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
)HEUXDU\
'HDU&LW\&RXQFLO0HPEHUV
)OHWFKHU0LGGOH6FKRRO37$ZULWHVWKLVOHWWHUWRWKDQN\RXIRU\RXUVXSSRUWRIWKH&KDUOHVWRQ$UDVWUDGHUR
3ODQ3KDVHVDQG7KHVHURDGFKDQJHVKDYHLPSURYHGWKHVDIHW\DQGFRPIRUWRIVWXGHQWVELF\FOLQJDQG
ZDONLQJWR)OHWFKHU0LGGOH6FKRRO:HDUHJODGWRUHSRUWDVLJQLILFDQWLQFUHDVHLQWKHSHUFHQWDJHRI
VWXGHQWVELNLQJWRRXUFDPSXVIURPWRRIHQUROOHGVWXGHQWVLQRQH\HDU:HORRNIRUZDUGWR
EXLOGLQJRQWKLVQHZPRPHQWXP
:HDOVRH[SUHVVRXUFRQWLQXHGVXSSRUWRIFRPSOHWLRQRIWKH%LF\FOH3HGHVWULDQ7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ
3ODQLQFOXGLQJWKH1HLJKERUKRRG7UDIILF6DIHW\DQG%LF\FOH%RXOHYDUG3URMHFWVDQG
&KDUOHVWRQ$UDVWUDGHUR3ODQ7RJHWKHUWKHVHSURMHFWVZLOOUHPRYHPDMRUEDUULHUVWRELNLQJDQGZDONLQJ
WR)OHWFKHU
&KDUOHVWRQ$UDVWUDGHUR3ODQ3KDVHZLOOSURYLGHQHZELNHODQHVRQWKHDSSURDFKHVWRWKH(O&DPLQR
5HDOLQWHUVHFWLRQZKHUHWKHELNHODQHVFXUUHQWO\GLVDSSHDU7KHH[LVWLQJFRQGLWLRQDWWKLVORFDWLRQUHTXLUHV
SHRSOHRQELNHVWRPHUJHZLWKFDUVLQRUGHUWRSDVVWKURXJKWKHKLJKYROXPHHLJKWODQH(O&DPLQR5HDO
VWDWHKLJKZD\LQWHUVHFWLRQ3KDVHZLOOFORVHWKLVELNHODQHJDSZLWKVDIHVHSDUDWHJUHHQELNHODQHVDOO
WKHZD\WRDQGDFURVVWKHKD]DUGRXVLQWHUVHFWLRQ
7KH%LF\FOH3HGHVWULDQ7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ3ODQLGHQWLILHGWKH&KDUOHVWRQ$UDVWUDGHUR(O&DPLQR
LQWHUVHFWLRQDVDKRWVSRWIRUELF\FOHFROOLVLRQV7KH3KDVHVROXWLRQWRWKHSUREOHPDWLFJDSLQWKHELNH
ODQHVLVORQJRYHUGXHLQ
3OHDVHIXQGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQRI3KDVHWKHILQDOSKDVHRIWKLVLPSRUWDQW&LW\RI3DOR$OWR6FKRRO
&RPPXWH&RUULGRUSURMHFWDVTXLFNO\DVSRVVLEOH
6LQFHUHO\
$XGUH\*ROG
)OHWFKHU0LGGOH6FKRRO37$3UHVLGHQW
)HEUXDU\
'HDU&LW\&RXQFLO0HPEHUV
)OHWFKHU0LGGOH6FKRRO37$ZULWHVWRH[SUHVVRXURQJRLQJVXSSRUWIRUVDIHDFWLYHVFKRROFRPPXWHVDQG
FRPSOHWLRQRIWKH%LF\FOH3HGHVWULDQ7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ3ODQLQFOXGLQJWKH1HLJKERUKRRG7UDIILF
6DIHW\DQG%LF\FOH%RXOHYDUG3URMHFWVDQG&KDUOHVWRQ$UDVWUDGHUR3ODQ
,QSDUWLFXODU)OHWFKHU0637$KDVVSHFLDOLQWHUHVWLQFRPSOHWLRQRIWKHIROORZLQJELF\FOHERXOHYDUG
SURMHFWVWKDWGLUHFWO\DIIHFWVFKRROFRPPXWHVDIHW\IRU)OHWFKHUVWXGHQWV
Ɣ 0D\EHOO%LF\FOH%RXOHYDUG
Ɣ 3DUN%LF\FOH%RXOHYDUG
Ɣ :LONLH5RDG(DVW0HDGRZDQG(O&DPLQR:D\%LF\FOH%RXOHYDUGV
7KHVHSURMHFWVWRJHWKHUZLWKWKH&KDUOHVWRQ$UDVWUDGHUR3ODQZLOOUHPRYHPDMRUEDUULHUVWRELNLQJDQG
ZDONLQJWR)OHWFKHU06E\PRGHUDWLQJYHKLFOHVSHHGVLPSURYLQJYLVLELOLW\DWLQWHUVHFWLRQVDQGFUHDWLQJ
VDIHUFRQQHFWLRQV
)OHWFKHU37$UHSUHVHQWDWLYHVZRUNHGZLWKFLW\VWDIIRQFRPPXQLW\RXWUHDFKDQGSXEOLFUHYLHZWKURXJK
GHYHORSPHQWRIWKHVHSURMHFWV:HDUHKHDUWHQHGWRVHHWKDWWKH3KDVHSURMHFWVDUHZRUNLQJIRUVWXGHQWV
%LNHFRXQWVDUHUDSLGO\ULVLQJDW-/6DQG*XQQRWKHUVHFRQGDU\VFKRROVWKDWDUHVHUYHGE\3KDVH
%LF\FOH%RXOHYDUGSURMHFWV*XQQ¶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
EEg][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