Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190520plCC 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: 05/20/2019 Document dates: 05/01/2019 – 05/08/2019 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, May 3, 2019 2:25 PM To:Michele Lew; Dana Bunnett; Kathleen King Subject:7 ERRORS in Mercury Editorial on Vaccines Response to Mercury News Editorial from No Toxins for Children, 5/3/19 Subject: Mercury May 3, 2019: Legislature must close California's Vaccination Loophole 1. The Mercury reports that foreigners and unvaccinated are bringing measles into this country. Please tell us how many of the children with vaccine exemptions are part of the 700 in the US who got the measles. If 32% of kids in Northern California towns didn't get vaccinated...how many of them have measles among the 700?? Only 30 are in California!! Who really deserves the blame???? Where is logic or honesty? But No One Has Died!!! 2. Mercury forgot to tell readers: Senator Dr. Pan gets biggest money from pharmaceutical companies in Congress. Receiving more than $95,000 in one year, the top recipient of industry campaign cash is Sen. Richard Pan, a Sacramento Democrat and doctor who is carrying the vaccine bill. In addition, the industry donated more than $500,000 to outside campaign spending groups that helped elect some current members last year. Drug Makers donated Millions to CA lawmakers before Vaccine Debate Sacramento Bee 2017 Dr. Pan led the committee to take away the Constitutional rights of parents over what is injected in their babies (SB277) Now in 2019 with 266, he is trying t take away the right of medical doctors to grant exemptions. Congress should decide he believes. Parents have no rights and neither should doctors!!! What kind of ethics do editorial writers follow???? What kinds of epidemic has no deaths??? 3. Parents who object to putting aborted human fetal tissue, antifreeze, formaldehyde, aluminum, etc in tiny babies are called 'misinformed'. Well-educated about toxic ingredients is an honest term for such parents. Eleven world studies now prove aluminum can lead to autism but aluminum and mercury are not in MMRII, the only vaccine tested for autism studies on the recent Denmark bogus study. 4. Mercury says Dr Pan, with a master's degree in Public Health, is more informed than medical doctors. You forgot to mention how much pediatricians are paid for vaccinating babies. If parents object, doctors are told not to treat them for other reasons. Some likely get as much as Pan. -----How much does the Mercury get in ads or maybe donations??------- 5. One in 12 US kids have allergies. There were no food allergies before vaccines were created. Vaccines have peanut oil, casein (dairy), yeast, soy, MSG, eggs, etc. as adjuvants in vaccines which can set up allergies. CDC says only 1% of kids should have exemptions, not 12%. Maybe this is why peanut allergies are now deadly....it's in the vaccines!!!! Vaccine Allergies, Jan 2014, Clinical Experiments in Vaccine Research 2 6. Mercury mentions a 'bogus study in 1998 but gives no name. The British doctor Wakefield, a digestive specialist, along with 13 others were testing 12 children for digestive problems. All 12 had autism but all autistic kids have digestive problems. Eight parents claimed it their children's autism followed vaccinations. But the doctors focus was why the digestive problems, not on autism. The study was not bogus but the Amer. Academy of Pediatrics and vaccine industry blackballed the doctors. Wakefield, a well-respected scientist has been rectified many times since then. Lancet, one of the leading medical magazines, had its editors a few years ago tell their readers NOT to believe the studies in their magazine because testing on drugs today is so bad. 7. For 10 years measles in the US has NOT BEEN a DEADLY disease. For 10 years before that, only 11 are claimed to have died of measles which likely was caused by pneumonia when it followed the measles. Highest deaths among children are guns and accidents. Disease is way down the list but cancer is likely the highest. When do you write about the gun epidemic? the cancer epidemic? or the Autism Epidemic. April was Autism Month. 50 to 100,000 cases. Where is your editorial on that?. Arlene Goetze, MA, journalist since 1956. No Toxins for Children. Experience for governor, bishop, Freelance to Washington Post and Army times in 1970s and Mercury News in 1980s. Founder/editor of Catholic Women's Network, an independent non-profit on women's spirituality 1989- 2005. Drumming for Health with Alzheimers. and more to protect 7 kids and 18 grandkids who have some vaccines. All 7 kids got sick with the 5 they got in 1960s...fevers, aches, irritableness, for a few days. One serious allergy. No chronic diseases. CDC list suggests up to 50 vaccines by age 5 today. God save us all. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, May 2, 2019 3:08 PM To:Neilson Buchanan Subject:high price of affordable housing How high can it go? https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2019/05/02/the-high-price-of-affordable-housing Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Allen Akin <akin@arden.org> Sent:Thursday, May 2, 2019 4:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:City Councils Housing Study Session, May 6, 2019 Imagine we had treated the housing problem as a building‐code issue.  Relaxing building codes would make housing  construction more profitable, and allow housing to be built in ways and on sites that are currently unavailable.  We'd get  more housing!  But once committed to treating housing expansion as a building‐code issue, we wouldn't be looking as  carefully at options involving zoning changes, improved transportation systems, tax changes, etc.  And we'd tend to  downplay the negative consequences, like reduced fire and earthquake safety.    This is obviously a case of tunnel vision that leaves us blind to better choices.  Yet it's exactly the same kind of narrow  view we take when we frame the housing problem as a zoning issue.    Many other choices are possible.  As examples, people have framed the housing problem as a social‐justice issue, or as a  generational issue, or as a class‐warfare issue, or as a Prop 13 issue.  Probably all of these have kernels of truth, but  none of them lead us to effective, general, widely‐supportable solutions.  Neither does framing the problem as a zoning  issue.    Framing the housing problem as an economic issue gives us more leverage.  I think the best such approaches focus on  finance; not only making money available to developers more cheaply (thus improving their profit margins and  motivation to build), but also concentrating money on the particular kinds of projects that would have the most social  benefit and most widespread support.    We're facing two different kinds of increasing demand:  the number of people to house is rising, and the amount of  money used to bid housing prices higher is also rising.  This is overwhelmingly driven by just a few large and successful  technology companies choosing to expand here and boost compensation to attract employees despite the high cost of  living.  A study published in February showed that technology companies accounted for 64% of the job growth in Silicon  Valley during 2018.  98% of that, or 63% of all growth, came from just four companies: Google 35%, Facebook 23%,  Apple 30%, Salesforce 10%.    Hiring a new employee is a benefit for these companies.  On average each new employee yields more revenue than cost,  or the new employees wouldn't have been hired in the first place.  On the other hand, each new employee imposes  costs on everyone else here: bidding the price of housing higher, increasing traffic, increasing the load on municipal  infrastructure and services, driving the need for more taxes (and historically these have been regressive taxes that  disproportionately affected lower‐income people).    When increasing demand is profitable, but increasing supply is costly, we cannot build our way out of a deficit.  Framing  the problem in economic terms lets us imagine solutions that are more likely to work.    One of the best proposals I've seen along these lines is to require that before a commercial construction permit is  issued, residential construction permits must be issued for a corresponding amount of housing located within a given  commute time of the commercial project.  I expect this would be managed with a credit‐trading system.  Big tech  companies (and other organizations) would buy credits.  Housing and private‐transit developers would receive the  proceeds in return for building appropriate projects.  The hiring companies would be subsidizing (or financing at reduced  ROI) the types of housing and transit we want.  The market would determine pricing, helping to correct the imbalance of  supply and demand.  An exchange system would have to be established to standardize the credits and make pricing  transparent, but creating exchanges is something the financial world already understands.  2   Head taxes without dedicated purposes won't receive much public support.  I'm also not convinced it would be  politically feasible to tax at a rate high enough to finance a meaningful amount of housing, or that the tax rate can be set  frequently and accurately enough to avoid distorting the market.  But head taxes are appropriate for meeting  operational expenses that scale with the population, and for servicing debt on capital borrowed for infrastructure.  They  would help push the market back towards balance.    Thanks for giving these thoughts your consideration, and best of luck with the study session next Monday.    Allen Akin  1 Brettle, Jessica From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Friday, May 3, 2019 10:11 AM To:Council, City; Planning Commission Cc:Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Fwd: Daily Post (Palo Alto) Document San Francisco Daily (CA)   Daily Post (Palo Alto, CA)    May 2, 2019     City approves large number of new homes   When it comes to housing, Mtn. View outpaces Palo Alto     Author: ALLISON LEVITSKY  Daily Post Staff Writer     Section: News  Page: 1      2             Estimated printed pages: 2         Article Text:     Mountain View City Council approved more apartments in two hours than Palo Alto City Council has permitted in the  last five years.     On Tuesday night, the council approved 541 apartments: a 471‐unit apartment complex at 525‐769 E. Evelyn Ave. and a  71‐unit affordable studio apartment development at 950 W. El Camino Real, to be funded with $35 million in bonds.     Between 2015 and 2018, Mountain View approved a net total of 2,436 housing units, almost six times as many as Palo  Alto, which approved just 407 during the same years.     Of those 2,436 units in Mountain View, 282 are subsidized below market rate. In Palo Alto, 117 of the units approved are  subsidized.     Palo Alto’s 407 number includes the “net gain” of 54 units that the city claimed last year.     But that didn’t take into account the 75 $2,000‐a‐month apartments that were taken off the market when the Hotel  President was sold to a hotel developer. When subtracting the 75 units that are no longer being rented out at the Hotel  President, Palo Alto ended last year with a net housing deficit.   3   So far this year, Palo Alto has approved one significant housing project: a 59‐unit affordable housing development at  3705 El Camino Real.     The project is the first 100% affordable housing development the city has approved in years.     While Palo Alto has been slow to approve new housing, city officials have touted their work to save Buena Vista Mobile  Home Park from being removed for condos.     With leadership from Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors President Joe Simitian, in 2017, the city, Santa Clara  County and Palo Alto Housing bought the mobile home park, saving 117 units.               Copyright, 2019, Daily Post, L.L.C., All Rights Reserved.  Record Number: 1732CF5FCA5AF020    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Patti L Fry <MenloPatti@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 4, 2019 5:21 PM To:City Council; Council, City Cc:Jerry Hill; senator.wiener@senate.ca.gov Subject:Housing bill - Trojan horse! Dear Honorable Mayors and City Councilmembers ‐   The state, the bay area, and my town of Menlo Park have a serious jobs housing imbalance. The proposed Sacramento  bills to address this problem appear to be fatally flawed. Not only do they only address one part of the problem (i.e., a  shortage of housing), they do nothing to address the disproportionately higher jobs growth that has been occurring. Not  only should you fight the proposed state legislation, you should act locally immediately to address the problems that  past Councils' decisions have put in your lap and put on the radar of the state legislature.     This letter addresses a topic I have not seen discussed at all: that the proposed state bills would worse then imbalance  while confiscating a city's ability to manage the problem of a serious jobs/housing imbalance and all the related  problems that stem from that, such as commuter traffic congestion, dislocation of longterm lower income residents who  are an essential part of our communities and economies..    SB50 is akin to a Trojan horse that would worsen the jobs/housing imbalance. While this proposed bill ostensibly favors  housing in mixed‐use developments, it doesn't result that way when a developer wishes to maximize the allowed  nonresidential square footage. A "Housing development project" under SB50 is defined to include "Mixed‐use  development consisting of residential nonresidential uses with at least two‐thirds of the square footage designated for  residential use.".     Simple arithmetic proves that mixed use projects, generally favored by developers, would not provide more housing  units than jobs, and in fact are more likely to add quite a few more jobs than housing, thus exacerbating ‐ rather than  alleviating ‐ the current jobs/housing imbalance.     To illustrate, below is a mixed use project on an acre of land developed at FAR 2.25, which is an intensity SB50 allows :    Assume the maximum non‐residential is developed at current worker densities for Silicon Valley companies or  incubators   (150 SF/worker, 50 SF/worker, respectively)   Assume the remaining residential square footage is developed for small one‐bedroom or small two‐bedroom  (500 SF, 1,200 SF, respectively)  Such a project could represent up to 653 jobs and possibly as only 54 housing units (if average 1,200 SF/unit). And the  local community couldn't do anything about it.  The resulting jobs/housing ratio could range up to 12.00 jobs/housing unit!  That's a shortage of at least 87 up to 598  housing units compared to jobs for just this one example project,  This is the opposite of improving the housing shortage  and jobs/housing imbalance.     Using the above assumptions, there is NO case where the number of housing units equal the number of jobs. Only if the  AVERAGE housing unit size were smaller than 300 square feet would the number of housing units equal the number of  jobs when the worker density is 150 SF/worker. But, the AVERAGE housing unit size would need to be only  100 SF in  order for the number of housing units to equal the number of jobs if the non‐residential space is densely occupied by  incubators.     2 The message here is that a focus only on housing will not solve the jobs/housing imbalance.It would be far better to slow  down the jobs growth while also promoting housing.  Further, the situation could be grossly worsened if blunt  instruments like these bills are used. And they completely cripple the ability of local jurisdictions to alter projects that  worsen the jobs/housing imbalance.    Don't let this Trojan horse legislation get approved. Additionally, get serious about the local jobs/housing imbalance by  focusing on the jobs part of the equation, not just housing. Otherwise, traffic congestion, loss of essential community  members, and "solutions from afar" will continue to worsen.    Fight these bills and put a pause on approving net new non‐residential square feet locally while addressing the housing  shortage, or your decisions will be part of the problem.    Patti Fry, former Menlo Park Planning Commissioner    *Details of calculations:  Assuming mixed use project on 1 acre (43,560 SF) and FAR of 2.25 under SB50 as of 3/11/19  Maximum allowed non‐residential SF 1/3 of site is 32,670 SF Remaining residential SF is 65,340 SF  Worker density of 50 SF/worker to 150 SF/worker  means  217.8 to 653 potential jobs (32,670 SF divided by 50 or by 150) Housing unit size of 1,200 SF/unit or 500 SF/unit means 54 or 130 units would be built (65,340 SF divided by 1,200 or by 500) Jobs/housing ratio becomes 1.67‐4.00 if worker density is 150 SF/worker (divide 217.8 jobs by 130.68 or by 54.45 housing units) Jobs/housing ratio becomes 5.00‐12.00 if worker density is 50 SF/worker (divide 653.4 jobs by 130.68 or by 54.45 housing units)   1 Brettle, Jessica From:pol1@rosenblums.us Sent:Saturday, May 4, 2019 9:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:SB 50, Agenda Item 3 , meeting of May 6 Dear Council Members:  I wish to raise a strong objection to SB50 as currently written. It applies a one size fits all template to local zoning, an  issue which should rest primarily in local hands. The state should prescribe housing goals and provide financial  incentives towards these goals but should not force specific rules on localities. As a resident of Old Palo Alto living within  ¼ mile of the California Avenue Caltrain Station, SB 50 would destroy the character of my R1 neighborhood and severely  depreciate the value and desirability of my home. I urge the Council to take a strong stand against SB50. Thank you.  Stephen Rosenblum  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Gary Wesley <gary.wesley@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, May 5, 2019 12:39 PM To:cromero@cityofepa.org Cc:Council, City Subject:Meeting on SB 50 - referendum and initiative City Councilmembers: I see online that there is a joint meeting of 3 city councils at Palo Alto City Hall at 5:30 p.m. today (Sunday) regarding SB 50 and other housing bills in Sacramento. On my cell phone, the email address for the entire EPA Council is not apparent; so I am sending this email just to EPA Mayor Gauthier for distribution to the EPA Council. The agenda states that Menlo Park Mayor Mueller will attend today's joint meeting from halfway to Washington DC where I assume he is rushing the unredacted version of his MUELLER REPORT to Congress. Some things are more important than SB 50 - but not to your jobs as city councilmembers. As you know, SB 50 would authorize developers to build 4-8 story condos and apartments (their choice) wherever they manage to assemble land in most of your cities and in much of urban and suburban California. I last opined locally about SB 50 in the April 26 issue of the Mountain View Voice - suggesting cities and counties try to negotiate the provisions of any new state law on the subject but get ready to undertake a statewide referendum if SB 50 is signed into law and an initiative constitutional amendment. SB 50 already has been amended to divide and conquer California. As just amended, the midrise housing provisions would only apply in the 15 most populous counties. Any excluded county is just in line for state preemption in a later bill. Cities and counties can stand together or fall apart. As to an initiative state constitutional amendment, I borrow an idea from the placement of statutory guarantees of access to public records and meetings into the state constitution (to stop the erosion of those statutes). Add to Article 11 of the California Constitution a new section 16 which reads: "The statutory authority of cities and counties over land use within their jurisdictions in effect on January 1, 2019 is henceforth rhe constitutional authority of cities and counties. No state statute abridging that constitutional authority shall take effect unless approved by voters in a general statewide election. Best wishes, Gary Wesley, resident of Mountain View (408-882-5070) gary.wesley@yahoo.com 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, May 5, 2019 5:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:SB-50 Council Members, Be it known to you all that my wife and I, residents in Palo Alto since 1962, cherish our home. We started with a 4 room cottage and gradually enlarged it to a 2200 square foot home to accommodate our family all these years. It remains a place for gathering of family and friends. Now in our high 80s, any potential change that might occur under SD-50 wold be devastating to us if it meant the desruction of the place where we have spent most of our adult lives. We urge you to strongly oppose this and any similar bills, and to preserve what Palo Alto means to many of us. You might consider a moritorium on more commercial buildings and began to promote more housing in areas that do not destroy what is already here. Thank you. Richard and Jeanne Placone Chimalus Drive Barron Park\Palo Alto 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 5, 2019 10:19 PM To:Council, City; city.council@menlopark.org; rabrica@cityofepa.org; cromero@cityofepa.org; lmoody@cityofepa.org; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Doug Fort Subject:Just say yes to SB 50-excellent article- points out the race based -call it white supremacy driven- if you will —opposition to SB 50 by the predominantly white and wealthy cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park—while majority minority communities like Eas...   Mandatory reading:     For all three city councils: East Palo Alto, Menlo Park & Palo Alto—as you prepare for tomorrow’s joint study session on  SB 50 ‐I highly recommend the below article. The article captures the core issues to this important debate in a clear and  concise manner.      FYI: Excellent article( AN ISLAND OF SILICON VALLEY AFFORDABILITY SAYS YES TO MORE HOUSING) by by Laura Bliss    https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/04/silicon‐valley‐california‐affordable‐housing‐sb50‐palo‐alto/587773/    Shared via the Google app    Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 5, 2019 11:34 PM To:rabrica@cityofepa.org; lgauthier@cityofepa.com; rwallacejones@cityofepa.org; lmoody@cityofepa.org; cromero@cityofepa.org; Council, City; city.council@menlopark.org; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; pushpinder.lubana@gmail.com; Doug Fort Subject:Reparations and SB 50 Tomorrow’s joint session would also be a great time to raise and discuss the issue of reparations.    Aram    P.S. See my comments below on this critical  Issue.   Palo Alto Weekly  Spectrum ‐ March 22, 2019  Letters to the editor    Editor,  Although at first blush I find myself strongly supporting SB 50, I appreciate the scope of the questions raised in Greer  Stone and Pat Burt's guest opinion in the March 15 issue of the Weekly ("SB 50 undermines single‐family neighborhoods  and diversity").  In the past, I was part of a group in Palo Alto called Stop The Ban (STB), which fought to overturn/forestall Palo Alto's  then‐proposed ban on vehicle dwellers.  STB worked tirelessly for several years to convince the City Council and faith groups to support a Safe Parking Program  or what Stone and Burt's article refers to as, "managed location for RV dwellers." The resistance to the program was  overwhelming.  We organized a panel discussion on the topic at a local church that was attended by about 100 folks, including former  City Council member Karen Holman. Our keynote speaker was a counselor from a very successful Safe Parking Program  in Santa Barbara. Still, we had no success in getting the powers that be in Palo Alto to consider such a program.  I'm wondering if the answer is not a total refusal to support SB 50's call for more and dense housing, but rather, making  certain that the bill includes provisions for a very large percentage of the dense housing, envisioned by SB 50, to be set  aside, in perpetuity, for low‐ and very low‐income individuals, including seniors, people of color, the disabled, the  formerly unhoused, etc.  In addition, we could begin a discussion of mandating housing for the victims, and their families, of housing segregation  going back generations in Palo Alto. Yes, a big‐time discussion of providing permanently free or very low rent housing as  a form of reparations for the wrongs Palo Alto visited and continues to visit on our African‐American brothers and  sisters. SB 50 could include language that would require a principled discussion of reparations statewide.  Aram James  Park Street, Redwood City        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 5, 2019 11:39 PM To:cromero@cityofepa.org; rabrica@cityofepa.org; lgauthier@cityofepa.com; lmoody@cityofepa.org; rwallacejones@cityofepa.org; city.council@menlopark.org; Council, City; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com Subject:More on reparations and SB 50 by Aram James -Daily Post -April 2, 2019   2 Housing crisis Dear Editor: Thanks for report- ing and commenting on the n:iega- developments driving the Jobs/ housing balance further off the charts _ even after the governor . . . '' declared a "housing cns1s. As you astutely point out, the insatiable demand for huge office projects goes on unabated because local governments are afraid to say "no." They think they can wheedle, enough upublic benefits" to miti- gate the all-too-predictable conse- quences of over development. Our public transit systems are inadequate for current needs, yet a Metropolitan Transportation Au- thority official admitted that trans- portation was not considered when • I lack of housing. I'm o~t some YIMBYs says~ housing is "immoral" ai And I'm astounded that intelligent people think ner 's Senate Bill 50 an plus "housing bills" in S will provide affordable those who need it. A one-size-fits-all m, lates democratic prind ing us to pay for unre~ vate development in the billion-dollar corporatio Learn more by read ket upzoning, a blunt i won't solve housing bttps:/ /tinyurl .com/yW. Pa ... 1 ........ ~ ... n "'"""' hnne!inn ~Jn~nd,.,.._ --anarations 3     Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Monday, May 6, 2019 10:09 AM To:Council, City; Planning Commission Cc:Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan Subject:SB 50 as amended https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB50 My reading is that the bus service and most transit, job rich proposals are in 65918.5 and the up to 4 units projects are discussed in 65913.5 and .6 I hope tonight council can hear about, discuss and hopefully find some agreement with the many other housing bills in the legislature ranging from ADUs to tenant protections to funding options for low and moderate income housing--the other parts of the CASA compact. AS SB 50 is still being negotiated, I hope council can have a more positive conversation and not repeat well established often out of date positions on a bill that has provoked strong emotions and crowded out local discussion of the many areas we might find agreement on. Steve 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sigrid K Pinsky <Sigridkp@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, May 6, 2019 10:56 AM To:Council, City Subject:Cubberley and Housing     Dear City Council Members.  We writing to express our concerns regarding  proposals under consideration for housing at  Cubberley.       PF‐zoned parcels like Cubberley and Greendell are  specially zoned and set aside to serve housing by  providing public services that residents (and local  workers) need‐‐schools, playing fields, day care,  senior services, gymnasiums, arts, athletic and  cultural programming, police stations, and other  government services, etc. We believe it is unwise  to build housing on Palo Alto's last remaining large  Public Facilities parcel at a time when a confluence  of forces are being set in motion to drive  development of higher density housing in Palo  Alto:      1. City of Palo Alto recently rezoned swaths of  land for higher density transit‐oriented  housing.    2. Santa Clara County is pressing Stanford to  build more, higher density housing as part  of their General Use Permit application  process.  3. The State Legislature is likely to pass SB‐50  or alternative legislation very like SB‐50  (which could force upzoning of many  parcels city‐wide and in areas abutting  Cubberley and nearby neighborhoods that  2 are within ½‐mile of the San Antonio  Caltrain station).     High density housing generally does not include  yards and large spaces for recreation.  People who  live in this kind of housing depend more on public  facilities.  If we build housing (privately used space)  on PF‐zoned properties now,  we will no longer  have that public space to meet future increased  demand for community center and school space.     Because we support developing higher density  housing, we question the wisdom of building  housing on PF‐zoned land that is perfectly located  for community center and school use. As higher  density housing gets built in other areas of the city  (some very close by Cubberley), preservation of  precious and limited PF‐zoned land for community  services is more important than ever to maintain  the balance of land uses that provides a high  quality of life.      A PAUSD‐owned property, 525 San Antonio, is  zoned for housing and presents a housing solution  for PAUSD staff right next door to Cubberley and  Greendell.  It is not clear why we need to use Public  Facility‐zoned land in this way.    Accessible, affordable housing is a very important  community need and high priority, but in our zeal  to meet that pressing need, we must not fail to  preserve the resource (PF‐zoned space for  community service and school expansion) that will  make it possible to sustain quality of life for a  larger population of future residents. Our Palo Alto  predecessors created a community that provided a  careful balance of land uses that enabled our  present quality of life.  Preserving Cubberley and  Greendell for public facilities  will enable us to pay  that precious gift forward  3 We hope you will support a balanced approach to  land use that would preserve Cubberley as a public  facility that will serve us and those who come after  us.  Sincerely,  Penny Ellson, Sigrid Pinsky, Lanie Wheeler      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Maureen McNally <moemcnally@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, May 5, 2019 9:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cubberley, Greendell, 525 San Antonio sites Hello,     I have been attending all the cubberley meetings, but will be out of town and will miss this last one. I do have some  thoughts and concerns, especially about the recent addition of housing proposals.     1. It is my opinion that we do need to preserve public space, public facilities and especially any green space in the city.   2. I am definitely opposed to any housing on the cubberley and Greendell site. The total of this site should be kept for  public use, including much needed green space.  3. Also, I do not think the whole 525 San Antonio site should be used for housing. Some should be kept as open green  space and public use facilities.     Thank you for your consideration,   Maureen McNally  420 Adobe Place  Palo Alto, CA 94306  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Lanie Wheeler <hswdw14@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 6, 2019 10:59 AM To:Council, City; board@pausd.org Subject:Housing at Cubberley Dear Members of the City Council and School Board:    I had hoped to speak to you directly at your joint meeting tonight but that will likely not work out so here are my  thoughts about the recent proposals to include housing in the Cubberley redevelopment plan.      Those of you who know me personally know that I am a passionate advocate for the provision of housing in  our community for those who need it and can't afford to live here and whose services and presence we need to remain  a vibrant and healthy community.  I also speak to the subject of Cubberley redevelopment as one of the members of the  CCAC committee charged with making recommendations to our elected officials on the future of the jointly owned site,  a group of roughly two dozen individuals who devoted significant time and effort to formulate a series of  recommendations on land use, co‐ownership and management and financing at the site.    I understand the tremendous need for housing in our community.  And I would support the use of the 525 San Antonio  Road portion of this site to provide housing for eligible teachers and/or city employees should an outreach effort to  those groups indicate there is sufficient interest.  I believe that with careful design effort, a project can be designed that  is respectful of its neighbors and meets the needs of its intended occupants.    On the other hand, inclusion of housing, especially within the city‐owned 8 acres, would be detrimental to the overall  project.  Representations have been made to current users that their spaces will be retained or even enhanced, uses  that are now spread over 3 times the acreage.  We know in addition that the future holds for us the need for more  spaces for both child care and senior services.  We simply cannot afford to relinquish space that must be used to serve  current and future residents whose recreational and service needs outside their own homes must be met.    Thank you for your efforts to work together to make the best use of Cubberley for the benefit of current and future  generations of learners and residents.    Lanie Wheeler      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Monday, May 6, 2019 11:19 AM To:Aram James Cc:rabrica@cityofepa.org; lgauthier@cityofepa.com; rwallacejones@cityofepa.org; lmoody@cityofepa.org; cromero@cityofepa.org; Council, City; city.council@menlopark.org; chuck jagoda; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; pushpinder.lubana@gmail.com; Doug Fort Subject:Re: Reparations and SB 50 excellent! Please atend the meeting @ 5 pm at PA City Hall  roberta    On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 11:33 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  Tomorrow’s joint session would also be a great time to raise and discuss the issue of reparations.    Aram    P.S. See my comments below on this critical  Issue.   Palo Alto Weekly  Spectrum ‐ March 22, 2019  Letters to the editor    Editor,  Although at first blush I find myself strongly supporting SB 50, I appreciate the scope of the questions raised in Greer  Stone and Pat Burt's guest opinion in the March 15 issue of the Weekly ("SB 50 undermines single‐family  neighborhoods and diversity").  In the past, I was part of a group in Palo Alto called Stop The Ban (STB), which fought to overturn/forestall Palo Alto's  then‐proposed ban on vehicle dwellers.  STB worked tirelessly for several years to convince the City Council and faith groups to support a Safe Parking Program  or what Stone and Burt's article refers to as, "managed location for RV dwellers." The resistance to the program was  overwhelming.  We organized a panel discussion on the topic at a local church that was attended by about 100 folks, including former  City Council member Karen Holman. Our keynote speaker was a counselor from a very successful Safe Parking Program  in Santa Barbara. Still, we had no success in getting the powers that be in Palo Alto to consider such a program.  I'm wondering if the answer is not a total refusal to support SB 50's call for more and dense housing, but rather, making  certain that the bill includes provisions for a very large percentage of the dense housing, envisioned by SB 50, to be set  aside, in perpetuity, for low‐ and very low‐income individuals, including seniors, people of color, the disabled, the  formerly unhoused, etc.  In addition, we could begin a discussion of mandating housing for the victims, and their families, of housing segregation  going back generations in Palo Alto. Yes, a big‐time discussion of providing permanently free or very low rent housing  as a form of reparations for the wrongs Palo Alto visited and continues to visit on our African‐American brothers and  sisters. SB 50 could include language that would require a principled discussion of reparations statewide.  Aram James  2 Park Street, Redwood City        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Monday, May 6, 2019 3:33 PM To:Dave Price Subject:Letter to the Editor re. SB 50 Attachments:solve the housing crisis2019.docx   SOLVING THE LOW INCOME HOUSING CRISIS Roberta Ahlquist The crisis of available affordable housing in the Bay Area, especially for the homeless and for the working poor, especially black and brown workers, is only getting worse, as wealthy, mostly white families cry, ‘not in my backyard’ (NIMBY). Sixteen million children in the U.S. receive food stamps and 90% of Black children will be on food stamps at some point during childhood. One in 45 children experience homelessness each year. (a.Giroux, 2015). Yet wealthy, predominately white cities like Palo Alto and Menlo Park refuse to take responsibility for housing its service sector workers and even most people employed by the city. At the same time the surrounding councils fight against SB 50, which mandates that cities do their fair share to provide affordable housing for people who get paid the least, travel the farthest, and create more traffic congestion and environmental impacts because there is no affordable housing in the city. A contradiction? Is it going to change? When will local government have the courage to ACT on behalf of low-income people, who are paid so much less? Randy Shaw, a San Francisco lawyer working primarily with tenants rights groups, in his book Generation Price Out: Who Gets to Live in the New Urban America, (2018), argues that it is the NIMBYs, mainly white suburban homeowners, applying pressure to city governments, who are mainly responsible. For years, city councils, planning commissions, architectural review boards and staff have shaped these cities to keep out significant numbers of service sector, affordable housing projects through their zoning laws, codes, and other policy maneuvers. In order to remedy this situation, he argues that first, cities must preserve the existing housing, especially lower income housing. KEY: a moratorium on demolitions of existing rental housing until replacement housing is built. In a summary of his well-documented history of Bay Area housing practices over the past 50 years or more, he tells us what cities must do if they really want to change their stripes and work for equity (I have only included the topics on his list): 1. Build more housing 2. Link new housing to affordability 3. Use public land for affordable housing 4. Enable nonprofits to purchase small sites 5. Seek local and state funding for affordable housing 6. Enact strong tenant protections 7. Preserve rental housing 8. Effectively enforce housing codes 9. End exclusionary zoning 10. Organize, educate, and get political East Palo Alto has taken on the lion’s share. It should not be more burdened with building housing for this area. In the interests of equity and social justice, it is time for Palo Alto and Menlo Park to ACT. Giroux, H, Truthout, August 6, 2015 www.truth- out.org/news/item/32238-schools-as-punishing-factories-the-handcuffing-of-public-education 1 Brettle, Jessica From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 5, 2019 9:42 PM To:Council, City Cc:Tanda, Wayne Subject:P & S Staff Report - Transportation Council Members:    The work plan presented in the Policies and Services Staff Report (ID#10329) falls short of what Palo Alto needs and deserves. Perhaps the most telling statement comes in the second paragraph of the Background section: “Transportation is consistently a top priority for City leaders as shown in its adoption, in some form, as a City Council priority in at least the previous six (6) years of City Council priorities. Making transportation a priority has not proven effective in addressing the many worsening problems we face. I fear that this year will be no different unless the Council Members take ownership of the challenges. Council cannot be unaware of the issues: 1. The Annual Citizens’ Survey consistently shows the questions on transportation with the lowest and declining ratings by residents 2. Crescent Park residents conducted their own survey in October 2018 reporting: -88% saying traffic negatively impacts their quality of life -94% saying the City is not doing enough to address traffic problems. 3. We had a Special Traffic Town Hall in 2018 where residents told Council of the their dissatisfaction with the way the City is managing traffic….with no apparent impact or subsequent actions. First the good news in the Staff Report: 1. The Office of Transportation will begin reporting directly to the City Manager. This can only help. 2. The report references “performance metrics”; these are desperately needed. But the report lacks specifics and fails to reference statewide metrics that the City has never examined (see below). 3. Among the goals the reports lists is “Institute a revised community engagement process for transportation projects.” This statement acknowledges the many missteps of the past and must become a priority. The less good news: The City has a terrible record of data collection and analysis. Three examples: 2 1. It was residents who pointed out to staff that the RPP system was selling more than the allowed number of permits by failing to aggregate 6 month and one year permits. 2. It was residents that highlighted the underuse of downtown garages during peak hours prompting the city to sell additional garage permits. 3. It was again residents that documented the extreme accident rate on North Middlefield and pushed for five (5) years to get a solution that has now reduced the number of accidents by greater than 90%. The City must get better using existing data sources and performing careful analyses that helps prioritize our efforts. They must also make the public aware of what existing reports tell us. For example: 1. The California Office of Traffic Safety issues an annual report on cities of a similar size and how they rank in ten (10) categories of accidents. Palo Alto is among the worst in several categories. The City currently does not utilize this data. 2. The City should be looking at the accident rate reports published by the CHP and database available for queries. This again would provide guidance on where to prioritize resources. 3. The January 16, 2019 MTC report on the University Avenue Corridor provides insight into just how bad our traffic woes are. Among the findings: - This corridor has an accident rate higher than the state average - Almost all the accidents on this corridor occur in Palo Alto - The Level Of Service (LOS) at University intersections is predominantly "F" One has to question why the Staff Report recommends moving away from the use of LOS measure that has been in place for decades and relying only on VMT…are we afraid to face the failing grades? Ignoring problems them will not make them go away. Keep LOS as a way to monitor our traffic congestion. Given Palo Alto’s record of city government failure to address worsening traffic safety and congestion in the city and given our current staff shortage, I call on each City Council Member to personally step up to work with staff and residents on at least one of our many traffic problems. It might be reducing congestion or improving safety or making the TMA effective, etc. I’d like to see each Council Person put his/her reputation on the line for developing and implementing a solution that will make life better for Palo Altans. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kevin Hauck <kevhauck@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 3, 2019 11:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please Implement RPP near Gunn High   Dear City Council:    We are writing to express our support for the implementation of a residential parking permit program in Green Acres 2  behind Gunn High.  We live on Georgia Avenue, near the "back entrance" go Gunn.  The current "no parking from 9‐10  when school is in session" offers some deterrent to the street becoming a de‐facto student parking lot, but at the cost of  restricting residents access to the streets in front of our houses.  An RPP would achieve this goal to greater effect, at  much less inconvenience to the residents of the neighborhood.    1.  The current no parking signs make it difficult when we have grandparents, visitors, or workers at our house.  They  either have to park far away or risk being cited.  An RPP would greatly alleviate this, as we would have the flexibility to  accommodate our visitor when necessary.    2.  The RPP would be a better deterrent to the street being used as a Gunn parking lot.  As currently implemented, there  is still quite a bit of Gunn parking taking place, both during and after the 9‐10 exclusion hour, with a noticeable mini‐rush  hour taking place in the afternoon.  With an RPP, fewer students would take the risk of parking all day, as they would be  at risk all day instead of just one hour.      Please implement this program, in the same fashion as the one near Paly high.     Best Regards,  Kevin Hauck and Lauren Maeda  685 Georgia Ave  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Lloyd Diamond <tmcdiamond@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, May 6, 2019 5:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:May 13th Meeting - Residential Preferential Parking Permit (RPP) Programs Dear City Council,    We are sending this e‐mail to ensure that the City Council will approve the proposed RPP district outreach and  stakeholder process for our area of Old Palo Alto, in accordance with the Planning and Transportation Commission’s  recommended prioritization from March.  We are unfortunately unable to attend this meeting.  Here are some key points as to why the City Council should approve the proposed RPP outreach:    * We’ve been working on our parking problem in Old Palo Alto for many years with the City  * Safety and quality of life issues have gotten worse (more cars, congestion, pedestrians/bikers)  * Over 90% of residents in our affected area signed the petition with a 72% participation rate  * We are thankful that the Planning and Transportation Commission prioritized Old Palo Alto RPP in March  * We have already been reassured by city staff that city resources won’t delay a Nov 1st implementation    Therefore, we are asking City Council to direct staff to work on this process.    Best Regards, Lloyd & Isabelle Diamond 150 Nevada Avenue 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeneen Nammar <jeneen.nammar@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 7, 2019 12:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parking Privileges for the Gunn Neighborhood Parking Zone Members of the City Council: I live in the parking zone by Gunn High School that encompasses parts of Georgia Avenue, Donald Drive, and Hubbartt Drive and includes 58 houses. Here, no one can park on the street from 9 to 10 am every school morning unless the vehicle has service lettering. It was set up in 2004 and augmented in 2008 when some neighbors on its edges demanded to leave it. This zone has penalized residents for fifteen years. This last fall, I collected 40 signatures and filed the Neighborhood Petition Form for RPP. On March 27, 2019 the PTC reviewed our case. Eight neighbors were able to attend and many of us spoke. The PTC sympathized with our situation and agreed that the zone was not set up correctly. However instead of recommending full RPP for our neighborhood, they advised us to go to a City Council meeting and ask for our zone to be treated like Crescent Park. Therefore, some of us are coming to the May 13th meeting to request this with some essential adjustments. Below is more background on our zone and the specifics of our proposal. To give more background, our parking zone was intended to keep the Gunn students from using the neighborhood as an extra parking lot as they did at that time. However it has also penalized us. We have gotten many, many tickets. We also have had to micro manage our behavior in ways inappropriate for a city to request. We cannot park in front of our own homes at night, unless we are sure we will move the vehicle in time the next morning. Morning visitors cannot park in front of our homes whether they are relatives from out of town or essential service providers without decals like nannies. Neighbors have widened their driveways with pavers to park three cars in a row. One parks overnight on their lawn. Some park around the block and walk home with groceries. It simply does not work for all families and all life situations, and it seems to especially penalize families that have children living at home of any age. In this way the zone is anti-family, but I would also argue that it is anti-elderly in that if a resident has a health situation that requires family or friends to come stay for a period, or a health care provider like a physical therapist to visit, they would be prohibited from parking on weekday mornings also. The zone was never set up correctly to be sustainable for all situations. The zone is also not fair. We are aware that residents by Paly High School have RPP. We are equal to them. It is not a strong argument to say that they are more deserving of RPP because of a commercial zone on El Camino. Our neighborhood has extra buildings as well. Paly and Gunn High Schools both have student bodies of around 1,900, but we also have Fletcher Middle School with a student body of 750, Bowman with a student body of 243, Juana Briones Elementary has 335, and Young Christians 2 Preschool has around 28 a day. This totals 1,356 students, so our neighborhood sees an influx of 3,256 students every school morning. Not all of these parking situations overlap. Currently the Briones and Gunn parking problems overlap within the current zone and the zone addresses their impact. But the side of Georgia near Arastradero is heavily impacted by Gunn and possibly Bowman, but it is not currently within the zone. Those residents are still frustrated over safety issues as detailed in the following Palo Alto Online article: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/12/27/gunn-high-neighbors-say- street-has-become-dangerous-for-students Still our current zone does not have resident parking privileges and they wouldn’t want to consider joining it unless it does. Regarding the specifics of our proposal, we would like to ask for parking privileges like Crescent Park with some key differences. They get two hangtags for a night-time parking zone which can be purchased for $50 a piece. To begin, our first hangtag needs to be free as the Paly residents do not pay for their first sticker. If we pay $50 for the first hangtag, we are being treated unequally. Secondly, 2 hangtags are not enough. The amount of hangtags should be based on household need, and limiting us to 2 makes us unequal to the other high school neighborhood. Finally, we want access to day passes like they have. Our zone has a daytime hour vs. Crescent Park's, and in order to have normalcy we need daytime pass access. It would be preferable that the day passes were free. Paly residents pay $5 per pass, and Redwood City gives free day passes. Their RPP for their high school neighborhood is free overall: https://www.redwoodcity.org/departments/community- development-department/engineering-transportation/transportation-parking/residential- parking-permits Palo Alto has given one of its high school neighborhoods RPP. It just has yet to extend some form of it to its other high school neighborhood. Please correct this oversight as soon as possible. Fifteen years is a long time to wait. We’ve paid many, many tickets, and have changed our lifestyles in many, many micro moments in ways that other Palo Altans have not. If you find the existing methods of administering RPP unwieldy to administer equality at this time, then the way forward is not to continue to penalize us or treat unequally. It is to modernize your program as is appropriate for Palo Alto and Silicon Valley. We are at a loss to understand why we should get tickets in front of our own homes, when it seems it should be easy for a parking attendant to distinguish residents from nonresidents with a cellphone or tablet with appropriate software. Yet, please keep in mind that we want parking privileges as soon as possible and do not think it appropriate that we wait until Parking modernizes. Please give our neighborhood as many parking privileges as you can so that we have immediate relief and parking equality with the Paly neighborhood. Thank your time. It is most appreciated. Sincerely, Jeneen Nammar 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Merav Dolev <dolev.merav@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 7, 2019 5:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:Resident parking in Gunn parking zone Hello City Council Members,    My name is Merav Dolev, and I live near the path to Gunn high school. I am writing to ask that our parking zone will be  set similarly to how it is in Crescent Park, with each family receiving hangtags that will allow us to park in front of our  houses. I do think that:   our first hangtag should be free ( similar to the residents who live in the area of Paly high school, and receive a  free first sticker)    the amount of handtags should not be limited to only two, for families who have a need for a larger number of  tags   we should have access to extra daytime passes, similar to those available to residents living in the area of like  Paly high school  Thank your time. It is most appreciated.    Sincerely,  Merav  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Renee and Mark Alloy <alloyfam@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 7, 2019 6:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:green acres 2 parking City Council members, I would like for you to consider the green acres parking situation. We have had a ban on parking on the street during 9 - 10 hour for the past 15 yrs. I was not for this ban but we have lived with it, paying MANY ticket due to the amount of cars we own. We live on the cul de sac and our driveway is very small - only able to accommodate 2 cars yet we have 6 cars at our house. The drivers at our home range from a consistent 4 up to 7 people, depending on the time of year. We love that our home can accommodate this many people in a time when our parents/children find it hard to find reasonably priced housing in the area. However the ticketing situation is very unfair. We feel that each person in our house should be able to park on our street without a fine. I also have friends over from time to time during the day for mah jongg or gatherings and avoiding the posted parking time ban is a problem. It seems like there should be a compromise where residents can use our street without fear of fines yet keep neighbors who worry about Gunn students absorbing our parking spots happy by keeping the posted parking ban. In our recent visit to the PTC we were told that RPP is a long process and really not what needs to happen for our specific neighborhood as we are more like Cresent Park, even though we aren't bothered with overnight parking - it is daytime parking that is a problem. So in that case we should be treated more like the neighborhoods surrounding PALY. We need access to day passes and enough hangtags for the residents in the household. We feel that Redwood city gives these for free and would like for that to be considered but in any event we are willing to pay for this (instead of the multitude of tickets) to have the convenience of parking on our street regardless of the time. Thank you for your consideration of our neighborhood problem. Renee and Mark Alloy Nathan, Gabe and Adam Alloy Lettie Masubara de Morais Jeri Kikel 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mark Alloy <markalloy@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 7, 2019 8:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:Gunn parking problem Hi, I have lived on Georgia Avenue for 25 years.  Our cul‐de‐sac has restricted parking between 9‐10 am on school days.   This restriction, meant to dissuade high school parking, was well intentioned but quite simply has been a hardship on  homeowners since it was established. The situation must be changed.      Like many families in this area, we have several generations of family living our house because of the high area housing  costs. At present there are 5 adults in the house and 5 cars, but only a 2 car driveway. Three cars have to be parked on  the street, but not in front of our house. We have to park 2 blocks away, in front of other peoples houses on Donald  Drive. It could be raining, we might have packages to tote from the car, it could be late at night, but we still have to park  two blocks away even when the street in front of our house is completely empty. Sometimes we do park at our home  and as a result we have paid hundreds of dollars in parking ticket fines.     The Georgia Avenue residents have been penalized long enough. I urge the City Council to approve the hanging parking  permit solution proposed by Janeen Namaar, although it should be based on the needs of each household rather than  set at an arbitrary number of permits such as two. This solves the issue for homeowners while still acting to dissuade the  Gunn High school parkers.     It is a low cost, low red tape solution that can be easily implemented.  Please approve this proposal.     Mark Alloy  627 Georgia Avenue.     Sent from my iPad  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Lorie Englhardt <englxx@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 7, 2019 8:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parking on Georgia Ave Dear City Council,     I paid for a lovely house on Georgia about 18 years ago only to find I would have to deal with not being able to park in  front of my own home due to the signs not allowing parking on Weekday mornings. We have 4 teens in our home and  purposely bought in this neighborhood to be near Gunn , Fletcher and Juana Briones. Unfortunately, by doing so, I was  later told I could not park on the street in front of my own home without being ticketed. With 6 drivers in our household  sharing 2 cars, no garage and single driveway, it is nearly impossible to not park on our street. We have been given many  tickets over the years. I have written letters to protest these tickets without any luck. One time I stayed extra long at  elementary school drop off when my student won a special award at the weekly assembly only to find my car had been  ticketed because of this surprise extension.       I understand there is a parking problem at Gunn but it seems unfair to penalize We families who have paid to live in  this neighborhood.     Thank you for changing this inefficient unfair parking program currently in Georgia.  Best,  Resident  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeneen Nammar <jeneen.nammar@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 7, 2019 8:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Parking Privileges for the Gunn Neighborhood Parking Zone Extra clarification: when I collected the RPP signatures last fall, it was for resident parking stickers only.  There was no  discussion for changing our zone’s time restriction or boundary.  They did not sign for any structural changes.  Thank you, Jeneen  Sent from my iPhone    On May 7, 2019, at 12:37 PM, Jeneen Nammar <jeneen.nammar@gmail.com> wrote:  Members of the City Council: I live in the parking zone by Gunn High School that encompasses parts of Georgia Avenue, Donald Drive, and Hubbartt Drive and includes 58 houses. Here, no one can park on the street from 9 to 10 am every school morning unless the vehicle has service lettering. It was set up in 2004 and augmented in 2008 when some neighbors on its edges demanded to leave it. This zone has penalized residents for fifteen years. This last fall, I collected 40 signatures and filed the Neighborhood Petition Form for RPP. On March 27, 2019 the PTC reviewed our case. Eight neighbors were able to attend and many of us spoke. The PTC sympathized with our situation and agreed that the zone was not set up correctly. However instead of recommending full RPP for our neighborhood, they advised us to go to a City Council meeting and ask for our zone to be treated like Crescent Park. Therefore, some of us are coming to the May 13th meeting to request this with some essential adjustments. Below is more background on our zone and the specifics of our proposal. To give more background, our parking zone was intended to keep the Gunn students from using the neighborhood as an extra parking lot as they did at that time. However it has also penalized us. We have gotten many, many tickets. We also have had to micro manage our behavior in ways inappropriate for a city to request. We cannot park in front of our own homes at night, unless we are sure we will move the vehicle in time the next morning. Morning visitors cannot park in front of our homes whether they are relatives from out of town or essential service providers without decals like nannies. Neighbors have widened their driveways with pavers to park three cars in a row. One parks overnight on their lawn. Some park around the block and walk home with groceries. It simply does not work for all families and all life situations, and it seems to especially penalize families that have children living at home of any age. In this way the zone is anti-family, but I would also 2 argue that it is anti-elderly in that if a resident has a health situation that requires family or friends to come stay for a period, or a health care provider like a physical therapist to visit, they would be prohibited from parking on weekday mornings also. The zone was never set up correctly to be sustainable for all situations. The zone is also not fair. We are aware that residents by Paly High School have RPP. We are equal to them. It is not a strong argument to say that they are more deserving of RPP because of a commercial zone on El Camino. Our neighborhood has extra buildings as well. Paly and Gunn High Schools both have student bodies of around 1,900, but we also have Fletcher Middle School with a student body of 750, Bowman with a student body of 243, Juana Briones Elementary has 335, and Young Christians Preschool has around 28 a day. This totals 1,356 students, so our neighborhood sees an influx of 3,256 students every school morning. Not all of these parking situations overlap. Currently the Briones and Gunn parking problems overlap within the current zone and the zone addresses their impact. But the side of Georgia near Arastradero is heavily impacted by Gunn and possibly Bowman, but it is not currently within the zone. Those residents are still frustrated over safety issues as detailed in the following Palo Alto Online article: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/12/27/gunn-high-neighbors-say- street-has-become-dangerous-for-students Still our current zone does not have resident parking privileges and they wouldn’t want to consider joining it unless it does. Regarding the specifics of our proposal, we would like to ask for parking privileges like Crescent Park with some key differences. They get two hangtags for a night-time parking zone which can be purchased for $50 a piece. To begin, our first hangtag needs to be free as the Paly residents do not pay for their first sticker. If we pay $50 for the first hangtag, we are being treated unequally. Secondly, 2 hangtags are not enough. The amount of hangtags should be based on household need, and limiting us to 2 makes us unequal to the other high school neighborhood. Finally, we want access to day passes like they have. Our zone has a daytime hour vs. Crescent Park's, and in order to have normalcy we need daytime pass access. It would be preferable that the day passes were free. Paly residents pay $5 per pass, and Redwood City gives free day passes. Their RPP for their high school neighborhood is free overall: https://www.redwoodcity.org/departments/community-development- department/engineering-transportation/transportation-parking/residential- parking-permits Palo Alto has given one of its high school neighborhoods RPP. It just has yet to extend some form of it to its other high school neighborhood. Please correct this oversight as soon as possible. Fifteen years is a long time to wait. We’ve paid many, many tickets, and have changed our lifestyles in many, many 3 micro moments in ways that other Palo Altans have not. If you find the existing methods of administering RPP unwieldy to administer equality at this time, then the way forward is not to continue to penalize us or treat unequally. It is to modernize your program as is appropriate for Palo Alto and Silicon Valley. We are at a loss to understand why we should get tickets in front of our own homes, when it seems it should be easy for a parking attendant to distinguish residents from nonresidents with a cellphone or tablet with appropriate software. Yet, please keep in mind that we want parking privileges as soon as possible and do not think it appropriate that we wait until Parking modernizes. Please give our neighborhood as many parking privileges as you can so that we have immediate relief and parking equality with the Paly neighborhood. Thank your time. It is most appreciated. Sincerely, Jeneen Nammar 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ryan Fisher <rjfisher1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 7, 2019 8:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Green Acres II parking permit consideration Hello All,    I participated in the review of the Green Acres II petition for the RPP review. While the subcommittee ultimately ruled  that RPP wasn’t appropriate for our situation I was greatly encouraged by the committee’s interest to help solve our  parking challenges.     I live on the corner of Georgia and Arastradero, next to Gunn, and we experience heavy parking in our neighborhood. I  will be at the May 13th city council meeting and look forward to discussion about adding permits to our 9‐10 no parking  program and I hope you will help us address our concerns     Thanks,  Ryan  1 Brettle, Jessica From:William Chrisman <towillchris@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 8, 2019 10:32 AM To:Council, City; Planning Commission Cc:Sue Dremann; Laurence, Kathie; Reynolds, Margaret; James Colton; Mark Alloy; Hirsch Bette; Karin Bricker; Elliot Stein; Renee Alloy; Ryan Fisher; Albert Chin; Kevin Hauck; Nancy Madsen; Jeneen Nammar; David Chrisman Subject:RPP proposed for Green Acres II Dear City Council, I am highly concerned about safety surrounding hectic traffic in Green Acres II. My 90 year old father was knocked down by a bicyclist passing on the sidewalk. It seems clear to me the current proposal for a limited RPP Zone in Green Acres II will not improve safety. Thankfully my father was not seriously injured by the accident, but he might well have been. You could say the same for the many hundreds of students who bicycle to school daily, and just one such injury would cost the community far more than appropriate mitigation measures. My nephew, a student at Henry Gunn High, daily joins many hundreds of students bicycling to school on a congested, traffic-hazard prone route where neighborhood streets are hectic, particularly Maybell Avenue, Donald Drive, Willmar Drive and Georgia Avenue. The last thing these streets heading south from El Camino Real are for children is a safe-route-to-school. (For more see Palo Alto Weekly article Gunn High Neighbors Say Street has Become Dangerous for Students, by Staff Writer Sue Dremann, https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/12/27/gunn-high-neighbors-say-street-has-become-dangerous-for-students.) With five schools plus Briones Park in the neighborhood nearby Green Acres II, Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership should be given highest priority. We all sincerely hope the City's Bike Boulevard Phase 2 project may help. Intending to raise awareness about traffic safety for our students, I have talked with Kathleen Laurence and Margaret Reynolds at Henry Gunn Principal's Office, as well as Rafael Rius, Sylvia Star-Lack, Mark Hur, Josh Mello, PAPD officers patrolling Green Acres II, and other City staff, as well as many parents of students attending our neighborhood schools. The consensus is that cut- though traffic and overflow parking from Henry Gunn impacts Green Acres II in ways that fly in the face of a safe-route-to-school. When I recommended implementing a full RPP Zone in Green Acres II, the City complained about associated costs to the City. Neighbors in Green Acres II complained it would be an unfair burden to pay to park in front of their home. Stakeholders from Henry Gunn complained where else but Green Acres II would they park? City Planning and Transportation staff complained they aren't free to step in until asked to do so by City Council. My 90 year old father, when knocked down by a passing bicyclist while walking on the sidewalk, complained how it didn't feel very good. 2 On March 27th, City Planning and Transportation staff suggested a limited RPP Zone for Green Acres II, absent changes to the zone's timing, signs, or geographical boundaries. Honestly this makes no sense to me. It does not speak to students' safety riding bicycles to school. Parking overflow from Henry Gunn is obviously part of the problem but students ignore or schedule around the existing 9:00 - 10:00 a.m. parking restriction. A full RPP Zone, during school hours, may address this. With respect for my neighbors' concerns about having a full RPP Zone in Green Acres II, I really think we are missing an opportunity to address the parking problem as just one piece of this public policy puzzle. Again, I support Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership. Sincerely, Will Chrisman Palo Alto resident PALY Grad '80 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Nancy Madsen <nl.madsen@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 8, 2019 11:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:green acres parking I strongly urge you to implement a parking system that allows us to park in front of our own houses at any time of day. I recommend you adopt the system suggested by Jeneen Nammar as it seems both reasonable and inexpensive for both residents and the city. Please, please, please help. Nancy Madsen  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Gary Lindgren <gel@theconnection.com> Sent:Friday, May 3, 2019 11:30 AM To:Council, City Subject:Rail Grade Crossings Dear City Council,  You are going to have upcoming discussions regarding rail grade separations on May 13th. In the past few months several  people have suggested that instead of closing Churchill, just keep it open as an option. When the electrification is  complete, rail traffic will increase by only 25%. If in the future, delays become excessive, then decide to close Churchill. If  a viaduct is chosen for Churchill, then it will be open by definition.  Thank you,  Gary Lindgren                    Gary Lindgren  585 Lincoln Ave  Palo Alto CA 94301     650-326-0655 Check Out Latest Seismometer Reading @garyelindgren    Listen to Radio Around the World     Be Like Costco... do something in a different way  Don't trust Atoms...they make up everything      A part of good science is to see what everyone else can see but think what no one else has ever said. The difference between being very smart and very foolish is often very small. So many problems occur when people fail to be obedient when they are supposed to be obedient, and fail to be creative when they are supposed to be creative. The secret to doing good research is always to be a little underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste hours. It is sometimes easier to make the world a better place than to prove you have made the world a better place. Amos Tversky   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Manish Baldua <mrmanishbaldua@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 5, 2019 11:27 AM To:Council, City Cc:Manish Baldua Subject:city wide tunnel - eminent domain Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, My name is Manish Baldua, we live at 1545 Alma St. We moved to Palo Alto in 2012, and fell in love with all that the city offers, including top notch education institutions, a vibrant culture, bustling downtown, and caring neighbors. We decided that Palo Alto is where we will live and retire, and spend the last 3 years renovating and extending our house. The city wide tunnel option and its eminent domain implication has caused us much stress and anxiety. If it comes to pass, the future we have planned for our kids and ourselves will no longer hold true. Esteemed City Council Members and City Residents, please put yourselves in our shoes for 2 minutes, i assure you that any other concern you have will seem small in comparison to the possibility of not having your home that you currently live in. And knowing, you will feel some of what we are feeling, I urge you to come together as one, be compassionate, and take any option that results in eminent domain off the table. Sincerely, Vaijayanti & Manish Baldua 1545 Alma St Palo Alto CA 94301   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Nancy Martin <ncmartin@comcast.net> Sent:Sunday, May 5, 2019 2:15 PM To:Council, City Cc:Nancy Martin Subject:Train tunnel Honorable Members of the City Council, My name is Nancy Martin. I have been a resident of Palo Alto since 1969. My issue today is support for the idea of a train tunnel. I think that although it is a very expensive fix, it could be a very good one. With all of the development that is proposed for Palo Alto, I think the developers could be made to contribute to the cost of this project if they want to develop in our city. They need to be encouraged (read required) to greatly contribute to our infra-structure if they want to participate in over-developing our home town. Sincerely, Nancy C. Martin "It's not what we have, but what we enjoy that constitutes our abundance."  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Dave Shen <dshenster@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 7, 2019 8:43 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Gaines, Chantal Cc:David Shen Subject:Regarding the city-wide tunnel, this coming Monday's City Council meeting 5/13 Distinguished City Councilmembers and Staff,    At the last City Council meeting, we motion was made to remove the city‐wide tunnel from the list of options under  consideration. This motion did not carry. However, we will be discussing the tunnel again, hopefully clarifying some  items in question from the previous meeting.    I am hoping that we will remove the city‐wide tunnel from the list of options. Pertaining to our group, the North Old Palo  Alto group, we have members of our petition who live along Alma where the eminent domain was identified in the  construction video: https://pagradesep.com/wp‐content/uploads/2019/04/Palo‐Alto_Full_Tunnel‐05.wmv. We do not  want to see our neighbors' homes taken and their lives upended!    There are some who believe that we have not explored all the options. As a member of the CAP, I have sat through  discussions with the consultants on why the tunnel entrance is located where it is in that video. It is the place where the  *least* disruption happens when the tunnel entrance is created. This is noted in the City Manager's report:    Tunnel start location: Running north to south, the proposed tunnel north portal would begin 500 feet north of Churchill  Avenue.    Reason for starting location: In order to avoid major impacts and complete re‐ construction of the Palo Alto Caltrain  Station and University Avenue underpass, the north end of the tunnel begins south of the Palo Alto Station. The tunnel  requires that the tracks descend in a trench to a depth of 44 feet below ground for the tunneling operation to commence.  Because there is not enough room to do construction right at the end of the Palo Alto (University Avenue) Caltrain  Station, in order to begin constructing the descending trench section, the temporary (shoofly) tracks need to swing away  from the Palo Alto Caltrain Station for an approximate length of 800 feet before the trench construction begins. Then the  length of trench then required to reach a depth of 44 feet below ground is approximately 2,300 feet (assuming a 2  percent grade1 and the required length of vertical curve2). The distance between Palo Alto Avenue and University  Avenue is 1,975 feet which is much shorter than the required distances listed for the trench. Consequently, if the trench  were to begin at Palo Alto Avenue, the vertical curve and trench would cut through the Palo Alto Caltrain Station and  University Avenue underpass. Therefore, in order to avoid rebuilding the Palo Alto Caltrain Station, the proposed Citywide  Tunnel design begins the trench just south of the Palo Alto Caltrain Station.    Even at the location of *least* disruption, eminent domain is still necessary.  We should not accept the removal of our  neighbors and friends. It is simply not worth the cost.    Please remove the city‐wide tunnel from consideration and preserve our community members and prevent their lives  from being upended needlessly.     Thank you for listening,    David Shen  NOPA  CAP member  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Rosa V. Harvie <rvmendi@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 8, 2019 1:46 AM To:Council, City Cc:Chuckcito My Husband; Dave Shen Subject:City Council Meeting, Agenda #9 Charles L. Harvie 1655 Alma Street Palo Alto, California 94301 May 7, 2019 Palo Alto City Council, 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, California 94301 MAY 13, 2019, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #9 PALO ALTO GRADE SEPARATION, REVISION OF ALTERNATIVES Dear City Council, My name is Charles L. Harvie, I was born in the Old Palo Alto Hospital. I am the third generation of Harvie in Palo Alto. In November of 1897 my grandfather Charles T. Harvie moved to Palo Alto. He was a carpenter by trade and his love for the city gave him the inspiration to built several houses helping the young City to develop and progress. He later married to Ida Henry, who’s family were part owner of the Palo Alto Times News Paper. As a wedding gift my Grandfather built a house for her. The house still stands at 525 Hawthorn Ave. Just walking through down town and surrounding neighborhoods makes me feel close to my Grandparents although they are no longer alive but the city is full of memories of them and my childhood. My father was also born and raised in Palo Alto. For many years I have worked so hard to return to my roots where my family history comes from and finally in 1996 I was able to purchase a house at 1655 Alma Street, that is currently my HOME, where I live, work, raise my family and planing to retire one day. When I remarried, my last child, Ian, was born in 2009 at Lucille Packard Hospital in Palo Alto. I feel blessed knowing that the Fourth Generation of Harvie belongs to this City. This assures me that the Harvie’s place in the world is Palo Alto. Just knowing that my little son Ian will attend to the same schools that my father did makes me feel at peace and bless of my love ones. Beside all my personal feelings, the City of Palo Alto has a lot to offer in education, culture, health care, sense of community where parents make all the efforts to bring up their children with the same values that my wife and I are giving to our son. Over the years I have been investing in my property. I am taking care and working hard to raise my family, feeling the rewards that I am giving them the best; but all these happy feelings are gone after we heard about the eminent domain threat to our property. If this project passes, the future that I am planing for myself and my family will no longer be possible. City Council Members, PLEASE put yourselves in our place just for a moment. I am more than sure that any other concern you have will be small in comparison to the possibility to loose YOUR HOUSE, YOUR HOME, YOUR ROOTS, YOUR PAST. I represent not only a Palo Alto Resident I’m a member of a Palo Alto History. Hope you can feel now how desperate, frustrated, and hopeless we are with this project looming over our heads and wiping away our future. My family and I appeal to your compassion and Please removed the tunneling option from the list of alternatives and take any option that results in Eminent Domain OFF THE TABLE. Thank You, Sincerely, Charles, Rosa, Ian and Hamilton Harvie 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Maurizio Gianola <maurizio.gianola@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 8, 2019 8:13 AM To:Council, City Cc:A0 Maurizio Gianola Subject:Feedback to the City Council Meeting on 5/13 Hello,  I am a Palo Alto resident.   I won't be able to attend the City Council  Meeting on 5/13, however I would like to share my point of view on  the agenda item " city‐wide tunnel"  1. You oppose eminent domain and the forceful removal of our friends and neighbors from this city.  2. We have analyzed this enough by expert consultants and further money used to explore is wasteful and not needed. There  are no further options at this juncture which would allow a tunnel to appear in Palo Alto that runs the city's length.  3. Please remove the city‐wide tunnel from the list of options under consideration!  Thank You  Maurizio A. Gianola  email: maurizio.gianola@gmail.com  ________________________________________________    This email may contain confidential and privileged material  for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please contact the  sender and delete all copies.    Questo messaggio puo' contenere informazioni di carattere  estremamente riservato e confidenziale.  Qualora non foste i destinatari, vogliate immediatamente  informarmi con lo stesso mezzo ed eliminare il messaggio,  con gli eventuali allegati, senza trattenerne copia.  Qualsivoglia utilizzo non autorizzato del contenuto di  questo messaggio costituisce violazione dell'obbligo di non  prendere cognizione della corrispondenza tra altri soggetti,  salvo piu' grave illecito, ed espone il responsabile alle relative  conseguenze civili e penali.  ________________________________________________  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sabrina Corvo <sabrina.corvo@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 8, 2019 8:16 AM To:Council, City Subject:Feedback to the City Council Meeting on 5/13 Hello,  I am a Palo Alto resident.   I won't be able to attend the City Council Meeting on 5/13, however I would like to share my point of view on the  agenda item " city‐wide tunnel"  1. You oppose eminent domain and the forceful removal of our friends and neighbors from this city.  2. We have analyzed this enough by expert consultants and further money used to explore is wasteful and not needed. There  are no further options at this juncture which would allow a tunnel to appear in Palo Alto that runs the city's length.  3. Please remove the city‐wide tunnel from the list of options under consideration!  Thank You  Sabrina Corvo  email: sabrina.corvo@gmail.com    ‐‐       1 Brettle, Jessica From:Hank Sousa <thomashenrysousa@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 8, 2019 10:21 AM To:Council, City Subject:eminent domain along Alma Hello Council members:  When I view the video of the proposed partial tunnel through the city I noticed a couple of big buildings that would be  taken. One is a condo complex between Melville and Kellogg that has 9 units in it. Two have recently changed hands.  The other one is between Melville and Kingsley and has about 15 or more units. The use of eminent domain seems  unnecessary especially in light of the ability to partially close Churchill Ave. to test how disruptive that might be. It could  easily be reversed. In meetings held at one of the Churchill resident's home it seemed like eminent domain was not  looked upon favorably for the grade separation project. Please tell us that is still the case and make a decision to skip the citywide tunnel option.  Many thanks,  Hank Sousa  160 Melville Ave.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ashish Shetty <ashetty99@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 6, 2019 3:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:A suggestion Hello Council Members, I am a frequent user of the library facilities in Palo Alto. While it is not lacking in any other way, the one thing that is very bothersome is the process of re-authentication of the network every couple of hours (we are logged out of the library network and asked to log in again every two hours). There are times when I am doing some work using the network and I suddenly get automatically booted out. The process of logging back in to an external system is fairly cumbersome at times. I do not know why Palo Alto has this policy. There is no library system I know of that requires a user to re- authenticate every couple of hours nor do I see the purpose of doing so. As a result of this policy, there are times when I go to other library systems like Mtn, View, Sunnyvale or as far as Santa Clara when I would much rather work closer to my home. My request is to stop this policy and keep users logged on as long as they need once they have initially signed on. Thank you. Best Regards,  Ashish  Ashish Shetty  Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Friday, May 3, 2019 2:54 PM To:Steve Levy Subject:Central Valley Economic and Demographic Trends Attachments:Numbers-May2019-Central-Valley-Economic-and-Demographic-Trends.pdf Hi, The state is initiating another round of thinking about how to improve Central Valley prosperity. I gathered some data as a friend to those working on this effort and they said i was okay to share with others. Steve 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Thursday, May 2, 2019 3:59 PM To:Loran Harding; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; David Balakian; Daniel Zack; midge@thebarretts.com; info@superide1.com; terry; robert.andersen; leager; Mayor; paul.caprioglio; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; Mark Kreutzer; Mark Standriff; margaret-sasaki@live.com; huidentalsanmateo; Joel Stiner; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Cathy Lewis; Doug Vagim; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg; jerry ruopoli; nick yovino; pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; Jason Tarvin; Council, City Subject:Fwd: CHSRA before legislaTURE on Wed. May 1, 2019 (not legislaTOR, Ch. 30)   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, May 2, 2019 at 2:54 PM  Subject: Fwd: CHSRA before legislaTURE on Wed. May 1, 2019 (not legislaTOR, Ch. 30)  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:12 PM  Subject: Fwd: CHSRA before legislaTURE on Wed. May 1, 2019 (not legislaTOR, Ch. 30)  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:40 PM  Subject: Fwd: CHSRA before legislaTURE on Wed. May 1, 2019 (not legislaTOR, Ch. 30)  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                   Thurs. May 2, 2019                   To all‐  Channel 30 ABC Fresno ran this last night, actually a bit of fair and balanced coverage of California High  Speed   Rail. Read the statement by Brian Kelly, CEO of the Calif. High Speed Rail Authority. You also see the usual belly‐aching  by Republican State Assembly member Jim Patterson of Fresno who wants to keep Fresno like a little town in Alabama in  1926. He reads whatever lies and distortions his Republican bosses put in front of him. "Keep 'em broke, barefoot and  pregnant"‐ their guiding principle.                               https://abc30.com/politics/high‐speed‐rail‐project‐costs‐could‐increase‐by‐$18‐billion/5280622/    2                  You see here too honest Dem. House member Rep. Jim Costa of Fresno before the House Transportation  Committee discussing the proposed federal infrastructure legislation and how that could get Calif. HSR completed. Rep.  Costa is really the "father" of California High Speed Rail, his having worked for years to get the project off the ground in  the Calif. legislature. I wonder what he thinks of Patterson. This being a family show, we can't print it here. I thought  that Jim Costa should have been our new U.S. Senator from California. He'd earned it, he is competent, reasonable,  bright, hard‐working. Not a flake with non‐starter ideas. But having him in Congress fighting for federal infrastructure  dollars for California high speed rail bodes well for our State. It would be federal money well‐spent.                  I'd cut back on the $750 billion DOD request of Trump this year to provide a free military defense for all of  Europe, Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan. Spending that much money to enrich those people is just treason. And then we  have Republican Patterson of Fresno yelling his head off about $20 billion over several years to build HSR in the Central  Valley of California between Merced and Bakersfield. It might take a total of $60 billion of federal money over ten years  to fully build out the Calif. HSR system from San Francisco to LA., and Trump wants 12.5 TIMES that much just in this  fiscal year 2020 to guarantee the rich life for the people of Europe, Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan. They've sure got  something he likes. "The American people can go to hell"‐  his guiding principle.                  Please also read my email below, sent yesterday, May1, also re Calif. HSR.                 BTW, KCBS reports this morning a new study of the wild fire risk this year in Calif. Because of the heavy rains,  more fuel will be available to burn this summer. The fires could start in June. Due to the heavy snow pack, the higher  elevations in the Sierra will see fires later in the year than the lower ones.                 Gov. Newsom visited the East Bay hills a week ago and advised cutting veg. around homes. He should be  demanding 50 747s converted to retardant tankers. Hope he does not have to, but if he stands in a town burnt to the  ground like Paradise, Ca., many will ask why he did not do more to prepare to fight wild fires. After two horrific years of  wild fires in Calif., I think we have a hint as to what is coming this year.                                LH    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, May 1, 2019 at 1:55 PM  Subject: Fwd: CHSRA before legislaTURE on Wed. May 1, 2019 (not legislaTOR, Ch. 30)  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, Doug Vagim  <dvagim@gmail.com>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>,  Joel Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, <esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov>, paul.caprioglio  <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, Mark Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>,  <mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com>, <margaret‐sasaki@live.com>, beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>,  <bearwithme1016@att.net>, <midge@thebarretts.com>, <info@superide1.com>, leager <leager@fresnoedc.com>,  Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, terry <terry@terrynagel.com>, kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk  <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, <kwalsh@kmaxtv.com>, jerry ruopoli <jrwiseguy7@gmail.com>, robert.andersen  <robert.andersen@fresno.gov>, Steve Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, steve.hogg <steve.hogg@fresno.gov>,  huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>, city.council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, May 1, 2019 at 1:31 PM  Subject: Fwd: CHSRA before legislaTURE on Wed. May 1, 2019 (not legislaTOR, Ch. 30)  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  3     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, May 1, 2019 at 1:12 PM  Subject: Fwd: CHSRA before legislaTURE on Wed. May 1, 2019 (not legislaTOR, Ch. 30)  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, May 1, 2019 at 12:53 PM  Subject: Fwd: CHSRA before legislaTURE on Wed. May 1, 2019 (not legislaTOR, Ch. 30)  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:51 AM  Subject: Fwd: CHSRA before legislaTURE on Wed. May 1, 2019 (not legislaTOR, Ch. 30)  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:42 AM  Subject: CHSRA before legislaTURE on Wed. May 1, 2019 (not legislaTOR, Ch. 30)  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                Wed. May 1, 2019               Mr. Dan Richard               Dan‐  Here is yet another Ch. 30 in Fresno hit piece on HSR. The Ch. 30 reporter says the Authority will go before  the "legislator" tomorrow. She sees the word "legislature" and says "legislator". OR ELSE, whoever wrote it thinks those  people up in Sacramento in that big, white building are called a "legislator". Yet again, the criminally deficient schools in  the Central Valley , deficient by design by the rich Republicans, reveal themselves.                  https://abc30.com/politics/valley‐lawmaker‐claims‐high‐speed‐rail‐will‐run‐regular‐trains‐to‐meet‐ deadline/5279261/?utm_source=Morning+Roundup&utm_campaign=eff92f3c2c‐ EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_05_01_03_05&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_165ffe36b2‐eff92f3c2c‐ 78450701&mc_cid=eff92f3c2c&mc_eid=7afa3a94f3    4              This also shows, yet again, the policy of the rich Republican scum who own the TV stations in Fresno of hiring the  lowest common denominator to read the news. These people are so desperate for their next meal that they will read  anything you put before them, and read it the way the Republicans want it read. It's called not operating their FCC  licensed frequency in the public interest, but instead in a way to enrich the Republican scum who own the Central Valley  of California.                  It goes beyond that too. Ch. 30 now has a woman who suddenly reads everything with a happy, sing‐song  manner, all upbeat and convinced that the people running the Central Valley are good for all of us. She has her mind  running in neutral. She read a piece the o. day about a crib that has killed 23 infants, and said that in a happy, sing‐song,  upbeat manner.                 And you'll love yet another lying little segment in there by the little moron Jim Patterson about HSR. He says "they  can't connect it", whatever that means. The Republicans bought him that $10,000 suit, and their victims here think he  must, therefore, know what he is talking about. I wonder who owns all of those books on the shelves behind him.  They're not his, we can be sure of that.                Here is a piece that Ch. 30 ran in February, 2019 re the 2 mile stretch of 99 between Ashlan and Clinton being  completed. It took 5 1/2 years to do. Three big overpasses had to be re‐built. One huge benefit is that that part of 99  was just a mine‐field of potholes and big, jagged pieces of concrete. Now it is smooth and wonderful. In the past 10  years, of course, China has built 25,000 Km of HSR. That's twenty five thousand KM of HSR in 10 years.                https://abc30.com/automotive/hwy‐99‐realignment‐in‐fresno‐for‐high‐speed‐rail‐line‐complete/5141522/               One tiny point re the cost of HSR in Calif.: I went to 12 HSR public information meetings between ~2010 and 2015  from Hanford to Chowchilla. I recall that at one in Fresno, there were these young women out at a table in the lobby.  Five or six of them. Fresno Convention Center probably. I did not get the impression that they knew much about the  project. They were sort of there to "be happy and upbeat". I suppose that CHSRA's employing them helped meet the  Nazi Affirmative Action quotas for hiring women and minorities. One of them told me all about her recent trip to Europe.  It was obvious that the EEOC had compelled CHSRA to employ them. I doubt that the rail people in China have to spend  money on this.                  The United States has not one millimeter of HSR, and China now has 25,000 Km of it. They are our big adversary  now, and we bleed the American people white to defend Germany, France, Italy, Spain, S. Korea, Taiwan and Japan.  Having 25,000 Km of HSR will help China commercially, if not militarily. As you know, the people we defend militarily,  Germany, France, Italy, Spain, S. Korea, Taiwan and Japan, all have magnificent HSR rail systems because we provide  their military defense, free of charge. This walks right up to the line on treason, and little Jim Patterson herniates himself  fighting HSR in the Central Valley. Will the American people ever wake up and get rid of the Republicans? They are here  to ruin our lives, most of us.                   Last night the news showed Pelosi and Shummer outside the WH saying that they all agree on $2 trillion for  infrastructure. About $60 billion of that should be to complete the California High Speed Rail System. The countries we  defend, and our big, emerging adversary, China, all have huge HSR systems. The United States does not have one  millimeter of high speed rail and it just adds up to treason. It shows that our central government has utterly failed the  people. Doing things like completing the California high speed rail system now may just possibly save our corrupt, out‐ of‐touch central government from historic action by the America people.                                   L. William Harding               Fresno, Ca.         1 Brettle, Jessica From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 3, 2019 9:07 AM To:Kniss, Liz (external) Cc:Council, City; editor@paweekly.com; Gennady Sheyner Subject:Re: Day of reckoning for traffic problem deniers and avoiders Liz,    I have thought long about the type of response your comments merit and here it is.    1. Your snide comment about my attention span is ridiculous given that my neighbors and I spent 5 years working on the  traffic safety project on Middlefield. Our attention span and perseverance is well documented.  This project was initiated  and driven entirely by residents. You lent your name to our efforts but "drove" nothing. All the credit for the real work  on this effort goes to residents and staff.    2. The Middlefield project was targeted at improving road safety and the studies show that it did just that. The project  did not address traffic congestion which is worsening on Middlefield and other streets near downtown due, in part, to  your support for more commercial development. Your statement from the Council dais denying that traffic is a problem  in Palo Alto makes your position clear. Your calling a special Town Hall on Traffic and then doing nothing confirms your  disdain for resident input.    3. If staff shortages make the City unable to respond to traffic issues, then the City should stop all development until  those shortages can be addressed. Otherwise you are just making a bad situation worse and the eventual fix will be  more costly.    4. Yes, regional issues impact traffic in Palo Alto but we there are many local actions we can take and our Council has  failed to do so.  With the highest jobs/housing ratio in the region, we clearly have created the traffic problems we live with.    5. Yes, we can meet to discuss further but I fear our understanding of the facts are far from aligned and progress will be  difficult. I suggest that Palo Alto form a citizens' advisory group on traffic that has the authority to demand action from  the Council.    John                On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:28 PM Liz Kniss <lizkniss@earthlink.net> wrote:  John‐  You apparently have a short attention span.  In front of your house on Middlefield is the only existing North PA road  diet and one that I personally drove from the council standpoint. In fact you, John,  at a CC meeting personally thanked  and praised me for accomplishing that, which took two years.  Two years of observation, planning and a trail period  before it was made permanent. Reports now indicate the road is far safer as well.     2 As to current traffic issues, you know that we have not had a stable transportation staff for sometime.  Also, many of  our traffic issues result from problems that exist in other jurisdictions.   For example,  construction nearby on Rt 101 added to the congestion and is now nearly completed.     Let’s arrange an in person  meeting to discuss this. I don’t recall hearing from  you by phone or text in several months.     Perhaps we should meet w Atherton staff to ascertain their plans to reduce congestion. We can assuredly learn from  each other.     Best wishes,  Liz            Sent from my iPhone    On Apr 24, 2019, at 12:45 PM, John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com> wrote:    Study: Atherton traffic at 'saturation level' How is it that Atherton can reach a conclusion that their roads have reached their capacity to handle  traffic and is looking for solutions while Palo Alto leadership pays lip service to addressing traffic issues  but keeps supporting continued development? Even with our state‐leading jobs/housing ratio, we have  no plans to address our traffic woes. Atherton is at least looking at the problems head‐on.    "We are at saturation level in the town of Atherton," she said. "There is no more capacity to take on any more demand."   Shruti Shrivastava, the transportation project manager.    I believe a day of reckoning is not far away and our council members will be shamed for not making any  serious efforts to address both traffic safety and traffic congestion. Chief among those to be held  accountable will be Council Member Liz Kniss who famously denied we had a traffic problem, then half‐ heartedly apologized, called a special town hall to gather resident input and then has done NOTHING  for more than 6 months.    While Atherton considers dramatic action...    "Personally, I'd like to make a road diet on El Camino," said council member Elizabeth Lewis.    ...Palo Alto city government buries its head in the sand. It is time for new leaders who are up‐to the  difficult challenges we face.    John Guislin      3   https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2019/04/24/study‐atherton‐traffic‐at‐saturation‐level  1 Brettle, Jessica From:AKKrohn <anniekkrohn@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 3, 2019 2:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fixing a dangerous intersection: Lincoln and Middlefield Dear Mayor and City Council Members,     I have just walked back to my Middlefield Road home past the scene of yet another three‐car accident at the  dangerous intersection of Middlefield Road and Lincoln Avenue.  I am adding my voice to the chorus of local  residents who have, for years now, called for the city to make that intersection as safe as possible.  I strongly  suspect that countless others have also long worried about that intersection yet haven't managed to take the  time to complain about it to the city ‐‐ as had I, until now.  I'm sure many of us leave it at clicking a "thank you"  to the local resident who posts photos and details on the latest crashes on the NextDoor neighborhood site. I  don't recall his name ‐‐ but I suspect you may have heard from him!    The Lincoln Avenue crossing of Middlefield is a dangerous crossing.  Dangerous for drivers, pedestrians,  bicyclists, and especially concerning, elementary school kids.  It has only become more so with the wide use of  traffic apps that, understandably, have been directing non‐locals to use Lincoln as a shortcut route.  That  shortcut was previously known by locals as a low traffic way to connect with University Avenue ‐‐ though we  locals also know from experience that Middlefield is not always an easy street to cross without a light.  Prior to  the navigation apps, this intersection had already become more dangerous with the rise of the booming local  tech economy.  The boom brought increased traffic and more speeding on streets like Middlefield.  It also  brought the vastly increased home renovation and building activity we continue to see, which means, more  home construction related vehicles along our streets, which will often obscure a clear view of oncoming  traffic.    The recent storm drainage improvements the city made along Middlefield Road were very welcome, since  previously our curbing and sidewalks, sometimes even our driveways, were routinely flooded during even  moderate rains; however, the resulting drainage dip in the road along the western side of this intersection has  become a serious problem for many drivers and bicyclists. Any driver attempting to cross Middlefield on  Lincoln would need to move fast to avoid oncoming traffic, but hitting that dip at the necessary speed is  clearly unsafe.  I heard today that someone recently crashed into a telephone pole on Lincoln, which required  its replacement, after attempting just that and losing control of her vehicle.       I know that plenty of people are against adding any more traffic lights than absolutely necessary, especially  just one block from another, but I honestly can't see what else could be as effective to prevent the accidents  that will continue to happen at that intersection. An especially important consideration is that the entire  adjacent block is home to Addison School, so a traffic light at the other intersection that also involves the  same busy Middlefield should be understood to be reasonable for the safety of the school kids ‐‐ the addition  of the yellow‐striped crosswalk at Byron/Lincoln was a plus but, effectively, a tiny band‐aid on a wound that  requires major surgery.      Thank you for considering these few thoughts.    Ann K. Krohn  2   1234 Middlefield Road  Palo Alto, CA94301          1 Brettle, Jessica From:Morgan Bell <morgan@yourlocalsecurity.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 1, 2019 2:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Foothill College ranked safest college campus in California [New Report] Hello,     Have you had a chance to look at our latest report on the 25 safest colleges in the nation? Let us know if you'd like a  breakdown of the data for your alma mater. Badges are available upon request for the top 25 colleges in the nation  overall, as well as the top college in each state.     Here is our media kit, or you can check out the full report here.     Thanks,     Morgan Bell | Communications | Your Local Security  morgan@yourlocalsecurity.com  www.yourlocalsecurity.com    ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  Hi City Council,    According to a new report released by the safety experts at Your Local Security, Foothill College not only ranked as the  safest college campus in California, but is also the #3 safest college campus in America. Congratulations!     Our analysts calculated several different factors to determine campus safety, including hate crime, property crime,  violent crime, and violence against women. Thanks to your efforts, Foothill College is leading the nation in ensuring that  students can further their education in a safe and secure environment!    If you’re interested in receiving a custom‐made badge honoring your school’s achievement, please reply back to this  email, or email us at media@yourlocalsecurity.com.     Click here to read the full report.    Access our media kit here, which includes our methodology, citation guidelines, and high resolution images that you can  use.     2     About Your Local Security: YourLocalSecurity.com—an ADT Authorized Premier Provider—aims to provide the security  tools and information needed to build a safer home environment.      Thanks,    Morgan Bell | Communications | Your Local Security  morgan@yourlocalsecurity.com  www.yourlocalsecurity.com   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Paul Lazarow <plazarow@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 7, 2019 12:21 AM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park Dear City Council,    I am a Palo Alto resident and I understand that the Parks and Recreation Commission is studying a range of options to  open Foothills Park to non‐Palo Alto residents and I would like to express my support for that process.  As a community,  Palo Alto should be analyzing and advancing a plan to provide additional access to Foothills Park, particularly for  underserved communities in our area.    Thank you very much for your consideration.    Best,  Paul Lazarow  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Shelly Goldberg <shelly.goldberg@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 1, 2019 9:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:      As a Palo Alto resident, I have long been concerned about restricting Foothills Park to Palo Alto residents only.  I  graduated from Stanford in 2004 and always strived to move to Palo Alto, which I was finally able to do more than a  decade later.  And while I love the Palo Alto community, I’m dismayed by the disconnect between our community’s  values and the message we are sending to our neighbors — particularly our neighbors and youth from underserved  communities — with the “residents only” policy.  I encourage you to study opening the park to communities  outside Palo Alto and look forward to a thoughtful dialogue to promote our city’s role in the Bay Area ecosystem.        Thanks for your consideration,  Shelly Goldberg  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kelly Wilson <kwilson477@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 7, 2019 9:59 PM To:Council, City Cc:senator.wiener@senate.ca.gov; info@scottwiener.com Subject:Housing and Office Space Crisis in Palo Alto Earlier today, I was at a coffee shop in Palo Alto and we happened to be sitting next to a table with a 3 person startup  that has come to Silicon Valley to pursue their dreams.    They are smart, kind and the future leaders of our community.    But 2 of the 3 are homeless.    1 lives temporarily with a friend on their couch.    1 lives in another startup's office.    1 is married and his wife works for a local business. They rent a 2 BR apartment with a roommate and don't plan to have  children because they can't afford to purchase a home.    I also learned they have great difficulty finding office space. When a garage costs a million dollars, we aren't going to see startups born in garages.    Startups are not the same as Facebook, Google and others gobbling up commercial real estate.    Instead, startups are literally starting and can afford very little. Even co‐working spaces are very expensive. Their 3  person startup would cost at least $1600 to sit in a shared space with others, not an office of their own.    We can debate how we got into this situation, who's fault is the housing crisis, Prop 13, NIMBY's, YIMBY's and if  solutions like SB50 go far enough.    We can also kill the future...drive away startups and eventually the Silicon Valley ecosystem, but also make it impossible  for our children to live in their own communities as prices skyrocket.    I encourage you all to support SB50 because it's a step in the right direction, even if it doesn't do as much as I wish.    However, in the meantime, I would like to see Palo Alto do the following:    1. Kill height limits in exchange for mandatory mixed‐use structures that include housing, office, parking and a portion of  both housing and office deemed "affordable." This not only would better utilize land, but also generate more  opportunities for open space and less need for commute with mixed‐use. Start with clusters of areas with taller  buildings if needed for those allergic to height.    For those that believe in limiting growth because of lame excuses like traffic, then have the integrity to ban ALL growth,  including any single‐family homes, anyone from having children, anyone moving into a shared unit, any students and any  new customers for local business.    In other words, if "growth" is the problem, then it shouldn't just be against new housing, but ALL housing.  2   2. We don't talk about the office space crisis as much as the housing crisis, but it's just as bad. We should insist that  commercial developments have a plan to incorporate space for startups and small business.    3. For those afraid of "change" for Palo Alto, it's already changing by failing to embrace growth. If we continue the  policies of the past, we will phase out families, startups, small business and the customers needed to support our local  economy. It's bass ackwards policy.    Forward‐thinking policy recognizes that every community must change. Every community must have tall buildings (yes,  even skyscrapers). The capacity of the region is easily able to handle much more housing, office and people, but it takes  solutions that think differently. No more single‐use development and maybe a ban on single‐family homes.    Even if you don't care about the startup, do you care about the children who grew up here? How will they afford to live  in this community?    At some point, we have to either solve this crisis or declare Palo Alto closed for life.    Please start with supporting SB50 and boldly change the policies of this community so we lead the region's solutions  instead of being known as the community that stood in the way.    Kelly Wilson  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Angela Dellaporta <asdellaporta@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 7, 2019 4:16 PM To:Council, City Cc:Summa, Doria; holzemer/hernandez; Kirsten Flynn; Reckdahl, Keith Subject:NVCAP Working Group requests Dear City Council,     At the most recent NVCAP Working Group meeting (April 17), we five members of the working group made some  proposals that would provide us the information and time we need to collaborate as a group and to find consensus on a  widely satisfying design for the NVCAP area.  We have learned that some of these proposals require City Council  approval or direction, and we would like to suggest that, in the interests of efficiency, these proposals be approved as  soon as possible.     1.  According to the schedule that we have been given, there are only 4 more meetings of the Working Group before  we must come to consensus on a design to present to the city council. However, the Working Group has yet to be given  the time for a consensus‐finding discussion about any of the following subjects: Density; Historic and Cultural  Preservation; Building Height; Parking, Walking and Biking; Open Space; use of the creek. Nor have we yet received the  detailed information that will be necessary to have these discussions.  (As a comparison, the SOFA II Working Group was  given an extensive Existing Conditions Report before meetings even began.)     To have the comprehensive discussions, with in‐depth information, necessary to create a design that will satisfy local  residents and other stakeholders, we will need to schedule more meetings. These meetings might have to take place  after the current deadline, or they could possibly be scheduled into the current timetable, at a rate of two or three per  month instead of just one per month.  This is partly dependent on the VTA grant, but changing our schedule will also  require City Council approval.        2. One of the most important issues that the Working Group (and the city council) must grapple with is the reduction of  car trips even as the number of residents increases.  If we are to expect a large increase in the number of elementary  school students in our neighborhood, we must consider creating a new school on our side of El Camino to reduce car  trips (since parents generally will not send their elementary school children to cross El Camino by themselves, and  instead will drive them).  A school on our side of El Camino (and our side of Alma) could allow parents to feel confident  sending their children off to school on their bicycles.  However, without a member of the school board on the working  group, it is difficult for us to get the information we need to make decisions about this issue.  There is a member of the  school board eager to participate in the process.  We'd like the city council to appoint a member of the school board to  the working group.      3. The SOFA II process was such a great success partly because ‐‐ learning from the SOFA I process ‐‐ they elected co‐ chairs (one from among residents and one from among property developers) to act as liaisons with city staff to help set  the agenda and agree on communication needs.  It certainly makes sense to follow the lead of such a successful process  ‐‐ yet we have been told that the election of co‐chairs would require the approval of the city council.  We'd like the city  council to take a lesson from past experience and approve elected co‐chairs for the working group.      Sincerely,   Doria Summa  Terry Holzemer  Kirsten Flynn  Keith Reckdahl  2 Angela Dellaporta     1 Brettle, Jessica From:TC Rindfleisch <tcr@stanford.edu> Sent:Saturday, May 4, 2019 1:18 PM To:CPNA; Council, City; SFCJPA Board & Staff; Len Materman; DSFNA; Gary Kremen; Jean McCown; Tom Zigterman Subject:[PA WEEKLY] Preventing the Next Creek Flood Disaster Friends, with the publication of the SFCJPA Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for San Francisquito flood control  above the recently completed Hwy 101 to bay reach, and the expected publication of a DEIR from the City of Palo Alto  for Newell Road bridge upgrades, we are reaching a decisive point in achieving a realistic and practical solution to  pressing SFC flooding problems affecting Crescent Park and surrounding communities. You can view and download the  SFC DEIR from the homepage of the SFCJPA (see the blue box on the home page).  To provide more background, I participated in a Palo Alto Weekly Behind the Headlines web video interview yesterday to discuss the history of what has led to the current plan. It is available on YouTube at this link.  I urge you to (re)familiarize yourselves with the issues and to support the proposed plan for SFC flood control in  whatever way you can ‐‐ spread the word, participate in the upcoming public meetings designed to describe and discuss  the plan, write to the City Council (<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>) and the SFCJPA board (<jpa@sfcjpa.org>), and  review the SFCJPA website (http://sfcjpa.org/) for more background information.  Thanks in advance for your involvement.   Tom R.  Upcoming Community Meetings  Between April 22 and June 19, 2019, we welcome your comments on the Draft EIR, by e‐mail to  comments@sfcjpa.org, by mail to SFCJPA, 615 B Menlo Avenue, Menlo Park, CA 94025, or in person at  one of our three public hearings at the following dates and times:    Thursday, May 23  7:00‐8:30 pm  Laurel School Upper Campus Atrium  275 Elliott Drive  Menlo Park, CA    Wednesday, May 29  7:00‐8:30 pm  East Palo Alto City Hall Community Room  2415 University Avenue  East Palo Alto, CA        Wednesday, June 5  7:00‐8:30 pm  Palo Alto Art Center Auditorium  1313 Newell Road  Palo Alto, CA  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ellen Smith <ef44smith@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 6, 2019 10:08 AM To:Council, City Subject:Possibilities for El Camino Conversation opened. 1 read message. I would assume you are aware of this meeting. I would really like to see Palo Alto join in this effort. There are stretches of El Camino between Page Mill and San Antonio that would seem prime opportunities for sensible combined development of housing, retail, and other commercial uses at higher densities along an established transit corridor. Ellen Smith 1469 Dana Ave Ever Imagined What El Camino Real COULD be? El Camino Real is the thread that unifies the San Francisco Peninsula and Silicon Valley. Connecting 18 core communities (including 8 in Santa Clara County), ECR is the overlooked heart of the region. Yet ECR is also the key to the future of Silicon Valley. The last decade has seen the decline of strip retail and the repositioning of scattered retail sites into vibrant mixed-use communities. If we can take advantage of El Camino Real’s 1600 acres, we could yield homes for up to 160,000 families on El Camino Real in the next four decades. If only 15% of these potential homes are affordable, we could provide housing for 24,000 of our most vulnerable families. Today, ECR functions as a divider, both physically and politically. It is a monoculture designed around the automobile and hostile to residents with different abilities and those who require alternative modes of transportation. 2 How can we rethink El Camino Real from a corridor serving the most vehicles per hour to one centered around serving the most people? How do we make the precious space of the El Camino corridor work for residents of all incomes? Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara are currently articulating community visions and planning their pieces of the corridor. The jurisdictional approach is achieving fast results on the ground, but will a patchwork of separate regulations driven by local politics achieve a cohesive vision? How will regional concerns such as transportation be integrated across borders? Our panel will grapple with these questions as they articulate the future of our most historic road. Panelists: 1. Rick Williams (Co-founder and Partner, Van Meter Williams Pollack LLP Architecture and Urban Design) 2. Eric Anderson (Senior City Planner, City of Mountain View: El Camino Real Precise Plan) 3. Jan Stokely (Executive Director, Housing Choices Coalition) 4. Kendra Rowley (Fehr & Peers) Moderator: Elaine Uang (Project Architect at Van Meter Williams Pollack LLP) Date And Time: Fri, May 10, 2019 1:00 PM – 2:30 PM PDT Location: Mountain View Public LIbrary 585 Franklin Street Mountain View, CA 94041     1 Brettle, Jessica From:TIFFANY <tfinley48@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, May 4, 2019 10:52 AM To:Council, City Subject:Regarding Newell/chauser bridge and Euclid/Manhattan Apartment Project in EPA Hi. My name is Tiffany Finley‐Souza and I've lived in the willow community pretty much all my life. I have seen it change  from the worse.   I heard about these two projects and wondered if Menlo Park Counsel Board ever communicate to EPA and to Palo Alto  about the plans. I understand the bridge issue, but that project needs to take atleast 3‐4 months to do and needs to be  in the summer time. Both bridges are detours to getting into different cities and commute is faster. I'm sure you thought  this through with the chauser/pope bridge, but with this bridge you need to think carefully. This undergoing project on  that bridge will impact a ton of traffic on Middlefield, willow, woodland, university, Hamilton, and all other major streets  and not to mention the 101 freeway. The willow crazy traffic will get worse if doing this bridge project. Is it really so  necessary to do or you just want to replace it, because you think it's old. We are not having any flooding problems since  you fixed this issue couple years ago. I think the smaller hold of under the bridge is better, because it won't allow any  broken trees or branches to get through and be stuck. You will have a ton of angry drivers if doing atleast the  chauser/pope bridge. I think the Newall bridge can be fixed without problems.     About the apartment idea in EPA. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/12/19/hundreds‐of‐new‐housing‐units‐ proposed‐in‐east‐palo‐alto I think MP counsel should consult with EPA and PA counsel about this. Adding more buildings  for apartments/hotels in a crowded and peaceful area will cause heavier traffic, need to build more laundry places,  markets, and dont forget more roads. To build more buildings and take down the old ones to make more units is to have  more roads. Why not build an on/off ramp from Manhatton Ave and reopen Oak ct and another street near Oak c.f. to  make a connection to the woodland rd. Since EPA is planning to demolish some apartments on Euclid ave then build a  road to replace the building or make woodland 2 lanes each way instead of one. I personally believe the city should have  a roght to tell property owners when enough is enough with the building. Thankyou for reading. I hope you did, because  it's long. However, I and the Willow community says no to the bridge and apartment building.   Now to concentrate on building more roads and car access near the Dumbarton bridge. You know that is a freeway  project to look into.     Sincerely, Tiffany Fimley‐Souza      Sent from Xfinity Connect Application  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sven Thesen <sventhesen@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 2, 2019 8:39 AM To:Council, City; David Coale; Hodge, Bruce; Bret Andersen Cc:Madeline Rose; Zoe Wong-VanHaren; Diane Bailey; Debbie Mytels; Chris Corvetti Subject:Invite - Time Change, Saturday Breakfast at Svens, 8:00-9:30 Induction Stove Demonstration & Your Gas Stove Is Bad for You and the Planet Understanding that a number of council members have other activities on Saturday morning, breakfast/ home tour is  now 8:00‐9:30.     My goal is to actively demonstrate that we can have the American lifestyle with all its creature comforts in a low energy/  no carbon/ gas free  house that's also cheaper to construct and operate than a gas‐electric home.  Further, my wife, the  medical doctor, would argue that letting go of the gas stove was not only much healthier (indoor air quality)  and safety  (probability & degree of burns) for the family but also more convenient in the cooking and stove cleaning.     If you are unable to make this Saturday morning, you all are welcome to tour the home at your individual (& family's)  convenience.  We are leaving for a year in Spain mid this summer  so would prefer if it's in the next 2 months.   You and  your family are welcome to come for dinner (cooked on the induction stove), a weekend breakfast or just a tour.  To  date, over 3,000 people have toured the home, so don't worry, this not out of the unusual and it's important!    Please RSVP    Where: ProjectGreenHome 314 Stanford Ave P‐A  When, Saturday May 4th, 8:00‐9:30am     Best,  Sven    On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 3:34 PM Sven Thesen <sventhesen@gmail.com> wrote:  Palo Alto City Council Members, Your Friends and Family and particularly Liz Kniss and her husband* are all invited to my home for Saturday breakfast 8:30-10 am & all cooked on electric induction. The focus will be scrambled eggs & omelets, pancakes & eggs Benedict if anyone is up for the making. Please RSVP as I would hate to run out of something.     In addition, be prepared to discuss this article:    Your Gas Stove Is Bad for You and the Planet https://nyti.ms/2VCHUZD    And, for those interested, will do a home tour of ProjectGreenHome.org    Where: ProjectGreenHome 314 Stanford Ave P‐A  When, Saturday May 4th, 8:30am‐10am     Best,  Sven    *Rumor has it that Liz's husband is a most excellent cook and is concerned over giving up his gas stove top.  I hope to  show him (and all the attendees) how safe convenient and functional induction cooking is.      2     ‐‐   Sven Thesen,  415‐225‐7645  EV Consultant & Founder, ProjectGreenHome.org and BeniSolSolar.com; Wonder Junkie  __________________________________________________   Electric Cars are Cheaper than Cell Phones!  See:   http://www.projectgreenhome.org/articles.html        ‐‐   Sven Thesen,  415‐225‐7645  EV Consultant & Founder, ProjectGreenHome.org and BeniSolSolar.com; Wonder Junkie  __________________________________________________   Electric Cars are Cheaper than Cell Phones!  See:   http://www.projectgreenhome.org/articles.html  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Grant Dasher <grant.dasher@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 6, 2019 8:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:SB50 Dear Council‐‐    Thank you for the discussion at today's meeting around state legislation, including the ever‐controversial SB50.  I wanted  to correct one thing I said in my 2 minute commentary.  It was pointed out to me afterwords that when I said the law  would have modest effect on R‐1 neighborhoods due to the limits on the quadplex provision to redevelopment, this  didn't account for the likely designation of the city as "jobs‐rich".    This was an oversight on my part due to working off my very brief notes.  The point that I was trying to make was even  the "jobs‐rich" designation is unlikely to change the essential character of the neighborhoods not near transit.  Indeed,  the relevant part of the proposed law only preempts density limits, not other development standards.  As I understand  things, the city would (and likely will) be able to use other standards like FAR, height, daylight plane, etc to limit the  mass of buildings built in residential communities in non‐transit oriented areas.    We have many examples of duplexes, quads, ADUs, etc which are built into residential neighborhoods zoned R‐1 with  minimal "impact" on their essential character.   Surely this kind of development is a useful way to house more people  near their jobs?  We also have lots of very small lots.    Apologies for the, in my view, minor, misstatement I made.  Given that I feel there is a lot of fear‐mongering going on  about this legislation, I felt an obligation to correct the misstatement I made this evening.      I believe the other points I made about our moral obligation to play a role in hitting regional housing goals and the need  to build housing near jobs still stand, though I recognize my views are not universally held and that I'm not likely to  convince anyone on these things!    Thank you again for your service to the community,    ‐‐Grant  1 Brettle, Jessica From:John Kelley <jkelley@onrisk.com> Sent:Monday, May 6, 2019 5:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Study Session on Housing: I urge you to support constructing both substantially more and more affordable housing in Palo Alto Re: May 6, 2019, Agenda Item 3, Joint Study Session of the City Councils of Palo Alto, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto  Regarding Housing and Other 2019 State Legislation  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, and City Council Members,  Due to prior personal commitments, I will not be able to attend tonight’s City Council meeting, but I urge you to  take an expansive and sympathetic view of pending California housing legislation.  California’s housing deficit is astoundingly great and requires prompt, decisive action.  Given the complexities of  the devastating housing crisis we confront, a sensible legislative approach must simultaneously address the interrelated  goals of (a) constructing both substantially more and more affordable housing, (b) expanding protections for renters,  and (c) preserving vulnerable communities.  There are many pending housing bills in the California legislature, and, as  those bills progress through both chambers, it is likely that they will be amended further and that they will ultimately be  voted upon with reference to one another.  As you learn about and discuss the different pending bills, I encourage you  to consider how they ultimately be adopted in one or more comprehensive legislative packages.  To date Palo Alto has by no means done enough to encourage the development of considerably more housing in  our city.  An important lesson that one could draw from the current legislative agenda is that if individual cities were to  face up to the housing crisis and to act more ambitiously and aggressively, then there would be less need for state  legislation to meet the housing crisis head on.  SB50 has received considerable attention, but its potential effects on Palo Alto have been overstated and the  significance of other legislation has been underappreciated.  SB50 has already been changed through its initial hearings,  and it will likely change further.  Even if it were to be enacted in its present form, it would likely affect only a small  number of sites near Caltrain, where transit‐oriented development would be appropriate and welcomed.  Other bills,  including legislation introduced by State Senator Bob Wieckowski to facilitate the construction of ADUs, also have the  potential to expand housing availability in Palo Alto.  In addition, while I have not yet seen any specific legislation, I  understand that elected officials in Sacramento are considering changes to the state treatment of taxation concerning  opportunity zones, which could possibly make available additional capital for construction of desperately needed new  housing in our city.  Respectfully submitted,   John Kelley    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Carol Szymanski <carol@theconnection.com> Sent:Thursday, May 2, 2019 9:40 AM To:Council, City Subject:Veto tunnel option Dear City Council Members:    Please remove the tunnel option from the railroad grade crossing issue.  The cost of 3 to 4 billion dollars is prohibitive  and would entail years of construction.  Homes on Alma would be lost due to eminent domain and access to Alma from Lincoln Avenue would be blocked.     Thank you,    Carol Szymanski  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jim Hertwig <jim_hertwig@hotmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 3, 2019 10:31 AM To:Council, City Subject:Visiting Palo Alto??? Why would anyone want to visit Palo Alto?    If one were anxious to be attacked, beaten, and abused by the police, I guess your city would be a wonderful place to  fulfill those dreams.    Gustavo Alvarez certainly has reason to be proud of being a resident.  Your police are wonderfully accommodating to  him, breaking into his home, beating him till he bled, lost a tooth, and then arresting him.  His alleged crime?  Driving  with a suspended license.  Certainly that is a heinous crime, and deserves the roughest treatment available.     Get real!!!      Jim Hertwig  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 7, 2019 9:34 AM To:Sara Cody; Gavin Newsom Subject:Vit. A can reduce Measles Risk FROM: Children’s Health Defense Led by Robert F.Kennedy, Jr., Atty. MAY 02, 2019 A Dozen Facts About Measles That You Won’t Learn From MSPharmedia (Links removed; for references see Childrenshealthdefense.org) “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~H.L. Mencken -----------7. MMR vaccine seizure rate 5 times that of having measles! 4. Vitamin A can reduce this risk of getting measles by over 80%. 10. MMR vaccine rarely provides lifetime Immunity---------------- By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman of the Board, Children’s Health Defense So, let’s settle down, people!!! Remember: America is supposed to be “Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.” Pharma and its media shills are working at turning us into “Land of the Cowed, Home of the Slave.” A DOZEN FACTS ABOUT MEASLES that you won’t learn from MSPharmedia: 1) Measles is usually a mild, self-limiting childhood illness. 2) Since 2000, there have been nine reported measles deaths in the U.S. Since 1986, there have been 415 deaths associated with the MMR vaccine according to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. (a government agency) 3) In 1962, the CDC attributed 408 deaths to measles out of a population of 186 million (risk=2/1,000,000—about double the risk of dying from lightning). 4) The risk of measles mortality is much higher among malnourished children; contemporary science suggests that vitamin A can reduce this risk by over 80%. 5) “Natural” vitamin A cannot be patented so Pharma has no interest in promoting it. 6) Unlike Merck’s MMR vaccine, wild measles infection confers lifetime immunity from measles. Having measles in childhood may also reduce the risk of atopic disease, heart disease, Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas and some other cancers. 7) Meanwhile, the MMR is associated with seizure rates five times greater than associated with wild measles, as well as brain damage, encephalitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis and dozens of other serious adverse events. 8) Half the kids in Merck’s clinical studies suffered serious gastrointestinal problems within 42 days of the jab. 9) Merck’s MMR vaccine provides meager maternal antibodies to protect infants in their first year when they are too young for the vaccine, putting babies at risk for brain damage and death. 10) Contrary to Merck’s promise, the MMR rarely provides lifetime immunity, putting postpubescent adults at heightened risk for serious injury or death. 11) According to Lancet Infectious Diseases, measles has become more severe in infant and adult cohorts as vaccine- based immunity wanes leaving adults unprotected and infants vulnerable due to loss of passive immunity from mothers. 12) Similarly, instead of providing the promised lifetime immunity, the mumps component of the MMR, simply delays mumps infections until after puberty when it can cause sterility in men and women. 2 For References, see. Childrenshealthdefense.org For free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission. ---------Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com- ----- 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Friday, May 3, 2019 4:57 PM To:Brettle, Jessica Cc:Minor, Beth; Atkinson, Rebecca; Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:RE: Wireless Resolution, amended Ordinance and Motions Hi Jessica, Thanks very much. As I understand it, with the staff report below, I now have the final texts of the Resolution, the amended Wireless Ordinance and Mr. DuBois’s Motion (with amendments). Now all I need to know is any differences between these documents and the documents Council and the public considered—and Council approved—on April 15th, 2019. Please let me know if my understanding is not correct. Otherwise, I look forward to hearing from the folks in the Planning Department. As always, I appreciate your help. Regards to you, Jeanne JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151   From: Brettle, Jessica <Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 4:02 PM  To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>  Cc: Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>; French,  Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: RE: Wireless Resolution, amended Ordinance and Motions    Hello Jeanne,    Thank you for following up. I did receive your email below. I am not familiar with the content of the Resolution and what  was changed between the version presented to the City Council and the final version that was signed, so I forwarded  your request to members of Planning Staff (Rebecca Atkinson and Amy French) who are familiar with these documents  and can help you. I have copied them on this email.     Also, the second reading of the Ordinance has been scheduled for the May 13, 2019 City Council meeting. The full Staff  Report can be viewed here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71085.     Please let me know if I can help with anything else.     2 Sincerely,  Jessica       Jessica Brettle   Assistant City Clerk  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  Phone: (650) 329‐2630    Email: Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org              From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>   Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2019 3:55 PM  To: Brettle, Jessica <Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: FW: Wireless Resolution, amended Ordinance and Motions    Hi Jessica, I just want to make sure you received my email below. As you know, United Neighbors is just trying to confirm that we know exactly what Council’s decisions on April 15, 2019 were with respect to the wireless Resolution, the amendments to the Wireless Ordinance, Mr. DuBois’s Motion, and Ms. Kou’s and Mr. Fine’s Amendments to that Motion. If it is more convenient for you, I would be happy to come by your office to compare the texts of the documents we have with the texts of the documents your office is preparing for City Council to consider in a Second Reading. From what you’ve said, this should not take much time. As always, please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks and best, Jeanne JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>   Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 3:25 PM  To: 'Brettle, Jessica' <Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: RE: Wireless Resolution, amended Ordinance and Motions    Hi Jessica, Thanks very much for this. 3 Would you please indicate what—in terms of the text of the Resolution—is different in this document compared to the document Council and the public saw on April 15th? Low tech is fine (e.g., draw a circle around what’s different, scan the page(s) with changes, and send them to me). We could do this by phone, too, if that’s easier for you. Please let me know if you have any questions. Jeanne JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 From: Brettle, Jessica <Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 11:57 AM  To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>  Cc: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: RE: Wireless Resolution, amended Ordinance and Motions    Jeanne,    Please see attached for the signed Resolution. The Ordinance is still being updated. Once I have that document, I will  send it your way.    Have a nice afternoon,  Jessica       Jessica Brettle   Assistant City Clerk  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  Phone: (650) 329‐2630    Email: Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org          From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>   Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 3:23 PM  To: Brettle, Jessica <Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City  <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian  <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom  <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia  <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Architectural Review Board  <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: RE: Wireless Resolution, amended Ordinance and Motions    Dear Jessica Brettle, Thank you for responding. I appreciate your help. 4 I look forward to reading the materials you have sent, and perhaps asking you a question or two once I have. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming   Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151     From: Brettle, Jessica <Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 3:03 PM  To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>  Cc: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: RE: Wireless Resolution, amended Ordinance and Motions    Hi Jeanne,    I wanted to follow up and clarify that the Resolution being circulated for signature includes changes to a few typos, and  the Ordinance being prepared for second reading is being updated to include the changes presented by Staff at the  meeting.     Once we have both of those documents, we will provide them to you.     Sincerely,  Jessica       Jessica Brettle   Assistant City Clerk  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  Phone: (650) 329‐2630    Email: Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org          From: Brettle, Jessica   Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 2:47 PM  To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>  Cc: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: RE: Wireless Resolution, amended Ordinance and Motions    Hello Jeanne,     I have attached the Action Minutes from the April 15, 2019 City Council meeting, which includes the full set of minutes  for the Wireless item. This are being put in front of the Council for final approval on May 6, 2019.     The final Staff Report on the Wireless Item can be found here:  https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70193  5   The At‐Places Memo which was attached to the report is located here:  https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=65751.73&BlobID=70529    The Resolution and Ordinance as they appear in the Staff Report are the exact documents Council considered at the  meeting. The Resolution is being circulated for signature and we can provide the final version to you once it has been  signed. The amended Ordinance is still being drafted for second reading at a future Council meeting. You should see that  document at a future meeting soon.     I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thank you.    Sincerely,  Jessica       Jessica Brettle   Assistant City Clerk  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  Phone: (650) 329‐2630    Email: Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org      From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>   Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 9:24 AM  To: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Wireless Resolution, amended Ordinance and Motions    Dear Mr. Yang, I would appreciate it if you would please: 1. Give me a copy of the Resolution and amended Wireless Ordinance that Council approved on April 15, 2019. I have, of course, a copy of the Resolution and amended Ordinance as they appeared in the electronic file that accompanied the Council Agenda for Item 7 on April 15, 2019 and was released before the meeting. But I want to be certain that it is these specific documents that Council was considering when they approved the Resolution and amended Ordinance on the 15th. In other words, I want to be certain that I have in hand final documents that include any changes that may have been made to the documents between when they were released to the public and when Council approved them. 2. Give me a copy of the final Staff Report for this item. 3. Give me a copy of Mr. DuBois’s Motion exactly as it was passed, of Ms. Kou’s Amendment to Mr. DuBois’s Motion exactly as it was passed, and of Mr. Fine’s Amendment to Mr. DuBois’s Motion exactly as it was passed. I would like to confirm that we know exactly what Council’s decisions were. Thank you for your help. And please let me know if you have any questions. 6 Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 Dear Mayor and Council Members, Good evening, thank you for the opportunity to tell you about the L TC Ombudsman Program at Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County, also to thank the City of Palo Alto for your past and continued support of the Ombudsman Program. The Ombudsman is the Advocate for the most vulnerable citizens of your city -those who live in Nursing Homes and Assisted Living Facilities. We advocate for the dignity, rights and needs of seniors and disabled. This is an unduplicated service in Santa Clara County -no other program has 2417 access to residents in facilities. All are required by law to report abuse to the Ombudsman program. (all have our posters in their facilities -phone number large). The main function of the Program is to investigate and to resolve complaints made by or on behalf of residents related to issues of quality of care and abuse. Ombudsmen protect and help improve the quality of care and quality of life. Living in a long term care facility is often not the first choice for anyone. Many seniors and disabled adults have NO option but to live in a facility and for this reason it is very important that their rights are protected. The presence of L TC Ombudsmen in itself improves quality of care and life of all residents by giving a voice to those seniors and providing an advocate for their needs and concerns. The Ombudsman Program is authorized by the Federal & State Older Americans Act. In essence, we investigate ELDER ABUSE, resolve complaints, ~' give referrals and witness Advance Health Care Directives ... all our services are FREE to residents and their family/friends. We partner with other agencies ie. Silicon Valley Independent Living Center, SALA, Next Door Solutions, Police and Sherriff Departments, Adult Protective Services, and Licensing for the facilities, to name a few. Draft of Action Plan: mentions seniors in relation to housing concerns and supportive services. L TC facilities are the homes of many seniors and facilitie{often try to discharge seniors because the family may be a problem or they prefer private pay over Medi-Cal reimbursement. The Ombudsman most often can stop the discharg7e if we are notified in time allowing the senior to stay in their "home." - Actual Palo Alto facilities and residents: • 4 Nursing Homes+ 8 RCFEs (Assisted Living Facilities+ 6-Bed Board & Care) • We services 1,255 residents in Palo Alto facilities • City of Palo Alto: 1 Staff 2't\~ .-. .-. n 0 "ti c ~ iii" ~. ~n < .... (1) -c.. (1) ~ O' 's: ii :.l 's: a. (b ::> !l aq -· ::> ac:i I ~~, ~TING -,J [ ] Pl . ·Before Meeting .f [Zed at Meeting : f