Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190603plCC 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: 06/03/2019 Document dates: 05/15/2019 – 05/22/2019 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 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:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2019 11:59 AM To:Council, City Cc:Gail Price Subject:Monday, May 20 Prescreening meeting. 788 San Antonio Road May 20, 2019  Re: Prescreening meeting: 788 San Antonio  Road (64 Unit Mixed‐Use Project)   Dear Mayor Filseth and Palo Alto City Council members,   I support the staff report and recommendations about the 788‐796 San Antonio Road housing  complex with some retail uses, as proposed.  This is a critical opportunity  to create 64 needed housing, with a mixture of unit sizes, including  10 BMRs. The housing crisis will not lesson if we do not approve appropriately designed housing  and densities which yield more housing opportunities.     Additionally, one of the stated goals of the City Council is to get closer to the goal of adding 300  plus housing units per year. As noted in the staff report, the subject site is included on the City’s list of  housing opportunity areas.     An extension of components of the Housing Ordinance to San Antonio Road for CS zoned properties between  Middlefield Road and East Charleston Avenue also makes sense. One technique is to increase the floor area  ratio up to 1.5 in the CS zone along El Camino. This modification both along El Camino and in the subject area  would make it possible to create more housing. Both the Council and the staff constantly review and examine  projects in the context of our very high cost region which links financing, construction costs and  the eventual  purchase or rental rates for owners/tenants.   Our Housing Element has already identified this area as an appropriate area to promote additional  housing.I would also agree with other comments that the San Antonio/East Charleston  corridors  pose many opportunities for housing and services.  The comprehensive analysis of this sub‐region combined with complementary land uses (retail  and services, groceries stores, etc) and mobility  services (pedestrian and bicycle, shuttle, bus, etc)  would create a viable and attractive area. The sub‐region already includes pre‐designated housing  opportunity areas.   Thank you for considering my comments.     Best,  2 Gail Price         1 Brettle, Jessica From:Elaine Uang <elaine.uang@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2019 2:20 PM To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan Subject:Pre Screening for 788 San Antonio condos Dear City Council Members,    I write to you today with my own personal opinion about tonight's pre‐screening for the 788 San Antonio condos  project.    A week and a half ago I participated on an SV@Home Affordable Housing Week panel that discussed what Palo Alto is  doing for the Housing Crisis.  I commend you for passing a new Housing Workplan that has just taken effect, approving  the first affordable housing project in 7 years, and several market rate developments.     However, the data suggests that Palo Alto has not done enough for the housing crisis and we will have to green light well  over 300+ units per year to meet our 2023 Housing Element target. National and regional media have already painted an  anti‐housing caricature of Palo Alto. If you want to prove that we can set reasonable local rules to build adequate  housing for our community, now is the time to do so.    Tonight, you have a unique opportunity to test the Housing Workplan's Housing Incentive Program (HIP) on San Antonio  Ave. This corridor was not in the original Housing Work Plan, but it has a similar profile to El Camino Real and is  becoming a more prominent corridor with greater access to jobs.  Housing is ideal at this location and I would encourage  you to apply the HIP standards at this location to allow more housing.  The condo proposal coming to you tonight is  relatively modest, but will create 64 much needed housing for working professionals including 10 low income subsidized  units.      You may also want to consider TDM programs like car share or electric bikes/scooter docks for a parking reduction, since  parking space construction ($100k/space!) is a major cost.  91 car spaces is high for 64 units and if we are serious about  sustainable transportation efforts to reduce GHG and car traffic, we should not encourage more dedicated residential  parking.  This may also make this project eligible for GreenTrips, the local program that certifies housing projects with  good sustainable transportation initiatives.    We need more housing and we needed it yesterday, so I urge you to move this project forward.  I also encourage  you to evaluate measures and amendments to our Housing Workplan that can incentivize more housing in our  community. Tonight is a good test of what you have been doing. Please use this opportunity to keep tweaking our  housing program and improve it.     Thank you for your consideration,  Elaine Uang  Kipling Street  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Amie Ashton <aashton@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2019 3:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:Hooray For Housing Honorable City Council,    I am writing in support of the residential project bring proposed at 788 San Antonio Road. It's close proximity to a mix of  other multi‐family housing units, jobs, transit, bike lanes, schools, and services make it an ideal location for additional  residential development. This is even more essential with the loss of (former) Housing Element‐identified potential  housing sites at 744 San Antonio Road, where a hotel has been approved and is under construction. Replacement of  those identified housing sites (which would have accommodated 38 to 57 units) with this one is an easy win for the City  of Palo Alto. Further, replacement of low‐density development surrounded by a sea of parking improves the look and  feel of the area generally.    I would also urge you to consider a reduction in the high number of parking spaces proposed for the project. This excess  parking only adds to the environmental impact, cost, and complexity of the project. The mixed‐use nature of the area  lends itself to trips being taken by methods other than driving, let's maximize that potential by not over‐parking the  structure, something cities are realizing is essential in building community and helping do our part to fight global  warming! To anyone who says to you, "people won't get out of their cars," please keep me at the front of your mind.  Thanks to Palo Alto's mix of uses, bike lanes, and proximity to Caltrain, my husband and I have been almost entirely car‐ free for seven years. It is possible and this project is in an ideal location to make it happen.    Thank you,    Amie Ashton          1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kerry Yarkin <kyarkin895@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2019 7:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Whoops Dear Council Members. :   I am writing this to correct my mistake during Oral Communications Monday night.  I meant to say that NOW approx.  80% of Bodega Arrivals fly over Palo Alto and 20% fly over The Bay.  It used to be the opposite‐‐‐80% over The Bay and  20% over Palo Alto.  As SFO increases throughput, the consolidation of routes and the narrowing of routes over Palo Alto  is taking place at a fast pace with no notice nor communication to the population areas below.  Start legal filings to  protest this takeover of our once quiet and clean skies.    Sincerely,  Kerry Yarkin  2 1 Brettle, Jessica From:TC Rindfleisch <tcr@stanford.edu> Sent:Thursday, May 16, 2019 5:43 PM To:Council, City Cc:Juan Jose Alonso; Don Jackson; Flaherty, Michelle Subject:Brief Description of the MONA Project (Metroplex Overflight Noise Analyses) Attachments:MONA-Brief-Description.201905.pdf Dear Council Members, please accept the attached brief description of the Stanford MONA (Metroplex Overflight Noise  Analyses) project as background for Agenda Item 11, Discussion of Airplane Noise and Community Impacts; Direction to  Staff Regarding the Star Pirat 2 Procedure Announced by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on April 25, 2019.,  scheduled for the City Council meeting on Monday, May 20, 2019, from 7:15‐9:00 PM  Thank you, Thomas Rindfleisch, Juan Alonso, and Donald Jackson  May 16, 2019 THE MONA (METROPLEX OVERFLIGHT NOISE ANALYSIS) PROJECT Thomas Rindfleisch, Juan Alonso, Donald Jackson Open-source data collection, analysis and mitigation of aviation environmental impacts PROJECT DESCRIPTION The MONA project (Metroplex Overflight Noise Analysis) started approximately 1.5 years ago with the main objective of providing real-time and objective data, analyses, and reports for key stakeholders and policy makers to help in mitigating the noise impacts of the deployment of new NextGen procedures. It is a result of the joint efforts of community contributions and academic support. Since then, we have put together a preliminary open-source system that (a) collects, archives, and makes available air traffic data using a series of networked antennas and receivers 24/7, (b) analyzes noise impacts using a variety of metrics (based on both a MONA-developed noise prediction tool and the noise predictions tools within AEDT), (c) visualizes resulting large-scale datasets in a simple, user-friendly fashion, and (d) is beginning to use a small network of low-cost sound-level monitors scattered across the Bay Area to enhance noise predictions so they describe exactly the actual noise levels experienced. The longer-term objectives of the MONA project are to (a) make all results web-accessible for in-depth interpretations of historical and proposed changes, (b) study potential alternative traffic patterns in complex metroplexes to mitigate aviation environmental impacts, and (c) export the proven/validated MONA technology to other metroplexes via open-source software. Over the coming year, we plan to focus on three fundamental aspects that still need detailed attention: (1) the completion of the development of a full prototype of the MONA software/hardware system that can be deployed cost-effectively in any metroplex in the US or abroad, (2) the development of novel information fusion methods to combine wide-area noise predictions and strategically-located noise measurements (including comparisons of fused predictions using the MONA-developed, AEDT, and ANOPP2 approaches) and full validation of all alternatives, and (3) the development of an air traffic pattern modification module that can be used to assess the impacts of alternative traffic patterns (e.g. different waypoint location and approach/departure routes, traffic dispersion, and altitude / descent rate changes.) IMPACT STATEMENT The MONA project believes that both the analysis of the environmental impact of aviation on overflown communities and the development of mitigation approaches should be first-order considerations in the implementation of future NextGen procedures. We also believe that, today, such considerations are difficult to account for, require too much user interaction, and are typically not well validated, especially at significant distances beyond the boundaries of airports. By automating the more difficult parts of these processes and archiving data for future comparative analyses our approach can provide real-time information across large geographical areas and have substantial impact to improve the likelihood of success in the deployment of airspace redesign efforts across the NAS, while considering the values (safety, noise, emissions, fuel burn, etc.) of the complex set of stakeholders involved. KEY DELIVERABLES • Low-cost, real-time, open-source software & hardware system to monitor, understand, and mitigate aviation noise environmental impacts. • Validation of noise prediction methodologies for a variety of metrics across large geographical areas. Understanding or errors and uncertainties in these models to suggest potential improvements • Methodology to assess multi-dimensional impacts of implementation of new NextGen procedures May 16, 2019 Figure 1. MONA visualization (using kepler.gl and deck.gl) of traffic patterns in Bay Area. Figure 2. Current MONA web-access prototype for real-time aircraft location and 24-hr DNL contours. Figure 3. Before/after example of MONA automated analysis. DNL noise changes as a result of BSR to SERFR transition in Mar ‘15. Red/orange: May ‘15/May ‘18. Green/purple/blue: May ‘14/Aug ‘14/Jan ’15 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mark Shull <shull.mark@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 16, 2019 6:58 PM To:Council, City Cc:karen.chapman@mail.house.gov; Zanardi, Kristine; Shikada, Ed; Flaherty, Michelle; Tanner, Rachael Subject:Statement for Item 11 of May 20 Council Meeting -- Airplane Noise and Community Impacts Attachments:Emissions_S Arunachalam_An Integrated Measurement and Modeling Study of UFP due to Aircraft Operations at Boston Logan_0.pdf; ultrafine particles – USC Environmental Health Centers.pdf I am not able to attend the May 20th Council Meeting, but I would like to submit comments for the air traffic agenda  item:   Congressional Representation ‐‐ It is not true that the FAA has a complete blank slate or freedom to design  procedures in metroplexes.    They design within general contours defined by and respond to pressures from  congressional representatives, who control FAA budgets, and by airport owners, who design and operate the  airports.    (This is well documented, nationally and locally.)    In SFO's case, SFO Roundtable communities  make aspirational recommendations, SFO funded technical staff and a highly skilled dedicated air traffic  specialist in Congresswoman Speier's office refines these and turns them into specific and detailed technical  requests to the FAA,  and then shepherds them through the FAA via high‐level meetings with senior FAA  officials, and firm responses to FAA objections.   She gets things done.  (NIITE HUSSH is a good example of not  taking no for an answer, and prevailing.)    Palo Alto should lobby Congresswoman Eshoo to have this same  level of expertise and effort, as well as to meet directly with her Palo Alto constituents regularly who,  uniquely, have had all three arrival tracks move over them in a concentrated rail as a result of NextGen.       Sacrificial Health Corridor ‐‐ In addition to the cardio‐vascular health risks that concentrating aircraft noise has  been proven to cause, there is increasingly solid evidence that ultra‐fine particles from aircraft exhaust (which  are unique to aircraft engines and significantly smaller than diesel exhaust) are in fact accumulating at higher  levels of concentration under NextGen's concentrated approach architecture.    These ultra‐fine exhaust  particles are extremely dangerous because once inhaled, they accumulate and cannot be expelled from the  lungs.    While the FAA's environmental office recognizes that ultra‐fines are dangerous, they argue (without  evidence) that they are dispersed quickly by the wind, even at lower arrival altitudes similar to those over  Palo Alto.    Recent studies, including a new study partially funded by the FAA Office of Environment and  Energy (initially disclosed by the university researchers, but now not approved for distribution by the FAA)  have shown, via field measurements, that ultra‐fine exhaust particles do in fact accumulate in much greater  concentrations directly under heavily‐used NextGen concentrated arrival paths, and are not dissipated quickly  by the wind.    These studies include evidence that shows a higher concentration of the smallest and most  dangerous ultra‐fine particles under these arrival paths than beside major freeways.    Palo Alto, and  Congresswoman Eshoo, who chairs a health related committee, should fund and determine what health risks  we face from NextGen's concentrating all Peninsula arrival traffic over us, and to respond effectively to the  findings.    I have attached several of these recent studies, including a screen shot below from an  independent, but FAA sponsored, Boston Logan study of untra‐fine accumulation at locations directly under  one of Logan's arrival paths vs sites to the side of the path and closer to I‐93.   The graphic below shows the  higher level of ultra‐fine accumulations directly under the path, and other results show that the  accumulations are at measurably higher levels during arrival "rush hours".  2      "Higher Altitudes" Harm Us  ‐‐  Palo Alto is located just prior to where planes need to be low enough to capture  SFO's Instrument Landing System (ILS).    It is not possible for planes to fly much higher than 4,000 ft. over  Palo Alto and make an instrument landing.     This has always been the case (and Congresswoman Eshoo's  5,000 ft. agreement at MENLO has only ever applied to visual approaches.)   The early recommendation from  Sky Posse and others was for, "the highest altitudes possible where the procedure enters the bay".    Instead,  the City apparently supported higher altitudes, without qualification.    This put Palo Alto in the self‐defeating  position of supporting raising the beginning of SERFR, as part of the Class B change, and now PIRAT up on  Summit Road (including its necessary redirection towards us because of this increase in altitude), all while it is  not possible for the FAA to raise altitudes over Palo Alto.    This has resulted in overly steep approaches, which  are extra noisy ‐‐ including speed brakes ‐‐ on SERFR, and Oceanic Arrivals needing to fly a longer track over  Palo Alto, rather than the more direct path to SFO over Atherton and Menlo Park as before.   Palo Alto needs  to clarify its position on altitudes, and make sure that Congresswoman Eshoo understands and supports our  objection to PIRAT's wholesale movement of SFO Oceanic traffic from over Menlo Park to over us, much less  the addition of new Oakland traffic.    .  .   Improved Sequencing? ‐‐ My reading of this is that it is restatement of Congresswoman Speier's office's strong  support for reducing vectoring and pushing the FAA to accelerate the full implementation of Time Based Flow  Management.     Why are we making this recommendation?     If and when the FAA does achieve its goals of  perfect time based flow management, this will eliminate vectoring and put all aircraft on a single narrow rail  over Palo Alto.     In other words, perfect sequencing will eliminate vectored traffic over the communities to  the sides of us, but at the cost of putting all traffic directly over Palo Alto, and the new SIDBY Initial Approach  Fix at Eleanor Pardee Park.    Why are we asking that the FAA concentrate traffic over us more, rather than  asking that it be dispersed equitably, as it was historically and as new landing systems make possible?   GBAS ‐‐ SFO (not the FAA) is in the process of replacing its Instrument Landing System (ILS) ‐‐ the 80 year old  landing technology that is responsible for altitudes needing to be so low over Palo Alto, and for the FAA's  need to concentrate and not disperse arrival traffic ‐‐ with a GBAS (augmented GPS) Landing System  (GLS).    This system, which again is being implemented under the direction of SFO (as a "non‐FED system"),  not the FAA, can make things much worse or much better for us.   After initially stating that it intended to  work with communities, SFO is proceeding with an initial implementation that its own testing shows will harm  Palo Alto further.    We should be all over this right now and directly with SFO, and its owner ‐‐ San  3 Francisco!   GBAS is a game changer making Palo Alto's airplane problem better or worse, yet this active and  high‐impact SFO project is not in the Staff report.    Monitoring ‐‐ There is no other place on the Peninsula where there are and will continue to be more changes  related to SFO (and SJC) arrival traffic than Palo Alto.   When Santa Cruz mountain communities complained  after SERFR appeared in 2015, SFO responded immediately by deploying monitors on Skyline for  months.    SFO not only provides ongoing monitoring, but also detailed quarterly reports, for Woodside and  Portola Valley, even though the number of people filing complaints from these communities is low.  SFO  monitors Redwood City, even though arrivals rarely fly over it.    Palo Alto citizens have been asking for SFO  monitoring for years at the SFO Round Table in their 2‐minute open‐mic slots, only to have airport  representatives blame Palo Alto City for delays.   And, now, after a short period of monitoring, we have been  left waiting for months for the results from SFO, even after SFO has published monitoring results for the  community where the monitoring equipment was moved to after us.    We should not put up with this kind of  treatment, when the ongoing deployment of NextGen has moved all SFO arrival Peninsula procedures over  us.      We (including Congresswoman Eshoo) should demand that SFO fund and install permanent monitors in  Palo Atto (at or near SIDBY).   Separately, Palo Alto should provide financial support for the much more  technically advanced and cost effective monitors the could be deployed via the Stanford MONA project.   South Bay Round Table ‐‐ It is completely objectionable that it has taken two years for the South Bay Round  Table to even start, and worse, that four years after NextGen was implemented, Palo Alto's issues, like  growing concentration, are not even formally on any Round Table agenda yet.   The creation of the South Bay  Select Committee on Arrivals was the justification Congresswoman Eshoo posited to object to Palo Alto's  joining the SFO Round Table, which NextGen changes more than justified.   Then, instead of focusing on the  core harm caused by NextGen ‐‐ the extreme concentration of flights from all three procedures ‐‐ the Select  Committee focused on the supposedly quick and easy fix, but now drawn out, of moving the beginning of the  one track, SERFR.   And worse, it effectively turned into a second forum for the entire slate of existing SFO  Roundtable issues, including departures.    Not surprisingly the only initiatives making real progress with the  FAA are the those that were part of the SFO Round Table's agenda.  We have simply been ignored, and have  had no meaningful representation, in spite of being one of, if not the most, impacted communities by  NextGen.  This is wrong, and Palo Alto should be clear with Congresswoman Eshoo, SFO, and San Francisco  that this is wrong.   Also, Palo Alto simply cannot rely on the South Bay Round Table to be the sole forum to  address the aircraft concentration's NextGen created and continues to increase.   Its organizing dysfunction  aside, the South Bay Round Table has fatal structural issues.   Unlike the SFO Round Table, the South Bay  Round table is not sponsored by any airport, has no airport funding, and does not have the congressional  back‐end infrastructure that makes the SFO Round Table so effective in forcing the FAA to make  changes.    Nor, is it working on creating these essential structures.  Palo Alto needs to be realistic about what  we face, and to address it with clear plans, broader initiatives and specialized resources.     Thank you,    Mark Shull  Palo Alto    FAA CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR ALTERNATIVE JET FUELS & ENVIRONMENT Sarav Arunachalam Institute for the Environment The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill An Integrated Measurement and Modeling Study of UFP due to Aircraft Operations at Boston Logan Opinions, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASCENT sponsor organizations. UC Davis Aviation Noise and Emissions Symposium 2019 March 4 –5, 2019 2 Project Team •Chowdhury Moniruzzaman, Sarav Arunachalam –UNC Institute for the Environment •Chloe Kim, Jonathan I. Levy, Claire Schollaert, Bethany Haley, Matthew Simon, Kevin J. Lane –Boston University School of Public Health 3 Motivation •Recent measurement campaigns at several airports have shown significant levels of Ultrafine Particulate Matter (UFP) due to aircraft LTO operations at Los Angeles, Boston, Amsterdam, Rome, Tianjin, etc. o 4-to 5-fold increase to 8-10 km downwind in LAX o 1.33-to 2-fold increase to 4-7.3 km downwind in BOS Hudda et al 2014, 2016a,b; Keuken et al 2015; Riley et al 2016; Staffogia et al 2016; Ren et al 2016 •Emerging studies show adverse health impacts due to exposure to submicron particles •Dispersion modeling with multi-component chemistry and aerosol microphysics, combined with measurements will provide integrated assessment of UFP due to aircraft operations at an airport 4 Particulate Matter (PM) •PM is a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in air–Primary particles: directly emitted by various sources–Secondary particles: formed by atmospheric chemical reactions •PM has 3 main physical characteristics–Number, Mass and Chemical Composition •All particles of size < 10 microns have adverse effects on human health, and visibility–PM10 / PM2.5 / PM0.1 •Health-based standards exist for PM10 and PM2.5 on a mass basis–The literature on PM0.1 based health impacts is evolving Baldauf et al, 2016 5 Measurement and Modeling Approach •Conduct air pollution monitoring of ultrafine particulate matter (UFP) underneath flight paths, to assess: –Phase 1: the magnitude and spatial distribution of UFP in the vicinity of an arrival flight path 4R/4L (2017) –Phase 2: the magnitude and spatial distribution of UFP in the vicinity of all landing and takeoff flight paths (2018) •Perform air quality modeling using –Phase 1: SCICHEM1 –Phase 2: High resolution CMAQ2 (12/4/1-km) U.S. EPA, 2014 PM10 vs PM25 vs PM0.1 1Second Order Closure Integrated Puff Model with Chemistry, Chowdhury et al, 2015 2Community Multiscale Air Quality Model, Byun and Schere, 1999 6 Particle Number vs. Surface Area Nel et al, Science 2006 7 •Definition: –Formal quantitative assessment of the amount of ambient air pollution that can be attributed to a given source or source sector •Two general approaches: –Measurement-based –Dispersion modeling-based •Previously used to model particle mass (PM2.5) –Regional Air Pollutant –Existing long-term ambient monitoring infrastructure –Dispersion and Regression model applications to source sectors •Challenges for particle number (UFP) –High spatiotemporal variability –Complex pollutant dynamics –Multiple contributing sources/source sectors –Lack of ambient monitoring infrastructure –Limitations in emissions inventories (particle number vs. mass) Source attribution 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Carl Thomsen <carl@thomsenhome.com> Sent:Friday, May 17, 2019 10:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:Airplane Noise and STAR PIRAT TWO procedure announced by the FAA on April 25, 2019 - Council Agenda Item for May 20, 2019 meeting Dear Palo Alto Council members,    Unfortunately we are unable to attend the Council meeting this coming Monday (May 20) when the impact of airplane  noise and the new FAA PIRAT procedure will be discussed. Once again the FAA is claiming that a new flight procedure  (STAR (RNAV) PIRAT TWO)) qualifies for a categorical exclusion (CATEX) from the normal review process while not having  data to support the claim that it will not impact noise and emissions.      This is one more example of the FAA making unilateral flight decisions and claims related to noise  with no support for  their decision. These decisions since the implementation of NextGen flight procedures have had serious impacts on the  citizens of Palo Alto.     We request that the City respond promptly to the FAA about this new procedure, with legal action if deemed  appropriate, clearly stating the City’s opposition to this change and requesting a full environmental and noise impact  review.     Some have referred to the airplane noise as annoying.  This is an unbelievable understatement. Annoying implies a  minor irritant that could possibly be ignored. This is much more than annoying as the constant noise has significant  health and mental consequences. The negative health and life expectancy impacts of noise pollution is well documented  as described in detail in an article in the New Yorker just last week (May 23rd issue page 26). Loud airplane noise that is  occurring in our neighborhood every 3‐5 minutes for significant portions of the day is way beyond annoying.     As one more personal example, we had our grandkids (ages 7 and 10) overnight this past Thursday and even they  mentioned that they were awakened at 5AM (!) by the airplanes flying overhead.  The continuous flight noise from early  morning until late into the night (midnight and beyond) has been well documented by numerous Palo Alto residents and  has increased even more in the past 6‐12 months over our neighborhood in Palo Alto.    We request your support and action to the FAA related to this new procedure (PIRAT TWO) and the constant airplane  noise that we have been subjected to day and night due to the change in flight paths caused by the FAAs misguided and  on‐going implementation of NextGen without appropriate evaluation of the focused noise impacts this has on our  community and our daily lives.    Sincerely,    Carl and Susan Thomsen  1701 Edgewood Drive  Palo Alto, CA 94303      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Larry and April Alton <lalton@pacbell.net> Sent:Saturday, May 18, 2019 8:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:aircraft noise  Dear Council members,   Please stop the low level aircraft flights over downtown Palo Alto:      Consult with legal counsel to assess legal standing and schedule a closed session.     Consult with other jurisdictions and political representatives to join forces as appropriate.   Take action on the FAA    Thank You, Larry Alton 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Gretchen Hillard <gretchen.hillard@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2019 9:40 AM To:Council, City Subject:reduce jet noise over Palo Alto Honorable City Council members, I live in Midtown and very often experience jet noise and private plane noise so loud that it interrupts conversations, disturbs my reading and watching movies. It sometimes wakes me at night. I appreciate the efforts that the Council has taken in the past to reduce jet noise. I support Sky Posse's efforts to obtain new stronger rules to reduce jetnoise over our community. I urge you to continue to take the necesaary steps to return quiet to our skies. Sincerely, Gretchen Hillard 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Leonard Ortolano <ortolano@stanford.edu> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2019 1:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:Airplane noise: support the Council moving forward with the Fast Track process for PIRAT Dear members of the City Council of Palo Alto, I write to request that you direct city staff to accomplish the following in the context of the he Fast Track process for PIRAT. Consult with legal counsel to assess legal standing and schedule a closed session. Consult with other jurisdictions to join forces as appropriate. The FAA needs to be prodded to take action on the problems its decisions created for Palo Alto residents suffering from airplane noise. Thank you, Leonard Ortolano 556 Irven Court Palo Alto, CA 94306   1 Brettle, Jessica From:jay whaley <whaley_jay@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2019 2:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:Airplane Noise and F.A.A. STAR PIROT TWO procedure....Council Agenda item for May 20, 2019 Dear Palo Alto Council members,    Though we are unable to attend the May 20 Council meeting, we must express our comments on the  continuing, unchanging environmental negative impacts of the low flying, SFO bound aircraft over our homes.  Since NextGen was imposed up to 5 years ago, and despite the input of so many of us ( 4000‐10,000  complaints every day sent to SFO) there has been no change in the roar and whistling of the jet engines over  our Crescent Park home. Attempts to influence the F.A.A. to adapt meaningful changes have been  unproductive .    The F.A.A. is now claiming that a new flight procedure (STAR (RNAV) PIROT TWO) qualifies for a categorical  exclusion (CATEX) from the normal review process. The F.A.A data fails to support the claim that PIROT TWO  will not impact noise and emissions. It may actually compound the negative impacts, as it will increase the  number of aircraft using this new flight procedure.     We urge that the City respond promptly to the F.A.A. about this new procedure, requesting a full review of the  environmental and noise impact on our community.  Legal action may certainly be appropriate because of the approaching deadline for implementation, and the  F.A.A.'s  insistence of avoiding the normal review process.     Thank you for your valuable leadership to rectify the negative environmental imposition of noise and air  pollution of NextGen on our communities.     Sincerely,  Sallie and Jay Whaley  24 Crescent Drive  650‐325‐4730                  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2019 3:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT's Political History - New approach is needed Attachments:OTA inquiries - Email to SFO Noise Office .pdf Dear Council,    Thank you for discussing airplane noise at the upcoming meeting tomorrow, and specifically PIRAT.     Please consider the following documents about PIRAT's political history:    In the Beginning:   1997: Flights from Hawaii and Oceanic SFO bound arrivals were not over Palo alto. They were moved to South San  Mateo County and Santa Clara (Palo Alto) without an environmental review (or public knowledge of potential  impacts).  Change was done by neighbors and we had no clue.     See When and How Oceanic flights were moved to Palo Alto.     2010: After Oceanics were moved 5 nautical miles to South San Mateo County and Santa Clara County:  FAA developed Oceanic Tailored Arrivals (OTA) without an environmental review (or public knowledge of potential  impacts).  In these 22 pages  then Mayor of Portola Valley Steve Toben documented OTA.    This excerpt from an email (attached) from Toben to Bert Ganoung. Patty is Patty Daniels FAA.   >>Bert -  It seems an unnecessary waste of your time to listen to the tapes from the October meeting. There is no need to increase your workload. Whether you and Patty misspoke at theOctober meeting with regard to the precise extent of OTA arrivals is unimportant. What is important is proper disclosure of the OTA implementation plan -the timeline, the decision- makers, the decision-making process, and the factors to be taken into account. This information surely exists in documents somewhere, but it has never been provided to the Roundtable or the public. It should take minutes to pull this off a shelf somewhere and provide it to us. You and Patty appear to agree that there has been a substantial increase in the number of OTA arrivals over the past several months and that this has been a factor in the lower arrival altitudes we're seeing over southern San Mateo County. We're simply trying to understand what's going on. Everything may be entirely proper, but right now the OTA implementation plan is completely opaque. As I said to you at the October 7 meeting when I asked you to seek this information from Patty, "Transparency is a good deodorant."     The public never got transparency about OTA. It was in fact the beginning of Nextgen.     2014‐2015 Nextgen is rolled out:  Altitudes started coming down for all arrival patterns into SFO over three counties. Public Outcry, Select Committee was  convened, among many concerns the Committee pressed to have observe the 8000 feet altitude agreements for  Woodside. The altitude agreements for MENLO at 5000 feet were also supported by the Committee. BUT FAA never  discussed changing OTA to PIRAT during the Select Committee.    2 2018:  Whiff of PIRAT is born ‐ we learn that FAA will use OTA as the vehicle to pass without environmental review. And that  GBAS will use "overlays" so if GBAS turns out to be bad for us, it will be still considered "no impact" because of OTA and  PIRAT being "no impact."     2019:  We are beyond needing deodorant.     Please reject cynicism about "traffic is already here anyway" ‐ knowing that it wasn't concentrated over the City as it is  now. Or that this is a "federal issue" because where FAA's domain of the NAS lies ‐ at the place where hazards and  impacts to Palo Alto begin, I suggest that it becomes the City's responsibility to address these hazards and to look out for  the welfare of Palo Alto's environment, population now, and for generations to come.     Please have a "wait a minute" chat with FAA and if that means using legal options to have a meaningful exchange,  please do because we cannot wait until 2045 to be included in a Timeline for OTA, PIRAT, etc. etc. . The time is now.    Thank you,    Jennifer    From: "Steve Toben" <stoben@,florafamily.org> To: "'Bert Ganoung"' <Bert.Ganoung@flysfo.com> Date: 1/7/2010 3:55 PM Subject: RE: February 3 Airport Roundtable Meeting CC : "'David Burow"' <d.burow@woodsidetown.org>, "'Elizabeth Lewis"' <elewis @... Bert - It seems an unnecessary waste of your time to listen to the tapes from the October meeting. There is no need to increase your work load. Whether you and Patty misspoke at the October meeting with regard to the precise extent of OTA anivals is unimportant. What & important is proper disclosure of the OTA implementation plan -the timeline, the decision- makers, the decision-making process, and the factors to be taken into account. This information surely exists in documents somewhere, but it has never been provided to the Roundtable or the public. It should take minutes to pull this off a shelf somewhere and provide it to us. You and Patty appear to agree that there has been a substantial increase in the number of OTA arrivals over the past several months and that this has been a factor in the lower arrival altitudes we're seeing over southern San Mateo County. We're simply trying to understand what's going on. Everything may be entirely proper, but right now the OTA implementation plan is completely opaque. As I said to you at the October 7 meeting when I asked you to seek this information from Patty, "Transparency is a good deodorant." Regards, Steve 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Carol Ruth <carolruth1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2019 5:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Airplane Noise issue Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,    Regarding the long-standing airplane noise issue, we are writing to ask you to direct your staff to:     Consult with legal counsel to assess legal standing and schedule a closed session.     Consult with other jurisdictions to join forces as appropriate.    The facts on PIRAT point to FAA defying its own rules, NEPA environmental statutes, and 2012 Nextgen law when using a CATEX, or "declaration of negative impact" to force through a procedure without environmental review or adequate community involvement.     We would like to acknowledge Council and Staff for their progress on airplane noise actions originally voted on in May 2018, including a new “Fast Track” process to put technical and legal resources in place to help Council make decisions by the statute of limitations deadline for FAA procedural changes.    Thank you for your continued work on this important issue.    Sincerely,  Ron and Carol Ruth  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Karen Robin <karenrobin2007@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2019 6:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:May 20 meeting Hello,  Please read this at the meeting. It’s impossible for me to attend.   Thank you.   Karen Schilling‐Gould:  Dear Members of City Council,      I’ve been a Palo Alto resident since 1988, living in my current home in Crescent Park since 1994.       I’ve always enjoyed living on a quiet street. This has changed dramatically in the past few years now that planes are  CONSTANTLY flying directly above my home.       The planes fly low and loud, waking me from my sleep multiple times per night. I’m often jolted awake at 12:40 am, and  again at 3:20 am. The rumbling is so intense that at times I think we’re having an earthquake.       Having my sleep interrupted multiple times every night has directly affected my health.       I urge you to address this matter quickly. This is more than simply a noise issue; it’s a health issue.       Thank you very much,  Karen Schilling‐Gould    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Bill Gargiulo <bill_gargiulo@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2019 10:58 AM To:Council, City Subject:Airplane noise City Council,     We will not be able to attend todays council meeting regarding Airplane noice and community impact but wanted to  express our support for action. Please direct staff to:     Consult with legal counsel to assess legal standing and schedule a closed session     Consult with other jurisdictions to join forces as appropriate    The continues low flying flights and the late night / early morning SFO arrivals are having a significant impact on our quality of life. As 25 year residents we ask that you keep focus on this issue.     Thank you,  Bill and Linda Gargiulo  1730 Middlefield Rd    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Maryanne Welton <maryanne@kwelton.com> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2019 11:08 AM To:Council, City Subject:FAA's Fast Track Process for PIRAT Dear City Councilpeople:     Please do whatever you can to assess legal standing of this fast tracked process.  I encourage you to consult with other  jurisdiction to join forces to prevent the FAA from defying its own rules and NEPA environmental statutes.  NextGen  flight paths have already severely impacted Palo Alto citizens ability to enjoy time outside or sleep through the night  without a non‐stop line of screeching jets flying low overhead.  I hope you are continuing to work to solve this problem  and stopping the FAA from fast‐tracking this change without environmental review is one step in that process.    Thanks,    Maryanne Welton 660 Kendall Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306    1 Brettle, Jessica From:RANDY HUNTER <randy_h@prodigy.net> Sent:Tuesday, May 21, 2019 9:30 PM To:City Mgr Cc:Council, City Subject:Bad use of city property for home owners City Manager : Mr. Shikada, Thought you should be aware, and to ask you not use this area for contractors, find a area out by the old dump, the old recycle area would have good. (Now flood control in this area is no more.) I think the city should follow thru with there promos to continue the park like landscaping like what the developers did for value add at Loma Verda and West Bayshore. Last year the city aloud a contractor use the area behind some of the homes on Maddux Drive. They did not tell the home owners of the use and time line and how it was going to be used, not allowing for feedback. The contractor set up a trailer where the employees would check in starting at 7am and heavy equipment working, trucks coming and going, mind you there is a city ordinance that no work to start till 8am. 2 Then truck loads of dirt hauled in and equipment, and supplies, pipes, plaits of other items set within a foot of homes back fence. This areas use is still going on to date ( jack-hammering before 8am. I was not able to even enjoy my yard at all, and keeping all windows closed every day. There was no dust control and it was so bad at times that my car in front of my house was covered in dust. Plus I had to look at a long tall white tanker truck that’s parked on the other side of my back fence next to where they very loudly dumped sludge before 8am. Just a note they brought in so much dirt to dump it has raised and covered a flood control drain and inspection covered port to the canal. The frustrating thing was when I called the city no one knew anything about it. This use is bring down the property valve and would be hard to sell with a view of all this. There is so much more. I’m kind of fed up at this point, maybe because I’m retired and health problems (Disabled) that I’m home all day were my neighbors are at work. The city does check on the contractor use (out of sight out of mind). 3 Thanks for your time. R. Hunter (Bad use of area for home owners.) (Developers did for value add at Loma Verda and West Bayshore, below pic.) 4 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Michael Harbour <dr.mharbour@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2019 9:02 PM To:jjpassmann@menlopark.org Cc:city.council@menlopark.org; Council, City; wlm@jsmf.com Subject:Request for DENIAL of Use Permit for BootUp Ventures at 68 Willow Road in Menlo Park Dear Mr. Passmann,  I live across the creek from BootUp Ventures and have suffered needlessly for over three years from noise and chaos  made from loud parties and events thrown by BootUp.  The office complex is not zoned for events as the buildings are  surrounded by single family residences in Menlo Park and Palo Alto.  The area along the San Francisquito Creek is a  designated park, and has always been very peaceful until BootUp arrived. The events are raucous fraternity‐like parties  (think Animal House!) with over 100 people along with amplified sound, music, outdoor flame patio heaters, multi‐ colored lights, disco balls, etc.  They serve food and alcohol until late in the evening.  I've personally witnessed their  games with Vodka shots and yelling.   The attendees also hang out on the benches along the creek speaking drunkenly  while smoking cigarettes and marijuana.  I've even heard someone vomiting along the bank of the creek from being over  served alcohol.   Cars can be heard coming and going along with hundreds of car doors opening and closing including  honking throughout the evening. The parking spills over into neighboring areas.  Catering trucks and rental equipment  companies then come to break down tables and chairs and clean up the mess.  This routinely lasts past midnight.  Every  home within earshot of BootUp can hear the events as if they were in the own backyard due to the echo that the creek  produces.  During the summer when we like to sleep with our windows open, it is impossible to sleep due to the  noise.  Despite hundreds of calls to the police over the years, Menlo Park has not enforced their own zoning rules.  On  one occasion in the late evening, I even called one of the owners of BootUp, Marco ten Vaanholt, to tell him of the  ongoing disturbance and asked him to do something about it.  He cussed me out for waking him up and then hung up  the phone.  The neighbors have suffered so much over the years and the BootUp owners don't care because they don't  have to put up with it.  BootUp has ignored the cease and desist letter that was sent by the City of Menlo Park in  October 2018.  The fact that they are now asking for a use permit is ironic and way too late to be taken seriously.   The  permit should be denied as they have already shown that they are poor neighbors and can't be trusted.  The onsite  startup companies should be allowed to conduct their business at BootUp during the daytime, but the millennials  working at their offices need to find another, more appropriate, venue to let off their steam after work.  If a permanent  use permit is awarded, it will devalue the property values of nearby homes.  No one wants to live next to such a club‐like  environment.  In December 2017, I came to the Menlo Park City Council and presented my case with my attorney, Robin  Kennedy.   The City of Menlo Park did not do anything to rectify the issue at the time.  I will have no option but to pursue  litigation against the City of Menlo Park for the devaluation of my home if this permit is awarded.  I beg you for all  involved parties to please deny this permit.   Thank you for your consideration.    Michael Harbour, MD, MPH  Palo Alto Avenue  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Scott, Carol <carol.scott@anderson.ucla.edu> Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2019 12:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:California Ave garage allocation and the tunnel for Cal Train Dear Council Members,    I write to express my disappointment in your decisions about two issues that came before you on Monday evening, May  13.  Specifically, your decision not to confirm your earlier intentions to reduce commercial parking intrusions into  residential neighborhoods, and you decision to remove an underground tunnel as a potential way to mitigate the  adverse effects of Cal Train expansion on Palo Alto.  In the one case, you appear to be reversing previous assurances to  residents, and in the other, you exhibited a lack of vision for the future on the basis of short term costs.      As I mentioned on Monday evening, it was the residents’ impression that the California Ave garage would be used to  more completely contain commercial parking in the California Avenue Business District and to provide some relief to  residents in Mayfield (especially) and in Evergreen Park (especially along College which is nearest to California Ave.).  As  you know, despite the tightness of our current budget, the taxpayers are paying for this garage, not the business  community.  When community input was sought, it was clear that the residents had no intention of paying for a garage  simply to accommodate businesses who failed to provide parking in their buildings and who recoil in horror at the idea  of paying a business tax, I.e., in effect transferring a cost of operation from the business community to the resident  taxpayers.  I am extremely disappointed to see that you now appear to be walking away from your prior commitment to  use the garage to provide some relief to those who are paying for it, I.e., the residential taxpayers.    While the RPP has certainly made life in Evergreen Park better, it has done so by requiring that residents this area (and  in increasing numbers of areas) pay for the privilege of parking in their neighborhood in order to compensate for the  decision made by this and prior City Councils.  Those decisions allowed developers and businesses to build buildings with  inadequate parking for their needs.  Arguments that “no one will drive or bring cars” has been shown to be false.  If no  one is driving or bringing a car, then why do businesses want parking spaces in residential areas?      As was mentioned on Monday evening, the passage of SB 50 as well as the current ADU ordinance both will bring an  untold number of new residents to the Californian Ave. area.  Even if some of these new residents take the train  everywhere, many will not and many will want a car “just in case” anyway.  Since we have no plans to build better  transportation in Palo Alto, one can only assume that increased residents will mean increased cars.  Let’s get real about  that.  Neither piece of legislation requires developers to include adequate off‐street parking to accommodate the  number of new cars.  Ironically, when parking becomes scarce, only the affluent will be able to purchase parking even  though it is arguably the lower income worker who needs his/her car the most.    As I stated on Monday night, now is the time reaffirm that residents should not have to bear the burden of business  needs.  I urge the Council to reconsider its decision not to affirm its position that the  California Ave garage will be used  to provide relief to the residents in Mayfield and Evergreen Park.      Second, I read with dismay that you have decided to take an underground tunnel off the list of options as ways to cope  with the expanded Cal Train capacity.  How very short‐sighted.  Once again, you are willing to consider a tunnel for a  portion of Palo Alto, but not for the downtown or California Ave. neighborhood.  There will be no choice but to close  Churchill, leaving residents only Embarcadero and Oregon Expressway/Page Mill as ways to get across the railroad tracks  in this area, streets that are already clogged and destined to become worse.  There will now be two Palo Altos divided by  2 the railroad tracks.  In addition, there will be no protection for residents from the additional noise created by the almost  constant train traffic especially at rush hours.      If the country had been similarly devoid of vision and courage, it would never have built the Interstate highway system  or many other infrastructure projects that contribute so much to our current economic and social welfare.  Yes, of  course, it is expensive.  But, we all know it is the right thing to do.  I understand that it would mean taking several houses  to accommodate the construction of the tunnel, but as I understand it, most of the options will involve some of this kind  of disruption.  We are not building for today only — we are building for our future and the future of all Palo Altans.   Councilman Tanaka was right on this point.    Money is not a good excuse.  On this issue, we should be examining the best alternative and then finding creative ways  of paying for it.      Palo Alto is at a crossroads.  We need to expand our infrastructure (sewers, transportation options other than just a  train that goes north and south, schools, etc.) too accommodate an enormous likely increase in the population of Palo  Alto.  This will cost money.  Failure to find solutions here will cause a great deterioration in Palo Alto as a community  that actually works and is a desirable place to live.  I would argue that finding a way to put Cal Train underground is  equally important.      These issues will undoubtedly be topics of great concern in the next city election.  In the meantime, I urge you to make  decisions with the long term health of Palo Alto in mind.      Carol Scott  Resident of Evergreen Park        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Bob Stevens <stevensbob7@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2019 5:13 AM To:Council, City Subject:City of Palo Alto twitter feed City Council or Palo Alto,  I follow the City of Palo twitter account and find it often provides useful information.  But frequently the city’s twitter  feed “re‐tweets” UCLA highlights or accomplishments such as sports success which I find irrelevant to the mission of the  city.     I find it inappropriate and would prefer tweets only about city business.  Although I don’t recommend doing it, the only  university the city should re‐tweet is neighboring Stanford University which many of the residents would be connected  to and whose presence greatly benefits our city.  Someone’s personal interest in UCLA has no place in communications  by the city about Palo Alto business or interests.    Bob Stevens  Property owner in Palo Alto    Sent from my iPad    Sent from my iPad  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mark Shull <mark.shull@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2019 3:11 PM To:Council, City Cc:Flaherty, Michelle; Tanner, Rachael; Shikada, Ed; karen.chapman@mail.house.gov; kristine.zanardi@bos.sccgov.gov Subject:Today’s Congressional Testimony on Health Risks from NextGen’s Concentrating Traffic - For Council Meeting       Palo Alto needs to recognize the health impact of NextGen to Palo Alto residents.  Palo Alto should urge Congresswoman  Eshoo to  support the dispersion of SFO arrivals.   Posted today on Medum, by Congressman Adam Smith is his  congressional testimony regarding the health risks from ultra‐fine jet particulate matter and the concentration of jet  traffic.  Four routes of NextGen rails over Palo Alto is not just a noise issue, it creates serious health risks.    Mark Shull       Congressman Adam Smith submitted written testimony to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,  highlighting the eFfects of aviation noise and emissions for residents in communities around airports....Rep. Smith  voiced his concerns about the health effects of ultra@ne particles (UFPs), miniscule particles that are less than 100  microns in diameter and that have been known to be detrimental to human health. His legislation, which was recently  introduced in the 116th Congress, mandates a national study on UFPs around several of the nation’s busiest airports.  Rep. Smith’s full testimony may be read below:    WRITTEN STATEMENT OF  UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SMITH            OF THE   9th DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON  BEFORE THE  COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE  OF THE  U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES  “MEMBERS’ DAY HEARING”  WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 2019  Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and distinguished Members of the Committee: Thank you for the  opportunity to share some of the key infrastructure and transportation priorities that are of importance to the Ninth  Congressional District of Washington, which I proudly represent. As the Committee develops its legislative agenda for  the 116th Congress, I would like to highlight the importance of acting to stem the increasing impacts of aviation noise  and emissions on communities surrounding airports. As a Member of Congress whose district is home to one of the  busiest and fastest‐growing hub airports in the country, Sea‐Tac International Airport, I have a deep understanding.     of how this issue aFects residents near this and other airports throughout the country.  Sea‐Tac Airport is a vital economic engine for the Puget Sound Region. The growth of the airport has facilitated and been  driven by economic expansion of the region. While air traYc at this and other airports has increased, new technologies  2 have helped to mitigate, and in some cases reduce, corresponding growth in aggregate airplane noise impacts.  Unfortunately, the bene@ts of noise mitigation and reduction has not been enjoyed evenly throughout regions served  by major airports, including the district I represent. The narrowing of departure and arrival routes has concentrated  noise and other impacts over speci@c areas and those living under these pathways now bear an increased majority of  the noise burden. Culturally and socioeconomically diverse communities like the Beacon Hill neighborhood in the Ninth  District of Washington as well as the City of SeaTac, where I grew up, are located directly beneath increasingly tight <ight  paths and the noise impacts on these areas can seem nearly constant as planes <y overhead every few seconds.  Sadly my constituents and others living in similarly situated areas too often feel as though they have little or no recourse  or remedy. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has not always been responsive to their concerns, and while the  FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 included meaningful and positive provisions that will improve community engagement,  I believe more can and must be done.    I will be reintroducing legislation that I @rst oFered in the 115th Congress to improve the manner in which the FAA  engages with noise‐ aFected areas and to help bring some relief to those on the ground. The Aviation Impacted  Communities Act will codify into law a formal process for localities to join together and constructively engage with the  FAA through the work of Community Boards. These groups will have the ability to nominate civic leaders or elected  oYcials to represent residents before the FAA. The Aviation Impacted Communities Act will also designate areas under  <ight paths as “aviation impacted;” allowing residents to petition the FAA to study and create action plans to solve the  problems they face.     I understand that changes such as these will place an additional burden on an agency charged with the daunting task of  ensuring the safety and soundness of our air transportation network. However, the support provided by this legislation  to those who are disproportionately impacted by the externalities of the aviation system that is vital to all of our  communities and our country is both necessary and just. I look forward to working with you to improve and advance the  provisions contained in this legislation.  In addition to noise impacts from aviation, ultra@ne particles (UFPs) in the atmosphere pose an outsize threat to those  living near airports and under <ight pathways. These pollutants are miniscule particles of less than one hundred  nanometers in size that are emitted as byproducts of petroleum fuel combustion in engines, such as those used on  vehicles and aircraft.  In 2014, a @rst‐of‐its‐kind study was conducted around the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) to examine the levels  of UFPs in the atmosphere surrounding the airport. That study determined that ultra@ne particles were being emitted  over a much larger area than previously thought and could be causing more serious and widespread harm.  According to the FAA’s own preliminary research, @ne and ultra@ne particles in the atmosphere are considered a  health risk in humans because of their ability to penetrate deep into the human respiratory system. UFPs may be  particularly dangerous as they may aggravate heart ailments, contribute to lung disease, and cause nervous system  impacts. Their wide dispersion could aFect human health over large areas, lead to increased hospital admissions, and  hurt children’s performance in school. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that lower‐income and minority  communities tend to be exposed to higher levels of UFP pollution. However, the degree to which aviation contributes to  UFP pollution exposure is not fully known and only a handful of studies have been conducted in the United States to  begin to inform our scienti@c understanding of these particles.       In addition to gaps in scienti@c knowledge, there are also gaps in the federal government’s approach to UFP regulation.  The FAA regulates UFPs in the atmosphere no diFerently than considerably larger particles and presently only recognizes  two still‐sizable categories of particulate emissions. The @rst includes larger particles that are ten microns or less;  identi@ed as PM10. A second smaller set, designated as PM2.5, includes any particles below 2.5 microns. Though  ultra@ne particles are included within the lesser subset, UFPs tend to be considerably smaller than those in the upper  limits of the classi@cation. There are no speci@c guidelines for regulating or measuring the smallest particles because  the FAA does not identify them separately from the PM2.5 category. In order to properly regulate these particles, more  analysis is needed of these pollutants, their attributes, dispersions, and eFects on human health.  Given the potentially harmful health eFects that UFPs may have on those who live near airports and the limited research  on which to base regulation in this important area, it is time for a national study on this issue. Residents of impacted  3 communities across the country, like those in the congressional district I represent, deserve to know how they are  aFected by ultra@ne particles in the atmosphere, where these particles originate from, and whether alternative fuels  such as biofuels could be employed to reduce those impacts.  More must be done to understand how UFPs aFect the areas around airports, to what extent aviation contributes to the  creation and diFusion of UFPs, and whether or not sustainable aviation fuels could help reduce the number of these  particles in the atmosphere. The Protecting Airport Communities from Particle Emissions Act, which I recently  reintroduced in the 116th Congress, will help to answer many of these questions. This legislation seeks to improve the  current science in this area by directing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to partner with the National Academy  of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a national study of UFP generation and dispersal around major hub airports, like Sea‐Tac  Airport in Washington state and others around the country.       Drawing from data provided by agencies like the FAA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Health and  Human Services (HHS), among others, a FAA‐NAS study would investigate the characteristics, primary sources, and  potential health eFects of UFPs. Its scope would be national and examine UFP pollution surrounding several of the most  signi@cant airports serving some of the United States’ most sizable metropolitan areas, including: Washington, D.C.; Los  Angeles‐ Southern California; Seattle; San Francisco Bay Area; Phoenix; New York; Chicago; Boston; and Atlanta. It would  also identify any information gaps in the current science on this issue in order to better inform the regulation of UFPs.  Communities have a right to know whether the air they breathe contains high levels of UFPs and how these particles  aFect their health. I would welcome the support and expertise of Members on this committee to advance the scienti@c  understanding of ultra@ne particles through the research proposed in my legislation. It is crucial that we in Congress  @ght to reduce the impacts from aviation on surrounding areas while ensuring that our airports remain vital economic  engines.  I appreciate the Committee’s consideration of these priorities and its ongoing work to improve our nation’s environment  and infrastructure. As we focus restoring and improving our roads, bridges, ports, and water and aviation infrastructure,  we must take care to mitigate the impacts that the movement of goods and people can have on the environment and  Americans.  https://medium.com/@adamsmithoffice09/smith‐testimony‐highlighting‐effects‐of‐aviation‐noise‐and‐emissions‐ ca383de291f1 5/20/19, 11A19 AM Page 6 of 7     https://medium.com/@adamsmithoffice09/smith‐testimony‐highlighting‐effects‐of‐aviation‐noise‐and‐emissions‐ ca383de291f1 5/20/19, 11A19 AM Page 7 of 7    1 Brettle, Jessica From:leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique Sent:Monday, May 20, 2019 12:26 PM To:Council, City Cc:Executive Leadership Team; Caracciolo, Lisa Subject:Dewey and PACL in the news Hello!    This news article about Mariposa County Library mentioned Palo Alto, as they copied our librarian, Dan Lou’s, codes for  their robotic program:     https://goldrushcam.com/sierrasuntimes/index.php/news/local‐news/18638‐mariposa‐county‐library‐to‐ host‐a‐welcome‐to‐mariposa‐party‐for‐nao‐the‐robot‐on‐saturday‐june‐1‐2019    You’ll notice that they are also looking for a new name for their robot.  Ours, you may recall, is known as Dewey.    Sonoma County Library also started a program using our codes and information.  It’s nice to know Palo Alto is  contributing to the broader library community, inspiring the California State Library to offer robotics grants based on our  Pacific Library Partnership innovation grant!          Monique le Conge Ziesenhenne, PhD  Interim Assistant City Manager & Library Director  President, Public Library Association, 2018‐2019  270 Forest Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2403 | E: monique.ziesenhenne@cityofpaloalto.org   Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you    What I’m Reading Now:      The Miniaturist by Jesse Burton      From: Lai, Diane <Diane.Lai@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 12:20 PM  2 To: leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique <Monique.leConge@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: Dewey and PACL in the news  Hi, Monique,    This news article about Mariposa mentioned our library as they copied Dan’s codes for their robotic program:     https://goldrushcam.com/sierrasuntimes/index.php/news/local‐news/18638‐mariposa‐county‐library‐to‐ host‐a‐welcome‐to‐mariposa‐party‐for‐nao‐the‐robot‐on‐saturday‐june‐1‐2019       Sonoma County also started a copy program. It’s nice to know Palo Alto is contributing to library community.    Diane    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Becky Bartindale <bartindalebecky@fhda.edu> Sent:Thursday, May 16, 2019 6:03 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:News release: District seeks community input on Flint Center future Attachments:FlintCenterPressReleaseFINAL.pdf Dear Mayor Filseth, Council members, and Mr. Shikada, Please consider sharing this information with constituents and contacts to whom it may be of interest. Thank you, Becky -- Becky Bartindale Foothill-De Anza Community College District Coordinator of communications and public affairs 650-949-6107 office 650-269-8927 mobile DISTRICT SEEKS COMMUNITY INPUT ON FLINT CENTER'S FUTURE    The Foothill-De Anza Community College District is soliciting ideas from the community about the future of the Flint Center at De Anza College by meeting with local officials and using a community comment form at http://fhda.edu/FlintCenter     A comprehensive condition assessment indicates that the building needs renovation or replacement. The Flint Center is not used by the college for instruction but provides a large theater for rent for performing arts and community events.    The district’s Board of Trustees voted in February to suspend programing at the Flint Center theater for 2019-20 while awaiting the results of the building assessment. The district initiated the study after discovering significant seismic problems in the Flint Center parking garage, which since has been retrofitted at a cost of $33.5 million.    A report on the Flint Center assessment study was presented to trustees May 6 as an information item, and the board will consider recommendations from the study for possible action on June 10. In the meantime, the district is seeking input from community members and exploring possible partnerships and financing vehicles.    The assessment study identifies maintenance, repair, renovation, and replacement needs. The cost of fully addressing all the recommended structural, fire/life safety, and accessibility issues is estimated at a minimum of $49.6 million.   More information is available in the attached press release.  For immediate release Contact: Becky Bartindale bartindalebecky@fhda.edu 650-949-6107 DISTRICT SEEKS COMMUNITY INPUT ON FLINT CENTER FUTURE The Foothill-De Anza Community College District is soliciting ideas from the community about the future of the Flint Center at De Anza College by meeting with local officials and using a community comment form at http://fhda.edu/FlintCenter A comprehensive condition assessment indicates that the building needs renovation or replacement. The Flint Center is not used by the college for instruction but provides a large theater for rent for performing arts and community events. The district’s Board of Trustees voted in February to suspend programing at the Flint Center for 2019-20 while awaiting the results of the building assessment. The district initiated the study after discovering significant seismic problems in the Flint Center parking garage, which since has been retrofitted at a cost of $33.5 million. A report on the Flint Center assessment study was presented to trustees May 6 as an information item, and the board will consider recommendations from the study for possible action on June 10. In the meantime, the district is seeking input from community members and exploring possible partnerships and financing vehicles. The assessment study identifies maintenance, repair, renovation, and replacement needs. The cost of fully addressing all the recommended structural, fire/life safety, and accessibility issues is estimated at a minimum of $49.6 million. This amount includes hard construction costs along with various contingencies for changing and unforeseen circumstances and soft costs such as architect and engineering fees, Department of State Architect fees, inspection fees, and construction management. Because of the Flint Center’s age and the substantial amount of money involved, the report offers a range of possible actions to deal with the building’s shortcomings, including possible demolition. Many of the proposed upgrades could not take place while the theater is in use. The Flint Center was built as part of the original De Anza College campus plan and opened in 1971. The college hasn’t used it for instruction for a number of years. Instead instruction takes place in the college’s newer and smaller Visual and Performing Arts Center, which also hosts cultural performances and community events and houses De Anza’s Euphrat Museum of Art. A third-party vendor, Domus Aurea Inc., operates the Flint Center theater under contract with the district. A 2015 feasibility study indicated that the Flint Center is occupied between 17% and 24% of the year. The community comment form regarding the future of the Flint Center is available at http://fhda.edu/FlintCenter Access to the full Flint Center assessment study report and an executive summary is available at http://go.boarddocs.com/ca/fhda/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=BBR2SC82EF40 ### 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Harold Davis <harold@daviscorealtors.com> Sent:Saturday, May 18, 2019 1:18 PM To:Anderson, Daren Cc:acribbs@basoc.org; ryanjoemccauley@gmail.com; michal shalon; City Mgr; Council, City Subject:Dog Area Pardee Park Dear Mr Anderson:    Thank you for considering an area for dogs to be off leash at Pardee Park. My wife and I have been residents on Pitman  Ave around the corner from the park since 1986. We have had five dogs over these past 33 years. In addition we have  raised three children. The park has been a social gathering for us with fellow friends and neighbors and  both with and  without dogs. I regularly have walked my dogs through and around the park over the years. Rarely have I incurred any  barking or any other problems with dogs.  The benefits of an area for unleashed dogs include:  An emotional benefit for both dogs and people.  Environmental benefits of not needing to to drive to another dog park causing more pollution The health benefits of  exercise for both the dog and people Social  aspects of meeting new friends and neighbors Dogs on leashes seem to bark  more than having the independence off leash . The less restrictive nature seems to contribute to this.     Another option for dogs might be one that has been done in at least one of the parks in Menlo Park, Nealon Park from  800am to 1000am.  Based on my experience there is very little use of the park for any type of recreation during the Mon ‐Fri time frame  especially.  Sincerely  Harold and Lizbeth Davis    Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Marilyn Messer <marilyncmesser@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2019 8:13 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Cc:Anderson, Daren; acribbs@basoc.org; ryanjoemccauley@gmail.com Subject:Dog Park in North Palo Alto Dear City Council and City Manager,  I appreciate your consideration of a dog park in North Palo Alto. I have been told that there was one considered at  Eleanor Pardee Park, but it was not approved because of the location near houses. Together with other dog lovers and  Howard Hoffman, we looked at an area of the park, in the back, where there are no nearby houses, it is away from  Where kids play. I am a responsible dog owner who ensures that dog waste is picked Up. I love to see my dog play with  other dogs and chase balls with them.     I would like this location because I can walk to this park and get to know people in the Area who I would probably not  meet. We love each other’s dogs. This is of particular importance to me because I am retired and live alone and want to  connect with people.     Now, I drive to Peers Park, which is a great park, but the people are not from my neighborhood. Driving adds to the  traffic issues here in Palo Alto and driving is not good for the environment.     The additional dog park would be appreciated by many people in North Palo Alto, especially people in the Community  Center area and Cresent Park.    Thank you for your consideration of my request.    Marilyn Messer  1050 Guinda Street       Sent from my iPad  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Larry Orr <Larry@trinityventures.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 21, 2019 5:30 PM To:City Mgr; Council, City Cc:Anderson, Daren; acribbs@basoc.org; ryanjoemccauley@gmail.com; michal shalon Subject:Dog Park in North Palo Alto needed All, I have lived in Palo Alto for 39 years, having raised two human daughters and two dogs. I agree with Michal Shalon that we need more dog parks, particularly in the area north of Middlefield near Crescent Park. Dogs share many qualities with human children: they are highly social family members who bring us immeasurable joy and love, and have many needs that they are not hesitant to share with us – not least of which is for exercise and social time with friends! The venues for meeting these needs legally are extremely few and far between. I do get in the car to go to Peers Park frequently but we need more local options. For a city of Palo Alto’s size, with probably almost as many dogs as children, the number of legal options for dog play is disproportionately low. The coexistence in parks between dogs and dog owners with sports teams and families generally works very well, but it is a shame that for the dog owners it is illegal except in extremely limited areas not in our neighborhood. We have been law abiding parents, taxpayers, voters, and community members for decades in Palo Alto, and we would greatly appreciate more legal options to help meet the legitimate needs of our beloved canine family members. Thank you for your consideration, Larry Orr 1850 Fulton St. NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.   From: michal shalon <michalshalon@gmail.com>   Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 10:43 AM  To: citymgr@cityofpaloalto.org; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Anderson, Daren <Daren.Anderson@cityofpaloalto.org>; acribbs@basoc.org; ryanjoemccauley@gmail.com  Subject: Dog Park in North Palo Alto needed    Dear City Council and City Manager,    I have lived in the same home in North Palo Alto since 1997, and have owned dogs since 2005. I’ve raised my kids here as well, and am now beginning the empty nest stage of life. I must say that while Palo Alto has many things to credit it, being a dog owner here is not one of them. As a responsible, and generally law-abiding person, I am unable to allow my dog to play off leash anywhere near or walking distance to my neighborhood. After a long day of work, my dog-owning neighbors and I are required to either get back into our cars and fight increasingly dense Palo Alto traffic to get to Peers Park or other legal off leash areas in neighboring cities or risk being stopped by animal control in our own neighborhood park or at a school yard. This is more than bad for us, this is bad for the environment as well.   2   There is clearly a desperate need for more off leash areas, and dog owners feel this intensely on a daily basis. Allowing our dogs to run off leash, to chase a ball or play, is not optional for us. My dog is young, very social and playful and wants nothing more than a chance to play at least once a day. No matter how long I walk her, a play session would do so much more for her and for me. I would get a chance to meet with neighbors that I would otherwise never see. My own mood is always uplifted by the interaction with familiar faces that I see regularly. If I drive to distant parks it is difficult to establish any consistent relationship or sense of community with other dog owners. A dog enclosure at Pardee or even some legal off-leash hours in the evening at a local school yard would benefit the community and the emotional health of so many of its dog owning residents. It would also benefit those who do not like off-leash dogs running loose as there would be a viable alternative.    I realize that the issue of a dog park at Pardee has been raised before, I attended those meetings several years ago, led by Howard Hoffman. He did great work in helping us get Peers Park rolling and that was a very good thing. I realize Pardee is controversial but the problem of off-leash dogs there will not go away unless an enclosure is added. Right now dog owners do not have a viable alternative. We need to exercise both ourselves and our dogs. Having a destination to walk to, release dogs for a bit to socialize, then continue onward to home gives everyone a mental health break. Getting in the car does no such thing. I hope you will consider giving this subject a hearing. Please let me know how best to proceed. I have met with Howard Hoffman and Daren Anderson at the Open Space office and we are trying to move the needle forward on more dog parks and possibly the idea of a temporary ‘pop up’ dog park. I am particularly representing my own neighborhood of Crescent Park as our needs are intense.     Thanks in advance,  Michal Shalon  155 Island Dr.      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Elizabeth May <elizabethmay@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2019 5:22 PM To:Council, City Cc:City Mgr; Council, City; Anderson, Daren; acribbs@basoc.org; ryanjoemccauley@gmail.com Subject:Re: Dog Park in North Palo Alto needed Dear City Council and Manager,    When we brought home our dog three years ago I was not aware that one of the greatest benefits would be her ability  to build community.   When walking my dog, throwing the ball, picking up my girls from school my dog, a darling golden  retriever, is a magnet for neighbors and kids.  Because of her I know a more diverse community. And communicate more  my fellow Palo Altans.      I am a respectful dog owner taking care to make sure my dog is well behaved and her messes cleaned up.  She is a social  dog, happy to be with other dogs but really her greatest joy is chasing her ball.  And there’s only one park in Palo Alto  where this is possible and it’s a drive that many times of the day is challenging at best.      Please again consider a Dog Park at Pardee Park or Hoover (behind the ball park) a grass dog park is ideal but any access  to an open space to run would be incredible.  If not enclosed, at least permissible hours of off leash for ball chasing and  dog socializing.   It is good for the dogs and for the neighbors.      The cost to construct and maintain these spaces are not prohibitive.   Our community will support making this happen.     Thank you for again considering these efforts.     Elizabeth May  151 Walter Hays Drive  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Braham Family <brahamfamily@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2019 11:21 AM To:michal shalon Cc:City Mgr; Council, City; Anderson, Daren; acribbs@basoc.org; ryanjoemccauley@gmail.com Subject:Re: Dog Park in North Palo Alto needed As a Crescent Park dog owner, I wholeheartedly agree with the need for a dog park in our area! Our dog is an important part of our family life and our life in Palo Alto. Dog ownership has also allowed us to meet and get to know more neighbors, fostering an important sense of community. Palo Alto's rapid growth has affected our neighborhoods, and this is one important way to preserve the neighborly culture that has always made it special. Thanks!   On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 10:43 AM michal shalon <michalshalon@gmail.com> wrote:  Dear City Council and City Manager,    I have lived in the same home in North Palo Alto since 1997, and have owned dogs since 2005. I’ve raised my kids here as well, and am now beginning the empty nest stage of life. I must say that while Palo Alto has many things to credit it, being a dog owner here is not one of them. As a responsible, and generally law- abiding person, I am unable to allow my dog to play off leash anywhere near or walking distance to my neighborhood. After a long day of work, my dog-owning neighbors and I are required to either get back into our cars and fight increasingly dense Palo Alto traffic to get to Peers Park or other legal off leash areas in neighboring cities or risk being stopped by animal control in our own neighborhood park or at a school yard. This is more than bad for us, this is bad for the environment as well.     There is clearly a desperate need for more off leash areas, and dog owners feel this intensely on a daily basis. Allowing our dogs to run off leash, to chase a ball or play, is not optional for us. My dog is young, very social and playful and wants nothing more than a chance to play at least once a day. No matter how long I walk her, a play session would do so much more for her and for me. I would get a chance to meet with neighbors that I would otherwise never see. My own mood is always uplifted by the interaction with familiar faces that I see regularly. If I drive to distant parks it is difficult to establish any consistent relationship or sense of community with other dog owners. A dog enclosure at Pardee or even some legal off-leash hours in the evening at a local school yard would benefit the community and the emotional health of so many of its dog owning residents. It would also benefit those who do not like off-leash dogs running loose as there would be a viable alternative.    I realize that the issue of a dog park at Pardee has been raised before, I attended those meetings several years ago, led by Howard Hoffman. He did great work in helping us get Peers Park rolling and that was a very good thing. I realize Pardee is controversial but the problem of off-leash dogs there will not go away unless an enclosure is added. Right now dog owners do not have a viable alternative. We need to exercise both ourselves and our dogs. Having a destination to walk to, release dogs for a bit to socialize, then continue onward to home gives everyone a mental health break. Getting in the car does no such thing. I hope you will consider giving this subject a hearing. Please let me know how best to proceed. I have met with Howard Hoffman and Daren Anderson at the Open Space office and we are trying to move the needle forward on more dog parks and possibly the idea of a temporary ‘pop up’ dog park. I am particularly representing my own neighborhood of Crescent Park as our needs are intense.     Thanks in advance,  Michal Shalon  155 Island Dr.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Elizabeth Garr <elizabethgarr@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2019 2:28 PM To:City Mgr; Council, City Subject:Dog park needed in North PA! Dear City Council and City Manager,    I am writing to strongly urge you to consider creating a dog park in North Palo Alto.  My family is one of many who own  dogs and are desperately seeking a place nearby to let them run and play off‐leash.      We live in the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, so to get to either Peers Park or Mitchell Park dog runs we need to  get in our car and drive across town‐‐creating more traffic congestion and more pollution, and wasting our time.  It is  better for everyone in Palo Alto (and better for our dogs!) if we can just walk somewhere in the neighborhood to  exercise our dogs off‐leash.    A dog park is good not only for the dogs, but also for the community.  In the two and a half years we have had our dog,  we have met several dozen other dog owners‐‐and even become close friends with a few‐‐by talking as our dogs have  played.  It has significantly bolstered our sense of community, which is one of the best things about living in Palo Alto.    Please consider creating a dog park at Pardee Park and/or allowing a few hours in the evening of off‐leash time at  Duveneck Elementary School.  Our dogs and our community will be better for it.    Thank you,  Elizabeth Garr      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Rohini Chakravarthy <rohini.chakravarthy@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2019 5:38 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Cc:Anderson, Daren; acribbs@basoc.org; ryanjoemccauley@gmail.com Subject:Re: Dog Park in North Palo Alto needed Dear City Council members and City Manager:     Echoing Michal’s thoughts below, we would like you to kindly reconsider the topic of a dog play area at Pardee Park.     Driving our dogs around to get them some space to run around and socialize makes little sense when we are trying to be  greener in our daily lives. Please help us build a healthy, happy human community around these sweet, well socialized  dogs.    Thanks  Rohini  1370 Pitman    Sent from my iPhone    On May 20, 2019, at 10:42 AM, michal shalon <michalshalon@gmail.com> wrote:  Dear City Council and City Manager,    I have lived in the same home in North Palo Alto since 1997, and have owned dogs since 2005. I’ve raised my kids here as well, and am now beginning the empty nest stage of life. I must say that while Palo Alto has many things to credit it, being a dog owner here is not one of them. As a responsible, and generally law-abiding person, I am unable to allow my dog to play off leash anywhere near or walking distance to my neighborhood. After a long day of work, my dog- owning neighbors and I are required to either get back into our cars and fight increasingly dense Palo Alto traffic to get to Peers Park or other legal off leash areas in neighboring cities or risk being stopped by animal control in our own neighborhood park or at a school yard. This is more than bad for us, this is bad for the environment as well.     There is clearly a desperate need for more off leash areas, and dog owners feel this intensely on a daily basis. Allowing our dogs to run off leash, to chase a ball or play, is not optional for us. My dog is young, very social and playful and wants nothing more than a chance to play at least once a day. No matter how long I walk her, a play session would do so much more for her and for me. I would get a chance to meet with neighbors that I would otherwise never see. My own mood is always uplifted by the interaction with familiar faces that I see regularly. If I drive to distant parks it is difficult to establish any consistent relationship or sense of community with other dog owners. A dog enclosure at Pardee or even some legal off-leash hours in the evening at a local school yard would benefit the community and the emotional health of so many of its dog owning residents. It would also benefit those who do not like off-leash dogs running loose as there would be a viable alternative.    I realize that the issue of a dog park at Pardee has been raised before, I attended those meetings several years ago, led by Howard Hoffman. He did great work in helping us get Peers Park rolling and that was a very good thing. I realize Pardee is controversial but the problem of off-leash dogs there will not go away unless an enclosure is added. Right now dog owners do 2 not have a viable alternative. We need to exercise both ourselves and our dogs. Having a destination to walk to, release dogs for a bit to socialize, then continue onward to home gives everyone a mental health break. Getting in the car does no such thing. I hope you will consider giving this subject a hearing. Please let me know how best to proceed. I have met with Howard Hoffman and Daren Anderson at the Open Space office and we are trying to move the needle forward on more dog parks and possibly the idea of a temporary ‘pop up’ dog park. I am particularly representing my own neighborhood of Crescent Park as our needs are intense.     Thanks in advance,  Michal Shalon  155 Island Dr.      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kniss, Liz (internal) Sent:Saturday, May 18, 2019 10:46 PM To:Julius Caesar Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: East Palo Alto, CA - US-101 Pedestrian and Bicycle Overpass Thanks for your note!   I have referred this to our city manager to address the issue,  Liz Kniss   Sent from my iPhone    On May 18, 2019, at 9:56 PM, Julius Caesar <ym.suomynona.liame@gmail.com> wrote:  Can we please, Please, PLEASE get our bike bridge built? EPA started after us and finished before we even have a date for starting.  How long has it  been?  More than 5 years!  Do we in Palo Alto have to wait so long for every damn thing?  Can’t  you all move this along? http://www.ci.east‐palo‐alto.ca.us/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=217 Carl Jones Kenneth Drive 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 21, 2019 11:39 AM To:Council, City Subject:FAA Suit? Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA Elected Council Members: Talk of suing the FAA due to claims of increased air traffic over the City might seem a little premature if the City does not have more evidence of where in Palo Alto overhead noise can be heard, and how loud this noise is when present.The City has been having problems with noise from the local airport as well as two regional airports on this side of the Bay for years. Yet, even though the cost of running audiometric surveys of noise in the town is relatively inexpensive, the City has done nothing to measure noise. People living within one thousand feet of the CalTrain track complain continuously about noise generated by the trains— particularly at night. The City has effectively ignored these complaints by not measuring the train’ noise. Then there was the problem of noise from the Bill Graham event facility. Did the City ever sue Mountain View? So, does anyone on the Council, or the various service departments operated by the City have any idea where in the City air traffic noise can be heard and at what volumes, both day and night. Wouldn’t it be better to do the research necessary to make a solid case of noise pollution to the FAA and the Court---if resolving this problem advances into the legal arena? Wayne Martin Palo Alto 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Yong Kang <yong.kang@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 17, 2019 6:42 PM To:Council, City Cc:UAC Subject:Fiber network in Palo Alto Hi,  I lived in PA since 2008, always wish to have a fiber network available at my house.   I’ve learned so many city already have residential fiber network, I wish PA could have a fiber network available for its  residence     Best regards  ‐ Yong      Sent from my iPad  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Minor, Beth Sent:Tuesday, May 21, 2019 7:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: From Karen Robin for tonight’s item 11   From: Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com>   Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 7:37 PM  To: Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: From Karen Robin for tonight’s item 11      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Karen Robin <karenrobin2007@gmail.com>  Date: Sunday, May 19, 2019  Subject: [CPNA] City council  To: Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com>  Dear Members of City Council,    I’ve been a Palo Alto resident since 1988, living in my current home in Crescent Park since 1994.     I’ve always enjoyed living on a quiet street. This has changed dramatically in the past few years now that planes are  CONSTANTLY flying directly above my home.     The planes fly low and loud, waking me from my sleep multiple times per night. I’m often jolted awake at 12:40 am, and  again at 3:20 am. The rumbling is so intense that at times I think we’re having an earthquake.     Having my sleep interrupted multiple times every night has directly affected my health, and is affecting my ability to be  alert at my job.     I urge you to address this matter quickly. This is more than simply a noise issue; it’s a health issue.     Thank you very much,  Karen Schilling‐Gould  1344 Martin Ave  Palo Alto, CA 94301    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Robert Neff <robert@neffs.net> Sent:Friday, May 17, 2019 3:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Grand Opening -East Palo Alto US-101 Pedestrian and Bicycle Overpass- Saturday May 18th Hello City Council Members,    Good News!  East Palo Alto is opening the bike/ped bridge across 101 from Newell to Clarke,  connecting Palo Alto and  East Palo Alto without requiring walking or biking across the intimidating and unpleasant University Ave. overpass, or  sharing the lane on E. Bayshore.  For me, personally, it will be much easier to get to Home Depot on the days Palo Alto  Hardware does not have the widget I need.    Follow the link below to get to the announcement from East Palo Alto.    The Grand Opening is Saturday, from 10:00 AM ‐ 12:00.  (Not a great forecast.  Bring your rain gear and fenders.)    http://www.ci.east‐palo‐alto.ca.us/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=217    ‐‐‐  ‐‐ Robert Neff  member, PABAC  Emerson Street near Loma Verde, Palo Alto        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 21, 2019 9:32 AM To:Council AnswerPoint; Joe Simitian Subject:Japan NO MMR shots...Healthiest country, US sickest Briefly: U.S., highest in Infant Death, gives more vaccines than any other country. * U.S. has highest infant mortality in 20 countries; Japan (& Monaco) the lowest * Japan bans MMR vaccine and gives fewest vaccines yet has highest health results in world * 1994, Japan stopped mandated vaccination to voluntary vaccination in doctors’ offices * American children get sick & die at a faster rate…than in 19 other wealthy countries * No other developed country administers as many vaccine doses as the U.S. by age 2 * HepB vaccine on day of birth gives a 250-microgram load of aluminum, a neurotoxic and immune-toxic adjuvant used to provoke an immune response. No studies back it up . . . * The Merck HPV vaccine received fast-tracked FDA approval despite clinical trial subjects reporting serious medical conditions within 7 months. * The potential risk of permanent injury from MMR vaccine dwarfs the risks of getting measles. Japan Leads the Way: No Vaccine Mandates and No MMR Vaccine = Healthier Children The Promise of Good Health; Are We Jumping Off the Cliff in the U.S.? By Kristina Kristen, Guest Writer, April 23, 2019, childrenshealthdefense.org In the United States, many legislators and public health officials are busy trying to make vaccines de facto compulsory—either by removing parental/personal choice given by existing vaccine exemptions or by imposing undue quarantines and fines on those who do not comply with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) vaccine edicts. Officials in California are seeking to override medical opinion about fitness for vaccination, while those in New York are mandating the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine for 6-12-month-old infants for whom its safety and effectiveness “have not been established.” The U.S. has the very highest infant mortality rate of all industrialized countries, with more American children dying at birth and in their first year than in any other comparable nation—and more than half of those who survive develop at least one chronic illness. American children would be better served if these officials—before imposing questionable and draconian measures—studied child health outcomes in Japan. With a population of 2 127 million, Japan has the healthiest children and the very highest “healthy life expectancy” in the world—and the least vaccinated children of any developed country. The U.S., in contrast, has the developed world’s most aggressive vaccination schedule in number and timing, starting at pregnancy, at birth and in the first two years of life. Does this make U.S. children healthier? The clear answer is no. The U.S. has the very highest infant mortality rate of all industrialized countries, with more American children dying at birth and in their first year than in any other comparable nation— and more than half of those who survive develop at least one chronic illness. Analysis of real-world infant mortality and health results shows that U.S. vaccine policy does not add up to a win for American children. Japan and the U.S.; Two Different Vaccine Policies In 1994, Japan transitioned away from mandated vaccination in public health centers to voluntary vaccination in doctors’ offices, guided by “the concept that it is better that vaccinations are performed by children’s family doctors who are familiar with their health conditions.” The country created two categories of non-compulsory vaccines: “routine” vaccines that the government covers and “strongly recommends” but does not mandate, and additional “voluntary” vaccines, generally paid for out-of-pocket. Unlike in the U.S., Japan has no vaccine requirements for children entering preschool or elementary school. Japan also banned the MMR vaccine in the same time frame, due to thousands of serious injuries over a four-year period—producing an injury rate of one in 900 children that was “over 2,000 times higher than the expected rate.” It initially offered separate measles and rubella vaccines following its abandonment of the MMR vaccine; Japan now recommends a combined measles-rubella (MR) vaccine for routine use but still shuns the MMR. The mumps vaccine is in the “voluntary” category. Here are key differences between the Japanese and U.S. vaccine programs: * Japan has no vaccine mandates, instead recommending vaccines that (as discussed above) are either “routine” (covered by insurance) or “voluntary” (self-pay). * Japan does not vaccinate newborns with the hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine, unless the mother is hepatitis B positive. * Japan does not vaccinate pregnant mothers with the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine. *Japan does not give flu shots to pregnant mothers or to six-month-old infants. * Japan does not give the MMR vaccine, instead recommending an MR vaccine. * Japan does not require the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. No other developed country administers as many vaccine doses as the U.S. in the first two years of life. The table chart does not copy. It is titled: Hepaitis B Vaccines at Birth in 2017 for 20 countries #1. U.S. 5.8 deaths per 1,000 births 19. Japan 2.1 for 1,000 20. Monaco 1.8 for 1,000 Only 4 of 20 countries give the HepB shot at birth routinely (US, Macau, Hong Kong, Singapore) If mom tests positive for HepB, 18 countries give the shot; Denmark and Iceland do not. 3 In contrast, the U.S. vaccine schedule (see Table 1) prescribes routine vaccination during pregnancy, calls for the first HepB vaccine dose within 24 hours of birth—even though 99.9% of pregnant women, upon testing, are hepatitis B negative, and follows up with 20 to 22 vaccine doses in the first year alone. No other developed country administers as many vaccine doses in the first two years of life. The HepB vaccine injects a newborn with a 250-microgram load of aluminum, a neurotoxic and immune-toxic adjuvant used to provoke an immune response. There are no studies to back up the safety of exposing infants to such high levels of the injected metal. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) upper limit for aluminum in intravenous (IV) fluids for newborns is far lower at five micrograms per kilogram per day (mcg/kg/day)—and even at these levels, researchers have documented the potential for impaired neurologic development. For an average newborn weighing 7.5 pounds, the HepB vaccine has over 15 times more aluminum than the FDA’s upper limit for IV solutions. Unlike Japan, the U.S. administers flu and Tdap vaccines to pregnant women (during any trimester) and babies receive flu shots at six months of age, continuing every single year thereafter. Manufacturers have never tested the safety of flu shots administered during pregnancy, and the FDA has never formally licensed any vaccines “specifically for use during pregnancy to protect the infant.” Japan initially recommended the HPV vaccine but stopped doing so in 2013 after serious health problems prompted numerous lawsuits. Japanese researchers have since confirmed a temporal relationship between HPV vaccination and recipients’ development of symptoms. U.S. vaccine proponents claim the U.S. vaccine schedule is similar to schedules in other developed countries, but this claim is inaccurate upon scrutiny. Most other countries do not recommend vaccination during pregnancy, and very few vaccinate on the first day of life. This is important because the number, type and timing of exposure to vaccines can greatly influence their adverse impact on developing fetuses and newborns, who are particularly vulnerable to toxic exposures and early immune activation. Studies show that activation of pregnant women’s immune systems can cause developmental problems in their offspring. Why are pregnant women in the U.S. advised to protect their developing fetuses by avoiding alcohol and mercury-containing tuna fish, but actively prompted to receive immune-activating Tdap and flu vaccines, which still contain mercury (in multi-dose vials) and other untested substances? Japan initially recommended the HPV vaccine but stopped doing so in 2013 after serious health problems prompted numerous lawsuits. Japanese researchers have since confirmed a temporal relationship between HPV vaccination and recipients’ development of symptoms. U.S. regulators have ignored these and similar reports and not only continue to aggressively promote and even mandate the formerly optional HPV vaccine beginning in preadolescence but are now pushing it in adulthood. The Merck-manufactured HPV vaccine received fast-tracked approval from the FDA despite half of all clinical trial subjects reporting serious medical conditions within seven months. This table lists Infant Mortality in 13 countries: 4 U.S. 5.9 deaths per 1,000 births Japan 2.1 per 1000 Average for all 13 is 3.4 deaths per 1,000. Best and Worst: Two Different Infant Mortality Results The CDC views infant mortality as one of the most important indicators of a society’s overall health. The agency should take note of Japan’s rate, which, at 2 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, is the second lowest in the world, second only to the Principality of Monaco. In comparison, almost three times as many American infants die (5.8 per 1,000 live births), despite massive per capita spending on health care for children (see Table 2). U.S. infant mortality ranks behind 55 other countries and is worse than the rate in Latvia, Slovakia or Cuba. If vaccines save lives, why are American children dying at a faster rate, and…dying younger compared to children in 19 other wealthy countries—translating into a 57 percent greater risk of death before reaching adulthood? To reiterate, the U.S. has the most aggressive vaccine schedule of developed countries (administering the most vaccines the earliest). If vaccines save lives, why are American children “dying at a faster rate, and…dying younger” compared to children in 19 other wealthy countries—translating into a “57 percent greater risk of death before reaching adulthood”? Japanese children, who receive the fewest vaccines—with no government mandates for vaccination—grow up to enjoy “long and vigorous” lives. International infant mortality and health statistics and their correlation to vaccination protocols show results that government and health officials are ignoring at our children’s great peril. Among the 20 countries with the world’s best infant mortality outcomes, only three countries (Hong Kong, Macau and Singapore) automatically administer the HepB vaccine to all newborns—governed by the rationale that hepatitis B infection is highly endemic in these countries. Most of the other 17 top-ranking countries—including Japan—give the HepB vaccine at birth only if the mother is hepatitis B positive (Table 1). The U.S., with its disgraceful #56 infant mortality ranking, gives the HepB vaccine to all 4 million babies born annually despite a low incidence of hepatitis B. Is the U.S. Sacrificing Children’s Health for Profits? Merck, the MMR vaccine’s manufacturer, is in court over MMR-related fraud. Whistleblowers allege the pharmaceutical giant rigged its efficacy data for the vaccine’s mumps component to ensure its continued market monopoly. The whistleblower evidence has given rise to two separate court cases. In addition, a CDC whistleblower has alleged the MMR vaccine increases autism risks in some children. Others have reported that the potential risk of permanent injury from the MMR vaccine dwarfs the risks of getting measles. Why do the FDA and CDC continue to endorse the problematic MMR vaccine despite Merck’s implication in fraud over the vaccine’s safety and efficacy? Why do U.S. legislators and government officials not demand a better alternative, as Japan did over two decades ago? Why are U.S. cities and states forcing Merck’s MMR vaccine on American children? Is the U.S. government protecting children, or Merck? Why are U.S. officials ignoring Japan’s exemplary model, which proves that the most measured vaccination program in the industrialized world and “first-class sanitation and levels of nutrition” can produce optimal child health outcomes that are leading the world? 5 A central tenet of a free and democratic society is the freedom to make informed decisions about medical interventions that carry serious potential risks. This includes the right to be apprised of benefits and risks—and the ability to say no. The Nuremberg Code of ethics established the necessity of informed consent without “any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.” Forcing the MMR vaccine, or any other vaccine, on those who are uninformed or who do not consent represents nothing less than medical tyranny. For References, contact childrenshealthdefense.org Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission. Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, MA, Health writer, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com ---- 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ken Joye <kmjoye@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 21, 2019 12:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:just signed petition regarding El Camino Real I just signed an online petition regarding El Camino Real which was brought to my attention by the Silicon Valley Bicycle  Coalition (more info available here).    I know that this could be tilting at windmills, but want to mention to you that I have put my name on this and hope that  you might likewise endorse it.    thanks for considering this among all of the other issues you are addressing,  Ken Joye  Ventura neighborhood    see also: petition    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Lindsey Schroeder <lindseykschroeder@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2019 9:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Letter from Barron Park Elementary PTA EB Attachments:Letter From BPE PTA RE Cell Phone Towers.pdf Please find attached a letter issued by the Barron Park Elementary PTA Executive Board.    Thank you.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Gloria Young <glo.young@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2019 9:54 PM To:City Mgr; Council, City Cc:Anderson, Daren; acribbs@basoc.org; ryanjoemccauley@gmail.com Subject:No Dog Run in Pardee Park Please Dear City Council,    We’ve heard there is a push to petition for a dog run at Pardee Park. As a local resident and a parent of young children, I  would like to oppose the initiative.    Pardee Park is a for local residents. Not every person enjoy being around dogs. Our children are afraid of them, and one  of their friends is allergic to dogs. The tot lot is catered to kids under 5 years old. They are very small in comparison to  many of the large dogs in the park.     Palo Alto has already has dog runs in 2 parks. We would like to keep Pardee Park the way it is, and enforce the dog  owners to put their dogs on leashes while being in the Park.    Thank you for your consideration.    Gloria  1 Brettle, Jessica From:John Young <atomicwraith@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2019 9:44 PM To:City Mgr; Council, City Cc:Anderson, Daren; acribbs@basoc.org; ryanjoemccauley@gmail.com Subject:No Dog Run Please! Hello City Council,    We've heard there is a push to petition for a dog run at Pardee Park, and we would like to oppose this initiative.  Our  kids are afraid of dogs, and we'd prefer that peoples' canine friends stay somewhere else.  Palo Alto is a global village full  of eclectic and vibrant souls from all over the world, and we love it just the way it is.  Palo Alto for humans, please.    Thank you,    John Young  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Robert Rozak <rerozak@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, May 16, 2019 5:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:no housing at Cubberly We are in 100% agreement with the statements below. Cubberly should not be used for housing; it should be kept 100% for public use since we will have more and more need for public space as Palo Alto has more dense housing in other locations. Space zoned for the public use should be kept 100% for public use. -- Alison Van Egeren and Robert Rozak, Palo Alto residents Is Housing the Right Use For Public Facility (PF)-Zoned Land Like Cubberley? PF-zoned parcels like Cubberley and Greendell are specially zoned and set aside to serve housing by providing public services that residents (and local workers) need--schools, playing fields, day care, senior services, gymnasiums, arts, athletic and cultural programming, police stations, and other government services, etc. We believe it is unwise to build housing on Palo Alto's last remaining large Public Facilities parcel at a time when a confluence of forces are being set in motion to drive development of higher density housing in Palo Alto: 1. City of Palo Alto recently rezoned swaths of land for higher density transit-oriented housing. 2. Santa Clara County is pressing Stanford to build more, higher density housing as part of their General Use Permit application process. 3. The State Legislature is likely to pass SB-50 or alternative legislation very like SB-50 (which could force upzoning of many parcels city-wide and in areas abutting Cubberley and nearby neighborhoods that are within ½-mile of the San Antonio Caltrain station). This higher density housing will generate greater demand for denser public facilities. High density housing generally does not include yards and large spaces for recreation. People who live in this kind of housing depend more on public facilities. If we build housing (privately used space) on PF-zoned properties now, we will no longer have that public space to meet future increased demand for community center and school space. Because we support developing higher density housing, we question the wisdom of building housing on PF-zoned land that is perfectly located for community center and school use. As higher density housing gets built in other areas of the city (some very close by Cubberley), preservation of precious and limited PF-zoned land for community services is more important than ever to maintain the balance of land uses that provides a high quality of life. There is room for housing right next door. A PAUSD-owned property, 525 San Antonio, is zoned for housing and presents a housing solution for PAUSD staff right next door to Cubberley and Greendell. It is not clear why we need to use Public Facility-zoned land in this way. 2 Preserve quality of life & pay it forward. Accessible, affordable housing is a very important community need and high priority, but in our zeal to meet that pressing need, we must not fail to preserve the resource (PF-zoned space for community service and school expansion) that will make it possible to sustain quality of life for a larger population of future residents. Our Palo Alto predecessors created a community that provided a careful balance of land uses that enabled our present quality of life. Preserving Cubberley and Greendell for public facilities will enable us to pay that precious gift forward 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tony Batis <kenyasprid@aol.com> Sent:Thursday, May 16, 2019 11:15 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: PASA-Rinconada, A letter of gratitude w/photos Attachments:PASA Letter of Gratitude.docx; Community Outreach 1.JPG; Community Outreach 2.JPG; Graduating Seniors.jpg; PASA Banner.jpg See Below Tony Batis Head Coach Palo Alto Stanford Aquatics 650-888-2322 -----Original Message----- From: Tony Batis <kenyasprid@aol.com> To: eric.filseth <eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org>; citycouncil <citycouncil@cityofpaloalto.org>; citymanager <citymanager@cityofpaloalto.org>; Kristen.o'kane <Kristen.o'kane@cityofpaloalto.org>; jazmin.leblanc <jazmin.leblanc@cityofpaloalto.org>; sharon.eva <sharon.eva@cityofpaloalto.org>; stephanie.douglas <stephanie.douglas@cityofpaloalto.org>; tim <tim@teamsheeper.com> Sent: Thu, May 16, 2019 11:10 am Subject: PASA-Rinconada, A letter of gratitude w/photos All, This email is long overdue and I wanted to take a moment to express our gratitude for all that you do for our swim team at Rinconada pool. Attached is a letter I have written for you all with some highlights of our program along with a few photos. Thank You, Tony Batis Head Coach Palo Alto Stanford Aquatics 650-888-2322       May 16, 2019      RE: Palo Alto Stanford Aquatics‐ Rinconada Site  Dear Mayor, City Council, City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Swim & Sport,  I am sending you this letter today to express our gratitude to you for your support of our program and  to give you some updates on what our program has been up to.  This year marks our 64th year in  business, all of which has been done with Rinconada being our home base.  We have grown to a  membership of around 300 kids, ages 5 to 18, from this community and our overall PASA program,  which operates out of four other sites, services over 1,000 kids in the area.  We see ourselves not only as a local youth group but also as a service program that tries to make an  impact for others in our community.  This year at Rinconada, along with another site, we did a canned  food drive for Second Harvest donating over a thousand pounds of food to their charity.  We also  partnered with Palo Alto Swim and Sport this spring to offer our first “Community Swim Day”, in which  we provided free swim lessons to nearly 60 kids in the community.  Palo Alto Swim and Sport offered  discounted lessons to those who wanted to sign up afterwards.  It was a great first attempt at  community outreach and we look forward to future opportunities to do the same (See attached  pictures).  Our swimmers continue to excel both in and out of the pool.  At the last two NCAA Swimming and Diving  Championships, PASA‐Rinconada was well represented by alumni from our program.  They even earned  two NCAA Team Championships as members of the Stanford’s women’s team and an Individual  Champion, Ally Howe, who also helped set multiple American Records as part of their relays.  This year’s  graduating class has excelled in the pool and classroom.  We are very proud of them and wish them  nothing but the best moving forward (See attached photo‐ from l‐r Aaron Kuo‐ Purdue University, Eric  Tran‐ Wesleyan, Lily Gallagher‐ LMU, Danielle Carter‐ UC Berkeley, Megan Ross‐ University of San Diego,  Ashley Stahmer‐ University of South Carolina, Brooke Schaffer‐ UCLA, Nicole Dundas‐ MIT, Gaby Ma‐  Swarthmore, Kaia Anderson‐ Cal Poly SLO, Brooks Taner‐ University of Arizona and Nick Chao‐ Fordham).  The culture of our program has been the guiding force in allowing us to have the success we have had as  a youth organization.  A banner that shows this, which was donated to us from a parent, now proudly  hangs at Rinconada pool (see photo).  We wanted to thank you for allowing us to continue to grow and  service this community.  Your support is an invaluable part of who we are and we could not do it  without you!  With Appreciation,    Tony Batis   Head Swim Coach  Palo Alto Stanford Aquatics (PASA)                                                                                                                                                            1 Brettle, Jessica From:Gadi Gilam <gadi.gilam@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2019 6:20 PM To:Council, City; bpard@pausd.org Subject:planned cell tower - concern of for child safety in Barron Park Elementary Hi,  I was recently made aware of the City of Palo Alto's approval of installing a cell tower 200ft from Barron Park School  Elementary.  My son is going to Barron Park School and to the PACCC after school in the same location and spends an average 9.5  hours a day at this site. The EMF exposure from this planned tower will place him and his friends and teachers at great  danger from the radiofrequency radiation emitted from this cell tower (https://www.nih.gov/news‐events/news‐ releases/high‐exposure‐radio‐frequency‐radiation‐associated‐cancer‐male‐rats)/  I have seen the City of Palo Alto and especially its education system as as a model for how responsible municipal and  educational management can be done. This decision seems to be at great odds with that, especially since it seems other  municipalities in the Bay Area, in California, and in the world, are requiring cell towers to be at least 1500ft from school  sites. This is particularly distressing since in younger age there is greater vulnerability  (https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/04/16/cell‐tower‐emf‐radiation.aspx).  In this letter I ask you to heavily consider and reverse the approval of this tower and not permit it ‐ no matter what the  cost is, that of our children's life will always be more important!  Cordially.  Gadi Gilam    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Claire Aguilar-Hwang <ca30578@pausd.us> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2019 1:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Pollution Biology Project Attachments:Screen Shot 2019-05-19 at 1.25.12 PM.png; Screen Shot 2019-05-19 at 1.25.23 PM.png; Screen Shot 2019-05-19 at 1.25.45 PM.png; Screen Shot 2019-05-19 at 1.25.30 PM.png; Screen Shot 2019-05-19 at 1.25.37 PM.png; Screen Shot 2019-05-19 at 1.26.03 PM.png; Screen Shot 2019-05-19 at 1.26.18 PM.png; Screen Shot 2019-05-19 at 1.26.23 PM.png; Screen Shot 2019-05-19 at 1.26.29 PM.png; Screen Shot 2019-05-19 at 1.26.10 PM.png Dear Palo Alto City Council,    I, Claire, and three other freshmen at Palo Alto High School, Emily, Clarisse, and Yurack created a survey for a biology project. We created it to test the knowledge people have about pollution, spread awareness about pollution, see how much people care about pollution, and convince people to take action and reduce the amount of pollution in our world. We got a total of 95 responses from people all over California.    The second part of our project is to send you, the Palo Alto city council, the results of our survey. We were hoping you would talk about and spread the word about how not a lot of people know about the devastating effects pollution has on our world and how everyone feels the same about pollution: horrible. We were also hoping that you would mention how people across California took our survey for a wide range of responses and views on pollution.    We were also hoping you could do something in Palo Alto to reduce the amount of pollution. For example providing reusable shopping bags or stainless steel straws. Hopefully, as a result of Palo Alto taking action against pollution, other cities in California will do the same. We hope that eventually the entirety of California will reduce the amount of pollution in the state and the world will get one step closer to being pollution-free.    Thank you so much!    Sincerely,     Claire, Emily, Clarisse, and Yurack    Our survey results:    1 Brettle, Jessica From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Friday, May 17, 2019 3:03 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan Subject:San Antonio housing project pre screening The delay of SB 50 gives cities like Palo Alto a chance to show that their incentives and policies can lead to new housing proposals and approvals. Council's experience with PAH on the Wilton Court project has helped council understand that housing projects of any kind must pencil out, which is why PA is making a substantial funding contribution. I believe the San Antonio project will be the first market rate (with 15% BMR) project examined by council since the new housing policies were adopted. The project developer has asked for and staff recommends a number of incentives from the new housing policies be approved for this and similar sites. That sounds reasonable to me if we are to get anywhere close to our goal of 300+ units a year. Since Palo Alto seems to be on the state and national press radar, I am sure they will be watching what we do given the strong council pushback against reducing local control. I was pleased to see the Mayor's online comment about the seriousness of our housing challenges and hope that will carry over into moving this project forward without raising the costs to where it does not pencil out. This is our first chance after the delay of SB 50 to show that local control is compatible with meeting our Comp Plan housing goals. Stephen Levy 365 Forest Avenue Palo Alto CA 94301 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tina Chow <chow_tina@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2019 4:15 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission Subject:Setbacks from homes/schools - let's do it now! Dear City Council,    Thank you for directing Staff to update the Wireless Ordinance so that it establishes standards such as a minimum distance cell towers must be from homes and schools. We really appreciate your desire to address residents’ concerns about these commercial facilities that Verizon and AT&T are applying to install throughout our neighborhoods. We also appreciate that you all voted unanimously on this in support of residents.     We have a couple of ideas about how to make this process smoother and faster. We know that Staff members are very busy. We are too, and having hundreds of small cell towers in our neighborhoods was not something we planned on in our schedules or priorities for the year either. We understand the challenge and why you decided to give Staff a year to return to you with an updated Wireless Ordinance. The problem is that, right now, there are some 150 cell tower applications that either have been filed or soon will be. We don’t want any of those to be either approved, permitted or installed before the updated Ordinance goes into effect. And we don’t think that’s what you want, either. Because what would be the point of updating the Ordinance after hundreds of cell towers have already gone in? 1) One thing we’d like to propose is that you allow us to hire a law firm to do what Staff don’t have time to do. There are a number of law firms—some of which the City has used in the past—that are experts when it comes to modifying Wireless Ordinances to include exactly the kinds of amendments that you have directed be added to our city’s Wireless Ordinance. These law firms have written amendments just like this for many other cities. This is standard stuff for them and they can deliver what you have specified very quickly. We don’t need to start from scratch on this as many other municipalities have worked on this under the same constraints that we are faced with. It’s not very often that residents come to you offering to pay for something. But that’s what we’re doing. So let’s take this particular chore off of Staff’s plate. Let’s hire expert outside counsel to update the City’s Wireless Ordinance right now. United Neighbors can get this done for you—and for our City—in a timely way. And Staff can turn their attention to other matters and we can too! 2) We’d also like to suggest that you direct City Staff to consider things in stages. Of the various items in the motion that Council Member Dubois put forward, setbacks from homes and schools are a logical and impactful first step. Mayor Fiselth mentioned at the First Reading in April that his "favorite on the list is setbacks from homes and schools.” That is our favorite too!! City Council directed staff to quote “to come back as soon as possible but no more than a year”. So let’s hire help and get this done faster. We saw how easy it was to update the ordinance before, so this does not need to take a year. Setbacks from homes and schools can be done now, and the other pieces can follow.    Thank you,  Tina Chow  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2019 12:48 PM To:Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Doug Vagim; Steve Wayte; Mark Standriff; Mayor; midge@thebarretts.com; info@superide1.com; Mark Kreutzer; margaret-sasaki@live.com; huidentalsanmateo; Joel Stiner; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; terry; Council, City; robert.andersen; newsdesk; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; jerry ruopoli; paul.caprioglio; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; popoff; bballpod; hennessy Subject:Fwd: Trump's vendetta against Calif. A scum bag in the WH   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, May 19, 2019 at 12:26 PM  Subject: Fwd: Trump's vendetta against Calif. A scum bag in the WH  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, May 19, 2019 at 12:00 PM  Subject: Fwd: Trump's vendetta against Calif. A scum bag in the WH  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, May 19, 2019 at 11:56 AM  Subject: Fwd: Trump's vendetta against Calif. A scum bag in the WH  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, May 18, 2019 at 1:18 PM  Subject: Fwd: Trump's vendetta against Calif. A scum bag in the WH  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  2 Date: Sat, May 18, 2019 at 1:14 PM  Subject: Fwd: Trump's vendetta against Calif. A scum bag in the WH  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, May 18, 2019 at 1:06 PM  Subject: Fwd: Trump's vendetta against Calif. A scum bag in the WH  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, May 18, 2019 at 12:58 PM  Subject: Fwd: Trump's vendetta against Calif. A scum bag in the WH  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, May 18, 2019 at 12:51 PM  Subject: Fwd: Trump's vendetta against Calif. A scum bag in the WH  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, May 18, 2019 at 12:44 PM  Subject: Fwd: Trump's vendetta against Calif. A scum bag in the WH  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, May 18, 2019 at 12:27 PM  Subject: Trump's vendetta against Calif. A scum bag in the WH  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                  3         Saturday, May 18, 2019            Dan‐  You have seen this, but I distribute it here widely:                  https://www.thebusinessjournal.com/trump‐administration‐pulls‐1b‐for‐california‐rail‐ project/?utm_source=Daily+Update&utm_campaign=80a81ee140‐ EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_05_16_07_40&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fb834d017b‐80a81ee140‐ 71619973&mc_cid=80a81ee140&mc_eid=7afa3a94f3                     And this: CHSRA CEO Brian Kelly to Federal Railroad Administration:                    https://www.thebusinessjournal.com/california‐trump‐plan‐to‐take‐back‐rail‐money‐disastrous/                   Like Hitler, Trump is a gambler.                  The current government of the United States has us either way we vote. If we elect the Dems, we get round  after round and layer after layer of new Nazi "affirmative action" programs. These require most organizations to put  women and minorities into big, rich, highly paid jobs with big titles. No real work required, and they can't be fired, not  even questioned. Little wonder that some minorities are so eager to get in here. So who does the work, since it has to  get done? The white men. They are underpaid and over worked. I urge competent, hard‐working white American men to  migrate to Germany and to build up that society. You can build a good life for yourself in Germany. The Nazis are out of  power there.                 If enough competent, productive, white, American men do that, and say that's why they did it, these Nazi policies  of the United States government will get some re‐thinking.                 Take a trip to Germany. Tell them "Das Leben fur uns in die Vereinigten Staaten, unsere eigene Land, ist  schrecklich. Konnte ich ein besser Leben in Deutschland habe?"                    Wahrscheinlich, die Antwort wurde, fur das meistens, "sicherlich ja" sein. "Sein Deutsch muss verbessern, aber  nach ein Jahr hier, es wurde schnell verbessern".                                L. William Harding                  Fresno  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net> Sent:Thursday, May 16, 2019 9:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:Underground Utilities Repair for the 55% Honorable City Council Members,    We learned in yesterday's Finance Committee meeting that 55% of Palo Alto utility customers have underground  utilities. Undergrounding was approved many years ago as a city‐wide project.  Taxpayers supported funding of this  project with the understanding we would all benefit.   However, the project started in north Palo Alto and funding ran out before south Palo Alto was completed.  I understand  that the 55% who received the underground utilities now need repairs because the less visually impactful underground  utilities do not last as long as above‐ground utilities.    Why are we spending more on undergrounding for the 55% before we underground (as promised) for the rest of the  city?  Is it fair to charge all residents for this extra cost when we all do not equally benefit?  In the interest of fairness,  might  the city consider charging an additional fee to residents who benefit? This fee could possibly  be only the  incremental cost of maintaining the underground utilities which, as I understand it, need more more complicated repairs  more frequently.    This seems to me like a reasonable compromise.    Thank you for considering my comments.    Sincerely,    Penny Ellson        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Derek Gurney <derek.gurney@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2019 4:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:Waiting for cityofpaloalto.org ...   In case you haven't noticed, www.cityofpaloalto.org is very slow.    Over the last 24 hours, pingdom.com has recorded the average response time as 11.67 seconds. By comparison,  www.menlopark.org and facebook.com have had a response time of less than a second.    I was moved to start recording these stats because cityofpaloalto.org has been slow for the last few weeks.    NB: I was going to send this info to the CIO, and not bother you with it, but I got tired of waiting for the page with  his/her email address to load on cityofpaloalto.org      Regards,    Derek Gurney        ‐.. . .‐. . ‐.‐   www.derekgurney.com  +1 650.796.1556  (}ffY OF PA LO ALT O. CA CITY CLE RK 'S OFFI CE Dear City of Palo Alto, 19 HAY 20 AH ': 54 My name is Luke Thieman, and I am a sophomore at Palo Alto High School. For an English Class project, we were instructed to research a social justice issue that affects or has affected my community throughout history. I elected to research racial housing discrimination and the resulting residential segregation that occurred in the United States in the 20th century; this issue has specifically impacted my community for racial housing discrimination occurred during the formation of Silicon Valley. I am writing this letter in order to spread knowledge about the history of housing discrimination and promote ideas that can help stop its modem-day effects. In order to proceed with action on this issue, however, one must first understand the history behind the issue and how it affects society today. One aspect of the systematic oppression of African Americans that has defined American history was housing discrimination, which was driven by segregational housing policies, prejudiced ideologies, and discriminatory practices in the housing industry. Residential segregation was established through the designation of official neighborhoods for whites and blacks (black neighborhoods were often in poorer condition) during the era of state-ordered segregation, which continued until 1954 (Brown v. the Board of Education). This practice was supported by state governments and was strengthened by the prejudiced ideologies of white citizens. However, racial housing discrimination was not specific to the Southern states in which segregation was embedded in state law. In non-segregated areas, housing discrimination was driven by discriminatory practices that excluded African Americans from property ownership under certain circumstances. In the post WWII era, America experienced a great suburbanization movement and decentralization movement (Conley)1• People, who had been previously concentrated in urban areas bought houses in the suburbs with low-interest government loans (Conley). However, African Americans were excluded from this suburbanization movement through many racially discriminatory housing practices (Conley). They often fell victim to steering, a practice in which blacks are shown different houses from whites in different areas (Conley). These alternate housing options were often in worse neighborhoods. Furthermore, African Americans were denied the low-interest government loans through redlining-when people are denied loans based on perceived economic instability and are deemed to be at high financial risk (Conley). Redlining often specifically targets minority groups, therefore denying them loans and access to affordable housing. Therefore, African Americans were entirely excluded from this suburbanization movement, and because the houses were bought at low prices and resold at exponentially higher value, they were also excluded from the financial benefits connected buying a house during this movement (Conley). This contributed to the economic disparity between the white majority and minority groups that had arisen when blacks were excluded from financial policies during the early 20th century (Conley). As a result of the exclusion of African Americans from this mass decentralization of the population and the discriminatory practices and prejudices that drove this exclusion, residential segregation persisted. Steering and redlining concentrated minorities into specific areas and as a result, many areas with a minority majority population arose (Menenian and Samir, Camarillo)2• These areas remain segregated today. Housing discrimination continued from the post WWII era throughout the 20th century and persists in the modem world despite legislation and social revolutions, for prejudiced ideologies continue to drive discrimination in the housing market. Despite the negative and impactful history of racial housing discrimination, the racially discriminatory practices of racial redlining, denying minorities loans to buy houses based on perceived economic risk, and steering, showing 1 Conley, Dalton, PhD. "Episode: 108; Part: 05 -Way We Live, the -Barriers to African-American Wealth Accumulation." ProQuest, 2005, scarch-proquest-com.ez.pausd.org/docview/1438914629/6280F54DCD7B42AOPQ/l ?accountid=33586. Accessed 22 Apr. 2019. ~ Menenian, Stephen, and Samir Gambhir. Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area. Berkeley, CA, 29 Oct. 2018. Haas Institute, haasinstilute.berkeley.edu/segregationinthebay. Accessed 22 Apr. 2019. Camarillo, Albert M. "Cities of Color: The New Racial Frontier in California's Minority-Majority Cities." Pacific Historical Review, vol. 76, no. 1, Feb. 2007, pp. 1-28. ProQuest, search-proquest-com.ez.pausd.org/docview/212440440/DCFOB8BC7B4 I 479APQ/2?accountid=33586. Accessed 22 Apr. 2019. minorities different homes than whites in order to maintain residential segregation, are no longer embedded in public policy. The passing of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 protects people from being discriminated against in the housing process (i.e. renting or buying a home, getting a mortgage, seeking housing assistance, or engaging in any other part of the housing process) on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, disability. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 officially outlawed redlining and other discriminatory housing practices (Department of Housing and Urban Development)3. The institution of this monumental civil rights act ended of the most egregious forms of housing discrimination and caused an increase in black homeownership {The Editorial Board, NYT)4; however, despite this progress, housing discrimination still persists today, often manifesting itself in other forms. The most explicit effect of historical housing discrimination observed in the modem world is the gentrification of low-income corrununities in areas experiencing rapid economic growth. Though this does not exclusively impact minorities, the communities affected are often low-income communities with minority majority populations. The minorities in these communities are often impoverished, as African Americans were entirely excluded from the great suburbanization movement of the 20th century (Conley). The government gave low-interest loans to people in the white majority population, and these individuals were able to purchase houses at low prices assisted by these loans. The houses were purchased at low prices and resold at exponentially higher value, and therefore African Americans-who were excluded from the suburbanization movement through redlining and other discriminatory practices-were also excluded from the financial benefits connected buying a house during this movement (Conley). This contributed to the economic disparities between the white majority population and minorities; this economic gap is reflected in today's world through residential segregation, which often parallels economic disparity between minority and white neighborhoods. It is these lower-income minority communities-remnants of historical housing discrimination-that are victimized by gentrification and rent inflation in today's world. This issue specifically impacts Silicon Valley, as the tech industry is expanding and stimulating economic growth in the region; however, the increase in wealth has catalyzed an increase in housing prices that displaces minorities in the low-income communities created by decades of discriminatory housing practices. East Palo Alto became a minority-majority city after decades ofracial housing discrimination (Cho)5, and in 20 I 0--the year of the last official government census-the population of East Palo Alto was composed of 64.5% Hispanics or Latinos, 16.7% African Americans, 7.5% Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander, 6.2% whites, and 3.8% Asians (Cho). The total population was 28,155 (Cho). The demographics of East Palo Alto are in stark contrast with those of Palo Alto, whose population of 64,409 (2010 census) was composed of of 64.2% whites, 27 .1 % Asians, 6.2% Hispanics or Latinos, and 1.9% African Americans (Cho). This demographic difference-a result of historical housing discrimination-exists in conjunction with a vast economic gap between the two cities, as East Palo Alto was not as financially prosperous during the growth and economic expansion of Silicon Valley (Cho). In East Palo Alto, the median household income was $50,142 per year between 2009 and 2013, while in Palo Alto, the median household income for the same time period was $121,465. In 2013, the median market price for a single family home in Palo Alto was $1,720,000, more than three times greater than that of East Palo Alto. It is the lower-income families of Silicon Valley, many of them minorities who live is segregated areas and are less aftluent due to historical economic racism and discriminatory housing prices that are the primary victims of 3 "Housing Discrimination under the Fair Act." HUD, The Department of Housing and Urban Development, "'ww.hud.gov/program _offices/fair_ housing_ equal_ opp/fair_ housing_ act_ overview. Accessed 7 May 2019. 4 The Editorial Board. "Blacks Still Face a Red Line on Housing." The New York nmes, 14 Apr. 2018. ProQ11est, search-proquest-com.ez.pausd.org/docview/2024924 786/DC4B I 9D25C4B42C6PQ/4?accountid=33586. Accessed 7 May 2019. 5 Cho, Jane. "Second Units in the Silicon Valley." The Urban Lawyer, vol. 48, no. 3, Sumrner-Fall 2016. ProQ11est, search-proquest-com.ez.pausd.org/docview/l 869920754/FC932E3D 1B24 I D2PQ/1 ?accountid=33586. Accessed 22 Apr. 2019. gentrification as the tech industry dominates Silicon Valley. In a 2016 article for The Wall Street Journal, Eliot Brown wrote "Between 2008 and 2015, the four counties that make up the heart of the region added 400,000 jobs, while permits were issued for just 86,000 new housing units." There is a drastically insufficient amount of housing for the employed people in the region, and as a result of the influx of workers and the restricted number of housing units, the prices of available housing increases. In the past five years the average rent for apartments in the San Jose area, a population center of Silicon Valley have been raised by 37% to more than $2,700 a month (Brown)6• These rent increases can displace low-income families, and, as mentioned above, many of these families are minorities due to historical economic racism and discriminatory housing practices. There have been many solutions implemented in order to combat that displacement of low-income minorities during the technological revolution, the increased for demand for housing and inflating prices and rent costs. One viable solution that has been implemented in cities throughout Silicon Valley is the construction of second housing units, or auxiliary living spaces that exist in the backyard of main family homes or designated secondary unit property (Cho). However, regulations that restrict the construction and use of these units in some cities has limited its efficacy despite widespread implementation in some areas. My proposed solution promotes the implementation of rent control policies across Silicon Valley counties, which would create a limit on the rent prices for landlords throughout the region. This would make apartments more affordable for low-income people, and would make affordable housing more accessible to minority groups. The largest population centers in the Bay Area-San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland-have had rent control measures for decades (Brown). However, it is a highly contested solution to the housing problem and the modem manifestations of housing discrimination. It has only been implemented in two cities in the South Bay, San Jose and East Palo Alto (Cho). East Palo Alto is the only city with a "just cause" eviction ordinance, and in all other cities, landlords can evict tenants for any reason and can raise amounts by any amount they desire (Cho). Rent Control has been highly resisted by many California cities, and my solution to the displacement of many low-income families and minorities is the promotion of widespread implementation ofrent control in Silicon Valley. Rent control measures, which already exist to certain in some metropolitan areas of the Bay Area, should be implemented in suburban communities, for they make affordable housing more accessible for low-income people (many of whom are minorities in segregated residential regions of the Bay Area). As previously mentioned, only East Palo Alto had a "just-cause" eviction ordinance out of South Bay cities in 2016, which enabled landlords to evict tenants for any reason and raise rents by any amount (Cho). Though this legislation has spread to other Silicon Valley cities, this ordinance and other rent control measures have not been implemented in many cities throughout Silicon Valley, for they have been highly opposed by landlords. As a student who lives in a community that has been affected by housing discrimination and is in the heart of Silicon Valley (Palo Alto) , some of the surrounding cities have fallen victim to rent inflation and gentrification, as there is an inadequate amount of housing given the demand. Due to this fact, I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE your government to put forth rent control legislation or to strengthen existing policies. It is by no means a perfect solution, but it protects low-income families as Silicon Valley expands. I recognize the issue lies in the amount of housing units available, but the construction of an adequate amount of units is a long-term solution that all local governments and even the state government should work on for the future. For the time being however, I encourage you to enact policies that protect low-income groups through rent control. As a community, we cannot change the past, but we can effect change in society and positively impact our future. 6 Brown, Eliot. "A New Real-Estate War in Silicon Valley; Soaring Apartment Costs in Silicon Valley Are Fueling Popular Support for an Idea Bitterly Opposed by Many Landlords in America's Technology Capital: Rent Controls." Wall Street Journal, 20 Oct. 2016. ProQuest, search-proquest-com.ez.pausd.org/docview/l 830489891/46F5673C37F64E2BPQ/1 ?accountid-33586. Accessed 7 May 2019. Sincerely, Luke Thieman History of Jet Noise Over Menlo Park and Pal By Margaret Spak COUNCI~JETING 51~ >'1 [ ] e Before Meeting Received at Meeting Menlo Park is under what is called the 'Menlo Junction' was 'quiet' when I moved into the area in 1992 from south Palo Alto. There were a few jets that flew over, but they were at a higher altitude and not disruptive to the residents on the ground. The majority of jets flew over the bay with jets that flew from the north & West on what is now the BDEGA and A~~(Jtuming toward SFO further to the NW from where I live over Atherton. These jets mainly flew above Ringwood Avenue in the early 90's and further to the northwest over Atherton. In 1998-2000 residents in Woodside, Menlo Park, and Atherton noticed a considerable increase injet noise over our communities and thatjet planes were flying much lower. We formed a group called UPROAR. We even had an UPROAR song that was written by one of our members who still has the recording. As a result of forming UPROAR and making our voices heard a seat at the SFO round table got created for a Menlo Park representative. Here are the URLs for information about UPOAOR from the Palo Alto Weekly: A) 1998: http://www.paloaltoonlinc.com/weekly/morgue/ncws/ J 998_Apr_8.NOISE.html Agreements included: a. The San Francisco Airport Roundtable approved a plan last week to increase by four hours the time frame during which planes are required to fly at a higher altitude over the Woodside area. b. Under an existing plan, planes are required to increase their altitude from 6,000 to 7,000 feet during the hours of 1 a.m. to 6 a.m. The decision at last week's meeting will extend the hours to 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. (We need this type of noise mitigation now so we can sleep especially when it is hot and windows are open) c. "We're very pleased that they have approved a higher altitude," said John Gottsman, spokesperson for the Peninsula anti-aircraft noise group UPROAR, although he added that his group remains cautious about whether the increased altitude will make a difference in perceived n01se. "IN AN UPROAR ... Now that the city of Palo Alto has been rejected twice by the San Francisco Airport/Community Roundtable, City Council members Dena Mossar and Sandy Eakins hope their colleagues will agree to develop a city policy on airport noise that might have more impact. "We believe that council must now assess the issues related to concerns and complaints about airport-generated noise," the two state in a memo to their colleagues. Palo Alto residents and members of the Peninsula-based group UPROAR have approached City Council members over the past few months asking for help in pressing their objections about noise from aircraft flying over Palo Alto on their way to SFO." .. a. "Our statistics show (the flights) were considerably below 4,000 feet and more than likely cause people to be irritated," said Chinn, referring to his office's analysis of flights over the Midpeninsula for a 31-day period starting Aug. 1. b. In response to complaints from residents about aircraft noise, the airport has made several attempts to assess noise levels. Last year, the FAA approved increasing the height of aircraft flying over Woodside by 1,000 feet, to 7,000 feet. (Peg's comment: So when we are told that Next Gen did not change noise levels over our homes clearly that is misleading since flights by this agreement were much higher over our area prior to Next Gen implementation and quieter because they flew higher.) c. Over the next two months, the Airport Noise Abatement Office will meet with an ad hoc group of pilots, FAA representatives and airlines to discuss other solutions, such as raising the 4,000- foot ceiling at the Menlo Intersection. (Anna Eshoo successfully negotiated the higher ceiling over MP with the FAA to no lower than 5,000 see the PA Weekly article below) D) 2014: Agreements that were made regardingjet altitudes and noise levels as a result of UPROAR were cited in an article published last October: URL \\ W\\ .Jmloaltoonline.cqm!news/2_Q L 4/ I 0/~4/residents-city-officjal ~-geQr.-up-to-Jight-increased­ airplanc-noisc a. In the 14 years since U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo and then-Palo Alto Mayor Gary Fazzino secured an agreement with San Francisco International Airport (SFO) to reduce plane noise by 41 percent, the 70 daily flights over Palo Alto have ballooned to as many as 200, according to charts on online flight-track maps. b. When Eshoo and Fazzino made their agreement with SFO, the altitude for planes flying over the border of Menlo Park and Palo Alto was to be 5,000 feet rather than 4,000, according to a May 12, 2000, letter she wrote to members of UPROAR, a local airplane-noise group. c. Eshoo wrote that the change was anticipated to reduce noise by one to two decibels at ground level. d. SFO also agreed to install a permanent noise monitor at the Palo Alto and Menlo Park border to aid enforcement. But Bert Ganoung, SFO's manager of aircraft noise abatement, said the decibel monitor was never installed. When 9/11 and fears of SARS led to a drop in the number of people who were flying, airport revenues decreased, he said. The decreased number of flights also resulted in a lesser need to monitor noise levels, he added." It is important to note that there were very.few jets that_fiew either over south Palo Alto (Colorado Ave) when I lived.from until 1992 or over the Menlo .Junction until the late 90 's. Jet traffic was gradually moved south since around 2000. However, jet traffic flew at higher altitudes until Next Gen was implemented two years ago causing complaints to increase.