HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-27 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
Prepared for: 5/27/2025
Document dates: 5/19/2025 - 5/27/2025
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction
in a given week. 701-32
From:Tiny Home Lady
To:Council, City
Subject:Urge you to Rezone El Camino
Date:Tuesday, May 27, 2025 11:39:45 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello esteemed council members. As someone who has been an advocate for more housing inthe Bay Area for 7 years, I strongly urge you to revision and rezone the El Camino Real. After
visiting Europe recently and seeing how they live in smaller homes and in more centralizedareas Palo Alto and the El Camino with all it's access and urban could follow suit and create a
thriving area offering housing, commerce and community.
On a typical day, commuters traveling into Palo Alto account for approximately 6.6 millionvehicle miles, representing about 80% of the city's total daily VMT. This substantial figure
underscores the city's traffic challenges and the environmental impact of inbound commuting.
To mitigate these VMT challenges, Palo Alto has set ambitious targets within its Sustainabilityand Climate Action Plan (S/CAP). By 2030, the city aims to reduce total VMT by 12%
compared to 2019 levels. This includes a 20% reduction in commute-related VMT, a 10%decrease in visitor VMT, and a 6% cut in resident VMT. Additionally, the city seeks to
increase the share of active transportation (walking, biking) and transit use from 19% to 40%of local work trips.
My question is how are you going to achieve this without adding more housing? We can't
keep passing the preverbial challenge from one council to another we need to enact changenow and the rezoning of El Camino to allow for more housing and more community is where
to start.
Sincerely,
--
Lindsay Wood
Founder | The Tiny Home LadyCalifornia | (415) 378-8398
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
TheTinyHomeLady.comthetinyhomelady@gmail.com
Instagram | LinkedIn | Facebook Book Your Discovery Call
From:Thomas Agramonte
To:Council, City
Subject:Item 7: May 27 City Council Meeting
Date:Tuesday, May 27, 2025 10:58:35 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hello Palo Alto City Council,
On behalf of the Agramonte Family, a four-generation Palo Alto family and landowners of
2951 El Camino Real (ECR) and 470 Olive Avenue. We are writing regarding Agenda Item 7of the May 27th City Council Meeting. We ask the City Council to extend the Housing Focus
Area to include 2951 El Camino Real and adjacent parcels in the Housing Focus Areaexpansion, as recommended by the Department of Planning & Transportation. We encourage
you to collaboratively work with landowners, developers, and the community to find a balancefor the City of Palo Alto that respects the desperate need for housing by making guidelines
that support economically viable multifamily residential development.
I am 32 years old and grew up in this community playing sports and I do not have a singlefriend or teammate that can afford to live here. We need more housing to allow the people
who grew up in this community and who work and provide for this community, a place to livein this community.
We request the City of Palo Alto expand the Housing Focus Area on the East side of El
Camino to promote high-density multifamily development, which would include 2905 ElCamino, 2951 El Camino, 2999 El Camio, and 470 Olive (the “Project”). Implementing this
Housing Focus Area supports the City of Palo Alto’s Housing Element objectives, includinghigh-density multifamily housing located along transit corridors, within ½ mile of Caltrain,
and on underutilized sites.
We strongly recommend the City of Palo Alto implement a Housing Focus Area for the Eastside of El Camino, including this Project, in support of the Housing Element objectives to
create over 6000 new housing units by 2031
Thank you!
Best,
Thomas
From:Palo Alto Forward
To:Council, City
Cc:PAHousingElement
Subject:Item #7 - El Camino Focus Area
Date:Tuesday, May 27, 2025 10:50:38 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable Mayor Lauing and City Councilmembers,
Tonight's El Camino Real Focus Area expansion builds on the collaborative efforts betweenthe city and home builders that will bring large numbers of housing units online in the near
term. This rezoning of approximately 20 parcels will further shape El Camino Real into theGrand Boulevard envisioned for the last three decades!
Please ensure that the Focus Area becomes a housing success story for our city. We ask you to
consider the following in your motion:
The 45-degree daylight plane is adequate for neighboring residentialprotection. Experts on the ARB and city staff agree that this is the best option.
Eliminate dated-looking, prescriptive stepbacks for upper floors -- there is no
"canyon effect" to be wary of. A noticeable canyon effect only occurs when
buildings are significantly taller than the right-of-way between them. The El
Camino right-of-way (measured to the back of sidewalk) is over 100 feet in
every location considered for rezoning. Stepbacks are "water-proofing,fire proofing, unit-eating nightmares" and make for-sale condominium units all butimpossible to build. They also significantly shrink upper floor unit sizes.
We already have modulation, massing, window penetration, roofline, vertical andhorizontal break requirements; as well as texture, material, color, and pattern-changerequirements to articulate building facades as part of our city's objective standards. Weurge you to allow architects to be creative with design, instead of mandating a cookie-cutter building envelope with stepbacks.
Study extending the Focus Area zoning to more parcels. We crunched our
housing numbers below. These zoning changes are what make housing a
reality (as opposed to years-long PHZ rezoning processes). These Focus Area
zoning regulations are effective, and if we are serious about housing, we should
do even more!
This is a pivotal action in our city’s efforts to ease our massive housing shortage, whilesimultaneously addressing our climate crisis, supporting businesses on California Avenue andEl Camino Real with new customers, upgrading our aging rental housing stock, and fostering arenewed sense of vibrancy in Palo Alto.
Thank you for your consideration,--Amie AshtonExecutive Director, and on Behalf of the BoardPalo Alto Forward650-793-1585
From:Steve Levy
To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan
Subject:ECR focus area expansion
Date:Tuesday, May 27, 2025 7:11:14 AM
Dear Mayor Lauing, council members and staff,
I encourage you to go big on expanding the focus area. Please include Tiers 1 and 2 and the area around ECR and
San Antonio as it perfectly matches the criteria as the ARB noted.
With regard to development standards, please take note of stated concerns of potential applicants as noted in the
staff report.
While the city has a large pipeline, most of these projects are not moving forward.
On the other hand, several developers have expressed strong interest in ECR sites that when included can move
quickly with the focus area incentives.
I believe this will send a clear signal to residents and HCD that Palo Alto is serious about meeting our Housing
Element goals and promises
Thank you
Stephen Levy
Sent from my iPad
From:Sara Woodham-Johnsson
To:Council, City
Subject:Objection to City Involvement in Climate Resilience Conference
Date:Monday, May 26, 2025 10:30:08 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To the Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing as a concerned resident of Palo Alto to express my disappointment and frustrationregarding Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker’s participation, on behalf of the city, in the upcoming
conference on "Climate Resilience and Local Governmental Policy: Lessons from LA to TelAviv" being held at Stanford this week.
It is deeply troubling to see a representative of our city attending an event that purports to
address climate justice, while ignoring the consequences of Israel’s military actions that havedevastated Gaza’s environment, infrastructure, and people. The environmental consequences
of war—especially one involving the destruction and contamination of civilian water systems,agricultural land, and energy infrastructure—are profound and ongoing. Reported estimates
are that in the first 120 days of the conflict, over 650,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxideequivalent were emitted, primarily due to Israel's aerial bombardment and ground invasion.
This amount exceeds the annual carbon footprint of 26 of the world's most climate-vulnerablenations. It is impossible to speak seriously about climate resilience while ignoring the
environmental violence unfolding just miles from Tel Aviv.
Furthermore, the Council only recently adopted a formal policy to avoid involvement inforeign affairs, as reported on May 22, 2024. While this policy may be an attempt to
depoliticize our city’s stance, participation in this conference by our Vice Mayor is a politicalact—one that implicitly normalizes the actions of Israel. The decision is made even more
confusing by Palo Alto’s historic willingness to take moral stands on foreign issues, such as itsprincipled opposition to apartheid in South Africa.
This inconsistency undermines the credibility of both our city’s climate commitments and its
ethical compass. I call on Vice Mayor Veenker to withdraw from participation in this event inorder to maintain Palo Alto’s integrity and alignment with the values of justice, sustainability,
and nonviolence.
Respectfully,Sara Woodham
130 Bryant St732.768.7207 cell
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Genna.Yarkin@hklaw.com
To:Council, City
Cc:Ted O"Hanlon; Sarang (Sar) Peruri (speruri@oxford-capital.com); Yang, Albert; Arellano, Caio
Subject:Stakeholder public comment on Item 7 for May 27th Council agenda - SF Creekside LLC
Date:Monday, May 26, 2025 8:51:59 PM
Attachments:Creekside Letter to City Council 5-26-2025 FINAL.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Good evening Councilmembers,
On behalf of our client SF Creekside LLC, attached please find public comment on Item 7 on your
agenda for tomorrow evening, regarding proposed amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area
standards.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Genna Yarkin | Holland & Knight PRIDE
She/Her/Hers
Partner
Holland & Knight LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, California 94105
Phone 415.743.6990 | Fax 415.743.6910
genna.yarkin@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.com
________________________________________________
Add to address book | View professional biography
NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP ("H&K"), and is intended solely for the use of the
individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an
existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific
statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you
properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in
confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect
confidentiality.
This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, CA 94105 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910
Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com
Genna Yarkin
+1 415-743-6990
Genna.Yarkin@hklaw.com
Atlanta | Austin | Birmingham | Boston | Century City | Charlotte | Chattanooga | Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Fort Lauderdale
Houston | Jacksonville | Los Angeles | Miami | Nashville | Newport Beach | New York | Orlando | Philadelphia | Portland
Richmond | San Francisco | Seattle | Stamford | Tallahassee | Tampa | Tysons | Washington, D.C. | West Palm Beach
#522110181_v2
May 26, 2025
City Council of the City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301
Sent via email to: City.Council@PaloAlto.gov
Re: SF Creekside, LLC’s Stakeholder Comments on Item 7 Regarding Amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area
Dear Councilmembers:
We represent SF Creekside, LLC, an Oxford Capital Group-led joint venture (the “Applicant”) in
connection with its application to redevelop and revitalize the approximately 3.6-acre property at
3398, 3400, and 3490 El Camino Real (the “Property”), including work to demolish and replace several low-rise buildings with 295 residential units including 20% low income units, hotel use, and updating the existing structures to remain (the “Project”).
The Project is protected by the Housing Accountability Act (the “HAA”) inclusive of the
“Builder’s Remedy” and was also applied for under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (“SB 330”).
While the Applicant has used these processes to safeguard its rights under the law, the Applicant has a track record of listening to City feedback about development on this Property, much of which has shaped the Project as it exists today. The most significant feedback the Applicant has heard and implemented is to maintain the existing hotel use, proceeding with a mixed-use project. City
feedback also influenced circulation design – since 2022 the Applicant has shifted proposed
driveway access away from Matadero and instead placed this access on El Camino Real, resulting in a three-fold benefit to the adjacent R1 properties: (1) shifting the primary access, (2) maintaining the integrity of Matadero as a Safe Route to School, and (3) breaking up Project massing. The creation of this break is achieved by shifting the primary access to El Camino Real that splits the
residential and continued hotel uses. Finally, to address feedback about this Project potentially
creating a “food desert”, the Applicant is maintaining at least two existing food and beverages uses that will serve future residents, hotel guests, and the neighborhood.
The Applicant remains open to City feedback and specifically to transitioning its Builder’s Remedy Project to an alternative City process, so long as it is feasible and beneficial for both the
May 26, 2025 Page 2
#522110181_v2
City and the Applicant. Specifically, the Applicant team is hopeful that it may be able to use the El Camino Real Focus Area development standards while still providing the requisite low income housing, and taking advantage of the City’s “Streamlined Housing Development Project Review
Process.” We understand that the City has a preference for applicants to pursue this route, rather
than using the “Builder’s Remedy.”
On May 27th, the Council will be considering amendments to its Zoning Code and Building Regulations to modify the El Camino Real Focus Area. While the Applicant’s team is still evaluating overall feasibility of transitioning to the Focus Area standards for the Project, we have
identified four of the specific recommended updates that would certainly jeopardize the
Applicant’s ability to transition its Project away from the Builder’s Remedy.
On behalf of the Applicant, we therefore request that Council consider modifying these specific four items during its hearing on the 27th, or delaying its decision until a later date while it further considers our requested changes. Further details on each of the four items follow.
1. Daylight Plane – 60 Degrees Instead of 45 Degrees, or Consider Averaging/Allowing
Encroachments
We request that a 60-degree daylight plane be applied – this commonly used standard is critical to achieving enough residential units to maintain the economic feasibility of the Project. A 60-degree daylight plane has been utilized in the Project’s current site plan. Alternatively, we request that if
Council does impose the 45 degree requirement, that it consider allowing some mitigation factors,
such as: (1) that the daylight plane be averaged over a site; (2) that certain development features be permitted to encroach into the daylight plane; or (3) allowing a greater than 45-degree daylight plane even where a site is adjacent to R1 parcel, so long as the applicant can demonstrate negligible differences in solstice and equinox shadowing over the adjacent parcels.
For sites like this Property (and any others within the Focus Area that are similarly affected by the
Creek), there are development limitations already imposed by the Creek, and an additional 45 degree daylight plane would greatly compromise efficient utilization of the Property and others, including ability of this Project to meet parking requirements and usable open space requirements. The Applicant has thus far determined that without a 60 degree daylight plane, this Project’s Building A would lose 16 total units and also result in fewer 3 bedroom units. There is simply no
other space on this site to accommodate the density needed to maintain the Project’s feasibility.
2. Maximum FAR (Non Residential) – Modify/Reconsider this Restriction
Since receiving City feedback in 2022 to continue a hotel use on this Property, the Applicant returned with a formal application in 2024 with a mixed use, residential and hotel project that
follows the at least 2/3 residential requirement to qualify for HAA protections. As proposed, the
Project’s hotel component is a combination of new FAR and 2 reused buildings, and together encompasses less than 1/3 of the proposed FAR.
May 26, 2025 Page 3
#522110181_v2
However, the staff report’s proposal to limit non-residential use to underlying zoning (for this Property that translates to a 2.0 FAR and 50 foot height limit), would significantly reduce the proposed hotel FAR for this Project by 40%. As the Project’s feasibility is dependent on both the
residential and hotel uses (and City feedback thus far has been to maintain the hotel use), we
hereby request that the City consider one of a few options to modify this restriction.
First, the restriction on non-residential use could be narrowed to specific commercial uses such as office use (which we understand to be the intended target of this restriction). Hotel is an existing use on the Property, and an active revenue generator for the City. Hotel uses are also quasi-
residential in nature, offering transient habitation, thus not entirely a non-residential use of the
property, when compared to other non-residential uses. Forcing a dramatic reduction in the Project’s hotel use to qualify for use of the Focus Area standards, would not allow the Applicant to do its part to support expanded food and beverage offerings at this site either, as the assumption that such uses could be supported is underpinned by the proposal for a specific density of hotel
beds.
Alternatively, Council could reconsider imposing this requirement at all, and instead maintain the overall 4.0 FAR requirement for the Focus Area, perhaps while instead requiring a 2/3 residential to commercial balance, to better align proposals with the HAA while achieving the intent of this restriction.
3. Upper Story Step Back – Consider Alternatives to the 10 Feet
The staff report proposes a 10 foot step back at 55 feet in height – this will greatly reduce density, whereas other considerations, which could offer a wider variety of solutions while maintaining “objective” language, can provide similar visual variation but maintain density. For example, we estimate the 10 foot step back would reduce the Project’s unit count by approximately 4-5%, an impact that would effectively make the Project economically infeasible in this financial
environment. Further, when combined with a building taking advantage of the full, allowable 85’ limit beginning the step back at a relatively lower 55’ also results in an awkward building proportion.
Alternatively, to maintain needed density we propose that the City either (1) instead of imposing a one-size stepback, provide a menu in the Focus Area standards of specific design elements and
articulation methods that achieve visual breaks in the upper floors, such as balconies and other variations; or (2) imposing a stepback that is more shallow than 10 feet and that only applies if a building is higher than 5 stories, and only applies to the top 2 stories of any given project, because of the more harmonious proportions associated with the resultant upper and lower stories.
Finally, the City could consider relaxing this requirement where a building “reads” as transparent,
such as with the use of glazing, glass or otherwise open railings in upper stories. In the Applicant’s case, the Project designs can be enhanced to feel light despite its number of stories, through generous use of glazing and balcony articulation.
May 26, 2025 Page 4
#522110181_v2
4. Open Space
The Focus Area standard for open space of 100 square feet per unit is cumbersome. The Project has already incorporated very large balconies and decks, which add to building articulation across
El Camino Real as well as the sides and rear building facades. The Project goes out of its way to
maximize open space for the enjoyment of all residents by concentrating open space at the Creekside and on the ground level, and by pushing parking underground. We believe these qualities are worth far more than meeting an open space standard and will therefore be a more marketable and successful project when we dedicate project development area to private living
space.
Accordingly, we request that the Focus Area standards allow a “credit”, or usable open space reduction of 1:1 but no more than 50% of the total requirement, where improvements such as vegetated areas, park space, naturalized creeks, or other community areas are improvements made as part of a project. The intent of this language is to acknowledge that the Water District’s creek
will be naturalized as part of the Project (and any others on sites affected by the presence of the
Creek), and that this creates a public benefit and satisfies the intent of the open space requirement.
Thank you for considering our requests and the future of this Project.
Sincerely,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Genna Yarkin
Cc: Sar Peruri SPeruri@oxford-capital.com
Ted O'Hanlon tedohanlon@gmail.com
From:Leela Hebbar
To:Council, City
Subject:Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Titles 18 (Zoning) and 16 (Building Regulations)
Date:Monday, May 26, 2025 2:30:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi,I am writing in support of changing the zoning of the El Camino Real Focus Area to allow for
multi-family housing developments (i.e. apartments).
I especially support the creation of more units that are for sale to families. My family has beenrenting in Palo Alto for about 15 years because we cannot afford a house. But we probably
could afford an apartment. Families owning apartments is very common in European citiesand towns, and I wish it was more common here in Palo Alto.
Please support the change in zoning, encourage units for sale and/or a co-op model, and
to keep the units affordable do not require additional design requirements. The additionalrequirements would make building the housing more expensive.
Thank you for your attention to this important topic,
Leela Hebbar
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Aram James
To:Josh Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for CaliforniaDemocratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Ed Lauing; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen;Jeff Conrad; Gardener, Liz; Friends of Cubberley; Zelkha, Mila; Cribbs, Anne; Carina Merrick; board@pausd.org;Council, City; board@valleywater.org; BoardOperations; boardfeedback@smcgov.org; Doug Minkler; EmilyMibach; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; EPA Today; city.council@menlopark.gov; Nash, Betsy;dcombs@menlopark.gov; Lotus Fong; Roberta Ahlquist; Sean Allen; Pat M; Rose Lynn; sharon jackson; GennadySheyner; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Diana Diamond; Salem Ajluni; Cait James; Tim James; Marina Lopez;GRP-City Council; Clerk, City; City Attorney; Binder, Andrew; Reifschneider, James; Enberg, Nicholas; Bill Newell;Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov; Palo Alto Free Press; Ruth Silver Taube; Sheree Roth; Lori Meyers;frances.Rothschild@jud.ca.gov; Lee, Craig; Afanasiev, Alex; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Foley, Michael;Figueroa, Eric; Jensen, Eric; cromero@cityofepa.org; rabrica@cityofepa.org; Human Relations Commission;planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; h.etzko@gmail.com; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg
Subject:A regional cup final was abandoned on Sunday because the venue’s management allegedly objected to Palestine
flags in the stands.
Date:Monday, May 26, 2025 1:23:37 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Cup final abandoned as fans and players wave Palestine
flags
A regional cup final was abandoned on Sunday because the venue’s management allegedlyobjected to Palestine flags in the stands.
Source: Yahoo Sportshttps://share.google/vxCv75m7hYGQpyjRX
Shared via the Google app
From:Aram James
To:Binder, Andrew; Barberini, Christopher; Enberg, Nicholas; Perron, Zachary; DuJuan Green; dennis burns; SeanAllen; Wagner, April; Pat M; Jeff Rosen; Rose Lynn; h.etzko@gmail.com; Josh Becker;assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Vicki Veenker; Rowena Chiu;board@pausd.org; board@valleywater.org; Jay Boyarsky; Baker, Rob; Roberta Ahlquist; Lotus Fong;BoardOperations; Bill Newell; Friends of Cubberley; city.council@menlopark.gov; Nash, Betsy;dcombs@menlopark.gov; DNG Letters; Doug Minkler; Ruth Silver Taube; Ed Lauing; Reckdahl, Keith; Gerry Gras;Lu, George; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; GRP-City Council; Gardener, Liz;planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Human Relations Commission; Paul Bains;Afanasiev, Alex; Emily Mibach; Zelkha, Mila; Foley, Michael; Figueroa, Eric; Jensen, Eric; Lee, Craig;cromero@cityofepa.org; Cribbs, Anne; Dave Price; Angel, David; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader forCalifornia Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; boardfeedback@smcgov.org; EPA Today; Diana Diamond;District7@sanjoseca.gov; district1@bos.sccgov.org; Salem Ajluni; walter wilson; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov;Sheree Roth; Lori Meyers; Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov; Henry Etzkowitz; Bill Johnson;editor@almanacnews.com; editor@paweekly.com; Gennady Sheyner; Rodriguez, Miguel; Damon Silver; Stump,Molly; Shikada, Ed; MGR-Melissa Stevenson Diaz; GRP-City Clerk; Council, City; City Attorney;citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Clerk, City; Jose Valle; Vara Ramakrishnan; qy2103@columbia.edu
Subject:Re: A series on the damage police dogs inflict on Americans, published in collaboration with AL.com, IndyStar
and the Invisible Institute.
Date:Monday, May 26, 2025 12:32:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 12:10 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI: 2020 award-winning series a must see!!!
A series on the damage police dogs inflict on Americans, published in collaboration with
AL.com, IndyStar and the Invisible Institute.
Source: The Marshall Projecthttps://share.google/UZpeatIP5QugXD4K6
Shared via the Google app
From:Tom Harris
To:Council, City
Subject:In support of Rezoning Parcels on El Camino Real
Date:Monday, May 26, 2025 8:30:01 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to express support for the rezoning of El Camino Real to support housing development. In particularplease
Expand the proposed development standards to all the Tier 1 areas that can be accommodated within the currentEnvironmental Impact Report.
Lessen or remove the 10’ stepback above 55’ along the El Camino Real frontage. Stepbacks inefficiently consumemore land; require costly structural support,waterproofing, and fire rating; shrink overall unit count and unit size(i.e. force more, smaller studio units); and give buildings a “dated” look.
Remove the Hansen Way special setback for all projects, not just for hotels. A sidewalk, trees, and a protected bikelane already exist. This area should be made vibrant and useful.
Provide direction to staff to further study the remainder of the corridor (i.e., the rest of Tier 2, 3, and 4 parcels and470 Olive).
Thank you.
--
Rev. Tom HarrisPastor
First Presbyterian Church Palo AltoIf you need me urgently please call or text my cell phone. I check and respond to email less
frequently from Thursday evening to Monday.
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:matt@evolutionaryteams.com
To:fridaysforfuturepaloalto@gmail.com; palo-alto@fridaysforfutureusa.org
Subject:TWO Rallies in Sac This Tuesday 5/27
Date:Sunday, May 25, 2025 4:38:27 PM
Attachments:image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
There is an exciting opportunity to participate in two climate rallies in Sacramento THIS
TUESDAY 5/27.
1. Emergency Protect solar rally in Sac on 5/27, 12:30PM
2. Make Polluters Pay Rally in Sac on 5/27, 5:30PM
Details follow:
ITEM 1: NO on AB 942 UPDATE, Sac rally on 5/27, 12:30PM
I want to share with you an update on AB 942, the disastrous bill that will make housing with
solar more expensive. While it did get voted out of Assembly Appropriations, the number of
Democratic legislators laying off (not voting) was greater than usual, which further proves that
all of your calls to legislators have been paying off. Please continue as this bill is going to the
Assembly floor as early as next week.
Those of you who are based in Sacramento or have those in your network who are, there will be
a rally next Tuesday at the Capitol. Please see details below. Please let us know if you are
still able to attend:
Yes, I can make it on the 27th
Details of the event
Gathering time: Tuesday, 5/27, 12:30pm
Gathering location: Please arrive by 12:30 at the corner of 10th St and N St in Sacramento.
This message needs your attention
Some Recipients have never replied to this person.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
See photo below for the exact location that we will gather.
Parking:
· The closest parking lot is the Capitol Garage on 10th & L.
· If that is full, you can continue to Priority Parking at 830 L Street
· Another option is SP+ Parking at 770 L Street.
· The City of Sacramento now has a means to pre-reserve and obtain parking at a
discount ($10 for 4 AM to 6 PM). Go to https://www.parkwhiz.com, enter the address
of the 10th street garage—1125 10th Street. Once you pay you will get an email with
a link to a QR code. Use that code to enter and exit.
Attire, signs, etc: We will provide a placard for you to hold. Please dress in business casual.
No need for you to bring anything but your wonderful self.
Order of Events:
We’ll start the action by lining the street that all legislators walk along in order to go cast their
votes in the State Capitol. We will peacefully hold signs urging legislators to “Vote NO on AB
942” and “Don’t Break Solar Contracts!” These kinds of events are effective at amplifying
the thousands of calls these legislators will have already received on this highly controversial
bill.
After about 45 minutes, we’ll walk over to the State Capitol and help you briefly meet with your
legislator by “pulling them off the Assembly Floor.” This is a common practice among
professional lobbyists. It’s time to use it for regular voters. We’ll be there to help you do this.
12:30 Gather at 10th St. and N St. We'll give you a sign.
12:45 We line the street where legislators walk and wave our signs.
1:45 Meet with your legislators.
3:15 Finish
ITEM 2: Make Polluters Pay, Sac rally on 5/27, 5:00PM
Tuesday, May 27th, we’re gathering at the California Capitol to build the movement to Make
Polluters Pay -- and we need your voice in the crowd.
For decades, Big Oil Billionaires have lied to us about the harms of fossil fuel pollution while price-
gouging us at the pump and accepting billions of dollars in handouts from government subsidies.
But when it comes to paying for the clean-up from the climate disasters that fossil fuels cause?
The wealthiest CEOs in the world let the rest of us pay for the cost.
From historic floods to raging wildfires, Californian taxpayers are paying the billions it costs to
clean up and rebuild from climate disasters. Meanwhile, fossil fuel lobbyists are working overtime
to kill climate legislation—and the Trump administration is handing them the pen.
It doesn’t have to be this way. California can lead.
The Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act would require Big Oil to finally contribute to
recovery, resilience, and justice for frontline communities. We're rallying in Sacramento to
get this bill across the finish line and pass common-sense legislation to make polluters pay to
clean up their messes. Join us!
Tuesday, May 27th
5:00–7:00 PM
West Steps of the California State Capitol, Sacramento
RSVP Now!
Matt Schlegel
Schlegel Consulting
650-924-8923
Author: Teamwork 9.0
Website: evolutionaryteams.com
YouTube: youtube.com/channel/UCLkUMHuG4HVa831s9yeoZ5Q
From:Alexandra Konings
To:Council, City
Subject:Supporting easier housing development along El Camino
Date:Sunday, May 25, 2025 3:47:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,
As a College Terrace homeowner, I'm writing in favor of the proposed rezone of the parcelsalong El Camino Real, (item #7 on Tueday's agenda) expanding the Focus Area so that these
parcels can be used for housing. I support this rezoning in part because our city desperatelyneeds more housing to be built - so that it can be a place where all can afford to live, but also
to provide much-needed customers for Palo Alto's local businesses (including those alongnearby California Avenue).
As such, I hope the city council can make building housing in the new Focus Area as easy as
possible within the current Environmental Impact Report, including removing the specialsetback along Hansen Way.
Thank you,
Alexandra Konings
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Aram James
To:GRP-City Clerk; GRP-City Council
Subject:Watch "Tasers Forum Aram James" on YouTube
Date:Saturday, May 24, 2025 7:37:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
https://youtu.be/zxRyBZjY46s?si=_hDSt5fT9VNBdUK3
From:Wyatt
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Parking Citation 5/24 // blue Honda civic 8EUW621
Date:Saturday, May 24, 2025 6:24:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Wyatt <wyattlichtenger@gmail.com>Date: Sat, May 24, 2025 at 6:20 PM
Subject: Parking Citation 5/24 // blue Honda civic 8EUW621To: <pd@cityofpaloalto.org>
Hi,
Unfortunately, I really had to use the restroom and there was nowhere to park so I parked in ano parking zone next to the handicap spots next to Pizza My Heart.
I came out to “E. Mosque” serving a citation on my car, which in total accountability, is
completely my fault.
I am happy to pay the bail, but I just wanted to give you guys a heads up that after reading theVIN on my front windshield, he proceeded to punch my front car hood pretty hard.
I’ll go ahead and pay the bail, but I would ask that this be investigated internally, as I spent
$21,000 cash on that car and I am not very happy to see that a *community service officer*(not a police officer) for the city of Palo Alto (which I have been living in for 20 years) would
see fit as a mistake I made to take advantage of and damage my personal property.
I will send a picture if I find any damage, it just seems ridiculous that someone who issupposed to “protect and serve” (I guess not really since he’s not a real
Police officer) would attack my personal property of a resident of 20 years.
Thank you for talking to him about this.
I witnessed it first hand, unfortunately I did. Not have time to video it.
Maybe he was frustrated but there are much healthier ways to take out frustration.
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Hopefully, I don’t have to get my lawyer involved but I expect at the very least a response,compensation is not expected since I parked wrong.
Thank you! Feel free to email or call me!
Happy to stop by HQ next week if I don’t get a response, I live nearby, respectfully.
Best,
Wyatt Lichtenger
650-793-6200
From:Jeffrey Lu
To:Council, City
Subject:comment on 27-May agenda item 7 (El Camino Real)
Date:Saturday, May 24, 2025 4:15:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
City Council members,
We are writing to comment on agenda item 7 regarding rezoning several parcels on El CaminoReal for housing. Our household is supportive of rezoning to enable additional infill housing
in Palo Alto, particularly in job, amenity, and transit rich areas such as the El Camino Realcorridor.
Infill housing is an especially important tool as we continue addressing our housing crisis and
the negative impacts of decades of misguided planning decisions that have made living in theBay Area unaffordable for most. Infill housing is a smart way to provide additional housing
supply for those who work in or otherwise support our communities. Infill housing can helpsupport more vibrant neighborhoods for current or future residents, and is also important for
mitigating transportation and infrastructure impacts.
We urge the city council to move forward with rezoning parcels along El Camino Real forhousing without adding new requirements that make housing more difficult to build.
Thank you.
Lu Family
Midtown
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Evan Reade
To:Robustelli, Sarah
Cc:City Mgr; ParkRec Commission; Council, City
Subject:Re: Budget realities vs. Eleanor Pardee Park restroom proposal
Date:Saturday, May 24, 2025 2:59:34 PM
Attachments:image007.pngimage006.pngimage002.pngimage005.pngimage004.pngimage001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Sarah,
Thank you very much for your reply to my letter. I appreciate your responsiveness
and attention to my concerns. But I must admit I find it a bit surprising that that you
continue to cite the "community survey" as the leading justification for the addition of
restrooms to the park when you, yourself, admitted during the Parks and Recreations
Commission meeting on March 25 that the survey was not scientific, that there was
no way to determine who had completed it or many times individuals might have
replied, and that terms like "within walking distance" were completely undefined. Indeed, during the meeting at least two of the Commissioners noted these defects in
the so-called survey.
I will repeat what I have already noted several times: I am an immediate neighbor ofthe park and, other than my own self-initiated contacts, no one from the city has every
communicated with me by mail, by email, by phone, or in person to inform me or ask
me about the city's plans to install a restroom in the park. I assume that none of the
other park neighbors have been contacted either. This point was also made byanother nearby resident during the Parks & Rec Commission meeting who said that if
she had known about the survey she would have expressed opposition. The city
needs to make a real, not half-hearted, self-serving, effort to seek community input.
In addition, any survey circulated also needs to ask not just if it might be nice to havea restroom in the park but also whether people would support the restrooms even if
there existed the possibility that they would cause increased traffic, increased park
usage, long-term day usage, ongoing costs to the city, and possibly encourage RV
dwellers or others to congregate in or around the park neighborhood.
I think the city is on weak grounds if it is basing its decision - even partially - to move
forward with this project on what you are calling the community survey. If you can
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
show me evidence that the city has made a real effort to contact and poll members of
the neighborhood who will most immediately impacted by the installation of restrooms
and that the majority of them support the initiative, then I will accept the will of the
neighborhood and cease my opposition. But until then, I will continue oppose this
project on the grounds I have already cited.
Finally, I would like to note that I saw a letter from another interested person who
recommended the possibility of installing "temporary" or I assume "porta-potty" style
restrooms in the community garden. I think this is an option worth exploring, but thatif adopted, the restrooms should have locking devices that the community gardeners
have the combination or code to unlock. I would also think that the annual fees
charged to the community gardeners for use of the city-owned garden plots they are
permitted to tend would be increased as appropriate to at least partially offset the costof maintaining the facilities.
Again, many thanks for your hard work on behalf of the community and for
considering and responding to my concerns.
Sincerely,
Evan Reade
On Friday, May 16, 2025, 03:41:52 PM PDT, Robustelli, Sarah <sarah.robustelli@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Hi Evan,
Thank you for your continued engagement regarding the proposed restroom at Eleanor Pardee Park,and for sharing your concerns with the City Council, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and Citystaff. We appreciate your participation in this process and the time you have taken to voice yourperspective.
As you referenced, the City’s FY 2026 Proposed Capital Improvement Program includes funding for a
new restroom at Eleanor Pardee Park. This recommendation is based in part on the results of a
community survey, which received 1,171 responses. Of these, 82% supported the project, including
75% of respondents who live within walking distance of the park. Among supporters in the
neighborhood, nearly half (48%) strongly agreed that the restroom is necessary. We also acknowledge
that 18% of total respondents expressed opposition, and we understand that some nearby residents
remain concerned.
No final decisions have been made. A Park Improvement Ordinance will be required to move theproject forward. This ordinance will be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission at a futurepublic meeting, offering an opportunity for additional input and discussion before the project isconsidered by the City Council. Should the project proceed, further community engagement will occurduring the design phase.
In regard to your question about environmental review, the City will follow all applicable requirements
under CEQA as part of the standard approval process.
We understand your view that Pardee Park has served the neighborhood well without a restroom and
appreciate your comments regarding budget priorities, potential neighborhood impacts, and
community outreach. We also recognize the strong interest expressed by many residents in adding a
restroom to better support park users, especially families with young children and older adults.
City Council will carefully weigh all input and competing priorities before making any decisions
regarding funding allocations in the FY 2026 budget and Parks Improvement Ordinance. Thank you
again for your continued engagement on this matter.
Sarah
SARAH ROBUSTELLI
Division Manager Open Space, Parks, and Golf
Community Services Department
(650) 617-3518 | sarah.robustelli@paloalto.gov
www.paloalto.gov
From: Evan Reade <evanreade@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2025 4:56 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov>;
Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov>; Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@paloalto.gov>;
Reckdahl, Keith <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov>; Veenker, Vicki
<Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov>; Lu, George <George.Lu@paloalto.gov>; Lythcott-Haims,
Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>;
Robustelli, Sarah <Sarah.Robustelli@paloalto.gov>; ParkRec Commission
<parkrec.commission@PaloAlto.gov>Subject: Budget realities vs. Eleanor Pardee Park restroom proposal
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council:
First, thank you to those of you who have taken the time to speak with me personally since my
appearance before the Parks and Recreation Commission on March 25 and the Council on April 7
concerning my opposition to the installation of restrooms at Eleanor Pardee Park. I would like to make
several additional points further to those outlined in my letter to the Parks and Rec Commission,
copied to you, dated March 31, 2025.
On Monday, May 12, I observed your discussion of the city's proposed budget for FY2026. TheProposed Capital Budget mentions at pages 250-252 an intent to continue to install one new parkrestroom per year and notes that Eleanor Pardee Park is next on the list for FY2026. However, in yourdiscussions it became clear that given current economic conditions and uncertainties it may well benecessary to cut $6 million (out of a proposed $12 million) from the Capital Improvements Plan inorder to protect a needed reserve fund, particularly if the city wishes to continue to adequately fund thecritically important work being done by a number of non-profit organizations which receive city dollarsto implement programs with direct positive impacts upon various segments of our community.
The slides presented at last Monday's meeting indicated that to realize CIP reductions of 5,10 and 15
percent it would be necessary to evaluate proposed project timing with a priority to delay or defer
projects to manage funding availability and project prioritization. The slide also listed factors to be
considered in making such determinations. Might I suggest that the city can save $1 million right off
the bat by foregoing construction of a restroom at Eleanor Pardee Park? Even if one concedes that
this project is in the "nice to do" category (which I do not) rather than in the "must do" category, it is
clear that those funds can be better spent on other more pressing and necessary priorities, some of
which are ongoing and would be severely impacted if continued funding were to cease. Spend the
money where it is needed the most. Consider "luxury" or "nice to have" projects later.
I would also like to know whether the city has complied with or is planning to comply with therequirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") before proceeding with the EleanorPardee Park restroom project. It is my understanding that CEQA applies to projects requiringdiscretionary government approval, and this includes construction of new facilities like park restrooms. The city's decision to approve the construction of new park restrooms is clearly a discretionary action,as the city has control over the project's location, design, and construction methods. As I haveasserted in my earlier letters, the construction and operation of a new restroom in Eleanor PardeePark could have potential impacts on the environment in our neighborhood, such as increased traffic,increased waste generation, or changes to the park's and the neighborhood's aesthetics. If I amcorrect in assuming that CEQA applies, then the city must conduct an environmental review process,potentially including an Initial Study, an Environmental Impact Report, or a Negative Declaration. Hasthe city conducted or initiated such a process with regard to the proposed restroom at Eleanor Pardee
Park? And if not, when is the city planning on doing so?
Finally, let me reiterate the points I've made in my earlier letters:
Eleanor Pardee Park has served our community well for 100 years without a restroom.
For those parents who want to take their kids to a park with a restroom, Rinconada Park - with
two restrooms and with numerous other city maintained restrooms within close walking distance
- is less than half a mile away.
A restroom will change the park from one designed to serve the neighborhood into a regional
park.
A restroom will be expensive - perhaps $1 million to design and construct (according to a press
report I have read), never mind the ongoing costs required for daily maintenance (estimated in
the proposed budget at $9,000 per year).
A restroom could present public safety issues - vandalism, loitering, narcotics transactions - and
attract the unhoused.
The process of community outreach to date has been totally inadequate; the "survey" the city
did was hopelessly flawed and, to my knowledge (and I live right next to the park) the city has
not made any attempt to engage with those of us in the neighborhood who stand to be most
directly impacted by the addition of restroom in the park.
Thank you again for your time and willingness to engage with me and to listen to my concerns, which Iknow are shared by a number of other residents.
Sincerely,
Evan G. Reade
Sharon Ct.
cc: City Manager
Parks and Recreation Commission
Community Services
From:Phyllis Brown
To:Council, City
Subject:zoning changes for new housing
Date:Saturday, May 24, 2025 11:26:27 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear members of the Palo Alto CIty Council,
As a Palo Alto resident, I strongly support new City efforts to increase housing supply in
ways that will make living in Palo Alto more affordable for workers–teachers, firefighters,
police officers, and others in the service sector. I also believe it is important for the new
housing to be near public transportation and safe paths for biking and walking. I hope
rezoning will make it easier for quality, lower-cost housing to be built throughout the city.
The proposals and requests for amendments for building in the San Antonio Road Area, on
El Camino, and on Forest Avenue all are promising.
Modified zoning related to parking will be particularly important, but it must be accompanied
by improved public transportation options. Research showing that younger adults more
often than in the past prefer not to own cars should factor into decisions.
Attention to Palo Alto fire stations, vehicles, and staff will also be important since fire
dangers in new housing proposed will be different from current dangers.
Phyllis Brown451 Adobe Place
Palo Alto CA 94306pbrown@scu.edu
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Winter Dellenbach
To:Council, City
Subject:The Bay Area has hundreds of below-market rate apartments sitting vacant
Date:Saturday, May 24, 2025 9:56:50 AM
https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/05/18/moderate-income-housing-vacant/
Council Members - This is disheartening but not entirely surprising. Some developers in ourtown have presented proposals with so-called moderate rate units hardly less expensive than
their market rate dwellings.
Please read and then be thoughtful about this issue.
Thanks -
Winter Dellenbach
From:Betty Howell
To:Council, City
Subject:The Commons
Date:Friday, May 23, 2025 7:19:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Channing House - 850 Webster -Palo Alto, California
May 23, 2025
Dear Mayor Lauing and members of the Palo Alto City Council,
As a Channing House resident I attended the City Council meeting on May 5. I
listened, as you did, to neighbors protesting housing for seniors and feltpatronized by speakers who assured us they were most respectful of elders,just not these elders and making room for them.
I sincerely support The Commons request to add 16 new units. The owners andmanagers, to their credit, have made a number of changes requested by
neighbors 2 years ago. None of the protestors acknowledged any changes, the
same voices from 2 years ago told the same, sometimes incorrect, story.
As a Channing House resident, I know how important the services The
Commons offers are essential for the aging who need more than respect.
Please consider the future of our city. We are all aging, that is the future.
Optimistically,
Betty Howell
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Aram James
To:Reckdahl, Keith; Vicki Veenker; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, AssemblyDistrict 23; Josh Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Zelkha, Mila; Gennady Sheyner; EmilyMibach; board@pausd.org; Bill Newell; BoardOperations; board@valleywater.org; h.etzko@gmail.com;<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Human Relations Commission; Daniel Kottke; Doug Minkler; RobertaAhlquist; Rose Lynn; Sean Allen; sharon jackson; Pat M; Lotus Fong; Linda Jolley; Lori Meyers; Sheree Roth;Salem Ajluni; Sameena Usman; Gardener, Liz; Lu, George; Nash, Betsy; dcombs@menlopark.gov; Clerk, City;Council, City; city.council@menlopark.gov; Perron, Zachary; Binder, Andrew; cotton.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org;City Attorney; Stump, Molly; Ruth Silver Taube; GRP-City Clerk; GRP-City Council; Cribbs, Anne; Lee, Craig;cromero@cityofepa.org; Ruben Abrica; Ruth Silver Taube (rsilvertaube@scu.edu); Donna Wallach; Don Austin;Yolanda Conaway; Dave Price; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Friends of Cubberley; Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov;Burt, Patrick; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Raymond Goins; Angel, David; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan; EdLauing; Rowena Chiu; Drekmeier, Peter; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Conrad; Jay Boyarsky; Roberta Ahlquist; Baker, Rob;Afanasiev, Alex; editor@almanacnews.com; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Re: Vote NO on AB715
Date:Friday, May 23, 2025 6:21:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 9:02 AM AROC Action <campaigns@arocaction.org> wrote:
Dear Aram James,Thank you for making your voice heard.
A copy of the email you sent is included below. Please encourage everyone you know to visit bit.ly/ab715 to do the same.
AROC Action
I am writing to you today to express my strong opposition to AB 715 (Zbur & Addis).
This is a dangerous bill that seeks to silence Palestinian and Arab histories and perspectiveson one of the most pressing issues of our time: Gaza and Palestine.
As noted at the May 14 Assembly Education Committee hearing, and in a recent SF
Chronicle article (bit.ly/sfcab715), this bill is deeply flawed and fails to include a concretedefinition of antisemitism, which is guaranteed to lead to its politicization and
weaponization, similar to what we are seeing at the federal level by the TrumpAdministration.
Additionally, the bill changes the definition of nationality, employs a mechanism to
facilitate right-wing style book bans, and will lead to the targeting of teachers and schoolboard members on allegations of weaponized antisemitism.
The murders in DC this week underscore the urgency of disentangling antisemitism from
anti-Zionism, and we must all work together to end this cycle of violence and recrimination.Stopping hate requires us to have difficult and complex conversations at our educational
institutions, and AB 715 strips us of our democratic ability to do so. I urge you to standagainst censorship and attacks on freedom of speech and critical thinking in California
public education. Vote NO on AB 715.
Sincerely,Aram James
From:Sven Thesen
To:Council, City
Cc:Avroh Shah; Debbie Mytels; Bruce Hodge; David Coale; Matt Schlegel
Subject:Benzene & natural gas stoves; more info on benzene & cancer rates = Not Good!
Date:Friday, May 23, 2025 5:27:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Good people on City Council,
Since I spoke roughly 2 weeks ago at the city Council meeting regarding natural gas stovesand it's toxic emissions within the house, a new study has come out that, depending on the
house and operation of the stove, air hood, windows etc, the cancer risk is between double and12 times that for children.
Given the city utility is supplying this fuel to our residences, the utility has a civic (and
potentially legal) duty to alert and educate our residents of the risks.
Study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389425009021?via%3Dihub
See this diagram from the study
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0304389425009021-ga1_lrg.jpg
Best,Sven
--
Sven Thesen, 415-225-7645EV Consultant & Founder, ProjectGreenHome.org and BeniSolSolar.com; Wonder Junkie
"Under the Trump administration, America is retreating from hard power, surrendering softpower, and yielding economic power. Is this what greatness looks like?" David A. Graham,
The Atlantic __________________________________________________
How California Is Keeping Electric Vehicles Out Of Reach For Apartment-Dwellers
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Carolyn Schwartz
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing
Date:Friday, May 23, 2025 4:42:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,The most serious need in our community, if we are to continue to have enough workers to
support us, is housing. And, perhaps, our children and/or grandchildren would like to live heresomeday!
I write in support of the additional 16 units at The Commons. I attended the City Councilmeeeting (my first time!) on May 5th and listened to the arguments pro and con. While I
sympathize with some of the owners nearby, I don’t believe their arguments have enoughmerit to convince me. Some of the claims that neighbor groups made were not true, but they
kept repeating them anyway. Yes, the managers of the Commons need to continue to workwith neighbors on their issues, but it seems they have already made a number of
accomodations to improve their project. I often drive up East Meadow on to El Camino Wayto El Camino and have not seen the parking problems they describe. What I do see is a mess
of traffic backed up to the Goodwill and beyond, due to Keyes School parents waiting to pickup their children. That is a real traffic mess that should be addressed.
But this issue on your agenda is mainly about housing, and the reality is: we need more
housing, we need more senior housing, and these 16 units will help a little. We have SO muchmore to do.
Thank you for your consideration,
Carolyn Schwartz55-year resident of Palo Alto
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:David Boyce
To:Council, City
Subject:Walk sign broken at Sand Hill and ECR
Date:Friday, May 23, 2025 4:16:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello. Caltrans says they fixed this but pedestrians and cyclists cannot safely cross El CaminoReal at the bridge.
I called to say they had not fixed it. They said they'd send someone to fix it. That was two
days ago.
At what time, it was working every other cycle. Today it skipped three cycles. I crossed at theshopping center, but I saw a woman walk out into Friday afternoon traffic turning left on to
ECR from Sand Hill.
Maybe one of you can light a fire under these good-for-nothing bureaucrats at Caltrans.
Thanks for reading this.
Dave Boyce Menlo Park
PS. In upgrading the bridge they made a mess of the bike/pedestrian path along Palo Alto
Ave. It doesn't look like they're going to leave things at least as they were.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Susan Hartzell
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Housing item on May 27 agenda
Date:Friday, May 23, 2025 4:04:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To Members of the City Council:
I strongly support efforts to increase the housing supply in Palo Alto. Housing near transportation, jobs, and shopping is particularly important.
So is streamlining the process so that construction can begin and housing become availablesoon.
Our neighboring communities can do it. We should too!
Sincerely,Susan Hartzell
Susan and Harry Hartzell850 Webster Street Apt 430
Palo Alto, CA 94301
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Katherine Remsen
To:Council, City
Subject:The Commons
Date:Friday, May 23, 2025 3:26:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I attended the meeting on May 5th. It was made clear to me that it is important to add 16 unitsto the Commons. I live in senior housing and the wait to get into my retirement house is now
3-5 years. It is obvious that we need more housing in this area. Much of the informationprovided by those who opposed the project, was not true. Please vote to add the 16 units to
the Commons. Thank you for your consideration, Katherine Remsen
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Mildred jones
To:Council, City
Cc:Patty Irish
Subject:The Commons
Date:Friday, May 23, 2025 2:54:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
This letter is written in support of the request made by The Commons to
expand their capacity to meet much needed services. It is clear that the
demographics of the area suggest an aging population is growing and
providing excellent care is essential; The Commons has been doing so for
many years.
On May 5, 2025, I attended my first ever meeting of the City Council to be
better able to understand the issues . It was quite clear that objections to
the expansion had been addressed .
There did not seem to be objections raised that should result in a denial of
the request to make a well thought out expansion of The Commons.
As a resident of Channing House for six years, I am keenly aware of the
needs of the elders in the community. My life is enriched because of the
support and care I receive. And, I know that The Commons meets that
same standard of excellence.
I urge you to approve the request for expansion of The Commons.
Thank you.
Mildred Jones
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Tom Martin
To:Council, City
Subject:PA Commons - yes
Date:Friday, May 23, 2025 2:31:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,I urge you to vote for the Commons addition of 16 units which is greatly needed forfailing older residents of our city. There are not enough of these kinds of places in
our town. I was at the last meeting when it was not voted on and I see no
significant problems with the plan. This council needs to produce more housingunits for Palo Alto.Thank you for your support.
Tom Martin
Tom.J.Martin@gmail.com
Tom Martin
850 Webster St. Apt 807Palo Alto, Ca 94301Home phone 650-324-7489
Cell phone 650-404-7842
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Deborah Goldeen
To:Council, City
Subject:Zoning Changes for El Camino Real
Date:Friday, May 23, 2025 2:14:12 PM
If I was a betting woman, I’d wager that council will approve the requested zoning changes unanimously. I assume
discussion in mandatory, but the proposed changes are so overwhelmingly positive and so long overdue, you all
could probably skip the discussion and nobody would bat an eye.
My personal sentiment is that I am embarrassed for our city. I feel, when it comes to housing and to housing people,
we could have done a lot better. Hopefully, for the sake of the people who are going to have to live there, the
apartments that will be built will have ample, secure bike parking, are finished on their interiors with compounds
that contain a minimal amount of volatile organic compounds so that they aren’t toxic, and have robust sound
proofing.
Thank you for considering, Deborah Goldeen, Birch St., 94306
From:A M
To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board; Switzer, Steven
Subject:Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Project and Rental Practices
Date:Friday, May 23, 2025 1:19:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
To the Architectural Review Board and City Council,
This letter addresses concerns regarding a proposed project that,
while potentially a wonderful idea, presents two essential problems
that need to be addressed before moving forward.
First, the reputation of the company responsible for renting
apartments within this project is not great. As of today, VRENT holds
a Google rating of 2.7 stars from 79 reviews. This indicates a
significant number of renters have had negative experiences, which is
a serious concern for any new housing development in our city.
Secondly, the city needs to implement effective rent control measures
before we can trust in huge new projects that could further impact
housing affordability. Without such protections, large developments
risk exacerbating existing housing challenges for current and future
residents.
Sincerely,
Grant D.
From:Meri Gruber
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for rezoning of El Camino Real
Date:Friday, May 23, 2025 1:14:37 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council,I am writing in advance of your meeting on Tuesday, May 27, 2025, item # 7.
As a longtime resident of Palo Alto, I support the rezoning of El Camino Real for housing
because it’s a necessary step toward a more inclusive, sustainable, and vibrant community. ElCamino is a major corridor with access to transit, jobs, and services—exactly the kind of place
where housing makes sense.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Best regards,Meri Gruber
4123 Briarwood Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Joy Sleizer
To:Council, City
Subject:The Commons
Date:Friday, May 23, 2025 10:30:16 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members,
I am Joy Sleizer & have lived in Palo Alto since 1962. For the last 13 years, I have
lived at Channing House.
I urge you to support the addition of 16 units at The Commons.
I attended the May 5 Council meeting & heard the negative concerns of neighbors
& friends of neighbors.
The Commons is locally owned, and has made changes to
accommodate the neighbors concerns, including hiring a valet service & opening
the garage to visitors. I'm not sure the comments I heard on May 5 took into accountthe changes that have been made. I am hoping you have notes from previousmeetings that will help you make an informed decision.
Being a Sr citizen & living at Channing House, I am acutely aware of the need forhousing for those folks who need AL & Memory Care.
Thank you for serving on the City Council!
Respectfully yours,
Joy Sleizer
850 Webster Street Apt 706
Palo Alto, CA 94301650-324-7425650-353-4481 cell
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Stephen Reller
To:Council, City
Subject:16 Additional units at Palo Alto Commons
Date:Friday, May 23, 2025 9:06:01 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Mayor Lauing and City Council,
We, Palo Alto Commons, are proposing to add 16 senior assisted living units to anexisting residential care facility for the elderly. This would increase the total units
from 121 to 137, less than a 15% increase. The increase in total square footage
would be less than 5%. 9 of the proposed units would be along the property line we
share with our Wilkie Way neighbors.
The original proposal was for 18 units all located along the Wilkie Way side of the
building, some of which would have projected into the setback and the daylight plane.
The current proposal includes a reduction from 18 units to 16 and the removal of anyprojections into the daylight plane or setback. To further alleviate privacy concerns,
we have removed some balconies and reduced or otherwise altered windows facing
the neighbors. Additionally, we have consulted with our neighbors and landscape
designer about how best to preserve and/or create privacy for our residents and ourneighbors (privacy is a concern on both sides of the fence.)
Like I mentioned the other night at the council hearing, you will likely never hear aboutanother multifamily proposal with fewer impacts than this project, especially having to
do with traffic. The neighbors have come out against this project primarily due to the
perceived traffic it will add to the neighborhood. The addition of 16 units for individuals
that don’t drive, plus the addition of 1-2 employees and periodic visitors to thoseresidents, will not add a noticeable number of additional car trips to the area spread
throughout the day.
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
That being said, we have heard our neighbors loud and clear. While we cannot
attempt to manage the traffic and parking issues caused by other businesses on El
Camino Way - The Goodwill, the two pet hospitals, the ongoing construction project,
the five restaurants, the child care center, etc. - we are doing our part at Palo Alto
Commons to make a difference.
Before hearing from our Wilkie Way neighbors, we did not have any sort of
parking policy. It was simply the way it has been for 35 years. We have sinceimplemented the following measures to reduce car trips and better utilize our onsite
parking.
Comprehensive Transportation & Parking Initiative – Actions Implemented
Parking Policy – Staff, Resident Families, and Visitors
1. Redesigned Parking Lot Zoning
o Clearly designated and labeled parking areas for:
§ Staff
§ Resident families/visitors
o Improved signage to minimize confusion and misuse.
2. Color-Coded Parking Decal System
o Issued color-coded decals to staff and visitor vehicles for identification
and enforcement:
§ Staff: Specific color & assigned location
§ Visitors: Limited-time decals or designated visitor zones
o Logged decal assignments to track compliance.
3. Visitor Parking Management
o Reserved easily accessible spaces for family and visitors.
o Instructed front desk staff to monitor visitor parking during peak hours.
o Valet service implemented at the front entrance Monday–Friday, 8:00AM–4:30 PM, to assist family members and visitors with parking andimprove accessibility. This is an incremental cost to us of $85k per year.
4. Parking Policy Communication
o Policy updates shared in staff meetings, shift huddles, and posted in breakrooms and common areas.
o Visitors and families informed via welcome packets, signage, and postednotices.
Staff Transportation Program
6. Revised Staff Participation Agreement
o Created a concise, one-page agreement covering:
§ Parking expectations
§ Use of alternative transportation
§ A new clause requiring completion of the Staff TransportationLog per shift.
7. Staff Transportation Log
8. Required log-in of transportation method (carpool, public transit, walking,
biking, etc.).
o Logs made accessible at all time clocks.
8. Sustainable Transportation Incentives
o Rolled out recognition and rewards (e.g., gift cards, public
acknowledgment) for staff who use:
§ Public transit
§ Carpools
§ Biking/walking
These incentives represent an additional cost to us of $140k per year.
9. Supervisor Oversight
o Department heads assigned to perform random checks on staff parkingcompliance and transportation log entries.
o Monthly review of patterns and participation.
10. Training & Awareness
· Staff education on:
o Proper parking zones
o Importance of accurate transportation logging
o Respecting visitor/family space
· Visitor/family education included in orientation and communication materials.
Additionally, if the parking situation on Wilkie Way and beyond is truly a problem, our neighbors can apply
to the city for a RPP. We would fully support this and believe it would be the most effective way to prevent
overflow parking from ALL of the businesses on and around El Camino Way.
The need for these units, and many more, is unquestionable. There will be many
more thousands of Palo Altans in their 80s in the coming years and many of them will
need the services that Palo Alto Commons provides. 16 units is a drop in the bucket
but every drop counts. Thank you for your consideration.
Steve Reller
Palo Alto Commons
From:Aram James
To:Reckdahl, Keith; Vicki Veenker; Lauing, Ed; Josh Becker; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for CaliforniaDemocratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov
Cc:h.etzko@gmail.com; Binder, Andrew; Enberg, Nicholas; Emily Mibach; EPA Today; Dave Price; Diana Diamond;
Lotus Fong; Gardener, Liz; Roberta Ahlquist; Sean Allen; Rose Lynn; sharon jackson; Pat M; Gennady Sheyner;
Cait James; Tim James; Doug Minkler; Marina Lopez; Ruth Silver Taube; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Bill
Newell; Human Relations Commission; Jeff Conrad; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Baker, Rob; Raymond Goins;
Daniel Kottke; Angel, David; Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Nash, Betsy;
dcombs@menlopark.gov; Clerk, City; Council, City; City Attorney; molly.o"neal@pdo.sccgov.org; Lu, George;
Blackshire, Geoffrey; Jasso, Tamara; Lee, Craig; Cribbs, Anne; Anna Griffin;
planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Zelkha, Mila; ParkRec Commission; cromero@cityofepa.org;
rabrica@cityofepa.org; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; board@pausd.org; BoardOperations; board@valleywater.org;
The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
Subject:Exonerating them of culpability is cowardly or mendacious, or both of these
Date:Friday, May 23, 2025 8:58:26 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Exonerating them of culpability is cowardly or mendacious, or both of these
https://share.google/wOoaUgttWRvh29duI
Shared via the Google app
From:Aram James
To:Sean Allen; Rose Lynn; sharon jackson; Pat M; Kaloma Smith; Binder, Andrew; roberta ahlquist; Baker, Rob;Perron, Zachary; ladoris cordell; Nash, Betsy; Bill Newell; dcombs@menlopark.gov; GRP-City Clerk; Council, City;City Attorney; city.council@menlopark.gov; Clerk, City; chuck jagoda; Barberini, Christopher; Dave Price; EmilyMibach; Gennady Sheyner; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Damon Silver; Rodriguez, Miguel; Ruth Silver Taube;Raymond Goins; Vara Ramakrishnan; Gardener, Liz; Burt, Patrick; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov;cromero@cityofepa.org; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Mickie Winkler; Afanasiev, Alex;h.etzko@gmail.com; Greg Tanaka; Drekmeier, Peter; Daniel Kottke; Lotus Fong;planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Veenker, Vicki; Reckdahl, Keith; Josh Becker;assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Lee, Craig; Ed Lauing; Rowena Chiu; Don Austin; Yolanda Conaway
Subject:The media treads lightly in marking the fifth anniversary of George Floyd"s murder
Date:Friday, May 23, 2025 7:56:12 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
The media treads lightly in marking the fifth anniversary of George Floyd’s murder
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2025-05-23/george-floyd-fifth-
anniversary-media-coverage
From:Laura Bowser
To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer; Yang, Albert
Subject:First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (May 27, 2025 - Agenda Item #7)
Date:Thursday, May 22, 2025 5:41:38 PM
Attachments:SHP Letter re ECR Focus Area - May 22 2025.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Councilmembers of the City Council,
Please see attached for our comments regarding the amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area
under consideration at Tuesday’s meeting.
Best,
Laura
Laura Bowser
Sand Hill Property Company
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Tel. +1 650 344 1500
This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
018002.0006 4914-2961-9005.6
May 22, 2025
Jonathan Lait
Director, Planning & Development Services
Email: Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org
Councilmembers of the City Council,
City of Palo Alto
City.Council@PaloAlto.gov
Jennifer Armer
Asst. Director, Planning & Development
Services
City of Palo Alto
Email: Jennifer.Armer@CityofPaloAlto.org
Re: Ordinance to Amend El Camino Real Focus Area (City Council Hearing May 27, 2025
– Agenda Item 7)
Dear Jonathan, Jennifer, and Councilmembers:
On behalf of Sand Hill Property Company (SHP), I am writing regarding the pending amendments
to the El Camino Real Focus Area regulations and area boundary. As you know, SHP has a
longstanding working relationship with the City and is committed to delivering high quality
projects that help achieve the City’s goals of both delivering more housing while also preserving
and providing a home for the vibrant R&D and technology communities.
SHP currently ground leases from Stanford several properties within the Stanford Research Park,
including the three contiguous sites addressed at 3300 El Camino Real, 607 Hansen Way and 811
Hansen Way. 3300 El Camino Real is within the existing El Camino Real Focus Area boundary,
whereas the 607 Hansen Way and 811 Hansen Way sites next door are currently outside of the El
Camino Real Focus Area.
For the last several years, SHP has spent considerable efforts and resources on developing a
feasible mixed-use housing project proposal for the 3300 El Camino Real site. In connection with
the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element, SHP worked with the City to successfully include 3300 El
Camino Real as a housing opportunity site under the Housing Element’s housing inventory list.
We have engaged a design team to develop a project proposal that would maintain the allowable
0.4 FAR of office development in the Stanford Research Park (this being one of the few remaining
undeveloped parcels in the City), while also incorporating new housing opportunities that will
contribute to the City’s regional housing allocation goals.
We greatly appreciate the City’s current efforts to update the El Camino Real Focus Area standards
to improve the feasibility of delivering housing, as well as Staff’s work in engaging with the
development community to better understand and respond to the existing El Camino Real Focus
Area constraints.
2
We largely support the proposed revisions to the El Camino Real Focus Area development
standards as reflected in the draft Ordinance. However, as detailed in this letter, there are
several outstanding issues related to both development standards and the on-site BMR
requirements that affect the feasibility of delivering a viable mixed-use project. We
respectfully request that these issues be addressed in the Ordinance currently being
considered by the City Council.
Option to Pay BMR In-Lieu Fee
The El Camino Real Focus Area was created to incentivize the development of housing along the
El Camino Real corridor, which is well-served by transit and amenities. However, the current
ordinance imposes a 20% on-site BMR requirement at low-income (LI) rents, with no option to
pay an in-lieu fee, unlike all other areas of the City. Not affording the option to pay an in-lieu fee
disincentivizes housing development within the El Camino Real Focus Area, including at 3300 El
Camino Real, because projects cannot achieve financial feasibility while providing 20% of their
units at LI rents.
Mandatory 20% BMR on-site requirements without any option to pay an in-lieu fee have been
repeatedly deemed infeasible by Bay Area cities. This is especially true in the current economic
environment in which residential projects are already struggling with high interest rates, record
high construction costs and lack of funding. We are not aware of the City conducting any feasibility
analysis that demonstrates the viability of a 20% BMR on-site requirement in today’s economic
climate, nor do we believe that such a finding could be made.
Multifamily rental developments in the remainder of the City – everywhere other than the El
Camino Real Focus Area – are able to pay a BMR in-lieu fee per PAMC Chapter 16.65 Citywide
BMR Affordable Housing Requirements (i.e., 15% of units for projects on sites less than 3 acres,
such as the 3300 El Camino Real site), as opposed to providing BMR housing on-site. Unlike
developments in the remainder of the City, El Camino Real Focus Area projects also forgo the
right to use the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) to utilize concessions and waivers to reduce
residential project costs of expensive development and open space standards. Under the SDBL, a
project including 20% LI units would qualify for two concessions and unlimited waivers.
Restricting El Camino Real Focus Area developers from utilizing the SDBL while also imposing
a 20% on-site BMR requirement effectively imposes a double penalty that will likely prevent
residential projects from moving forward and will inadvertently undermine the City’s present
efforts to incentivize development within the El Camino Real Focus Area.
We understand that the ECR Focus Area’s 20% on-site BMR requirement was originally adopted
to provide an alternative to many builder’s remedy projects, which at the time required 20% LI
units on-site. However, under recently passed State law, builder’s remedy projects now only need
to provide 13% of units as LI. The state law allows jurisdictions to adopt more restrictive
affordability requirements for builder’s remedy projects if they provide an analysis indicating that
the more restrictive standards do not make projects financially infeasible. Rather than conducting
such an analysis to see whether the more restrictive affordability standards were feasible, the PTC
recommended reducing the required BMR requirement for builder’s remedy projects to 13% LI to
match the statewide standards. This leaves only projects attempting to follow the Focus Area
standards to bear the burden of providing 20% of their on-site units at BMR rents with no
3
confirmation from the City that this set-aside is financially feasible. We support the City’s goal of
providing a greater level of affordable housing, but request that it at least allows projects to pay an
in-lieu fee to meet the BMR requirement. If the City decides that BMR units must be provided on-
site, we request that the BMR requirement for code-compliant projects be made the same as
builder’s remedy projects at 13% LI to hold Focus Area sites to the same standard.
We appreciate the City’s recommendation to exempt BMR units themselves from development
fees. This is consistent with other cities’ fee policies and is a policy that the City should apply to
all sites that provide any percentage of affordable housing as a means of incentivizing on-site
affordable housing. Unfortunately, this change alone has a minimal impact on the feasibility of
building housing projects within the El Camino Real Focus Area when there is a 20% on-site BMR
requirement.
We respectfully request that El Camino Real Focus Area standards be revised to allow for
the option of paying an in-lieu housing impact fee consistent with the City’s PAMC Chapter
16.65 Citywide BMR Affordable Housing Requirements, as allowed in the remainder of the
City, rather than mandating 20% BMR units on-site. This change would make housing
projects feasible and more likely to move forward, while still contributing to the City’s
affordable housing goals. If the City decides that BMR units must be provided-onsite, we
request that the BMR requirement for code compliant projects be made equal to builder’s
remedy projects at 13% LI. Leaving the 20% on-site BMR policy threatens the viability of
projects and the entire policy of promoting housing in the Focus Area.
Further Revisions to El Camino Real Focus Area Development Standards
We request that the City Council consider the following revisions to the Ordinance in connection
with the other proposed updates to the El Camino Real Focus Area development standards.
These changes are particularly important given that all applicable El Camino Real Focus Area
standards – including the City’s Objective Design Standards (PAMC Chapter 18.24) – cannot be
otherwise modified by using SDBL waivers and concessions that other housing development
projects utilize because the Focus Area program prohibits the use of the SDBL.
1. Clarify Height Limits for Nonresidential Uses
We appreciate staff addressing the Ordinance’s ambiguity on which height limit applies to
nonresidential uses within a mixed-use project. To qualify as a “housing development project” that
can take advantage of the Focus Area standards, two-thirds of the total area of the mixed-use
project must be dedicated to residential use. Staff has also interpreted the base zoning FAR 0.4:1
for 3300 El Camino Real as continuing to apply to office uses. We agree with these restrictions on
office area as long as the height limit of nonresidential uses is set at a minimum of 50 feet to allow
for additional residential to be produced on site. If 3300 El Camino Real instead had to abide by
the 35-foot height limit of the RP zone, nonresidential uses would need to build wider to achieve
4
0.4 FAR, covering more of the lot area and thereby reducing the lot space available for housing
development. Less lot area for housing development means less housing units can be built on site.
Additionally, we request that rooftop occupancy be permitted beyond the imposed height limit to
allow for more outdoor space. This does not impact the overall building bulk and provides office
tenants an increasingly sought after area to gather more safely post-COVID, both formally and
informally.
We support the El Camino Real Focus Area allowing nonresidential uses to build up to at
least 50 feet and further encourage the City Council to allow rooftop occupancy above the
height limit to promote the provision of outdoor amenity space.
2. Remove Hansen Way Special Setback
We strongly support the removal of the 50-foot Hansen Way special setback. We urge City Council
to reincorporate the removal of the setback into the El Camino Real Focus Area zoning
amendments after the issue was tabled by the PTC. The existing setback is no longer necessary,
and should be removed. Removing the Hansen Way special setback will facilitate more housing
on 3300 El Camino Real and will result in better street frontage activation at the corner of El
Camino Real and Hansen Way, consistent with the El Camino Real Focus Area goals.
Unless the Hansen Way setback is removed, developing the corner of El Camino Real and Hansen
Way at 3300 El Camino Real will be infeasible, reducing the amount of lot area available for
development on site. As depicted in Figure B-2 of the staff report, there is an existing utility
easement running diagonally across 3300 El Camino Real that cannot be relocated. If the 50-foot
setback along Hansen Way is maintained, development between the easement and Hansen Way
will not be feasible due to the constrained buildable area, leaving the corner of Hansen Way and
El Camino Real undeveloped. If the setback is removed, 3300 El Camino Real can develop the
area between the easement and Hansen Way rather than having the street corner remain vacant.
Removing the setback would facilitate the addition of 50 housing units or a retail component to
the corner of El Camino Real and Hansen Way.
The Hansen Way setback was originally envisioned to provide for bicycle connectivity along
Hansen Way through the Stanford Research Park. However, Hansen Way already includes an
existing Class IIb buffered bicycle lane that provides a safe bike path for bicyclists. The City’s
pending Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update shows that the existing Class IIb
buffered bicycle lane would be maintained, indicating there is no further need for the extensive
50-foot setback.
To avoid delaying forward progress on the redevelopment of 3300 El Camino Real, we
respectfully request that the Hansen Way special setback be removed in the proposed
Ordinance, rather than deferring this decision to a future date.
3. Clarify No Below Grade Setbacks
We also strongly support staff’s recommendations to establish rear and interior side yard setbacks
that allow for RP zoned sites within the El Camino Real Focus Area (such as 3300 El Camino
5
Real) to better utilize available site area to deliver housing. However, in a multi-building, mixed-
use context as is proposed for 3300 El Camino Real, it is important that these rear and interior side
yard setbacks not be applied to below-grade parking structures.
To accommodate adequate parking for both the contemplated office and residential uses on the
Property, it is likely that the proposed project will incorporate below-grade parking. Application
of the rear and interior side yard requirements to the below-grade structure would considerably
reduce the below-grade buildable area, limiting parking and therefore housing, yet it would not
serve a purpose since there would be no visible structure in the setback area.
As such, we respectfully request that the Ordinance clarify that the proposed rear and
interior side yard setbacks do not apply to below-grade structures.
Request for Future Incorporation of 607 Hansen and 811 Hansen Way Properties into El
Camino Real Focus Area
Lastly, as the City continues to consider expansion of the El Camino Real Focus Area in a
future study, SHP requests that the properties immediately adjacent to and south of the 3300
El Camino Real site at 607 and 811 Hansen Way be included in the Focus Area to facilitate
development of housing on these sites.
Given that these sites are contiguous with 3300 ECR and are located at similar distances from El
Camino Real as other sites already included in the Focus Area, it would be appropriate to include
both additional sites. While these sites are located adjacent to R-1 zones, those lower density
residential sites are already proximate to existing office development and the transition to mixed-
use or higher density residential would be an appropriate land use transition in these locations.
However, to allow for existing housing proposals, including 3300 El Camino Real, to proceed at
this time, SHP supports staff’s suggestion that the further El Camino Real Focus Area expansion
be considered separately from the current proposed Ordinance to allow for any necessary CEQA
review to proceed on a separate timeline.
* * *
Thank you for your time and attention to these issues. We look forward to continuing to work with
Planning staff and decisionmakers to implement these refinements to the El Camino Real Focus
Area development standards, all in the aim of creating a more vibrant, diverse and sustainable El
Camino Real corridor.
Sincerely,
Laura Bowser
Director, Development
Sand Hill Property Company
From:matt@evolutionaryteams.com
To:fridaysforfuturepaloalto@gmail.com; palo-alto@fridaysforfutureusa.org
Subject:FFF Follow Up from May 16 (Week #175)
Date:Thursday, May 22, 2025 4:47:12 PM
Attachments:image003.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking onlinks.
i
During these abnormal times, having a normal Friday Climate Strike was quite refreshing – normal, yet quite eventful. Ingrid gave the land
acknowledgement -- we are on unceded lands of the Muwekma Ohlone and we bear a responsibility to live in harmony with the land and all life on our
shared planet. She next shared how she is practicing having discussions about the climate crisis with those only now awakening to our collective
predicament. Thanks, Ingrid, for everything that you are doing.
Christa shared her dismay that so many organizations providing aid in Africa have lost funding and are struggling due to the dismantlement of USAID. She
is working to find alternative funding sources to keep those efforts alive. Thanks, Christa, for working to plug those funding holes.
Rick is pleased with the leadership that Yale, his alma mater, is demonstrating on climate and continues to stay connected with and support Yale’s
climate activities. Thanks, Rick, for boosting their climate leadership.
David continues to support Carbon Free Palo Alto and works on reducing the biggest component of carbon emissions in our community,
transportation emissions. He is working with the city of Palo Alto and Third Thursday to entice more people to ride their bikes to these community events.
One technique that he suggests is for organizers to provide a reward (free snack, cool sticker, sustainable merch, etc.) to anyone who shows their helmet.
We can socially engineer our way to lower emissions and healthier lifestyles! Thanks, David, for all your efforts.
George is reading Ingrid’s book and is enjoying hearing the diverse perspectives of the people that she interviewed. George is inspired by the different
approaches to climate action that each activist takes. We all need to be doing everything, everywhere, all at once, so there is no wrong approach!
Thanks, George, for sharing your thoughts on Ingrid’s book and thanks to Ingrid for writing it!
Robin is alarmed at the news coming out of Antarctica. Its glaciers are melting much faster than previously thought, sea ice is disintegrating, sea ice
extent is at record lows, the current encircling Antarctica is being disrupted, and wildlife and food chains are struggling as their stable habitat disappears.
It is truly a hot mess. Thanks, Robin, for keeping our attention on this climate bellwether.
Brigetta injected some humor quoting Rahm Emmanual who said that Trump’s corruption would make Al Capone blush. Specifically, she points to how
Trump’s crypto coin provides an easy mechanism to transfer money surreptitiously to Trump in exchange for favors. Of course, you could also just
openly give him a Palace Plane. No more rules, no more lines, the sky’s the limit! Thanks, Brigetta, for highlighting Trump’s abhorrent corruption.
Matt is by encouraged the rise in people engaging in ritualized protest. Palo Alto has long had regular weekly protests, Women's International League
for Peace and Freedom with their weekly Silent Vigil for Peace & Justice, Fridays For Future’s Climate Strike, and Vigil4Gaza. Now we also
have multiple weekly Tesla Takedown actions, Bannering 101, and monthly Stand Up for Science and Sanity Rallies. Even Rachel Maddow is
promoting ritualized protest as an important strategy to stand up to fascism and the kleptocratic, authoritarian takeover of our nation. Here’s her video
and here’s an article on the topic she that she promoted.
Jeralyn, a long-time climate superhero, came to hang out and share her concerns about the turn our nation is taking. We reminisced about Jeralyn’s many
climate actions, and David noted that she is in the Top 1% of activists – those willing to be arrested. As a biologist, she is horrified by the attack on
science. Thanks for coming, Jeralyn, we appreciate all you have done and for just showing up.
Mimi joined us and we discussed Sen. Josh Becker’s bill SB540. The law would allow for the creation of an expanded western electricity market
overseen by a regional organization (RO), an independent entity with specific protections for individual state policies and the public interest. Mimi worries
that the legislation would take away control of California’s grid from the people and hand it to the bill’s backers, Big Tech companies who will influence
the RO to ensure they have power for their data centers. David, on the other hand, notes that we need a more robust and resilient grid to move off of fossil
fuels and electrify everything. On Monday, the bill did NOT move out of the Appropriations Committee – it is in Suspense waiting for a fiscal analysis on its
impact to the state budget. Thanks, Mimi and David, for the lively debate!
As we wrapped up, we encountered Councilmembers Pat Burt and Keith Reckdahl in King Plaza and took that opportunity to encourage them to
endorse as individual elected officials the Make Polluters Pay bill. Councilmember Burt even suggested that we have the City of Palo Alto endorse the
bill – great idea, Pat! Please contact Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov and Keith.Reckdahl@PaloAlto.gov and let them know that you, too, would like them to
endorse the bill and have the city endorse the bill.
This message needs your attentionSome Recipients have never replied to this person.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Carol is lining up another terrific Stand Up For Science and Sanity (SUFSAS) Rally on June 6 at 5PM in Lytton Park, where she wants to continue
highlighting the impacts that cuts to Medicaid will have on our community. You can hear two brief speeches on the topic from the last rally here and here.
Thanks, Carol and to the Media Team, Emma and Joanna, for all you are doing to create and promote these rallies.
The Tesla Takedown Wolves and Indivisible Palo Alto Plus are keeping up the energy at the weekly Tesla Takedown Rallies. We are having a blast
out there, getting more creative and theatrical with each rally. Scott, one of the organizers, will speak at the next SUFSAS Rally. But don’t wait until then
to meet him - come to Stanford Shopping Center at Noon this Saturday and join in the fun. Thanks to all the Wolves and to IPA+! Check out a brief video of
last week’s Wednesday protest here. For upcoming actions, look here: https://www.mobilize.us/ipaplus/.
The Bannering 101 Team made 600,000 vehicular impressions in May with action in Belmont, Menlo, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Gatos. Well
done, team! Please sign up for the next action here, or contact: bannering101@gmail.com.
Meanwhile, we will see you Friday at noon in King Plaza! It is GO TIME! See you out on the streets.
Keep Up the Fight!
STAND UP! FIGHT BACK!
Upcoming Events
Friday, May 23, Noon to 1:00: Climate Strike! –– We meet at King Plaza in front of Palo Alto City Hall.
Every Wednesday, 4 to 6PM: Palo Alto Protests Elon Musk’s Illegal Government Takeover on Wednesdays at the Tesla Showroom, 4180 El
Camino Real. https://www.mobilize.us/ipaplus/
Every Saturday, Noon to 2PM, Tesla Showroom at Stanford Shopping Center: Palo Alto Protests Elon Musk’s Illegal Government Takeover.
https://www.mobilize.us/ipaplus/
Every Saturday, see link for time, Tesla Showroom, 4180 El Camino Real . Palo Alto Protests Elon Musk’s Illegal Government Takeover.
https://www.mobilize.us/ipaplus/
Friday, May 30, Noon to 1:00: Climate Strike! –– We meet at King Plaza in front of Palo Alto City Hall.
Friday, June 6, 5PM to 7PM: Stand up for Science and Sanity –– We meet at Lytton Plaza for the rally followed by a performance by Mitchell
Park Band. https://www.scienceandsanity.org/
Friday, June 13, Noon to 1:00: Climate Strike! –– We meet at King Plaza in front of Palo Alto City Hall.
Saturday, June 14, 3 to 5PM: No Kings! Democracy Fair in Rinconada Park –– Organized by Indivisible Palo Alto Plus.
Palo Alto City Meetings: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/City-Clerk/City-Meeting-Groups/Meeting-Agendas-and-Minutes
Climate Community Center: https://climatecommunitycenter.org/
Peninsula Peace and Justice Center calendar: https://peaceandjustice.org/events-calendar/
Photos and Videos of Recent Actions
Last week’s pictures: https://photos.app.goo.gl/K4gn2vfZFh34oFtn9
Wednesday Tesla Takedown Highlight reel: here.
What We Are Reading/Watching/Listening to:
U.S. Rep. Pramilla Jayapal has created Resistance Lab with resources and training for organizers. Check it out here:
https://www.pramilaforcongress.com/the-resistance-lab
Harvard on how 3.5% of the population engaged in non-violent, peaceful protest can make a dramatic social change:
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr/publications/35-rule-how-small-minority-can-change-world
Tech-oligarch run Instagram is taking down any posts by people organizing a general strike. This is an important movement and may be one of our best
chances to activate 3.5% of the population to stand up to the oligarchy. You can learn more about it here: https://generalstrikeus.com/
Reporting by Democracy Now! here
Commentary by The Majority Report: here
Heat Pump Water Heater and Home Electrification Program Update
As of:5/1 3/31 2/28 1/31
HPWH full-service interest list signups 1364 1333 1323 1307
Site assessment agreements (SAA) sent 1364 1333 1323 1307
Signed SAAs 1127 1013 1093 1075
Completed site assessments 1040 1023 1013 996
Installations
Total Full Service HPWHs installed 421 414 402 393
Total DIY HPWH installed 126 115 114 98
Total Emergency HPWH installations 19 19 18 11
Total HPWHs installed 566 548 534 502
Target Installations 1000 1000 1000 1000
Monthly Installation Rate
Monthly Installation Rate 18 14 32 7
Target Monthly Installation Rate 83 83 83 83
Follow Fridays For Future Palo Alto:
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/fridaysforfuture_paloalto/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Fri4Future_PA
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@FridaysForFuturePaloAlto
Email notifications of FFF Palo Alto events: https://mailchi.mp/c8c130127345/join-fridays-for-future-palo-alto
You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in supporting climate action in Palo Alto. If you no longer wish to receive these
emails, please let me know.
Matt Schlegel
Schlegel Consulting
650-924-8923
Author: Teamwork 9.0
Website: evolutionaryteams.com
YouTube: youtube.com/channel/UCLkUMHuG4HVa831s9yeoZ5Q
From:Leslie Hsu
To:Council, City
Subject:California Avenue
Date:Thursday, May 22, 2025 3:43:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Hello,
I am a long-time patron of businesses on California Avenue. The diversity of retail offerings, the fact they’re all
small businesses, the sense it’s a community of hard-working “regular people” without pretension have combined to
make it a treasured neighborhood.
The pandemic shutdown necessitated drastic measures, which included closing the street off from El Camino and
prohibiting vehicle traffic. The current vibe of pedestrians and cyclists is pleasant, but I sense it as a neighborhood
in sad decline. I think the small businesses have suffered from the loss of access and visibility, and many are on the
brink. It would be a real loss for many of us if that commercial district dies. Pretty restaurants on a pedestrian street
have a definite appeal, but we’d lose the vitality of services supporting real life. Is there a way to support those
businesses in the next incarnation of the street? Perhaps California Avenue could be one way, open from El
Camino, with signs indicating parking off California.
Cities are now limiting airbnb’s because catering to tourism and entertainment has turned out to displace residents’
real lives. I’d hate for California Avenue to do the same.
Thank you for your consideration,
Leslie Hsu
318 Miramontes Road
Woodside CA 94062
From:Bill Reller
To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed
Cc:Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Burt, Patrick; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki
Subject:Palo Alto Commons Expansion
Date:Thursday, May 22, 2025 1:52:23 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Lauing and other members of the city council:
I would urge you to approve Palo Alto Common’s rezoning application to
provide an additional 16 units. After almost two years this process is
concluding. Hurray!
Palo Alto Commons has been successfully operating for 35 years, serving
several thousand residents of varying needs. Surprisingly, approximately 85%
of the residents or their families live in Palo Alto. We are proud of our
reputation that has been achieved through hard work to provide the utmost
comfort for our residents in all their varying needs. Through this rezoning
process we have responded to various operational criticisms, particularly as
relates to parking. Modifications have been made to the daylight plane as
relates to neighbors.
The older adult population is increasing significantly, such that there will be a
50% increase over the next 15 years. While our proposal is a modest addition
of units, it is, an addition, nevertheless. It is an opportunity.
We have attempted to work with our residential neighbors though we are near
their back yards.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Bill Reller
From:Bill Reller
To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed
Cc:Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Burt, Patrick; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki
Subject:Palo Alto Commons Expansion
Date:Thursday, May 22, 2025 1:46:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Lauing and other members of the city council:
I would urge you to approve Palo Alto Common’s rezoning application to
provide an additional 16 units. After almost two years this process is
concluding. Hurray!
Palo Alto Commons has been successfully operating for 35 years, serving
several thousand residents of varying needs. Surprisingly, approximately 85%
of the residents or their families live in Palo Alto. We are proud of our
reputation that has been achieved through hard work to provide the utmost
comfort for our residents in all their varying needs. Through this rezoning
process we have responded to various operational criticisms, particularly as
relates to parking. Modifications have been made to the daylight plane as
relates to neighbors.
The older adult population is increasing significantly, such that there will be a
50% increase over the next 15 years. While our proposal is a modest addition
of units, it is, an addition, nevertheless. It is an opportunity.
We have attempted to work with our residential neighbors though we are near
their back yards.
Thank you for your consideration.
This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Sincerely,
Bill Reller
From:Eileen Altman
To:Council, City
Subject:The Commons
Date:Thursday, May 22, 2025 12:33:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Greetings City Council members:
I attended the Council meeting on May 5 to be there in support of the request of The Commons to add
16 new units. I was also there to transport Ruth Carleton, a member of my congregation, who spoke
in favor of the addition, sharing her experiences visiting a now deceased member of my congregation
at The Commons weekly for several years. I listened carefully to all of the public comments and
understand that the neighbors on Wilkie Way oppose this project. Nonetheless, I think it’s important
to note that their talking point that suggests that a rapacious, profit seeking, out-of-state operator is
behind The Commons is inaccurate.
The Commons is locally owned by members of my church and is a community they have dedicated
themselves to over the last 35+ years. The owners contract the service provision to WellQuest, but
they retain a deep interest in the community and the people who live there. Unlike senior
communities that are owned by hedge funds, where profit is a much higher priority than the care of
those who live there, and are dependent upon the quality of care provided, The Commons is a
community gem where the residents are treated as beloved neighbors. Several members of my
church have lived at The Commons and I have been consistently impressed by the sense of home
and care they experience. I also have visited church members in other facilities in our community that
are far from the quality of care The Commons provides. I repeat: The Commons is a community gem.
These 16 new units are needed by the growing senior population in our community. WellQuest, the
operator of The Commons has made a number of accommodations to improve their project and
respond to the requests of neighbors on Wilkie Way to reduce traffic and parking issues, including by
adding valet service. I encourage you to vote in favor of their application.
Peace be with you,
Eileen
The Rev. Dr. Eileen Altman (she/her/hers)
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Associate Pastor
First Congregational Church, UCC
1985 Louis Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650-388-9507 (office phone)
831-345-3830 (cell)
http://www.fccpa.org/
https://calendly.com/eileen-altman
Friday is my day of rest/respite from email.
From:Lois Fowkes
To:Council, City
Subject:New units at the Commons, rezoning along El Camino
Date:Thursday, May 22, 2025 8:47:43 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,I do not usually attend Council meetings, nor write letters, but the housing issue in Palo Alto
should not be opposed at every turn. Palo Alto, with its aging population, needs to do its fairshare.
So I attended the May 5 Council meeting, and here I am, writing a letter. I presently live at
Channing House, but lived in south Palo Alto from 1962-2019. When we first moved in, Iheard the train at night—for about a week. I would guess that also to be true of the Wilkie
Way opponents of the Channing House expansion, so it is hard to understand theiropposition to the 16 new units proposed by the Commons, which will be considerably quieter
than trains. (The residents there are not known for all-night carousing!)
My mother lived at the Commons for four years, and we found them to be caring andconsiderate of neighbors in every way. I was given my mother's spot in the basement garage
so I wouldn't add to the parking problem. The Commons has already made significantadjustments to their building plans, and I believe they should be allowed to go ahead.
The residents on Wilkie Way, whom I listened to carefully, did not always state how long they
have lived in that neighborhood, but I believe they knew it was a busy one when they movedin. I also believe their arguments to be classic NIMBY ones.
I urge Council to give the Commons the go-ahead, and also to approve the rezoning along El
Camino to accommodate the great housing need in our city.
Thank you for your consideration,Lois Fowkes
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Aram James
To:Vicki Veenker; Veenker, Vicki
Cc:Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Josh Becker; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate,
Assembly District 23; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Lori Meyers; Sheree Roth; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff
Rosen; Friends of Cubberley; Gennady Sheyner; Emily Mibach; Henry Etzkowitz; Doug Minkler; Salem Ajluni
Subject:Foreign diplomats come under Israeli fire on official West Bank visit, drawing swift international condemnation
Date:Wednesday, May 21, 2025 8:36:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/21/middleeast/diplomats-israeli-fire-west-bank-intl?cid=ios_app
From:Jean Pressey
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Commons
Date:Wednesday, May 21, 2025 4:52:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Council,
I attended the hearing on May 5. I was surprised that the objections to the Commons'expansion all sounded the same, as though the neighbors were reading from a script.
And it seemed to be the same script they had used years ago, without recognizing themitigations that have been made.
The Commons is not owned by an outside profit-making corporation, as you know. These 16
units are badly needed; their location at the rear of the building isdue to the need to prevent patients with dementia from wandering.
I am sure that during the construction phase there will be parking and noise, but it is a fact that
the value of real estate in Palo Alto simply does not decline.The neighbors' worry about the latter is misplaced.
I urge you to approve the current 16-unit addition to the Palo Alto Commons.
Sincerely,
Jean Pressey850 Webster Ave.
Palo Alto
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Margaret Rosenbloom
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Commons Senior Housing Expansion Request
Date:Wednesday, May 21, 2025 4:25:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Mayor and City Councillors
I am writing in support of the proposal to add 16 new units at the back of the existing Commons structure at 4075 El
Camino Way.
I was aware of the Commons expansion proposal when it was originally made some years ago and COULD NOT
BELIEVE THAT SUCH A CRITICALLY IMPORTANT BENEFIT FOR PALO ALTO SENIORS WAS STILL
UNDER REVIEW.
I attended the Council meeting on May 5th and was appalled to witness first hand a shocking example of the
notorious “Palo Alto Way.” I sat for an hour through a tedious procession of complainants, each coming forward to
make duplicate points against the proposal. Many of the complaints were outdated, untrue, and unfair. The Wilkie
Way residents seemed unaware of or chose to ignore all the accommodations the developer and Commons
management have made to minimize their impact on the neighborhood.
For example, the Commons has opened up access to their underground garage, added valet service, and encourage
ride sharing for their staff as possible. From the complaints, one would think the Commons is the only business
operating in the neighborhood and responsible for every car parked in Wilkie Way. What about Goodwill and all the
other businesses along El Camino Way?
The Wilkie Way residents clearly hold you all, City Councillors and Mayor, in utter contempt. They subjected you
to a repeat barrage of all the tired old complaints they have made previously. They treated you as heartless
imbeciles unaware of the mitigations already made by the Commons and unmindful of the desperate need the City
has to accommodate its growing population of care-needing elders. They seemed unaware of the concept that trade-
offs are needed to solve difficult problems around housing.
As an elder myself - happily living in a wonderful senior housing community that provides me with a continuum of
care - I am heartbroken at the delay, delay, delay the Commons expansion has been subjected to. The result of
further delay will be fewer available spaces for a critical growing need. More elders will be denied the opportunity
of moving to housing where they can enjoy the benefits of socialization, and peace of mind that they will get
additional care when they need it.
I urge you to speedily finalize your review and approve the Commons expansion project.
Respectfully
Margaret Rosenbloom
850 Webster St
Palo Alto
From:Patty Irish
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for The Commons application
Date:Wednesday, May 21, 2025 3:32:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Council members,
I am Patty Irish and live on Webster in Palo Alto.
I write in support of the application by The Commons for 16
additional needed units for people who need Assisted Living and
Skilled Nursing.
I have attended 4 presentations of the project - 2 at Council and 2
at the Planning Commission.
I have heard the owner respond to the requests of the neighbors.
Better parking, windows installed higher, actual building not built
to add height and many other things. I believe they have done
what they can to make it the best possible.
As we add new projects things will have to change some. And
sometimes this even improves the neighborhood.
Please express your support for the quality of what the Rellers do
for our community and give them the go ahead so they can get
started making these important additions.
The neighbors in most cases were repeating the identical claims
each time that ithey made almost 2 years ago. Not taking into
account the 4 meetings and changes made on their behalf.
Thank you for all you do. As I watch your work I appreciate all the
time and effort it all takes to try to help our City be the best it can
be.
Housing and this project are key to our moving forward.
Patty Irish
--
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Patty Irish850 Webster St. #628
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650-324-7407
650-245-3906 cell
How do you tell a story that has been told the wrong way for so long?
From:Michael Terndrup
To:Council, City
Subject:ECR Housing - 5/27
Date:Wednesday, May 21, 2025 10:14:28 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello,
My name is Michael. I've lived in the peninsula for almost my entire life and I've lived in PaloAlto with my wife and children for 10 years. I strongly support the proposal to lessen the
restrictions on housing along El Camino. The city needs more housing and locating it on/nearEl Camino close to transit and within walking distance of Palo Alto's many amenities as other
local cities have done is essential for us to do as well. I hope that the following goals of PaloAlto Forward will be strongly considered and approved at the upcoming hearing (below).
I hope you have a wonderful day and I look forward to the Council hearing.
Expand the proposed development standards to all the Tier 1 areas that can be accommodated
within the current Environmental Impact Report.
Lessen or remove the 10’ stepback above 55’ along the El Camino Real frontage. Stepbacksinefficiently consume more land; require costly structural support,waterproofing, and fire
rating; shrink overall unit count and unit size (i.e. force more, smaller studio units); and givebuildings a “dated” look.
Remove the Hansen Way special setback for all projects, not just for hotels. A sidewalk, trees,
and a protected bike lane already exist. This area should be made vibrant and useful.
Provide direction to staff to further study the remainder of the corridor (i.e., the rest of Tier 2,3, and 4 parcels and 470 Olive).
Michael Terndrup, AIA
Architect and PrincipalEAG STUDIOdirect: 415.580.2413 | office: 415.300.0816 | studio address: 1553 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103ARCHITECTURE | INTERIOR DESIGN | INTERIORS | LANDSCAPE DESIGN | CONSTRUCTIONPLANNINGFACEBOOK INSTAGRAM VIMEO HOUZZ
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Elan Loeb
To:Council, City
Subject:housing
Date:Wednesday, May 21, 2025 8:14:44 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I'm writing in support of zoning changes. Housing is so important, please do not water downthe rezoning with additional design requirements (like parking or percentage low income
housing) that make building housing infeasible. We need to move away from cars & buildinghigh density housing near transit is the key. More housing now! I grew up in Palo Alto, but it
is hard for me to live here.
-- Thanks,
Elan Loeb
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Michelle Oberman
To:Council, City
Subject:Better zoning
Date:Wednesday, May 21, 2025 8:07:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi there,
I'm writing to express my support for the rezoning of several parcels of land along El Camino Real to
permit the creation of affordable housing. As a long-time Palo Alto resident, I've been alarmed at the
decline in affordable housing for those wishing to work at local businesses, whose jobs pay too little to
permit them to rent homes in this area. New housing is needed, and will benefit all of us in a wide range of
ways.
Please do not limit the potential reach and impact of this rezoning by adding additional design
requirements that make housing financially infeasible. we need to build, asap. It is my top priority.
Thank you,
Michelle
--
Michelle Oberman | Katharine and George Alexander Professor of Law
Santa Clara University School of Law | 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95050tel: 408-551-7104 | pronouns: she, her, hersarticles | ssrn
My recent articles: Recalibrating Risk Under Dobbs; Doctors' Duty to Share Abortion
Information; How Abortion Laws Do & Don't WorkMy book: Her Body, Our Laws: On the Front Lines of the Abortion War from El Salvador to
Oklahoma
“It’s not hard to imagine future generations one day asking: ‘When there was so much at stake for our country,
what did you do?’ The only acceptable answer is: ‘Everything we could.’” --Cecile Richards
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Annette Isaacson
To:Council, City
Subject:More affordable housing, please
Date:Wednesday, May 21, 2025 7:39:52 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear City Council Members,
I know Palo Alto can't solve the nation's problems, but we have so many
people living in their vehicles or having to commute from far places
like Los Banos or Pittsburg just to work here that we need to build
affordable housing for them.
Since the 1950s and 1960s institutional racism created barriers to home
ownership for people of color, and then cities put restrictions on
multi-family units, creating a shortage of housing. It is our duty to
make more housing available to try to ameliorate this housing shortage
that we have created.
Please rezone the parcels on El Camino for housing and not just say we
want more housing. We need to make it less difficult to actually build
affordable housing.
Sincerely,
Annette Isaacson
2550 Webster St.
(Midtown)
From:Aram James
To:Nash, Betsy; dcombs@menlopark.gov; Council, City; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; GRP-City Council;city.council@menlopark.gov; GRP-City Clerk; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Clerk, City; City Attorney
Subject:JVP is guided by a vision of justice, equality and freedom for all people. We unequivocally oppose Zionism
because it is counter to those ideals.
Date:Wednesday, May 21, 2025 6:58:14 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Our Approach to Zionism
JVP is guided by a vision of justice, equality and freedom for all people. We unequivocallyoppose Zionism because it is counter to those ideals.
Source: JVP
https://share.google/4YgEcaPP7I6IUwNVH
Shared via the Google app
From:Susan Setterholm
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing on El Camino Real
Date:Wednesday, May 21, 2025 5:25:29 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Council Members,
I lived and worked in Palo Alto for years in the ‘70s and ‘80s. I even played soccer on a women’s team there. I
appreciated the opportunities to contribute to the community.
But even then I was impacted by the housing shortage. I had to leave the community I loved to move southward in
Santa Clara County.
Please help build more housing, especially along ECR with its public transportation.
New residents will be customers for the businesses along ECR and in the city of Palo Alto.
Please do not water down zoning with extra design requirements.
With respect,
Susan Setterholm
From:Sarah Levine
To:Council, City
Subject:More housing in Palo Alto
Date:Tuesday, May 20, 2025 11:58:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To the City Council:
I am a Palo Alto resident. I am writing to encourage you to build more housing in Palo Alto tomake housing affordable for teachers, public service workers, and all who wish to make their
home here.
I support housing near jobs, shopping, and transit--that's what Palo Alto residents need. Morehousing in Palo Alto will make for more customers, more workers, and more students for PA
schools currently experiencing declining enrollments.
Please do not add more requirements to EL Camino Housing area, or anywhere else. Palo Altowill be twice as wonderful when it offers more housing so that people can live and work
locally.
Thank you--
Sarah Levine
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Charlene Liao
To:Council, City; Council, City
Cc:Ed@EdLauing.com; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; Lu, George; Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk,City; Lydia Kou; Jeanne Fleming; jnimkar@gmail.com; jerry.fan@gmail.com
Subject:Thank you for an unanimous resolution regarding cell towers in Palo Alto
Date:Tuesday, May 20, 2025 10:34:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachmentsand clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Ed Lauing and Palo Alto City Council Members,
I attended yesterday's City Council meeting via zoom and offered my speaking time to a guestpresent on site. Thank you for having voted unanimously to allow transparency and publichearing in any installation and modification of cell towers in Palo Alto.
I thank Mayor Ed Lauing for leading his colleagues to this 7-0 decision. My love and thanks alsogo to former Mayor Lydia Kou. She was, with Mayor Lauing, the author of the Colleagues Memothat led to Council’s decision last night. This decision was a long time coming, and we cannotoverstate Lydia’s contribution to making it happen, concluding with her powerful presentation toCouncil last night.
I especially want to thank Council Member Greer Stone for including in the resolution that celltowers should be 1500 feet away from schools and daycares. Additionally, cell towers should beaway from a public gathering place where children play, such as the Palo Alto Little League(PALL) Baseball Park on Middlefield Road, or a church. Instead of donating to support theseimpactful non-profit community organizations, the telecommunications giants such as AT&T andVerizon take advantage of these organizations' vulnerable need for money by installing giant celltowers on our neighborhood gathering places.
It was pointed out last night that cell tower modifications these days make them more powerfulin emitting hazardous radio frequency waves and bigger as eyesore once they are installed. Iknew recently the PALL games and families were blocked fro entry due to planned work on theVerizon Macro Cell Tower on site (see attached photos). I was too busy to find out the details butby looking the cell tower seems getting bigger. I would appreciate the City Staff making aninvestigation or report to the City Council and neighbors about the recent Version Macro CellTower work at PALL.
Sincerely yours,
Charlene Liao3751 Middlefield Road
This message needs your attentionThis is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Aram James
To:Council, City; Gardener, Liz; Shikada, Ed
Subject:AB 609 Passes State Assembly with Unanimous Support
Date:Tuesday, May 20, 2025 4:59:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
AB 609 Passes State Assembly with Unanimous Support
Source: davisvanguard.org
https://share.newsbreak.com/d6bq7klc?s=i0
From:Aram James
To:Vicki Veenker; Council, City; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; board@pausd.org
Subject:Neil Young to Trump on Fight With Bruce Springsteen: “Think About Saving America From the Mess You Made”
Date:Tuesday, May 20, 2025 1:56:03 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Neil Young to Trump on Fight With Bruce Springsteen: “Think About Saving America From
the Mess You Made” Source: The Hollywood Reporter
https://share.newsbreak.com/d685m894?s=i0
From:Doug Climate Complaints
To:Council, City
Subject:Public comment, Finance Committee on Budget FY2026
Date:Tuesday, May 20, 2025 1:34:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Finance Committee Members,My name is Douglas Kolozsvari and I'm requesting that you make a change to this budget and
capital improvement plan that is long overdue: adding benches or SIMME seats to all busstops in Palo Alto and shelters to bus stops that already have a bench. This is particularly
glaring since investment in these stops has been missing for decades.
Even though 20% of the billion-dollar budget is allocated to transportation, the budget doesnot include funds earmarked to protect residents, employees and visitors who take the bus in
Palo Alto from the rain, wind and especially the sun. Most stops, particularly along Route 21,have no shelters. It is hard to witness elderly people waiting in the elements for the bus, but I
imagine it is harder for them. It's even harder for them when they just miss the bus and have towait at least 30 minutes on a local route and sometimes longer.
If the City were to reallocate even a small fraction of the money used to build parking towards
bus stop amenities, every single stop could have a bench and a trash can, and many could getshelters. Removing just a handful of spaces from the new Lot D structure, for example, could
pay for dozens of shelters with lighting - including a shelter for the one in front of it wherethere's only been a bench since 1992.
Palo Alto has the resources to make life better for its transit-using population. It doesn't have
to depend on VTA or SamTrans, which have thousands of stops to upgrade and maintain.Encouraging more people to take the bus benefits Palo Altans and it's the City's responsibility
to take action to correct this years-long oversight in public spending. It's time to give busriders protection, dignity and our thanks for reducing polluting car trips that add to congestion.
Thank you for your consideration and your support for these transportation users who never
ask for much but deserve so much more: our thanks for cutting emissions, shelter and seatingfor comfort and safety, and the dignity that comes with waiting in a public space that
acknowledges their contribution to reducing traffic on Palo Alto streets.Sincerely,
Douglas Kolozsvari, Ph.D.
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
'Stop the Red Tape' Protest in L.A.
For the first anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in the Grants
From:Mary Gallagher
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing for All
Date:Tuesday, May 20, 2025 1:00:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members:
I listened to a discussion by the council meeting about leasing to folks who have been
incarcerated.
Of course, this is a concern with multiple stakeholders and points of view.
As a renter and former resident property manager, sometimes the felon is the landlord. In2006, I served a landlord who had been incarcerated for laundering HUD money.
Our real estate system is broken. Job security or a minimum wage is not guaranteed. Rents are
more often driven by greed not need.
How can we as a society fulfill the need for housing as a human right?
It’s a complex problem with no one answer, but we must house humans and meet their basicneeds one by one.
Respectfully,
Mary Gallagher, B.Sc.
Long term Resident of Palo Alto, CA650-683-7102
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Pass case, which allowed for the criminalization of the unhoused community,
Housing Is A Human Right and the Los Angeles office of the National Coalition
for the Homeless will take part in a national day of action on April 22 to demand
“Housing Now” for unhoused communities across the country by surrounding
L.A. City Hall in red tape ribbon.
The red tape represents the years of delayed construction of permanent housing
for homeless and low-income communities caused by L.A. government
bureaucracy. HHR and NCH will be joined by more than 100 advocates.
For more details, click on this link. If you're in L.A., feel free to join us! Please
share and like this post to spread the word.
Alert: Call Your Congress Member Now!
The New York Times has reported that the Trump administration may replace
the crucial Section 8 voucher program with block grants to states, rather than
directly funding housing agencies. Section 8 helps low-income individuals and
families to pay sky-rocketing rents -- and keeps people out of homelessness.
This harmful policy change goes along with the 48 percent reduction of staff in
the federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Public Housing branch,
which administers Section 8 vouchers to local housing authorities. The block
grants and reduced workforce will cause serious, life-altering problems for low-
income people struggling to pay excessive, unfair rents. Please call your
Congress member now, telling him or her to protect the Section 8 voucher
program and to stop the reduction of HUD's workforce. Click on this link to find
your federal representative and that person's contact information. Thanks!
Fighting the Oligarchs in L.A.
Last Saturday, Housing Is A Human Right took part in the "Fight the Oligarchy"
rally in Downtown Los Angeles. Billionaire corporate landlords are part of that
dangerous oligarchy, so we showed up to represent housing justice activists and
inform people about our issues. More than ever, Americans need rent
regulations to protect them against corporate landlords' predatory greed. Share
and like our post to show your support.
About
Housing Is A Human Right is the housing advocacy division of AIDS
Healthcare Foundation — the world’s largest HIV/AIDS medical-care
nonprofit, serving more than two million patients in 47 countries.
Throughout the U.S., AHF clients have been negatively impacted by rising
housing costs and gentrification, which threaten their health. HHR
advocates for the "3 Ps": protect tenants, preserve existing affordable
housing, and produce new affordable and homeless housing.
To learn more about AHF's history, go to the AHF Timeline. Watch the
short documentary "The People's Hope" about AHF's life-saving work in
South Africa.
Mary Gallagher
From:Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo
To:Council, City
Subject:ICYMI: Friends" Spring Breakfast Ignites a Passion for Science
Date:Tuesday, May 20, 2025 11:34:04 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links.
i
Logo_Full_Color_CMYK.jpg
Friends' Spring Breakfast
May 20, 2025
Hello Friends,
On May 9, we hosted our second annual Friends' Spring Breakfast. We were glad to see
many new faces and returning supporters join us for a morning focused on the importance
of early access to science education and the impact that JMZ science programs have
throughout our community.
Over the past year, both JMZ Science Outreach in underserved schools and Science
with a Twist at the Boys & Girls Clubs of the Peninsula have expanded in response tostudent and site demand. Thanks to the generosity of our donors, we raised more than$80,000 at this year’s event to help bring hands-on, engaging science lessons to evenmore elementary school students in underserved communities.
We’re especially grateful to the speakers, educators, and ambassadors who helped bring
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your
company.
Mark Safe
Report Powered by Mimecast
the JMZ’s work to life during the event. If you missed it, we’ve included a few highlightsand photos below.
This Saturday, May 24, from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m., join the Friends and the Joy CultureFoundation for a Dragon Boat Festival storytime and craft. This event is free with
admission; advanced ticket purchase to the JMZ is required.
Thank you for being part of our community, helping us ignite a passion for science for over
3,000 students across East Palo Alto, Eastern Menlo Park, and Redwood City.
With gratitude,
Lauren AngeloPresident, Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo
Thank you to our Spring Breakfast guests and donors for supporting
science programs across our community!
Friends’ Ambassadors, Lee Harper, Kat Burton, and Anoek Grosmann, welcomed guestsalongside a few animals that visit JMZ Science Outreach classes in schools and Science
with a Twist lessons at the Boys & Girls Clubs of the Peninsula (BGCP). As panelist JennyObiaya shared, animal visits are powerful and encourage children to open up, engage,and connect to the natural world.
JMZ Educators, Alex Hamilton and Heather Schultz, brought hands-on science activitiesto the event, offering guests a glimpse at the interactive lessons students experience atschools and at BGCP.
Sally Loverro, Friends' Board Member, opened the event by sharing more about why shejoined the Friends. As she became more involved with her own children's school districtfoundation, Sally was inspired to expand her impact beyond her community and supportstudents who might not have access to the same resources. Initially thinking the Friendsfocused solely on capital projects, she quickly discovered the depth of the Friends'outreach work and found the meaningful connection she had been seeking.
We were fortunate to be joined by a panel of three science and education expertsfeaturing Jenny Obiaya, CEO of the Boys & Girls Clubs of the Peninsula; Dr. HyowonGweon, Associate Professor in the Stanford's Department of Psychology; and Dr. NicoleArdoin, Associate Professor of Environmental Behavioral Sciences in the EnvironmentalSocial Sciences Department of the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability. Panelistshighlighted the importance of early, hands-on science education and how it fuels curiosity,confidence, and critical thinking in young learners.
Development Committee Co-chairs, Meredith Tan and Jill Hartnett, closed the morningwith a thank you to our guests. We’re so grateful to our incredible community of donors,educators, and partners who attended. Thanks to the support of our community, we raisedover $80,000 to fund science education across East Palo Alto, Eastern Menlo Park, andRedwood City. Your commitment to our programs helps lay the foundation for futuresuccess, ensuring every child has access to engaging, high-quality science education.
All photos courtesy of BQ Creative.
Donate Now
Thank you to our generous event sponsors!
Interested in becoming a corporate sponsor?Please contact Stephanie Kerry, Advancement Manager, at stephanie@friendsjmz.org.
Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zooinfo@friendsjmz.org | www.friendsjmz.org
Donate Now
Connect with us
Friends of the JMZ | 1451 Middlefield Road | Palo Alto, CA 94301 US
Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
From:Patrice Banal
To:Council, City
Subject:GRADE SEPARATION CHARLESTON ROAD, POTENTIAL UNDER COUNT OF FULL TAKES
Date:Monday, May 19, 2025 8:20:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello Council Members,
As a citizen living on Charleston Road for twenty-five years, I have participated in the GradeSeparation conversations for at least a decade, and appreciate your efforts for our city.
Given the multitude of losses that impacted families will face if the Charleston Road
underpass is approved, Specifically, our homes, privacy, investments, and communities. I'm once again asking the
City Council to provide a fully transparent look, by the numbers, at what a PARTIAL TAKEwill mean for EACH IMPACTED RESIDENCE.
I requested this information from specific council members in June 2024; however, due totransitions, vacations, etc., I haven't gotten a response yet.
Last spring, Mr. Ripon provided us with the Palo Alto Grade Separation Planning Study ( in
this report as Figure 9, page 138 of 158),It detailed which properties were estimated to be complete vs. partial takes at that time.
However, I think the number of complete takes is potentially underreported.
Could the council please provide an updated and detailed look at what a partial take involves?How many square feet of each property will be taken relative to the total parcel size, less
their home? When you factor out the home's square footage, it may become evident
that many properties would be deemed a FULL take, NOT a PARTIAL take based on safety factors such as how close your property would be to an expanded roadway
and an encroaching traffic circle. I believe the city has a minimal square footage setback for homes from the roadway and
sidewalk. Would the partial houses be exempt?And, assuming the standards were established for safety, how can they be ignored? This will
impact the partial take owners' property/resale values. This could cause serious safety, financial, and quality of life issues for partial-take
families and move more properties from partial to full takes.
Quantifying and quickly communicating the extent to which EACH partial take propertycould be impacted is critical, as it will affect overall project costs and give all stakeholders
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
more clarity on the feasibility of the Charleston Road Underpass option.
Thank you for your assistance and advocacy for our communities.Could this letter be read at tomorrow's meeting?
Patrice Fester
650-704-1271
From:Jeff Hoel
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC
Subject:05-07-25 -- Finance Committee Meeting --
Date:Monday, May 19, 2025 6:42:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Council members,
This is a TRANSCRIPT of the parts of the Finance Committee's 05-07-25 budget meeting that pertain to
FTTP, plus my COMMENTS (paragraphs in red beginning with ###).
05-07-25: agenda
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16085
05-07-25: video (8:58:38)
https://midpenmedia.org/finance-committee-572025/
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
================================================================================
TRANSCRIPT
------------
2:21:41:
COO Alan Kurotori: Good morning. Alan Kurotori, Utilities Chief Operating Officer. So, I'll give a high-
level update to the Utility side. Next slide, please.
2:21:51:
So, in terms of the operating, this is a table you've seen before. We brought it to the finance committee --
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
is the proposed rates across all the utilities.
------------
2:22:22:
So, for the utilities, it's really a status quo budget on the operating side. We're continuing to focus on gridmodernization, our fiber-to-the-premises, and, really, rate management. These are some of the larger
rates that we've seen. A lot of rate drivers for that, that we've gone through this committee before. But Idid want to highlight, you know, some of the major projects and activities. These will tie into the capitaldiscussion that we'll have later today. But really looking at our grid modernization, our natural gastransition strategy. It is an evaluation and modeling of what we look at in our natural gas system, andhow that we -- in the long-term basis that we will look at maybe transitioning that over the years. It's tiedhighly to the S/CAP funds and the staff there. So, I just wanted to give the highlight to that.
2:23:15:
And then, the Palo Alto Fiber-to-the-Premises. So, we are tying that to our electric grid modernization.
And why are we doing that? It's the most efficient way to expand the system. As we go through thesystem, we upgrade the poles. We upgrade the transformers. We're there at that one time. We can puta carrier line.
### A.k.a. messenger wire?
We can put the aerial fiber. So, it's a very cost-effective way to look at that. So, as we're doing this grid
mod, in our pilot phase, we'll be looking at adding, you know, fiber-to-the-premises, and really doing that
outreach, and getting an understanding of the take rates from the residents, in terms of moving to PaloAlto Fiber, and looking those economics. And then we'll bring that back to not only UAC, the FinanceCommittee, and full Council on what we're finding, in terms of the long-term viability of that program. Andthen, really, it's really the bread and butter of what we do in Utilities, is replacing and reinvesting in ourinfrastructure. So, enhancing the safety and reliability of our system. Just to highlight, some of the issuesthat we have are looking at those -- managing those rates, and how we reinvest in the system, but alsomaintain the high-quality services that Palo Alto expects.
2:24:27:
------------
2:32:09:
Chair Burt: And first, on the Grid Mod, you mentioned the $300M cost. But I really want to make surethat every time we talk about that, that we emphasize what portion of that cost would have to be doneanyway. So, 2 years ago, that number came out. It got reported in the press. And the public conceptthat that was all attributable to our electrification. And then, subsequently, it was clarified. Well, maybearound 40 percent of that we'd have to do anyway. And, on TOP of that, that the Grid Mod isn't just aboutcapacity, but it's going to improve our reliability and resilience. And so, every time we talk about it, I justwant to make sure. Because otherwise, that top-line number gets reported. And misunderstood. And it'sa big deal. So, I just want to put it out there.
2:33:03:
------------
2:35:58:
Chair Burt: And then, on the fiber-to-the-premise,
### premises
we had made a decision -- I guess a year, year and a half ago -- to align that first roll-out with our first
area of the City that we were doing the Grid Mod. But we're even further behind, is my understanding onthat. And -- um -- the -- one of the aspects, I guess, is -- Is it correct that we're still waiting on the hut? For that Colo- -- is that Colorado station? And that -- is that the gating issue?
2:36:34:
COO Kurotori: So, the fiber hut has been delivered. It is at our Colorado substation.
2:36:38:
Chair Burt: Nope.
2:36:39:
COO Kurotori: So, I don't have that precise information. But I will bring that back. --
2:36:44;
Chair Burt: OK. A choke point has been resolved? That's -- That's the good news. And then, I'm tryingto remember whether it was --
2:36:52:
City Manager Shikada: Chair, I believe Dave Yuan is ready to respond to --
2:36:55:
Dave Yuan: Dave Yuan, Strategic Business Manager. Regarding the hut, it is built, but it's on deliv- We're holding it off for delivery. I think we're still waiting for a permit to get the hut installed at theColorado power station.
2:37:07:
Chair Burt: OK.
2:37:07:
Dave Yuan: It is going through the permitting process.
2:37:08:
Chair Burt: Oh. And it's a -- Someone had raised the question of the pad not being there. Is thatdependent on the permit?
2:37:15:
Dave Yuan: Yes.
2:37:16:
Chair Burt: Ah. So, OK.
2:37:17:
Dave Yuan: Hopefully, by the end of the month, we'll --
### We'll what? Get the permit? Pour the slab? Install the hut?
2:37:18:
Chair Burt: OK. Thanks. And then, I'm trying to remember whether it was in the press or UAC info orwhatever. It was brought to my attention that our initial proposed rates on the fiber are supposedly abovesome of the telecom rates now. And I don't want to go into --
### One source of misinformation was the Palo Alto Daily Post, which published articles on 05-05-25and 05-09-25 claiming that Palo Alto Fiber's prices would be higher than the incumbents' prices. It didn'tmention that it was comparing the incumbents' special-deal prices with the top end of the price RANGESthat staff was proposing.
### Staff's reason for publishing price RANGES was ostensibly that it wanted to empower staff to pickany price in the published range without having to seek Council's further permission. But it's easy to seehow the press could have misunderstood. At 2:32:09, Chair Burt asks staff to make sure that the presscannot misunderstand the true cost of Grid Mod. Maybe it would be in order to ask staff similarly to makesure the press cannot misunderstand FTTP pricing.
2:37:42:
### Staff laughs.
2:37:46:
Chair Burt: OK. I don't want to spend a WHOLE bunch of time on it, but --
2:37:48:
Dave Yuan: We are sending this to the UAC tonight. So, yeah. We're not going to be able to competewith the incumbents on pricing, just because they have deeper pockets than us. So, the prices you see inthe paper is a promotional rate.
2:37:58:
Chair Burt: Yeah.
2:37:59:
Dave Yuan: But after a year, or whatever the term is, they'll go up $80 or $115. Whereas, our price willbe -- launching much lower than those two. So -- Not much, but it will be lower. Competitive.
2:38:09:
Chair Burt: That was one of the things I wondered. Whether that was a promotional rate -- Which doesbeg a question, whether we do or don't want to offer promotional rates. And then, one of the things that,several years ago was brought to our attention, and it was modified subsequently, but was -- Whathappens on the pricing structure of the competing telecoms when they don't have competition, versuswhen they have one competitor, or when they have two competitors -- of which we're now one? And theirpricing, at that first analysis was, it goes down pretty significantly when they have TWO competitors. Andso, when we looked at the benefit of providing this as a municipal service, there were really two aspects. One, how much do our residents value getting their fiber through us, with the rates we offer and thereliability and other aspects? But the other thing that was actually more significant in that first analysiswas, how much do our ratepayers save as the result of the telecoms dropping their prices because thereare two competitors now? And that's a savings to our residents that doesn't hit OUR bottom line. And it
doesn't necessarily hit our uptake favorably. It may work against it. But when we present to the residents
what's the VALUE of having done fiber, that actually exceeded some of the other values. And I just want
to make sure that we track that. What's their pricing structure as a result of real competition. As -- likeyou say, they have deep pockets. But they're not going to dip into their pocket unless they have to.
2:40:04:
Dave Yuan: Right.
2:50:04:
Chair Burt: And --
2:40:07:
Dave Yuan: And we're making them have to. We will definitely bring that data back after we launch.
2:40:08:
Chair Burt: Thank you. OK. That's all I had on that.
2:40:12:
Chair Burt: All right. So, now, to the heftier subject of the COSA on the gas.
------------
5:03:45:
Item 3. Infrastructure and Environment -- Capital Improvement Program
------------
5:47:14:
Fiber Fund
COO Kurotori: So, Fiber Fund. Again, if you look at this, this is really our Fiber-to-the-Premises. We areputting in a new fiber backbone. So, when you look at the budget, you'll see some funding from theUtilities. Because, you know, we're also getting the benefit. A lot of the dark fiber was created from theUtility side. So, you'll see that a lot of these strands go to our systems as we upgrade them, for not onlythe higher level of control that we're intending to have in the system, but also just to make sure that wehave robust communications. The $10.9M is for the Fiber-to-the-Premises. And then, we have theauthorization for that larger dollar amount. Again, as we move forward, as we get more information, aswe go out to bid, and bring those back, we get our customers outreach, we'll daylight a lot of thoseactivities, and what we're seeing in the market, as we see competition adjust.
5:48:11:
Chair Burt: And -- um -- this is on our expanded fiber-to-the-premise
### fiber-to-the-premises
We have, of course, our commercial fiber backbone and fund and revenue stream.
### Some of the City's dark fiber customers are residential. But staff refuses to identify any of the City'sdark fiber customers publicly.
And it's probably in there, but we've had our fiber-to-the-premise really funded through the accumulation
of profit from that other fund. How is that -- the revenue holding up on the commercial. We've alwayshad these different projections ** --
5:48:43:
COO Kurotori: Yeah. So, I'm -- I just got an update -- frankly, just yesterday. I'm still kind of trying to getinformation a little bit more on -- 'Cause there's other options and opportunities for our customers. Thatis an open market. So, you know, we need to be mindful of that. We are
### Or aren't. I wasn't sure.
going to be doing -- and I hate to say -- a cost-of-service study, and taking a look at that. But we alsoneed to do a market evaluation. And to see, you know -- And the cost-of-service is just making sure that,you know, are we allocating our costs to our rates, and make sure they're equitable. But that's differentfrom how we're going to work in a competitive marketplace. We are using a lot of the reserves that weregenerated by the dark fiber enterprise, to kind of -- as seed money, frankly, for the fiber-to-the-premises. So, we'll have to take a look at that and adjust to market conditions. I don't want to go in detail with that. We'll probably bring that to UAC.
5:49:36:
Chair Burt: But how are our profits holding up? From the commercial fiber?
### Again, from the dark fiber enterprise (which is not exclusively commercial).
5:49:42:
COO Kurotori: So, -- Ed, do you want to -- run an update to that? Thanks.
5:49:50:
Kiely Nose: Great. Thanks, Councilmember.
### And Chair.
Overall, the commercial dark fiber program is still running positive, in terms of revenues versus theexpenses.
### That's a very low bar.
When I don't include things like the capital infrastructure. Because we haven't necessarily teased out, asAlan identified, the kind of -- of the FTTP/dark fiber maintenance versus to-the-premise kind of costs. Butoverall, there is --
5:50:20:
Chair Burt: [unamplified] ** [amplified] So, that answers a fraction of the question.
5:50:22:
Kiely Nose: So -- I'm not getting it.
5:50:22:
Chair Burt: It's not whether it is in the positive -- which could be a dollar positive --
5:50:27:
Kiely Nose: Sure. Sure.
5:50:27:
Chair Burt: It's how are they holding up. We were kind of -- plus-or-minus a couple million dollars peryear. Are they still in that kind of range?
### I'm not sure what range Ms. Nose thought Chair Burt had specified.
### In the 12-month interval from FY 3Q19 to FY 3Q20, the Fiber Fund gained $4,022,000 (according to
Utilities Quarterly Update documents from those quarters).https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Utilities/Utilities-Advisory-Commission/Informational-ReportsBut in FY 2021, the Fiber Fund gained only $78,000 (according to the Utilities Quarterly Update document
from FY 4Q21.)https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/uac-informational-reports/2022-informational-reports/02-02-2022-id-13878-info.pdf
5:50:36:
Kiely Nose: Yes. They are.
5:50:37:
Chair Burt: OK. So --
5:50:38:
Kiely Nose: So, ** historically, there haven't been significant --
5:50:42:
Chair Burt: Good Good. OK. Because we -- different times, we --
5:50:44:
Kiely Nose: I see.
5:50:45:
Chair Burt: -- feared that we might have some deterioration of that. And --
5:50:48:
Kiely Nose: Obviously, there are ebbs and flows. But it's staying within that range.
5:50:51:
Chair Burt: Thank you.
5:50:52:
Kiely Nose: Um hum.
5:50;56:
COO Kurotori: Next slide, please. OK. Gas fund.
------------
From:astrauss@greenfirelaw.com
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:Request for setbacks from schools RE: Support for Proposed Reinstatement of ARB Review (5/19 City CouncilMeeting Agenda Item #11)
Date:Monday, May 19, 2025 2:41:49 PM
Attachments:Revised Recommended Additions to Ordinance.pdf2024-10-21- City Council Minutes.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council:
In connection with the recommendations in my previous message, I would like to call to your
attention to the fact that the current draft ordinance was intended by City Council to accord with
the Council’s October 21, 2024, motion, which passed 6 to 1: “to direct staff to return to Council
with an action item an amendment to the Wireless Communication Facilities ordinance, consistent
with the colleagues memo to the extent allowed by law, on a temporary basis, up to two years, with
the additional guidance provided by Council on a future permanent amendment to the Planning and
Transportation Commission and Architectural Review Board.” A copy of the minutes containing that
motion is attached.
However, the draft ordinance, as proposed, is not fully “consistent with the colleagues memo”
because it ignores paragraph (d) of Section 2 of the proposed resolution, which was part of the
memo and reads as follows:
“In order to ensure and maintain the safety, property values and aesthetic qualities of Palo
Alto streets and neighborhoods, the City Council hereby directs Staff, in Staff’s review of Tier
2 and Tier 3 WCF applications, to apply this additional guideline: Locating a WCF within 100
feet of a residential building or within 300 feet of a public school a) shall be least preferred;
b) shall only be permitted when there is no other technically feasible location; and c) shall
only be permitted if an expert, hired by the City and having no telecommunications industry
or telecommunications industry-related clients for at least two years, has evaluated the WCF
applicant’s assertions as to technical feasibility. The City Council hereby directs Staff that its
priority in the siting of WCFs is to maximize the distance between these facilities and
residences. “
This paragraph reflects the intention to establish 100-foot setbacks from residences and utilize a
technical consultant independent of any potential cell tower business conflicts of interest. My
previous communication neglected to include setbacks from schools, and I ask that the ordinance be
revised to require 300-foot setback from schools. Proposed language is shown in blue font as item
(i)(11) on the attached PDF labeled “Revised Recommended Additions to Ordinance.” Clarification
on avoiding conflicts of interest for consultants has also been added in blue to paragraph (3) on the
second page of that PDF.
Thank you,
Ariel Strauss
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________
510-900-9502 x 702
Greenfire Law, P.C.
2748 Adeline Street, Suite A
Berkeley, CA 94703
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICEThis communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, andany attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intendedrecipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLYPROHIBITED. Please contact me immediately by return e-mail or at 510-900-9502 x 2, and destroy the original transmission and itsattachments without reading or saving in any manner.
From: astrauss@greenfirelaw.com <astrauss@greenfirelaw.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2025 3:34 PM
To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Cc: city.clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org
Subject: Support for Proposed Reinstatement of ARB Review (5/19 City Council Meeting Agenda
Item #11)
Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council:
On behalf of United Neighbors of Palo Alto, I strongly urge the Council to adopt an ordinance
reinstating Architectural Review Board (ARB) review of cell towers in the right of way, review that
existed prior to 2019 and has been allowed again by the Ninth Circuit’s decision in 2020. In addition
to subjecting cell tower applications in the right-of-way to ARB review and public hearings, the best
way to protect residents from negative aesthetic impacts is to require applicants to select the
location that is furthest set back from residences (100 feet where feasible) and also employ a
consultant who does not work for the telecom industry to evaluate cell tower applicants’ claims of
federal preemption, something that staff alone are not qualified to do. These proposed additions to
the ordinance are shown in blue font on the attached PDF labeled “Recommended Additions to
Ordinance.”
Finally, I notice that the agenda packet does not include the Colleagues Memo that initiated this
process, or the several public comments submitted to the Council in October 2024 when the Memo
was considered. The Colleagues Memo and public comments are attached.
I urge you to add the two new standards to the ordinance and to approve the reinstatement of ARB
review and public hearings.
Thank you,
Ariel Strauss
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________510-900-9502 x 702Greenfire Law, P.C.2748 Adeline Street, Suite ABerkeley, CA 94703
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICEThis communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, andany attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intendedrecipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLYPROHIBITED. Please contact me immediately by return e-mail or at 510-900-9502 x 2, and destroy the original transmission and itsattachments without reading or saving in any manner.
NOT YET APPROVED Attachment A
9
027120324
Unless the City Council has adopted more specific standards, and except as otherwise
provided in this section, a proposed WCF Project shall comply with the following standards:
(1) Shall utilize the smallest antennae, radio, and associated equipment, as measured by
volume, technically feasible to achieve a network objective;
(2) Shall be screened from public view;
(3) When attached to an existing structure, shall be shrouded or screened using materials
or colors found on existing structure;
(4) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required
landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the
Zoning Code;
(5) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design,
including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base
station, or tower into the surrounding area, such as the use of a monopine design;
(6) Shall not be attached on a historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49;
(7) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend
no more than fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district;
(8) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3
WCF Project shall not exceed beyond sixty-five (65) feet in height; and
(9) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and
rear setback.
(j) Conditions of Approval
In addition to any other conditions of approval permitted under federal and state law and
this Code that the Director deems appropriate or required under this Code, all WCF Projects
approved under this chapter, whether approved by the Director, City Council, or deemed
granted by operation of law, shall be subject to the following conditions of approval:
(1) Permit conditions. The grant or approval of a WCF Tier 1 Permit shall be subject to the
conditions of approval of the underlying permit, except as may be preempted by the Spectrum
Act.
(2) As-built plans. The applicant shall submit to the Director an as-built set of plans and
photographs depicting the entire WCF as modified, including all transmission equipment and all
utilities, within ninety (90) days after the completion of construction.
(3) Applicant shall hire a radio engineer licensed by the State of California to measure the
actual radio frequency emission of the WCF and determine if it meets FCC's standards. A report,
certified by the engineer, of all calculations, required measurements, and the engineer's
findings with respect to compliance with the FCC's radio frequency emission standards shall be
submitted to the Planning Division within one year of commencement of operation.
(10) Shall, to the extent technically feasible, be set back one hundred (100) feet from any structure
approved for residential use. In the event that it is not technically feasible to set back the facility
one hundred (100) feet or more, the alternative that is furthest from all structures approved for
residential use shall be required.
(11) Shall, to the
extent technically
feasible, be set back
300 hundred (300)
feet from any school.
NOT YET APPROVED Attachment A
11
027120324
C. Denial of the application as proposed would violate federal law, state law, or both.
(2) An applicant must request an exception at the time an application is initially submitted
for a WCF permit under this Section 18.42.110. The request must include both the specific
provision(s) from which exception is sought and the basis of the request, including all
supporting evidence on which the applicant relies. Any request for exception after the City has
deemed an application complete constitutes a material change to the proposed WCF and shall
be considered a new application.
(3) If the applicant seeks an exception from objective standards adopted by City Council
resolution or generally applicable development standards, the Director may refer the
application to the Architectural Review Board for recommendation on whether the application
complies with such standards to the greatest extent feasible.
(43) The applicant shall have the burden of proving that federal law, state law, or both
compel the decision-making authority to grant the requested exception(s), using the
evidentiary standards applicable to the law at issue. The Ccity shall have the right to hire
independent consultants, at the applicant’s expense, to evaluate the issues raised by the
exception request and to submit rebuttal evidence where applicable.
(l) Removal of Abandoned Equipment
A WCF (Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3) or a component of that WCF that ceases to be in use for
more than ninety (90) days shall be removed by the applicant, wireless communications service
provider, or property owner within ninety (90) days of the cessation of use of that WCF. A new
WCF permit shall not be issued to an owner or operator of a WCF or a wireless communications
service provider until the abandoned WCF or its component is removed.
(m) Revocation
The Director may revoke any WCF Permit if the permit holder fails to comply with any
condition of the permit. The Director's decision to revoke a Permit shall be appealable pursuant
to the process applicable to issuance of the Permit, as provided in subdivisions (f), (g), and (h) of
this section.
(n) Expiration
Except as otherwise provided in the permit or in a lease or license agreement with the City
of Palo Alto, WCF permits shall be valid for a period of ten years from the date of approval. An
applicant may seek extensions of an approved WCF permit in increments of no more than ten
years and no sooner than twelve months prior to the expiration of the permit. The Director
shall approve an extension request upon finding that that applicant has complied with all
conditions of approval for the WCF permit and will comply with all other requirements
applicable to WCFs at the time the extension is granted. Prior to issuing a decision on an
extension request, the Director may seek additional studies and information to be prepared at
the applicant’s expense.
```
Any consultant shall not have been hired by
any wireless telecommunications company
or WCF applicant or operator in the previous
five (5) years.
CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 1 of 18
Regular Meeting
October 21, 2024
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual
teleconference at 5:30 P.M.
Present In Person: Burt, Kou, Lauing, Lythcott-Haims, Stone, Tanaka, Veenker
Councilmember Tanaka Arrived at 5:34 P.M.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims Arrived at 5:37 P.M.
Present Remotely:
Absent:
Call to Order
Mayor Stone called the meeting to order. Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk, called roll noting five
present.
Special Orders of the Day
1. Review List of Applicants and Select Candidates to Interview for the Parks and
Recreation Commission Vacancy. CEQA Status – Not a project.
City Clerk Ah Yun announced the special recruitment for the vacancy on the Parks and
Recreation Commission closed on October 6. The applications were made available to the
Council and to the public. All Council members electronically submitted their selections of
candidates to interview to the clerk's office. She provided a slide presentation outlining the
vote results. The three candidates being moved forward to the interview round were Vadim
Axelrod, Yu Deng and James Fox tentatively scheduled for October 28.
Councilmember Burt questioned if there was an interest in interviewing more than the three.
He was interested in all six. He suggested possibly reconsidering the policy to provide more
flexibility.
City Clerk Ah Yun advised it was at the discretion of the Council to make a motion to either
select to interview all or potentially add an additional vote.
Vice Mayor Lauing opined that the list was short enough that they could interview all six
candidates.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 2 of 18
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024
Councilmember Veenker expressed concern about making a wholesale change on interviewing
all the applicants as sometimes there were multiple positions on multiple commissions.
Councilmember Burt did not expect that they would all want to interview the same candidates.
Councilmember Kou thought it was prudent to meet with all worthwhile candidates.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims was not inclined to go this direction but supported it out of a
sense of collegiality.
Mayor Stone did not want to go back to the old practice but agreed there were a lot of good
applicants here and was fine interviewing all for a small applicant pool.
MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Kou to interview all six (6)
applicants for the Parks and Recreation Commission special recruitment.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
2. Resolution in Support of the Child Care Program: Build the Future Santa Clara County
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims read the resolution. She acknowledged Minka van der Zwaag
and Lee Pfab for their roles in the resolution being put forward in Palo Alto.
Working Partnerships USA Representative accepted the resolution. She provided an overview
of Build the Future. She asked for yes votes to continue to reaffirm support for affordable
childcare in the City.
Councilmembers Burt and Veenker and Mayor Stone expressed appreciation for Palo Alto
Community Child Care.
MOTION: Councilmember Lythcott-Haims moved, seconded by Councilmember Burt to
approve the Resolution is support of the Child Care Program: Build the Future Santa Clara
County.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Kiely Nose, Assistant City Manager, indicated there were no revisions.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 3 of 18
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024
Public Comment
1. Samantha R., Vice Chair Historic Resources Board, spoke in preparation for Chairperson
Eagleston-Cieslewicz 's review of the 23-24 workplan. She requested a joint Council-HRB
study session on historic preservation initiatives during the 2025 workplan year.
2. Ahmed M. mentioned the recent hate crimes event. He advised that an integral part of
preventing hate crimes was ensuring the people's trust in the government to be able to
report them. He encouraged Council to attend Muslim events and announced a Friday
prayer at Unity at 1:30.
Councilmember Questions, Comments and Announcements
Councilmember Burt wanted to make sure everyone was aware of the UNAFF showings of all
things related to the UN Declaration of Human Rights through the 27th. He gave an update on
the Bay Adapt Plan of Shoreline Rise of the Bay Conservation Development Commission. They
will be looking at approval in December. He clarified the role of BCDC being to adopt guidelines.
The Regional Shoreline Adaptation plan was planned to be adopted on December 5. He
described goals of the Bay Adapt Plans by other cities. He advised the guidelines would not
change the permitting processes. Local cities would be adopting their plans under the RSAP and
they would determine whether those plans need CEQA approval. Once they have approved
plans, they would be eligible for additional funding. He hoped to from the city manager at the
next meeting when the next update would be agendized.
Councilmember Kou reported out on her trip to the Cal Cities Conference the week before. She
described sessions she attended on the California Economic Forecast and navigating the fire
insurance maze.
Councilmember Tanaka provided an update on discussions with Tesla about Palo Alto providing
test areas for self-driving taxis. This would allow them to provide the service to the community
at great prices. Tesla does not have the license to pick people up so there was discussion about
potentially going under Palo Alto Link's license.
Councilmember Veenker thanked staff, community members, Neighbors Abroad and her
colleagues for supporting the Connection Weekend and described the associated events. She
thanked the HRC and Mayor Stone for facilitating the Hate Crimes Panel. She gave a report on
her attendance of the Cal Cities Conference where Brown Act guidelines did not get discussed
as intended as there was not a quorum and it would go to the Board of Directors. She
mentioned having a regional breakfast with the Peninsula Division of the League of California
Cities where they talked about the programs they have had this year and efforts being made in
San Jose around homelessness and housing. She announced she was re-elected as the
Legislative Action Committee Chair from Santa Clara County. She spoke about the Electric Home
Tour that was held the past weekend.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 4 of 18
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims commended the Sibling Cities Team for an extraordinary Town
Hall and Housing the past weekend. She was struck by the similarities between Palo Alto and
the sister city, Bloomington. She brought up the Open House held in City Hall a week and a half
before where the Community could look at presentations and depictions of Downtown and
answer questions about what they would like to see where and what was important to them.
She encouraged more residents to come out for those things. She expressed her appreciation of
the Hate Crimes Conversations sponsored by the HRC. She mentioned a conversation held by
the Retail Committee the week prior about the imperative of holding a study session to
examine the levers the City and its partners in business need to push and pull to stimulate the
local retail economy. She encouraged participation of anyone that the issue appeals to.
Vice Mayor Lauing underscored thanks to the HRC for their work on the Hate Crimes Forum.
Councilmember Burt mentioned the Calenda Parade held the past Saturday on California
Avenue. It would potentially be the first year of an ongoing festival. He remarked that Caltrain
was in the midst of a modification to their Quarter Crossing Strategy. The Rail Committee had
been attempting to look at efforts to reduce environmental impact of rail crossings and that
package could perhaps address three-quarters of the reasons they were planning to do grade
separations at a fraction of the time, cost and impact. The focus is to continue forward on the
highest priority grade crossings and then to look at the other measures as a package. This
would be presented at the next Local Policy Maker Group then he would bring this concept
back to the Council.
Consent Calendar
Public Comment: Amy M. (Zoom) urged Council not to extend the contract with Team Sheeper
for the management of Rinconada Pool until they addressed the needs of Palo Alto residents.
She opined that it should be tracked residents were actually using the pool. She thought it was
unacceptable that access to the pool was restricted after 4 PM. She discussed issues with the
current pricing structure.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims and Tanaka requested to Pull Agenda Item Number 6.
Councilmember Tanaka registered a no vote on Agenda Item Numbers 4, 5, 7, 10.
Councilmember Kou registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 12.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 6.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Lauing moved, seconded by Councilmember Burt to approve Agenda
Item Numbers 3-12.
MOTION PASSED ITEMS 3, 8, 9, 11: 7-0
MOTION PASSED ITEMS 4, 5, 7, 10: 6-1, Tanaka no
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 5 of 18
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024
MOTION PASSED ITEM 12: 6-1, Kou no
MOTION PASSED ITEM 6: 6-1, Lythcott-Haims no
Councilmember Tanaka voted no on Item 4 as he thought they should have stronger
justifications for carrying certain funds forward by prioritizing only legally-required or revenue-
backed projects and setting higher bars for discretionary projects. His no vote on Item 5 was
because he thought it was too late and did not make sense. His no vote on Item 7 was because
he felt heat pump water heaters were too expensive and he thought they would get a better
return on investment in terms of reducing carbon output by spending money on transportation
projects. He also opined that the numbers did not add up. His no vote on Item 10 was because
he felt like they should not pour more money into that project.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims voted no on Item 6 as she was concerned about entering into a
5-year contract without having the data needed as to whether the pool was serving Palo Alto
residents and requested bringing that data in the future. She suggested the public commenter
to bring the same public comment in front of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
3. Approval of Minutes from September 30, 2024 and October 7, 2024 Meetings
4. Approval of FY 2024 Reappropriation Requests to FY 2025; CEQA Status: Not a Project
5. Approval of Purchase Order with Anixter, Inc. for the Purchase of Fiber Materials Not-to-
Exceed $348,003; and Authorization to Execute Changes Not-to-Exceed $30,000 for
Related, for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $378,003 for Fiscal Year 2025; CEQA
Status – Council action on this item is within the scope of the Final Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was adopted by Council Resolution on June
17, 2024
6. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C19173035 with Team
Sheeper, Inc., for a five-year Operating and Revenue Sharing Agreement for operations
of Rinconada Pool, with an option to renew for an additional five years, effective
January 1, 2025; CEQA status –not a project.
7. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number S25190354 with
Larratt Bros Plumbing Inc. in the Amount of $410,000 for the Residential Emergency
Water Heater Replacement Pilot Program Within Electrification Programs; CEQA Status
– Not a Project.
8. Approval of Contract Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. S18171325 with ESO Solutions
for a 5-Year Extension, Increasing the Total Not-to-Exceed (NTE) Amount by $150,007 to
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 6 of 18
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024
$277,155 for the Fire Department's Records Management System (RMS) and Electronic
Patient Care Reporting (ePCR) Software; CEQA Status: Not a Project
9. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Grant Applications to the California Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle); CEQA status – not a project.
10. Approval of 1) Increase of Construction Contingency for Contract No. C21178123B with
Swinerton Builders in the Amount Not-to-Exceed $1,000,000; 2) Increase of
Construction Contingency for Contract No. C23186775 with L.D. Strobel Co., Inc. in the
Amount of $25,000; 3) Increase of Contingency for Purchase Order No. 4523000432
with Pivot Interiors in the Amount of $40,000 in the Capital Improvement Fund for the
New Public Safety Building Capital Project (PE-15001); CEQA – Environmental Impact
Report for the New Public Safety Building and New California Avenue Area Garage
(Resolution 9772)
11. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Updating Palo Alto Municipal Code
Chapter 4.64 (Permits for Retailers of Tobacco Products) to Conform with County
Amendments and Approval of the Updated Agreement Between the County of Santa
Clara and City of Palo Alto for a Tobacco Retail Permit Program (FIRST READING:
September 23, 2024 PASSED 7-0)
12. SECOND READING: Adopt an Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending Chapters
18.14, 18.24, 18.70, and 16.65 in the Palo Alto Municipal Code as well as Amendments
to the Zoning District Map, and Rezoning of Parcels Within the NVCAP area (FIRST
READING: September 23, 2024 PASSED 6-1 Kou no; PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED: August 5,
2024 PASSED 6-1, Kou no)
City Manager Comments
Assistant City Manager Nose provided a slide presentation on behalf of City Manager Ed
Shikada noting updates on the Palo Alto Community Survey and the University Ave. Streetscape
Project Online Survey and upcoming November Community celebrations, notable tentative
upcoming Council items.
Action Items
13. Approval of FY 2025 Architectural Review Board, Historic Resources Board, Human
Relations Commission, and Planning and Transportation Commission Workplans; CEQA
status – not a project
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 7 of 18
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024
Human Relations Commission Chair Eberle went over the Human Relations Commissions Work
Plan for FY24/25 covering key accomplishments of FY22/23 and Work Plan highlights for
F24/25.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims pointed out that the community wants to call things hate
crimes and get a resolution that feels neat and clean but it is not that simple. A hate crime has
to involve an actual crime. She wondered what the HRC would take up as a continuation of the
conversation in trying to convene the community. She mentioned a program that had been
instituted in the wake of the George Floyd murder that might be a model for getting back out
into the community and having small conversations among the willing.
Chair Eberle thought it was important that one of the takeaways from the meeting the previous
week was that there is a difference between a hate crime and a hate incident but the police do
want to know about hate incidents. They made several recommendations to Council a few
weeks prior and she was starting to work with the City to work to do training on antisemitic,
anti-Arab and Islamophobic topics for boards, commissions and city staff. They hoped to keep
the dialog alive in a respectful way. She added they have talked about facilitating conversations
and would follow up on Councilmember Lythcott-Haims' suggestion.
Councilmember Burt wanted to follow up with the police that there are times where a hate
incident can be a precursor to a future hate crime and having that on the record would be
valuable. He suggested potentially having a preventative engagement to reach out where
someone is bordering on going over the line. He asked if the thought of a discussion of funding
for the various non-profits and emerging needs would help inform their subsequent review
under goal one. He wanted to make sure the HRC was aware of the programs that are being
evaluated as part of the Climate Action Plan specifically to address electrification and heat
pumps that go into the HVAC system for multifamily home and affordable housing. He asked if
the first data from the Rental Registry was on the radar of the HRC and suggested putting it as
an additional goal.
Ms. Eberle agreed that the discussion of funding would be helpful. She replied that as soon as
there was data they could take it upon themselves or the Council could refer something to
them. She remarked that the police did say they wanted to keep track of the hate incidents in
case it rose to a hate crime.
Minka Van Der Zwaag, Human Services Manager, responded that since the HRC Work Plan was
established last March that the registry was far enough that they were thinking of coming to
the HRC with data. The Planning Department had been involved in many of the items but she
was not sure they were specifically coming to the HRC with the results.
Councilmember Veenker mentioned the Community Equity Health and Justice Committee that
focused on the issues of heat pumps and electrification and suggested some of what they did
might be instructive on this goal. She invited them to work with the Council and Climate Ad Hoc
Committee on climate control so they could be coordinated on things. She wanted to know
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 8 of 18
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024
what they had in mind regarding a listening session and what role they could be of help and
support on that goal.
Ms. Eberle replied they were thinking of finding out the City's response to shelter needs for the
unhoused during extreme weather events. She recalled there was pushback the previous year
about opening up the library for the unhoused during inclement weather. They wanted to invite
the residents of Palo Alto to come and make public comment on it. She said they could also
discuss electrification and heat pumps but they were mainly looking at how to serve the
unhoused of the community in inclement weather and people who could not afford their high
utility bills. They also planned to have somebody from Utilities talk to them to come up ideas
for resolution.
Councilmember Kou inquired what group they referred to as vulnerable populations. She asked
if it was a specific library the residents were having issues with being used as a shelter during
inclement weather. She questioned if they reach out to organizations like La Comida,
AbilityPath or Avenidas when talking about the vulnerable even on other topics.
Ms. Eberle responded that was the unhoused and lower socioeconomic. She stated they were
in constant conversation with those organizations when they dealt with a topic that might
interest one of them.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag understood that some residents had concerns about the use of the
downtown library as an overnight warming location and staff would bring that information to
the Human Relations Commission. Her intention was to give a presentation as a key program
that the City and Office of Human Services was doing during the cold weather season. She
recalled there were neighbor complaints about the library being used as an overnight warming
area. She stated in anticipation for the cold weather this year they were going to have an open
house for the OWL inviting members of the public displaying information and rules and inviting
questions.
Councilmember Tanaka wanted to know what percentage of people were suffering from high
utility rates. He thought it would be good to keep track of how frequent the complaints are.
Ms. Eberle answered they get complaints about the high utility rates from people on a fixed
income and the rates continue to go up. They are trying to gather data to understand the
problem and invite public comment in order to act on it.
Mayor Stone expressed appreciation of the work of the HRC.
MOTION: Councilmember Veenker moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims to
approve the Human Relations Commission Fiscal Year 2025 Workplan.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
MOTION SPLIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 9 of 18
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024
MOTION: Councilmember Veenker moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims to
request the Human Relations Commission do a preliminary review of the rental registry data
and to begin to formulate any recommendations to Council they would have based upon that
data.
MOTION PASSED: 6-1, Tanaka no
Architectural Review Board Chair Rosenberg gave a slide presentation reviewing the
Architectural Review Board, ARB 23-24 accomplishments, initial proposal and final designs on
projects they provided input on and the ARB 24-25 Work Plan (ARB approved April 4).
Vice Mayor Lauing inquired if they had considered mini area plans in order to make zoning and
building decisions without having to wait four years. He did not understand the second bullet
point on Item Number 5.
Chair Rosenberg replied they have to follow the stepping point. The smaller stepping stones of
doing smaller areas at a time were complicated. The goal of the coordinated area plans was
that they had a larger swath they were tackling all at once so it was not piecemeal. She would
discuss with the Board if there were targeted areas they could potentially dig into faster. She
explained it was their understanding that the staff would be helping to facilitate
communication because they did not always sit in on City Council meetings.
Councilmember Veenker wanted feedback from staff about recommendation five. She
wondered if the preliminary meetings seemed like a good idea and what to expect.
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director, indicated they were always open to
ideas on making the process easier and more coordinated. He thought there were a couple of
projects that get on peoples' radar because they may be cumbersome in some way. They have
objective standards and have made changes to their zoning regulations and are looking at
additional ways to streamline and incentivize certain projects that would go through a much
more streamlined review process. His understanding of the recommendation was that there
was a desire to have more communication between the boards and direction and actions the
City Council has taken. He thought there was an opportunity to have a communication at the
beginning of meetings talking about work that has been done from other boards and
commissions that may have some overlap.
Chair Rosenberg observed they had not had a big step forward in this other than having people
sit in on some meetings and listen in to things they thought were pertinent. There are several
projects that are more finicky in terms of how they will process. The ARB was not looking to
have extra meetings but just make sure there was more coordination.
Councilmember Burt commended the Commission on their efforts.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 10 of 18
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024
MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims to
approve the Architectural Review Board Fiscal Year 2025 Workplan with the additional referral
to review aesthetic standards for cell towers contingent on City Council direction to do so.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Historic Resources Board Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz provided a slide presentation reviewing the
Historic Resources Board, HRB 23-24 accomplishments and HRB 24-25 Work Plan (HRB
approved April 11, revises August 8).
Councilmember Burt expressed appreciation of the HRB's work and for reconsideration of the
Mill's Act.
Councilmember Kou thought it should be clearly stated that projects go through HRB first and
then recommendations made to other committees.
Mayor Stone liked the idea of increased incentives.
Councilmember Tanaka wanted to highlight that some people do not want to be on the list of
potentially eligible historic homes. He preferred having the option to opt in versus having to opt
out.
Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz responded they are working to update the language on the parcel
reports to clarify it.
Director Lait added they would be having an update for the City Council on that topic in the
next two to four weeks.
MOTION: Councilmember Kou moved, seconded by Mayor Stone to approve the Historic
Resources Board Fiscal Year 2025 Workplan.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Chang provided a slide presentation reviewing
the Planning and Transportation Commission, PTC 23-24 accomplishments, project pictures and
PTC 24-25 Work Plan (PTC approved April 24, 2024).
Councilmember Burt suggested creating a template for the process under the comp plan policy
implementation.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 11 of 18
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024
Councilmember Lauing encouraged talking to the ARB about the area plan. He agreed with the
comments about getting things right the first time and getting things approved when they are
submitted.
Chair Chang indicated area planning was where the PTC could use Council's and ARB's
assistance the most.
Councilmember Veenker echoed Councilmember Burt's comments.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims queried how to work around something already in the pipeline
when a coordinated area plan was developed. She wanted to know if applicants were informed
that a coordinated area plan was coming. She asked what they had learned from prior
coordinated area plan efforts that they would want to deploy for San Antonio Road. She asked
if two years was the amount of time it takes to do a proper process or to fit it in alongside the
various other items in the workplan of the various bodies that have to participate.
Director Lait answered to some degree the City Council has an opportunity to think about that.
He explained how PTC and staff had been cognizant of the projects that had been filed and
processed. He indicated they let the applicants know that they have an interest in the area and
what they are. He explained that two years was an ambitious schedule to conduct an area plan
such as the one on San Antonio. They set forth that timeline in order to communicate their
urgency and need to advance important policy discussions quickly and get a consultant that
could meet that standard. He noted differences between SOFA and NVCAP in planning
effectiveness. The Housing Ad Hoc had many tasks to look at the coordinated area plan process
and they had some conversation about it. He thought there was value in going back to look at
what was and was not successful in the different initiatives. He indicated not calling it a
coordinated area plan and relying on state law as an area plan concept gave them flexibility to
respond to the community and move the policies forward.
Chair Chang thought the consultant selection was critical and feedback needed to be taken
seriously.
Councilmember Burt opined they should learn from the SOFA and NVCAP processes before
starting the San Antonio Plan process.
Councilmember Kou added that moving forward the coordinated plans should be inclusive of
what the area would be needing. She thought they needed to ensure the consultants had an
idea of local conditions.
Mayor Stone agreed with the frustration around the use of consultants in the community. He
thought they could do a better job developing policy around that. He requested for staff to be
very clear with Council about their needs to accelerate the timeline on area plans.
Director Lait indicated unilateral decision making would accelerate developing plans and pulling
things together.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 12 of 18
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024
MOTION: Vice Mayor Lauing moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims to approve
the Planning and Transportation Commission Fiscal Year 2025 Workplan.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
14. Adoption of City Council Positions on State and Local Measures Presented to Palo Alto
Voters on the November 5, 2024 Ballot; CEQA status – not a project
Christine Prior, Deputy City Clerk, and Carly Shelby, Townsend Public Affairs Senior Associate,
gave a joint slide presentation about 2024 ballot measures discussion and possible positions,
she provided the background, November 5, 2024, recommended positions, description of ballot
initiatives including Propositions 3, 6, 32, 33, 34, 36, 2, 4, 5 and 35 and the recommendations.
Councilmember Kou requested to see a diagram of the proposed road on Measure D. For
Proposition 2 and 4, she asked where the money would come from and when they would see
the money available.
Senior Associate Shelby answered they would essentially be purchasing and selling bonds. The
bond would comprise less than one-half of one percent of the state's budget. The state would
have to pay interest on the money it borrowed. The total cost of the bond would be about 10
percent more after adjusting for inflation than if the state paid up front for taxes. They would
be looking at a few hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of the carrying cost for the bonds
over a 35-year period. She said that the revenue certainty would become clearer in November
when some of the preliminary tax receipts were on hand but would only be really clear in April
when the final tax receipt push occurs. They did anticipate another budget deficit but did not
know the extent of it. She stated they had not bonded to this extent in some time and the
impact on the state's general fund would be minimal.
Councilmember Veenker supported the staff-recommended positions.
Councilmember Burt agreed with the recommendations on the propositions that were already
consistent with their legislative guidelines but he was interested in looking at positions on
propositions that were not already framed by their legislative guidelines. He wanted to know if
PAUSD has taken a position on Prop 2. He stated he would tend to be supportive of what they
believe would be beneficial to the schools in the community. He thought Prop 33 would react
against a problem with the current law and swing to the opposite direction. He thought that the
length of time new properties were allowed to be free of rent control was an important
question for the Council. He was also interested in Prop 36 and Measure D.
Deputy City Clerk Prior agreed to find the information on PAUSD's position on Prop 2.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 13 of 18
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024
Vice Mayor Lauing was not ready to dive into Costa Hawkins. He concurred with
Councilmember Veenker's position.
Councilmember Veenker supported Proposition 2 but she personally wanted to defer the
PAUSD on taking a position. She discussed the complexity of Proposition 33 preferring to stay
out of it as a Council.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims agreed with Vice Mayor Lauing on the complexity of Costa
Hawkins. She liked the notion of grappling with ballot measures sooner in the future. She
reported that she had corresponded with a school board member who indicated that the
school board did not take any positions officially but a number were personally in favor of Prop
2.
Councilmember Kou supported all but Proposition 5. She explained how Proposition 5 would be
a burden to the property owners.
Councilmember Tanaka did not support Propositions 5, 32, 33. He did support Proposition 36.
Mayor Stone supported the staff recommendations.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Lauing moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims to adopt
support positions on Measure D, Proposition 3, and Proposition 4.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
MOTION SPLIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING
MOTION: Vice Mayor Lauing moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims to adopt
support position on Proposition 5.
MOTION PASSED: 5-2, Kou, Tanaka no
15. Colleagues Memo - Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless
Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance.
Councilmember Kou explained with the court order that had taken place in 2020 at the Ninth
Circuit Court, the City of Portland versus the United States, jurisdictions were given the ability
to return to subjective standards and she believed that should be put on the agenda for further
discussion to review the designs and placement.
Vice Mayor Lauing added that in September of 2018 FCC issued a ruling to move away from
objective standards for small cell wireless. At that time, many of the PTC argued that since the
edict was already being legally opposed by many other cities, no action should be taken until
the court made a ruling. PTC was overruled by staff. In 2019, Council voted to go ahead with it
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 14 of 18
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024
but PTC also said they could easily revert back to the current norm and process if the FCC action
was not sustained by the court. It was vacated in 2020. The staff report declared it arbitrary,
not defined and its purpose unexplained. He opined it should have been reverted seamlessly
right after the 2020 verdict to their thoughtful list of subjective standards prepared by multiple
city departments and managed with transparency and in public meetings by the ARB. He
pointed out that the so-called objective standards were really not objective and the small cell
towers needed site-specific review in some cases so the one size fits all approach could not be
taken on all of the antennas. With the FCC standards being applied by the planning director,
applicants can request and obtain exceptions based on their own claims of necessity and
sometimes that necessity from the standpoint of the applicants is based on a desire to lower
their costs of creating the setting. The subjective changes are already being made by the
planning director instead of the ARB as it was before. He opined the best outcome for citizens
would be a process of ARB making these judgment calls based on their training and their
expertise for various areas in the city and in a public hearing with transparency.
Assistant City Manager Nose indicated staff provided a response for a resource in their report.
Public Comment:
1. Jeanne F. spoke on behalf of the United Neighbors of Palo Alto who were requesting
Council to vote to agendize the Colleagues Memo for full consideration by Council.
2. Peter B. (Zoom), member of the Architecture Review Board, urged Council to take up
this item. He felt that staff had not interpreted and enforced their standards the way
they intended and believed it needed more work to properly represent what the citizens
of Palo Alto would like.
3. Bryna C. (Zoom) urged Council to advance the recommendations in the Colleagues
Memo.
Councilmember Burt pointed out the recommendation was to flat out appeal.
Councilmember Veenker questioned if going back to the subjective standards meant the ones
already on the books or the ones that had been developed and proposed. She wanted to know
when the standards in the code had been developed. If they go back to subjective standards,
she was not sure they want to go back to 2017 as technology has changed a lot since then. She
asked if there had been any prior efforts on developing subjective standards because of the
Ninth Circuit decision. She wanted clarification about shot clock and why a party applicant
would agree to not be deemed approved. With the remedies getting stronger, she was curious
what would motivate one to do an extension deal if an application would be deemed approved
if the clock was allowed to run out. She wondered if they have this agendized and go through
all the processes to adopt new standards if it will really be a distinction without a difference.
Director Lait replied they had standards in the code that guided their review that were struck
and replaced with objective standards. He was not aware of any efforts looking to establish
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 15 of 18
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024
subjective standards since the court ruling. He said they were taking a look at their objective
standards and trying to come up with a set of criteria that would guide their decision making.
They were contemplating a point-based system that would allow them to promote certain
types of facilities depending on where they were located in the city and whether they met
certain criteria and assigning higher or lower points in the negative if it were in proximity to a
school or residential properties, for example. He remarked they do engage with applicants to
toll agreements when there is a mutual benefit to do so. He did not know if staff shares the
same perspective in the memo that it is as easy to accomplish for these particular types of
facilities because they do not have the same leverage they might have in another type of
development application where they are trying to reach some kind of an agreement on that.
They have to proceed with processing the application based on the timelines that are codified
or established and if they do get a tolling agreement, it will not be at the beginning. It might
happen if it happens toward the end but by that time they would not have gone through all of
the work, schedule the hearing before the Architecture Review Board and likely schedule the
hearing before the City Council before the agreement was received. He thought the motivation
to do an extension deal would depend on the circumstance and that people generally do not
like to have an adversarial relationship with the Regulatory Authority that is processing their
application but that does not mean that they will necessarily agree to a tolling agreement. They
may utilize the stronger position that they have now for wireless applications than they may
have been willing to in the past. He explained how they would process the applications such
that the clock did not run out. It was his understanding that the tolling agreement included the
appeal period.
Ms. Fleming explained objective standards refer to the process by which any development in
the city of Palo Alto was to be considered. The movement to the so-called objective standards
was to try to put in concrete standards that could be used over and over again. The subjective
standards were part of the city ordinance with respect to any type of development, cell towers
included.
Vice Mayor Lauing thought they should have the discussion about whether they want to go
back to the 2017 subjective standards at the next meeting where it could be agendized.
Caio Arellano, Chief Assistant City Attorney agreed with Director Lait's comments. He added
they find that it depends on how the applicant wishes to proceed. In terms of the general legal
landscape, the shot clock timelines have gotten shorter and the remedies for violating the shot
clock have gotten stronger. There is now a deemed approved remedy if an application is not
acted on within the specified time period.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims queried how often this happens, how pertinent it is, what
volume of work would it entail and what would be displaced to make room for this.
Chief Assistant City Attorney Arellano replied it would be hard to forecast because they come in
batches typically by carrier but looking at the last couple of years and only tier 2 or tier 3
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 16 of 18
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024
applications, which would be the ones proposed to move back to ARB review, there were 8 tier
2 applications in 2022 and 1 in 2023 and 2024.
Director Lait remarked that it would be a low burden when there were no applications and a
high burden when there is an application with multiple nodes.
Councilmember Burt observed they could repeal the objective standards, refer this to PTC or do
a temporary amendment. He asked if he was correct that taking action that night would be
against policy.
Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton Gaines pointed out a note in Procedures and Protocols
that the colleagues memo process would provide for action to be taken same night in
straightforward or ceremonial cases. Staff was working hard to be respectful of colleagues
memo authors. The staff resource section was the staff drafted section and that was drafted in
collaboration with multiple departments. The colleagues memo itself appeared to be drafted.
The title of it and the attachment of a document in the form of a resolution appeared to
suggest immediate action. The title of the item that was noticed to the public did not include
adoption of a resolution because staff advised and informed the authors that that would be
inappropriate that night because it did not fall under their procedures and while it would be a
policy option for the Council to give them direction to bring back legislation that meets as much
as possible the goals of the drafted resolution, there would need to be some minor changes to
conform with law. One option was to refer this for more discussion at another time to Council,
one of their committees, a board or a commission. Another options would be to lay aside the
whole topic and decline to proceed. Yet another option would be give them enough detailed
direction they could draft legislation and bring it back.
Councilmember Burt wanted to look at the option that says, "This can be accomplished by
directing staff to amend the wireless communications facility ordinance in a manner consistent
with the colleagues memo. This process requires an ordinance that would be reviewed by the
PTC". He thought that would not occur if they asked for this to return directly to Council. He
wanted to see this laid out more clearly in the staff responses to colleagues memos. He asked if
referral to PTC rather than ARB was because that was the default process under state law. He
wondered if ARB would be the more appropriate commission to review it.
Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines understood there was some interest by some
Councilmembers to have it return to Council for continued discussion of the policy direction.
That language refers to the standard process mandated by state law for amending the zoning
code. They need to send an amendment to the zoning code through their planning commission
unless it is done on an urgent or temporary basis in which case it can be done directly but it'
would be temporary and then it would need to go to Planning and then back to Council. She
remarked an amendment to the zoning code would need to go to PTC at some point. If council
wished to send this matter to ARB, that would be an additional step and at their discretion.
Vice Mayor Lauing clarified that the point was to have a procedural meeting that night and the
intent of the two authors was to revert to subjective standards when it came back for full
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 17 of 18
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024
debate. They wished to take a look at it again and maybe fix some of that because things had
changed since 2017. He had not anticipated getting to the debate level that night.
Mayor Stone agreed this should have come before Council in 2020 when the Ninth Circuit made
this decision. He hoped they were moving in the right direction to be able to return back to
subjective standards.
Councilmember Burt observed the options before them were to send it to ARB or send it to ARB
and PTC before coming back to them.
Vice Mayor Lauing thought they some of them would be comfortable if they thoroughly debate
it, decide that it should go to one of those bodies with direction that they should feel free to
change the 2017 subjective standards if they can be improved and send it back for final
approval and they could get to it in the next month or so.
Councilmember Kou was under the impression they were going to be deciding if it would be
agendized on the next Council meeting. She suggested moving forward with the motion of
directing staff to bring back an ordinance to address subjective standards as they had
previously.
Councilmember Veenker asked if she was correct that if they want to talk about issues about
updating subjective standards, they would need to do so at the meeting and give direction
because otherwise they have the 2017 objective standards. She thought they would want to be
able to give more direction if they agree to refer this on to PTC and ARB for adoption of new
subjective standards and would appreciate any help given.
Director Lait thought one key feature about the subjective standards was that it was subject to
the Architecture Review Board findings which have not changed since 2017. He did not know if
there were other context-based criteria related to wireless facilities that got modified and
made objective based on how they were written.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims had concern with the sentence on item three that stated,
"Having a robust and demanding discretionary application review process…will achieve these
aims". She felt like that was a step back for the City. Her concern was that staff said even one of
them would be burdensome and in the report before them they do not know the scope of the
problem. Her inclination was to vote against moving this forward.
Councilmember Burt supported moving forward with agendizing this before the Council but not
merely with the language for the repeal but a better analysis of the alternative approaches and
the implications that would reside with each of them.
Chief Assistant City Attorney Arellano clarified that the previous subjective standards were the
findings under the architectural review process. Those would be reverting back to the pre-2018
standards. In preparing for this item, staff did not undertake a rigorous review of the
suggestions and previsions contained in the resolution. They cannot simply repackage the
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 18 of 18
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024
resolution in ordinance format for the Council's consideration. At that point, they could get to
some of the questions that Councilmember Burt addressed.
Councilmember Veenker wanted to know if the standards were broadly applicable or specific to
cell towers.
Ms. Fleming explained the fundamental difference is that there is ARB review, public hearing
and decisions with respect to siting and design made on the basis of particular applications as
opposed to any application that might be submitted at any time. Design is not typically a
problem because if you have a cluster of cell towers, the design is the same for all of them so
the ARB can deal with that very efficiently, but siting becomes more of an issue. On the design
and siting front, there were a set of guidelines prepared by the Planning Department, by
Utilities, by the ARB and by the PTC that established guidelines specifically for cell towers. It
might be as simple as the color paint that would be right for the equipment to be painted or
might be much broader. The objective standards are defined quantitatively.
Councilmember Burt said they were trying to find out if the subjective standards were adopted
or proposed.
Mayor Stone advised these questions would be answered when it comes back on consent.
Councilmember Burt asked for clarification of whether they had previously adopted subjective
standards specifically to cell towers or whether were looking at the general ARB standards
when it comes back as an agendized item.
MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Veenker to direct staff to
return to Council with a set of alternatives on the process by which we would be going forward
and a review of the historic context including prior standards and community impacts but not
limited to, resource and other implications and any alternatives that staff has identified.
MOTION WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER
MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Lauing to direct staff to return
to Council with an action item an amendment to the Wireless Communication Facilities
ordinance, consistent with the colleagues memo to the extent allowed by law, on a temporary
basis, up to two years, with the additional guidance provided by Council on a future permanent
amendment to the Planning and Transportation Commission and Architectural Review Board.
MOTION PASSED: 6-1, Lythcott-Haims no
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:43 P.M.
From:Diana O"Dell
To:Council, City
Cc:Nose, Kiely; Frick, Coleman; Tiffany Griego; Kelly Kline; Ramya Subramanian; Shweta Bhatnagar; Armer,
Jennifer; Lait, Jonathan
Subject:May 27, 2025 Palo Alto Council Meeting - #7 El Camino Real Focus Areas (Stanford Comment)
Date:Monday, May 19, 2025 1:56:19 PM
Attachments:2025-05-19__Stanford Comment Letter on ECR Focus Area Update.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Good afternoon,
Please see the attached comment letter regarding El Camino Real Focus Areas (Agenda Item #7) at the
upcoming City Council meeting of May 27, 2025.
We are happy to answer any questions you might have.
Diana O’Dell
Director, Land Use Planning
Stanford | Land, Buildings & Real Estate
408.839.9135
May 19, 2025
City of Palo Alto
City Council of City of Palo Alto
285 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 100,
Palo Alto, CA 94301
VIA EMAIL DELIVERY
Re: City Council Consideration of El Camino Focus Areas at their May 27th meeting
Dear Members of the City Council,
As a landowner of Stanford Research Park sites that are along the El Camino Real corridor, Stanford
University is in support of increasing housing and mixed-use opportunities to advance the City’s
intention to provide additional density on El Camino Real Focus Area sites.
Stanford supports the removal of the 50-foot Hansen Way special setback under the current El Camino
Real Focus Area update. Reducing this restrictive setback now will increase buildable area and create
more opportunities for additional housing. Changing this setback now will increase the feasibility of
future development that supports city goals.
In addition to the removal of the Hansen Way Special Setback, we also support Sand Hill Properties’
request to remove the below grade setbacks, add the option of paying a housing impact in-lieu fee,
and incorporate 607 Hansen and 811 Hansen Way properties into a future El Camino Focus Area, as
noted in their most recent letter to the City Council
We appreciate the City Council’s thoughtful consideration of our comments. Please reach out to our
team with any questions.
Sincerely,
Tiffany Griego,
Senior Managing Director, Commercial Real Estate Team
Stanford Real Estate, Stanford University
tgriego@stanford.edu
cc: Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services
Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director, Planning and Development Services
Coleman Frick, Long Range Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services
From:Henry Etzkowitz
To:Council, City
Cc:Jeanne Fleming
Subject:Visual pollution tech fix (typo corrected)
Date:Monday, May 19, 2025 12:29:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links.> > dear all
> > The aesthetic landscape of our city is increasingly stressed. Nevertheless, with respect to
excrescences attached to trees and other structures, council may initiate an innovation sourcedsolution by requiring extreme miniaturization, utilizing advanced electronics coupled with art
sourced design to make the revised devices appear like tree bark or other natural phenomenon.> California has led the way in regulation based innovation, starting with auto emissions and
the virtual elimination of smog. Palo Alto has the chance to follow suit with a solution toaesthetic pollution
> > Best
> Henry Etzkowitz> Neighbors for Environmental and Social Justice
> www.triplehelix.net>
> Sent from my iPhone>
> Sent from my iPhone>
> Sent from my iPhone
From:Henry Etzkowitz
To:Council, City
Cc:Jeanne Fleming
Subject:Visual pollution tech fix (typo corrected)
Date:Monday, May 19, 2025 12:25:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links.
> > dear all
> > The aesthetic landscape of our city is increasingly stressed. Nevertheless, with respect to
excrescences attached to trees and other structures, council may initiate an innovation sourcedsolution by requiring extreme miniaturization, utilizing advanced electronics coupled with art
sourced design to make the revised devices appear like tree bark or other natural phenomenon.> California has led the way in regulation based innovation, starting with auto emissions and
the virtual elimination of smog. Palo Alto has the chance to follow suit with a solution toaesthetic pollution
> > Best
> Henry Etzkowitz> Neighbors for Environmental and Social Justice
> www.triplehelix.net>
> Sent from my iPhone>
> Sent from my iPhone>
> Sent from my iPhone
From:Henry Etzkowitz
To:Palo Post; Brian Good; Charlie Weidanz; Council, City; Ellen Fox; Emma Talley; Gennady Sheyner; Hannah Lu;Heidi Roizen; Jeanne Fleming; Jim Hersh; Lotus Fong; Marty Wasserman; Mary Rorty; Rebecca Eisenberg;Roberta Ahlquist; Sarah Wright; mickie winkler; Braden Cartwright; Avroh Shah; Office of the Provost; RoselineRasolovoahangy; Mark Granovetter; Joe Penko; Gloria Hom; Carol Kiparsky; George for Palo Alto; Cari Templetonfor Council; Aram James; Henry Riggs; W. James Hersh; Jinx Lobdell
Subject:Visual pollution tech fix
Date:Monday, May 19, 2025 12:04:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
dear allThe aesthetic landscape of our city is increasingly stressed. Nevertheless, with respect toexcrescences attached to trees and other structures, council may initiate an innovation sourced
t by requiring extreme miniaturization, utilizing advanced electronics coupled with art sourceddesign to make the revised devices appear like tree bark or other natural phenomenon.
California has led the way in regulation based innovation, starting with auto emissions and thevirtual elimination of smog. Palo Alto has the chance to follow suit with a solution to aesthetic
pollution
BestHenry Etzkowitz
Neighbors for Environmental and Social Justicewww.triplehelix.net
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone