HomeMy Public PortalAbout20170403plCC701-32
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: 4/3/2017
Document dates: 3/15/2017 – 3/22/2017
Set 1/2
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/9/2017 7:30 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Daniel Garber <dan@fgy-arch.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 08, 2017 12:18 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Lee, Elena; Costello, Elaine; Gitelman, Hillary; Keller, Arthur
Subject:CAC Garber-Keller memo to Council 2017-03-08
Attachments:Garber-Keller memo to Council 2017-03-08 .pdf
Attached is a memo Arthur and myself regarding the Council's January 30, 2017 action to remove the programs of the Land Use Element from the Comp Plan and retain the programs within the element as they were
originally planned to be located.
Daniel Garber, FAIA
Fergus Garber Young Architects fgy-arch.com 81 Encina Avenue Palo Alto CA 94301 o 650.473.0400 c 650.245.7775
Date: March 8, 2017
To: Mayor Scharff and City Councilmembers
From: Daniel Garber and Arthur Keller, Co-chairs
Citizen’s Advisory Committee on the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
RE: CAC’s Discussion of the January 30, 2017 City Council Meeting
We recommend Council reverse its January 30, 2017 action to remove the programs of the Land
Use Element from the Comp Plan and retain the programs within the element as they were
originally planned to be located.
We think that all of us, to greater or lesser extents, believe that the Comp Plan can stand to be
condensed, redundancies removed, made easier to read and speak with a more clear and concise
voice. However, we shared Councilmember Filseth’s initial reaction to Councilmember
Wolbach’s motion to remove the programs of the Land Use Element from the Comp Plan. While
Councilmember Filseth shared the spirit of Councilmember Wolbach’s motion—to make the
Comp Plan more clear and concise—he felt that removing the programs from the element was a
“massive change” to make without a lot more discussion.
At the CAC meeting on February 21, 2017, we gave the CAC the opportunity to comment on
their opinions on the Council action to remove the programs from the Land Use Element.
Although we made no motions, of the 14 voting members who were present (out of 17 current
voting members), 11 expressed a clear sentiment for keeping the programs within the elements
as presented. One of the others suggested that the CAC resign en masse if the Council decides to
remove the programs from the Land Use element. Two other CAC members expressed support
for the Council’s action to remove the programs from the Land Use element. The three other
CAC members who did not attend the meeting did not offer written comments using our standard
process for CAC member comments to the CAC. We understand that the CAC verbatim minutes
are being provided to the Council.
We recognize that the CAC is advisory to the Council; the Council can take or leave the work of
the CAC as they wish. But, the CAC has worked extremely hard to find ways to work together
towards consensus where we can, and to provide clear alternatives where we cannot. The
Council’s January 30, 2017 action threatens to disrupt the delicate balance of trust that all the
members of the CAC have painfully forged over the last year and a half. Changing the rule set
that during the final months of the Committee’s work is destabilizing and will cause us to revisit
many of our assumptions and actions to date.
Should the Council take no action to revise their January 30, 2017 decision, we ask the Council
direct the CAC to 1) review the existing policies and programs in light of the change and develop
recommendations for the Council to consider and 2) take an editing pass to remove redundancy
and increase the clarity of the document.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:03 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From: Eric Filseth [mailto:efilseth@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 11:55 AM
To: Minor, Beth
Subject: At Places Memo, Item #16
Beth,
Can you please distribute the attached to Council as an At‐Places Memo for Item #16 tonight? Sorry to slide in very late
here.
Regards, Eric
Scenario Growth Rates Relative to Historical Growth Rates
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Scenario
Growth Rate Scenario 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
1.31%Scenario 6 21,338 23,747 25,188 26,048 28,216 28,545 30,419 32,417 34,545 36,813 39,230
0.80%Scenario 5 21,338 23,747 25,188 26,048 28,216 28,545 29,681 30,862 32,090 33,367 34,694
0.62%Scenario 2 21,338 23,747 25,188 26,048 28,216 28,545 29,424 30,330 31,265 32,228 33,220
Growth from 2015-2030 - Scenario 6 6,000
Growth from 2015-2030 - Scenario 5 3,545
Growth from 2015-2030 - Scenario 2 2,720
Actuals (2015-2023 Housing Element p44)Projected
Scenario
Growth Rate Scenario 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
1.34%Scenario 6 55,966 55,525 55,900 58,598 64,403 65,685 70,078 74,765 79,765 85,100 90,791
0.82%Scenario 5 55,966 55,525 55,900 58,598 64,403 65,685 68,384 71,195 74,120 77,166 80,337
0.65%Scenario 2 55,966 55,525 55,900 58,598 64,403 65,685 67,815 70,014 72,285 74,629 77,049
Growth from 2015-2030 - Scenario 6 14,080
Growth from 2015-2030 - Scenario 5 8,435
Growth from 2015-2030 - Scenario 2 6,600
Actuals (2014 Draft Existing Conditions Report p10-5)Projected
Folks FYI. I wanted to see the Staff scenario projections in context of long-term trends. Also extend a
few years in case next Update not finished by 2030. Regards, Eric
E. Filseth
3-20-2017
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/16/2017 2:43 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:LWV of Palo Alto <lwvpaoffice@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:26 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: March 20 mtg: Agenda Item 16
Attachments:CompPlanEIR ltr CC.docx
Dear City Council,
Attached please find a letter from the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto regarding
Agenda Item 16: Comprehensive Plan Update: Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Report
& Revised Fiscal Study
Thank You
Mary Alice Thornton
First Vice President
--
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
3921 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 209
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 903-0600
March 20, 2017 Greg Scharff, Mayor, and City Council Members 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Agenda Item 16: Comprehensive Plan Update: Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Report & Revised Fiscal Study Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto (LWVPA) has long standing positions in support of diverse housing opportunities for all, particularly for very low, low and moderate income people, and in support of an efficient and effective transportation system to serve all, particularly those who are transit dependent. Accordingly, we take this opportunity to make the following points regarding the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Update to the Comprehensive Plan and on the draft Plan itself: There are many policies in the draft Comprehensive Plan, which if implemented, could result in a large number of additional housing units. The existing housing crisis will most likely not go away over the life of this draft Comprehensive Plan. Thus, we urge you to support these policies and to include in the Draft EIR preferred scenario the number of housing units denoted in scenario number six (6,000). Including this high number of housing units in the preferred scenario would provide you with the information you need regarding the environmental impacts of these housing policies. There are a number of policies in the Transportation Element of the draft Comprehensive Plan regarding adequate transit options for all. We urge you to ensure that the fiscal study contains an analysis of the costs for the expansion of the City’s shuttle service, or a comparable program, to greatly improve transit in Palo Alto and to reduce traffic congestion. Thank you for considering our comments. Mary Alice Thornton First Vice President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
THE LEAGUE
OF WOMEN VOTERS
OF PALO ALTO
3921 E. BAYSHORE RD., SUITE 209 • PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303 • 650-903-0600 • www.lwvpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Pat Markevitch <pat@magic.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 7:34 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comp Plan
Honorable City Council Members and Mayor,
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth.
While I am definitely in favor of more housing in Palo Alto, especially low income, 6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly
triple the city’s long term population growth rate.
The impact to the infrastructure, schools, parks, roads and services would be unbearable.
Having put two children through the District, I have seen first hand the effects that overcrowding can have on a school,
especially in the classroom.
Please consider a less burdensome option. Thank you for your time.
Pat Markevitch
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Joyce Beattie <jycbyt@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 7:24 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Citizens’ Advisory Committee
Dear Council Members
Please Honor and Accept the input/work/time and effort from the CAC and many of the residents
concerns that we elected you to carry out on our behalf.
If you fault our wisdom than I would like to hear convincing arguments as to why Citizen's input is
being ignored along with the City Staff and the paid Consultants.
Sincerely,
Joyce Beattie
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Rene Wood <renecwood@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 7:22 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Plan
Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members:
During your discussion tonight on the Comprehensive Plan, I respectfully urge you to accept and value the work of so
many Palo Alto residents, representing a wide range of political views, and direct staff to list Programs and their respective Policies, together in the main body of the Comprehensive Plan and not separate Policies or place them in an
appendix.
The Comprehensive Plan, as the overall guiding City document for decades to come, will provide more robust and clear guidance if Programs and Policies are tied together.
While it is understood not all Programs will be implemented, listing the Programs within the Policy structure provides more
comprehensive and clearer guidance for City Councils which follow yours, as well as day-to-day City operations, and documents the City's careful and expansive thinking on critical matters on key aspects of the City as it plans its future.
Sincerely,
Rene Wood
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Rene Wood <renecwood@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 7:16 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Plan
Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members:
During your discussion tonight on the Comprehensive Plan, I respectfully urge you to accept and value the work of so
many Palo Alto residents, representing a wide range of political views, and direct staff to list Programs and their respective Policies, together in the main body of the Comprehensive Plan and not separate Policies or place them in an
appendix.
The Comprehensive Plan, as the overall guiding City document for decades to come, will provide more robust and clear guidance if Programs and Policies are tied together.
While it is understood not all Programs will be implemented, listing the Programs within the Policy structure provides more
comprehensive and clearer guidance for City Councils which follow yours, as well as day-to-day City operations, and documents the City's careful and expansive thinking on critical matters on key aspects of the City as it plans its future.
Sincerely,
Rene Wood
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Clerk, City
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 6:41 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Letter - Comprehensive Plan Scenario 6-- March 20, 2017
From: Gail Price [mailto:gail.price3@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 6:01 PM
To: citycouncil@cityofpaloalto.org
Cc: Clerk, City
Subject: Letter - Comprehensive Plan Scenario 6-- March 20, 2017
March 19, 2017
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss, and Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
In addition to signing a recent petition supporting Scenario 6 (providing capacity for up to 6,000 housing units over the next 15 years) in the Comprehensive Plan, I wanted to make additional comments.
As you are well aware, the Comprehensive Plan and its Housing Element are critical policy guiding documents
for the City of Palo Alto. Updates are periodic and require significant time and resources. It is very important
that the policies and vision are realistic, appropriate, and thoughtful so that Palo Alto can provide for its
residents and businesses while also recognizing our role as a regional player. Your decisions help define the future.
Housing is a local and regional issue. Elected officials, planners, academics, and community members have
repeatedly identified it over many decades. In fact, our economic vitality, opportunities for job expansion, and
providing for the varied housing needs of residents all relate to one another. The reduction in car commute trips
will support the goals of our Sustainability/ Climate Action Plan. The constrained housing supply and rental and purchase costs have produced an untenable situation.
Providing more opportunities for housing is simply the only way we can have an impact and provide additional
housing units of all sizes that serve the varied needs of the community. Well-designed and sited housing are key
participants of the solution.
I am convinced that incorporating Scenario 6 in our Comprehensive Plan is a long overdue and needed step. Many market factors, the supply of sites, and property owner interests will jointly determine the phasing of
housing throughout the community over the 15-year period. As a former city planner, I have given these issues
significant thought.
I am convinced that new and expanded capacity near the El Camino corridor, California Avenue and University
Avenue are ideal locations. These areas are close or adjacent to services, jobs, transit routes, and Caltrain.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
6
You were elected to be leaders in our community. You can take impactful and thoughtful action to
increase housing opportunities by including at least the 6,000 units outlined in Scenario 6.
Sincerely,
Gail A. Price
4082 Orme Street, Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Ben Lerner <balerner@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 12:43 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Be SENSIBLE on Housing Growth: NO on Scenario 6!
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I understand that you are under pressure to choose Scenario 6 for housing growth of the Comp Plan Draft EIR. I am
writing to ask you to choose a slower growth option, because Scenario 6 is too extreme and poorly conceived. While
many of us in Palo Alto will accept more and especially better‐priced housing, we don’t want it to compromise our
quality of life, infrastructure, and the all‐important quality of our schools. We support growth that stays within the
city’s ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes far beyond this.
Under Scenario 6, 6000 new housing units would be built by 2030 which would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term
population growth rate, and make this new growth rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for
decades. Few reasonable people would agree to this, there is no precedent for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and no
evidence the city’s infrastructure, services and schools could keep up for very long. Arguments why this new housing
won’t produce more cars, traffic, parking demand, school enrollment etc. are fanciful and unrealistic.
I would like to remind all City Council Members that none of you ran on a platform of doubling or tripling Palo Alto’s
rate of population growth. In fact, in the most recent election, everyone ran somewhere between “moderate” and
“residentialist”. I think it would not be good if the voters conclude they were conned or deceived.
Housing matters, but we residents also care about other things and want balance. Please make a carefully considered
and wise judgement, that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sincerely,
Ben Lerner
3482 Janice Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 12:35 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Brand, Richard
Subject:Don't be Fooled - Comp Plan form letter.
Council friends: I have been made aware of a form letter that is being circulated and asking people, not all of them residents, to email you to support the building of 6K new residential units in our City (Scenario 6) without providing any recommendation on how we will address the secondary effects of such a massive addition to our City infrastructure via this Comp Plan change. For so many good reasons our City has always been under pressure to provide the "magic" affordable housing that is always out of reach for many. I have lived here on and off since 1955 and can attest that since then there has always been a shortage of housing, especially for young workers. I've shared single R1 housing with 6 others in order to afford to live here even though my brother in law was the Mayor of Palo Alto. Our schools were overstressed and this was before Jarvis-Gann put a clamp on improving our schools i.e not being able to build as needed. This is NOT a new condition. While I can understand the recent generation wanting to live here in the midst of this tech energy, the laws of physics still apply. Bottom line, don't bend. As my B'in Law Kirke fought to preserve, keep Palo Alto green and not like Mt. View. Neighborhood Quality of Life and not tech housing, is still what makes our City special. Remember! Richard Brand 281 Addison
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
9
Carnahan, David
From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 9:07 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comp Plan Discussion - Vote for Scenario #2
Council Members:
You must not vote for dramatic growth in housing units, especially under the false hope that this will create affordable housing.
It is time for our City to understand and document all the infrastructure and service costs that accompany new
housing and ensure that new development covers all of these costs BEFORE APPROVAL.
In particular, it is folly to think we can support a dramatic number of increased housing units near downtown
when our major routes are already jammed with traffic every weekday during commute hours. We cannot
assume that new residents will use Caltrain and, just as important, that our stretched public transportation
services will be able to accommodate an increase in the number passengers.
Yes, I want people to have adequate, affordable housing. But Palo Alto is not able to accommodate a large
population increase unless we there is a commitment of substantial funds and support for regional transportation
systems.
The Com Plan will set the course for the legacy you will leave the next generation. Let's not allow history to judge us as responsible for destroying a quality of life in our town.
Scenario #2 creates time to develop realistic growth options.
Sincerely,
John Guislin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Maureen Roddy <maureenroddy@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 8:48 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:No Scenario 6 for Housing Growth!
Dear City Council,
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought-out.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better-priced housing here, but that stays within the city’s ability to
absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new growth rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. Few reasonable people would agree to
this. There is no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and no evidence the city’s infrastructure, services and schools could keep up very long. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more cars, traffic, parking demand,
school enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Housing matters, but most of us still care about other things too and want balance. Please make a carefully considered and wise judgement, that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sincerely,
Maureen Tuttle-Roddy
978 Van Auken Circle
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Logan Song <logansong10@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 8:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Against Scenario 6!
Dear City Council,
I am a resident of the city and a home owner. I am writing to ask you please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought-out.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better-priced housing here, but that still stays within the
city’s ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new
growth rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. This is unreasonable and
extreme. There is no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and there’s no evidence the city’s
infrastructure, services and schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more
cars, traffic, parking demand, school enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Even the slowest growth Scenario 2 still accelerates housing over our long term averages. While there are some
people who would like to see unlimited housing everywhere in town no matter what, most of us care about more
things than just housing. We want you to make a carefully considered and wise judgement, especially for the
Comprehensive Plan which has long term effects. All of you ran for council as Moderate. Please choose something more thoughtful than Scenario 6, thatPalo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sincerely,
Logan Song
Arroyo ct Palo Alto
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
12
Carnahan, David
From:Scratch Golfer <scratch.golfer@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 8:37 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:No Scenario 6 please!
Dear City Council,
I am a resident of the city and a home owner. I am writing to ask you please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought-out.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better-priced housing here, but that still stays within the
city’s ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new
growth rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. This is unreasonable and
extreme. There is no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and there’s no evidence the city’s
infrastructure, services and schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more
cars, traffic, parking demand, school enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Even the slowest growth Scenario 2 still accelerates housing over our long term averages. While there are some
people who would like to see unlimited housing everywhere in town no matter what, most of us care about more
things than just housing. We want you to make a carefully considered and wise judgement, especially for the
Comprehensive Plan which has long term effects. All of you ran for council as Moderate. Please choose something more thoughtful than Scenario 6, thatPalo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sincerely,
Tracy Guo
Arroyo ct Palo Alto
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
13
Carnahan, David
From:Li Song, CFA <li.song.cfa@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 8:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:DO NO CHOOSE SCENARIO 6
Dear City Council,
I am a resident of the city and a home owner. I am writing to ask you please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought-out.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better-priced housing here, but that still stays within the
city’s ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new
growth rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. This is unreasonable and
extreme. There is no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and there’s no evidence the city’s
infrastructure, services and schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more
cars, traffic, parking demand, school enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Even the slowest growth Scenario 2 still accelerates housing over our long term averages. While there are some
people who would like to see unlimited housing everywhere in town no matter what, most of us care about more
things than just housing. We want you to make a carefully considered and wise judgement, especially for the
Comprehensive Plan which has long term effects. All of you ran for council as Moderate. Please choose something more thoughtful than Scenario 6, thatPalo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sincerely,
Li Song
Arroyo ct Palo Alto
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
14
Carnahan, David
From:mwg1378@gmail.com on behalf of Mike Greenfield <mike@mikegreenfield.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 8:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comp Plan
Dear Palo Alto City Council-
I'm writing to urge you to choose a Comp Plan option that will maximize housing.
Frankly, I was a little disappointed by the options on the table. Palo Alto's rising housing prices are the result of
policies that make it difficult to build new housing. I would hope to see options that assert Palo Alto's
leadership and put a dent in our housing choices: 10,000 units, 20,000 units, 30,000 units.
I'm aware that none of those options are on the table. Given that, I hope you'll vote for Comp Plan Scenario 6,
6000 units.
Thank you very much.
-Mike Greenfield
Kipling Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
15
Carnahan, David
From:Apolak Borthakur <apolak_borthakur@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 7:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Scenario 6
City council ‐ I am a homeowner in Palo Alto. I have been reading off Palo Alto Online about developers finding and
backing the current city council, and it greatly concerns me. We already have severe traffic and congestion problems.
Adding more housing or office would make these problems much worse. I strongly oppose the Scenario 6 that would
add the most housing. Of for that matter any scenario that adds significant housing. I would request the council to
please first look into fixing the traffic and parking issues that plague us, before adding more offices or housing.
Thanks for your consideration.
Apolak.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
16
Carnahan, David
From:Wei Chen <weichen_11@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 2:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto house growth
Dear City Council,
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought-out.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better-priced housing here, but that still stays within the
city’s ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new growth rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. This is unreasonable and
extreme. There is no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and there’s no evidence the city’s
infrastructure, services and schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more
cars, traffic, parking demand, school enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Even the slowest growth Scenario 2 still accelerates housing over our long term averages. While there are some
people who would like to see unlimited housing everywhere in town no matter what, most of us care about more
things than just housing. We want you to make a carefully considered and wise judgement, especially for the
Comprehensive Plan which has long term effects. All of you ran for council as Moderate. Please choose
something more thoughtful than Scenario 6, that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sincerely,
Wei Chen
3718 Heron Way Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
17
Carnahan, David
From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 6:06 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gail Price
Subject:Letter to Palo Alto City Council: Support Scenario 6 (March 20,2017)
March 19, 2017
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss, and Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
In addition to signing a recent petition supporting Scenario 6 (providing capacity for up to 6,000 housing units
over the next 15 years) in the Comprehensive Plan, I wanted to make additional comments.
As you are well aware, the Comprehensive Plan and its Housing Element are critical policy guiding documents for the City of Palo Alto. Updates are periodic and require significant time and resources. It is very important
that the policies and vision are realistic, appropriate, and thoughtful so that Palo Alto can provide for its
residents and businesses while also recognizing our role as a regional player. Your decisions help define the
future.
Housing is a local and regional issue. Elected officials, planners, academics, and community members have repeatedly identified it over many decades. In fact, our economic vitality, opportunities for job expansion, and
providing for the varied housing needs of residents all relate to one another. The reduction in car commute trips
will support the goals of our Sustainability/ Climate Action Plan. The constrained housing supply and rental and
purchase costs have produced an untenable situation.
Providing more opportunities for housing is simply the only way we can have an impact and provide additional housing units of all sizes that serve the varied needs of the community. Well-designed and sited housing are key
participants of the solution.
I am convinced that incorporating Scenario 6 in our Comprehensive Plan is a long overdue and needed step.
Many market factors, the supply of sites, and property owner interests will jointly determine the phasing of housing throughout the community over the 15-year period. As a former city planner, I have given these issues significant thought.
I am convinced that new and expanded capacity near the El Camino corridor, California Avenue and University
Avenue are ideal locations. These areas are close or adjacent to services, jobs, transit routes, and Caltrain.
You were elected to be leaders in our community. You can take impactful and thoughtful action to increase housing opportunities by including at least the 6,000 units outlined in Scenario 6.
Sincerely,
Gail A. Price
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
19
Carnahan, David
From:Pepper Ave <pepperxigua@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 2:46 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:rebsanders@gmail.com
Subject:Palo Alto Growth Vision
Dear City Council (cc: Ventura Neighborhood Association),
It has come to our attention that you will be discussing a grand vision for Palo Alto's future tomorrow. In short,
we urge you to slow down and think critically about the impact that your changes will have on the city. Having attended many of your meetings over the past several years, it is striking how each project is considered
piecemeal, instead of from a systemic perspective. A city is a system -- if you change some part of it, then that
will have ripple effects throughout the surroundings.
Concretely, approving an under-parked project causes problems in that area and its surroundings. We were in attendance at a City Council meeting where Councilman Filseth mentioned the contradictory nature of many
impact assessments used to validate projects (one project -- more traffic, but no traffic impact because traffic is
already so bad; another project, same intersection being discussed -- traffic is fine, and there is a minimal
impact if any). Why is this the case? Has anyone studied traffic impacts after these projects have been built? Another striking piece is that assumptions are very rarely questioned at any deep level. For example, while we
applaud the effort to check the number of office workers per square foot mentioned in
* http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/09/10/palo-alto-mulls-new-strategies-for-getting-businesses-to-
register , especially in light of many studies citing 100-150 as the new normal, e.g. * http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/workplace/story/2012-06-05/tech-creates-workplace-
everywhere/55405518/1
* https://www.bdcnetwork.com/corenet-office-space-worker-shrinks-150-sf
, there are many questions begged by the study. In particular, the article about collecting fees from businesses mentions "The new staff report also noted that in
evaluating the square feet per employee in local commercial projects, the total range "varied greatly." About 80
companies reported having less than 100 square feet per employee, which includes 35 companies downtown."
The real questions are
* how are these densities distributed geographically? Are there pockets where 100 sf/employee is normal?
* what is the trend in distributions? are certain areas getting much worse?
* are less densely packed businesses giving way to more densely packed businesses?
* how good are the data contained in the study? how accurate is it? what does it leave out? * who isn't responding to the survey?
* and so on.
Having worked in and visited several Palo Alto startups and businesses, the 382-384 sf/employee seems
incredible. What exactly is being rolled in? Are parking structures being somehow included? Are there outliers influencing the data? Are temporary and part-time workers being excluded?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
20
We urge you to take a step back and better understand the city itself at a deeper level, instead of creating plans
that lead to irreparable issues down the road. If you're trying to plan for 2030, then you really want to understand how we got to 2017.
Regards,
Jason Robinson, PhD
Jieming Robinson
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
21
Carnahan, David
From:Steve Pierce <pierce@zanemacgregor.com> on behalf of Steve Pierce
<pierce@zanemac.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 6:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comp Plan
Council Members,
More housing, yes on Scenario 6.
Steve
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Zane
STEVE PIERCE
Real Estate Advisor & Broker
ZANE MACGREGOR
Real Estate Advisors & Brokers 621 High Street Palo Alto CA 94301
cell 650 533 7006 main 650 324 9900 fax 650 323 5431 zanemac.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
22
Carnahan, David
From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 6:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go SLOW on Housing: OPPOSE 6000 New Homes Recuse Yourselves
No more housing, no more offices until the infrastructure can absorb the growth.
Bar the 3 city council members accused of collusion with developers from voting on all development issues. They should
recuse themselves due to conflict of interest.
Jo Ann Mandinach
Jo Ann Mandinach
Need To Know Info Solutions
http:.//www.needtoknow.com
650 329‐8655 or cell 650 269‐0650
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
23
Carnahan, David
From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 6:42 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:No more offices and housing. Council members under investogaton should recuse
themselves
Hello.
1) Palo Alto can't absorb more housing and certainly more office buildings. Stop this insanity until we've fixed the
infrastructure problems
2) With 2, possibly 3, city council members under investigation for improper ties to developers, those members should
recuse themselves from all future consideration of future development due to likely conflict of interest. Be consistent
with forcing Tom Dubois to recuse himself from a vote on Stanford issues because his wife work(s) there.
Be consistent.
Most sincerely,
Jo Ann Mandinach
1699 Middlefield Road
Jo Ann Mandinach
Need To Know Info Solutions
http:.//www.needtoknow.com
650 329‐8655 or cell 650 269‐0650
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
24
Carnahan, David
From:Allen Akin <akin@arden.org>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 5:25 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Development Scenarios
Council members:
Pardon me; I'm going to speak bluntly in order to be brief.
If you aren't willing to place constraints on commercial development, then you're supporting unlimited growth; you
need to accept that and own the consequences. If the idea of openly advocating unlimited growth makes you
uncomfortable, then you need to create objective, measurable, permanently‐enforceable standards that have to be met
before growth can continue. There is no middle ground.
None of the six scenarios rebalances jobs and housing enough to make a significant difference in housing affordability.
None of the other comp‐plan discussions that I've followed have committed to enough behavior‐change incentives and
infrastructure improvement to mitigate the environmental impact (e.g. traffic and parking) even of these scenarios.
Continuing down the current path will result in the deterioriation and eventual replacement of at least the Downtown
North and University South neighborhoods. If you judge that's desirable or just unavoidable, please have the integrity to
say so. A good‐faith public discussion requires it.
Allen Akin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
25
Carnahan, David
From:Jeralyn Moran <jeralyn.moran@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 4:37 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Housing needed! Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units presented in Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to housing FAR in mixed
use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and collaborative manner, this concept would bring
added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car
use for local non commute trips as housing would be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges UNLESS we are able
to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of these alternatives. This should be a top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Jeralyn Moran
Los Robles Ave., Palo Alto
--
jeralyn.moran@gmail.com
..... the Time for Climate Action Is Now.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
26
Carnahan, David
From:Bryan Silverthorn <bsilverthorn@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 2:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:housing and the comprehensive plan
Dear City Council Members,
I urge you to consider housing as your highest priority for the new comprehensive plan.
These comments are based on the information contained in the following city report:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56440
As a resident of Palo Alto, I see the the council choosing between two possible futures for this city. The first
future brings us to a Palo Alto that is physically unchanged but has lost the energy and inclusivity essential to our quality of life. The second future allows changes to the city's physical environment but, by doing so,
preserves its character as the diverse and interesting place we value today.
I therefore ask the council to strongly consider all steps that enable neighborhoods to support a variety of
walkable uses for residents and nonresidents alike. Such steps could include greater flexibility for creating housing in currently commercial space, dramatically stronger transit options as a viable alternative to individual
vehicle trips, and an increased overall housing supply, such as that envisioned in Scenario 6.
This issue is deeply and personally important as my family plans its future here in Palo Alto.
Please, consider it with thought and care.
Regards,
Bryan Silverthorn
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
27
Carnahan, David
From:Naphtali Knox <knoxnaph@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 12:27 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:info@paloaltoforward.com
Subject:Support Comp Plan Scenario 6
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss, and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support more Accessory Dwelling Units. You can now do even more by adopting the potential 6,000 new housing units in Scenario 6. I urge you to do so.
I also support converting commercial FAR to housing FAR in mixed use projects. This would bring added housing and customers for local serving retail, and dramatically reduce car use for local non-commute trips.
Unfortunately, all Comp Plan scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges if we fail to identify programs and policies that persuade workers to reduce their car travel. Therefore I support a robust TMA with a stable funding source.
This is our biggest chance to attend to affordable housing and mixed use since the 1980s, when the 1977 Comp Plan's jobs, housing, and mixed use policies and programs were only half-heartedly implemented or not at all.
Sincerely,
--
Naphtali
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Naphtali H. Knox, FAICP
415.699.7333
Editor, APA California Northern News
March 2017
Virtual magazine, 23 pp.
PDF (7.5 MB)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
28
Carnahan, David
From:Liz Kniss <lizkniss@earthlink.net>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 12:47 PM
To:Elaine Uang
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: Thoughts on the Comprehensive Plan
Very thoughtful note Elaine; I really appreciate it!
Liz
On Mar 18, 2017, at 1:35 AM, Elaine Uang <elaine.uang@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear City Council Members
Thank you for once again taking up the Comp Plan in your very busy agenda. I write you this
letter with my own personal opinion, not the views of any other group. As a council, you have
been demonstrating some leadership on housing issues and I hope you will continue this on Monday night. In particular, I would like to express my support for a housing secnario with a MINIMUM of 6,000 housing. While this target is above our latest regional housing allocations,
we have a 30 year housing deficit and our neighboring jurisdictions are both responding by
studying signifcantly quantities of housing in smaller area plans - 10,000 units alone at North
Bayshore in MV, 4500 units at M2 in Menlo Park We are a key city in our region, and we can demonstrate strong social justice and environmental leadership by considering the prospect of more housing in our 13 year Comprehensive Plan.
I also hope you will support land use policies that help realize that housing target. Expanding
housing options is critical to our rapidly aging population, and the most vulnerable in our community - veterans, developmentally disabled adults, the housing insecure. We need to look at increasing the proportion of housing FAR in our mixed use projects Downtown and near Cal
Ave. There are tremendous benefits to this approach, which include more customers for local
serving retail, reduced auto SOV use for non-commute trips. Also important is increasing
mulitfamily density limits (for example changing RM-15 to RM-25) to allow more Missing Middle Housing in neighborhoods adjacent to mixed use areas and community centers that are naturally denser.
I also urge you to be serious about transportation and resource impacts, esepcially in the face of
climate change. Please prioritize sustainability metrics, as they are critical to enabling more housing without creating internal impacts. The best examples include car trip caps and paid
parking to reduce carbon emisssions and lower per capita water and energy targets (particularly
natural gas) for all existing and future buildings.
I hope you will spend the bulk of your time addressing and fine tuning the POLICIES and scenarios. These are the most critical aspects of a Comprehensive General Plan. However, as a
member of the CAC, I encourage you to provide direction on how to proceed with programs and
the Implementation Plan. As an Implementation Subcommttee member, I was suprised to learn
how few programs are actually implemented in our Comp Plan. CA OPR offers General Plan
guidance on how programs and implementation plans should be addressed. It was also
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
29
interesting to me that some local General Plans such as San Jose's and Mountain View's, focus
exclusively on Goals and Policies. At the very least, it seems our Comp Plan should have
duplicate programs removed/consolidated, and that certain programs should be prioritized. As to where they are placed, I'd hope that we would consider a dynamic (hyperlinked and expandable) not just a static version of the Comp Plan, so it is clear what the higher level goals and policies
are, but also provide the ability to expand a policy to view accompanying programs where
applicable.
Thank you for your time and attention to this.
Sincerely,
Elaine Uang
Kipling Street Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
30
Carnahan, David
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Friday, March 17, 2017 1:10 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James; Stump, Molly
Subject:Comp Plan item on the March 20th agenda
Hi,
I write as someone who has lived and had a business here for more than 40 years and as a regional
economist whose work concentrates on assisting public agencies in the Bay Area and state to think about future economic and demographic trends and issues.
I write in support of the housing target in scenario 6--6,000 added units. I appreciate the recent actions of
the council with regard to accessory dwelling units and think that the scenario 6 target will continue our
progress in responding to the many residents who have come to council in support of expanded housing
options and will do our part in responding to the regional housing challenges.
I support a further step in support of expanded housing choices and that is to develop a respectful and collaborative approach with property owners to convert commercial FAR to housing and mixed use FAR in high activity centers in town such as downtown. If successful, there are many benefits to this approach including more housing, more customers for local serving retail, reduced non commute trips as residents
will live close to services, shopping and amenities.
I am unable professionally to offer an opinion on the amount of commercial space and jobs would be
reduced and how much more housing this conversion policy would produce. I can tell you that looking out
over the next decade the growth of commercial space demand will slow while the demand for housing will increase such that property owners will find this a more attractive option over time.
With regard to the placement of the Comp Plan programs, I write as a member of the CAC, a member of
the CAC Land Use Subcommittee and a member of the CAC subcommittee on performance standards and
community indicators.
I support the decision of the council to continue discussion of the Comp Plan programs to this time and did
not feel that council action disrespected or undermined the work of the CAC. I do not know whether there is even a legal difference between having the programs in the Implementation Plan or the Comp Plan or both.
As a way forward to complete the Comp Plan, i suggest the following steps:
1) Have staff continue the process they have started to consolidate programs and reduce redundant
programs.
2) Wherever the programs are placed, have them organized under the appropriate policies and goals.
3) Work with staff, incorporating CAC feedback from our March 21st meeting, to develop clear priorities for the programs.
4) Place the programs wherever you feel appropriate but do have staff weigh in on whether there are legal
or practical differences as to where the programs are placed.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
31
A very small percentage of programs in the current Comp Plan have been implemented and staff and
council resources mean that few new programs can be added each year. So the priority setting seems to
me the most practical step at this time.
Stephen Levy
365 Forest 5A
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:05 AM
32
Carnahan, David
From:Betty Jo Chang <bettyjo@msn.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Plan
3/16/17
To: Palo Alto City Council
Subject: Comprehensive Plan
I request that the Council reconsider its high‐handed actions stripping implementation programs from Comprehensive
Plan Elements with neither consideration nor debate.
Policies cannot provide the guidance needed for our city to navigate the challenges we face without the programs
intended to actualize them.The Citizen Advisory Committee Recommendations considered Programs and Policies
together because one informs the other.
The manner in which the Council made this decision on 30 January, also dismisses the value of collaborative and
consensus driven government as demonstrated by the City’s Citizen Advisory committees and commissions. This is our
democracy and we ought to stand up for it.
The Council’s wholesale removal of programs to appendices rejects out of hand, without public debate, years of work
from dedicated city staff and citizen volunteers to develop a proactive plan with policies and programs to address the
issues of greatest import to our citizens.
It was not only the hundreds of hours of collaborative effort by staff and CAC members that were disregarded by Council
action, but also all the other Palo Alto residents who are represented by them ‐ citizens who take to heart the
importance of participatory democracy.
I fear both Council and community will live to rue the day when such cavalier disrespect for both democracy and citizen
participation drives away those volunteers who do so much to make this a community where we wish to live. Why
should any resident answer your calls to donate their time and effort providing volunteer staffing for all the tasks the
Council recruits for and the City depends upon?
I appreciate the efforts of citizen volunteers on our City commissions, committees, boards, schools and services. I value
the quality of the work product produced by the CAC. I want and expect the City Council to respect it as well.
Please reconsider your decision, and return programs to where they belong, along side the policies they are intended to
effect.
Respectfully,
BettyJo Chang
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:08 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Renu Virdi <rkvirdi@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 9:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Sensible housing growth
Dear City Council,
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought-out.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better-priced housing here, but that stays within the city’s
ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new growth rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. Few reasonable people
would agree to this. There is no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and no evidence the city’s
infrastructure, services and schools could keep up very long. Arguments why all this new housing won’t
produce more cars, traffic, parking demand, school enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Housing matters, but most of us still care about other things too and want balance. Please make a carefully considered and wise judgement, that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sincerely,
Renu Virdi Get Outlook for iOS
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:08 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Jim Colton <james.colton10@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 10:17 PM
To:Council, City
Dear City Council,
I disagree with Scenario 6 housing growth. Please do not select it.
I believe that Palo Alto's highest priority for additional housing are for those who serve Palo Alto and its citizens. Such housing should be below market rates so that teachers, police, City staff and other service workers can afford to live here. This
additional housing should include the additional infrastructure created by any new housing.
Scenario 6 goes far beyond this highest priority need. Adding 6,000 new units by 2030 would almost triple the city’s long term
population growth rate, and would make this new growth rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan. Such a growth rate
would severely strain the city’s infrastructure and services. When we consider the increased number of cars, along with the
traffic and parking problems, that we have experienced in the last decade when new housing was at a lower rate than it would be in Scenario 6, It is obvious that we cannot accommodate the new housing planned under Scenario 6.
Please consider these points when you make a decision on the future of Palo Alto.
Regards,
Jim Colton
670 Georgia Ave
Palo Alto.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:08 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Kass <vz22@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 10:43 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing and commercial development
If Palo Alto is to improve its worker to resident ratio, any new commercial development should be a
mixed use development that includes enough housing to house any increased employment, with the
exception of Stanford Research Park. New housing should be encouraged near highway 280, including apartment housing,and low-to-moderate housing for working families who work in Stanford Research Park or Stanford Hospital.
No zoning variances should be granted to Stanford for anything unless they agree to create an
upstream catchment basin for San Francisquito Creek as recommended by the California State Water Resources Control Board. They need to do their share to help prevent future flooding.
All commercial zoning other than manufacturing should be modified to require mixed use housing,
retail and office space.
Stanford should never been allowed to build their new hospital without any provision of housing at all for their lower income employees.
The only way to meet ABAG requirements is to reduce office space and increase low-to-moderate
income housing. There is no need for any more luxury housing unless it replaces office space. New housing built in Mountain View and Redwood City will meet that demand for many years to come.
Absolutely no new office space should be developed without meeting every zoning requirement. Did
the controversial 429 University project finally include an onsite loading dock? Was that a zoning
requirement and was it waived? If so, the decision to approve it was a bad one. Kathleen Goldfein
27 year resident and landlord in Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:08 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:tlawer <tlawer@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 10:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comment on Proposed Housing Plan
Dear City Council,
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is not well thought-out and detrimental to the community.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor a solution that allows for middle income people, especially families and those that serve
our community to live close by. However, recent growth has not seemed to address these issues and concerns, but has put significant strain on the communities resources. Scenario 6 continues on this path of significant reckless growth
without addressing the key needs of our community.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new growth rate
permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. Few reasonable people would agree to this. There is no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and no evidence the city’s infrastructure, services and
schools could keep up very long. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more cars, traffic, parking demand, school enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic. We have heard these arguments before and so far they have always
proven incorrect.
Housing matters, but most of us still care about other things too and want balance. Please make a carefully considered
and wise judgement, that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Please also consider regional solutions that would make our money go further. Why cant we work with East Palo Alto to
create more housing and at the same time work to improve the lives of the residents there? Significant future development in Palo Alto seems like a cynical approach to enrich developers rather than help provide affordable housing.
We have seen this play out many times before. I was very impressed with the almost daily glossy professional produced brochures in favor of the Maybell project by developers across the area. It certainly didn't seem like the pro-low income
senior housing special interests were short on money. I have also seen this play out with the push to remove the Buena Vista trailer park for more development. How inconvenient that the proposed development would provide less affordable
housing than the current housing. Only when the citizens of the neighborhood spoke out was the City Council shamed into addressing the issue and not rubber stamping another developer friendly project. Funny how these were the same
residents who were accused of NIMBY when they didnt want the Maybell monstrosity along with the violation of the zoning to allow for denser residential development to fund it.
Sincerely,
Tom LaWer
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:08 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Lowys <lowys@jps.net>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 12:27 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:'Lowys'
Subject:Make SENSIBLE choices for Palo Alto Housing Plans
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
Please do not choose Scenario 6 housing growth from the Draft Environmental Report. Scenario 6 is too
overwhelming in its scope. It would negatively change the character of our city and we could never regain any
semblance of the quality of life we are currently able to enjoy.
Most Palo Altans would agree to have more housing, especially if it results in less expensive housing within the city. However, the buildings must have more set backs, stay within the current 50 foot height limit, have ample
parking, open spaces and have architectural and aesthetic diversity, but NOT some of the ‘ugly’ buildings that
have recently been built [such as the replacement for JJ&F market]. The city must plan to absorb and
accommodate the resulting impact of such a major increase of population [i.e., plans for all services, schools, libraries, etc.] so as not to diminish the lives and living experience of Palo Alto’s current and future residents. The housing plans of Scenario 6 would go way beyond acceptable limits.
Any plan to build six thousand new residential units by the year 2030 would come close to TRIPLING the
city’s long term population growth rate. Most reasonable people in Palo Alto would not agree to making such a
growth rate ‘permanent policy’ in the Comprehensive Plan. Palo Alto has never had such a plan for this kind of excessive growth and there is no evidence the city infrastructure for services, schools, etc. could keep up and meet such demands. Arguments for such an extreme increase in housing are unrealistic and unacceptable when
trying to make a case in support of Scenario 6.
The City and Planning Commission must not ‘Manhattan-ize’ our beautiful Palo Alto. There is no way a mass
transit will in reality, materialize, to reduce cars, traffic and parking requirements in the future. Our city is just not built that way.
While housing does matter, most citizens also care about quality of life, beauty of our city and want
balance. Please make carefully considered and wise choices that Palo Altans will be happy with for the future.
Sincerely,
Michael and Ruth Lowy Barron Park Neighborhood
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:08 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 7:36 PM
To:Scharff, Gregory (internal)
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Requesting 3 minutes speaking time at Monday's CC meeting
Greg,
For Monday nights city council meeting on the combined agenda item for the EIR and Comp Plan, I
am requesting 3 minutes of time for my public comments in order to provide meaningful input. If that
is not possible, I'd like to know if you will allow speaking on behalf of an additional attendee as well to get a third minute. Thank you.
Hamilton Hitchings
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:08 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 5:10 PM
To:Moitra, Chitra
Cc:liz.kniss@citycouncilofpaloalto.com; Peter Drekmeier; Council, City
Subject:True Safety needed in plan
Hi All,
This is my letter to next door.
But please consider it in OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Thank you, Geri Sent from my iPhone
The city disbanded the entire traffic division in September
2011.
At our usual thousand car accidents a year, that's about
6,000 car accidents ago! Ridiculous!
For no reason.....
Speeding is 20+ miles over the speed limit where I live,
across from the nursery school at Middlefield and Marion
in Midtown.
YES, I am south of Oregon, but, so is half of Palo Alto.
Crime increased TERRIBLY.
Why on earth would a city of 66,000 people want us to be
COMPLETELY WITHOUT traffic safety?
This is a residential town, only FOUR miles each way.
It had been designed for our peace and livability, and, it
WAS SAFE.
NO ONE sped here in the 70's, 80's and 90's until 2009.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:08 AM
3
Do not raise the speed on my street just to keep cars off of
your streets. Give me back my on street parking and let the
police TRAFFIC division come back to keep ALL of us able
to enter and exit our driveways, and turn left.
Please restore the rule of law on our residential arterials
like it was when I bought my house for which I pay all these
high taxes.
PLEASE
Speed somewhere there are no rows of homes on each side
of our street.
Geri
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:09 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 7:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Council Alert TOMORROW! Monday March 20
Attachments:Summary of March 20 Comp Plan Staff Report.pdf; Collins Concern Abuot School
Enrollment Increases.pdf
Dear City Council, Friends and Neighbors,
Please refer to Palo Alto Council Agenda Item #15. Here is the link
to Staff Report on city website:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56440
#1 I have not been heavily involved with the new Comp Plan and
the complex EIR.
#2 I was aware of controversy about including or excluding
Program details with the Comp Plan. See Page 3 and 4 of staff
report.
#3 I had not been paying adequate attention to the pending
adoption of Council preferred scenario. The Comp Plan has six
planning scenarios ranging from #1 "Turtle" growth to #6 "Turbo"
growth. Turtle and Turbo labels are my own invention. Official
description of the scenarios are on page 6 and 7.
#4 City Council and Staff seem to be zeroing in on Scenario #4 and
#6. Impact of each scenario is on Page 20-21. Attached are key
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:09 AM
2
pages from the staff report but Pages 20-21 can be reviewed best
only online. The fine print on Pages 20-21 is almost impossible to
read unless you increase PDF size.
#5 I find the following impacts interesting and I urge you to make
your opinions known to the City Council. There is major support
developing for Scenario #6 from Palo Alto Forward.
Housing units will increase 4,000 and 6,000 housing units
respectively by Scenarios #4 and #6.
Population of Palo Alto will increase 10,455 and 14,080
respectively by Scenarios #4 and #6.
PAUSD enrollment will increase 2,790 and 3,583 respectively
by Scenarios #4 and #6.
I have not been able to determine any reaction from the PAUSD
Board of Education. It is clear to me that the Board will be
challenged to respond to the enrollment growth within the city and
on the Stanford campus.
It is not clear to me that most residents have a adequate
understanding of the scenario likely to be adopted by the City
Council on Monday night.
The Council should defer action by 2 weeks to allow full
newspaper coverage and increased citizen
mobilization. Informed and engaged citizens are necessary to
achieve full public confidence in the Comp Plan and City
Council.
City of Palo Alto I City Clerk's Office I 3/7 /2017 12:51 PM
Carnahan, David
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Todd Collins <todd@toddcollins.org >
Monday, March 06, 2017 11:38 PM
Council, City
Todd Collins City Council Remarks 3-6-2017
Hi, I'm Todd Collins. I'm a member of the Palo Alto school board, though speaking on this as an individual, as
the school board has not yet had opportunity to discuss. I do have the benefit of having led a major part of the
District's recent emollment planning effort, which gave us significant insight into the impact of new Stanford
on-campus housing developed under the current GUP.
The proposed housing under the GUP will likely have a significant impact on the enrollment patterns in
PAUSD. My estimate, based on what I have seen so far, is that it could produce up to 1000 additional students
(out of 12000 total). Aside from the impact of 1000 additional students, the location of the housing creates
additional issues, particularly the 550 faculty housing units proposed for the area on Quarry Road near Stanford
Shopping Center.
This housing would be in an area that is not well-served by our current schools, as it has few if any students
living in it today. Many if not all of those students would likely be driven to and from school (as are many if
not all of the students residing at Stanford West off of Sand Hill Road) -virtually none would be able to walk to
our existing schools. To reach the nearest elementary school, Addison, requires crossing a state highway, active
train track, Alma, and the downtown district -each twice a day. The second nearest school is over 2 miles
away. So up to 2000 additional daily car trips could be added to the current load.
An alternative approach of course, is to bring the school to the students, rather than the students to the
school. If Stanford plans to continue to build family housing on its western campus, it may make sense to build
them a school. That requires land, of course -and Stanford owns the land. So we would need to work with
them to set aside land for a school, as of course we have done before with Escondido and Nixon schools. We
may also need funds to build a new school, which I expect would cost up to $50 million.
In addition, the plan calls for almost 1000 units of graduate student housing. Wbile Stanford is telling us that
this housing will not be for families, it will nevertheless lead to more students, as Stanford students currently
living in PAUSD move on-campus, and are replaced by families that in some cases will have children. We saw
this clearly with the creation of Stanford West and the Munger graduate student housing, both of which
contributed to the student "bubble" that is currently working its way through our schools.
So the impact will likely be substantial, both on the schools and on the community. We need to encourage
Stanford to work with the schools to mitigate these impacts, and ensure we have a plan that works. The district
will be submitting its own scoping comments to the county later this week. I hope the District and City can
work together, with Stanford, to ensure a development that works for all members of our community.
1
20
CIT ()
PALO
ALTO
City of Palo Alto
City Council Staff Report
(ID# 7697)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/20/2017
Summary Title: Comp Plan: Draft Supplement to the Draft Environmental
Impact Report
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Update: Public Hearing on the
Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Report & Revised Fiscal
Study; Council Discussion & Direction to Staff Regarding a Preferred Planning
Scenario; and Council Discussion & Direction to Staff Regarding the
Organization of the Comprehensive Plan
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Conduct a public hearing on the February 10, 2017 Supplement to the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the purpose of obtaining public and
Councilmember comments consistent with the notice provided in Attachment A as well
as further comments on the February 2016 Draft EIR;
2. Discuss and provide comments on the revised draft fiscal study (Attachment C) that has
been prepared to accompany the Supplement to the Draft EIR;
3. Identify a "preferred scenario" for the Final EIR. Based on the City Council's January 30,
2017 direction regarding the Land Use & Community Design Element, it appears that
Council is inclined to include the following components. Staff seeks confirmation or
supplemental direction in each of these areas:
A. Estimated housing and population growth would be between Scenario 4 (4 420
dwelling units) and Scenario 6 (6,000 dwelling units). This is based on Council's
January 30, 2017 direction to:
City of Palo Alto Page 1
i. remove housing sites on San Antonio and replace with increased densities
downtown and near Cal Ave. (similar to Scenarios 3, 4, and 5);
ii. add housing sites on the El Camino Real frontage of the Research Park and at
the Stanford Shopping Center providing adequate parking is maintained
(similar to Scenarios 4 and 6);
iii. consider the addition of housing (and a hotel and conference center)
elsewhere in the Stanford Research Park and near SUMC (similar to Scenario
6)
iv. Include policies to support retail/residential mixed use and pursue
conversion of some non-residential FAR to residential FAR (similar to
Scenarios 3, 4, 5, and 6);
v. Include policies to encourage a mix of housing types including smaller units
and units to preserve housing that is affordable and minimize displacement
of existing residents (similar to Scenarios 2, 3, 5, and 6).
B. Estimated non-residential square footage would be up to 3M square feet similar to
Scenario 2. This is based on Council's January 30, 2017 direction to perpetuate the
"cap" on non-residential development in existing Policy L-8 with some updates.
(1.3M square feet has already been approved at SUMC and the remaining 1.7M
square feet under the existing "cap" would apply to office/R&D citywide except in
the SUMC area.)
C. Estimated employment growth would be between Scenario 2 (9,850} and Scenario 3
(12,755). This reflects the Council's January 30, 2017 direction to perpetuate the
interim annual limit on office/R&D square footage via an ordinance that exempts the
Stanford Research Park. (Scenario 2 includes a City-wide annual limit, Scenario 3
includes an annual limit that applies to a smaller subset of the City than suggested
by the Council, and the amount of new employment is determined by the economic
"climate" as well as the amount of new building space.)
D. Transportation investments would include the following, as well as complementary
investments in transit, transportation demand management, and parking
supply/management: (These are based on the January 30, 2017 Draft Transportation
Element.)
i. Small improvements within existing rights-of-way to provide for traffic
calming or relatively small increases in roadway capacity by adding turn lanes
or making other intersection adjustments;
ii . Full grade separations for automobiles, pedestrians, and bicyclists at Caltrain
crossings; Retrofit/improvements to existing grade separated Caltrain
crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists at California Avenue and University
Avenue;
City of Palo Alto Page 2
iii. Construction of new pedestrian and bicycle grade separated crossing of
Caltrain in South Palo Alto and in North Palo Alto;
iv. Pedestrian and bicycle improvements derived from the 2012 Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan as amended over time;
v. The US 101/Adobe Creek bicycle and pedestrian bridge;
vi. El Camino Real intersection and pedestrian safety/streetscape
improvements;
vii. Downtown mobility and safety improvements;
viii. Geng Road extension to Laura Lane; and
ix. Middlefield Road corridor improvements.
E. Additional zoning code amendments and policies advancing sustainability measures
would include the following key items, which are derived from the Council's
discussion on January 30, 2017 and on Scenarios 5 and 6:
i. Increase hotel FAR from 2.0 to 3.0 downtown and 2.5 elsewhere in the City
ii. Reduce allowable FAR in the CC-2 from 2.0 to 1.5
iii. Maintain the 50 foot height limit in the zoning ordinance
iv. Make greater use of coordinated area plans as a planning tool
v. Adoption of the SCAP goal of a 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 and
alignment of the Comp Plan Update with SCAP principles
vi. Inclusion of Comp Plan policies and programs supportive of SCAP strategies
vii. Protecting and enhancing the urban forest as natural infrastructure
4. Clarify and provide additional direction regarding the placement of programs in the
Comprehensive Plan Update. Specifically, select either A or B:
A. If the Council would like to include the programs in a separate section, direct
staff to:
i. Identify that section as the "Implementation Plan" so that it can be adopted
as part of the plan (staff recommends this term rather than "appendix");
ii. Organize the implementation programs by goal and policy number to
maintain linkages with other sections of the plan;
iii. Eliminate redundancies and consolidate implementation programs where
feasible;
iv. Identify the relative priority (for example, short term, medium term, long
term) and level of effort/cost (low, medium, or high) associated with each
program;
v. Identify a subset of the programs that are legally required or that implement
EIR mitigation measures and convert them to policies in the Comprehensive
Plan elements; and
City of Palo Alto Page 3
vi. Develop introductory text for the Implementation Plan for later review and
adjustment by the City Council clearly describing how the Comprehensive
Plan will be implemented, the role of the implementation programs, and how
priorities may be adjusted over the life of the plan.
B. If the Council would like to retain some of the programs in each of the elements
as well as in the Implementation Plan, provide further detail and direct staff to
undertake all of the above with the possible exception of item (v).
Executive Summary
As the City Council is aware, on February 5, 2016 the City published a Draft EIR (referred to as
the "February 2016 Draft EIR") that analyzed four high-level scenarios at an equal level of detail
in order to assess potential impacts of the Comprehensive Plan Update. A related fiscal study
was also prepared.
The City Council subsequently directed City staff to analyze two additional scenarios in order to
broaden the range of potential outcomes and provide additional information to inform the
planning process. These additional scenarios are described and analyzed as Scenario 5 and
Scenario 6 in a Supplement to the Draft EIR, published on February 10, 2017 and which can be
found at the following link: (http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/eir/). The Executive Summary in
Chapter One provides an overview and the matrix in Attachment B summarizes quantitative
· conclusions of the analysis. A revised fiscal study is also available and can be found in
Attachment C and at this link:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017 /02/CompPla nFiscalStudySupplement 2.16.17 FINAL.pdf.
The Supplement to the Draft EIR focuses on the new analysis pertaining to Scenarios 5 and 6
and does not reproduce all of the information from the February 2016 Draft EIR. The
Supplement to the Draft EIR includes information from the February 2016 Draft EIR where the
information has been revised or where it is crucial to understanding the analysis of Scenarios 5
and 6. Comments on the February 2016 Draft EIR are also being accepted during the circulation
period for the Supplement.
The primary purpose of this evening's meeting is to conduct a public hearing to solicit public
comments regarding the Supplement to the Draft EIR, the associated fiscal study, and the
February 2016 Draft EIR. Written comments are also being accepted until the close of business
on March 31, 2017. All substantive comments received, whether at the public hearing or in
writing, including the comments received on the February 2016 Draft EIR, will be responded to
in the Final EIR rather than at the public hearing this evening.
The other purposes of this evening's meeting are:
City of Palo Alto Page4
Ory Population
City & Sphere of Influence (SOI) Population
City Housirlg Unltsto11
City & SOI Housin& Units IMI
City Jobs tDSl
City & SOI Jobs
City Empk:lyed Residents tD'I
City Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio
City & SOI Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio
Key Characterktk:s/lmpKb (NET OtANGE)
Otv Population
Oty & SOI Population
0ty Housing UnitsfCOI
Oty & SOI Housing Units tot!
City& SOtJobs
Estlmiited Net New Non-Residential Sq1Rre
Footage in Polley L..S ~Monitored Areas"
2014-2030 (mlltlons sq h) {(Ill
Estim.ated Net New Non-Residentjal Square
Focnge Entire Qtv 1014-2030
lmil6onuqftl ..
Tfansportation Impacts
City Tobi MotorVeMdeTrips;
City& SOI Tota1 Motor Vehicle Trips
City Total Average Trip teneth (miles)
Oty & 501 To~IAveri&e Trip Length (miles)
Oty Total Vehide Mles Tnive1~ (VMT}
Qty & SOI ToQI Vehide Miles Travelled
(VMT)
City VMT Per Capit.Oll
Qty & SOI VMT Per taphoa
City Mode Sholre fOt Palo Alto Oaify Person
Trips(%) · Drive Ak)ne
City Mode Share for Palo Alto Daily Person
Trips('")· Shared Ride
Oty Mode Share f0t Palo Alto Daily Person
Trips(%) ·Transit
City Mode Share for P•lo Alto ~ity ,_rson
Trips(") -like
City Mode Share for Palo Alto Daily Person
Trips(%)· Walk
Dally Tninsit Boardings To, From and Within
Palo Alto (lndudina, BART. cattrain, VTA,
Shuttles, etc.)
Comprehensive Plan Upd•te 2014-2030 Draft EJR 5cen>rios: Key Ch<lracteristics & Impacts • (1of2)
65,685
80,805
~
33,070
95,460
100.830
31,16S
36,0CM
3.06
2.80
2014 Existing Condh.ions
432.122
499,013
12.31
12.81
S,320,931
6,391.293
33.0
61.5"
22.7"
5.1"
2.8"
7 ....
2013
44,053
Sc:enario1
n ,>BS
90,210
31,265
36,950
110,940
116.700
34,697
40,S95
3.20
2.87
Scenario 1.6
(NETow<Gel
6,600
··-
2,720
3.880
15,480
15,870
"33
Sccmu1o 1
479,198
549,691
12.41
12.94
S,947,158
7,U0,437
59.9%
22.~
6.8"
3.1"
8.1"
sc.enario 1
62,1n
Scen~riol
n,>as
90,210
31,265
36,950
105,310
111,070
3'.697
<-0,595
3.04
2.74
Sc:e.nario26
(NET CHANGEJ
6,600
9,<-05
2,720
3,880
9,850
10,240
1 .7
"3.0
Scenariol
467.5fi7
538,480
12.28
12.Sl
5,741,373
6,897,508
31.3
60.0l<
22.3"
6.6"
3.1"
8.1"
57,287
S<enorio3
•HousJng Testtd l"
74,120
92,045
32,090
31,73/)
108,215
113,975
3S.S78
41,420
3.03
2.75
Sc:en<lrioJA
(NET CHANGEJ
8,435
11.2<-0
3,S4S
4,710
12,75S
13,14S
"3.5
Scemirio 3
S45,826
12.31
U.83
5.853,201
7,000,886
32.l
59.7"
6.8"
61,013
Scftlarlo 4
-Sustainability
Tested I•
76,140
94,065
32,965 ....
38,650
110,940
116,700
36,5"7
42,329
3.04
2.76
~o•A
(NET CHANGEJ
r 10,4ss
13,260
4,420
5,580
' '-
' 15,480 ~ -.J
lS,870
"'2.4
5<:erw111o4
' 463,lSS ,,._-
533,336
12.50
13.00
S,788,497
6,932,573
30.9
32.9
21.9'1.
7.8"
8.6"
70,045
92,045
32,090
37,780
104,325
110.085
35,578
44,182
2.93
2.49
Scenmo54
(NET CHANGe)
8,435
11,240
3,545
4,710
8.865
9,255
·i.1
"'2.4
Scenarios
514,665
12.41
12.92
5,511.446
6,651,713
30.9
32.9
58 ....
21.9"
7.6"
3.2"
8.4%
Scenario 5
64,37S
97,690
34,545
<-0.235
104,325
110,085
38.287
46,891
>.n
2.35
Scenario~
(NET OiANGE) ... 14,080
16.SSS
6,000
7,165 ----8,865 -9,255
-1.1
"'2.4
Scenario6
P' "57,633 -527.293
12.37
12.88
5,663,040
6,792,09S
30.3
32.7
585"
22.0l<
7.B'l<
3.2%
8.6%
66,315
J2A.JU.S&44 3·19.:J.23
l-1~3,11&44 H 9,J.1J
)•2',ll,38&44 3·19,l·Zl
l-24,)].l8&44 l-19,l·ll
4-11.29 4.Jl-16
.... l-19,l-ll
.. ,.
3·19,J.ZJ
3-19,Ml
....
.... l-ll
4.JJ...45 4.ll19
4.13-47
•.lJ..19
'4.U.·19
4.lJ.49
•.t).26
<.13-50
4.ll-50
4.~50
4.1)..50 •.JJ..2G
4,U.69
---;
>-
~ Plan Updltt 2014-2030 Draft BR SotNf1os: IC~ Cbaracteristks & Impacts • {2 of 2)
-"""""""' Palo Alto Unified SchooC District (PAUSOJ -Scenoriol -...ioZ Sanorio3 -...io4 Impacts !Ml Z013-10U/N14-201S
(c.p.dty)
~~lhlJ .......... ..._..... ~THt:rd"' ~T~ ---Net ElemenQry School Student$ Enrollment -~ -...
I nu ease 5,784 / 5,677 (6,227) IW m 1JE j .l.w
..L
Net Middle School Studtnts Enrollment -----,,.~
2,720 / 2,932 (2,950) liZQ Increase ~ .slili ~ <#-
Ne-t High School Students Enrollment "' ---Increase 3,848 / 3,840 (4,600) ~ ~ ZllZ m
Net Total School Students Enrotlment --w _.,.....
Increase 12,352 / 12,449 (13, 771) .i.:w. .i.:w. ~ Ul!I --
Parkland NeedcdtuJ 2014 E.idstlrc Conditions Scenario 1 Sa:nario 2 Scenario3 Scenario4
Acres of Parkland Nffdl'd by Sct!nario (ac) @I ~ ~
26.4 26.4 33.7 41.8
41Q"tip@t'l,l)QO-l'MidftlU w
Gt'M'nhouseGas(GHG)I~ 2014 Existinc c.ondttions Scenario 1 Sc:itnariol Sconorio 3 Scenario•
Oty GHG Emissions (MlCO~/YW-) ~ ----~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Uty & SOl GHG Emissions (MtCOze/Vear) ------~ ~ mow ~ mm
2014 blstlnc Conditions ~riot SCenario 2 Scen;iriol Scenarfo 4 Utilities lmprKts (Boscllne)
City & SOI Water Demand • Gaillons Per Day 4,230,635,205 4,485,942,577 4,.485,531,107 4,485,Sn ,531 4,486,224,321 (GPO)
City & SOI lllef'ease in Solid Waste Generatton 51.265 13,240 10,851 ll,382 15,953 over 2014 8>sdtt (tons/'l'l
City & SOI Total EIKtricty lncr,case over 2014 l,017,067,516 152,818,068 106,148,597 134,n S,309 162,135,150 S.seline (kWh)
City & SOI NJtu~I Gas lncnast: CNet 2014 31,729,420 4,493,949 3,419,165 4,286,982 S,135,.532 B.aseline (thtrms)
HOTU
• Ml.-M:TS•l'ClfiUJ ... l'MlllTONf'IMrTk>llinoM
Ot)Joln,filo---
0>) Olyc.o-dl.....WWtmtD ........ _....._....__Orw'••--IDb&/•.....,__...._ ""'-·-..... ~....._..._...__.."'thot50li.,RMbdl.JIWmjty
.. JDU -.....a-.0"4•JOIO ...... C-..~.U.MU'l"""1'""-ill10..iclM~-...... --...... J,t.. ~IJGJIDMU"""""' ___ ....,..,. __ :lotl:_~,_,... __ __.,..,..._
CM)l014H0._~ .. ~~·2010~-c.m--....,..,.a....-._. .. u-_IG&Jl')~~,..,,_Oan~--....... l""',._.,20!0·XIM .... ~,~~~•SOI._...,._°'......,._..,._
O;\l l014[liY:loc jClbs....._llWIA&loGl'NjiK:tl9"l,:leU .............. ._,.....__lOll).;ioU, Xll0Joio"6.._,,,._.....la4---..._-.JO».
Oi5t 1014~~ .... °" ........ ,,_U$C.-.~"-'-..1011·20l)
S<enarios _.,.
~lt'flested ~Tea~r -1,083 1.648 -565 ~ -
707 1,075 -
2,lSS 3,583
SconorioS Sconorio.
33.8 ~-3
SconorioS Sa-nark> 6
404,111 421,952
463,299 481.379
Scenario s Scenario 6
4,485,593,230 4,486,005,196
ll,607 15,315
102,532,440 1J5,987 ,402
3.544,370 4,470,891
k ,.,._..._.__ .. -......~---..-...--.--.. -91f_211QOkitf'IJn*l ......... -.W•~'°"'""''"---...... ........... .-.-....,.._,.. ...... i.._AMG2DlO........_
01} l0l•l ................... e»,.&50l_,.,,._....,._..}Cll~...._JDU.»>O
h. To~dw~of-...,...mlOMllootM--.'*-w....wcl-.S,,_...,.oflhelmOfOiyU-..•SOl)--_....lle~-tl--,.....-.°' ........... '.,,.,,,._ ...,....,. __.... ... .,,,.... ..... AMG:lelt....__.
Cit) ---.----.........-_..Mt,_ID.,.....Qy.
tL~l-llldllOl$1.1_Wl .... ,,_..,...,_.,_.,..lftl.1....., .... ~,.._,,.L.a,U-oqltd"""'°""SMC~,.._~,.11.d-....,iio<Mt..<~weM. • s.-i.1.-.....t.J-.""lt• .......... _.. ......... ,.J..> ..... ~•'*"l"'& 1.a->4tt4f__..5MC__...,.,,
fetiruary 2016 Fd)r\Mry 2017 --Supplement to th•
~1-4) (ScenariosUI ..
"·~~ P•Refffenc:e••
bi5tirc:4.ll ... ;
~~ 4.12-4to4.J2·7 .,,,.., .... -~4..12 ... ;
ScMMOi: .,,,.., .... ·U2 ... to4.12·7 -DM~4.U-':
"""'""" 4.l~to•.12·7 _ .... -~stin1;:4.ll-4; -4.U..tto4.l2-7 .,,,..,... .. ... _, --_,,,. _ .....
O<tll .... Or..ttEIR (~irlMM) .... _.. .. '-.U-20 -........,,. .. r____,. 2011
DmtP• .................
..... DR (SCtntriosl-4) .... _ .....
4.6-U,4.6-U ~mtnt _.. .. 4.6-ll,4.&U ............
~2015 .........,,,,.
DEIR Pace ~ltodwt
Oraft(IJt (Scrnmuis 1-') ·-·,~, ..
4.14-2)
4...14-73 a.14-21
u .... U 4-3S
4..14·23 4.14-16
tL--··~U-witt•·-..--~·u.-.. ...... -..l ... U-... -~swc--.,..."XllllMll91f-*"-"•""*•.....,t .. _____ ......... __ .,_.~---.-_.,-.... .. _~ ,,,..s._.i.,4._....., ......... lt ... .._.__.. ........... ,.l~--"'"' .... l.J .......... ".....__.SMC'~--""'JID-ft4f-*'ill ..... :U•_ .. .....,,, ...... .,... ........... __ ..,,. ... _.._... __ l$,......,,.,. .. __ _
lJOt"-8'---~----·...--,.,__,..l01•flil'UlO~~...--..,~ ....... ,A.IM_.~~-O>Mai.l'!Pbld--.Uen~trMl~._,..,_, .. o1'""'-'"PfOduclt,,..n.k~-_,,...1""•"'-hotfi'r'IJ;_.,llc.,uld--
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:10 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Elissa Ouyang <elissaouyang@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 4:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Opinion letter on City's Long-term Development Plan
Attachments:City development plan_opinion letter.docx.pdf
Dear City Council,
Please see the attached letter regarding my opinion on the added "Scenario 6" for the city's growth
plan. Your consideration is much appreciated.
Thanks,
Elissa Ouyang
601 Matadero Ave, Palo Alto, CA
Dear City Council,
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not
thought-out.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better-priced housing here, but
that still stays within the city’s ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far
beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth
rate, and make this new growth rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan,
presumably for decades. This is unreasonable and extreme. There is no precedent
ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and there’s no evidence the city’s
infrastructure, services and schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new
housing won’t produce more cars, traffic, parking demand, school enrollment etc are
fanciful and unrealistic.
Even the slowest growth Scenario 2 still accelerates housing over our long term
averages. While there are some people who would like to see unlimited housing
everywhere in town no matter what, most of us also care about the negative impact the
fast-growing housing may bring to this beautiful city. We want you to make a carefully
considered and wise judgement, especially for the Comprehensive Plan which has long
term effects. All of you ran for council as Moderate. Please choose something more
thoughtful than Scenario 6, that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sincerely,
Elissa Ouyang
Resident at 601 Matadero Ave, Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:30 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Shannon Rose McEntee <shannonrmcentee@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 8:28 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Gutting the Comprehensive Plans "Details"
Dear Mayor Scharf and Council Members,
I was dumbfounded when you decided suddenly to gut the comprehensive plan details, developed over many months of time and effort by dedicated community members. You break our community trust when you act this
way. Please restore the details the CAC so carefully developed by dedicated, thoughtful and intelligent
residents of our city.
Shannon Rose McEntee 410 Sheridan Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 9:07 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Todd Collins <todd@toddcollins.org>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 8:38 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; City Mgr; Max McGee; Cathy Mak; Robert Golton
Subject:Important for Tonight's Meeting - Impact of Housing Scenarios on PAUSD Schools
Attachments:School Impact Housing Analysis 3-20-2017.pdf
Dear Council Members,
I have reviewed the updated Supplement to the Draft EIR for the Comprehensive Plan Update as it relates to our
PAUSD schools, and I have some serious concerns.
Please note that I am not speaking for the school board, which has not discussed this matter, but only for myself. I do have the additional qualification of having led a major part of the District's enrollment forecasting
efforts in 2015-16, and as a result I am very familiar with the underlying data and forecast assumptions, as well
as the District's current physical school capacity and available school sites.
Preliminary points:
the Draft EIR mistakenly lists Elementary grades as "K-6" and Middle School grades as "7-8." Of
course the correct grades for all of PAUSD are K-5 and 6-8. It is not clear whether this is simply a
labeling error or if the student numbers are mis-counted for those levels.
the PAUSD Board has not been presented with the Draft EIR scenarios or discussed them. I am not aware that the PAUSD staff has done any analysis on these scenarios either. It seems important that the Council and City should coordinate and get input from the Board and the District before moving ahead
with such an important decision.
My observations:
The estimated enrollment for all EIR scenarios is potentially under-forecast by 30-40%. This is the result of using a "multi-family" apartment unit student generation rate throughout. In fact, the vast majority of housing built in the last several years has not been multi-family apartments, and has
generated substantially more students per unit than forecast.
Even multi-family apartment units, depending on their configuration, have generated very different levels of students, from almost zero (Treehouse) to 0.7 students/unit (801 Alma).
PAUSD has a limited number of available school sites held in reserve - Garland, 525 San Antonio, Fremont Hills, Cubberley, and, under certain circumstances, Ventura.
o Garland (5 acres) is suitable for an elementary school only.
o 525 San Antonio is sub-scale (3 acres) for a school site. It could be combined the the Greendell
pre-school site, but then a new facility would be required for the pre-school program (no obvious choices is available)
o Fremont Hills is located far from where any new housing is likely to be built.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 9:07 AM
2
o Cubberley is available for a new school site. At 35 acres, the site is materially smaller than our
current high school sites (45+ acres) and larger than our middle school sites (<30 acres)
o Ventura can be repurchased by the District at a discount to FMV; this site is smaller than all current elementary school sites and has no room for expansion.
o Note that there is NO site available in the district for a third high school comparable in size or
facilities to the existing two high schools.
The enrollment capacity listed in the Draft EIR on page 4.12-2 overstates functional capacity at each level by 5-10%. PAUSD has learned from experience that operating at or near 100% enrollment capacity creates a host of problems that make it unsustainable, including student overflows, lack of swing space, meeting space, art/music space, pull-out instruction space, teacher collaboration space,
storage space, etc. Functional capacity is between 90-95% of theoretical capacity.
Please review the attached analysis, which shows the number of additional schools, by level, required for each
Draft EIR Scenario, both per the EIR Supplement and assuming more conservative (and more appropriate in my view) student generation rates.
Based on this analysis, in my view, only Scenarios 1 & 2 can safely be said to fit within available District
capacity, including available new sites. Scenarios 3 through 5 would stretch beyond current limits and require some combination of larger class sizes, widespread and permanent use of portable classrooms (absorbing play and open space), or new schools sites that currently do not exist. Scenario 6 under any assumption exceeds available capacity and would require new sites or significant crowding.
Important Factors Not Considered In addition to basic capacity analysis, there are important factors omitted from the Draft EIR analysis which will
impact the physical capacity of the schools during the forecast period.
Bubble Effect - None of the scenarios take into account the "bubble" effect that accompanies rapid
development, and which PAUSD is currently experiencing due to rapid housing growth in 2008-
2011. When new housing is built, families tend to move in with young children, not a mix of young and older. This means than rather than spread across the grades, as assumed in the Draft EIR Scenarios, they
are concentrated in a few grades - a bubble. This places huge pressure on physical capacity at individual
sites, as well as the need to shift staff year by year, creating uncertainty and turnover among the teaching
staff. In PAUSD today, our middle schools are at or above capacity; our high schools expect to grow
by 15-20% over the next 3 years; while our elementary schools are sharply shrinking. This roller-coaster effect is an expected impact of rapid and large scale housing development.
Stanford Expansion - Stanford's new GUP application calls for 550 additional family housing units,
plus 900 graduate student units. Under the current GUP, Stanford is in the process of building a net new
2000 graduate student units. The grad student units, while "non-family," have in the past driven
increased enrollment due to "displacement effect," as grad students moved on campus, leaving behind units available for families with children. Altogether, it seems likely that Stanford's housing growth will
generate between 500-1000 new students for the District, the equivalent of 1.25-2.5 elementary schools
or an entire middle school. This count is not included in the analysis, but will consume the District's
limited available capacity.
Teacher Housing - PAUSD is exploring an innovative effort to build affordable teacher and staff housing on under-used sites, such as Cubberly and 525 San Antonio. This effort could be extremely
effective in recruiting and retaining teachers and bringing teachers back into our community, as well as
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 9:07 AM
3
relieving housing pressure and reducing traffic, with no required taxpayer subsidy. But this can only
happen if currently unutilized school sites can be safely put to use - if high enrollment growth must be
planned for, available sites must be held back. A cost of high-growth plans in general housing will be the loss of teacher-specific housing.
Best regards,
Todd Collins
--
Todd Collins 650-403-2084
www.toddcollins.org
NOTE: Messages to/from this account related to PAUSD matters may be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.
Draft EIF Supplement Scenario Analysis
Impact on PAUSD Enrollment vs. Capacity
19-Mar-17
Scenario #123456
Current Students (2014-15)12,532 12,532 12,532 12,532 12,532 12,532
Add'l Students per EIR 1,940 1,940 2,355 2,790 2,355 3,583
Add'l Students at More Appropriate Student Generation Rates (SGR)
- 30% greater SGR 2,522 2,522 3,062 3,627 3,062 4,658
- 40% greater SGR 2,716 2,716 3,297 3,906 3,297 5,016
Forecast Students by Level
- Per EIR
Elementary 6,580 6,580 6,772 6,973 6,772 7,339
Middle 3,400 3,400 3,495 3,596 3,495 3,779
High 4,492 4,492 4,620 4,753 4,620 4,997
- 30% greater SGR
Elementary 6,849 6,849 7,098 7,359 7,098 7,835
Middle 3,534 3,534 3,659 3,789 3,659 4,027
High 4,671 4,671 4,837 5,011 4,837 5,328
- 40% greater SGR
Elementary 6,939 6,939 7,207 7,488 7,207 8,000
Middle 3,579 3,579 3,713 3,853 3,713 4,110
High 4,731 4,731 4,909 5,097 4,909 5,438
Functional District Capacity (92.5% of Full Capacity as listed in EIR)
Elementary 5,760 5,760 5,760 5,760 5,760 5,760
Middle 2,729 2,729 2,729 2,729 2,729 2,729
High 4,255 4,255 4,255 4,255 4,255 4,255
Near or At Available Physical Capacity
Above Available Physical Capacity
Implied Add'l Schools Required District-wide (see Available Physcial Capacity below)
- Per EIR
Elementary 1.9 1.9 2.4 2.9 2.4 3.7
Middle 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.2
High 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4
- 30% greater SGR
Elementary 2.6 2.6 3.1 3.8 3.1 4.9
Middle 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.5
High 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5
- 40% greater SGR
Elementary 2.8 2.8 3.4 4.1 3.4 5.3
Middle 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.6
High 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.6
Available Physical Capacity
Current
Buildings
Unused
Sites Total Notes
Elementary 1 2 3 Rooms in current sites, plus Garland and 525/Greendell
Middle 0 1 1 Cubblerey is only available site
High 0 0 0 No sites currently available for comparable facility
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 9:08 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Eli Bildner <elias.bildner@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 8:40 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:In support of comp plans 4 and 6
Greetings,
As a Palo Alto resident, I wanted to voice my strong support for elements of scenarios 4 and 6 of the proposed comprehensive plan.
Specifically, it's essential that the city prioritize housing growth in transit-oriented locations. Palo Alto
already risks becoming a fortress city for the (extremely) privileged few, lacking in the diversity that
makes places vibrant. As a Stanford affiliate, I've also already seen many promising students and faculty members vote with their feet — recognizing that the costs of relocating to this town are prohibitive.
Provisions to encourage high-density development in areas proximate to transit are a good step — so
are infrastructure improvements to Caltrain stops and bike paths. Increased allowances for density and height are also important steps (provided access to transit/reduced parking requirements).
Thank you for your consideration,
Eli Bildner
--
Eli Bildner
973.216.8261 (m) | LinkedIn | My calendar
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 9:23 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Subhash Narang <narangsubhash@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 9:16 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Gutting the comprehensive plan.
Honorable Council Members,
We urge the City Council to respect eight years of work by numerous individuals including the
current Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC). The City Council should re-think their Jan. 30thdecision
to “gut” the Comprehensive Plan by separating Programs from Policies. In many cases, the Policies
without the Programs are too vague to be meaningful. The CAC, Staff and consultants listened and
incorporated some of our input into Palo Alto’s draft Comprehensive Plan.
All this input is lost and the Policies greatly weakened when we have the Programs that would
support the Policies relegated to at-will appendices.A proper analogy is “separating meat from the
bone”, leaving a weak skeleton behind.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 9:23 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Amy Sung <amy@amysung.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 9:11 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Amy Sung
Subject:A letter to Council re Comp Plan and Preferred EIR
Dear Council,
Thank you for taking a hard look at various scenarios. I am writing to you as an individual passionate
about my city and not representing my professional group or any other group. I am writing to urge
you to show that we really mean housing. Housing at all levels of needs. I hope you would choose
scenario 6 as the preferred scenario for the final EIR. The 6,000 housing units described in the
Scenario 6 is a starting point to address the severe housing shortage. It offers the lowest ratio of all
scenarios (a job/resident ratio of 2.34), the best City VMT Per Capita at 30.8 (again, the best mileage
of all scenarios with a diverse mobility combo of driving, transit, biking, and walking), and more
importantly, it makes fiscal sense. The fiscal analysis forecasts that City will likely see net revenue.
Let's be honest about the need for housing. Cities up and down the Peninsula, from San Francisco to
San Jose, are taking steps addressing the housing shortage. Both our neighboring cities in Menlo
Park and Mountain View are doing their shares in increasing housing stocks. Palo Alto is an integral
part of the region and a hub of innovation, we can do better as a regional player and a leader.
I hope you will see that to making housing possible is to work our very expensive lands harder by
adding density. There's no other subtle ways to describe it. With the already developed land, our infill
development needs to think vertical, in up and down directions and with smaller units. I also hope
you will see that a healthy mix of housing types are needed to address demands from- the young,
the old, the vulnerable, and the forgotten middle. Let me take a moment to talk about the middle.
They don't need affordable housing. They need attainable housing.
And now, I like to focus back to the Comp Plan. As a member of the CAC committee and Land Use
subcommittee, I do not at all feel disrespected by the Council's action to move programs into
separate chapter. In fact, I am in favor.
I have always pondered on what practical ways to foresee the future and project our objectives in
goals and policies expected to guide us into year 2030 and on how to frame programs to address
future problems. Programs are not required by State OPR's General Plan guidance. Furthermore,
Programs are dynamic and time dependent in nature whereas Goals and Policies are static. I heard
that about 15% of some 266 programs were being implemented in the old Comp Plan. That's roughly
40 programs out of 266. Now that the council will make decisions at the project level, it's only logical
and practical that the 400+ programs scattered throughout be grouped in one Implementation
chapter, cleaned up, and prioritized. Comp Plan as we know it, is expected to guide us into year
2030.
Respectfully,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 10:18 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Hui Tan <tanhui@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 10:17 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please do not choose the scenario 6 housing growth
Dear City Council,
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought‐out.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better‐priced housing here, but that still stays within the city’s
ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new growth
rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. This is unreasonable and extreme. There is
no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and there’s no evidence the city’s infrastructure, services and
schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more cars, traffic, parking demand, school
enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Even the slowest growth Scenario 2 still accelerates housing over our long term averages. While there are some people
who would like to see unlimited housing everywhere in town no matter what, most of us care about more things than
just housing. We want you to make a carefully considered and wise judgement, especially for the Comprehensive Plan
which has long term effects. All of you ran for council as Moderate. Please choose something more thoughtful than
Scenario 6, that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sincerely,
Hui, from midtown.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 10:18 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Sophie Sha <sophie.sha@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 10:13 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Against Scenario 6
Dear City Council,
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought‐out.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better‐priced housing here, but that still stays within the city’s
ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new growth
rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. This is unreasonable and extreme. There is
no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and there’s no evidence the city’s infrastructure, services and
schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more cars, traffic, parking demand, school
enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Even the slowest growth Scenario 2 still accelerates housing over our long term averages. While there are some people
who would like to see unlimited housing everywhere in town no matter what, most of us care about more things than
just housing. We want you to make a carefully considered and wise judgement, especially for the Comprehensive Plan
which has long term effects. All of you ran for council as Moderate. Please choose something more thoughtful than
Scenario 6, that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 10:18 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Myra Lessner <myra.lessner@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 9:52 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please Do Not Choose Scenario 6 Housing Growth
Dear City Council,
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought-out.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better-priced housing here, but that stays within the city’s ability to
absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new growth rate
permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. Few reasonable people would agree to this. There is no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and no evidence the city’s infrastructure, services and
schools could keep up very long. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more cars, traffic, parking demand, school enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Housing matters, but most of us still care about other things too and want balance. Please make a carefully considered and wise judgement, that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sincerely,
Myra Lessner
Myra Lessner Office: 650-856-9343
Cellular: 650-218-8367 E-mail: myra.lessner@sbcglobal.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 10:18 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 9:33 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:housing
Can we merely build our way out of the congestion mess in which we now
live? I fear the solution is not that simple. Unfettered construction
got us to this point and it should be obvious the same path will not solve
the problem.
Thanks
Paul Machado
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 10:18 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Margo Davis <margoadavis@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 9:31 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:NO on Option 6
Council,
Please do not consider an out of control and over zealous growth pattern for Palo Alto. Please choose a slower and
more well paced growth pattern that makes sense for all Palo Altans…all citizens not just those profiting from fast
growth.
Thank you.
Margo Davis
Margo Davis
margoadavis@gmail.com
650 714 2146
www.margodavisphoto.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 10:23 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 10:21 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:LOW INCOME HOUSING NEEDED!
Dear Council Members,
As a member of the Peninsula Womens' International League for Peace and Freedom, I ask you to address the
low-income housing crisis:
1. We need more shelter rooms. What are you doing to build these?
2. We desperately need LOW INCOME housing for our workers, teachers, servers, house-care providers, who now travel long distances to get to work in Palo Alto.
3. We do not need more OFFICES, more commercial development until we have more low income housing.
Make the jobs to housing balance fair, equitable.
4. BUILD more low-income housing NOW. We have too many expensive condos, upper middle class housing
being built at the expense of LOW INCOME housing.
Sincerely,
Roberta Ahlquist
Peninsula WILPF Member
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 10:23 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Bruce Chen <4118sutherland@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 10:20 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto growth
Dear City Council,
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought‐out.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better‐priced housing here, but that still stays within the city’s
ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new growth
rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. This is unreasonable and extreme. There is
no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and there’s no evidence the city’s infrastructure, services and
schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more cars, traffic, parking demand, school
enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Even the slowest growth Scenario 2 still accelerates housing over our long term averages. While there are some people
who would like to see unlimited housing everywhere in town no matter what, most of us care about more things than
just housing. We want you to make a carefully considered and wise judgement, especially for the Comprehensive Plan
which has long term effects. All of you ran for council as Moderate. Please choose something more thoughtful than
Scenario 6, that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sincerely,
Bruce Chen
4118 Sutherland Dr
Palo Alto, Ca 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 10:23 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Bruce Chen <li.chen66@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 10:19 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto growth plan
Dear City Council,
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought‐out.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better‐priced housing here, but that still stays within the city’s
ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new growth
rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. This is unreasonable and extreme. There is
no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and there’s no evidence the city’s infrastructure, services and
schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more cars, traffic, parking demand, school
enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Even the slowest growth Scenario 2 still accelerates housing over our long term averages. While there are some people
who would like to see unlimited housing everywhere in town no matter what, most of us care about more things than
just housing. We want you to make a carefully considered and wise judgement, especially for the Comprehensive Plan
which has long term effects. All of you ran for council as Moderate. Please choose something more thoughtful than
Scenario 6, that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sincerely,
Li Chen
743 Colorado Ave
Palo Alto, Ca 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 10:52 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:3182 Bryant <3182bryant@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 10:25 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto growth
I am writing to you to raise my concern on over building and growth plan for Palo Alto. The scenario 6 will undoubtedly
benefit only developers and leave the residents to deal with congested traffic and crowded school district. I am also
questioning the motivation behind scenario 6 as a couple of the city council member has been suspected to take bribe
from developers. I am very concerned about the plan.
Li Chen
739 Colorado Ave
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 10:52 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Weiping He <weipingher@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 10:48 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Against Scenario 6
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
Thank you for working hard on city projects to make Palo Alto a better place. We love this place and care about the future of this beautiful town. We have heard of Scenario 6 and are seriously concerned about the rapid
growth proposed. The resources are very limited here. To accommodate 6000 uinits in the future 15 years sound
crazy. Traffic will be a problem, parking will be notorious,public education will be a challenge (look at the
deficit we have now). The reputation of the town will soon be down too.
Please consider wisely and carefully!
Thanks,
Weiping
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:17 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Minor, Beth
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 1:15 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Fw: PAUSD Comments for the Stanford 2018 GUP Application
Attachments:SharpScanner@pausd.org_20170310_101021.pdf
From: Tom DuBois [mailto:tomforcouncil@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 12:52 PM
To: Minor, Beth
Subject: Fwd: Fw: PAUSD Comments for the Stanford 2018 GUP Application
Beth,
Can you send this to council please? Relevant to tonight's discussion ‐ note that PAUSD requested Stanford
set aside land for another school based on the Stanford GUP growth plans.
=====================================================
From: Robert Golton
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 11:48 AM
To: Jean McCown; Catherine Palter; James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Max McGee;
board
Subject: PAUSD Comments for the Stanford 2018 GUP Application
Hi Everybody,
Attached you will find the PAUSD Comments for the Stanford 2018 GUP that were submitted today.
Best wishes,
Bob
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Qinghong & Fang Mei <meifamily@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 1:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:opposing scenario 6
Dear council members,
I strongly oppose scenario 6. Housing crisis is the problem all the cities in bay area are facing, but that cannot be solved by going with such a dramatic measure by adding 6000 units in next 20 years in Palo Alto. More
debate is needed before you put this to a vote, especially when two members, Kniss and Tanaka are currently
under investigation for their suspicious connection with developers, who are the main proponents for high
density solution.
20,000 more population on top of existing 60,000 residents and 12,000 cars on the road every day, it's hard to
picture what Palo Alto will look like in 20 years.
No to scenario 6.
Fang
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:jamespoppy@comcast.net
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 1:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Growth is good with the correct infrastructure
Hello City Council,
I am a 40 year resident of Palo Alto. Please take measures immediately to address infrastructure
shortfalls that will make future growth more difficult and expensive. Growth is good for Palo Alto but only if we are ready for it. Palo Alto Forward is pushing an agenda
that will only cause more problems down the road with parking and resources. RPPs will not do it
alone. The whole town will be one big RPP before we know it.
Also, please do not vote on this until the investigations of Kniss and Tanaka are done. Or they must recuse themselves.
Sincerely,
Jim Poppy 135 Melville Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Gary Fine <gary@finepoquet.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 1:09 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:please build housing
I am a 40 year resident of PA and i do enjoy the great "PA quality of life". However I see this city dying before
my eyes with no opportunity for young folks, and less entrenched to live here. I dont want to grow old in a rich
retirement community - let's add substantial and diverse housing to our community. The arguments about traffic, schools are red herrings: most corporate workers do not drive; schools are
experiencing lowest enrollment in years. Its time for Palo Alto to say "yes" to the future rather than "no" to any
and all changes.
Please choose scenario 6.
.....gary fine
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Jennifer Gonsalves <kukzfprnalvsuml@ujoin.co>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 12:59 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: goneolives@yahoo.com <Jennifer Gonsalves>
Message:
Please go big on housing, especially in the BMR category.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units (between now and 2030) presented in Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and
improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Gonsalves
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:ljkuang <ljkuang@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 12:56 PM
To:Council, City; ljkuang@yahoo.com; yxsu@yahoo.com
Subject:Please say No to scenario 6
Dear City council,
We are against scenario 6, and What is the real motivation behind the proposal ?
Now as a couple of council members are being investigated for taking improper contributions from developers.
Please say No to rapidly building more houses/offices in Palo Alto.
High density housing is NOT good for residents and their quality of life.
Please say No to "scenario 6".
Please say No to high density housing.
Lisa Kuang
Yixin Su
Palo verde neighborhood, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Becky K <bekong@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 12:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Do NOT choose Scenario 6
Dear City Council,
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought-out.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better-priced housing here, but that still stays within the
city’s ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new growth rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. This is unreasonable and
extreme. There is no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and there’s no evidence the city’s
infrastructure, services and schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more
cars, traffic, parking demand, school enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Even the slowest growth Scenario 2 still accelerates housing over our long term averages. While there are some
people who would like to see unlimited housing everywhere in town no matter what, most of us care about more
things than just housing. We want you to make a carefully considered and wise judgement, especially for the
Comprehensive Plan which has long term effects. All of you ran for council as Moderate. Please choose
something more thoughtful than Scenario 6, thatPalo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sincerely,
Beck Kong, Duveneck
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Yunan Song <cherubsong@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 12:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:NO on Scenario 6 housing growth
Dear City Council,
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought‐out.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better‐priced housing here, but that still stays within the city’s
ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new growth
rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. This is unreasonable and extreme. There is
no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and there’s no evidence the city’s infrastructure, services and
schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more cars, traffic, parking demand, school
enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Even the slowest growth Scenario 2 still accelerates housing over our long term averages. While there are some people
who would like to see unlimited housing everywhere in town no matter what, most of us care about more things than
just housing. We want you to make a carefully considered and wise judgement, especially for the Comprehensive Plan
which has long term effects. All of you ran for council as Moderate. Please choose something more thoughtful than
Scenario 6, that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sincerely,
Yunan Song
Resident in Ventura neighborhood
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
8
Carnahan, David
From:scillyw . <scillyw@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 12:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Oppose to scenario 6 housing growth
Dear City Council,
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought-out.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better-priced housing here, but that still stays within the
city’s ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new growth rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. This is unreasonable and
extreme.
There is no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and there’s no evidence the city’s infrastructure,
services and schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more cars, traffic, parking demand, school enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Even the slowest growth Scenario 2 still accelerates housing over our long term averages. While there are some
people who would like to see unlimited housing everywhere in town no matter what, most of us care about more
things than just housing. We want you to make a carefully considered and wise judgement, especially for the Comprehensive Plan which has long term effects. All of you ran for council as Moderate. Please choose
something more thoughtful than Scenario 6, that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Last but not least, I also want to question the motivation behind scenario 6 given the state investigation into
Kniss and Tanaka's campaign practices.
Sincerely,
Scilly Wang
4218 McKellar In
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Sally Supplee <sallysupplee@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 12:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:EIR
Dear City Council,
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better-priced housing here, but the efforts should not affect the
quality.. Scenario 6 would negatively impact life quality.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new growth rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. There is no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo
Alto, and no evidence the city’s infrastructure, services and schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more cars, traffic, parking demand, school enrollment etc are unrealistic.
Housing matters, but most of us still care about other things and want balance. Please make a carefully considered and wise
judgement. one that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sincerely,
Sally Supplee
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Jane Uyvova <jane.uyvova@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 12:25 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please support Scenario 6
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss, and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent support of Accessory Dwelling Units initiative - it's is invigorating to see the first step towards creating more housing options in Palo Alto. However, the housing situation in Palo Alto is still
dire and this evening you have the opportunity to take another very important step. I encourage you to consider
the 6000 new housing units presented in Scenario 6. Doing so would finally start to make meaningful progress
towards increasing housing availability and affordability here in Palo Alto. As you have heard from many
residents coming to speak before you, this is both an urgent need and a tremendous opportunity to create a vibrant city. I believe it is also a moral and a social equity issue.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown or California Avenue. If done in a
respectful and collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as
housing would be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
Palo Alto is at the cross roads and should take the path toward becoming an inclusive, diverse, multi-
generational, walkable and kind city. Now it the time. Please support 6000 new homes in Palo Alto.
Best Regards,
Jane Uyvova
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Yong Li <ystoneli@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 12:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Stop Scenario 6 for city's development
Dear City Council.
My name is Yong Li. I was shocked by this proposal today when I heard this plan you are discussing. 6000
units?! That means at least 18,000 more population, and 12,000 more cars in the city of Palo Alto, and crowded
classroom in the schools of Palo Alto.
As a long term Palo Alto resident, here I request you to please consider our kids future, Stop scenario 6.
Sincerely,
Yong Li
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
12
Carnahan, David
From:Save Palo Alto's Groundwater <PAgroundwater@luxsci.net>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 12:04 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:dan@fgy-arch.com; pagroundwater@luxsci.net
Subject:Comp Plan: Save Palo Alto's Groundwater Comment
To the Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council:
Save Palo Alto's Groundwater strongly requests the City Council to:
1) Respect eight years of work by numerous individuals including the current Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC).
2) Rethink your Jan. 30th decision to “gut” the Comprehensive Plan by separating Programs from Policies. In many cases,
the Policies without the Programs are too vague to be meaningful . This decision was made late at night and without
discussion.
Save Palo Alto's Groundwater's members and supports contributed significant time and effort to developing balanced,
fact-based recommendations for the Comprehensive plan that incorporate important considerations of our valuable
groundwater resoiurce. Simply relegating this effort to Appendix that can be changed simply ingores the
issues. Programs need to included in the Comp Plan.
Do your jobs, discuss the issues and include meaningful programs in the Comp Plan.
--
Save Palo Alto's Groundwater
PAgroundwater@luxsci.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
13
Carnahan, David
From:Yuling <sunyuling88@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 11:55 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Strongly against Scenario 6!!
As a resident of Palo Alto for over 10 years, I strongly against scenario 6. A high density community will decrease quality
of our lives.
Thanks!
Yuling
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
14
Carnahan, David
From:Jim Colton <james.colton10@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 11:54 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Plan
Dear City Council Member,
I am writing to express my extreme disappointment in the Council's action to separate the Programs from the Policies in the Comp Plan. Contrary to some who have characterized the Programs as just details, if Programs
are separate from the Policies, there is no commitment to the Programs. The council could pick and choose
which Programs they want to implement and not implement some of the Programs at all.
As you know, the revision of the Comp Plan has been a huge undertaking by the Citizens Advisory Committee and the City Staff. Separating the Programs from the Policies does not honor the years of work and
commitment by those individuals to come to a consensus on the Policies that serves the City best. From the
start, it was clear that the Programs would be an essential part of the Comp Plan. Please reverse your recent
actions and make the Programs an integral part of the Policies.
Jim Colton
670 Georgia Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
15
Carnahan, David
From:Linna <linnaz@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 11:48 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Against Scenario 6
Dear City Council,
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought‐out.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better‐priced housing here, but that still stays within the city’s
ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new growth
rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. This is unreasonable and extreme. There is
no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and there’s no evidence the city’s infrastructure, services and
schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more cars, traffic, parking demand, school
enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Even the slowest growth Scenario 2 still accelerates housing over our long term averages. While there are some people
who would like to see unlimited housing everywhere in town no matter what, most of us care about more things than
just housing. We want you to make a carefully considered and wise judgement, especially for the Comprehensive Plan
which has long term effects. All of you ran for council as Moderate. Please choose something more thoughtful than
Scenario 6, that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sincerely,
Linna in midtown
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
16
Carnahan, David
From:Kai Ma <kaima88@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 11:39 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:a concerned resident regarding Palo Alto housing growth plan
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council members,
I heard there is going to be a vote on the Palo Alto housing growth plan tonight. I won't be able to make it. But I do hope my voice heard and my deep concern addressed.
It seems three council members are for the Scenario 6 plan, which is to build 6000 new units by 2030, which
triples the city's long term population growth rate. Worst of all, they are even seeking to make this a permanent
policy to ruin our lives for decades, forever! This is ridiculous.
I believe it has been widely discussed what are the huge profound negative impact to the city and its people, so I
am not going to repeat here. Anybody with common sense would be able to see it clearly and would doubt the
incentives for such an aggressive proposal. I think 2 council members are being investigated now. It would be
very irresponsible to have these council members (who are under investigation) to still determine all Palo Altan's fate.
Thanks for your attention!
Kai A 20-year resident in Palo Alto who loves this city deeply.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
17
Carnahan, David
From:Tammy Chen <tonggc@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 11:29 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:NO to scenario 6
Hi,
I'm strongly against the proposal of scenario 6. It'll make PA traffic, school resources and etc in big mess. Please stop it!
Thanks,
Tammy Chen
Resident of Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
18
Carnahan, David
From:Yanfeng Zhang <yanfengzhangmv@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 11:27 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth
Dear City Council, Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought-out. Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better-priced housing here, but that still stays within the city’s ability to absorb its
impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new growth rate permanent policy
in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. This is unreasonable and extreme. There is no precedent ever for this kind of growth in
Palo Alto, and there’s no evidence the city’s infrastructure, services and schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new housing won’t
produce more cars, traffic, parking demand, school enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic. Even the slowest growth Scenario 2 still accelerates housing over our long term averages. While there are some people who would like to see unlimited housing everywhere in town no matter what, most of us care about more things than just housing. We want you to make a carefully considered and wise judgement, especially for the Comprehensive Plan which has long term effects. All of you ran for council as Moderate. Please choose something more thoughtful than Scenario 6, that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term. Sincerely,
Yanfeng Zhang
4159 El Camino Way
Palo Alto, CA 94306
The following email was received from these individuals:
1.Christopher Escobedo
2.Barbara Weinstein
3.Christine Boehm
4.Huey Kwik
5. Steven Baker
6.Victoria Velkoff
7.Gil Arditi8.Jason Posel
9.Sarit Schube
10.David Kleiman
11.Tal Shalon
12.Christianne Dennison13. Nancy Olson
14. Elizabeth Lasky
15.Jessica Clark
16.Matthew Burt
17. Becky Richardson18. A.C. Johnston
19.Marly Carlisle
20.Jonas Lamis
21.Markus Fromherz
22.Erik Island23. Kirtika Ruchandani
24.Kevin Watts
25.Lu Isaacs
26.Sarah Bell
27. Jan Skotheim28.Mila Zelkha
29.Micaela Suminski
30.Urs Hoelzle
31. Mary Minno32.Raul Rojas33.Adrienne Germain
34.Lawrence Garwin
35. Gregory Stevens
36.Alicia Miao37.Kyla Farrell
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 7:56 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Huey Kwik <yxpskumrietifll@ujoin.co>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 12:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: huey.kwik@gmail.com <Huey Kwik>
Message:
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units (between now and 2030) presented in
Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Huey Kwik
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Karen Schlesser <cnigpnixagdfdcn@ujoin.co>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 7:25 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: karenschlesser@gmail.com <Karen Schlesser>
Message:
In order for our region to continue being a welcoming and inclusive community for all, we must build way more housing. These 6000 units would be a step in the right direction, and send the message that we are serious about
fixing the housing shortage. Thank you.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units (between now and 2030) presented in
Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and
improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Karen Schlesser
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Christopher Escobedo <tvtnsncknmoeqzo@ujoin.co>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 10:44 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: esco@stanford.edu <Christopher Escobedo>
Message:
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units (between now and 2030) presented in
Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Christopher Escobedo
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Yee Lee <wylzvewoxylrzko@ujoin.co>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 9:12 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: yeelee@gmail.com <Yee Lee>
Message:
I think 6000 is the lower bound on new housing units that should be authorized between now and 2030. Even more would be better to help Palo Alto attract the best and brightest minds to participate in our local community
and lend their children to be part of PAUSD. I know too many dual-income families; leaders at incredible local
companies who could otherwise afford the median (or above) home purchase price in Palo Alto, but simply
cannot find housing inventory to buy. Let alone all the families of people who make awesome contributions to their employers, buy at local shops, and lead/volunteer at local organizations who can't afford the media home
price but we would love to attract to PA...
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units (between now and 2030) presented in
Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and
improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Yee Lee
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Linda Henigin <mhexirkwweitmef@ujoin.co>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 8:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: linda@brail.org <Linda Henigin>
Message:
My family is losing close friends who have to move out of town because there isn't housing available for them to buy in their price range, and they need to stop renting. Please support building more dense housing that is
affordable to more people to keep our city vibrant.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units (between now and 2030) presented in
Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and
improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Linda Henigin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Ruby <rubycai1210@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 8:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Regarding future growth of Palo Alto
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members,
The new Comp Plan should be a cautious and strategic guide to address areas needing review rather than going big. A wise City Council knows to not rush into decisions, but to consider, holistically and rationally, benefiting
all in this community.
Current traffic and parking difficulties cannot be resolved without a sensible and paced approach. Identifying
policies and programs must be focused on rectifying the current problems. Continuing the building frenzy will not solve our city's traffic and parking challenges nor the affordability issues, it will only exacerbate the
situation further. Adding 6,000 more housing units is NOT the solution.
A good example is the 1998-2010 Comp Plan where the planned growth had already occurred by 2003-- 5 years
into the 12 year plan -- and kept going. We are feeling the cumulative negative impacts from this unplanned expedited growth.
City Council has a fiduciary responsibility to its residents and to ensure it protects the City's resources.
Transportation, regional and local, have been some of the biggest challenges and Palo Alto's TMAs and TDMs have not been in place long enough to determine its success. Same for the RPP programs which mostly have shifted the problem to other neighborhoods.
I support sensible and sustainable paced growth which will take into consideration the City's fiscal,
infrastructure and city services impacts.
I urge you to consider carefully and wisely.
Thank you
Ruby Cai
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Christopher Colohan <ahskdvlbgbxowuw@ujoin.co>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 7:40 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: paloalto@colohan.com <Christopher Colohan>
Message:
The current height limits on downtown construction are unreasonable. Why not allow 6-8 story condo/apartment buildings downtown or on California Ave? It would do a lot for the housing crunch.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units (between now and 2030) presented in
Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and
improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Christopher Colohan
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Randy Mont Reynaud <bisinumqutyypbo@ujoin.co>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 6:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: rmontreynaud@gmail.com <Randy Mont Reynaud>
Message:
Affordable for purchase BMR units should be a substantial portion of new construction. The granny units that have been approved help property owners not their grandmothers.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units (between now and 2030) presented in
Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and
improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Randy Mont Reynaud
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Barbara Kingsley <wrrzwyqxacduxwx@ujoin.co>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 5:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: barbara@abcking.com <Barbara Kingsley>
Message:
I've lived in Palo Alto for over 50 years and I am concerned about the lack of availability of housing here. Everyone complains about the traffic, but with the work/housing ratio so top-heavy what do they expect? Public
transportation will be improved only when there is higher housing density to support it. When I look around at
(some of) our neighboring communities, it is obvious we're not doing our part, Please give Scenario 6 your
approval.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units (between now and 2030) presented in
Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Barbara Kingsley
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Gail Price <vqtlawobthamfni@ujoin.co>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 5:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: gail.price3@gmail.com <Gail Price>
Message:
I strongly support including Scanario 6 for up to 6000 housing units to provide greater housing capacity in Palo Alto. We should actively participate in this process in order to have a meaningful impact on housing to address
the range of affordable housing needs.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units (between now and 2030) presented in
Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and
improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Gail Price
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Diane Morin <ubwchdqmpvrvttg@ujoin.co>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 3:43 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: dianejn.morin@gmail.com <Diane Morin>
Message:
Our increasingly vibrant and diverse community of students, elders, employees and employers, service providers and others need vibrant and diverse housing. Please expand the Comp Plan to include Converting
Commercial FAR to housing and to plan for more "mixed" housing and allow for at least 6000 more units of
housing in Palo Alto.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units (between now and 2030) presented in
Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and
improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Diane Morin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Lisa Van Dusen <ciuolbrybpcwpeb@ujoin.co>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 3:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: lvandusen@mac.com <Lisa Van Dusen>
Message:
Dear Councilmenbers: I hope you will support the 6000 unit plan. The recently passed ADU plan will help get us there. We believe in you to help make Palo Alto a role model as a walkable, bikeable, highly livable city!
Thank you, Lisa Van Dusen
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units (between now and 2030) presented in
Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and
improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Lisa Van Dusen
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
12
Carnahan, David
From:Jack Cunha <aasbzmfnkhstgvo@ujoin.co>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 1:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: jcunha90@gmail.com <Jack Cunha>
Message:
I am writing you from Oakland because housing is a regional market.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units (between now and 2030) presented in Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and
improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Jack Cunha
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
13
Carnahan, David
From:Kristen Hughes <levumfkstslpeix@ujoin.co>
Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 7:18 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: kristen@hughes-family.org <Kristen Hughes>
Message:
I live in downtown north and local houses are turning into AirBnB places. No one can afford to live here if that's the price bar. We need more housing to bring the cost of living down. I am a teacher and so many of my
young colleagues can't afford to live here. Approve more housing please.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units presented in Scenario 6. Doing so would
respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation
in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Kristen Hughes
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
14
Carnahan, David
From:Mallary Alcheck <mjgydfklbpvfmmh@ujoin.co>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 10:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: mallary11@gmail.com <Mallary Alcheck>
Message:
We need progressive and realistic leadership for the future of our city.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units presented in Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation
in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Mallary Alcheck
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
15
Carnahan, David
From:Mike Alcheck <ymaykqdivhuukpd@ujoin.co>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 9:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: malcheck@gmail.com <Mike Alcheck>
Message:
This is our chance to face the challenges before us with the most inclusive housing approach possible. Let Palo Alto and the 6000 contemplated units represent our contribution to the needed solutions for the bay area
housing crisis.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units presented in Scenario 6. Doing so would
respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation
in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Mike Alcheck
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
16
Carnahan, David
From:Paul Heft <aiypatftdanvncr@ujoin.co>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 9:09 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: paulheft@comcast.net <Paul Heft>
Message:
I chose to become a member of Palo Alto Forward because I appreciate their ideas about housing and transportation. Thanks for listening to them! Paul Heft, Midtown resident and native Palo Altan
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units presented in Scenario 6. Doing so would
respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation
in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Paul Heft
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
17
Carnahan, David
From:Dina Saari <lewyrwpoqtunrjo@ujoin.co>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 7:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: saaridina@gmail.com <Dina Saari>
Message:
It is time to help the young families that grow up in Palo Alto.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units presented in Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation
in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Dina Saari
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
18
Carnahan, David
From:Margaret Rushing <zyliizftilybxmg@ujoin.co>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 6:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: margaret.rushing@gmail.com <Margaret Rushing>
Message:
I'm not able to attend the Mar 20th meeting in person. I'm very concerned about housing in Palo Alto, not only for people that work in civic/supportive roles (teachers, firefighters, service staff at Stanford) but also for people
like myself who earn good incomes but can't afford to buy property in this area. Rent is also extremely high for
dwellings that are outdated, but landlords have no incentive to update structures.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units presented in Scenario 6. Doing so would
respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation
in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Margaret Rushing
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
19
Carnahan, David
From:Theresa Chen <fbjrtjbcdggjfdz@ujoin.co>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 4:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: tlcbio@gmail.com <Theresa Chen>
Message:
Thank you for acting on improving the availability of affordable housing in our city.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units presented in Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation
in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Theresa Chen
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
20
Carnahan, David
From:Diane And Joe Rolfe <huixlxgujrfbxoz@ujoin.co>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 3:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: onedianerolfe@comcast.net <Diane And Joe Rolfe>
Message:
Palo Alto is a great city and a great city is dedicated to the well-being of both the young and the old, and all of those who make this city their home or place of work. Looking forward to the future, we must supply housing
for them as well.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units presented in Scenario 6. Doing so would
respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation
in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Diane And Joe Rolfe
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
21
Carnahan, David
From:Carol Lamont <qvehwcvtztiivxk@ujoin.co>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 2:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: carol@lamont.com <Carol Lamont>
Message:
Please provide the leadership needed to address the housing crisis impacting our community in soooo many ways. I'll be watching - and consider when I am voting - what you decide to support for providing more homes
in the Comp Plan.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units presented in Scenario 6. Doing so would
respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation
in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Carol Lamont
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
22
Carnahan, David
From:Andrew Granato <cxmkqttxcwuoraa@ujoin.co>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 2:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:5th Comp Plan Scenario: Go Big on Housing
From: agranato@stanford.edu <Andrew Granato>
Message:
Dear Council Members,
Thank you for your efforts to develop a Comp Plan Fifth Scenario that balances the range of scenarios studied in the
EIR. As you build on previous discussions, I urge you to study an option that explicitly addresses our housing crisis, and
explores a housing target that doubles the number of housing units in Scenario 4. The current four housing scenarios
have nearly identical impacts, but our community deserves to have a broader range of information about Comprehensive Plan scenarios for the next 14 years. Scenario 5 is the city’s last chance to review the environmental and fiscal impacts of
adding a substantial amount of housing.
In recent months, you have acknowledged the large regional housing shortage and affordability crisis (as have many
planners, business, labor, nonprofit and governmental organizations). In particular, I was heartened by your actions on:
November 2 (Comp Plan Land Use Vision + Goals) - 8-0 vote on Land Use Element to “Direct Staff and the CAC
to Maintain and strengthen the existing language supporting housing supply for diverse family sizes, ages, ability levels, and income levels.”
January 19th (Joint CC/CAC meeting) - Asking staff to return with a Fifth Scenario to improve the jobs/housing
ratio. “At a high level, this goal can be addressed by increasing the amount of housing, decreasing the amount of jobs projected between now and 2030 or some combination of the two."
The housing crisis and affordability concerns have also been echoed by MANY Palo Alto residents several times in the last year:
In the city’s recent transportation tax study, residents rated housing as by far and away the most urgent problem in Palo Alto, with 76% calling it an “extremely or very serious problem.”
At the May 30, 2015 Our Palo Alto Summit, when asked to submit top housing ideas in Palo Alto, nearly every
table expressed a desire to see more housing supply or greater affordability.
Residents have repeatedly come to Council (October 16, November 2, January 22) and the CAC (Dec 15, Feb 16, March 15, April 19) to express a desire for more housing options.
The staff report for the Fifth Scenario and previous council discussions have provided a good guide to priorities for where new housing should be located and which groups should have priority when designing our housing policies.
I hope you continue to show that you have listened to residents’ concerns on housing by supporting the study of Comp Plan Fifth Scenario that GOES BIG ON HOUSING - one that can offer lifespan housing options, foster greater social
inclusivity, economic diversity, environmental sustainability, and quality of life for all Palo Alto residents through 2030.
Sincerely,
Andrew Granato
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
23
Carnahan, David
From:Annette Isaacson <screschfikpgegk@ujoin.co>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 12:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: annetteisaacson@comcast.net <Annette Isaacson>
Message:
I joined PAUSD as a teacher in 1991. At that time a couple with an engineering salary and a teaching salary could buy a house in Palo Alto as Paul and I did. Now they can't. I want Palo Alto to be able to offer housing to
our teachers, our first responders, our city employees, our young people just starting out in their careers, but
without affordable housing, we won't be able to do this. Sincerely, Annette Isaacson Midtown
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units presented in Scenario 6. Doing so would
respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation
in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Annette Isaacson
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
24
Carnahan, David
From:Marc Grinberg <ffdohlwyldahhps@ujoin.co>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 12:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: marcgrinberg@gmail.com <Marc Grinberg>
Message:
I am a native Palo Altan but I can only afford to live here because I am in subsidized Stanford housing as a graduate student. I want to be able to stay in Palo Alto after I complete my degree but without more housing,
there is no chance I will be able to afford it. Please support additional housing units.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units presented in Scenario 6. Doing so would
respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation
in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Marc Grinberg
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
25
Carnahan, David
From:Darryl Fenwick <sorgjdpgkenkmrj@ujoin.co>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 12:10 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: fenwickdh@yahoo.com <Darryl Fenwick>
Message:
Since many are worried about inequality and diversity, let me also add some additional information: (1) From the Sacramento Bee: About 2.5 million people living close to the official poverty line left California for other
states from 2005 through 2015, while 1.7 million people at that income level moved in from other states – for a
net loss of 800,000. During the same period, the state experienced a net gain of about 20,000 residents earning
at least five times the poverty rate – or $100,000 for a family of three. My comment: if we are so interested in maintaining diversity, surely this is not a positive trend. And the cost of living in California, of which housing is
so integral, is not allowing the poor to stay here. (2) The abstract from a study by Harvard authors Ganong &
Shoag (2012): The past thirty years have seen a dramatic decrease in the rate of income convergence across
states and in population flows to wealthy places. These changes coincide with (1) an increase in housing prices
in productive areas, (2) a divergence in the skill-specific real returns to living in productive places, (3) a redirection of low-skilled migration and (4) diminished human capital convergence due to migration. We
develop a model where falling housing supply elasticity and endogenous labor mobility generates these
patterns. Using a new panel measure of housing supply regulations, we demonstrate the importance of this
channel. Income convergence continues in less-regulated places, while it has stopped in more-regulated places.
My comment: restriction on housing logically has an impact on inequality by restricting migration to economically vibrant areas. This paper provides support for the argument that growth in inequality is linked
with restriction on housing. More housing in Palo Alto will let more people benefit from the wealth that is being
created in Silicon Valley.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units presented in Scenario 6. Doing so would
respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation
in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
26
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Darryl Fenwick
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
27
Carnahan, David
From:Frank Dellaert <rjcziqmqqfakfml@ujoin.co>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 12:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: dellaert@gmail.com <Frank Dellaert>
Message:
Palo Alto resident since 2015, and appalled at the expensive housing. End the madness....
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units presented in Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation
in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Frank Dellaert
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
28
Carnahan, David
From:Cynthia Lee <djhvdrvtalgrxsn@ujoin.co>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 12:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: cynthia.b.lee@gmail.com <Cynthia Lee>
Message:
Home owner and resident in Downtown North neighborhood of Palo Alto.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units presented in Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation
in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Lee
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
29
Carnahan, David
From:Timothy Bauman <fhoumdtdoprlsae@ujoin.co>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 11:45 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: tbauman@tbauman.com <Timothy Bauman>
Message:
Thank you for doing what is necessary to alleviate the housing crisis!
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units presented in Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation
in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Timothy Bauman
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 8:03 AM
30
Carnahan, David
From:Sandra Slater <heqenhgwuepvwfv@ujoin.co>
Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 10:28 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: sandra@sandraslater.com <Sandra Slater>
Message:
I do hope you're bold as you remember the clarion call of the election - housing, housing, housing!
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units presented in Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and improve the housing situation
in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Sandra Slater
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 10:19 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Hong Quan <uhlxpkcdwhhrqty@ujoin.co>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 9:35 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: hongquan@gmail.com <Hong Quan>
Message:
We love living in Palo Alto and strongly feel that it shouldn't be limited to the lucky few who've been here forever, or have hit the technology startup lottery. More housing doesn't diminish our way of life, it just means
more people get to call Palo Alto home. We're an old city in the heart of Silicon Valley and we'll get left behind
if our housing plan doesn't keep up with our neighbors (MV & MP).
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units (between now and 2030) presented in
Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and
improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Hong Quan
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 10:19 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Amy Sung <nlxafcoyujzqftv@ujoin.co>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 9:30 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: amyconnect@gmail.com <Amy Sung>
Message:
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss, and Council Members, Thank you for taking a hard look at various scenarios. I am writing to you as an individual passionate about my city and not representing my professional
group or any other group. I am writing to urge you to show that we really mean housing. Housing at all levels of
needs. I hope you would choose scenario 6 as the preferred scenario for the final EIR. The 6,000 housing units
described in the Scenario 6 is a starting point to address the severe housing shortage. It offers the lowest ratio of all scenarios (a job/resident ratio of 2.34), the best City VMT Per Capita at 30.8 (again, the best mileage of all
scenarios with a diverse mobility combo of driving, transit, biking, and walking), and more importantly, it
makes fiscal sense. The fiscal analysis forecasts that City will likely see net revenue.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units (between now and 2030) presented in
Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and
improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Amy Sung
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
19
Carnahan, David
From:HANQIU SONG <song.hanqiu@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 11:26 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Against Scenario 6
Dear City Council,
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought-out.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better-priced housing here, but that still stays within the
city’s ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new growth rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. This is unreasonable and
extreme. There is no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and there’s no evidence the city’s
infrastructure, services and schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more
cars, traffic, parking demand, school enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Even the slowest growth Scenario 2 still accelerates housing over our long term averages. While there are some
people who would like to see unlimited housing everywhere in town no matter what, most of us care about more
things than just housing. We want you to make a carefully considered and wise judgement, especially for the
Comprehensive Plan which has long term effects. All of you ran for council as Moderate. Please choose
something more thoughtful than Scenario 6, that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sincerely,
Hanqiu Song (East meadow area)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
20
Carnahan, David
From:Hong Gao <honggaont98@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 11:25 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth
Dear City Council,
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought-out.
Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better-priced housing here, but that still stays within the
city’s ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this.
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new growth rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. This is unreasonable and
extreme. There is no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo Alto, and there’s no evidence the city’s
infrastructure, services and schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more
cars, traffic, parking demand, school enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Even the slowest growth Scenario 2 still accelerates housing over our long term averages. While there are some
people who would like to see unlimited housing everywhere in town no matter what, most of us care about more
things than just housing. We want you to make a carefully considered and wise judgement, especially for the
Comprehensive Plan which has long term effects. All of you ran for council as Moderate. Please choose
something more thoughtful than Scenario 6, that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term.
Sincerely,
Hong Gao
4159 El Camino Way
Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
21
Carnahan, David
From:Weiping He <weipingher@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 11:25 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Against Scenario 6
We also heard that a couple of the council members are being investigated for taking bribes from developers.
Would appreciate to know the updates of this case.
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Weiping He <weipingher@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
Thank you for working hard on city projects to make Palo Alto a better place. We love this place and care
about the future of this beautiful town. We have heard of Scenario 6 and are seriously concerned about the rapid growth proposed. The resources are very limited here. To accommodate 6000 uinits in the future 15 years
sound crazy. Traffic will be a problem, parking will be notorious,public education will be a challenge (look at
the deficit we have now). The reputation of the town will soon be down too.
Please consider wisely and carefully!
Thanks,
Weiping
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
22
Carnahan, David
From:adcomm2@pacbell.net
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 11:21 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comp plan
City Council,
Due to community concerns over both Transportation and School plan impacts shown in the plan, I ask the Council to
delay action by 2 weeks to allow full newspaper coverage. Informed and engaged citizens are necessary to achieve full
public confidence in the Comp Plan and City Council. Thank you.
Nancy Adler
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
23
Carnahan, David
From:lesley <lesleyastansfield@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 11:16 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:meeting tonight
I will not be able to attend but wanted to say that the community trust is broken when the time and effort of the
former and current members of the Citizens’ Advisory Committee, Staff and consultants plus the input of many
residents, including Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater members, are not valued. Please do the right thing and vote to conserve, save value and replenish groundwater….
Lesley Stansfield
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
24
Carnahan, David
From:PNR21-Comcast <pnr21@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 11:13 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Tonights Item #16 Comprehensive Plan Update
Dear Council Members,
As a longtime Palo Alto resident I am glad that Council is reconsidering incorporating the Program
Elements back into the comprehensive plan. I think this is a wise move.
I would urge you to postpone a decision on the 6 different scenarios for several weeks, to allow
sufficient time for the community and the media to more fully flesh out the implications of each of
these scenarios and to give residents sufficient time to more fully consider the broader impacts of
each of these plans on the future of our community. I am concerned that many of the proposals do
not adequately address the impacts on traffic, parking, school enrollment and general livability that
are all important to mainting the character of our city.
Sincerely,
Peter N. Rosenthal
Crescent Park
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
25
Carnahan, David
From:Michael Mao <waymao@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 11:09 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please Do Not Choose the Scenario 6 Housing Growth
Dear City Council, Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought-out. Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better-priced housing here, but that still stays within the city’s ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this. 6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new growth rate permanent policy
in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. This is unreasonable and extreme. There is no precedent ever for this kind of growth in
Palo Alto, and there’s no evidence the city’s infrastructure, services and schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new housing won’t
produce more cars, traffic, parking demand, school enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Even the slowest growth Scenario 2 still accelerates housing over our long term averages. While there are some people who would like to see unlimited housing everywhere in town no matter what, most of us care about more things than just housing. We want you to make a carefully considered and wise judgement, especially for the Comprehensive Plan which has long term effects. All of you ran for council as Moderate. Please choose something more thoughtful than Scenario 6, that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term. Sincerely,
Michael Mao (650) 417-8132
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
26
Carnahan, David
From:Jack Herrick <frcmemjvvvnrwdu@ujoin.co>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 10:59 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: jjello@gmail.com <Jack Herrick>
Message:
We desperately need more housing in Palo Alto!
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan
Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units (between now and 2030) presented in Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and
improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and
collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large
number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Jack Herrick
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 1:21 PM
27
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Moss <bmoss33@att.net>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 11:02 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary
Subject:Item 16, Cmprehensive Plan EIR
Comprehensive Plan EIR (Item 16)
Mayor Scharff and City Councilmembers;
The staff report on the Comprehensive Plan EIR appears to have some errors in the data on housing
impacts that should be addressed and corrected as needed. My comments are based on both data from a variety of sources and statements made in the past by former city planning directors and
traffic engineers.
Packet p. 442 tabulates the projected costs from 6 scenarios. Cost impacts from residential
development range from $927/unit/year for the lowest growth of 2720 units to $897/unit/year for the highest growth of 6000 units. This cost seems low. Some of you may recall that several years ago
City Manager Keene in his introductory remarks t a city council meeting said that the net
cost/residential unit was almost $2800/year. When I was helping to incorporate Rancho Palos
Verdes in 1971 I was charged with determining the expected revenue and service costs/residential
unit. At that time cost to service residential units was $750/year. Even if service costs have not risen in the past 45 years, in today’s dollars that would be over $2500/unit/year. The net cost of residential
development to the Palo Alto budget is grossly understated.
Traffic impacts on p. 402 seem to be understated. Scenario 6 is projected to create 5600 fewer car
trips than scenario 4 even though Scenario 6 has 2000 more housing units. Multifamily housing normally generates about 8 vehicle trips/unit/day. The % of people driving alone is assumed to stay
at 58.6% for both Scenario 4 and Scenario 6 per the table, so the number of car trips for Scenario 6
should be at least 4500 trips/day higher, and total trips for Option 6 should be closer to 470,000 than
457,633. Of course, the claim will be made that more people will take transit than drive, but the %
taking transit, biking, and walking is the same in the table, so more housing units = more vehicle trips.BTW several years ago, I was talking to the man who was then chair of the homeowner’s association
at Palo Alto Central, the condos next to the California Ave. Cal train station. He had recently polled
his neighbors and found that 85% drove to work, only 15% took transit. Hard to live any closer to
transit, but people still don’t use it. I suspect the number of current and projected jobs shown on p. 407 is understated. The business
registry still has not had responses from a significant number of local businesses, and probably won’t
have a full update until later this summer, if then, as a number of businesses have been ignoring the
requirement to respond. The fine for failure to respond is the same as the cost of obtaining a license and filling out lots of data on the business, so many businesses seem to have decided it is easier to just pay the fine and not provide time-consuming data reports.
Since so much data is lacking or questionable, it is too soon to select a “preferred scenario”. I urge
the council to defer action until all the data required, such as that noted above, is obtained and
verified.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 3:25 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jessica Yen <jessica_yen@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 3:23 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Jessica Yen
Subject:Please don't vote for scenario 6 to build 6,000 units. Send ballots to all PA and let us
vote
Dear all,
I am writing to oppose the city to adopt scenario 6 to build 6000 units in the next 15 years at Palo Alto. Adding as many as 6,000 units (12,000 cars, 18,000 people) can dramatically impact the city traffic, schools, and all resources, etc. This is
a major issue and should hear the feedback from all Palo Alto residents. Please send ballots to all PA residents and have a fair vote.
Thanks,
Jessica Yen
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 3:25 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 3:16 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:March 20, 2017, Council Meeting, Item #16: Comprehensive Plan Update
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
March 20, 2017
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
MARCH 20, 2017, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #16
COMPRHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Dear City Council:
I urge you to follow the best practices of the California Planning
Roundtable by using the terms defined in that organization’s “California
General Plan Glossary” within the body of the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan.
Those terms are Goal, Objective, Policy, and Program.
A Comprehensive Plan with logically organized Goals, Objectives, Policies,
and Programs, printed together in the same place for each Plan Element is
the preferred best practice for defining the City’s development plan for
the period covered by the Comprehensive Plan.
Policies and programs establish the “who,” “how” and “when” for carrying
out the “what” and “where” of goals and objectives. (See definitions from
glossary below.)
The 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan uses the terms Vision Statement, Goal,
Policy, and Program.
Objectives were omitted from the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan, and the
definitions for Goal and Program omitted key words.
Instead, the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan added a Vision Statement at the
beginning of each Plan Element:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 3:25 PM
3
“A key concept of the Plan is the idea of a Vision for Palo Alto – a
shared dream of Palo Alto in the future. A vision is not a binding goal,
and in fact may not be achievable in the lifetime of those participating
in drafting the Comprehensive Plan, or even the next generation. However,
the long-term idealistic thinking embodied in each vision statement was
the foundation of the Plan.”
“Visions” are not the foundation of a Comprehensive Plan that is about
development during the time period of the Plan.
Goals and Objectives are the foundation of a Comprehensive Plan.
Below are the definitions of General Plan, Goal, Objective, Policy, and
Program from the “California General Plan Glossary”.
The primary author of the Glossary is Palo Alto’s first Director of
Planning and Community Environment Naphtali Knox, who has the distinction
of being elected to the College of Fellows of the American Institute of
Certified Planners of the American Planning Association. That is why the
designation after his name is FAICP, rather than just AICP that is given
to planners who are certified by the Association.
When Knox was the City’s Planning Director he provided the Planning
Commission with the definitions for Policy and Program, and he told the
Commission that any planner who did not know the distinction between the
two would fail the exam to become certified and earn the designation AICP.
The California General Plan Glossary:
http://www.cproundtable.org/media/uploads/pub_files/Roundtable_glossary_20
01.pdf
General Plan
A compendium of city or county policies regarding its long-term
development, in the form of maps and accompanying text. The General Plan
is a legal document required of each local agency by the State of
California Government Code Section 65301 and adopted by the City Council
or Board of Supervisors. In California, the General Plan has 7 mandatory
elements (Circulation, Conservation, Housing, Land Use, Noise, Open Space,
Safety and Seismic Safety) and may include any number of optional elements
(such as Air Quality, Economic Development, Hazardous Waste, and Parks and
Recreation). The General Plan may also be called a “City Plan,”
“Comprehensive Plan,” or “Master Plan.”
Goal
A general, overall, and ultimate purpose, aim, or end toward which the
City or County will direct effort. (Emphasized words omitted from 1998-
2010 Comprehensive Plan.)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 3:25 PM
4
Objective (There are no Objectives in the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan.)
A specific statement of desired future condition toward which the City or
County will expend effort in the context of striving to achieve broader
goal. An objective should be achievable and, where possible, should be
measurable and time-specific. The State Government Code (Section 65302)
requires that general plans spell out the “objectives,” principles,
standards, and proposals of the general plan. “The addition of 100 units
of affordable housing by 1995” is an example of an objective.
Policy
A specific statement of principle or of guiding actions that implies clear
commitment but is not mandatory. A general direction that a governmental
agency sets to follow, in order to meet its goals and objectives before
undertaking an action program. (See “Program.”)
Program
An action, activity, or strategy carried out in response to adopted policy
to achieve a specific goal or objective. Policies and programs establish
the “who,” “how” and “when” for carrying out the “what” and “where” of
goals and objectives. (Emphasized sentence omitted from definition of
“Program” in 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan.)
http://www.cproundtable.org/members/naphtali-knox/
California Planning Roundtable
www.cproundtable.org
Naphtali Knox, FAICP During five decades as a planner, Naphtali H. Knox, FAICP, has helped shape the
role of planning in California. For his efforts, Knox was the ...
The City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element certified by the California
Department of Housing and Community Development on January 20, 2015,
includes Programs in the body of the Element.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 3:25 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Eve Levavi Feinstein <eve.feinstein@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 3:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:new homes
I'm writing to urge you to support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6. We urgently need to do
something to address Palo Alto's housing crisis.
Thank you,
Eve Feinstein
4159 El Camino Way, Apt. L
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 3:25 PM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 3:02 PM
To:Lee, Elena; Council, City
Subject:"No" on Scenario 6 Please
Dear City Council and Staff Members:
I write on behalf of the Ventura Neighborhood Association to urge you to engage in housing growth moderation and to continue our office cap diet.
Specifically we urge you against Scenario 6. We urge moderate growth in order to allow the City to measure
collective impacts of all these developments rather than reviewing each project piecemeal. We can get the
housing we need at a rate we can manage. Why rush in where angels fear to tread?
And we ask that you respect the wishes of the Citizens Advisory Committee and restore guidelines that will
help citizens know what to expect from the City Planners; guidelines that were removed in January 30, e.g. the
50 foot height limit.
And finally, the Ventura neighborhood has been regularly maligned by city staff, electeds and appointeds for
being ugly or blighted, in need of redevelopment. Did you know we resent that? We'd like to be part of the
solution and not left out of the process, marginalized and ignored. We love Ventura and want you to consider
all points of view and strike that important balance that is at the heart of our system of
government. Compromise. Scenario 6 is not a compromise.
Thank you for your kind consideration of our concerns, and thank you for your service.
Becky Sanders
Moderator Ventura Neighborhood Association
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 3:25 PM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Joe HangFeng Wu <hangfeng@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 2:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:NO on Scenario 6 housing growth
Dear City Council,
I'm a proud Palo Alto resident. I love the community. But a new development in the city voting really concerns me.
Please do not choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is overzealous and not thought-out. Most of us in Palo Alto do favor more and especially better-priced housing here, but that still stays within the city’s ability to absorb its impacts. Scenario 6 goes too far beyond this. 6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make this new growth rate permanent
policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. This is unreasonable and extreme. There is no precedent ever for this kind
of growth in Palo Alto, and there’s no evidence the city’s infrastructure, services and schools could keep up. Arguments why all this new
housing won’t produce more cars, traffic, parking demand, school enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
Even the slowest growth Scenario 2 still accelerates housing over our long term averages. While there are some people who would like to see unlimited housing everywhere in town no matter what, most of us care about more things than just housing. We want you to make a carefully considered and wise judgement, especially for the Comprehensive Plan which has long term effects. All of you ran for council as Moderate. Please choose something more thoughtful than Scenario 6, that Palo Altans will be happy with in the long term. Sincerely, Joe Wu Resident in Ventura neighborhood --
Regards,
Joe HangFeng Wu Mobile: 415-971-1770 hangfeng@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 3:25 PM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Jeffrey Salzman <vpwnzwyiffydrtq@ujoin.co>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 2:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Go Big on Housing: Support 6000 New Homes in Comp Plan Scenario 6
From: jsalzman3@yahoo.com <Jeffrey Salzman>
Message:
It is long past time that Palo Alto make its contribution to solving the housing deficit. Our shopping districts and El Camino Real are very suitable for well thought out apartment building developments.
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent actions to support the addition of more Accessory Dwelling Units. On Monday
March 20th you have the opportunity to support more housing options in Palo Alto by choosing a Comp Plan Scenario. I encourage you to consider the 6,000 new housing units (between now and 2030) presented in
Scenario 6. Doing so would respond to the many voices of residents you have heard at council meetings and
improve the housing situation in our city.
I also support the concept of converting commercial FAR (floor area ratio or allowable square footage) to
housing FAR in mixed use projects in high activity centers like Downtown. If done in a respectful and collaborative manner, this concept would bring added housing, added customers for local serving retail, exciting
mixed use projects to these areas and dramatically reduce car use for local non commute trips as housing would
be located near services, shopping and other amenities.
The Comp Plan EIR also indicates that all scenarios will continue the current traffic and parking challenges
UNLESS we are able to identify programs and policies that provide alternatives and incentives for the large number of existing residents and workers to reduce their car travel. In other words, we strongly support a robust
TMA with a stable funding source to underpin the success of any of any of these alternatives. This should be a
top priority for the council.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Salzman
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 3:25 PM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Beth Rosenthal <bbr550@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 2:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Updating the Comprehensive Plan
Dear Mayor Scharf and City Council Members:
I know you will be flooded with letters today regarding which scenario in the Comprehensive Plan to adopt. Most of
those letters will come from people urging you to adopt the most aggressive program, scenario 6. I want to urge you to
proceed with caution. What is done cannot be undone when it comes to adding to our current housing stock. The
current crisis we face with traffic and parking is a result of decisions made sometimes in haste or with disregard of
established guidelines as well as the inability to correctly predict the future. The latter difficulty is inherent in all choices
we face. That is why I urge the Council to go slow. More housing and office construction can always be added when the
impact of cautious development is assessed. Any construction should take every aspect of life in Palo Alto into account
particularly what the impact will be on transit, schools, open space and overall quality of life.
I urge the Council to postpone these decisions for two weeks to give the general public a chance to understand what the
choices are and give input as to their preferences. I follow city government but have been taken by surprise regarding
the issues that are now being deliberated and all that is at stake. I know I am not alone in that regard. Please do not act
in haste. You are making choices for this city that go beyond our current ability to foresee the consequences of your
actions.
Sincerely,
Beth Rosenthal, PhD
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 3:25 PM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Karen Schlesser <karenschlesser@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 2:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:In Support of CompPlan Scenario 6
Dear City Council, I'm writing to urge you to focus on increasing housing supply in the Comprehensive Plan by approving Scenario 6, which includes 6,000 new homes.
Our area is in desperate need of more housing of all kinds. Particularly given the national situation, Palo Alto must make a strong
commitment to inclusive policies. This includes zoning for multi-family complexes, students, and seniors. The most vulnerable members of
our community are the ones most likely to be displaced by restrictive zoning policies.
Thank you,
Karen Schlesser
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 3:25 PM
12
Carnahan, David
From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 2:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Planning Decisions
Several years ago I happened to be at a City Council meeting in Lafayette, CA, when one of the Council members
(actually possibly the mayor) said that he didn't want that Council to be known as the one that ruined Lafayette. I wish
you all felt that way about Palo Alto.
As I read about the various density and planning scenarios you are considering I am struck by the fact that the start point
is NOW, 2017, not some past period of time in which there was an abundance of space and opportunity for
development. Due largely to past Council decisions we have a built environment that is overbuilt.
Self‐imposed problem #1: a severe jobs:housing imbalance that can, at best, be improved a little bit if we stop adding to
the jobs side of the ratio.
Self‐imposed problem #2: a severe built:infrastructure imbalance that can be improved only if we start addressing the
problems we have with parking, circulation, transportation, community serving jobs, loss of retail, water, etc.
It is past time to get real and slow down until we have made measurable, significant progress on effective solutions. Yet,
the Planning Dept tees up options as though we have a blank canvas to work with. We don't. In fact, we are choking on
our success.
I urge you to not push the City further down a self‐destructive path. Instead of being the Council that ruins Palo Alto,
why not be the smart Council that applies the brakes and gets to work on sorely needed improvements?
Please reject at least Option 6.
Annette Portello Ross
2103 Amherst Street
Palo Alto, CA. 94306
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 3:25 PM
13
Carnahan, David
From:Christy Ong <christy_ong@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 1:46 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:strongly against Scenario 6
To whom it may concern,
Strongly against high density housing in Palo Alto.
Thanks Christy
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 3:25 PM
14
Carnahan, David
From:Maurier Michael <mmaurier@pubpow.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 1:28 PM
To:Lee, Elena
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Draft EIR Scenarios?
Palo Alto City Council,
Apparently, you will soon be making an important decision on the rate of growth of the City by picking
one of the scenarios in the Draft Environmental Report (EIR).
Do NOT choose the Scenario 6 housing growth, which is irresponsible and panders primarily to
developer's short -term interests
6,000 new units by 2030 would nearly TRIPLE the city’s long term population growth rate, and make
this new growth rate permanent policy in the Comprehensive Plan, presumably for decades. Few
reasonable people would agree to this. There is no precedent ever for this kind of growth in Palo
Alto, and no evidence the city’s infrastructure, services and schools could keep up very long. Arguments why all this new housing won’t produce more cars, traffic, parking demand, school enrollment etc are fanciful and unrealistic.
It appears clear that the majority of the council at the moment favors growth, urbanization and
increasing congestion at the expense of resident's interests. And has decided to ignore/override
years of conscientious local citizen's input in the Comprehensive plan in order to more easily achieve
these ends.
Given this distinctly retrograde, cavalier step the Council has taken, and recent questions that have
arisen regarding campaign financing by some of the pro-growth Council members, I don't hold much
hope for this request.
In any case, to those of you who may still care about such long-term effects, please make a carefully considered choice that Palo Altans, especially those of us who live and raise kids here will be amenable to in the long term.
Michael Maurier
Fairmede Ave.
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 4:24 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:mao.jifeng <mao.jifeng@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 4:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:About housing growth plan
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members,
The new Comp Plan should be a cautious and strategic guide to address areas needing review rather than going
big. A wise City Council knows to not rush into decisions, but to consider, holistically and rationally, benefiting
all in this community.
Current traffic and parking difficulties cannot be resolved without a sensible and paced approach. Identifying
policies and programs must be focused on rectifying the current problems. Continuing the building frenzy will not solve our city's traffic and parking challenges nor the affordability issues, it will only exacerbate the
situation further. Adding 6,000 more housing units is NOT the solution.
A good example is the 1998-2010 Comp Plan where the planned growth had already occurred by 2003-- 5 years
into the 12 year plan -- and kept going. We are feeling the cumulative negative impacts from this unplanned expedited growth.
City Council has a fiduciary responsibility to its residents and to ensure it protects the City's resources.
Transportation, regional and local, have been some of the biggest challenges and Palo Alto's TMAs and TDMs
have not been in place long enough to determine its success. Same for the RPP programs which mostly have
shifted the problem to other neighborhoods. I support sensible and sustainable paced growth which will take into consideration the City's fiscal,
infrastructure and city services impacts.
I urge you to consider carefully and wisely.
Thank you,
Jifeng Mao
East meadow resident
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2017 4:24 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:browntow@pacbell.net
Sent:Monday, March 20, 2017 4:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Growth
Please count me among the NO GROWTH residents. We have enough trouble with parking, traffic and reduced quality
of life now. Do not add any more housing units under senerios 6 & 4.
Davina Brown
3525 Greer Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303