Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200224plCC 701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 2/24/2020 Document dates: 2/5/2020 – 2/12/2020 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 7:53 AM To:Council, City Cc:Furman, Sheri Subject:February 10 City Council Agenda Items #3 and #9 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine and Council Members:    With regard to item #9 on Monday, February 10's Council agenda, PAN's members voted to urge the city to correct the  penalty schedule to the intended amount, beginning at $2,157 per day. Correcting and collecting fees when developers  renege is the City's best way to make sure that developers provide the public benefits promised to the community in  exchange for relaxing the building standards under PC zoning.    With regard to item #3, the property owners are suing the city to avoid paying the fines which they owe the city by law?  The tail is wagging the dog. PAN urges Council to send the owners the clearest signal possible that the city intends to  collect lost penalties of approximately $250,000. First, we'll show the owners we mean business so they better provide  the promised market and in a hurry, and second these funds will come in handy and could be used to the public’s  advantage.    We all remember the debacle of Edgewood Plaza, and here we have a similar situation with College Terrace.     However, if the City were to course correct and demonstrate its willingness to enforce the law, insist on the community  benefit and collect fines, then the residents of this City would have much more confidence in our planning and zoning  processes.    Thank you for your kind consideration.    Becky Sanders  Sheri Furman  Co‐Chairs, Palo Alto Neighborhoods  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Angela Sowa <aasowa@mac.com> Sent:Saturday, February 8, 2020 10:09 AM To:Council, City Subject:fines for college terrace market CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am in favor of items 3 and 9 on the agenda this Monday Feb 9.   There should be a fine as stated for not supplying a market AND the money due on fines should be collected.  I was a regular at the market since I moved here in 1995.    Angela Sowa   Owner   Palo Alto, CA 94306  Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Dennis Facchino <dennisfacchino@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 9, 2020 10:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:Khoury’s CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Members of the City Council    I’m writing to express a “Yes” vote for Items 3 and 9 on Monday night’s agenda. I’ve been a supporter of Khoury’s  market from the beginning and have been saddened over the past 6 months as the market keeps sliding due to an  infinite remodeling/construction project that keeps the market’s presence hidden from the public.  The owners of the market have contributed significant economic and market resources to bring this market to this  community ‐ without any support from the ownership of the complex.  I’m unable to be present at the meeting so please except this letter as my support for collecting monies dues and  applying fines going forward.  Sincerely,    Dennis Facchino    Palo Alto, CA 94306  6502692128        Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Derek Gurney <derek.gurney@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 8, 2020 2:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda for Feb 10 2020, Items 3 and 9 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council members,    Please imagine this scenario     The City of Palo Alto has given tens of millions of dollars of value to a developer in exchange for a public benefit.  For example, extra development rights in exchange for leasing land for a new city recreation center.    The City recognized that the developer might have the incentive to not provide all of the land, so the City and  the developer agreed to a penalty if the developer failed to live up to the agreement.   A few years later, the developer has done what the City hoped wouldn't happen: provided only part of the land  but kept the tens of millions of dollars in value. Further, the developer has sold the land to another party, who  then sues the city to get out of the obligation to pay the penalty.  It's not hard to imagine the displeasure, to say the least, that residents and council members would feel in the scenario  I've outlined. I hope the council feels a similar sense of displeasure that the owners of the College Terrace Centre have  taken the tens of millions of dollars in value granted to them in the form of additional development space while failing  to fully provide the public benefit they deeded in exchange. The full public benefit promised by the developer has been  provided for less than 62% of the time since the Centre opened in mid‐June 2017 (i.e. 19.5 months out of 31.75 months),  and that percentage decreases every day.    Please treat the issue of the public benefit deeded at the College Terrace Centre as what it is: a swindle of the City of  Palo Alto worth tens of millions of dollars.    Yours truly,      Derek Gurney      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net> Sent:Thursday, February 6, 2020 1:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Video of arrest of Julio Arevelo CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  So sorry about your ma. A good long life. May her ancestors welcome her and her family carry one her spirit.    You are a good daughter.   Winter  On Feb 6, 2020, at 12:36 PM, Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net> wrote:    Council Members ‐ You will be considering the Claim (agenda item #4)  filed against the City by Palo Alto  resident, Julio Arevalo in closed session on Monday. Julio was arrested July 7, 2019 by the PAPD at  Happy Donuts. He has no charges filed against him ‐     CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY‐EXISTING LITIGATION Subject: Written Liability Claim Against the  City of Palo Alto By Julio Arevalo (Claim No. C19‐0112) Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9  (e)(3)    Here is the Happy Donuts video from its camera of the scene where Julio was when apprehended and  knocked out by PAPD Agent DeStefano. This video was televised by NBC and seen throughout the Bay  Area. I assume you have seen the PAPD videos but you have not seen this one. I provide it here in its  entirety ‐ it is complete and unedited.     Go to the NBC website:    nbcbayarea.com/weinvestigate  Click on the top left corner menu lines to get the search box  Type in Julio Arevalo  You will see a color photo of him at Stanford Hosp. with broken face bones. Scroll down till you get to the black and  white video near the end ‐ that’s the complete version to watch.  It has now been months since the Alvarez case was settled, and still no expression made by anyone of  authority that our city has zero tolerance for police brutality. That is such an easy thing to say, yet no  one can seem to say it. It is clearly aspirational rather than a fact, given we now have the Arevelo case,  but it needs to be made as a pledge, and backed up by action to see that it stops.     That sometimes victims of police brutality are less than perfect is not surprising and entirely irrelevant.  Brutality is brutality ‐ that it happens at all to anyone is against city policy, against human rights, and  against everything this town represents. And it is costing us money and civic reputation. Again.     The most action by the city so far has been to formalize the shuffling of PAPD internal cases to HR which  only leads to less accounting to the public in any meaningful way and could be to less good resolution  among officers. There has been no accounting to Palo Alto residents, or police held to account as far as  we know ‐ only $10,000 per month retirement pay. What happened to the officers who were involved  2 with Alvarez other than Benetiz, including the non‐reporting of the use of force in that case? Has any  discipline happened other than a peer taught session by an officer with 2 hours training on LBGQT  matters and a letter of apology to Alvarez? Not nearly sufficient ‐ this is a civic matter, not a secret  private matter. If it were, we wouldn’t be paying.     Do any of you think any of this is at all wrong? Do you really think that a declaration such as I suggest  would do any harm whatsoever as opposed to keeping silent? Are you accountable to the PAPD or to  the people of Palo Alto?     Winter Dellenbach        1 Baumb, Nelly From:Malcolm Slaney <malcolmslaney@google.com> Sent:Sunday, February 9, 2020 9:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:PC Fines CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I would like to urge the city council to do all they can to make sure that the landlords for the College Terrace Market pay  for their unkept promise.     These developers built a much larger building than they should have been able to build, at the expense of our  neighborhood.  They are benefiting to the tune, I'm sure, of millions of dollars in additional rent. They signed a  development agreement promising to pay hefty fines if they couldn't do as promised.  It is up to the city to make sure  they pay.  I'd rather have a market, or other neighborhood benefit, but I sleep better knowing that at least the city gets  some money for our pain.    As I understand it, the city is now thinking of using PCs to achieve housing goals.  If the city wants to be taken seriously,  then we should enforce the existing PC agreements.  I think it is unconscionable that the city is not able to make the  developer pay what was promised when the building was built.  Please fix this mistake as soon as possible and charge  them for taking advantage of our neighborhood and the city of Palo Alto.      ‐‐ Malcolm  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 7:41 AM To:Council, City Subject:Khoury's Market CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am writing to urge what I think is an obvious decision regarding the penalties that the owner of College Terrace Centre  seeks to avoid:  hold the owner to the terms of the contract.  All penalties past and present should be collected by the  City.       Wrapping a business in scaffolding and a black sheath for months is an egregious attempt to drive out an unwanted  tenant.    This is about much more than a grocery.  I doubt this owner’s actions would have been tolerated had this been done to  First Republic Bank or a downtown business such as, say, Palantir. If the City finds a way to agree with this owner the  City will essentially be rubber stamping bad faith and rewarding breach of contract.    Annette Ross  College Terrace  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 7:53 AM To:Council, City Cc:Furman, Sheri Subject:February 10 City Council Agenda Items #3 and #9 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine and Council Members:    With regard to item #9 on Monday, February 10's Council agenda, PAN's members voted to urge the city to correct the  penalty schedule to the intended amount, beginning at $2,157 per day. Correcting and collecting fees when developers  renege is the City's best way to make sure that developers provide the public benefits promised to the community in  exchange for relaxing the building standards under PC zoning.    With regard to item #3, the property owners are suing the city to avoid paying the fines which they owe the city by law?  The tail is wagging the dog. PAN urges Council to send the owners the clearest signal possible that the city intends to  collect lost penalties of approximately $250,000. First, we'll show the owners we mean business so they better provide  the promised market and in a hurry, and second these funds will come in handy and could be used to the public’s  advantage.    We all remember the debacle of Edgewood Plaza, and here we have a similar situation with College Terrace.     However, if the City were to course correct and demonstrate its willingness to enforce the law, insist on the community  benefit and collect fines, then the residents of this City would have much more confidence in our planning and zoning  processes.    Thank you for your kind consideration.    Becky Sanders  Sheri Furman  Co‐Chairs, Palo Alto Neighborhoods  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Karen Damian <karenswansondamian@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 8:29 AM To:Council, City Subject:College Terrace Market penalties CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members   i am very disappointed that our second market meant to replace JJ&F has closed. Please enforce strict letter of the  agreement by collecting all the penalties stated therein for this situation. It seems to me the Khourys never had a chance  with that scaffolding and the lack of support by the decision to allow a cafeteria for employees in the building next door  as well as delays in decent signage.  What happened to protecting neighborhood interests? i would hate to see the  developers/Big money  win again. Fight for us, the people of College Terrace who were promised a market not another  unnecessary office building in our residential neighborhood.   Karen Damian  Richard Damian   Ogden Newton     the folks living at , Palo Alto 94306 Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Kim <ksuz1981@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 8:32 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please collect fines for 2100 El Camino Real & raise fines officially CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Please enforce the contract that Blox AGREED TO with the city regarding fines for the property at 2100 El Camino Real.   Collect the fines they promised in writing to pay.    Start charging fines again immediately from the date Khourys closed.    Do the necessary paperwork to make it official to prevent further lying developers to have an argument why they  shouldn’t keep their agreements.    Almost nobody, even neighbors, were able to see Khourys existed or was open. That was entirely due to Blox and its  tenant.    They put up a huge sign above the market door with the bank’s name instead of Khoury.    They didn’t put up signs  ‐ on the front of the market  ‐ directing shoppers to the garage  ‐ directing to the elevator  ‐ on the elevator door    Construction scaffolding went up very soon after the market tried to open and it’s still up! The shading from the fabric is  so dark you couldn’t see whether the store was open until you were about to step inside.    The patio was an integral part of making the store visually welcoming and functional as a lunch place. The scaffolding  closed it off.    They created a cafeteria in the bank building which undercut the lunch business Khourys deli should receive.    You stopped charging fines a month before they even opened the doors.    The city gave Blox a bonus for doing a good job in finding a market willing to give it a go. At the same time the building  went without signs and looked uninhabited.    Please stand up for us. They blatantly undercut Khourys. Are they trying to make a claim that a public benefit is an  impossible commitment to keep? Would the city have allowed the building to go up as it stands if no public benefit was  agreed upon?    Thank you,  Kim Lemmer   Redacted 2 Palo Alto  College Terrace        1 Baumb, Nelly From:Pria Graves <priag@birketthouse.com> Sent:Friday, February 7, 2020 3:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Amendment of Penalty Schedule CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Council Members,    I am delighted to see the proposed update to the Administrative Penalty Schedule to allow for full implementation of  agreed remedies.    The previous owner of the property known as College Terrace Centre was certainly well aware of the penalties as they  were intended and I’m sure the current owner is as well.  The current owner chose to purchase the property with PC  Ordinance 5069 in place and should not be excused from meeting the requirement for an operating grocery store.  The  fact that a flaw in the Penalty Schedule has tied the hands of the code enforcement staff must be corrected.    I strongly encourage you to support staff’s recommendation in this matter.    Thank you,    Pria Graves    Palo Alto, CA 94306    Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Eileen Stolee <estolee@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 7, 2020 10:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Ordinance Number 5069/Title 18 (Zoning) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Item # 9, Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Administrative Penalty Schedule to add Penalties Related to Planned  Community (PC) Ordinance Number 5069/Title 18 (Zoning)    Please adopt this important ordinance.     Why have a (PC) development if there is no public benefit?   The city looks like they are favoring developers over their citizens when the penality fines are not enforced.    BTW, Why should this market even have to pay market‐rate rent? This is a  public benefit to the residents, not a cash  cow for the owners. If the public benefit was a small park would residents have to pay a small fee to use it?     Please do the right thing and force the owners of College Terrace Centre to pay fines until a new market is in place.    Sincerely,  Eileen Stolee  College Terrace  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Angela Sowa <aasowa@mac.com> Sent:Saturday, February 8, 2020 10:09 AM To:Council, City Subject:fines for college terrace market CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am in favor of items 3 and 9 on the agenda this Monday Feb 9.   There should be a fine as stated for not supplying a market AND the money due on fines should be collected.  I was a regular at the market since I moved here in 1995.    Angela Sowa   Owner   Palo Alto, CA 94306  Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Sujata Patel <drsujatapatel@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 8, 2020 12:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:College Terrace Centre grocery store CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council Members:     As a local resident who has lived in College Terrace for almost  fifteen years, I am writing to urge you to require the  property owners of College Terrace Centre to pay fines associated with the recent closure of Khoury's Marker, and any  past fines that have not yet been collected.  My understanding is that the developer was granted zoning easements for  this property in exchange for community benefits, including a grocery store.  The property owner then worked to ensure  the failure of Khoury's Market by covering the building in scaffolding for work that never took place. I am hoping that  the City Council will hold the property owner of College Terrace Centre accountable for the agreements reached when  the building permits were granted.     Sincerely,  Sujata Patel  , Palo Alto, CA     Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Derek Gurney <derek.gurney@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 8, 2020 2:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda for Feb 10 2020, Items 3 and 9 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council members,    Please imagine this scenario     The City of Palo Alto has given tens of millions of dollars of value to a developer in exchange for a public benefit.  For example, extra development rights in exchange for leasing land for a new city recreation center.    The City recognized that the developer might have the incentive to not provide all of the land, so the City and  the developer agreed to a penalty if the developer failed to live up to the agreement.   A few years later, the developer has done what the City hoped wouldn't happen: provided only part of the land  but kept the tens of millions of dollars in value. Further, the developer has sold the land to another party, who  then sues the city to get out of the obligation to pay the penalty.  It's not hard to imagine the displeasure, to say the least, that residents and council members would feel in the scenario  I've outlined. I hope the council feels a similar sense of displeasure that the owners of the College Terrace Centre have  taken the tens of millions of dollars in value granted to them in the form of additional development space while failing  to fully provide the public benefit they deeded in exchange. The full public benefit promised by the developer has been  provided for less than 62% of the time since the Centre opened in mid‐June 2017 (i.e. 19.5 months out of 31.75 months),  and that percentage decreases every day.    Please treat the issue of the public benefit deeded at the College Terrace Centre as what it is: a swindle of the City of  Palo Alto worth tens of millions of dollars.    Yours truly,      Derek Gurney      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Susan Wilson <sujwilson@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 8, 2020 2:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Public benefit for College Terrace CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Palo Alto City Council,    I have two points I would like to make about the College Terrace Centre and the obligation the developer has to the  residents of College Terrace.    1. The City must collect the money owed. That was the deal from the beginning. The City made the deal, the developer  agreed to it. So why is there a question about payment? Pay up. And a public benefit is still owed the people of College  Terrace.    2. Monstrosity buildings like the College Terrace Centre should never be allowed. It’s an architectural eyesore that we  are now stuck with. It’s not fair to the people that live nearby that have to see it daily.    Sincerely,  Susan Wilson  Amherst Street  Palo Alto  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Michael C. Frank <mcfrank@stanford.edu> Sent:Sunday, February 9, 2020 10:27 AM To:Council, City Subject:Khoury’s Market and College Terrace Centre CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To whom it may concern,    I am writing in strong support of penalties being levied on the owners of College Terrace Centre due to the failure to  support a grocery store in the College Terrace Centre complex. This failure has materially impacted my family by making  it harder for us to get groceries on a daily basis. Further it is an explicit breach of the earlier covenant. The need for a  grocery store in College Terrace remains high, and the ownership appears to have maliciously attempted to violate their  covenant by driving Khoury’s Market out of business. This is exactly the kind of bad behavior that the covenant was  designed to discourage. The loss of Khoury’s is a major loss for our community. I strongly support these penalties.    Michael Frank   Stanford, CA 94305  ‐‐   Mike  Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Dennis Facchino <dennisfacchino@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 9, 2020 10:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:Khoury’s CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Members of the City Council    I’m writing to express a “Yes” vote for Items 3 and 9 on Monday night’s agenda. I’ve been a supporter of Khoury’s  market from the beginning and have been saddened over the past 6 months as the market keeps sliding due to an  infinite remodeling/construction project that keeps the market’s presence hidden from the public.  The owners of the market have contributed significant economic and market resources to bring this market to this  community ‐ without any support from the ownership of the complex.  I’m unable to be present at the meeting so please except this letter as my support for collecting monies dues and  applying fines going forward.  Sincerely,    Dennis Facchino    Palo Alto, CA 94306  6502692128        Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:James Cook <jamesfelixcook@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, February 9, 2020 10:55 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: [CTRANews] Grocery Store Penalties at City Council on Monday CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.     Dear City Council,    As formed President of the CTRA and current Palo Alto and College Terrace resident, I ask that you support item 9 and  ensure that market comes back to College Terrace and the appropriate penalties are applied and realized. Folks in our  neighborhood reluctantly supported the development here on the promise of a market and adequate penalties to force  the developers to make the market work. We are asking that your council fulfill this promise.    Thank you,  James Felix Cook      Begin forwarded message:  From: CTRA News <web@collegeterrace.org>  Date: February 8, 2020 at 10:00:52 AM PST  To: jamesfelixcook@yahoo.com  Subject: [CTRANews] Grocery Store Penalties at City Council on Monday  Reply‐To: CTRA News <web@collegeterrace.org>  February 10th meeting. Two items on Monday’s agenda are related to the market and the monetary penalties incurred due to the failure of the owners (past and present) of College Terrace Centre to provide for a grocery store as agreed to in a restrictive covenant of 2014. The items are numbers 3 and 9 on the City Council’s meeting agenda – read the agenda here. Starting with number 9, because this is more easily grasped, is a proposed amendment to the City’s administrative penalty schedule to correct a long overdue oversight and increase the penalties to the intended amount beginning at $2,000 per day. Please write the City Council that you are in favor of these needed changes at city.council@cityofpaloalto.org. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Dona Tversky <dona.tversky@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 9, 2020 6:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:Save our markets, City Council Meeting 2/10 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council,  We live blocks from College Terrace and have been regulars at Khoury's Market for the duration of its existence. We  loved having a local market to pick up food for dinner. It was also a place our kids could go to independently. The family  that ran the market was very friendly and welcoming and that atmosphere contributed to a general sense of  neighborhood in our area.    We were quite concerned when the scaffolding did not come down on the market's exterior and the promised  construction was continually delayed, including basic signage that would have made the market visible to passersby on  El Camino. I can imagine the developer could make more money renting that space to start‐ups, but that is not what this  neighborhood needs and that is not the contract they signed.    I am confused why the developers would not have to pay the fees they agreed to pay when they signed their contracts  and that to date have not been paid. I would also want it answered why they did not work harder to make the markets  they rented to succeed.    We support the City collecting the lost revenue and continuing to hold developers to standards that benefit Palo Alto  generally.    We will do our best to attend tomorrows meeting.    Sincerely,  Dona Tversky  Alma Bendavid  Dalia Bendavid  Eran Bendavid  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Deborah Plumley <deborah@plumleygroup.com> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 9:51 AM To:Council, City Subject:Collecting Penalties at College Terrace Center Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council:    I have been a College Terrace resident for almost 50 years!    I am outraged that the owners of the College Terrace Center are not being penalized for the full $345,000 for failure to  provide a market.    Their behavior has been outrageous.  They have done things (no signage, exterior painting draping, etc) that inhibited  the success of a market for a year at the College Terrace Center.    Now two markets have closed due to the owners’ malfeasance.    from,    Deborah Plumley  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Irina Cross <irinacross@icloud.com> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 10:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:College terrace market CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Terrace was cheated of the  market and now is in dander of being cheated of public public benefit altogether. The  council must take action to prevent it and in doing so restore Palo Alto residents shaken faith in justice. Long term  College terrace resident.  Irina Cross  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Maryjane Marcus <maryjane.marcus@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 1:08 PM To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed Subject:collect fines for community benefit at College Terrace Center CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,      I am asking one thing ‐ that you be on the side of the community, and not as a mediator between the community and  the developer at 2100 El Camino.       Hold them accountable for paying the full fine, and then hold a public hearing to discuss how the fine would be used.        Background:   5+ years we have had to go to meetings and make sure the City is doing their job, and we are left with an ugly building  that once served as a great community space (both JJ&F and WorldCentric) before it was torn down.    I am a College Terrace resident and testified at City Council in December 2014 about how fraught this PC was with  problems and that you should not pass it.   At the time, I felt the benefit was not comparable to the Financial Value of  the additional 40000 square feet of office given, and I was concerned a grocer could fail and there was no backup  plan.   I asked if the grocer failed, it revert to a neighborhood‐led community gathering space (use TBD) and was not  successful.  You decided on a fine and I asked the fine go to the community, and you agreed to hold a hearing.    I wrote to you in July 2018 and was promised by James Keen that a fine was being collected, I followed up in December  2018, and I also was at the hearing when the owner challenged the fine for that period and got it reduced because of an  error in the code.  It is a huge amount of work for us in the neighborhood to track all of this ‐ please fight for us!      Since a 2nd grocer failed (partly the cause of the owner, the new design inherently disadvantages a grocer by being on  Oxford too), we need to discuss what will happen next as well.       Please do not allow one more penny of the fine to go away.   Calculate the value of the 40,000 SF office they are getting  and whether the tradeoff for the community benefit we are getting is fair.    Sincerely  Mary Jane Marcus     Palo Alto   4152699079         Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Leslie McNeil <lesliemc1000@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 2:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fines for not having a grocery store in the College Terrace complex CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,  It has been scandalous how the owners of the College Terrace Centre have tried to prevent a grocery store from  succeeding in that location.   Please increase the fines to $2000 a day to the company that owns/manages the College  Terrace Centre for not not having a grocery store operating in the Centre.    The current owners clearly put great obstacles up to make sure Khoury Market did not survive.  They should be fined for  trying to circumvent the requirement that they include a grocery store.    And please recoup the fines that have been unpaid on this same issue ‐ the past and present owners need to be forced  to comply with the neighborhood's need for a grocery store ‐ and maybe the fines can be used to help a market survive  in that location.    Thank you,  Leslie McNeil     Palo Alto, CA 94306  Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:ntmntm <ntmntm@aol.com> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 3:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Collecting Penalties at the College Market CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council,    I am a College Terrace resident of 16 years, and I am writing to urge you to do the right thing by enforcing all of the  penalties accrued by the owners of College Terrace Center.    Please do not let the owners get away scott‐free after  enabling the slow death of two earnest attempts to have a successful market at the shopping center.  Both owners of  the markets made valiant attempts to run a successful business, but the egregious machinations of the building owners  ensured their demise.  With the proper siting, signage, and support, a local market could survive—again— and I urge you  to insure that until a full‐faith effort is made to ensure the success of another market, the penalties continue.    Thank you,  Kristen Anderson  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Susan C <teachinator@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 4:27 PM To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Hoyt, George; City Mgr; French, Amy; Forster Mike Subject:enforce fines against Blox or other managers; increase fines per original contract CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear city officials,    We understand that tonight the city council will take up the questions of increasing and collecting the fines against  management of College Terrace Center (site of First Republic Bank and former site of College Terrace Market and  Khoury's Market).      First, we urge the city to take vigorous legal action to recoup any lost revenue due to earlier uncollected fines or delays  or oversights in imposing fines. The Khourys did not have the deep pocket to avoid being bulldozed by an unscrupulous  management, but the city has the resources to stand up for the community and require the developer to meet its  contractual commitment.    Second, weM urge you to approve an amendment to the city’s administrative penalty schedule to correct the original  oversight and increase the penalties to the intended amount beginning at $2000 per day while there is not a functioning  market in the space as agreed. In addition, the property management company should should not again be allowed to  claim that it is meeting the commitment to provide a "functioning" market unless it is maintaining normal business  conditions such as adequate signage (both for market and parking) and no significant visual or physical blockage of the  building. Fines should be imposed whenever these conditions are not met.      Thank you for representing the residents of Palo Alto as the council committed to do when this contract was negotiated.   Regards,  Susan Cole  Mike Forster    Palo Alto      Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Gail A. Klein <gklein1@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 9:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:2100 El Camino Real: Enforce Developer Contract Re Market CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  The failure of Khoury Market’s at 2100 El Camino Real is even more egregious because of the failure of the Palo Alto City  Council to act in its agreed‐upon role to help a market succeed for the community.  This was No run of the mill  relationship between the owner/lessor (BLOX/Republic Bank)and tenant (Khoury).   How did BLOX and the City (which required a long permitting process) expect Khoury to earn money while hamstrung  with lack of signage and then obliteration in plastic sheets?  Seems that the landlord made it impossible for his tenant to  earn the money to pay rent, by rendering the tenant invisible to potential customers! How shop at a market it doesn’t  know is there???    Extremely bad faith on the part of the owner and questionable lack of attention by the City of Palo Alto.  In our minds  the City has abrogated its responsibility — The threat of fines was evidently not strong enough to prevent the developer  from ignoring Khoury’s rights. BLOX already objected to fines earlier in its tenure at the location. Are new fines on BLOX  expected to somehow enable Khoury or a similar market able to operate there? Or does BLOX  just build them into the  cost of doing business?       Gail Klein      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Gail A. Klein <gklein1@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 9:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda #9 the penalties to the intended amount beginning at $2000 per day Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Council Members:   Two items on the agenda are related to the market and monetary penalties in regard to the failure of the owners (past and  present) of College Terrace Centre to provide for a grocery store as agreed to in a restrictive covenant of 2014.       Agenda #9      Please correct a long overdue oversight and increase the penalties to the intended amount beginning at $2000 per day.      My husband and I are in favor of these needed changes .      Gail and Richard Klein        1 Baumb, Nelly From:sumitra <ncfnorcalrep@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 6:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Khoury's Market 2100 El Camino Real CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Correction/Addition:  The city most be held accountable for ensuring the overriding public  benefit, the grocery market, as specified in the Planned Community (PC)  zoning is provided, and fines must continued to be exacted to the  maximum allowed to achieve that end.        On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 6:51 PM sumitra <ncfnorcalrep@gmail.com> wrote:  Dear Council Members:    1. Please collect fines for 2100 El Camino Real & raise fines officially   2. Please enforce the contract that Blox agreed to with the city regarding  fines for the property at 2100 El Camino Real.   3. Collect the fines that Blox promised to pay in writing.   4. Start charging fines again immediately from the date Khoury's Market  closed.   5. Do the necessary paperwork to make it official to prevent further lying  developers from having an argument why they shouldn’t keep their  agreements.     It was impossible to see that the Khoury's Market/grocer existed or was  open. That was entirely due to Blox and its tenant, where a huge sign  was placed above the market door with the bank’s name instead of the  Khoury's.   2 The owners did not put up signs on the front of the market directing  shoppers to the garage and elevator, nor on the elevator door.  Construction scaffolding and shading fabric went up very soon after the  Khoury's market tried to open and it’s still up.   The shading from the fabric is so dark you can't see whether the store is  open until you are about to step inside.   The patio was an integral part of making the store visually welcoming  and functional as a lunch place. The scaffolding closed it off.   The owner's allowed the bank to create a cafeteria inside the bank  building which undercut the lunch business that Khoury's deli should  have received.   You stopped charging fines a month before they even opened the doors.  The city gave Blox a bonus for doing a good job in finding a market  willing to give it a go. At the same time the building went without signs  and looked uninhabited. The owner's blatantly undercut the  Khoury's.  Are the owner's trying to make a claim that a public benefit is  an impossible commitment to keep? Would the city have allowed the  building to go up as it stands if no public benefit was agreed upon?     The city most be held accountable for ensuring the overriding public  benefit, the grocery market as specified in the PC, is provided, and fines  must continued to be exacted to the maximum allowed to achieve that  end.    Thank you.  Sumitra Joy     Palo Alto, CA.  94306    Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 9, 2020 5:54 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:February 10, 2010 Council Meeting, Item #11: City Auditor CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    February 9, 2020    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      FEBRUARY 20, 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #11  CITY AUDITOR' OFFICE    When this item was on your agenda for your January 21, 2020, meeting, I provided each of you at a copy of my letter in which I urged you to obtain additional relevant information and to continue this item to a date that is consistent with distributing that information to you, the public, and the press to provide adequate time to review and comment on what action, if any, the Council should take.    At Places copies of letters that were received before the January 21, 2020 meeting were included in the subsequent Documents package distributed with the agenda packet for the February 3, 2020 Council meeting, and appear as Attachment D to the current staff report (ID # 11089).    My letter that was received at the meeting was also included in the same Documents package, but is not attached to the staff report for the February 20, 2020 meeting.    Copied below is of January 21, 2020, letter with the inserted hand written paragraph in that letter replaced with a typed version appearing in its proper place in the letter.    I again urge you to continue this agenda item to a future agenda after you receive the information requested in my former letter, as well as additional information described below.      2 Additional Information Requested    The home page on the City’s website for the Office of the City Auditor that has a link to “History of the City Auditor’s Office” was last updated on December 16, 2019, only three days before the Council Appointed Officers Committee met on the subject of this agenda item.    Perhaps prior updates of the Auditor’s home page had links to the information I requested in my previous letter and in this letter.    In addition to the items requested in my January 21, 2020 letter, I urge you to direct staff to distribute on a timely basis the City documents that provide the background to the changes described in Mimi Nguyen's January 17, 2020 letter that appears on Packet Pg. 152.       Public Government Auditing vs. Private Industry Auditing     Government auditors' clients are the public and their elected representatives. Government auditors provide financial and operating data, and conduct internal audits of the city's financial transactions and procedures.    Government auditors' ultimate clients are the public.    Private Industry auditors' clients are top management and boards of directors.    A serial entrepreneur or angel investor may be most concerned with exceptional risks that adversely affect their investments and their ability to sell their companies for a profit to someone else.    Top management and boards of directors do not share their internal audits with their employees, customers, suppliers, and other company stock holders.    Audits prepared for private industry are not available to the public generally.    The City Council should not evaluate the performance of the City Auditor's Office based on the same criteria that the recipients of private industry audits use to evaluate their auditing functions, because a government audit is a public document that is prepared on behalf of the representatives of public who are subject to a Charter where the public has determined the function of the City Auditor and the Auditor's independence from the other Council Appointed Officers, and is the ultimate consumer of any report prepared by the Auditor.    Thank you for your consideration of these comments.    Sincerely,  3   Herb Borock    Previous Letter     Herb Borock P. O. Box 632 Palo Alto, CA 94302 January 21, 2020 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 JANUARY 21, 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4 CITY AUDITOR'S OFFICE Dear City Council: I urge you to continue this agenda item to a date uncertain that is consistent with including this agenda item and the supporting materials requested below for a Council agenda that is posted at least eleven days before the meeting and where the agenda and supporting materials (including those materials listed below) are available in print for the public and on the City's internet site at least eleven days before the meeting. The materials requested to be included in said agenda packet are: "Final Report From the Ad Hoc Committee on the City's Financial Structure" from the Committee appointed by the City Council on February 7, 1983 that completed its report in April 1983 and made recommendations to the City Council on May 9, 1983. City Council minutes, February 7, 1983, pages 2948-2950. City Council minutes, April 11, 1983, page 3143. City Council minutes, May 9, 1983, pages 3274-3280. August 8, 2018 letter to Palo Alto City Council from Houman Boussina et al. described in last paragraph on page 2 of January 17, 2020 letter to City Council from Cannata, O’Toole, Fickes & Olson. [Note: The letter described here appears on Packet Pg. 143 for the February 10, 2020 Council meeting.] None of these materials were considered by the Council Appointed Officers Committee. The materials should be considered by the Council before the 4 Council takes any action on the subject of this agenda item. These materials should also be considered by the public and the press on a timely basis to permit them to comment on what action, if any, the Council should take. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Herb Borock   1 Baumb, Nelly From:Robert Neff <robert@neffs.net> Sent:Sunday, February 9, 2020 12:39 PM To:Council, City Cc:robert@neffs.net Subject:Action item related to East Charleston/San Antonio intersection on Council's Feb. 10 agenda CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council,    I think the plan for upgrading the San Antonio / Charleston intersection should be better developed for Pedestrian  Safety, an original driver for this plan.    This project was originally brought to the attention of the city by pedestrians crossing Charleston on the NW side of the  intersection, adjacent to the JCC.  A prime compliant was that drivers in the 2nd right turn lane were not anticipating  and yielding to pedestrians.  While squaring the intersection and crosswalk will help some,  the proposed improvement still has two right turn lanes.   I think it is still likely that drivers in the 2nd right turn lane will have poor visibility of pedestrians stepping off the curb,  some will not yield, or, when they do yield, they will be rear‐ended by the driver behind them!    I think the realignment of the crosswalks is a good idea, and should move forward.    In addition, staff should plan on studying yield compliance by vehicles, now, and after the proposed changes, and  develop a menu of additional steps to improve pedestrian safety with this configuration if needed to meet a high  compliance goal.  There is already a  "Right turn yield to Pedestrians" sign on San Antonio.  In addition, pressing the  pedestrian button could result in flashing yellow warning lights on San Antonio, a flashing yellow right turn arrow at the  intersection, or a red arrow at the intersection.  We see very good compliance to the yellow flashing lights at crosswalks  on Arastradero and El Camino Way, so these are promising,either as a CalTrans approved method, or as a CalTrans  experiment developed for this pedestrian crossing.    I noticed that PTC had some comments about the bicycling conditions here.  I made a point of bicycling up the San  Antonio shared lane Bike Route to get to one of the community meetings.  It was awful.  San Antonio is our worst  marked bike route ‐‐ cyclinsts must share the lane with heavy 40 mph traffic.  There is no point in improving bicycling  conditions for just this intersection on San Antonio, without considering the entire corridor.    At this intersection the critical biking direction is on Charleston, where the block from San Antgonio to Fabian lacks bike  lanes, cutting off the bike lanes in Palo Alto from the ones in Mountain View. This is to be addressed in the phase 3 of  the Charleston Arastradero project, not in this item, and I hope you will support funding Charleston/Arastradero phase 3  when it comes before council.    Finally, besides PTC, this item should have gone before the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) to get  advisory feedback for staff, PTC and Council to consider.  PABAC members would like to get a chance to exercise their  pedestrian muscles.    Thank you for your service to the City of Palo Alto.    2 Robert Neff  Emerson Street near Loma Verde, Palo Alto    (for identification)  Current PABAC member, past PABAC chair  current VTA BPAC representative for Palo Alto.  1 Baumb, Nelly From:pellson@pacbell.net Sent:Sunday, February 9, 2020 10:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:East Charleston/San Antonio Intersection CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable City Council Members,    The East Charleston/San Antonio intersection plans would benefit from Palo Alto Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory  Committee (PABAC) review.  I don’t think that PABAC has seen them.  This project was on the meeting agenda item this  month, but staff didn’t provide plans at the meeting and members of the committee all seemed unfamiliar with the  current status of this project.     With Campus for Jewish Life  at this corner, pedestrian traffic across Charleston has increased.  As a driver coming from  the 101, I have observed that the second right turn lane from San Antonio onto WB East Charleston has terrible sight  lines.  I have observed drivers proceeding on a green and suddenly encountering peds in the sidewalk.  I’m not sure I  understand how this plan addresses that pedestrian risk. Sidewalk realignment seems sensible—but I think  mitigation of  the 2nd right turn lane auto safety impacts on pedestrians needs more work.    I don’t bike along San Antonio because it feels entirely unsafe.  Sharrows on a road with high auto volumes and speeds  and uncontrolled lane changing are not an adequate bike facility.     I do bike down Charleston to shop at the hardware store and shopping centers occasionally.  To do this,  I have to take a  lane on Charleston after Fabian where the bike lane completely disappears.  We need a bike facility at this location,  rather than none at all.  I know many people who won’t bike to these shops now because road conditions require a lot  of skill and confidence to take that lane.  Drivers get angry when you take a lane at this location‐‐though one really has  no other legal choice when biking through there.    Thank you for considering my comments.    Penny Ellson  1 Baumb, Nelly From:g kerber <hdtreading@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, February 9, 2020 6:48 PM To:Council, City; w. kerber; James Farrell; Stump, Molly Subject:Fw: 385 sherman CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: g kerber <hdtreading@yahoo.com> To: City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; w. kerber <hdtreading@yahoo.com>; Molly Stump <molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Farrell <jfarrell@swinerton.com> Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2020, 6:45:23 PM PST Subject: 385 sherman City council i am notifying the city council of my intent to file complaints involving construction and construction related activities at the 385 sherman ave. construction project. I believe that chronic violations of the cities municipal code have occurred, including sections 910.060 [b] construction hours and section 9.56.030 [21] public nuisances. When i submit my complaint or complaints i will add more detail about other muni code violations and state civil code violations etc. Based on multiple contacts with city staff, primarily in public works, i do not believe that a complaint to city staff i have already dealt with will result in an impartial consideration of my complaint. greg kerber 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 5, 2020 8:26 PM To:Lunt, Kimberly Cc:Brettle, Jessica; Minor, Beth; Fine, Adrian Subject:Re: Setting Agenda's for the City Council CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  2‐5‐2020      Hi Ms. Lunt,     Thanks so very much for taking time out of your very busy day to patiently explain the process necessary for a citizen or  other member of the community ....to place an item on the city council agenda. And a huge bonus thank you for  researching and providing both the link to the applicable municipal ordinance...and the actual language of the  ordinance. I’m honored to know we have such an extraordinarily accountability employee as you... working for people of  the city of Palo Alto.    Sincerely,    Aram James         Hello Mr. James,     Regarding our recent phone call a few minutes ago, you were asking who sets items on the agenda;  please see the highlighted section below.  Additionally, you requested the names and contact information of the names of behind titles of the  people that set the agendas: City Manager, Ed Shikada, ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org; Mayor, Adrian  Fine, Adrian.fine@cityofpaloalto.org.  Directly under this writing is a copy and a link to where I got the copy from the municipal code.     http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=jumplink$jumplink_x=Advanced$jumplink_vpc=first$jump link_xsl=querylink.xsl$jumplink_sel=title;path;content‐type;home‐title;item‐ bookmark$jumplink_d=california(paloalto_ca)$jumplink_q=[field%20folio‐destination‐ name:%272.04.070%27]$jumplink_md=target‐id=JD_2.04.070     2    <image001.gif> 2.04.070 Agenda.   (a) The city clerk shall prepare the agenda of all matters to be submitted to the council at its regular meeting according to the order of business which may be set forth in the council's procedural rules numbering each item consecutively.  (b) Not later than 12:00 noon on the Wednesday preceding the next regular meeting, the city clerk shall be notified by the city manager or city attorney of the titles of all agenda items to be submitted to the council at its next regular meeting. The city clerk shall cause a summarized digest of the agenda to be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least twenty-four hours before each meeting. This section shall be directory so that failure to provide the notification and digest publication shall not prevent addition of matters to the council agenda in any other manner allowed by law.  (c) The city manager, with prior approval of the mayor, is authorized to designate upon the agenda of the council, and the city clerk shall publish in the agenda digest, items that shall be taken up as the first item of business or at a specific time during the course of the meeting. Upon said hour, the council may suspend consideration of the item then under discussion, or may complete consideration of such item, and then must commence consideration of such item for which time is specified, without further action to take said item out of order upon the agenda.  (d) All reports, ordinances, resolutions, contracts, documents or other matters and supporting materials in sufficient quantity for full packet distribution shall to the greatest extent possible be delivered to the city clerk no later than the Thursday preceding the next regular meeting. The city clerk shall prepare the agenda of all such matters according to the order of business which may be set forth in the council's procedural rules numbering each item consecutively. A complete copy of such agenda and the aforesaid supporting materials shall to the greatest extent possible be delivered or mailed to each council member and each department head so as to reach the recipient not later than 7:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding each council meeting.  (e) The agenda and materials, including any letters from council members to their colleagues concerning agenda items, shall be available to the public, all newspapers of general circulation within the city, and in the office of the city clerk, and shall be delivered to all city libraries, except the Children's Library, by 9:00 a.m. on the Friday preceding each council meeting, and posted in the council chambers during each meeting. Copies of the agenda may be obtained during business hours no later than the Friday preceding the meeting and the day of the meeting at the office of the city clerk, at all city libraries, except the Children's Library, and in the council chambers during each meeting.  (Ord. 4692 § 1 (part), 2001)        3 Thanks     Kim       <image002.png>     Kimberly Lunt, Office of the City Clerk  Administrative Associate III  250 Hamilton Ave | Palo Alto, CA 94301  D: 650.329.2571 | D: 650.329.3966    E: Kimberly.Lunt@cityofpaloalto.org   Quality|Courtesy|Efficiency|Integrity|Innovation        1 Baumb, Nelly From:JIM POPPY <jamespoppy@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 12:09 PM To:Planning Commission; PABAC; Council, City Subject:Please amend the concept for San Antonio/Charleston CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City Council, Please direct staff to include measures to increase bicycle safety at the San Antonio/Charleston intersection. It appears as though local business interests were the determining factor in not improving bike safety. As the report states, there is no change to current bicycling conditions. One right turn lane could easily be removed from San Antonio onto Charleston. The two lanes are seldom used, and traffic can easily separate into two lanes after the turn. A bike lane could be added instead. Since you have approved the bike bridge at Adobe Creek, why not take a look at the big picture and improve bike safety at this crucial intersection? Staff's recommendation appears to ignore the goals of the Transportation Department to increase bike safety, even if it decreases vehicle LoS. Respectfully, Jim Poppy Melville Ave 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Audrey Gold <audreygold@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 6, 2020 8:26 PM To:Council, City Cc:daustin@pausd.org; board; Howell, Melissa; Gold, Audrey Subject:Support for the Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan Attachments:Fletcher PTA BB Support 2020 Final.pdf; Fletcher C-A Letter 2020-2.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,     Please read these attached letters from the Fletcher Middle School PTA that thank you for your support of the 2012  Bicycle and Pedestrian plan.   We are seeing an increase in students biking to school.    We ask for continued support for the plans so that Palo Alto will remain a leader in providing safe routes for cyclists and  pedestrians of all ages.      Our school was recently named for former City Council member Ellen Fletcher.  She was a fierce advocate for bike lanes  and bike bridges in Palo Alto.   We are honored to be continuing her work.    Sincerely,  Audrey Gold  Fletcher Middle School PTA President 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Ɣ 0D\EHOO%LF\FOH%RXOHYDUG Ɣ 3DUN%LF\FOH%RXOHYDUG Ɣ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¶VFRXQWVURVHIURPWRDQG-/6IURPWRLQRQH \HDU :HORRNIRUZDUGWRVLPLODULQFUHDVHVDW)OHWFKHUZKHQWKH3KDVHELF\FOHSHGHVWULDQERXOHYDUG QHWZRUNLVFRPSOHWHG 7KHSHUFHQWDJHRIVWXGHQWVELNLQJWRRXUFDPSXVLQFUHDVHGIURPWRLQRQH\HDUDIWHUWKHILUVW SKDVHVRI&KDUOHVWRQ$UDVWUDGHUR3ODQELNHSHGHVWULDQVDIHW\LPSURYHPHQWV7KLVVXJJHVWVWKDWLI\RX EXLOGVDIHUVFKRROURXWHVPRUHVWXGHQWELF\FOLVWVZLOOFRPH :HWKDQNWKHFLW\IRU\RXUSDUWQHUVKLSDQGXUJH\RXWRIXQG3KDVHRIWKH1HLJKERUKRRG7UDIILF6DIHW\ DQG%LF\FOH 3HGHVWULDQ%RXOHYDUG3URMHFWV 6LQFHUHO\  $XGUH\*ROG)OHWFKHU0LGGOH6FKRROV37$3UHVLGHQW  EEg][khjQ[+1//kdIgQ[jI[GI[j +1/ ]<gG]NGkE<jQ][ 1 Baumb, Nelly From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 7, 2020 2:39 PM To:Council, City Cc:AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov; anne.ream@mail.house.gov; Senator.Hill@senate.ca.gov; Marc.Hershman@sen.ca.gov; Alex Kobayashi; Elmer.Martinez@sen.ca.gov; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Cortese, Dave; Wasserman, Mike; Brian.Pascal@bos.sccgov.org; Rosen, Jeff; CBourlard@dao.sccgov.org; Robinson, Victoria; Aram James; RA@alexanderlaw.com; Kleinberg, Judy; Drekmeier, Peter; Carol@silverlaw.biz; Reverend Dr. Debra Murray Murray; Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow; JamesSperry@earthlink.net; Estanislao.Mikalonis@dsj.org; Office@asaints.org; TPGleeson@gmail.com; pastorK@flcpa.org; Bill Johnson; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; Diana Diamond; DPulcrano@metronews.com; MDianda@bayareanewsgroup.com; Dave Price Subject:Coronavirus | "Contagion" film CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      Just viewed this film last night (on the Internet), which I found relevant to our community.    Film: "Contagion" Year of release: 2011 Director: Steven Soderbergh Play: Scott Z. Burns Subject: Global pandemic Actors: Jude Law, Matt Damon, Gweneth Paltrow   On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 5:08 PM D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> wrote:         The bottom half of this email consists of two excerpts: (1.) an excerpt from CNBC HEALTH AND SCIENCE stating some of the hazards of coronavirus, and (2.) an excerpt from Lytton Gardens February monthly-resident Newsletter, which concerns me. The coronavirus is the fastest spreading virus ever.     Regarding Lytton's Newsletter, here are my concerns.   Management's confession that they tear down other people's flyers, posted on bulletin boards, which alerts tenants to the dangers of the coronavirus, seems to me to be a First Amendment violation.   - Do folks, who move into HUD federally-funded housing at Lytton Gardens, have to check their First Amendment Rights at the door?  - Does management have a right to act as censors? I don't think so.  2  Lytton Gardens Newsletter states a portion of their resident population has recently traveled to China.   When asked how many have visited China recently, Lytton Gardens withholds this data, claiming this is a privacy issue. Asking for statistics is not a violation of anyone's privacy, asking for names, would be. Lytton Gardens is federally-funded and, as such, has no ethical right to hide information regarding public health issues.     - Yet, Lytton Gardens employees refuse to give out the statistics for my three simple questions.    (1.) How many residents have recently been to China?  (2.) How many of these residents have been to the City of Wuhan?  (3.) How many residents have recently been around others who have been to Wuhan.     - A frightening concern, is that approximately eightly-five percent (85%) of Lytton Gardens 500 residents only speak Cantonese or Mandarin, and are on Visas. These residents are frequent travelers between China and the U.S.   Lytton Gardens Newsletter states that residents can avoid the coronavirus by washing their hands, "being clean and staying healthy."   - Not so !!   - Lytton Gardens Newsletter contradicts both Santa Clara County Public Health Department website, and my call, yesterday, to Santa Clara County Public Health Department, confirming that the coronavirus is AIRBORNE, and one must not only wear a face mask to protect one's nose and mouth, but one must wear hospital goggles to protect one's eyes !!       CNBC: HEALTH AND SCIENCE  "Researchers say the coronavirus may be more contagious than current data shows"  PUBLISHED TUE, FEB 4 20203:06 PM EST HTTPS://APPLE.NEWS/AOCVM8RZGSGGOU6SVGV4WWQ   "... China’s health minister, Ma Xiaowei, recently told reporters there is evidence it’s already mutated into a stronger variation that is able to spread more easily among humans ... Emerging in Wuhan, China, about a month ago, the virus has spread from about 300 people as of Jan. 21 to close to 21,000 and killed more than 420 — with the number of new cases growing by the thousands every day. 'The rapid acceleration of cases is of concern,' Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization’s emergencies program, said at a news conference last week before the agency declared a global health emergency. "         Excerpted from Lytton Gardens   February monthly-resident Newsletter    "Speaking of epidemics, the new virus from Wuhan, China has many of you very worried. It is true that we do have a small portion of our population that have recently visited China but you don't have to worry. The virus will not spread if we take precautions. Residents that have visited China and have become ill should immediately contact their doctors and stay in their apartments until they are well. The rest of us should be conscious of washing our hands and covering our mouths with our arm or tissue if we cough or sneeze. This is just another flu virus and we can overcome it by being clean and staying healthy.    3 Which brings me to another topic regarding this virus. Someone posted flyers about this virus and thought they were trying to be helpful, they weren't. The notice only caused other residents to become fearful and worry. This could have led to a panic throughout the community. Please remember that all notifications must be approved by management before they can be posted ... Any notice that is posted without approval will be taken down."      Stay well,  -Danielle   ---------------------------  Danielle Martell  dmPaloAlto@gmail.com  t: 650 856-0700            1 Baumb, Nelly From:Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, June 9, 2019 1:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Housing At Cubberley CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I’m not following the discussion of what to do with the Cubberley property.  I do, however, work with children ages eight  through thirteen.  Oh my heavens have I gotten an earful about the terrible teachers!  The stories these kids recount ‐  Spanish teachers without teaching degrees pulled out of admin posts by virtue of their speaking Spanish, people who are  clearly mentally unstable and too immature to be in charge of a classroom, etc… ‐ have me tearing my hair out.  When I  attended PAUSD; kindergarten through 12th; this kind of teaching situation was almost unheard of.  It is clear now that  local school districts are simply hiring anyone they can get to take the job.    Palo Alto leadership has been inexcusably irresponsible when it comes to housing development, but nowhere is this  more insane than when it comes to the people who work in our schools.  Palo Alto has only ever had one commodity  that sets it apart from surrounding communities and that is the schools.  Should teacher housing be included in the  Cubberley plan? How is this even a question.    Deb Goldeen   94306  321‐7375  Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net> Sent:Saturday, November 9, 2019 1:16 PM To:Parks Cc:Council, City Subject:E-Bikes in Open Space CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Is parks and open space considering banning E‐Bikes from Pearson ‐ Arastradero Preserve? I certainly hope so!  E‐Bikes  are great for getting people out of their cars for commuting and shopping, but recreation? That’s just dumb. It’s bad  enough that everyone feels like they have to drive their cars to the preserve in the first place.    Deb Goldeen,  , 94306, 321‐7375  Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net> Sent:Wednesday, November 13, 2019 12:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park/Non-Resident Use CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Yes.    Deb Goldeen,  , 94306, 321‐7375  Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 11, 2020 6:21 AM To:Frank Agamemnon Subject:Arizona GUN BAN Call the SPONSERS ? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  CALL THE SPONSORS GIVE EM HELL Rebecca Rios: 602-926-3073 Lela Alston: 602-926-5829 David Bradley: 602-926-5262 Lupe Contreras 602-926-5284 Andrea Dalessandro: 602-926-55342 Sally Ann Gonzales: 602-926-3278 Juan Mendez: 602-926-4124 Tony Naverrete: 602-926-4864 Lisa Otondo: 602-926-3002 Jamescita Peshlakai: 602-926-5160 Martin Quezada: 602-926-5911 Victoria Steele: 602-926-5683 Arizona: HUGE Gun Ban Bill Submitted To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In Arizona: HUGE Gun Ban Bill Submitted Arizona: HUGE Gun Ban Bill Submitted https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/SB1625/id/2119093 ———— ———————————— GRAB GUNS &...      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Wednesday, February 12, 2020 8:32 AM To:ptc@caritempleton.com Cc:Planning Commission; Council, City; board@pausd.org; health@paloaltopta.org; Clerk, City Subject:Commissioner Hechtman's conflict of interest CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning and Transportation Chair Templeton, I am writing to you on behalf of United Neighbors of Palo Alto to urge that you ask Commissioner Bart Hechtman to recuse himself from consideration of telecommunications industry-related matters during his tenure on the PTC, including from consideration of the draft revised Wireless Ordinance that is on the PTC’s Agenda for this evening. Why? Because simply put, he has a clear conflict of interest.   Mr. Hechtman was kind enough to spend 45 minutes on Monday discussing with me the Ordinance and related cell tower-siting issues. As I wrote to him afterwards (my email is below), I was impressed with his credentials and experience, and I am appreciative of his willingness to serve on the PTC. But talking to Mr. Hechtman, I felt as if I were talking to a lawyer for the telecommunications industry—to someone who is an advocate for every position taken by the telecommunications companies applying to install cell towers in Palo Alto. This wasn’t surprising, because Mr. Hechtman is a lawyer for the telecommunications industry. Specifically: 1. Mr. Hechtman is a named partner in the law firm of Matteoni, O’Laughlin & Hechtman. According to the firm’s website, this firm has or has had telecommunications industry clients for whom they have “obtained approvals for telecommunications towers … and for numerous cellular facilities throughout the greater Bay Area.” (Here is a link to their website: http://matteoni.com/barton‐g‐hechtman/ )  2. In other words, Mr. Hechtman’s firm not only represents clients in the telecommunications industry, they have represented these clients with respect to the very issue that the City’s Wireless Ordinance addresses: approvals for cellular facilities. Put another way, Mr. Hechtman’s firm advocates on behalf of parties with interests in matters before the Planning and Transportation Commission.   3. Mr. Hechtman told me that he personally has represented telecommunication industry clients. 4. Mr. Hechtman’s firm continues to solicit telecommunications industry clients. Again, according to his firm’s website, one of the “Specialties Where We Focus”—in other words, the legal arenas in which their practice specializes—is “Telecommunication Towers and Cellular Facilities.” 5. Whether or not Mr. Hechtman is personally involved in the representation of a telecommunications industry client now or going forward, as a partner in Matteoni, O’Laughlin 2 & Hechtman, he has and will continue to benefit financially from his firm’s representation of telecom clients, and he has a vested interest in pleasing them. In short, Mr. Hechtman will have a clear conflict of interest in any telecommunications-industry-related matter before the PTC, and he should be recused from considering them.   I have written to Mr. Hechtman expressing these same thoughts to him (my email is below), and it may well be that he plans to recuse himself without further prompting. But since I don’t know his plans, I am writing now to you about this matter. Thank you for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming   Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151     From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>   Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 8:47 AM  To: 'Bart Hechtman' <bgh@matteoni.com>  Subject: Revised Wireless Ordinance PTC 2/12/20     Dear Bart, Thank you very much for taking the time to speak with me. I’m most appreciative. Below you will find, as promised, a copy of my email to the Planning and Transportation Commission regarding the draft revised Wireless Ordinance. I’m guessing the PTC has received several dozen comparable emails, all from residents who believe the Commission should recommend to City Council that Council go further than the draft Ordinance does in protecting residents’ interests vis a vis the installation of cell towers in Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods. … Please understand that the goal of these concerned citizens is not to prevent telecommunications companies from providing service to Palo Alto, but to ensure that the aesthetics of our neighborhoods are not compromised in the process. I respect the knowledge and experience you bring to this issue. But given that the law firm in which you are a named partner has clients in the telecommunications industry, and given that you personally have represented telecommunications companies, I hope you will recuse yourself from the consideration of telecommunications industry-related matters during your tenure on the PTC— including, of course, consideration of the draft revised Wireless Ordinance. In my opinion, the City of Palo Alto is lucky to have someone with your credentials and intelligence serving on the PTC. But not on this matter, where I believe you have a clear conflict of interest. 3 I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this matter. Thanks and best, Jeanne   Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151     From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>   Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2020 5:53 PM  To: Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org  Cc: 'City'' <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Architectural Review Board' <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; board@pausd.org;  'Clerk, City' <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: 2/12/20 Revised Wireless Ordinance review    Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice-Chair Roohparvan, and Commissioners Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa, I understand that at your meeting this Wednesday, February 12th, you will be considering City Staff’s recommendations for revising Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance. I am writing to urge you to make every effort to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance, while recognizing the rights of telecommunication companies, 1) enforces to the fullest extent possible the provisions of the Wireless Resolution and, 2) more generally, protects the interests of Palo Alto residents. In particular, I urge you to recommend to City Council that they make the following changes and additions to Staff’s proposed revised Ordinance:  That the Architectural Review Board systematically review applicants’ requests for exceptions. In the document Staff’s proposes, it states that, if an applicant seeks an exception, the Director of Planning “may” refer the application to the Architectural Review Board (see Page 19, paragraph f (II) (3) of Staff’s revisions to the Ordinance). I strongly urge you to recommend to Council that the word “may” be changed to “shall.”  That the WCF Siting Standards described on the first two pages of Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873 be incorporated in the Wireless Ordinance. These are the standards that permit placement of cell towers in residential areas only by exception.  That the minimum 20 foot setback for a cell tower from a residence—established in the WCF Siting Standards and in the WCF Exceptions provision in Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873—be significantly increased. As Planning Director Lait has pointed out, a minimum setback as deep as 100 feet would still leave telecommunications companies with roughly ten percent of poles in a neighborhood to choose from, should not installing a cell tower in the neighborhood genuinely prohibit delivery of service. 4  That there be a minimum setback of 600 feet for macro cell towers from schools. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming     Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151             1 Baumb, Nelly From:Shikada, Ed Sent:Wednesday, February 12, 2020 7:32 AM To:Victoria Ransom Cc:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:RE: Your e-mail to City Council was received Hello Victoria,    No problem at all; we will see who might be able to help you.    Best regards,  ‐‐Ed    Ed Shikada City Manager 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ph: (650) 329-2280 ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org     From: Victoria Ransom <victoria.k.ransom@gmail.com>   Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 7:15 AM  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Re: Your e‐mail to City Council was received    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Oh dear, I'm sorry. I didn't mean for my message to go to all seven council members! Could you please ensure that it  goes to the right department? I wasn't sure who to send it to.     On Tue, Feb 11, 2020, 9:56 PM Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e‐mail will be forwarded to all seven Council Members and a  printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council packet.     If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call (650) 329‐2571 to  confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting.     If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an explanation or else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification.     2 We appreciate hearing from you.  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Victoria Ransom <victoria.k.ransom@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 11, 2020 9:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Homeschooling group Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi, We're a homeschooling family and we'd like to invite other children from homeschooling families (perhaps 8 or 10 children) to come to our home three afternoons a week to play, do projects and learn with our children. We plan to find a facilitator or teacher to supervise the children. This will not be a business - at most we will ask families to help cover the cost of some of the supplies like art supplies etc. Does Palo Alto have any rules or restrictions relating to this kind of 'group' that I should be aware of? Thanks, in advance, for your help! Victoria 1 Baumb, Nelly From:KOSA <kosaco@invitel.hu> Sent:Wednesday, February 12, 2020 7:27 AM To:Fine, Adrian; DuBois, Tom Cc:Council, City Subject:ENGIE / GLOBAL BUSINESS - PPP BASED - SHARE / ECONOMY ORGANIZATION / GOVERNANCE 200212 Importance:High Sensitivity:Confidential CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.                                                                                                                                                                              City Hall  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301    2 MAYOR  Adrian Fine  Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org    V. MAYOR  Tom DuBois  Tom.Dubois@cityofpaloalto.org    CITY CUINCIL  city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐      DEAR CITY COUNCIL - BOARD - MANAGEMENT of   CITY of PALO ALTO,     Please read this IDEA and BUILDING UP a GLOBAL BUSINESS for USA - WORLD. Please read this IDEA-PLAN & help us, if you are interested in this PPP BUSINESS.     Thank you for your attention.  Respectfully: Kosa    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------     3 08-22-2019                                                                                                                  ICYMI: Budget agency predicts trillion‐dollar deficits for years to  come, as red ink explodes  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a grim update  Wednesday to its economic outlook for the next decade,  predicting average national deficits of $1.2 trillion every year  through 2029, due in large part to recent budget and border  security bills. The CBO report noted that, as one of many  repercussions from free‐spending policies, federal debt held by  the public is projected to reach rare heights, almost equaling the  nation's Gross Domestic Product. “Its highest level since just after  World War II,” the report says. The GDP itself is also expected to  see a slowdown in growth in the coming years.      4 To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.             KJE – INNOVATION KJE – USA ECONOMY DEVELOPMENT TARGETS     5     GLOBAL Economy Development WORLDWIDE PPP BUSINESS           6           ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐        „10 mind‐blowing facts that show just how dire the student‐loan  crisis in America is”  Hillary Hoffower and Allana Akhtar Jul. 2, 2019, 9:02 AM    The national total student debt is now over $1.5 trillion. College tuition has more than doubled since the 1980s. More than 3 million senior citizens in the US are still paying off their student loans.   As of May 2018, 101 people in the US owe at least $1 million each in student loans, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing the Education Department.   Black families carry more debt than white families and are more likely to default on their loans.   7 As many as 40% of borrowers could default on their student loans by 2023.   Of people who use a bankruptcy-assistance service to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, 32% carry student-loan debt.   Student-loan debt is the reason 13% of Americans in a survey conducted last year said they decided not to have kids.   Some have drawn parallels between the student-debt crisis and the subprime-mortgage disaster.   Nearly 50% of millennials who have or had student-loan debt think college wasn't worthwhile.      KJE - SOLUTION             8  MediaNews Group/The Mercury News via Getty Images              KJE – USA ECONOMY 9 DEVELOPMENT TARGETS   PPP BUSINESS       The following companies do not need to be  fragmented, but linked to a global business  that will have extraordinary benefits for the  Country's Government and the Governments  of the Member States.              10           GLOBAL - BUDGET - ECONOMIC - DEVELOPMENT         Apple Inc.    +        1 Baumb, Nelly From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 6, 2020 5:09 PM To:Council, City Cc:AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov; anne.ream@mail.house.gov; Senator.Hill@senate.ca.gov; Marc.Hershman@sen.ca.gov; Alex Kobayashi; Elmer.Martinez@sen.ca.gov; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Cortese, Dave; Wasserman, Mike; Brian.Pascal@bos.sccgov.org; Rosen, Jeff; CBourlard@dao.sccgov.org; Robinson, Victoria; Aram James; RA@alexanderlaw.com; Kleinberg, Judy; Drekmeier, Peter; Carol@silverlaw.biz; Reverend Dr. Debra Murray Murray; Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow; JamesSperry@earthlink.net; Estanislao.Mikalonis@dsj.org; Office@asaints.org; TPGleeson@gmail.com; pastorK@flcpa.org; Bill Johnson; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; Diana Diamond; DPulcrano@metronews.com; MDianda@bayareanewsgroup.com Subject:Coronavirus | NO Transparency at Lytton Gardens CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.         The bottom half of this email consists of two excerpts: (1.) an excerpt from CNBC HEALTH AND SCIENCE stating some of the hazards of coronavirus, and (2.) an excerpt from Lytton Gardens February monthly-resident Newsletter, which concerns me. The coronavirus is the fastest spreading virus ever.     Regarding Lytton's Newsletter, here are my concerns.   Management's confession that they tear down other people's flyers, posted on bulletin boards, which alerts tenants to the dangers of the coronavirus, seems to me to be a First Amendment violation.   - Do folks, who move into HUD federally-funded housing at Lytton Gardens, have to check their First Amendment Rights at the door?  - Does management have a right to act as censors? I don't think so.   Lytton Gardens Newsletter states a portion of their resident population has recently traveled to China.   When asked how many have visited China recently, Lytton Gardens withholds this data, claiming this is a privacy issue. Asking for statistics is not a violation of anyone's privacy, asking for names, would be. Lytton Gardens is federally-funded and, as such, has no ethical right to hide information regarding public health issues.     - Yet, Lytton Gardens employees refuse to give out the statistics for my three simple questions.    (1.) How many residents have recently been to China?  (2.) How many of these residents have been to the City of Wuhan?  (3.) How many residents have recently been around others who have been to Wuhan.     - A frightening concern, is that approximately eightly-five percent (85%) of Lytton Gardens 500 residents only speak Cantonese or Mandarin, and are on Visas. These residents are frequent travelers between China and the U.S.  2  Lytton Gardens Newsletter states that residents can avoid the coronavirus by washing their hands, "being clean and staying healthy."   - Not so !!   - Lytton Gardens Newsletter contradicts both Santa Clara County Public Health Department website, and my call, yesterday, to Santa Clara County Public Health Department, confirming that the coronavirus is AIRBORNE, and one must not only wear a face mask to protect one's nose and mouth, but one must wear hospital goggles to protect one's eyes !!       CNBC: HEALTH AND SCIENCE  "Researchers say the coronavirus may be more contagious than current data shows"  PUBLISHED TUE, FEB 4 20203:06 PM EST HTTPS://APPLE.NEWS/AOCVM8RZGSGGOU6SVGV4WWQ   "... China’s health minister, Ma Xiaowei, recently told reporters there is evidence it’s already mutated into a stronger variation that is able to spread more easily among humans ... Emerging in Wuhan, China, about a month ago, the virus has spread from about 300 people as of Jan. 21 to close to 21,000 and killed more than 420 — with the number of new cases growing by the thousands every day. 'The rapid acceleration of cases is of concern,' Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization’s emergencies program, said at a news conference last week before the agency declared a global health emergency. "         Excerpted from Lytton Gardens   February monthly-resident Newsletter    "Speaking of epidemics, the new virus from Wuhan, China has many of you very worried. It is true that we do have a small portion of our population that have recently visited China but you don't have to worry. The virus will not spread if we take precautions. Residents that have visited China and have become ill should immediately contact their doctors and stay in their apartments until they are well. The rest of us should be conscious of washing our hands and covering our mouths with our arm or tissue if we cough or sneeze. This is just another flu virus and we can overcome it by being clean and staying healthy.    Which brings me to another topic regarding this virus. Someone posted flyers about this virus and thought they were trying to be helpful, they weren't. The notice only caused other residents to become fearful and worry. This could have led to a panic throughout the community. Please remember that all notifications must be approved by management before they can be posted ... Any notice that is posted without approval will be taken down."      Stay well,  -Danielle   ---------------------------  Danielle Martell  dmPaloAlto@gmail.com  t: 650 856-0700        1 Baumb, Nelly From:Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net> Sent:Friday, April 5, 2019 9:33 AM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal) Cc:Council, City Subject:MAGA Hats CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Mayor Filseth (re:comments published in today’s Mercury News) ‐ If Palo Alto wanted to demonstrate it’s commitment  to being a tolerant community, they’d ban MAGA hats. Tolerating intolerance is not tolerance, it’s cowardice.    Deb Goldeen, ., 94306, 321‐7375 Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Chris Zwingle <chris@zwingle.net> Sent:Thursday, February 6, 2020 11:35 AM To:Council, City Subject:California District 13 Senate Candidate Michael Brownrigg Attachments:Brownrigg.190429.lthd.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable Councilmembers:     Attached for your information.    C. D. Zwingle  Burlingame  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Stepheny McGraw <stepheny@sonic.net> Sent:Wednesday, February 12, 2020 10:47 AM To:Sustainability Team; Council, City Subject:Natural Gas Should Be Kept CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto’s “sustainability” goals are not realistic.  Doing away with natural gas for heating and fireplaces is not practical,  any more than expecting all cars to be EV by 2030.    Our supposed carbon free electricity from PAUD is a myth; the recent December outage from our PG & E distribution  proves this.  We are dependent on a grid which pulls electricity from many sources.  I was quite happy to have my  natural gas heated home and fireplace to keep me warm when the power unexpectedly went out.  I was also pleased to  have my gas fueled car to get around in as I would not have been able to depend on an overnight electric charge for an  EV in such circumstances.    Due to this faulty thinking, sales of gas fueled generators are soaring.  And I have no plans to “upgrade” to an all electric  house, let alone an EV.    You can and should do better.  Stepheny McGraw    94303        Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Press strong <pressstrong@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 7, 2020 10:47 PM To:wendell.primus@mail.house.gov; dick.meltzer@mail.house.gov; robert.edmonson@mail.house.gov; George.Kundanis@mail.house.gov; Dan.Bernal@mail.house.gov; Terri.McCullough@mail.house.gov; Abigail.Grace@mail.house.gov; Sean.Misko@mail.house.gov; Joe.Jankiewicz@mail.house.gov; jeff.lowenstein@mail.house.gov; dao.nguyen@mail.house.gov; joe.millado@mail.house.gov; James.Min@mail.house.gov; Braden.Murphy@mail.house.gov; Trevor.Smith@mail.house.gov; george.caram@mail.house.gov; ames.min@mail.house.gov; Jilian.Plank@mail.house.gov; Mattheus.Wagner@mail.house.gov; Jack.Langer@mail.house.gov; Council, City; Burns, Dennis; Cullen, Charles; Green, DuJuan; pbains7@projectwehope.com; Bains, Paul; jrosen@dao.sccgov.org; BoardOperations@cob.sccgov.org Cc:tal.kopan@sfchronicle.com; hannah.murphy@mail.house.gov; david.grossman@mail.house.gov; Matthew.McMurray@mail.house.gov; Eric.Henshall@mail.house.gov; Patty.Kim@mail.house.gov Subject:Which is more egregious? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Nancy Pelosi  U.S. Congresswoman    Representative Pelosi,    Which is he greater offense, applying economic pressure to a foreign government to disparage your political opponent  or to destroy exculpatory evidence while using falsified evidence, fake videos, to incriminate a citizen of a crime and how  the system covered it up?       "When the framers wrote the Constitution they didn’t think someone like me would serve as a United States Senator.  But, they did envision someone like Donald Trump being president of the United States. Someone who thinks that he is  above the law and that rules don’t apply to him. So, they made sure our democracy had the tool of impeachment to  stop that kind of abuse of power.   Unfortunately, a majority of United States senators – even those who concede that what Donald Trump did was wrong –  are nonetheless going to refuse to hold him accountable. The Senate trial of Donald Trump has been a miscarriage of  justice.  2 When the American people see the president acting as though he is above the law, it understandably leaves them  feeling un‐trustful of our system of justice, distrustful of our democracy. When the United States Senate refuses to hold  him accountable, it reinforces that loss of trust in our system."  U.S. Senator Kamala Harris  https://www.harris.senate.gov/news/press‐releases/harris‐the‐senate‐trial‐of‐donald‐trump‐has‐been‐a‐miscarriage‐of‐ justice       Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D‐Calif.) denounced Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R‐Ky.) as a  “rogue leader” after the Senate voted to acquit President Trump on Wednesday  “Our Founders put safeguards in the Constitution to protect against a rogue president,” Pelosi said  in a statement after the final impeachment votes in the Senate. “They never imagined that they  would at the same time have a rogue leader in the Senate who would cowardly abandon his  duty to uphold the Constitution.”  “By suppressing the evidence and rejecting the most basic elements of a fair judicial process, the  Republican Senate made themselves willing accomplices to the President’s cover‐up,” she said.     “Sadly, because of the Republican Senate’s betrayal of the Constitution, the President remains an  ongoing threat to American democracy, with his insistence that he is above the law and that he  can corrupt the elections if he wants to,” she said.   Nancy Pelosi  https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/481744‐pelosi‐rips‐mcconnell‐as‐rogue‐leader‐after‐trump‐acquittal     https://chiefburns.weebly.com/     https://judgelucykoh.weebly.com/     https://jeffrosenda.weebly.com/    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrA7ehMi0Lg&feature=youtu.be    Taser Probes, cartridge, wires and AFIDS destroyed  https://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit‐5.html  3  https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/afanasiev.html  https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/powers.html  https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/parham.html      Taser Cameras sent to Taser International and Destroyed  https://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit‐7.html              14 Missing Videos   https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/missing‐videos.html       Explosive new details emerge about the Astros cheating scandal  Just when you thought the worst of the Houston Astros cheating scandal had come and gone, new details uncovered by  the Wall Street Journal are showing just how widespread the cheating scheme was in Houston’s front  office.  Not only did Astros players and coaches use a camera, TV screen and garbage can to electronically steal signs and relay  them to hitters, but the entire operation was fueled by an Excel spreadsheet developed by a then‐intern that  used an algorithm to decode opposing team’s signs.  Members of the Astros front office called it “Codebreaker,” according to documents obtained by the Wall Street  Journal, and often referred to their tactics as the “dark arts.” The system and the front‐office employees  that manned it were part of the process of figuring out opposing teams’ signs and ultimately getting the information to  Astros players to use on the field.     https://www.yahoo.com/sports/explosive‐new‐details‐emerge‐about‐the‐astros‐cheating‐scandal‐000636683.html           ‘Dark Arts’ and ‘Codebreaker’: The Origins of the Houston Astros Cheating Scheme   4 MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred’s previously undisclosed letter to Astros GM Jeff Luhnow details the team’s spreadsheet  and algorithm to steal signs in one of the biggest scandals in baseball history  https://www.wsj.com/articles/houston‐astros‐cheating‐scheme‐dark‐arts‐codebreaker‐11581112994      Tony Ciampi      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Robert Rasmussen <robert.rasmussen11@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 6, 2020 8:27 AM To:Council, City Subject:Regarding Mitchell Park Pickleball Courts CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Palo Alto City Council:    I write to you as a longtime resident of Palo Alto, living in the Charleston Gardens neighborhood on the south side of the  city.     I'm writing regarding the new pickleball courts that were installed at Mitchell Park.     As you likely understand, there is a pickleball club, the Palo Alto pickleball club, that has been very active in pushing for  the capital improvements. While it's great to have a club that pushes for change on behalf of all, the downside is realized  when that same club believes they now own the public courts. If you're not aware, the PAPC has been dictating court  usage rules and scheduling fixed times for their PRIVATE activities. Essentially, they're assuming ownership of the courts  by claiming they have the right to dictate when certain private groups will use the courts. There is no public court  scheduling system, so it seems inappropriate for a private club to simply dictate times when their groups have the courts  to themselves.     If you're not aware, the membership of this club is roughly only 40% comprised of Palo Alto residents. So are we really  comfortable handing over sole control of a public space to this group? And if they haven't been given that control to  own the place, why are they acting like that?     They even have been trying to control the two separate courts near the main parking lot. In recent days, they're  "scheduling" court usage (meaning declaring the courts off limits to the public) when the courts are public and the club  has literally no authority to do this.     At the end of the day, I'm sure that the council built the Mitchell courts for the betterment of the entire community, not  just for the use of a membership driven club. It's time we ask the question whether it's appropriate for the PAPC to act  like they own the place, by creating and dictating court usage for their interests over the interests of the greater public.    I appreciate your consideration.    Robert Rasmussen    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Ralph Frederick Briones <ralphb2@stanford.edu> Sent:Wednesday, February 12, 2020 9:58 AM To:Fine, Adrian Cc:Council, City Subject:Rare Disease Day 2020 and Proclamation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Good Afternoon Mayor Fine and City Council Members,     My name is Ralph Briones and I have been working in Palo Alto for the past 8 years. Sunday, February 29th 2020, is Rare Disease Day, which is happening around the world. Rare Disease Day takes place on the last day of February each year. The main objective of Rare Disease Day is to raise awareness among the general public and decision-makers about rare diseases and their impact on patients' lives. The campaign targets primarily the general public and also seeks to raise awareness among policy makers, public authorities, industry representatives, researchers, health professionals and anyone who has a genuine interest in rare diseases.    Over the past few years, I have raised over $17,000 for Kennedy’s Disease Research with my GoFundMe campaign. The proceeds of my campaign has directly benefited the Kennedy’s Disease Association and the research and education efforts. I am a Kennedy’s Disease Patient and my daughter is unfortunately a carrier because of the genetics behind it. Currently there is no cure or treatment. We hope to bring more awareness and shed light on the importance of Rare Disease research. This year we hope to continue our fundraising efforts and bring the grand total to over $25,000.    Last year, we held an awareness event in San Jose and Mayor Sam Liccardo presented us with a Proclamation stating that the City of San Jose would recognize the last day of February as Rare Disease Day in San Jose. This year, the City of Santa Clara has joined San Jose and has recognized Rare Disease Day as well. As a resident of Santa Clara and a working member of the Palo Alto Community, I would like to ask the city of Palo Alto to help me raise awareness by recognizing Rare Disease day on the last day of February of each year. I hope you can help me spread awareness for all rare disease patients living in the city of Palo Alto and join San Jose and Santa Clara. Please let me know if this is possible and if there is any more information needed in order to have a proclamation written for Rare Disease Day. Thank you for your help. Here is an article that I was featured in about my condition and campaign in the San Jose Mercury News.  https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/08/silicon-valley-man-takes-on-kennedys-disease/    Thank you again and I hope to hear from you soon. If you do need some verbiage for the proclamation, here is a sample from the Rare Disease Day Website:    Whereas, there are nearly 7,000 diseases and conditions considered rare (each affecting fewer than 200,000 Americans) in the United States, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH);   Whereas, while each of these diseases may affect small numbers of people, rare diseases as a group affect almost 30 million Americans;   Whereas, many rare diseases are serious and debilitating conditions that have a significant impact on the lives of those affected;   Whereas, while more than 450 drugs and biologics have been approved for the treatment of rare diseases according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), millions of Americans still have rare diseases for which there is no approved treatment;   Whereas, individuals and families affected by rare diseases often experience problems such as diagnosis delay, difficulty finding a medical expert, and lack of access to treatments or ancillary services;   Whereas, while the public is familiar with some rare diseases such as “Lou Gehrig’s disease” and sympathetic to those affected, many patients and families affected by less widely known rare diseases bear a large share of the burden of funding research and raising public awareness to support the search for treatments;   Whereas, hundreds of residents of San Jose are among those affected by rare diseases since nearly one in 10 Americans have rare diseases;   2 Whereas, the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) is organizing a nationwide observance of Rare Disease Day on February 28, 2018;  Whereas, thousands of patients and caregivers, medical professionals, researchers, companies developing orphan products to treat people with rare diseases, and others in the city of San Jose, will participate in that observance;   Therefore, be it resolved that the last day of February, will be observed as Rare Disease Day in the City of Santa Clara.        Ralph F. Briones  Production Manager  ralphb2@stanford.edu I     Stanford University  Stanford Center for Professional Development a part of  Office of the Vice Provost for Teaching and Learning  496 Lomita Mall, Durand Bldg, Stanford, CA 94305  T 650-725-3000 | F 650-725-2868  scpd.stanford.edu | vptl.stanford.edu    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 6, 2020 11:46 AM To:Fine, Adrian; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal); city.council@menlopark.org; Kou, Lydia; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; Human Relations Commission; City Mgr; Jonsen, Robert; Lewis. james; Sean James; mark weiss; Minor, Beth; Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org; Dr t; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Miguel Rodriguez; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Ian Bain; greg@gregtanaka.org; Anna Griffin; Abenicio Cisneros; Kou, Lydia; ironworkrdanny@yahoo.com; Raj; Supervisor Simitian Subject:A No Witness Trial -Daily Post- Feb 6, 2020 by Aram James CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________  2 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Rice, Danille Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 11:29 AM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Minor, Beth; leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Letter to Supervisor Simitian and County Board of Supervisors Attachments:Letter to Board of Supervisors dated 02-10-2020.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Good morning Mayor and Council Members,   On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, I would like to inform you that the attached letter was sent to Supervisor Simitian  and County Board of Supervisors regarding the City’s support for an administrative referral to update the Stanford  Community Plan and 1985 Land Use Agreement.     Thank you,   Danille         Danille Rice  Executive Assistant to the City Manager  250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA  94301  (650) 329‐2105 | Danille.Rice@cityofpaloalto.org          1 Baumb, Nelly From:ASLIHAN DENİZ FİLİZ <aslihanf@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 8, 2020 11:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Extraordinary Situation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Sir / Madam,    We moved from Singapore 5 mounts ego to Palo Alto. My husband works for Google Company and I am dependent him  as a housewife and we have a five years old son.                      I am writing to you regarding my parents visa. Because in this situation l need their further help and support especially  for my son. They have 10 years visa but can stay 6 months a year. It has been 3 months already and l am worrying about  whats going to happen after 3 months.     Is there any way to extend their staying time with a special permission? Or what should l do for this.    I would be grateful if you could attend to this matter as soon as possible.    I look forward to hearing from you,    Best regards,    Aslihan Deniz Cekmegil    Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Liz Kniss <lizkniss@earthlink.net> Sent:Tuesday, February 11, 2020 10:59 PM To:Gail Price Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Event: March 21, 2020 The Duomo and the Great Synagoguer I’m gone, but thanks!  Sent from my iPhone    On Feb 11, 2020, at 6:44 PM, Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com> wrote:  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    HI Mayor Fine and Palo Alto City Council Members,    I thought this event might be of interest to you. Please share with friends and colleagues.  Thanks, Gail  Price    <1219DuomoGreatSynagogueFlyer.pdf>  The Duomo and the Great SynagogueSaturday, March 21, 6:30pm This program is presented by the Addison-Penzak JCC and the County of Santa Clara/Florence, Italy Sister County Commission. All Cultural Arts programs at the APJCC are made possible, in part, by generous contributions from Sylvia & Leonard Metz, Doris and Rick z"l Davis, and an anonymous donor. The APJCC is proud to be a part of the Initiative on Jewish Peoplehood, co-funded by the Koret Foundation, Taube Foundation for Jewish Life & Culture. The APJCC is also supported by the Jewish Federation of Silicon Valley and other generous donors. The County of Santa Clara/Florence, Italy Sister County Commission is a self-supporting advisory group to the Board of Supervisors and exists to promote friendship and mutual understanding, and to foster cultural, educational, technological and business exchanges between the two areas. Informal talks about the history and architecture of two of Florence, Italy’s grandest and most iconic structures -- the Santa Maria del Fiore Cathedral and the Great Synagogue -- by Ross King, author of the national bestseller Brunelleschi’s Dome, and noted scholar Professor Francesco Spagnolo, Curator of The Magnes Collection of Jewish Art and Life at UC Berkeley. Q&A session moderated by Gail Price, former Executive Director of AIA Silicon Valley Chapter. The San Jose Chamber players with Cantor Sharon Bernstein presenting both Jewish and Italian songs. Italian Appetizers and Ice Cream. General admission $40 at the door $45 students $15 VIP tickets $100 Tickets: apjcc.org/florence More information: mayat@apjcc.org 14855 Oka Road, Los Gatos CA 95032 AN EVENING OF JEWISH & FLORENTINEARCHITECTURE, CULTURE, MUSIC, & FOOD • • • • 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Wednesday, February 5, 2020 2:38 PM To:Steven Feinstein; Loran Harding; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Mayor; Mark Kreutzer; Mark Waldrep; Mark Standriff; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Joel Stiner; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; beachrides; becerra.bere11@gmail.com; bballpod; bearwithme1016@att.net; Leodies Buchanan; jerry ruopoli; Doug Vagim; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Kirk Sorensen; kclark; hennessy; yicui@stanford.edu; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; Irv Weissman; eappel@stanford.edu; Chris Field; Council, City; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; Raymond Rivas; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; grinellelake@yahoo.com; gregory.martin@faa.gov; huidentalsanmateo; leager; Cathy Lewis; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; nick yovino; popoff; russ@topperjewelers.com; toni.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; terry; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 2:10 PM  Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 4:10 PM  Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:08 PM  Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 2:12 PM  2 Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 2:07 PM  Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                  Tues. Feb. 4, 2020                 Mr. Steven Feinstein              Ionic Materials Corp.                     Mr. Feinstein.                  More re urban electric helos for commuting.  I have come across the mother of all studies of them‐ the tech as it  stood in 2014 and where it may go in 15 to 30 years from then. Published by NASA Ames, it lists four authors:  4 from  NASA Ames, one for the U.S. Army, and two professors at Stanford. It shows the level of interest in this six years ago and  that interest has grown since. At p. 49 we see "Future work/ continued study".  That work explains why experts were on  KCBS‐SF "In Depth" discussing this a week ago. Here is the study:                https://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/Young_Hopper_TM_PhaseI_12.pdf             It is long and technical, but much of it can make sense to a layman like myself. I recommend it to all recipients. You  said in your mail to me on Jan. 27, 2020 "To make urban electric helos that can travel a good distance will take some  time". This report confirms that. They show in figure 10, p. 24,  a range of 65 NM.  That may be possible in 15 to 30 years  (from 2014).  At p. 21, Paragraph 3, they say "Current Li‐ion technology does not have enough specific energy to enable  the desired electric hoppers."  "... significant improvements can be expected to continue in the next few decades".                           At p. 47  VI  Summary‐  they talk about 15, 30 years. 30 passengers upper bound. Up to 45,000 daily riders. (in the  Bay Area I think, since the entire report focuses on the BA).               P. 40, V  "Airspace Interactions" is interesting.  They talk about AI helping to keep the "hoppers" apart. See the  graphic there at p. 42, Fig. 21,  which depicts the flight patterns in the B.A. "just" from Oakland International airport, San  Jose International, and SFO. Now add civil aviation from small airports near Gilroy, Reid Hillview in San Jose, one in Palo  Alto, one in San Carlos, one in Hayward, even one at Half Moon Bay‐ probably more. Now add traffic from 45,000 daily  riders on hoppers, and the task of keeping them all apart will be a challenge. The report does not see that as a  disqualifier of electric commuter helos in the Bay Area, however.                So the report detailed the tech as of the publication date, and forecasted where it may go in 15‐30 years. Big  progress will be needed in batteries and in electric motors, but progress is foreseeable in those. At p. 48, paragraph  3:  "Battery tech. is currently focused on the consumer electronics and automotive industries. Aviation applications,  particularly as related to propulsion, will entail unique and technologically challenging design requirements".                      45,000 daily riders wouldn't make much of a dent in the terrible commute problem in the Bay Area. I think 2  million people work in Silicon Valley, and most of them drive in on highways. (It is a little hard to pin down how many  3 people work in Silicon Valley, and how many commute in there each day. Does it matter? Whatevrer it is, It is enough  people to cause a commuting hell on Bay Area roadways morning and night). Far more are employed in other pursuits.  So the helos might take 1% of the cars off the roads. But what would prevent thousands of more homes being built, and  sold, in Stockton or Salinas, replacing he cars taken off by the helos. And Cos. in SV can expand ops there or new cos. can  start up. I say again that a huge solution to the B.A. traffic nightmare, and to the housing crisis there, would be for SV  cos. to relocate some ops to the Central Valley, easily reachable by HSR, when it starts running. (Trump, in last night's, 2‐ 4‐20, SOTU speech, discussing infrastructure, called for a lot more highway building. He is anti‐HSR for the American  people‐ the suckers‐ but loves the HSR we make possible in deserving Europe and Japan by providing their military  defense. BTW, China just built 25,000 KM of HSR in 10 years. Not a dime for it for the American people though. We can  go hang.                      Now here is the report from the IBM‐Almaden Research Center about their new battery. This was mentioned  on the  KCBS "In Depth" program. What jumps out at me there is the 80% charge in five minutes. Many other  advantages. What would five minute charging to 80% do for Tesla or all the other electric vehicles coming? BTW, Tesla  rose $107.06 per share today, Feb. 4 2020, to close at $887.06. It crossed the $400 level a week before Christmas, and it  was $176.9919 per share in late May, 2019, for a $700 per share rise in eight months.  $17,699 invested in Tesla last May  (100 shares) is now worth $88,706.                    https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/12/heavy‐metal‐free‐battery/              Ionic Materials has a solid polymer electrolyte which does not catch fire when cut, punctured, etc. I wonder if your  tech. there could work with the new IBM battery. The IBM report re their battery says, at paragraph 7, that it "uses a  cobalt and nickel‐free cathode material, as well as a safe liquid electrolyte with a high flash point". Would your solid  polymer electrolyte be even safer?                L. William Harding             Fresno, Ca.                                         ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 2:22 PM  Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 2:44 PM  Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, Steven Feinstein <steven.feinstein@ionicmaterials.com>, Dan  Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, <esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov>, paul.caprioglio  <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, <mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com>,  dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Joel Stiner  <jastiner@gmail.com>, <midge@thebarretts.com>, huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>, Mayor  <mayor@fresno.gov>, Mark Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, <margaret‐sasaki@live.com>, bballpod  <bballpod@aol.com>, Irv Weissman <irv@stanford.edu>, hennessy <hennessy@stanford.edu>, <yicui@stanford.edu>,  <shanhui.fan@stanford.edu>, Chris Field <cfield@ciw.edu>, jerry ruopoli <jrwiseguy7@gmail.com>, Doug Vagim  <dvagim@gmail.com>, Raymond Rivas <financialadvisor007@gmail.com>, <fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net>,  4 <diffenbaugh@stanford.edu>, <eappel@stanford.edu>, kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk  <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, <kwalsh@kmaxtv.com>, Kirk Sorensen <kirkfsorensen@gmail.com>, robert.andersen  <robert.andersen@fresno.gov>, <becerra.bere11@gmail.com>, <bearwithme1016@att.net>, city.council  <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>, <grinellelake@yahoo.com>, steve.hogg  <steve.hogg@fresno.gov>, leager <leager@fresnoedc.com>, Leodies Buchanan <leodiesbuchanan@yahoo.com>, nick  yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>, popoff <popoff@pbworld.com>, <russ@topperjewelers.com>, terry  <terry@terrynagel.com>, <toni.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov>, Tom Lang <tlang@aquariusaquarium.org>, <vallesR1969@att.net>,  Steve Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, Mark Waldrep <mwaldrep@aixmediagroup.com>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 1:39 PM  Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 1:29 PM  Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                Tues. January 28, 2020                  Steven Feinstein‐  Thanks for the response.  Here is a little story about the desperate efforts to make Hwy 880  from Oakland south to San Jose, Ca., and beyond, at least occasionally passable to commuters. You see that it looks like  a parking lot, but those drivers are trying to get to work! It is six or eight lanes wide now and they are spending huge  money trying to keep it passable. I spent at least two hours to go 30 miles on it at 5 PM once.                  https://patch.com/california/alameda/express‐lanes‐i‐880‐open‐summer‐2020                 When I was passing the CPA exam and getting an MS in Taxation, using the 20 Stanford libraries to study, I used  to drive Hwy 880 at 2 PM from Hayward to Stanford, and come back at 11 PM, and that worked well‐ at the limit all the  way.  But at 7 AM it tries mens' souls. Commuters in a place like Fresno have utterly no idea what a nightmare commute  the Bay Area can require. And this is duplicated in urban areas all over the U.S.  But because a lot of voters do not live in  places like the BA, there is not the political will to address the issue.                 Growing up in San Jose, my father had an accounting office maybe 3 miles from home, and my mother worked at  a credit bureau in downtown, maybe 4 miles from home. In 1951 San Jose had 50,000 people. Now it has 972,000. It  never occurred to my parents to live in San Jose and be at work in Sonoma County at 8 AM, 75 miles by freeway to the  north. Now people think nothing of buying a home in Stockton and working in Sunnyvale, leaving home at 4 AM every  morning. This is why the cry goes up for infrastructure.                     Instead of providing that, the U.S. government spends $730 billion per year to defend Japan and Germany so  they can spend their money on HSR and other solutions to commute issues. Our government has a very determined "let  'em hang" approach to the American people. It's a good joke on us, I guess. "They resisted going to Viet Nam, so let 'em  hang". "And anyway, they don't vote". I'd reverse the polarity on that with a permanent war crimes tribunal as a fourth  5 branch of the federal government.  We need a government in the United States. Voters are electing just anybody now in  an effort to get one. Only a structural change in our government will work, I believe.                   There has been a change in people's thinking wrt where they live and where they work and the effort required to  get from one to the other. Why that is deserves some research. People like my parents used to live in a little town, like  Salina, Kansas or San Jose, Ca. and work there. Now people drive through several counties in maddening traffic jams on  eight‐lane freeways to get to work. They think they like to drive, but discover that they sit surrounded by big‐rigs for  hours each direction instead. They go out and look at those distant affordable model homes on Sunday. That is really a  trap.                   A couple more thoughts on the urban electric commute helos. As I think more about it, it seems to be a good  idea. The NASA Ames woman said on the KCBS show that you don't need the electric reserves to go 150 miles if the trip  is 75 miles. That would reduce the weight of the batts. I watched a vid of two women flying a Lufthansa DC‐10 cargo  plane from Frankfurt to Mumbai. They talked about the tons of extra fuel they had in case they had to divert for any  reason.  With urban electric helos, you wouldn't need a distant 10,000 foot alternate runway to land in an emergency.  An alternate landing pad could be a quarter‐mile from the original. When these helos are flying, they will have alternate  landing pads designated. The chance of running out of e‐ in these craft would seem remote. Replacing the pilot with  autonomous systems would further reduce the e‐ needed.                  Long distance trips by the helos would not be required to make them helpful. It is maybe fifty miles from Oakland,  Ca. to Palo Alto or Mt. View. Oakland to SF is a lot less. They wouldn't have to fly at 30,000 feet. The big NASA‐Ames  report I include above shows, at p.24, fig. 10, the helos cruising at 5,500 ft. to minimize noise. But at that altitude, there  can be "loss of separation issues" (always bad), so the report says that a 3,000 ft. altitude cruising altitude would be  better. That figure also shows a range of 65 NM.                  Urban electric helos would run on batteries, and current Li‐ion ones are subject to causing fires, something to  avoid on any aircraft. Your much safer Li‐metal batteries with their solid polymer electrolyte would seem ideal to use on  the helos. That argument might help you get more federal funding. There is talk now of electric planes too.                 See Nova  "Search for the super‐battery".  Ionic Materials Corp's safer Li‐metal batteries are seen about half way  through.                I now think you will see urban electric helos in a place like Fresno, if only to salve the egos of some high earners.                  Of course, just how many cars would these take off the roads during rush hour? If they transport high value  employees mainly, probably not a lot. The benefit would accrue to those employees and their employers mainly. But,  that would help the traffic situation. Encouraging Silicon Valley companies to move half their operations to Fresno, 45  minutes away by HSR, would really make a dent in the problem. I see that, but most residents in Fresno do not. They buy  the B.S. put out by the rich Republicans here who have them under their boot. "It's a boondoggle. It will never run.  Forget that the countries we are bled white to defend, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, all have  magnificent HSR systems". Most Fresnans, by design, have never been to Germany, Spain or Italy, so they don't know  that HSR, paid for by them, is a huge success there.                What I really see by writing this is that urban electric commute helos would help the traffic nightmare a little in  places like the Bay Area, but high speed rail from Silicon Valley to Fresno and other places in the Central Valley could  help alleviate the problem a lot more. Something like 2 million employees (hard number to pin down) descend on Silicon  Valley every morning, I believe, and the result is traffic hell. If SV companies located many ops to Fresno, e.g., they'd be  distributing the load. Employees who want to live on the peninsula could get down here fast and comfortably, not sitting  in a car in traffic. High tech workers who want a beautiful, affordable home could buy one here and work in high tech  cos. here or commute to SV by HSR. In front of the Stanford campus on El Camino Real, one sees long lines of RVs now,  6 with high tech workers living in them. Places like Mtn. View, Ca. are providing places for them to dump their waste, etc.  The average rent on a 60 year‐old, 600 sq. ft. apartment in Santa Clara is now ~$3,000 per month. We have a  humanitarian crisis wrt housing in SV, and SV cos. relocating some ops to the Central Valley on the HSR line would be a  real help with that crisis. They should support HSR and plan to relocate some facilities to the CV when it is running.                  L. William Harding              Fresno, Ca.      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Steven Feinstein <Steven.Feinstein@ionicmaterials.com>  Date: Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 3:58 AM  Subject: RE: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>    Thanks Loran. We are working hard, as are many other companies in the battery technology  space, to improve energy density. To make urban electric helo’s that can travel a good  distance a reality will take some time.     From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>   Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2020 7:17 PM  To: Steven Feinstein <Steven.Feinstein@ionicmaterials.com>; Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>; Doug  Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>; David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>; Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>;  Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>; midge@thebarretts.com; Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>; Mark Kreutzer  <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>; Mark Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>; margaret‐sasaki@live.com; Joel Stiner  <jastiner@gmail.com>; Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>; jerry ruopoli <jrwiseguy7@gmail.com>;  vallesR1969@att.net; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; leager <leager@fresnoedc.com>; Leodies  Buchanan <leodiesbuchanan@yahoo.com>; bballpod <bballpod@aol.com>; nick yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>;  eappel@stanford.edu; yicui@stanford.edu; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; hennessy <hennessy@stanford.edu>;  esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>; kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>; newsdesk  <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>; becerra.bere11@gmail.com;  bearwithme1016@att.net; city.council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Steve Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>;  grinellelake@yahoo.com; huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>; steve.hogg <steve.hogg@fresno.gov>;  Irv Weissman <irv@stanford.edu>; igorstrav . <mwaldrep@aixrecords.com>; Kirk Sorensen <kirkfsorensen@gmail.com>;  mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; popoff <popoff@pbworld.com>; russ@topperjewelers.com; terry  <terry@terrynagel.com>; toni.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov  Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming     CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.        7 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 3:55 PM  Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>        ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 3:47 PM  Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>        ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 3:05 PM  Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>        ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 2:26 PM  Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>        ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 2:16 PM  Subject: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>               Sunday, Jan. 26, 2020  8            Steven Feinstein          Ionic Materials Corp.                Mr. Feinstein‐ Unable to sleep this morning, I heard the weekly program "In Depth" on mighty KCBS‐AM, San  Francisco. They broadcast the truth into the Republican‐owned Central Valley of Calif.                   It takes the station a few days to get these programs up on their website and this one, for Sunday, January 26,  2020, is not there yet.  www.kcbsradio.com  is their website. (KCBS does not make it easy to find these. I have yet to find  this one on their website on Feb. 5, 2020).                  The topic today was urban ELECTRIC helicopter commuting (!).  This is now apparently a serious movement with  big money being spent to make it a reality. They had a male Ph.D expert on and a woman from NASA's Ames Research  Center in Mt. View, Ca.  NASA Ames is putting money into researching this and running some sort of a competition to  sort out the issues and advance the art.                This is seen as a needed development to address the urban traffic nightmare and global warming from ICE  emissions. Electric helos would be used in dense urban areas where highly paid commuters spend vast amounts of time  in traffic every day. Employers would pay to get these people to work in 20 minutes in a helo instead of two hours in a  car, from Oakland to Palo Alto, e.g.               I'll just mention that Calfornia High Speed Rail, when completed, will transport Silicon Valley workers from Fresno  to Palo Alto, and visa versa, in 45 minutes. That distance, 165 miles, is just out of reach by road at present, being a two  hour and 45 minutes drive. The rich Republicans here in the Central Valley have almost bankrupted themselves fighting  HSR. They don't want the people here getting out from under their boot and making three times the money in Palo Alto.  Fourty five minutes by luxurious high speed trains from Fresno to Palo Alto is a nightmare scenario to the Republicans.  "Keep em broke, barefoot and pregnant" is their mantra, and high speed rail would start to break that up.              Big blades on the helos would cut the dB issue, which they acknowledge would be an issue. What about mid‐air  collisions if the sky over an urban area is filled with these morning and evening?  AI would enable the helos to avoid each  other. I guess that if self driving cars can avoid each other, helos could too. They mentioned having several helos take off  together and travel together, in fleets, to help avoid collisions. Also, the helos themselves could have a parachute in case  of a collision. If one of these lowered the craft into SF Bay, that commute would be truly memorable.              Are batteries energy‐dense enough now to make this work? IBM‐Almaden has unveiled a new battery with higher E‐ density they said.  9            We are now up to 400 WHrs/kilogram, or even 500, they said. You'd know about that.                I got the impression that you'd have a few commuters per helo. I think the word "autonomous" was even  mentioned. One person said this will be like when JFK said "before this decade is out" re the moon landing. These urban  commuter electric helos will be common by the end of this decade, he was predicting. Lots of companies and places like  Ames Research Ctr. are involved now.                They won't be common around easy‐commute Fresno. We do get mornings with fog here and the occasional 50  car pile‐up on Hwy 99 as a result, but the drive‐time is usually pretty reasonable here. People drive 60 mph in the fog  when they can't see the end of their own hood. Now big signs have been deployed on Hwy. 99 to warn of fog.                  But I know the Bay Area well, having spent most of my life there, and the rush hour commute there is often a  nightmare of stalls, over‐turns, vehicles sitting side‐ways in the lanes, motorcycle‐down events, CalTrans sweepers, tree  trimming and other work in the lanes (but rarely pot‐hole repair, one surmisses), deer strikes, collisions, vehicle fires,  injury accidents, even fatal ones, police activity (occasionally drivers shooting at each other), CHP traffic breaks, ladders,  bumpers, sheet metal and mattresses in the roadway, multi‐car pile‐ups, trucks dumping a load of screws on the  highway with lines of cars on the shoulder as a result (Hwy 280 recently), big trucks at a tight turn hitting the sand  barrels on the lower deck of the Bay Bridge resulting in lane closures (repeatedly), lanes closed due to flooding, chemical  spills and wild fires, huge tie‐ups on the west‐bound upper deck of the Bay Bridge due to street closures in San Francisco  to permit political events and parades and marches. This morning, Tues., Jan. 28, KCBS reported that a gravel truck was  on its side on north‐bound Hwy 680 blocking four lanes and producing an horrific, and perhaps historic, back‐up.  Also,  that a big pot‐hole had opened on Hwy 880 north‐bound in Oakland and that it would close a lane for at least an hour to  fix. Several vehicles had sufferd flat tires from it. I‐80, 580, 880, Hwy 17, 85, 280, 680, 101, 92, 84, 237, 238, Bay Bridge,  San Mateo Bridge, Dumbarton Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge, Richmond‐San Rafael Bridge, all of it is a riot of commute‐ delaying mishaps twice a day, all reported every 10 minutes by KCBS.  People live in Stockton or Tracy and work in Palo  Alto. They are out on 205 and then 580 west‐bound at 4 AM every work‐day, as reported by KCBS.                  I never had to commute in the Bay Area with traffic in this mess, and for that I am grateful. One time I did drive  from Santa Clara to Hayward at 5 PM on 880, and it took two hours to go 30 miles. One sits in five lanes of freeway  surrounded by 18‐wheelers at a dead stop, and one moves forward five feet at 3 mph every few minutes. Do that for  two or three hours twice a day for years, and you'll support the urban commute electric helo movement. Some people  are commuting six hours a day to work eight hours.                 We can't get safe, high energy‐density batteries soon enough. Ionic Material Corp's safe lithium metal batteries  will be in great demand. Fleets of electric helos moving commuters over high traffic‐density urban areas twice a day all  over the United States, and beyond‐ that will develop over the next ten years, says KCBS.     10           All we'll need then is a way to produce all of the e‐ without burning fossil fuels. Kirk Sorensen says that thorium  reactors should play a roll. See his many vids about that on YouTube.                 L. William Harding             Fresno, Ca.                      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 4:02 PM To:sixth.district@jud.ca.gov; judgebullock1949@gmail.com Cc:Bill Robinson; patrick@sdap.org; j@fuerylaw.com; ming.chin@jud.ca.gov; carol.corrigan@jud.ca.gov; joshua.grober@jud.ca.gov; leandra.kruger@jud.ca.gov; goodwin.liu@jud.ca.gov; cgi@scscourt.org; debra.ryan@scscourt.org Subject:Fwd: Board Policy 3.8 - Retaliation for filing whistleblower complaint ( H045195 & H046743 ) - People V. Cary Crittenden Attachments:091315-exculpatory-evidence-suppressed-by-james-leonard-docket-c1493022(1)(1).pdf; PDO- Jeffrey-Dunn-Marsden-Motion-Evidence-C1493022-.pdf; DECLARATION OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF.pdf; Grand-Jury-Investigation-Public-Guardian-Santa-Clara- County.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Important note about the attachment below , Public Defender Molly O'Neal office was recipient ( and also George Abel )  ‐ The Santa Clara County Public Defender’s office can therefore not claim ignorance as to these events as they transpired  regarding the whistleblower complaint to  1‐12‐cv226958 leading to my false arrest on C1493022.      I am formally requesting  this email & attachments be added to the record in dockets H045195 & H046743 & be cross  referenced to corresponding dockets C1493022 & 1‐12‐CV226958     Santa Clara County Board Policy 3.8: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/scc/gov/CountyPolicies/Board‐Policy‐3.8‐Policy‐ Against‐Discrimination‐Harassment‐and‐Retaliation.pdf    Respectfully Submitted,  Cary Andrew Crittenden |. 408‐318‐1105      Begin forwarded message:    From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>  Subject: Board Policy 3.8 ‐ Retaliation for filing whistleblower complaint ( H045195 & H046743 ) ‐  People V. Cary Crittenden  Date: February 10, 2020 at 2:22:40 PM PST  To: sixth.district@jud.ca.gov  Cc: Bill Robinson <bill@sdap.org>, patrick@sdap.org, ming.chin@jud.ca.gov, carol.corrigan@jud.ca.gov,  joshua.grober@jud.ca.gov, leandra.kruger@jud.ca.gov, goodwin.liu@jud.ca.gov, cgi@scscourt.org,  debra.ryan@scscourt.org    The attatched PDF file is documentation of the period when Santa Clara County Sheriff Detective David  Carroll began to stalk me in retaliation for filing whistleblower complaint.   ( See Santa Clara County  Board Policy 3.8 ) ‐ which led to my  2  false arrest on case C1493022.    It would interesting to compare this to timeline  regardng  corresponding civil grand jury investigation into Santa Clara County Public Guardian.  ( The  Robert Moss Homicide was concealed from Civil Grand Jury ‐ and also the death of Julie Stewart )   ‐ See  declaration in support of habeas corpus relief        I am formally requesting  this email & attachments be added to the record in  dockets H045195 & H046743 & be cross referenced to corresponding dockets C1493022 & 1‐12‐ CV226958    Respectfully Submitted,  Cary Andrew Crittenden | 408‐318‐1105        Begin forwarded message:    From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>  Subject: Court Records Seized / Homicide concealed from Grand Jury  Date: February 10, 2020 at 1:47:47 PM PST  To: sixth.district@jud.ca.gov, judgebullock1949@gmail.com, j@fuerylaw.com  Cc: Bill Robinson <bill@sdap.org>, patrick@sdap.org, ming.chin@jud.ca.gov,  carol.corrigan@jud.ca.gov, goodwin.liu@jud.ca.gov, mariothemaster  <mariothemaster@protonmail.com>, littlehoover@lhc.ca.gov,  mary.greenwood@jud.ca.gov, leandra.kruger@jud.ca.gov    Here is copy of records siezed by sheriff department bailiffs on 10/16/2014 ( Marsden  Motion / Motion to withdraw plea ) to case C1493022    I am formally this email & attachment be added to the record in  dockets H045195 & H046743 & be cross referenced to corresponding dockets C1493022  & 1‐12‐CV226958    ( Was not able to effectively file Marsden because  deputies seized record and arrested  me on fake VOP as soon as I entered court room ‐ This conviction is invalid also & the  public has the right to know & to say something, without being stalked , harassed,  threatened and terrorized by Santa Clara County Sheriff Deputies ) ‐ This is serous  federal crime that these deputies committed on behalf of detective David Carroll.            Homicide of Markham Plaza resident Robert Moss concealed from Santa Clara County  civi grand jury investigation into Santa Clara County Public Guardian ( 2013 / 2024 )          Respectfully Submitted,   Cary Andrew Crittenden | 408‐318‐1105  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF - 1 IN PROPRIA PERSONA SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALSE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CARY ANDREW CRITTENDEN, Petitioner,, vs. SANTA CLARA COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND ,SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA RESPONDANT Case H045195 Trial court: C1642778: DECLARATION OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF . IN PROPRIA PERSONA Petitioner, Rev. Cary Andrew Crittenden is a well-established and nationally recognized social activist, which includes political activism and tenant rights advocacy at Markham Plaza Apartments, a HUD subsidized apartment complex located at 2000 / 2010 Monterey Road in San Jose, California. The concerns brought to my attention by Markham Plaza residents included violence, harassment and hostile living environment by Markham Plaza Property Management. Previously, Markham Plaza had a contract through San Jose Police Departments secondary employment unit and hired San Jose Police officers to work off duty, in San Jose Police uniform as security guards, which raised serious conflict of interest issues. Off duty officers were often assisting in HUD violations, Fair Housing Act and section C-1503 of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF - 2 San Jose Police Duty Manuel which required that they only enforce laws - not the policies of their employers. In 2008, a complaint was filed by fellow Markham Plaza tenant rights activist, Dr. Christopher Ehrentraut with several law enforcement agencies including the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The U.S. Postal Service, The San Jose Police Department, The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s office and the California Attorney General’s office. I had been advocating for Markham Plaza resident Heidi Yauman, who I had a very close relationship with. Heidi Yauman is disabled and was conserved through the Santa Clara County Public Guardian in probate court case ( 1994-1-PR-133513 / 1990-1-PR-124467 ) The Public Guardian also has history of facilitating illegal evictions and committing HUD violations, some of which were exposed by ABC News I-Team (Dan Noyes & Jim O’Donnell) The ABC News Story, Investigating the Public Guardian, is featured at the following youtube URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y809jIIev5w There was an incident involving San Jose Police Sergeant Michael Leininger and Heidi Yauman, where Heidi was in outside seating area outside her residence. Heidi Yauman was not violating any laws or lease conditions but was approached by Sergeant Michael Leininger and told to go to her apartment and not come out or she would be arrested. I went over Heidi Yauman’s lease with her and the Markham Plaza House Rules and pointed out a section specifying that she, as a tenant was entitled to full enjoyment of all common areas of the complex, including the outside seating area where she was sitting when approached by Sergeant Michael Leininger. Heidi Yauman and I then returned to the outdoor seating area with copy of the house rules and lease where we were approached again by Sergeant Leininger, who said to Heidi Yauman “I thought I told you to go to your room!” I then attempted to show Sergeant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF - 3 Leininger the lease and house rules. In response to my advocating for Heidi Yauman’s fair housing rights, a federally protected activity, Sergeant Leininger commanded me to leave the property and not return or I would be arrested for trespassing. Sergeant Leininger and SEU reserve officer: Robert My name was then unlawfully entered into San Jose Police Department’s STOP program database. Heidi Yauman and I were both maliciously targeted and harassed by Sergeant Michael Leininger and reserve officer Robert Alan Ridgeway, who worked under Leininger’s supervision. Neighborhood residents approached me and complained that Leininger and his officers were also illegally targeting low income residents, and illegally banning them from “The Plant” shopping center, located across the street from Markham Plaza at the corner of Monterey Road and Curtner Avenue. These included residents of Markham Plaza Apartments, Markham Terrace Apartments, Peppertree Estates Mobile Home Park, and the Boccardo Reception Center, a neighborhood homeless shelter. What Sergeant Micheal Leininger and his officers were doing was very similar to the illegal practice of “red lining”. In 2008, Heidi Yauman submitted a complaint letter to Markham Plaza Property Management, Theresa Coons detailing the harassment and by Sergeant Michael Leininger. Chapter 4 of the HUD management agent handbook describes managements responsibility to be responsive to resident concerns. More info can be found at: https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/43815C4HSGH.PDF Sergeant Leininger approached me at my place of employment and told me that because of Heidi Yauman’s letter complaining about him, she was going to be evicted. Sergeant Michael Leininger also stated that I had been living at Markham Plaza and that he had video of me there. On the contrary, I had not been on the property for many months and had been residing in Palo Alto since June, 2007. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF - 4 This matter was brought to the attention of deputy Santa Clara County Public Guardian Kanta Jindal, who at the time was Heidi Yauman’s conservator. It was Jindal’s responsibility to advocate for Heidi Yauman and to stop what was obviously very illegal abuse against her. Not only were Heidi Yauman’s fair housing rights being violated, and she was being denied the extra care needed because of her disability, but the abuse by property management and sergeant Leininger also violated laws protecting dependent adults and seniors. Deputy Jindal demanded that I stay away from Heidi Yauman and stop advocating for her. Shortly thereafter, Heidi Yauman received a letter from supervising public guardian Dennis Silva alleging false unsubstantiated allegations, including there being video showing I was residing at Markham Plaza Apartments. The letter from Dennis Silver to Heidi Yauman told her she should expect an eviction notice in the near future. Neither Kanta Jindal, or her supervisor, Dennis Silva did sufficient research or follow up on the crisis at Markham Plaza Apartments and were not aware of the widespread abuses taking place, the tenant organizing efforts underway by myself and Dr. Christopher Ehrentraut, and the criminal complaint recently filed against Markham Plaza by Dr. Christopher Ehrentraut. (approximately April, 2008) In a state of panic, Heidi Yauman wrote up a letter about what was happening regarding Markham Plaza and the public guardian. This letter, which contained a few errors, detailed abuses going back to approximately 2003 with the public guardian including another fraudulent eviction following a 25-month period in which Heidi Yauman was denied services by the public guardian. This letter also referenced abuses by deputy public guardian Rhondi Opheim and two San Jose Police officers : Gabriel Cuenca (Badge 3915) and Tom Tortorici (Badge 2635) This incident, which occurred on January 26th, 2006 is documented here: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF - 5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5-Khy4bpH4 (Both of these officers were under the supervision of San Jose Police Sergeant Michael Leininger (Badge 2245) 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 9, 2020 4:00 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Architectural Review Board; Council, City Subject:Wireless communication CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice-Chair Roohparvan, and Commissioners Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa,    Thank you for supporting the requests from many PA residents who prefer to not have wireless devices sitting directly in front of their homes.    When the ordinance is up for review this week it would be great if you could increase the setback for residences from 20 feet to 100 feet. These devices can be loud. I have a son with serious mental health issues. I shudder to think of what could happen if he is forced to listen to a humming device sitting 20 feet in front of our house all day long. It would not be good. I think it's fair to assume nobody wants that.     I like Palo Alto because it has lots of vitality, great food, and trees. Not because it has a ton of wireless devices in front of homes and schools.    Sincerely,  Ann Protter        1 Baumb, Nelly From:Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, February 9, 2020 4:04 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Clerk, City; Council, City; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org Subject:Palo Alto Wireless Ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice-Chair Roohparvan, and Commissioners Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa,    I understand that at your meeting this Wednesday, February 12th, you will be considering City Staff’s recommendations for revising Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance.    I am writing to urge you to make every effort to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance, while recognizing the rights of telecommunication companies, 1) enforces to the fullest extent possible the provisions of the Wireless Resolution and, 2) more generally, protects the interests of Palo Alto residents.     In particular, I urge you to recommend to City Council that they make the following changes and additions to Staff’s proposed revised Ordinance:     That the Architectural Review Board systematically review applicants’ requests for exceptions. In the document Staff proposes, it states that, if an applicant seeks an exception, the Director of Planning “may” refer the application to the Architectural Review Board (see Page 19, paragraph f (II) (3) of Staff’s revisions to the Ordinance). I strongly urge you to recommend to Council that the word “may” be changed to “shall.”      That the WCF Siting Standards described on the first two pages of Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873 be incorporated in the Wireless Ordinance. These are the standards that permit placement of cell towers in residential areas only by exception.     That the minimum 20 foot setback for a cell tower from a residence—established in the WCF Siting Standards and in the WCF Exceptions provision in Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873—be significantly increased. As Planning Director Lait has pointed out, a minimum setback as deep as 100 feet would still leave telecommunications companies with roughly ten percent of poles in a neighborhood to choose from, should not installing a cell tower in the neighborhood genuinely prohibit delivery of service.     That there be a minimum setback of 600 feet for macro cell towers from schools.    Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,    Chris Robell  Old Palo Alto resident  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Carol Heermance <cheermance@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 9, 2020 4:04 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Revised Wireless Ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice-Chair Roohparvan, and Commissioners Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa,    We understand that at your meeting this Wednesday, February 12th, you will be considering City Staff’s recommendations for revising Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance.    We are writing to urge you to make every effort to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance, while recognizing the rights of telecommunication companies, 1) enforces to the fullest extent possible the provisions of the Wireless Resolution and, 2) more generally, protects the interests of Palo Alto residents.     In particular, we urge you to recommend to City Council that they make the following changes and additions to Staff’s proposed revised Ordinance:     That the Architectural Review Board systematically review applicants’ requests for exceptions. In the document Staff’s proposes, it states that, if an applicant seeks an exception, the Director of Planning “may” refer the application to the Architectural Review Board (see Page 19, paragraph f (II) (3) of Staff’s revisions to the Ordinance). I strongly urge you to recommend to Council that the word “may” be changed to “shall.”      That the WCF Siting Standards described on the first two pages of Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873 be incorporated in the Wireless Ordinance. These are the standards that permit placement of cell towers in residential areas only by exception.     That the minimum 20 foot setback for a cell tower from a residence—established in the WCF Siting Standards and in the WCF Exceptions provision in Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873—be significantly increased. As Planning Director Lait has pointed out, a minimum setback as deep as 100 feet would still leave telecommunications companies with roughly ten percent of poles in a neighborhood to choose from, should not installing a cell tower in the neighborhood genuinely prohibit delivery of service.     That there be a minimum setback of 600 feet for macro cell towers from schools.    Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,    Richard and Carol Heermance   Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Jerry Fan <jerry.fan@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 9, 2020 5:25 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Please recommend changes to City Council on revised Wireless Ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice-Chair Roohparvan, and Commissioners Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa,    I understand that at your meeting this Wednesday, February 12th, you will be considering City Staff’s recommendations for revising Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance.    I am writing to urge you to make every effort to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance, while recognizing the rights of telecommunication companies, 1) enforces to the fullest extent possible the provisions of the Wireless Resolution and, 2) more generally, protects the interests of Palo Alto residents.    In particular, I urge you to recommend to City Council that they make the following changes and additions to Staff’s proposed revised Ordinance:     That the Architectural Review Board systematically review applicants’ requests for exceptions. In the document Staff’s proposes, it states that, if an applicant seeks an exception, the Director of Planning “may” refer the application to the Architectural Review Board (see Page 19, paragraph f (II) (3) of Staff’s revisions to the Ordinance). I strongly urge you to recommend to Council that the word “may” be changed to “shall.”     That the WCF Siting Standards described on the first two pages of Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873 be incorporated in the Wireless Ordinance. These are the standards that permit placement of cell towers in residential areas only by exception.     That the minimum 20 foot setback for a cell tower from a residence—established in the WCF Siting Standards and in the WCF Exceptions provision in Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873—be significantly increased. As Planning Director Lait has pointed out, a minimum setback as deep as 100 feet would still leave telecommunications companies with roughly ten percent of poles in a neighborhood to choose from, should not installing a cell tower in the neighborhood genuinely prohibit delivery of service.     That there be a minimum setback of 600 feet for macro cell towers from schools.    2 Thank you for your consideration.    Sincerely,  Jerry Fan  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Sunday, February 9, 2020 5:53 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:2/12/20 Revised Wireless Ordinance review CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice-Chair Roohparvan, and Commissioners Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa, I understand that at your meeting this Wednesday, February 12th, you will be considering City Staff’s recommendations for revising Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance. I am writing to urge you to make every effort to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance, while recognizing the rights of telecommunication companies, 1) enforces to the fullest extent possible the provisions of the Wireless Resolution and, 2) more generally, protects the interests of Palo Alto residents. In particular, I urge you to recommend to City Council that they make the following changes and additions to Staff’s proposed revised Ordinance:  That the Architectural Review Board systematically review applicants’ requests for exceptions. In the document Staff’s proposes, it states that, if an applicant seeks an exception, the Director of Planning “may” refer the application to the Architectural Review Board (see Page 19, paragraph f (II) (3) of Staff’s revisions to the Ordinance). I strongly urge you to recommend to Council that the word “may” be changed to “shall.”  That the WCF Siting Standards described on the first two pages of Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873 be incorporated in the Wireless Ordinance. These are the standards that permit placement of cell towers in residential areas only by exception.  That the minimum 20 foot setback for a cell tower from a residence—established in the WCF Siting Standards and in the WCF Exceptions provision in Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873—be significantly increased. As Planning Director Lait has pointed out, a minimum setback as deep as 100 feet would still leave telecommunications companies with roughly ten percent of poles in a neighborhood to choose from, should not installing a cell tower in the neighborhood genuinely prohibit delivery of service.  That there be a minimum setback of 600 feet for macro cell towers from schools. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming 2     Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151             1 Baumb, Nelly From:Leo Povolotsky <leopovolhoa@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 9, 2020 9:19 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City; Jeanne Fleming Subject:Cell Tower Update: Revised Wireless Ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice-Chair Roohparvan, and Commissioners Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa,   I understand that at your meeting this Wednesday, February 12th, you will be considering City Staff’s recommendations for revising Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance.  I am writing to urge you to make every effort to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance, while recognizing the rights of telecommunication companies, 1) enforces to the fullest extent possible the provisions of the Wireless Resolution and, 2) more generally, protects the interests of Palo Alto residents.   In particular, I urge you to recommend to City Council that they make the following changes and additions to Staff’s proposed revised Ordinance:   That the Architectural Review Board systematically review applicants’ requests for exceptions. In the document Staff’s proposes, it states that, if an applicant seeks an exception, the Director of Planning “may” refer the application to the Architectural Review Board (see Page 19, paragraph f (II) (3) of Staff’s revisions to the Ordinance). I strongly urge you to recommend to Council that the word “may” be changed to “shall.”    That the WCF Siting Standards described on the first two pages of Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873 be incorporated in the Wireless Ordinance. These are the standards that permit placement of cell towers in residential areas only by exception.   That the minimum 20 foot setback for a cell tower from a residence—established in the WCF Siting Standards and in the WCF Exceptions provision in Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873—be significantly increased. As Planning Director Lait has pointed out, a minimum setback as deep as 100 feet would still leave telecommunications companies with roughly ten percent of poles in a neighborhood to choose from, should not installing a cell tower in the neighborhood genuinely prohibit delivery of service.   That there be a minimum setback of 600 feet for macro cell towers from schools.  Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,  2 Leo Povolotsky  For United Neighbors  Palo Alto resident for 28 years                  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Willy Lai <willyhlai@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, February 9, 2020 10:55 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Palo Alto Wireless Ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice-Chair Roohparvan, and Commissioners Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa, I understand that at your meeting this Wednesday, February 12th, you will be considering City Staff’s recommendations for revising Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance. I am writing to urge you to make every effort to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance, while recognizing the rights of telecommunication companies, 1) enforces to the fullest extent possible the provisions of the Wireless Resolution and, 2) more generally, protects the interests of Palo Alto residents.     In particular, I urge you to recommend to City Council that they make the following changes and additions to Staff’s proposed revised Ordinance:     That the Architectural Review Board systematically review applicants’ requests for exceptions. In the document Staff’s proposes, it states that, if an applicant seeks an exception, the Director of Planning “may” refer the application to the Architectural Review Board (see Page 19, paragraph f (II) (3) of Staff’s revisions to the Ordinance). I strongly urge you to recommend to Council that the word “may” be changed to “shall.”      That the WCF Siting Standards described on the first two pages of Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873 be incorporated in the Wireless Ordinance. These are the standards that permit placement of cell towers in residential areas only by exception.     That the minimum 20 foot setback for a cell tower from a residence—established in the WCF Siting Standards and in the WCF Exceptions provision in Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873—be significantly increased. As Planning Director Lait has pointed out, a minimum setback as deep as 100 feet would still leave telecommunications companies with roughly ten percent of poles in a neighborhood to choose from, should not installing a cell tower in the neighborhood genuinely prohibit delivery of service.     That there be a minimum setback of 1500 feet for macro cell towers from schools.    2 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Willy 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Leonard Schwarz <lschwarz@right-thing.net> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 10:10 AM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:RE: 2/12/20 Revised Wireless Ordinance review CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice-Chair Roohparvan, and Commissioners Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa, I understand that at your meeting this Wednesday, February 12th, you will be considering City Staff’s recommendations for revising Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance. As a concerned resident of Palo Alto, I am writing to urge you to make every effort to ensure that our city’s Wireless Ordinance, while recognizing the rights of telecommunication companies, 1) enforces to the fullest extent possible the provisions of the Wireless Resolution and, 2) more generally, protects the interests of Palo Alto residents. In particular, I urge you to recommend to City Council that they make the following changes and additions to Staff’s proposed revised Ordinance:  That the Architectural Review Board systematically review applicants’ requests for exceptions. In the document Staff’s proposes, it states that, if an applicant seeks an exception, the Director of Planning “may” refer the application to the Architectural Review Board (see Page 19, paragraph f (II) (3) of Staff’s revisions to the Ordinance). I strongly urge you to recommend to Council that the word “may” be changed to “shall.”  That the WCF Siting Standards described on the first two pages of Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873 be incorporated in the Wireless Ordinance. These are the standards that permit placement of cell towers in residential areas only by exception.  That the minimum 20 foot setback for a cell tower from a residence—established in the WCF Siting Standards and in the WCF Exceptions provision in Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873—be significantly increased. As Planning Director Lait has pointed out, a minimum setback as deep as 100 feet would still leave telecommunications companies with roughly ten percent of poles in a neighborhood to choose from, should not installing a cell tower in the neighborhood genuinely prohibit delivery of service.  That there be a minimum setback of 600 feet for macro cell towers from schools. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Leonard Schwarz 2   LSchwarz@right-thing.net               1 Baumb, Nelly From:Anna Dinh <dinhanna20@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 10:38 AM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Revising wireless ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice-Chair Roohparvan, and Commissioners Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa,    I understand that at your meeting this Wednesday, February 12th, you will be considering City Staff’s recommendations for revising Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance.    I am writing to urge you to make every effort to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance, while recognizing the rights of telecommunication companies, 1) enforces to the fullest extent possible the provisions of the Wireless Resolution and, 2) more generally, protects the interests of Palo Alto residents.     In particular, I urge you to recommend to City Council that they make the following changes and additions to Staff’s proposed revised Ordinance:     That the Architectural Review Board systematically review applicants’ requests for exceptions. In the document Staff’s proposes, it states that, if an applicant seeks an exception, the Director of Planning “may” refer the application to the Architectural Review Board (see Page 19, paragraph f (II) (3) of Staff’s revisions to the Ordinance). I strongly urge you to recommend to Council that the word “may” be changed to “shall.”      That the WCF Siting Standards described on the first two pages of Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873 be incorporated in the Wireless Ordinance. These are the standards that permit placement of cell towers in residential areas only by exception.     That the minimum 20 foot setback for a cell tower from a residence—established in the WCF Siting Standards and in the WCF Exceptions provision in Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873—be 2 significantly increased. As Planning Director Lait has pointed out, a minimum setback as deep as 100 feet would still leave telecommunications companies with roughly ten percent of poles in a neighborhood to choose from, should not installing a cell tower in the neighborhood genuinely prohibit delivery of service.     That there be a minimum setback of 600 feet for macro cell towers from schools.    Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,  Anna  1 Baumb, Nelly From:king jane <janeking318@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 10:40 AM To:Council, City; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Fwd: Revising wireless ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.        Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice-Chair Roohparvan, and Commissioners Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa,    I understand that at your meeting this Wednesday, February 12th, you will be considering City Staff’s recommendations for revising Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance.    I am writing to urge you to make every effort to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance, while recognizing the rights of telecommunication companies, 1) enforces to the fullest extent possible the provisions of the Wireless Resolution and, 2) more generally, protects the interests of Palo Alto residents.     In particular, I urge you to recommend to City Council that they make the following changes and additions to Staff’s proposed revised Ordinance:     That the Architectural Review Board systematically review applicants’ requests for exceptions. In the document Staff’s proposes, it states that, if an applicant seeks an exception, the Director of Planning “may” refer the application to the Architectural Review Board (see Page 19, paragraph f (II) (3) of Staff’s revisions to the Ordinance). I strongly urge you to recommend to Council that the word “may” be changed to “shall.”      That the WCF Siting Standards described on the first two pages of Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873 be incorporated in the Wireless Ordinance. These are the standards that permit placement of cell towers in residential areas only by exception.  2    That the minimum 20 foot setback for a cell tower from a residence—established in the WCF Siting Standards and in the WCF Exceptions provision in Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873—be significantly increased. As Planning Director Lait has pointed out, a minimum setback as deep as 100 feet would still leave telecommunications companies with roughly ten percent of poles in a neighborhood to choose from, should not installing a cell tower in the neighborhood genuinely prohibit delivery of service.     That there be a minimum setback of 600 feet for macro cell towers from schools.    Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,  Jane  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Francesca <dfkautz@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 1:32 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Make Palo Alto's Wireless Policy Better for Residents CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice-Chair Roohparvan, and Commissioners Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa,    I understand that at your meeting this Wednesday, February 12th, you will be considering City Staff’s recommendations for revising Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance.    I am writing to urge you to make every effort to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance, while recognizing the rights of telecommunication companies, 1) enforces to the fullest extent possible the provisions of the Wireless Resolution and, 2) more generally, protects the interests of Palo Alto residents.     In particular, I urge you to recommend to City Council that they make the following changes and additions to Staff’s proposed revised Ordinance:     That the Architectural Review Board systematically review applicants’ requests for exceptions. In the document Staff’s proposes, it states that, if an applicant seeks an exception, the Director of Planning “may” refer the application to the Architectural Review Board (see Page 19, paragraph f (II) (3) of Staff’s revisions to the Ordinance). I strongly urge you to recommend to Council that the word “may” be changed to “shall.”      That the WCF Siting Standards described on the first two pages of Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873 be incorporated in the Wireless Ordinance. These are the standards that permit placement of cell towers in residential areas only by exception.     That the minimum 20 foot setback for a cell tower from a residence—established in the WCF Siting Standards and in the WCF Exceptions provision in Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873—be significantly increased. As Planning Director Lait has pointed out, a minimum setback as deep as 100 feet would still leave telecommunications companies with roughly ten percent of poles in a neighborhood to choose from, should not installing a cell tower in the neighborhood genuinely prohibit delivery of service.     That there be a minimum setback of 600 feet for macro cell towers from schools.    Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,    Francesca Kautz  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbara Kelly <bmkelly@hotmail.com> on behalf of Barbara Kelly <barbara.kelly@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 2:06 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice-Chair Roohparvan, and Commissioners Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa,    I understand that at your meeting this Wednesday, February 12th, you will be considering the City Staff’s recommendations for revising Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance.    I urge you to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance while recognizing the rights of telecommunication companies, 1) enforces to the fullest extent possible the provisions of the Wireless Resolution and, 2) more generally, protects the interests of Palo Alto residents.    In particular, I urge you to recommend to City Council that they make the following changes and additions to Staff’s proposed revised Ordinance:     That the Architectural Review Board systematically review applicants’ requests for exceptions. In the document Staff proposes it states that, if an applicant seeks an exception, the Director of Planning “may” refer the application to the Architectural Review Board (see Page 19, paragraph f (II) (3) of Staff’s revisions to the Ordinance). I strongly urge you to recommend to Council that the word “may” be changed to “shall.”     That the WCF Siting Standards described on the first two pages of Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873 be incorporated in the Wireless Ordinance. These are the standards that permit the placement of cell towers in residential areas only by exception.     That the minimum 20-foot setback for a cell tower from a residence—established in the WCF Siting Standards and in the WCF Exceptions provision in Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873—be significantly increased. As Planning Director Lait has pointed out, a minimum setback as deep as 100 feet would still leave telecommunications companies with roughly ten percent of poles in a neighborhood to choose from, should not installing a cell tower in the neighborhood genuinely prohibit delivery of service.     That there be a minimum setback of 600 feet for macro cell towers from schools.    Thank you for your consideration.  2   Sincerely,    Barbara Kelly    444 Washington Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Christine Selberg <christineselberg@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 11, 2020 8:15 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Cc:ARB@citypaloalto.org; Chris Selberg; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Tower Concerns in Neighborhoods CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice-Chair Roohparvan, and Commissioners Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa, I understand that at your meeting this Wednesday, February 12th, you will be considering City Staff’s recommendations for revising Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance. I submitted a letter prior to the 12/16/2019 Council Meeting, spoke at the meeting about my concerns, submitted a letter prior to the 1/27/2020 about my concerns. I am again writing to urge you to make every effort to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance, while recognizing the rights of telecommunication companies, 1) enforces to the fullest extent possible the provisions of the Wireless Resolution and, 2) more generally, protects the interests of Palo Alto residents. In particular, I urge you to recommend to City Council that they make the following changes and additions to Staff’s proposed revised Ordinance:  That the Architectural Review Board systematically review applicants’ requests for exceptions. In the document Staff’s proposes, it states that, if an applicant seeks an exception, the Director of Planning “may” refer the application to the Architectural Review Board (see Page 19, paragraph f (II) (3) of Staff’s revisions to the Ordinance). I strongly urge you to recommend to Council that the word “may” be changed to “shall.”  That the WCF Siting Standards described on the first two pages of Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873 be incorporated in the Wireless Ordinance. These are the standards that permit placement of cell towers in residential areas only by exception.  That the minimum 20 foot setback for a cell tower from a residence—established in the WCF Siting Standards and in the WCF Exceptions provision in Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873—be significantly increased. As Planning Director Lait has pointed out, a minimum setback as deep as 100 feet would still leave telecommunications companies with roughly ten percent of poles in a neighborhood to choose from, should not installing a cell tower in the neighborhood genuinely prohibit delivery of service.  That there be a minimum setback of 600 feet for macro cell towers from schools.  I don’t believe that Cell Towers belong in residential areas and prefer them to be at Fire stations, freeways etc. Dianne Feinstein makes several good points in her Op-Ed to the San Jose Mercury News that was printed on 1/26/2020 titled "Cities should decide how and where 5G is deployed". 2 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christine Selberg 1 Baumb, Nelly From:April Eiler <aprileiler42@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 11, 2020 5:53 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Cell towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice‐Chair Roohparvan and Commissioners Alcheck,  Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa,     I am writing to urge you to make every effort to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance enforces the provisions of the  Wireless Resolution and and protects the interests of Palo Alto residents.    Please recommend to City Council that  1, the Architectural Review Board review applicants’ requests for exceptions  2, that WCF Siting Standards be incorporated in the Wireless Ordinance  3, that the minimum 20 ft. setback from a residence be increased to 600 feet and  4. that there be a minimum setback of 600 feet for cell towers from schools.    Thank you for your consideration,    April Eiler  (Palo Alto resident since 1967)    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Tina Chow <chow_tina@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 11, 2020 4:12 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:board@pausd.org; Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City; Council, City Subject:wireless ordinance revisions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning and Transportation Commissioners,    I am writing to you about the proposed changes to Palo Alto’s wireless ordinance. I’ve been actively involved in this issue for quite a while now, and I’m pleased to see us moving in the right direction. Some suggestions:    1) Move the location preferences from the Resolution (Exhibit 1) into the main wireless ordinance. This is consistent with what other cities have done. It will create a coherent and robust document in the wireless ordinance.     2) Apply the location preferences to ALL cell towers (not just those in the public right of way). The same setbacks and zoning preferences would then apply from schools and homes for all cell towers, including the full range of small cells and macro towers.    3) Extend the setbacks from schools to 1500 ft, and from residences to 100 ft. The PAUSD school board continues to request 1500 ft setbacks from schools, compared to the 600 ft (300 ft by exception) in the current standards, which is far less than distances other communities have chosen.   Thank you,  Tina Chow  Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UC Berkeley  (Barron Park)  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Linda Clarke <lspclarke@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 11, 2020 2:55 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org Subject:Palo Alto Wireless Ordinance meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice-Chair Roohparvan, and Commissioners Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa,    I understand that you will be considering City Staff’s recommendations for revising Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance at your meeting this Wednesday, February 12th.    I am writing to urge you to make every effort to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance 1) enforces to the fullest extent possible the provisions of the Wireless Resolution and, more generally, 2) protects the interests of Palo Alto residents.    In particular, I urge you to recommend to City Council that they make the following changes and additions to Staff’s proposed revised Ordinance:     That the Architectural Review Board systematically review applicants’ requests for exceptions. In the document Staff’s proposes, it states that if an applicant seeks an exception, the Director of Planning “may” refer the application to the Architectural Review Board (see Page 19, paragraph f (II) (3) of Staff’s revisions to the Ordinance). I strongly urge you to recommend to Council that the word “may” be changed to “shall.”     That the WCF Siting Standards described on the first two pages of Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873 be incorporated in the Wireless Ordinance. These are the standards that permit placement of cell towers in residential areas only by exception.     That the minimum 20 foot setback for a cell tower from a residence—established in the WCF Siting Standards and in the WCF Exceptions provision in Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873—be significantly increased. As Planning Director Lait has pointed out, a minimum setback as deep as 100 feet would still leave telecommunications companies with roughly ten percent of poles in a neighborhood to choose from, should not installing a cell tower in the neighborhood genuinely prohibit delivery of service.     That there be a minimum setback of 600 feet for macro cell towers from schools.    2 Thank you for your consideration.    Sincerely,  Linda Clarke      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, February 11, 2020 1:12 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:PLEASE PUT THE RIGHTS AND HEALTH OF RESIDENTS FIRST IN YOUR DECISIONS. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice-Chair Roohparvan, and Commissioners Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa, I understand that at your meeting this Wednesday, February 12th, you will be considering City Staff’s recommendations for revising Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance. I am writing to urge you to make every effort to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance, 1) enforces to the fullest extent possible the provisions of the Wireless Resolution and, 2) more generally, protects the interests of Palo Alto residents. In particular, I urge you to recommend to City Council that they make the following changes and additions to Staff’s proposed revised Ordinance:  That the Architectural Review Board systematically review applicants’ requests for exceptions. In the document Staff’s proposes, it states that, if an applicant seeks an exception, the Director of Planning “may” refer the application to the Architectural Review Board (see Page 19, paragraph f (II) (3) of Staff’s revisions to the Ordinance). I strongly urge you to recommend to Council that the word “may” be changed to “shall.”  That the WCF Siting Standards described on the first two pages of Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873 be incorporated in the Wireless Ordinance. These are the standards that permit placement of cell towers in residential areas only by exception.  That the minimum 20 foot setback for a cell tower from a residence—established in the WCF Siting Standards and in the WCF Exceptions provision in Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873—be significantly increased. As Planning Director Lait has pointed out, a minimum setback as deep 2 as 100 feet would still leave telecommunications companies with roughly ten percent of poles in a neighborhood to choose from, should not installing a cell tower in the neighborhood genuinely prohibit delivery of service.  That there be a minimum setback of 600 feet for macro cell towers from schools. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Annette Fazzino <annette.fazzino@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 11, 2020 12:15 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Clerk, City; Council, City; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org Subject:Palo Alto Wireless Ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice-Chair Roohparvan, and Commissioners Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa,    I understand that at your meeting this Wednesday, February 12th, you will be considering City Staff’s recommendations for revising Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance.    I am writing to urge you to make every effort to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance, while recognizing the rights of telecommunication companies, 1) enforces to the fullest extent possible the provisions of the Wireless Resolution and, 2) more generally, protects the interests of Palo Alto residents.     In particular, I urge you to recommend to City Council that they make the following changes and additions to Staff’s proposed revised Ordinance:     That the Architectural Review Board systematically review applicants’ requests for exceptions. In the document Staff’s proposes, it states that, if an applicant seeks an exception, the Director of Planning “may” refer the application to the Architectural Review Board (see Page 19, paragraph f (II) (3) of Staff’s revisions to the Ordinance). I strongly urge you to recommend to Council that the word “may” be changed to “shall.”      That the WCF Siting Standards described on the first two pages of Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873 be incorporated in the Wireless Ordinance. These are the standards that permit placement of cell towers in residential areas only by exception.    2  That the minimum 20 foot setback for a cell tower from a residence—established in the WCF Siting Standards and in the WCF Exceptions provision in Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873—be significantly increased. As Planning Director Lait has pointed out, a minimum setback as deep as 100 feet would still leave telecommunications companies with roughly ten percent of poles in a neighborhood to choose from, should not installing a cell tower in the neighborhood genuinely prohibit delivery of service.     That there be a minimum setback of 600 feet for macro cell towers from schools.    Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,    Annette Evans Fazzino  1 Baumb, Nelly From:WRL <whitney.r.leeman@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 11, 2020 9:09 AM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:PA's Wireless Ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice-Chair Roohparvan, and Commissioners Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa,    I understand that at your meeting this Wednesday, February 12th, you will be considering City Staff’s recommendations for revising Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance.    I am writing to urge you to make every effort to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance, while recognizing the rights of telecommunication companies, 1) enforces to the fullest extent possible the provisions of the Wireless Resolution and, 2) more generally, protects the interests of Palo Alto residents.    In particular, I urge you to recommend to City Council that they make the following changes and additions to Staff’s proposed revised Ordinance:     That the Architectural Review Board systematically review applicants’ requests for exceptions. In the document Staff’s proposes, it states that, if an applicant seeks an exception, the Director of Planning “may” refer the application to the Architectural Review Board (see Page 19, paragraph f (II) (3) of Staff’s revisions to the Ordinance). I strongly urge you to recommend to Council that the word “may” be changed to “shall.”     That the WCF Siting Standards described on the first two pages of Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873 be incorporated in the Wireless Ordinance. These are the standards that permit placement of cell towers in residential areas only by exception.     That the minimum 20 foot setback for a cell tower from a residence—established in the WCF Siting Standards and in the WCF Exceptions provision in Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873—be significantly increased. As Planning Director Lait has pointed out, a minimum setback as deep as 100 feet would still leave telecommunications companies with roughly ten percent of poles in a neighborhood to choose from, should not installing a cell tower in the neighborhood genuinely prohibit delivery of service.     That there be a minimum setback of 600 feet for macro cell towers from schools.    2 Thank you for your consideration.    Sincerely,    Whitney Leeman  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Dave Shen <dshenster@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 11, 2020 7:30 AM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City; dshenster@gmail.com Subject:Concerns about the wireless ordinance tomorrow at PTC CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice-Chair Roohparvan, and Commissioners Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa,    First thank you all for the work that you do for our city. Next, the form letter below says it all, and I want to say that I support it wholeheartedly. I have been following the science on this issue and I have personally seen some remarkable health results in limiting electromagnetic radiation in my household. While technology is amazing and maybe even necessary for today's world, we also cannot ignore its health risks either. Please consider all seriousness the elements of the form letter below. Thank you again for your kind consideration:    I understand that at your meeting this Wednesday, February 12th, you will be considering City Staff’s recommendations for revising Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance.    I am writing to urge you to make every effort to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance, while recognizing the rights of telecommunication companies, 1) enforces to the fullest extent possible the provisions of the Wireless Resolution and, 2) more generally, protects the interests of Palo Alto residents.    In particular, I urge you to recommend to City Council that they make the following changes and additions to Staff’s proposed revised Ordinance:     That the Architectural Review Board systematically review applicants’ requests for exceptions. In the document Staff’s proposes, it states that, if an applicant seeks an exception, the Director of Planning “may” refer the application to the Architectural Review Board (see Page 19, paragraph f (II) (3) of Staff’s revisions to the Ordinance). I strongly urge you to recommend to Council that the word “may” be changed to “shall.”     That the WCF Siting Standards described on the first two pages of Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873 be incorporated in the Wireless Ordinance. These are the standards that permit placement of cell towers in residential areas only by exception.     That the minimum 20 foot setback for a cell tower from a residence—established in the WCF Siting Standards and in the WCF Exceptions provision in Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873—be significantly increased. As Planning Director Lait has pointed out, a minimum setback as deep as 100 feet would still leave telecommunications companies with roughly ten percent of poles in a neighborhood to 2 choose from, should not installing a cell tower in the neighborhood genuinely prohibit delivery of service.     That there be a minimum setback of 600 feet for macro cell towers from schools.    Thank you for your consideration.    Sincerely,    David Shen  Palo Alto Resident  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Phil Coulson <philcoulson_3@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 10:45 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:re: Cell Tower Update: Revised Wireless Ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice‐Chair Roohparvan, and Commissioners Alcheck,  Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa,     I understand that at your meeting this Wednesday, February 12th, you will be considering City Staff’s recommendations  for revising Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance.    I am writing to urge you to make every effort to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance, while recognizing the rights  of telecommunication companies, 1) enforces to the fullest extent possible the provisions of the Wireless Resolution  and, 2) more generally, protects the interests of Palo Alto residents.    In particular, I urge you to recommend to City Council that they make the following changes and additions to Staff’s  proposed revised Ordinance:    That the Architectural Review Board systematically review applicants’ requests for exceptions.  In the document Staff’s  proposes, it states that, if an applicant seeks an exception, the Director of Planning “may” refer the application to the  Architectural Review Board (see Page 19, paragraph f (II) (3) of Staff’s revisions to the Ordinance).  I strongly urge you to  recommend to Council that the word “may” be changed to “shall.”    That the WCF Siting Standards described on the first two pages of  Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873 be incorporated in  the Wireless Ordinance.  These are the standards that permit placement of cell towers in residential areas only by  exception.    That the minimum 20 foot setback for a cell tower from a residence—established in the WCF Siting Standards and in the  WCF Exceptions provision in Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873—be significantly increased.  As Planning Director Lait has  pointed out, a minimum setback as deep as 100 feet would still leave telecommunications companies with roughly ten  percent of poles in a neighborhood to choose from, should not installing a cell tower in the neighborhood genuinely  prohibit delivery of service.    That there be a minimum setback of 600 feet for macro cell towers from schools.      Thank you for your consideration.        Sincerely,     ‐Phil Coulson  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Janet Gu <janetlipingding1120@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 10:02 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:make every effort to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice-Chair Roohparvan, and Commissioners Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa,    I understand that at your meeting this Wednesday, February 12th, you will be considering City Staff’s recommendations for revising Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance.    I am writing to urge you to make every effort to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance, while recognizing the rights of telecommunication companies, 1) enforces to the fullest extent possible the provisions of the Wireless Resolution and, 2) more generally, protects the interests of Palo Alto residents.     In particular, I urge you to recommend to City Council that they make the following changes and additions to Staff’s proposed revised Ordinance:     That the Architectural Review Board systematically review applicants’ requests for exceptions. In the document Staff’s proposes, it states that, if an applicant seeks an exception, the Director of Planning “may” refer the application to the Architectural Review Board (see Page 19, paragraph f (II) (3) of Staff’s revisions to the Ordinance). I strongly urge you to recommend to Council that the word “may” be changed to “shall.”      That the WCF Siting Standards described on the first two pages of Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873 be incorporated in the Wireless Ordinance. These are the standards that permit placement of cell towers in residential areas only by exception.     That the minimum 20 foot setback for a cell tower from a residence—established in the WCF Siting Standards and in the WCF Exceptions provision in Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873—be 2 significantly increased. As Planning Director Lait has pointed out, a minimum setback as deep as 100 feet would still leave telecommunications companies with roughly ten percent of poles in a neighborhood to choose from, should not installing a cell tower in the neighborhood genuinely prohibit delivery of service.     That there be a minimum setback of 600 feet for macro cell towers from schools.    Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Michael C. Merchant <mmerchant@cnetserv.com> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 9:46 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Cell phone towers in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice-Chair Roohparvan, and Commissioners Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa, I live at 2360 Cowper St. Palo Alto and have had a sign indicating a proposed Cell Site at the entrance to my driveway on an existing wood pole with a street light attached. I would like you to put that radiation source further south on Cowper, preferably on Oregon Expressway, where it can be safely away from my home and my neighbors homes too. In addition: I understand that at your meeting this Wednesday, February 12th, you will be considering City Staff’s recommendations for revising Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance. I am writing to urge you to make every effort to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance, while recognizing the rights of telecommunication companies, 1) enforces to the fullest extent possible the provisions of the Wireless Resolution and, 2) more generally, protects the interests of Palo Alto residents. In particular, I urge you to recommend to City Council that they make the following changes and additions to Staff’s proposed revised Ordinance:  That the Architectural Review Board systematically review applicants’ requests for exceptions. In the document Staff’s proposes, it states that, if an applicant seeks an exception, the Director of Planning “may” refer the application to the Architectural Review Board (see Page 19, paragraph f (II) (3) of Staff’s revisions to the Ordinance). I strongly urge you to recommend to Council that the word “may” be changed to “shall.” 2  That the WCF Siting Standards described on the first two pages of Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873 be incorporated in the Wireless Ordinance. These are the standards that permit placement of cell towers in residential areas only by exception.  That the minimum 20 foot setback for a cell tower from a residence—established in the WCF Siting Standards and in the WCF Exceptions provision in Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873—be significantly increased. As Planning Director Lait has pointed out, a minimum setback as deep as 100 feet would still leave telecommunications companies with roughly ten percent of poles in a neighborhood to choose from, should not installing a cell tower in the neighborhood genuinely prohibit delivery of service.  That there be a minimum setback of 600 feet for macro cell towers from schools. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Bryan Chan <chan_bk@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 9:12 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Revised Wireless Ordinance Should must apply to public and private schools of all types CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning and Transportation Commission, I am writing to urge you to make every effort to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance 1) enforces to the fullest extent possible the provisions of the Wireless Resolution and, 2) more importantly, protects the interests of Palo Alto residents. Specifically, I urge you to recommend to City Council that they make the following changes and additions to Staff’s proposed revised Ordinance:    (1) establishing a minimum setback between cell towers and homes and schools of at least 600 feet (2) setbacks should apply to BOTH public AND private schools of all types (3) prevent the installation of any new cell tower that does not comply with the revised Ordinance; (4) require existing cell towers to comply with the revised Ordinance within 12 months. (5) Require cell phone vendors to include clear signage at street level (Owner, emergency contact information, identification of the tower site and location (exact latitude and longitude coordinates and equipment) (6) Require cell phone tower vendors to obtain an FCC "site license" rather than "market license" for each proposed tower installation - an FCC site license forces the vendor to register each installation with the FCC, which allows federal authorities to ensure that each structure is in compliance with governmental regulations - a "market license" gives the vendor free reign to install anything, anywhere they want and does not require FCC registration - imagine the potential public safety nightmare if there is recall of some of this equipment causing a public safety hazard, we need a central database such as the FCC site license database to properly document and track all this equipment (7) Require cell phone vendors to promptly remove equipment that is obsolete or no longer being used. - For example, when 6G rolls around and the 5G towers are no longer needed, the City should require vendors to remove decommissioned equipment within 90 days. 2 - this is important because we have a number of cell towers that are not in use, but remain an eyesore, such as the 75 foot tower on East Bayshore Road -- the site license for this tower was abandoned by Nextel in 2012, yet the antennas, tower and its diesel backup generator still remain in place and the owner of the tower has no plans to remove the structure. Thank you for your time and consideration,   Sincerely, Bryan 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Lynn Hollyn <lynn.hollyn@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2020 6:05 PM To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:United Neighbors against cell towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Templeton, Vice-Chair Roohparvan, and Commissioners Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Riggs and Summa,    I understand that at your meeting this Wednesday, February 12th, you will be considering City Staff’s recommendations for revising Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance.    I am writing to urge you to make every effort to ensure that Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance, while recognizing the rights of telecommunication companies, 1) enforces to the fullest extent possible the provisions of the Wireless Resolution and, 2) more generally, protects the interests of Palo Alto residents.     In particular, I urge you to recommend to City Council that they make the following changes and additions to Staff’s proposed revised Ordinance:     That the Architectural Review Board systematically review applicants’ requests for exceptions. In the document Staff’s proposes, it states that, if an applicant seeks an exception, the Director of Planning “may” refer the application to the Architectural Review Board (see Page 19, paragraph f (II) (3) of Staff’s revisions to the Ordinance). I strongly urge you to recommend to Council that the word “may” be changed to “shall.”      That the WCF Siting Standards described on the first two pages of Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873 be incorporated in the Wireless Ordinance. These are the standards that permit placement of cell towers in residential areas only by exception.     That the minimum 20 foot setback for a cell tower from a residence—established in the WCF Siting Standards and in the WCF Exceptions provision in Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 9873—be significantly increased. As Planning Director Lait has pointed out, a minimum setback as deep as 100 feet would still leave telecommunications companies with roughly ten percent of poles in a neighborhood to choose from, should not installing a cell tower in the neighborhood genuinely prohibit delivery of service.  2    That there be a minimum setback of 600 feet for macro cell towers from schools.    Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,  ‐‐   lynn hollyn www.lynnhollyn.com 1.650.799.1129     ,. February 10, 2020 Honorable Mayor Adrian Fine and Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: College Terrace Centre -Grocery Space Dear Mayor Fine: COUN,,IL MEETING Od-o/d-o [ Pia~ Before Meeting Received at Meeting On the afternoon of January 31, 2020, Khoury's Market vacated its retail space and returned its keys to the Owners1 of College Terrace Centre (2100 El Camino Real and 501 Avenue). While, in our opinion, their departure was necessitated due to their egregious refusal to meet their financial and legal obligations under their lease, we are saddened by the loss of a tenant that we had hoped would provide great benefit to the community and its residents. Because of the circumstances, we wanted to reach out with this letter to educate the Council about the grocer space and provide information about the on-going tenant improvements which were planned to address the concerns of nearby residents and enhance the viability of the space. First and foremost, the Owners want to assure City Council, City staff, and our College Terrace neighbors that we are dedicated to ensuring the successful operation of the grocer space for the benefit of the community. We are fully committed to finding the right tenant or tenants for the space to fit the needs of the local residents. To that end, we have engaged retail leasing professionals from Cushman & Wakefield, experienced in Palo Alto's retail market, to aggressively market the space for lease. For historical context, we purchased the property in 2018, after the completion of its construction, and promptly entered into negotiations to bring Khoury's Market into the grocer space. Shortly after our purchase, we signed a lease with the owners of Khoury's Market for a term of fifteen years and renewal options providing an additional fourteen years of lease term, for a potential total of twenty-nine years of occupancy. We were pleased at the time to enter into this lease and agreed that Khoury's Market would take possession, and commence the payment of rent, immediately, so that the community could benefit as soon as possible. We also agreed to perform certain major tenant improvements, specifically asked for by the owners' of Khoury's Market (detailed below). We agreed to pay for these improvements in the hopes that they would help Khoury's Market succeed in the space and provide the best possible shopping experience for customers coming to shop at the Market. Because the owners of Khoury's Market required the improvements be made by the Landlord as a condition of their lease while they occupied the space, the owners of Khoury's Market were well aware of the impacts the work would cause on their operations and the exterior of the building. These impacts involved several significant, sequential, and complex projects requiring fencing, scaffolding, electrical, structural, and ongoing construction for several months. The specific improvements included among other things: 1 College Terrace Centre is owned by a partnership called AGB Pact Owner LP. • Replacing the entirety of the existing dark windows, framing, adding additional sliding doors, and expanding the visible store front to allow potential shoppers to see inside the store from outside. Typically, you know if a store is open if, when driving past, the lights are on and you can see inside. In the case of the market space, the preexisting dark and reflective glass made it impossible to tell if the market was open at any given time of day. This photo was taken with all of the lights turned on inside of the store. • Structural concrete work and new metal framing in connection with the replacement of the glass storefront system; • Repairing stucco on the exterior of the building in locations where lights were removed; • Painting the fa!;ade of the retail space a darker coler and office space a lighter color to differentiate the market from the office and other retail uses; PRIOR NEW -Market blends in with the building--Paint colors create visibility for the market- • Improved lighting to reducing light pollution (which was also requested by the neighborhood); • Improved parking garage access by widening driveway; • Increased parking visibility with new illuminated signage; • Adding structural metal columns for festoon lighting to provide additional visibility for the market; • Built-in outdoor seating to create a more active public streetscape. The work required permits from the City of Palo Alto and plan approval by Caltrans, given that El Camino Real is a state road. Initial permits were submitted to the City of Palo Alto in March 2019 and the final permits from both agencies were approved in July 2019. Attached is a complete list and approval timeline of all City and Caltrans permits. The contractor handling the improvement work is South Bay Construction, a reputable contractor that handles major constructions projects. All the improvement projects commenced in a timely manner and according to the timeline that was shared with the owners of Khoury's Market as well as all College Terrace Centre tenants, with ongoing updates and weekly check-ins. Major milestones include: • Fencing went up in July 2019 for the replacement of the glass window system including framing and structural, expansion of the market entrance and addition of the sliding entry doors (some photos of the work are shown above; • Scaffolding went up in August 2019 and work began on removal of the lights on top of the building, replacement of lighting, and refinishing of the exterior building fa~ade finishes with stucco work in anticipation of the painting; • In November and December 2019, the revised final paint colors, new glass, framing, lighting, etc., were approved by the City of Palo Alto and painting commenced shortly thereafter; • We anticipate completion of the construction work within the next four to six weeks. The intended improvements were also vetted with the College Terrace Residents Association (CTRA) to ensure they were supportive and to elicit any feedback which resulted in addressing concerns, such as light pollution. The attached CTRA website posting from November 16, 2018, details my comments where I was joined by Mark Khoury of the Khoury family. The summary confirms that I made CTRA fully aware of the needed tenant improvement projects including the requirement for City approval and the anticipated construction timelines. The Palo Alto City Council approved Khoury's Market as the grocery tenant for College Terrace Centre In October 2019. During the fourteen months that the tenant was operating in their space, except for payment of their first month's rent, the owners of Khoury's Market failed to meet all their financial obligations under the lease. The outstanding obligations were and remain substantial. It is worth noting that prior to commencing the improvements, the owners of Khoury's Market had already occupied the space for many months yet had been entirely delinquent on rent. Nevertheless, the Owners pursued the tenant-requested building improvements with the hope that the improvements would facilitate the long-term success of Khoury's Market and benefit the community. In so doing, the Owners placed faith in the fact that the owners of Khoury's Market would hold up their end of the bargain, as well. Unfortunately, this did not occur. The Owners went beyond our legal obligations under the lease to support Khoury's Market and waited over one-year to pursue legal recourse for the outstanding rent payments after all other efforts to find a fair compromise proved unsuccessful. To date no outstanding rent or other payment obligations have been paid. Despite this, the Owners remain focused on completion of the improvements and future occupancy of the space with a community serving retail tenant or tenants as soon as possible. The Owners understand and are empathetic to the community concern about the loss of the Khoury's Market tenant and are saddened that Khoury's Market was not the resource to the community that we hoped it would be. We are committed to work diligently with our leasing agents and the City of Palo Alto to find a new tenant as soon as possible. Sincerely, Jason Oberman Representative for the Owners Attached as Exhibits: (A) Permit Approval And Construction Timeline (B) College Terrace Residents Association (CTRA) Website Posting (11/16/2018) CC: Ed Shikada, City Manager Molly Stump, City Attorney Jonathan Lait, Planning Director Exhibit A PERMIT APPROVAL AND CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE • 11/5/2018 for permit number 18000-02876 for work under a contract between Khoury's and South Bay Construction. Work included demo, patching of walls and ceiling, mechanical duct relocation, polished floor and paint that Khoury's wanted to complete. We were made aware of Khoury's delinquency by early 2019 and over a year later, Khoury's still haven't paid this vendor. • 12/2018 -Khoury's soft opening • March 2019 o 3/22/2019 -Application for Exterior Permit Renovation submitted to the city by the Hayes Group and South Bay Construction. • April 2019 o 4/17/2019-plan check comments received for Exterior Permit Renovation from public works. Public Works had 2 comments. o 4/30/2019 -received first round of comments for Exterior Permit Renovation from the building department. Building Dept. had 17 total plan check comments. o Permit 19000-737 -planning department April 26, 2019 received. Planning Dept. Planning had 5 comments regarding the Exterior Permit Renovation Plans. • May 2019 o 5/22/2019 -permit number 19000/00737 received. Exterior Permit Renovation consists of removing existing glass and storefront openings and replacing with new clear glass and additional doors, new lighting and removing existing lighting, replacing landscaping, and adding additional outdoor seating, smooth stucco finish, and painting of the building. o 5/2019 -submitted plans to Caltrans for approval permit 19STR-00193 • 6/2019-8/2019 -Paint mockups on the building • July 2019 o 7 /26/2019 -permit 19STR-00193 received approval from Caltrans for the widening of the driveway entrance into the site. o 7/30 -Constructed temporary walls inside of Khoury's space so demo could occur and replacement of glazing • August 2019 o 8/1/2019 -glass and framing system was demolished at the storefront of Khoury's o 8/2019 -Scaffolding went up for grinding of the existing stucco, adding new stucco for a smooth finish, with plaster on the exterior, removing of light fixtures, wiring for light fixtures, and in the common areas in the center of building and garage -for grinding of the existing stucco, adding new stucco for a smooth finish, with plaster on the exterior, removing of light fixtures, wiring for light fixtures, o 8/9/2019 -stucco was completed for the market and was needed to be completed and dry before painting. This work was completed from the scaffolding • September 2019 o New additional sliding doors were installed o Complete removal of portions of concrete to widen the driveway, which included closing off portions of the entry and needing access on El Camino • November 2019 o 11/19/2019 -architectural review and Planning Dept. approved revised building paint colors • December 2019 o 12/2/2019 -Received approval from Building Dept. for the paint color and scope revisions. Paint spec is an Elastomeric product which had a lead time of two weeks from the date of ordering o End of December 2019 -Received elastomeric paint. o 12/16/2019 commenced painting of the building, Painting occurred during raining season and some days unable to paint due to rain. Painting remains underway. • Anticipated Completion o Anticipate that exterior painting and lighting will be completed in the next 4-6 weeks. . . Exhibit B College Terrace Residents Association (CTRA) Website Posting (11/16/2018) https:ljwww.collegeterrace.org/2018/11/khourys-market-opening-this-month/ Nov~l'TIMr 16, 2018 KHOURY 'S MARKET OPENING THIS MONTH We had a pair of special guests at th is wee-1's CTRA board meeting: Jason Oberman, representing the ownersnip of tne builoing at 2100 El Camino that forrl'erly houseo t e College Terrace Ma ket, and Mark Khoury, whose family is tak·ng over that space to open a new grocery store later t'1is month. - The new Market wi I be cal!ed Khour/s MarKer and cou o have a "soft" opening as soon as November 24th. Ooerman told the CTRA board about a host of imp ovements they're making to the space, including ·mp roved s·gnage, lighting, indoor and ourdoor seating, painting, and muc more. Many of rhese improvements must be approved by t' e city first, so rheywon't be in place when the store first opens, but will happen piece by p·ece over the ext couple months with the aim of hav·ng an officia grano opening in January or February. Khoury emohasized that the store's initial mix of products is very flexib e and he's depending on input from shoopers to help determine what will be stocked ong-term. So, if you visit Khoury's ,1arket and don't see wha:you're coking for, please let them know! Not on y are they open to suggestions, your feeoback is essential to the market's long-term success. We're 1ooki1g forward to welcoming Khoury's Market to College Terrace~ Posred in: CTRA Mttrtngs, Local .Businesses -CTRA BoardMttrtngAg~nda: NOllelllbu 14, 2018 Key Co~ Input Mttdngs Nat Wttk - Bring your family &join us for ... COUNCIL MEETING g. I ro f-'d o ~ Placed Before Meeting [ ] Received at Meeting ·~1LEAGUE OF L -WOMEN VOTERS' OF PALO ALTO V0'11E-l\..-\> ALOOzl\ Celebrating the 100th anniversary of the League of Women Voters with 100% voter turnout! JOIN US -Kids' voting, crafts, and games -Photo op with a suffragist Saturday, February 22 2-4PM Palo Alto Art Center 1313 Newe\\ Rd -March to the ballot box with a suffragist -Meet your local elected officials -Live music -Food truck DON'T MISS THE HIGHLIGHTS 3:00 PM -Talk by New York Times best-selling author Julie Lythcott-Haims 3:45 PM -Announcement of kids' voting results And don't forget to bring your completed Presidential Primary ballots! You can drop them off at the Rinconada Library Vote Center. DATE: January 30, 2020 TO: STATE, CITY AND LOCAL OFFICIALS CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA NOTICE OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC c6fil£:NfV1~'ltift11EsT TO INCREASE RATES TO REDUCE THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC SAFETY P~WER _8HU'IOJ!'FS AND EXP AND MICROGRIDS (R.19-09-009) 't t..tJ . 6 AM fl: 36 Summary On January 21, 2020, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed its proposal to increase rates to safely reduce the impact of future Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events by expanding the use of microgrids. Microgrids are designed to provide local sources of power to customers when there is a wider outage on the electric grid. The proposal seeks to safely reduce the impact of PSPS events on customers through the following programs: • Upgrades to certain electric power substations to provide local sources of power for customers in the event of a PSPS event • Provide power through temporary electric generation units for use during 2020 PSPS events • Funding to support communities interested in implementing their own community-level microgrids to serve certain important facilities, such as hospitals and water treatment facilities If the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approves these proposals, PG&E will begin recovering costs and increase electric rates in August 2020. Background Senate Bill 1339 was signed into California law in 2018 with the goal of supporting microgrid development throughout the state. The goal of deploying microgrids is to minimize the number of customers that may be impacted by PSPS events and for those customers that are impacted, they may be impacted for shorter periods of time. How will the proposal affect my electric rate? Most customers receive bundled electric service from PG&E, meaning they receive electric generation, transmission and distribution services. Based on rates currently in effect, the bill for a typical residential nonCARE customer using 500 kWh per month would increase from $124.41 to $126.09, or 1.4%. Direct Access and Community Choice Aggregation customers only receive electric transmission and distribution services from PG&E. On average, these customers would see an increase of 1. 7%. Another category of non bundled customers is Departing Load. These customers do not receive electric generation, transmission or distribution services from PG&E. However, these customers are required to pay certain charges by law or CPUC decision. The impact of PG&E's proposal on these customers is an average increase of 0.6%. Detailed rate information is being sent directly to customers in February and March. How do I find out more about PG&E's proposals? If you have questions about PG&E's filing, please contact PG&E at 1-800-743-5000. For TTY, call 1-800-652-4712. Para mas detalles, llame al 1-800-660-6789 • ~tt!f~3iJcm 1-800-893-9555. If you would like a copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits, please write to PG&E at the address below: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Microgrid Proposal (R.19-09-009) P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 A copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits is also available for review at the CPUC's Central Files office by appointment only. For more information, contact ALJCentralFileslD@cpuc.ca.gov or 1-415-703-2045. PG&E's proposal is available on the CPUC's website at cpuc.ca.gov. 1 CPUC process This proposal will be assigned to an Administrative Law Judge (Judge) who will determine how to receive evidence and other related information necessary for the CPUC to establish a record upon which to base its decision. Evidentiary hearings (EHs) may be held where parties will present their testimony and may be subject to cross-examination by other parties. These EHs are open to the public, but only those who are formal parties in the case can participate. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearings, the assigned Judge will issue a proposed decision which may adopt PG&E's proposal, modify it or deny it. Any of the five CPUC Commissioners may sponsor an alternate decision. The proposed decision, and any alternate decisions, will be discussed and voted on at a scheduled CPUC Voting Meeting that is open to the public. The California Public Advocates Office (CalPA) may review this proposal. CalPA is the independent consumer advocate within the CPUC with a legislative mandate to represent investor-owned utility customers to obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. CalPA has a multidisciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. For more information about CalPA1 please call 1-415-703-1584, email PublicAdvocatesOffice@cpuc.ca.gov or visit CalPA's website at PublicAdvocates.cpuc.ca.gov. Stay informed If you would like to follow this proceeding, or any other issue before the CPUC, please use the CPUC's free subscription service. Sign up at: Subscribecpuc.cpuc.ca.gov. If you would like to learn how you can participate in the proceeding, have informal comments about the proposal or have questions about the CPUC processes, you may access the CPUC's Public Advisor Office (PAO) webpage at Consumers.cpuc.ca.gov/pao/. You may also contact the PAO as follows: Email: Public.Advisor@cpuc.ca.gov Mail: CPUC Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Call: 1-866-849-8390 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-2074 TTY: 1-866-836-7825 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-5282 Please reference Microgrid Proposal (R.19-09-009) in any communications you have with the CPUC regarding this matter. All public comments will become part of the public correspondence file for this proceeding and made available for review by the assigned Judge, Commissioners and appropriate CPUC staff. 2