :'•4. . . . • .' 't • ·.,,1, ••·. .·:· . .'r."_J= -;. ·t:,;~·~~
CJ;TY ... ,0}'. P,ALO ALTO, a Municipal corpoi=at!on~ ·~t~~-. _ ··t "·:. ·:·§·
.. 1. hereby GRANT(S) to :<~f~!;ffJ.~ ' . ·<:_.}--\~,.;::
l .'.::::~::: ::·.: ·.::::· ~r ~; o<po<0tion ' ' '.· ' ' } 1:-~i1
!. · County of Santa Clai·a .,f;,~;f~ .· ·, ·s_tate of Call:f~~iit~, ~es?ribo~. a~ T >;~:
• ·. . ).u:· , . ~ .· . . . . .· r .. ·. i ·ii.~o,wu -iw. Exhibit "A" att:a.ched hereto and made a part hereof by thif) referenc¢._: -· . :-1 _. ::_ ~ ·.sfiown ·as ·Exhibit "B" attached hP.reto and made a part "hei:eof by th:t.!l. refe:r.eitce;· .-_ : : . ·i_:;, ~.· l 'Sho~: '~s .ExM.bit "C" attached hereto and made a part hereof by th.is i:e.f"efan·~e·~ · · .' -· : .: · <····---
••• ~,..,~., _ _,,, ... , .... , .. ,. ·-·••. • .. -··•·· ·•. • -..•.••• -••• , • •' ··--··-·-·•·• ~ .• .-••. •••-•• , ... 1o•H• ........ i'"•·~ ...... .__.,.'\"""_ ··:·~~-~-'4 ... ..,, • ..._.1,,.!:;"._ ...... 1 (,',"--
_;. -~·
..........
"'G··: :...,..·· .. ~;. ,· ,""; ,.,,.. ..
;~?
:~l)·~
' . ..... o;:.r:I
~~ 3 ~::;z ,-ti~
• ..,1.I,, -.. ,,...
G\~1 • J; ... .,
~· •'~ ~;:I~
:J~ -~·· ~j~~ . . :' ·· ,,._,,,. crr.ry OF ·pAr.o ·· -------~·:-. :• , .. ~ . ""-'"il: -·· Hf~· ',,•• ,
·• . ~ ~
;, ..
.· ·;-::.·'.,· .. ;,: s:.··::.",.,··
".::_. ·.(=:
: ... :.~·: ·-: .. ;•:
'.· .... ·· ... :.·.:::: .: .. ···•· .
'•• ............... .. ... ~;·-
De;~;iption: Santa Cla"ra,CA Doa~~nt~Do~ID 4·j""8~41(~~g~<..L,':
· <!~d_e~.: .Er. __ C::':'~-i:~ ~-: .. ~UID1~~J.!!:~!1.~t~K:~ifi.wk!~~r,~:.~\s)'.Mi~iitei:r21iii~Vti~JJ;
..
~
EXHIBIT "A"
A portion of Lots 3 and 4, Block 113, Map entitled Original Jo!up showing
Subdivisions of University P11x-k (now Pnlo Alto), Santa Clara County, California,,
filed February 27, 1889, Book D of Maps, Page 69, Santa Clnra County Records,
descr~bed aa follot•s:
BEGINNING at the point of intersecticm of the Southwest line of Middlefield
Road with the Northwest line of Un'f.vcraity Avenue;
· then.ce Southwest along the line of University Avenue South 38°15' West
200.00 feet;
thence Northwest parallel with M:lddlefield Road North 51~45 1 West 200.00
feet; .
thence Northeast parallel with Ul1iversity Avenue North 38°15 1 . East
50,00 feet:;
thence Northwest parallel to Middlefield Ro&d Ji!orth 51°45 1 West 50,00 feet~
thence Northeast parallel with University Avenue North .38Q 15' E8St 150,00
feet to the Southwest line of. Middlefield Road;
thence Southeast along the line of Middlefield Road South 51°45 1 Rast
250 ,00 feet to the Point of Deginning,
~~
A portion of Lot t1 and the Northeast 50 feet of Lot l, Block 43p l1ap f.intitled
Original Map showing Subdivision of University Park (tl.<m Palo AH l), Santa
Clara County, California. filed February 27, 1889, Dr.iok D of :8~ .. h1ge 6S,
Santa Clara ~ounty Records described as follows: ·
BEGINNING at the point of intersection of the Southwest. !:Lne ·of Middlefield
Road w.l th the Southeast line of Lytton Avenue P
thimce South'llas t along the line of Middlefield Road South 51~45' East
150.00 feet; _
thence Southwest parallel with LYtton Avenue South 38°15 1 West 150~00 feet;
thence Southeast parallel with Middlefield Road South 51°45 1 East 50.00 feet;
thence Southwest parallel with Lytton Awnue Spoth 38G15' West 150.00 feet;
thence Northwest parallel witl~ Middlefielc! 1" ad North 51"45 1 Weet 200.00
feet to the Southeast line of Lytton A~nue;
thence Northeast along the J.im, of Lytton Avenue North 38°15' East 300.00
feet to the Point of Beginning,
Reserving from Parcel '.J.\ro above, unto the City of Palo Alto. a mun:f.cipal
corporation, easements for the installation. maintenance anQ use of all
public ut:l.Uti<as • together with the right of ingresa 1.U1d agrees therefor,
in, under. on. over and across the f:oll('f(~ing:
~9.E!.!:.
Beginning at !:he moat Westedy corner. of Parcel Two a& above deacrihed, said
point being on the Southeasterly Une of Lytton Avenue;
thence from aaid point of beginning_ and cont:lnuing along the aaid
Southeasterly line North 38~15 1 East 20.00 feet;
thence leav:l.rtg said s'out:iieastet'ly line at right angles South .'Sl." 45 1
East 5.00 feet~
thence at right.: angJ.es alonl{ a line p11:allel with said S(Jutheas1;erly
1:1.ne of Lyt.ton Ave.nue, South 38°15' We11t a distance of 20.00 fe.~t to .a point
on the Southwesterly line of said Parcel Two; · . ·
thence Iforth s1•t15 1 ·west al.ong said Southwesterl.y line Q.f Parcel '!:'wo
a distance of s.oo feet: to the point of hesinning.
PARCEL Bt ---
Beginning at the most Southerly corner of: f~i;c¢3. 'l'wo ~s-said l?a:pcel -'l'.W~· ;!,a_: ..... :
desc:dbed above; ,
t.hence from said point of beginning l!lqn_g .. tlie.::Suµ_~h;;as~~tlir li.u~· of ..
sud Parcel Two, North 51."l,5 1 Weat a d:ts'ianr.p of 2.Q;OO .f~t!i;;·. · . ·.<·· ·.
thence at right angles NQrt:h 38"_15' r;;~!iJ:·:tt dist:~1-i:ie Qf: S._,Q<f: f¢et;
thence at right .inglea SQuth 51°45-' taste ~<h:>tir1Hle.l·"with'.,:clie .
Sout:hweaterly line of said Pnr~el Two, a ti:l:atance ()( 2°0Jo(l'·.·£~~t"tei a, pain!: '-. ·
on a Southaa~turly l:l.ne· of said Pated ·Tu!i;. ·· · · .. · ·. . · ·. · · .
then.ce South 38"1S' West along said $·~Mt1uiaste'dy lit11:! of sa~d Pare~l
'l.'wo -~ d;l.stance of 5,00 feet to the po:llit: of<b~~~nnfog. . ..
Description_: Santa
Order: rr Comment:
i.~ .. ,.J
~!'.~···
' j .....
·:' :! ._ "I~~
'
-~ ...... ··:_:'~ : ....
. : : . ·:~~ -
-~::::·:.: ......
-:::::.• I ..
'-• l"Hllllf#, I "••I !1 j / 1 ;,t #
c/o /,akin Sp0<1rs
260 Sherldan Avenue
-Palo Alto, Cali.~ornia Q4,30.6 c-111.~~r"r s c,..ntrart
Attachment to Porm io?i' ...
Exemption Application
AGREEMENT FOR..™ OF REAL PROPER.TY
EXHIBIT "B''
THIS AGREEMENT, ntada at Palo Alto, California, thia ,,2.J.=~~--
day of 0 ::"G~.·~ '· . _, 1971, by and between COMMUNITY HOUSING, INC.,
a nonprofit corporation m:·ganized· under the laws ·of ·the State of
ealiforn:l;a, which. is located· at 260 Sheridan ·Avenue·, Palo Alto,
California 94306, c/o Lakin Spears;· Attorneys· at 1,aw·, ·heroinaftet"
referred to as ~Buyer", and t.he· CITY OF PJU.O·ALTO;·a:municipal
acrporation, ·hereinafter ·referred to as .. "Seller";
!! ;i;. ! !!. f §.. §.' ! ! !!.:
In conside:r:ati(Jn· of their· mutual ·covenants;· tha-.parties
·hereto agree as follows:
l. AGREEMENT· 'l'~.k· SELLER, for the consideration herein-
after mentioned in ~aragraph 3, does hereby covenant·with BUYER
to ·convey ar1c~ assure to BUYER1 who hereby agrees to ·purchase, by
good and sufficient· grant deed1· the real estate·aituated·in the
City of· Palo· Alto; county of. Santa·elara, State of California,
described ae follows:
BEGINNING at the it\Ost northerly CO,t'neii: of Lot 4'
BJ.oak 43, University Park·, a map of which was recorded
February 27, 1889 in Book D of Maps "at pag'I~ 69 1 Records
of Santa Clara County; California, said ao:/:'ner being the
point· of inte.i=secticm of· the· southwesterly· Une of
Middlefiel.d Road (65 feet··wide) with· the ·southeas·terly
· l.}11e of· Lytton .Avenue· (60 ·feet wide} ; t:.henQe southeasteily
"al...)ng the-.northeasterly .. line of Lot 4"and· of Lot 3 of
aaid·Blook·43; a distance of·400.;00 feet, to the most
easterly corner of said Lot ~; thence southwesterly, .
along tha southeasterly line of sa~d Lot 3, a dist~noe-.
·of 200 .oo feet1 thence northwesterly, pf>\:ra:Uel ·to said
northeasterly lines of" Lota 3 and 4, a d~aitanc:e of· ioo .oo
· feet: to a po:l.nt on the sO'utheaste1:ly line of sa5.d Lo.t ~;
thence sm1thwesterly along sa:l.d fi!outheasterly line"and
along the sout.heaater.ly line of :Lot i of said.Block· 43,
·a distance of 100.00 feet1 thence nort.hwesterly,.parallel
to the northeasterly line oi! said Lot l, ·.a distance o~ . 2eo.oo feet, to a point on the no:rthwssta:c.ly .. l:lne 'O:fi '$.<i.id'
Lot l, said line also herinc;; the aout.het.st·J~:l.y Hne of
aaid Lytton Avenue; thenCJe nort.hea:;it:era.y· a,l!)n9'· aa~d last
named line;· 300'.00 feet, to t.he point•of·'be>g.:!.nnini;r, bei·ng
all of Loi: 4 and a .. portion of Mts 1 ·.and·~ Of said Block '4.3
and·oontaining·2.296 acres· of land, n:iore·or·less,
-1-
:: ~-
. .. :.-· L
.· .... :::
;-,. . :-... _
: ~~--
.'. :::-: . ;.. -~·-··
. : .. ··. ~
--t
_J
·;
·! i ~= t
.~
.l ·1
I .i l
~
;;::
.,
" ·::
subject to any and all. conditions, deed restrictions, easements,
highways, rights-of~way, zoning regulations, and other restrictions
and limitations of record affeoting said real estate.
2, ES'l'ABLISHHENT OF ESCROW. The sale iihall be completed
through an escrow, which shall be established by sr:::C.LER two C .2)
years after execution of this a9reement with a title company
acceptable to BUYER. The parties may mutually agrGie in writing
·to shorten or extend the time to vpen escrow, and the·time to open
escrow shall be extended for one (1) year at the request of BUYER
if BUYER prove.a to ''H.il maUsfacti.on of SELLER that BUYER h~.lS dq.f.~.
gently attempted to fulfill the conditions precedent to closing
escrow as specified in Paragraph 4 hereof and that the housing
project referrecl to in Paragraph 3, c;, hereof is current and viable
i.n the· estimC\tiOn of the UNI'rED STATES DEPARTMEN'l' OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT or its successor. SE!..LER shall deposit an executed
copy of this agreement into escrow at the opening of escrow,
and this agreement may constitute the escrow instructions to Sllch
company, if acceptable to it. Esc:i::ow shall be open for ninety
{90) days. The grant deed is to be placed in escrow, to be recorded
ar~d delivered by said title company when title is found good and
the terrns of this agreement have been oomplied with. ··Within ninety
(90) days after the· establishment of an escrow, if-SELLER is unable
to convey a marketable title or if the conditions precedent to closinq
escrow as specified in Paragraph ·4 hereof are ·not fulfilled, then
upon deJlla11d of BUY.ER, all surns paid by BUYE:R, except the ear.nest
·money, shall be returned to BUYER, and this agreement shall be of
no further effect. Possession of said real estate ia to be deliver~d
to BUYER on closing of escrow.
3.
within thirty ( 30) days after
e~ecution of this agreem<;;mt, BUYER shall pay to SEI.t.ER a~ earriest .:.·
.. ~ ... ·~
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:13 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 04, 2017 2:47 PM
To:Stump, Molly
Cc:Scharff, Gregory (internal); Council, City; Jay Thorwaldson
Subject:CPRA Request | PA's regulatory agreements (with Lytton Gardens) re HUD regulations
Attachments:Lytton_I_agreement.pdf; Lytton_II_Agreement.pdf; Lytton_IV_Agreement.pdf
Molly Stump, JD
Palo Alto City Attorney
Dear Ms. Stump:
Re your below email, please explain paragraph three's referral to "possible costs". It is my understanding that
the public is not charged for CPRA requests.
Sincerely,
Danielle Martell
Palo Alto City Council Candidate, 2016
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of thi s pi ctu re from the In ternet.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Palo Alto Public Records Center <paloaltoca@mycusthelp.net> Date: Thursday, February 2, 2017 Subject: City of Palo Alto Public Records Request :: W000674-020217 To: dmpaloalto@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:13 PM
2
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of thi s pi ctu re from the In ternet.
02/02/2017
Dear Danielle:
The City of Palo Alto is dedicated and responsive to our community. Your request has been received and is being
processed. Your request was given the reference number W000674-020217 for tracking purposes.
Records Requested: Thank you for providing me with the city of Palo Alto's regulatory agreements with ESC that require housing at Lytton Gardens Senior Communities be made available on affordable terms to low income persons. After reading these agreement documents, it's clear that I cannot draw conclusions without reviewing the HUD regulations to which these contract agreements refer. Therefore, pursuant to the CPRA, I request the HUD regulations documents. Your request will be forwarded to the relevant department(s) to locate the information you seek and to determine the volume and any costs associated with satisfying your request. You will be contacted about the availability and/or provided with copies of the records in question.
You can monitor the progress of your request at the link below and you'll receive an email when your request has been
completed.
Thank you for using the Public Records Center. City of Palo Alto Track the issue status and respond at: https://mycusthelp.com/PALOALTOCA//_rs/RequestEdit.aspx?rid=674
From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:16 PM
Subject: CPRA Request | PA's regulatory agreements (with Lytton Gardens) re HUD regulations To: "Stump, Molly" <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: "Scharff, Gregory (internal)" <Greg.Scharff@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Molly Stump, JD
Palo Alto City Attorney
Dear Ms. Stump:
Thank you for providing me with the city of Palo Alto's regulatory agreements with ESC that require housing at Lytton Gardens Senior Communities be made available on affordable terms to low income persons.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:13 PM
3
After reading these agreement documents, it's clear that I cannot draw conclusions without reviewing the HUD
regulations to which these contract agreements refer. Therefore, pursuant to the CPRA, I request the HUD
regulations documents.
Sincerely,
Danielle Martell
Palo Alto City Council Candidate, 2016
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Palo Alto Public Records Center <paloaltoca@mycusthelp.net> Date: Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:17 PM Subject: Public Records Request :: W000663-011917 To: dmpaloalto@gmail.com --- Please respond above this line ---
Right-click download help protecOutlook prautomatic dthi s pi ctu reIn ternet.
01/19/2017
RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of January 18, 2017, Reference # W000663‐011917
Dear Danielle,
I am writing in response to your requests for documents under the California Public Records Act
(Govt. Code § 6250 et seq.) received by the City on 1/18/2017.
Your request mentioned Thank you for your response and letting me know that "the city of Palo Alto
has regulatory agreements with ESC that require housing be made available on affordable terms to
low income persons". Pursuant to the CPRA, I request these documents.
The City has reviewed its files and has located responsive records to your request. The responsive
records are attached to this email and also available by logging in to the Records Center at the
following link.
If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this further, please contact me.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:13 PM
4
Sincerely,
David Carnahan Deputy City Clerk
Right-click download help protecOutlook prautomatic dthi s pi ctu reIn ternet.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:56 PM Subject: CPRA Request | PA's regulatory agreements with Lytton Gardens To: "Stump, Molly" <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: "Scharff, Gregory (internal)" <Greg.Scharff@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Molly Stump, JD
Palo Alto City Attorney
Dear Ms. Stump:
Thank you for your response and letting me know that "the city of Palo Alto has regulatory agreements with ESC that require housing be made available on affordable terms to low income persons". Pursuant to the CPRA, I request these documents.
Sincerely,
Danielle Martell
Palo Alto City Council Candidate, 2016
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org> Date: Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 2:30 PM Subject: RE: CPRA Request | Lytton Gardens of Palo Alto To: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:13 PM
5
Cc: "Scharff, Gregory (internal)" <Greg.Scharff@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Hello Dr. Martell –
Lytton Gardens is owned and run by Episcopal Senior Communities, a private non‐profit organization dedicated to
providing housing for seniors (http://www.jtm‐esc.org/lytton‐gardens/ ). Although the City of Palo Alto has regulatory
agreements with ESC that require housing at Lytton Gardens be made available on affordable terms to low‐income
persons, the City does not have a role in managing the property and does not acquire or maintain any of the information
that you are seeking.
You might want to contact someone at ESC for more information. Please note, however, that the Public Records Act
does not apply to private non‐profits, and I do not have any information on ESC’s requirements or policies regarding
requests for information from members of the public.
Molly Stump
Molly Stump | City Attorney
City Attorney’s Office
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650.329.2171 | E:molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you.
This message contains information that may be confidential and
privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose
the message or any information contained in the message. If you received the
message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message.
From: D Martell [mailto:dmpaloalto@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 3:40 PM To: Stump, Molly
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:13 PM
6
Cc: Scharff, Gregory (internal); Council, City
Subject: CPRA Request | Lytton Gardens of Palo Alto
Molly Stump, JD
Palo Alto City Attorney
Dear Ms. Stump:
Your intervention is required in this issue.
Due to "no responsive documents" (Palo Alto response) and "lack of records" (County response) both your
office and Santa Clara County Counsel office are unable to answer my CPRA request below.
CPRA requests are designed to be user-friendly for non-lawyers. I am not an attorney and require assistance in locating where I can obtain the information I seek. If this data cannot be found in Palo Alto or our County, from whom do I turn to acquire this information?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Danielle Martell
Palo Alto City Council Candidate, 2016
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:13 PM
7
From: D Martell [mailto:dmpaloalto@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 4:41 PM To: Williams, James <james.williams@cco.sccgov.org>; Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: BOS <bos@bos.sccgov.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: CPRA request | Lytton Gardens of Palo Alto
James R. Williams, Santa Clara County Counsel
Molly Stump, Palo Alto City Attorney
Dear Mr. Williams and Ms. Stump:
To facilitate this CPRA request, please collaborate with one another to determine who maintains public records on issues related to public housing at Lytton Gardens.
Pursuant to California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Govt. Code § 6250 et seq.), I request the most recent
statistics for Santa Clara County's HUD-subsidized Section-8 Housing re Lytton Gardens Senior Independent Living Community of Palo Alto and their senior residents (62 years and older). —Please answer each following question directly with either a number, dollar amount, or a breakdown of country of origin.
1. What is the total number of seniors that live at Lytton Gardens?
2. What is the total number of residents that receive government-subsidized housing?
3. What is the total number of government dollars spent on housing for residents?
4. What is the total number of seniors that receive government-subsidized housing who do not have full
US citizenship?
5. What is the total number of government dollars spent on housing for residents without full US citizenship?
6. What is the ethnicity and country breakdown for residents without full US citizenship?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:13 PM
8
7. What is the average annual income for a resident with full US citizenship?
8. What is the average annual income for a resident without full US citizenship?
9. What is the average apartment rental rate?
10. What is the average out-of-pocket rent that a resident with full US citizenship pays for an apartment?
11. What is the average out-of-pocket rent that a resident without full US citizenship pays for an
apartment?
Sincerely.
Danielle Martell
Palo Alto City Council Candidate, 2016
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:51 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 07, 2017 1:25 AM
To:Stump, Molly; Council, City; Perron, Zachary; Watson, Ron; Keene, James;
jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org;
bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; dangel@dao.sccgov.org; Scharff, Greg
Subject:Criminal case file - 2005 Letter to Mark Petersen-Perez 04-182-0110
Attachments:2005 Letter to Mark Petersen-Perez 04-182-0110.pdf
Me. Stump:
I'm going to get this case file if I have to waterboard you legally all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. You can not inhibit nor prohibit due process of law.
Mark Petersen-Perez
Sent from my iPad
February 3, 2005
Mr. Mark Peterson-Perez
434 Addison Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mr. PeterSOn-Perez,
QL\-lg~., OJ.10
G!,y of Palo Alto.
Police Department
~ Johnsoo It is .my understanding that on February 1, 2005, yoU made a ~est to this Depattment to
OtiefofPolit'e obtain a copy of Police Report 04-182-0110. As requirCd in California Government CQde
Section 6255(b ), I am writing this letter to inform you that your request is denied based the .
report investigation type which is exempt: from release per Govemment Code 6254(£),
6254(£)(2) and 6254(k)-lli67.5 of the California Penal Code. Although the ·santa Clara
County District Attorney's office has declined to issue a complaint against you ·•t this time,
this investigation is still considered criminal in nature and· therefon: exempt from n:l.ease •.
Per Govemm.ent Code 6254, the only information from the report that ·1s conslden:d public·
infonnation is the information you may aJn:ady know. Since the victims.of this case have
invoked their rights under California Penal Code Section 293and GC 6254, their names are
exempt from release per PC 293(c) and 293(d). .
Date Reported: .
Time:
julya,2004
1445Hours
Case Number:·
Report Type:
~-182-0110 . . . :
·Domestic Violence/Sexual Battery, PC 591 Phone Tampering and
Location:
· Emergency Protection Order
!?00 block of Addison Avenue
Synopsis: Can for· service to welfare check possible Victims of Domestic
Violence activity. ·· ·
.: . . ~ ·• .' -:
If you have any further questions, please dO not hesitate to con~ me;:.
~ ··•·····. lisa-~~
Records Manager
Palo Alto Police Department
650.329.2553 .. ~ ·: . . : .. . . ..
cC: Chief Lynne Johnson, City Attorney Gary Baum·
275 ForestAverme PaloAlto,CA 94301
S>.329.2406
S>.329.2565 fax
650.617.3120Admirrlstration fax
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:02 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Sunday, February 05, 2017 12:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Disregard email sent today at noon
I was sending a note out to WILPF members.
Peninsula WILPF wants the city to support and build more low income housing before any more office building. The housing to jobs imbalance is too big.
Roberta Ahlquist
resident,
WILPF member
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:02 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Sunday, February 05, 2017 12:18 PM
To:Gloria Burd; Council, City
Subject:News re. housing
Hi Gloria,
Here's my two cents for the newsletter:
WILPF members, please either send a note to PA city council asking them to not approve any more corporate
buildings until they provide a better housing/job balance. We need them to fund and support low-income
housing projects in this city. You can either speak at oral communications, at the beginning of the MOnday
meetings, or send an email regularly. city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Also, we attended a Monterrey fund raiser for Syrian medical support, relief, Friday night, 2/3/17,
where thousands of $$ was donated for Syrian medical relief. Live music, food, wonderful statements
of support made it a very upbeat evening. It was co-sponsored by WILPF, Monterrey chapter, UNA Assn and the Monterrey Peace Center. We also went to a RESIST protest on Sat in Monterrey with many other folks.
Best,
roberta
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:52 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 10:24 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:For TV viewers ?
Hi,
Does anyone have a picture of the facade of this Kipling building that you can show Your TV audience?
Beauty does matter. What Are tdp's ?
Thanks so much for your work.
Geri Mcgilvray
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:28 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 11:31 AM
To:beachrides; boardmembers; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council, City; Chris Field; Daniel
Zack; Irv Weissman; info@superide1.com; igorstrav .; diffenbaugh@stanford.edu; Joel
Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kclark; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; scott.mozier; nick
yovino; nmelosh@stanford.edu; newsletter@tesla.com; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg; terry;
Gary Turgeon; thomas.esqueda@fresno.gov; Dan Richard; bretthedrick
Subject:Fwd: Nova last night re Search for the super battery
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 2:55 AM Subject: Fwd: Nova last night re Search for the super battery
To: kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, jboren <jboren@fresnobee.com>,
bmcewen <bmcewen@fresnobee.com>, rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com, midge@thebarretts.com, Doug Vagim
<dvagim@gmail.com>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Paul Dictos <paul@dictos.com>, hennessy <hennessy@stanford.edu>, yicui@stanford.edu, shanhui.fan@stanford.edu, President
<President@whitehouse.gov>, Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, "robert.andersen"
<robert.andersen@fresno.gov>, Mark Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>,
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov, "paul.caprioglio" <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, bballpod <bballpod@aol.com>, Tranil Thomas <soulja92y@hotmail.com>, Kirk Sorensen <kirkfsorensen@gmail.com>, dwalters <dwalters@sacbee.com>, popoff <popoff@pbworld.com>, "richard.wenzel" <richard.wenzel@aecom.com>,
Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 2:38 AM
Subject: Fwd: Nova last night re Search for the super battery
To: bretthedrick <bretthedrick@hedrickschevy.com>
Friday, February 3, 2017
Mr. Brett Hedrick
Hedrick's Chevrolet Clovis, Ca.
Mr. Hedrick- Please forward this up to GM. Surely they are aware of it and, no doubt, they are in touch with
Dr. Mike Zimmerman at Tufts University who developed the new battery.
His company is Ionic Materials and here is their website:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:28 PM
2
http://ionicmaterials.com/
His website refers to their "solid polymer electrolyte material" with "ionic conductivities that exceed those of traditional liquid systems".
Zimmerman says in the film that he needs now to find someone who is interested in improving the reliability
and scaling-up of his battery. It is hard to imagine that GM would not be that someone.
Please scroll down to see my mail to Prof. Yi Cui at Stanford.
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 8:24 PM
Subject: Fwd: Nova last night re Search for the super battery
To: President <President@whitehouse.gov>, "robert.andersen" <robert.andersen@fresno.gov>, beachrides
<beachrides@sbcglobal.net>, bmcewen <bmcewen@fresnobee.com>, Leodies Buchanan <leodiesbuchanan@yahoo.com>, "city.council" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Chris Field
<cfield@ciw.edu>, Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, Paul Dictos <paul@dictos.com>, dwalters
<dwalters@sacbee.com>, diffenbaugh@stanford.edu, Raymond Rivas <financialadvisor007@gmail.com>,
fmerlo@wildelectric.net, firstvp@fresnopoa.org, Gary Turgeon <garyt@michaelautomotive.com>,
"Greg.Gatzka" <Greg.Gatzka@co.kings.ca.us>, huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>, "steve.hogg" <steve.hogg@fresno.gov>, Irv Weissman <irv@stanford.edu>, jerry ruopoli
<jrwiseguy7@gmail.com>, jboren <jboren@fresnobee.com>, Jason Tarvin <jasontarvin@gmail.com>,
johnhutson580 <johnhutson580@msn.com>, kclark <kclark@westlandswater.org>, kevin cervantes
<kevincervantes10@hotmail.com>, mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com, "scott.mozier"
<scott.mozier@fresno.gov>, newsdesk <newsdesk@ksee.com>, rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com, Joel Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com>, Tranil Thomas <soulja92y@hotmail.com>, terry <terry@terrynagel.com>, Steve
Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, yicui@stanford.edu
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:21 PM
Subject: Fwd: Nova last night re Search for the super battery
To: dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Doug
Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk <newsdesk@ksee.com>, hennessy
<hennessy@stanford.edu>, popoff <popoff@pbworld.com>, "richard.wenzel" <richard.wenzel@aecom.com>,
midge@thebarretts.com, info@superide1.com, Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>, Mark Standriff
<mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, "paul.caprioglio" <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>,
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov, bretthedrick <bretthedrick@hedrickschevy.com>
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:28 PM
3
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:18 PM
Subject: Fwd: Nova last night re Search for the super battery
To: mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com, bretthedrick <bretthedrick@hedrickschevy.com>
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:50 PM
Subject: Fwd: Nova last night re Search for the super battery
To: bretthedrick <bretthedrick@hedrickschevy.com>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, Dan Richard
<danrichard@mac.com>, popoff <popoff@pbworld.com>, "richard.wenzel" <richard.wenzel@aecom.com>,
shanhui.fan@stanford.edu, hennessy <hennessy@stanford.edu>, kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk
<newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:48 PM
Subject: Fwd: Nova last night re Search for the super battery To: yicui@stanford.edu
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:42 PM
Subject: Nova last night re Search for the super battery
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Thurs. Feb. 2, 2017
Professor Yi Cui
Stanford University
I have watched your video public presentations re battery research a couple of times.
Last night on Nova, they showed a solid plastic electrolyte, lithium METAL battery (2X the energy
density of a liquid electrolyte lithium ION battery) that you can drive a screwdriver through several times and nothing happens. No shorting, no fire. No dendrites grow in the solid polymer either. Dr. Mike Zimmerman at
Tufts University has developed it. He is a Materials Science professor at Tufts. His company is Ionic Materials.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:28 PM
4
You've probably gotten a few thousand emails today about this. Please watch the Nova segment if you
have not:
GM will find this interesting: Does 2X the E density mean 400 miles/charge for the Bolt?
Here is the "Nova" program. The discussion of the battery from Dr. Mike Zimmerman starts at ~30 minutes
in: BUT see what can happen with current lithium ION batteries that have liquid electrolytes starting at ~25 minutes into the program.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/super-battery.html
L. William Harding Fresno, Ca.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:54 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 3:01 PM
To:kfsndesk; newsdesk; jboren; bmcewen; rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com; dwalters;
dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Dan Richard; midge@thebarretts.com;
info@superide1.com; Mark Standriff; Mayor; CityManager; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov;
paul.caprioglio; robert.andersen; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg; beachrides;
mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Mark Kreutzer;
Council, City; yicui@stanford.edu; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; hennessy;
nmelosh@stanford.edu; Chris Field; diffenbaugh@stanford.edu; terry; popoff;
richard.wenzel; boardmembers; Cathy Lewis; Paul Dictos; Daniel Zack; Raymond Rivas;
firstvp@fresnopoa.org; francis.collins@nih.gov; Irv Weissman; Gary Turgeon;
huidentalsanmateo; igorstrav .; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; Jason Tarvin; kclark; Kirk
Sorensen; Leodies Buchanan; scott.mozier; newsletter@tesla.com; President; david
pomaville; russ@topperjewelers.com; Tranil Thomas; thomas.esqueda@fresno.gov;
david.valenstein; Doug Vagim; nick yovino; bballpod
Subject:Fwd: Nova last night re Search for the super battery
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:24 PM Subject: Fwd: Nova last night re Search for the super battery
To: bretthedrick <bretthedrick@hedrickschevy.com>
Monday, Feb. 6, 2017
Mr. Brett Hedrick
Hedrick's Chevrolet
Clovis, Ca.
Mr. Hedrick- Please forward the attached emails up to GM, and thank you.
Mr. Loran W. Harding
Fresno, Ca.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: Nova last night re Search for the super battery
To: Steven Feinstein <Steven.Feinstein@ionicmaterials.com>, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Monday, Feb. 6, 2017
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:54 PM
2
Mr. Steven Feinstein
Ionic Materials Corp.
Mr. Feinstein-
Re who to contact at GM, CEO Mary Barra is the one person who should get these mails. I will now send
these again, including this one, to Brett Hedrick, our big Chevrolet dealer here in Clovis to forward to the
Chevy zone office. That all seems like a risky procedure for such important information. Who actually gets them at GM in Detroit? They must get a LOT of emails.
If you were to call GM headquarters in Detroit and ask for a mailing address for CEO Mary Barra, they
would give you one. It will be a room number probably and the actual address for the GM building in Detroit. If
I were you, I'd then physically send copies of these mails and any other information you think they should have. Then keep that coming. Perhaps Ms. Barra has seen the Nova program, "The Search for the Super Battery". I
include the link to it in my mail below- at the very end of this series of emails. She and everyone else involved
in electric vehicles at GM should see it.
I know that GM does not want their Bolts catching fire during charging or during a collision. If that happens, they will soon be piling up on dealers' lots, and GM will be defending lawsuits and appearing before
Congress. A halt to production would soon follow. It did catch my attention when Mr. Reuss said at the Bolt
introduction a year ago that it could get 90 miles of range in ~45 minutes of charging. Couple that with Dr. Yi
Cui at Stanford saying in one of his public lectures that charging a Li-ion battery too fast can produce a fire.
And couple all of that with the explosions and fires from Li-ion batteries at Sandia Labs shown in the Nova program. The much higher level of safety of your battery will no doubt be of great interest to GM, Tesla, et. al.
I can only assume that GM is cautioning buyers of the Bolt that no person should be in the vehicle during
charging and that the vehicle should not be charged too fast. The charging equipment would prevent that, I
hope. I would think that warning stickers should be on the vehicle to that effect. Several weeks ago it was announced that the first Bolt's had left Michigan bound for Chevrolet dealers in California.
It seems that nearly every car-maker is getting into electric vehicles, so your battery will have a broad appeal
when it is ready. GM would not want Toyota or Ford to announce vehicles using your safe and high energy
content battery when GM was still using the current Li-ion batteries, so a race will soon be on to get your battery perfected and included in vehicles. Having your safer battery in a car v. the current Li-ion batteries, all
else being equal, would be a huge competitive advantage.
The news says that Mr. Toyoda himself will now take charge of an electric vehicle program aiming at a
vehicle to be produced in 2020. I hope your are supplying your information to Toyota.
On the local news here a few minutes ago, they showed two men sitting on a couch with a lap-top. Suddenly
its Li-ion batteries caught fire and fire shot out of it. No one was touching it.
Solving the reliability issues and the scaling-up issues of your battery should not hinge on having enough money. Once GM, Ford, Toyota, Tesla, Mercedes, Apple, Samsung, DARPA and the DOE see what you have
with your battery, I predict that money will somehow be made available to bring it to market.
BTW, GM CEO Barra came out to Stanford and earned an MBA there a few years ago, and she is now
on the Stanford Board of Trustees.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:54 PM
3
Also, President Trump has put Ms. Barra on his economic advisory council. She has been GM's CEO since
January 25, 2014. If she is fully aware of your hugely improved lithium metal battery with a solid polymer
electrolyte, she can for sure make Pres. Trump aware of it. That should lead to federal dollars flowing to get it perfected.
This will now go to Mr. Brett Hedrick. Your battery is very exciting news, a real game-changer apparently.
How long would it take to charge in a car to get, say, 400 miles of range, and how many charging cycles could
it last? Any public announcements by your company along those lines would be of great interest. How expensive would it be compared to a similar energy-density Li-ion battery? I.e. how much would your battery
with 400 miles of range raise the price of a current Chevy Bolt with 235 miles of range? That question will be
on the minds of all at GM, Tesla, etc., and the car-buying public.
L. William Harding Fresno, Ca.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Steven Feinstein <Steven.Feinstein@ionicmaterials.com> wrote:
Hi William. I’d be glad to chat with you if you would like. We appreciate you forwarding information on our company to
so many people. And, if any of them were interested in learning more, I would be glad to support that effort as well,
especially at places like GM and Tesla – who btw, we have contacts with, but if you had some that were a good fit, the
more the better. Have a great day.
Regards,
Steven Feinstein
Ionic Materials
Mobile: 646‐338‐8998
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or
distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately
and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:54 PM
4
From: Loran Harding [mailto:loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org]
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2017 5:47 PM
To: Steven Feinstein <Steven.Feinstein@ionicmaterials.com>; Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Subject: Fwd: Nova last night re Search for the super battery
Sat. Feb. 4, 2017
Mr. Feinstein- Thanks for your reply.
I am retired from the Executive Office of GMAC and so I try to help GM by forwarding items of interest.
These I send to a Chevrolet dealer here, Mr. Brett Hedrick. He forwards them to the Chevy zone office and
they forward them up, hopefully.
I have no decision-making responsibility at GM whatsoever, but I hope that some of my items get noticed. I
was very highly impressed with the Nova segment that showed Dr. Zimmerman and your new battery tech.
As to where my mail re this went: I sent it to the local Fresno and Sacramento newspapers, to the three local TV news organizations in Fresno, to the CBS TV news dept. in San Francisco, KPIX, to Dan Richard,
Chairman of the Board of the Calif. high speed rail authority board- CHSRA Board. Mr. Richard is a long-time
associate of Gov. Brown who is very interested in climate change. Also to the City Council, Mayor and City
Manager of Fresno and to the Palo Alto City Council. To the White House. To Profs. Yi Cui at Stanford and Drs. Shanhu Fan and Nick Melosh there. Yi Cui has a team of ~20 post-docs doing battery research, including at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. Also to John Hennessey who just retired as Pres. of Stanford for ~18
years. To climate scientists Noah Diffenbaugh and Chris Field at Stanford. And then the mail went to GM. So
I tried to get the word out.
I've spend a couple of hours reading through your patent, or one of them:
http://www.google.com/patents/WO2016196873A1?cl=en
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:54 PM
5
Lots of fun. Lots of inorganic chem and some organic (the polymer). You have experts in those fields plus
electrical engineers, experts in polymers (Dr. Zimmerman) and people deeply involved in battery research.
Dopant plus base polymer plus the ionic compound results in your solid ionically conductive polymer material.
I have expertise in none of those. I am BA Biological Sciences, Stanford, MBA Finance, U of Oregon,
passed CPA exam, and M.S. Taxation, Cal State East Bay.
It is perhaps unfortunate that Li-ion batteries with liquid electrolyte are now advanced enough to use them in electric vehicles and that Tesla, GM, et. al. and now marketing those vehicles. That segment in Nova where
Sandia Labs does the destructive testing of lithium batteries is scary. Imagine having 8,000 of those under your
floorboard. One explosion they showed was caused by over-charging the battery, they said. BTW, you can find
hour long lectures to the public by Prof. Yi Cui at Stanford on the internet on his battery research. He says in
one, I believe, that charging a Li. ion battery too fast can cause a fire. About a year ago, Mary Barra and GM executive Reuss introduced the Chevy Bolt in Detroit or Vegas. Reuss said from the stage that it can be
charged to give 90 miles of range in ~45 minutes. I thought at the time "I wonder what Yi Cui would say
about the advisability of doing that?"
So your safer and more E dense battery is developed just as GM introduces the Bolt and Tesla completes its Gigafactory in Nevada. Maybe about the time the Li ion batteries GM and Tesla are using need replacing, your
battery will be ready for sale. That timing might work out. Hopefully, the Teslas and Bolts sold now will be
able to accept your batteries when available. GM and Tesla should design them to do that.
If one Googles Zimmerman and solid electrolyte lithium metal battery, he finds lots of banners, so the word is out. The Nova segment really opened eyes. I hope that GM takes a serious interest in your company.
To do otherwise would border on mismanagement, it would seem to me. How about a consortium of GM,
Toyota and Tesla working to advance your battery? I'd like to see a Charlie Rose hour with Dr. Mike
Zimmerman flanked by Mary Barra and Elon Musk. I'd think that DARPA and the DOE would want to
provide money to speed commercialization.
You all are justifiably proud of your work. Your battery is a huge advance. Just think- it will probably go
with the first humans to Mars.
One point- Dr. Zimmerman said that a lot more work is needed to achieve reliability. Operating temperatures, charging time, number of cycles in its lifetime maybe. I wish Dr. Zimmerman had mentioned
charging time in a car powered by your battery. Since the Li ions move even faster in the solid electrolyte than
in the current liquid ones, perhaps charging time would be the same or better as with current Li batteries. If he
could say publicly that charging time would be faster, it would be one more point in your favor.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:54 PM
6
Congratulations on your battery. I'll keep urging GM to consider it as more news comes out.
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steven Feinstein <Steven.Feinstein@ionicmaterials.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 2:44 PM Subject: RE: Nova last night re Search for the super battery
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Hello William. Thank you for sending the email below. You have contacted many people that seem quite interesting. I
do believe Professor Yi Cui knows our Founder, Mike Zimmerman. We are very excited about our technology and glad it
caught your attention. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance.
Regards,
Steven Feinstein
Ionic Materials
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:54 PM
7
Mobile: 646‐338‐8998
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or
distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately
and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
From: Loran Harding [mailto:loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 2:37 PM
To: Contact <Contact@ionicmaterials.com>; President <President@whitehouse.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Nova last night re Search for the super battery
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:30 AM
Subject: Fwd: Nova last night re Search for the super battery
To: beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>, boardmembers <boardmembers@hsr.ca.gov>,
bearwithme1016@att.net, "city.council" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Chris Field <cfield@ciw.edu>, Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, Irv Weissman <irv@stanford.edu>, info@superide1.com, "igorstrav
." <mwaldrep@aixrecords.com>, diffenbaugh@stanford.edu, Joel Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com>, jerry ruopoli
<jrwiseguy7@gmail.com>, kclark <kclark@westlandswater.org>, mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com,
"scott.mozier" <scott.mozier@fresno.gov>, nick yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>, nmelosh@stanford.edu, newsletter@tesla.com, Steve Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, "steve.hogg" <steve.hogg@fresno.gov>, terry <terry@terrynagel.com>, Gary Turgeon <garyt@michaelautomotive.com>, thomas.esqueda@fresno.gov,
Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, bretthedrick <bretthedrick@hedrickschevy.com>
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 2:55 AM
Subject: Fwd: Nova last night re Search for the super battery
To: kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, jboren <jboren@fresnobee.com>,
bmcewen <bmcewen@fresnobee.com>, rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com, midge@thebarretts.com, Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Paul Dictos <paul@dictos.com>,
hennessy <hennessy@stanford.edu>, yicui@stanford.edu, shanhui.fan@stanford.edu, President
<President@whitehouse.gov>, Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, "robert.andersen"
<robert.andersen@fresno.gov>, Mark Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:54 PM
8
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov, "paul.caprioglio" <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, bballpod <bballpod@aol.com>,
Tranil Thomas <soulja92y@hotmail.com>, Kirk Sorensen <kirkfsorensen@gmail.com>, dwalters
<dwalters@sacbee.com>, popoff <popoff@pbworld.com>, "richard.wenzel" <richard.wenzel@aecom.com>, Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 2:38 AM Subject: Fwd: Nova last night re Search for the super battery
To: bretthedrick <bretthedrick@hedrickschevy.com>
Friday, February 3, 2017
Mr. Brett Hedrick
Hedrick's Chevrolet
Clovis, Ca.
Mr. Hedrick- Please forward this up to GM. Surely they are aware of it and, no doubt, they are in touch
with Dr. Mike Zimmerman at Tufts University who developed the new battery.
His company is Ionic Materials and here is their website:
http://ionicmaterials.com/
His website refers to their "solid polymer electrolyte material" with "ionic conductivities that exceed those
of traditional liquid systems".
Zimmerman says in the film that he needs now to find someone who is interested in improving the
reliability and scaling-up of his battery. It is hard to imagine that GM would not be that someone.
Please scroll down to see my mail to Prof. Yi Cui at Stanford.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:54 PM
9
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 8:24 PM
Subject: Fwd: Nova last night re Search for the super battery
To: President <President@whitehouse.gov>, "robert.andersen" <robert.andersen@fresno.gov>, beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>, bmcewen <bmcewen@fresnobee.com>, Leodies Buchanan
<leodiesbuchanan@yahoo.com>, "city.council" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Chris Field
<cfield@ciw.edu>, Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, Paul Dictos <paul@dictos.com>, dwalters
<dwalters@sacbee.com>, diffenbaugh@stanford.edu, Raymond Rivas <financialadvisor007@gmail.com>,
fmerlo@wildelectric.net, firstvp@fresnopoa.org, Gary Turgeon <garyt@michaelautomotive.com>, "Greg.Gatzka" <Greg.Gatzka@co.kings.ca.us>, huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>,
"steve.hogg" <steve.hogg@fresno.gov>, Irv Weissman <irv@stanford.edu>, jerry ruopoli
<jrwiseguy7@gmail.com>, jboren <jboren@fresnobee.com>, Jason Tarvin <jasontarvin@gmail.com>,
johnhutson580 <johnhutson580@msn.com>, kclark <kclark@westlandswater.org>, kevin cervantes
<kevincervantes10@hotmail.com>, mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com, "scott.mozier" <scott.mozier@fresno.gov>, newsdesk <newsdesk@ksee.com>, rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com, Joel Stiner
<jastiner@gmail.com>, Tranil Thomas <soulja92y@hotmail.com>, terry <terry@terrynagel.com>, Steve
Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, yicui@stanford.edu
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:21 PM
Subject: Fwd: Nova last night re Search for the super battery
To: dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Doug
Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk <newsdesk@ksee.com>, hennessy
<hennessy@stanford.edu>, popoff <popoff@pbworld.com>, "richard.wenzel" <richard.wenzel@aecom.com>,
midge@thebarretts.com, info@superide1.com, Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>, Mark Standriff
<mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, "paul.caprioglio" <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>,
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov, bretthedrick <bretthedrick@hedrickschevy.com>
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:54 PM
10
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:18 PM
Subject: Fwd: Nova last night re Search for the super battery
To: mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com, bretthedrick <bretthedrick@hedrickschevy.com>
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:50 PM
Subject: Fwd: Nova last night re Search for the super battery
To: bretthedrick <bretthedrick@hedrickschevy.com>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David
Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, popoff <popoff@pbworld.com>, "richard.wenzel" <richard.wenzel@aecom.com>,
shanhui.fan@stanford.edu, hennessy <hennessy@stanford.edu>, kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk
<newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:48 PM
Subject: Fwd: Nova last night re Search for the super battery
To: yicui@stanford.edu
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:42 PM
Subject: Nova last night re Search for the super battery
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Thurs. Feb. 2, 2017
Professor Yi Cui
Stanford University
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 7:51 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:J. Chen <jiechen_usa@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 05, 2017 5:23 PM
To:Scharff, Gregory (internal); Kniss, Liz (internal)
Cc:Council, City
Subject:hate crime report? - someone repeated to smash my car
Attachments:IMG_20170204_151203.jpg
Jie Chen 4260 Terman Dr., APT 203
Palo Alto, CA 94306 Tel: (650) 353-4859 (h)
Date: 2/5/2017
Dear Mayors Greg Scharff and Liz Kniss,
My name is Jie Chen. In 2008, my family moved to Palo Alto City from East Brunswick, New Jersey because I got a job at Intel Corp. Currently, we are living in Terman Apartments (a rental property nearby Gunn High School).
On 11/17/2016 evening, after working, I parked my car on Terman Dr. street (in front of Terman Apartments property
building). Next morning (11/18/2016) before going to work, I found that the rear window of my car was smashed. Immediately, I called 9-1-1. The Palo Alto Police Department officer came to the Terman Apartments property, and
created a report #: 16-5941. Terman Apartments did not have surveillance cameras around their property. I had no idea who did this and why, and simply thought it was a random crime case. After this event, I rented a 2nd parking space (pay
$10.00 per month) from Terman Apartments, since I thought that parking on the street was not safe enough.
About 4-5 days ago, my neighbor’s (an old Chinese woman) car was also smashed in the parking lot. At that time, I thought that this might be the same guy who vandalized my car last November. At this point, I feared that my car would
subjected to vandalism again. However, this is true. My suspicion was correct.
Yesterday afternoon (Saturday, 2/4/2017), when I went out for shopping, I found that the rear window of my car (in my paid parking lot) was smashed again (see attached picture taken on 2/4/2017). Immediately, I called 9-1-1. The Palo Alto
Police Department officer came, and created a report #: 17-0706. In fact, my neighbor told me she already saw my car smashed when she walked her dog around 7:00am Saturday. This is 2nd time someone smashed my car. He most likely
used the same hard metal object (like a hammer) to break the rear window glass without leaving any handprints.
I do not know if I can call this a hate crime, but, I do feel this is very scared because this guy repeated to smashed my car two times. In fact, this event is affecting our ordinary working, and living. This person can do the same thing on my car
three or four more times. I am not sure if I can request the Palo Alto Police Department to install surveillance cameras or Terman Apartments to install the security cameras in the public parking lot area. I have a small family here in Palo Alto.
We do need the safety living situation under the Palo Alto Police Department protection.
Thank you very much for help!
Jie Chen
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 7:51 AM
2
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:49 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mary Lynn Fitton <mlfitton@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 08, 2017 11:39 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Kipling development
Dear City Council,
I urge you to deny the proposed development plans for 429 University Ave at Kipling Street. The building is too massive
and does not meet the criteria set forth in the previous city council mandate of November 30, 2015. The building will
overwhelm the Victorian homes on Kipling Street and increase traffic which will likely cause unending traffic jams. It
will negatively impact the quality of life on Kipling Street for residents, pedestrians and businesses.
Thank you,
Mary Lynn Fitton 821 Waverley St.
--
Instructions for living a life:
Pay attention.
Be amazed.
Tell about it.
-Mary Oliver
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:53 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:William Warrior <graihwing@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 6:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Life at our venerable animal shelter 2017
What's not to like?
https://vimeo.com/202860232
Sincerely, William Warrior
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:54 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Alice Jacobs <aquayellow@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 5:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Name change
Dear City Council,
In light of all of the buildings that have been going up all over town I suggest that we change our name from
Palo Alto to Edificio Alto. It would seem more fitting don't you think?
cheers,
Alice Jacobs
123 Sherman Ave.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:50 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 07, 2017 10:33 AM
To:Dave Cortese; Joe Simitian
Subject:NEW: Fluoride lowers IQs, No safe levels for Kids
Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, Educational Services, photowrite67@yahoo.com
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Fluoridealert.org <info@fluoridealert.org>
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 3:02 PM Subject: New Study Quantifies Fluoride's Potential to Lower IQ in Children
No safe level fluoride for children, lowers IQs
* New FDA warning on Fluoride Anesthetics
* 13 titles of articles: More dialysis centers because of Fluoride
by Stuart Cooper, FAN, Feb. 6, 2017
Some children may be consuming enough fluoridated water in the
USA to reach doses of fluoride that have the potential to lower their IQ,
according to a research team headed by William Hirzy, PhD, a former US
EPA senior scientist who specialized in risk assessment and published in the
journal Fluoride (October-December 2016), reports the Fluoride Action
Network (FAN).
Current federal guidelines encourage the addition of fluoride chemicals
into water supplies to reach 0.7 milligrams per liter.Hirzy followed EPA risk
assessment guidelines to report: “The effect of fluoride on IQ is quite
large, with a predicted mean 5 IQ point loss when going from a
dose of 0.5 mg/F/day to 2.0 mg F/day.”
Many children in the U.S. commonly consume these levels of fluoride
within this range from all sources (i.e. water, food, dental products,
medicines, air pollution). Dr. Hirzy explains the significance of this study:
"The significance of this peer reviewed risk analysis is that it
indicates there may be no actual safe level of exposure to fluoride.
Groups of children with lower exposures to fluoride were
compared with groups having higher exposures. Those with higher
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:50 PM
2
exposures performed more poorly on IQ tests than those with lower
exposures.
One well-conducted Chinese study indicated that children exposed
to 1.4 mg/day had their IQ lowered by 5 IQ points. Current average
mean daily intakes among children in the United States are
estimated by EPA to range from about 0.80 mg/day to 1.65 mg/day. Applying two different, standard risk analysis techniques used by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to published data on the
impact of fluoride exposure in children shows that daily intakes in
excess of about 0.05 mg of fluoride may result in depressed intellectual capability. This calculation involved using safety factors
designed to protect the most vulnerable child.
One well-conducted Chinese study indicated that children exposed to
1.4 mg/day had their IQ lowered by 5 IQ points. Current average mean
daily intakes among children in the United States are estimated by EPA to range from about 0.80 mg/day to 1.65 mg/day.
Fluoride may be similar to lead and mercury in having no threshold below which exposures may be considered safe."
Bill Osmunson, DDS, FAN's Interim Director noted that this study adds
further weight to the Petition submitted to the US EPA by FAN and other
groups in November to ban the addition of fluoride chemicals to the drinking
water under provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act. The EPA has
until Feb 20 to rule on this Petition.
New FDA Warning Label on Fluoride Anesthetics
The FDA just released a safety announcement warning “that repeated or lengthy
use of general anesthetic and sedation drugs during surgeries or procedures in
children younger than 3 years or in pregnant women during their third
trimester may affect the development of children’s brains.”
As a result, the FDA will now require warning labels be added to certain
general anesthetics and sedation drugs, and is advising caution in the use of
these drugs by healthcare professionals.
While the FDA announcement does not mention fluoride as the cause of
neurological harm, several of the listed anesthetics are known to release
fluoride in large amounts and cause other types of adverse effects due to the
fluoride exposure. It is a possibility, based on the many studies that have
shown fluoride to be a developmental neurotoxin (neurotoxic to fetuses and
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:50 PM
3
children), that fluoride is contributing to this negative health outcome.
Latest Fluoride News
-State Sanctions Three More Dialysis Centers Due to Fluoride (India)
-Buda Postpones Fluoridation to Hold Public Hearing (Texas)
-Two Meetings to Precede Meadville Fluoridation Vote (Pennsylvania)
-Proctor’s Chance to End Fluoridation (Vermont)
-Durango City Council Could Put Fluoride on February Ballot (Colorado)
-Dentist: “Fluoridation has no positive outcomes” (Colorado)
-Yorktown Received Grant to Study Fluoridation (New York)
-Anchorage Group Collecting Signatures for Fluoridation Ballot
Question (Alaska)
-Elliot Lake Council Debates Future Use of Fluoride in Water (Ontario)
-Fluoridation in Cumbria Put on Hold Until Study Completed (U.K.)
-Moncton to Debate Return of Fluoride in Drinking Water (New Brunswick)
-Hixson Utility District Weighing Reasons to End Fluoridation (Tennessee)
-Rogersville Begins Process of Removing Fluoride from Water (Tennessee)
-Jonesborough BMA Looking to Vote on Fluoride at Next
Meeting (Tennessee)
For more fluoride related media, please visit FAN’s News Archive.
Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network
See all FAN bulletins online
One section on news in Australia has been removed from this article for
length purposes. Read the complete article on fluoridealert.org.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 6:06 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:aram james <abjpd1@icloud.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 1:06 PM
To:Public Works Redwood City
Cc:cbeth@redwoodcity.org; Council, City
Subject:Newest dumped items across from Linden Park
Hi Tina,
Here's items dumped on Linden street across from Linden Park in the last 24 hours.
Thanks, aram
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/2/2017 6:06 PM
2
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:52 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:wsrfr418@yahoo.com
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 7:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:pot holes?
What is the city doing about potholes?
Are they going to wait until the rain is finally over or are they going to wait until a lot of people start complaining?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:49 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:David Moss <ssow111@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 08, 2017 10:26 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: city council
I read this during this week's city council meeting. Thanks for listening.
I was dismayed to see the inner workings of the City Council spilled all over the newspaper pages in a polarizing us-against-them manner. The idea that we only have monolithic residentialists who want zero growth
versus pro development factions who want only wanton growth is ridiculous. I certainly did NOT vote for those
kinds of people. You were chosen to see all the shades of grey, not the black and white. One of the issues, the
50 ft height limit for example, does not mean wanton growth but rather the reality that each floor of a 4 story
building, in order to meet current bldg code, must be more than 10 feet high, due to more infrastructure required between floors, especially if you want retail on the ground floor. This does not automatically give authority for
a wall of high rises down El Camino!
Another item spread across the newsprint, was the dropping of programs from the Comprehensive Plan. I have
been a Parks and Rec Commissioner working on the Parks Master Plan and have helped to first develop goals, and then policies within goals, and then programs within policies. We discovered that when you get to that
lowest program level, you realize that they have limited value in a 25 year plan. Each year in that 25 years,
programs are going to be revised, added to, and completed. That said, they are essential... they are the first set,
the fine examples, the momentum gatherers. They get the creative juices flowing and get the commissioners and
council members energized and focused. They set the tone. Some are short term, and some are long term but have short term foundational work that must be started soon. I do hope that you will put the programs, so
carefully developed, back into the Comprehensive Plan, even though they are not the perfect list. Or at the very
least keep them close at hand and reviewed each quarter to see what to work on next. The Comprehensive Plan
does not have to have all the answers today for what we will do for 25 years, but rather set direction, energize
the people, get those creative juices flowing. We need that badly to solve the very hard and very important issues we face. Thank you.
David Moss
650-862-8382
347 Ferne Ave Palo Alto 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:55 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 3:30 PM
To:Perron, Zachary
Cc:Keene, James; Stump, Molly; Watson, Ron; Council, City; Scharff, Greg
Subject:Re: Requests for copy of police report
Hi Zach:
Let me say first, Zach, you have done one remarkable job in my case without any bias. That says a lot about
you as a person, it demonstrates "police best practices all around". Unfortunately, I don't feel the same way about Mr. Watson and I'm extremely pleased he has no interest in the
position of police chief.
My case is unusual, on many different levels. Certificate of exoneration on an issue of pre arrest, pre conviction is unprecedented and a case which has never been filed before and thus historical.
Unfortunately, my $5000.00 request, is a matter which has been ruled upon in smalls claim court and can not be
redressed.
Therefore, I will be filing a Federal Court Action for relief and will do so once I return to Nicaragua.
Think of it in this way. In the matter of: Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 355 (1963), is a Landmark case in
United State Supreme Court history.
Mr. Gideon filed a handwritten petition, a habías corpus and the historic landmark decision that followed. And
about this historic case, Robert F. Kennedy had this to say:
"If an obscure Florida convict named Clarence Earl Gideon had not sat down in his prison cell . . . to write a letter to the Supreme Court . . . the vast machinery of American law would have gone on functioning
undisturbed. But Gideon did write that letter, the Court did look into his case . . . and the whole course of
American legal history has been changed."
So to say the following: "While I understand that you would like a “certificate of exoneration” from us, that is
not a document that we issue (or have ever issued; it is simply not something that we do in the course and scope
of business).'
This is a wait and see outcome :)
I hope you reconsider Zach, the position of Palo Alto Police Chief, I sincerely believe you would make a good one.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:55 PM
2
Kind Regards,
Mark
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 6, 2017, at 2:01 PM, Perron, Zachary <Zachary.Perron@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
Good afternoon Mark,
I am aware of a couple of recent requests you’ve made for a copy of police report #04‐182‐0110
(one via voicemail message to City Attorney Molly Stump on January 30, and one you made in person in
a visit to the City Manager’s Office on February 1), as well as your e‐mail you sent to the City Manager
and others on February 2. I received your voice mail message this morning asking for a response to your
requests by the end of the business day.
Your request for the copy of the police report is still denied, as the report is exempt from release
per Government Codes 6254(f), 6254(f)(2), and 6254(k) and Penal Code 11167.5. This has not changed
since the letter that Records Manager Lisa Scheff sent to you (dated February 3, 2005), which stated the
same thing and gave additional details (see attached copy of that letter).
I’ve also attached a copy of the letter sent to you by Assistant District Attorney Brian Welch of the
Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office on January 25, 2017, stating that no criminal charges can be
filed against you (and that no criminal complaint was ever filed against you) as a result of case #04‐182‐
0110. Also, within the past couple of weeks, I’ve provided you with written documentation from the
California Department of Justice that there is no record of you within the Child Abuse Central Index as a
result of case #04‐182‐0110.
I can assure you that this case is closed on our end. No further investigative work will be done on it.
While I understand that you would like a “certificate of exoneration” from us, that is not a
document that we issue (or have ever issued; it is simply not something that we do in the course and
scope of business). The best I can do is what I’ve already done: get you written confirmation from as
many sources as possible (i.e. us, the District Attorney’s Office, and the California Department of Justice)
that you’ll never face criminal liability as a result of the case.
With regards to your request for $5000 for household items and the “mutual NDA,” you’ll need to
file a legal claim with the City and move through our claims process. For a copy of the claim form,
please see http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6887.
If you have any questions, please let me know. I’ll respond to your request for a ride‐along
separately.
Thanks,
Zach
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/6/2017 3:55 PM
3
Captain Zach Perron
Investigative Services Division Palo Alto Police Department
275 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Office: 650-329-2115
Twitter I Nextdoor I Instagram I Facebook I YouTube I Flickr I Nixle Download our free mobile app for iOS or Android today!
<Letter to Mark Petersen Perez re Status of PAPD case.doc.pdf>
<2005 Letter to Mark Petersen-Perez 04-182-0110.pdf>
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 1:27 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Margo Davis <margoadavis@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 11:43 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Your e-mail to City Council was received
Please make sure this email is delivered. My last email never reached the members the ARB for Thursday
morning’s agenda!!!
Margo Davis
margoadavis@gmail.com
650 714 2146
www.margodavisphoto.com
On Feb 3, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e‐mail will be forwarded to all nine Council
Members and a printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council
packet.
If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call
329‐2571 to confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting.
If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an
explanation or else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification.
We appreciate hearing from you.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:50 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 07, 2017 12:59 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Lum, Patty; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; SWebby@da.sccgov.org;
CSumida@da.sccgov.org; Perron, Zachary; Watson, Ron; aram james
Subject:Recent picture of my mother Bertha Petersen-Perez Patty Lum
abused over ten years ago. she will be 92 yrs on Valentine's day
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:50 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nancycng <nancycng@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 07, 2017 12:12 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Sanctuary
On view of the current overreach by the Trump administration I strongly urge the city of Palo Ali to declare itself a
Sanctuary City.
Nancy Ng
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/5/2017 12:53 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Tiffany Griego <tgriego@stanford.edu>
Sent:Friday, February 03, 2017 5:23 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Lucy W. Wicks; Jean McCown; Whitney McNair
Subject:Stanford Research Park Economic Impact Data & Map
Attachments:2016-04-01__SRP Map and Tenant Roster.pdf; 2017-02-02__Stanford Research Park
Economic Impact Data - Tiffany Griego.pdf
Dear City Councilmembers:
Several of you have asked me for current economic impact data from Stanford Research Park. This is publically available
data that we have crunched. Please also find enclosed our current map and roster.
We also will share this with the CAC as they evaluate the Business and Economics Element in subcommittee.
Please use this as a replacement for any similar information I had shared in the past. This week, I noticed the
spreadsheet wasn’t adding correctly, and so I have corrected a sum error in the “SRP Combined Tax Revenue” data. The
amounts of taxes paid to Palo Alto (sales/use + transfer taxes) and PAUSD (property taxes) were always correct.
For example, in 2015, the Research Park produced $6.9 Million for the City of Palo Alto and $11.2 Million for the Palo
Alto Unified School District.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Thank you,
Tiffany
Tiffany Griego
Managing Director, Asset Management – Stanford Research Park
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
1
Stanford Research Park
Economic Impact Data
February 2017
SRP Sales & Use Tax Revenues
2
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
SRP Sales & Use Tax Revenues
City of Palo Alto at 1.00%State at 6.50%Special Taxes at 1.25%
Most people do not recognize that Stanford Research Park produces significant sales tax
revenues from business-to-business sales. In 2015, the Research Park generated $3.2M in
sales taxes (compared to $1.8M in 2002). Over the past 14 years, sales taxes from SRP
businesses have grown 72%. This reflects a 4.0% annual average growth rate.
Average Sales Tax Revenues from SRP:
10-year average: $0.43/square foot
5-year average: $0.53/square foot
3-year average: $0.57/square foot
Stanford Research Park is not immune to economic cycles or downturns. The 1998 Comp
Plan shows that sales tax revenues from Stanford Research Park decreased 27%
between 1989 and 1996 (a 7-year period), which reflects a 4.5% annual rate of decrease
in sales revenues from SRP businesses.
3
SRP Sales & Use Tax Revenues
SRP Transfer Tax Revenues
4
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
SRP Transfer Tax Revenues
County of Santa Clara City of Palo Alto
In 2015, the City received $4.2M in transfer taxes when lessees market their leases for
sale, triggering a transfer tax payment to the City and County.
The more attractive a Stanford Research Park leasehold is, the more the City and
community benefits economically.
5
SRP Transfer Tax Revenues
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
SRP Property Tax Revenues
County of Santa Clara City of Palo Alto PAUSD
Other School Funds Bonds & Assessments
SRP Property Tax Revenues
6
In 2015, Palo Alto Unified School District received $11.2M in property taxes.
Stanford and its lessees desire to modernize the properties throughout the Research Park
for the next generation research and development innovators.
Doing so provides triggering events upon which the County property tax assessor has the
opportunity to reassess the value of the land and improvements in Stanford Research Park.
Individual properties are reassessed when:
1.Ground leases expire
2.Properties are redeveloped
3.New long-term ground leases are sold
In short, reinvestment by Stanford and the employers in Research Park properties creates
tremendous value for the County, City of Palo Alto, Palo Alto Unified School District and
surrounding communities.
7
SRP Property Tax Revenues
Let’s look at 3412 Hillview as an example. Stanford redeveloped this property in 2006.The
building was completed in 2008, at which time SAP took occupancy.
The economic benefits from this redevelopment are as follows:
Before the redevelopment process, this property produced $27,957 in annual taxes.After
the redevelopment was complete and sold, the property began producing $257,031 in
annual taxes –nearly a ten-fold increase.
Of the taxes paid, PAUSD earns 46%, County of Santa Clara earns 16% and CPA earns 10%.
Specifically, PAUSD earned $204,161 from this property in 2016, versus $21,410 in 2004.
Specifically for Palo Alto’s General Fund, revenues were less than $5,000 per year in 2004,
and are now $40,000 per year from this property alone.
8
SRP Property Tax Revenues
SRP Combined Tax Revenues
9
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
$40,000,000
$45,000,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
SRP Combined Tax Revenues
Broken Out by Source of Funds
Transfer Tax Sales & Use Tax Revenues Property Tax Revenues, Bonds & Assessments
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2017 12:51 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 07, 2017 5:30 AM
To:abjpd1@gmail.com; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org;
swebby@da.sccgov.org; csumida@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; Stump, Molly; Watson,
Ron; Perron, Zachary; Council, City; Scharff, Greg; Dave Price;
donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov; jnowell@padailypost.com;
bjohnson@embarcaderomediagroup.com; jmadden@scscourt.org; Keith, Claudia; Tony
Ciampi; robert.miller@oirgroup.com; Ryan, Dan; Bonilla, Robert; Lum, Patty; Wagner,
April
Subject:The taxpayers of Palo Alto deserve their money 💰back on Dennis Burns retirement
party
Way to many victims remembered and the many unnamed victims and bones of so many others buried under
Forest Ave... interrogation chambers 1. Albert Hopkins
2. Tony Ciampi
3. Mark Petersen-Perez
4. Jorge Hernández 5 David Carlson 6. Rape victims of PAPD Luis Verbrea
7. Children's theater scandal (endless list)
Mark Petersen-Perez Editor: Palo Alto Free Press
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 7, 2017, at 5:00 AM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote:
You cant get away with mental torture Mr.Rosen it's time you revisit the gas chambers Ive been
in for over ten years ...
The city has produced way to many victims with impunity. You sir must be held accountable.
The purple triangle must be remembered and Jehovah's name vindicated.
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
2/7/17, 4:45 AM Exposing @cityofpaloalto psychological incarceration by keeping the torture files secret @PaloAltoPolice case #04-182-0110 @SantaClaraDA R/T pic.twitter.com/4Z97KRp8tg
Mark Petersen-Perez
'~]tL;UUN~/;c 1.1.l'IG ~·~: d.?;for7
I [ ] Placed Before Meeting
~ : [ ] Received at Meeting u.
During last Monday's City Council meeting, when the Council continued its work on items
under H, the Council, following Mayor Scharff's specific instructions, voted on whether the
items under H, beginning with item 2, would be discussed by the Council. Those wanting
discussion were asked by the Mayor to use their yellow button. If 5 council members pushed
their yellow button, the item would be discussed. With the first motion, as to whether to discuss
item 2, when the vote was taken, the Mayor declared "And that passes on an 8-1 vote with
Councilman Tanaka wanting more discussion on the item." What just passed?
This portion of the Council meeting was confusing to me and, as the meeting had been in
session for almost 5 hours, I may not have been alone in my confusion.
So, I went home and spend several hours reviewing this portion of 1/30 City Council video and
the Council's actions on the items under H. After doing so, it is clear to me that votes were
taken on whether to have a discussion or not on each of the items under H.
l have provided you each a transcript of this portion of the meeting, including times on the 1/30
video tape for your convenience. I believe my transcription is accurate as I listened to the video
many times to make sure I had correctly captured what was said. The transcription details how
Mayor Scharff directed the Council on how it would handle H, as well as the motions and how
the council voted on items 2 -5 in H. With item 5, it became more confusing to me with the
Mayor indicating that the yellow light now meant a Council member was abstaining.
Again, it was clear votes were taken on whether to discuss each item under H.
However, I could find no evidence in the 1/30 video of any pass/fail, or green/red light vote
for items under H.
As such, I respectfully request the City Manager or Attorney review the 1/30 City Council
video and advise me in writing if I am correct or not. This would end my, and perhaps others,
confusion as to what occurred with Hon 1/30.
So, my question is, ifl am correct: When will the Council take a pass or fail vote on items
under H? I respectfully request the Council schedule these items earlier in the evening to
encourage public attendance.
I left before Transportation items were discussed. I do not know if the same procedure was
employed. If so, and the only votes taken were whether the Council would discuss the items,
then my concerns and question are the same.
Thank you.
Rita Vrhel's Transcript of 1/30/17 City of Palo Alto Council Meeting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBnnwOg VC8s&starF5414&width=420&height=3 I 5
4:56:30 Mayor Scharff: Ah ... pause. Just need a second to make sure we've pause. So, I believe we're
down to nwnber H. pause Yes.
4:56.45 Hillary Gitelman: So, Mayor Scharff, so if I can just introduce this briefly. When we
assimilated all the comments we got from the council in late November, we picked out the things that
we thought there might be consensus on, and I apologize if we got this wrong, but we were really hoping
on this slide, the next slide, and in your staff report item H, where things that there was general
agreement about.
4:57:13 Mayor Scharff: Yeah, I think you got it wrong but we'll laughter but we'll go through it.
Council member Kou asks to make a comment and Mayor Scharff says to go ahead, then says:
4:57:25 Mayor Scharff: Let me finish. At least let me tee it up unless you want to tee it up in a
comment way but let me just tee it up, let me just tee it up. I'm actually thinking about it is 10 o'clock
and we still need to do the transportation element and we still need to do, look through the, there are
probably other things people will have comments on, in, or motions in the rest of the com plan, huh, in
the land use part of it. So, I guess I'm thinking about using on this and going forward, what we were
doing earlier whereby if someone wants to make a motion on any of these items we can, we can
vote. The, the maker of the motion, if he gets a second, or she gets a second, can speak to the
motion, I don't think the seconder needs to speak, and then if you want to speak, put your, I mean
if you want to have discussion on the item, I mean that sincerely, put on your, your yellow light
and if we get, don't get 5 members, ( 4:58:26) then we'll discuss the item, otherwise we can just
vote on the item.
Vice-Mayor Kniss: We're going to read through all eleven of these?
Mayor Scharff: Yes, but that's why I'm doing it that way. Because7 you know, there's nine council
members and so that's what we're going to do. (4:58:35) So, and, the first thing I'm going to take is
number 2 because we can come back to reduce the nwnber of programs after that's too broad.
4:58:46 Mayor Scharff: So, the first thing is Create new opportunities for retail, residential, mixed use
and pursue conversion of some non-commercial retail FAR to residential FAR as alluded to in policy
L6. This policy will be separated from programs L 1, L6 and whatever. So, if anyone wants to make a
motion to support that ...
Vice-Mayor Kniss: So moved.
Mayor Scharff: So, OK who make the motion?
Vice-Mayor Kniss: I did. (Note: did not hear a second on this motion.)
Mayor Scharff: So Kniss, so let's vote on the board that, nwnber 2. Oh if you want to speak to it.
1
Rita Vrbel's Transcript of 1/30/17 City of Palo Alto Council Meeting
https://www.voutube.com/walch?v=hBnnwOg V C8s&start=54 t 4&width==420&height= 3 l 5
Someone: Yep.
Mayor Scharff: OK.
Mayor Scharff: And that passes on an 8-1 vote with Councilman Tanaka wanting more discussion on
the item. Ah ...
Someone: Sorry, Greg.
Mayor Scharff: So, number 3 would be .... reads policy. Ah, anyone want to make that motion ....
Council Member Woback, Council Member Fine.
4:59:54 Mayor Scharff: Ah, do you want to speak to your motion? OK, let's vote on the board. And
that vote's, and that passes, ah, unanimously except for Councilman Dubois what wanted more
discussion on the matter.
Discussion among some council members follows but non discemable.
5:00:20 Mayor Scharff: ... the Mayor takes up item 4 in H. Council member Holman moves that,
seconded by Council Member Fine. Let's vote on the Board. And that passes unanimously with Council
Member Tanaka wanting more. So far Hillary you're doing well.
5:00:49 Mayor Scharff: ... Proceeds lo item 5 in H Moved and seconded.
Discussion between Vice-Mayor Kniss and Mayor Scharff as to where the Council is number wise.
5 :0 I :08 Mayor Scharff: We can take a few seconds if you want to look it up.
Mayor Scharff: OK, if you've taken a look at it. Pause. Yep, page 5.
5:02:53: Mayor Scharff: Ok people, do people feel they've had enough time to look at it or not? Pause.
And we can have more discussion if people want to. Just hit the abstain button. Vote taken.
5:03:10 Mayor Scharff: And that passes on a 5-4 vote, with 4 Council Members wanting to
abstain ... with Council Members Kou, Scharff, Filseth and Holman abstaining. That passes.
(Note: still using green button for no discussion and yellow button if wish for discussion.)
Proceeds to go through rest of items under Hin same manner.
2
Herb Borock
P. 0. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
February 6, 2017
lcn''"'2' '"'"=~N-G .. -:J C:,); 7~ ~
[ ] ~d Bdore Meclinl.f
(....f"'Received at Meeting
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
FEBRUARY 6, 2017 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE (14PLN-00222)
AGENDA ITEM #lA: CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY
AGENDA ITEM #11: APPEAL OF ARCHITICTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL
Dear City Council:
I urge you to vote against going into Closed Session to avoid
the impression that your secret meeting for Agenda Item #lA i s
being used to orchestrate the questions, answers, motions,
deliberations, and votes for Agenda Item #11.
The applicant, appellant, and public are entitled to hear,
consider, and comment on the opinions of the City Attorney on
this application and apppeal to enable you to make an informed
decision.
Should you decide to go into Closed Session, this letter
provides information on legal issues that you might want to
consider that are covered by the agenda description for the
Closed Session agenda item.
Whether or not you go into Closed Session, the issues in this
letter are also presented for inclusion in the administrative
record for the application and appeal for your consideration in
reaching a decision on Agenda Item #11.
Uphold Appeal or Require a n Environmental Impact Report
I urge you to direct staff to prepare a Record of Land Use
Action to uphold the appeal as described in Recommendation 2 at
the bottom of Packet Page 522 (Page 1 of Staff Report ID #7376).
1/4
If you don't want to deny the appeal, the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires you to direct that an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared for this project
as required by CEQA Regulation 15064(g): "If there is
disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the
significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency
shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR.")
Potentially Significant Impact: Bonus Seismic Floor Area
The proposed project has an unmitigated Potentially Significant
Impact regarding Land Use and Planning, because the project
conflicts with the Zoning Ordinance (Title 18, Palo Alto
Municipal Code) due to the fact that the project counts as floor
area up to 4,207 square feet of transferred development rights
from a demolished building at 340 University Avenue when the
Zoning Ordinance permits only the transfer of development rights
from rehabilitated buildings but not demolished buildings.
This impact can be mitigated by deducting from the allowable
floor area for the non-residential part of the project all floor
area transferred from 340 University Avenue and any other
building that has been demolished instead of being rehabilitated .
If the impact is not mitigated, then approving a project with
the resulting unmitigated Potentially Significant Impact is a
prejudicial abuse of discretion and a violation of CEQA, unless
an EIR is prepared, circulated, and determined to be complete
and adequate.
There is substantial evidence that there is a difference between
how government agencies that are experts in seismic
rehabilitation treat the two categories of demolition and
rehabilitation.
For example, the August 2015 "Seismic Mitigation Program
Handbook" prepared by the Office of Public School Construction
in Section 3 at page 5, "Division of State Architect Approval
Process", includes a flow chart with two decision points labeled
"Replace or Rehabilitate?" that each lead to different processes
for funding approval for demolition projects and rehabilitation
projects. (See attached 2 pages.)
Also, the Oregon Infrastructure Finance Authority "Seismic
Rehabilitation Grant Program" that "provides funding for the
seismic rehabilitation of critical public buildings,
particularly public schools and emergency services facilities"
says projects with "Structural improvements" are eligible for
the grant funding, but "Demolition/rebuild" projects are not
eligible for the funding.
The program description goes on to say that "Buildings with a
mix of eligible and ineligible uses can be considered if an
entity pays for the ineligible portions of the building." (See
attached page.)
Thus, there is expert opinion that demolition and rehabilitation
are two different concepts and that the term "demolition" is not
included in the term "rehabilitation".
Based upon the above facts, it is reasonable to assume that the
term "rehabilitation" in the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance (Title
18, Palo Alto Municipal Code) does not include the term
"demolition" and, therefore, no development rights can be
transferred from a demolished building.
Further, standard rules of statutory construction when applied
to the term "rehabilitation" in the transfer of development
rights language in Title 18 demonstrates that the term
"demolition" is not included there in the term "rehabilitation".
CEQA Regulation 15384(b) says, "Substantial evidence shall
include facts, reasonable assumption predicated on facts, and
expert opinion supported by facts."
The above discussion provides substantial evidence that no
development rights can be transferred from a demolished building,
and that approving a project the purports to include development
rights from a demolished building is a prejudicial abuse of
discretion and a violation of CEQA.
Agenda Description Violation: Ralph M. Brown Act and CEQA
CEQA Regulation 15025(b) says, "The decision-making body of a
public agency shall not delegate the following functions: (1)
Reviewing and considering a final EIR or approving a negative
declaration prior to approving a project."
The City Council acting as an appellate body is the decision-
making body for this project.
Any inference to the contrary in Palo Alto Municipal Code
Chapter 18.31 is overridden by CEQA.
The Ralph M. Brown Act requires that the agenda item description
for Agenda Item #11 include the fact that the City Council will
be considering approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The agenda item description does not include that required
information, although it was included in the description for
your November 30, 2015, meeting on this project.
Therefore you are prohibited from approving the project and its
Mitigated Negative Declaration at this time.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
s~
Herb Borock
To enrich the lives of California's school children as stewards of the
taxpayers' commitment to education.
Seismic Mitigation
Program Handbook
A guide to assist with applying for and obtaining School Facility Program grant
funding through the Seismic Mitigation Program
August2015
Prepared by the
Office of Public School Construction
707 Third Street
West Sacramento, CA 95605
916.376.1771Tel
916.376.5332 Fax
www.dgs.ca.gov/opsc
February 2, 2017
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Council Member,
My wife and I moved to Palo Alto in 1959 and raised our five children here.
I spent my whole working life in Downtown Palo Alto.
Earlier this year we moved to Channing House. One of the reasons we moved here is
because it is convenient to everything we know.
Channing House relies on a lot of employees to make this retirement community a
comfortable place for us seniors, who have given so much to the community before
retiring.
Unfortunately, these employees need a place to park, and Channing house is willing
to purchase parking permits for their use. Reducing the number of permits by 200
every year makes it very difficult for a community like ours to continue doing so.
We are appealing to your common sense to review this policy, which would put a
real strain on Channing House to be able to retain our valued workers.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
~t:!~ ;q:n C. Aarts
850 Webster St #263
Palo Alto, CA 94301
February 1, 2017
Members of City Council
City of Palo Alto
Office of the City Clerk
950 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Jean Aitchison
850 Webster Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Members of City Council,
-..J
~ o::J
I
°' :?> :x
~
.i:-..
G £: ::::;~
~-<.
(°")Cl ,...,,
m;! ~. :xr-
uiO
a>~'" ~c ""DQ" -., ~~
As a resident of Channing House, a retirement home with 249 resident
seniors, I am aware that we depend absolutely on the services of a sizable
number of-employees. Our lower-middle-income employees cannot afford the
high cost of living in Palo Alto, and they need to transport themselves to work
here and to park nearby after they arrive.
The city's plan to reduce employee parking by 200 every year to zero
eventually will severely hamper Channing House's ability to recruit and retain
employees. I together with my fellow residents urge you strongly to consider
the need of us as vulnerable seniors as well as the need of our lower-middle-
income employees.
Thank you for your attention to his matter.
~dot4~~
Jean Aitchison
February I, 2017
TO: STATE, CITY AND LOCAL OFFICIALS
NOTIFICATION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S APPLICATION REQUESTING
TO INCREASE RA TES FOR TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION INITIATIVES (A.17-01·022)
Background
On January 20, 2017, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E} fded a request with the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC} for approval to expand the Transportation Electrification (TE} initiatives currently offered by PG&E.
This request was made after the CPUC issued a ruling directing PG&E to file a TE application as mandated by Senate Bill
350: Clean Energy & Pollution Reduction Act (SB 350), which established California's new clean energy, clean air and
greenhouse gas reduction goals for 2030 and beyond. SB 350 orders the CPUC, along with the help of the California Air
Resources Board and the California Energy Commission to direct utilities to file applications for programs and investments
to accelerate widespread transportation electrification. If approved, these TE projects and programs wiU help achieve the
goals outlined In SB 350 as well as Charge Ahead California to reduce dependence on petroleum, meet air quality
standards, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
Summary
PG&E's application proposes an expansion of the current PG&E TE portfolio and promotes accelerated adoption of
electric vehicles across all sectors. In support of the goals estabfished in SB 350, PG&E is proposing programs to
promote electricity as a cleaner transportation fuel. The transportation sector has potential to help California achieve clean
energy and air quality goals. If approved, the proposals in the application would encourage customers in all transportation
sectors to choose elect!'\icity as a viable fuel source.
The proposed programs aim to address barriers to widespread TE and help determine how utilities can reduce these
barriers through future projects and investments. PG&E is requesting a total of approximately $253 million. The cost to
ratepayers over the first five years will be $15.1 million in 2018, $17.6 million in 2019, $18.5 million in 2020, $25.3 million
in 2021, and $33. 7 million in 2022. The cost of the infrastructure to support TE expansion will conttnue to impact rates
beyond 2022 and PG&E expects this impact to gradually decline over time.
How will PG&E's application affect me?
If approved, this application would increase rates in order to continue supporting California's global leadership efforts
related to air quality and climate change.
Most customers receive bundled electric service from PG&E, meaning they receive electric generation, transmission and
distribution services. In 2022, the year of the largest annual increase, the bill for a typical residential Non-CARE customer
using 500 kWh per month would increase from $99.13 to $99.41 or 0.3%.
How will PG&E's application affect non-bundled customers?
Direct Access and Community Choice Aggregation customers only receive electric transmission and distribution services
from PG&E. In 2022, the year of the largest annual increase, the average increase to the PG&E portion of rates for these
customers would be 9.43 cents per kWh to 9.46 cents per kWh or 0.3%.
Another category of non-bundled customers is Departing Load customers that do not receive electric generation,
transmission or distribution services from PG&E. However. these customers are required to pay certain charges by taw or
CPUC decision. PG&E's application will impact Departing Load customers with an increase to rates of approximately
$40,000 or 0.1 %.
How do I find out more about PG&E's proposals?
If you have questions about PG&E's filing, please contact PG&E at 1-800-743-5000. For TDDITTY (speech-hearing
impaired}, call 1-800-652-4712. Para mas detalles llame al 1-800-660-6789•i¥t1Bii!?i1-800-893-9555. If you would
like a copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits, please write to PG&E at the addtess below:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Transportation Electrification (A.17-01-022)
P.O. Box 7442
San Francisco, CA 94120
1
A copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits is also available for review at the CPUC's Central Files Office by appointment only.
For more information, contact aljcentralfilesid@cpuc.ca.gov or 1-415-703-2045. PG&E's application {without exhibits) is
available on the CPUC's website at www.cpuc.ca.gov.
CPUC process
This application will be assigned to an Administrative law Judge (Judge) who will determine how to receive evidence and
other related documents necessary for the CPUC to establish a record upon which to base its decision. Evidentiary
hearings may be held where parties will present their testimony and may be subject to cross-examination by other parties.
These evidentiary hearing are open to the public, but only those who are formal parties in the case can participate.
After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearings, the assigned Judge will issue a proposed
decision which may adopt PG&E's proposal, modify it or deny it. Any of the five CPUC Commissioners may sponsor an
alternate decision. The proposed decision, and any alternate decisions, will be discussed and voted upon at a scheduled
CPUC Voting Meeting.
The Office of Ratepayer Advocates {ORA) may review this application. ORA is the independent consumer advocate within
the CPUC with a legislative mandate to represent investor-owned utility customers to obtain the lowest possible rate for
service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. ORA has a multi-disciplinary staff with expertise in economics,
finance, accounting and engineering. For more information about ORA, please call 1-415-703-1584, email
ora@cpuc.ca.gov or visit ORA's website at www.ora.ca.gov.
Stay informed
If you would like to follow this proceeding, or any other issue before the CPUC, you may use the CPUC's free subscription
service. Sign up at: http://subscribecpuc.cpuc.ca.gov/. If you would like to learn how you can participate in the
proceeding, have informal comments about the application, or have questions about the CPUC processes, you may
access the CPUC's Public Advisor Office (PAO} webpage at http://consumers.cpuc.ca.gov/pao/.
You may also contact the PAO as follows:
Email: publlc.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov
Mail: CPUC
Public Advisor's Office
505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103
San Francisco, CA 94102
Call: 1-866-849-8390 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-2074
TTY: 1-866-836-7825 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-5282
If you are writing or emailing the Public Advisor's Office, please include the proceeding number {Transportation
Electrification, A.17-01-022). All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Judge and appropriate
CPUC staff, and become public record.
a~ _. ~-4 .,., -:.--<
l"1 (\;~ Ct1 r I m -n
C1\ :::,::t" ..
:;J:t
:ciia u)o
:x o:i~
~ ~ ""Tl ~ ... t;;~ rTl~
2
February 1, 2017
TO: STA TE, CITY AND LOCAL OFFICIALS
NOTIFICATION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S APPLICATION REQUESTING
APPROVAL TO CHANGE RA TES FOR THE 2018-2022 DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMS
(A.17-01-012)
On January 17, 2017, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed an application with the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) requesting approval to change rates for Demand Response (DR) programs. The CPUC requires all
utilities to file an application to authorize and fund OR programs. Per this requirement, PG&E filed application number
A.17-01-012 requesting approval of its DR programs and activities for the period of 2018 through 2022.
Background
DR programs increase electric reliability and can reduce PG&E's total power purchase costs by incentivizing electric
customers to reduce electric usage during periods of relatively high demand or high prices. DR programs also provide
options for customers to control their energy bills.
Funding authorization for these programs is scheduled to end in 2017. PG&E is requesting a total of $353 million over the
five-year program cycle to continue providing DR programs for our customers. The cost to ratepayers will be $72.0 million
in 2018, $70.2 million in 2019, $69.6 miUion in 2020, $70.1 million in 2021, and $70.7 million In 2022. This application will
be examined by the CPUC to determine if costs are reasonable and eligible for recovery from customers. If approved, the
application would extend DR programs through 2022 and PG&E will continue to collect these costs in rates from all
electric customers.
How will PG&E's application affect me?
Most customers receive bundled electric service from PG&E. meaning they receive electric generation. transmission and
distribution services. If approved, the application would decrease rates compared to rates currently in effect and PG&E
would continue to offer DR programs. In 2018, the year of ltie largest revenue requirement, the bill for a typicat residential
Non-CARE customer using 500 kWh per month would decrease from $99.13 to $99. 04 or 0.1 %.
How will PG&E's application affect non-bundled customers?
Direct Access and Community Choice Aggregation customers only receive electric transmission and distribution services
from PG&E. In 2018, the year of the targest revenue requirement, the rates for these customers would decrease from 9.50
cents per kWh to 9.49 cents per kWh or 0.1 % on the PG&E share of their rates.
Another category of non-bundled customers is Departing Load customers that do not receive electric generation,
transmission or distribution services from PG&E. However, these customers are required to pay certain charges by law or
CPUC decision. PG&E's application will minimally impact Departing Load customers with a 0.036% average reduction to
rates.
How do I find out more about PG&E's proposals?
If you have questions about PG&E's filing, please contact PG&E at 1-800-743-5000. For TDD/TTY (speech-hearing
impaired), call 1-800-652-4712. Para mas detalles flame al 1-800-660-6789 • i¥flii~ll 1-800-893-9555. If you woutd
like a copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits, please write to PG&E at the address below:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
2018-2022 Demand Response (A.17-01-012}
P.O. Box 7442
San Francisco, CA 94120
A copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits is also available for review at the CPUC's Central Files Office by appointment only.
For more information, contact aljcentralfilesid@cpuc.ca.gov or 1-415-703-2045. PG&E's application (without exhibits) is
available on the CPUC's website at www.cpuc.ca.gov.
CPUC process
This application will be assigned to an Administrative Law Judge (Judge} who will determine how to receive evidence and
other related documents necessary for the CPUC to establish a record upon which to base its decision. Evidentiary
hearings may be held where parties will present their testimony and may be subject to cross-examination by other parties.
These evidentiary hearings are open to the public, but only those who are formal parties in the case can participate.
1
After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearings, the assigned Judge will issue a proposed
decision which may adopt PG&E's proposal, modify it or deny it. Any of the five CPUC Commissioners may sponsor an
alternate decision. The proposed decision, and any alternate decisions, will be discussed and voted upon at a scheduled
CPUC Voting Meeting.
The Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) may review this application. ORA is the independent consumer advocate within
the CPUC with a legislative mandate to represent investor-owned utility customers to obtain the lowest possible rate for
service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. ORA has a multi-disciplinary staff with expertise in economics,
finance, accounting and engineering. For more information about ORA, please call 1-415-703-1584, email
ora@cpuc.ca.gov or visit ORA's website at www.ora.ca.gov.
Stay informed
If you would like to follow this proceeding, or any other Issue before the CPUC, you may use the CPUC's free subscription
service. Sign up at: http:l/subscribecpuc.cpuc.ca.gov/. If you would like to learn how you can participate in the
proceeding, have informal comments about the application, or have questions about the CPUC processes, you may
access the CPUC's Public Advisor Office (PAO) webpage at http:l/consumers.cpuc.ca.gov/pao/.
You may also contact the PAO as follows:
Email: pubtic.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov
Mail: CPUC
Public Advisor's Office
505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103
San Francisco, CA 94102
Call: 1-866-849-8390 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-2074
TTY: 1-866-836-7825 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-5282
If you are writing or emailing the Public Advisor's Office, please include the proceeding number (2018-2022 Demand
Response, A.17-01-012). All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Judge and appropriate
CPUC staff, and become public record.
2
Glenn H£:n!lr:,·~s
\1.!~::r
G sta1 La·sr.on
Vice Ma~ur
."'.r.1'.3r:f!!h
Vcun~ 1mer.-100!'°
!_;ir;yK!ein
Cutlll:Jl:llemt.cr
Nztic)·£rMh
t:n11roi;iJ1rembc-:
Russ Welton
C~lmclrr.cl'!'X
M:i:hilei S. Go!d10..:n
C:ium:ilmcmtx:r
CITY OF SUNNYVALE
The Heart of Silicon Valley •m
456 WEST OUVEAVENUE SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94086 (408) 730-7473
January 31, 2017 -C'ls:
-.J --~-c .,, .......
Glen Martin !Tl ("")~ c:J r-
Regional Administrator I ·~ a'\ :::t r-
Federal Aviation Administration ::S:o
'J:lll r.n PO Box 92007 :x C!J~~
Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 \D ~~ .. .,., Ci)
w ~}.,
Dear Administrator Martin: CJ'\ rrt>
On behalf of the City of Sunnyvale, thank you for providing this opportunity to
provide comments on the proposed amendment to the Class B airspace area
at San Francisco International airport. The City appreciates the efforts of the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to engage and work with impacted
communities. The Sunnyvale City Council has a regular scheduled Council
meeting the evening of Tuesday, January 31 , 2017 and, therefore, will not
have a representative available to attend the outreach meeting in San Jose.
Please accept this letter in lieu of comments that evening.
The City has a long-standing policy to preserve and enhance the quality of
neighborhoods by maintaining or reducing the levels of noise generated by
transportation facilities, including airports. The City is committed to
advocating a regional, balanced solution that would help mitigate
disproportionate noise over communities that don't have airports, such as
Sunnyvale.
Specifically, the City of Sunnyvale supports recommendations and/or
solutions that promote the following general provisions:
1. Maintaining a high level of safety for aircraft arriving and departing
airports in the Bay Area.
2. Ensuring a robust community and agency engagement process prior
to the implementation of any recommended solutions.
3. Monitoring and documentation of noise exposure by the FAA before
and after feasible solutions are implemented.
4. Accounting for, and working towards alleviating, the noise impact on
the ground of flights overhead.
a. Increasing the minimum altitudes of flights for entry into the
final approach of area airports including SFO, SJC and OAK.
b. Implementation of ongoing compliance monitoring for any set of
solutions implemented by the FAA.
5. Establishment of a single, regional point of contact (possibly the FAA)
where residents can submit their airplane noise concerns.
TOO 14081 710 7 ~01
f'r ntt'cf on R<>c)•c f Prl f'il111 r
Wrth these general provisions in mind, the City of Sunnyvale, has the following
comments regarding the current proposal to redesign Class B airspace at SFO:
1. Graphic Depiction -First, our sincere thanks to Rick Cote, FAA Support
Specialist, for making the graphics for the public meeting available ahead of time.
With regard to the graphics themselves, the underlying geographic map is
lacking. For example, the word placement of "Sunnyvalen misleads the level of
impact for our residents. We would, therefore, request a new graphic be created
to show City limits or better points of reference, such as highways. Additionally,
the graphic which overlays the current airspace against the proposed should also
indicate altitude notations -perhaps in the corresponding colors to the current
(red) and proposed (blue) designs.
2. Community Engagement -The City learned of this proposal via an alert from
its aviation consultant. The FAA should be engaging communities directly or
through offices of the local Congressional representatives.
3. Comprehensive Impact -The City strongly believes that any recommendation
by the FAA which would result in sending flights above a community or changes
to the airspace of a community -whether proposed for immediate, short-term or
long-term implementation, should take into consideration the comprehensive
noise burden assumed by that community, including commercial, general
aviation and military flight operations.
4. Vectoring Impact-Most of the NextGen, GPS based, procedures have a 55%
failure rate causing more low altitude vectoring of arrival aircraft which
brings noise and environmental impacts to noise sensitive residential
areas, affecting land use and promoting physiological problems. This failure rate
is systemic to all the Metroplex projects and is the basis for Congressional
funding discussion later this year under the FAA Revitalization Act.
Thank you for your consideration of our position. The City looks forward to working with
the FAA on a regional solution to mitigate airplane noise -including changes to Class B
airspace. Your leadership and engagement on this critical issue is appreciated.
Sincerely,
~~
Glenn Hendricks
Mayor
cc: Congressman Ro Khanna
Chris Moylan, Ro Khanna's District Office Director
Supervisor Joe Simitian
Supervisor Dave Cortese
Palo Alto City Council
Mountain View City Council
Sunnyvale City Council
City Manager
Gl~nn Hendrl:~s
Mlycr
Gu5:,w Larss::;n
'!,.,,, t.ti ,~
.!mG·1!!.~'l
~r i::iir:ier?l"tr
I itl) l\I I
'"' .. •11 r:'if'I -
Nar:cy S111 tt1
1 cunC::1~~1!1:1~·
RLt.~ Mt•ilori
•°;(lund!r:-t'm~r
l.'r h ... 1 .1. \; uir"
• r.:. m; ./lJ
CITY OF SUNNYVALE
The Heart of Silicon Valley""
456 WEST OLIVE AVENUE SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94086
January 31, 2017
The Honorable Warren Slocum, President
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
400 County Center
Redwood City, California 94063
Dear President Slocum:
(408) 730.7473
On behalf of the City of Sunnyvale, I am writing to request Information on the
County's intent with regard to the Bayside Visual Approach (BVA). As you know, the
six month pilot authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) came to a
close in ear1y January. Additionally, the City requests that the County share the
airplane noise complaint data collected since the start of the pilot.
Sunnyvale previously expressed significant concern with how the pilot was
implemented -without appropriate consultation and notification with members of the
affected communities or with local elected officials. The County responded to the
lack of engagement by co-hosting a townhall after the pilot began. I am hopeful that
the level of engagement since the townhall will only Increase.
According to the FAA, with the end of the pilot, and upon our Inquiry on the status •
the FAA stated that they await word from San Mateo County or Surf Air about
pursuit of a full implementation of the BV A. We request that the County inform the
City of Sunnyvale of its Intention with regard to full implementation.
The City's concerns remain -that Sunnyvale residential units and schools are
directly under and adjacent to the BVA route; and that this proposed solution simply
shifts noise pollution from one community to another.
I look forward to your response. Please feel free to contact me or Yvette Blackford
(Vblackford@sunnvvale.ca.gov; 408-730-7475) with any questions.
Sincerely, . ~
Glenn.Y
Mayor
cc: Congressman Ro Khanna
Chris Moylan, Ro Khanna's District Office Director
Supervisor Joe Simitian
Supervisor Dave Cortese
Palo Alto City Council
Mountain View City Council
Sunnyvale City Council
City Manager
mo 14081130.1~01
1'1i11tf.'J rm Rrcyt lt·1/ f'.i11~r
CITY OF SUNNYVALE
The Heart of Silicon Valley , ..
456 WEST OLIVE AVENUE SUt-.NYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94066
January 31 , 2017
Mr. Mike Callagy, Assistant County Manager
County of San Mateo
400 County Center
Redwood City, California 94063
Dear Mr.Callagy:
On behalf of the City of Sunnyvale, I am writing to request information on the County's
intent with regard to the Bayside Visual Approach (BVA). As you know, the six month pilot
authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) came to a close in early January.
Additionally, the City requests that the County share the airplane noise complaint data
collected since the start of the pilot.
Sunnyvale previously expressed significant concern with how the pilot was implemented -
without appropriate consultation and notification with members of the affected
communities or with local elected officials. The County responded to the lack of
engagement by co-hosting a townhall after the pilot began. I am hopeful that the level of
engagement since the townhall will only increase.
According to the FAA, with the end of the pilot, and upon our inquiry on the status, the
FAA stated that they await word from San Mateo County or Surf Air about pursuit of a full
implementation of the BVA. We request that the County inform the City of Sunnyvale of its
intention with regard to full implementation.
The City's concerns remain -that Sunnyvale residential units and schools are directly
under and adjacent to the BVA route; and that this proposed solution simply shifts noise
pollution from one community to another.
I look forward to your response. Please feel free to contact me or Yvette Blackford
Cyblackford@sunnwate.ca.gov; 408-730-7475) with any questions.
Sincerely,
~L~
Deanna J. Sa~;:
City Manager
cc: Congressman Ro Khanna
Chris Moylan, Ro Khanna's District Office Director
Supervisor Joe Simitian
Supervisor Dave Cortese
Palo Alto City Council
Mountain View City Council
Sunnyvale City Council
TDD 1408) 7JQ.7501 FAX (4081 730·7699
Pmued "" Rccyclrd r.1pt1
City of Palo Alto, Office of the City Clerk,
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear City Council Members,
I am a resident of Channing House retirement community. I write to draw your attention to the impact
on Channing House of the city plan to reduce on-street parking permits by 200 every year, ultimately to
zero parking permits. You will be well aware that house prices and rentals are so high in Palo Alto that
Channing House employees cannot afford to live near their work. Public transport is very limited.
Consequently most of our employees are forced to commute by car. Progressively reducing parking
permits and requiring employees to park further away will severely undermine the recruitment and
retention of staff, and will greatly damage the functioning of Channing House. Please bear these
considerations In mind when making decisions about the Resident Parking Plan.
Thank you,
Ian J. R. Aitchison
850 Webster Street, Apt. 300, Palo Alto, CA 94301 °'~ _. :s~ -., -<-<
f'T1 <"~ CJ h;:l.) I O'\ ~-';p ~· > c.f,O
:I: G,,.
\.0 ~ .. ~Ci> .. ~ ...
J c"•··~-,.~ r..1 '-r.:"'1"lll.•G " -1..-~I -!-t;l
---[ ) ••• 1·. • .r .. m. :11<:t:ting
t ( ] i·,1.:l~I .. • •• I .\,1.1..ting
j
j
February 6, 2017
Dear honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Council members,
My name is Kimberley Wong. My husband Nelson Ng and I have lived at 1260 Emerson
Street for 20 years and many of our neighbors have been living there for 30-40 years.
First of all I would like to bring up 3 facts:
1. Castilleja is located in Single Family R1 Neighborhood
2. Castilleja is currently operating under a Conditional Use Permit(CUP) granted by the City
in the year 2000 limiting the maximum enrollment at 415 students
3. Castilleja has been violating the CUP since year 2002 for over 15 years. Currently, their
enrollment is at 438 students. Despite this non-compliance, they are asking for more. And
what's to say they will comply with the new CUP limit?
For decades, the neighbors have been trying to co-exist with the school. As Castilleja grew
from a small boarding school to a day school, many of the neighbors endured the school's
impact including increased traffic, safety issues and events all hours of the day. We have
endured this largely in silence because we respected the merits of the school. However, the
school mistook this goodwill as an invitation for us to endure more impact in their relentless
quest for expansion in our Single Family R1 Neighborhood. After learning of Castilleja's latest
plan to increase their enrollment by 30% and master plan to rebuild their campus, we have
become increasingly concerned for our quality of life.
The immediate neighbors have formed a grass root group PNQL(Preserve Neighborhood
Quality of Life) to save the neighborhood from being institutionalized by the school and to have
Castilleja abide by the Zoning Ordinance for R1 neighborhoods in the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Over the last few months, the PNQL group collected over 400 signatures from the citizens of
Palo Alto for a petition to ask the City Council to enforce Castilleja's existing Year 2000
Conditional Use Permit(CUP). Tonight I am submitting this petition on behalf of PNQL and
concerned citizens of Palo to let the City Council know enough is enough and we are requesting
the City Council to enforce the law now! In addition to submitting this petition tonight, we will
also be filing a formal code violation complaint with the City of Palo Alto citing this petition.
Thank you for your time and we are looking forward to your speedy resolution. K.,~~,__AJ~
Kimberley WoOI/ 0
On Behalf of
PNQLnow.org
Andie Reed
Hank Sousa
Jacqueline Taylor
Jim Poppy
Kimberley Wong
Mary Sylvester
Nelson Ng
Neva Yarkin
Rob Levitsky
C~~ZETING
[ } Placed Before Meeting
eceived at Meeting
1310 Beyant Street (Cutilleja School)
November 2, 2000
Paee3
-.
at least tm (10) dayJ prior to a bearing thereon. Followina such hearing and if good cause exists
therefore, the Current Planning Manager may revoke the Use Pennit.
A Use Pemllt which bu not been uaed wltbin one (1) year after the dale of granting becomes
void, although the Currant Planning Manager may, without a hearing, extend the time for an
additional year if an ~lication to this effect is filed before the expimtion of the first year.
AppUeaat: Georgia Bond, Dh=tor of Finance and Opemtions
Castilleja School
13 l 0 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Property Owaer. Castilleja &:bool
131 O Bryant Stteet
Palo Alto, CA 94301
l~ECE~VED Ci!-J of Palo Alto
Department of Planning aud
Community Environment
-A'pplicatioa No. 99-UP~a: ·1310 Bryant Smet .
Planning Division
u~ Permit 99--UP-48 is approved to allow Castilleja Scbool ro decommission 1,328 square
feel and add 1,885 square Mt. SS1 of which is to meet handicap ~oilicy requirements
at tlic campus administration building. There is no new increase in Floor Arr:a wociared
with the project. The request a> allow 40 additional studeDIS has been withdrawn and is
therefore not approved. Maximum enrollment allowed is 385 studenls as approved io 1996.
Any increase in-enrollment requires a request for an amc:ndmcm to lhis Colllidonal Use
Permit. Environmental Assessment; Exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Zone District R-1(949).
FINDCNGS
/. The propond use, at lhe proposed local/on, will not be detrimlnta/ or Injurious to
property or improwmefl/S in the vicinity, and wUI not be detrimemal 10 IM public
health, safety, gsn1ral welfare or ·convenience.
The proposed addition to the existing private educational filcility will not be
detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the area or to the public
health, safety, general welfare or convenience in that no new teaching stations will
be added to the !thool. The project includes a new entryway, physical altcmtions to
the administration building and cbanaes IO the existing drop-off and pick-up areas
to improve traffic efficiency at the site. AiJproximatcly 20 new parking spaces will
be added to the site as a pan of the project for a total of 90 on-site paridng spaces. A
Transportation Demand Management Program was submitted by the applicant and
shall be implemented u a part of the conditions of project approval. AdditioWll
parking spaces. improved drop-off and pick-up areas and irnplemenwioo of the
tmnsportation demand management prognun will enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and
automobile safety and public convenience in the area.
2. The prop<Mt:d u.se will be lui:.ared and conJucleJ In a manner In accord with the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan and rhe purposts of Title 18 of the Palo AlJo Mr.mlcipal
Code.
The site is ewtently located in a single-family residential zone and a private
educational facility is a conditionally pennittcd use in the zone. The educational
facility will be used in ~c:ordancc with prescribed conditions of approval. The
prQposed physical addition to the facility will not incn:uc the total Floor Area on the
site. The conditions of approval will help ensure that the improvemcnlS to lbc fiicllity
will reduce th: impac1s on lhe surrounding area regarding parlcing and dropping-<>ff and
picking-up students. The proposed improvements to the facility will bring the site
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. BOil 10250
Pllo Alto, CA 94303
650.329,2441
650319 .2154 r..
into more subsuintial compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinnnce
with regard to parking. The project is also consistent with Goals T-3 and T-4 of the
Transportation clement of the Comptehcnsive Plan in that the proposed changes to
the sire circultition. including· the parking lot changes and'tbe· addition of improved
signnge, will improve nccess for pedestrians. bicyclists and automobiles.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I. The site improvements shell be constructed as shown on the approved site pion
... submitted with the Castilltja School Parking and Traffic Study Program m:eivcd by
/ the City of Palo Alto Planning Department orif:e~ruary 29~Qo0i, and as consistent
with the Conditions of ApproVill. Any modifications made to the design of the
odministration building as n result of architectural review shall be incorporatl:d into
revised phms and submitted to the Zoning Administrator .after final architectural
review approval is granted.
!. This Use Permit shall become effective on the same date that the final architeclllrnl
review approval becomes effective.
3. The proposed parldng lot located off of Bryant Street is required to have a tree well
where a row of 10 parking spaces exists on the right side of the lot Th~ current site
plcn shows 11 spaces and Section 18.83.100 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
requites one tree for every 10 spaces so an additional tree shall be added.
4. All existing smct ~ must be protected during consuuction. The tree prob:Ction
measures must be approved by the City of Palo Alto plllnning arborist and shall be
in place prior ro any demolition or constrUCtion.
5. The policies identified in the Transportation Demand Managemeol Program (TDM).
dated February 25, 2000, and rcquiied by these Conditions of Approval, shall be
incorporated into the Castilleja Sebool lona range planning goals and made a part of
the Board Policies and Procedures Manual. An annual report by school
admlnisttation shall be made to the Board of Trustees, Zoning AdministrBJor and the
surt0undi.ng neighborhood regarding the effectiveness of the TOM program. The
annual report shall be reviewed at a Zoning Administrator public bearing. After lbree
years of reviewing this report at a public hearing, the ZA can determine that
additional public hearings are not requmd and the IMu.al report can be reviewed at
.staff level. The ZA retains the ability to call a public hearing at any time if
complaints are received regarding non-compliance with the TDM program. These
IDM policies shall be implemented by lhe school at all times and shall consist of the
following points:
2
I . Every January and September, an updated parlci.ng/tmfficlpick-upldrop-off
-poliq-~~l-~·g1a.i!eMQ:~~ .. an4~pµt:q~g-~ _mor-,1~·df9P:-Off
periods'to n:m.iM pnl'Cttts of the irbportan~ of the Parking and Tnd'fic palicy.
Additionnl mailings shall be initiated as required and. the monthly school
publication. Around the Circle, shall have a traffic section to ranind families
of policies.
2. A reorganization of the drop-off and pick-up are.as shall be initiated so that
6"' graders and carpools with more tf;lan 2 students utilize the faculty/staff
parking Jot for drop-off BDd pick-up. This plan slul.li remain in place fiom
March 2000, to January 2001. After Januuzy 2001. Castilleja school shaU
submit a park.iog management plan to the City of Palo which distributes the
droJ)-off and pick-up to maximi%c traffic flow around the campus. The
parking management plan shall be reviewed at the annual ZA public heering
referred to in condition number S.
3. Parents shall be iMtrUCtcd not to double-park on street or drop-off students
across the street.
4. Plll'Cnts shaJl be instructed to move out of the driveway if their daughter is not
at the pick-up location and others are waiting.
5. Parents shall be instructed not to ma.kc left turns in or out of driveways at
peak times. Signs shall be post"ed to indicntc the!e turning rules. ln addltion,
driveways shall be ICCOnfigumi to mm left turns difficult for drivers
thereby discouraging left turns.
6. Castilleja School does and shall continue to provide traffic monitors during
the regular school years. The traffic monitors shnll educate Students and
parents and cnfon:c the circulation related conditions ofapproval. The traffic
monitors shall also be utilized during special school events and summer camp
to keep surrounding streets clear of congestion. During special events and
summer camp, the-monitors may not be wearing uniforms. During the
regular sch09J year, traffic monitors will wear uniforms.
~ 7. At least twice a day, school personnel shall monitor the parking situation on
site and surrounding public streets. The school shall notify any violators of
the need to move their car(s).
8. Students, faculty and sudf shall be instructed to park only on the school side
of the street Onlly monitoring ofpaOOllg shaU be conducted and offenders
shall be instructed where to park.
3
~::-::= ..... ---.:
9. A student gowmmcnt IC:1nl shall continue to meet to heighten ownreness and
find new ways for students to contribute to solutions. Student government
officers have already met twice with· Amanda Jones who works for the City
_ -· ~q~~-~~~~.·J.>~o~.o~m,~x~ ~.P9~PJ1P.lw, The scbool ·shaJI
. ,... --a!V!1(5pef1 iplinnry consequen~ fOriiUdCiits and'" pmts wno Clo not
cooperate with the parking requirements. The consequences shnll be
communicated to the students, parents, and the surrounding neighborhood.
l 0. Castilleja shall move 4 of its 8 vans out of the faculty parking lot. and tnndcm
pork the other 4 vans so that S additional parking places shnll be available in
die lot A londscaping screen shall be developed to ~tter screen the vehicles
from street view.
11. Oversight for the Transportation Demand Management Pla.n sh.all be the
n::sponsibility of the Head of School and the Director of Firumce and
Operations. Other stnff l?UlY be assigned responsibilities regarding the dnily
opemtion and enfol'Cement of the plan. As the designated person or persons
could chnnge eocb year as job ~nsibilities are redefined. Dl the beginning
of each year Castilleja shall provide neighbors and the City of Palo Alto
Zoning Admlnistmlor with a list of individual conlaets with emails and phone
nwnbers. Ct shall be cbe responsibility of the Director of FillllDcc and
Operations to make sure all per.sonnel fully understand and are trained to
comple.tc their responsibilities. A log shall be kept of all telephone CD.lls and
the expressed concerns. The Director of Finance nnd Operations shall review
the log for trends and respond to remedy any problems. If any neighbor feels
their conccm was not properly respontled ro, they should contact the Director
of Finance and Operations or cbe Head of School The administration shall
at least annuaUy review the Tramportntion Management Plan with the Board
of Trustees, the neighbors and the City of Palo Alto to mure its ongoing
responsiveness aod success (see Condition· 115).
12. Castilleja shall provide daily (when school is in session) traffic monitoring
at peak pick-up and drop-off times and for large special events, not only to
enforce tra.fiic/parkina policies, but also to ¢1lhance traffic awareness and
participation in dte program. Normally unifonned personnel shall do the
monitoring. The traffic monitor will oversee drof>"off and pick-up in the
designated areas and keep the roadway clear of waiting uuffic. Additionally,
the monitor shall ma.la: a daily round of the·school. identify vehicles that an:
not appropriately parlced, and report them ID school administration so that the
cars can be moved and appropriate action can be taken. The 1111ffic monitor
shall report directly to the Superintendent of Building Gild Grounds.
Information regarding the stUdcnt offenders sholl be turned over to the Dean
of Students "for action and pm=t offenders shall be turned over to the
Director of Finance and Operations for action.
4
13. At the beginning of every school yw Castilleja shall set aside schcdukd tiotc
_ _ fQ! !l!l ~l!Lty.Jmd ~Jo ~_gi$.ter tJ>e.i.r.ws, ~ceiv.c nnJ.D. tag and review
the traffic ii'a-plirlcihg policies. ·
14. At the beginning of each semester Castilleja sh.nil set aside scheduled time for
all students to register their cars, receive an J.D. tag, and review the traffic
1111d parking policies.
IS. Parents and students who do not follow the gui~lines shall be conferenced
with and a judicial plan, which outlines consequences, shall be developed for
students. The judicial plan shall include the possibility of wmning letters to
students, disciplinary actions and possjble temporary suspension for repeat
violators.
16. As part of the Administration Building remodel the Bryant Stteet driveway
shnll be lengthened and widened into two lanes to provide off-street drop-
off/pick-up for apprqximately 16 can. At off-peak times the curb lane could
provide approicimaiely S spaces for visitor parking.
17. The Kellogg driveway shall be lengthened behind a green planted area ro
provide off-street drop-off7pick-up for approximoJcly 10 cars.
18. 21 parking .spo.ces shall be included on the Embarcadero side of the school
when the Administration Remodel is complete. These shall replace che 7
existing spaces in front of that building. The 21 spaces shalt be used for
visitors and staff on-site parking.
19. For special events, Castilleja School shall utilize the packing around the
interior circle~ with approval ftom the City of Palo Alto Fire Marshall, as well
as pursue the use of the parking lots at Palo Alto High School and Town and
Country shopping center and any other available off-site parking in private
parking lots.
20. Castilleja School shall continue to facilitate ~latioas with alternative
transportation providers such as Kids Kab and q1ympian Lenming Centt:rs.
Options for such types ofaltcmadve transportation shall be made available
to parents. Castilleja shall launch a major transportation campaign with
families to emphasize carpools and use of a Castilleja shuttle, the.Palo Alto
shuttle, and other private van services. Every Castilleja ftmily shall receive
informntion promoting carpooling and providing informAtion to facilitate
car/vanpooling in their immediate ·geographic area. This i.nfonnation shall
be included in each of the three summer mailings, and Castilleja shall
.s
' '
fncilitate contracting with private uunsportntion providers such as Kids Kob
4Dd Olympian Lc:mning Centers.
;O~~iU~j~-:S~b®.l.shall·JJSl':.the, City off>ruo Alto free.shuttle. service or
contin0e to provide sbutdc service to nil faculty. and staff fh>m the ·train
station·and shall develop and iniliar.e a comprehensive incentive program to
faculty, staff. and students for carpooling and using allemntivc means of
transponation.
22 Castilleja shall initiate the scheduling of neighborhood meetings to provide
nn open di11loguc regarding the neighborhood issues. The meetings shall
occur twice a year, once in June and once in October. The Zoning
Administrator shall be noticed as to the time and date of the biannual
neighborhood meetillS' and may attend.
23. Castilleja shall experiment with a plan for an assigned pariciog program. The
program shall be developed with the sb.Jdent government to explore such
options as having ossigned on-site parking spaces provided for all students
who cmpool and having all students park on-site.
24. Castilleja shall desianace Visitor•s Parking Zones in the area of the
Administ,ration Buildin1 (4 spaces) and the curb side of the Bryant SIJ'cet
Drive (S spnce.s) during off-peak how-s. Visitors not associated with the
school shall register in the Administration Building. At that time they shall
be asked where they are parked and redirected to the visitor's zones if
necessary.~e-tra.ffic·monitr>,;.ma:µnt be wrmis:ie llllifemureu~be ~t and operariptdttrinl d•ncCSJ
25. Castilleja School shall review its event scheduling process to more
strategically plan major school functions so school events do not oceur on
consecutive weekends. Special Events such as school dances shall utilize
traffic monitors to help facilitate the traffic flow at and around the site. These
traffic monitors may not be wearing uniforms, but shall be present and
working during dances.
26. Castilleja will review ilS eveot calendaring process and develop procedures
to more strategically plan events and their timing placemenl on the calendar
so that events such as dances do not become bunched in consecutive nights
or weekends. Additionally, Castilleja shall review the events that 1Bkc place
on campus with the intent of reducing the numbers.
27. Castilleja has S major functions each year (Back to School Night, GIU>r
Gathering, a major fund raiser dinner/dance, Founder's Day Luncheon, and
baccalaureate/gmduation) that will bring almost 1111 stUdents and parents to
6