Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190819plCC 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: 08/19/2019 Document dates: 07/31/2019 – 08/07/2019 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:PA Resident <paresident@mail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 6, 2019 7:10 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please do not approve consent items #2 and #4 on August 12 immediately. Attachments:PaloAltoUtilitiesContracts.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council: I ask Council to deliberate on the following items #2 and #4 from Consent Calendar on August 12th 2019 Council Agenda before making decisions about those 2 items. #2 Energy and Water Platform Contracts Supporting document - https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72675 #4 Utility Program Services Contracts Supporting document - https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72675 After initial reading, my understanding is that both items are some sort of customer programs portals for energy efficiency. That reminds me of staff presentation of New Online Customer Portal to Utilities Advisory Commission on March 6th 2019. According to that presentation, customers can view their usages and invoices, as well as pay bills using the new Customer Online Portal, which was about to be launched as of March 2019. I want to compare the pricing of those 2 new contracts with Customer Online Portal presented by staff which provides essential customer self-care functions and reduce staff time. However, I couldn’t find any records from Council Agenda about Customer Online Portal contract. I would appreciate if someone can help me locate this contract. I urge City Council to take closer looks at those 2 items. I have to say that the supporting documents for Item #2 and Item #4 are very confusing. It took me hours to read 2 PDF files back and forth to figure out some basic math: # of Items presented to Council - 2 # of Vendors - 3 1. Simple Energy 2. Water Smart 3. Direct Technology # of Contracts - 3 # of Products - 5 1. Energy Insights Portal 2. Market Place 3. Rebate Funding 4. WaterSmart Software 5. Energy Efficiency Collaboration Platform 2 Costs related issues: 1. Is it cost effective to have 4 different portals from 4 different vendors for a small Utilities with about 30,000 customers? Is it cost effective to have portals from 4 vendors, pay 4 hosting fees, with the same customer data hosted on 4 different sites? 2. All 3 contracts on this Consent Calendar are fixed-price contracts. There are no clear deliverables tied to project payments. All 3 contracts make project payments by task completion. Tasks from Exhibits A can not and should be used in lieu of deliverables. I am not sure if City’s PMO office has approved those contracts. If not, I think City PMO should work on those contract documents and hire external professionals if needed. 3. On page 30 (out of 51 pages) from https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72676 document, the sum of all numbers under Fiscal Year 2020 is much larger than the calculated total amount for Fiscal Year. It is very hard to believe this is a calculation error made unintentionally. I am just wondering if this is a clever way to conceal real project costs. Date Security Exhibit E of https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72676 document is Vendor Cybersecurity terms and conditions. Unlike the contracts, the vendor (Direct Technology for this contract) does not provide answers for any data security related questions. Does the vendor have anything to hide? A customer portal vendor should be able to answer those web security related questions. Also, during the March 6th 2019 UAC meeting on new Customer Online Portal, someone asked about portal security question. I have not seen any staff response about it yet. I urge Council not to approve those 2 items before above concerns are addressed. I also ask Council to: 1) have Utilities Advisory Commission to review the necessity of 4 different portals for utilities customers; and 2) have project and contract management professionals review the feasibilities of those 3 contracts before committing to about $3 Million dollars of public money. Thank you, 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Thursday, August 1, 2019 6:03 PM To:Atkinson, Rebecca Cc:Fleming, Jim; Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; UAC; board@pausd.org Subject:RE: Wireless Communications Facilities Hot Topics Site Hi Rebecca, Thank you for this. I am happy to report that I am now signed up for alerts at buldingeye. I would appreciate it if you would follow up with respect to these points from my July 18th email to you: I look forward to hearing from Jim Fleming with respect to any plans to install Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1 (i.e., the proposed cell towers in Midtown neighborhoods). I trust he can also tell me exactly for what, and on what date(s), permits were issued for proposed cell towers in this Cluster, including the two near elementary schools. I would also like to know if other required permits are still outstanding for these proposed installations. You have given me a lot to think about, so I will probably have a number of questions. But for now, I would appreciate it if you would tell me whether I am correct in understanding you to be saying that, with respect to Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 2 (i.e., the Barron Park neighborhood, including Barron Park Elementary School), the shot clock has been stopped until the applicants resubmit plans for these propose cell towers (i.e., no permits have been issued)? You have explained that Public Works is the lead on street work and encroachment permit review. May I assume that the Wireless Hot Topics page will be systematically updated to reflect what Public Works is doing? On the last point, I see that the Wireless Hot Topics page still has not been updated since April 19th, despite Council’s June amendments to the Ordinance and despite AT&T’s new application to install fourteen more cell towers in the University South, Downtown North and Green Acres neighborhoods. As always, thank you for your help. Regards to you, Jeanne Jeanne Fleming JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 From: Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 7:41 PM  To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>  2 Cc: Fleming, Jim <Jim.Fleming@CityofPaloAlto.org>; French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: RE: Wireless Communications Facilities Hot Topics Site    Hello Jeanne Fleming,    Good evening.    In further follow‐up to your Question 3 from 7/9 below:     Please utilize the following weblink and type in “250 Hamilton” as the search address:  https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. In a sidebar pop‐up screen, you should see all of the planning  applications attributed to this reference address. Note that we use “250 Hamilton” for wireless projects  proposed for the right of way, as there isn’t an actual address for the right of way. You might be interested in  the dates of each review status item for each wireless application. Our Accela permit tracking system updates  these dates when staff enters information into the system, such as when we receive an application resubmittal.     On the topic of alerts, it is my understanding that you can set email notice alerts/frequency for new applications  at specific addresses or within a radius (see snipped image below). I set up a test one for myself (see snipped  image below) back in 2017 and receive alerts when an application comes in for 250 Hamilton. You’d need to sign  up in the system.     Please let me know if you have any further questions.     Regards,    Rebecca    See Alert Icon:      See example Alert Signup Screen:  3     See example Project Status Screenshot for AT&T 19PLN‐00191:    4   See example Project Status Screenshot for Vinculums 17PLN‐00228:    5   From: Jeanne Fleming [mailto:jfleming@metricus.net] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 6:32 PM To: Atkinson, Rebecca 6 Cc: Clerk, City; Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; UAC; board@pausd.org; Fleming, Jim Subject: RE: Wireless Communications Facilities Hot Topics Site   Hi Rebecca, Thank you for answering my questions. I am most appreciative. I look forward to hearing from Jim Fleming with respect to any plans to install Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1 (i.e., the proposed cell towers in Midtown neighborhoods). I trust he can also tell me exactly for what, and on what date(s), permits were issued for proposed cell towers in this Cluster, including the two near elementary schools. I would also like to know if other required permits are still outstanding for these proposed installations. You have given me a lot to think about, so I will probably have a number of questions. But for now, I would appreciate it if you would tell me whether I am correct in understanding you to be saying that, with respect to Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 2 (i.e., the Barron Park neighborhood, including Barron Park Elementary School), the shot clock has been stopped until the applicants resubmit plans for these propose cell towers (i.e., no permits have been issued)? You have explained that Public Works is the lead on street work and encroachment permit review. May I assume that the Wireless Hot Topics page will be systematically updated to reflect what Public Works is doing?   Thank you again for your help, and please do let me know how I can sign up for Accela notification. Regards to you, Jeanne Jeanne Fleming JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151   From: Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 3:31 PM  To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>  Cc: Fleming, Jim <Jim.Fleming@CityofPaloAlto.org>; French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: RE: Wireless Communications Facilities Hot Topics Site    Hello Jeanne Fleming.    Good afternoon.    Regarding your four questions below:    1. Where in the process do the Verizon/Vinculums Clusters 1, 2 and 3 stand right now? 2. Where in the process do the Verizon/Crown Castle Clusters stand right now? 7 3. How do I sign up for notification re wireless projects on Accela? (Please assume I know nothing about how to do this, because I don’t.) 4. How can I see the Wireless Ordinance that was in force in Palo Alto before the adopted-in- 2015 Wireless Ordinance that is in force today? I would appreciate it if you would send me a link.   1. Vinculums – as of 07/18/19  Cluster 3 (17PLN‐00228) Project status is incomplete/under review. No resubmittal received.   Cluster 1 (17PLN‐00169) – Public Works issued streetwork and encroachment permits quite awhile ago, Electrical knows  more about installation timing on nodes with permits (cc’ing Jim Fleming).   Node Number  Address  Street Work Permit  Encroachment Permit  129   2490 Louis Road  18STR‐00087  18ENC‐00044  130  2802 Louis Road  18STR‐00088  18ENC‐00046  131  891 Elbridge Way  18STR‐00086  18ENC‐00045  133E   949 Loma Verde Ave  18STR‐00089  18ENC‐00047  134   3409 Kenneth Drive  18STR‐00090  18ENC‐00048  135  795 Stone Lane  18STR‐00091  18ENC‐00049  137  3090 Ross Road  18STR‐00093  18ENC‐00051  138   836 Colorado Ave  18STR‐00085  18ENC‐00043  143  419 El Verano Ave  18STR‐00094  18ENC‐00053  144  201 Loma Verde Ave  18STR‐00092  18ENC‐00050  145   737 Loma Verde Ave  18STR‐00095  18ENC‐00052    Cluster 2 (17PLN‐00170) – Public Works is lead on streetwork and encroachment permit review. Vinculums did not  resubmit Node 104 on Suzanne Drive or Node 154 on Barron Ave. Tolling agreement in place for permit review on the  following nodes; awaiting resubmittal of permit plans:   Node Number Address Street Work Permit Encroachment Permit  101  4193 Wilkie Way  18STR‐00258  18ENC‐00159  153  3715 Whitsell Ave  18STR‐00258  18ENC‐00163  155‐F  4013 Amaranta Ave  18STR‐00258  18ENC‐00155  157‐E  904 Los Robles Ave  18STR‐00258  18ENC‐00158  163  180 El Camino Real  18STR‐00258  18ENC‐00160    2. Crown Castle – as of 07/18/19  Cluster 1 (17PLN‐00416) Project status is incomplete/under review. No resubmittal received.   Cluster 2 (17PLN‐00433) – Tolling agreement in place, awaiting plans that show conformance with Council’s Record of  Land Use Action.   Cluster 3 (17PLN‐00450) – Tolling agreement in place, awaiting Director’s Decisions on nodes proposed.     3. I’ll try to write up how to sign up for these alerts. This would be relevant for new applications that are on the horizon.  However, at present, you know of all of the wireless in the right of way applications that we have on file, including the  recent 19PLN‐00191 submitted by AT&T. Planning is lead on entitlement review, but Public Works is lead on streetwork  and encroachment permit review.     4. Please contact the City Clerk for a copy of the ordinance pre‐recent updates. The online version of the code now  reflects the recent wireless ordinance updates.      8 Thank you.    Regards,    Rebecca    From: Jeanne Fleming [mailto:jfleming@metricus.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 4:32 PM To: Atkinson, Rebecca Cc: Clerk, City; Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; UAC; board@pausd.org Subject: FW: Wireless Communications Facilities Hot Topics Site   Hi Rebecca, I haven’t heard back from you with respect to my July 9, 2019, email, so I’m resending it here to make sure you’ve received it. It has been months since Palo Alto’s Wireless hot topics site was updated with respect to the status of the telecom companies’ many applications to install cell towers here. As you can imagine, we are concerned that these companies may be forging ahead, and no one is telling us about it. Regards to you, Jeanne Jeanne Fleming JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151   From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>   Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 5:43 PM  To: 'Atkinson, Rebecca' <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: 'Clerk, City' <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: RE: Wireless Communications Facilities Hot Topics Site    Hi Rebecca, Thank you for this helpful update. I look forward to seeing the hot topics site for cell towers return under your stewardship.    I have a few questions I would appreciate your answering now:   1. Where in the process do the Verizon/Vinculums Clusters 1, 2 and 3 stand right now? 2. Where in the process do the Verizon/Crown Castle Clusters stand right now? 3. How do I sign up for notification re wireless projects on Accela? (Please assume I know nothing about how to do this, because I don’t.) 9 4. How can I see the Wireless Ordinance that was in force in Palo Alto before the adopted-in- 2015 Wireless Ordinance that is in force today? I would appreciate it if you would send me a link. Many thanks for your help, Jeanne Jeanne Fleming JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 From: Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 11:07 AM  To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>  Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: RE: Wireless Communications Facilities Hot Topics Site    Hello Jeanne Fleming,  Good morning.  Thank you for your email.   You mention helpful items. I haven’t sent out a City Manager hot topic page update notification email blast yet, but that  task is now assigned to me and I will be doing the next one ‐ I will be on the lookout to see if there are any tech  glitches.    We received a formal application 19PLN‐00191 from AT&T for some of the WCF nodes that they showed in their  Preliminary Architectural Review application 17PLN‐00398. The notice cards to owners/residents within the mailing  radius went out and all of the notice boards are installed on the proposed streetlight poles. The electronic files are on  Accela accessed via citizen portal and you can also find the basic project description and project plans on the project  webpage here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4626&TargetID=319. The webpage  indicates “under review” and we anticipate a resubmittal at some point (possibly later in July or in early August). We did  the rapid 10 days all Departments to review for completeness FCC order deadline process and deemed the application  incomplete. Consequently, when the application is resubmitted, we will get the full 60 days back on the shot clock. I  anticipate a lot of changes from what the initial project plans show now, so it will be another complicated technical  review ahead. Are you signed up via Accela citizen portal for email announcements for when a wireless project comes in  under the default address 250 Hamilton?  Regards,  Rebecca             Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, LEED Green Associate | Planner | P&CE Department   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2596 | F: 650.329.2154 |E: rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org   Online Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code   Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped      From: Jeanne Fleming [mailto:jfleming@metricus.net] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 3:59 PM To: Atkinson, Rebecca 10 Cc: Clerk, City Subject: Wireless Communications Facilities Hot Topics Site   CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Rebecca, Belated Happy Fourth of July to you. I would appreciate it if you would tell me if the Wireless Communication Facilities page is up-to-date. Of course, I can see that it isn’t up-to-date with respect to modifications to the Wireless Ordinance and Resolution. But I would like to know if it is up-to-date with respect to cell tower applications, approvals, permits and so on. If it isn’t, I would appreciate it if you would let me and everyone else know what’s new. And if there have been no changes, I would like to know that, too. Finally, although I am signed up for email alerts when this page is updated, I didn’t receive one of those alerts with the most recent up-date. Hence I am letting you know that there’s a problem. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks and best, Jeanne Jeanne Fleming JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 6, 2019 6:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:Wireless Ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka,   In Los Altos, it only took a month to draft and pass a Wireless Ordinance with strong protections for the quality of life in their community. Their Ordinance includes many of the sensible provisions Palo Alto residents have long been asking for—provisions such as disfavoring cell towers in residential neighborhoods, establishing minimum distances between cell towers, requiring annual safety inspections of equipment and more.    Please finish the job you started on April 15th. Please immediately revise our Wireless Ordinance so that Palo Alto stops allowing telecommunications companies to install ugly, noisy, potentially hazardous and least-expensive-for-them cell tower equipment anywhere they want in our beautiful, quiet, safe neighborhoods.      The residents of Palo Alto are counting on you to put us—not Verizon or AT&T--first.    Thank you,    Ann Protter  185 N California Ave  Palo Alto  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Leland Wiesner <lwiesner@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 6, 2019 6:15 PM To:Council, City Cc:Jeanne Fleming Subject:Why can't City Council do their job and protect Palo Alto and the Citizens from corp greed like other cities CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka,   Why is the City of Palo Alto dragging its feet in updating our Wireless Ordinance?      It took only a month, start to finish, for Los Altos to draft and pass a Wireless Ordinance with strong protections for the quality of life in their community. Their Ordinance includes many of the sensible provisions Palo Alto residents have long been asking for—provisions such as disfavoring cell towers in residential neighborhoods, establishing minimum distances between cell towers, requiring annual safety inspections of equipment and more.    Please finish the job you started on April 15th. Please immediately revise our Wireless Ordinance so that Palo Alto stops allowing telecommunications companies to install ugly, noisy, potentially hazardous and least-expensive-for-them cell tower equipment anywhere they want in our beautiful, quiet, safe neighborhoods.      The residents of Palo Alto are counting on you to put us—not Verizon or AT&T--first.    Thank you,    Leland Wiesner    1144 Fife Ave Palo Alto Ca 94301  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Nancy <nstein@sonic.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 6, 2019 6:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cell Phone Towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice‐Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka,  It is baffling to find out that residents of Los Altos had no difficulty in convincing their city council that the cell phone companies are  pushing through practices that are detrimental to residents.  Los Altos residents were able to hold onto local control.  Allowing big  business to push their way around our cities is beneficial to them at health and safety costs to residents.  Why is the Palo Alto City  Council dragging their feet?  The Los Altos Ordinance includes many of the sensible provisions Palo Alto residents have long been asking for—provisions such as  disfavoring cell towers in residential neighborhoods, establishing minimum distances between cell towers, requiring annual safety  inspections of equipment and more.   Please finish the job you started on April 15th.   Please immediately revise our Wireless Ordinance so that Palo Alto stops  allowing  telecommunications companies to install ugly, noisy, potentially hazardous and least‐expensive‐for‐them cell tower  equipment anywhere they want in our beautiful, quiet, safe neighborhoods.   Sincerely,  Nancy Steinbach  4267 Pomona Ave.      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Nancy <nstein@sonic.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 6, 2019 6:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cell Phone Towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice‐Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka,  It is baffling to find out that residents of Los Altos had no difficulty in convincing their city council that the cell phone companies are  pushing through practices that are detrimental to residents.  Los Altos residents were able to hold onto local control.  Allowing big  business to push their way around our cities is beneficial to them at health and safety costs to residents.  Why is the Palo Alto City  Council dragging their feet?  The Los Altos Ordinance includes many of the sensible provisions Palo Alto residents have long been asking for—provisions such as  disfavoring cell towers in residential neighborhoods, establishing minimum distances between cell towers, requiring annual safety  inspections of equipment and more.   Please finish the job you started on April 15th.   Please immediately revise our Wireless Ordinance so that Palo Alto stops  allowing  telecommunications companies to install ugly, noisy, potentially hazardous and least‐expensive‐for‐them cell tower  equipment anywhere they want in our beautiful, quiet, safe neighborhoods.   Sincerely,  Nancy Steinbach  4267 Pomona Ave.      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Peggy Phelan <pphelan@stanford.edu> Sent:Tuesday, August 6, 2019 6:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:get on it please CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City Council Members:  I have written to you far too many times ‐‐ without receiving one single reply from any of you ‐‐ to have much  faith in you. But I urge you once more to  "solve" the problem of the cell tower mess stemming from the greed  and recklessness of Verizon's land grab. A wireless policy that protects Palo Alto citizens is long overdue. Step  up and do your jobs. If you are unsure of how to proceed, call your colleagues in Los Altos. It took them a  month to work this out. I have been writing to you for what feels like forever.  Thank you,  Professor Phelan  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Annette Rahn <annetterahn@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 6, 2019 7:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cell Towers: A Big Win for Residents in Los Altos CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka,     Why is the City of Palo Alto dragging its feet in updating our Wireless Ordinance?      It took only a month, start to finish, for Los Altos to draft and pass a Wireless Ordinance with strong protections for the quality of life in their community. Their Ordinance includes many of the sensible provisions Palo Alto residents have long been asking for—provisions such as disfavoring cell towers in residential neighborhoods, establishing minimum distances between cell towers, requiring annual safety inspections of equipment and more.    Please finish the job you started on April 15th. Please immediately revise our Wireless Ordinance so that Palo Alto stops allowing telecommunications companies to install ugly, noisy, potentially hazardous and least-expensive-for-them cell tower equipment anywhere they want in our beautiful, quiet, safe neighborhoods.      The residents of Palo Alto are counting on you to put us—not Verizon or AT&T--first.    Thank you,    Annette Rahn  Palo Alto       1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kelly Chang <kellyc319@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 6, 2019 7:52 PM To:Council, City; Colby Subject:Concerned Resident - Cell Tower Setback for residential homes needed!! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka,  I appreciate that during the last Council meeting our members voted in favor of having school setbacks, which i thought was a responsible decision to protect our children. However, there hasn't been the same ruling done for residential homes. In fact, it was brought to my attention that most, if not all, of you have voted to remove the provision that prohibits the telecom companies from installing 5G towers in full view of residents' homes. I am very confused by the logic behind this. Presumably the setback for schools is to protect our children from potentially harmful long term exposure to EMF radiation. So why wouldn't we have similar setbacks for our children's' homes where they actually spend the MAJORITY of their time?   In my home, we have a 4 year old and 7 month old baby. Both my boys' rooms are on the second floor and literally ~20 feet from a telephone pole that is currently being considered for 5G installation. If nothing is done, my kids would be exposed to these EMFs (in dangerously close proximity) for the next 14-18 years of their lives. Our homes must remain our sanctuaries. We currently have the option to turn our cell phones and wireless  off at night, or to not use it at all.  There is no "off switch" with a 5G cell tower ~20 feet from my kids' bedrooms.  It will  be a constant source of radio frequency unlike a cell phone, microwave, laptop, or even WI‐FI that can all be turned off.   In addition, yesterday I heard cell towers are only permitted in residential zones in Los Altos by exception only! Other higher end neighborhoods have also done similar things. Why is Palo Alto dragging its feet and can't get a proper residential set back ruling in order? It took only a month, start to finish, for Los Altos to draft and pass a Wireless Ordinance with strong protections for the quality of life in their community. Their Ordinance includes many of the sensible provisions Palo Alto residents have long been asking for—provisions such as disfavoring cell towers in residential neighborhoods, establishing minimum distances between cell towers, requiring annual safety inspections of equipment and more.   Please immediately revise our Wireless Ordinance so that Palo Alto stops allowing telecommunications companies to install ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous cell tower equipment anywhere they want in our beautiful, quiet, safe neighborhoods.   As a resident of Palo Alto, I am counting on you to put us—not Verizon or AT&T--first. Please do the right thing and fight the good fight for your residents!   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jyotsna Nimkar <jnimkar@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 6, 2019 8:17 PM To:Council, City CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka, Why is the City of Palo Alto dragging its feet in updating our Wireless Ordinance? It took only a month, start to finish, for Los Altos to draft and pass a Wireless Ordinance with strong protections for the quality of life in their community. Their Ordinance includes many of the sensible provisions Palo Alto residents have long been asking for—provisions such as disfavoring cell towers in residential neighborhoods, establishing minimum distances between cell towers, requiring annual safety inspections of equipment and more. Please finish the job you started on April 15th. Please immediately revise our Wireless Ordinance so that Palo Alto stops allowing telecommunications companies to install ugly, noisy, potentially hazardous and least-expensive-for-them cell tower equipment anywhere they want in our beautiful, quiet, safe neighborhoods. The residents of Palo Alto are counting on you to put us—not Verizon or AT&T--first. Thank you, Jyotsna Nimkar 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Barbara Lilley <Myjuno91@Sonic.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 6, 2019 8:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Los Altos Wireless Ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice‐Mayor Fine, Ms Cormack, Mr. Du Bois, Ms.Kniss, Ms.Kou and Mr.Tanaka,    Please take prompt action to update our Wireless Ordinance as Los Altos has done.  We need the protections more than  ever.    Sincerely, Barbara Lilley  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Bryan Chan <chan_bk@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 6, 2019 9:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto needs minimum distances between cell towers and all schools CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka, Why is the City of Palo Alto dragging its feet in updating our Wireless Ordinance? It took only a month, start to finish, for Los Altos to draft and pass a Wireless Ordinance with strong protections for the quality of life in their community. Their Ordinance includes many of the sensible provisions Palo Alto residents have long been asking for—provisions such as disfavoring cell towers in residential neighborhoods, establishing minimum distances between cell towers, requiring annual safety inspections of equipment and more. Specifically, there should be minimum distances of 1500 feet from any cell tower and any school (public or private). In addition, this setback should be applied RETROACTIVELY to any towers that already exist. Please finish the job you started on April 15th. Please immediately revise our Wireless Ordinance so that Palo Alto stops allowing telecommunications companies to install ugly, noisy, potentially hazardous and least-expensive-for-them cell tower equipment anywhere they want in our beautiful, quiet, safe neighborhoods. The residents of Palo Alto are counting on you to put us—not Verizon or AT&T--first. Thank you for your time and consideration, Bryan 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeffrey S. Glenn <jsglenn@stanford.edu> Sent:Tuesday, August 6, 2019 10:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:Smart cell towers ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice‐Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka,     Why is the City of Palo Alto dragging its feet in updating our Wireless Ordinance?        It took only a month, start to finish, for Los Altos to draft and pass a Wireless Ordinance with strong protections for the  quality of life in their community.  Their Ordinance includes many of the sensible provisions Palo Alto residents have  long been asking for—provisions such as disfavoring cell towers in residential neighborhoods, establishing minimum  distances between cell towers, requiring annual safety inspections of equipment and more.     Please finish the job you started on April 15th.   Please immediately revise our Wireless Ordinance so that Palo Alto stops  allowing  telecommunications companies to install ugly, noisy, potentially hazardous and least‐expensive‐for‐them cell  tower equipment anywhere they want in our beautiful, quiet, safe neighborhoods.       The residents of Palo Alto are counting on you to put us—not Verizon or AT&T‐‐first.     I appreciate and thank you in advance for your efforts in satisfactorily resolving this important issue.      Jeffrey Jeffrey S. Glenn, M.D., Ph.D. Professor of Medicine and Microbiology & Immunology Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Director, Center for Hepatitis and Liver Tissue Engineering Stanford University School of Medicine CCSR Building, Rm. 3115A 269 Campus Drive Stanford, CA 94305-5171 U.S.A. email:jeffrey.glenn@stanford.edu tel (office): (650)725-3373 tel (lab): (650)498-7419 fax: (650)723-3032 pager: (650)723-8222; ID# 23080 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Francesca Kautz <dfkautz@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 6, 2019 10:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto City Council should be more like Los Altos CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka,   Why is the City of Palo Alto dragging its feet in updating our Wireless Ordinance?      It took only a month, start to finish, for Los Altos to draft and pass a Wireless Ordinance with strong protections for the quality of life in their community. Their Ordinance includes many of the sensible provisions Palo Alto residents have long been asking for—provisions such as disfavoring cell towers in residential neighborhoods, establishing minimum distances between cell towers, requiring annual safety inspections of equipment and more.    Please finish the job you started on April 15th. Please immediately revise our Wireless Ordinance so that Palo Alto stops allowing telecommunications companies to install ugly, noisy, potentially hazardous and least-expensive-for-them cell tower equipment anywhere they want in our beautiful, quiet, safe neighborhoods.      The residents of Palo Alto are counting on you to put us—not Verizon or AT&T--first.    Thank you,    Francesca Kautz  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Leah Schoolnik <leahjsch@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 7, 2019 9:07 AM To:Council, City Subject:Wireless Ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members (of Palo Alto), I'm curious to know why the city of Los Altos so quickly passed a Wireless Ordinance, but Palo Alto continues to delay. You were elected to represent and act for city residents. Please do so. Sincerely, Leah Schoolnik {REDACTED} Palo Alto, CA 94303 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Magic <magic@ecomagic.org> Sent:Wednesday, August 7, 2019 10:16 AM To:Council, City Subject:Wireless provider equipment regulation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Councilmembers,     Los Altos has shown the way to protect residents from wireless providers who ignore our interests.    Rather than re‐invent the wheel at considerable expense, let's substitute "Palo Alto" for "Los Altos" in the Los Altos  ordinance and move on.    Thanks for considering this suggestion.    With appreciation,    David Schrom    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Nathan Fahrenthold <nfahrenthold@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 2, 2019 9:34 AM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; letters@paweekly.com; letters@padailypost.com Subject:I am 100% Against the Castilleja Expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Planning Commission,     I drive the Emerson / Embarcadero route multiple times a day and strongly feel the expansion would effect my commute  to work.    Adding a parking garage in a residential neighborhood also sounds absolutely ridiculous.       Why are we negatively impacting long term residents who have lives in the area for decades to benefit out of town,  temporary folks?     Thanks,    NF  ‐‐   Nathan Fahrenthold  502 Greer Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94303  650.387.9386  1 Brettle, Jessica From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Saturday, August 3, 2019 10:39 AM To:Steve Levy Subject:California Remains 5th Largest World Economy CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. http://ccsce.com/PDF/Numbers-July2019-California-Economy-Rankings.pdf The lead over 6th place UK widened The rest of the top ten stayed the same. India is poised to leap past France and Italy. The Texas economy would rank 11th. California ranked high in GDP gains in 2018 and for the 1999-208 period. Steve 1 Brettle, Jessica From:San Jose, California <san.jose@california.usa.com> Sent:Friday, August 2, 2019 2:48 PM To:Mary.greenwood@jud.ca.gov Cc:san.franciscoic.fbi.go; cas@aog.ca.gov; Maria.cranston@aog.ca.gov; Joyce.blaire@aog.ca.gov; oig.hotlineusdoj.gov; sixth.district@jud.ca.gov; Raymond.hulser@usdoj.gov; bill@sdap.org; Kimberly.johnson@hud.gov; rua@uglyjudge.com; Kimberly.nash@hud.gov Subject:Fw: RE: ATT: Campbell Office. (Tamitria Lee - Badge#73200) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi Mary, ( This email is copied to Inspector General of U.S. Department of Justice ) You are Judge on this apeal, and also witness. I am not trying to put you on the spot, but please consider my disposition & what I have been through. To refresh your memory: Here is copy of Email correspondece with Sean Webby May 11, 2011, before he was hired by District Attorney Jeff Rosen. One has to consider how this can not be considered Maliciois Prosecution against me by District Attorney's office. Why would public defenders office refuse to investigate these things which are obvoiously Brady Material. The public defender's office under you "Mary Greenwood" and Molly O'neal have both documentation on these things. There is reference in case 1-12-cv226959 refering to "investigations" and FBI and "Social Services" The public defender investigator working with George Abel, and also Detective David Carroll both skipped over the content about "investigations". Why would they do such a thing? This was brady material to case c1493022 that should have been used to defend me. (. f they were not in collusion with each other, is this not coincidence ) Here is Metro News Article about Sean Webby being recruited by District Attorney Jeff Rosen, who was presecutor over Danner case - Under investigation (Or Inquiree) by FBI ( Conflict of interest with Public Defender is shown on Habeas Corpus: | https://www.docdroid.net/ZcIsZoN/declaration-of-facts-in-support-of-petition-for-habeas-corpus-relief.pdf http://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2014/PublicGuardian.pdf ) Wouldn't both of them logicaly assume this would have cross evideniary vallue? These thing colectively demonstrate motive for Public Defender and District Attorney to Railroad me. Consider likelyhood of Public Defender ( George Abel )causing death of Markham Plaza residet Robert Moss (1-12-CV226958) by preventing correction of Probate court records - Leading to case c1493022 Would it not suggest "alterate explanation" to things going on inwhich I was prosecuted for? I was railroaded because the material on the internsate exposed what was happening within Santa Clara County Government Detective David Carroll called me and interogated me about this investigation. This also' shows Sean Webby knew identity of the FBI agent. It is not coincidence that Jeff Rosen hired him. FBI agent was also aware of Sean Webby. Also, it is clear that FBI and Mercury News obviosly considered me valuable source for information. 2 Very interesting considering the extreme efforts of people, including my own attorneys t to discredit me. Is that not what is typicaly done to whistlebloweres. They suffer retaliation and are discredited. In Santa Clara County: Mental Health Court is also considered Whistle Blower Court Give EVERYBODY mental health labels to discredit them & make revenue. These syptoms are routinely fabricated just like elements of crime. Respectfully Submitted, Cary Andrew Crittenden Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 at 12:26 PM From: "Webby, Sean" <SWebby@mercurynews.com> To: san.jose@california.usa.com Subject: RE: ATT: Campbell Office. (Tamitria Lee - Badge#73200) What can you find out about SJSU homicide? -----Original Message----- From: san.jose@california.usa.com [mailto:san.jose@california.usa.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 4:56 PM To: Webby, Sean Subject: Fwd: ATT: Campbell Office. (Tamitria Lee - Badge#73200) -----Original Message----- From: san.jose@california.usa.com To: san.francisco@ic.fbi.gov Cc: ladoris.cordell@sanjoseca.gov Sent: Tue, May 10, 2011 4:52 pm Subject: Re: ATT: Campbell Office. (Tamitria Lee - Badge#73200) Tami, Here is a recent article by Mercury News Reporter: Sean Webby about Lack of Objectivity in the SJPD Internal Affairs Unit: ( Maybe helpful to consider when researching this case. ) http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_17984727?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com- www.mercurynews.com&nclick_check=1 The actual report from the San Jose Independent Police Auditor's office is here: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa/reports/10ye.pdf Thanks. Cary-Andrew 3 -----Original Message----- From: san.jose@california.usa.com To: san.francisco@ic.fbi.gov Cc: ladoris.cordell@sanjoseca.gov Sent: Tue, May 10, 2011 2:30 pm Subject: ATT: Campbell Office. (Tamitria Lee - Badge#73200) Hello Tami, The original SJPD Internal Affairs Case number regarding Officer Brett Moiseff / Kelly Danner homicide is 04040024. LT. Richard Weger is the Commander of IA. He told me the case was opened & closed, yet every couple of years, someone comes in and files a complaint about the same matter. Each time, it simply reverts back to the original case as already closed, & not re investigated. I don't know who the individuals are who came forward. I am concerned that these people may have had new information that was not included in the original IA investigation & the new data may not have been Analised & compared to the pre-existing data in the original case file. From what I observed of the file storage area at IA, I could not see anything predating 2006. Thanks Cary-Andrew Crittenden | 408-401-8940 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 5, 2019 8:39 AM To:Planning Commission; Castilleja Expansion; Council, City Subject:Castilleja Expansion Attachments:Castilleja and Neighbors Perspectives - PNQL7-30-19.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  July 30, 2019  To: Planning and Transportation Commission  From: PNQLnow.org, a grass-roots organization of neighbors living near Castilleja School (contact: info@PNQLnow.org)             Dear Commissioners:  We the neighbors of Castilleja are reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by Dudek and published July 17, 2019. The DEIR report quotes, in a few places, Castlilleja’s 8 Project Objectives. We, as residents who live next to the school 24/7 and live with their impacts, provide you with what the school’s objectives mean to us.   Black font is directly copied from pages 2 and 3 of Chapter 1 - Executive Summary of Dudek’s DEIR (Castilleja’s words).   Blue font is the response from the residents’ perspective.    1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES   Castilleja School has set forth the following objectives for the project:   1.Maintain a single integrated campus for the middle and upper school in the current location, while providing new structures that integrate state-of-the-art technology and teaching practices and retain flexibility to adapt to unanticipated changes.   Castilleja School is located on 6 acres of land in the heart of a R-1 residential neighborhood. The school’s objective of maintaining a single integrated campus is in stark contrast to the majority of private schools on the S.F. Peninsula with similar or greater acreage but have split their campuses so as not to be a burden to their neighbors and better accommodate their students (e.g. Keyes School, Pinewood Academy, Nueva School, Crystal Springs School, Harker Academy, St Francis School, The International School of Palo Alto). Two private schools that have maintained an integrated campus locally are located on substantial acreage in Atherton; Menlo School on 31 acres, Woodside Priory on 51 acres, and Sacred Heart School on 40 acres.     2 2. Achieve better architectural compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods through a well-articulated building and improve site aesthetics and harmony with the surrounding neighborhoods through enhanced landscaping. The adjacent neighborhoods are comprised of houses which have grown organically over the last 100 years. The design of the new buildings appears modern and industrial compared to the eclectic architectural styles that surround the school, many of them decades old and historic. Tearing down existing houses and mature protected oaks and redwoods to be replaced by a garage structure is in no way harmonious or compatible with the neighborhood.     3.Increase enrollment to 540 students to allow more young women the unique opportunity to receive an all-girls education.   Providing more young women the Castilleja education can be achieved many ways. This particular site is already densely populated (students per acre). The current CUP (approved in 2000) gave the school an 8% increase in enrollment (from 385 to 415) and our group (PNQL) would be ok with that percentage increase again, taking the school to 448 students. But the 30% request is simply too high; each extra student brings numerous peripheral additional drivers.  The school has rejected the suggestion of splitting the campus. However, we have never heard the school explain why can’t they establish a “Castilleja II”, also serving grades 6 – 12, as other schools have done, elsewhere, where they can grow without limits. Many other schools have split their campuses or have multiple sites.     4. Increase on-site parking via an underground parking garage in order to reduce both parking visibility and surface parking spaces.   The proposed garage would have a single entrance on the Bryant Bike Boulevard and a single exit onto Emerson at Melville. Instead of queuing up to enter an underground garage, drivers are more likely to drop off students on side streets, creating more traffic and danger to cyclists and pedestrians. Furthermore, the proposed garage would replace beautiful houses to gain a net 61 parking spaces, which outweighs any upside of not seeing parked cars on campus. Build a garage and they will drive. The school should be encouraging shuttling and not driving to school. And driverless vehicles will soon be coming, making a garage even less important.    5. Improve vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access for students and staff through design efficiencies and a robust Transportation Demand Management Plan. We are in agreement that Palo Alto students should be encouraged to walk and bike to school. However, Palo Alto students only make up approximately 25% of the student body. When the school abides by their TDM, the neighbors generally don’t have many Castilleja students parking in front of their houses. If Castilleja wants to increase enrollment slightly, they could further expand their TDM by not allowing students to drive, using satellite pick-up and drop-off sites and shuttling, using only surface parking and not destroying the neighborhood with a commercial/industrial garage structure.     3 6. Ensure no increase in vehicle trips to and from the campus during AM and PM peak hours relative to recent (baseline) traffic volumes. Reduce the number of service deliveries and relocate deliveries within the campus and below grade, to decrease nuisance effects to neighbors.   We applaud the school’s plans to ensure no increase in vehicle trips during commute times. Why do they need a garage if there are no additional trips? We don’t have a parking problem, we have a traffic problem. We agree with this goal, to not increase vehicle trips, and we would suggest decreasing the commute trips by expanding shuttle service to and from satellite pick-up and drop-off sites, requiring parents to utilize them, and disallowing students to drive to school. Importantly, this goal does not address the many non-peak cars traveling into the neighborhood for school events. The number of events exceed by 10x the school’s current CUP events limits and need to be reduced to reasonable levels to allow neighbors quiet enjoyment of their evenings and weekends.    7. Improve the campus’s sustainability and energy efficiency by developing new facilities.     Any improvement of the efficiency of operations has to take into account the energy costs of removing existing buildings, preparing the site, and all the new materials up to completion. For the garage, specifically, removal of 60,000 cu yds of dirt will require 6,000 dump truck loads and all the energy associated with the trucks and heavy equipment. The garage itself will be poured from concrete. The cement industry is the most energy- intensive of all manufacturing industries, and is one of the primary producers of carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas. Concrete causes damage to the most fertile layer of the earth, the topsoil, which contributes to surface run-off, which may cause soil erosion, water pollution, and flooding. Sustainability is not going to be improved by the use of so much concrete, as approximately one ton of CO2 is released for every one ton of concrete produced.    8. Phased development of the project to allow Castilleja School to continue to operate during construction and to reduce impacts on the neighborhood.   It is difficult to understand how the school will operate during construction, as it would seriously detract from the children’s learning. The school’s attempt to reduce impacts is laudable. However, we disagree with the phased development claims. For one, once any increase in enrollment is approved, legally the school can enroll that number, so they may choose to revise their current plan of increasing over 4 or 5 years and just hike the enrollment by 30% when it is built. Secondly, tearing down homes to build an underground garage facility as the first phase and then offering to reduce the enrollment is too impactful is backwards and asks for exceptions ahead of proving they can abide by their enrollment number. If the school wishes to be a good neighbor, they should offer to modernize the school and plan for a modest increase in enrollment once traffic parameters are met.     ‐‐   Andie Reed 160 Melville Ave  Palo Alto, CA 94301 530-401-3809   July 30, 2019 To: Planning and Transportation Commission From: PNQLnow.org, a grass-roots organization of neighbors living near Castilleja School Dear Commissioners: We the neighbors of Castilleja are reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by Dudek and published July 17, 2019. The DEIR report quotes, in various places, Castlilleja’s 8 Project Objectives. We, as residents who live next to the school 24/7 and live with their impacts, provide you with what the school’s objectives mean to us. Black font is directly copied from pages 2 and 3 of Chapter 1 - Executive Summary of Dudek’s DEIR (Castilleja’s words). Blue font is the response from the residents’ perspective. 1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES Castilleja School has set forth the following objectives for the project: 1.Maintain a single integrated campus for the middle and upper school in the current location, while providing new structures that integrate state-of-the-art technology and teaching practices and retain flexibility to adapt to unanticipated changes. Castilleja School is located on 6 acres of land in the heart of a R-1 residential neighborhood. The school’s objective of maintaining a single integrated campus is in stark contrast to the majority of private schools on the S.F. Peninsula with similar or greater acreage but have split their campuses so as not to be a burden to their neighbors and better accommodate their students (e.g. Keyes School, Pinewood Academy, Nueva School, Crystal Springs School, Harker Academy, St Francis School, The International School of Palo Alto). Two private schools that have maintained an integrated campus locally are located on substantial acreage in Atherton; Menlo School on 31 acres, Woodside Priory on 51 acres, and Sacred Heart School on 40 acres. 2. Achieve better architectural compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods through a well- articulated building and improve site aesthetics and harmony with the surrounding neighborhoods through enhanced landscaping. The adjacent neighborhoods are comprised of houses which have grown organically over the last 100 years. The design of the new buildings appears modern and industrial compared to the eclectic architectural styles that surround the school, many of them decades old and historic. Tearing down existing houses and mature protected oaks and redwoods to be replaced by a garage structure is in no way harmonious or compatible with the neighborhood. 3.Increase enrollment to 540 students to allow more young women the unique opportunity to receive an all-girls education. Providing more young women the Castilleja education can be achieved many ways. This particular site is already densely populated (students per acre). The current CUP (approved in 2000) gave the school an 8% increase in enrollment (from 385 to 415) and our group (PNQL) would be ok with that percentage increase again, taking the school to 448 students. But the 30% request is simply too high; each extra student brings numerous peripheral additional drivers. The school has rejected the suggestion of splitting the campus. However, we have never heard the school explain why can’t they establish a “Castilleja II”, also serving grades 6 – 12, as other schools have done, elsewhere, where they can grow without limits. Many other schools have split their campuses or have multiple sites. 4. Increase on-site parking via an underground parking garage in order to reduce both parking visibility and surface parking spaces. The proposed garage would have a single entrance on the Bryant Bike Boulevard and a single exit onto Emerson at Melville. Instead of queuing up to enter an underground garage, drivers are more likely to drop off students on side streets, creating more traffic and danger to cyclists and pedestrians. Furthermore, the proposed garage would replace beautiful houses to gain a net 61 parking spaces, which outweighs any upside of not seeing parked cars on campus. Build a garage and they will drive. The school should be encouraging shuttling and not driving to school. And driverless vehicles will soon be coming, making a garage even less important. 5. Improve vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access for students and staff through design efficiencies and a robust Transportation Demand Management Plan. We are in agreement that Palo Alto students should be encouraged to walk and bike to school. However, Palo Alto students only make up approximately 25% of the student body. When the school abides by their TDM, the neighbors generally don’t have many Castilleja students parking in front of their houses. If Castilleja wants to increase enrollment slightly, they could further expand their TDM by not allowing students to drive, using satellite pick-up and drop-off sites and shuttling, using only surface parking and not destroying the neighborhood with a commercial/industrial garage structure. 6. Ensure no increase in vehicle trips to and from the campus during AM and PM peak hours relative to recent (baseline) traffic volumes. Reduce the number of service deliveries and relocate deliveries within the campus and below grade, to decrease nuisance effects to neighbors. We applaud the school’s plans to ensure no increase in vehicle trips during commute times. Why do they need a garage if there are no additional trips? We don’t have a parking problem, we have a traffic problem. We agree with this goal, to not increase vehicle trips, and we would suggest decreasing the commute trips by expanding shuttle service to and from satellite pick-up and drop-off sites, requiring parents to utilize them, and disallowing students to drive to school. Importantly, this goal does not address the many non-peak cars traveling into the neighborhood for school events. The number of events exceed by 10x the school’s current CUP events limits and need to be reduced to reasonable levels to allow neighbors quiet enjoyment of their evenings and weekends. 7. Improve the campus’s sustainability and energy efficiency by developing new facilities. Any improvement of the efficiency of operations has to take into account the energy costs of removing existing buildings, preparing the site, and all the new materials up to completion. For the garage, specifically, removal of 60,000 cu yds of dirt will require 6,000 dump truck loads and all the energy associated with the trucks and heavy equipment. The garage itself will be poured from concrete. The cement industry is the most energy-intensive of all manufacturing industries, and is one of the primary producers of carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas. Concrete causes damage to the most fertile layer of the earth, the topsoil, which contributes to surface run-off, which may cause soil erosion, water pollution, and flooding. Sustainability is not going to be improved by the use of so much concrete, as approximately one ton of CO2 is released for every one ton of concrete produced. 8. Phased development of the project to allow Castilleja School to continue to operate during construction and to reduce impacts on the neighborhood. It is difficult to understand how the school will operate during construction, as it would seriously detract from the children’s learning. The school’s attempt to reduce impacts is laudable. However, we disagree with the phased development claims. For one, once any increase in enrollment is approved, legally the school can enroll that number, so they may choose to revise their current plan of increasing over 4 or 5 years and just hike the enrollment by 30% when it is built. Secondly, tearing down homes to build an underground garage facility as the first phase and then offering to reduce the enrollment is too impactful is backwards and asks for exceptions ahead of proving they can abide by their enrollment number. If the school wishes to be a good neighbor, they should offer to modernize the school and plan for a modest increase in enrollment once traffic parameters are met. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tim Edmonds <tim.edmonds@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 2, 2019 6:41 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Commissioners & Council Members,     Please neither allow Castilleja to grow their enrollment, nor allow the school to expand the physical plant at their  current location.  As a law abiding entity the school should be required to reduce their current enrollment to the number  set in their original use permit.       The only fair outcome, in the near term, for the residents of Palo Alto is for the school to be immediately required to  reduce the current enrollment of their campus to the number established by the original use permit.   Only once the  school is in full compliance should the matter of enrollment growth or physical expansion be entertained.    As a just penalty, should anyone be interested in justice, the school would be required to maintain the originally agreed  upon enrollment for as many years as they have been in violation of the original conditional use agreement.   At the end  of that term the school could apply to expand enrollment and/or expand their facilities.    If the school should choose to expand to a second site separate from their current location (eg Nueva or Pinewood),  they should then be required to reduce the enrollment of the Bryant Street location which would give all students more  space and provide remedy to the neighborhood surrounding the current (original) campus.    Please do not continue to accept or reward Castilleja's poor behavior.  Our city must require rules to have been followed  prior to considering the requests of any person or organization.  And, extra attention must be paid those who choose to  ignore the current rules and then hide their violations from our residents and city government.     Sincerely,  Tim Edmonds  1955 Alma Street          1 Brettle, Jessica From:Bill Schmarzo <schmarzo@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 6, 2019 8:17 PM To:Castilleja Expansion; Planning Commission; Council, City; William Schmarzo Subject:Castilleja Student Lesson of the Day: Alternative Facts and Fake News CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Editor, the independently commissioned Environmental Impact Report concluded that the Castilleja expansion project would: 1. Cause significant and unavoidable traffic problems especially at key intersections and roadway segments. 2. Conflict with existing traffic-management systems that encourage students and staff to use alternate forms of transportation. 3. Create "significant and unavoidable" impact on "land use incompatibility or physically divide an established community.” 4. Increase neighborhood disturbance associated with special events, increasing traffic volumes in project vicinity and generating noise levels that exceed Municipal Code standards To counter this study, Castilleja commissioned their own non-independent study, paid their own researchers and created their own numbers to conclude: "The new project and increase in enrollment to 540 students wouldn’t increase rush hour traffic." Reminds of other non-independent studies done by:  Big Tobacco to convince Americans that smoking cigarettes was safe  Coal Industry to convince Americans that coal didn’t increase carbon levels (even created the lie of “clean coal”)  NRA to convince Americans that guns don’t kill  Big Oil to convince Americans that oil is environmentally safe Castilleja is teaching their girls a very important lesson: if you don’t like the facts, then lie to create your own alternative facts. Heck what’s next, promoting their expansion as “safe traffic”? 1 Brettle, Jessica From:PA Resident <paresident@mail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 1, 2019 5:30 AM To:Council, City Subject:How can Palo Alto city employees live in other states? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council: I am a local resident. Recently, I learnt that some City employees actually do not live in California and only come to Palo Alto a few times a year. I want to know how those out-of-state employees make critical decisions for local business/residents from thousands miles away. How much does the City contributes to other state's income tax pool? State of New Jersey requires municipal employees not to live outside of New Jersey. Palo Alto is a very expensive area to live in. Many people commute to Bay Area for work from as far as Modesto. I am not sure how City employed those out-of-state employees. As tax payer, I ask the City of tell the public which employees live outside of California and their major responsibilities. Exactly how much working time they spent at Palo Alto. Are those trips to Palo Alto funded by the City? I also urge City Council to look into this issue and ensure the local public interestes are preserved in those cases. Thank you, A concerned resident 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Evan Reade <evanreade650@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 4, 2019 10:16 PM To:ParkRec Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Comments by Commissioner Moss re dog run in Eleanor Pardee Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Commissioner Moss,         I have been thinking about your comments last week concerning the prospect of installing a dog run in Eleanor  Pardee Park.  You see, I am one of the “five neighbors” who you accuse of “blocking” the dog run and, apparently, the  will of “20,000” residents of north Palo Alto.  At first, I thought it best to let your remarks pass, but they continue to  rankle me.  Hence this letter.         I resent your implication that those of us who have raised legitimate concerns about the City’s plans are somehow  “blocking” the will of the people.  My residence backs up to Eleanor Park, directly adjacent to the small children’s  playground at the SE corner of the park.  The sounds of children playing and of hotly contested soccer matches routinely  flood our backyard and patio.  And I have no problem with that.  We knew the park was there when we purchased our  home, and were — and are — happy to be its neighbor.  And if kids can’t use their outdoor voices in a park, then where  can they?  But when we learned that the City, or perhaps more accurately, your Commission, was considering creating a  dog park, we wanted to know more.  We spoke with City staff to ask where would this dog run be placed?  What about  additional noise? Odors? Insects? Dust? Who would clean it, and how often?  And do dog owners really want to let their  dogs run in the relatively small fenced confines of dog runs similar to the ones I’ve seen in other parks?  I expressed my  view that Peers Park seemed like a more appropriate venue, due to it’s proximity to the rail right‐of‐way, rather than  residential neighbors.  And what about someplace with more room, like near the golf course or athletic fields on Geng  Road?         In sum, I hardly think raising legitimate questions and concerns should be considered “blocking” anything.  I think to  do so is my right as a resident and taxpayer in a functioning democracy.  That’s what people do. And I must say that I  was quite gratified to know that the City staff members I spoke with seemed to take my questions and concerns  seriously, and I was happy to learn that Peers Park had, indeed, been selected for the dog run.  I also question where  you come up with the figure of 20,000 residents who will benefit from a dog run at Eleanor Park.  Do you mean to tell  me that 20,000 dog owners are lined up to bring their pets to the park once a small, fenced in area is created?  I  question your numbers.  And I think you own me an apology for your poorly thought‐out statement on this matter.         Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your service on the Commission.  I hope you will in the future pay  attention to the concerns of those of us who are neighbors of Palo Alto’s wonderful parks.    Evan Reade  Sharon Court          1 Brettle, Jessica From:JIM POPPY <jamespoppy@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, August 5, 2019 4:48 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Subject:Comments on Castilleja DEIR Chapter 7 - Transportation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Planning Commission, Chapter 7 of the Castilleja DEIR does not mention the traffic flow that would result in cars converging into a single entrance to the proposed underground garage. Current traffic patterns, with two drop-off points, one on Bryant and one on Kellog, allow for multiple ways of accessing the school, and those who live west of campus have many alternatives. Re-routing traffic patterns towards one entrance will not only cause traffic backups, but it will also endanger cyclists who use Bryant, which includes students at Paly and middle schools. The DEIR assumes that all motorists would use the drop-off on Bryant or go through the garage and exit onto Emerson. There is no mention of how backups and awkward traffic flows would result in motorists choosing to avoid the garage and drop off students on side streets, causing more danger to motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. And it also states that cars would need to clear the area within 14 seconds to avoid further backups. It may take 20-30 seconds or more to just get into the queue on Bryant! The DEIR must analyze traffic patterns that would result from this reduction of drop-off points to one single entrance. The omission of this analysis is very surprising and suggests that the DEIR is not portraying an accurate picture of how traffic would approach the garage. This glaring omission should require a completely new traffic analysis. It is outrageous and suggests a bias by Dudek in favor of the applicant. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:JIM POPPY <jamespoppy@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 6, 2019 5:08 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; gsheyner@paweekly.com; editor@paweekly.com Subject:Commissioner Alcheck's relationship with Castilleja CFO CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Commissioner Alcheck, It's well-known that you have a personal relationship with Kathy Layendecker, Castilleja's CFO. Can you truthfully state that your relationship will not influence your comments about the Castilleja DEIR? Will you provide for the record how many times you have discussed the project outside of formal meetings with the applicant? There is no benefit to the community for this project and I hope you can be impartial and take the proposed project on its demerits. Regards, Jim Poppy 135 Melville Ave. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:JIM POPPY <jamespoppy@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, August 5, 2019 7:44 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Castilleja Expansion Subject:Why further divide the community over Castilleja? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council and PTC, The Palo Alto Matters newsletter states it perfectly: The resulting potential to exacerbate existing land‐use conflicts between the school and its  residential neighborhood was deemed a further significant and unavoidable impact of the  project that would “create land use incompatibility or physically divide an established  community."  Castilleja's plans provide no benefit to the community or neighborhood. Please fix this now  and ask Castilleja to remove the garage from their plans and accept a smaller increase of  enrollment. You are supposed to represent the tax‐paying citizens of Palo Alto, not an elite institution that  serves wealthy families outside of Palo Alto. You should have held a study session to warn  Castilleja about such an aggressive plan. Regards, Jim Poppy {REDACTED} 1 Brettle, Jessica From:UAC Sent:Friday, August 2, 2019 8:21 AM To:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City; Abendschein, Jonathan; Batchelor, Dean; Shikada, Ed Subject:RE: documentation irregularities regarding Utilities Quarterly Updates Attachments:FINAL - Info Item_FY 2019 Q3 quarterly report.pdf Mr. Hoel    I would like to thank you for your efforts and review of the UAC items.     As for the Q3 Report; the actual report has been attached and uploaded to the web.            Tabatha Boatwright  Administrative Assistant   City of Palo Alto Utilities Department   250 Hamilton Avenue  I  Palo Alto, CA 94301  O: 650.329.2326  I  C: 408.966.0838  Tabatha.Boatwright@CityofPaloAlto.org      From: Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>   Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 5:47 PM  To: UAC <UAC@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Hoel, Jeff (external) <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Abendschein, Jonathan  <Jon.Abendschein@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Batchelor, Dean <Dean.Batchelor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Shikada, Ed  <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: documentation irregularities regarding Utilities Quarterly Updates    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Commissioners, Listed on your 08-07-19 agenda http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72688 is a clickable link to an informational report: "1) Utilities Quarterly Update -- 3rd Quarter of Fiscal Year 2019" Clicking on the link goes to the informational report. http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72677 However, this 08-07-19 report is only TWO pages long. By comparison, the "Utilities Quarterly Update -- 1st & 2nd Quarters of Fiscal Year 2019" is 31 pages long. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70074 And the "City of Palo Alto Utilities Update for the Fourth Quarter of Fiscal Year 2016" is 70 pages long. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54496 The 08-07-19 report says it has an attachment, "Utilities Fiscal Year Third Quarter Report." But this attachment is not part of the online document. So the public can't see it. 2 THIS IS UNSATISFACTORY. --- On the first page of the 08-07-19 report, in the upper-right corner, is the designation "Informational Item." Previous Utilities Quarterly Updates do not have such a designation. What was staff trying to say by making this change? --- As you may remember, I have asked that each Utilities Quarterly Update report be agendized so that UAC can ask any questions they may have about it. This is how it used to be done. For example, see this 05-02-07 agenda: http://cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/uac-meetings/documents/UACAgenda060607.pdf --- The UAC "home page" http://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/uac/default.asp has a clickable link to "UAC informational reports". It goes to a page http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72689 that has clickable links to only the reports listed on the 08-07-19 agenda. THIS IS UNSATISFACTORY. The "UAC informational reports" link used to go -- and should go -- to a page that has links to several years of informational reports (2010-2019). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/uac/reports/default.asp Incidentally, the reports on this page should be sorted by date -- newest first. But the four "August 7, 2019" reports (a.k.a. the four "08/0719 UAC Meeting" reports) are listed BELOW the 04-09-19 Utilities Quarterly Update report. --- Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- MEMORANDUM TO: UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION FROM: UTILITIES DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 7, 2019 SUBJECT: Utilities Quarterly Update – 3rd Quarter of Fiscal Year 2019 This update, on water, gas, electric, wastewater collection and fiber utilities, efficiency programs, legislative/regulatory issues, utility-related capital improvement programs, operations reliability impact measures and a utility financial summary, is for the Council and Utilities Advisory Commission’s (UAC’s) information. This update has been prepared to keep the UAC and Council apprised of the major issues that are facing the water, gas, electric, wastewater collection and fiber utilities. Items of special interest for FY 2019 include: • Hydroelectric generation for Q3 of FY 2019 was above average, and was expected to be significantly above average in Q4, but due to below average generation in Q1 and Q2, the City’s generation is anticipated to be only 18% above load, as compared to 10% above load in an average hydro year. Costs through Q3 were 6% ($3.9 million) below budget. (pages 3, 4, 8) • Gas market prices spiked in the winter of 2018-2019, temporarily raising costs to consumers. However, staff began purchasing discounted gas from MuniGas that will reduce annual costs by about $1 million per year in the long term. Savings since November 2018 from the MuniGas purchase are $530,000. (pages 9-10) • Cumulative precipitation and snowpack is above average in the Hetch Hetchy watershed for the year to-date, so no shortages are projected. Storage in the regional water system is 86% full. (page 12) • An update on rebuild work on the dark fiber network and an update on the Fiber to the Node RFP is provided. On June 24 the Council approved reissuance of the RFP and assignment of the UAC to serve in the sole advisory role on fiber, sunsetting the Fiber and Wireless Citizen Advisory Committee. (pages 14-15) • CPAU received the American Public Power Association’s 2019 Energy Innovator Award for its Home Efficiency Genie Program. (page 16) • CPAU has restarted its refrigerator recycling program and has an ambitious schedule of events scheduled for 2019, including events related to water efficiency, building electrification, and electric vehicles. (pg 17) • A digest of major outreach efforts is provided on pages 17-19, including outreach related to the Great Race for Saving Water, utilities rate changes, gas safety outreach, and the PG&E Public Safety Power Shutdown Program. • Several pilot and sustainability programs are summarized on pages 18-21, including an update on the multifamily heat pump furnace retrofit pilot, an update on EV rebate programs, and a new induction cooktop loaner program. • Major legislative and regulatory items are summarized on pages 22-24. Major topics include electric utility wildfire liability, electric system reliability, Federal small cell rules, and a PG&E gas rate case. Information Item • FY 2019 Costs are projected to be substantially lower for the electric utility, but so are revenues. The overall impact on the electric utility is favorable, an improvement in net position of $4.6 million. (page 25) • The winter spike in gas prices led to a modest impact on gas utility reserves, even though sales were up for the year relative to projections. (page 25) • Water utility revenues were below forecasts due to high precipitation, but costs were also lower due to a difference between the forecasted and adopted SFPUC wholesale water rate. This difference will not occur in the future, since staff has adopted a rate mechanism to pass through the wholesale water rate to customers. Any surplus reserves will be reserved for future CIP expenditures. (page 25) • Costs and revenues for the Wastewater Collection utility are roughly in line with forecasts (page 26) Attachment: Attachment A: Utilities Fiscal Year 2019 Third Quarter Report REVIEWED BY: APPROVED BY: JONATHAN ABENDSCHEIN, Asst. Director, Utility Resource Mgmt. ~~ Director of Utilities Utilities Quarterly Update Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2019 August 2019 Quarterly Update for Third Quarter of FY 2019 August 2019 i Utilities Quarterly Update Table of Contents i. Electricity ................................................................................................................... 3 Electric Supplies ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Electric Budget and Portfolio Performance .................................................................................................. 7 ii. Natural Gas................................................................................................................. 7 Gas Supply Retail Rates ................................................................................................................................. 9 Gas Budget and Portfolio Performance ...................................................................................................... 10 iii. Water ....................................................................................................................... 12 Water Availability ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Water Budget and Portfolio Performance .................................................................................................. 13 Water Use ................................................................................................................................................... 14 iv. Fiber Optics .............................................................................................................. 14 Commercial Dark Fiber Service ................................................................................................................... 14 v. Efficiency Programs .................................................................................................. 16 vi. Communications Highlights ....................................................................................... 17 vii. Innovation and Pilot Programs .................................................................................. 19 Program for Emerging Technologies ........................................................................................................... 19 Electrification Activities .............................................................................................................................. 19 viii. Legislative and Regulatory Issues .............................................................................. 22 Summary - State .......................................................................................................................................... 22 State regulatory proceedings ...................................................................................................................... 22 ix. Utility Financial Summary ......................................................................................... 24 Electric Utility Overview .............................................................................................................................. 24 Gas Utility Overview.................................................................................................................................... 25 Water Utility Overview ............................................................................................................................... 25 Wastewater Collection Utility Overview ..................................................................................................... 26 Fiber Optic Utility Overview ........................................................................................................................ 26 Residential Bill Comparisons ....................................................................................................................... 28 Utilities Financials ....................................................................................................................................... 28 Quarterly Update for Third Quarter of FY 2019 August 2019 ii List of Figures Figure 1: Electric Supply Resource Actual and Projection, 2018 to 2020 (as of March 5, 2019) .................. 4 Figure 2: CY 2019 Monthly Electric Supply Resource Projection (as of March 5, 2019) ............................... 5 Figure 3: Northern California Peak Electric Prices (as of February 27, 2019) ............................................... 6 Figure 4: Q3 FY 2019 Electric Load and Resource Balance ........................................................................... 8 Figure 5: Q3 FY 2019 Electric Market Prices ................................................................................................. 9 Figure 6: CPAU’s Gas Commodity Rates—FY 2013 through Q3 FY 2019 ...................................................... 9 Figure 7: Natural Gas – Budget vs. Actual ................................................................................................... 10 Figure 8: Natural Gas Prices ($/MMBtu) – Malin, Citygate and Palo Alto Net Purchase Costs .................. 11 Figure 9: Cumulative Redwood Pipeline Cost vs. Market Benchmarks ...................................................... 12 Figure 10: Hetch Hetchy Cumulative Precipitation ........................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 11: Snowpack ...................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. List of Tables Table 1: Q3 FY 2019 Electric Load and Generation Compared to Budget Projections ................................. 7 Table 2: Q3 FY 2019 Electric Utility Supply Cost Summary ........................................................................... 8 Table 3: Status to date of all applications to the Program for Emerging Technologies ............................. 19 Table 4: Financial Actuals, Q3 FY 2019 ....................................................................................................... 27 Table 5: Operations Reserves, Q3 FY 2019 ($000) ...................................................................................... 27 Table 6: Residential Electric Bill Comparison ($/month) ............................................................................ 28 Table 7: Residential Natural Gas Bill Comparison ($/month) ..................................................................... 28 Table 8: Residential Water Bill Comparison ($/month) .............................................................................. 28 Table 9: Residential Wastewater Collection (Sewer) Bill Comparison ($/month) ...................................... 28 Table 10: Median Residential Overall Bill Comparison ($/month) ............................................................. 29 Table 11: Q3 FY 2019 Reserve Report from the City’s Financial System (‘000) .......................................... 30 Quarterly Update for Third Quarter of FY 2019 August 2019 3 i. Electricity Electric Supplies Western Area Power Administration (Western) Issues Water year1 2019 has been an above-average precipitation year that resulted in above-average reservoir levels across the state. For Q3 of fiscal year (FY) 2019, Western delivered 72 GWh to the City (113% of long- term average levels, which is about 2.5x the amount that was delivered in Q3 of FY 2018). For FY 2019, Western is projected to supply 383 GWh (4% above long-term average supply levels, and 7% above FY 2018 levels). Calaveras Hydroelectric Project Issues As of June 30, 2019, the total project was at 189,000 ac-ft of storage, or full capacity, at NSMR (New Spicer Meadows Reservoir). Project historical average storage for NSMR for the end of June is ~148,469 ac-ft, while end-of-June storage for the most recent wet year, 2017, was 185,695 ac-ft. For Q3 FY 2019, the Calaveras project generated ~58 GWh (62% above long-term average levels, and about 2.8 times the amount that was delivered in Q3 of FY 2018). In FY 2019, the Calaveras project is projected to generate 188 GWh (47% above long-term average levels, and 67% above FY 2018 supply levels). Electric Load and Resource Balance In CY 2018, due to somewhat below average levels of hydro output, the City made some energy purchases on the market to manage a small portfolio energy deficit. Palo Alto’s electric supply portfolio for CY 2019 is currently seeing significant volumes of surplus energy, largely owing to an above-average hydro year. Due to the availability of surplus energy, as well as the feedback provided by the UAC at its June 5, 2019 meeting, Palo Alto plans to sell Bucket 1 RPS resources that exceed the City’s load on an annual basis for CY 2019. Since these are effectively REC-only transactions, they will not impact the load-resource balance (and are therefore not reflected in Figure 1 or Figure 2 below); however, they are expected to change Palo Alto’s RPS level, but without affecting compliance. CY 2020 is currently projected to be a better hydro year than CY 2018 as well. Overall electric supply resources were equal to load in CY 2018, and are expected to be surplus to load by 18% for CY 2019, and by 6% for CY 2020. However, some periods are expected to see significant surplus positions while other periods see deficit positions (see Figure 2 below, representing the monthly load and resource balance for CY 2019). Some of the surplus positions will be sold as generic energy ahead of the prompt month while the rest will be settled in the spot market through the California Independent System Operator. 1 A “water year” is defined as the 12-month period from October 1 through September 30. Quarterly Update for Third Quarter of FY 2019 August 2019 4 Figure 1: Electric Supply Resource Actual and Projection, 2018 to 2020 (as of July 6, 2019) Quarterly Update for Third Quarter of FY 2019 August 2019 5 Figure 2: CY 2019 Monthly Electric Supply Resource Projection (as of July 6, 2019) Electric Market Price History and Projections As of June 28, 2019, the price for on-peak energy for August 2019 in Northern California was $57.23 per megawatt-hour (MWh)2, while the prices for September and October 2019 were $45.83/MWh and $41.97/MWh, respectively. These values are approximately $3.2/MWh (or 6%) lower than they were at the time of the last quarterly report.3 On-peak prices for calendar year strips are in the range of $40/MWh to $45/MWh for 2019 through 2021. These prices are approximately $0.70/MWh higher than they were at the time of the last quarterly report. Figure 3 below illustrates historical monthly on-peak prices and projected monthly forward prices for Northern California from 2005 through 2023. 2 Note that $57.23 per megawatt-hour is equal to 5.723 cents per kilowatt-hour. 3 Market prices for the previous quarterly report were from February 27, 2019. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Diana Darcy <ddarcy@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Monday, August 5, 2019 3:43 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; letters@paweekly.com; letters@padailypost.com Cc:Diana Darcy Subject:Don't let Castilleja expand CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am firmly against allowing Castilleja to expand. There is no clear benefit to our community from allowing an expansion of Castilleja. In fact, now that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is available, it is clear that expansion would instead cause many problems for Palo Alto, including increased traffic in an already congested area. It would be ridiculous to portray me as being against the "education of women" as Castilleja supporters have tried to say. Girls who live in Palo Alto have access to an outstanding public education at Paly where both my daughters have thrived, and Gunn is also an outstanding option. The 75% of Castilleja students from outside Palo Alto (and those within Palo Alto) have other options for spending excessive amounts of tuition dollars if they feel they must have a private girls-only education; Palo Alto has no obligation to support this school any more than we have so far. Castilleja is in a residential area, and they have flouted their enrollment limits for many years, causing traffic problems for their neighbors. They should be penalized, not rewarded for this behavior by an expansion. They have not stepped up to provide housing for teachers or any other real benefits to our community. Palo Alto should not support this proposal.     Diana Darcy  1032 Harker Ave., Palo Alto   ddarcy@stanfordalumni.org  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Rice, Danille Sent:Tuesday, August 6, 2019 12:56 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Minor, Beth; leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique; Dauler, Heather Subject:Letter regarding Update from City of Palo Alto: Efforts to Increase Housing Supply Attachments:Hill-Berman_Efforts to increase housing supply.pdf Hello Mayor and Council Members,      On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, I would like to inform you that the attached letter was sent to the Honorable  Jerry Hill and Marc Berman regarding an update to the City’s efforts to streamline and incentivize development in Palo  Alto.      Thank you,   Danille         Danille Rice  Executive Assistant to the City Manager  250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA  94301  (650) 329‐2105 | Danille.Rice@cityofpaloalto.org          1 Brettle, Jessica From:Perron, Zachary Sent:Saturday, August 3, 2019 10:35 AM To:bthazlett@aol.com Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:RE: Enforcement Needed Good morning Mrs. Hazlett,      My name is Zach Perron, and I work for the Palo Alto Police Department.  I received your e‐mail below  yesterday.  I oversee our Traffic Team, Detective Bureau, and Special Operations unit.      Thank you for writing in, and I’m very sorry to hear about the ongoing traffic issues on your block.  The good  news is that as a result of your e‐mail, I will ensure that our Traffic Team (our three officers whose job, full‐time, is traffic  enforcement) spend time in this area beginning on Monday when they return to work.  With any luck, some dedicated  enforcement and ongoing attention to the area will slow drivers down and cause them to drive more cautiously.      As you may or may not know, we had to eliminate our Traffic Team a few years back as a result of a staffing  shortage.  When Chief Robert Jonsen arrived in January 2018, he clearly heard the message from our community that  traffic concerns, City‐wide, were a major priority.  As a result, in July 2018, Chief Jonsen shuffled some personnel around  and was able to bring back a two‐officer Traffic Team…and this fiscal year, beginning last month, he was able to add a  third officer to the team.  This is great news, as it means that we’re better able to address problem areas like the one  you’ve identified.  Regular patrol officers, like the two with whom you spoke, have to balance traffic enforcement  requests with many things, to include routine & emergency calls for service, proactive patrolling to arrest criminals,  conducting patrol checks of problem areas for criminal activity, patrolling our schools and parks, conducting community  outreach activities, and so forth.  Our dedicated Traffic Team officers get to focus solely on traffic enforcement, so  they’re in the perfect position to address your concern – and your e‐mail is exactly why Chief Jonsen has brought back  our Traffic Team, added personnel to it, and hopes to continue to add additional officers in coming fiscal years as our  staffing numbers shore up.      My hope is that you’ll see some improvement over the next couple of weeks, as people get used to seeing our  officers in the area.  Be sure to give them a wave when you see them!  If you have any additional questions or concerns,  please feel free to reach out to me any time via e‐mail, or via my office number (below).    Thanks, and enjoy your weekend,    Zach    Captain Zach Perron Investigative Services Division (Detectives, Traffic, Special Operations) Palo Alto Police Department 275 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Office: 650-329-2115 Twitter I Nextdoor I Instagram I Facebook I YouTube I Flickr I Nixle Download our free mobile app for iOS or Android today!     From: Barbara Ann Hazlett <bthazlett@aol.com>   Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 3:05 PM  To: Police <pd@cityofpaloalto.org>; Shikada@aol.com; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City  2 <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Enforcement Needed    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Police and City Leadership: Please have the Palo Alto Police Department monitor and enforce the speed limit and stop signs in the 1100 block of Emerson Street. Most of us in the neighborhood have faced near misses from speeding cars and rolling stops as people turn right from Alma onto Lincoln and then right onto Emerson and right onto Embarcadero, in this informal cloverleaf. The Emerson / Kingsley crosswalk is especially dangerous with pedestrians and bicyclists crossing this 'safe bike route'. The pedestrians and bicyclists proceed quickly through this intersection going back and forth to Town and Country, Palo Alto High School and Stanford without looking, expecting drivers to heed the speed limit and stop sign. I have had my parked car side-swiped by a speeding car and neighbors walking their dogs are in jeopardy. I have reported this, in person, to a police officer when filing a report for my side-swiped car, and was informed that there isn't sufficient police manpower to provide enforcement. I have also publicly spoken about this hazard at City Council meetings where the City Council, Staff and General Counsel were in attendance. Just yesterday a young man was biking east-bound across the crosswalk at Emerson and Kingsley. He was struck by a car turning right off of Embarcadero onto Emerson. He suffered scrapes and bruises and was quite shaken. The driver stopped and, of course, was very concerned. Both the fire department and police responded. I ultimately spoke with the responding police officer, David Tchang. I told him of our block's deep concern for the safety issues, that few drivers obey the stop signs and speed limit and there is no patrolling by the police. I was advised about how much city-wide patrolling they have to do and they can't spend hours at this intersection, but he will make a mental note! I then pointed out to him the car that was driving by, as we were speaking, did not bother to stop at the stop sign, even though he and his patrol car were right there! I look forward to a helpful response from city leadership and the police department regarding this issue. Best Regards, Barbara Hazlett   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 6, 2019 11:08 PM To:elewis@ci.atherton.ca.us; Ivar.Satero@flysfo.com; jcastaneda@sforoundtable.org Cc:Karen.Chapman@mail.house.gov; Council, City; Bert Ganoung (AIR); awengert@portolavalley.net; john_murray@feinstein.senate.gov Subject:FAA's recent Update - Bay Area Roundtables Coordination - 4 inconsistencies CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Chair Lewis, President Sartero,      With the creation of the SCSC Roundtable, I am optimistic and hope that there will be coordination amongst Bay Area  communities to address noise and emissions concerns.     As there is a great deal of competing priorities, and in light of the dozens of recommendations that FAA has been asked  to consider (and is implementing), I share some concerns about the following 4 terms,    Feasibility   Regional Consensus  Noise Shifting  Community Involvement     It's been a longtime concern of mine that asking to do what is "feasible" doesn't always mean it's good or right. Those  who are more expert at crafting recommendation that qualify as "feasible" for FAA get an upper hand, and FAA's  prioritization (for noise changes) or how these fit on a system wide basis is unclear/unknown. Then, FAA and elected  officials say they will not act unless there is "regional consensus" ‐ but all the SFO Roundtable recommendations don't  have regional consensus yet are being treated equally as those which were developed in the Select Committee. The SFO  Roundtable has a pledge to not "shift noise", but various SFO roundtable recommendations shift noise. Adding to the  confusion, with PIRAT, FAA took "community involvement" to be the proposal stage for something the community  thought was an ask for a puppy not a pirate.      The only thing that is consistent about the 4 terms is that they are applied inconsistently and arbitrarily. The broken  telephone situation about when people get a view of what is going to affect them further impedes talking about noise  mitigation itself.     I would suggest that all these terms need to be turned into something productive for actual noise mitigation.  A starting  point is to have transparent baseline assessments for all roundtable and community asks, and instead of rushing to  "publish procedures," it is imperative that the various community asks be given a chance to be discussed by the affected  cities.     Lastly, and not least ‐ community asks must be considered for their overall effect. Peninsula cities have been asking to  use "Over the Bay" for Arrivals (from the South); FAA has "OAK departure procedure that flies down to the Bay during  night time hours"   page 3 of the July 2019 FAA Update.  I have heard both ‐ that OAK departures have "always" been  that way and I have also heard that SFO arrivals went over the bay. Irrespective of what was "always" ‐ Nextgen  procedures are different and how will this work with GBAS "overlays" for example. If it's "always" been that way why is a  fresh procedure needed? The term "overlay" is another play on words because it pretends to not have any impacts.     2 I urge that you to please raise these issues openly at your meetings, to see what ideas can develop for having  community coordination to achieve  a regional approach to noise mitigation.     Thank you,    Jennifer Landesmann  ph 415‐810‐7342        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Shirley Chen <burleyhsieh@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 6, 2019 7:38 PM To:Annette Isaacson Cc:Council, City; Netto, Margaret Subject:Re: it's just come to my attention CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council and All,  A few clarifications:  1. We did indeed follow the setback rules and the home is 6 ft+ from the property line on both sides. 2. We are having trouble acquiring the laurus nobilus saratoga and pittsporum at 8' tall, not the Australian willow. All 3 species are required for screening. 3. The landscape requirements were part of the building permit approved in April 2018. We acknowledged that new trees needed to be planted, but we did not realize they had to be 8ft+.   Sincerely,  Shirley Chen on behalf of Wen‐Jai and Pai‐Her Hsieh  On Tue, Aug 6, 2019, 6:54 PM <annetteisaacson@comcast.net> wrote:  Dear City Council Members, Do you know what's happening in the planning department? My neighbor tore down her parents' home at {REDACTED}, next door to my house: {REDACTED}, to rebuild a larger house for her family. Her father even had the house deconstructed because he was concerned about not creating more construction garbage. Her father had the house designed so that it wouldn't shade our solar panels. Now the planning department is telling Shirley, the daughter, that she has to plant 8 foot tall Australian Willows that will grow to a height of 20-30 feet and will eventually shade our solar panels next to the fence that divides our properties. Also, these trees grow 20-30 feet wide. Shirley only has about 3-4 feet between her house and the property line. Where are those 20-30 feet of canopy going? ... into my yard. Did I ask for that??? No. Did I ask for any screening between our houses? NO. Did Shirley ask for any screening between our houses? NO. 2 Also, the city is insisting that Shirley buy four 8 foot tall Australian Willow trees. Australian Willows usually come in a 5 gal. container, which costs $25. A tree, in the required 24 inch box, costs $225. Why should she have to buy such an expensive sized tree? Where is she going to find such a tree? I think the planning department has gone a little nuts. What is the rational? Is it for screening? If two people want a screen between their houses, fine. If two people don't want a screen between their houses, they should not be forced to do so. Also, Shirley contacted Margaret Netto at the city last Tuesday, to tell her she couldn't find the 8 foot trees Australian Willows and hasn't had a response from her, yet. This has been one week. Sincerely, Annette Isaacson 1 Brettle, Jessica From: Sent: To: Subject: Netto, Margaret Tuesday, August 6, 2019 9:07 PM annetteisaacson@comcast.net; Shirley Hsieh Burley; Council, City; Paul Heft RE: Landscaping at {REDACTED} Dear Ms. Isaacson,  Thank you for the email. After some research, the City’s Consulting Architect recommended landscaping  between the two homes to help with privacy. He suggested that the landscaping grow to no more than 20 feet  tall along the left side yard given that the adjacent home has solar panels on the rear section of the roof.  Therefore, the project was approved with the following landscape condition:  I understand your concern and I am happy to come out to the site  to discuss the condition and resolve the  issue.  Thank you,  Margaret Netto  2 Sent from Mail for Windows 10  From: annetteisaacson@comcast.net  Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 2:49 PM  To: Netto, Margaret; Shirley Hsieh Burley; Council, City; Paul Heft  Subject: Fwd: Landscaping at {REDACTED} CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Ms Netto, I just talked with my neighbor, Shirley Chen, who is rebuilding her parents' house at {REDACTED}. We have been friends of her parents for over 20 years, and we live directly next door. Shirley showed us the plans for the trees the city is requiring her to plant between our house and hers. We have solar panels on the side of the house that faces Shirley's house. Her father designed the house so it wouldn't shade our solar panels. We really appreciated that. Now the city is requiring that Shirley plant trees that will shade our solar panels. This is not acceptable. The Australian Pittosporum Tenuiforium, that the city is recommending, grows 20-30 feet high. Anything higher than 9 feet will start to shade our solar panels after 3:00 P.M. These trees grow 20-30 feet wide. Our house is 15 feet from the property line, and Shirley's is maybe 3-4 feet from the property line. That means that up to 15 feet of the canopy of the trees is going to end up on our side of the property. I don't want her trees overhanging into my yard. 3 I am not interested in screening our yards from each other. We have a fence that does that. When can we come to talk about this? Sincerely, Annette Isaacson ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐   From: Shirley Chen <burleyhsieh@gmail.com>   To: Annette Isaacson <annetteisaacson@comcast.net>   Date: August 6, 2019 at 2:18 PM   Subject: Fwd: Landscaping at {REDACTED}   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐   From: Shirley Chen <burleyhsieh@gmail.com>   Date: Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 10:57 PM   Subject: Landscaping at {REDACTED} To: Netto, Margaret < Margaret.Netto@cityofpaloalto.org>   Dear Margaret,   My name is Shirley Chen and our family is doing a new construction at {REDACTED} designed by Roger  Kohler. Our building permit was approved by Philip Brennan in the spring of 2018. The homeowners are  Wen‐Jai and Pai‐Her Hsieh, and I am their daughter and corresponding on their behalf.    We are in the final stages of the construction and we are having some difficulty obtaining certain trees.  On the site plan, we are required to plant 11 trees, 10 of which are 8' evergreen screening trees.   I can get the 4 pittosporum tenuifolium nigricans and 4 Australian willow geigeras at 8', but the 2 laurus  nobilus saratoga required can only be found at 5‐6'. I have contacted a few landscapers/ nurseries and  they are having trouble obtaining the required height.   Would I be able to replace the 2 saratoga plants with either of the other two evergreens or would it be  ok to plant the 5' tree instead?  Warmest regards,  ‐‐   Shirley Chen  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 2, 2019 9:40 AM To:Council, City; Joe Simitian; Jean McCown Subject:Letter to Caltrain Board from Palo Alto Forward CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  July 31, 2019     Re: Long Range Vision Plan: Caltrain Business Plan 2040     Dear Caltrain Board Members,     I am writing to you on behalf of the Palo Alto Forward Board (PAF). Our mission is to “…work with residents  and city government to make Palo Alto a more affordable, sustainable city with improved housing and  transportation options for our diverse, multi‐generational group of residents.  We believe in thoughtful and  comprehensive planning in order to create a strong and vibrant future for the Peninsula and region.      The High Growth Scenario is the strongest and most enduring option you are considering. This scenario is  needed. It will support high capacity and ridership and coordinate services to improve connectivity and  integration of various transit services. This will be achieved with electrification and huge infrastructure  improvements, particularly grade‐separations, to improve safety and operations.  We recognize that  additional detailed planning and technical studies are needed to determine its feasibility.      The level of improvements will fully address growing and significant ridership demand now and through 2040  and beyond. As you are well aware, the Caltrain Corridor  capacity is critical for better access to many local  and regional developments, including but not limited to the BART extension, Diridon Station, North Bayshore,  Stanford University academic and hospital centers, Dumbarton Bridge improvements and other developments  planned in Peninsula cities. Transit ridership growth is an environmental necessity to expanded use of autos  throughout the region.  All of these points are made in many of your reports and related technical studies.     2 We support a dynamic and strong vision for the Caltrain Service Plan as a critical means of addressing job and  population growth and enhancing regional, sustainable transportation, and economic activity. In our  community, our Palo Alto and California Avenue Caltrain stations continue to offer significant economic and  transit oriented development potential.      The study of utilizing public lands as options for affordable housing near transit also has real merit. We  support allowing for 20% affordable housing on Caltrain land. These types of cumulative actions will create a  healthier environment by reducing green house gas emissions to help address climate change.      We recognize that funding for such an important transportation corridor are complex and daunting. Of the  many elements, dedicated operations funding and multi‐source funding for needed grade‐separations are vital  issues. We underscore the importance of a comprehensive corridor wide strategy to reduce administrative  and oversight costs, design and construction costs and political angst among the corridor cities.  We, as others,  request a clarification of “City‐led grade separations.”     Transportation and land use policies and actions taken now will impact current and future generations. The  design and evolution of the Caltrain corridor and its service, operation, and funding plan will constitute the  most critical and significant capital project for the region.     Be bold and visionary and support the High Growth Scenario. The Silicon Valley has a legacy of innovation and  creativity to address complex issues. Let’s use these skills and imagination to create a phenomenal Caltrain  corridor. Anything less will be mediocre and inadequate to meet the well‐documented current and future  transportation and transit needs for the region and state.      We look forward to working with you and engaging with the community, all public and private sector partners,  educational organizations, elected officials and transportation professionals to achieve a stellar Caltrain  corridor. We can do this.      Sincerely,         Gail A. Price     3 Representing the Palo Alto Forward (PAF) Board  Former Palo Alto City Council Member and VTA Board of Directors  4082 Orme Street  Palo Alto, CA            cc: VTA Board of Directors       1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jill Asher <jill@magicalbridge.org> Sent:Friday, August 2, 2019 12:09 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; board@pausd.org Subject:The Magical Bridge Kindness Ambassador Program -- an article and video that will warm your heart CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      Hello RWC City Council Members,      Dear Palo Alto City Council Members and School Board Members,    I thought this would warm your heart and remind you that we have such thoughtful and amazing teens in OUR  community.  Colin Wilfrid is an incoming Senior at Woodside High School.  He is also a teen with autism who has been  volunteering with Magical Bridge in Palo Alto for the past year as a  Kindness Ambassador.     Here is an article and a video about how Magical Bridge has changed his life ‐‐ and it makes us feel that our work is  expanding beyond the playground and touching the lives of our teens, who will go out in the world and be MAGICAL,  KIND and compassionate adults.    We also invite you to join us for our Friday night concerts (tonight Soul Providers is playing from 6 pm to 7:30 PM.  You  can see the Kindness Ambassadors in full force and making the playground EXTRA WELCOMING for everyone in our  community and all who visit our beloved playground.    Link to article: http://magicalbridge.org/being‐a‐magical‐bridge‐kindness‐ambassador‐and‐how‐it‐changed‐my‐ life/?fbclid=IwAR0iWvRxdIHNHq93ans8D9J2KdiefNpaa‐8qsKWkO9JEFRsXflZntP5wErQ    Link to video:  https://youtu.be/jP‐‐2iQtyug      With so much gratitude,  Jill Asher and Team Magical Bridge  ‐‐   Jill Asher  Magical Bridge Foundation  My TEDx Talk about Magical Bridge  p:  650‐520‐8512  e: jill@magicalbridge.org  Connect with Magical Bridge on:  Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/magicalbridge  Twitter:  https://twitter.com/magicalbridge    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Patricia Jones <pkjones1000@icloud.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 7, 2019 8:37 AM To:Council, City Subject:MTC/ABAG's jobs based model CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. The jobs based model used by MTC/ABAG has been a disaster. It has not provided for the balanced growth it planned. I hereby demand that MTC/ABAG: 1. Eliminate their model assumption that it be driven by an aggressive job-growth in priority development areas. 2. Replace that with a requirement that the process will include a range of more moderate and balanced projections of jobs and housing that explore a greater geographical dispersion of jobs. 3. Make the technical discussions an open, public process with a clear opportunity to hear other points of view. Thank you.  Patricia Jones  {REDACTED}  Palo Alto, CA 94301  Patricia Jones www.pkjones.com pkjones1000@icloud.com 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Marshall Deitsch <marshalljd@aol.com> Sent:Saturday, August 3, 2019 8:38 PM To:Transportation Cc:bhazlett@aol.com; Perron, Zachary; Council, City; Ed.Shilada@CityofPaloAlto.org; Tom & Rachel Kellerman; Eleanor Laney Subject:Need for speed bumps on Emerson St. Dear Chirag Panchal,   Last week I requested that speed bumps be added to the 1100 block of Emerson Street because of the speeding cars  causing danger to children on bicycles crossing at the Embarcadero/Kingsley intersection at the end of the block. This  crossing is a major route for bicycles on their way to Palo Alto High School, Stanford & Town & Country Village.    In the attached email, you told me that “Emerson street is not part of the safe routes to school corridor therefore,  according to the city policy Emerson street lane does not meet the criteria for installation of speed humps.  ”    As you can see from the attached emails from Barbara Hazlett and Police Captain Zack Perron, another bicycle accident  has just occurred on this block of Emerson St. resulting from a speeding car.      I request that you reconsider your decision about installing the speed bumps before a child on a bicycle is killed and the  city of Palo Alto has a major lawsuit to contend with.      Thank you for your reconsideration of this problem.   Marshall Deitsch  MarshallJD@aol.com  ————————————  Forwarded emails:    Hi Marshall Deitch,  PLN8494 posted a comment on Traffic  congestion or traffic safety concern Request  #6434862, a request you reported.6434862    COMMENT from     Chirag Panchal, Transportation Dept., City of Palo  Alto:  2       Aug 1, 2019, 9:07 AM PDT by Chirag Panchal (This  is visible to Everyone)    https://iframe.publicstuff.com/#?client_id=406&request_id=6434862           Hello Marshall, I consulted with engineers to come  up with the best solution possible so that the city  can help community in most efficient way possible.  The speed humps/bumps are reserved for the safe  routes to school corridors (meaning lanes that are  heavily used by students). The Emerson street is  not part of the safe routes to school corridor  therefore, according to the city policy Emerson  street lane does not meet the criteria for  installation of speed hump requirement. Emerson  street length between stop sign is only 430 feet,  therefore, installing speed hump/bump in  between does not meet warrant since the distance  is very short. In addition, there is a 4 way stop sign  at the intersection, which cars stop and therefore  a speed hump would not be effective. As far as,  vehicles not stopping at the stop sign is a police  enforcement issue and must be routed to the city  of Palo Alto Police enforcement department.  3 Thank you for reaching out to us and keeping our  city's infrastructure safe.  Aug 1, 2019, 9:07 AM PDT by Chirag Panchal (This  is visible to Everyone)    https://iframe.publicstuff.com/#?client_id=406&request_id=6434862  Please do not reply directly to this email.  Thanks!  Palo Alto  ——————————————————————————————‐  Email from bthazlett@aol.com  Dear Neighbors, FYI - please see the email exchange below. A bike vs. car accident occurred at the Emerson/Kingsley cross-walk on Thursday. Fortunately only minor injuries occurred. I sent a note to the police and city staff in follow-up and apparently they will now provide some patrolling beginning Monday. Barbara -----Original Message----- From: Perron, Zachary <Zachary.Perron@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: bthazlett@aol.com <bthazlett@aol.com> Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Sat, Aug 3, 2019 10:35 am Subject: RE: Enforcement Needed Good morning Mrs. Hazlett, My name is Zach Perron, and I work for the Palo Alto Police Department. I received your e-mail below yesterday. I oversee our Traffic Team, Detective Bureau, and Special Operations unit. Thank you for writing in, and I’m very sorry to hear about the ongoing traffic issues on your block. The good news is that as a result of your e-mail, I will ensure that our Traffic Team (our three officers whose job, full-time, is traffic enforcement) spend time in this area beginning on Monday when they return to work. With any luck, some dedicated enforcement and ongoing attention to the area will slow drivers down and cause them to drive more cautiously. As you may or may not know, we had to eliminate our Traffic Team a few years back as a result of a staffing shortage. When Chief Robert Jonsen arrived in January 2018, he clearly heard the message from our community that traffic concerns, City-wide, were a major priority. As a result, in July 2018, Chief Jonsen shuffled some personnel around and was able to bring back a two-officer Traffic Team…and this fiscal year, beginning last month, he was able to add a third officer to the team. This is great news, as it means that we’re better able to address problem areas like the one you’ve identified. Regular patrol 4 officers, like the two with whom you spoke, have to balance traffic enforcement requests with many things, to include routine & emergency calls for service, proactive patrolling to arrest criminals, conducting patrol checks of problem areas for criminal activity, patrolling our schools and parks, conducting community outreach activities, and so forth. Our dedicated Traffic Team officers get to focus solely on traffic enforcement, so they’re in the perfect position to address your concern – and your e-mail is exactly why Chief Jonsen has brought back our Traffic Team, added personnel to it, and hopes to continue to add additional officers in coming fiscal years as our staffing numbers shore up. My hope is that you’ll see some improvement over the next couple of weeks, as people get used to seeing our officers in the area. Be sure to give them a wave when you see them! If you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to reach out to me any time via e-mail, or via my office number (below). Thanks, and enjoy your weekend, Zach Captain Zach Perron Investigative Services Division (Detectives, Traffic, Special Operations) Palo Alto Police Department 275 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Office: 650-329-2115 Twitter I Nextdoor I Instagram I Facebook I YouTube I Flickr I Nixle Download our free mobile app for iOS or Android today! From: Barbara Ann Hazlett <bthazlett@aol.com> Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 3:05 PM To: Policepd@cityofpaloalto.org>; Shikada@aol.com; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalcity.council@cityofpaloalto.orgto.org> Subject: Enforcement Needed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Dear Police and City Leadership: Please have the Palo Alto Police Department monitor and enforce the speed limit and stop signs in the 1100 block of Emerson Street. Most of us in the neighborhood have faced near misses from speeding cars and rolling stops as people turn right from Alma onto Lincoln and then right onto Emerson and right onto Embarcadero, in this informal cloverleaf. The Emerson / Kingsley crosswalk is especially dangerous with pedestrians and bicyclists crossing this 'safe bike route'. The pedestrians and bicyclists proceed quickly through this intersection going back and forth to Town and Country, Palo Alto High School and Stanford without looking, expecting drivers to heed the speed limit and stop sign. I have had my parked car side-swiped by a speeding car and neighbors walking their dogs are in jeopardy. I have reported this, in person, to a police officer when filing a report for my side-swiped car, and was informed that there isn't sufficient police manpower to provide enforcement. I have also publicly spoken about this hazard at City Council meetings where the City Council, Staff and General Counsel were in attendance. Just yesterday a young man was biking east-bound across the crosswalk at Emerson and Kingsley. He was struck by a car turning right off of Embarcadero onto Emerson. He suffered scrapes and bruises and was quite shaken. The driver stopped and, of course, was very concerned. Both the fire department and police responded. I ultimately spoke with the responding police officer, David Tchang. I told him of our block's deep concern for the safety issues, that few drivers obey the stop signs and speed limit and there is no patrolling by the police. I was advised about how much city-wide patrolling they have to do and they can't spend hours at this intersection, but he will make a mental note! I then pointed out to him the car that was driving by, as we were speaking, did not bother to stop at the stop sign, even though he and his patrol car were right there! I look forward to a helpful response from city leadership and the police department regarding this issue. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, July 31, 2019 2:06 PM To:David R. Meiswinkle Subject:Re: Breaking News! New York Area Fire Commissioners Make History, Call for New 9/11 Investigation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  AWESOME NEWS WORLD SHOULD KNOW IF WE KEEP SHARING IT On Wednesday, July 31, 2019, 12:55:30 PM EDT, David R. Meiswinkle <drmeiswinkle@aol.com> wrote: From your friends at Colorado 9/11 Truth Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. For more news and information, please visit our website at www.colorado911truth.org Recommended Links  9-11 Blogger  9/11 Consensus Panel  9-11 Research  9-11 Review  911speakout.org  911truth.org  9-11 Truth News New York Area Fire Commissioners Make History! Firefighters are normally quiet about what happened on 9/11. That silence was broken by the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District of Queens, New York, on July 24, 2019. On that day, the five Commissioners of that district broke the taboo barrier, unanimously, becoming the first legislative body in the country to officially support a new investigation into the events of 9/11. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 2  Architects and Engineers for 9- 11 Truth  David Ray Griffin  Debunking the Debunkers  Feal Good Foundation  Fire Fighters for 9-11 Truth  George Washington’s Blog  Journal of 9-11 Studies  Kevin Ryan  Patriots Question 9/11  ReThink 9/11  Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice  Scientists for 9/11 Truth  Visibility 9-11  wtc7.net    “We’re a tight-knit community and we never forget our fallen brothers and sisters,” Commissioner Christopher Gioia said. “You better believe that when the entire fire service of New York State is on board, we will be an unstoppable force. . . . We were the first fire district to pass this resolution. We won’t be the last.” See Ted Walter's article for the full story and the wording of their resolution supporting the Lawyers’ Committee Grand Jury Petition and asking for a new investigation of “every crime” related to 9/11. Watch the video here, starting at the 4:00 minute mark through approximately 9:55. Make a Donation to Colorado 9/11 Truth! Colorado 9/11 Truth exists only with your support. Your donation of any amount keeps us active. Visit the donation page on our website here. Like us on Facebook Check out our Facebook page here for current 9/11 information, news, and events. From your friends at Colorado 9/11 Truth, Fran, Marti, Bob, David, Don, Dorothy, Earl, Joseph, Julie-Ellen, and Michael   | Forward to a Friend Copyright © 2013 | Colorado 9/11 Truth | All rights reserved. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 3 www.colorado911truth.org unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences   This email was sent to drmeiswinkle@aol.com why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences Colorado 9/11 Truth · Denver · Denver, CO 80210 · USA To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 7, 2019 10:04 AM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Just say NO to the CASTI Expansion. In fact FINE them for their years of violations CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Have you been on Embarcadero recently? Have you seen the ludicrous gridlock that sends us miles out of our way? Why would you even consider letting Casti -- and/ort Standford -- make traffic even worse? JUST SAY NO to more traffic. Casti's been in violation of its enrollment cap for years; they shouldn't be rewarded for their illegal conduct. Stop this assault on our quality of life or whatever little's left of it here. Most sincerely, Jo Ann Mandinach {REDACTED} Palo Alto, CA 94301 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, August 2, 2019 4:26 AM To:thx1138zardoz@yahoo.com Subject: N.Y. Area Fire Commissioners Call for New 9/11 Investigation: “pre-planted explosives....caused the destruction" CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  New York Area Fire Commissioners Make History, Call for New 9/11 Investigation https://www.ae911truth.org/news/540-new-york-area-fire-commissioners-make-history-call-for-new-9-11-investigation Go to link for entire article. July 27, 2019 They started off by saying the Pledge of Allegiance. Ten minutes later, they were reading the text of a resolution claiming the existence of “overwhelming evidence” that “pre-planted explosives . . . caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings.” And so it was, on July 24, 2019 — nearly 18 years after the horrific attacks that traumatized a nation and changed the world forever — the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District , which oversees a volunteer fire department serving a hamlet of 30,000 residents just outside of Queens, New York, became the first legislative body in the country to officially support a new investigation into the events of 9/11. The resolution, drafted and introduced by Commissioner Christopher Gioia, was unanimously approved by the five commissioners. Members of the audience — including the families of fallen firefighters Thomas J. Hetzel and Robert Evans, both Franklin Square natives — joined in solemn but celebratory applause after the fifth “ay” was spoken. ...Besides the commissioners’ desire to see justice done for their fallen brothers and deceased neighbors, the driving force behind the resolution was a petition filed last year with United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey S. Berman by the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, outlining the evidence of the World Trade Center’s explosive demolition on 9/11. The U.S. Attorney’s Office notified the Lawyers’ Committee in November that it would indeed comply with the federal statute requiring the U.S. Attorney to present the petition to a special grand jury. The news set off a wave of hope, among those paying attention, that the wheels of justice were finally beginning to move in the right direction. ...After a pause, Gioia added, “We were the first fire district to pass this resolution. We won’t be the last.” 2 Continued with entire article at: https://www.ae911truth.org/news/540-new-york-area-fire-commissioners-make- history-call-for-new-9-11-investigation __._,_.___ Posted by: || <smacko9@comcast.net> Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group •Start a New Topic •Messages in this topic (1) ============================================== IF YOU'RE NOT PARANOID, THEN YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION! ============================================== To Post: ParanoidTimes@yahoogroups.com Home Page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ParanoidTimes Subscribe: ParanoidTimes-subscribe@yahoogroups.com ================================================== NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ================================================== VISIT YOUR GROUP To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InYahoo! Gro • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Judy Grinberg <judygrin@hotmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 3, 2019 2:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:I Oppose the Castilleja expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I strongly oppose the expansion.   For All the reasons mentioned in the  Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for all the other reasons  that you have heard before and because I understand that the expansion does not only benefit  Palo Alto students.    Thanks      Judy Grinberg   Middlefield Rd.  94301    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jim Colton <james.colton10@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 7, 2019 5:31 AM To:Council, City Subject:02 PBA50 Draft Growth Forecast Methodology CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members,     I am writing to comment on the 02 PBA50 Draft Growth Forecast Methodology.       The current methodology is driven by the assumption that aggressive job growth will occur in priority  development areas.  This assumption should be eliminated.  Instead the methodology should be based on a  range of more moderate and balanced projections of jobs and housing over a greater geographical area.     Finally, the technical discussion should be an open, public process that provides a clear opportunity for other  points of view to be heard.     Thanks for taking my point of view into account.     Regards,     Jim Colton  Palo Alto         1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tony Caruthers <tonycaruzz@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 2, 2019 3:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:"Please forgive me".... My cell is {REDACTED} CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I have been crying lately about our country & how we need to stick together more. I had a friend who I met in 2001  reach out to me concerned about a fire that was in Phoenix, I hadn't talked to him since 2005. While working with him in  2003, I had a bad day & called all my black workers & white supervisors "haters". I want to be forgiven because I believe  Mark Zuckerberg has heard about it & still holding it over my head. I want to be forgiven by Mark & the entire white  community. We all make mistakes, we all say & do things we wish we could take back.  On Aug 2, 2019 3:07 PM, "Tony Caruthers" <tonycaruzz@gmail.com> wrote:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchineel  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Roy Maydan <roy.maydan@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 2, 2019 8:44 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; letters@paweekly.com; letters@padailypost.com Subject:Support for Castilleja Plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am writing to express my support for Castilleja's plan to modify its CUP to expand enrollment.  Castilleja is an asset to  the community and their plans with the increased enrollment will only make the school a better environment.  I have  faith that the school will work with the city to mitigate any outstanding negative impacts to their plan, just as they have  spent the past few years working to reduce car traffic to the school and to honor their agreement with the city to  gradually reduce enrollment.     Sincerely,  Roy Maydan  131 Byron St, Palo Alto, CA 94301  1 Brettle, Jessica From:nancytuck@aol.com Sent:Friday, August 2, 2019 10:05 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; letters@paweekly.com; letters@padailypost.com Subject:Supporter of Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am an ardent supporter of Castilleja, their mission, their proposal to modernize, and their application for an enrollment increase. I live on Melville Avenue, between Emerson and Alma. I have never suffered a single moment from traffic, noise, or parking due to the Castilleja students or activities. My neighbors are fabricating these issues, and for the life of me I cannot fathom their motives. As I read their online posts and letters to the editor, there is a distinct message that private schools are evil - they serve the wealthy and they attract students from beyond Palo Alto's boundaries. In fact, Castilleja offers scholarships to a material portion of their students, and often students from outside of Palo Alto who bring a diversity that enriches the learning experience. Some neighbors cannot let go of the enrollment misrepresentation from over a decade ago. But I've lived here since before the enrollment issue was unveiled, and NONE of these people mentioned an issue or a hardship with the school back then. Castilleja is a stellar neighbor, with a sensitivity to its surroundings like no other institution I know. The daily visible traffic control management, the repeated invitations to attend meetings to discuss neighborhood issues, the letters and notices I receive warning me about days when they expect heavy traffic (about twice a year) -- no similar courtesies from Paly. I pay sky-high property taxes to live in this robust and thriving community. I want choice for girls - to attend an excellent public school or a nationally ranked all-girls school. There are many of us who live next to Castilleja who feel this same way. The NIMBYism that is prevalent with a mostly older, retired, and nonnegotiable subset of Palo Alto is offensive. These people are fighting this issue like it's a proposal for a Navigation Center for the mentally ill and drug addicted homeless. They want Palo Alto to return to its 1960s self. It can't and won't happen, and hopefully the City won't sacrifice an outstanding school's mission at the insistence of this selfish few. Nancy Tuck 113 Melville Ave Palo Alto 650-922-0599 REMIND 2nd Annual Kipling St. Block Party August 24, 2019 2-5 PM H 3: 43 Know Your Neighbors and Emergency Preparedness (graphic from https://coolblock.org/action-plan) We are planning another Block Party for Kipling Street (3166 to 3396) and closely associated homes on nearby streets and you are invited! • Get to know your neighbors • Better prepare all of us to deal with a severe emergency WHEN: 2 to 5 PM on Saturday, August 24, 2019 Live music by Blas Lozano and his band WHERE: Kipling Street cul de sac (approximately 3326-3364 Kipling). NB: The cul de sac will be blocked to through traffic (except emergency vehicles), so plan to move your cars out for 1-6 PM . ., c '"i 'q. Grace Lutheran Church '~ ~"'I' Unrty Palo ~ ~ 4 0 T1k1Land Daycare Y & Preschool O International School Y of the Peninsula ... ·l'' / ~ ~ C). FOOD: Pot luck. We had more than enough contributed food in 2018, so we're counting on neighbors to provide food to share. Ethnic or cultural specialties are especially welcome. We'll provide a few charcoal grills if you want to cook on site (either for yourself or to share). CONTACT: Dick Simpson, 3326 Kipling St.,hut.coord@yahoo.com, landline: 650-494-9272 1https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/Programs/SMARA/PermanenteQuarrv/Pages/PermanenteMain.aspx 2http://www.southbayquarrvlibrarv.org/Catalog/Kaiser%20Cement%20&%20Gypsum%20Corp%201972%2008%2018%20Ridgeline%20Protection% 20Easement%20Deed.pdf 3 https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ei/nscpac fees/nscpac fees.htm 'This link downloads a file containing the letters, deed, these violations, and letters about these violations http://sccgov.igm2.com/Citizens/File0pen.aspx?Type=4&1D=190010&MeetinglD=11161 in the West Materials Storage Area, as set forth in the 2012 Reclamation Plan, the Application proposes to import up to 1 million cubic yards of soil each year to backfill the North Quarry. Despite its study's acknowledgment that transporting 1 million cubic yards of soil will require 200,000 trips to and from the Quarry annually, Lehigh fails to acknowledge the significant local impacts ofthis truck traffic. Roughly 548 truck trips to and from the Quarry per day (if operations ran every day of the year) will have an extraordinary and wholly unacceptable impact on the City's residents, streets, and infrastructure. These will include, at a minimum, exacerbating traffic concerns related to congestion, queuing, spilling of debris, pedestrian and bike safety, and blocking of intersections; degrading air and water quality; and causing significant deterioration of City streets and infrastructure. Both the enonnous increase in truck traffic related to the proposed reclamation of the North Quarry and the traffic that will result from SCQ's expanded sales of Lehigh's aggregate highlight the need for a truck plan setting meaningful limits on daily trips, time of operations, queuing, and enforcement problems. The County should ensure that any consideration of Lehigh's Application includes meaningfu1 conditions and recourse for the City, which has borne the brunt of both quarries' recent illegal hauling operation, as recognized in the County's February 15, 2019 Notice of Violation to SCQ and its February 20, 2019 Draft Notice regarding Lehigh's Haul Road Reclamation Plan Amendment. Lehigh's Application is entirely silent about the pre-application for a Use Pennit and Major Reclamation Plan Amendment submitted by SCQ, which proposes to import up to 1 million tons of material from Lehigh each year for processing and sale, along with an additional six to seven million tons of fill with which to reclaim that quarry. The cumulative effects of these projects are obvious and must be addressed, including by carefully evaluating any alternative that uses onsite material for reclamation. Lehigh's Application also includes a worrying proposal to alter the 1972 Ridgeline Easement between Lehigh and the County to significantly change the Permanente Ridge. Though Lehigh attempts to mask its proposal as necessary to prevent natural erosion of the ridgeline, this proposal appears designed to increase production from the North Highwall Reserve of the Quarry. The 1972 Easement prohibits Lehigh from reducing the tidgeline below specified elevations. It has already violated that mandate. Nonetheless, Lehigh asks the County to not only endorse its past violations, but also to approve further departures from the Easement. Lehigh's proposal would reduce the height of the ridgeline by an average of 100 feet, which Lehigh refers to as "a slightly lower crest elevation." Lehigh reveals its intent to further develop this area when it notes that analysis conducted in 2018 "has revealed options for extending North Quarry production," and that the 1972 Easement inhibits "production ofhighwall reserves." As Lehigh acknowledges, "[t]he 1972 Easement has been effective in maintaining the northeast slope such that views of mining operations are obscured." The County should not accept further deviation from the binding terms of the Easement merely to enable Lehigh to increase its production from this area. lnstead, it should deny Lehigh's request to modify the 1972 Easement or to reduce the height of the ridgeline in this area. Additionally, the City urges the County to deny Lehigh's Application entirely until Lehigh comes into compliance with its various outstanding violations. These violations include the County's August 17, 2018 Notice of Violation for Lehigh's illegally grading the utility haul road outside the boundaiies of its 2012 reclamation plan amendment. As noted above, Lehigh is prohibited from shipping its aggregate offsite via this or other roads without first obtaining a use pennit from the County and undergoing environmental review. Additionally, the City issued an Administrative Citation and Notice of Violation on May 28, 2019 for Lehigh's illegal expansion of the utility road without City permission. Finally, as recently as June 13, 2019, the County issued a Notice of Violation related to Lehigh's discharging sediments into Pennanente Creek. Lehigh should not receive further approvals until it has con-ected all of its outstanding violations. As revealed by the specific concerns highlighted here, Lehigh's Application is ·also inconsistent with the County's General Plan. General Plan Policy C-RC 47 requires that potentially adverse environmental impacts from the extraction and transp011 of mineral resources be minimized to the greatest extent possible, including disruption and damage to topography and increased traffic volumes and damage to road surfaces. For the reasons discussed here, rather than minimizing these impacts, Lehigh's Application compounds them. Thus, as briefly summarized above based on a preliminary review, the City finds Lehigh's Reclamation Plan Amendment Application inappropriate and likely highly detrimental to the City's residents and resources. The City thus requests that the County scrutinize Lehigh's proposal to expand its operations via increased hauling between Lehigh and SCQ, to materially alter the tenns of long-standing Ridgeline Easement, and to increase truck traffic by more than 550 trips per day, with a focus on identifying alternatives that will avoid the resulting impacts on the City and the surrounding community. Sincerely, d / Debor 1 L. Feng City Manager Midpeninsula Regional Open Space July 12, 2019 Mr. Rob Salisbury Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Santa Clara County Planning Dpt. 70 West Hedding Street East Wing, 7th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 GENERAL MANAGER Ana M RUIZ BOARD OF DIRECTORS Pete Siemens Yoriko Kishimoto Jed Cyr Curt Riffle Karen Holman Larry Hassett Zoe Kersteen-Tucker RE: Lehigh Southwest Cement Company Proposed Permanente Quarry Reclamation Plan Amendment Application Dear Mr. Salisbury, The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) submits the following preliminary comments on the May 2019 application from Lehigh Southwest Cement Company (Lehigh) for a proposed Reclamation Plan Amendment (2019 Amendment). Our comments raise concerns regarding the proposed expansion of the quarry operations into the protected Scenic Easement area. These concerns are focused on four main issues: inadequate geotechnical solutions to stabilize the existing quarry walls; continued water quality impacts of both groundwater and Permanente Creek; visual impacts resulting from the increased height of the West Materials Storage Area (WMSA) and lowering of the ridgeline; and the potential for increased air quality impacts. Additionally, the District is concerned that the proposed amendment would also result in continued implementation delays to fulfill current stream restoration obligations along Permanente Creek. Protection of the Permanent Ridge Scenic Easement The Permanente Ridge Scenic Easement owned by Santa Clara County (County) is extremely important to the District, our visitors, neighbors, and all County residents who value the scenic views of the prominent hillside. This easement protects the views looking to the north towards Lehigh Quarry. Even though the massive quarry is located just over the ridgeline from Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, the scenic easement ensures that the viewshed remains one of natural splendor to be enjoyed by preserve visitors, neighbors and everyone in the Santa Clara Valley region. The scenic easement explicitly prohibits the mining activities proposed in the 2019 Amendment. To conform with existing legal requirements and uphold the intent of the scenic easement, the District urges that the County require Lehigh to amend its 2019 Amendment application to ensure compliance with County rules and regulations, and with the land use restrictions that apply to this important scenic easement. At a minimum, Lehigh should be required to provide an alternative in their application that complies with the scenic easement before the application is deemed complete. Geotechnical Stability The District raises significant concerns that recent mining activities remain out of compliance with the County-approved 2012 Reclamation Plan. These activities have created over-steepened quarry wall I 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 I • Gso Gg11200 I • 650 691 0485 I www openspace org I --~----- slopes with insufficient benches, resulting in a less stable hillside that is prone to erosion and landslides. These over-steepened slopes are not properly mitigated in the 2019 Amendment, and should be reviewed by the County Geologist, State Office of Mine Reclamation, and State· Mining and Geology Board immediately. ,, The District also ha's concerns regarding Lehigh's proposal to mine the ridge that is protected by the Permanente Ridge Scenic Easement. The 2019 Amendment cites the need to address potential erosion and stability issues created by mining the northern quarry slope. However, the proposal to mine the ridge that lies within the Scenic Easement in reality does little to lessen the slope steepness. To sufficiently address the stability issues, Lehigh should be required to follow the approved 2012 Amendment that calls for buttressing the mined slope with material from the WMSA. Expanding the mining area into the area protected by the Scenic Easement is not an acceptable approach to rectifying a condition created by past mining practices. It appears that the main driving benefit in mining this protected ridge protected is to-extract additional product for additional profit by the quarry. Water Quality In the application, Lehigh cites ¥\later quality concerns associated with backfilling the quarry pit and buttressing the north quarry slope with the material stockpiled in the WMSA. However, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) developed and issued their recent 2018 Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR's) based upon the existing 2012 Reclamation Plan, which included relocating the WMSA into the quarry pit and buttressing the steeply mined quarry walls, indicating that water quality objectives are achievable using this approach. Lehigh does not provide material evidence to support their position, except for their desire to stop treating the groundwater they have intercepted through mining activities. Again, one has to assume that increasing the profit of the quarry through reductions in operating costs are the main driver for this proposal. Important to a successful reclamation will be the non-limestone materials used to backfill the lowermost eleva.tions of the quarry pit (including elevations below the water table that have been mined since the 2012 Amendment approval). Lehigh's proposed 2019 Amendment estimates that 80% of the total volume in the WMSA contains non-limestone rock. Lehigh has also stockpiled substantial volumes of non-limestone rock (primarily greenstone) elsewhere in the quarry. Given the volume of non-limestone material needed to backfill the large mining pit, it is critical to retain all existing non-limestone material onsite to use as backfill. This material should not be sold or hauled off site. Using existi_ng onsite material avoids the added environmental impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, traffic, and diesel exhaust that would otherwise occur if the County accepts Lehigh's proposal to sell and off-haul existing material for profit and import and in-haul outside fill for an additional profit. The trucking of this material is substantial-with an estimate given of up to one-million cubic yards of construction soil imported annually to the site from throughout the South San Francisco Bay Area. The application fails to describe the environmental impacts to Cupertino, surrounding communities, and Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve related to the off-haul and in-haul of this material. ·Moreover, the proposed use of imported soil (rather than onsite material) to fill in the mining pit is anticipated to extend the current 5- year reclamation timeline by an additional 25-30 years. The resulting extensive delay is unacceptable. Visual 1"1pacts Lehigh's proposed 2019 Amendment would raise the WMSA an additional 160 feet in elevation. This proposal runs fully contrary to the prior approved 2012 Amendment, which requires removal of the WMSA. As part of the 2012 Amendment, the County recognized the visual impact of the expanded WMSA and allowed Lehigh to temporarily retain the WMSA during mining activities with the requirement that the WMSA be removed as part of reclamation activities. Adding 160 feet of additional 2 elevation would clearly result in greater visual impacts than the current 2012 Amendment and negate the original agreements made between the County and Lehigh. Air Quality Impacts The proposed mining of the scenic easement and additional storage at the WMSA are ridgetop construction activities subject to wind erosion. The District conducted an extensive air monitoring study in 2013-2014 at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve (Winegar Air Sciences, October 2104). The study noted a correlation in the increase of particulate matter with proximity to the Lehigh quarry. The air was clearly degraded by particulate matter at a sample point located closest to Lehigh when compared with up-wind monitoring locations. Concentrations of particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PMlO) exceeded the California Standard at the monitoring site closest to Lehigh. The proposed mining activities pose a significant new air quality concern to the District and should be sufficiently addressed in the application Delays in Completing the Permanente Creek Restoration Area The ongoing delay in completing the Permanente Creek Restoration Area (PCRA) is of continued concern to the District. The 2019 Amendment states that "The proposed reclamation plan amendment would not change the reclamation approach or requirements for the PCRA". What appears to change is the timeline. Under the existing 2012 Amendment, PCRA restoration is to be completed by 2030. Per the 2019 Amendment, the timeframe for restoration is 10-20 years from approval, an extension of up to an additional 10 years -out to potentially 2040. Lehigh's existing slow pace for submitting necessary items requested by the County to comply with the 2012 Amendment raises serious concerns that the same slow approach and resulting delays would occur if the proposed 2019 Amendment is approved. Our concerns for the creek were recently justified and heightened by recent landslides from the Yeager Yard area into Permanente Creek. The PCRA restoration should be completed as soon as possible, and should not be delayed for another decade. The 2019 application should also be deemed incomplete because it lacks specificity in describing the timeframe for restoration of the PCRA. The County holds the authority to uphold its commitment to the surrounding communities by protecting the Permanente Ridge Scenic Easement and requiring the timely implementation of the approved 2012 Amendment. It is clear that the existing 2012 Reclamation Plan is far superior to the Proposed 2019 Amendment by remaining much more protective of human health, the surrounding environment, and scenic vistas. The County is asked to deem Lehigh's 2019 Reclamation Plan Amendment application as incomplete until all the issues discussed above are adequately addressed. Sincerely, ~~?' AnaM.Ruiz Y General Manager Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District cc: Mid peninsula Regional Open Space District (District) Board of Directors Erika Guerra, Environmental Director, Lehigh Quarry Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager, District Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Manager, District 3 Lehigh Southwest Cement Company Reclamation Plan Amendment Application July 31, 2019 Page2 We encourage the County to retain the 2012 Reclamation Plan. This superior plan protects the ridgeline, removes current and future \V!vfSA visual impacts, minimizes traffic, and restores Permanente Creek in a timely manner. We also urge the County to reject Lehigh's 2019 Application until Lehigh comes into full compliance with its outstanding violations. Thank you for your continued attention to this major industrial site, which affects our residents and the entire district. Sincerely, ~~~ ~~ c!y) Lynette Lee Eng Mayor c: Assembly member Marc Berman State Senator Jerry Hill Los Altos City Council Los Altos City Manager Jacqueline Onciano, Santa Clara County Director of Planning • Herb Borock P. O. Box 632 Palo Alto, CA 94302 August 5, 2019 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 [ ] ~fore Meeting c..-r-Received at Meeting AUGUST 5, 2019, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #6 1700 & 17§0 EMBARCADERO ROAD [lSPLN-00186] Dear City Council: After the effective date of this agenda item's proposed ordinance, you will be able to file the Notice of Determination required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Record of Land Use Approval (RULA) you adopted on June 24, 2019 for this project. The RULA you adopted on June 24, 2019 is defective, because it violates the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) requirement that the Council make three findings before approving a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) . The RULA makes only one of the three required findings. Attached to this letter is a copy of PAMC Section 18.76.050, Design Enhancement Exception (DEE)1 that shows the three required findings at 18.76.050(c). In the 6/24/2019 staff report (ID # 10006) for this project that appears as Agenda Item #35 on the agenda for the June 24, 2019, City Council meeting, "Section 5. Design Enhancement Findings" appears on Page 10 of 30 of the Record of Land Use Action. Section 5 makes only the first of the three required findings. Before you file a CEQA Notice of Determination for this project you need to advertise and hold a new public hearing for th~ project to rescind the RULA you adopted on June 24, 2019, · a.J~~ ~ new RULA that makes the required three DEE findings based on substantial evidence in the Administrative Record. Failure to correct the RULA or adoption of a new RULA with the three required findingJwith the absence of the required substantial evidence is a prejudicial abuse of discretion and a violation of CEQA and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sine~ Herb Borock Attachments: 1. PAMC Section 18.76.050 (2 pages) 2. Staff report ID # 10006, June 24, 2019, City Council Agenda Packet; Packet Pages 655, 674, and 683 (3 pages) . PALO AL TO MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 18. 76 PERMITS AND APPROVALS 18. 76.050 Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) (a) Purpose The purpose of a design enhancement exception is to permit a minor exception to zoning regulations when doing so will: ( 1) Enhance the design of a proposed project without altering the function or use of the site, or its impact on surrounding properties; or (2) Enable the preservation of the architectural style of existing improvements on the site. (b) Applicability ( 1) Design enhancement exceptions may be granted to the site development and parking and loading requirements otherwise applicable under this title (Zoning), as part of the architectural review process, when such exceptions will enhance the appearance and design of commercial and multiple-family development and other development subject to architectural review. (2) Items for which design enhancement exceptions may be granted include, but are not limited to, dormers, eave lines, roof design, bay windows, cornices, parapets, columns" : arcades, fountains, art, ornamentation, atriums, balconies, trellises, moldings, balustrades, stairs, entry features, and other minor architectural elements and design features. (3) Generally, design enhancement exceptions are limited to minor changes to the setback, daylight plane, height, lot coverage limitations, parking lot design and landscaping configuration, and additional flexibility in the required proportion between private and common open space. (4) No design enhancement exception shall be granted under this section that would increase floor area, decrease the number of required parking spaces, decrease the amount of required on-site landscaping, or decrease the required open space. (c) Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a design enhancement exception unless it is found that: (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district; (2) The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d); and (3) The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. (d) Conditions In granting design enhancement exceptions, reasonable conditions or restrictions may be imposed if appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purposes of this title. (e) Application Review and Action Applications for a design enhancement exception shall be reviewed and acted upon as set forth in Section 18.77.070 (Architectural Review). ACTION NO. 2019-_ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 1700 AND 1730 EMBARCADERO ROAD: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW, DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (lSPLN-00186) On 2019, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Site and Design Review and a Design Enhancement Exception to allow the demolition of an existing 18,000 square foot vacant restaurant building and a 15, 700 square foot Audi service building to allow construction of a two-story, two building 103,984 square foot automobile dealership that combines two brands (Mercedes/Audi). In approving the application, the Council make the following findings, determination and declarations: ~· Background. A ... 'Lv\e Hutson on behalf of Holman Automotivo/Group, Inc, property owner, has requested the City's aPP.roval of a development project that inclyt:les a zone change for 1700 & 1730 Embarcadero from CS (0) & PC to CS(D)(AD); Site and Design Review, and Design Enhancement Exception to allow for tn demolition of existing structurel·and the construction of a two-story automobile dealership with o separate brands (''The Projec't"). B. The project site in~es two parcels (AP 008-03-084 [2.54 acres] & APN 008-03-066 [2.28 acres]) totaling 4.82 acres in . e. The site is currently developed with an existing single-story 17,942 square foot vacant restauran and a 22,42~ square foot automobile dealership. The site contains and is accessible to existing uti I ies. The site includes an 80-foot utility easement along East Bayshore Road. The site is designated ~n the /Comprehensive Plan land use map as Service Commercial and is located within the Servic Co /mercial (CS) zoning district and Planned Community (PC) zoning district. The project includes the demolition of exi~ ing n-site structures with the exception of the Audi Showroom building and the construction of two n w two-story automobile dealership with service facilities, structured parking and a detach~d car wasli uilding. I C The Planning and /Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed and recommended approval of the Projection March 27, 2019. The Commission's recommendations are contained in CMR #9892 and the attathments to it. D. The Architectu al Review Board (ARB) revie ed and recommended approval of the Project on June 6, 2019. E. On June 24/ 2019, the City Council held a duly ticed public hearing, at which evidence was presented and all person were afforded an opportunity be heard in accordance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Council's Policies and Procedures. F. Concurrent with the adoption of this Record of Land Us Action, the City Council Page 1of30