HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190527plCC 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: 05/27/2019
Document dates: 05/08/2019 – 05/15/2019
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Sent:Sunday, May 12, 2019 11:14 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:NY Times report on Russian disinformation about 5G safety
Attachments:nyt-5g.pdf
Honorable Councilmembers:
Since the issue of 5G wireless towers has been before the council a number of times recently, I thought today's article in
the New York Times (attached) would be of interest to you.
The Times is reporting that Russia Today is escalating its reporting of claims of health threats from 5G technology,
although those claims lack scientific support. Analysts quoted in the article view this as an economic warfare campaign
to undermine US efforts in 5G technology.
‐David
‐‐
L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.
‐ Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
RT America, a network known for sowing disinformation, has a new alarm: the coming ‘5G Apocalypse.’
By William J. Broad
May 12, 2019
The cellphones known as 5G, or fifth generation, represent the vanguard of a wireless era rich in
interconnected cars, factories and cities. Whichever nation dominates the new technology will gain a
competitive edge for much of this century, according to many analysts. But a television network a few
blocks from the White House has been stirring concerns about a hidden flaw.
“Just a small one,” a TV reporter told her viewers recently. “It might kill you.”
The Russian network RT America aired the segment, titled “A Dangerous ʻExperiment on Humanity,’”
in covering what its guest experts call 5G’s dire health threats. U.S. intelligence agencies identified the
network as a principal meddler in the 2016 presidential election. Now, it is linking 5G signals to brain
cancer, infertility, autism, heart tumors and Alzheimer’s disease — claims that lack scientific support.
Yet even as RT America, the cat’s paw of Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, has been doing its best to
stoke the fears of American viewers, Mr. Putin, on Feb. 20, ordered the launch of Russian 5G networks in
a tone evoking optimism rather than doom.
“We need to look forward,” he said, according to Tass, the Russian news agency. “The challenge for the
upcoming years is to organize universal access to high-speed internet, to start operation of the fifth-
generation communication systems.”
Analysts see RT’s attack on 5G as geopolitically bold: It targets a new world of interconnected, futuristic
technologies that would reach into consumers’ homes, aid national security and spark innovative
industries. Already, medical firms are linking up devices wirelessly to create new kinds of health
treatments.
“It’s economic warfare,” Ryan Fox, chief operating officer of New Knowledge, a technology firm that
tracks disinformation, said in an interview. “Russia doesn’t have a good 5G play, so it tries to undermine
and discredit ours.”
5G is also a growing point of friction between Washington and Beijing, with each side lining up allies in
what has become a major technology race. Moscow and Beijing are seen as possibly forming a 5G
political bloc.
Your 5G Phone Wonʼt Hurt You. But Russia
Wants You to Think Otherwise.
The Kremlin “would really enjoy getting democratic governments tied up in fights over 5G’s
environmental and health hazards,” said Molly McKew, head of Fianna Strategies, a consulting firm in
Washington, D.C., that seeks to counter Russian disinformation.
RT’s assaults on 5G technology are rising in number and stridency as the American wireless industry
begins to erect 5G systems. In March, Verizon said its service will soon reach 30 cities.
RT America aired its first program assailing 5G’s health impacts last May, its only one in 2018. Already
this year, it has run seven. The most recent, on April 14, reported that children exposed to signals from
5G cellphone towers would suffer cancer, nosebleeds and learning disabilities.
[Like the Science Times page on Facebook.| Sign up for the Science Times newsletter.]
The network distributes its programming by cable, satellite and online streaming. It also posts
individual stories on Facebook and YouTube. A declassified U.S. intelligence report, released early in
2017, said that RT videos on YouTube have averaged 1 million views per day, “the highest among news
outlets.”
Hundreds of blogs and websites appear to be picking up the network’s 5G alarms, seldom if ever noting
the Russian origins. Analysts call it a treacherous fog.
Anna Belkina, RT’s head of communications in Moscow, defended the network’s coverage of 5G. “Unlike
many other media, we show the breadth of debate,” she said in an email exchange.
Asked if Mr. Putin’s promotion of 5G technology in Russia conflicted with the health alarms raised by RT
America, she said the U.S. network focused on local 5G issues, not “the roll-out in Russia.”
“Our American audience expects us to bring American concerns to the front, first and foremost,” Ms.
Belkina said.
The 5G Playbook
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, in the 2017 report, described the network as “the
Kremlin’s principal international propaganda outlet.”The report noted that RT’s most popular video on
Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election campaign stated that 100 percent of the Clintons’ charity “Went
to … Themselves.” The video was viewed more than 9 million times.
Later that year, the national security division of the Justice Department forced RT America, formerly
Russia Today, to register as a foreign agent.
Moscow’s goal, experts say, is to destabilize the West by undermining trust in democratic leaders,
institutions and political life. To that end, the RT network amplifies voices of dissent, to sow discord and
widen social divides. It gives the marginal a megaphone and traffics in false equivalence. Earlier
campaigns took aim at fracking, vaccination and genetically modified organisms. One show called
designer tomatoes “good-looking poison.”
The network is now applying its playbook against 5G by selectively reporting the most sensational
RT television vehicles outside St. Basil's Cathedral and the Kremlin in Moscow. The network has been called "the Kremlin's
principal international propaganda outlet."Mladen Antonov/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
claims, and by giving a few marginal opponents of wireless technology a conspicuous new forum.
All cellphones use radio waves. RT America tends to refer to the signals as “radiations,” seemingly
associating them with the very strong rays at the far end of the electromagnetic spectrum, such as
X-rays and ultraviolet rays, which in high doses can damage DNA and cause cancer.
5Gʼs Place in the Spectrum
The newest generation of cellphones, 5G, will operate near the highest frequencies of the
radio wave spectrum. Its range overlaps with other devices — including a novel class of
health therapies used in Russia and China.
Sources: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Academies of Sciences, National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences, Congressional Research Service, Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers •By The New York Times
But the radio waves used in cellphone communication lie at the opposite end of the spectrum, between
radio broadcasting frequencies and the rainbow colors of visible light.
The frequencies employed in 5G are higher than those of past cellphones, allowing more information to
be relayed more rapidly. Many other devices are expected to follow, including robots, drones and cars
that send traffic information to one another.
Electromagnetic
spectrum
FREQUENCY
300 GHzGAMMA RAYS
Novel EHF therapiesX-RAYS
ULTRAVIOLET
VISIBLE LIGHT
30 GHz
INFRARED Airport scanners
300 GHz 5G
RADIO WAVE
SPECTRUM
3 GHz
Existing cellphones3 KHz
ULTRA LOW
FREQUENCY
Broadcast television (UHF)
300 MHz
Wireless high-speed communication could transform the news industry, sports, shopping,
entertainment, transportation, health care, city management and many levels of government. In
January, The Times announced a joint venture with Verizon to build a 5G journalism lab.
Over the years, plenty of careful science has scrutinized wireless technology for potential health risks.
Virtually all the data contradict the dire alarms, according to public officials, including those at the
World Health Organization.
Opponents of 5G claim the technology’s high frequencies will make the new phones and cell towers
extraordinarily harmful. “The higher the frequency, the more dangerous it is to living organisms,” a RT
reporter told viewers recently.
The truth is exactly the opposite, scientists say. The higher the radio frequency, the less it penetrates
human skin, lowering exposure of the body’s internal organs, including the brain.
“5G emissions, if anything, should be safer than previous generations,” said Dr.Marvin C. Ziskin, a
medical doctor and emeritus professor of radiology and medical physics at the Temple University School
of Medicine.
Health concerns were raised last year when a large federal study showed that 2G signals could produce
brain cancer in male rats.But officials discounted a direct link to humans, saying people received
smaller doses.
Nonetheless, RT has taken an active role in stirring up apprehension, casting the debut of 5G in biblical
terms. The caption superimposed on a January show read, “5G Apocalypse.” The anchor reported that
doctors, scientists and environmental groups were now calling for its ban.
RT America taps the ranks of existing anti-cellular activists to wage its 5G campaign. Some have railed
for decades against cellphones, power lines and other everyday sources of electromagnetic waves.
Much of their work appears not in reputable science journals but little-known reports, publications and
self-published tracts, at times with copious notes of dubious significance. They tend to cite each other’s
research.
It’s unclear how many RT experts realize they are aiding a Russian network or that it acts as Mr. Putin’s
mouthpiece. At times, RT simply mines existing videotape and print materials, editing them to reflect its
perspective. And the intelligence report noted that some network staffers fail to disclose their RT
affiliation when conducting interviews.
Even so, private analysts see the 5G attacks as reaching perhaps millions of online viewers — terrifying
some, infuriating others.
“RT successfully feeds the conspiracy-oriented ecosystem,” said John Kelly, chief executive of Graphika,
a network analytics firm. “This effort is having a real impact. It’s bearing fruit.”
A “Firehose of Falsehood”
RT America began its assault last year with a news show captioned “Wireless Cancer.” The featured
guest was Dr. David O. Carpenter, a prominent 5G critic.
Dr. Carpenter, 82, received his medical degree from Harvard in 1964 and has published hundreds of
scientific papers. For decades, he has warned of cancer risks for people living near high-voltage power
lines, although federal studies have failed to find credible evidence that would support his claims.
“The rollout of 5G is very frightening,” Dr. Carpenter told RT America. “Nobody is going to be able to
escape the radiation.”
Dr. Carpenter’s scariest alarms have been “widely dismissed by scientific bodies the world over,”
according to David Robert Grimes, a cancer researcher at the University of Oxford, and his colleague,
Dorothy V. M. Bishop, also of Oxford. They challenged Dr. Carpenter in a journal article that ran months
before the RT program aired, calling his main claims “scientifically discredited.”
In an interview, Dr. Carpenter defended his work as having “served a major purpose” by revealing a
global health threat. He said he was unaware that he had been featured on RT America. “I speak my
mind to whomever I talk with,” he said.
RT America’s attacks on 5G have multiplied this year. On Jan. 14, the network aired “A Dangerous
ʻExperiment on Humanity,’” which again featured Dr. Carpenter. RT followed a day later with “How to
Screengrabs taken from recent RT America episodes, clips of which are available on YouTube.RT, via YouTube
Survive Dangers of 5G.”
On Feb. 7, a segment claimed that “5G Tech is ʻCrime under International Law.’” Its featured expert was
Arthur Firstenberg, who once charged that a neighbor’s wireless gear had hurt his health. He sued for
$1.43 million in damages but lost after pressing his claim for five years.
The drumbeat continued. “ʻTotally Insane’: Telecomm Industry Ignores 5G Dangers,” was the title of a
segment that aired March 6.
A program on March 14 was aimed squarely at parents: “Could 5G Put More Kids at Risk for Cancer?”
The RT reporter told of a California elementary school that recently churned with fear of radiation from
a nearby cellphone tower, and how angry parents kept home 200 students.
Even as RT America has worked hard to damage 5G, the scientific establishment in Russia has
embraced a contrary and questionable position: that the high frequencies of 5G communications are
actually good for human health. It recommends their use for healing wounds, boosting the immune
system and treating cancer. Millions of Russian patients are said to have undergone such high-
frequency therapies.
President Vladimir V. Putin visits RT's studios in Moscow with editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan in 2013.
Yuri Kochetkov/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Beauty clinics in Moscow use these high frequencies for skin regeneration, according to a scientific
study. One company says the waves can remove wrinkles and fight hair loss.
A Rand study once called RT America’s approach a “Firehose of Falsehood.” For its part, Moscow has
repeatedly denied allegations of meddling in the 2016 presidential election and has strongly defended
RT’s news coverage as socially constructive.
Likewise, RT America strongly defended its position on the potential health risks of 5G technology.
“Nothing I’ve seen says the book is closed,” Rick Sanchez, an RT anchor on many of the 5G episodes,
said in an interview. “I think there’s lots of unanswered questions. Before we commit to something on
this scale, shouldn’t we consider if people could possibly be hurt?”
Mr. Fox, the operations chief of New Knowledge, the technology firm, said the network’s aggressive spin
on 5G suggests Moscow is less interested in serving the public than dulling Washington’s edge in the
global race for the digital future.
“It’s information warfare,” he said.
Additional reporting by Sophia Kishkovsky in Moscow.
Earlier reporting on health misinformation
Russian Trolls Used Vaccine Debate to Sow Discord, Study Finds Aug. 23, 2018
Facebook Announces Plan to Curb Vaccine Misinformation March 7, 2019
Opinion | The Editorial Board
How to Inoculate Against Anti-Vaxxers Jan. 19, 2019
William J. Broad is a science journalist and senior writer. He joined The Times in 1983,
and has shared two Pulitzer Prizes with his colleagues, as well as an Emmy Award and a
DuPont Award. @WilliamJBroad
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent:Monday, May 13, 2019 8:43 AM
To:French, Amy
Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Council, City; Clerk, City; Yang, Albert
Subject:FW: Wireless Resolution, amended Ordinance and Motions - Planning Question to CAO
Dear Ms. French,
I want to be sure that you received the email below, which I sent you last Wednesday, May 8, 2019.
For obvious reasons, I would appreciate it if you would respond to my questions well before City
Council is asked to approve the second reading of the April 15, 2019, wireless Motion, Resolution and
Ordinance this evening.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 3:59 PM
To: 'French, Amy' <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: 'Atkinson, Rebecca' <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>; 'Clerk, City' <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Council,
City' <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: RE: Wireless Resolution, amended Ordinance and Motions ‐ Planning Question to CAO
Dear Ms. French,
Thank you for your response.
Regarding the Resolution: You write that “there were two typos fixed in the Resolution.” I trust this
means that those two fixed typos were the only changes made to the Resolution after it was provided
to the public and Council on April 15, 2019. If I am mistaken—if other changes were made—please
tell me.
Regarding changes to the Ordinance, I would appreciate it if you would confirm that the Staff
Report—and you—are referring to the following changes:
From: “Before an application may be considered complete, the applicant shall provide a proof
of notice affidavit to the city that contains: a) Proof that the applicant noticed and hosted the
community meeting before filing the application; “
2
To: “Applicants are encouraged to host the meeting before submitting an application. Before
an application may be approved, the applicant shall provide a proof of notice affidavit to the city that
contains: a) Proof that the applicant noticed and hosted the community meeting no later than 15 days
after filing the application;”
And finally, are these the only differences between the text of the Ordinance that was submitted to the
public and Council for review on April 15, 2019 and the text of the Ordinance that Council is being
asked to sign off on this coming Monday?
Thank you, as always, for your help.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
From: French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 11:05 PM
To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Cc: Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: FW: Wireless Resolution, amended Ordinance and Motions ‐ Planning Question to CAO
Good evening,
I hope the below information will help your understanding.
There were two typos fixed in the resolution:
1. Resolution Section 5, first line, the word “ordinance” was replaced with “resolution”
2. Resolution Exhibit 2 (Wood Pole Standards), general standard 21, the phrase “existing streetlight locations” was
replaced with “existing wood utility pole locations”
The ordinance was updated from the April 15 packet to incorporate the recommendation in the staff presentation. This
is also explained in the staff report for the second reading:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71085.
From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 4:57 PM
To: Brettle, Jessica <Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Atkinson, Rebecca
<Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City
<city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: RE: Wireless Resolution, amended Ordinance and Motions
Hi Jessica,
3
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.
Sincerely,
Jessica
<image001.jpg> Jessica Brettle
Assistant City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: (650) 329‐2630
Email: Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org
4
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.
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.
5
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
<image001.jpg> 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.
I look forward to reading the materials you have sent, and perhaps asking you a
question or two once I have.
Sincerely,
6
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
<image001.jpg> 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
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
7
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
<image001.jpg> 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.
Sincerely,
8
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
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:Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 8, 2019 3:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Old Palo Alto RPP
Dear City Council,
In advance of your May 13th City Council meeting to discuss RPPs, I want to request you to please accept the PTC and
staff recommendation to immediately begin the community outreach/enagement with an eye towards implementation
of an RPP in the area of Old Palo Alto near the California Ave tunnel by November 1.
As I mentioned a few weeks ago at City Council during oral communications, discussions regarding the parking problem
in this area have been underway for several years. Our RPP petition has a 72% participation rate with over 90% of the
residents in the Old Palo Alto RPP boundaries (as recommended by city staff) signed the petition to get this done.
We are pleased we have unanimous PTC support and hope to get the same from you on May 13th.
Thank you for your help in providing much needed parking relief.
Chris Robell
Old Palo Alto resident
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Shepardwe <shepardwe@aol.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 9, 2019 11:37 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Old Palo Alto RPP
Dear Palo Alto City Council:
I am writing to ask that you please direct city staff to prioritize the implementation of a residential parking program in Old
Palo Alto. We have seen a large increase in traffic and parking in this neighborhood over the last few years. Currently,
we are the only neighborhood within easy walking distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station and California
Avenue business district that provides free parking for commuters and workers. Many cars are parking here all day or
longer on our residential streets and are mixing with children playing in the neighborhood and cyclists using the California
Avenue corridor. These cars are also blocking access for residents and guests to park in front of our own homes and are
causing increased noise all day long and into the night from car doors shutting and car alarms honking and beeping. This
has totally change the character of what was previously a quiet residential neighborhood. Quality of life, privacy and
safety have all taken a hit. Please accept the recommendation of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission
to prioritize the process for implementing a residential parking program for the section of Old Palo Alto that is near the
California Avenue underpass.
Thank you.
WE Shepard
Resident of Old Palo Alto
8 May 2019
To: Palo Alto City Council for enclosure in pre-meeting packet
Dear Council Members,
Our little corner of Old Palo Alto is very pleased that the Planning and
Transportation Commission has prioritized our RPP request. We remain
optimistic that a program may be implemented within this calendar year,
bringing much needed residential parking relief to the Old Palo Alto
streets nearest both to Caltrain and the increasingly lively California
Avenue shopping and dining area.
Your agenda for May 13 contains a discussion of Palo Alto’s RPP
programs. This would seem to be a “big picture” conversation about
regularizing the various existing RPP’s. I’m writing to applaud the
staff work this report represents, and ask that the 90% of us here in our
neighborhood who signed the petition and the 72% of us who have
actively worked to make this happen are part of the Monday discussion.
We are eager for council to direct city staff to begin the necessary
community outreach/data collection to ensure our prioritized RPP
proposal will be implemented no later than November 1st.
Thank you for your consideration!
Yours truly,
Barbara Carlitz
2291 Ramona Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:John L Elman <cigarnut1@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Friday, May 10, 2019 9:52 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Parking in front of my house
Mayor and city officials, please give Green Acres II the same privileges as the Paly area....free permits to park or our
guests to park in front of our homes on school days...I will pay for the printing of tags to hang on the rear view mirrors.
John Elman
4150 Hubbartt Dr.
Sent from my iPad
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Diane <dianeef@comcast.net>
Sent:Saturday, May 11, 2019 1:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:College Terrace parking permit plan
Mayor Filseth and Members of the City Council:
The consultants’ description of the genesis of the program did not reference the impact on the neighborhood from
Stanford staff and student parking in College Terrace, only the impact from the employees of the Research Park on the
other side of the Terrace. This student and staff parking incursion was also the reason for the $100,000. payment from
Stanford to the City as part of the 2000 GUP mitigation required by the County which was earmarked to aid in the
establishment of the College Terrace parking permit program.
Very truly yours,
Diane Finkelstein
2049 Dartmouth Street
Sent from my iPad
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Karen <karenfhw@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 11, 2019 2:21 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Residential Parking Permit program
Hi,
I am a resident of Downtown North. I definitely appreciate that we need the parking permit program to allow residents
to park. However, I’d like to make a suggestion regarding the dispensing of permit/decals.
Since every household should get one decal for free, is it possible to simply send the one decal to each of the home
addresses in the permit zone? For those who have only one car, they shouldn’t have to repeat register. This will save
both the resident’s and clerk time. And for those who have multiple cars, the new decal will serve as a reminder that one
would need to renew their other permits.
I know that there is an attempt from the RPP office to send out a reminder email. However, this year, for some reason,
we didn’t receive one. And because of travels, we simply missed the deadline until we found a ticket on our car.
Obviously, we immediately renewed our permits which we had intended to do all along. Do you have the statistics as to
how many residents forget or miss the deadline to renew, and ended up having to pay for a ticket as well? It just seem
that we are being punished for being residence in the downtown area...
For residents who moved out of the area, since the permits are addressed to the registered individual, one can ask that
mail be returned instead of forwarded to the new address. The new residents to the area should only have to register
once at the RPP office.
Anyway, just thinking of ways to make it easier for the residents and also serve as a physical reminder.
Thanks,
Karen Han
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Mary Dimit <marydimit@sonic.net>
Sent:Sunday, May 12, 2019 11:42 AM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Tanda, Wayne
Subject:5/13/19 Action Item #8: Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members and City Manager Ed Shikada:
Our comments are about Action Item #8: Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program and
concern the report findings in Attachment A: Summary Title of report: Evaluation of the
Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program.
Our residential neighborhoods are not parking lots for business employees. Especially in the
Downtown RPP district, Zones 9 & 10 are clearly not adjacent to the downtown business district
and should remain free of non‐resident permits.
Our two specific concerns relate to Items 3 and 27 of the report's recommendations.
1. Item 3 Engage the Community in Modifications to the Residential Preferential Parking Program
We strongly support the establishment of a stakeholder working group. This group can
provide city staff with feedback and input from both residential and business communities,
resulting in better implementation of the RPP programs.
The report assigns this item for City Council action: "The other recommendation relates to the
engagement of the community including, as an option, the establishment of a working group
with representation from both residents and employers."
2. Item 27 Establish “Parking Availability Standards”
We strongly support reducing the number of employee permits in the Downtown RPP district at
this time instead of postponing this action.
We urge the City Council to continue their policy to reduce employee permit authorization
closer to the actual demand. The latest numbers published in the report indicates that only
828 non‐residential (employee) permits sold. This will also avoid a violation of the City's
Comprehensive Plan which would occur if businesses are benefited at the expense of
residential neighborhoods.
2
With the recently expanded valet parking and current TMA work in the downtown business
core, it is reasonable for the City Council to reduce the maximum number of permit sales to
900 (or up to 1,000, given the criteria below).
From page 12 of the report: "This approach would formalize the past practice of the City in the
Downtown RPP District... Some residents of the Downtown RPP District have suggested that;
(a) the City annually reduce the number of available employee permits, starting from a base of
the actual number of the permits issued in 2018; (b) the City Manager would be authorized to
issue a maximum of 100 permits above this amount after consultation with stakeholders and
approval by City Council; and (c) this process would be done by January of each year so that
adjustments are approved by the City Council before permits go on sale for that year."
Respectfully,
Mary Dimit & Mark Sauer
Palo Alto residents since 1984 & 1990, respectively
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Joan Willingham <joanwillingham@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 12, 2019 1:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:RPP
Dear Council Members,
I understand that the RPP is on the agenda for the meeting this week and I'd like to convey the urgent need to improve
on the process of securing an employee parking permit.
Let me introduce myself and tell you my experiences with the process.
I am a a self employed psychotherapist and my office is in permit Area 5, in a building of which I am the property
owner. Two of the last three permit renewals have been extremely taxing. As, I am sure you know, the application
process for permits begins at 12:01am on a Monday morning. Bad enough to have to stay up past midnight on a Sunday
night to conduct business, but what followed was maddeningly frustrating. By 12:10 am the on‐line system froze in the
middle of my application. It would not process my payment info. For 2 ½ hours I retried. Finally, giving up about 3 am, I
went to get a couple hours sleep. At 6:00 am I got back on‐line, reapplied, and the permits for my area were sold out! I
go in and out of my office frequently during the work week. Having a permit in my area matters.
The second issue has been that once I procured a permit, I was not able to get a Hang Tag. There was an inadequate
number of Hang Tags available. Never in my life, before now, have I put a sticker of any sort on my car. I take pride in
my car and given that it is completely unnecessary, I should have the option of a hang tag.
There are many people who have shared with me that they have had similar experiences and unsatisfying outcomes.
Several weeks ago I scheduled a meeting with Mark Hur and Chantel Gaines and brought my concerns there. I learned
that an expanded computer on‐line capacity is in the works but will be a several year fix. I urge you to enable the RPP
program to come up with a new workable process now. For instance ‐ how about pacing the beginning time of
application by area. That is just an idea, I am sure there must be a creative solution available.
And finally, the 6 month renewal period is too often. It needs to be extended. In our meeting, Mark Hur mentioned an
idea that sounded great ‐ an Automatic Monthly Renewal of Permits.
He explained that this would allow for needed, accurate, data on the number of permits that were actually in use, as
holders who had moved away, or no longer need the permits would cancel their payments and auto renewal. I certainly
hope this idea is being developed and considered. An efficient process of this sort is sorely needed.
I understand that the parking issues are enormously complex and I appreciate all the work that goes into finding
solutions to the problems. i hope that my feedback will be useful as you go forward.
Sincerely,
Joan Willingham
660 Middlefield Rd. Suite B
Palo Alto
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 13, 2019 8:13 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Norman H. Beamer; Greg Welch; Mary Dimit; David Kwoh; John Guislin; Marion Odell; Malcolm Roy
Beasley; Leslie Caine; Vita Gorbunova; Ana Carvalho; Susie and Gary Hornbeek; Lauren Burton;
Andres Mediavilla; Michael Harbour; Nick Peterson; Jerry Smith; Allen Akin; Gabrielle Layton; Mary
Gallagher; Rademps; Michael Hodos; Monica Yeung Arima; Harris Barton; Meg Barton; Pat Devaney;
Elaine Meyer; Fred Kohler; Chris Robell; Fred Balin; Becky Sanders; Furman, Sheri; Greg Schmid
(external); Holzemer/hernandez; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Jocelyn Dong; Gennady Sheyner; Joe
Hirsch; Joe Baldwin; Carol Scott; Christian Pease; Tommy Derrick; Wolfgang Dueregger; Karen
Machado; Paul Machado; Rainer Pitthan; Patrick Slattery; Michael Eager; Hur, Mark; Tanda, Wayne;
Suzanne Keehn; Robert George; Steve Raney; Beth Rosenthal; Peter Rosenthal
Subject:RPP Report on May 13, 2019 Council Agenda
Attachments:Executive Summary RPP Comments from Residents Revised May 13 2019 700am.docx.pdf;
Attachment A RPP Comments from Residents Revised May 13 2019 700am.xlsx.pdf
Please accept the comments from residents who reside in the Downtown RPP and Evergreen Park
RPP.
Attached is an Executive Summary and Attachment A summarizing the 35 action steps.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RPP Comments from Residents
to City Council
May 13, 2019
Prepared by resident leaders in Downtown and Evergreen Park RPPs
We welcome the opportunity to improve the RPPs. This is an overdue process and should be accelerated as
part of normal process improvement. See Attachment A for comments on each of the 35 action steps.
Serious Omission: Where is the long-standing intent of the Council to annually reduce the number of non-
resident permits when demand for permit decreases. Downtown RPP has a historic “start date” of April 1.
Currently demand in the Downtown RPP is less than 900 permits annually. Therefore, residents urge Council
and Staff to comply with the Comp Plan which states a goal of promoting commerce but not at the expense
of residential neighborhoods.
Currently the city manager has authority to issue 1000 non-resident permits with additional authority to
issue 200 additionally permits.
Residents request that Council, within 30 days, restate the City Manager’s authority to issue 1000 permits
during the next year with no authority to issue additional non-residents permits.
Downtown RPP has been administered by staff with little sense of urgency. This RPP was launched under
duress with authority of staff to issue up to 2000 non-resident permits. This was an absurdly high threshold
based on no facts other than political convenience. Council has reset priorities for Climate Change and
Transportation. This morning the news is reporting record high carbon dioxide levels worldwide. Council
can reduce city manager authority, create new sense of urgency and drive healthy stakeholder process for
the 35 action steps. There is no need to wait for a long stakeholder process.
Content and Tone: This report has been prepared by a qualified, earnest consultant who has minimal history
working with the residents and businesses. The content is excellent. Staff and consultant have been listening
keenly to issues raised over the past 4 years. However, the report omits long-standing barriers for process
improvement. What is the root cause of commercial parking spillover. Inadequate zoning and parking
requirements? Entitlement from the mysterious Parking Assessment Districts? The report acknowledges that
Palo Alto’s uniquely high burden of non-resident vehicles upon neighborhoods. There was no elaboration of
the causes. The report partially acknowledge the complexity to manage and control such large numbers of
non-resident vehicles. Minor improvement in tone is needed. For example, the council and staff must now be
willing accept the “administrative burden” and costs of managing RPPs so intrusive upon some neighborhoods.
Neighborhoods did not create complexity and burden. Weak parking policy, Council avoidance and lack of
resources created the complexity.
Clarity of Council Commitment: The new California Avenue city garage is underway. With a few months
Council must clarify its intent to reduce the number of non-resident permits in Evergreen Park/Mayfield when
the garage is opened.
Parking Availability Standards: One of the greatest concerns to residents is the vagueness of these standards.
Please refer to resident comments for Action 27- Establish “Parking Availability Standards”. This can be
worked out through the community stakeholder process but it is poorly presented to Council and warrants
clarification by Council on May 13. Furthermore, residents have repeated tried to engage staff for the past 5
years; consequently, the stakeholder opportunity to address residents’ concerns is greatly appreciated.
Residential neighborhoods cannot be managed as if they are commercial parking lots available at will for
commercial parking spillover.
Inadequate Budgets, Idealistic Timelines and Weak Follow Up: The report is amazingly inclusive of past issues
except resource allocation. It is not integrated with budgets and projects to improve parking and
transportation within and outside the commercial cores. For example, will council and stakeholders ever be
informed how financial and human resources for valet parking, directional signage, permit management
systems, etc be allocated and implemented? Within 45 days another 5-year operating and capital budget will
be approved with scant understanding of what actually may happen during the next 3 years. Line items in the
budgets are meaningless until funds are authorized by City Manager and Council.
Collaboration process via stakeholders meetings or Planning and Transportation Commission: The process
must be professionally driven by professional facilitator over a defined period of time. A repeat of the prior
stakeholder process should be avoided. Agreement is needed for a daytime, working hours process vs. a
evening process to accommodate residents who work. We urge the Council to set a 3-4 month deadline for
the stakeholders to report to Council. Resident have a preference for a stakeholder process independent of
the Planning and Transportation Commission.
Reference: City Council Agenda May 13 2019 http://htt.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=64449.69&BlobID=71100ps://www
Action
Item
Responsibility Description Resident Comments
1 Council Improve Parking Permit Management System SUPPORT: When will contract be signed? Downtown and Evergreen Park RPPs were
scheduled as the final impmentation stages cicra mid-2021. What is the revised estimate?
2 Council Conduct Downtown Parking Operational Study SUPPORT: This Action does not address when study would be completed. It does not
provide a simple estimate of when dynamic monitoring and pricing could be implemented.
Isn't this another unfunded 3-4 year project?
3 Council Engage Community in Modifications to RPPs SUPPORT: Can staff return to stakeholders with project timelines August 2019?
4 Council Increase Staff Resources SUPPORT: Residents leaders note hiring lags seem to extend into Fall 2019. How will
community and Council be informed? Suggest the communication model used foR the
recent utilities improvements on University Avenue.
5 Council Amend the National Citizen Survey REJECT VIGOROUSLY: The annual citizen survey regarding RPPs is not a valid
methodolody to how well an RPP is working. Annual survey would be appropriate for
understanding attitudes about non-resident parking spillover in all neighborhoods. In
any case, qualitative information re RPP functionality is useful but unneccesary
information until new permit management system is mature for at least 12 months in all
RPPs. Furthermore, a system evaluation is very difficult to conduct via the National
Survey. For example, non-resident parking impact is very uneven in zones so resident
response will be based on the amount of impact. Residents in the northern section of
Zone 2 have no non-resident impact. On the other hand residents living closest to Alma
have heavy impact.
6 City Manager Update Codes and Guidelines SUPPORT CONDITIONAL:
ATTACHMENT A Comments from Resident Leaders from Downtown and
Evergeen Park RPPs May 13 2019
7 City Manager Clarify Downtown RPP District Boundary SUPPORT CONDITIONAL: This clarification requires Council additional oversight and
approval. Due to complexity this should be delegated to stakeholder community process.
The issue will be centered on parking "lite" commercial and housing development. For the
foreseeable future, tenant and owner dependance on the automobile will continue
especially for both high income workers and those part-time workers with multiple jobs.
Without council oversight (functional, simplified business registry) there is strong
probability that commercial and housing development will create more parking demand
upon neighborhood streets. City policy is needed now to determine how commercial and
residential parking demand may spillover to residential neighborhoods. Existing and
proposed state laws suggest the commercial core housing will be entitled to street parking
by right in traditional neighborhoods. Note: More significiantly parking "lite" housing
development including ADUs will have impact within certain neighborhoods, especially
DTN, Mayfield, Ventura and University South. In these four cases there will be reduced
capacity to accommodate non-resident vehicle permits. The expected surge in parking
"lite" development along El Camino Real will also drive demand for new RPPs. New policy
is needed by January 2020 to clarify parking entitlements within and outside the
commercial core.
8 City Manager Communicate Availability of Employee Parking
Spaces in RPP Zones
SUPPORT: This should be implemented at once.
9 City Manager Communicate Available Downtown Reserved
Parking Spaces
SUPPORT: Residents request Council to place high priority for this action and request
follow up with 12 months. Furthermore, council has the power to direct that a
percentage of favored commercial core parking be available to lower income workers.
10 City Manager Improve Parking Website SUPPORT: If Palo Alto is deserving of its international recognition as a well-managed, high
tech city, then this improvement can be implemented within 6 months.
11 City Manager Evaluate “Neighborhood Serving Businesses”SUPPORT ENTHUSIASTICALLY: Council is to be commended for its favored policies for
teachers and lower income workers. Now is the time to accommodate needs of
neighborhoods and businesswa directly serving neighborhoods. If the City Attorney
cannot support this action, then it should be dropped.
12 City Manager Examine Purchase of Reserved Parking Spaces
by Businesses Located Outside of a Business
District
SUPPORT: This inequity should be remedied within 6 months.
13 City Manager Measure the Performance of Transportation
Demand Management Initiatives
SUPPORT CONDITIONAL: Council should give staff greater direction to city manager. First,
various TDM requirements have been placed upon commerical developments for many
years. Many of those records may be found in minutes; others may have been lost
forever. Every effort should be taken to get those programs into operation for the benefit
of the commercial core and neighborhoods. Second, additonal city funds are flowing into
the PATMA which has shown commendable benefits with its limited scale. Starting in
FY20/21 city should methodically reduce subsidy of the TMA and seek appropriate funding
from employers and employees who benefit from TMA programs. The recent joint city
council meeting could be a springboard for TMA effectiveness with large scale operations.
14 City Manager Evaluate Impact of Shared Rides SUPPORT CONDITIONAL: Council should ask staff for clarification. Parking and
transportation staff may be stretched too thinly. Greater expertise may reside with the
PATMA, especially if it morphs into a sub-regionally entity with direct interest in shared
rides, etc.
15 City Manager Determine Best Reparking Regulation SUPPORT: Residents leaders appreciate staff attemtion to this issue which creates
neighborhood traffic and impacts zones closest to the commercial cores.
16 City Manager Improve Process to Purchase Daily Permits SUPPORT: This seems like a basic management function to be addressed within the city
manager current duties. Council can ask for a follow up report in 6 months.
17 City Manager Consider Paid Hourly Parking SUPPORT ENTHUSIASTICALLY: Council should ask for project budget and timelines with
expectation that this action be ready for implementation in not less than 12 months.
Additionally staff should be directed to propose solutions for under-utilized private
parking capacity, especially when tenants are priced out from on-site parking.
18 City Manager Change Payment Schedule for Reserved
Parking in Garages and Lots
SUPPORT CONDITIONAL: Council should authorize a scoping study prior to heavy
expenditure of time and money. Too many parking programs avoid this provision; Palo
Alto has a history of false starts. Let's acknowledge this up front. Staff should report on
national experience that monthly, weekly and daily pricing impacts the effective price of
parking and influences SOV. This is especially true with workers who do not work regular
hours. This is a complicated trade-off recommendation and should be accompaned by
expert outside advice and data. This action will not be implemented rationally without
Council review every 6-12 months.
19 City Manager Institute a Performance-Driven System SUPPORT CONDITIONAL: This action needs to be coordinated with Action 1. The permit
issuance system can be the core of user experience and best way to identify corrective
actions. No permit issuance and management system should be acquired without
demonstration of its ability to deliver a performance-driven system.
20 City Manager Maintain Integrity of Program SUPPORT: This function is basic to the new Transporation Department and should be
periodically reviewed by city auditor function. There should be equal oversight of permits
issue to residents, non-residents and workers within the commercial cores
21 City Manager Process Applications for New RPP Districts SUPPORT: City staff should be directed by Council to anticipate parking spillover into
residential neighborhoods. Complexity of current and future housing/parking policies
signals the need to be proactive. The Comp Plan clearly states that it is city policy to
promote commerce but not at the expense of residential neighborhoods.
22 City Manager Treat Requests for Annexations Like Other
Requests for Service
SUPPORT CONDITIONAL: Requests for new RPPs understandably must be staged.
Residents' concerns are modifications initiated by staff. When such changes are desired
by staff, then staff should proactively notify residents living within reasonable radius of a
change. Based on prior staff performance and decisions, this is too much authority to
delegate to city manager and staff. Almost all RPP will require fine-tuning of parameters,
boundaries, etc. This issue can be referred to an ongoing stakeholder process. No major
annexation or boundary changes should be implemented without noticed consultation
with all residents in a RPP.
23 City Manager Minor Modifications to a RPP District SUPPORT:
24 City Manager Evaluate Consolidation of Parking Compliance
Functions
SUPPORT:
25 City Manager Review Parking Citation Fees SUPPORT: This action seems unnecessary since it is part of established city process
26 City Manager Review the Level of Funding Subsidy of the RPP
Program
SUPPORT: This action seems unnecessary since it is part of established city process
27 Community Establish “Parking Availability Standards”REJECT VIGOROUSLY: An immediate reduction of permits authorized by the city
manager is necessary in May 2019. In general Action #27 is acceptable. However, in the
case of Downtown RPP, the Council has clearly stated its intention and policy to monitor
non-resident permit demand and ANNUALLY consider reduction of number of non-
resident permit sales to be authorized by the city manager. Now in May 2019 the city
staff clearly knows that non-resident permits demand is far below the number of
permits that can be authorized by city manager. This is no rational to delay reduction.
Until clarified the Council is a risk for Comp Plan violation by promoting commerce at
the expense of residential neighborhoods. Council has the opportunity to differentiate
the parking availability policies for commercial parking garages and lots. Commercial
standards are quite different than customized standards for different neighborhoods.
Such policy is now loosely administered. College Terrace rightfully has a standard for no
non-resident parking permits. Evergreen Park seeks significant reduction upon completion
of a large commercial garage for commerical area around California Avenue. Downtown
North has consistently been receptive to lower-income, merchant class workers to have
permanent, limited access to its residential streets. Staff report suggests that this level of
differential is not desired due to administrative burden upon staff. Much of this burden is
due to poor system design and high staff turnover.
28 Community Establish Approach to Reduce Employee
Parking Permits
SUPPORT:
29 Community Provide Automatic Renewal for Employee
Parking Permits
SUPPORT: Council and staf can consider a new process for employers of buy and issue low-
income non-resident permits with the understanding that better technology and controls
for fraud and abuse will be needed within 2-3 years. An annual system of audits or
spotchecks is needed to assure that documentation of income, employment, etc is
collected and archived properly prior to permit issuance.
30 Community Change Payment Schedule for Employee
Parking Permits
SUPPORT CONDITIONALLY: This action must be undertaken in conjunction with Action
18. Piecemeal pricing will be counter-productive.
31 Community Increase Cost of Employee Parking Permits SUPPORT: In context with Action 25 and 26. Furthermore, pricing is directly related to
City's goals for Climate Change and Transportation. Council may be allocating $500,000 to
$1,000,000 to the Palo Alto TMA and the TMA investment is marginalized with delibeate
annual changes to parking and pricing.
32 Community Standardize Cost of Employee Parking Permits SUPPORT:
33 Community Change Payment Schedule and Increase Cost of
Reduced-Price Parking Permits
SUPPORT: This level of accommodation is commendable but leads to endless
gameplaying.
34 Community Remove Inconsistences Between Districts SUPPORT CONDITIONAL: Recent conference with city staff indicates that this action will
address the almost random setting of fees. Residents support resolution. However, there
are other concerns based on history. This recommendation seems to avoid the history
and realities of RPP agreements which have evolved into policy and regulation. One
interpretation is that College Terrace or upcoming OPA should treated like Downtown RPP
which carries a large burden over a very large geographic area. Downtown RPP Zone 8, 9
and 10 are uniquely designed and administered as buffer zones. Most other RPP have
minimual such requirements. Southgate, too, is a unique neighborhood with almost no
comparable RPP. Evergreen Park with Mayfield too has unusual distribution of multi-unit
housing. Bottom line: RPPs should be designed and administered for the unique needs of
neighborhood. This will be necessary hardwork and adminstrative burden on staff.
Council is urged to direct staff to administer RPPs for the benefit of neighborhoods and
avoid pure efficiency and ease for adminstration.
35 Community Review Renewal Dates SUPPORT BUT AMEND: The renewal dates for residential and employee permits should be
reviewed to determine what is convenient to user and then reviewed what is feasible for
city to administer. The consideration for the users should have precedence over staff
adminstrative burden and efficiency.
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: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:john@kovalfamily.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 8, 2019 2:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Tunnel vs. Grade Separation
City Council:
As a resident of Palo Alto, I wanted to write in support of a Citywide Tunnel Option. It has many benefits over closing
streets and grade separations and we will be living with the decisions we make now indefinitely:
‐ No other modern nation(i.e. Japan, Spain, France, Germany, China) is building public transportation at ground
level in urban areas.
‐ To avoid as much disruption and eminent domain, begin the tunnel at El Camino Park
‐ Above ground grade separations create blight and sound issues (i.e. BART)
‐ Tunnels can go slightly deeper to avoid obstacles, creeks and drainage without incurring much additional cost
‐ Ground level or above are more susceptible to suicide, vandalism & terrorism
‐ The studies to date seem to be tainted with looking for a cheap way out, rather than building the best
infrastructure
‐ Stanford, with its embarrassing $25B endowment and other white collar companies will be the major
beneficiaries and should contribute to this infrastructure.
‐ Palo Alto looks to be a leader in transportation infrastructure and needs to lead by good example, not poor
choices.
Palo Alto needs to set the standard in our infrastructure projects, particularly one that will be the cornerstone of our
transportation infrastructure for many years into the future!!
Thank you for your time and efforts!
Sincerely,
John Koval
492 Tennyson Avenue
Palo Alto
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Sally Keyes <keyesmom@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 8, 2019 8:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Train Options
To: City Council
From: Richard and Sally Keyes
1573 Mariposa Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Dear Council Members,
We believe that the City of Palo Alto needs to make the best decision for the future needs of the city and its
inhabitants.
Thus, we unconditionally support the option of a tunnel for the train over any other option. Additionally, we are willing
to financially support such an option through a Palo Alto tax.
Best regards,
Richard and Sally Keyes
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Teri Llach <llachteric@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 9, 2019 10:53 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please remove the city wide tunnel option ASAP
Dear City Council,
My name is Teri Llach, I was born in SF and raised in Menlo Park and now live in Palo Alto – I am a bay area
native and 5th generation SF Bay Area resident. We live on Churchill Ave and have been a resident of Palo Alto
for over 15 years.
Let me get right to the point ‐ PLEASE stop any plans that include eminent domain. That is a threat to our
neighborhood and many people’s whole existence. I can’t even believe you would consider such a proposal and
take someone’s home or part of a home. We are all family. I have lived in Palo Alto for over 15 years now with
my kids all going to Paly. Please just stop.
Also in terms of Churchill Ave ‐ I see only one course…close Churchill and save our kids. They need to get to
school safely across Alma and closing off Churchill will make a huge different to their safety. We have plenty of
ways to get across the tracks in PA – Churchill is not needed.
Thank you for your time
Teri
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Robert Herriot <rgherriot@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 9, 2019 4:09 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Caltrain
I urge that no eminent domain be used for any option in Palo Alto. A few years ago previous council said this in the
context of the Churchill crossing.
I suggest that most of the Palo Alto route can use existing tracks and stations ‐‐ a great savings. The use of existing tracks
can start just north of Meadow and end just north of the Palo Alto Caltrain station with closure of Churchill. That leaves
just Meadow, Charleston and Palo Alto Ave needing a solution.
It is important that the construction project not make Palo Alto unlivable for several years with noise and
detours. Remember the horrendous noise in the middle of the night to construct the California Ave station.
Keeping the existing route would ensure minimal noise and detours
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:tom@tomvlasic.com
Sent:Sunday, May 12, 2019 7:58 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Rachel; John Monroe; McFall, Jim; Shepherd, Nancy; Dave Shen
Subject:May 13, 2019 Meeting -- Grade Separation Discussion
Dear Councilmembers,
On Monday night you are again scheduled to address rail corridor grade separation issues, focusing on the
tunnel option and also the criteria for evaluation of the grade separation options, i.e., the City planning
process for selecting a preferred "grade separation" plan and the funding options for such a plan. While
we appreciate that your focus at Monday's meeting is on the tunnel and evaluation criteria, we want to again stress our oppostion to a Churchill viaduct option and, frankly any option that raises the rail lines thoughout the City and in "our back or front yards."
At your last meeting we understand that you tentatively acted to add a viaduct to the planning mix for the
Churchill train track crossing. Prior to that meeting we sent an email to you asking that this option not be
included for a variety of reasons. For the same reasons outlined before, we strongly feel that continued consideration of a Churchill viaduct is inappropriate and threatens to tear apart the community and destroy the established character of Palo Alto. The continuing politicking alone on this and some of the other optios is doing damage to the community and results in pitting neighbor against neighbor and
neighborhood against neighborhood, especially in the case of the Churchill Avenue crossing.
We again specifically ask that as you continue this prolonged selection process, a viaduct over Churchill be
taken out of the consideration of options. As noted in our last email, the construction, visual and other impacts of a viaduct or any citywide retained fill or other elevated option, including getting trains up and down safely, are overwhelming and will destroy the quality of life in Palo Alto as we know it. These options will require eminent domain takings and create at a minimum, a visual and emotional barrier between the
west and east sides of the community. They will destroy neighborhoods and the very fabric of the
community that has been crafted by careful planning over the decades. All these years of planning
efforts, when Palo Alto was actually a leader and pioneer in local land use planning, will have been wasted
and our quality of life destroyed. Your proposed evaluation criteria do not give sufficient weight to the visual (5%) and quality of life impacts (not addressed directly) of the options and should be reconsidered.
On a more pragmatic side, the funding for a Churchill viaduct or any fully elevated or tunnel option
through the City will likely never be available, and especially not in any timeframe related to a coordinated
effort with electrification of CalTrain. To keep studying these options without accurate costs, funding and
timing “reality checks” is irresponsible and dangerous. It has been made clear by the City’s analyses to date that these options would require massive local funding and more than likely by each and every household and business in the city. If you are going to continue to study these options at least let each
and every property owner and business know how much they can expect their yearly taxes to increase to
pay for for the options. Let’s then judge the impacts of these costs, as well as the quality of life impacts,
on property values and driving businesses and residents out of town or to other communities. Your
current program appears to stress the study of funding contributions by businesses, if you can say that
there would be no funding need from local residents say so clearly. But, if you can't, don't hide behind a process that seems to suggest the burden would only be on businesses. Be clear, fair and transparent on the costs and local funding realities such plans would require.
In addition to the above, we need to learn from the mistakes made in other communities where elevated
transportation lines are now being removed due to their visual and other impacts on the quality of
life. Just consider the High Line in NYC and Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco.
2
PLEASE bring this prolonged process back to reality and focus on truly possible options that will protect the established quality of life in Palo Alto that we have worked so hard to secure over the decades. Thank you for the opportunity to offer these comments. We do plan on attending Monday’s meeting.
Regards,
Tom and Linda Vlasic
Mariposa Avenue
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Becky Epstein <becky@beckyepstein.com>
Sent:Monday, May 13, 2019 8:33 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Charleston/Meadow Grade Separation (Agenda Item 9: May 13, 2019 meeting)
Dear City Council:
The Grade Separations staff report for the May 13, 2019 meeting incorrectly states in a parenthetical that the “separate
freight variation” was “eliminated” for the South Palo Alto Rail Tunnel. This was not decided at the April 22 meeting. It's
important to correct the record during tonight’s meeting. We urge the Council to continue studying the alternative at
Charleston and Meadow of the passenger trains in a tunnel, with freight continuing to run above.
It is putting too many constraints on tunnel engineering to have to accommodate freight when the freight line runs so
infrequently to begin with and has a questionable future in general. Whether through a tunnel or trench, the best
solution for the community is to have the passenger train below grade at Meadow and Charleston and we encourage
your leadership to make that happen.
Thank you,
Becky Epstein and Keith Reckdahl
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Carolyn Schmarzo <cmschmarzo@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 13, 2019 9:57 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rail EXploration
Honorable PaloAlto City Council,
I EXhort the council to remove the citywide tunnel from its' list of rail options for the following reasons:
1. It is too EXpensive! For city of 67,000 residents to acquire 2-4 billion dollars of debt would be an
act of epic irresponsibility,!
2. It requires the EXtreme use of eminent domain and thus EXtermination of life long connections,
historic neighborhoods, the
dreams of the past, present and future. It will be a soul bludgeoning event to watch my home and
my neighbors home bulldozed.
If this horrendous event should occur then I expect all who vote for this to come and stand by my me
and my neighbors when the
bulldozers arrive to EXecute not only our lives and homes, but also our trust in Palo Alto to be a
"superior place to live and
invest in.
3. The EXtent of the impact on the entire city will be overwhelming, to have many of the main traffic
arteries shut down will create
disruption and havoc for all.
Logic, as defined by Webster, is the correct reasoning, I see no correct reasoning for the tunnel, it
would be a beauty project if Palo
Alto was being built from scratch, but that is not our reality. So please employ "correct reasoning"
and EXtinguish! EXpunge! and
EXhile the city wide tunnel from the list of rail options.
EXasperatingly yours,
2
Carolyn and Bill Schmarzo
.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Kellerman, Thomas W. <thomas.kellerman@morganlewis.com>
Sent:Monday, May 13, 2019 12:14 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:'Megan Kanne'; 'Nadia Naik'; Shikada, Ed; Gaines, Chantal; Tom & Rachel Kellerman
Subject:Connecting Palo Alto - Traffic Report Analysis
Honorable City Council Members:
I am writing with respect the agenda item for tonight’s City Council meeting regarding weighting of evaluation
criteria for consideration of the Rail Grade Separation Alternatives. In the City Council Staff Report
(ID#10345), the various criteria are set forth in the tables included in the Staff Report. I note that the criteria set
forth under numeral H continues to be truncated, leaving out the words “while reducing regional traffic on
neighborhood streets”. We have previously received assurances from City Staff that the full wording of this
criteria would be included. Below is an earlier email sent to council and City Staff asking that the full criteria
be listed in all decision matrix documents. While this may seem like a minor oversight, it is my experience that
when a portion of the criteria is not included in the wording circulated to Council and the public, this portion of
the criteria tends to be forgotten and eventually it will no longer be included in the analyses prepared for
consideration by Council. I believe it has been generally accepted that taking into consideration the impact of
traffic on neighborhood streets is in fact an important criteria to be taken into consideration when evaluating the
available alternatives.
Please feel free to contact me should you wish to discuss this point in more depth.
Thank you for your continued dedication to this important task.
Regards,
Tom
Thomas W. Kellerman
1400 Page Mill Road | Palo Alto, CA 94304
Direct: +1.650.843.7550 | Main: +1.650.843.4000 | Fax: +1.650.843.4001
thomas.kellerman@morganlewis.com | www.morganlewis.com
Assistant: Teresa M. Hillstrom | +1.650.843.7521 | teresa.hillstrom@morganlewis.com
______________________________________________________________________________________
Email sent on November 8th:
I attended the CAP meeting yesterday and was dismayed that the decision making criteria concerning the local
traffic impacts of all rail grade crossing options was omitted from the Connecting Palo Alto mailer that is being
sent to all Palo Alto addresses. Criteria bullet point 8 on the mailer reads: Maintain or improve local
access while on the Connecting Palo Alto Fact Sheet posted on the Connecting Palo Alto webpage it
reads: Maintain or improve local access while reducing regional traffic on neighborhood streets.
(References: https://pagradesep.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/City_of_Palo_Alto_FactsheetV2.pdf I have
also attached my copy of the mailer-apologies for the scribbles.)
2
Why is this important? Council has instructed staff to consider neighborhood traffic impacts when weighing all
rail grade crossing options. Neighborhood traffic impacts should not be an afterthought, but an integral part of
the consideration process. I don’t have enough neighborhood input to speak authoritatively on a number of
issues related to rail grade crossings, but I know without a doubt that neighborhood traffic is a huge concern for
Professorville neighbors if Churchill and Palo Alto Avenue are closed to East/West traffic. Neighborhood
traffic reduction criteria also did not appear on the “decision matrix” slides that were presented yesterday.
We are not asking for the mailer to be reprinted but we are asking that all future communication, especially the
decision making matrices that are presented at community meetings, include the entire criteria as agreed upon
by the Council and posted on the CAP webpage: Maintain or improve local access while reducing regional
traffic on neighborhood streets.
As always, we greatly appreciate all your hard work on this difficult and complicated matter.
Regards,
Tom and Rachel Kellerman
DISCLAIMER
This e‐mail message is intended only for the personal use
of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an
attorney‐client communication and as such privileged and
confidential and/or it may include attorney work product.
If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review,
copy or distribute this message. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
e‐mail and delete the original message.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:tom@tomvlasic.com
Sent:Monday, May 13, 2019 1:59 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Rachel; Dave Shen
Subject:[FWD: Re: May 13, 2019 Meeting -- Grade Separation Discussion]
Dear Councilmembers,
Please see the string of emails below. It would be greatly appreciated if you could clarify the record on
the Churchill Avenue viaduct to limit it to the work being considered for the Embarcadero
overpass/underpass area improvements and not a viaduct over Churchill. It is my understanding that the
wording "in vicinity of Churchill" was added likely for this purpose at a late hour at the last meeting on this matter. We and our neighbor's have concerns, however, over the vagueness of the wording and the possible broader interprations that could take place in the future without further formal clarificartion for the record.
Thank you for your consideration or our concerns and, hoopefully, clarifcation of the record on this matter.
Regards, Tom and Linda Vlasic
PS--We apprepricte that Councilmember Fine's response to us was a personal communication and not
intended to speak for the entire council and we respect him for this and appreciate his
input. Nonetheless, we feel clarication of the record is needed as we've requested and wanted to take this
opportunity to share our position with you with the hopes that some clarification can be provided to limit our and our neighbor's concerns relative to Churchill viaduct option.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: May 13, 2019 Meeting -- Grade Separation Discussion
From: Tom Vlasic <tom@tomvlasic.com>
Date: Mon, May 13, 2019 7:19 am
To: "Fine, Adrian" <Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org>
Good morning Adrian,
Thank you very much for the clarification. The more you, staff and the council can do to get this
clarification in the record the better in terms of trust and confidence for our neighbors and us. We
hear a bit about the design work that Carrasco and others are doing for the Embarcadero
crossing, viaduct and roundabout but many neighbors feel it is going on with energy and City direction “behind closed doors” and the process is not transparent. And, without further clarification the wording “in the vicinity of Churchill” is too vague and could be broadly interpreted by others well beyond the clarifications you provided. This is especially worrisome when the City
experiences changes in council makeup and significant staff turnover, as has been the case
recently.
Thanks again for your response and help on this process and all your other council work. Best,
Tom and Linda
Sent from my iPhone
On May 13, 2019, at 2:20 AM, Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
2
Thank you Tom and Linda. I know our decision didn’t make everyone happy, but the reason I supported a Churchill viaduct is because, upon questioning and speaking with staff, the viaduct could be in “the
vicinity of Churchill”... which may open up possibilities to fix embarcadero. That said, my
personal belief is, and I think the evidence supports, that we should close Churchill to car
traffic and build a bike ped tunnel while ALSO doing significant work/mitigation on
embarcadero. I hope this helps explain a bit.
Thanks for your continued engagement,
Adrian
On May 13, 2019, at 04:58, "tom@tomvlasic.com" <tom@tomvlasic.com> wrote:
Dear Councilmembers,
On Monday night you are again scheduled to address rail corridor grade
separation issues, focusing on the tunnel option and also the criteria for
evaluation of the grade separation options, i.e., the City planning process for
selecting a preferred "grade separation" plan and the funding options for such a plan. While we appreciate that your focus at Monday's meeting is on the tunnel and evaluation criteria, we want to again stress our oppostion to a Churchill
viaduct option and, frankly any option that raises the rail lines thoughout the City
and in "our back or front yards."
At your last meeting we understand that you tentatively acted to add a viaduct to the planning mix for the Churchill train track crossing. Prior to that meeting we sent an email to you asking that this option not be included for a variety of reasons. For the same reasons outlined before, we strongly feel that continued
consideration of a Churchill viaduct is inappropriate and threatens to tear apart
the community and destroy the established character of Palo Alto. The
continuing politicking alone on this and some of the other optios is doing damage
to the community and results in pitting neighbor against neighbor and neighborhood against neighborhood, especially in the case of the Churchill Avenue crossing.
We again specifically ask that as you continue this prolonged selection process, a
viaduct over Churchill be taken out of the consideration of options. As noted in
our last email, the construction, visual and other impacts of a viaduct or any citywide retained fill or other elevated option, including getting trains up and down safely, are overwhelming and will destroy the quality of life in Palo Alto as we know it. These options will require eminent domain takings and create at a
minimum, a visual and emotional barrier between the west and east sides of the
community. They will destroy neighborhoods and the very fabric of the
community that has been crafted by careful planning over the decades. All these
years of planning efforts, when Palo Alto was actually a leader and pioneer in local land use planning, will have been wasted and our quality of life destroyed. Your proposed evaluation criteria do not give sufficient weight to the
visual (5%) and quality of life impacts (not addressed directly) of the options and
should be reconsidered.
On a more pragmatic side, the funding for a Churchill viaduct or any fully
elevated or tunnel option through the City will likely never be available, and especially not in any timeframe related to a coordinated effort with electrification of CalTrain. To keep studying these options without accurate costs, funding and
timing “reality checks” is irresponsible and dangerous. It has been made clear by
3
the City’s analyses to date that these options would require massive local funding and more than likely by each and every household and business in the city. If you are going to continue to study these options at least let each and every property owner and business know how much they can expect their yearly taxes
to increase to pay for for the options. Let’s then judge the impacts of these
costs, as well as the quality of life impacts, on property values and driving
businesses and residents out of town or to other communities. Your current
program appears to stress the study of funding contributions by businesses, if you can say that there would be no funding need from local residents say so clearly. But, if you can't, don't hide behind a process that seems to suggest the
burden would only be on businesses. Be clear, fair and transparent on the costs
and local funding realities such plans would require.
In addition to the above, we need to learn from the mistakes made in other communities where elevated transportation lines are now being removed due to their visual and other impacts on the quality of life. Just consider the High Line in NYC and Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco.
PLEASE bring this prolonged process back to reality and focus on truly possible
options that will protect the established quality of life in Palo Alto that we have
worked so hard to secure over the decades. Thank you for the opportunity to offer these comments. We do plan on attending
Monday’s meeting.
Regards,
Tom and Linda Vlasic Mariposa Avenue
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:David Coale <david@evcl.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:35 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Flaherty, Michelle
Subject:City budget and climate change
Dear Mayor and City Council,
In reviewing the budget and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) I am happy to see that the council
priorities are stated up front. It is very important to keep climate change, a top council
priority, front and center while reviewing the budget and CIP. In particular, I am very happy to
see the tenth project of the Parking Guidance System that will also include revenue
collection. This solution to the downtown parking problem is much more cost effective,
climate friendly, distributed and revenue generating then building the downtown parking
garage. This is exactly the type of project(s) that can come up, a win‐win, if we keep climate
change as a top priority while reviewing the budget.
I would urge the council to finally cancel the downtown garage and leverage the savings to
fund more beneficial, climate friendly solutions such as the TMA and Bike/Ped programs and
further to fully funding the staff’s efforts to implement the Climate Action Plan.
I am also heartened to see that the Gas Utility CIP includes reference to the impact that
beneficial electrification toward the 80/30 goal will have on future natural gas demand and
the need to start planning for the orderly phase out of gas use in Palo Alto. Palo Alto will do
very well economically and socially by rapidly curtailing further investment in stranded NG
assets and, rather, investing in building out a single, efficient and flexible electricity utility and
infrastructure that can power our lives for the foreseeable future.
Sincerely,
David Coale
Carbon Free Palo Alto
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent:Wednesday, May 8, 2019 4:32 PM
To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia;
Tanaka, Greg
Cc:Council, City; UAC; Planning Commission; Clerk, City
Subject:Greg Scharff's conflicts of interest
Attachments:Scharff_Greg_1_30_2019.pdf; 5G Qualcomm.jpeg; Greg Scharff Bio.jpeg; Scharff_Greg_fppc700_2017_
2017_10_10_Assuming (1).pdf
Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. Dubois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka:
Here is the California Fair Political Practices Commission’s definition of conflict of interest: “Under the
Act, a public official has a disqualifying conflict of interest in a governmental decision if it is
foreseeable that the decision will have a financial impact on his or her personal finances or other
financial interests. In such cases, there is a risk of biased decision-making that could sacrifice the
public’s interest in favor of the official’s private financial interests.”
It is the Political Reform Act to which their definition refers, and under this law Greg Scharff is an
inappropriate choice to serve on Palo Alto’s Utility Advisory Commission. Consider:
1. On his January 30, 2019, “Leaving Office” Statement of Economic Interests/Form 700, which
is attached to this email, Mr. Scharff indicates that his family investment partnership owns
stock in Qualcomm valued at $100,000-$1,000,000. Qualcomm, of course, is a
telecommunications industry company whose literature boasts: “This is the age of 5G. Made
real by Qualcomm.” (See the second attachment.) Given that the Utilities Advisory
Commission considers cell towers, municipal FTTP and many other projects related to this
industry, Mr. Scharff’s substantial interest in Qualcomm is exactly the sort of conflict of interest
the FPPC says is to be avoided.
2. According to Mr. Scharff’s biography at the website for the Edwards Law Group, a firm with
which he is or was affiliated, Mr. Scharff’ “has acted as in house counsel for several large real
estate developers and has served on the National Board of Directors for the National
Association of Office and Industrial Park developers and owners.” (This biography is the third
attachment.)
Needless to say, representing real estate developers is not a crime. But their representatives
belong, not on the Commission’s side of the table, but on the other side—the side where
parties petitioning the UAC sit. It is no secret that developers want infrastructure—and the
lowest possible commercial utility rates. Of course, there is nothing wrong with wanting
that. But what’s wrong would be to appoint someone who earns his living representing
developers to a commission that is central to the design and development of infrastructure and
to the pricing of utility services in Palo Alto.
2
3. On his October 10, 2017, Statement of Economic Interests/Form 700 (the final attachment)—
the last one he filed prior to his January 30, 2019, Form 700 in which he reports income from
his legal practice —Mr. Scharff reports that the Sares-Regis Group is his client. According to
the Sares-Regis Group’s website, this company is “a pre-eminent developer and provider of
comprehensive commercial and residential real estate service throughout the western United
States.” Palo Alto clients include Google, the Oshman Family Jewish Community Center and
Stanford University.
Mr. Scharff reports that the income of The Scharff Law Group is “over $100,000”—that’s the
highest income category on the form—and that the Sares-Regis Group is his one client who
pays him more than $10,000. In short, at least as recently as eighteen months ago, Mr.
Scharff 1) was representing a major developer, and 2) that developer appears to be his most
important client.
In summary, Mr. Scharff’s investments and law practice represent exactly the sorts of conflicts of
interest the California Fair Political Practices Commission says are to be avoided. Surely among the
many qualified candidates for the open seats on the Utilities Advisory Commission, there are
individuals free of such conflicts.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 13, 2019 1:23 PM
To:Representative Anna G. Eshoo
Subject:ANTI - TOXER...not Anti-vaxxer
The media can's or won't understand.
Anti -Vaxxer is a person against all vaccines.
Anti-Toxer can be a person against all the TOXINS in
vaccines.
When Snow White got very sick, it was not the apple she ate..but the poison
put in it.
Why is anti-freeze and flame retardant among 60 ingredients in vaccines given
to babies??
Why are nutro-toxins like mercury and aluminum in some vaccines..aluminum is known
to cause brain inflammation?
Thee were few if any deaths from peanut allergy before peanut oil was put in vaccines.
Why is the DNA of aborted human fetal tissue used in vaccines....what if it is from a fetus
with
Downs Syndrome?
If a parent put ingredients in a baby's food like vaccine
companies put in vaccines, a parent would lost custody
and likely go to jail.
Of course the drug companies, AMA. and CDC (who owns 56 vaccine patents) want
everyone to get vaccines because it makes them billions$$$.
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (a secret group of the U.S.
government) has paid out over $4 billion for vaccine damage in 10 years.
California parents have lost their Constitutional Right to have any exemptions for
babies.
Dr Pan's committee (a $1 million expense for SB277) is now working to take away the
right of doctors (SB276) to decide if babies should have any exemptions.
Vaccine Ingredients
In the first 6 years of life your child can receive the following in some 60 vaccines:
60 vaccines by age 6 can have:
• 17,500 mcg 2-phenoxyethanol (antifreeze)
• 5,700 mcg aluminum (a known neurotoxin)
• Unknown amounts of fetal bovine serum (aborted cow blood)
2
• 801.6 mcg formaldehyde (carcinogen, embalming agent)
• 23,250 mcg gelatin (ground up animal carcasses)
• 500 mcg human albumin (human blood)
• 760 mcg of monosodium L-glutamate (causes obesity & diabetes)
• Unknown amounts of MRC-5 cells (aborted human fetal cells and DNA)
• Over 10 mcg neomycin (antibiotic)
• Over 0.075 mcg polymyxin B (antibiotic)
• Over 560 mcg polysorbate 80 (carcinogen which causes ovarian failure)
• 116 mcg potassium chloride (used in lethal injection to shut down the heart and stop breathing)
• 188 mcg potassium phosphate (liquid fertilizer agent)
• 260 mcg sodium bicarbonate (baking soda)
• 70 mcg sodium borate (Borax, used for cockroach control)
• 54,100 mcg of sodium chloride (table salt)
• Unknown amounts of sodium citrate (food additive)
• Unknown amounts of sodium hydroxide (Danger! Corrosive)
• 2,800 mcg sodium phosphate (toxic to any organism)
• Unknown amounts of sodium phosphate monobasic monohydrate (toxic to any organism)
• 32,000 mcg sorbitol (Not to be injected)
• 0.6 mcg streptomycin (antibiotic)
• Over 40,000 mcg sucrose (cane sugar)
• 35,000 mcg yeast protein (fungus)
• 5,000 mcg urea (metabolic waste from human urine)
• Other chemical residuals
From, "What The Pharmaceutical Companies Don't Want You To Know About
Vaccines" - By Dr. Todd M. Elsner
Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, health writer, NO Toxins for Children,
photowrite67@yahoo.com
Pass this along to all your emails and social media.
Anti-Toxers want SAFE, WELL TESTED vaccines.
Anti-Vaxxers are very rare in number who want no
vaccines. This is a bully term used on anyone who
questions legitimate vaccine safety.
4 North Second Street, Suite 1300 | San Jose, CA 95113
Phone: 408-293-4790 | Fax: 408-293-0106 | lawfoundation.org | Tax ID 52-1014754
Advancing Justice Housing | Health | Children & Youth
May 7, 2019
Mayor Lisa Matichak and Mountain View City Council
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
RE: Demand to Oppose and Repeal Unconstitutional Ordinances Banning the Parking of
Oversized Vehicles Citywide and the Parking of Vehicles that Discharge Domestic Sewage
on the Public Right-of-Way
Dear Mayor Matichak, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers:
We write to demand that the City of Mountain View (City) stop advancing an ordinance
to ban oversized vehicle parking citywide because this proposed ordinance violates the
California and US Constitutions. We are deeply concerned that the City is passing such a
measure in the midst of an unprecedented regional housing crisis in a city where there are no
emergency shelters and the City has fallen so far behind its regional housing needs allocation
(RHNA) for housing for low-income families. Local measures intended to make life more
difficult for people who are homeless or housing insecure only perpetuate the housing crisis by
limiting alternative housing options and precluding any opportunity for these individuals to reach
a place of stability that will allow them to find long-term affordable housing. Worse, these
measures offend bedrock notions of fairness, inclusivity, and equality, and send a message that
our communities are not really open to all.
Like other municipal parking ordinances that target homeless people for citation based on
pretextual characteristics, the oversized vehicle parking ban would impermissibly punish
individuals for merely trying to survive and stay in their home community, deny equal protection
of the law to a particular class of residents, and restrict freedom of association protected by the
First Amendment and the right to travel protected by the U.S. and California constitutions.
Additionally, enforcement of the proposed ordinance would implicate the Fourth Amendment’s
prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal
protection clause and substantive due process protection against a substantial risk of harm
created by the government.
Page 2 of 9
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley | 4 North Second Street, Suite 1300 | San Jose, CA 95113
We also write to demand that City Council repeal Section 19.701.1 of the Mountain View
Municipal Code, banning vehicles that discharge domestic sewage on the public right-of-way, as
it is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I. The Oversized Vehicle Parking Ban Would Punish People Living in
Oversized Vehicles Merely for Sleeping in their Vehicles When They Have
No Other Option in Violation of the Eighth Amendment
Recently, in Martin v. City of Boise, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed the
principle that the “the Eighth Amendment prohibits the state from punishing an involuntary act
or condition if it is the unavoidable consequence of one’s status or being.”1 This means that
cities cannot constitutionally cite or ticket an individual for sleeping outside or in a vehicle
where, as a practical matter, there are no shelter beds or other housing options that individual can
access.2
While we applaud Mountain View’s recent efforts to create safe parking zones within the
City, the mere creation of this program does not absolve the City of Eighth Amendment liability.
First, and fundamentally, under Martin, a city cannot criminalize acts associated with being
homeless when it cannot provide unhoused people an “option of sleeping indoors.”3 Eighth
Amendment concerns are not remediated by virtue of providing safe parking spaces.
Second, even if providing safe parking spaces could satisfy Martin and the Eighth
Amendment (it can’t), the number of safe parking spaces the City can provide is substantially
smaller than the number of individuals currently using oversized vehicle as shelters, and thus the
City will still violate the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment if it tickets for parking an
oversized vehicle on a city street because there are neither sufficient safe parking spots nor
shelter beds available to the individual ticketed. This will be a frequent scenario given that the
Safe Parking program is less than a year old and it has been difficult to find adequate sites for the
program. According to the City Manager, the safe parking program’s “scale and scope would
likely never be [enough] to meet the need of hundreds of parking spaces.”4
Third, the proposed oversized vehicle parking ban may violate the excess fines clause of
the Eighth Amendment. Fees associated with towing the vehicle, such as impound and recovery
fees, create a separate Eighth Amendment violation where they prevent individuals from
1 902 F.3d 1031, 1048 (2018) (citing Jones v. City of L.A., 444 F.3d 1118, 1135 (9th Cir. 2006)),
as amended by 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019). 2 See id. at 1042 (requiring city to show that shelter beds were available as a practical matter to
the particular individuals cited on the night they were cited). 3 Id. at 1048 (emphasis added). 4 Mountain View City Manager’s Report to Council on Item 7.1 of the Mountain View City
Council Agenda for March 19, 2019, at 38 (March 19, 2019). So far, the Safe Parking program
includes only 13 spaces for oversized vehicle parking. See Attachment 9 to Item 7.1 of the
Mountain View City Council Agenda for March 19, 2019.
Page 3 of 9
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley | 4 North Second Street, Suite 1300 | San Jose, CA 95113
recovering the vehicle and any personal possessions left inside.5 Even a small fee for violation
of the oversized parking prohibition may be exorbitant if the individual ticketed is unable to pay,
particularly because the magnitude of the forfeiture – potentially an individual’s home and all of
his or her personal property – is so extreme.6
The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines and fees originated and has been
consistently applied to prevent the government from using financial penalties to deprive
individuals of other civil liberties, particularly of political dissent.7 Thus, although the City may
be facing political pressure to do so, it would be cruel and unusual punishment to silence
residents living in oversized vehicles by levying fines that effectively deprive these citizens of
their homes and prevent them from remaining in Mountain View to participate in civic life and
voice their dissent.
II. The Proposed Oversized Vehicle Parking Ban Would Violate the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause for Targeting People Who Are
Homeless, Disproportionately Burdening People with Disabilities, and
Infringing on the Fundamental Right to Travel
The proposed oversized vehicle parking ban would disproportionately burden oversized
vehicle owners who are homeless in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. The proposed ordinance would prohibit individuals dwelling in oversized vehicles
from parking on Mountain View city streets but make exceptions for “vehicles parked adjacent
to their residence or business (property owner, tenant, or their guest), government authorities,
utilities, emergency vehicles, and disabled placard or license plate holders.”8
Like other municipal ordinances that target homeless people for prosecution and removal
by arbitrarily criminalizing personal characteristics and/or behaviors that are otherwise lawful,9
the oversized vehicle parking ban would disproportionately affect homeless individuals who
have no other choice but to live in their vehicles. These individuals would be prevented from
obtaining a permit to park their RV’s or other oversized vehicles on City streets while their
neighbors who own homes and others covered by the ban’s exceptions would be free to access
the permits and the benefit of parking their oversized vehicles within city limits. Such a penalty
for being homeless is patently unfair and unlawful. Punishing a person because of his or her
poverty violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.10
5 See, e.g., Timbs v. Indiana, 139 S. Ct. 682 (2019) (protection against excessive fines is a
fundamental right applicable to the seizure of a vehicle by state law enforcement). 6 United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 334 (1998) (March 19, 2019). 7 Timbs, 139 S. Ct. at 689; see also United States v. Nation, No. CR 13-0106-DOC-1, 2019 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 36002, at *58 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2019). 8 Mountain View City Manager’s Report to Council, supra note 4, at 29.
9 See, e.g., Desertrain v. City of L.A., 754 F.3d 1147, 1155–57 (9th Cir. 2014). 10 See, e.g., Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 668 (1983); People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal. App. 5th
1157, 1167-68 (2019).
Page 4 of 9
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley | 4 North Second Street, Suite 1300 | San Jose, CA 95113
The proposed oversized vehicle parking ban will also violate the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment for discriminating against individuals with a disability. Over 42%
of chronically homeless individuals in Santa Clara County have a physical disability and over
half suffer from a psychiatric or emotional condition11 (compared to just 4.3% and 3.2%,
respectively, of the county general population12). Many of these individuals depend on
oversized vehicles not only for shelter, but also other services including mobility, stability, and
privacy that are essential to their wellbeing and access to public accommodations in light of a
disabling condition. Banning oversized vehicles citywide would deprive these individuals from
participating in the everyday activities that make up civic life.
Creating an exception to the ban for individuals with a disability will not absolve the City
of liability under laws prohibiting discrimination based on disability. The ordinance will still
have a disproportionate effect on the basis of disability because an individual applying for this
exception will be required to present at least some additional information (specifically, that they
are disabled) on top of what will be required of owners of oversized vehicles without disabilities
who apply for the homeowner exception rather than a disability exception.
The ordinance will also be unconstitutional if it requires individuals applying for the
disability exception to make a special showing with respect to their vehicle’s equipment, or the
necessity or impact of its parking location in order to access a permit to park within city limits.
Such additional showings create barriers on the basis of disability to accessing permits that
homeowners will be able to access as of right in clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s
Equal Protection Clause.
Additionally, the oversized vehicle parking ban will violate the Fourteenth Amendment
by infringing on the fundamental right to travel. The Supreme Court has held that “any
classification which serves to penalize the exercise of [the right to travel], unless shown to be
necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional.”13
The ban would subject individuals who reside in an oversized vehicle to the constant
threat of citation and seizure of their home and all of their personal possessions just for parking
within City limits.14 This means that individuals cannot safely park in the City to vote, conduct
business, attend doctor’s appointments or receive other medical care, go to work, or meet and
interact with family or friends.
11 APPLIED SURVEY RES., 2017 SANTA CLARA COUNTY HOMELESS CENSUS & SURVEY 37 (2018). 12 U.S. CENSUS BUR., 2017 AM. COMM. SURVEY tbl. S1810 (2018). 13 Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634 (1969) (emphasis in original). 14 Those who are able to access one of the City’s Safe Parking sites, of which there are only 13 spaces for the nearly 200 oversized vehicles identified in Mountain View (see Attachment 9 to
Item 7.1 of the City Council Agenda for March 19, 2019), will not be as restricted as those who
cannot access this resource, but will still be forced to surrender their right to travel in order to
access a safe parking site and avoid ticketing and seizure of their home and personal property.
Page 5 of 9
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley | 4 North Second Street, Suite 1300 | San Jose, CA 95113
This thinly-veiled attempt to eject and exclude from the City oversized vehicle owners
who reside in their vehicles while making exceptions for those who do not cannot be supported
by a government interest compelling enough to justify a complete ban on their travel within the
City. “If a law has no other purpose . . . than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by
penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it [is] patently unconstitutional.”15
III. The Proposed Oversized Vehicle Parking Ban Would Subject Oversized
Vehicle Owners to a Substantial Risk of Harm in Violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Protection for Substantive Due Process
The Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of “a citizen’s liberty interest in her own bodily
security” is central to the right to Substantive Due Process.16 Although this right does not
require the government to protect citizens from all forms of private violence, it does prohibit
state action that “affirmatively place[s] the plaintiff in a position of danger, that is, where state
action creates or exposes an individual to a danger which he or she would not have otherwise
faced.”17 Thus, police and other government actors violate the Fourteenth Amendment “where
they affirmatively place an individual in danger…, by acting with deliberate indifference to [a]
known or obvious danger in subjecting the plaintiff to it.”18
Banning oversized vehicle parking citywide when there are no shelter beds and
insufficient safe parking sites will have the cruel effect of forcing more people to live outside,
without any shelter at all, subject to the elements and the risk of harm to their wellbeing and
personal safety. A Ninth Circuit district court has held that enforcement of a municipal
ordinance that effectively deprives someone of their only source of shelter subjects individuals to
risk of serious harm in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.19
Ticketing, towing, and impounding oversized vehicles being used for shelter likewise
subjects individuals to the obvious harm of living outside without shelter from the elements or
protection from theft or assault. City Council’s deliberate indifference to this danger and the
people it would subject to it – who, again, are some of our most vulnerable neighbors – is totally
contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment’s concern for bodily security.
15 Shapiro, 394 U.S. at 631 (citing United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 581 (1968)). 16 See Kennedy v. Ridgefield City, 439 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th Cir. 2006). 17 Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).
18 Id. at 1062 (internal quotations omitted) (citing Munger v. City of Glasgow, 227 F.3d 1082,
1086 (9th Cir. 2000); L.W. v. Grubbs, 92 F.3d 894, 900 (9th Cir. 1996)). 19 See Sanchez v. City of Fresno, 914 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1100-02 (E.D. Cal. 2012).
Page 6 of 9
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley | 4 North Second Street, Suite 1300 | San Jose, CA 95113
IV. Enforcement of the Proposed Oversized Vehicle Parking Ban Would Violate
the Fourth Amendment’s Protection Against Unreasonable Seizures
Towing and impounding individuals’ vehicles is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment
because it interferes with the vehicle owner’s possessory interests in his or her mobile home and
the personal property inside.20 “A seizure conducted without a warrant is per se unreasonable
under the Fourth Amendment – subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated
exceptions,” and the burden is on the government to show that such an exception applies.21
Probable cause to believe that the driver has committed a traffic violation is not sufficient
justification in itself to impound that vehicle.22 The only exception to the Fourth Amendment’s
warrant requirement for towing vehicles is for police acting in their “community caretaker”
function to “impound[] vehicles that jeopardize public safety and the efficient movement of
vehicular traffic.”23
The City of Mountain View will not be able to meet its burden to show that the
community caretaker exception applies. Every decision to impound a vehicle must be supported
by a finding that “the vehicle was actually impeding traffic or threatening public safety and
convenience on the streets such that impoundment is warranted.”24 Because the proposed
ordinance would ban parking oversized vehicles citywide, it will undoubtedly include oversized
vehicles that pose no impediment to traffic, public safety or convenience. Enforcing the
ordinance against such vehicles by towing them will violate the Fourth Amendment.25
Owners of oversized vehicles also have a possessory interest in the personal property
stored in their vehicles. For individuals who must reside in their vehicles, the property stored in
their vehicles is frequently everything they own, including forms of identification, financial
documents, medication, assistive devices, clothing, children’s toys, toiletries, and keepsakes.
Where impound and recovery fees prevent individuals whose vehicles are towed under the
proposed ordinance from recovering this personal property, an unreasonable seizure of this
property will have occurred.
20 See Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 61 (1992) (“As a result of the state action in this case,
the Soldals’ domicile was not only seized, it literally was carried away, giving new meaning to
the term ‘mobile home.’ We fail to see how being unceremoniously dispossessed of one’s home
in the manner alleged to have occurred here can be viewed as anything but a seizure invoking the protection of the Fourth Amendment.”).
21 United States v. Hawkins, 249 F.3d 867, 872 (9th Cir. 2001). 22 United States v. Cervantes, 703 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Miranda v. City of
Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2005)). 23 Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 24 Id.
25 See Taylor v. City of Saginaw, No. 17-2126, 2019 WL 1757953, at *5 (6th Cir. Apr. 22, 2019)
(community caretaker exception does not apply to the enforcement of a parking ordinance
against vehicles that are not impeding public safety or convenience).
Page 7 of 9
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley | 4 North Second Street, Suite 1300 | San Jose, CA 95113
Additional Fourth Amendment violations may occur if oversized vehicles towed under
the ordinance are also searched. “[W]arrantless inventory searches of vehicles are lawful only if
conducted pursuant to standard police procedures that are aimed at protecting the owner’s
property and at protecting the police from the owner charging them with having stolen, lost, or
damaged his property,” and are conducted following a seizure properly conducted under the
community caretaking function.26 Thus, Mountain View police will commit an unreasonable
search in violation of the Fourth Amendment whenever they enforce the oversized vehicle
parking ban outside of their community caretaker role and conduct a warrantless search of that
vehicle.27
V. The Oversized Vehicle Parking Ban Would Deny the Right to Travel and
Freedom of Association
The proposed oversized vehicle parking ban would also deny the right to travel protected
by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and
Article I, Sections 7 and 24 of the California Constitution.28 Federal and California state courts
alike have consistently held that laws that directly restrict freedom of movement or deny benefits
by creating two classes of residents based on one class’s exercise of the right to travel are
unconstitutional.29
As explained above, owners of oversized vehicles who reside in them will be effectively
excluded from the City entirely because the parking ban will prohibit them from conducting
essential life activities without fear of citation and resulting loss of their home and all of their
possessions.30 Thus, the proposed ordinance would not only restrict the freedom of association
of those who own and live in an oversized vehicle – it would deny them virtually every benefit of
living in the City of Mountain View. This complete and total ban on these individuals parking
anywhere in the City amounts to a direct prohibition on these individuals’ ability to travel to and
within the City of Mountain View.
26 Cervantes, 703 F.3d at 1141. 27 See Taylor, supra note 25. 28 See Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 9 Cal. 4th 1069, 1100 (1995). 29 See id. at 1099; see also Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634 (1969) (durational residence
as a condition of receiving public assistance impermissibly penalized right to travel); Dunn v.
Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972) (durational residence as a condition of voting impermissibly
penalized right to travel); In re Marriage of Fingert, 221 Cal. App. 3d 1575 (1990) (court order
requiring parent to remain in county or surrender custody of child impermissible penalized right to travel); In re White, 97 Cal. App. 3d 141, 150 (1979) (condition of probation prohibiting
individual from entering certain map areas impermissibly burdened state constitutional right to
intramunicipal travel). 30 See supra notes 10, 13–15 and accompanying text.
Page 8 of 9
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley | 4 North Second Street, Suite 1300 | San Jose, CA 95113
VI. Mountain View Municipal Code Section 19.70.1, Prohibiting Parking of
Vehicles that Discharge Domestic Sewage on the Public Right-of-Way is
Unconstitutionally Vague in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
Section 19.70.1 of the Mountain View Municipal Code is void for vagueness under the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because “it is so vague and standardless that it
leaves the public uncertain as to the conduct it prohibits . . . .”31 More specifically, the ordinance
is unconstitutionally vague both because it fails “to provide the kind of notice that will enable
ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits,” and because it “may authorize and even
encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”32
Section 19.70.1 makes it “unlawful to park a vehicle on a public street or highway that
discharges or has discharged domestic sewage… onto the public right-of-way.”33 However, the
statute fails to actually identify the activity prohibited because it does not define what “a
vehicle… that discharges or has discharged domestic sewage” actually means. Furthermore, as
the preamble to the ordinance makes clear, it is already unlawful to discharge or threaten to
discharge domestic sewage onto the public right of way and the Mountain View Police
Department already tickets for these violations. What additional conduct, then, does the
ordinance seek to prohibit?
Vehicle owners are left “guessing as to what behavior would subject them to
citation….”34 This uncertainty makes it impossible for ordinary citizens to differentiate between
innocent and illegal conduct and conform their behavior to the law.35 Therefore, Section 19.70.1
is void for vagueness because it fails to provide fair notice of the conduct it prohibits.
Section 19.70.1 is void for vagueness for the additional reason that it encourages arbitrary
and discriminatory enforcement.36 The ordinance was passed along with a package of measures
aimed at homeless individuals residing in their vehicles, which shows that the intent behind it is
in fact to encourage discriminatory enforcement against oversized vehicle owners who are
homeless. This charge is a rank violation of due process and patently “incompatible with the
concept of an even-handed administration of the law to the poor and to the rich that is
fundamental to a democratic society.”37
31 Desertrain, 754 F.3d at 1155 (quoting Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399, 402 (1966)).
32 Id. (citing City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 56 (1999)).
33 Mountain View Mun. Code § 19.70.1. 34 Desertrain, 754 F.3d at 1155. 35 See id. 36 See id. at 1156 (citing Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162 (1972)) (“If a statute provides no standards governing the exercise of... discretion, it becomes a convenient tool
for harsh and discriminatory enforcement by local prosecuting officials, against particular groups
deemed to merit their displeasure.”). 37 Id. at 1157.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2019 2:00 AM
To:Bains, Paul; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; cromero@cityofepa.org; lgauthier@cityofepa.com;
cmrstaylor@gmail.com; Council, City; city.council@menlopark.org; pushpinder.lubana@gmail.com;
chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com;
rabrica@cityofepa.org; lmoody@cityofepa.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; fred124c41
@gmail.com; rwallacejones@cityofepa.org
Subject:Banning Vehicle Dwellers RV from our streets in unconstitutional —see ACLU letter to Mt. View City
Council...same constitutional arguments apply to Palo Alto, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto ...
Attachments:LFSV+and+ACLU+Letter+RE+Oversized+Vehicle+Parking+Ban_050719.pdf
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/577c8338bebafbe36dfc1691/t/5cd333a324a694eb05fe2da0/1557345187603/LF
SV+and+ACLU+Letter+RE+Oversized+Vehicle+Parking+Ban_050719.pdf
Sent from my iPhone
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Don Ballard <dwesleyballard@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 13, 2019 9:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:CalTrain Track
I live in Palo Alto and moved here in 1974 but that’s not relevant to the Caltrain subject.
Here’s an idea. How about just leaving the tracks as they are and let people live with it? When one considers the cost
and the disruption to the residents of the community, are tunnels and/or bridges and closing off streets worth it? Alma
Street is already an alternative to El Camino and Highway 101 that can be seen by the amount of traffic that flows on it,
many times well in excess of the posted 35mph.
Here’s another idea. Build BART down the middle of Highway 101 on the Peninsula. Maybe that could be done in a cost
effective way unlike Governor Brown’s Central Valley high‐speed rail idea?
When I listen to Council discuss the train tracks issue I wonder why some members get so deep into the details of soil
conditions and eminent domain and “shoefly” stuff.
Is changing the tracks necessary?
Sent from my iPhone
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:AGZA Kicks Gas <agzakicksgas@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 8, 2019 12:03 PM
To:Luke Massman-Johnson
Cc:Dan Mabe
Subject:INVITATION: Certification Ceremony for the First AGZA Green Zone® High School in the Nation
Attachments:AGZA_GZ_YBHS_Press_Release.pdf
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
AGZA would be grateful if you’d consider joining us in San Jose next Monday for the certification ceremony of
Yerba Buena High School as the First AGZA Green Zone® High School in the Nation.
AGZA Green Zone Ceremony
Monday, May 13th, 9am
Yerba Buena High School,
1901 Lucretia Ave, San Jose, CA 9512
This casual event will be a fantastic and rare opportunity to hear from the school leadership and AGZA about
the development of this program. You will see and hear the commercial-grade battery-electric equipment, and
be able to talk directly with us about the challenges, strategy, budget, equipment fleet, and ROI of this
extremely promising solution.
With great respect for your time, if you are interested please review the press release attached below or
visit www.agza.net/agza-gz-ybhs. An expanded introduction to AGZA and this project is below my signature.
We hope we have the opportunity to meet in person and discuss sustainable grounds care for your community.
Thank you for your consideration,
Luke
Luke Massman‐Johnson
CFO, Communications Director
1 (323) 445‐1613
Luke@AGZA.net
AGZA.net
ABOUT AGZA GREEN ZONES
American Green Zone Alliance helps cities and schools eliminate the noise pollution, smog-forming emissions,
and greenhouse gasses from gas-powered ground maintenance by transitioning them to low-noise zero-
emission electric tools and operations.
2
Our scaleable AGZA Green Zone model has attracted the attention of communities across the country who are
juggling gas leaf blower debates, air quality challenges, and carbon targets.
Here in California we have established sustainable land care for South Pasadena and Ojai, preventing a
combined total of 141 tons of airborne pollutants from entering their communities every single year. On Long
Island we’re rolling out battery-electric operations across Southhampton and Heckscher Park. In Colorado
we’re working with Fort Collins. AGZA helped Cal State LA establish electric groundskeeping operations, and
USC, UC Irvine and Penn State are all vying to be the First AGZA Green Zone University in the Nation.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Terry <terryakins@earthlink.net>
Sent:Thursday, May 9, 2019 8:32 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Crime, Real Estate, Politics and Media
I am writing this story because we have an election coming up and I am still being held as a
prisoner of the past and several running presidents. If no one is above the law, then what
happened here to me? How many reports can I give and get no results.
This is ridiculous,
Can we get someone in the White House that isn’t associated with my story and the media BS??
Biden is an idiot and fully entrenched in public corruption with black and Hispanics. Since he is
backed by the fire dept. union then I guess I have to fire the fire dept. in order to win.
Biden will just expand the problems that have harmed and divided our country. Mayor Pete
Buttigieg is out of his mind and working with my family and my gay roommate and my other
roommate who is a Screen Actor’s Guild producer. I have had enough! This is a problem with
media, real estate, crime and law enforcement. This also includes Trump. If this is a battle for
America’s soul, then we all better be running. Our country was not founded upon discord and
marches. It was founded upon the dream of prosperity. They used me as a pawn in political
situations as a population exchange toy. The people in this story do not view me as human.
My story and why I am concerned:
My sister Eve, Tim, her husband, Oprah, Stedman Graham, Alicia Lozano (Latin Kings Gang -
Queen) had planned to target me in 1983 stating that they would take my life. They followed
through with it when I decided to divorce my husband who was producing for politicians, and
Deborah Wassermann Schultz. The group snuck around and enlisted Michelle Obama -Chicago,
Barak Obama lived in Pasadena and went to college there. Molly Munger, Hillary Clinton decided
that they would sex traffic me and sent several men to sexually assault me in the La Canada,
Altadena, Pasadena area in 1996 on to 2007. They had used the sheriff’s department in the
Altadena area and La Cresenta as well as the fire department and the Altadena Town Council to
do the job of gang stalking me. It has been extended and all my resources are depleted. LAPD
and LAFD has surrounded me with gang members who plan to murder me here in West Adams
area or DTLA where I work. Either way, I will be murdered, and the plan is to be completed.
LAPD surrounded me with the casket and funeral of Nipsey Hustle crowd. They normally show
me what will happen to me before they execute the plan. In Mary Wickham’s office at the
County Counsel’s office sits more black operatives who are refusing to give me restitution from
the criminal activity of the group. I have written and asked many times and I have told them to
stop. They will not.
They had started the Film LA group and they would film everywhere that I lived and of course
stalk. When I complained to Mike Antonovich and to Film LA. They went to all cities and also the
LAPD commission panel. The Panel members include the Chairperson, Lara Yeretsian, the Vice-
Chairperson Nicholas Roxborough, Maruf Islam, William O. Kil, Jose Sandoval, Tammy
Membreno, and Jennifer Vasquez and later Steve Soboroff, President of the Board- commercial
real-estate developer, Eileen M. Decker, Vice President of the Board, former U.S. Attorney, Sandra Figueroa-Villa, Commissioner’ non-profit organization director., Cynthia McClain-Hill,
2
Commissioner, lawyer & lobbyist, Shane Murphy Goldsmith, Commissioner, non-profit organization president.
Film LA and producers as well as the lawyers that surround the groups went wild attacking me at
random and setting up scenarios where I would be assaulted and harassed. Police went online
and I could no longer get work or find housing. They went to every employer that I worked with
and every time that I applied for housing, they had the landlord use their tenants to assault and
attack me and then LAPD would falsify reports to arrest me on false charges for their crimes.
The idea is to destroy a person’s life and to hide the evidence.
Film LA has also now gone to security companies that work in grocery stores. Ralph’s, Kroger
and Food for Less headquarters in Compton. Jussie Smollet used the idea of the of the false
assault charges from the group here in the Los Angeles division. Since Film LA parks behind the
Food for Less here in the West Adams District in Los Angeles. Daniel Chavez Serial, #36304
orchestrated the attacks here with several Mexicans and blacks. In Van Nuys division also
orchestrated attacks and Moran badge #37845 and Sierra badge #38535. The Olympic Division
-several Hispanics participated and that is who set up the totaling of my car in conjunction with
the deputy for the area Billie Greene at Herb Wesson’s office in the Western Washington office.
My Gay roommate Paul Marsack and my indie SAG producer Roommate (Allen Kelley)
who relay’s all the antics and crime through Vanessa Rosales – food for less PR for Los Angeles
and Chicago. Lisa G. Rosales is the Glendora Police Chief.
They would use Supervisor Barger’s office and mental Illness as an excuse to execute me and to
falsify medical reports so they could lie about the organized gang stalking techniques and the
rigging of the elections. Hollywood Mental Health participates, IMCES, Dr. Gillespie from
Pasadena participated in my case. Tracy Anderson is also involved in the Bureau of Victim
services in Jackie Lacey’s office
They did bring in the FBI and they participated as well as the fire departments in La Canada,
Western and Washington and Glendale.
The police that have been doing the most harm are now black and Hispanic. They are using
Mexicans and Blacks in police media and communications departments that are supposed to be
reporting the news but the are doing fake news and Mayor Buttigieg decided upon a false assault
story with his Mexican media liaison Ken Garcia. He needs to step down because false assault
charges and fake news is not funny. He needs to step down as a presidential candidate. It was
set up by my family in South Bend my and gay roommate as well as the producers here in Los
Angeles. My other roommate is one of the producers.
I have been blocked from getting any justice so they all just went wild trying to murder me. and
laughing about all the damage and rapes.
Since producers also produced real estate seminars, women in real state started stalking me as
well. They would send men to bother me in a work setting and the women would gain the money
and position leaving me as they did in the beginning with Oprah, penniless. They all are having
fun at my expense. LAPD will not stop and they drive by wherever I am laughing at the mess
they have made of my life.
What is organized stalking?
3
The deliberate creation of negative experiences in a person’s life whereby people unacquainted
with the target execution of covert attacks such as drugging, poisoning, mob action, and
mutilation of pets through personal proximity or hired thugs.
Who engages in organized stalking?
Organized stalkers can include gangs, government and non-government organizations, slighted
dates and women scorned.
How do they do it?
People who engage in organized stalking typically cloak their reasoning is professes some
greater good. They often impose labels on their victims and other abuses of power such as the
direction of government resources toward victimizing their target of targets. They promulgate
the idea that somehow the target or targets are essential “bad” somehow or that the outcome is
somehow just such as disabling opposition, discrediting an opponent, answering a threat.
A basic systematic overview of the process of organized stalking is that it usually begins with
psychological profiling where perpetrators case the target. The use of spying technology is often
employed to compromise the communications of the target. The goal is to identify the victim’s
strengths and vulnerabilities.
With that information, perpetrators begin to publicly trivialize the target. Perpetrators are often
fixated on the past. Part of the reason they engage in an organized stalk and make such a big
deal about everyone having a past is a yearning for someone to care about them and their past
even. It is a control issue that says,” Since no one cares about me and my past, I’m going to
magnify negative incidents in your life.” They often publicly label targets as unstable, drug
addicted, or threat to society either through misinformation or the repeated conjuring of past
events. The goal is alienation and isolation.
The next phase includes psychological attacks through cognitive and emotional infiltration.
Organized stalkers attempt to invoke self-doubt through misinformation aimed at the
manipulation of memory and perception often referred to as gas-lighting. Emotional infiltration
includes the befriending or consoling the attacked individual and conversely initiate emotional
aggression using language and implications.
Physical attacks against property include breeches of privacy and invasion of personal space,
pseudo-random acts of violence and poisonings.
Why do they do it?
Mental states of organized stalkers range from sheer malice to personal gain. Quite often
perpetrators are themselves victims of a perverted herding instinct, because it takes a free
thinker to see past the socially permeating rationalizations that underlie the organized stalk.
They are sometimes overly responsive to a perceived or real slight.
From a strictly logical standpoint, organized stalkers typically spend more resources than they
profit from the stalk pointing to deep seeded unresolved emotional issues. Wealthy, attractive
people with full, rich, satisfying lives do not have the time or desire to engage in the shadows
necessary to execute an effective organized stalk.
Quite simply, the aim is to get away with harming target whether it is social, mental, or physical.
The goal is usually financial ruin, induction of suicide, or institutionalization.
Terry Akins
4
terryakins@earthlink.net
818 415 6922
Here is a list of the people that have been participating and arranging set-ups through lawyers
and law enforcement throughout the United States as was started in Chicago, Illinois.
Casey Wasserman- California - http://www.wassermanfoundation.org/about/
Tony Robbins-ROBBINS RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, INC. 6160 Cornerstone Court East Ste. 200
San Diego, CA 92121- Producers for Tony in the real estate field.
Ben stormer - https://www.linkedin.com/in/ben-stormer-63b47a14/
Mary Quigley- California- 21/2 men producer, Erin Quigley- California stopped bothering me
recently but were involved from the beginning.
Edith H Brittingham, formerly Olsen, lived in La Canada, worked in Real Estate and now lives in
Newport Beach 949-887-4775. My ex- mother -in-law was married to Earl Beadle’s father who is
deceased. – She worked for Coldwell Banker in Newport Beach- Edith H Brittingham
Charlie Munger- California- friend of ex-husband, and his mother, my ex-mother-in-law- - 355 S
Grand Ave FL 35, Los Angeles, CA 90071- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Munger
Molly Munger- Civil Rights Lawyer- friend of ex-husband
Bruce Margolin and Lonnie Levin- Levin and Margolin Law office- 8484 Wilshire Blvd Ste 660,
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
The Building Industry Association- http://www.biasc.org/cpages/home
Steven Schuyler, VP Government Affairs- BIA So-Cal
Julie Acevedo Lopez (Formerly worked at Azteca and Univision connections ) and Gus Lopez-BIA
and Glendale
Bonnie Fisher and Louis Fisher, 2183 Santa Anita Avenue, Altadena-626 421 6105
Pierre Dupuy and Michelle Lee – 2621 Marengo Avenue, Altadena - Michelle Lee- Altadena- hair
and makeup Network
Dossier Agency- Pasadena- Beverly Hills-Lawyers
Steve Lamb- Altadena- https://www.whitepages.com/name/Steven-Scott-Lamb/Altadena-
CA/42gy640 403 Ventura Street, 626 797 6464
Steve and Lisa Housler -388 S Lake Ave, Pasadena, CA 91101- (626) 844-2245
Kerrie and Rick Bodmer - 542 Foothill, La Canada Flintridge, CA 91011
(818) 790-2203
Julie Battaglia-4365 Encinas drive, La Canada
Judge Maria Stratton and Jim Stratton- La Canada
5
Doug Molitor- Altadena, Los Angeles, writer, Suzie Molitor- Altadena- O’Melveny and Meyer
Ben Morey construction- So-Cal Remodelers Council
Bob Lake Home Services- So-Cal Remodelers Council
Judy O’Neill- JP O’Neill is located at 234 E Mendocino St, Altadena, CA 91001- (626) 794-8369
Frolin Garcia-7003 Costello Ave, Van Nuys, CA; 13617
David Smith contracting and Christine- Altadena Address: 2353 Fair Oaks Ave, Altadena, CA
91001- 410 Benett Avenue
Phone: (626) 398-2010 and Glendora
David and Cathy Henderson- 806 e. Leodora, Glendora- painting contractor
Megan Henderson-works for Allen Popkin, former brother-in-law, KTLA
Jim Ealy- La Crescenta
Jennifer Elbe- La Crescenta
Cameron Popkin-ex-sister-in-law-Allen Popkin-ex-brother-in-law- 4442 Van Noord Ave, Studio
City, CA;
Joan Merill Staley- Chase (boyfriend) 2230 Waltonia drive, Montrose, CA
Peter Martin- 5025 Crown Avenue La Canada, CA 91011-818 495 3024 – son Brian Martin
- Commercial Real Estate
Cynthia Wilcox- La Canada-1349 Verdugo Blvd, La Canada Jeff W. Palmer- Sandra Maxwell- La
Canada-Moved, address unknown
Former Judge Kanner information unknown
Judge Stan Blumenfeld- La Canada
Judge Fred Rottenburg-Pasadena
Mike Antonovich, former LA County Board, Maiden Lane- Altadena and moved to Glendale
(Montrose)
Mike Miniskis- 1507 Olive Lane, La Canada but moved to Altadena
David Romley, law offices - 727 Crenshaw Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90005 , - and girlfriend, Swan
Von Gai , 0629 Franlie drive, Sunland, CA
Martha Bisordi -, 49, Glendale- Keller Williams
Julie Pena- Julie J Pena 14113 Cragmont Baldwin Park, CA 91706 (626) 962-3302. Formerly,
West Covina Court House
6
Lilian Elizalde-4205 ¾ Baldwin Park Avenue- and the Flores Family- Law enforcement
Hollywood Mental Health- 1224 Vine St, Los Angeles · (323) 769-6100, Vivian Hazboun and staff
Several LAPD – especially the media department- Contract services, I have some names, but I
can’t remember them all -
Elizabeth Miller- Legal Counsel LA County Sheriff’s Department
Allen Jackson- LA DA-Tennessee- http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/06/local/la-me-jackson-
20130207- from Bells, TN- Friend of My sister and Republican
Paul Marsack- Current Roommate-250 w. 20th street
Bill McSweeney-Sheriff’s Department
James Lewis- 345 Mendocino Avenue, Altadena
Mayor Eric Garcetti -along with Casey Wasserman and formerly, Bob Iger- now just Casey and
the BIA, Ventura – So Cal.
Film LA -Susan Angrisano, 198 Donna Washington, started in 1998 1201 W 5th St Ste T800,
Los Angeles, CA 90017, 213 977 8600
David White- SAG president
Earl Beadle (ex-husband), 2575 n. Marengo Ave, Altadena, Ca 626 668 5266
Elizabeth Miller- Sheriff’s department, head legal council
Sheriff McDonnell- Police Chief has not filed any reports even though I have been writing, calling
internal affairs, reporting to the Briggs station and internal affairs and submitting since Sheriff
Lee Baca was in office
Mikala Rahn- Public works-394 N. Lima street, CA 91021 75451682
Lucy Jones- Cal Tech – Pasadena
Mike Weinstein- Aids LA-AIDS Healthcare Foundation -6255 W. Sunset Blvd. 21st Fl.
Los Angeles, CA 90028- (323) 860-5200
Aku Berecket- Former Nurse – My current landlord 2250 W. 20th street and her daughter
Cameron Nami- 706 S. Hill Street, suite 1018, LA, CA 90014- son going into real estate
Ron Meyer- CFO, Universal
Mark Miller- Stevenson Realty- Glendale, CA
Glenn DeMichele | Professional Profile- Chicago, Il.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/glenn-demichele-28074322
Eric Holder- Lawyer- Former Attorney General
Eve Pritchard- Timothy Wayne Pritchard- Tennessee 114 Woodhaven Drive, Jackson, TN
Stedman Graham- Chicago - 737 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1050, Chicago, Il.
Vernon Winfrey- Vernon Winfrey Ave, Nashville, TN 37207
Oprah Winfrey- California – Harpo films 1041 N Formosa Ave. (323) 602-5500
7
Congressman- Mike Quigley- Illinois and Washington http://quigley.house.gov
Deborah Wasserman Schultz-Florida - https://wassermanschultz.house.gov
Ruth Jacob- Mark James Salon- Wells Street -Illinois- Deceased
Mark Stein- Mark James salon- Wells street– Chicago Deceased
Jill Stein-Chicago-- https://www.jill2016.com
Alicia Lozano- unknown Chicago IL. Address: Chicago, IL 60626
Reese Witherspoon-Pacific Palisades, CA + BIA + Glendale-Pirch
Eric Holder- lawyer
Ellen Stuart 694 San Lorenzo St., Santa Monica 90402 - Call 310-450-3203
Nancy Gunn-Producer- New Orleans + Trump
Terry Jones-Ventura- deceased- BIA associate handyman and production
Curtis Golden-producer- New York + Trump
Leslie Wasserman-Glen Ellyn, Wheaton, and Chicago Il.
Robert Potter-Chicago, Il.- AA Junkie and Cult Follower
Diane Ladd- Actress
Mike Niederman- Faculty, Columbia College, https://www.colum.edu/academics/media-
arts/cinema.../michael-niederman.html
Sebastian Ridley Thomas-Former Assemblyman
Megan Markle-engaged to Prince Harry
Dawn Gallium- IATSE President
David White-SAG
LAPD Police Commission Vice President Eileen Decker- Hid evidence for the Obamas
Mark Coté- - St. Charles Il. and Disney animation.
Louis Farrakhan- Chicago Il
Barak and Michelle Obama (from Chicago) - Now Producing at Netflix
Melody- the black office clerk in Kathryn Barger’s office.
Al Gore-ex-Vice President- worked with my ex-husband- now at Apple
Paul Horn- Bankruptcy Attorney- Julie Pena works for Paul
Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend Indiana
Ken Garcia - South Bend Indiana Police Media
Akins Family in South Bend IN
Glendale PD
Baldwin Park PD
West Covina PD
Glendora PD
Limpid Jewelry
Marcus and Millichap Realty
8
Terry Akins
terryakins@earthlink.net
818 415 6922
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jennifer Mutz <jennifer.mutz@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 12, 2019 8:32 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:'Andy Mutz'; 'Jennifer Mutz'
Subject:Cubberley & Housing Proposal
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
Re: Cubberley & Housing Proposal – Do Not Utilize Cubberley for Housing.
Public Facilities (PF-zoned land) should be preserved for community services, not used for
housing. Once converted to housing, it will never be available for public use again. A city is not
viable with only dense housing and no public spaces or community services. Ironically, adding
dense housing on the Cubberley site will increase the need for public facilities, which are
being eliminated to make room for the dense housing! An illogical step.
As you know, Cubberley was saved from condo development over 35 years ago, and since then has
served as precious space for community services. It’s already a dense community center/school/field
space that has evolved from the master planning process -- which involved many years of intense
planning and prioritizing a space that continues to serve the entire community (schools, playing fields,
day care, senior services, gymnasiums, arts, cultural programming, and other services). Placing
housing on this site would be short-sighted when there are viable alternative options right next door,
such as the PAUSD owned property at 525 San Antonio, already zoned for housing. In addition, it’s
likely more dense housing will be built in Palo Alto as a result of pending State Legislature SB-50 and
Stanford’s expansion, also generating greater demand for public facilities which would be in even
shorter supply if housing is built on the Cubberley site.
Forward thinking, wise Palo Alto predecessors preserved land on two sites that are
community treasures today:
- Palo Alto Little League:
The PALL site was purchased in 1952 and has served thousands of kids over the years, an
invaluable community space for children and families. Our family participated in Little League
for over 10 years while my son played baseball and his father managed teams. My husband
continues on the Board to this day. My son, now in high school, has come full circle umpiring
for PALL the past three years (his first job) and volunteer coaching the same elementary age
PALL kids he used to be (creating volunteer opportunities for our high school teens). None of
this would have been possible if the PALL had not saved this site from development over 70
years ago!
- Winter Lodge:
A site saved from condo development by Palo Alto community activists and the City Council in
1984! Winter Lodge is now a treasured community space, one of the top 10 outdoor skating
experiences in the country, and #1 skating school in the U.S! I am an ice skating instructor
here; it’s where I work. And I can attest to the value of this community gem as a place to learn
a sport, a safe place for kids and teens to congregate after school and on weekends, a magical
space for families to have celebrations, and PAUSD schools to have outings.
2
We’re confident you’d like to be written into Palo Alto history books as one of these wise
predecessors who understood and preserved invaluable public space and paid it forward.
Respectfully,
Andy and Jennifer Mutz
25 year Palo Alto Residents, Parents, Community Volunteers
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Maureen McNally <moemcnally@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Thursday, May 9, 2019 10:19 PM
To:bhill@concordia.com; Golton, Bob; board@pausd.org; Council, City
Subject:Cubberley project
Hello all,
I was unable to attend the Cubberley Co‐Design meeting this evening. But have been following its progress at the
previous meetings.
Since there were lots of changes to the Project concepts, including the addition of four new scenarios with 32 ‐ 164 units
of housing on both the 525 San Antonio site and the Public Facilities (PF)‐zoned school community center, and the fact
that these changes were not presented at any of the previous meetings, i would suggest, (?) ask (?) request (?) that
potential impacts on neighborhood school commute routes be studied and considered. And definitely addressed in the
PHASE ONE OF THGE CONSTRUCTION.
This project will significantly increase the density and intensity of use of the site. None of the concepts shown so far has
addressed auto traffic impacts off‐site, particularly on neighborhood school commute routes in Greenmeadow and
Greendell. They have said this will be addressed in the environmental review process later. i am a bit uncomfortable
with waiting till then.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Maureen McNally
420 adobe place, Palo Alto
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Barbara Ann Hazlett <bthazlett@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, May 13, 2019 4:23 PM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Gaines, Chantal; kanne.megan@gmail.com
Subject:Evaluation Criteria Palo Alto Grade Separation
Dear Honorable Palo Alto City Council Members and City Manager, Ed Shikada:
RE: Connecting Palo Alto Grade Separation Planning: Revision of Alternatives for Further Study and Direction to Staff
Regarding Evaluation Criteria Weights
I am writing regarding the Weighting of Evaluation Criteria to guide discussion and your decision-making at this evening's
Council meeting. In the weighting matrix presented by staff, Criteria H states "Maintain or improve local access". This
Criteria requires fuller language as follows: Maintain or improve local access and reduce the impact of regional traffic on
neighborhood streets. We have received assurances from Staff and Council that the full criteria reflecting neighborhood
street impacts would be noted in all future decision matrix publications. Please ensure that there remains a committed
focus on this objective in your decision making. Therefore, this needs to be clearly stated on the matrix so that it is top of
mind.
I will also take this opportunity to remind Staff and Council that we were promised a robust and transparent traffic study
and appropriate mitigations. For technical reasons, the Emerson/ Embarcadero intersection was not included in the
specific intersections selected as requiring mitigation, despite the high level of impact anticipated for that
intersection. The traffic consultants and Staff admitted that the study was flawed and needed further work. We have seen
no follow-up. Our neighborhood and CAP representative have repeatedly asked Staff for a meeting with the traffic
consultants to discuss mitigation options for the clover leaf of Lincoln and Emerson St. You should care as deeply as we
do about this because you are making immutable decisions based on a flawed study.
Sincerely,
Barbara Hazlett
cc:
Chantal Gaines, Assistant to the City Manager
Megan Kanne, CAP Member
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Gloria Pyszka <gpyszka@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 11, 2019 7:27 PM
To:cory.wallbach@cityofpaloalto.org
Cc:bajphnson@paweekly.com; Palo Alto Weekly; Council, City
Subject:Foothill Park
We have enjoyed Foothill Park for many years. Yes, it often is under-utilized except on weekends and holidays. Currently,
anyone can drive, bike or walk in since no one is at the gate, except on weekends.
I have had to listen to boombox music at vista point and it wasn't conducive to enjoying the view.
If PA is going to open it, it has to realize that it will be one of the most (if not the) most popular parks on the peninsula
between SF and SJ. PA should be ready to employ additional (perhaps at least 5-10) park employees who have the
resonsibility for ensuring that everyone enjoys the park and doesn't misuse it such as
smoking pot, or whatever, in the meadows and on the back trails. (Palo Altans probably do it now for all I
know.) Everyone should be able to enjoy it as a park should be used. We may stop having family picnics on holidays as
it will be inundated with visitors from all over the bay area. But, that's life. It was good while it lasted. This is 2019, not
1975.
Palo Alto will have to cover additional costs that will be incurred besides salaries/benefits: 1) impact on park wildlife; 2)
impact on trails, and 3) impact on natural surroundings. That's what comes to mind, but that's not all.
Gloria Pyszka
284 East Charleston
Palo Alto
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Sunday, May 12, 2019 6:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Foothills Park
Council Members:
Please don’t be shamed into opening Foothills Park to the general public. It’s not racist or immoral or elitist to
have a park just for Palo Altans. You bought it. You paid for it, when no other city was interested.
Palo Alto has lots of parks open to anyone. Every surrounding city has parks. And the Arastradero Preserve is
open to all. It’s not like you’re keeping the public from the one and only green space in the Bay Area.
Palo Alto has become a target because it’s a unique city, thus it’s accused of gentrification,
discrimination, and now racism. These words are bandied about with impunity by people like Cory Wolbach,
who doesn’t seem to realize that just about every city – not just Palo Alto – had racist land‐use policies in the
50s and 60s. I don’t see how that relates to Foothills Park.
I lived in Palo Alto for 30 years. On one block of 18 homes there was a black family across the street, a
Palestinian family on one corner, a Ukrainian couple, a Korean family and 3 Indian families. I’ve never lived in
such a diverse – culturally and economically – neighborhood. Our block parties were wonderful!
Scott Wiener and other Sacramento politicians will try to destroy Palo Alto, but don’t voluntarily give up one
of your most precious natural spaces.
Don’t succumb to outrageous accusations. Keep Foothills wild, pristine and free of crowds, .
Pat Marriott, Los Altos
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Monday, May 13, 2019 4:36 PM
To:Doug Vagim; Steve Wayte; Mark Standriff; Joel Stiner; steve.hogg; kfsndesk; newsdesk;
kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Mark Kreutzer; dennisbalakian; Daniel Zack; David Balakian; terry; beachrides;
bearwithme1016@att.net; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; Mayor; info@superide1.com;
midge@thebarretts.com; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; margaret-sasaki@live.com; huidentalsanmateo;
nick yovino; robert.andersen
Subject:Fwd: LA Times article re Trump admin and Calif. HSR-
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, May 13, 2019 at 2:18 PM
Subject: Fwd: LA Times article re Trump admin and Calif. HSR‐
To: Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, May 13, 2019 at 2:06 PM
Subject: Fwd: LA Times article re Trump admin and Calif. HSR‐
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, May 13, 2019 at 1:53 PM
Subject: Fwd: LA Times article re Trump admin and Calif. HSR‐
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, May 13, 2019 at 1:47 PM
Subject: Fwd: LA Times article re Trump admin and Calif. HSR‐
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
2
Date: Mon, May 13, 2019 at 1:19 PM
Subject: Fwd: LA Times article re Trump admin and Calif. HSR‐
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, May 13, 2019 at 12:57 PM
Subject: LA Times article re Trump admin and Calif. HSR‐
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Monday, May 13, 2019
Dan‐ You've probably seen this, but in case you have not, here it is:
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la‐me‐bullet‐train‐trump‐dispute‐20190508‐
story.html?utm_source=Morning+Roundup&utm_campaign=90dfe06cce‐
EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_05_13_02_56&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_165ffe36b2‐90dfe06cce‐
78450701&mc_cid=90dfe06cce&mc_eid=7afa3a94f3
The Times says, a little surprisingly, that this is unusual. They quote a law prof. It looks political, part of Trump's
vedetta against Calif. This hints at that.
I am not optimistic re any of the Dem presidential candidates. Kamala with big reparations to Af. Americans,
Socialist Bernie, most of them against any rational immigration reform‐ Pelosi keeps intoning "We're a nation of
immigrants".
Trump: tough on China, tough on N. Korea, tough on Iran, tough on illegal immigration, guts NAFTA, booming
economy, low unemployment, low inflation (and a $5 trillion increase in the national debt). Hard to see how the Dems
win in 2020. Only some really impeachable revelations from on‐going investigations could unseat him, and the American
public say in polls they do not want him impeached for what we know now.
They showed how the illegals are rounded up at the border, given a court date five years out, and put on buses for
communities "where they have relatives". Catholic Charities provides food, clothing etc. before they leave on the buses.
So it is Congress that will not arrange for their immediate return south of the border. Now 100,000 per month come
across.
The networks have gotten big on the idea that they are all "families". A legally married couple, with marriage
certificate, two shiny, healthy kids, all of them starry‐eyed and hopeful. Anything to play on the emotions. Nobody with
a history of violent crime, nobody with a serious disease. The Mexicans, at least, are smart enough to form "families"
just before they cross the border. I think it's a lot of women with children and unmarried males.
It's Trumps Republican base that wants this immigration stopped. The rest of the electorate does not seem to
care.
It would take a Dem President elected in 2020 to get the DOT off of CHSRA's back. It should happen, but I'm not
hopeful. The Dems will have their day, but probably not in 2020. Trump gets us into a big ground war in Asia or
3
something, and they will sweep in. I'm just waiting for him to get us into a war. Everything about him seems to foretell
that.
Suggested strategy for the Dems: Outline in detail, a list, the stuff Trump has done to ruin the lives of the
American people and to enrich the scum at the top. Gutting environmental laws re clean air and water, encouraging
more coal production, repealing Obama's ban on asbestos, pulling out of the Paris accord on climate change, trying to
kill HSR in Calif., trying to kill Obamacare, spending $750 billion per year to defend the whole world, doing all he can to
kill Planned Parenthood, packing the Court with conservatives to reverse Roe and maintain Citizens United, huge tax
cuts for the 1% and crumbs for the rest, destroy the unions, keep higher ed unaffordable for the 99%, refusal to help
with the wild fire situation in Calif. and elsewhere, letting the AG of Conn. take on Big Pharma re the price fixing on Rx.
drugs, refusal to release tax returns, firing Comey, don't release the Muller Report, and I am sure there are a lot I have
missed.
Combine that list with some rational proposals of their own. Since Trump likes to take the low road, keep calling him
the biggest scum bag, next to Johnson, ever to hold the office. Right to his face. Chronic liar, everything for Germany and
Japan, nothing for the American people. They may lose, but the Dems should not hold back with Trump. They are all way
too polite with a guy like Trump. The Dems in Congress should start referring to him now as "utter scum".
Hillary could have beaten him, but because she knew she'd win, she ran the Dewey campaign of 1948. It produced
the same result for her that it produced for Dewey. Just don't say anything, look off into the distance at those town‐
halls, smile, roll your eyes, The voters wanted to see fire there, and she did not provide it. "Here are the ten things I'll do
first". "Don't elect this bastard. He's here to enrich the one percent and ruin your lives". Never happened. Then commit
campaign malpractice by not going into Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania in the last few days. Sort of like Nixon
flying to Alaska because he said he would, while JFK concentrated on the big NE states with big electoral college votes in
the final days in 1960.
LH
Interesting article about how American workers are feeling nowadays:
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxwCgfwmZBjwsVRWrktMTTgKzkMM
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 10, 2019 8:20 PM
To:Alex Kobayashi
Cc:Senator.Hill@senate.ca.gov; Marc.Hershman@sen.ca.gov; Kou, Lydia;
Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Anna.Eshoo@mail.house.gov; anne.ream@mail.house.gov; Jay
Thorwaldson; Bill Johnson; Diana Diamond; Dave Price; Kleinberg, Judy; RA@alexanderlaw.com;
Jonsen, Robert; Becchetti, Benjamin; Binder, Andrew; Sullivan, David; JRosen@dao.sccgov.org;
vrobinson@dao.sccgov.org; James.Williams@cco.sccgov.org; Aram James;
cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Cortese, Dave; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org;
mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; Stump, Molly; Kavita.Narayan@cco.sccgov.org;
Breyeschow@fprespa.org; Jim Hewlett; Carol@silverlaw.biz; Council, City; John Fredrich
Subject:Letter to Lytton Gardens re Recertification Neglect
Alex Kobayashi, District Representative
Office of Senator Jerry Hill
Hi Alex,
As we discussed at our meeting this afternoon, May 10, I sent the following letter, with my financial verification
documents for HUD annual certification, to Lytton Gardens Senior Communities Director through tractable UPS,
signature required. Lytton Gardens will receive my UPS early next week. Following find a copy of that letter.
Sincerely,
-Danielle
----------------------------
Danielle Martell
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
(650) 856-0700HUD
_________________________________________
May 9, 2019
Doris Lee, Director
Lytton Gardens Senior Communities
656 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Dear Ms. Lee:
My new rent adjustment begins July 1, and Lytton Gardens is not in compliance with the terms of the HUD regulatory
agreement because I have not received my mandated notices for an annual HUD recertification appointment.
So that I am in complete compliance with HUD requirements, enclosed find my complete verification records for
continued HUD-subsidized rent. These documents include the following.
2
1. Proof of Income from Social Security
2. Completed and signed form --"Section 8 Checklist for Family Compensation, Income, Assets, & Deductions"
3. Bank statements from April 2018 through April 2019
Tell me if there is anything else that you need from me to complete the HUD annual recertification process in a timely
manner.
Sincerely,
Danielle Martell
P.O. Box 265
Palo Alto, California 94301
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 8, 2019 6:01 PM
To:lgaulthier@cityofepa.org; rwallacejones@cityofepa.org; Larry Moody; cromero@cityofepa.org;
rabrica@cityofepa.org; City Council; Council, City
Subject:Mutuality
Attachments:190508 Letter to Editor Joint City Council Meeting May 6 2019.pdf
Dear Councilpersons,
Thank you for stepping up Monday night with your 3-city council meeting. I wanted to acknowledge
your leadership with a letter to the editor. Fortunately it was published today. It is attached.
Now mutuality turns into hard work. And I have a couple of suggestions. If I had a magic wand, I
would present a dozen great mutuality ideas, but I have only two suggestions for you to
consider. Dozens of your citizens must have much better ideas.
Affordable Housing! How about cobbling together your affordable housing funds, collaborating with
one or two proven, not-for-profit affordable housing corporations and targeting a location and
population to be served. What is the financial tipping point to kickstart one project? Then make it
happen. If you are short a few dollars, your well-intentioned, rational business plan can attract
philanthropy ranging from school children to high networth individuals to top off a project. When one
project is successful, then there can be new opportunity in another city.
Transportation! How about leaping into a mutual aid Transportation Management Association? The
same principles of shared funding and mutual operations would apply. Perhaps philanthropy would
raise its pretty head. Clearly workers and families in each city have needs solved by mutuality.
Good luck! The devil is always in the details. Onward!
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329‐0484
650 537‐9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com>
Sent:Monday, May 13, 2019 1:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:No on SB50
Please oppose SB50. It does nothing for BMR housing in PA where we
continue to be over-run by commuters. This will be even worse if the
Stanford and/or Casti expansions are approved.
JUST say NO. We continue to be under-parked. We continue to have
MAJOR traffic problems. We continue to subsidize businesses by having
to pay for residential parking permits and to pay the commuting expenses
for those who over-run us.
Businesses continue to shift the financial burdens for THEIR growth to
US, the residents. Enough.
JUST SAY NO to more giveways.
Jo Ann Mandinach
1699 Middlfield Road
Palo Alto, CA 94301
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Sushmita Vij <wordpress@castillejamasterplan.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 12:56 PM
To:greg.scharff@cityofpaloalto.org; Kniss, Liz (internal); DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian;
Holman, Karen; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Clerk, City; Council, City
Subject:Please Support Castilleja
Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
My name is Sushmita Vij and I live in Palo Alto, CA. I am writing to you as a summer camp parent and supporter of
Castilleja School.
Castilleja was founded 110 years ago to equalize educational opportunities for women. Today, Castilleja seeks to close
the female leadership gap by gradually adding students over four years. Making this opportunity available for more
young women is central to furthering that mission.
As a Palo Alto resident, I am proud to have Castilleja in our city. The school has been an indispensable community
partner and is committed to maintaining its neighbors’ current quality of life. Castilleja has already implemented robust
Traffic Demand Management initiatives, and has repeatedly pledged to neighbors not only to do more, but that the
admittance of new students will be dependent on the continued success of the school’s traffic programs.
Now more than ever, at a time when national politics has devolved into shouting matches and one‐upmanship,
Castilleja’s mission of serving girls and young women from Palo Alto and other nearby cities is critically important.
Please do not let the loudest voices in the conversation obscure the robust support for Castilleja found throughout our
wonderful city.
Sincerely,
Sushmita Vij
sushmitavij@hotmail.com
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Sunday, May 12, 2019 9:14 PM
To:Council, City; Eggleston, Brad; Bobel, Phil
Subject:Re: [New post] Link to Prof. Hill’s Planning for Rising Waters Presentation, April 24, 2019
Hello..Please see below the video of Dr K. Hill's 4/24 discussion on Rising Waters and living on the Bay Edge.
Approximately 230 people attended her presentation.
Allison, Lydia, Brad and Phil were present along with other PW staff.
I hope you will take the time to become informed of the dangers of rising sea level and the concurrent rise in
groundwater levels. It significant changes the approaches Palo Alto will need to take to in regards to "flooding".
Thank you so much.
Rita C. Vrhel, RN, BSN, CCM
Medical Case Management
Phone: 650-325-2298
Fax: 650-326-9451
On Sunday, May 12, 2019, 8:38:03 PM PDT, Save Palo Alto's Groundwater! <donotreply@wordpress.com> wrote:
Esther Nigenda posted: "For all those who have been asking for a link to Dr. Kristina Hill’s talk, “Planning for Rising
Waters: Sea Level, Groundwater and the Bay Edge” held on April 24th, here it is! Many, many thanks to Maury Green for
recording and editing this present"
New post on Save Palo Alto's
Groundwater!
To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automaof this picture from the Internet.
Link to Prof. Hill’s Planning for Rising Waters Presentation, April 24, 2019
by Esther Nigenda
For all those who have been asking for a link to Dr. Kristina Hill’s talk, “Planning for Rising Waters: Sea
Level, Groundwater and the Bay Edge” held on April 24th, here it is! Many, many thanks to Maury Green for
recording and editing this presentation and allowing us to share with a larger audience all […]
Read more of this post
2
Esther Nigenda | May 12, 2019 at 8:37 pm | URL: https://wp.me/p6Wq46‐qV
Comment See all comments
Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Save Palo Alto's Groundwater!.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://savepaloaltosgroundwater.org/link-to-prof-hills-planning-for-rising-waters-presentation-april-24-2019/
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Monday, May 13, 2019 2:43 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Put some teeth into assisting tenants
From Affordable Housing Network:
MOUNTAIN VIEW TO STUDY ANTI-DISPLACEMENT POLICIES
After a brutal series of votes to demolish apartment buildings and displace long term residents, all seven City
Councilmembers responded to the massive public outcry by voting on April 23 to move forward on plans to “promote a
community for all with strategies to protect vulnerable populations and preserve Mountain View’s socioeconomic and
cultural diversity”. This is not a guarantee that we will end up with strong policies against displacement, but it is a needed
next step. The Council agreed to hold a study session to consider a no net loss of affordable housing policy; to explore
incentives for relocation of displaced tenants; to expand emergency rental assistance; and to develop a Tenant
Opportunity to Purchase ordinance similar to the one in Washington, DC.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Carolyn Schmarzo <cmschmarzo@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 9:10 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rail EXercise
Dear Honorable City Council,
1. Thank you for taking the Citywide Tunnel option off the table .
2. Thank you for your EXemplary EXamination of the city wide tunnel and I sincerely mean it. I
appreciate the thoroughness of your
questions about the tunnel.
EXceedingly, respectfully yours,
Carolyn and Bill Schmarzo
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 11:49 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:RE: Foothills Park
Council Members:
As a follow‐up to my previous email, this recent article reveals that racist housing policies were common
throughout the country. It wasn’t just Palo Alto.
Pat Marriott
Santa Clara Valley Lives: Family papers reveal Jim Crow restrictions in early Los Altos
Published: 03 April 2019 Written by Robin Chapman
In a pile of old family paperwork, I found the deed to the lot my parents bought in Los Altos in the 1940s. This
deed uncovered a great deal more than family history.
… They purchased a piece of property that had been part of an old apricot orchard, and their deed included
three pages of restrictions. They could not live in a trailer. They could not raise farm animals. It was the fifth
one that stunned me: The property could not be used or occupied, “by any persons of African, Japanese,
Chinese, Mongolian or Malay descent.”
… I discovered these covenants were all too common in the Santa Clara Valley and across the country then.
From: Pat Marriott [mailto:patmarriott@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 6:31 PM
To: 'city.council@cityofpaloalto.org'
Subject: Foothills Park
Council Members:
Please don’t be shamed into opening Foothills Park to the general public. It’s not racist or immoral or elitist to
have a park just for Palo Altans. You bought it. You paid for it, when no other city was interested.
Palo Alto has lots of parks open to anyone. Every surrounding city has parks. And the Arastradero Preserve is
open to all. It’s not like you’re keeping the public from the one and only green space in the Bay Area.
Palo Alto has become a target because it’s a unique city, thus it’s accused of gentrification,
discrimination, and now racism. These words are bandied about with impunity by people like Cory Wolbach,
who doesn’t seem to realize that just about every city – not just Palo Alto – had racist land‐use policies in the
50s and 60s. I don’t see how that relates to Foothills Park.
I lived in Palo Alto for 30 years. On one block of 18 homes there was a black family across the street, a
Palestinian family on one corner, a Ukrainian couple, a Korean family and 3 Indian families. I’ve never lived in
such a diverse – culturally and economically – neighborhood. Our block parties were wonderful!
2
Scott Wiener and other Sacramento politicians will try to destroy Palo Alto, but don’t voluntarily give up one
of your most precious natural spaces.
Don’t succumb to outrageous accusations. Keep Foothills wild, pristine and free of crowds, .
Pat Marriott, Los Altos
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 12, 2019 12:20 AM
To:paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; HRC; Jonsen, Robert; Council, City; Perron, Zachary;
cromero@cityofepa.org; city.council@menlopark.org
Subject:Re the archives of Aram James-on the HRC circa 2005
http://ccin.menlopark.org/16248.html
Shared via the Google app
Sent from my iPhone
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Friday, May 10, 2019 12:37 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hydee Feldstein; John Mirisch; Bill Brand; Jill Stewart; Susan Kirsch; Rick Hall; Carey White; Norman H.
Beamer; John Guislin; Mary Gallagher; Fred Kohler; Kuo-Jung Chang; Marion Odell; Michael Hodos;
Allen Akin; Sallyann Rudd; Malcolm Roy Beasley; Leslie Caine; Harris Barton; Gabrielle Layton;
Rademps; Mary Dimit; Jerry Smith; Vita Gorbunova; Ted Davids; Jan Merryweather; Paul & Karen
Machado; David Schrom; Christian Pease; Neilson Buchanan; Terry Holzemer; Terry Holzmer; Carol
Scott; Patrick Slattery; Tim Mealiffe
Subject:Re: Recent press release on SB50 which may be of interest
Dear City Council,
This press release says it all. No more words are necessary.
Palo Alto City Council should make a poster out of it and present it to Mr. Wiener early June when he is in Palo Alto.
now is the time to act against this unwarranted and misguided SB50 ‐ and similar bills like SB50.
We residents of Evergreen Park urge the city council to partner with so many other cities across the state and forcefully
oppose SB50 and similar bills ‐ which do nothing for the poor and only enrich the establishment.
thank you
Wolfgang Dueregger
SACRAMENTO, Calif.‐‐(BUSINESS WIRE)‐‐May 9, 2019‐‐California State
Sen. Scott Wiener’s real estate deregulation bill, SB 50, is facing
mounting opposition from elected officials in nearly three dozen
cities. On May 7, the Long Beach City Council voted unanimously to
oppose Wiener’s troubling legislation. With that vote, the San
Francisco Board of Supervisors, the Los Angeles City Council, the Long
Beach City Council, and 32 other city governments are sending a strong
message to Gov. Gavin Newsom and members of the California State
Senate and Assembly to stop SB 50.
“Elected officials throughout California understand the negative,
street‐level impacts that SB 50 will cause in our cities,” says
Housing Is A Human Right Director René Christian Moya. “Gov. Newsom
and state legislators must listen to them — and stop SB 50 right now.”
To date, according to the League of California Cities, 35
municipalities oppose SB 50: Burlingame, Beverly Hills, Brentwood,
Chino Hills, Cupertino, Diamond Bar, Downey, Fremont, Glendale,
Glendora, Hermosa Beach, La Mirada, Lafayette, Laguna Niguel,
Lakewood, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Manhattan Beach, Mountain View,
Novato, Paramount, Pasadena, Pinole, Palo Alto, Rancho Cucamonga,
2
Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Santa Clarita, San Francisco, San
Mateo, Solana Beach, Sunnyvale, Vista, West Covina, and West
Hollywood.
In addition, the Central Valley Division of League of California
Cities, Los Angeles County Division of League of California Cities,
and the South Bay Cities Council of Governments also oppose SB 50.
Housing justice activists say SB 50 is a trickle‐down housing bill
that will fuel gentrification and displacement in middle‐ and
working‐class neighborhoods, but will make billions in revenue for
Wiener’s political patrons in the real estate industry. Wiener has
long relied on campaign contributions from Big Real Estate to get
elected and stay in power. For his 2016 and 2020 state senate
campaigns, he’s hauled in more than $725,000 from developers,
landlords, real estate attorneys, architects, and others.
Shockingly, as Mission Economic Development Agency Director of Policy
and Advocacy Norma Garcia pointed out at a recent hearing held by
State Senate Governance and Finance Committee, SB 50 has NOT been
studied by the state for its impacts on middle‐ and working‐class
communities. For such sweeping legislation, State Sen. Scott Wiener
has not done due diligence.
Housing Is A Human Right, the housing advocacy division of AIDS
Healthcare Foundation, promotes the 3 Ps to urgently address
California’s housing affordability crisis: protect tenants; preserve
communities; and produce new, truly affordable housing. SB 50, which
advances a trickle‐down housing agenda, does none of those things in a
substantive, long‐term way.
Instead, State Sen. Scott Wiener’s SB 50 overwhelmingly pushes new
luxury housing for an ongoing housing affordability crisis. It makes
no sense, other than giving a lucrative handout to Wiener’s campaign
contributors in the real estate industry. Housing Is A Human Right
continues to strongly oppose Wiener’s bill.
Earlier this year HHR also issued a special report titled ‘Selling Out
California: Scott Wiener’s Money Ties to Big Real Estate.’ To view
that report, click here.
About
Housing Is A Human Right , based in Los Angeles, is the housing
advocacy division of AIDS Healthcare Foundation—the world’s largest
HIV/AIDS medical‐care organization, serving more than one million
people in 43 countries. Throughout the U.S., AHF patients have been
negatively impacted by rising housing costs and gentrification, which
threaten their health. HHR advocates for stronger tenants protections,
fights gentrification, and advances progressive housing policies.
View source version on
3
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190509006026/en/
CONTACT: MEDIA CONTACTS:
René Moya, Housing is a Human Right, (323) 620‐7835 cell
rene.moya@housinghumanright.orgGed Kenslea,AHF Dir. of Communications,
(323) 791‐5526 cell
gedk@aidshealth.org
KEYWORD: UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA CALIFORNIA
INDUSTRY KEYWORD: PUBLIC POLICY/GOVERNMENT OTHER POLICY ISSUES
STATE/LOCAL ARCHITECTURE URBAN PLANNING CONSTRUCTION & PROPERTY
COMMERCIAL BUILDING & REAL ESTATE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING & REAL ESTATE
SOURCE: Housing Is A Human Right
Copyright Business Wire 2019.
PUB: 05/09/2019 06:20 PM/DISC: 05/09/2019 06:20 PM
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190509006026/en
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Gary Wesley <gary.wesley@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 12, 2019 12:56 PM
To:council@losaltosca.gov
Cc:Citycouncil; Council, City; City Council
Subject:SB 50 on your May 14 agenda
Los Altos City Council, I see you have State Senate Bill 50 back on your agenda May 14 to consider authorizing the
Mayor to write in opposition. While you certainly should oppose the bill as written, it is a moving target. A few weeks ago,
another LA City Council voted 12-0 to oppose SB 50 UNLESS it were amended to exempt the City of Los Angeles. As I
suggested to my City Council in Mountain View last week, the idea of excluding some areas from the current bill is not a
good one for opponents. State senators proceeded to amend SB 50 to temporarily exempt 43 of 58 counties from its most
onerous provisions. The 15 most populous counties, including five counties around the San Francisco Bay, remain
targets. Other areas can be included in a further amendment or later bill. Once the state politicians establish the political
precedent that they should make the most important decisions about local land use, more dictates could issue every year.
The tactic is sometimes called "divide and conquer." Marin County may not care much about SB 50 - until they come for
Marin. And by then, many Peninsula residents may think Marin would be getting what it deserves - Marin and 42 other
counties let off the current hook. Saturday's LA Times (i.e., the Los Angeles Times) has an editorial supporting SB 50 if
amended to give "cities" 2 more years to add housing and qualify for exemption. But developers could then take 2 years
to assemble land in preparation for their building under SB 50. So, think carefully about what you propose and when you
weigh in. Maybe cities (and counties) should write the Governor expressing concerns and alternatives - with a copy to
local legislators. You could ask the Governor to give you (and others) a chance to comment on the final version of the bill
presented for the Governor's signature. Meanwhile, get moving on an initiative constitutional amendment. Here is a
possible one: add a section to the California Constitution that states: "Cities and counties henceforth have the authority to
determine land use in their jurisdictions to the extent provided by statutes and constitutional provisions in effect as of
January 1, 2019 except as otherwise provided by state legislation specifically approved by state voters at a later general
statewide election. Thanks for your consideration and hard work, Gary Wesley, resident of Mountain View (408-
882-5070) gary.wesley@yahoo.com
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Phil Burton <philip-b@comcast.net>
Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2019 11:38 AM
To:Council, City; 'Mercurio, Etty'; Carrasco, Tony; 'Christine Logan'; 'David Shen'; 'Gregory Brail'; 'Inyoung
Cho'; 'Kari Hodgson'; 'Mandar Borkar'; 'Megan Kanne'; 'Nadia Naik'; parag@virtunetsystems.com;
'Patricia Lau'
Subject:some reasons why the SF Muni subway costs is so much lower than the Citywide Tunnel projected
cost
I exchanged some emails with a retired senior Muni employee about the design of the SF Muni subway. I promised not
to identify him by name, but he gave me permission to quote from his emails. Please note that all these differences can
greatly affect each of the line items that contribute to the total cost of the tunnel/subway.
His overall comment was:
“Mainline rail—even EMU—and LRT are different worlds. Muni’s ruling grade is 9%, but that’s on the surface (2
locations, J and L). Max allowable in subway (established Muni standards) is 7%. Can’t tell you exactly where such
grades occur, but I’d guess N‐line grade into Duboce portal.”
Even with a variance from Caltrain, the Citywide tunnel would have a 2% grade. The steeper grade allows for a
shorter entry ramps and also more flexibility in dealing with underground obstacles, lowering construction costs.
Muni top speed is 52 mph. Caltrain is 110 mph. The higher the top speed, the more tunnel length or entry/exit
ramp length is needed to accommodate horizontal and vertical curves.
Muni trains are powered by 600V DC, which is very common for urban rail transit. Caltrain will be powered by
25 KVa. As my contact said, “overhead is only inches above the cars (unusually low) and inches from the ceiling,
an advantage of 600vdc “low” voltage.” In contrast, the Caltrain power system requires 5 feet of vertical
clearance. The difference is a result of the higher Caltrain voltage and the much higher train speed than Muni,
as well as train length.
The Caltrain tunnel has to be 34’ wide. In contrast, my contact estimated that Muni tunnel bore is only 14’. The
difference can be explained by the small cross‐section of Muni cars, the maximum allowable speed, and the
difference in space for overhead power lines.
Separately, I established by a Google search that Muni Metro trains are 1‐3 LRV cars, with a total length of 215’,
so we can assume that platforms are less than 250’. I don’t remember the design criteria for Caltrain, but I’m
going to guess it is at least 400’ and probably close to 500.’
Phil Burton
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Nicholas Martinez <nick899046@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 10, 2019 7:33 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Stanford free university online courses
I am very pleased with the available online free courses. However I am seeking Medical school in Berkeley California to
enable Stanford to compete and perhaps surpass Cambridge university.
Thank you
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com>
Sent:Monday, May 13, 2019 7:11 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:FYI: The Price We Pay: How rising housing costs are changing the Bay Area
https://extras.mercurynews.com/pricewepay/index.html
4
6
7
8
9
5
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 13, 2019 4:52 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Time to Fix the Downtown RPP
Attachments:RPP Zones 2019.pdf
Council Members:
When staff drew up the original zones and set the commercial permit limit at 2,000 for the Downtown
RPP District, residents were told that these were the best "guestimates" available and that everything
could be adjusted based on actual experience.
Five years later we have considerable data but appear to have forgotten about the City's commitment
to make adjustments to further protect residents from commercial parking intrusion.
It is past time to reexamine two important issues:
1. The number of available commercial permits must be reduced to actual demand. That would put
the total available at something less than 900.
There is no acceptable rational for giving the City Manager Total of 1,000 permits and a "buffer" of
200 more permits. The Council made a commitment to residents to reduce commercial parking in
residential neighborhoods over time. Failure to uphold this commitment will further erode Council’s
already damaged credibility on traffic issues.
2. The RPP zones do not always align with our downtown business district or our long-standing
neighborhood boundaries.
You can see in the attachment to this email the city’s official Downtown RPP map enlarged to show
how zones 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 cross Middlefield Road into residential neighborhoods that are not
“adjacent to businesses” as state laws describes. The zones were drawn this way for one reason – to
give commercial parking more spaces to grow. These zones need to be redrawn and neighborhoods
not adjacent to the downtown business core must be relieved of commercial parking burdens.
Council, you have fumbled almost all city efforts to reduce traffic problems with at least one council
member denying that traffic is a problem at all! It is time to stand up for residents and remove
commercial parking from neighborhoods east of Middlefield and reduce the total number of permits to
match actual demand. Then we can have a useful discussion on how commercial permits can be
reduced further and neighborhood-serving businesses protected.
If you do not take this action, I will fully support the ballot initiative to allow any neighborhood in Palo
Alto to restrict parking to residents only, as exists today in College Terrace.
Sincerely,
John Guislin
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, May 13, 2019 6:50 PM
To:board@pausd.org; Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Tinsley and Selling EPA Real Estate.
Attachments:CCF05132019.pdf
See attachment. DeLeon Realty hits a new low using PAUSD and Tinsley to hawk EPA real estate.
Tinsley is for disadvantaged kids, not to incentivize gentrification.
So many levels of wrong here.
‐‐Penny
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Hing Sham <hinglsham@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 13, 2019 8:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Tunnel for train
I strongly support the tunnel option for the Charleston rail crossing. Thanks, Hing Sham
Sent from Hing's iPad
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Thursday, May 9, 2019 3:13 PM
To:dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; David Balakian; Doug Vagim; Daniel Zack; huidentalsanmateo; Mark
Standriff; Mayor; info@superide1.com; midge@thebarretts.com; Cathy Lewis; Mark Kreutzer;
margaret-sasaki@live.com; Joel Stiner; nick yovino; bballpod; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg; Council, City;
beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; jerry ruopoli
Subject:Fwd: Warren Buffet: Businesses with moats are good
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, May 9, 2019 at 3:07 PM
Subject: Fwd: Warren Buffet: Businesses with moats are good
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, May 9, 2019 at 3:02 PM
Subject: Fwd: Warren Buffet: Businesses with moats are good
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, May 9, 2019 at 2:29 PM
Subject: Warren Buffet: Businesses with moats are good
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Thurs. May 9, 2019
To all‐ Here is interesting piece re Warren Buffet and his philosophy.
https://client.schwab.com/secure/cc/research/popup.html?path=/research/Client/Stocks/Reports/MorningstarVid
eoPopup&doctag=927544&feedId=2323
I have limit orders in to B Avnet AVT at 40. Rated A by Schwab.
Also, to B more Nvidia NVDA at $150.
I assume that the trade war will keep dragging down the mkt. I've only lost a grand so far this week. At least I
feel less guilty now.
2
She says here that BNSF has a great moat. Buffet said that the RR bus. is a good bus., not a great bus.
I don't see how Coke survives with WM and Winco having tons of house brand soda.
Boeing (BA) has a great moat, and is down. But still up from April 18, 2018. On that date it c. at $342.86, up
$13.80, the best in the DJ that day. So even with the 737 Max mess, Boeing is still up from a year ago. "There are only
two such Cos, Boeing and Airbus" someone said. Heck of a moat. Try going into the big airliner business, and have half
your business military, with all the political sway you need there. Guess I'll buy some Boeing if it loses more altitude.
BA c. at $354.13 today, down $3.565.
LH
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent:Wednesday, May 8, 2019 3:59 PM
To:French, Amy
Cc:Atkinson, Rebecca; Clerk, City; Council, City
Subject:RE: Wireless Resolution, amended Ordinance and Motions - Planning Question to CAO
Dear Ms. French,
Thank you for your response.
Regarding the Resolution: You write that “there were two typos fixed in the Resolution.” I trust this
means that those two fixed typos were the only changes made to the Resolution after it was provided
to the public and Council on April 15, 2019. If I am mistaken—if other changes were made—please
tell me.
Regarding changes to the Ordinance, I would appreciate it if you would confirm that the Staff
Report—and you—are referring to the following changes:
From: “Before an application may be considered complete, the applicant shall provide a proof
of notice affidavit to the city that contains: a) Proof that the applicant noticed and hosted the
community meeting before filing the application; “
To: “Applicants are encouraged to host the meeting before submitting an application. Before
an application may be approved, the applicant shall provide a proof of notice affidavit to the city that
contains: a) Proof that the applicant noticed and hosted the community meeting no later than 15 days
after filing the application;”
And finally, are these the only differences between the text of the Ordinance that was submitted to the
public and Council for review on April 15, 2019 and the text of the Ordinance that Council is being
asked to sign off on this coming Monday?
Thank you, as always, for your help.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
From: French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 11:05 PM
To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
2
Cc: Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: FW: Wireless Resolution, amended Ordinance and Motions ‐ Planning Question to CAO
Good evening,
I hope the below information will help your understanding.
There were two typos fixed in the resolution:
1. Resolution Section 5, first line, the word “ordinance” was replaced with “resolution”
2. Resolution Exhibit 2 (Wood Pole Standards), general standard 21, the phrase “existing streetlight locations” was
replaced with “existing wood utility pole locations”
The ordinance was updated from the April 15 packet to incorporate the recommendation in the staff presentation. This
is also explained in the staff report for the second reading:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71085.
From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 4:57 PM
To: Brettle, Jessica <Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Atkinson, Rebecca
<Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City
<city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>
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
3
<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.
Sincerely,
Jessica
<image001.jpg> 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.
4
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.
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
<image001.jpg> Jessica Brettle
Assistant City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
5
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.
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
6
<image001.jpg> 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
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
<image001.jpg> 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,
7
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.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151