Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-09-23 City Council EmailsDOCUMENTS 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 9/23 /2024 Prepared for: Document dates: 9/16/2 024- 9/23/2024 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 701-32 View this email in your browser Visit us on www.lwvpaloalto.org, Facebook, and Instagram From:LWV Palo Alto (Eblast)To:Council, CitySubject:LWVPA Palo Alto School Board Candidate Forum is Tonight!Date:Monday, September 23, 2024 12:14:40 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Join LWV of Palo Alto General Election - November 5, 2024 Palo Alto School Board Candidate Forum (Zoom) Co-Sponsored by PTA Council Monday, September 23, 2024 6:30 pm - 8:30 pm It's not too late to join the LWVPA Palo Alto School Board Candidate Forum this evening. Candidates are seeking to fill three open seats on the five-member Palo Alto School Board. Don't miss the chance to listen to the five candidates and learn where they stand on pertinent issues. Candidate forum like this is one way the League makes democracy work! Register Now Facebook Website Instagram Copyright © 2024 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can unsubscribe from this list. From:Erika Escalante To:Flaherty Ward; Sarah.White@scchousingauthority.org Cc:Mario Escalante; Mayra; Council, City Subject:Counter offer and Relocation concerns for units, 21, 27, 110 Date:Monday, September 23, 2024 12:07:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.Dear Flaherty and Housing Authority, Thank you for reviewing our appraisals and for your counteroffer. Aftercareful consideration, we would like to address several important factors that impact our decision and present our counteroffer for your consideration. Community Value and Impact of Relocation Relocating from Palo Alto would result in the loss of several critical benefits, including: High-quality education: Palo Alto’s schools rank among the top in the nation, offering opportunities for our children that are unparalleled elsewhere.Proximity to Stanford Hospital: Access to a world-class medical facility is invaluable, whether for emergency services or ongoing care. Job Market: Living in Palo Alto provides access to higher-paying jobs and networking opportunities within Silicon Valley. Relocating could significantly diminish our earning potential and career growth, which the current offer does not adequately reflect. Additionally, the emotional and community displacement cannot be overlooked. While the option to return to the park post-redevelopment exists, the process has eroded our trust, leaving us uncertain if this would genuinely restore the peace of mind and stability our family needs. Market Realities The housing market has shifted dramatically, with rising interest rates and escalating property prices making it increasingly difficult to findcomparable homes, even outside Palo Alto. The compensation being offered does not reflect today’s market realities or the true costs of relocation. It’s worth noting that previous City Council discussions suggested acompensation figure of $200,000 per household more than 10 years ago. Some community members have mentioned figures as high as $1million more recently, given the unique location and circumstances. While we appreciate your counteroffer, we believe these figures more accurately reflect the true value of our homes and the impact of relocation. Counteroffer Proposal Based on the independent appraisals conducted by Daniel Chen Appraisal Services and a reasonable relocation benefit, we propose the following values for our units: Unit 21: $660,000Unit 27: $640,000 Unit 110: $690,000 These figures include the appraised values of our homes and a relocation package without contingencies tied to the purchase of a new home. The current offer of $50,000 is insufficient to cover the financial and emotional costs. Are we wrong in thinking that the current compensation offer does not fullyaccount for the housing crisis, the increased costs since the pandemic, as well as the extent of our affectation? Sincerely, Erika Escalante Mayra Escalante Rene Escalante From:Gretchen Hillard To:Council, City Subject:Airport Date:Monday, September 23, 2024 11:24:41 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Stone and Councilmembers, Thank you for taking the actions you did to preserve the Baylands and prevent the expansion of the airport. Your actions will help reduce the noise produced by users of the airport that we who live near the airport experience daily. And it will improve the living conditions for the plants and animals in the Baylands. It is truly a vote for better quality of life in Palo Alto. Thank you. Gretchen Hillard From:Eva Hu To:Council, City Subject:Public comment on City Council agenda item AA1, the performance evaluation of the city manager Date:Monday, September 23, 2024 9:27:01 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to comment on today’s agenda item AA1, the performance evaluation of the citymanager. I would like to provide feedback on the city manager’s response to a request aimed at improving the experience of middle school student athletes in Palo Alto. I am the parent of a PAMSACO cross country team member. Coach Haxton provides excellent training for JLS students. As residents of Palo Alto, our children have the right toparticipate in league competitions. Whether they form a team with other players from JLS or compete individually, we are willing to support it. I hope the city council will reconsider itsdecision to prohibit PAMSACO players from participating in the league and ensure fair treatment for every PAUSD student. Sincerely, Eva Hu From:Tom Haxton To:Council, City Subject:Public comment on City Council agenda item AA1, the performance evaluation of the city manager Date:Monday, September 23, 2024 8:52:57 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to comment on today’s agenda item AA1, the performance evaluation of the city manager. I have feedback on the city manager’s performance in responding to a request to improve the experience of middle school student athletes in Palo Alto. Background The city has taken responsibility for PAUSD’s middle school athletics program, and many have found their administration of the program to be inadequate. As the head cross country and track and field coach at JLS last year, I found that the city provided us inadequate support despite receiving over $50,000 in revenue from our two teams last year alone. A large part of the problem is that the city chooses to allocate 65% of their middle school athletics budget on city staff who do not directly support the teams. Our teams had been entirely coached and operated by parent volunteer coaches since restarting from scratch in 2021. For our two teams, 95% of their revenue last year went to compensate city staff. I addressed this issue by founding a nonprofit organization as an alternative to the city program, with the mission of spending registration fees more efficiently to support student athletes. I have been asking the city since June to consent to our teams participating in league competitions, but the city is blocking their participation. Our nonprofit is currently supporting a thriving team of 62 JLS cross country runners, which is larger than last year’s team, despite the downside of being blocked from league competitions. We are promoting access and equity by allowing all interested JLS students to participate and charging less than what the city charges ($200 vs $335, and waived for low-income families). We have demonstrated the value of investing registration fees back into our program, having hired non-parent coaches with expertise in our sport while providing parent coaches the support that I believe is important to retain them. I note that 9 or 10 of the 10 non-Palo Alto schools in our league have middle school athletics programs managed by nonprofits. Feedback I am disappointed in the city manager’s decision on this matter. I expect our city manager to act in the best interest of Palo Alto residents, especially our children. It is clear to me that allowing our team to participate in league competitions would benefit them, and I see no harm in doing so. The city has chosen to create their own competing team consisting of two students who want access to league competitions, two of their friends, and a few others. I expect that these students would join our team if we were allowed access to league competitions. If not, it would be easy for both teams to compete alongside each other, since cross country is a simple sport where the athletes simply line up and race. I am also disappointed with how the city manager has chosen to discuss this issue with us. City staff initially declined to discuss my request. At a meeting on July 9th, city staff informed me of their plan of creating a competing team and told me that “you would be ruining our program by creating your own program.” It became clear to me that we would need to wait until the teams were formed to continue the discussion. After the teams formed on August 24th, I asked city staff if they would “be open to discussing how we can best support our cross country runners,” and they declined. Later, on September 8th, one of you asked city staff what their objections were, and they did not reply. We spoke with the city manager and his staff on September 19th, and the city manager declined to share what harm he saw in granting our request. The city manager’s performance regarding our request is hurting Palo Alto children, and I ask that you consider my feedback during his performance evaluation. Sincerely, Tom Haxton From:Xiaodong Wang To:Council, City Subject:Comment on City Council agenda item AA1, the performance evaluation of the city manager Date:Monday, September 23, 2024 12:01:25 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to support Tom Haxton's public comment on City Council agenda item AA1,the performance evaluation of the city manager. As a Palo Alto parent whose daughter isenthusiastic about cross country, I am very disappointed by the city manager's decision toblock the cross country team coached by Tom from participating in league competition. As a parent, I have witnessed the effectiveness of the nonprofit organization. I would like to strongly urge the city manager to work with Tom Haxton to remove the block and providenecessary financial support to the nonprofit organization. I would advocate the City Council to evaluate the performance of the city manager, if this incollabration persists. Best regardsXiaodong, a Palo Alto parent From:John Kelley To:Council, City Subject:PA-POLI: Letter to PACC re Agenda Item #3 re Impact Fees Date:Sunday, September 22, 2024 11:47:30 PM Attachments:PA-POLI-letter to PACC re Adopt an Ordinance Amending the Municipal Fee Schedule re Impact Fees 2024-09-21 - with attachment.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. TO: Palo Alto City Council (City Council) RE: Recommendations re Agenda Item #3 (Consent Calendar item #2) “Adopt an Ordinance Amending the Municipal Fee Schedule to Modify the Calculation for Park, Community Center and Library Development Impact Fees From per Unit to per Square Feet for Residential Development. [etc.]” and Comments re Staff Report 2408-3404 (Staff Report) DATE: Sept. 22, 2024FROM: John Kelley RECOMMENDATION Because the Staff Report and its attachments fail to provide essential information, present a restrictedset of policy options, and contain apparent inconsistencies, the City Council should (a) defer consideration of this matter, (b) solicit additional data and other input, and (c) direct City Staff topresent a revised report before reconsidering this matter in early November. Please see the attached letter. TO: Palo Alto City Council (City Council) RE: Recommendations re Agenda Item #3 (Consent Calendar item #2) “Adopt an Ordinance Amending the Municipal Fee Schedule to Modify the Calculation for Park, Community Center and Library Development Impact Fees From per Unit to per Square Feet for Residential Development. [etc.]” and Comments re Staff Report 2408-3404 (Staff Report) DATE: Sept. 22, 2024 FROM: John Kelley RECOMMENDATION Because the Staff Report and its attachments fail to provide essential information, present a restricted set of policy options, and contain apparent inconsistencies, the City Council should (a) defer consideration of this matter, (b) solicit additional data and other input, and (c) direct City Staff to present a revised report before reconsidering this matter in early November. DISCUSSION While a half-step forward in the right direction, the proposed ordinance does not take Palo Alto far enough to end its inequitable, irrational, and possibly improper impact fee regime. Especially when evaluating public policies, it is vital to distinguish between a bearing and a vector. The Staff Report moves in the right direction, but not far enough. It would be uncharitable not to recognize City Staff’s attempts to reform the Municipal Fee Schedule regarding impact fees. The City has admitted in its recently approved Housing Element that Palo Alto’s current, per-unit impact fees have “led to some inequitable results….” 1 City Staff have headed in the right direction in recommending that the City Council “modify the calculation of Park, Community Center, and Library Development Impact Fees for residential development from a per dwelling unit basis to a per square foot basis.” Staff Report, p. 2. But knowing that one must move in a certain direction is different from recognizing how far one must travel to reach one’s appropriate destination. The newly proposed impact fees in the Staff Report remain remarkably and intolerably high. Should one building a 1400-sf apartment or condominium be required to spend almost $70,000 for supposed impacts to Palo Alto’s parks, community center facilities, and libraries? Is it fair to demand such fees from contractors and others building multi-family projects, which are generally more environmentally friendly, when those building single-family homes more than twice as large — 4000 sf — would only be 1 “ 2023-2031 Housing Element, City of Palo Alto (~July 2024, "Palo-Alto-Housing-Element-6") (Housing Element V6),” Staff Report, p. 5, Housing Element V6, p. 4-65. 1 charged about 20% more, $84,000? Proposed impact fees ranging from approximately $42,000 to $84,000 for sample projects – based upon a combined, per-square-foot rate of $21.10, or higher (Staff Report, p. 4, “Table 3: Framework 1 – Distinct Rates and Sample Impact Fees”) – are economically onerous and will depress housing production. They perpetuate implicit and explicit fiscal discrimination against smaller homes, including apartments, condominiums, etc., and act as an anti-multi-family housing tax. Palo Alto can and should do better, and the City Council should be presented with a more robust set of policy options. A revised report should make clear whether the proposed Municipal Fee Schedule actually embodies a per-square-foot impact analysis . The inequitable treatment of smaller homes, whether on multi-family or single-family parcels, results not only from the comparatively enormous housing taxes placed on apartments, condominiums, and larger ADUs, but also from Palo Alto’s current policies of only imposing impact fees on “new” single-family homes. Additions, and even complete “scrapes,” receive free passes. As explained previously, 2 Under Palo Alto’s current per-unit impact fee regime as applied to parcels with existing single-family homes, a property owner substantially adding to or completely scraping a 2,000 sf primary dwelling and replacing it with a 5,000 sf or larger primary dwelling will pay no impact fees at all, whereas the builder of ten 500 sf studios — having a total of 5,000 sf — might pay over $500,000 in FY2025 for Park Impact Fees alone. The Staff Report fails to make clear, among other things, (a) how ADUs will be treated under the proposed, new Municipal Fee Schedule, (b) whether additions to single-family homes or complete scrapes will be assessed impact fees, and (c) whether basements will be included in the calculation of square footage. From the current Staff Report, one might suppose that City Staff recommend assessing ADUs that are greater than 750 sf in size at a flat rate of $21.10 per square foot (or $16,880 for an 800-sf ADU), thus ignoring other policy alternatives (discussed below), and failing to consider the prodigious economic effects of such a housing tax on relatively smaller homes. But Staff Report’s actual treatment of single-family homes remains obscure. A single emphasized word in a footnote to Table 5, among other things, suggests that adoption of the proposed new Municipal Fee Schedule would not alter Palo Alto’s current practice of giving additions and scrapes free passes: “20 new single-family residential units in FY 2023-24.” Staff Report, p. 6, fn. 2 (emphasis in the original). What does the emphasis signify? Although actual data are not presented in the Staff Report, it is difficult to imagine that the totalnumber of single-family homes in Palo Alto constructed during FY 2023-2024 that were either (a) “ new ,” (b) “newly expanded,” or (c) scraped was only 20. Unless otherwise indicated in an updated report, one must assume that the recommendations in the Staff Report continue to privilege single-family homes in crucial ways, thus failing to embody a truly comprehensive per-square-foot impact analysis. 2 Letter to City Council dated June 17, 2024 (June 12, 2024 Letter), Attachment A, at p. 2. 2 A revised report should provide vital data upon which reasonable decisions will ultimately depend . City Staff should be commended for at least acknowledging that the City Council could decide to further change and reduce the proposed impact fees, both to end inequities and to cease privileging single-family homes. The Staff Report notes, for example: DTA was able to evaluate and present both frameworks due to the large sample of building permit data available from Palo Alto. Because these are proposed maximum fee levels, City Council has the discretion to determine which framework and fee level to adopt, including imposing a lower fee. Staff Report, p. 5. That said, it is disappointing that the Staff Report does not provide the types and the requisite detail of data to evaluate vital policy alternatives. A revised report should provide: ● A revised Attachment 1, covering at least the same time periods as the current version for both single-family and multi-family homes, but also ○ including (a) new construction, (b) additions, (c) demolition permits (showing the size of existing structures being demolished), and (d) ADUs, ○ for each type of project, ■ showing impact fees actually assessed, and ■ how, if at all, they were partially assessed between new construction, scrapes, and additions, and ○ for each payment of impact fees, showing the date, fiscal year, and basis upon which the impact fees were imposed. ● A detailed explanation of how money from impact fees has been spent since the tremendous increases first went into effect in FY 2022 ( compare Staff Report, p. 3). ● Data showing changes in Palo Alto’s estimated population by year from 2020 through 2031. ○ At a fundamental level, residential impact fee analyses rest upon an assumption that demand for civic services grows with increased housing. But there is at least anecdotal evidence that Palo Alto’s population, in addition to rapidly aging, has stabilized, if not declined, despite the residential construction detailed in the Staff Report. ● At least a brief update on the implications of Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California , Syllabus (601 U. S. ____ (2024)), and its progeny, because that case, and likely future appellate decisions, may substantially alter the entire framework within which impact fees may be assessed. 3 3 Attachment A, at p. 2. 3 A revised report should examine, and, as necessary resolve, apparent inconsistencies in the Staff Report . Certain statements in the Staff Report appear to be either internally or externally inconsistent. ● The Executive Summary states in part, at p. 2 of the Staff Report: ○ This amendment aligns with the City’s newly certified Housing Element and addresses Program 3.1: Fee Waivers and Adjustments, aimed at balancing the need for public facility funding with the promotion of housing affordability. ○ At the same time, the Staff Report ■ provides little information about the specifics of the asserted “need for public facility funding,” and ■ suggests that impact fees for larger multi-family units could increase from $56,206 to $69,986.00 or more. Compare Tables 2 and 3 at p. 2 of the Staff Report. ○ If City Staff believe that Program 3.1 will be advanced by imposing ever greater housing taxes on two- and three-bedroom apartments and condominiums — precisely the types of multi-family housing in which younger generations might desire to start families and into which older generations might seek to downsize, thus freeing up existing single-family homes — additional discussion and analysis would be warranted. ● In comparing the Distinct Rate and Consolidated Rate frameworks, the Staff Report states, at p. 5, “Conversion of this fee will complete one of the objectives under Program 3.1: Fee Waivers and Adjustments in the Housing Element.” Respectfully, this remains to be seen, depending, to a large extent on how other issues raised by the Staff Report are resolved. ○ “PROGRAM 3.1: FEE WAIVERS AND ADJUSTMENTS,” objective C, states in part, “By September 2024, complete and implement studies to convert existing park, community center, and library development impact fees that are applied on a per unit basis to a per square foot basis.” ○ As discussed above at p. 2, unless otherwise indicated in an updated report, the Staff Report appears to continue to privilege single-family homes in crucial ways, thus failing to embody a truly comprehensive per-square-foot impact analysis. ○ Thus, in the absence of additional information and clarification, adopting the proposed ordinance will be insufficient to satisfy the explicit requirements of Program 3.1, objective C. ● Attachment A to the Staff Report, the August 20,2024 DTA memorandum, “Second Supplement to the Development Impact Fee Justification – Assembly Bill (“AB”) 602 Compliance” (August 20,2024 DTA Memo), appears (a) not to consider ADUs as a distinct land use type, and (b) imply that the City will produce considerably fewer housing units in the 2021-2040 period than the RHNA targets in Housing Element V6. Housing Element V6, p. 2-75. 4 ○ Compare August 20,2024 DTA Memo, p.4, Table 3, and especially “Land Use Type” column and fn. 2, with “TABLE 2-34 ABAG’S NEW CONSTRUCTION NEED BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME LEVEL IN PALO ALTO, 2023-2031,” Housing Element V6, p. 2-75. ○ Given the distinct characteristics of ADUs, their relative importance in Housing Element V6 to Palo Alto’s meeting its RHNA goals, and the specificity of those goals in the Housing Element V6, such apparent inconsistencies should be resolved. A revised report should provide the City Council with a broader range of policy alternatives and a bolder vision for advancing impact fee reform to meet Palo Alto’s commitments in the approved Housing Element V6 . Again, City Staff should be applauded for at least noting the City Council’s power to reduce the proposed impact fees, but the Staff Report would be improved greatly were it to make additional, specific recommendations to achieve such ends, including the following: ● It could exclude 750 sf from the calculation of all impact fees, treating that size threshold as a minimum home size — whether single-family, condominium, apartment, or ADU — that should be free of all housing taxes, particularly in an era of possibly declining and likely aging population change, and reduced public school enrollment. Over the life of Housing Element V6, the real problem that Palo Alto may face is not overutilization, but rather underutilization of parks, community center facilities, and libraries. Without utilization, public support for such civic assets may wither. In these respects, a revised report ought to make clear the difference between use of impact fees for capital expenditures, as opposed to operating expenses. ● Public confidence in the overall level of impact fees requires that a revised report demonstrate (a) the actual purposes to which revenues from the greatly heightened impact fees over the last few years have been put, and (b) the specific projects that might be funded in the future after further changes are made in the Municipal Fee Schedule. Although not detailed in the Staff Report, recent annual reports on development impact fees make it difficult to assess (a) the percentage of such fees assessed on single-family homes, on the one hand, versus apartments, condominiums, and ADUs, on the other hand, and (b) the precise ways in which such funds have been used. ○ The Staff Report shows no estimated park, community center, or library impact fee revenues from multi-family homes in FY 2023-24 (Staff Report, p.6, Table 5, fn. 3). ○ The “Building Permit Data - Single-Family Residential” data in the Staff Report, August 20,2024 DTA Memo, Attachment 1, p. 6, show approximately 22 FY 2023 single-family projects, which at approximately $66,000 per project, would yield approximately $1,450,000 in impact fee revenue, but the “ City of Palo Alto Development Impact Fee Report for Period Ending June 30, 2023 ” (FY 2023 Development Impact Fee Report) 5 pp. 3-4, shows only about $495,000 in parks ($439,967), community center (“$34,559), and library ($20,398) impact fees collected. ○ Palo Alto’s “PROPOSED CAPITAL BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2023,” believed to be only an interim document, showed a proposed total of $2,300,000 to be transferred from community center, library, and parks development impact fee funds to a “Roth Building Rehabilitation Phase 1” project in FY 2023. It is unclear whether any substantial portion of such amounts were actually spent on that project or, if so, when such expenditures were made. In particular, the FY 2023 Development Impact Fee Report, p. 9, shows actual FY 2023 expenditures of about $725,000 from parks impact fees for projects at Boulware Park and Rinconada Park, and for Park Restroom Installation, without any expenditures from community center or library impact fees in FY 2023. But that report does not show the types of housing that were taxed, nor the extent of such housing taxes by type of housing, corresponding to such expenditures. ● What is needed every fiscal year is a clear and concise summary of fiscal inputs and fiscal outputs with respect to the parks, community center, and library impact fees. One should be able to know, by fiscal year, (a) what types of housing are being subjected to impact fees, (b) what amounts of impact fees, by type of housing and by type of impact fee, are being paid for each fiscal year, and (c) how those fees are ultimately being spent, whether in a current or future fiscal year. Transfers of money between different, specified funds to specific projects, capital spending plan adjustments during the course of a year, and withdrawals from and additions to reserve accounts all make it difficult for the public to understand how, and to what extent, revenues from residential housing impact fees are being raised, and how those revenues are ultimately being spent. ● Particularly because of the City’s express admission to the HCD that Palo Alto’s current, per-unit impact fees have “led to some inequitable results…,” Housing Element V6, p. 4-65, and particularly because the City has continued to charge impact fees for larger ADUs since that admission was first made — now several quarters ago — the City Council should provide refunds from the date that the City first acknowledged the problems with its current residential impact fee regime to those homeowners and others who have paid improperly large ADU impact fees. A revised report should detail the number of such projects, the amount of all such payments and estimates of the amount of such refunds. Finally, to allow for reasonable public input in light of the HCD-approved Housing Element, the City Council should (a) direct the Planning and Transportation Commission to allow for public comment on these issues at its October 09, 2024 meeting, (b) direct City Staff to prepare a revised report, and (c) continue this matter to the City Council’s November 4, 2024 meeting. Attachment 6 TO: Palo Alto City Council (City Council) RE: Recommendations re Agenda Item #28, “PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of Budget Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2025 [etc.]” and Comments re Staff Report 2406-3140 (Staff Report) DATE: June 17, 2024 FROM: John Kelley RECOMMENDATION Because the likelihood of the City Council’s modifying the FY2025 budget tonight is low, and because Palo Alto’s impact fees are inequitable, irrational, and may fail to take account of a recent United States Supreme Court decision, the City Council should (a) thoroughly examine and revise the City’s impact fees at its first or second meeting in August and (b) recalculate the fees charged to all applicants in recent years, providing refunds as appropriate. DISCUSSION Palo Alto's inequitable, irrational, and possibly improper impact fee regime should be suspended or quickly changed, and refunds should be granted. Palo Alto’s Housing Element acknowledges that the City’s current, per-unit impact fees have “led to some inequitable results….” 1 It also notes that “Palo Alto’s development impact fees/capacity fees are amongst the highest in the region for both single-family and multi-family home construction.” 2 Some members of the City Council and City Staff appear to recognize that the current per-unit impact fee regime needs to be changed. 3 Based upon the discussion at the City Council’s April 15, 2024 meeting, it appears that City Staff anticipated presenting a new proposal to the City Council in May, 2024, but, for unknown reasons — likely because of other work being undertaken by members of City Staff — it appears that this did not occur. As a result, the proposed FY 2025 budget not only maintains the same, inequitable, per-unit impact fee regime, but it also increases those fees. 4 This is an extremely unfortunate result. What should be done about this problem? Given the City Council’s vacation schedule and the City Staff’s current workflows, it seems quite unlikely that the City Council will vote tonight to adopt a new, non-per-unit impact fee regime. Even that 4 Staff Report, Attachment A, Ex. 5, at p. 7, and Attachment A , Ex. 6,at pp. 1-2. 3 See , e.g., “ Sp. City Council Meeting, Summary Minutes : 04/15/2024,” at 11. 2 Id . at 4-2 1 “ 2023-2031 Housing Element, City of Palo Alto ,” April 2024, Adopted, at 4-64. 1 action, however, would be sub-optimal, because it ignores other significant problems with Palo Alto’s current approach to impact fees. In somewhat the same way that the City Council reacted to a judicial decision concerning the use of natural gas earlier this year, the City Council could temporarily suspend impact fees until this matter can be taken up after the City Council’s vacation. That might be the most respectful approach, especially towards current applicants. But it, too, would be incomplete. Whether or not the City Council temporarily suspends impact fees tonight, I strongly recommend a rapid and fulsome analysis of the multiple problems presented by the current impact fee regime. ● The current regime adversely affects not only ADUs, but also apartments, condominiums, and SB9 units (collectively, New Smaller Homes). All of these, generally smaller, homes are subjected to a “Palo Alto housing tax.” For some homes, that housing tax is now approaching $80,000. If Palo Alto is committed to building both more and more affordable housing, such draconian housing taxes must end. ● As to ADUs, as mentioned above and as discussed in the attached April 14, 2024 letter to the City Council, the current impact fee regime leads to particularly inequitable results. ● In addition, as to all New Smaller Homes when compared with single-family homes, inequity becomes irrationality. Under Palo Alto’s current per-unit impact fee regime as applied to parcels with existing single-family homes, a property owner substantially adding to or completely scraping a 2,000 sf primary dwelling and replacing it with a 5,000 sf or larger primary dwelling will pay no impact fees at all, whereas the builder of ten 500 sf studios — having a total of 5,000 sf — might pay over $500,000 in FY2025 for Park Impact Fees alone. ● Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held on April 12, 2024 that the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause “does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land-use permit conditions.” 5 Since the United States Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the California Court of Appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings, it is not clear how emerging federal law affecting impact fees will develop. The City Council can and should, however, take notice of this decision. ● Finally, the problems with the “Palo Alto housing tax” have been known essentially since the current impact regime was put into place by a prior council a few years ago. Once a new, equitable, rational, and forward thinking approach to 5 Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California , Syllabus (601 U. S. ____ (2024)) ( Slip Opinion , at p. 1). 2 impact fees has been adopted by the City Council — preferably at the first or second City Council meeting in August - all of the impact fees that have been charged since the current regime was established should be re-calculated, and the difference between the fees previously paid and those that would have been assessed under newly adopted rules should be refunded to applicants with interest. Whether or not the City Council suspends the current impact fee regime before adopting the FY2025 budget, these issues deserve quick and thorough attention at the first or the second City Council meeting in August. At that meeting, besides adopting a new approach to impact fees, the City Council should refund the difference between the fees that applicants have paid in recent years under the current impact fee regime and the fees that would have been charged under a proper approach. Attachment 3 TO: Palo Alto City Council (City Council) and Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) RE: Recommendations re Agenda Item #13, “Joint City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting to Adopt a Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan by Adopting a Revised 2023-31 Housing Element [etc.]” and Comments re Staff Report 2312-2450 (Staff Report) DATE: April 14, 2024 FROM: John Kelley RECOMMENDATION City Staff have improved the prior version of the 2023-2031 Housing Element (Housing Element) in important ways, but the PTC and the City Council should direct City Staff to make further changes in the revised Housing Element prior to adopting it and delivering it to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). DISCUSSION 1. ADUs Play a Crucial Role in the City’s Housing Element The City relies heavily on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in attempting to meet its RHNA. For example, when comparing the “ADUs” row with the “Total Unit Surplus” row in Table 3-27, “Adequacy of Residential Site Inventory,” of the revised draft “Palo Alto Housing Element 2023-2031 (Redlined),” 1 for both (a) the combination of the “Very Low-Income” and the “Low-Income” columns and (b) the “Moderate Income” column, one can see that the “ADUs” values exceed the “Total Unit Surplus” values. Thus, if the City fails to produce very low-income, low-income, and moderate-income ADUs to the extent predicted, much of the “buffer” may disappear, the City may fail to satisfy its RHNA. Accordingly, assessing the City’s constraints on ADU production is vital in analyzing the sufficiency of the Revised Redline Housing Element. 2. The City’s ADU Projections Still Ignore Important Constraints The City relies on ABAG’s technical guidance for estimating the future distribution of ADUs by income category based on actual Palo Alto production figures from 2019-2021. 2 Yet the ABAG technical memo articulates its own limits: “ABAG conducted 2 https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-03/ADUs-Projections-Memo-final.pdf , RRHE, p. 3-8. 1 “Revised Redline Housing Element” or “RRHE,” https://paloaltohousingelement.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Palo-Alto-Housing-Element-1.pdf , p. 3-72. 1 an analysis of ADU affordability and concluded that in most jurisdictions , the following assumptions are generally applicable.” 3 “Generally applicable,” however, does not necessarily mean “applicable in Palo Alto” (especially if one considers the “Palo Alto premium,” among other things). Thus, in assessing the RRHE, one must scrutinize the unique constraints that Palo Alto imposes on ADU production. 4 A. Impact Fees Since an earlier draft of the Housing Element was submitted to the HCD in 2022, the City Council again raised the impact fees imposed on 750+ sf ADUs. 5 Today the FY2024 facial — essentially “MSRP,” because proportionality discounts apply to such ADUs — total of Community Center, general government, library, park, and public safety facilities fees for “Single Family” in Palo Alto totals $76,385, more than $3,000 greater than the base, $72,562 figure discussed in the RRHE. 6 Because Palo Alto changed both the categories used to calculate impact fees and the magnitude of the fees, 7 their effects were not reflected in 2019-2021 baseline ADU production figures that the City has relied upon in its RHNA projections. 8 Furthermore, as applied especially to ADUs, 8 https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/04/15/palo-alto-hikes-development-impact-fees-for-first-time-in -20-years Compare the figures on RRHE, p. 3-8. 7 Staff report for 4/20/2021 meeting , p. 8 6 FY2024 Fee Schedule, p. 65, and RRHE p. 4-64. Please note: in the RRHE, a range of values is provided, “$72,562 - $302,362.” See pgs. 4-63 – 4-64 for a discussion of how the $302,362 figure is calculated. The City acknowledges that such “larger projects involving detached single-family homes…..are rare….” RRHE p. 4-64. (Perhaps ADU impact fees could even exceed the “MSRP.”). 5 “ADOPTED MUNICIPAL FEE FISCAL YEAR SCHEDULE 2024,” “Impact & In-Lieu Fees,” “Development Impact Fees - Residential,” (FY2024 Fee Schedule) ( https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/administrative-services/city-budgets/fy-2024-city-bud get/adopted/fy24-muni-fee-book-final.pdf , p. 65. 4 Until recently, Palo Alto’s Tree Ordinance, PAMC Chapter 8.10, “TREE AND LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT,” https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-65934#JD_Chapter8.10 , was among the most important, Palo-Alto-specific constraints on ADU production. At the City Council meeting on April 1, 2024, the City Council considered a Staff Report incorporating an important finding from the City Attorney: During passage of the tree ordinance updates in January, staff confirmed during the Council Questions that based on CAO analysis of PAMC Chapter 18.09, the updated Title 8 and applicable state law, the tree ordinance would not apply to stand alone Table 1 ADU’s . Staff Report 2403-2809, https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=4688&meetingTemplateType=2& compiledMeetingDocumentId=9485 , p. 1 (emphasis added). (Since this statement was attributed to the City Attorney’s Office, it is assumed that the City will follow that guidance and no longer apply the Tree Ordinance to what are, in effect, statewide exemption ADUs.) Attachment A, the ordinance proposed by City Staff, was amended at the April 1, 2024 meeting. See the video of the April 1, 2024 meeting, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2PxdunJHco , beginning at approximately 6:06:59. 3 https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-03/ADUs-Projections-Memo-final.pdf , p. 1 (emphasis added). 2 the City’s impact fee structure is (a) inequitable, for multiple reasons, only one of which is discussed in the RRHE, and (b) a significant impediment to production of ADUs, a point not addressed in the City’s RRHE financial feasibility analysis. Pgs. 4-64 - 4-65. The City itself acknowledges that the basic, per-unit fee architecture is inequitable, but it promises to make amends: In accordance with state law, fees for ADUs are only charged on ADUs larger than 750 square feet, and are charged in proportion to the fee that are or would be assessed on the primary unit. Because Palo Alto has historically charged per-unit fees for residential development, this has led to some inequitable results, as the fees for an ADU will depend not only on the size of the ADU, but also on the size of the primary unit, with higher fees required under state law when the primary unit is smaller. To avoid this scenario, the City will implement Programs 3.1 and 3.5 to convert fees to a per square foot calculation. 9 That is a step in the right direction but remains insufficient to correct past and continuing harms. This promise lacks a specific deadline, but Program 3.1 refers to December 2024. RRHE, p. 5-15. Still, that program omits some of the impact fees identified above, is not offered as a specific condition for present acceptance of the RRHE, and offers nothing to those previously saddled with inequitable housing impact fees to obtain permits for ADUs in Palo Alto. The City should: ● not submit a further revised Housing Element to the HCD until the current per-unit system is replaced; ● immediately place a moratorium on charging new impact fees for ADUs until such a new system is adopted; and, after its adoption, ● recalculate the impact fees for any ADU built after the revised fee schedule was first adopted in April, 2021, refunding the difference between the previously charged fees and those that would have been due under the new system to homeowners. Even with such changes, however, the City would only be addressing one half of the inequities built into its current impact fee structure as applied to ADUs. In the FY2024 Fee Schedule at p. 65, the phrases “Single Family” and “per unit” tell only a partial story. The City asserts that “the burden of housing costs is being more equitably distributed across project types,” pg. 4-65, but the discussion in the “DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND IN-LIEU FEES'' section, RRHE pgs. 4-63 – 4-65, 9 RRHE p. 4-64. 3 fails to make clear that, as currently implemented, “Single Family” and “per unit” essentially mean “brand new single-family on a vacant parcel.” This implicit meaning of the fee schedule language is noteworthy given the City’s observation that there is a “lack of vacant land in Palo Alto.” RRHE pgs. 4-64. It is inequitable to impose impact fees on ADUs that vary with the size of the primary dwelling on a parcel — such that a person with an 800 sf house might have to pay $76,385 to build an 800 sf ADU, whereas a neighbor with a 3,200 sf house would only pay a quarter of such fees to build an identical 800 sf ADU. But a far more fundamental inequity becomes evident when one compares single-family homes and ADUs. ● Instead of building an 800 sf ADU, the hypothetical homeowner with an 800 sf house could instead add 2,400 sf to the house, but since there was a pre-existing home on the lot, Palo Alto would not currently charge $76,385 in impact fees, nor indeed any of the park or other impact fees detailed above, on that home addition, even though it would be three times the size of the 800 sf ADU alternative. ● If the hypothetical neighbor, with a 3,200 sf house, had the capital and the desire, the neighbor might “scrape” the entire existing house, rebuild at or above grade 3,200 sf more luxuriously, and then add a basement, perhaps 2,400 sf in size, and, again, not pay any impact fees. The City may “implement Program 3.1 Fee Waivers & Adjustments ” before New Year’s Eve 2024, RRHE pgs. 4-65, but this does not appear to include a commitment to alter the fundamental discrimination in Palo Alto’s impact fee architecture as implemented: the City privileges substantial additions to and even complete “scrapes” of single-family homes, while seeking to shift the vast majority of all housing impact fees to new ADUs, apartments, condominiums, and townhomes. Palo Alto’s impact fees are, in essence, housing taxes on smaller, non-R-1 dwellings. Such taxes constrain ADU production. As HCD has recognized, 10 one of the merits of ADUs as a housing production strategy is their low costs. This “lower denominator” means that the impact fees charged by Palo Alto constitute an outsized percentage of costs for ADUs. As a corollary, the financial feasibility analysis offered by the City, RRHE pgs. 4-64 - 4-65, is not applicable to ADUs. Rather than building four dozen townhomes, a Palo Alto homeowner may only be seeking to build a single 800 sf ADU. Adding even tens of thousands of dollars to an ADU project may make it significantly less attractive to an individual homeowner, who generally would have lower access to capital than the developer of 48 townhomes. Even without reaching the full $76,385 amount, many homeowners with smaller homes 10 “ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT HANDBOOK UPDATED JULY 2022” (“HCD 2022 ADU Handbook”)( https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-research/ADUHandbookUpdate.pdf ), p. 4. 4 will end up being charged $25,000, $30,000 or even more in “Planning Impact Fees'' before they can receive a building permit for an ADU from the City. Not everyone in Palo Alto can put $25,000 on a credit card or send an e-check for $30,000 to the City. Thus the architecture of City’s housing impact fees — already heavily disadvantaging ADUs — further privileges more economically advantaged homeowners. The City’s financial feasibility tests will be cold comfort for many homeowners building ADUs. The burden of the City’s impact fees on ADUs — whether $25,000 or $75,000 — will also affect the City’s ability to meet its RHNA, particularly for more affordable housing. This is especially true given the current interest rate environment. If one were able to obtain — which could be quite difficult — a 30-year fixed mortgage at 7% to build an ADU, $30,000 in marginal fees paid to Palo Alto would translate into an approximately $200 greater monthly payment. 11 $200 per month translates into a sizable percentage of the 1- and even 2-person rents described in “TABLE 2-18 MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE HOUSING COSTS, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, 2021” for the “Extremely Low Income,” “Very Low Income,” “Low Income,” and even “Median Income rental limits. RRHE pg. 2-39. Thus the the City’s reliance on ADUs to meet its affordable housing goals is incoherent if not completely inconsistent: ● while relying on ADUs to provide a significant percentage of its more affordable units, and while knowing that any such tax will constitute a relatively larger proportion of project costs in comparison with, for example, R-1 developments, the City nonetheless taxes ADU production; and ● Program 3.1 does not appear to commit the City to correcting the taxation disparity between new smaller housing units — ADUs, apartments, etc. — and new additions to or “scrapes” of single-family homes. Both the magnitude and the architecture of Palo Alto’s impact fees significantly constrain ADU production, particularly production of more affordable ADUs. B. Utilities Policies City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) policies further constrain ADU production. While the UAC may take up this issue at some point in the future, at present the City follows what is, in essence, a “one-parcel, one service” policy in R-1 neighborhoods. This means that, for example, electrical, water, and sewer services for a primary 11 https://www.google.com/search?q=mortgage+calculator&oq=mortga&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqDQgAEAA YgwEYsQMYgAQyDQgAEAAYgwEYsQMYgAQyDQgBEAAYgwEYsQMYgAQyBggCEEUYPDIGCAMQR Rg8MgYIBBBFGD0yBggFEEUYPDIGCAYQRRhBMgYIBxBFGEGoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF -8 5 dwelling and an ADU (or JADU) on the same lot will be provided and billed under one CPAU account. If a homeowner is seeking to build and rent an ADU (or JADU), this can cause several types of problems. ● Tiering problems. If a utility’s prices are tiered based on consumption (for example, higher per unit rates above one or more thresholds), then two households on a single account will be billed at a marginally higher rate than they would be billed on two separate accounts. ● Overhead and collections problems. Even with sub-metering equipment, a homeowner renting an ADU will be left with the tasks of calculating charges, billing, and receiving payment. ● Fundamental capital cost problems, especially with electrical services. Many existing single-family homes in Palo Alto have existing 100A or 200A electrical services. Adding even an 800 sf ADU may, based on the normal electrical load calculation methods followed by CPAU at present, and especially if a homeowner is seeking to build an all-electric ADU, result in approximately 100A (or more) of additional electrical load. While other techniques may be used, if one simply seeks to increase one’s electrical service capacity, present CPAU forms and policies can result in the need for an application to increase the existing electrical service to 400A, even though some of this capacity is not necessarily needed for the ADU. Such an electrical upgrade, including both the fees charged by CPAU and those charged by a contractor, can sometimes cost $10,000 or more. ● “Loser lottery.” That first $10,000 cost may not be the biggest cost. CPAU may, in addition, determine that there is not sufficient capacity in its local distribution system for a new 400A service, in which case an ADU applicant may have “won” a “loser lottery”: CPAU may determine that, because the ADU would exhaust local distribution capacity, the ADU applicant should bear the cost of, for example, upgrading a transformer, or, sometimes, even having also to place a large pedestal for new CPAU-owned electrical equipment in the applicant’s front yard. 12 The “winners” of such a “loser lottery” might have to pay tens of thousands of additional dollars to CPAU. Returning to the prior mortgage cost analysis, all of these costs might add another $70, $140, $210, or more in monthly costs to an ADU project, further undermining its potential to help the City meet its housing affordability goals. Other policies could and should be adopted by the City. 12 Requiring such payments and siting equipment on a homeowner’s land as conditions for obtaining a building permit may be quite improper, e.g., as requiring a “public benefit” from a building permit applicant. 6 ● CPAU could and should give homeowners building ADUs the option — as determined solely by the homeowner, and at the homeowner’s expense — to build a new ADU (or JADU) with its own utilities, particularly electrical and water utilities. The homeowner should decide if such capital investments make sense. ● CPAU could and should bear the costs of maintaining its own distribution capacity, a n issue that will probably return to the City Council in other contexts (e.g., future deliberations regarding S/CAP and electrical infrastructure). ● CPAU could and should move more quickly in accepting, working with, and even supporting alternative means of calculating electrical loads under the NEC. With such changes, the City would begin to eliminate some of the most important constraints on ADU, and especially affordable ADU, housing production resulting from current CPAU policies. C. Permitting Policies Government Code sub-section 66314(a) allows a local agency to designate areas in which ADUs may be permitted based on “on the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of accessory dwelling units on traffic flow and public safety.” 13 Government Code sub-section 66317(c) provides: “No local ordinance, policy, or regulation, other than an accessory dwelling unit ordinance consistent with this article shall be the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this section.” 14 Despite these and other limits on which types of considerations a local agency may consider in reviewing an ADU permit application ministerially, the City routinely routes ADU permit applications to multiple departments whose reviews are not specifically authorized under the California statute, including, Urban Forestry, Electrical Utilities, and the gas portion of WGW Utilities. Individualized reviews of ADU permit applications by such departments, particularly involving non-objective standards, frustrate the ministerial ADU permit application process. The City’s routinely subjecting 14 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=1.&title=7.&part =&chapter=13.&article=2 . (formerly Government Code sub-section 65852.2(a)(7), see https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/government-code/gov-sect-65852-2/https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/governmen t-code/gov-sect-65852-2/ ). 13 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=1.&title=7.&part =&chapter=13.&article=2 . (formerly Government Code sub-section 65852.2(a)(1)(A), see https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/government-code/gov-sect-65852-2/https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/governmen t-code/gov-sect-65852-2/ ). 7 ADU applications to such reviews is another way in which it constrains ADU production, delays ADU permit issuance, and increases costs to those seeking to build ADUs. D. Disavowing HCD’s AFFH Tools The HCD has provided tools for determining whether certain types of ADUs are allowed in particular areas. The “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources” is an example of one such tool. 15 Using it, one can identify, for example, “High Quality Transit Stop Areas” within Palo Alto: 16 16 https://affh-data-and-mapping-resources-v-2-0-cahcd.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/636e3f917b3445929f4aa0 647afc4085_2/explore?location=37.436345%2C-122.134573%2C12.94 15 https://affh-data-and-mapping-resources-v-2-0-cahcd.hub.arcgis.com/ 8 Such a map should allow one, before filing an ADU building permit application, to determine with precision whether one can build, for example, an 18’ detached ADU on one’s property. See PAMC 18.09.030, Table 1, fn. 5. 17 Despite the availability of such tools, Palo Alto appears not to recognize their accuracy, and appears to base its determination of such areas based on its own compilation of data, which may well be inadequate and incomplete. Failing to acknowledge and accept the legitimacy of such HCD-provided AFFH tools is another significant constraint on ADU production, because it makes it more difficult, more expensive, and more time-consuming to determine whether one can build the type of ADU that one might seek to build in Palo Alto; even more unfortunately, it can result in an incorrect determination of whether a particular design is permissible. 3. Compounding Effects and Cumulative Financial Metrics Extremely high and inequitable impact fees, costly utilities policies, onerous permitting practices, and disavowal of recognized AFFH tools are all, when considered individually, significant constraints on ADU production and especially on production of more affordable ADUs in Palo Alto. Considering them collectively compounds and multiplies deleterious effects, further reducing the likelihood of the RRHE being sufficient to meet Palo Alto’s RHNA mandates. ● Regulatory uncertainty, such as that caused by the City’s failure to acknowledge HCD-provided AFFH tools may keep an ADU project from ever commencing. Knowing that friends or neighbors in other parts of Palo Alto can build 18’ detached ADUs (e.g., over an existing detached garage) may set an expectation for prospective ADU applicants that cannot be verified at the outset of a project. ● Prospective ADU applicants that live in smaller homes and that may also be less capital advantaged may be dissuaded from building larger ADUs when they can spend the money in better ways simply by adding onto their existing houses without incurring enormous impact fees. Why let the City charge $50,000 or $75,000 for an 800 sf ADU when the same overall budget might support an extra bedrooms or even more in a 900 sf or larger addition? ● How much will it actually cost, over the lifetime of an ADU, to pay higher marginal electrical and water service rates with single accounts for both primary dwellings and ADUs? Who will bear that financial risk? ● Would one decide not to build an all-electric ADU or even drop a project if CPAU failed to pay the costs for upgrading a transformer in its distribution plant? 17 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-76751 9 ● Who, indeed, would ever want to be the grand-prize “winner” in a “loser lottery,” having to pay $10,000, $20,000, or even more to install a 400A electrical service, with the special bonus of housing a CPAU transformer in one’s front yard? ● Why should there be any review by Urban Forestry, Electrical Utilities or gas utilities of 800 sf or smaller ADUs? Why are such reviewing departments in Palo Alto also sometimes the very last to approve an ADU application, delaying what is supposed to be a maximum 60-day, completely objective, and ascertainable-in-advance, ministerial review process? ● Obtaining an ADU building permit from any local agency in California should be quick, easy, and inexpensive. Those are not the adjectives that many homeowners who have built, or who would like to build, ADUs in Palo Alto would use to describe the City’s permitting processes. Instead, as a result of other City policies and practices, those seeking to build ADUs and other residential dwellings often come face-to-face with the “Palo Alto Premium,” the implicit surcharge that contractors and others may impose for working in Palo Alto. All of these effects, especially when considered in combination, take their cumulative toll, particularly on production of more affordable ADUs in Palo Alto. Yet the RRHE assumes, based on ABAG’s conclusions about circumstances in “most jurisdictions,” 18 that over 300 ADUs will be built in Palo Alto over the next several years, apparently for rental at the “Extremely Low Income,” “Very Low Income,” and “Low Income” prices described in Table 2-18. RRHE, pg. 2-39. In the “AFFORDABILITY” section of the RRHE, the City seems almost to concede that this is fanciful. When comparing the home prices and rents shown earlier in Figure 2-17, Figure 2-18, and Table 2-16 with the maximum affordable housing costs presented in Table 2-18 below, it is evident that extremely low-, very low- and low-income households in Palo Alto have almost no affordable housing options without substantial subsidies. RRHE, pg. 2-39. How is the City intending to provide such subsidies for ADUs? While Section 2.6 of the RRHE, “HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS,” discusses, among other things, means of addressing expiring Section 8 project-based subsidies, RRHE, pgs. 2-83 - 2-88, it is unclear whether, and if so how, these or other discussions of potential subsidies would or could apply to the 300+ ADUs the RRHE assumes would be available at extremely low-, very low- and low-income rental prices. 18 https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-03/ADUs-Projections-Memo-final.pdf , p. 1. 10 What is known is that the combination of extremely high and inequitable impact fees, costly utilities policies, onerous permitting practices, and disavowal of recognized AFFH tools operates as an anti-subsidy, as a housing tax, especially on ADUs. The City does not appear to have offered an ADU-specific financial analysis of such constraints. What metrics might one use to assess the City’s policies and practices on ADU housing production? At least two come to mind. One standard has a proven track record of success at the state level. During those parts of a fiscal year when its funding has not been fully allocated, and for eligible recipients, the maximum $40,000 grants offered by CalHFA appear to have been successful in stimulating ADU production. CalHFA’s ADU Grant Program has already created more housing units in California by providing grants up to $40,000 to reimburse pre-development and non-recurring closing costs associated with the construction of an ADU. Pre-development costs include site prep, architectural designs, permits, soil tests, impact fees, property surveys, and energy reports. 19 Under the 2023-24 state budget, which provided $25 million for the project, there appears to have been “high demand” 20 for such grants. As a first approximation, and certainly one that would appear to be more relevant to ADU construction than a survey of four dozen townhomes, a $40,000 marginal cost might be more than sufficient to have negative implications for ADU production. A second method of calculation might be based upon the Santa Clara County ADU “Accessory Dwelling Unit Calculator.” 21 Assuming that one were seeking to build a “0 Bed / 1 Bath / 0 / 400 sqft” studio in Palo Alto, the calculator projected $184-224K in development costs, an estimated monthly rent of $1,600 - $2,000, monthly expenses of $1,500 - $1,900, based upon a capital structure of a $60,000 cash investment and a $144,000 loan with a 20 year term and an 8% interest rate, yielding an estimated monthly mortgage payment of $1,194. Since the estimated monthly rent was quite comparable to the estimated monthly expenditures with this capital structure, it appears that most of the economic benefit was projected to be realized as an increase in property value. “It is estimated that your ADU will increase your home value by $214,000.” 22 But using $60,000 in cash, and leveraging it with a $144,000 mortgage — even if one could obtain such a mortgage — to produce an increase in value of 22 https://santaclaracounty.aducalculator.org/ 21 https://citiesassociation.org/documents/santa-clara-county-adu-calculator/ 20 https://www.calhfa.ca.gov/homeownership/bulletins/2023/2023-12.pdf 19 https://www.calhfa.ca.gov/adu/index.htm 11 $214,000 in a relatively illiquid asset with relatively high sales transaction costs would appear, on its face, to be only modestly attractive as an investment opportunity when 10-year Treasury bonds are yielding, at least at this time, over 4.5%. 23 As a result, one might expect an economically motivated ADU applicant to strive to increase rents higher, potentially to levels above what the City has contemplated in Table 2-18. There is a substantial chance that Palo Alto’s constraints on ADU production will cause the City to fail to meet its projected targets for extremely low-, very low- and low-income ADUs. As a result, the City’s “Buffer above Remaining RHNA After Credits,” RRHE, pg. 3-72, for those categories of affordable housing units may be lost. In addition to the policy changes discussed above — eliminating or greatly reducing impact fees on ADUs; returning previously inequitably levied impact fees to homeowners; allowing, at a homeowner’s option and expense, for separate electrical and water utilities services for ADUs; ending Urban Forestry, Electrical Utilities, and WGW gas-related departmental reviews; and accepting the results of HCD’s AFFH tools — this analysis points towards the types of policy interventions to which the City should commit itself if it truly intends to rely upon ADUs as an important source of extremely low-, very low- and low-income housing during the current RHNA cycle. It could and should: ● replicate the maximum $40,000 grants offered by CalHFA, perhaps in cooperation with CalHFA itself. ● offer qualifying ADU applicants, perhaps using the same income and other qualifications established by CalHFA, to provide, e.g., $200,000 - $300,000 loans at the City’s cost of capital to those applicants willing to offer rentals at federally approved rates for a period of 10 years with “on-bill payments,” perhaps through the CPAU’s own billing system; and ● immediately implement AB 1033: “ Accessory dwelling units, also referred to as ADUs and “granny flats,” have been available in California only as rentals. But a new law, Assembly Bill 1033 , is giving Californians the opportunity to buy and sell them as condominiums,” creating an important innovation to foster actual ownership of smaller homes in Palo Alto. Palo Alto has the capability, the credit rating, and the spirit of innovation to provide capital and new forms of ownership for more affordable housing in our community. The City can augment ADU production, especially of more affordable ADUs, should the City Council demonstrate leadership and commitment to such goals. 23 https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/us 12 From:Min Zhou To:Council, City Subject:Public comment on City Council agenda item AA1, the performance evaluation of the city manager Date:Sunday, September 22, 2024 11:41:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to comment on today’s agenda item AA1, the performance evaluation of the city manager. I have feedback on the city manager’s performance in responding to a request toimprove the experience of middle school student athletes in Palo Alto. The city manager decided to block our cross country team’s participation in league competitions and has declined to share his reason. He has refused to communicate with ourcoach and parents. He is not acting in the best interest of Palo Alto residents, especially our children. As a parent, I am disappointed and ask that you consider my feedback during his performanceevaluation. Regards Min Zhou From:Monica Wilson To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment 9/23/24 Date:Sunday, September 22, 2024 2:41:27 PM Attachments:M. Wilson TRL Testimony Palo Alto (9_23_24).docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council of Palo Alto, Please find attached my public comment for the September 23, 2024 City Council meeting. Thank you, Dr. Monica WilsonCalifornia Regional Director Parents Against Vaping Ecigarettes(909) 781-4461 September 23, 2024 Dear City Council Members of Palo Alto, My name is Dr. Monica Wilson, and I am a parent of four children and an advocate with Parents Against Vaping (PAVe). I am here to strongly urge the enforcement of the ban on flavored e- cigarettes and other flavored tobacco products as mandated by Senate Bill (SB) 793, signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom and upheld by California voters on November 8, 2022. As a parent, my foremost concern is the health and well-being of my children. Flavored tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, are particularly appealing to youth due to their sweet, fruity, and minty flavors. These products are designed to mask the harshness of tobacco, making them more palatable and enticing to youth. The tobacco industry's targeting of our children with these flavored products is deeply concerning and poses a significant public health risk. The data is alarming. Studies have shown that flavored tobacco products are a primary driver of youth tobacco use. According to the 2024 National Youth Tobacco Survey, 90% of young people who have ever used tobacco started with a flavored product. The sweet flavors act as a gateway, leading to nicotine addiction and increasing the likelihood of progressing to traditional cigarette smoking. As a result, our children face a higher risk of severe health consequences, including respiratory issues, cardiovascular disease, and long-term addiction. The impact of nicotine on a child’s brain which is not fully developed until the mid 20s, can be devastating - nicotine negatively affects impulse control and attention. Governor Newsom's signing of SB 793 and its subsequent endorsement by California voters was a monumental step in protecting our children from the dangers of flavored tobacco. However, the effectiveness of this law depends on rigorous enforcement at the local level. It is imperative that retailers comply with the ban and that violations are promptly addressed to prevent these harmful products from reaching our youth. As an advocate with Parents Against Vaping, I have seen firsthand the devastating impact that vaping has had on families across California. Parents are often unaware of the dangers posed by e-cigarettes and flavored tobacco products until it is too late. We need robust enforcement to ensure that these products are not available in our communities, particularly to our children. I urge the City Council of Palo Alto to take decisive action in enforcing SB 793. This includes regular inspections of retail locations, strict penalties for non-compliance, and ongoing public education campaigns to raise awareness about the dangers of flavored tobacco products. By doing so, we can protect the health of our children and prevent a new generation from becoming addicted to nicotine. In closing, I want to emphasize that this is not just a regulatory issue; it is a moral imperative. As parents, community members, and leaders, we have a responsibility to safeguard the health and future of our children. I implore you to enforce the ban on flavored e-cigarettes and other flavored tobacco products with the utmost diligence and urgency. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Dr. Monica Wilson Dr. Monica Wilson Parents Against Vaping Advocate/California Region Director monica@parentsagainstvaping.org From:Aram James To:Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; Emily Mibach; Council, City; Josh Becker; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; HenryEtzkowitz; Ed Lauing; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Greg Tanaka; ParkRec Commission; Planning Commission; Zelkha,Mila; GRP-City Council; Human Relations Commission Subject:An ethics panel found that Cribbs misrepresented her status as a gold medal winner. Date:Sunday, September 22, 2024 2:20:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. An ethics panel found that Cribbs misrepresented her status as a gold medal winner. Source: The Mercury News USA Olympics: Anne Cribbs deemed ineligible for alumni post https://search.app/16Nvvw69jm7goDUP6 From:Valerie Baldwin To:Council, City Subject:baylands pond Date:Sunday, September 22, 2024 1:40:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you for rejecting the airport extension. Many more people and kids enjoy the pond than people flying planes. And the birds enjoy it too! I love photographing the birds there. Valerie Baldwin From:Aram James To:Henry Etzkowitz; Barberini, Christopher; Enberg, Nicholas; Afanasiev, Alex; Lee, Craig; Cribbs, Anne; Council,City; Human Relations Commission; keith@keithforcouncil.com; rowena.chiu@gmail.com; Raymond Goins; SeanAllen Cc:Roberta Ahlquist; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Ed Lauing; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Josh Becker; Foley, Michael; Binder, Andrew; Reifschneider, James; Wagner, April; Shikada, Ed Subject:Re: Los Angeles Sheriff"s Dept cracking down on deputy gangs - YouTube Date:Saturday, September 21, 2024 10:12:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 9/21/2024 Hi Henry,Law enforcement in this country has a long history of systemic racism and violence against African Americans and people of color. The Palo Alto Police Department is no exception.Anyone who runs for office or holds office in Palo Alto who refuses to acknowledge this fact doesn't deserve to hold office. Vile law enforcement in this country is much like the super vileIDF in Israel. We should sit down and discuss these issues before election day. Aram https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AB1O2-P2Rw Sent from my iPhone From:Jim Dehnert To:Council, City Subject:Baylands Preservation Date:Saturday, September 21, 2024 9:15:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Stone and members of the City Council: I would like to thank you for your recent decision to prioritize the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve over the proposals to extend the Palo Alto airport. I think that was absolutely theright thing to do. Thank you, Jim Dehnert -- -- Jim Dehnert From:Susan Walz To:Council, City Subject:The future of the Palo Alto Square Movie Theater space Date:Saturday, September 21, 2024 6:46:00 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council members, How wonderful that the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board has declined to approve the conversion of the Palo Alto Square movie theater into office space - thank you! Now, what next? How could this space be used? I have a vision of what this space could become. I imagine it as an arts venue, a place for the community to gather, and in order to accomplish this, it would have to re- invent itself. Its mission would be to bring together people of all ages and backgrounds, reflecting our diversified community, for multi-cultural fun and education, and maybe even some good food. We'd gather to watch films, and also live theater, dance, lectures, music, comics, art exhibits, you name it. And not just random entertainment - but rather, themed festivals, with start and end dates. For instance, maybe an "Oceans and WaterFestival", where every film, play, dance, lecture, concert, comic and work of art would involve some aspect of water, from "The Sorcerer's Apprentice", to Handel's Water Music, to Polynesian dance, to surfing documentaries, etc. etc. Events for children, families, adults, seniors, singles, couples - something for everyone. Could such a multimedia venture make money? Maybe, or maybe not, so perhaps a nonprofit venture. What an opportunity for outreach to the community, an opportunity to create goodwill. Who would run this? Who would organize this? Perhaps aninstitution like Stanford University? Or maybe a large, prosperous company, giving back to the community? It's a great location, centrally located, with plentiful parking. This could be a hugesuccess in the hands of some imaginative, innovative folks. It's time for people to come together - we've been apart too long, it's time to have fun again. Thank you for your consideration,Susan Walz From:Joanne Ball Artis To:Council, City Subject:Airport expansion Date:Saturday, September 21, 2024 6:29:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you all for rejecting the proposal and instead opting for protecting the birds, wildlife and their habitat at the Baylands!Sincerely, Joanne Ball ArtisSunnyvale and regular visitor to PA Baylands From:Laurie To:Council, City Subject:Thank you Date:Saturday, September 21, 2024 4:57:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Just wanted to thank you all for rejecting the airport proposals to extend into critical habitat for wildlife. Laurie From:Peg Gmail To:Council, City Subject:Thank you! Date:Saturday, September 21, 2024 4:49:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you all for protecting the Baylands, as they are a precious resource for all of us who enjoy it and for the wildlife that live there. Sent from my iPad From:info@LGB To:Council, City Subject:Thank you Date:Saturday, September 21, 2024 4:11:01 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you for your decision to keep the Palo Alto Airport out of the marshlands. The birds have so little space remaining. This is great news in the bird world. Lisa Myers Los Gatos Birdwatcher From:Eve Meier To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Airport Expansion Date:Saturday, September 21, 2024 6:37:39 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi City of Palo Alto, Please do not expand the airport. The Palo Alto Baylands is a very important place for local wildlife and a much enjoyed park by so many people. The airport already causes a lot of noisepollution and I hate to see it expanded/upgraded by removing more important habitat. Eve Meier Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance Volunteer From:Henry Etzkowitz To:Palo Post; Council, City; Roberta Ahlquist; Rebecca Eisenberg; Jeanne Fleming; Avroh Shah; Bette; Brian Good;Lotus Fong; Jim Hersh; Braden Cartwright; Gennady Sheyner Subject:Where is our neighborliness? Date:Friday, September 20, 2024 8:21:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. >> >>  >>  >> After hearing the pleas of our neighbors in East Palo Alto and Menlo Park about the deleterious health effects of lead on their children, (estimated to be as much as half of flint Michigan levels), the city council this past Monday rallied around keeping the airport open and even allowing a runway extension of a hundred yards. >> Tear up this runway, Mayor >> Greer! Let’s return 100 acres to the wetlands as modest reparations for our environmental depredation Place our neighbors children’s health at a higher value than elite recreation. Sincerely Henry Etzkowitz Candidate for Ciity Council From:Carol To:Council, City Subject:Electric charging stations outside Palo Verde School. Date:Friday, September 20, 2024 5:09:03 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello City Council members. I am writing this email because I am trying to find out the rationale for putting charging stations outside Palo Verde school where parents, volunteers, staff park during the day. During the day, these parking spaces are full with cars not obviously charging most of the time. This means that they are not available for the public to use who want to charge their cars. My questions are 1. Who are these chargers designed to be used by? 2. Who made the decision that the school parking area would be a good place to put chargers? 3. Who paid for these chargers? 4. Who will maintain these chargers? 5. Is this something the City or the PAUSD thought school parking areas made a decision about? 6. Is this happening at other schools? Thank you for paying attention to this email. Carol Rogers. Stockton Place. From:Harlene Grewal To:Council, City Cc:Baldev Grewal; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; stephen.connolly@oirgroup.com; Malinsky, Jason Subject:Subject: Urgent Concerns Regarding Officer Ian Johnson"s Conduct Date:Friday, September 20, 2024 4:40:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear All, I recently read an article detailing an use of force incident involving Officer Ian Johnson, which you can find here: https://padailypost.com/2024/05/11/woman-sues-police-after-her-arm-is-broken-during-an-arrest/ As a former victim of his excessive use of force, I am deeply troubled by the fact that Officer Johnson remains employed with the PAPD. This situation is disheartening and raises seriousquestions about the effectiveness of the oversight and training provided by the PAPD, the city council, and other relevant authorities. It is imperative that action is taken to address theseconcerns. The lack of accountability not only jeopardizes public trust but also places citizens at risk. Should Officer Johnson harm another individual in the future, each of you will bear personalresponsibility for failing to uphold your duties as public officials and for not implementing adequate preventative measures. I urge you to take this matter seriously and prioritize thesafety and well-being of our community. I am also requesting that this situation be audited by the independent police auditor. Sincerely,Harlene Grewal From:Nuemi Guzman To:Esmeralda aristeo; Tristia Bauman; Rebeca Lazo; Luis Rodriguez Cc:Council, City; Alexander, Katherine; Erika Escalante Subject:Re: Regarding Buena Vista MHP Residents Date:Friday, September 20, 2024 1:29:49 PM Attachments:image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you! You too! Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android From: Esmeralda aristeo <pequenaesme1@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 10:24:40 AM To: Nuemi Guzman <NuemiG@lawfoundation.org>; Tristia Bauman <Tristia.Bauman@lawfoundation.org>; Rebeca Lazo <rebeca.lazo@lawfoundation.org>; Luis Rodriguez <luis.rodriguez@lawfoundation.org> Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Alexander, Katherine <katherine.alexander@BOS.SCCGOV.ORG>; Erika Escalante <escalanteem3@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Regarding Buena Vista MHP Residents Hi Nuemi Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you. Residents really need help, we will keep in touch, have a great rest of the day. Kindest regards Esmeralda From: Nuemi Guzman <NuemiG@lawfoundation.org> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2024 5:30 PM To: Esmeralda aristeo <pequenaesme1@hotmail.com>; Tristia Bauman <Tristia.Bauman@lawfoundation.org>; Rebeca Lazo <rebeca.lazo@lawfoundation.org>; Luis Rodriguez <luis.rodriguez@lawfoundation.org> Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Alexander, Katherine <katherine.alexander@BOS.SCCGOV.ORG>; Erika Escalante <escalanteem3@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Regarding Buena Vista MHP Residents Hola Esmeralda, Thank you for reaching out. We have been trying to figure out capacity for the help you are requesting. We will have a more definitive answer my mid to late next week. I am happy to circle back with you once we have a final answer. And I apologize for the delay. Thanks, Nuemi Nuemi Guzman | Community Housing Advocate Supervisor| Housing nuemig@lawfoundation.org | p 408-280-2444 | f 408-293-0106 | intake 408-280-2424 4 North Second Street, Suite 1300 San Jose, California 95113 www.lawfoundation.org Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn & YouTube! Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by theattorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this communication (or an employee or agent of the intended recipient(s)who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient), or if you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and promptly delete this email, including any attachments, withoutreading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this email, including attachments is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not awaiver of any attorney/client or other privilege. Furthermore, any communication between the sender and recipient either by email or by voice does not create an attorney client relationship unless expressly created by both the attorney and therecipient. From: Esmeralda aristeo <pequenaesme1@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 9:18 PM To: Tristia Bauman <Tristia.Bauman@lawfoundation.org>; Nuemi Guzman <NuemiG@lawfoundation.org>; Rebeca Lazo <rebeca.lazo@lawfoundation.org>; Luis Rodriguez <luis.rodriguez@lawfoundation.org> Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Alexander, Katherine <katherine.alexander@BOS.SCCGOV.ORG>; Erika Escalante <escalanteem3@gmail.com> Subject: Regarding Buena Vista MHP Residents Dear Tristia, Nuemi, Rebeca and Luis I hope all of you are doing well, we don't have an answer yet regarding an email for legal advice for the mobile home inspection it was sent in 8/24/24. Erika send you a pictures for one of our residents that had the bad experience with the inspector who ripped her carpet, broken her tile, we didn’t have a response yet. We need help to negotiate with Housing Authority our new appraisal, about 12 or 15 residents did a new appraisal and it’s a higher price. Also we need help with our seniors who are owners and they going to get 1 bedroom , Housing Authority is offering an RV no a manufacture home, please let us know if you are going to help us with this, thank you. Kindest regards Esmeralda From:Tran, Joanna To:Council, City Cc:Executive Leadership Team; ORG - Clerk"s Office Subject:Council Consent Questions: 9/23/24 Date:Friday, September 20, 2024 1:28:10 PM Attachments:image001.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngimage006.pngimage007.pngimage008.pngimage002.png Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please view the following links for the amended agenda and staff responses to questions submitted by Council Member Tanaka: September 23 Amended Agenda Staff responses to Item 6 Best, Joanna Joanna Tran Executive Assistant to the City Manager Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From:Esmeralda aristeo To:Nuemi Guzman; Tristia Bauman; Rebeca Lazo; Luis Rodriguez Cc:Council, City; Alexander, Katherine; Erika Escalante Subject:Re: Regarding Buena Vista MHP Residents Date:Friday, September 20, 2024 10:24:56 AM Attachments:image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Nuemi Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you. Residents really need help, we will keep in touch, have a great rest of the day. Kindest regards Esmeralda From: Nuemi Guzman <NuemiG@lawfoundation.org> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2024 5:30 PM To: Esmeralda aristeo <pequenaesme1@hotmail.com>; Tristia Bauman <Tristia.Bauman@lawfoundation.org>; Rebeca Lazo <rebeca.lazo@lawfoundation.org>; Luis Rodriguez <luis.rodriguez@lawfoundation.org> Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Alexander, Katherine <katherine.alexander@BOS.SCCGOV.ORG>; Erika Escalante <escalanteem3@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Regarding Buena Vista MHP Residents Hola Esmeralda, Thank you for reaching out. We have been trying to figure out capacity for the help you are requesting. We will have a more definitive answer my mid to late next week. I am happy to circle back with you once we have a final answer. And I apologize for the delay. Thanks, Nuemi Nuemi Guzman | Community Housing Advocate Supervisor| Housing nuemig@lawfoundation.org | p 408-280-2444 | f 408-293-0106 | intake 408-280-2424 4 North Second Street, Suite 1300 San Jose, California 95113 www.lawfoundation.org Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn & YouTube! Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this communication (or an employee or agent of the intended recipient(s) who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient), or if you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and promptly delete this email, including any attachments, without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this email, including attachments is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege. Furthermore, any communication between the sender and recipient either by email or by voice does not create an attorney client relationship unless expressly created by both the attorney and the recipient. From: Esmeralda aristeo <pequenaesme1@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 9:18 PM To: Tristia Bauman <Tristia.Bauman@lawfoundation.org>; Nuemi Guzman <NuemiG@lawfoundation.org>; Rebeca Lazo <rebeca.lazo@lawfoundation.org>; Luis Rodriguez <luis.rodriguez@lawfoundation.org> Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Alexander, Katherine <katherine.alexander@BOS.SCCGOV.ORG>; Erika Escalante <escalanteem3@gmail.com> Subject: Regarding Buena Vista MHP Residents Dear Tristia, Nuemi, Rebeca and Luis I hope all of you are doing well, we don't have an answer yet regarding an email for legal advice for the mobile home inspection it was sent in 8/24/24. Erika send you a pictures for one of our residents that had the bad experience with the inspector who ripped her carpet, broken her tile, we didn’t have a response yet. We need help to negotiate with Housing Authority our new appraisal, about 12 or 15 residents did a new appraisal and it’s a higher price. Also we need help with our seniors who are owners and they going to get 1 bedroom , Housing Authority is offering an RV no a manufacture home, please let us know if you are going to help us with this, thank you. Kindest regards Esmeralda From:Serena Myjer To:Council, City Subject:Comments regarding Palo Alto Airport Long-Range Planning process Date:Thursday, September 19, 2024 4:54:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To the City Council of Palo Alto: My name is Serena Myjer and I am a former ecologist with Grassroots Ecology and aconcerned resident of San Jose. It has come to my attention that Palo Alto wants to expand the airport into the Baylands Nature Preserve. Growing up in Mountain View, I used to go to the Baylands Nature Preserve almost every week to enjoy being outdoors, bird watching, and hike. This space is an invaluable habitat island in a city of cement, one from which I have greatly benefited my whole life. Expanding the airport intosupposedly protected lands would be a major insult to Bay Area residents, migratory birds, environmental educators programs, golf course users, and hikers. It should behove you to know that wetlands are some of the most importantecosystems in our world! They are our natural defense against flooding and sea level rise. When floods come, wetlands act as a natural sponge, soaking up floodwaters, reducing damage to nearby buildings and saving lives. Putting a runway next to a wetland, introducing any new asphalt anywhere - within or outside of the airport property,puts neighborhoods and buildings next to this wetland at risk! Furthermore, coastal wetlandshave been demonstrated to be one of nature’s most potent sources of “blue carbon,” actingquicker and better at trapping organic carbon than forests and delaying carbon increases forlonger – providing an important natural tool for combating climate change. Finally, SanFrancisco Bay is a critical stopover point along the Pacific Flyway migration route ofshorebirds and waterfowl, with over one million birds visiting the Bay at the height ofmigration- making the Bay a site of “Hemispheric Importance” to migratory waterbirds.Expansion also threatens federally endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and Ridgeway’sRail. The airport has already impacted our neighborhoods through noise pollution and air pollution, we don't want more of it! Taking action that may intensify the operations and the number of flights at the airport, or allow larger planes to use the runways means increased carbon emission and lead (a neurotoxin!!) deposition on our Bayland andcommunities. The Baylands are crucial for education, recreation, and nature—let’s keep them intact! As ayoung person, I am scared. I am really scared about the impacts that climate change and the biodiversity crisis will have on our world and local communities. To adapt to this new reality, local governments, states, and the federal government need to embrace this threat and act. Show me that you care about my future, not cashing in on short termgains now. Please accept Alternative 1: No Action. So, you have a choice: Will you pave over a protected open space along thesouth San Francisco Bay, obliterate habitat, and put more people at risk from flooding and pollution, or will you protect these wetlands and expand ourwildlife refuge for future generations? Thank you, Serena Myjer -- Serena Myjer From:Serena Myjer To:Council, City Subject:STOP Palo Alto Airport Expansion Date:Thursday, September 19, 2024 4:45:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To the City Council of Palo Alto: My name is Serena Myjer and I am a former ecologist with Grassroots Ecology and a concerned resident of San Jose. It has come to my attention that Palo Alto wants to expand the airport into the Baylands Nature Preserve. Growing up in Mountain View, I used to go to the Baylands Nature Preserve almost every week to enjoy being outdoors, bird watching, and hike. This space is an invaluable habitat island in a city of cement, onefrom which I have greatly benefited my whole life. Expanding the airport into supposedly protected lands would be a major insult to Bay Area residents, migratory birds, environmental educators programs, golf course users, and hikers. It should behove you to know that wetlands are some of the most important ecosystems in our world! They are our natural defense against flooding and sea level rise. When floods come, wetlands act as a natural sponge, soaking up floodwaters, reducing damage to nearby buildings and saving lives. Putting a runway next to awetland, introducing any new asphalt anywhere - within or outside of the airport property,puts neighborhoods and buildings next to this wetland at risk! Furthermore, coastal wetlandshave been demonstrated to be one of nature’s most potent sources of “blue carbon,” actingquicker and better at trapping organic carbon than forests and delaying carbon increases forlonger – providing an important natural tool for combating climate change. Finally, SanFrancisco Bay is a critical stopover point along the Pacific Flyway migration route ofshorebirds and waterfowl, with over one million birds visiting the Bay at the height ofmigration- making the Bay a site of “Hemispheric Importance” to migratory waterbirds.Expansion also threatens federally endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and Ridgeway’sRail. The airport has already impacted our neighborhoods through noise pollution and air pollution, we don't want more of it! Taking action that may intensify the operations and the number of flights at the airport, or allow larger planes to use the runways meansincreased carbon emission and lead (a neurotoxin!!) deposition on our Bayland and communities. The Baylands are crucial for education, recreation, and nature—let’s keep them intact! As a young person, I am scared. I am really scared about the impacts that climate change and the biodiversity crisis will have on our world and local communities. To adapt to this new reality, local governments, states, and the federal government need to embrace thisthreat and act. Show me that you care about my future, not cashing in on short term gains now. Please accept Alternative 1: No Action. So, you have a choice: Will you pave over a protected open space along thesouth San Francisco Bay, obliterate habitat, and put more people at risk from flooding and pollution, or will you protect these wetlands and expand ourwildlife refuge for future generations? Thank you, Serena Myjer From:Nuemi Guzman To:Esmeralda aristeo; Tristia Bauman; Rebeca Lazo; Luis Rodriguez Cc:Council, City; Alexander, Katherine; Erika Escalante Subject:RE: Regarding Buena Vista MHP Residents Date:Thursday, September 19, 2024 4:30:27 PM Attachments:image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hola Esmeralda, Thank you for reaching out. We have been trying to figure out capacity for the help you are requesting. We will have a more definitive answer my mid to late next week. I am happy to circle back with you once we have a final answer. And I apologize for the delay. Thanks, Nuemi Nuemi Guzman | Community Housing Advocate Supervisor| Housing nuemig@lawfoundation.org | p 408-280-2444 | f 408-293-0106 | intake 408-280-2424 4 North Second Street, Suite 1300 San Jose, California 95113 www.lawfoundation.org Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn & YouTube! Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designatedrecipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this communication (or an employee or agent of the intended recipient(s) who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient), or if you believe that you have received this communication inerror, please notify the sender immediately by return email and promptly delete this email, including any attachments, without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this email,including attachments is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege. Furthermore, any communication between the sender and recipient either byemail or by voice does not create an attorney client relationship unless expressly created by both the attorney and the recipient. From: Esmeralda aristeo <pequenaesme1@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 9:18 PM To: Tristia Bauman <Tristia.Bauman@lawfoundation.org>; Nuemi Guzman <NuemiG@lawfoundation.org>; Rebeca Lazo <rebeca.lazo@lawfoundation.org>; Luis Rodriguez <luis.rodriguez@lawfoundation.org> Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Alexander, Katherine <katherine.alexander@BOS.SCCGOV.ORG>; Erika Escalante <escalanteem3@gmail.com> Subject: Regarding Buena Vista MHP Residents Dear Tristia, Nuemi, Rebeca and Luis I hope all of you are doing well, we don't have an answer yet regarding an email for legal advice for the mobile home inspection it was sent in 8/24/24. Erika send you a pictures for one of our residents that had the bad experience with the inspector who ripped her carpet, broken her tile, we didn’t have a response yet. We need help to negotiate with Housing Authority our new appraisal, about 12 or 15 residents did a new appraisal and it’s a higher price. Also we need help with our seniors who are owners and they going to get 1 bedroom , Housing Authority is offering an RV no a manufacture home, please let us know if you are going to help us with this, thank you. Kindest regards Esmeralda From:Palo Alto Forward To:Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Measure D Info Session - 10/21 Date:Thursday, September 19, 2024 1:55:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council and Planning Commissioners, We wanted to invite you all to a Measure D Info Session we are hosting with Stanford University at Backyard Brew at 10:30 a.m. on Saturday, September 21st. Our partners at theSilicon Valley Bicycle Coalition and Friends of Caltrain will be there as well. The Palo Alto Forward Board voted to endorse Measure D. It would mean a great improvement for bikes, pedestrians, transit vehicles, and drivers. We look forward to Saturday's discussion and hope you can make it! --Amie Ashton Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward650-793-1585**Want to be counted as a supporter of housing? Add your name here.** From:Palo Alto Forward To:Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Measure D Info Session - 10/21 Date:Thursday, September 19, 2024 1:19:47 PM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council and Planning Commissioners, I wanted to invite you all to a Measure D Info Session we are hosting with StanfordUniversity at Backyard Brew at 10:30 a.m. on Saturday, September 21st. Our partners at the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition and Friends of Caltrain will be there as well. The Palo Alto Forward Board voted to endorse Measure D. It would mean a greatimprovement for bikes, pedestrians, transit vehicles, and drivers. We look forward to Saturday's discussion and hope you can make it! -- Amie AshtonExecutive Director, Palo Alto Forward 650-793-1585**Want to be counted as a supporter of housing? Add your name here.** From:Amy Christel To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Why is the City not enforcing short term rental laws? Date:Thursday, September 19, 2024 10:44:11 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members and Mr. Shikada, While you all endorse more affordable housing and building of ADU’s that cramp neighbors and add cars to residential streets, you do nothing to clamp down on ghost houses that sitempty for years (as investments) or Airbnb and VRBO rentals—many of which are the same ADU’s you say help our housing supply. This is hypocritical and dishonest. There are at any given time, 20+ housing units available as short term rentals spread acrossevery neighborhood in Palo Alto—these are units that would house couples or families. I ask that you spend ten minutes searching these sites (VRBO and AirBnb) via the map of availableshort term rentals for any given dates and ask yourselves which is a ready solution to part of our housing crunch: 1. allowing costly new construction to densify our neighborhoods, that will not ever be trulyaffordable to people in desperate need, or, 2. enforcing bans on short term rentals that make existing homes and units unavailable to actual residents, instead of benefitting avaricious owners. These short term rentals drive up housing costs by charging more than an owner could ever getfrom a long term rental. They also hurt our hotels. Shocking, but did you know that people are renting out RV’s with no water or sewer hookup to desperate folks for over $100/ nite? Parked on our streets! Check out “California GoldenDream” on VRBO’s map near Fabian and East Meadow near 101. These RVs are an environmental and visual disaster and you still allow them. Greedy people are monetizing thisnegligence on the City’s part. Please stop pretending that we can only build our way out of a housing crunch while ignoring low hanging fruit—these owners should be fined, sued, and taxed until they return to a longterm rental policy. Nothing less than 6 mo! And ask neighbors to report ghost houses—we have a large new home on our street in Midtown that has been empty for at least 4 years. Shall I send you the address? Sincerely, Amy ChristelMidtown From:Esmeralda aristeo To:Tristia Bauman; nuemi; rebeca.lazo@lawfoundation.org; Luis Rodriguez Cc:Council, City; Alexander, Katherine; Erika Escalante Subject:Regarding Buena Vista MHP Residents Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 9:18:42 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Tristia, Nuemi, Rebeca and Luis I hope all of you are doing well, we don't have an answer yet regarding an email for legaladvice for the mobile home inspection it was sent in 8/24/24. Erika send you a pictures for one of our residents that had the bad experience with the inspector who ripped her carpet, brokenher tile, we didn’t have a response yet. We need help to negotiate with Housing Authority our new appraisal, about 12 or 15 residentsdid a new appraisal and it’s a higher price. Also we need help with our seniors who are owners and they going to get 1 bedroom ,Housing Authority is offering an RV no a manufacture home, please let us know if you are going to help us with this, thank you. Kindest regards Esmeralda From:Amy Christel To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Red Herrings at the Airport Study Session Meeting Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 9:03:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members and Manager Shikada, Thank you for your patience with public comments and your thoughtful consideration of the future of PAO. I agreed with the environmental and good neighbor concerns most of you voiced. However, I was alarmed that some of you were intrigued by the notion that lengthening the runway "just 100 ft" would be a “win/win” in reducing “go- arounds” and "carbon footprint". Do you realize that adding 100 ft to 2443 ft wouldencourage more PC12's, which only require 2485 ft of runway? I don't think that is what we want for the future of PAO. The pilot argued that a slightly lengthened runway would somehow reduce “go-arounds” and therefore reduce aircraft time in the region. He gave no data to describe the frequency of this “aborted landing” occurrence at PAO. Do they even collect that data? Likely not. You must know that the preponderance of flights at PAO are training "touch-and-go" ops (or “go arounds”). So how would one even know when a plane went around again due to a "slightly too short runway"? Perhaps a visiting pilot occasionally attempts a landing, but miscalculates and needs to take off again and “go around”? But, are we to believe that adding some a magic number of runway feet would eliminate that occurrence? Is there a slightly longerrunway at another airport that has zero “go arounds”? More likely, this was just a convenient anecdote to get Council to extend the runway and say it is reducing environmental impact—with no evidence provided. The comment that 100 ft might improve safety was also unsupported. One pilot posited that the Beech St crash would have been averted if only the runway had been longer--so unfounded. If you remember, the tower would not clear the plane for takeoff due to poor visibility at the time. So it was that pilot’s hubris that caused threedeaths and trauma for the people near the crash site, not the too-short runway. He went for it because no one can tell a pilot what to do. Really. The best way to reduce flight time over the area would beto eliminate flight schools, and only have traffic that actually goessomewhere. How much did our City pay the consultant who gave us this aviation-serving report? Did she even try to understand the history of our wetlands and parks? It seems not. Maybe she relied on Airport staff for that critical history and they all decided to ignore the natural environment? She should be sued for malpractice. Airport Managers present at meetings as bumbling “nice guys” with no purpose other than the perpetuation of the airport into the next century. For high paid managers they lacked supporting data and clarity. The greenwashing by airport advocates, to make the future airport sound like less of an environmental disaster, is just that. As Greer Stone pointed out, airplanes have a very long life span. Pilots love their old toys. Please don’t be hoodwinked into thinking the old dirty planes will be replaced by the new "less dirty" aircraft. First, go stand under an eVTOL and try having a conversation before considering bringing them to PAO! Do not let aviation consultants just tell you it’s all going to be great. I was told by Andy Swanson, back in 2014, that unleaded fuels were just a year or two away, and that as soon as the FAA approved one pilots would jump to use it. Here we are 10 years later, and 94UL accounts for 1% of fuel pumped there? It was said at the meeting that “not all planes could use 94UL”, but that was misleading—because most, if not all, of the “flight training” piston engine planes out there are able to use 94UL. They just don’t want to pay the $100 to file the papers for the certification. The putt-putt piston planes don’t need 100 octane either. It’s just a delay tactic and a rationalization for a dirty habit. Please, use whatever clout the City has to impose an additional flowage fee on leaded gas. Start with making leaded fuel $0.25 more/gal and track sales each month. If adoption isn't going up 10% each month, add another quarter to the price ofleaded fuel and keep tracking. Maybe that will motivate pilots to switch to the 94UL, and stop the environmental and social injustice they have perpetrated on this region. I did not go into last night's meeting with the idea of shutting down the airport as soonas the grant assurances (that currently bind us to FAA rule) allow. I supported Option 1, with no leaded fuel. But after listening to all the speakers, I have to say, closing the airport seems like the most righteous, sustainable, compassionate choice. Council should direct MollyStump to determine when we can be free of those FAA grant assurances, and then chart a path to shut it down. Put that to a vote. Other communities have shut down GA airports (like Santa Monica--slated to close in 2028). Stanford could have eVTOL for life flights and land them at the hospital, if those aircraft are "so quiet and clean"! Please don't try to "throw a bone" to pilots and bind us for generations to FAA rule. NO MORE FAA GRANTS! Thanks for your time and service to our City and our community. Sincerely, Amy Christel From:Samina Sundas To:Council, City Subject:Detailed information request regarding 9/11 funding Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 5:42:30 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Good evening Greer, I hope all is well with you and your family. Kindly send me an email regarding city’s decision to support American Muslim Voice Foundation on September 9th allocating $2000. For our annual multifaith peace picnic and prayer service and then on September 10 revoking that decision. I am requesting details about that decision please. Thank you? Samina Sundas Sent from my iPhone From:Bette To:Council, City Subject:Baylands Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 4:26:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. On Tuesday, September 17, 2024, 11:03 AM, Bette <betteuk@aol.com> wrote: Honorable Council Members: Thank you for your right action in regard to The Baylands and Palo Alto It is the perfect time with great attention placed there now to make a more ecologically safe environment for the ducks and other creatures who feed at the pond. I am imagining the City of Palo Alto Art Group headed by Elise DeMarzo might contribute the best “Do Not Feed the Ducks Bread” signs. Information on what best to feed instead might be included to enhanceeducational value. A more nurturing approach towards animals might make humans feel more cared for as well. A great small step forward in a violent world. Sincerely, Bette Kiernan Bette Kiernan, MFT betteuk@aol.com www.betteconsulting.com From:Thomas Hart To:City Mgr; Clerk, City; Council, City; City Auditor Subject:Flag of Palo Alto Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 2:39:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor of Palo Alto My name is Thomas I am autistic and I love Palo Alto It would mean the world if I had something to show my love and support for Palo Alto but I can't find anything to do so. It would mean so much if you could send me a flag to show support even a small one would mean everything to me. My address is 7 Cottington Close Cliffsend Ramsgate CT12 5GQ United Kingdom I wish you all the best Thomas Hart From:Diane McCoy To:Council, City Subject:Thank you thank you Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 1:03:43 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachmentsand clicking on links. Respectfully and with appreciation,Diane McCoy Sent from my iPhone From:Heather Hartman To:Council, City Subject:Steel grizzly Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 12:13:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Please do not allow this steel grizzly bear to be erected. The shiny steel will be a pile of rust within a few years. From:Heather Hartman To:Council, City Subject:Tesla Grizzly Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 12:06:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Please do not allow the steel grizzly bear to be built by Tesla. You can be fairly certain that the shiny steel will be rusted within a few years. From:Albert Henning To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto airport Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:44:15 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council members, Thank you for your questions at last night's meeting on the PAO expansion. I want to reiterate, and expand upon, the issues I made last night during the public comment section. My main concerns are lead pollution, emissions from combusted fossil fuels, and noise. Council should, in my opinion, try to achieve continuation of airport operations, ONLY IF elimination of lead pollution can be achieved, AND reductions in emissions and noise can be achieved, WITHOUT impacts upon the Baylands such as area reductions. Short of those goals, and despite the value of Angel Flights, the airport ought to be closed. Any expansion of operations which does not eliminate lead, reduce emissions, and reduce noise, while preserving parklands, should be taken off the table. I remind Council that, according to the City Budgets for FY2023 and FY2024 published on the City website, operations related to PAO created a deficit of $1.2M in FY2023, and $0.7M in FY2024. Citizens should NOT be subsidizing operations for what appear to be a group of stakeholders largely unconnected with either Palo Altoor its neighbor cities. As well, the social justice issues called out in last night's meeting pertain absolutely. The US Congress appears poised to pass legislation (SB 1939, Section 620) which will mandate unfettered availability of leaded avgas for any airport which accepts Federal funding. Discussion on this issue appears in the well-documented article in The Hill by attorney Stephanie Safdi on August 22 of this year. The article does not make clear, whether this mandate would apply to the City of Palo Alto, if ANY Federal funds are accepted by the City (regardless of whether they are directly related to PAO). City staff should clarify this point. Because, if the Sectionpertains ONLY to direct Federal funding (that is, the AIG and AIP funds which the City accepts from FAA, to the tune of roughly $540,000 each of the past two years), then the City has a way forward to preserve the airport, AND eliminate lead, reduce emissions, and reduce noise. That way forward is what I described in my brief remarks last night. The City can stop writing grant proposals to FAA. It can stop accepting Federal funding for PAO. (Note: a 20% increase in direct revenue [defined as Airport Fund line items 'Net Sales', 'Other Revenue', and 'Rental Income', as found in the CPA Budgets for FY2023 and FY2024], would replace the 'lost' funds represented by these FAA grants. I amconfident the flying community could handle such an increase; if it's a hardship for some users, then provisions can be made to subsidize, based upon ability to pay.) In that event, the City can then set its own specifications for fuel (zero-lead, electricity,hydrogen). Thereafter, if study demonstrates use of such fuels reduces the noise signature on a per-flight basis, then Council could consider further increases in the number of flights. Our community cannot tolerate INCREASE in aircraft noise; at worst, there must be no net increase. Council can also create a phase-in schedule for the changeovers. Council/Staff can also work with pilots and related interest groups, to find non-Federalfunding to effect the necessary engine changes, to meet the presumed zero-lead standards set by Council. In closing: airport stakeholders have benefited from subsidies from Palo Alto's citizensfor roughly ten years. In return, citizens of Palo Alto and neighboring cities have experienced increased noise, increased lead emissions, and increased emissions from avgas. The impacts are demonstrable, in our published budgets, and in the scientific literature; arguments by these stakeholders, that noise increases areincremental, or that operations pay for themselves, or that use of leaded fuels is unavoidable, are not supported by facts. In order to continue to enjoy the privilege of flying from PAO, these stakeholders should be willing to work with CPA and Council, to reduce their financial and health impacts upon the communities. Should they beunwilling, then the inevitable conclusion must be to close PAO. Sincerely, Albert K. Henning ======= Albert K. Henning, PhD From:Bette To:Council, City; DeMarzo, Elise Subject:Thank you! Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:03:48 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable Council Members: Thank you for your right action in regard to The Baylands and Palo Alto It is the perfect time with great attention placed there now to make a moreecologically safe environment for the ducks and other creatures who feed at the pond. I am imagining the City of Palo Alto Art Group headed by Elise DeMarzo might contribute the best “Do Not Feed the Ducks Bread” signs. Information on what best to feed instead might be included to enhance educational value. A more nurturing approach towards animals might make humans feel more cared for as well. A great small step forward in a violent world. Sincerely, Bette Kiernan Bette Kiernan, MFT www.betteconsulting.com Confidentiality Notice: The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information and may be legally protected fromdisclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply emailand then delete this message, and any attachments. From:Tavera, Samuel To:Council, City Cc:ORG - Clerk"s Office Subject:Palo Alto Airport Comments from 9/17/2024 Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 10:36:46 AM Attachments:image001.pngimage002.pngimage003.pngimage006.pngimage007.png20240916 Palo Alto Airport Comment letter for City Council.pdf Greetings City Council Members, Attached you will find a packet of comments about the airport item from last night’s meeting that were submitted by the public. Thank you! Samuel Tavera Administrative Associate III Office of the City Clerk P: 650.329.2882 E: Samuel.Tavera@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From:Marie-Francoise Bertrand To:Council, City Subject:Airport study Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 9:48:18 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please prioritize protecting health and the City’s natural environment. eVTOL is NOT a good idea to include in a preferred planning alternative. We have had to deal with incessant airplane noise for years, we don’t want any more proposals that totally disregard the health of citizens and their right to a basic quality of life Thank you From:Barbara Moss Keller To:Council, City Subject:Cinearts Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 9:41:26 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello City Council, Please support cinearts remaining as a movie theater or other recreational alternative. The latest thing we need is more office space we need recreation and retail. The vacancy rate is high, please be creative in your thinking to contribute to the restoration of Palo Alto as a city who is there for the people who live here. Please consider the residents as retail and recreational spaces have been bought and sold and permitted to developers who prosper at the expense of residents. Barbara Moss Keller From:Bob Lenox To:City Mgr Cc:Council, City; Eggleston, Brad; Swanson, Andrew; Andrew Pollack; Johanna Dolan; Zack Lenox; John Carlsen; Yaron Ekshtein; Rick Rairden; Gerry Barker; Lloyd Stephens; Chris Toeppen; Wolfgang Polak; Ben Hochman; Alice Mansell; Bernstein, Stuart Subject:PAO Fiscal Operations Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 9:33:56 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mr. Shikada, As I watched the video of last night’s Council meeting, in response to a question from council member Tanaka, Ibelieve you said the following:“The city has traditionally subsidized the operation of the airport.” (~2:03:00 into the YouTube video). The Airport Enterprise Fund, supported by users via rents and fees, is self sufficient.The money collected pays for all staff and operating costs, the balance being used for loan repayment and reserves. The General Fund has loaned the Airport Enterprise Fund money for Airport Improvement Projects and those loansare being paid back with interest. The Airport Enterprise Fund needed these loans due to the large capital outlaysrequired to repair and upgrade the facility when the City took back the airport from Santa Clara County in 2014. These outstanding loans are due to be repaid by 2034. I believe it is important to clarify that Palo Alto taxpayers do not subsidize the airport. It should also be noted thatsales and property tax revenues generated at PAO benefit both the general fund and our school district. If I have any of my facts wrong, please let know. Respectfully,Bob Lenox From:Lee Christel To:Council, City Subject:Airport "Go Arounds" my not be a beneficial as advertised Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 7:57:20 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council, I attended the CC meeting by zoom last night. There was an argument that a slightly longer runway (~100 ft) will reduce 'go-arounds' which are essentially aborted landings where the airplane has to 'go around' again and attempt a second landing and that eliminating these would be an environmental benefit. I am skeptical of this argument. You need to demand data (how often does this actually happen) to support this assertion and assess the magnitude of anyenvironmental benefit if it exists. The training flights (the majority of operations) already go around continuously so this 'improvement' would only apply to transient aircraft and I believe the incidence rate of these 'go arounds' is quite low so the environmental benefits are likely negligible. Please demand that the airport supply hard data on this before pursuing any lengthening of the PAO runway length. Thank you, Lee Christel, Ph.D. Midtown From:Michelle MacKenzie To:Council, City Subject:PA Airport Expansion Date:Monday, September 16, 2024 11:03:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City council members I write because I am extremely concerned regarding the proposed expansion at the Palo Alto airport which would potentially impact the Baylands Preserve. I am a birdwatcher, nature lover and amateur wildlife photographer. I visit the Baylands at least once a week and, sometimes, as many as five or six times a week to photograph birds. Doing so provides me with great joy and revitalization. My daughter (an older teen) visits the Baylands regularly. She sometimes comes to do homework. Whenever she is upset or needs to decompress, she heads to the Baylands. She has taken friends there for walks and picnics. They all leave with a newfound love of nature. It would be a tragedy to lose any of the Baylands to the airport. The runway should definitely not be moved closer to the wetlands as it is already far disruptive enough as is! It is hard to discern bird calls sometimes over the sounds of airplane engines. Please do not encroach on any other designated parkland, including the beloved golf course. In light of our increasing temperatures due to climate change, no new asphalt should be introduced anywhere - in or outside of the airport property. Likewise, in an effort to minimize the negative impact of the airport, please do not allow more flights, larger planes or any other intensification of operations at the airport. Thank you Michelle Mackenzie From:Samina Sundas To:Council, City Subject:A request from Samina Sundas Date:Monday, September 16, 2024 3:35:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear mayor, council members and city executives, I am deeply disappointed about what happened regarding our annual multifaith peace picnic and prayer service. This event is near and dear to my heart because we strive to change that horrible day into one of community and peace building. I was excited about the city supporting us after 21 years of our hard work but a call from a few rabbis changed this hope into despair. I would have hoped my city for over 40 years would be fair and live up to the American promise of first amendment, due process and equality. I am deeply disappointed in the manner this issue was handled by the city. I am asking the city to facilitate an expert panel to learn about the ongoing conflict in the Middle East and the root cause of this issue. My colleagues have from multifaith voices for peace and justice have sent you our statement and information regarding our event. Respectfully asking you to please include my message into the public record. Sincerely, Samina Sundas Sent from my iPhone From:Sophia Christel To:Council, City Subject:Regarding expansion of Palo Alto Airport Date:Monday, September 16, 2024 3:33:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, After reviewing the alternatives proposed for the expansion of the Palo Alto Airport, Istrongly believe the only conscionable choice is "no action." Supporters of the airport (almost exclusively pilots, almost exclusively wealthy) will say it provides an importantpublic health service through LifeFlights, but numbers regarding the number of those life- saving flights are not released to the public. Meanwhile, traffic at the airport is placing ahealth burden on all those unfortunate enough to live nearby and under flight paths for takeoff and landing. An increase in runway length will allow larger, noisier planes, more traffic, andcompounding effects on nearby communities. The health impacts of noise and exhaustemissions from airports are well studied and definitively negative. The touch-and-go loopsof training flights go directly over East Palo Alto, including over schools, subjectingfamilies and children trying to learn to a near-constant buzz of noise and pollution. Addinglarger planes like the PC-12 to the daily traffic will make this problem, particularly themind-rattling noise, much worse. Wealthy hobbyist pilots and executive passengers who usethe Palo Alto Airport are disproportionately impacting residents of historically red-linedneighborhoods that to this day house a higher density of lower-income residents and peopleof color compared to most neighborhoods in Palo Alto. To expand airport traffic and doubledown on this impact is, plain and simple, to commit an environmental and racial injusticethat unfairly prioritizes a few wealthy community members over those they leave behind onthe ground. I implore the Councilmembers to reject expansion of the airport, along with any future FAAgrants that would require growth to benefit a few at the expense of many. Sincerely,Sophia Christel From:Cheryl Oku To:Council, City Subject:Expansion of palo alto airport Date:Monday, September 16, 2024 2:34:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To the Palo Alto City Council: As a long time resident of Palo Alto, I urge you to protect the Palo Alto Baylands from Airport expansion. The potential noise pollution of an airport expansion would harm the health of the local community. The expansion would also threaten endangered species, such as the Ridgeway’s Rail. Expansion plans could block essential trails and disrupt recreational spaces The Baylands are crucial for education, recreation, and nature—let’s keep them inta Sincerely, Cheryl Oku From:Jeanne To:Council, City Subject:Airport Date:Monday, September 16, 2024 2:23:13 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello City Council, I hope you will NOT allow an expansion to the Palo Alto airport. My main point is that if there are planes(including the Pilates) using a runway that is not safe for that plane, then they should not use the Palo Alto Airport but find another local airport that is safe for it to take off and land. We can not accommodate all airplanes. And we should never allow chartered flights. We should protect our environment (the bay, wildlife, marshes and local residents) over convenience. We should absolutely require a quick transition to better(healthier) fuels. Thank you for the work you do to uphold Palo Alto’s climate objectives and safety. Sincerely, Jeanne Palo Alto resident Sent from my iPhone From:Larry Alton To:Council, City Subject:housing Date:Monday, September 16, 2024 1:22:40 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, We understand why Californians are frustrated by rising rents, but price controls on rents discourages investors from building new apartments, causes them to delay maintenance and encourages them to turn them into owner-occupied properties. Although it may lower rents for some tenants, rent control drives up the overall cost of rents in a city. Recent studies suggest it reduces housing supply by as much as 15 percent. A free market is the best way to have reasonable rents. Controling and monitoring rental details will result in higher rents in the long term. resident L Alton Larry Alton From:Henry Etzkowitz To:Bette Kiernan; Avroh Shah; Jeanne Fleming; Roberta Ahlquist; Brian Good; Lotus Fong; Palo Post; RebeccaEisenberg; Jim Hersh; Gennady Sheyner Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: environmental impact of aircraft on wetlands - Google Scholar Date:Monday, September 16, 2024 1:21:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I second neighbor Bette and draw policy implication: return Palo Alto airport to wetlands(option 6) and move general aviation to Moffett field where dual runways are available. “Ducks over planes” BestHenry Candidate for Palo Alto City Council “Put an innovation scholar on the city council of the homeland of innovation” Sent from my iPhone On Sep 16, 2024, at 1:07 PM, Henry Etzkowitz <H.Etzko@gmail.com> wrote:Hi Bette Suggest provide brief plain language summary with policy recommendation likeoption 6 close airport Best Henry Sent from my iPhone On Sep 16, 2024, at 8:33 AM, Bette Kiernan <betteuk@icloud.com>wrote:Bette Kiernan, MFT (650) 324-3639betteuk@aol.com www.betteconsulting.com Begin forwarded message: From: Bette Kiernan <betteuk@icloud.com> Date: September 16, 2024 at 8:31:15 AM PDTTo: city.council@cityofpaloalto.orgSubject: environmental impact of aircraft onwetlands - Google Scholar Honorable City Council Members: I respectfully request that you review the following paper which is easily available on Google Scholar It describesthe detrimental impacts of aircraft on wetlands. A vitally important environmental concern rests in your hands as expanded aviation into the Baylands is now onthe table Sincerely, Bette Kiernan <environmental impact of aircraft on wetlands - Google Scholar.jpeg> Bette Kiernan, MFT www.betteconsulting.com From:Lindsey North To:Council, City Subject:changes to PA Airport Date:Monday, September 16, 2024 1:04:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmembers, I live fairly near the airport on Jackson Drive and am very concerned about the possible introduction of eVTOL aircraft and the effect that would have on our neighborhoods and the Baylands. Please give careful consideration to the noise and traffic levels. Lindsey North From:Larry Alton To:Council, City Subject:Rent control and rent monitorinbg Date:Monday, September 16, 2024 1:02:28 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Coucil Members, Unfortunately, government construction restrictions have caused the housing shortages that drive up rent prices to absurd levels. We understand why Californians are frustrated by rising rents, but slapping price controls on rents discourages investors from building new apartments, causes them to delay maintenance and encourages them to turn them into owner-occupied properties. Although it artificially lowers rents for some tenants, rent control drives up the overall cost of rents in a city. Recent studies suggest it reduces housing supply by as much as 15 percent. A free market is the best way to have reasonable rents. Government attempts to control housing availability and control and monitor rents will result in higher rents in the long term. Larry Alton Larry Alton From:Larry Alton To:Council, City Subject:Rent control and rental monitoring Date:Monday, September 16, 2024 12:57:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Coucil Members, Unfortunately, government construction restrictions have caused the housing shortages that drive up rent prices to absurd levels. We understand why Californians are frustrated by rising rents, but slapping price controls on rents discourages investors from building new apartments, causes them to delay maintenance and encourages them to turn them into owner-occupied properties. Although it artificially lowers rents for some tenants, rent control drives up the overall cost of rents in a city. Recent studies suggest it reduces housing supply by as much as 15 percent. A free market is the best way to have reasonable rents. Government attempts to control housing availability and control and monitor rents will result in higher rents in the long term. Stop trying to manage rents and monitor rental details which drives up landlord costs and rents!!! Larry Alton