Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190610plCC 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: 06/10/2019 Document dates: 05/22/2019 – 05/29/2019 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tina Chow <chow_tina@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 29, 2019 9:26 AM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:From the Washington Post: NOAA and NASA vs. the wireless industry Here is the article from the Washington Post last week which reports on this too:    https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/05/23/head‐noaa‐says‐g‐deployment‐could‐set‐weather‐forecasts‐ back‐years‐wireless‐industry‐denies‐it      Head of NOAA says 5G deployment could set weather  forecasts back 40 years. The wireless industry denies  it.  Government agencies are at an impasse on how to proceed.  Jason Samenow, Washington Post, May 23, 2019    What if, suddenly, decades of progress in weather prediction was reversed and monster storms that we currently see  coming for days were no longer foreseeable? The toll on life, property and the economy would be enormous. Yet the  government’s science agencies say such a loss in forecast accuracy could happen if the Federal Communications  Commission and the U.S. wireless industry get their way.    Both the FCC and the wireless industry are racing to deploy 5G technology, which will deliver information at speeds 100  times faster than today’s mobile networks. But scientists have found this technology could interfere with critical satellite  data used in weather forecasting, pitting the interests of science and safety against a pressing national priority.    The FCC and the government’s science agencies, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA, have  battled over this issue for several years.  Both sides agree that American advancement and leadership in 5G is critical, but talks break down when it comes to how  much the technology might affect weather data and the acceptable level of any interference.    Last week, Neil Jacobs, the acting head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told Congress that 5G  interference could set the accuracy of weather forecasts back 40 years.    Yet on Tuesday, CTIA, the trade group representing the U.S. wireless communications industry, unleashed a scathing  rebuttal of the Jacobs’ assertion.  “It’s an absurd claim with no science behind it,” wrote Brad Gillen, CTIA’s executive vice president, in a blog post.    Gillen maintained that the NOAA claim relies on the study of a microwave sensor “that never went into use.” (The study,  a collaborative effort between NOAA, NASA and the FCC, still under deliberation, is not public. CTIA said in an email it  reviewed a draft copy that was posted on NASA’s website but has since been removed.)    2 The never‐used sensor was slated to fly on satellites that were part of a government program (called NPOESS) dissolved  in 2010.  “[W]e are risking our 5G leadership over protecting mothballed decade‐old government systems,” Gillen wrote.    Jordan Gerth, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, called CTIA’s blog post both  “misleading” and “misinformed.” He noted that the canceled sensor was replaced by a similar one currently flown on  two NOAA satellites while international agencies also fly such instruments.    Dear @CTIA, I'd like to introduce you to the Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder (ATMS), a real instrument in  flight right now with a sensing band at 23.8 GHz. Sure, NPOESS was cancelled but JPSS is the backbone of US‐world space  observing. #FactsMatter https://t.co/uQ5UozWSiw  — Jordan Gerth (@jjgerth) May 22, 2019    These microwave sensors, Gerth wrote in an email, transmit important water vapor data at a frequency of 23.8  gigahertz, where they are potentially vulnerable to interference. In March, FCC auctioned off spectrum for wireless  transmission in the adjacent 24 gigahertz band.    The proximity of the two bands could expose the water vapor data to out‐of‐band emissions deeming them unreliable.  Gerth said “it is undisputed” that this water vapor data is necessary for weather prediction models “to produce the most  accurate forecast.”  To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   (AMS Weather Book)     In an email, CTIA countered that the newer sensors are “far less susceptible to interference” than the sensor evaluated  in the study.    3 But, testifying before the House Science Committee on May 16, Jacobs told members of Congress that the interference  could result in a 30 percent reduction in forecast accuracy. “If you look back in time to see when our forecast skill was  roughly 30 percent less than it was today, it’s somewhere around 1980,″ he said.    With this reduced forecast skill, the European model would not have predicted 2012′s Superstorm Sandy hitting the  Northeast coast several days in advance, Jacobs said. Instead, the model would have steered the storm out to sea. Lead  time to prepare for the storm would have been cut short.    Jacobs added that if the data loss from interference reaches even 2 percent, NOAA would likely have to “stop work” on  its $11 billion polar‐orbiting satellite program, important for not just weather forecasting but also for climate monitoring  and many other applications.    Gillen wrote NOAA’s predictions about 5G interference “are wrong on the merits, on the facts, and on the process,” but  both NASA and the Department of Defense support NOAA’s conclusions and have expressed concerns about their  potential consequences.    “[T]he assessments that NASA has done in conjunction with NOAA have determined that ... there is a very high  probability that we are going to lose a lot of data,” NASA’s administrator, Jim Bridenstine, told the House Science  Committee.    In March, the Navy wrote a memo stating the data interference would lead to “a probable degradation of weather and  ocean models” resulting in “increased risk of ... degraded battlespace awareness for tactical/operational advantage.”    The sweeping implications of the data loss and effects on forecasting have drawn the attention of both Republicans and  Democrats in Congress.    “NASA took us to the moon, and NOAA helped us explore the depths of the ocean,” said Sen. Maria Cantwell (D‐Wash.)  in a statement to The Washington Post. “We rely on these agencies for scientific expertise, and they have warned us  about the dire impact of this spectrum sale on weather forecasting capabilities — we should listen.”    Comments from Rep. Frank D. Lucas (R‐Okla.), the top Republican on the House Science Committee, struck a similar  chord.  “There is only one frequency we can use to observe water vapor in the atmosphere and auctioning off nearby  frequencies could interfere with our predictions,” said Heather Vaughan, a spokeswoman for Lucas. “We all support the  faster and more reliable connections we’ll get from 5G, but we need to deploy it in a way that doesn’t diminish critical  weather forecasting.”    A major meeting of the world’s spectrum regulators is set for this fall, during which limits on out‐of‐band emissions will  be negotiated. The State Department is currently trying to build a consensus U.S. position between NOAA and NASA on  one side and the FCC on the other. All indications are that the sides remain far apart.                       1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tina Chow <chow_tina@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 29, 2019 9:25 AM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:From Nature: Global 5G wireless networks threaten weather forecasts Attachments:Nature_5G_weather.pdf Dear City Council,    You already know about our concerns about 5G wireless and health effects ‐ there is no safety data for 5G but there is  lots of scientific evidence urging us to use great caution.     There are also other reasons for concern about 5G, as reported in this article in Nature (a leading scientific journal)  about interference with weather satellites. Basically, some of the new frequency bands for 5G are very close to the  natural frequency of water vapor in the atmosphere. This means weather satellites will pick up spurious signals from 5G  and interpret it as water vapor, thus interfering with weather forecast models which use this satellite data. The head of  NOAA (which runs the National Weather Service) says this will set back forecasting efforts by 40 years.     My own research at UC Berkeley relies on weather forecasts to drive high‐resolution predictions for wind energy and air  quality. Our whole economy relies on weather forecasts ‐ the impacts could be enormous.    Please see the article from Nature below, followed by an article from the Washington Post (see separate email) from last  week.    Thanks,  Tina Chow     https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586‐019‐01305‐4    Global 5G wireless networks threaten weather forecasts    Next‐generation mobile technology could interfere with crucial satellite‐based Earth observations.    Alexandra Witze    To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mid-Level Water Vapor of the Continental United States.      (Water vapour over the continental United States is shown in this false‐colour satellite image from the National Oceanic  and Atmospheric Administration.Credit: NOAA/GOES)    The US government has begun auctioning off blocks of wireless radio frequencies to be used for the next‐ generation mobile communications network known as 5G. But some of these frequencies lie close to those that  satellites use for crucial Earth observations — and meteorologists are worried that 5G transmissions from cellphones  and other equipment could interfere with their data collection.    Unless regulators or telecommunications companies take steps to reduce the risk of interference, Earth‐ observing satellites flying over areas of the United States with 5G wireless coverage won’t be able to detect  2 concentrations of water vapour in the atmosphere accurately. Meteorologists in the United States and other countries  rely on those data to feed into their models; without that information, weather forecasts worldwide are likely to suffer.   “This is a global problem,” says Jordan Gerth, a meteorologist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.    The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA are currently locked in a high‐ stakes negotiation with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which oversees US wireless networks. NOAA  and NASA have asked the FCC to work with them to protect frequencies used for Earth observations from interference  as 5G rolls out. But the FCC auctioned off the first chunk of the 5G spectrum with minimal protection. The sale ended on  17 April and reaped nearly US$2 billion.    Sharing the sky  Because the United States is such a large communications market, the decisions the government makes about how  to deploy 5G are likely to influence global discussions on how to regulate the technology. Regulators from around the  world will gather starting on 28 October in Sharm el‐Sheikh, Egypt, to hammer out international agreements for  which frequencies companies will be able to use for 5G transmissions, and what level of interference with Earth‐ observation frequencies is acceptable.    Astronomers, meteorologists and other scientists have long worked to share the spectrum with other users,  sometimes shifting to different frequencies to prevent conflicts. But “this is the first time we’ve seen a threat to what I’d  call the crown jewels of our frequencies — the ones that we absolutely must defend come what may”, says Stephen  English, a meteorologist at the European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK.    They include the 23.8‐gigahertz frequency, at which water vapour in the atmosphere emits a faint signal. Satellites,  such as the European MetOp probes, monitor energy radiating from Earth at this frequency to assess humidity in  the atmosphere below — measurements that can be taken during the day or at night, even if clouds are present.  Forecasters feed these data into models to predict how storms and other weather systems will develop in the coming  hours and days.    But a 5G station transmitting at nearly the same frequency will produce a signal that looks much like that of  water vapour. “We wouldn’t know that that signal is not completely natural,” says Gerth. Forecasts would become less  accurate if meteorologists incorporated those bad data into their models.    Noisy neighbours  The recent FCC auction involved 2 groups of frequencies: one between 24.25 and 24.45 gigahertz and the other  between 24.75 and 25.25 gigahertz. Wireless equipment transmitting near the lower end of that range could interfere  with the 23.8‐gigahertz water‐vapour measurement. The FCC did not respond to Nature's request for comment on the  matter.    The situation is akin to having a noisy neighbour next door, Gerth says. If that person blasts music, a lot of the noise  will probably bleed through the wall into your apartment. But if you can persuade the person to turn their music down,  you’ll be able to sleep more peacefully.      To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Source: ITU    Radio‐frequency engineers measure noise in units of decibel watts. Regulators set controls that limit the noise  allowed; more‐negative numbers indicate increasingly stringent controls. The FCC auction set a noise limit on the US  5G network of –20 decibel watts, which is much noisier than the thresholds under consideration by almost every other  nation for their systems. The European Commission, for instance, has settled on –42 decibel watts for 5G base stations,  and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is recommending –55 decibel watts.  3   Many hope that the WMO numbers will influence regulators to adopt strict global noise standards at the meeting in  Egypt. Because of how the scale is devised, the US proposal would allow over 150 times more noise than the European  proposal — and more than 3,000 times more than the WMO plan, says Eric Allaix, a meteorologist at Météo‐France in  Toulouse who heads a WMO steering group on radio‐frequency coordination.    Future fears  There’s relatively little research on exactly how bad weather forecasts could get as interference increases at 23.8  gigahertz and other frequencies crucial for Earth observations, says Gerth. “But the more we lose, the greater the  impact will be,” he says.    NOAA and NASA have reportedly finished a study on the effects of differing levels of noise interference, but it has  not been made public, despite at least one formal request from Congress. A 2010 report from the National Academies  of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded that losing scientific access to the 23.8‐gigahertz signal would  eliminate 30% of all useful data in microwave frequencies, which contribute significantly to global weather forecasts.    And not having atmospheric data from the United States can dramatically hurt forecasts for Europe, whose  weather patterns are often steered by conditions over the United States 3–4 days earlier, says English.    The Department of Commerce, which oversees NOAA, said that it "strongly supports the administration's policy  to promote US leadership in secure 5G networks, while at the same time sustaining and improving critical government  and scientific missions." NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine declined to comment, but spoke at length about his  concerns over 5G at an agency meeting earlier this month. "This is a big deal," Bridenstine said.    The FCC plans to begin its next 5G auction, which will be the country’s largest ever, in December. It will involve three  more frequency bands — some of which are used for satellite observations of precipitation, sea ice and clouds.    Nature 569, 17‐18 (2019)    doi: 10.1038/d41586‐019‐01305‐4          BY ALEXANDRA WITZE The US government has begun auctioning off blocks of wireless radio frequencies to be used for the next- generation cellular communications network, known as 5G. But some of these frequencies lie close to those that satellites use for crucial Earth observations — and meteorologists are worried that 5G mobile-phone transmissions could hamper their data collection. Unless regulators or telecommunications companies take steps to reduce the risk of interference, Earth-observing satellites flying over areas of the United States with 5G wireless coverage won’t be able to detect water vapour in the atmosphere accurately. Meteorolo- gists rely on that information, and without it, weather forecasts worldwide are likely to suffer. “This is a global problem,” says Jordan Gerth, a meteorologist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA are cur- rently locked in a high-stakes negotiation with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which oversees US wireless networks. NOAA and NASA have asked the FCC to help them to protect frequencies used for Earth observations from interference as 5G rolls out. But the FCC auctioned off the first chunk of the 5G spectrum with minimal protection. The sale ended on 17 April, reaping nearly US$2 billion. Because the United States is such a large communications market, the government’s decisions about how to deploy 5G are likely to influence global discussions on the technology. Regulators from around the world will meet in October in Egypt to set international agree- ments for which frequencies companies can use for 5G transmissions, and what level of interfer- ence with Earth observations is acceptable. Astronomers, meteorologists and other scientists have long worked to share the spec- trum with other users, sometimes shifting to different frequencies. But “this is the first time we’ve seen a threat to what I’d call the crown jewels of our frequencies”, says Stephen English, a meteorologist at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Read- ing, UK. They include the 23.8-gigahertz frequency, at which water vapour in the atmosphere emits a faint signal. Satellites monitor energy radi- ating from Earth at this frequency to assess humidity in the atmosphere below. Forecasters feed these data into models to predict how storms and other weather systems will develop. But a 5G station transmitting at nearly the same frequency will produce a signal that looks like that of water vapour. “We wouldn’t know that that signal is not completely natu- ral,” says Gerth. Forecasts would be less accu- rate if scientists used those bad data. ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE5G data networks threaten forecasts Wireless technology could interfere with Earth observations. Cave in China in 1980, and passed on to Lanzhou University. But it wasn’t until the 2010s that archaeologist Dongju Zhang and her colleagues began studying the bone. The team faced a problem. The remains at Denisova Cave had all been identified because they still contained some DNA, which could be compared with genetic sequences from other ancient humans. But there was no DNA left in the jawbone. Instead, the scientists looked for ancient proteins, which tend to last longer than DNA. In dentine from the teeth, they found collagen proteins suitable for study. The team compared these with equivalent pro- teins in great apes including Denisovans and Neanderthals, and found that they lined up closest with samples from Denisovans. Previous work2 identified Neanderthal remains using both proteins and DNA — but the success of the latest study could lead to a greater emphasis on getting ancient pro- teins out of fossils that haven’t yielded DNA, says Chris Stringer, a palaeo anthropologist at the Natural History Museum in London. The method could prove particularly use- ful for older samples or those from warmer climates, where DNA degrades quickest. THE ROOF OF THE WORLD The altitude of the new Denisovan’s home — 3,280 metres above sea level — surprised researchers, and helps to solve a mystery about Denisovans’ genetic contribution to modern Tibetans. “It is astonishing that any ancient humans were at that altitude,” says Stringer. Some Tibetans have a variant of a gene called EPAS1 that reduces the amount of the oxygen-carrying protein haemo globin in their blood, enabling them to live at high altitudes with low oxygen levels. Research- ers3 had thought that this adaptation came from Denisovans, but this was difficult to reconcile with Denisova Cave’s relatively low altitude of 700 metres. The latest study suggests that Denisovans evolved the adap- tation on the Tibetan Plateau and passed it to Homo sapiens when the species arrived around 30,000–40,000 years ago, says co- author Frido Welker, a molecular anthro- pologist at the University of Copenhagen. If Denisovans in Asia were adapted to high altitudes, similar sites could harbour more of their remains. And the jawbone is likely to prompt scientists to reconsider clas- sification of other ancient-human remains. “We can kind of work ourselves through the fossil record, and link up more and more specimens with the Denisovans,” says Bence Viola, a palaeoanthropologist at the University of Toronto in Canada. ■ 1. Chen, F. et al. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1139-x (2019).2. Welker, F. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 11162–11167 (2016).3. Huerta-Sánchez, E. et al. Nature 512, 194–197 (2014). Satellite images of water-vapour levels are used to predict weather patterns. NO A A / G O E S 2 MAY 2019 | VOL 569 | NATURE | 17 IN FOCUS NEWS © 2019 Springer Nature Limited. All rights reserved.© 2019 Springer Nature Li mited. All rights reserved. What matters in science and why – free in your inbox every weekday. e best from Nature’s journalists and other publications worldwide. Always balanced, never oversimplifi ed, and crafted with the scientifi c community in mind. SIGN UP NOW go.nature.com/briefi ng A45829 SHARING SPECTRUM International regulators are divvying up radio-frequency bands to be used in future 5G wireless networks. Weather experts worry that some proposed 5G frequencies are close to, and might interfere with, Earth observations from satellites. 30 40 Gigahertz (GHz) 50 60 80 90 10020 Candidate bands for international 5G Earth-observation bands (some examples highlighted) 23.8 GHzWater vapour 36–37 GHzRain, snow 50.2–50.4 GHzAtmospheric temperature 86–92 GHzClouds, ice The recent FCC auction involved 2 groups of frequencies: one between 24.25 and 24.45 gigahertz and the other between 24.75 and 25.25 gigahertz. Wireless transmissions near the lower end of that range could interfere with the 23.8-gigahertz water-vapour measurement (see ‘Sharing spectrum’). The FCC did not respond to Nature’s request for comment on the matter. Think of it like living next to a neighbour who blasts music, Gerth says. A lot of the noise will probably bleed through the wall into your apartment. But if you can persuade the person to turn down their music, you’ll sleep better. Radio-frequency engineers measure noise in decibel watts. Regulators limit the noise allowed; more-negative numbers indicate more-stringent controls. The FCC auction set a limit of –20 decibel watts on the US 5G network — much noisier than the caps under consideration by most other nations. The European Commission, for instance, has set- tled on –42 decibel watts for 5G base stations. Many hope that Europe’s proposal will influ- ence regulators to adopt strict global noise standards at the meeting in Egypt. The US plan would allow over 150 times more noise than the EU’s, says Eric Allaix, a meteorologist at Météo-France in Toulouse who heads a World Meteorological Organization steering group on radio-frequency coordination. There’s relatively little research on how bad weather forecasts could get as interference increases at 23.8 gigahertz and other crucial frequencies. “But the more we lose, the greater the impact will be,” Gerth says. NOAA and NASA have reportedly finished a study on the effects of differing levels of noise interference, but it has not been made public. In 2010, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported that losing scientific access to the 23.8-gigahertz signal would eliminate 30% of useful data in microwave frequencies, which feed global weather forecasts. The Department of Commerce, which over- sees NOAA, said that it “strongly supports the administration’s policy to promote US leader- ship in secure 5G networks, while at the same time sustaining and improving critical govern- ment and scientific missions”. NASA adminis- trator Jim Bridenstine declined to comment, but detailed his concerns about 5G at an agency meeting last month. The FCC plans to auction three more frequency bands in December — some of which are used for satellite observations of precipitation, sea ice and clouds. ■ SO U R C E : I T U IN FOCUSNEWS © 2019 Springer Nature Li mited. All rights reserved. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Stump, Molly Sent:Friday, May 24, 2019 5:18 PM To:Jeanne Fleming; Yang, Albert Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:RE: June 3, 2019 City Council Consent Calendar Item Ms. Fleming –    The answers to your questions are in the published material, linked here:  https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71447    Molly Stump  City Attorney        Molly Stump | City Attorney                             City Attorney’s Office   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  D: 650.329.2171 |  E:molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org    Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you.    This message contains information that may be confidential and  privileged.   Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose  the message or any information contained in the message.  If you received the  message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message.      From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>   Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 6:32 PM  To: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: June 3, 2019 City Council Consent Calendar Item    Dear Albert Yang, The following item is on City Council’s June 3, 2019, Consent Calendar: “Adoption of a Resolution Amending Objective Standards for Wireless Communications Facilities on Wood Utility Poles in the Public Rights of Way to Correct an Administrative Error.” I would appreciate it if you would tell me what the “administrative error” was, and what the correction of that error is that you are asking Council to approve on June 3rd.. Please let me know if you have any questions. 2 Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tracy Mallory <tracylists1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 27, 2019 8:24 AM To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Housing at Cubberley Please do not proceed with any plans for housing on the main Cubberley site.    It is out of character with the purpose of the site as a public resource.  It is essentially a conversion of public resources to private use.  It will present public safety issues to have 24/7/365 usage of the site.  It will require additional parking and traffic for the site, where traffic on Middlefield is still not properly addressed and  traffic on San Antonio presents much greater problems goining forward for all the neighborhoods surrounding the site.  Residents would have to be consulted on events and other usage, making use of the site more difficult and giving a small  group special consideration over the public at large.    Finally, it is being brought up very late in a process that has been going on for a long time. That process appears to have  worked well, with public input resulting in many excellent choices including (but not limited to) single‐layer below‐grade  parking under buildings and structures, withdrawal of the San Antonio entrance, and movement of the pool into the  center of the site. It is a bit of a shame that housing has been brought in at this late stage of the process, possibly  delaying or derailing progress already made.    Sincerely,    Tracy Mallory  650‐279‐0037    1 Brettle, Jessica From:msbarbor <msbarbor@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, May 28, 2019 12:36 PM To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Proposal for housing on the Cubberley site: NO Please do not proceed with any plans for housing on the main Cubberley site. The height of the proposed structures does not fit within the Historical Designation of the closest adjacent neighborhood, and the height of the other adjacent neighborhoods. The implications of the proposal to rezone for higher density housing along San Antonio Road will increase future demand for schools and community services and parks in the area. If housing is built at Cubberley, how will that demand be addressed? Cubberley is our last large PF zoned parcel. The purpose of the site is a much needed public resource, particularly in light of the additional proposed housing for the immediate area of San Antonio Road east of Middlefield. In short, housing converts needed public resources to private use. It will create additional parking and traffic for the site. Traffic on Middlefield is still not properly addressed with unprotected left turns into Cubberley, which creates backups and risky last minute lane changing to avoid it. Traffic on San Antonio presents much greater problems going forward for all the neighborhoods surrounding the site, given the new housing planned for San Antonio Road east of Middlefield. The Cubberley Project may impact efficient, safe public street operations in Greenmeadow and on nearby arterial streets (Middlefield, San Antonio, Charleston). Has there been a traffic study of potential impacts of additional traffic that this would generate, as well as street parking? If so, what are the conclusions? Residents of any housing would have to be consulted on events and other usage, restricting public use of the site and giving a small group special consideration over the public at large. Public activities may need approvals from potential residents, which could be a major limitation in the use of Cubberley for functions. Residents will want the residential noise ordinance enforced. Concerts / parties / events would have to end before 10 pm, and be limited during the day. Public input so far has resulted in many beneficial choices, including single-layer below-grade parking under buildings and structures, elimination of the San Antonio entrance, and location of the pool into the center of the site. The addition of housing is being brought up very late in a process that has been going on for a long time. This can lead to ill conceived plans without regard for long term impacts, as well as undermining, delaying, or derailing the positive progress that has been made. Adding housing at this final stage is not an opportunity. It will negatively limit future options for needed public facilities and access. 2 Respectfully, Martha Sbarbori John Sbarbori 4005 Ben Lomond Drive Palo Alto, California 94306 650-494-3477 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sonya Bradski <sonyangary@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 28, 2019 1:42 PM To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Request NO HOUSING at Cubberley!!! Dear Members of the Parks & Recreation Commission,    Thank you for writing your thoughtful letter to City Council.  I hope   your colleagues will support it.    I strongly oppose putting housing on top of Cubberley. The city is   upzoning a lot of land throughout the city for higher density housing,   including Cubberley's backyard on San Antonio Road.  We are going to   need Cubberley to expand schools and community services more in the   future. Our city is growing.    Please recommend preserving PF‐zoned space at Cubberley for its intended   purpose.    Thank you for your time and consideration.     Sincerely,    Sonya Bradski  4082 Nelson Dr, Palo Alto, CA 94306  (Next Door Neighbor of Cubberley Community Center for 23 years)      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeff Kmetec <jkmetec@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 28, 2019 1:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cubberley plans Dear City Leaders,    There is much excitement about investing in Cubberley, and I hope it moves forward as a resource to our entire  community, enhancing the quality of life for many for decades to come.    However, converting a Public Facility to private housing is a concern.      Fifty years from now, Palo Alto could be double  the population, with many of the residents living in small apartments.    Public facilities will be more precious than they  are now.    Such conversion is a permanent choice that forever devalues our city life.     Desperately needed housing is better  achieved through densifying current Residential, and by converting Commercial to Residential.    I also question the compatibility of residences in the middle of random noisy, crowded events.  I suspect the residents  will complain, and public activities will be curtailed, further diminishing our public facility.    I recently completed the construction of the new clubhouse in Greenmeadow (as the project leader), and I strongly  believe in the value of community activities.    Please, let's not diminish them.      Sincerely,  ‐Jeff Kmetec  375 Tioga Ct.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jennifer Chang Hetterly <jchetterly@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 28, 2019 1:57 PM To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission Cc:Greenfield Jeff; McDougall Don; ssow111@gmail.com Subject:Support for PRC Colleagues' Memo re: housing at Cubberley   May 28, 2019  TO:  City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission  FROM:  Former Parks and Recreation Commissioners and members of the Cubberley Community Advisory Committee  SUBJECT:  Support for PRC recommendation to prioritize community recreation and services over housing on city property  at Cubberley    We are writing today to express our support for the draft Parks and Recreation Commission Letter to City Council  regarding dedicated community use of city land at the Cubberley site.  We acknowledge the demand for more housing and the steep challenges of creating affordable supply in Palo Alto.  However, we are also acutely aware of the limited publicly owned land available throughout the city for both school  facilities and community recreation and services.    The proposed Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation that all city land at Cubberley be dedicated to public  use facilities echoes consistent warnings that as our population grows, we must accommodate, not constrain expansion of  community serving facilities.  A key focus throughout deliberations of the 2012‐13 Cubberley Community Advisory Committee (CCAC) was how  to optimize use of this last large parcel of public land while preserving flexibility to meet future school and  community service needs. Both school and community center stakeholders were concerned about the capacity to  serve a growing and changing population in the face of shrinking opportunities to expand public facilities.   An April 23, 2013 memo from the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended support for the CCAC report  emphasizing that: “Given our growing population and shrinking opportunities to expand facility resources…[the  future] will require more community facilities, not less.” In 2014 the Parks and Recreation Commission submitted  a Memorandum to City Council outlining the heightened need to carefully steward parks and recreation resources  in the face of population growth and greater intensity of use. And in 2017, the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space  and Recreation Master Plan noted that since 2010, Palo Alto already had grown faster than projected by the  Association of Bay Area Governments. As such, the Master Plan emphasized the need to expand and evolve the  parks, trails, open space and recreation system “to serve a larger and more diverse set of community needs.”  Building housing on city land at Cubberley will permanently constrain the city’s capacity and flexibility to meet evolving  community demand for public use facilities.  With the development incentives adopted through the city’s Housing Work Plan, the prospect of over 2,100 new housing  units associated with Stanford’s expansion, and proposed state incentives/mandates for housing development,  2 substantial additional population growth seems very likely. The Parks and Recreation Commission is wise to urge that city  land at Cubberley be preserved exclusively as a community asset to support current and future service and recreation  needs.  Respectfully,  Jennifer Hetterly  Former Chair, Parks and Recreation Commission  Former Chair, Facilities Subcommittee, Cubberley Community Advisory Committee     Ed Lauing  Former Chair, Parks and Recreation Commission     Pat Markevitch  Former Chair, Parks and Recreation Commission     Diane Reklis  Former Chair, Community Services Subcommittee, Cubberley Community Advisory Committee     Penny Ellson  Former Member, Cubberley Community Advisory Committee     Claire Kirner  Former Member, Cubberley Community Advisory Committee     1 Brettle, Jessica From:Deirdre Crommie <dcrommie1@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, May 28, 2019 3:37 PM To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission Subject:Support of Colleague's Memo Dear Parks and Recreation Commission, I support the Colleague's Memo dated May 28, 2019 on Housing at Cubberley Center. Sincerely, Deirdre Crommie Former Parks and Recreation Commissioner 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, May 28, 2019 4:42 PM To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City Subject:Cubberley I support the Colleagues’ Memo on housing at Cubberley” or "City land at Cubberley should be preserved exclusively for public uses available for the broad community. Building housing there would permanently constrain the city’s ability to meet the community service needs of our growing population. At the City Council Retreat they stated that Climate Change was their priority, keep as much land 'uncovered' as we can, we need Green. Sincerely, Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St 94306 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mary Ann Michel <maryannm7@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 29, 2019 9:31 AM To:Council, City Subject:Cubberley I agree totally with parks and rec recommendation that no housing be allowed on the Cubberley site. The city has tried  hard to eliminate the possibility of a high school in South Palo Alto. The property should be kept open in the most  flexible way and housing definitely cuts down on the amount of property for parks and recreation and limits the  possibilities for use of the property.   My opinion 60 year Palo Alto resident  MAMichel  850 webster st apt 503  palo alto 94301  650 324 7384      1 Brettle, Jessica From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Wednesday, May 29, 2019 1:58 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Cubberley Master Plan Update I support further examination of all of the housing alternatives at the Cubberley site. The goal of providing affordable housing for school district teachers and staff and for seniors in our community is very important to me. While it is too soon to say yes to any of the housing alternatives, it is also too soon to take any off the table. The issue of whether housing takes away from other uses is a design issue and from the drawings I have seen, it looks possible to add housing without diminishing community uses. The issue of feasibility, unit type and number of units depends on the desire of the school district and city and the ability to find funding. I am happy to be part of any bond campaign for either jurisdiction and know that other school districts near us are finding funding and sites for teacher/staff housing. The decision to change zoning or create an overlay zone as we have done recently should be based on what we learn going forward and not predetermined at this point. There may be grounds to limit housing on this site based on what we learn but we may also learn that the high housing alternative is a win-win scenario. I think this is a good site for teachers/staff and seniors so let's keep all options open as we learn what is possible working with the school district and future consultants. Stephen Levy 365 Forest Avenue 5A Palo Alto CA 94301 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Karen Routt <keroutt@aol.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 29, 2019 11:32 AM To:Council, City Subject:Wilton Court Funding - $10 mil Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council,    I am an avid affordable housing supporter and Palo Alto Housing board member.  Thank you for your support of  developing more affordable housing in Palo Alto.  I want to support Palo Alto in its efforts to remain economic diverse  and more affordable housing is built.  Every unit makes a difference!    I support the City of Palo Alto providing Palo Alto Housing with $10 million for the development of this 59 unit  affordable housing project.  With funds and support from the City, Palo Alto Housing will be able to move forward with  the project.      Thank you for this consideration and investment in your community.    Yours truly,  Karen  Karen Routt  Redwood City, CA  keroutt@aol.com      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Linnea Wickstrom <ljwickstrom@comcast.net> Sent:Wednesday, May 29, 2019 3:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:YES to City Financing for Wilton Court: June 3 Agenda Item 16   Honorable Mayor Filseth and Council Members,    I urge you to support providing the total of $10M from the City’s Residential and Commercial Housing Funds to enable the  development of Wilton Court.    I look forward to hearing that you are completing your commitment to this instance of affordable housing for Palo Alto!    Thank you!  Linnea Wickstrom  Monroe Drive  Palo Alto  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Cheryl Shaffer <scdr1@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, May 24, 2019 9:55 PM To:Council, City; Shmuel Shaffer Subject:Castilleja Dear City Council, I am a resident of Palo Alto and would urge you to enforce the CUP process and the 415 student limit for Castilleja. The traffic in our area is becoming intolerable. Many thanks Cheryl Gold Shaffer 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ryan Globus <ryanglobus@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 24, 2019 7:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:Citywide Rail Tunnel: Thank You Palo Alto City Council,    Thank you for eliminating the citywide tunnel from the rail grade separation option. The tunnel was too expensive,  required too many home acquisitions, and was too complicated given the existing right of way owned by Caltrain. I'm  sure it was a difficult decision to remove the citywide tunnel, so thank you for being courageous and fighting for a better  and more realistic option for Palo Alto.    Ryan Globus  Midtown Resident  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tom Holzer <tom.holzer@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 26, 2019 9:25 PM To:City Mgr; Council, City Cc:acribbs@basoc.org; ryanjoemccauley@gmail.com Subject:Dog Park in Northern Palo Alto Attachments:20190517_173920.jpg; 20190517_174400.jpg; 20190517_174026.jpg I have lived in Palo Alto near Duveneck School since 1970. As the owner of several dogs over this time period including  the present, I have greatly missed having access to a nearby off leash dog park. Having it nearby not only encourages  greater usage, but it enables you to meet other owners and to socialize your dog. This contributes to a better sense of  community which is important to me as I no longer have kids in the school system.    Your attention to this need would be greatly appreciated. I recently was in Vero Beach, FL, and visited a dog park that  was very thoughtfully laid out. It included covered sitting areas for people and two fenced off areas for big and little  dogs complete with fire hydrants. The big dog area was wrapped around a baseball outfield. While I don't expect similar  accommodations in Palo Alto, it demonstrates what ingenuity can do. I am attaching pictures for inspiration.    Tom Holzer (and Bailey)  1 Brettle, Jessica From:John <j16450yz@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 28, 2019 3:58 PM To:Holden, Thom (FAA); Fisher, Brian (FAA); 9-NATL-UAS-Help (FAA); Police; City Attorney; City Mgr; Council, City Subject:RE: Drone reporting/ local law enforcement disconnect... Thanks for the reply Tom,    Having not heard anything after I emailed you, I just wasn’t sure anything was happening. And when I still saw the drone  being flown, it really made me concerned. I can understand it being a slow process and that process can’t/shouldn’t be  shared with me, but I feel much better knowing it’s not just being ignored.    As far as identifying the pilot, I’ve seen this person with the radio in his hand while the drone was in the air. If it would  help in the process, I’ll try to get a picture or video of him the next time the drone is in the air.     I also believe that the pilot has admitted to flying the drone to the PAPD officer that went to his house. I was also told he admitted to the officer that he flies it at no more than 400 feet. Not even talking about us in the neighborhood seeing it  over 400 feet, he obviously doesn’t know that he’s actually limited to a max of 200 feet. Unfortunately I’m not sure that  officer even took a report on that visit and what the pilot said because “There’s nothing PAPD can do, and nothing to  cite him for”.     That’s the frustrating part and bigger issue, several citizens have been trying to report this potential danger and none of  those calls ever made into any PAPD logs/reports or were forwarded on to the FAA.    Thanks again for the reply, I really appreciate it.    John Hansen    From: Holden, Thom (FAA)  Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 3:38 PM  To: John; Fisher, Brian (FAA); 9‐NATL‐UAS‐Help (FAA); pd@cityofpaloalto.org; city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org;  citymgr@cityofpaloalto.org; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  Subject: RE: Drone reporting/ local law enforcement disconnect...    Hi John, Thank you for the information you are providing to us. As I am sure you can appreciate, we cannot comment on on-going investigations. The federal regulations regarding drone operations are pretty clear; the tricky part of a UAS/Drone investigation is positively identifying the pilot. More information is vital. The more you can give us (with supporting evidence), the better our investigations will go. Thanks again! Thomas B Holden Jr. Manager, San Jose Flight Standards District Office, WP-15 1250 Aviation Avenue, Suite 295 2 San Jose, CA 95110 (O) 408-795-4027 From: John [mailto:j16450yz@gmail.com]   Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 3:01 PM  To: Fisher, Brian (FAA) <Brian.Fisher@faa.gov>; Holden, Thom (FAA) <Thom.Holden@faa.gov>; 9‐NATL‐UAS‐Help (FAA)  <UAShelp@faa.gov>; pd@cityofpaloalto.org; city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org; citymgr@cityofpaloalto.org;  city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  Subject: FW: Drone reporting/ local law enforcement disconnect...    (City of Palo Alto officials… I’ve included a few of your email addresses in this message so that you can see what’s been  going on here in the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood. Start at the bottom to see my original email dated May 13th to  Tom Holden at the FAA.)          Hi Tom and Brian,    So evidently this never got anywhere? This situation has been going on for about 3 months now. Last night the drone  was flying again, it was 7:50pm and getting dark. Stanford Hospital’s LifeFlight helicopter flew over our houses at  8:01pm. A little more than 10 minutes separated both the LifeFlight helicopter and this drone occupying the same  airspace.    I still fear that this situation is going to end up in a plane or helicopter hitting this drone. I have been documenting and  keeping track of all of my attempts to avoid this possible situation from happening. I’ve made dozens of phone calls and  sent emails to Palo Alto Airport, local and federal FAA officials. I’ve made several phone calls to PAPD, as have many of  my neighbors. The calls to PAPD go nowhere. I sure hope the news story after something happens isn’t an example of a  concerned citizen BEGGING for somebody to do something and nobody wanting to do anything until it was too late.    Please let me know if anything was done about this. IF some sort of contact was made by the FAA to this person, I can  tell you it didn’t work because the drone is still flying. I know that the drone was flying the day after a PAPD officer went  to the person’s house so that didn’t have any effect.    And as far as our local law enforcement (PAPD) is concerned, they’ve told me and my neighbors this isn’t their issue. I’ve  read the “Public Service” sections of the FAA website, and from my understanding, it IS local law enforcement’s duty to  report drone issues to the FAA. As far as I know, this is not being done. There is literally a “Local law enforcement  Toolkit” on the FAA website to show what local officers are supposed to do in drone situations. I’ve tried to convey this  to the PAPD, but they aren’t interested. I literally printed out the documents to give to the PAPD officer I was in contact  with, but he didn’t want to see them. So you at the FAA need to know that drone reports from citizens and local pilots  are NOT being relayed to the FAA.    Thank you for your time on this.    John Hansen  415‐497‐8736            3 From: John  Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 2:21 PM  To: thom.holden@faa.gov; brian.fisher@faa.gov  Subject: Drone reporting/ local law enforcement disconnect...      Hi Tom, Andrew Swanson gave me your email address.    First of all, if it’s easier, just give me a call on my cell at 415‐497‐8736.      So yeah, like I think Andrew told you, we have a dangerous drone flying in our neighborhood and we’ve been helpless in  doing anything about it. It’s been flying almost daily for over 2 months. It flies well above 400 feet, sometimes as high as  600‐800 feet. The FAA grid shows it should not be over 200 feet in his area, and he’s actually flying very close to the no  fly zone. (He’s within a mile or so from the Palo Alto Airport.)     He flies it WELL above the legal ceiling for his area. (To the point of it being almost out of sight even viewed from directly  below it.)  Private light aircraft flies over the same area many times daily, often BELOW the altitude he is flying this drone at.  He flies over people and houses on almost every flight.  He flies at night sometimes.  He flies WELL out of his sight.  He has crashed this drone in a tree over a  block away from his house. (He had no idea where it crashed, a neighbor  ended up posting a message in “Next Door” saying a drone fell in his driveway and did anyone lose one. The owner  evidently responded and came and got the crashed drone.)  He flies it over a busy intersection, a gas station and near a shopping center.  He flies it in a fast and dangerous manner, vertically and horizontally.  He flies it sometimes 3 or 4 times a day, for more than a combined hour in the air easily.      Dozens of concerned neighbors have called Palo Alto Police Dept, only to be told “They don’t deal with drone issues”. No  police reports are filed because they don’t have any ordinance to cite. Calling the FAA results in a response of “call your  local law enforcement”. So an entire neighborhood is aware of a problem, but nobody wants to bother doing anything  about it or they simply pass the buck and say “it’s not their problem”.    On the bigger picture, there is most definitely a disconnect between the PAPD and the public on reporting drone  issues. Not only do reports from local residents of dangerous drones go nowhere once PAPD gets them, it appears that  they aren’t even doing anything when the FAA person at the Palo Alto Airport or local pilots report drone sightings or  issues. None of these calls into PAPD have resulted in it being reported to the FAA as far as I understand. PAPD officers  have stated that “They see drones flying around at the Baylands (near the airport, literally under the glide path in front  of the runway) all the time”. And obviously don’t think it’s an issue. Stanford Hospital’s LifeFlight flies in this same  airspace quite often and is also in danger of hitting this drone, not to mention all the private pilots and people training  to be pilots.    We have the drone owner’s name and address, here it is…    Amr Awadallah.  2330 Carmel Drive, Palo Alto    He has said the drone is registered with the FAA.    4 Thank you for any assistance you can give in this situation. And anything I can do to help is a phone call away. I’d really  rather something be done BEFORE we end up with a plane crashed into a house.    John Hansen  415‐497‐8736      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Joanne Koltnow <joanne.koltnow@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 23, 2019 11:00 PM To:Parking, SPPlus Cc:Council, City Subject:extra charge for calling the RPP line Dear whomever-- I just got a phone bill with a $6.05 charge to a number in Half Moon Bay--650-440-8074. Turns out the number belongs to Palo Alto's RPP "public line." I was calling to update my permit info because I traded in my old car for a new one and I called what I thought was a local number. Fortunately the call only took 11 minutes. If I had known this was not a local number I would have used my cell phone--or sent an email. Please update the information about 'the public line' on your website to let callers know that they're calling Half Moon Bay. Or better yet, get a local phone number. --Joanne Koltnow Evergreen Park 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Gary Lindgren <gel@theconnection.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2019 5:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fiber Optic Network in Palo Alto Dear City Council,  For the last 2 weeks many many AT&T crews have been installing new fiber optic cables from their node at Lincoln and  Waverley. They are stringing fiber on the poles and also installing the fiber cables in the new underground district on  Addison Ave. In talking to the crews, the fiber cables to homes in the area should be ready by year end. I can only  assume that AT&T will add fiber facilities throughout Palo Alto. Various groups and committees have been working for  20 years to get a fiber network for Palo Alto homes and businesses. Now that AT&T is doing this, I suggest that we don’t  spend any more money for Palo Alto’s municipal network.  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:Gary Lindgren <gel@theconnection.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 29, 2019 9:47 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fishing e-mails Coming from City of Palo Alto Dear City Council,  Last weekend I received several fishing type e‐mails that seemed to come from the City of Palo Alto staff. One message  was related to a “Sludge Report” that wanted me to login into an Excel document, I didn’t. The second was related to  money that was coming to me, it wanted me to download a zip file, I didn’t. Yesterday I left a message on the IT  departments phone (329‐2182) stating the above information, but received no response. Nobody answers the phone.  What is going on.  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:Jolinda Decad <jolindadecad@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 26, 2019 2:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page Dear City Council Members,    I have been a resident of Palo Alto since 1981.  I have never been the victim of a crime until this past Friday, May 24.   Here are the circumstances:    I own a new Tesla Model 3.  I parked the car in the parking structure on Bryant Street, off of University Avenue.  I parked  at around 5:10 PM and returned to my car at around 10:30, when I discovered that the rear window of my car was  smashed.  I went immediately to the police department and worked with the officer on the report.  During the  conversation I asked about whether the surveillance camera could be run for the time period to see if the criminal(s)  could be identified.  The officer told me that there are no surveillance cameras in the parking structure!  I expressed  shock and he indicated that although the police would welcome having cameras that the city council has rejected such  proposals based on privacy concerns.    I have no such privacy concerns ‐ what I do in public is nothing to be ashamed of or embarrassed by.  My concerns  instead are that the city is not doing all they can to prevent crime or to apprehend criminals.  I do not want to  continuously spend $500 to replace my windows but more importantly I have major concerns regarding the prevention  and solution of violent crimes.  The police should be given all the tools they need to fight crime.    Please let me know what I need to do to reopen this debate and make our city safer.    Regards,  Jolinda Decad  1 Brettle, Jessica From:John King <johnkingcountry@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 23, 2019 1:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Nashville Country Artist for Concert: John King Just checking in to make sure that last email came through? Excited to come play for you guys this year!     God Bless,    John King    On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 6:03 PM, John King <johnkingcountry@gmail.com> wrote:   Hey! My name is John King and I'm a signed Country Artist based out of Nashville. Over the last couple years, I've been on the road with  acts like Jason Aldean, Sam Hunt, Cole Swindell, Brett Eldredge, and Florida Georgia Line. In addition to our major tour, I play festivals,  fairs and events all throughout the US and would love to work with you guys this year! Do you have anything coming up that might be a  good fit? Below you will find links and bio info:    NEWEST RELEASE (Currently on Apple Music "Best Of The Week" "Breaking Country" and Spotify's "Hot Country", "New Boots" and  "Wild Country" playlists.. Also named one of Rolling Stone's Top 10 Country Songs: https://johnking.lnk.to/TrySayingGoodbye    Top 10 CMT Music Video & Apple Music Top 5‐ "I Still Pick Up"‐ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36lWA6nQptc    1 millions streams in the first 2 months‐"Never Wanna Be" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVWa3bWotyI    Billboard number 1 as a writer for Randy Houser‐ "We Went" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s‐F0US5eKnY    I currently have 4 songs climbing the charts. "I Still Pick Up" debuted Top 5 on the Apple Music Hot Chart (currently has over 1.5 million  streams). "Heat Wave" and "Never Wanna Be" also have over 1 million streams each. My current single "Try Saying Goodbye" is at 3  million streams and is already top 5 on the Apple Hot Country Chart. It was named one of Rolling Stone's Top 10 Best Country  Songs and included in Apple Music's "Best of The Week" and "Breaking Country" playlists. Spotify also featured it in their 6 million  listener "Hot Country" "New Boots" and "Wild Country" playlists. You can check them out  here: https://johnking.lnk.to/TrySayingGoodbye, https://onerpm.lnk.to/IStillPickUp, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU9qyb M8WWk and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVWa3bWotyI. Also check out the music video for "I Still Pick Up", which was Top  10 in the CMT countdown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36lWA6nQptc. Here's a press kit my team put together:     In 2016 I had my first Billboard #1 with a song I wrote called "We Went" for Randy Houser and recently signed a Management deal with Narvel Blackstock (Blake Shelton, Reba, Kelly Clarkson). Here's a few bullet points my team put together:   John's first single, "Tonight Tonight," was a top 40 hit on FM and XM radio. It was also used by the NFL for Thursday Night Football broadcasts!    Over the last two years, John has played over 160 shows in 48 states with some of the biggest artists in Country music including Jason Aldean, FGL, Rascal Flatts, Cole Swindell, Brett Eldredge, Brantley Gilbert, Sam Hunt, Brothers Osborne, Kenny Chesney and others.  John made his debut at the Grand Ole Opry in September of 2014 and and has since been invited back multiple times!  John's 2018 project was just picked up by Sony ATV Publishing and has already gained over 4 million cumulative streams in 6 months.  Over the past 3 months, King's social media numbers have more than tripled!!   God Bless,  2     John King    johnkingcountry.com  Management- Narvel Blackstock- Starstruck Entertainment    You may unsubscribe to stop receiving our emails.  ‐‐   God Bless,    John King  To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In     To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tony Ciampi <T.Ciampi@hotmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 24, 2019 3:50 PM To:Council, City; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; HRC; Perron, Zachary; city.council@menlopark.org; laurie.smith@sheriff.sccgov.org; so.website@shf.sccgov.org; Shikada, Ed; Burns, Dennis; pbains7 @projectwehope.com; Bains, Paul Subject:PAPD covers up Racism Palo Alto Police Captain Zach Perron stated to a fellow officer that "African Americans" don't swim.  But  instead of referring to African Americans as fellow Americans as equals under the law, Captain Perron referred  to African Americans as inferior to himself based upon the color of their skin, by referring to them as the "N"  word.  Officer Barbour, the target of Perron's "implicit bias" which is just a euphemism for, "explicit prejudice," was  asked by the Daily Post  to provide details of the incident and the cover up but he fears being retaliated,  harmed, by police officers, either from the Palo Alto Police Department, or from his own new agency, if he  were to provide those details to the Post.    Think about that for a moment.  A United States, an American, Police Officer who was the victim of racial  prejudice is fearful of telling his story about that racial prejudice and injustice because other police officers  may harm him in some manner for doing so.    That is what you call tyranny.  That is the current character of the Palo Alto Police Department.  That is what  the character of the police department has been for decades.  That is antithetical to American ideals and the  U.S. Constitution's purpose, equal protection of the law.    All condoned by former Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns as well as the former and the current PAPD  command staff.    This conduct is very similar to how Chief Burns covered up the beating of Albert Hopkins, an African American,  by Palo Alto Police Officers a decade earlier, back in 2004.  Nothing changes over ten years.    https://chiefburns.weebly.com/hopkins‐2.html  It is why the current PAPD command staff is covering up the actions of Ofc. Conde and ofc. Cuevas.    Officer Perron, for your information, African Americans do swim, and they swim quit well.  Your conclusion  was based upon preconceived false stereotypes and prejudices that affected your assumptions for that was  what your conclusion was based upon, which is often the case when you take facts out of context rendering  them no facts at all.      2   https://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/26/reece‐whitley‐us‐swimming‐future/  4 iom First African -American Wo... x + + (i) a National Public Radio, Inc (US) https://www.npr.org/sections/codes1'\ li:J ~ ~I o. __ seo_rc_h _____ ~ ~ ABCmouse.com Early ... ~ Library -City of Palo A ... ,, Simone Manuel Wins Olympic < That's A Really Big Deal August 12, 2016 -2:20 PM ET LEAH DONNELLA Simone Manuel is one of the best swimmers in the world. But even in 2016, there are very few professic who look like her. Clive Rose/Getty kna ges 5   https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/08/12/484841513/simone‐manuel‐wins‐olympic‐gold‐thats‐ a‐really‐big‐deal          https://padailypost.com/2019/05/22/cops‐use‐of‐n‐word‐led‐to‐investigation‐that‐never‐became‐public/  To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Cop's use of n-word led to investigation that never became public - Palo Alto Daily Post BY ALLISON LEVITSKY Daily Post Staff Writer. Palo Alto police Capt. Zach Perron was investigated for using a racial slur while speaking to a black officer — and the probe wasn’t shown to the city’s independent police auditor, keeping it out of the public eye. padailypost.com     Tony Ciampi  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 23, 2019 12:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:please have the City oppose SB 330 To our City Council: Thank you for your stewardship in the search for housing solutions. Most of the solutions before the California legislature today are hasty, unproven, untested suggestions that may actually set back solutions to California's housing problem and would greatly impact the City of Palo Alto and its residents. Basic principles of economics and of democracy are being ignored and cast aside. Please opposed SB 330, which may come to a floor vote today, and please have the City's state lobbyist work to oppose it --- immediately. SB 330  Retroactively kills a city's housing reforms --- retroactive --- why permit this?  Bans voters from overturning its most controversial elements, which may turn out to not even work ---- why tie voters's hands with such an untested, inflexible plan?  Subjects residential areas, without a public hearing, to nonresidential uses (such as a mixed use apartment with a restaurant on top, on a quiet residential street) ---- Why should residential areas be gutted? How will Palo Alto be affected?  Removes local controls ---we live in these areas --- why adopt centralized state planning that does not take local considerations into consideration? This is not democratic. Please stop this extreme bill, which is unproven and untested to actually work to improve the housing situation in a city such as ours, or any other city for that matter. Please work to ask our state legislators to work to put together suggestions and solutions that can positively impact affordable housing issues and the wage inequality behind it: transit, telecommuting, education, skills training, and using the State's $21 billion surplus to impact the housing issue. Thank you for listening. Best, Kathy Jordan 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jane Manning <jmanning65@ymail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 23, 2019 8:23 AM To:City Mgr; City Attorney; Council, City Cc:Jane Manning; mlbernald@saratoga.ca.us Subject:Potential lawsuit vs FAA To: City of Palo Alto May 23, 2019 Hello, My family and I live in the mid-Santa Cruz Mountains (north of Hwy17). Our area happens to be located at the crossing of three major airline traffic routes. We have arrivals to San Jose, all SFO arrivals and departures to/from So Cal, and sometimes OAK departures as well, totaling >100 flights a day. We are severely negatively affected by noise to the point of health disturbance, mostly as a result of NextGen. I am contacting you to discourage the City of Palo Alto from suing the FAA. The reason is that we need the FAA to continue to participate in the SFO and Santa Clara/Santa Cruz County Round Table processes, which are attempting to execute upon the recommendations made by the 2016 Select Committee on Airplane Noise. If Palo Alto sues, the FAA will surely be legally prevented from working with the Round Tables. This would completely deprive my area and the other surrounding areas from having a voice with the FAA. The Santa Clara/Santa Cruz County Round Table has only just started its work in March 2019 and many, many people in those Counties are very relieved and hopeful about finally having a forum for working on the noise issues. I won’t defend the speed and earnestness with which the agency has been addressing the noise issues they caused with the NextGen implementation. However, air traffic is very complex and the Round Table + Select Committee recommendations are the best process we have at this time! I urge you to NOT sue so that the FAA can continue working with representatives and citizens in the REST of the Bay Area. Sincerely, Jane Manning 16625 Skyline Boulevard, Los Gatos, CA jmanning65@ymail.com 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Diane Reklis <reklis@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, May 28, 2019 4:48 PM To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; board@pausd.org Subject:Reject housing at Cubberley May 28, 2019 To the members of the  Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission parkrec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org  Palo Alto City Council City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org and  Palo Alto Unified School District board@pausd.org : For 40 years I have watched Palo Alto and Stanford increase the number of jobs within our boundaries with only minimal increases in the supply of housing. Those who complain that we have allowed and even encouraged the jobs / housing imbalance to grow over time are correct. We have been part of the problem and we must be part of the solution. Answers will have to include the development of more housing, but it is essential to remember that increased housing will bring a demand for increased services. Given that available land is constrained by our geography, it is essential to protect the few larger areas in Palo Alto that remain available for school and community use. Housing at Cubberley is incompatible with the need to provide increased community services and schools that will be needed over time. I support increasing the density of housing in selected areas of Palo Alto including along San Antonio Road. Increased density will, by definition, increase the number of people needing community services including parks, fields, recreation facilities, community center programs, and schools. It is essential to protect our limited available public spaces and to enhance these spaces to accommodate increased public use. The Cubberley and Greendel sites together represent the last large parcel for both a large school and increased community uses within Palo Alto. We must protect this public space for public use and not consume it for individual uses such as housing. Please do not approve any housing at Cubberley or Greendel. I served on the Cubberley Community Advisory Committee a few years ago and I attended all of the public meetings of the recent Cubberley Co-Design process. The conclusions that emerged from both of these groups were clear and positive – with careful planning we can develop this site in a way that will allow both a large school when needed and increased community use today and into the future. There was a high degree of support shown for these uses. The idea of putting housing at Cubberley was rejected early in the recent discussions except at the adjacent site located at 525 San Antonio. At the last meeting the consultants added proposals for housing on the Cubberley site but it was difficult to understand what was being proposed, there was no information before the meeting, and certainly no opportunity for serious discussion. If it is a good idea to cram housing onto sites already full of community needs, then you must also immediately approve adding dense blocks of housing on the sites that house the Lucy Stern Community Center, the Rinconada Library, and the Arts Center. No, I do not think this is a good idea, but it is no worse than cramming housing on top of competing public uses at Cubberley. We need more housing, but it must be placed carefully around town. 2 Housing and transportation must be discussed simultaneously. We need to make difficult decisions about the train tracks and at-grade crossings but these decisions must include Alma and El Camino as well as the east- west routes. We need to have all entities work together. We need express routes, perhaps reserved for buses during rush hour along the major thoroughfares, as well as more shuttles and bike routes to provide real alternatives to individual cars. It took many years for the jobs / housing imbalance to get to a critical level. We cannot expect to solve this crisis in a short period of time. However, we can begin now to carefully design areas for future growth of housing and transportation as well as for increased community services demanded by future increases in the number of citizens to be served. Do not make matters worse by consuming current community spaces and creating even larger future needs. Please do not approve housing at the Cubberley site. Thank you. Diane Reklis 3410 Janice Way, Palo Alto CA 94303 reklis@comcast.net   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Bruce Raskin <bruceraskin@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2019 7:57 PM To:City Mgr; Council, City Cc:Anderson, Daren; acribbs@basoc.org; ryanjoemccauley@gmail.com Subject:Residents need a dog park in north Palo Alto September 22, 2019    To: The Palo Alto City Council and the City Manager    We’ve been homeowners and taxpayers in Palo Alto since 1980, raised our children here, and sent them through the  Palo Alto schools.    During these past nearly 40 years, we’ve almost continuously been owners of a dog‐‐four to be exact during that time  frame. Sadly, we’ve always felt a lack of opportunity to allow our family pet to recreate off‐leash, either to throw a ball  or frisbee in the park or to run with other dogs. And that is the purpose of this letter: to express my concerns about the  need for more off‐leash areas for dogs in north Palo Alto.    We have a sizeable percentage of Palo Alto residents who are dog owners, and like us, they, too, are frustrated by the  lack of off‐leash opportunities. In order to get to a dog park on any given day, we have to negotiate often‐dense traffic,  either to a location in Palo Alto or Menlo Park. This is an untenable and unsustainable situation.    I attended one of the meetings a year or two ago regarding developing a dog park at Eleanor Pardee Park. Both  proponents and opponents offered strong arguments, and the discussion became an all‐or‐nothing issue.   What was not mentioned was a compromise. I’ve heard of other communities that have /designated hours/ for dogs to  run off‐leash within well‐defined areas. Pardee Park has at least several areas where this could be successfully  implemented, ideally after 5 p.m., when working residents are home from their jobs. I am sure there are other areas  nearby that could also accommodate a full‐ or part‐time dog park.    Other strong advantages of a dog park include allowing dog owners to socialize, an activity that seems to be  disappearing in our increasingly busy and insulated community. Likewise, for many of us, it means fewer cars on the  road, often during impossibly busy rush hours.    I hope the city will strongly consider taking this matter up very soon, as it is causing more and more conflict between  dog owners and the community and animal control.    Thank you,    Bruce Raskin and Kathleen Boone    533 Hilbar Lane    Palo Alto    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net> Sent:Tuesday, May 28, 2019 4:09 PM To:Council, City; Burns, Dennis; Bonilla, Robert; Scharff, Greg Cc:Geri Mc Gilvray; Dorian Manke; klnordman54@gmail.com Subject:SAFETY DESIRED at MARION   Download Attachment Available until Jun 27, 2019   Hello,      We can’t get out of our driveways safely.  It had been easy until 2009.      (A secret meeting decision)     We deserve better.    TRAFFIC DIVISION was barely restored, and,    AND,  speed and red light running are NOT ENFORCED on our residential arterials.    PLEASE HELP.    I love being alive and UN maimed.    Geri McGIlvray     Everyday safety and WALKABILITY for ALL  Streets within my city.        Click to Download IMG_5894.MOV 0 bytes   Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kass <vz22@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, May 23, 2019 9:43 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support for new BMR housing on San Antonio Hi, I very much support adding more BMR units and encourage you to approve projects that include BMR units, that are permanent,and don't expire as BMR units some time in the future, as happened with Casa Olga. However, in order to not worsen our parking deficit, I propose you consider new ordinances for developments projecting the need for fewer parking spots based on their opinion that many of their residents will choose not to own cars. 1) Charge at least $100 per month (indexed for inflation) for dedicated parking spots. 2) If projects are within an RPP, and do not have at least one parking spot per bedroom, I support an ordinance to that allows residents to purchase only one permit (not the current 4) at the same rate as employees. Additionally, I support changing the RPP rules so that employers can purchase permits and share them among employees, so that permits can more efficiently accommodate employees who do not work normal schedules, and frequently work far fewer than 40 hours during the RPP hours. Kathleen Goldfein Palo Alto homeowner and landlord since 1995 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sam Crowder <samecrowder@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 25, 2019 10:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:Virtual Town Hall Hello Palo Alto City Council,    My name is Sam Crowder and I'm a resident of Atherton and a current college student. I'm currently studying computer  science at Brigham Young University in Utah and am back in the area this summer for an internship with Google in  Mountain View. I'm reaching out because for the past few months, I have been building a software application that is  aimed at smoothing the communication process between local government and citizens. I'm currently calling the  application Virtual Town Hall.    Virtual Town Hall has two very basic components currently. We've built a web console through which a local  government representative can create a simple poll and a mobile app through which citizens can respond to the poll.  The city representative can view and aggregate the results in the web console to better understand what citizens think  about a given issue.    I've built a very basic prototype and am looking to gain general feedback from someone with your expertise. I would  love to meet with you briefly, this coming week if possible, to discuss Palo Alto's current citizen feedback process and  give a brief demonstration of the app I've built.    Is there any time this coming week that I could meet with any PA representative around the end of the work day? If not  then, I could also probably make any time during the day work as well. Please let me know what would work best. I look  forward to hearing from you.    Best,  Sam Crowder  https://www.linkedin.com/in/samcrowder/  U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration HAY 2 D 2019 The Honorable Eric Filseth Mayor of the City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Mayor Filseth: Z019 HAY 28 AH ll) I l ttf:.CtlYt.D CITY HAHAGER'S OFFICE Mission Support Services 800 Independence Avenue, SW. Washington, DC 20591 Administrator Daniel Elwell asked me to respond to your letter regarding a request to extend the comment period for the PIRAT TWO STAR procedure, which closed on March 29, 2019. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) appreciates your concern and continued advocacy on behalf of your constituents. This particular comment period was the deadline for civil aviation organizations, affected military and civil air traffic control facilities, and airport owners and sponsors to submit technical aeronautical comments regarding the procedure, not as part of the FAA' s environmental review process. The comment period for the environmental review was completed in the form of a Categorical Exclusion/Record of Decision (CATEX/ROD) on July 17, 2018. The CATEXIROD was published to the FAA Community Involvement websites listed below for public review on February 22, 2019. https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/nextgen near you/community involvement/sfo https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/nextgen near you/community involvement/oak. Furthermore, the publishing of the PIRA T TWO ST AR procedure on April 25, 2019, was in response to the immediate deactivation of the recently published PIRA T ONE ST AR on February 28, 2019, due to information unintentionally left off the procedure. The only difference between the PIRA T ONE and PIRA T TWO ST AR is an altitude restriction at the PIRA T waypoint. In your letter, you noted a concern about the proposed implementation of the PIRAT TWO ST AR in the Northern California airspace. The FAA developed this arrival route in response to a unanimous recommendation from the 12-member Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals. The recommendation stated that, "The Select Committee recommends revision of the Woodside VOR ocean tailored arrival to honor the existing noise abatement procedure to cross the Woodside VOR at 8,000 feet." The FAA carried out this recommendation and raised the altitude of oceanic aircraft, within the vicinity of the Woodside VOR (OSI), now known as ARGGG waypoint, to 8,000 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL). Beyond this waypoint, aircraft will be radar vectored to join the approach course and will follow a ground track similar to the one used prior to the publication of the PIRA T ST AR. The FAA prepared a final environmental review to assess the potential environmental impacts of the PIRA T ST AR procedure, per the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and found that a CA TEX was sufficient given the degree of change. Oceanic aircraft have been arriving over OSI and radar vectored for many years. The FAA does not anticipate this action will cause the number of oceanic aircraft over Palo Alto or its neighboring communities to change. The FAA remains committed to working collaboratively with communities to address a wide range of issues. We will continue to work to ensure the safety and efficiency of the National Airspace System while maintaining transparency regarding airspace changes and being cognizant of potential impacts to communities. In closing, this communication does not constitute either a final decision of the FAA or a reopening of the F AA's August 7, 2014, final decision for the Northern California (NorCal) Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (OAPM). We appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns. Ifwe can be of further assistance, please contact Philip Newman, Assistant Administrator for Government and Industry Affairs, at (202) 267-3277. Sincerely, ~cf:uV- Vice President, Mission Support Services Air Traffic Organization 2 Palo Alto City Counsel 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 May 16, 2019 Barron Park PTA VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL (clty.council@cityofpaloalto.org) Dear City Council, CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 19HAY 24 PH 2: 24 The Barron Park Elementary PTA Executive Board thanks you for your recent vote to have city staff consider cell phone tower setbacks from homes and schools. Consistent with that recent vote, we hereby ask you to: 1. Consider and grant the appeal of the Barron Park cluster decisions, made without school community input as no notification was given, noting also that the approved designs would not be allowed under the new city wireless ordinance; 2. Halt any further small cell installations until further modifications to the ordinance regarding setbacks can be considered and finalized; and 3. Work with residents and schools to establish setbacks and proper communication procedures. Specifically, we request 1500 ft setbacks for cell towers from schools. Proper communication should include notice to the full school community -including the school principal, PAUSD staff, the School Board, the Palo Alto PTA council, school site PTAs, and our parents/families. There is statewide precedent for our request. The California State PTA, in 1994, passed a resolution encouraging advocacy for "risk reduction policies" regarding electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Cities and school boards in California adopting risk reduction policies such as removing cell phone towers from school campuses and instituting cell phone tower setbacks from schools include: Petaluma, Fairfax, Ripon, Mill Valley, San Rafael, San Anselmo, Hillsborough, Palos Verdes, Los Angeles Unified School District, Alameda Unified School District, Milpitas Unified School District, and others. Thank you again for asking staff to include cell tower setbacks in our ordinance. We look forward to your reply. Sincerely, By: Nakia Davis Its: Barron Park Elementary PTA President cc: · City of Palo Alto, Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Date: S'°-/ 9 -ft:/ I support Castilleja's proposal to increase enrollment and modernize its campus because ... TkA-t ~<. ~"" .~ ~ ~ .... ~ ~ "'•'+""-.f1.<kt/,."" ·~ .. TN.y Jo ~J wc>rk.. l"' ~~~ wQMAA. 'h'> h..c... 5~i' ~"---~· ~t ~v.e .. :f)..&,S.w(Jf~ Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 c)+-OW\-c.,~ ~ .. :;3c~~~~lljllpllh11•l•illjol\p•lliil 1,jijp