Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190916plCC 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: 09/16/2019 Document dates: 08/28/2019 – 09/04/2019 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Lorna Shapiro <duckchorus@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 3, 2019 12:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: The facts and liability regarding 5G deployments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379  From: Lorna Shapiro <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com>   Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 12:03 PM  To: Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: The facts and liability regarding 5G deployments  Re: The facts and liability regarding 5G deployments  Dear City Council Representatives,  Being that each of you are my elected representative, this legal notice of liability is designed to be used as evidence in  court, if need be. It is intended to enlighten you and to protect you from attracting civil and criminal liability in relation  to your actions and/or omissions surrounding the deployment of 5G technology within your constituency. 4G/LTE small  cells form an integral part of the 5G deployment. This 5G technology will cause me to be exposed to wireless non‐ ionizing electromagnetic radiation against my consent and in my home.   Contamination of my home with 5G may cause damage to my home if it becomes a health risk to me and thus render  my home uninhabitable. Irradiating me with wireless non‐ionizing electromagnetic radiation against my consent would  be an application of force against my person and which causes fear of bodily injury and could be classed as a civil  trespass and/or a criminal assault.   2 Any level of exposure of man‐made non‐ionizing electromagnetic radiation can be diagnosed by my medical practitioner  as an adverse health effect pursuant to the WHO’s International Classification of Diseases ICD‐10, code W90 thus  rendering any safety limit as set by the government safety standards obsolete as to protecting my health. As needed, I  may see my doctor for advice on the 5G issue.   If 5G technology is deployed within your constituency, I expect that you, as my elected representative, will exercise due  diligence to certify that all parties deploying 5G technologies have sufficient insurance coverage to compensate for  damage or harm caused by the emission of wireless non‐ionizing electromagnetic radiation. Please note that this could  be a problem, since underwriters such as Lloyds of London do not insure for such harm and damage.   I urge you, as my elected official, to act in the public interest by addressing the potential cumulative harms of  densification (the crowding of small cells into a limited area to enable 5G) and insisting that public safety regulatory  authorities need to prove that such densification of 5G technology is safe ... and that any deployment of 5G, Artificial  Intelligence (AI), and/or the Internet of Things (IoT), is regulated appropriately to ensure that the national security and  the safety and privacy of the public and myself is not compromised.  You need to protect the public from other harmful wireless technologies such as Wi‐Fi in schools, “smart” meters on  dwellings, and the like, and to replace those technologies with safe and efficient wired technologies, such as Ethernet  and/or fiber optics, as the end‐nodes of internet delivery systems to dwellings, schools and commercial buildings.  Forward‐thinking cities are already doing this.  I implore you, as my elected official, to act in the public interest by protecting the public and myself from being  persecuted by the passing of laws that restrict the Courts, law enforcement agencies, municipal councils and local  governments from taking action to protect the public from harm to health and damage, caused by 5G and other wireless  technologies.  I am genuinely concerned for your welfare, the general public and mine, and this is a situation of the utmost urgency. I  have studied the relevant facts and am thus aware of the danger. As a result I am in fear and I take the risk of harm and  damage to me very seriously.  To help bring you up to speed on this extremely important topic, please go to the5Gsummit.com, and listen for free to  what 40 highly regarded experts inclusive of scientists, medical practitioners and lawyers from around the world have to  say on the 5G subject. Experts who are not censored by the telecommunications industry, nor their captured  governments, nor the captured media. Further, to assist with your education, please look at the Bio‐initiative Report  2012 (updated 2017) ‐ A Rationale for Biologically‐based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and  RF) bioinitiative.org and Physicians for Safe Technology – 5G Mobile Communications mdsafetech.org.  I implore you as my civic leader, and as my elected representative to get educated on this important topic, and show me  by your decisions, actions and omissions that you are taking precautionary steps to address the risk of harm to me and  all the people within your constituency.   As an elected official I believe you are at risk of being liable if you do not take appropriate action to attempt to abate, or  prevent such harm to me or the public.  Your people are rising up and I implore you to take leadership and be a champion for the health and safety of all of us. If  you do, many voters, legislators and I will wholeheartedly support and campaign for you.  Sincerely,   Lorna Shapiro  duckchorus@gmail.com  1 Brettle, Jessica From:ForestLight <forest129@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 3, 2019 6:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:April 9, 2019 City Council Meeting Agenda Item; Consent Calendar Number 4 ‘Adoption of a Resolution Amending Utilities Rules… Attachments:Kent Mitchell's UAC Letter April 9 Meeting- Agenda IX-1.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  April 9 Special City Council Meeting September 9th, 2019 Re: Agenda Item: Consent Calendar Number 4 ‘Adoption of a Resolution Amending Utilities Rules…’ (For inclusion in the meeting packet) Palo Alto City Council Members: I have just received the City Council agenda notice for Monday September 9. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=43104.44&BlobID=73200 Please exercise your option to remove Consent Calendar item 4 ‘Adoption of a Resolution Amending Utilities Rules’ from the agenda pending further public notice and public hearing and discussion of its various aspects, impacts and implications for Green Acres One and for Palo Alto as a whole. The CPAU have simply changed their “Rules" after the fact and appear to be trying to hide/steamroll changes relevant to our Green Acres One High Voltage Electrical systems issue in a barrage of 17 highly varied Consent Calendar items which will be given a collective total of 5 minutes worth of pro forma consideration before being voted upon — unless three council members request the Consent Calendar item’s removal. Our Green Acres One high voltage electrical utilities issue has been in time-consuming and expensive contention for 1.5 years. Our residents had been given to understand at the April 9 Special UAC meeting, the last time our Green Acres One electrical utilities issue was on the UAC agenda that the UAC commissioners had requested and expected the CPAU to take this topic to the City Council for further discussion of our neighborhood’s unique circumstances and, in particular, open public discussion of the various Palo Alto electrical district’s options to retain their various electrical equipment configurations — including fully underground electrical systems. 2 This issue has NOT been resolved and is a matter of significant public concern. It merits and requires full, detailed public notice and a thorough public hearing. The unique circumstances of the Green Acres One electrical system have been under discussion for 1.5 years, have been the subject of several meetings between representatives of Green Acres One and representatives of the CPAU staff, have been an agenda item in a number of UAC meetings, and have generated a large amount of related documentation and UAC meeting minutes — none of which has been provided to or brought to before the City Council and thereby the concerned and affected public for review. The resolution of our Green Acres One issue will certainly affect 11 or more Palo Alto utilities districts whose electrical services are apparently already fully undergrounded — several of them in Crescent Park, Barron Park, and some in some of the industrial parks — and will undoubtedly set precedents for the city’s various utilities undergrounding programs as a whole. (The CPAU has been reluctant to disclose exactly which districts are going to be affected as their systems are slated for replacement.) At the April 9 meeting it became apparent that the CPAU’s proposed scheme for forcing Green Acres One — which has bought and paid for its fully underground and for other districts which may request that they retain their underground systems, or otherwise ask for variations or exceptions to pad-mounting — to pay for whatever overages the CPAU claimed would be required for such fully underground systems — was entirely unrealistic, wholly unworkable and unacceptable. During this same April 9 meeting it also became apparent that, according to the CPAU’s responses, that the CPAU’s billing and accounting systems were obsolete, inflexible and unworkable for such purposes. April 9, 2019 UAC Meeting Agenda http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70083 Since the April UAC meeting, the UAC has had a Rolling Agenda item to be presented to the City Council that read: "District Option to Retain Underground Electrical Equipment (Green Acres)" The CPAU has never offered any public notice or warning that underground equipment would someday most likely become pad-mounted. I believe that the city is required to give clear prior notice to those affected when it intends to make changes of this order of magnitude. No one in any of the districts that have fully underground transformers, switches and wiring ever realized that their systems would eventually become pad mounted. Most have probably had no real idea where their high voltage equipment is located or what a pad-mounted system is. It also is apparently the case that most if not all the districts with overhead (pole-mounted) systems have been unaware that their electrical service utilities are going to be undergrounded (wiring moved into in underground runs and pad- mounted transformers and switches installed above ground on selected frontages. Nor have most if any of the targeted residents apparently been aware that they are likely to be liable for hefty assessments for such changes — until they receive notice of such projects — and related invoices for same. Instead or bringing this issue to the City Council for open discussion and community engagement and input, the CPAU has clearly decided to try to escape from any further public notification and engagement on the issue or any further review and discussion of possible options and to mandate pad-mounting as the only available option for all new OR replacement systems. Thus trying to deny anyone (including those that will be impacted by this change) any further say in the matter. ____ Rule 3 The most immediate problem with the Rule change proposed in this Consent Calendar item occurs in “Utilities Rule and Regulation 3 (Description of Utility Services) The proposed changes are marked in bold face: 3 “All new and replacement equipment in underground areas required to provide Electric Service to a Customer (shall- deleted) will be pad-mounted. In addition, any three-Phase Electric Service connection and any Electric Service connection rated (at 400 Amps or-deleted) greater than 400 Amps which is located either in an underground or overhead area must be served from a pad-mounted transformer.” In its bland summary of the changes for “Utilities Rule and Regulation 3 (Description of Utility Services) the CPAU staff note reads: “The recommended amendments to Rule 3 offer minor edits to aspects of electric service and equipment requirements.” Which is obviously not the case given the 1.5 years of contention over this issue. And the precedents that may be established for future replacements in various Palo Alto electrical districts — whether fully undergrounded or not. The CPAU has pursued this Consent Calendar steamroller approach: -Without acknowledging or addressing the issues raised by our property owner’s purchased-and-paid for fully underground systems in Green Acres One. Green Acres One property owners, paid to have their wiring, transformers and switches all placed FULLY underground. They are invested in our system and thus are partial owners. This is a documented fact. The CPAU and those that support their position are taking away something that Green Acres one residents OWN. This crucial point is clearly spelled out in the following letter from the Green Acres One attorney, Mr. Kent Mitchell, which was submitted to the UAC prior to the April 9 meeting. (Mr. Mitchell’s April 6, 2019 letter is attached as a separate PDF) ____ Rule 20 Rules and Regulations 20 Attachment L, Section J — Special Facilities will also be changed if this Consent Calendar item is approved. The CPAU has been more or less steadily trying to make their Special Facilities designation/formula (apparently designed for exceptions to the removal of electrical systems from poles) apply to our neighborhood. The CPAU tries claim that our neighborhood has somehow been or should be applying to them for a Special Facility exception. Green Acres One residents have never applied for a Special Facility exception. Green Acres One residents have bought, paid for and OWN their existing system and have been steadily insisting on receiving clear details on systems alternatives and estimates and options on how to keep their system fully underground. ____ The CPAU is pursuing this Consent Calendar steamroller approach: -To specifically ignore and undermine Green Acres One’s unique fully underground high voltage systems ownership circumstances and undermine their efforts to retain their fully underground electrical systems. -Without informing, engaging or otherwise involving the city districts whose electrical systems will be affected by this rule change of the implications of this Rules change. -Without exploring and developing realistic, workable options to permit such districts as wish to keep their systems fully underground mechanisms or seek alternatives to pad-mounted systems to do so. 4 -Without any review of the city’s sporadic, uncoordinated, uneven 30+ years old electrical "utilities undergrounding program." Which is aimed at getting overhead electrical lines and systems off poles — getting the wiring underground…and doing something else, perhaps including pad mounting, with the switches and transformers. Please exercise your option to remove Consent Calendar item 4 ‘Adoption of a Resolution Amending Utilities Rules’ from the agenda pending further public notice and public hearing and discussion of its various aspects, impacts and implications for Green Acres One and for Palo Alto as a whole. Thank you, Michael Maurier Green Acres One Resident and Property Owner _____________ WILLIAM L. McCLURE JOHN L. FLEGEL DAN K. SIEGEL DIANE S. GREENBERG JENNIFER H. FRIEDMAN MINDIE S. ROMANOWSKY DAVID L. ACH GREGORY K. KLINGSPORN NICOLAS A. FLEGEL KRISTINA A. FEN.TON CARA E. SILVER JENNIFER A. BEYERS KIMBERLY B. s'AMEK D. ADAM LAZAR JORGENSON, SIEGEL, McCLURE & FLEGEL, LLP ATTORN.EYS AT LAW 1100 ALMA STREET, SUITE 210 MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 94025-3392 (650) 324-9300 FACSIMILE (650) 324-0227 www.jsmf.com April 6, 2019 Utilities Advisory Commission City of Palo Alto 400 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Commission Meeting April 9, 2019: Agenda Item IX.1-Amendment Rule 20 Dear Commissioners: OF COUNSEL KENT MITCHELL LEIGH F. PRINCE RETIRED JOHN D. JORGENSON MARGARET A. SLOAN DECEASED MARVIN S. SIEGEL (1936 -2012) JOHN R.COSGROVE (1932-2017) In or about 1965 the City adopted a City wide policy for removal of above ground telephone poles, electrical and telephone wires and replace them with underground service facilities. Our clients, Michael Maurier, 646 Fairmede Avenue, Joan Lee, 4220 Los Palos Avenue and Winston Lee, 651 Fairmede Avenue, are homeowners in the Greenacres I neighborhood. Since 1972-73, all of the telephone and electrical service facilities serving their homes have been located underground. Our clients' position is that these underground facilities in their neighborhood, which are City owned facilities, should stay there and be maintained as such by the Utilities Department as a City wide utilities expense. This is not a situation where a special undergrounding privilege is being conferred, but rather one where that privilege already has been conferred and paid for. Additionally it is not a situation where a developer in connection with new construction wants the benefits of undergrounding and must pay for them, or a situation where the residents of the Gr.eenacres I neighborhood have made some "election" to pay extra cost to continue their right to keep their existing underground facilities. These are existing underground facilities that have already been paid for by our clients and their predecessors and unconditionally accepted by the City with no limitations. In 1972, 54 of the 77 property owners in the Greenacres I neighborhood petitioned the City to underground their telephone and electrical facilities in order to enhance the aesthetic appearance of their neighborhood, i.e. an open, less cluttered appearance with no poles, telephone and electrical wires visible above ground. Unlike property owners in Greenacres II who did not want to contribute to the cost of such undergrounding benefits for their neighborhood, the majority of Greenacres I property owners were willing to vote affirmatively to lien their property, i.e. contract with the City, to receive the property value enhancements and benefits undergrounding provides. 1 The proposal to establish Underground District No. 15 for Greenacres I first came before Council in early 1972. At that time two Resolutions were unanimously adopted: Res. Nos. 4566 establishing such District and 4566 entitled "INTENTION TO ACQUIRE AND CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS-GREEN ACRES I UNDERGROUND CONVERSION". Warren Deverel, then the Managing Director of Utilities for the City, indicated that 40% of the cost would be paid by property owners in consideration of the City paying the other60%. Thereafter, on April 10, 1972, the financing was revised by further resolutions. The City agreed to pay 75% and the property owners 25% of the cost of undergrounding, and left the additional costs of underground connections to each homeowner's improvements to be paid for by those homeowners. The 25% share to be paid by Greenacres I owners for the right to have such underground facilities, in 1972 dollars, was approximately $43,000, roughly the equivalent of $286,000 in 2019 dollars per CPI index increases between 1972 and 2019. When the Undergrounding was approved and completed, there was no discussion or indication that this undergrounding privilege was not permanent. Nor was there any indication whatsoever that the City Utilities Department might not be willing to maintain and repair such facilities after they were installed. Instead it ·was clear from the actions taken and resolutions adopted by Council that the City would accept ownership of such underground facilities, with the reasonable and customary expectations that the City would maintain and repair them as such, spreading the cost evenly to all property owners in the City, as it does for other City owned facilities, such as roads, drainage facilities, sewer facilities, and even overhead facilities in other neighborhoods of the City. it was eminently reasonable for Greenacres I owners to expect the same for their undergrounded facilities, given that they paid a substantial sum for such undergrounding privileges and property benefits in the first instance. It is also clear that the undergrounding was touted by the Council, the Utitlities Department and the Greenacres I owners as improvements expected to enhance property values. In his report .to Council at the April 10, 1972, meeting, Mr. Devere! noted "that all properties [in the Greenacres I neighborhood] will benefit from the undergrounding utility district, and that these benefits will take the form of improved aesthetics, improved street lighting and improved reliability." In support of Council's April 1972 Resolution No. 4580 to overrule a few protests to such undergrounding, Councilman Berwald "noted that previous undergrounding projects have upgraded the neighborhood in other areas of the City." At the same meeting, Greenacres I proponents of.the undergrounding indicated they "were desirous of seeing the neighborhood improved by joining in the undergrounding effort." From these comments it is evident that the primary motive of Greenacres I owners in agreeing to pay a substantial share of the costs for enhancements to their property values afforded by undergrounding was the improved.aesthetics of removing unsightly poles and overhead electrical and telephone wires from their neighborhood by such undergrounding. Now, the same Utilities Department that promoted such property value enhancements of undergrounding to get owners to pay for them is asking the UAC to recommend to Council that it require such owners to pay again (and in the future years yet again) for the privilege of retaining the aesthetic ~nd value enhancement benefits of undergrounding which they have already paid for in full. In summary, the position of our clients is that they or their predecessors in interest purchased the right to have underground facilities in their neighborhood, the right to have the City and its Utilities Department maintain those facilities at the City's cost, and that it would be unlawful and a violation of their rights for the City to charge them for the perceived extra cost of maintaining underground facilities 2 as compared to above ground facilities. It would also be a severe breach of good faith and fair dealing for the City"to do so because of its desire to save maintenance money, and thereby deny our clients the financial and aesthetic benefits of undergrounding they contracted and paid for in full. Please make this letter a part of the public record of your hearing on this matter on April 9, 2019, and at any future public hearings related to the matter before you on the Agenda Item referenced above. J;!Jlj#Jf KENT MITCHELL 3 1 Brettle, Jessica From:ForestLight <forest129@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 3, 2019 6:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:April 9, 2019 City Council Meeting Agenda Item; Consent Calendar Number 4 ‘Adoption of a Resolution Amending Utilities Rules… Attachments:Kent Mitchell's UAC Letter April 9 Meeting- Agenda IX-1.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  (For inclusion in meeting packet) Referenced in Michael Maurier's letter regarding the Consent Calendar Item Number 4 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Alex Chite Liu <alexliu@stanford.edu> Sent:Tuesday, September 3, 2019 7:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Remove Item 4 from Sept 9 agenda - underground utilities Attachments:Kent Mitchell's UAC Letter April 9 Meeting- Agenda IX-1.pdf; MMs Letter 4 to City Council.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To: Palo Alto City Council    Briefly, the Green Acres neighborhood of Palo Alto paid out of pocket in the 1970s to have all our utilities  moved underground. Indeed, it seems to be a general goal of the city to underground utilities when possible.    Things have gone very smoothly, and our equipment is up for routine renewal, but CPAU now wants to move  much of the equipment from underground to above ground (PAD mount).     Our neighborhood has been vehemently protesting the absurdity of CPAU's proposal, and we have retained an  attorney to represent us (see attached)    This past April the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) admonished CPAU for trying to steamroll the changes  and directed the CPAU to take the matter to  City Council for guidance.    1. CPAU has totally ignored the UAC directive to ask for guidance from Council to find a solution to our unique situation. 2. CPAU is looking to "pull a fast one" on us AND on the City Council by burying an important change in wording among other changes to their Rules and Regulations. Buried in the wording is a directive that the ONLY option available for new or replacement must be above ground. This change is tucked in with a host of other little changes in an attempt to get a blanket approval from the City Council while escaping from any public review discussion. 3. CPAU has made this move without any opportunity for public input. 4. We ask that Item 4 be removed from the Consent Calendar, and the matter be given an open and public discussion by the City Council 5. The overwhelming majority in our neighborhood want to keep our equipment underground, as this has already been conferred and paid for by the residents decades ago. Attached: Letter from attorney Kent Mitchell, who the neighborhood has retained to represent us Letter from resident Michael Maurier giving more details. 2 Thank you for your kind attention Alexander Liu, MD       April 9 Special City Council Meeting September 9th, 2019 Re: Agenda Item: Consent Calendar Number 4 ‘Adoption of a Resolution Amending Utilities Rules…’ Palo Alto City Council Members: I have just received the City Council agenda notice for Monday September 9. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=43104.44&BlobID=73200 Please exercise your option to remove Consent Calendar item 4 ‘Adoption of a Resolution Amending Utilities Rules’ from the agenda pending further public notice and public hearing and discussion of its various aspects, impacts and implications for Green Acres One and for Palo Alto as a whole. The CPAU have simply changed their “Rules" after the fact and appear to be trying to hide/steamroll changes relevant to our Green Acres One High Voltage Electrical systems issue in a barrage of 17 highly varied Consent Calendar items which will be given a collective total of 5 minutes worth of pro forma consideration before being voted upon — unless three council members request the Consent Calendar item’s removal. Our Green Acres One high voltage electrical utilities issue has been in time-consuming and expensive contention for 1.5 years. Our residents had been given to understand at the April 9 Special UAC meeting, the last time our Green Acres One electrical utilities issue was on the UAC agenda that the UAC commissioners had requested and expected the CPAU to take this topic to the City Council for further discussion of our neighborhood’s unique circumstances and, in particular, open public discussion of the various Palo Alto electrical district’s options to retain their various electrical equipment configurations — including fully underground electrical systems. This issue has NOT been resolved and is a matter of significant public concern. It merits and requires full, detailed public notice and a thorough public hearing. The unique circumstances of the Green Acres One electrical system have been under discussion for 1.5 years, have been the subject of several meetings between representatives of Green Acres One and representatives of the CPAU staff, have been an agenda item in a number of UAC meetings, and have generated a large amount of related documentation and UAC meeting minutes — none of which has been provided to or brought to before the City Council and thereby the concerned and affected public for review. The resolution of our Green Acres One issue will certainly affect 11 or more Palo Alto utilities districts whose electrical services are apparently already fully undergrounded — several of them in Crescent Park, Barron Park, and some in some of the industrial parks — and will undoubtedly set precedents for the city’s various utilities undergrounding programs as a whole. (The CPAU has been reluctant to disclose exactly which districts are going to be affected as their systems are slated for replacement.) At the April 9 meeting it became apparent that the CPAU’s proposed scheme for forcing Green Acres One — which has bought and paid for its fully underground and for other districts which may request that they retain their underground systems, or otherwise ask for variations or exceptions to pad-mounting — to pay for whatever overages the CPAU claimed would be required for such fully underground systems — was entirely unrealistic, wholly unworkable and unacceptable. During this same April 9 meeting it also became apparent that, according to the CPAU’s responses, that the CPAU’s billing and accounting systems were obsolete, inflexible and unworkable for such purposes. April 9, 2019 UAC Meeting Agenda http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70083 Since the April UAC meeting, the UAC has had a Rolling Agenda item to be presented to the City Council that read: "District Option to Retain Underground Electrical Equipment (Green Acres)" The CPAU has never offered any public notice or warning that underground equipment would someday most likely become pad-mounted. I believe that the city is required to give clear prior notice to those affected when it intends to make changes of this order of magnitude. No one in any of the districts that have fully underground transformers, switches and wiring ever realized that their systems would eventually become pad mounted. Most have probably had no real idea where their high voltage equipment is located or what a pad-mounted system is. It also is apparently the case that most if not all the districts with overhead (pole-mounted) systems have been unaware that their electrical service utilities are going to be undergrounded (wiring moved into in underground runs and pad-mounted transformers and switches installed above ground on selected frontages. Nor have most if any of the targeted residents apparently been aware that they are likely to be liable for hefty assessments for such changes — until they receive notice of such projects — and related invoices for same. Instead or bringing this issue to the City Council for open discussion and community engagement and input, the CPAU has clearly decided to try to escape from any further public notification and engagement on the issue or any further review and discussion of possible options and to mandate pad-mounting as the only available option for all new OR replacement systems. Thus trying to deny anyone (including those that will be impacted by this change) any further say in the matter. ____ Rule 3 The most immediate problem with the Rule change proposed in this Consent Calendar item occurs in “Utilities Rule and Regulation 3 (Description of Utility Services) The proposed changes are marked in bold face: “All new and replacement equipment in underground areas required to provide Electric Service to a Customer (shall-deleted) will be pad-mounted. In addition, any three-Phase Electric Service connection and any Electric Service connection rated (at 400 Amps or-deleted) greater than 400 Amps which is located either in an underground or overhead area must be served from a pad- mounted transformer.” In its bland summary of the changes for “Utilities Rule and Regulation 3 (Description of Utility Services) the CPAU staff note reads: “The recommended amendments to Rule 3 offer minor edits to aspects of electric service and equipment requirements.” Which is obviously not the case given the 1.5 years of contention over this issue. And the precedents that may be established for future replacements in various Palo Alto electrical districts — whether fully undergrounded or not. The CPAU has pursued this Consent Calendar steamroller approach: -Without acknowledging or addressing the issues raised by our property owner’s purchased-and-paid for fully underground systems in Green Acres One. Green Acres One property owners, paid to have their wiring, transformers and switches all placed FULLY underground. They are invested in our system and thus are partial owners. This is a documented fact. The CPAU and those that support their position are taking away something that Green Acres one residents OWN. This crucial point is clearly spelled out in the following letter from the Green Acres One attorney, Mr. Kent Mitchell, which was submitted to the UAC prior to the April 9 meeting. (Mr. Mitchell’s April 6, 2019 letter is attached as a PDF) ____ Rule 20 Rules and Regulations 20 Attachment L, Section J — Special Facilities will also be changed if this Consent Calendar item is approved. The CPAU has been more or less steadily trying to make their Special Facilities designation/formula (apparently designed for exceptions to the removal of electrical systems from poles) apply to our neighborhood. The CPAU tries claim that our neighborhood has somehow been or should be applying to them for a Special Facility exception. Green Acres One residents have never applied for a Special Facility exception. Green Acres One residents have bought, paid for and OWN their existing system and have been steadily insisting on receiving clear details on systems alternatives and estimates and options on how to keep their system fully underground. ____ The CPAU is pursuing this Consent Calendar steamroller approach: -To specifically ignore and undermine Green Acres One’s unique fully underground high voltage systems ownership circumstances and undermine their efforts to retain their fully underground electrical systems. -Without informing, engaging or otherwise involving the city districts whose electrical systems will be affected by this rule change of the implications of this Rules change. -Without exploring and developing realistic, workable options to permit such districts as wish to keep their systems fully underground mechanisms or seek alternatives to pad-mounted systems to do so. -Without any review of the city’s sporadic, uncoordinated, uneven 30+ years old electrical "utilities undergrounding program." Which is aimed at getting overhead electrical lines and systems off poles — getting the wiring underground…and doing something else, perhaps including pad mounting, with the switches and transformers. Please exercise your option to remove Consent Calendar item 4 ‘Adoption of a Resolution Amending Utilities Rules’ from the agenda pending further public notice and public hearing and discussion of its various aspects, impacts and implications for Green Acres One and for Palo Alto as a whole. Thank you, Michael Maurier Green Acres One Resident and Property Owner _____________ 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Nancy <nstein@sonic.net> Sent:Tuesday, September 3, 2019 8:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:Item 4 on the Consent Calendar/Green Acres I CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members,  CPAU is proposing that you adopt recommendations amending Utilities Rules and Regulations in your packet on Sept. 9th. I and  many of my neighbors are asking that you do NOT approve these changes until there has been sufficient public discussion about  their impact.  Specifically, the introductory summary of all the Rules and Regulations describes Rule 3 as needing only "minor edits"  (pg. 19).  That edit is anything but "minor" to our Green Acres I neighborhood.  For about a year and a half, we have been attending UAC meetings to present our case:  Green Acres I neighborhood has all electric  utilities underground.  In 1972, our neighborhood was assessed fees for placing transformers and switches underground.  The city  paid for all the electric wires to be placed underground, but if we also wanted all our transformers and switches placed  underground, the city was requiring Green Acres I to pay for that service.  Our neighborhood agreed to the terms, and it was the  understanding of neighbors that this installation was permanent.   Over the many decades, there have been no warnings or  demands of any additional payments for future upkeep and/or replacement.  Due to the fact that Green Acres I paid to have  transformers and switches installed underground, we expect to continue to retain them there.   Therefore, it was a shock to us to learn that not only did CPAU want to pad mount all our transformers and switches in Green Acres  I, these boxes were to increase in size and be placed prominently at the front of the designated properties.  Through our attendance  of UAC meetings and discussions with CPAU, we learned that CPAU pointed to Rule and Regulation 3 as key to their authority and  right to pad mount our equipment.  Furthermore, in an exchange of emails with CPAU, we learned that this Rule 3 was changed in 1996 and also amended at different  times since then.  We were told that "standards have evolved."  However, we were never informed.  Indeed, the 1996 change does  not address our situation and is open to interpretation.  Most likely, the intent in 1996 was not to affect our neighborhood.  There  were no objections and/or questions at the city council meeting at that time. That speaks volumes that there were no discussions  pertaining to how this reversal in policy, if indeed that were the intent, would affect neighborhoods who have underground  equipment to change to pad mounts.    However, the current so called "minor edit" is  the word "replacement," and this final edit is the one that will aversely affect our  neighborhood and targets districts with underground equipment.  This is being done without ever notifying affected districts of this  major reversal in policy, and this is counter to UAC's counsel.  Furthermore, at the last UAC meeting, the commissioners instructed  CPAU to openly discuss our concerns first before taking any action.  Despite the fact that we are on the City Council's Rolling  Calendar for this month listed there as "District Option to Retain Underground Electrical Equipment (Green Acres), CPAU is ignoring  the instructions of the UAC and the requests of Green Acres neighbors to first have this topic openly discussed and addressed at City  Counsel before any action is taken.    Please remove Item 4 from the Consent Calendar.      Sincerely,     Nancy Steinbach  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ning Mosberger-Tang <ning.mosberger@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 3, 2019 8:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:Regarding Green Acres 1 Utility Placement CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council Members:     I am a homeowner in Green Acres 1. I'm writing to request the following item to be removed from the Consent  Calendar:    Special City Council Meeting  September 9th, 2019  Consent Calendar Number 4  ‘Adoption of a Resolution Amending Utilities Rules...’    A few years ago, we invested a lot of time and resource to design and build a house that will blend into the surrounding environment. We are strongly against CPAU's plan to move the switches and transformers above the ground in our neighborhood. It'll be aesthetically devastating with potential negative impact on the property value. We're also concerned about health issues for our children due to EMF radiation and noise pollution with a close proximity to an above ground switch box. The neighborhood invested in our underground system early on - the cost of which already factored into the price we paid for the property - and I think it's unfair to replace that with an above ground system without neighborhood consent.    We have learned that CPAU has ignored neighborhood input as well as the UAC directive for them to ask for guidance from Council on this matter. Instead, they're trying to sidestep the scrutiny of the City Council through the Consent Calendar item listed above. Please stop CPAU's egregious behavior by removing the item from the Consent Calendar.    Thank you!    Ning Mosberger-Tang  647 Glenbrook Dr.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:NTB <aarmatt@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 3, 2019 9:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:City Council Meeting, September 9: Regarding Consent Calendar Item 4 - CPAU changes to Rules and Regulations CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth and Council Members, Based on the directive given by the UAC to the CPAU at their April 9, 2019 meeting, I, along with many of my fellow residents in GreenAcres 1, have been waiting for when our utilities situation would be put before you. It has been on your rolling calendar for months under the heading: "District Option to Retain Underground Electrical Equipment (GreenAcres)" This was to be our opportunity to come before you to explain the unique situation that exists in GreenAcres 1 and to seek your guidance in coming up with an appropriate solution. This was the UAC's directive to the CPAU, to properly bring our situation before Council. Imagine our surprise, and dismay, to read in the Council meeting agenda for September 9, the CPAU's Consent Calendar proposal (Item 4) that, hidden amongst a myriad of other changes to their Rules and Regulations, there was a change in wording that would effectively deny us the opportunity to be heard. By a sleight of hand, the CPAU looks to silence us......just by the addition of one word - "replacement." If they succeed in this change, the UAC's directive will have been ignored and our right to a fair hearing will have been denied. All this was done without ever informing us. If you approve the changes to the CPAU Rules and Regulations 3 (Description of Utilities Services) listed as part of Consent Calendar #4, you will have unwittingly approved the CPAU's attempt to deny us due process in having our utilities situation heard. The fact of the matter is, in 1972, the homeowners of GreenAcres 1 paid to have all the transformers and switch boxes put underground at the same time as the CPAU was putting our electrical wires underground. Had we not paid for the substructures, we would most likely have had pad mounted equipment as was being done in other districts. But we did pay. We invested in our system and now have a vested interest in our system. That makes our situation unique. Because of the unique nature of our situation, there needs to be a unique solution. Please remove the CPAU Item 4 from the Consent Calendar vote to allow the fair and proper vetting of our unique situation. Thank you. Sincerely, Nina Bell GreenAcres 1 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Y Fang <yfang00@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 3, 2019 10:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:please remove Consent Calendar item 4 from City Council agenda for Monday September 9 Attachments:MMs Letter 4 to City Council.pdf; Kent Mitchell's UAC Letter April 9 Meeting- Agenda IX-1.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council Members,     My name is Yu Fang. I am a homeowner in the Green Acres One neighborhood in Palo Alto.    I strongly urge you to please exercise your option to remove Consent Calendar item 4 'Adoption of a Resolution  Amending Utilities Rules' from the City Council agenda for Monday September 9 pending further public notice and public  hearing and discussion of its various aspects, impacts and implications for Green Acres One and for Palo Alto as a whole.   I fully agree with the letter (attached) written by our neighbor Michael Maurier, and the letter (attached) from Green  Acres One attorney, Mr. Kent Mitchell regarding this matter.    Thank you,    Yu Fang  Green Acres One Resident and Property Owner      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Lin Liu <ludan00@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 3, 2019 10:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:please remove Consent Calendar item 4 from City Council agenda for Monday September 9 Attachments:MMs Letter 4 to City Council.pdf; Kent Mitchell's UAC Letter April 9 Meeting- Agenda IX-1.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council Members,     My name is Lin Liu. I am a homeowner in the Green Acres One neighborhood in Palo Alto.    I would like to ask you to please exercise your option to remove Consent Calendar item 4 'Adoption of a Resolution  Amending Utilities Rules' from the City Council agenda for Monday September 9 pending further public notice and  public hearing and discussion of its various aspects, impacts and implications for Green Acres One and for Palo Alto as  a whole.    Regarding the details about this matter, I fully agree with the letter (attached) written by our neighbor Michael Maurier,  and the letter (attached) from Green Acres One attorney, Mr. Kent Mitchell.    Thank you,    Lin Liu  Green Acres One Resident and Property Owner    1 Brettle, Jessica From:w lee <filet1mignon@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 3, 2019 10:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:April 9 Special City Council Meeting Attachments:MMs Letter 4 to City Council.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council Members,     CPAU was tasked by the UAC at the April 9, 2019 Special UAC meeting to discuss with City Council regarding Green Acre  One's unique High Voltage Electrical system configuration situation and open public discussions regarding multiple Palo  Alto electrical districts' options to retain their equipment configurations, including fully underground systems.     We were fully expecting CPAU to discuss these matters with City Council. Instead they tried to sneak their will into  regulation without resolving the issues. I totally concur with the contents of Michael Maurier's letter, attached, written  to you regarding this matter.     I was assured by Ed Shikada in an email (complete email can be provided upon request) written on April 8, 2018 that we  will not be forced to host surface mounted transformers. ‐ " I (Ed) would definitely like you to know that we are not  trying to push this forward over the objections of residents.". The truth is quite the opposite.     In light of these actions by CPAU, I respectfully ask the City Council remove Consent Calendar item 4 ‘Adoption of a  Resolution Amending Utilities Rules’ from the agenda so agreeable solutions can be found before action is taken.     Thank you,    Winston Lee  Green Acre One Resident and Property Owner  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Frankie Farhat <farhat_101@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 4, 2019 9:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Request to Remove Consent Calendar Item 4 off the Special Meeting Agenda on 09/09/2019 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members,  I am reaching out to you to ask you to remove Consent Calendar Item 4 from the agenda for the City Council Special  Meeting scheduled for Monday September 9 at 5pm.  The reasons for such removal were provided in a letter sent to you by Mr. Michael Maurier on September 3, 2019.  Rather than quoting or paraphrasing him, I simply prefer to state that I am in full support of his opinion and arguments  and ask that my email to be part of your public records .  I would also like to use this opportunity to voice out my concerns over the tactics used by the CPAU since they  announced their intent to replace Green Acres 1's underground utility equipment with pad‐mounted equipment in  March 2018:  ‐ CPAU has totally ignored the UAC directive to ask for guidance from Council to find a solution to our unique situation.  ‐ CPAU is trying to get a “minor wording change approved in their Rules and Regulations to avoid having to face and  respond to the MAJOR implications that this wording change would have for our neighborhood.  ‐ CPAU has made this move without informing the public and permitting public discourse.  By taking Item 4 off the agenda this coming Monday, you will give me the reassurance that Palo Altans are still  represented by Council Members who take our opinions into consideration, and not by administrators who totally  disregard a public discourse. I hope this plea will be heard by you and at least 2 other council members.  Thank you very much for your consideration and attention to this matter.  Frankie Farhat  {REDACTED} 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Diane Baldwin <dianebaldwin@icloud.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 4, 2019 9:50 AM To:Council, City Subject:Underground utilities CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________  I am writing to ask you to please remove item #4 from the Consent Calendar.  I agree with Michael Maurier’s assessment  of the situation regarding the utility company’s continued effort to place pad mount boxes on our properties here in  green acres 1.  I have enjoyed 41 years in this neighborhood and it is very disappointing to see how the utility company  has continued ignoring our wishes and tried this end run maneuver to avoid working with us.  Thank you for your attention  Diane Baldwin  {REDACTED} Sent from my iPad  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Joon Lee <jslee0@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 4, 2019 9:57 AM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Agenda Item: Consent Calendar Number 4 - 'Adoption of a Resolution Amending Utilities Rules' Attachments:MMs Letter 4 to City Council.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,     My name is Joon Lee and I am a Green Acres One resident and property owner. My neighbor, Michael Maurier wrote  attached letter requesting that Item 4 be removed from the Consent Calendar. I'm fully supportive of his statement.  Your kind consideration would be appreciated.    Sincerely,    Joon Lee  Green Acres One Resident and Property Owner       ‐‐   Joon S. Lee  jslee0@gmail.com  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Stella Hearn <stellahearn@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Wednesday, September 4, 2019 12:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Utilities regulations changes CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________  The City of Palo Alto Utilities department has ignored the advice of the Utilities Advisory Commission to present options  regarding replacement of existing underground electrical transformers and switches to above ground pad mount  systems. Instead they are proposing changes in the WORDING of the regulations making pad replacement the ONLY  available option for new and REPLACEMENT systems. Greenacres 1 residents paid for our underground systems (which  have been very reliable for over 40 years).  The proposed CPAU regulations effectively deny us any say in this matter,  even though we are partial owners in our system.  A large number of residents in Greenacres 1 are opposed to  replacement of the underground system for  numerous reasons, including safety and aesthetics.  This is an attempt to  alter something that we own without public input.  Please do not allow blanket approval of the proposed regulations.  Thank you,  Stella Hearn  {REDACTED} Palo Alto, CA 94306  T  Sent from my iPad  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kelly Spoon <kelly@dreamsforchange.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 3, 2019 9:42 AM To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking Workshop Attachments:Bay Area Safe Parking Workshop.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members,    Dreams for Change is a non‐profit based in San Diego that has been operating Safe Parking for nearly 10 years. With the  growing homelessness crisis and the population of vehicular homelessness exploding, many leaders have reached out to  my CEO as she developed the best practice model in the country. We have decided to bring our expertise to your  community to provide a workshop to give everyone the information they need to operate safe parking in their  communities. This program does NOT need to cost a lot, and many cities are throwing too much money at the  issue.  Here is a link to our event. We are charging a fee, but this will be covering our costs. Please feel free to share with  anyone you think will be interested. If you know of faith‐based groups that have parking lots, they are a wonderful group  to get involved. https://www.eventbrite.com/e/bay‐area‐safe‐parking‐workshop‐tickets‐70561267651         Kelly J. Spoon  Development Director   Dreams for Change   www.dreamsforchange.org  Cell +1‐619‐871‐8225    To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.     SPACE IS LIMITED Must RSVP Contact Kelly@DreamsforChange.org BAY AREA SAFE PARKING WORKSHOP Thursday, October 10, 2019 Check in time 8:30am Workshop 9:00 am to 4:00 pm (Lunch Provided) Cost $200 per person / Early Bird $175 before September 15th The Center for Healthy Communities 2000 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612 Dreams for Change’s Founder and CEO Dr. Teresa Smith has been providing Safe Parking for 9 years. She along with other experts on Safe Parking will cover the different Safe Parking Program Models used around California, programing, logistics, running a program if you provide early education, and interacting with community and government, and ways to engage with helping families that find themselves homeless and living in their vehicle. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:robell <robell999@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, August 31, 2019 2:10 PM To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Old Palo Alto RPP CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am a resident of Palo Alto. I frequently go to visit my relative who lives in Old Palo Alto on Emerson St. I go during the daytime because I am a senior citizen and do not drive at night. It is very difficult to find a parking place near my relative because the street parking places are filled with Caltrain commuters. This is quite hard on me because I cannot walk very far. I urge you to proceed with the Nov. 1 implementation of the Old Palo Alto RPP program! Yours truly, Andrew Robell 850 Webster St., Palo Alto 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 31, 2019 7:39 PM To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Parking in Old Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members,  We live on North California Ave, between High and Emerson streets.   During the day it is virtually impossible to park in  front of our house due to all the people who park here and walk to work or the train.   Please approve the Old Palo Alto RPP so that we can enjoy our streets once again and our visitors can park close to our  houses.  More importantly, it has become dangerous for us ‐‐ North California is the main through‐fare for many bikers, including  tween kids traveling to and from Green Middle School twice a day.  Backing out of our driveway when cars are bumper  to bumper in front our our house is nerve racking.  I am concerned I won't see a biker due to the parked cars.  Our neighborhood has an 89% approval of this RPP, which shows our very strong desire to rectify this problem.    We  have done everything the city has requested, followed the municipal code, and we hope you will approve it so that we  may begin the pilot November 1st.  Thank you,  Ann & Andy Protter  {REDACTED}, Palo Alto  1 Brettle, Jessica From:geetha srikantan <gsrikantan@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, August 31, 2019 2:23 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; geetha srikantan Subject:407 Lytton Ave - CUP concerns and alternate proposal Attachments:407LyttonLetterToPTC.pdf; 01272017_YahooMail_Re_ 407_Lytton Ave - ABC Application.pdf; 08012019_CityNotice_1.jpeg; 08012019_CityNotice_2.jpeg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  From Dr. Geetha Srikantan 385 Waverley Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Date: August 31,2019 Dear Planning and Transportation Commissioners, City Officials, This is regarding a notice I received from the City of Palo Alto, on August 1, decision that the city has made to Tentatively approve with conditions the beer and wine at the indoor and existing outdoor rear patio of cuisine at 407 Lytton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301. My home at 385 Waverley Street is adjacent to 407 Lytton Ave, the side yard shares a fence with 407 Lytton Ave and my and kitchen/dining area are 10.6 feet of the existing rear outdoor patio of 407 Lytton Ave. 1. Negative Impact on Peaceful Residential Environment In the past year or so, the noise level has increased substantially, in the rear patio of 407 Lytton Ave. Restaurant clientele are present in this rear patio, during mealtimes – that is lunch 11am – 3pm and dinner 5pm – 10pm. Occasionally, the clientele includes large and/or noisy groups, which causes the noise level to rise substantially. The occupants and operators of this property have been using this rear patio for a range of activities - construction, repair, cleaning, heavy chopping, cooking – during hours of the day and night, much before and much after the hours of operation of the restaurant. This has been an intrusion on the quality of home life for myself, family and house-guests. This has an undesired impact on sleep, peaceful environment in the hours when people are back from from work on weekdays, and on the weekends. Adding alcohol service at 407 Lytton in the rear outdoor patio, would only make the noise situation worse. I am also concerned about health and safety of having alcohol service in the rear patio – as the handling of glass containers and serving cups/glasses and continuous alcohol odors during the day and night – would be an additional intrusion on my residence as well as that of neighbors. Consider also the possibility of inebriation of clients and any damage resulting from this – to people or property – at either rear patio of 407 Lytton or my or a neighbor’s residence. 2 2. Past Behavior From my observations over these past few years, operators of the restaurant have not been respectful or in compliance with City rules on permitted hours for construction and repair activity – there have been many occasions when work went past the permitted hours, and I have on occasion had to go over to speak to the manager. There are also loud conversations late into the evening, during the cleaning and other activities, after the restaurant is closed.Given past behavior, and lack of compliance with City rules and regulations, there is no reason to believe that the operators are capable of operating within City rules and regulations. 3. Procedural Issues I received the notice from the City (attached: City Notice 1 and 2) on August 1, 2019, it is post-marked July 29, 2019. I emailed and spoke to Emily Foley, mentioned as the contact person in the Notice, on August 2, 2019 – and learnt that August 2, 2019 was the last day to file for a hearing, as the 14-day period was ending that day. It appears that Notices were not sent properly with sufficient notice to the neighbors. This, by itself, should be grounds to invalidate any approval granted by the city. 4. Previous Communication Note the previous communication on this matter, in January 2017 - where the occupants of 407 Lytton Ave had filed for a similar permit and the city had responded that there is no further response since January 27, 2017 (attached: 01272017_YahooMail). 5. Proposed Resolution I am strongly opposed to the service of any alcohol - beer or wine - on the existing rear outdoor patio at 407 Lytton Ave, during the day and evening, every day, would seriously impact the peaceful enjoyment of residential spaces adjacent to this restaurant. Per ABC licensing rules, ABC would not license a new retail location within 100 feet of a residence unless the applicant can establish that the operation of the proposed premises will not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the property by residents. (Section 23789 and Rule 61.4). Refer https://www.abc.ca.gov/licensing/frequently-asked-questions/ I respectfully urge the city to 1. Cancel any past approval for service of alcoholic beverages in the rear outdoor patio at 407 Lytton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 – for the reasons mentioned above. 2. Limit the use of the rear patio, for all restaurant activities to: 9am - 8pm, Monday to Friday 10am – 6pm Saturday and Sunday 3. Identify the mechanism for city enforcement of the above and communicate to myself and neighbors in a timely manner. 4. Identify who is responsible in the city to receive complaints, what details need to be provided, contact information for the same – to make this available to myself and neighbors in a timely manner. 3 Thank you, Yours sincerely, Dr. Geetha Srikantan From Date: August 28,2019 Dr. Geetha Srikantan 385 Waverley Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Planning and Transportion Commissioners, This is regarding a notice I received from the City of Palo Alto, on August 1, about a decision that the city has made to Tentatively approve with conditions the sale of beer and wine at the indoor and existing outdoor rear patio of Bangkok cuisine at 407 Lytton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301. My home at 385 Waverley Street is adjacent to 407 Lytton Ave, the side yard shares a fence with 407 Lytton Ave and my and kitchen/dining area are 10.6 feet of the existing rear outdoor patio of 407 Lytton Ave. 1. Negative Impact on Peaceful Residential Environment In the past year or so, the noise level has increased substantially, in the rear patio of 407 Lytton Ave. Restaurant clientele are present in this rear patio, during mealtimes – that is lunch 11am – 3pm and dinner 5pm – 10pm. Occasionally, the clientele includes large and/or noisy groups, which causes the noise level to rise substantially. The occupants and operators of this property have been using this rear patio for a range of activities - construction, repair, cleaning, heavy chopping, cooking – during hours of the day and night, much before and much after the hours of operation of the restaurant. This has been an intrusion on the quality of home life for myself, family and house-guests. This has an undesired impact on sleep, peaceful environment in the hours when people are back from from work on weekdays, and on the weekends. Adding alcohol service at 407 Lytton in the rear outdoor patio, would only make the noise situation worse. I am also concerned about health and safety of having alcohol service in the rear patio – as the handling of glass containers and serving cups/glasses and continuous alcohol odors during the day and night – would be an additional intrusion on my residence as well as that of neighbors. Consider also the possibility of inebriation of clients and any damage resulting from this – to people or property – at either rear patio of 407 Lytton or my or a neighbor’s residence. 2. Past Behavior From my observations over these past few years, operators of the restaurant have not been respectful or in compliance with City rules on permitted hours for construction and repair activity – there have been many occasions when work went past the permitted hours, and I have on occasion had to go over to speak to the manager. There are also loud conversations late into the evening, during the cleaning and other activities, after the restaurant is closed. Given past behavior, and lack of compliance with City rules and regulations, there is no reason to believe that the operators are capable of operating within City rules and regulations. 3. Procedural Issues I received the notice from the City (attached: City Notice 1 and 2) on August 1, 2019, it is post-marked July 29, 2019. I emailed and spoke to Emily Foley, mentioned as the contact person in the Notice, on August 2, 2019 – and learnt that August 2, 2019 was the last day to file for a hearing, as the 14-day period was ending that day. It appears that Notices were not sent properly with sufficient notice to the neighbors. This, by itself, should be grounds to invalidate any approval granted by the city. 4. Previous Communication Note the previous communication on this matter, in January 2017 - where the occupants of 407 Lytton Ave had filed for a similar permit and the city had responded that there is no further response since January 27, 2017 (01272017_YahooMail). 5.Proposed Resolution I am strongly opposed to the service of any alcohol - beer or wine - on the existing rear outdoor patio at 407 Lytton Ave, during the day and evening, every day, would seriously impact the peaceful enjoyment of residential spaces adjacent to this restaurant. Per ABC licensing rules, ABC would not license a new retail location within 100 feet of a residence unless the applicant can establish that the operation of the proposed premises will not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the property by residents. (Section 23789 and Rule 61.4). Refer https://www.abc.ca.gov/licensing/frequently-asked-questions/ I respectfully urge the city to 1. Cancel any past approval for service of alcoholic beverages in the rear outdoor patio at 407 Lytton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 – for the reasons mentioned above. 2. Limit the use of the rear patio, for all restaurant activities to: 9am - 8pm, Monday to Friday 10am – 6pm Saturday and Sunday 3. Identify the mechanism for city enforcement of the above and communicate to myself and neighbors in a timely manner. 4. Identify who is responsible in the city to receive complaints, what details need to be provided, contact information for the same – to make this available to myself and neighbors in a timely manner. Thank you, Yours sincerely, Dr. Geetha Srikantan 8/2/2019 Yahoo Mail - Re: ^_407^_ ^_Lytton^_ Ave - ABC Application 1/4 Re: ^_407^_ ^_Lytton^_ Ave - ABC Application From:geetha srikantan (gsrikantan@yahoo.com) To:Phillip.Brennan@CityofPaloAlto.org Cc:Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org Date:Friday, January 27, 2017, 11:06 PM PST Hello Phillip, I appreciate your following up on this. Will stay tuned for what you find out. thanks gs From: "Brennan, Phillip" <Phillip.Brennan@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: geetha srikantan <gsrikantan@yahoo.com> Cc: "Gerhardt, Jodie" <Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 12:51 PM Subject: RE: 407 Lytton Ave - ABC Application Hello Geetha, Thank you for your email. I’ve looked in our system for any Condition Use Permit (entitlement needed for the sale of alcohol in Palo Alto) on file for this address but do not find any applications that would be related to this. In researching the ABC license I do see the owner (Rachogan) appears to have applied for a beer & wine license back in mid-September of last year, but the status of the application is pending. As we discussed previously, part of the requirements before issuance of a license by the ABC is that the applicant obtain the necessary entitlement(s) from the city in which the business is located. I will try to contact the applicant/business owner to investigate the matter further. I will update you once I receive new information. Best- Phillip B. From: geetha srikantan [mailto:gsrikantan@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 8:42 AM To: Gerhardt, Jodie Cc: Brennan, Phillip; Geetha Srikantan Subject: Re: 407 Lytton Ave - ABC Application Dear Jodie, Phillip, I've looked for developments at the two links you sent and do not see anything associated with 407 Lytton Ave. It would appear that they are not changing anything specific in the building, instead have applied for this ABC permit (which is posted on their facade as well). 8/2/2019 Yahoo Mail - Re: ^_407^_ ^_Lytton^_ Ave - ABC Application 2/4 I received a letter on 1/18/2017 from the California State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control about my protest letter I'd sent on 10/12/2016. The letter asks me to sign and return a protestant's declaration by 1/30/2017. I've signed and mailed the document by Certified mail, yesterday. Am attaching copies of these for your records as well (and mailing in hardcopies as well). thanks geetha From: "Gerhardt, Jodie" <Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: geetha srikantan <gsrikantan@yahoo.com> Cc: "Brennan, Phillip" <Phillip.Brennan@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 11:01 AM Subject: RE: 407 Lytton Ave - ABC Application Geetha, Phillip is correct that all Planning applications will show in Building Eye. This happens automatically within 24 hours of submittal. Here is a link to the Planning Division version of Building Eye - https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning You are not required to log into the website, but doing so will give you the option of receiving proactive emails when new applications are submitted. If you are interested in Building permits, they have a separate Beta version of Building Eye - https://paloaltodemo.buildingeye.com/building/ Jodie Gerhardt, AICP | Manager of Current Planning | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2575 |E: jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org From: Brennan, Phillip Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 9:37 AM To: geetha srikantan Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie Subject: Re: 407 Lytton Ave - ABC Application Hi Geetha, BuildingEye will reflect any building or planning entitlement applications that are on file with the City, including a CUP. Feel free to contact me with any further related questions. Best- Phillip B. 8/2/2019 Yahoo Mail - Re: ^_407^_ ^_Lytton^_ Ave - ABC Application 3/4 On Oct 21, 2016, at 7:47 AM, geetha srikantan <gsrikantan@yahoo.com> wrote: Good morning, Thank you for your responses. I will lookout for a CUP notification about this Regarding the BuildingEye website: Since this restaurant has been in operation for several years now, am not sure if they're changing anything in the building per-se, or looking to change the beverage selection and audio/visual entertainment. If it is not the building itself, would these changes be tracked on BuildingEye? thanks so much, geetha From: "Brennan, Phillip" <Phillip.Brennan@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: "gsrikantan@yahoo.com" <gsrikantan@yahoo.com> Cc: "Gerhardt, Jodie" <Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 4:24 PM Subject: RE: 407 Lytton Ave - ABC Application Hello Dr. Srikantan: Thank you for contact the City to voice your concerns. The Department of Alcohol Beverage and Control requires applicants receive any necessary permit(s) from their local jurisdiction before issuance of a alcohol license. The City of Palo Alto requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for on- sale license to sell alcoholic beverages in permitted zoning districts. I have found no CUP application on file with the City for this property at this time. Please note, if a CUP application is filed, property owners within 600 feet of the subject property are notified by mail as part of the CUP review and determination process and are encouraged to contact the designated contact with questions or concerns. You can utilize our BuildingEye website (sign up required) to monitor any planning related development for this property. Please feel free to contact me with any related questions. Best- Phillip B. 650.329.2493 From: Gerhardt, Jodie Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 4:56 PM To: Brennan, Phillip; geetha srikantan (gsrikantan@yahoo.com) Subject: FW: 407 Lytton Ave - ABC Application Geetha, Thank you for your email. I have asked Phillip (Associate Planner) to look into this for you. He will get back to both of us early next week. <image00 8/2/2019 Yahoo Mail - Re: ^_407^_ ^_Lytton^_ Ave - ABC Application 4/4 1.jpg>Jodie Gerhardt, AICP | Manager of Current Planning | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2575 |E: jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org From: geetha srikantan [mailto:gsrikantan@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 9:25 AM To: Lee, Elena; French, Amy Cc: Geetha Srikantan Subject: 407 Lytton Ave - ABC Application Dear Amy, Elena, I received a notice from Stanley Yee of the San Jose office of Department of Alcholic Beverage Control about an application from the operators of Bangkok Cuisine at 407 Lytton Ave, to serve alcohol and have juke box entertainment. The outdoor seating area in the restaurant back patio is adjacent to my driveway and my kitchen, dining, living room and deck - between 0 feet - 15 feet away, literally. There is already quite a lot of noise when the restaurant clientele in this seating area, and when restaurant workers are working there. I am strongly opposed to a) serving any alcoholic beverages in this outdoor seating area b) any juke box entertainment in this outdoor seating area. Please find attached my letter to Stanley Yee. Thank you, Sincerely, Dr. Geetha Srikantan <image001.jpg> 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Don Jackson <dcj@clark-communications.com> Sent:Thursday, August 29, 2019 10:19 AM To:UAC; Council, City Subject:Berkeley and Menlo Park moving to restrict natural gas hookups in new construction Attachments:menlo-park-natural-gal.pdf; Following Berkeley's Natural Gas Ban, More California Cities Look to All- Electric Future.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Attached please find two articles reporting on recent laws/regulations by the cities of Berkeley and Menlo Park  to ban and/or restrict natural gas hookups in new construction.    As a new UAC commissioner, I have recently learned about the environmental impact of natural gas, and the importance  of “electrification”.    I believe this is an important issue to research/study, in consideration of potential electrification efforts here in Palo  Alto.    Regards,    Don Jackson      8/29/19, 9(54 AMA: Main Page 1 of 3about:blank Electric heat required by Jan. 1; gas stoves OK in some homes By Maggie Angst mangst@bayareanewsgroup.com At the front line of a growing movement to fight climate change, Menlo Park will be ushering in one of the most restrictive natural gas bans in California. By Jan. 1, heating systems in all new homes and buildings in the city must run on electricity, and all new commercial, office and industrial buildings, as well as highrise residences, must rely entirely on electricity, the Menlo Park City Council decided Tuesday night. Although new one- and two-story homes will be allowed to have natural gas stoves, they must be built “electric ready” with the proper wiring to enable all- electric operation in the future. The council’s decision, to be adopted through an official vote at its next meet- Menlo Park bans natural gas in nearly all new buildings Electric ing, Sept. 10, comes about a month after Berkeley became the first city in America to ban natural gas from new buildings entirely. “When we put this into our council priorities, I actually expected this to be a tougher meeting,” Mayor Ray Mueller said during Tuesday night’s meeting. “...It’s really great to see everyone coming together and trying to make this work.” Menlo Park is among more than 50 California communities considering radical measures — known formally as “reach codes” — to substantially reduce Menlo Park in 2013 adopted an ambitious goal of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by next year to 27% of what they were in 2005, when buildings’ energy use accounted for 55% of the city’s total greenhouse gas emissions, according to staff. In the next three years, the city expects to see construction of about 100 homes and 21 other buildings — office, multifamily, hotel and retail — which could produce almost 213,000 tons of greenhouse gases over their life, or an increase in the city’s emissions by 1% or 2% annually, unless reach codes are instituted. When explaining the possible benefits of the proposed measure, city staff not only touted the reduction in carbon emissions but also the cost- effectiveness of switching from natural gas to Menlo Park bans natural gas in nearly all new buildings Electric CLIMATE CHANGE 8/29/19, 9(54 AMA: Main Page 2 of 3about:blank greenhouse gas emissions by exceeding the state’s mandated steps toward that goal. About 10 residents voiced their opinions on the proposed ban at the council meeting. While all supported phasing out natural gas, most urged the council to go further than the ordinance staff had proposed. Only one person encouraged the council to adopt a less restrictive ordinance. Fran Dehn, president of the Menlo Park Chamber of Commerce, asked the council to allow gas stoves in all new buildings and not just homes. “We recommend that this move toward all-electric cooking be carried forward through alternatives or incentives — not an immediate mandate,” Dehn said. However, the council decided not to make an exception and mandated that all new restaurants and dryers run fully on electricity and that homes are built “electric- ready.” City staff reversed an earlier proposal to offer restaurants an exemption for natural gas cooking appliances after further researching the benefits of electric-run induction stoves. Induction stoves automatically turn off when a pot is removed, are two to three times more efficient than natural gas stoves and were the top 10-rated cooktops in the 2018 Consumer Reports, Joanna Chen, the city’s sustainability specialist, told the council. Natural gas stoves, however, will still be allowed in homes because they are overwhelming preferred by residents. Restaurants and commercial business owners will be able to appeal the electric stove requirement to the city’s environmental equality commission, but the standards for an appeal are still being evaluated by city staff. No restaurant owners spoke out against the decision Tuesday night, but Sharokina Shams, a spokeswoman for the California Restaurant Association, said in an email Wednesday that, in general, restaurant owners electricity. Eliminating natural gas infrastructure from a single- family home can save builders $6,000 during construction, according to a recently released study from the California Codes and Standards program. The exact savings, though, depend on regional gas and electricity rates and the energy efficiency of the appliances. “It’s very easy to think climate change is a problem that we can’t get our hands around and yet, tonight the council has an opportunity to take a step of leadership ... and commit to the most advanced policies possible to help electrify our buildings and move away from natural gas,” resident Adam Stern told the council. The new reach codes under consideration in Menlo Park and dozens of cities across California could accelerate the state’s ambitious energy goal — set in a bill signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in September — of 100% electricity from carbon-free sources by 2045. Every three years, the California Building Standards Commission updates its standards and requires that jurisdictions across the state update their building codes to meet statewide rules. Starting Jan. 1, the updated statewide standards will go into effect and, in part, require that all new one- and two-story homes install solar panels. As jurisdictions look to update their building codes ahead of the upcoming deadline, many will be looking to Berkeley and Menlo Park as examples of how they can also go beyond the statewide mandates. “I think (this ordinance) will be a beacon for cities around the country and hopefully around the world as a great first step action that we can take to reduce carbon emissions in the short term, in a way that really includes really long-term benefits — giving us a solid foundation,” Dashiell Leeds, a representative for the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club, told the council Tuesday night. 8/29/19, 9(54 AMA: Main Page 3 of 3about:blank should be able to choose whether to use natural gas or electric stoves. “It’s important that restaurants, along with all ratepayers, have a diverse set of energy sources they can turn to and that includes natural gas,” Shams said in a statement. “That ability to choose from a variety of energy options helps provide more affordable and dependable energy sources.” Copyright (c)2019 The Mercury News, Edition. Please review new arbitration language here. 8/29/2019Thursday, 08/29/2019 Page .A01 8/27/19, 1)45 PMFollowing Berkeley's Natural Gas Ban, More California Cities Look to All-Electric Future Page 1 of 3https://insideclimatenews.org/print/57125 Published on InsideClimate News (https://insideclimatenews.org) Home > Following Berkeley's Natural Gas Ban, More California Cities Look to All-Electric Future Following Berkeley's Natural Gas Ban, More California Cities Look to All-Electric Future Dozens of California cities are trying to address the same concern: reducing fossil fuel use to combat climate change. Phil McKenna By Phil McKenna Follow @mckennapr Jul 23, 2019 A city ordinance in Berkeley now bans natural gas in new low-rise residential buildings, but not other types of buildings — yet. Credit: Daniel Ramirez/CC-BY-2.0 Berkeley has become the first city in the United States to ban the use of natural gas in new low-rise buildings, and it isn't the only California 8/27/19, 1)45 PMFollowing Berkeley's Natural Gas Ban, More California Cities Look to All-Electric Future Page 2 of 3https://insideclimatenews.org/print/57125 community looking for ways to shift its buildings away from burning fossil fuels. Cities and towns across the state are considering measures to encourage developers to use only electric appliances in new buildings—and skip installing natural gas lines for stoves, furnaces and water heaters. Ken Davies, interim deputy director of Climate Smart San Jose, a unit within the city of San Jose's environmental services department, estimates about 60 cities and towns across the state—including San Jose—are considering building code measures to promote electric appliances as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They might not go as far as Berkeley, but they're trying to address the same concerns. Sign up for InsideClimate News Weekly Our stories. Your inbox. Every weekend. Email Sign Up I agree to InsideClimate News' Terms of Service and Privacy Policy [1] Burning natural gas emits carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. On top of that, the methane in natural gas is a short-lived climate pollutant [2] that is many times more potent than carbon dioxide when it leaks into the atmosphere. The methane leaks come from oil and gas operations [3], and also from urban infrastructure. A study [4] published July 15 in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters found that methane emissions from several cities were about twice what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates. The researchers said the majority of emissions are believed to come from aging natural gas pipelines and smaller leaks inside residential and commercial buildings. In Berkeley, the new ban is about both combating climate change and improving health and safety in an earthquake-prone city built on a fault. "We have a climate emergency and we know that, at least in Berkeley, natural gas in buildings is responsible for 27 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions," said Kate Harrison, a Berkeley City Council member who introduced the ordinance banning natural gas in new low-rise residential buildings. She said the ordinance "will allow a significant reduction in greenhouse gas-emitting devices and systems." San Jose, the state's third-largest city, has a goal to electrify 47 percent of all homes [5] by 2030. A draft of proposed changes to the city's building code would not go so far as to ban the use of natural gas, but it would incentivize using electric appliances to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. "All-electric buildings are safer and healthier to live in and are cost effective, especially when designed at the new construction stage," information about the proposed changes provided by the city of San Jose [6] says. Studies Find Lower Cost in Going All-Electric Cutting ties with natural gas can require high efficiency heat pumps that heat and cool buildings, as well as highly efficient induction stoves for cooking. The added costs, however, are more than offset by lower construction costs because buildings do not require a natural gas connection and internal gas plumbing, according to a recent study commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Upfront costs of clean electric heating are generally lower than conventional gas alternatives in new construction, by $1,500 or more," the report concluded. [7] That finding was echoed in a recent report [8]by the California Energy Commission, which concluded building electrification "offers the most promising path to achieving GHG [greenhouse gas] reduction targets in the least costly manner." A key part of making that work is shifting electricity to renewable and other zero-carbon sources. Last year, California passed a law [9] requiring that all electricity come from carbon-free sources by 2045. The governor issued an executive order at the same time setting a goal for the state to be carbon neutral by the same year. Berkeley May Expand Ban to More Buildings The Berkeley ordinance passed on July 16 so far only applies to new low-rise residential buildings. The limitation is based on the ongoing rollout of the California Energy Commission's analysis of the impacts of electrification on greenhouse gas emissions from different building types. So far, the commission has only completed its analysis of low-rise residential buildings. As the state agency completes its analysis of other 8/27/19, 1)45 PMFollowing Berkeley's Natural Gas Ban, More California Cities Look to All-Electric Future Page 3 of 3https://insideclimatenews.org/print/57125 building types, Berkeley city staff will work to expand the gas ban to other building types, Harrison said. California Energy Commission Chair David Hochschild, a Berkeley resident, praised the ordinance at the Berkeley City Council meeting before the vote. "Right now in California, we have a big focus in cleaning up the building sector, because there is more emissions coming from combustion of natural gas in our buildings than our entire state power plant fleet," Hochschild said [10]. The measure also had the support of local utility Pacific Gas and Electric, which delivers natural gas and electricity to Berkeley residents. "We welcome the opportunity to avoid investments in new gas assets that might later prove underutilized as local governments and the state work together to realize our long term decarbonization objectives," Darin Cline, a PG&E manager for public affairs and government relations, said at the city council meeting. "PG&E supports local government policies that promote all-electric new construction." Speaking before the council, Hochschild mentioned how previous progressive measures—including smoking bans in bars and restaurants, marriage equality, recycling, curb cuts for disabled access—got their start in Berkeley before spreading elsewhere and said the same could be true for electrification. "You see those changes go to other cities, then go up to the state level, and then go to the national level," Hochschild said. "That is how change happens." © InsideClimate News Source URL: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23072019/berkeley-natural-gas-ban-california-cities-incentive-all-electric-building- construction-future Links [1] https://insideclimatenews.org/about/privacy-policy [2] https://insideclimatenews.org/tags/short-lived-climate-pollutants [3] https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21062018/methane-leaks-oil-gas-climate-change-risks-natural-gas-slcp-global-warming-pollution- science-edf-study [4] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL082635 [5] http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/85912 [6] http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=6357 [7] https://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/Decarbonization-Heating-CA-Buildings-17-092-1.pdf [8] https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=226392 [9] https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28082018/california-100-percent-clean-energy-electricity-vote-climate-change-leadership-zero-carbon- electric-vehicles [10] http://berkeley.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=70986fb1-a8be-11e9-b703-0050569183fa 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Patricia Becker <patricia@yourhealthandjoy.com> Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 11:36 AM To:Council, City Subject:4G and Wired is much better than 5G CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council As my elected representatives. Please use this legal notice of liability is designed to be used as evidence in court if needed and intends to enlighten you and to protect you from attracting civil and criminal liability in relation to your actions and/or omissions surrounding the deployment of 5G technology within your constituency. 4G/LTE small cells form an integral part of the 5G deployment. This 5G technology will cause me to be exposed to wireless non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation against my consent and in my home. Contamination of my home with 5G may cause damage to my home if it becomes a health risk to me and thus render my home uninhabitable. Irradiating me with wireless non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation against my consent would be an application of force against my person and which causes fear of bodily injury and could be classed as a civil trespass and/or a criminal assault. Any level of exposure of man-made non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation can be diagnosed by my medical practitioner as an adverse health effect pursuant to the WHO’s International Classification of Diseases ICD-10, code W90 thus rendering any safety limit as set by the government safety standards obsolete as to protecting my health. As needed, I may see my doctor for advice on the 5G issue. If 5G technology is deployed within your constituency, I expect that you as my elected representative will exercise due diligence to certify that all parties deploying 5G technologies have sufficient insurance cover to compensate for damage or harm caused by the emission of wireless non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. Please note that this could be a problem, since underwriters such as Lloyds of London do not insure for such harm and damage. I urge you, as my elected official, to act in the public interest by addressing the potential cumulative harms of densification (the crowding of small cells into a limited area to enable 5G) and insisting that public safety regulatory authorities need to prove that such densification of 5G technology is safe and that any deployment of 5G, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and/or the Internet of Things (IoT), is regulated appropriately to ensure that the national security and the safety and privacy of the public and myself is not compromised. You need to protect the public from other harmful wireless technologies such as Wi-Fi in schools, “smart” meters on dwellings, and the like, and to replace those technologies with safe and efficient wired technologies, such as Ethernet and/or fiber optics, as the end-nodes of internet delivery systems to dwellings, schools and commercial buildings. Forward-thinking cities are already doing this. I implore you, as my elected official, to act in the public interest by protecting the public and myself from being persecuted by the passing of laws that restrict the Courts, law enforcement agencies, municipal councils and local governments from taking action to protect the public from harm to health and damage, caused by 5G and other wireless technologies. I am genuinely concerned for your welfare, the general public and mine, and this is a situation of the utmost urgency. I have studied the relevant facts and am thus aware of the danger. As a result I am in fear and I take the risk of harm and damage to me very seriously. To help bring you up to speed on this extremely important topic, please go to the5Gsummit.com, and listen for free to what 40 highly regarded experts inclusive of scientists, medical practitioners and lawyers from around the world have to 2 say on the 5G subject. Experts who are not censored by the telecommunications industry, nor their captured governments, nor the captured media. Further, to assist with your education, please look at the Bio-initiative Report 2012 (updated 2017) - A Rationale for Biologically-based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) bioinitiative.org and Physicians for Safe Technology – 5G Mobile Communications mdsafe.org. I implore you as my civic leader, and as my elected representative to get educated on this important topic, and show me by your decisions, actions and omissions that you are taking precautionary steps to address the risk of harm to me and all the people within your constituency. As an elected official you are deemed accountable if you do not take appropriate action to attempt to abate, or prevent such harm, to me or the public. Therefore you attract liability in either the civil or criminal jurisdiction. Your people are rising up and I implore you to take leadership and be a champion for the health and safety of all of us. If you do, many voters, legislators and I will wholeheartedly support and campaign for you. Patricia Becker,    Yoga Classes & Health News You Can Use at www.YourHealthandJoy.com    Favorite Healthy Snacks, Foods, Face & Body Care and Yoga Toys  Amazon Associate Page      Multipure Water Filter Systems  Executive Builder ID#430421  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Annie Turner <arturner2012@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:19 PM To:Council, City Cc:Cameron Turner Subject:Casti Building Support CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________  To Whom It May Concern:  As a Palo Alto resident and a Professorville neighbor, I would like to voice my support for Castilleja’s building project.  I  have been impressed with their earnest intent and transparency through this long and arduous process.  The  administrators have gone above and beyond to reach out to neighbors, in both listening to their concerns and explaining  the details.  In the end, their project will benefit the city and the neighborhood with energy efficient green buildings,  reasonable and responsible upgrades, and visual enhancement.  This is in compliance with Palo Alto’s Comprehensive  Plan.  They will also be able to offer their very special and unique education to a few more girls.  When our girls are well‐ educated and supported to be their strong and confident selves, we all benefit.  For many girls, Castilleja is the ideal  environment for this noble goal.  Thank you for your consideration.  Sincerely,  Annie and Cameron Turner  {REDACTED} 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Nancy Strom <nancy94024@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 23, 2019 2:01 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Subject:Castilleja Expansion Protest CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Planning Commission,  I am writing to state my opposition to  Castilleja's application to increase its enrollment and undertake the major  development that they are seeking approval for. There are many reasons why I oppose the project, too many to list  them all here. But most compellingly, I believe that there is very little proposed benefit to the project while it has a very  high cost on the peace and livability of the neighborhood and Palo Alto at large.  I am the owner of a triplex on the 100 block of Melville and have owned the property since 1987. I lived there for many  years until moving to Los Altos in 2001. Additionally my husband owns a home on the 100 block of Churchill and lived  there for many years. Despite the fact that our properties are currently rented out we feel that we have a long term  stake in Palo Alto based on our property ownership and residence in the city. As an owners of property here we have  personally rented to many people who have had an impact in Palo Alto; and have been good neighbors. They depend on  us to provide a safe environment and on the community to allow them to reside peacefully and to pursue their  objectives as full time residents of the neighborhood.  Allowing Castilleja to undertake its massive development (which has been called "Walmart‐sized" will add too much  traffic to the neighborhood; to the benefit of a very small group of people. The Castilleja students and their families  largely do not reside in Palo Alto; and as such their goals should not take priority over those of the residents.  If the  school wants to expand its enrollment it should be forced to add a second site. The neighborhood already stands to have  more traffic with the planned renovations and electrification of Caltrain and expansion of Stanford. And although those  projects are large and will be impactful on Old Palo Alto, they benefit the entire Bay Area (in the case of Caltrain) and the larger environment (in the case of the impact that Stanford has worldwide). To reiterate, the Castilleja project benefits  very few people (really only the 400+ students at Castilleja), and most of them do not even live in Palo Alto.   Please deny the project and direct Castilleja to make plans which do not have a drastic impact on its neighborhood.  Sincerely  Nancy Strom  {REDACTED}  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Michael Grady <michaelfgrady@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 9:39 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Commuters waste an average of 54 hours a year stalled in traffic, study says - CNN CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To you all:     Maybe the City Council, and the City's Manager and Traffic "engineers" might have taken into account the impact of  their "improvements" on Arastradero and Charleston (reducing two lanes to one and building ridiculously wasteful  center medians) on traffic delays before they approved those ridiculous changes.    Most sincerely,    Michael Grady  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Michael Grady <michaelfgrady@gmail.com>  Date: Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 9:21 AM  Subject: Commuters waste an average of 54 hours a year stalled in traffic, study says ‐ CNN  To: Michael Grady <michaelfgrady@stanfordalumni.org>      Commuters waste an average of 54 hours a year stalled in traffic, study says  CNN  Rush hour is dead. Traffic is forever. You live in your car now. A new report has confirmed what we already deduce every  morning when we rot in the highway merge lane. Read the full story    Shared from Apple News    Michael Grady     Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ron Baker <bakerra@pacbell.net> Sent:Friday, August 23, 2019 6:39 PM To:Anoop Sinha Cc:A.J.; Greenacres2; Council, City; Boyd, Holly; City Mgr Subject:Re: [GA2] Fwd: Congratulations Lunkheads, the City Will Now Get Sued Over the Corridor Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Anoop: Your comment on this thread reflects widespread worry among drivers over the risks at Foothill.   I’m copying it  to the City Manager and the Council.       Councilmember Cormack had a similarly harrowing experience trying to negotiate the Foothill turn with a bicyclist and a  large pickup truck pulling a giant trailer.   She did the safe thing and simply waited in the middle lane, blocking traffic  behind her, until the vehicle after the bike and truck let her in.   She suggested possible education or better  communication from the city on how to safely negotiate that turn.  The project manager and City Manager need to drive  this, and talk with Cormack, you and others.      Further to this story, I’m going out now to take photos of the huge amount of black tire marks on the concrete forms  over a couple of blocks.      ‐Ron Baker      On Aug 23, 2019, at 6:18 PM, Anoop Sinha anoop.k.sinha@gmail.com [greenacres2] <greenacres2‐ noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:    Is there any way to get the Foothill and Arastradero right turn merge straightened out? That intersection is really dangerous every morning with 50% doing it the old way (right lane to right on Foothill) and 50% doing it the new way (second lane from right to right on Foothill). Not to mention the new way crosses over the bike lanes. There are plenty of bikes in the morning going down Arastradero. I imagine the bikers are probably wondering: 1) I got this nice protected bike lane for beginning of Arastradero.... 2) ... a bit more dangerous going by Fletcher and Gunn ... 3) And then ... terrifying experience trying to get across Foothill Expressway with unpredictable cars on left and on the right As a driver, it’s terrifying for me too! Anoop 2 On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:00 AM 'A.J.' ajlumsdaine@gmail.com [greenacres2] <greenacres2- noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Well said, Betty. It’s now such an abrupt stop on Arastradero turning onto Coulomb, we also have to watch behind us for cars that might hit us. That intersection is a prime example of what is so unsafe about all these changes — they rely on people already knowing the set up is different and dangerous to avoid accidents. Someone who is not very, very familiar with this neighborhood is not even going to be aware of the existence of that separated bike lane (on the inside of parked cars and that deep curb, no less), and bikes are going to be encouraged to go straight on through, not stop. The way the curb juts out so far in order to force cars with a wide turn radius to completely stop or run over the curb to avoid hitting oncoming traffic on Coulomb puts the bikes coming in that lane smack in people’s blind spots on the right, too. I mean, you couldn’t design something intended to kill people better if you tried (are they trying? it sure makes you wonder). Like you, when I get to an intersection like that, I’m already trying to keep an eye on possible bikes coming up on the right and shoehorning themselves between me and the curb even if I have properly taken the lane, so I don’t righthook them. They may be doing something stupid but they still don’t deserve to die. Kids are especially prone to doing this. I feel like now there is no way to turn to see all the different places an accident can happen under real conditions, and the kids will be emboldened by the lane to just shoot across traffic (like the alleged bike “box” on Donald and Arastradero encourages them to take the opposite lane of traffic and ride into Arastradero against the light, something I have witnessed several times since they made that change and am just glad no kid got broadsided). I’ve tried to write and comment to City Hall. You all remember what they did when we complained about the stupid surprise! set up at Donald, they claimed they didn’t know how to contact us. Really, at this point, one or two concerned neighbors need to figure out what the City should do to fix it, talk to neighbors (online is okay) and come up with a petition to walk around for us all to sign so we can talk to them as one voice. I am very personally aware of how being the one to get the ball rolling initially is the really hard part, but I cannot offer. The trouble is that if we all just write our concerns, you know what will happen — nothing, or worse, they’ll put in something else even more designed to kill someone's kids. Even Eric says to me, We have to do something, which means, they’re going to keep pretending that they can, like Harry Potter, create space out of nothing and overdevelop willy nilly on this side of town. I was driving home yesterday from just having to go to the post office, and at 4pm the traffic on El Camino was so bumper to bumper, it really makes you wonder what will happen with the slightest emergency (or the rest of the buildings going online). These ridiculous changes are City Hall's “we have to do something” to pretend like they don’t have to pay attention to the hard limits of the infrastructure. They’ve been licking their chops over building up South PA for far too long to pay attention to anything as silly as infrastructure limits and safety. The point is, there are a LOT of cars coming through, and there is just no way they’re going to all know about these nonstandard setups in order to avoid killing someone. This is all just an accident and a death waiting to happen. Anne 3 On Aug 14, 2019, at 10:28 AM, Betty Thana <bthana@att.net> wrote: Anne, Thank you so much for your reminder that we MUST keep an eye out for the bicyclists and the pedestrians when we navigate the right turn from Arastradero onto Coulombe, and avoid hitting them. We would be turning right onto Coulombe, when the bicyclists are cycling through the intersection at the same time, as they have a green light also. There are also byclists that don’t stop for a red light either, even if we are turning on Red after a stop. Before the concrete barriers, I was always very conscious of the cyclists riding alongside my car in their bike lane, and always make sure I do not turn to collide with them or the pedestrians. They are in my line of sight. But with the latest, BIG triangle concrete abutment into my lane, as I was turning right onto Coulombe, I was navigating to 1) not hit the concrete abutment on my car’s right, and 2) not collide with the oncoming car on Coulombe, to my car’s left, that I was focusing so much attention to accomplish this, that as mentioned in Anne’s attached note, “I have noticed that I have to spend so much attention on the street scape it’s making it impossible to safely keep an eye on pedestrians and especially bicyclists (especially erratic bicyclists)...” But first and foremost, the safety of the bicyclists and the pedestrians is the top of my concern, more than my own safety, as our son, a bicyclist, once told me, “ Mom, if you see a bicyclist, just think that may be your son.” Regards, Betty On Aug 14, 2019, at 12:38 AM, A.J. <ajlumsdaine@gmail.com> wrote: The most serious is the separated bike lane which is basically designed to kill someone. Separating bike and car traffic is not a bad idea, but there needs to be integrated signaling so the bikes don’t just think they have the right of way. As it is, the cars have to know about this separated lane in order to not turn right in front of bikes on that separated lane, otherwise called a right hook, the most common car-bike accident. The new streetscape is so confusing and unorthodox, and set up to be such an obstacle course, I have noticed that I have to spend so much attention on the street scape it’s making it impossible to safely keep an eye on pedestrians and especially bicyclists (especially erratic bicyclists, which unfortunately, is just par for the course with middle schoolers). The crazy thing is that I spent a lot of effort trying to explain to the City how the previous jut-out curb was an accident waiting to happen, and so it seems like they went back to the drawing board to make absolutely certain they kill someone. Absolutely crazy. 4 Anne On Aug 13, 2019, at 10:31 PM, Betty Thana bthana@att.net [greenacres2] <greenacres2- noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Hi Neighbors, I was returning home tonight, around 7:15 PM, turning onto Arastradero from El Camino, then turning right onto Coulombe, and I noticed how dangerous the newly constructed cement barriers are on Arastradero, for that 0.3 miles. It is as if someone has constructed an obstacle course for us: 1) midway on Arastradero, between El Camino and Columbe, the new cement barriers directly cut off the right lane, by being constructed straight across the road, ie perpendicular to the curb, and stretching out one lane’s length, directly into the lane where people are driving their cars. I was only alerted to its existence, because there were a few orange flags on top of the cement barrier, otherwise, I probably would have driven my car straight into the concrete barriers, that is directly in front crossing my lane. This was in the day light, and accidents may happen after dark, when the drivers who are not familiar with this road, and not anticipating a concrete barrier crossing their entire lane, would crash into the concrete barrier, causing severe injuries to passengers and kids. 2) to make the right turn into Coulombe, there are the concrete barriers butting out as a big triangle, way into the middle of the road, and if one is not familiar with this road, it may cause an accident, It is a bit ironic that here we are, living in the heart of the Silicon Valley, supposedly full of the smartest people on earth, making all these innovations, and we have in our own neighborhood these concrete barriers that do seem in need some help from some smarter road safety designers and legislators.. Regards, Betty On Aug 10, 2019, at 1:04 PM, ree_duff@comcast.net [greenacres2] <greenacres2- noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Before I send this to City Council, do I have my facts straight & does it make sense to the rest of you? Ree Dufresne Members of the City Council of Palo Alto 5 Before Those DANGEROUS ABUTMENTS were put in permanently, I along with other Intelligent residents of Palo Alto, objected to having them put in. It was obvious to me that they pmwould do more harm than good! As Staff apparently carries more weight in how my Tax dollars are spent, our opinions opposing these structural monstrosities abutting out of the normal lane markers, etc. were ignored. I would ask the Council to weigh the collateral damage & risks to Automobiles, Bikers & Pedestrians, from “sideswiping” or bouncing off of these blocks of Concrete. Although I was aware of the danger they posed. I didn’t fully appreciate how easily a driver could miss allowing for that concrete, as it isn’t a normal lane width. I wasn’t prepared for the damage caused to the front left wheel well, etc.. on the side of my car when I bounced off of one. Is the City of Palo Alto going to pay for the damages to cars that bounce off of these abutments? Why is it that STAFF carries more weight with a Computer generated model for altering our streets, than those of us who are in our cars and driving these roads every day?Ree Dufresne On August 7, 2019 at 9:18 PM "Sheryl Keller kellersheryl@gmail.com [greenacres2]" <greenacres2- noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Agree with Ron Baker. Where is the city employee who designed this mess. Let's find him and have him drive on our "improved" corridor at 8AM and at 5PM. Same with the city council members who approved this. Let them drive this stretch for a week. See what happens. On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:58 PM Ron Baker bakerra@pacbell.net [greenacres2] < greenacres2- noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Forwarding because they bounced my new email address. See my message below. From: Ron Baker <rabaker.pa@gmail.com> 6 Subject: Congratulations Lunkheads, the City Will Now Get Sued Over the Corridor Project Date: August 7, 2019 at 8:48:03 PM PDT To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: Greenacres2 <greenacres2@yahoogroups.com>, webmaster@paloaltoonline.com I went to a council session, my wife and I went to department meetings or hearings, my neighbors went to planning meetings, I talked to and emailed council and staff on the absolute stupidity of the “traffic calming” project on Charleston Arastradero corridor. ABSOLUTELY NOBODY WAS LISTENING. Let me tell you, there was NO material problem that a few citations/police speed patrols and better use of rapid transit funds wouldn’t solve. Traffic accidents were largely due to Gunn kids reading their phones and rear ending people in stop and go traffic at rush hour. I know, as my home fronts Arastradero,and I work from home most days. Anyway, today TWO cars just ran into those stupid new traffic calming forms today, just in the stretch of Arastradero between Coulombe and Cherry Oaks. This was the first day without the orange warning blocks.. I only saw what happened in one of these “accidents", fortunately the second driver, whose car will have to be extracted from the form, was okay, though her expensive car may need some work.. The prior accident reportedly involved a double blowout when the vehicle hit the form. My neighbors on and near Arastradero, some of whom also tried to complain, were out in force to greet the fire truck that responded, and all agreed this was totally predictable, so from a legal standpoint, that will be a problem for Palo Alto. As one firefighter said, wait til the schools are in session, and rush hour traffic has gone to zero. I’m guessing that residents now ! take longer getting to the local freeways then actually traveling on them. Meanwhile, wait til a bicyclist who doesn’t understand the design runs into a form. This is just pathetically stupid. The city is going to get sued for this project, and the the hazards it presents. This city is run by a part time council that leaves decisions in the hands of staff who couldn’t figure out best practices if their lives depended on it, but fortunately for them, they collect great pensions, no matter how bad their recommendations. Clearly, the incentives here are all wrong. At least half the council is funded by developers, or depend on incomes in real estate or property development, the other half move on to higher office with the support of the public employee unions. Few members of the council are willing to challenge the reports and proposals prepared by the bureaucrats, or challenge the assumptions on which they are based. The council and departments run interminable meetings where many of the people with something real to say have to leave because the council is running way too far behind. When the citizens on rare occasions rebel, as with the original Maybell housing project, council members seem to have no clue because they almost never go door to door to canvas residents in the affected area, and the bureaucrats are even less inclined to do that. The process here is a total failure. Ron Baker Greenacres 2 7 __._,_.___ Posted by: Anoop Sinha <anoop.k.sinha@gmail.com> Reply via web post • Reply to sender •Reply to group •Start a New Topic •Messages in this topic(22) TO DO THE FOLLOWING: Post a message: greenacres2@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: greenacres2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com [Include your real name and street address - for use of moderators only] Unsubscribe: greenacres2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com List owner: greenacres2-owner@yahoogroups.com VISIT YOUR GROUP To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Yahoo! Groups • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use .  __,_._,___   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Planning Commission Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2019 11:12 AM To:Kimberley Wong; Planning Commission Cc:French, Amy; Council, City Subject:RE: DEIR Comments: 1263 Emerson Lockey house and 1235 home Hello Kimberly, Your emails is now posted on the PTC webpage under the “At Places Memo” link. They are also posted on the Castilleja Project webpage. Regards, Yolanda Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Development Services City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 From: Kimberley Wong <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com>   Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 9:27 AM  To: Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Fw: DEIR Comments: 1263 Emerson Lockey house and 1235 home    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am resending this letter because I am not seeing this posted on the PTC website. I would like to make known my views alongside all the other letters that were sent into the PTC. Just wondering if this may have been an oversight or if you are backlogged by the stream of new comments being sent in. Thank you, Kimberley Wong ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Kimberley Wong <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com> To: Planning Commission <planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Amy French <amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019, 9:45:18 AM PDT Subject: Fwd: DEIR Comments: 1263 Emerson Lockey house and 1235 home Dear PTC Board, My name is Kimberley Wong. My family has lived in Palo Alto for a long time starting with my grandfather who moved her in 1900. I currently live at 1260 Emerson St opposite the Lockey house, the 100+ year old home 2 dedicated to Castilleja's founder Mary Lockey a beloved educator who was encouraged by her mentor David Starr Jordan to open an all girls prep school in 1907. In Chapter 6 of the DEIR Cultural Resources study the architects were named for every building on campus except for the Lockey house and the nextoor home that are planned to be demolished. I believe that it should be determined who the architect is of the Lockey house is before they decide against recommending the home is not historic. They were were only few architects at the time so there is a high probability that a notable architect such as Gustave Laumeister, involved in designing the Administration Building and many Professorville homes may have designed the Lockey home. This would satisfy one of the National Historic Registry criteria. It already should satisfy Criteria #2 which states that the property is "associated with lives of persons important to the nation or California's past". Ms Mary Lockey founded the longest lasting Non-sectarian preparatory girl's school in the country. This home also "retains enough of the historic character with lead glass in the decorative archway between the entry and living room, crown moldings in the upstairs bedrooms and gracious dining room. Other additions were made but the main house upstairs and downstairs retain their original style and charm. Only one of these criteria plus keeping the integrity of the house is actually required for the house to be on the National registry. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:nancytuck@aol.com Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 11:15 AM To:Fine, Adrian; Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Follow up on Castilleja letter of support Attachments:IMG_3204.jpg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council and Commission Members, I am attaching a note I received from Carole Hyde, the ED of the Palo Alto Humane Society, as a result of the letter I sent you and the Palo Alto Weekly a few weeks ago. I wanted to share Carole's kind words about the experience PAHS had with Castilleja volunteers this past year. I asked for Carole's permission to share this with you, and she was happy for me to do that. She did want me to add that she is not making a statement on the Castilleja application issue on behalf of PAHS, as she has not cleared this with her board. She added that she is happy with the Council "knowing more about PAHS' good experience with the students at the school, as it shows positive community partnerships and visionary organizations." After attending the Planning Commission's public comment hearing, I find it increasingly important to get across the fact that Castilleja does add value to our community, and location is everything. Respectfully, Nancy Tuck 3 4 I also would like the Dudek staff to explain how they came to the conclusion that removing 2 story homes with mature landscaping (minus the 100 foot tree which was already removed already) can be deemed "Insignificant"? And how can a long wall punctuated by a underground garage exit from which cars emerge be an insignificant impact to the aesthetics of the residential streetscape of Emerson? Lastly, I would ask again as I did in March of 2016 during the last PTC hearing to consider alternatives to demolishing 2 homes when there is such a great need for housing: 1. Reduce traffic to the Embarcadero corridor through shuttling all students, staff and students to the campus without building a garage and taking down 2 homes 2. Turn part of the Lockey house into a historical museum to showcase 100+ years of Castilleja history and retain housing for out of town visitors. 5 I find that removing the Lockey house is historically significant when retains its historic character, is associated with the founder of Castilleja, and could possibly be designed by a notable architect. No amount of fencing and greenery can mask the loss of two homes and the opening of a garage. In fact, introducing a garage with only one way onto the Bryant street bike boulevard introduces significant impact to traffic flow and bike safety on an already busy intersection which cars and cyclists, many of which are schoolchildren, cross daily. Many accidents and near accidents have occurred on that intersection. And as recently as Feb 13, 2018 there was a serious injury to 2 commuters, one a Castilleja teacher who was on his scooter and sent to the hospital for several days. These dangers can be reduced and CAN be avoidable if we don’t build the garage and require all drivers to park offsite and shuttle everyone onto campus. Thank you, Kimberley Wong 1260 Emerson Street 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Michel Digonnet <silurian@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 3:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park: Comment from a resident CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. City Council Members,  I have lived in Palo Alto for 40 years. I am an avid hiker and nature enthusiast, and enjoy very much our Foothills Park. I have been shocked and pained over the last few weeks to hear that it was possibly going to be opened to everyone, as opposed to Palo Alto residents only. Here is why. 1.Over the last decade or so, all of the parks on the western fringe of the Peninsula cities have received vastly increased visitation—my estimate is at least ten fold. It is now impossible to find peace and quiet while hiking on Windy Hill (it is not uncommon to encounter a couple of hundred visitors on a two-hour hike), Huddard Park, Wunderlich, the Dish, or San Antonio Co. Park. Foothills Park is the ONLY one that still offers quiet hiking close to home. Opening it to everyone will without a doubt ruin this invaluable feature. 2.Over the last few years, airplane traffic has taken a huge toll on our quality of life. I live in College Terrace. There is almost alway and airplane within earshot (there has been two since I started this email). Two miles north, on Stanford campus where I work, and two miles south, in San Antonio where I often hike, the air traffic is much lighter. We, Palo Altans, are taking the brunt of everyone’s need to fly. There is no fairness in this imbalance, it is the way it is, airplanes have to fly somewhere. But in compensation, having our own park to release the intense stress of constant noise and lack of sleep is a fair way to somewhat correct this persistent and extremely aggravating problem. Foothills Park offers us a place to find some of the relaxation we can longer find in our own homes. 3.Palo Alto has pioneered over the years many pilot innovations that have been emulated by many other cities around the country. This includes one of the country’s first curbside-recycling programs, the acquisition of more sustainable electricity, and more recently curbside collection of compostibles. Palo Alto also, in this light, pioneered the preservation of a large portion of its real-estate for the enjoyment of its own citizenry. This was a visionary move that is setting an example for other cities around the world. We should not let go of this groundbreaking legacy. Let other cities do the same, and create their own nature sanctuary whenever possible. 4.Regarding the elitist argument, let me point out that at least portions of Monte Bello belong to Palo Alto, and are open to the public. Palo Alto is sharing a large and beautiful portion of its land with the rest of the world. This is more than can be said about almost all Peninsula cities. 5.Also regarding the elitist argument, to live in Palo Alto, you have to pay an enormous price, which is the price of our insanely high real estate. No one is arguing that this is elitist. Owning our own park is not, inasmuch as the money that finances it comes in part from our (equally high) property taxes. 6.Opening our park to everyone is almost certainly going to result in major changes to it in terms of traffic but also increased noise, increased garbage along the trails, stress to the abundant wildlife that calls it home (especially the large deer and turkey populations), and damage to its small network of trails, and its 2 even smaller road system and infrastructure. Palo Altans will pay for this through regular taxes, not visitors from other towns, which is also unfair, and speaks strongly too against the elitist arguments. 7.Finally, it is my understanding that it is the people of Palo Alto who voted decades ago for the creation of this park a few decades ago, instead of developing it. It is only fair, and it may in fact be mandated by our laws, that the decision be reverted not by a small group of people, with all due respect, but by Palo Alto residents again. It is much too important a decision. I should also point out that very few people are aware that our park is on the chopping block, and very few people have therefore had the chance to express their view. As a democracy, we should give everyone a chance to be heard, and have a public vote. I very strongly urge you to keep the park open to residents only. Can you please confirm receipt, since email can be temperamental and I am not sure I have reached the right person(s)? Thank you. Sincerely, Michel Digonnet {REDACTED} Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 723-0719 1 Brettle, Jessica From:yunjing wei <yunjing325@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 21, 2019 4:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:Heavy traffic on Embarcadero Rd. between E. Bayshore and Embarcadero Way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To Whom It May Concern,  I work at Faber Place, PA. Recently during rush hour, 4:30‐ 6:00, the cars have been heavily jammed on west  bound Embarcadero Rd between E. Bayshore and Embarcadero Way. The main reason resulting this is the cars  on East bound Embarcadero Rd. making left turn to E. Bayshore always block the intersection. Another reason  might be the unreasonalbe arrangement of two traffic lights on the intersections of Embarcadero/E. Bayshore  and Embarcadero/Geng.  It has been a big headache when people leave work in rush hour since last week.   Really appreciated if the city could resolve this issue.  Thanks.  Best regards,  Jean   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, August 25, 2019 1:37 AM To:Frank Agamemnon Subject:Is the U.S. Ramping up its Military Presence in Syria and Preparing to Attack Iran for Israel? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  --Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: Is the U.S. Ramping up its Military Presence in Syria and Preparing to Attack Iran for Israel? Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: Is the U.S. Ramping up its Military Presence in Syria and     To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: Is the U.S. Ramping up its Military Presence in... ...Preparing to Attack Iran for Israel? "Israel Lobby & American Policy" conference on March 2nd, 2018 at the Na...    Israel is trying to “suck America into” a war with Iran that could destabilize the Middle East and lead to a world war in much the way that the imperial rivalries in 1914 led to the First World War, Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, warned in Washington. A war with Iran, he said, could “perhaps terminate the experiment that is Israel and do   2 irreparable damage to the empire that America has become.” But Israeli leaders want a war, and they are pushing one with the support of their American political friends, including Democrats like Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, whose overheated rhetoric about Iran recalls Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propagandist, Wilkerson said. Another pro-war faction are “warmed-over neoconservatives” who got us into the Iraq war. “I’ve been there, done that; I don’t need the tour,” he said. Wilkerson, a retired army colonel who now teaches government at Washington-area universities, served Powell during the run-up to the Iraq war. He spoke at the annual Israel lobby conference at the National Press Club, sponsored by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and Institute for Research: Middle East Policy. The conference aired on C-SPAN. Organizing Notes: Israel wants Washington to invade Iran     Organizing Notes: Israel wants Washington to invade Iran       3 --Rush Transcript https://www.israellobbyandamericanpolicy.org/transcripts/Lawrence_Wilkerson.html     #IsraelLobbyCon 2018! The Israel Lobby & American Policy The only conference that examines the true cost of Israel lobby policies!    Is the US Ramping Up Its Military Presence in Syria and Planning to Attack Iran?     Is the US Ramping Up Its Military Presence in Syria and Planning to Atta... Col. Larry Wilkerson speaking at the National Press Club the day before the official AIPAC Conference. The alter...        4 --- Jefferson Morley: CIA and Mossad: Tradeoffs in the Formation Jefferson Morley: CIA and Mossad: Tradeoffs in the Formation     To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In Jefferson Morley: CIA and Mossad: Tradeoffs in the Formation ... of the U.S.-Israel Strategic Relationship. "Israel Lobby & American Policy" conference on March 2nd, 2018 at...       1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kate Crane <katecrane@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 24, 2019 1:52 AM To:Council, City Subject:Loud 1am event setup on University/Webster CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi City Council,    The last time the city did work in the middle of the night on my corner you didn’t bother responding to my email, so I’m  not holding my breath. But heads up: there are men in trucks bouncing metal tent poles off the cement maybe 200 feet  from my residential building for the arts festival tomorrow. It’s been going on since 1 AM and apparently it’s going to go  on until 8 AM, per the PA Police. Do you have zero consideration for residents when permits for things like this come  up? Because that’s what it feels like.    I realize that all this City Council cares about is money, but people do live in Palo Alto. I had counted on getting a little  sleep tonight. Crazy, right?    Kate Crane  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Raymond White <rrweditha@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2019 1:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:Lowered IQ's CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear city council members: While city authorities have deferred to alleged scientific experts on the issue of public water fluoridation over the past 70 years, it is no longer tenable to maintain such deference. The following references provide evidence that fluoride at the concentration typically provided by public water supplies may be a developmental neurotoxin in humans during gestation and early infancy. The appropriate action for Palo Alto to take is to issue a prominent public announcement, as a Caution to pregnant women and parents of infants. Something along the lines of: “Recent studies published in peer-reviewed journals suggest that a gestating mother’s exposure to fluoridated water may reduce her child’s IQ by 4.5 to 6 points. We hereby recommend that pregnant women avoid fluoridated water (including Palo Alto tap water) and other unnecessary sources of fluoride. Infant formula should probably not be made with fluoridated water.” Your water provider should also issue such a Caution in its annual water quality statement, in large print. We are talking here about providing critical information to a vulnerable population, gestating mothers and infants being bottle-fed (mother’s milk essentially excludes fluoride). The potential loss of benefits from fluoride is miniscule. The brief interruption in exposure to fluoride is unlikely to reduce any possible benefit significantly. Improvements in dental health over the past 60 years are essentially the same in countries that fluoridate their water and those that don’t. Note that the possible reduction of 0.6 IQ points in children of agricultural workers and those living near fields where Chlorpyrifos has been applied made many of us concerned when the current Administration decided to allow continued use of this chemical. With fluoride we are talking about an effect that is almost ten times as large and potentially affecting the children of some 200 million Americans. While we are currently refugees in Mountain View, we lived in Palo Alto for about 45 of the years between 1950 and 2010. Our daughters were gestated and bottle fed on Palo Alto's fluoridated water. Raymond R. White, Ph. D. {REDACTED} Mountain View, CA 94043 2 rrweditha@yahoo.com {REDACTED} JAMA Pediatrics article August 19, 2019. Is Fluoride Potentially Neurotoxic? Is Fluoride Potentially Neurotoxic? Environmental epidemiology is a field replete with controversies, but the intensity of the debate inspired by th... click on related articles for Green et al. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.1729 Response to criticisms of the Green et al. 2019 study Criticisms of Recent JAMA Fluoride/IQ Study Are Unfounded Criticisms of Recent JAMA Fluoride/IQ Study Are Unfounded 3 NEW YORK, Aug. 21, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- A newly published carefully-researched and meticulously peer-reviewed US...    Bashash et al. 2017 doi.org/10.1289/EHP655 Bashash et al. 2018 doi.org/10.1289/EHP655 Cochrane meta-analysis 2015 Water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay     Water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay      1 Brettle, Jessica From:neva yarkin <nevayarkin@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 24, 2019 12:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:from neva yarkin, DEIR Castilleja expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  August 24 2019    To City Council,     My name is Neva Yarkin and I live around the corner from Castilleja.  My family has owned this  property for over 60 years.     Here are my comments regarding Castilleja Expansion that were not studied in the July 2019 DEIR  and I feel should be studied.        I just attended the Train Community Advisory Panel (XCAP)Meeting #3 on August 21, 2019 less  than 1 week ago.  AECOM studied 4 different options for Embarcadero.  No one in the room of  about 35 people mentioned the expansion of Castilleja and the impact the parking garage will  have on Embarcadero.   Castilleja’s parking garage entrance will be Embarcadero/Bryant and exit  Emerson/Embarcadero.  The Embarcadero Bridge is only 1 block away from Castilleja  School.   This MUSTbe studied and the potential problems regarding Trains and Castilleja  Expansion taken into consideration.      Castilleja’s expansion will add another 125 students to the traffic problems we already have in  town.  Over 70% of students come from surrounding cities.     In the DEIR (Noise pages 8‐17) there will be 266 new dailyvehicle trips on Churchill Ave. between  Waverly Street and Bryant Street.  Traffic is already terrible NOW.   Why add more traffic to a  system overstretched during most of the day?  How will this alleviate our traffic problems?     The DEIR did not mention vehicle stallsor car accidentsfor the underground car garage. If either of  these happen then what happens to the traffic flow going into or out of the garage?    How will a tow truck or ambulance be able to navigate into this traffic flow?  These are everyday  occurrences and happen all the time and should be considered.       In Appendix A ‐‐NOP my letter (Neva Yarkin) on May 3, 2017 regarding flooding at the underpass  on Embarcadero near Castilleja.    This has not been analyzed in the DEIR.     It is a real problem  2 because I do remember flooding from Embarcadero underpass going down Embarcadero and side  streets a few years back.  Please study this potential problem and how it can be solved.         Some Stanford expansion will happen in the near future and Electrificaiton of Caltrains  is happening right now.  One option still on the table for the Caltrains is closing Churchill Ave.  If  street closure of Churchill Ave. happens, then what will happen to surrounding streets?  They for  sure will be impacted.  Another component of Stanford’s Expansion will be the addition of student  population at Palo Alto High School.  Palo Alto High School is only 2 blocks from Castilleja so there  will also be an impact. Caltrains and Stanford Expansion were not mentioned in the DEIR and they  should be.          Thank you for your time and consideration for the DEIR.           Neva Yarkin  nevayarkin@gmail.com              1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tony Ciampi <T.Ciampi@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 21, 2019 7:44 PM To:Shikada, Ed; Binder, Andrew; Council, City Subject:Ofc. Fino Public Records Request Attachments:records 1.PNG; records 2.PNG; records 3.PNG; records 4.PNG; records 5.PNG CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Ed Shikada  Palo Alto City Manager    Mr. Shikada,        I put a public records request regarding the unconstitutional detention, search and seizure and use of force  by Ofc. Daniel Fino.  The request asked for a copy of the Use of Force Report.  The response I received was that  the city does not have any such records even though city policy requires that such a report be produced.  So  per the directions of the response given to me I asked for further information as to why there is no such report  yet I have not received a response in 16 days.      You claim to be a servant of the public.  A member of the public is asking you a few questions regarding the  business you do on behalf of the public.  I would think if you were a servant of the public you would promptly  answer the questions posed to you.    I would appreciate it if you answer my questions.  Thank you.    Tony Ciampi    <D © "° a 1111µ~://vJWW.cityofpaloalto.org/g "• (9 ~ o_. Search °"' Ill\ Describe the Record(s) Requested: On June 25, 2019 Officer Daniel Fino unlawfully detained me. During this detention he used significant force on my arm by grabbing my arm with his hand and forcefully moving me several feet from the side of my veh1de to the front of my vehide. This use of force was unnecessary. I was completely compliant with officer fine's verbal and physical commands. While at the front of the veh1de. Office< Fino. without ixovocauon a"d without any legal justification, strudc me with his body pnn1n9 me to the front of my vehide with his body. This was completely unne<:essary as I was not fleeing or resisting and was completely follOY.ong his commands.. The only command that I was refusing to follow was the command to prOVlde Ofc. F'1no and O'c. Joy my identification. ·my papers: wt11ch was my Col\stt1u11onal nght not do so at that time. Even should you argue that Officers Fino and Joy had legal authority to demand my 1dent1ficauon the use of force by Ofc. Fino was unneciessary and exoe<>sive given the orOJmstances and therefore a violauon of the 4th Amendment and other laws. Pursuant to Palo Alto Police Policy 300. 300.3, 300.3.2, & 300.5: This strike to my body by Officer Fino is a use of force that requires a report to be written detailing the reasons why the use of force was used and whether the use of force was justified based upon the evidence. Additionally the officer. Fino, who used the force must provide a statement articulating the factors perceived and why he/she believed the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances. Pursuant to the California Public Records Act. Government Code Section 6250, I request a copy of the Use of Force Report regarding Officer Daniel Fina's actions of the night of On June 25, 2019. Video footage of Officer Daniel Fine's actions can be viewed on youtube at this fink: https://WWW.youtube.com/watchlv= 7EJHOOLCn9o&t=8s Or this linlc hups://bn.ly/2XFSzE2 Thank you. Tony Ciampi 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, August 25, 2019 2:26 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Gaines, Chantal; Hur, Mark; Star-Lack, Sylvia Subject:Old Palo Alto RPP CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear PTC Members,    As you know, residents of Old Palo Alto have been seeking parking relief for years. As you can see from the City Staff report, residents voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Old Palo Alto RPP (89% favorable with 59% participation rate). There is even more support since the survey was closed.    Please do not delay but rather approve the RPP proposal this Wednesday and send this to City Council for their approval on Sept 16th so the Nov 1st implementation date, as outlined by the city, will not be jeopardized.    Thank you for your help and service to our community.    Chris Robell  Old Palo Alto resident  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mohan Mahal <mohansmahal@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2019 8:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Passive House Palo Alto August 24, 2019 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi City Council      I would like for you to invite you to come and see the first Passive home being built with Bone Structure in Palo Alto. This  is a pride for City of Palo Alto. Here is the invitation.     https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/palo‐alto‐barebone‐open‐house‐registration‐65532490443    Mohan Mahal  Founder & CEO  SIDCO Homes Inc  408‐314‐3454  Members Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce.   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Stuart Hansen <hansensc@att.net> Sent:Wednesday, August 21, 2019 3:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Plan Bay Area 2050 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Plan 2040 has not worked out well…. 750,000 jobs were added and only about 100,000 housing units during the period  2010 to 2018 (MTC paper).  We see and feel the results everyday…traffic, high housing prices, frustration and a declining quality of life as density  increases.    PDA’s (priority development areas) are their answer, but who controls the jobs and housing within?  Apparently, cities  and counties, not the   MTC/ABAG if I read their FAQ’s right: “…local land use authority is retained by cities and counties” and, “Local  jurisdictions will continue to   determine where future development occurs”. If this is so, then aren’t we (cities) to blame for this mess?    I feel we must have a permanent cap on office/commercial development, maintain our 50ft height limit (no exceptions,  like clock towers and roof gardens, etc, that set precedents for other developers). Also I think we need to stop excepting  “in‐lieu” payments and so‐called “public benefits” like the public patio taken‐over by a restaurant, etc.     Since we are space‐constrained, construct a mix of new rental housing units, both market‐rate individual and lower‐cost  shared‐facility dorm‐style, in place of new or inside vacated office buildings until we bring the jobs/housing imbalance  down from almost 4:1 (P.A.) to about 1.5:1 or lower. Consider contracting with Stanford Univ. to manage the “dorm‐ style” portion…they know how and have the resources to do this.  Your comments welcome. Stuart Hansen, resident, Palo Alto.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Phil Burton <philip-b@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:comments about proposed Rail Blue Ribbon Committee CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  After reading the Staff Report recommending the creation of this group and watching (via streaming) this past Monday’s  City Council discussion of the issue, I wish to make the following points regarding the RBRC.  In the interests of full  disclosure, I am a member of the XCAP, representing Midtown South.  I was also a member of the original CAP and  served on the Rail Corridor Task Force 2011‐2012.     I didn’t detect the sense of urgency needed to move the grade separations project from a set of alternatives to a  set of plans.  Considering that VTA will not allocate Measure B funds according to the number of grade crossings  in each city, it is imperative that Palo Alto have a bond issue on the 2020 ballot rather than the 2022 ballot.     Recruitment of the membership of the RBRC will probably take far longer than expected,  again making it harder  to achieve the goal of a bond issue on the 2020 ballot.     The RBRC in isolation will need a significant amount of time to develop the knowledge of the issues, also  contributing to delays in producing a set of recommendations.     Creation of a second group to address the same overall issues as the XCAP will inevitably create duplication of  effort and disputes around ownership of issues.  In my entire professional life, admittedly in high‐tech private  industry rather than government, I have always seen the creation of just one group (“task force”) to address a  major set of issues.  These organizational issues will only serve to push out the timeline for a decision, making it  harder to achieve the goal of a bond issue on the 2020 ballot.       XCAP members have broad expertise in a number of areas.  As a group, we have learned from each other and  from the discussion, and now serve as a source of institutional memory.  Abolition of the XCAP, as  recommended in an email Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:32 AM by former mayor Gail Price, without any justification  or rationale, would be self‐defeating, and hard to justify for the reasons just cited.       Larry Klein’s email, Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:16 PM, also recommending abolition of the XCAP, does identify the  problem with two groups.    5. Having both  RBRC and EPAC seems a potential source of confusion. For example, staff's recommendation that  RBRC not evaluate technical aspects  but instead use evaluation developed  by staff and XCAP is murky at  best.And of course having two groups doing somewhat similar work increases staff and consultant costs.    However, his email does not address the issues of recruitment time nor replacement of the XCAP expertise.    The Staff Report justifies the creation of the RBRC as follows:    These individuals have direct experience in balancing the complex and competing issues presented here, but would also, as a body, demonstrate to regional stakeholders the significance of the 2 grade separation issue to Palo Alto.    The first point can be easily addressed by appointing the right former Palo Alto elected officials to the XCAP.  They can  add their expertise to the XCAP, while learning quickly by close contact with XCAP members in meetings and in private  meetings at other times.  This approach does not diminish the effectiveness of the XCAP.    The second point, I believe, is properly the role and responsibility of the City Council itself.  That is what we citizens of  Palo Alto elected you to do.    Respectfully,    Phil Burton        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ron Baker (via Dropbox) <no-reply@dropbox.com> Sent:Friday, August 23, 2019 8:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:Ron Baker shared "Video of Arastradero Corridor in Palo Alto" with you CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In   Hi there,    Ron Baker (rabaker.pa@gmail.com) invited you to view the folder "Video of  Arastradero Corridor in Palo Alto" on Dropbox.    Ron said:  "Dropbox Video of walk along parking lane on westbound side of  Arastradero, walking against direct of traffic from Cherry Oaks to Coulombe.  View of tire scuffs on concrete form in parking lane. Note that only the first  part at Cherry Oaks, and the last part towards Coulombe, where a car has  been parked for most of last week, is there relatively little scuff mark. Also  see my separately sent photos of marks on other traffic forms. Ron Baker"  Go to folder     Enjoy!  The Dropbox team     Ron and others will be able to see when you view files in this folder. Other  files shared with you through Dropbox may also show this info. Learn more  in our help center.        Report to Dropbox © 2019 Dropbox      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Nancydwagner <nancydwagner@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, August 24, 2019 3:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:San Francisquito creek pollution CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    The amount of pollution/garbage in San Francisquito creek is posing an environmental crisis. There are bags of garbage  in the creek  east of the Bryant street bridge that have been sitting in the creek bed since winter when they created a  dam. I’ve reported to the police and was told they don’t have the man power to address the problem. The area under  the Alma street bridge is even worse. Can the City hire a contractor to clean up the creek bed and remove debris, human  waste and other hazards?  There doesn’t seem to be any City agency willing to address the pollution and hazards  accumulating in the creek and this needs to change.  The creek and it’s contents flow to the bay ‐ garbage and  encampments need to be removed on a regular basis.    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Gary Wesley <gary.wesley@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 1:04 AM To:Jerry Hill Cc:Gary Wesley Subject:SB 592 - August 28 hearing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Senator Jerry Hill: SB 592 is not clear but seems to entitle developers to build projects that might - or might not - be approved under local zoning. Conditional uses could become mandatory approvals. The bill appears headed for Appropriations on August 28. It should be rejected. Respectfully, Gary Wesley, Mountain View. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Gary Wesley <gary.wesley@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 2:58 AM To:assemblyca Cc:Gary Wesley Subject:SB 592 - August 28 hearing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Assemblyman Berman: Since SB 592 is on the agenda of the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 28 and you are a member of that committee, I note that the bill is not clear but would seem to require local approval of projects potentially permitted in areas only as conditional uses. Many local ordinances grant city officials broad discretion in approving or rejecting projects with the ability to impose conditions making all of the difference. SB 592 should be rejected. Sincerely, Gary Wesley, Resident of Mountain View 1 Brettle, Jessica From:promiserani <promiserani@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 27, 2019 3:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Social credit systems CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,     I'd like to draw your attention to this article about the social credit systems that are emerging in the US, especially  relevant to the bay area where many of these companies are based. Please consider taking action to prevent  marginalization of Palo Altans outside the legal system.     https://www.fastcompany.com/90394048/uh‐oh‐silicon‐valley‐is‐building‐a‐chinese‐style‐social‐credit‐system    thank you  Prerana Jayakumar, Palo Alto        Do not be dismayed by the brokenness of the world. All things break. And all things can be mended. Not with time, as they say, but with intention. So go. Love intentionally, extravagantly, unconditionally. The broken world waits in darkness for the light that is you. - L.R.Knost    http://www.karnatik.com  http://www.okachiko.com  http://www.transitionpaloalto.org  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kurt Buecheler <kurtbuecheler@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 25, 2019 4:03 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Strong support for old Palo Alto RPP CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear planning commission and city council:  Thank you for your willingness to listen to our intense congestions and parking problems in Old Palo Alto near  Bowden park.  The vote matches sentiment of conversations in the neighborhood.  We've had troubles for years, the  intensity of the problem is way up over the last year, and the neighborhood is unified in wanting this RPP.    We hope you'll pass this RPP without delay and without change.  Please approve this on September 16th so  we can make progress forward.  Thank you  Kurt Buecheler  {REDACTED}  Palo Alto CA 94301  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:37 PM To:Council AnswerPoint Subject:JAMA: Tap water lowers IQs CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  *** 2. JAMA just came out with a new study (Aug 2019) on fluoride in tap water as cause of lower IQs in children (during pregnancy.). See 2. below. JAMA - Jour. of American Medical Assn. Pediatrics *** 1. First read the short summary of 53 studies (as of June 2018) that find children's brains are damaged by fluoride in tap water Sent by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com ______________ 1. FLUORIDE & IQ: THE 53 STUDIES\ Fluoride Action Network | By Michael Connett & Tara Blank, PhD | UPDATED September 11, 2016 As of June 2018, a total of 60 studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence, and over 40 studies have investigated the relationship fluoride and learning/memory in animals. Of these investigations, 53 studies have found that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ in humans, while 45 animal studies have found that fluoride exposure impairs the learning and/or memory capacity of animals. The human studies, which are based on IQ examinations of over 15,000 children, provide compelling evidence that fluoride exposure in the early years of life can damage a child’s developing brain. After reviewing 27 of the human IQ studies, a team of Harvard scientists concluded that fluoride’s effect on the young brain should now be a “high research priority.” (Choi, et al 2012). Other reviewers have reached similar conclusions, including the prestigious National Research Council (NRC), and scientists in the Neurotoxicology Division of the Environmental Protection Agency (Mundy, et al). Quick Facts About the 53 Studies: Go to. fluoridealert.org -____________________________ JAMA: Journal of American Medical Assn.-- Pediatrics Study raises questions about how fluoride affects children's development Exposure in utero can affect child's IQ By Nadia Kounang, CNN, Aug 19, 2019 12:33 PM PDT https://www.keyt.com/health/study-raises-questions-about-how-fluoride-affects- childrens-development/1111228630ance (CNN) - Water fluoridation has been hailed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as one of the top great public health achievements of the 20th century, but a 2 new study raises questions about its role as a potential neurotoxin in utero. The study, published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics on Monday, found that increased levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy were associated with declines in IQ in children. Previous research has made similar findings, but this is the first such study to evaluate the effect of fluoride on populations receiving what the US Public Health Service considers optimal levels of 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of drinking water, such as in the United States and Canada. The authors of the new study assessed 601 Canadian mother and child pairs, tracking the fluoride exposure of 512 of the mothers by looking at the average concentration of fluoride in urine samples taken throughout their pregnancies as a proxy for prenatal fluoride exposure. The authors also estimated the mothers' daily fluoride intake by surveying their beverage intake, including tap water. Between the ages of 3 and 4, all children born from the studied mothers were tested for IQ. The authors found that for each additional 1 milligram per liter in concentration of fluoride in a mother's urine, there was a 4.5-point drop in IQ in males. The study did not find such a significant association in female children, nor did it examine why boys were more significantly affected. The researchers say that further investigation into whether boys are more vulnerable to fluoride neurotoxicity is needed, especially considering that boys have a higher prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism and attention-deficit disorder. The researchers also measured the fluoride intake in 400 of the mothers against their children's IQ scores. They say this measure might reflect postnatal exposure to fluoride because a child is probably ingesting the same type of water as the mother did during pregnancy. Other cases could stem from chemicals in California tap water the healthiest water to drink: Is there such a thing DA proposes new fluoride standard for bottled water (CNN) - Water fluoridation has been hailed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as one of the top great public health achievements of the 20th century, but a new study raises questions about its role as a potential neurotoxin in utero. The authors believe that urine concentration better reflects prenatal exposure. They found that for every 1 mg/L average increase in fluoride intake by a mother, there was a 3.7-point drop in the child's IQ, regardless of gender. "At a population level, that's a big shift. That translates to millions of IQ levels lost," said study author Christine Till, an associate professor in the Department of Psychology at York University in Toronto. Till and her colleagues controlled their findings for income and education, as well as other elemental exposures such as lead, mercury, manganese, PFOA and arsenic, but acknowledged that there may be unknown exposures that could have influenced their findings. "There will always be things that we don't measure, because we didn't know it existed," Till said. Fluoridation remains contentious issue Critics pointed to the difference between boys and girls as an issue in the study. "The gender difference in the results make it difficult to interpret. At this point, the gender difference is problematic," said Dr. Aparna Bole, chairwoman of American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Environmental Health. Bole said that this research alone won't change any of the organization's recommendations to use fluoride to prevent cavities, but "I think the study was well done and that the commentary was thoughtful." 3 Grainne McAlonan, professor of translational neuroscience at the Sackler Institute for Translational Neurodevelopment at King's College London, said that while the findings were statistically significant, not too much could be made of them in a practical sense. "In reality, the average difference in fluoride levels between the majority living in low and high fluoride areas is nowhere near 1mg/L. The average urinary fluoride levels in non-fluoridated areas is 0.4mg/L, while in higher areas, it is almost 0.7mg/L, a difference of only 0.3mg/L," McAlonan said. About 66% of all US residents receive fluoridated water, but water fluoridation has been contentious since it was implemented by local municipalities in the 1950s, due to conspiracy theories and health concerns. Questions about water fluoridation have at times been considered "fringe science," and the editorial board of JAMA Pediatrics recognized that publishing the paper could invite controversy. In an editor's note, journal editor Dr. Dimitri Christakis, director of the Center for Child Health, Behavior and Development at Seattle Children's Research Institute, wrote that the journal was "committed to disseminating the best science based entirely on the rigor of the methods and the soundness of the hypotheses tested, regardless of how contentious the results may be." More research needed In an additional editorial, David Bellinger, a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, wrote that the findings still need to be replicated and that no one study would could determine the safety and efficacy of fluoride. But, he added, "These considerations notwithstanding, the hypothesis that fluoride is a neurodevelopmental toxicant must now be given serious consideration." In an email to CNN, Dr. Pamela Den Besten, a professor in the University of California San Francisco's School of Dentistry, said, "Fluoride remains a safe and effective tool for caries prevention." Den Besten has studied the role of fluoride in fluorosis, a condition that results from excess exposure to fluoride. However, she also noted that fluoride is most effective in topical applications and added that "my bias, given the findings of this and other studies, is to focus on the delivery of fluoride through strategies that do not require the fluoride to be ingested." She added that it wouldn't be unreasonable for pregnant women to use lower-fluoride bottled water during pregnancy instead of tap. In a statement, the American Dental Association said, "We welcome this and further scientific study of the issue to see if the findings can be replicated with methods that demonstrate more conclusive evidence." https://www.keyt.com/health/study-raises-questions-about-how-fluoride-affects- childrens-development/1111228630 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 27, 2019 9:32 AM To:Sam Liccardo; Sara Cody Subject:TECHNICIAN SOUNDS 5G ALARM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  The most prevalent symptoms include headache, fatigue, decreased ability to concentrate, tinnitus, irritability, and insomnia. Impacts on the heart and the nervous system are also of great concern.” – Dr. Riina Bray, Chemical Engineer, MD WakingTimes CELL TOWER TECHNICIAN SOUNDS THE ALARM ON THE DANGERS OF 5G August 13, 2019 Phillip Schneider, Staff WriterWaking Times If you take radiofrequency close, it superheats the water molecules in your brain, eyes, and testicles … You could render yourself sterile or have a splitting headache for days, or, I’ve cooked the top of my skull and left me useless for the rest of the day.” >> Almost nothing demonstrates the hubris of government and corporations more clearly than the 5G rollout, or what President Trump calls “a race we must win.” >> The dangers of 5G are vast and overwhelming as our privacy, health, and liberties are all at risk as a result of 5thgeneration technology. As our government touts its economic benefits, doctors, scientists, and even meteorologists around the world are sounding the alarm about the implications of the technology. But recently, a cell tower installer, or “tower climber” as he calls himself, began speaking out about the danger that 5G poses to our health. His video has gone relatively viral since it was posted in mid-June and he has since followed up with a few others talking about 5G. In his own words, he explains how dangerous installing 4G technology has been. “If you take radiofrequency close, it superheats the water molecules in your brain, eyes, and testicles … You could render yourself sterile or have a splitting headache for days, or, I’ve cooked the top of my skull and left me useless for the rest of the day.” That’s only with 4G. However, because of 4G’s long wavelength the only real harm that can be done occurs at very short-range, just a few feet from the cell tower’s dispersion point. Remember that 4G technology works within a range of about 1.5 – 2.8 megahertz. 5G on the other hand, broadcasts in gigahertz frequencies – which is about 1500 times more intense than what 4G relies on. READ: PROMINENT BIOCHEMISTRY PROFESSOR WARNS – 5G IS THE ‘STUPIDEST IDEA IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD’ 2 Also, 5G transmitters will not be constructed high upon a mountain out of harm’s way like 4G towers are. They are going to be placed in offices, on street corners, inside your car, and in your home. The long-term effects of 4G are not yet known, but 5G is going to bring us to a whole new level of imminent danger to our health. “Not to mention what it’s going to do to your brain and your eyes and your testicles or ovaries just from the superheating that radiofrequency will do at a close range. But because it is so powerful, so compact and tightly beamed, it is literally going to be able to break down the bonds that hold your cells together – and that’s how you get tumors.” Scientists have also been speaking out about 5G health dangers, backing up him claims. In June, a team of meteorologists wrote a letter to the FCC detailing the impact that 5G will have on NOAA’s information systems. They argue that by sharing the radio spectrum with mobile providers, it will delay important life-saving information about natural disasters which could end up costing many lives in an emergency. Frank Clegg, the former president of Microsoft Canada, also warns of the dangers of 5G in a panel he put together for Canadian television viewers. “[5G] requires an entirely new infrastructure of thousands of small cellular antennas to be erected throughout cities where it’s going to be installed.” – Frank Clegg Many scientists and doctors agree that 5G may pose a great risk to our health. >> “The most prevalent symptoms include headache, fatigue, decreased ability to concentrate, tinnitus, irritability, and insomnia. Impacts on the heart and the nervous system are also of great concern.” – Dr. Riina Bray, Chemical Engineer, MD “At lower frequencies, scientists are predicting damage to eyes, loss of insect populations which are already declining, antibiotic resistant bacteria and physiological effects on the nervous system and the immune system.” – Dr. Magda Havas, Professor and Researcher, PhD If 5G is rolled out across the country, it will drastically increase the proximity of powerful millimeter waves to people everywhere, especially those living in cities and urban areas. As we all know by now, the federal government and its regulatory agencies do not work for the people. This is nothing new, but it does go to show that we cannot rely on government to make important decisions about our lives, or to tell us the truth about big industries like telecom. Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ron Baker <rabaker.pa@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 23, 2019 8:04 PM To:City Mgr; Council, City Subject:Tire Marks on New Forms on Arastradero, 1 Block Between Coulombe and Cherry Oaks CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  Ron Baker rabaker.pa@gmail.com     1 Brettle, Jessica From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, August 24, 2019 2:52 PM To:Jack Derripper Subject:VIRAL "WE HAVE OUR FEET IN THE CASTLE" lawyers committeefor9-11inquiry.org CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  WE'RE GOING VIRAL FOLKS THERE WILL BE "CHANGE" WHEN ENOUGH OF US KNOW https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9‐11inquiry.org/    The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry To develop and implement a detailed legal strategy to achieve transparency and accountability under the law, reg...    https://colorado911truth.org/ WILL YOU SHARE THIS WITH ME 🙂 "WE HAVE OUR FEET IN THE CASTLE" CIA FACEBOOK BLOCKED ME 2 (AGAIN) WHAT A BUNCH OF RETARDS (AGAIN) LMAO 🙂 (AGAIN) ‼‼ATTENTION‼‼ Seems my outspoken non‐conforming rebellion against the system has been intercepted😒 Discovered that 80% of my posts aren't being broadcast to y'all😏 Funny that, If I'm not doing wrong, why are government social media trolls erasing my statuses/videos about politricks?🤔 I POST THIS ON ALL VENUES FACEBOOK IS THE WORST Just sayin I POST THIS EVERY DAY 🙂 EVERY American NEEDS TO KNOW THIS AND WHY? Because NO ONE would DIE for a LIE, RIGHT? ❤ https://youtu.be/Y5Lb_7ycx04 https://www.ae911truth.org/…/519‐lawsuit‐seeks‐answers‐on‐f… https://www.youtube.com/watch… https://youtu.be/Kd6vR1J0_6A 3 https://www.ae911truth.org/…/540‐new‐york‐area‐fire‐commiss… https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link… http://gunsandbutter.org/... https://youtu.be/MuRQtMh‐gCQ https://youtu.be/l0Q5eZhCPuc https://youtu.be/8DOnAn_PX6M 4 https://youtu.be/0aXVzLMVdWM https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/new‐american‐century/ Ken O'Keefe is re‐releasing his epic expose of the Israeli/Jewish lies about Iran that are being employed just as the "WMD's in Iraq" lie was used to send American sons and daughters off to die for Israel in the invasion/occupation of Iraq. With Syria not all going to plan, the ultimate target of Iran and the World War III agenda looks to be in overdrive with President Trump continuing the sickening and sycophantic role of Jewish US Presidents as Jewish whipping boys. How many more American sons and daughters will be sacrificed for Israel before genuine American patriots stand up and refuse orders and arrest the traitors in Congress? GOING VIRAL Ken O'Keefe 📷🙂 📷❤ https://vimeo.com/225632936.... PLEASE SHARE TO ALL GROUPS? BECAUSE I CAN'T? "WE HAVE OUR FEET IN THE CASTLE" IT'LL BE OVER "SOONER RATHER THAN LATER" LAWYERSCOMMITTEEFOR9‐11INQUIRY.ORG The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry To develop and implement a detailed legal strategy to achieve transparency and accountability under the law, regarding the unprosecuted crimes of 9/11 5 To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In      The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry To develop and implement a detailed legal strategy to achieve transparency and accountability under the law, reg...    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 27, 2019 12:36 PM To:Atkinson, Rebecca Cc:Fleming, Jim; Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; UAC; board@pausd.org Subject:FW: Wireless Communications Facilities Hot Topics Site Hi Rebecca, It has been almost a month since I sent you the email below. Since I haven’t heard from you or from Jim Fleming in response, I am resending it to make sure you received it. Also: I see that the Wireless Hot Topics page still has not been updated since mid-April. If there is anything related to small cell nodes that has occurred since mid-July, when you brought me personally up-to-date, I would appreciate it if you or one of your colleagues would tell me. Please consider this a formal request. Sincerely, Jeanne Jeanne Fleming JFleming@Metricus.net {REDACTED} From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>   Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 6:03 PM  To: 'Atkinson, Rebecca' <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: 'Fleming, Jim' <Jim.Fleming@CityofPaloAlto.org>; 'Council, City' <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Clerk, City'  <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Architectural Review Board' <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>;  Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org; UAC@cityofpaloalto.org; 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. 2 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 {REDACTED} From: Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 7:41 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 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,  3 Rebecca  See Alert Icon:  See example Alert Signup Screen:  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 {REDACTED} 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 {REDACTED} 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 {REDACTED} 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 {REDACTED} 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Rice, Danille Sent:Thursday, August 29, 2019 11:13 AM To:Council, City Cc:Minor, Beth; Flaherty, Michelle; leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique; Howzell, Terence; Stump, Molly Subject:Letter regarding Civil Grand Judy Report - Inquiry into Governance of the Valley Transpiration Authority Attachments:Civil Grand Judy Report_Inquiry into Governance of the VTA.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  Patricia Lucas regarding the 2018‐2019 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report, entitled, “Inquiry into Governance  of the Valley Transportation Authority”.     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          City of Palo Alto Office of the Mayor and City Council August 29, 2019 Honorable Patricia Lucas Presiding Judge Santa Clara County Superior Court 191 North First Street San Jose, CA 95113 Re: Civil Grand Jury Report -Inquiry into Governance of the Valley Transportation Authority (June 18, 2019} Honorable Patricia Lucas, On behalf of the City of Palo Alto, I would like to express our appreciation for the effort and commitment demonstrated by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury's report, entitled Inquiry into Governance of the Valley Transportation Authority (June 18, 2019). As required by California Penal Code§§ 933{c) & 933.05 (a) & (b), this letter represents the City's response on recommendations that involve the City of Palo Alto. The following are the recommendations most relevant to Palo Alto, along with our responses: Recommendation la City of Palo Alto Response VTA should commission a study of the governance structures of successful large city transportation agencies, focusing on such elements as: board size; term of service; method of selection (directly elected, appointed or a combination); director qualifications; inclusion of directors who are not elected officials; and methods of ensuring proportional demographic representation. This study should be commissioned prior to December 31, 2019. Agree. The City of Palo Alto requests that the charge to VTA be clarified to include not only "large city" transportation agencies, but specifically metropolitan areas (such as Portland, Oregon) where transit agency service areas span multiple municipalities. It is also important that VTA engage all cities equally in this study, and not allow the current governance structure to limit the involvement of cities that do not currently have voting representatives on the VTA board. P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2477 650.328.3631 fax Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine. Recommendation As the appointing entity with an interest in the transit needs of all County lb residents, the County of Santa Clara should commission its own study of transportation agency governance structures, focusing on the elements listed in Recommendation la. This study should be commissioned prior to December 31, 2019. City of Palo Alto Agree. The City of Palo Alto requests that the charge to the County of Santa Response Clara be clarified to specifically include metropolitan areas (such as Portland, Oregon) where transit agency service areas span multiple municipalities. Recommendation As constituent agencies of VT A, each of the cities in the County should le prepare and deliver to VTA and the County Board of Supervisors a written report setting forth its views regarding VTA governance, with specific reference to the elements listed in Recommendation la. These reports should be completed and delivered prior to December 31, 2019. City of Palo Alto Partially Agree. The City of Palo Alto appreciates the Civil Grand Jury's Response recommendation that cities be directly and actively engaged in the discussion of alternative governance structures for VTA. Consistent with the circumstances described in the Civil Grand Jury's report, however, smaller cities are not immediately positioned to engage and advance a consensus position on this issue. Meaningfully providing input to this process will require that cities without designated seats on the VTA Board be given the time and resources necessary to consider a consensus position. Specifically, it may be necessary to evaluate the governance of VT A not only in terms of population distribution, but also factors such as employment and sales tax generation given that a majority of VT A's revenues are generated from sales tax measures. As a major employment center and sales tax generator at the edge of VT A's service territory, Palo Alto has historically been underrepresented in VTA policy decision in ways that do not serve the travelling public. How representation relates to communities of interest with shared permanent transportation issues, such as Caltrain and High Speed Rail interests may also be a consideration. Pending decisions on railroad grade separation funding under Measure B pose further risks to VTA's ability to follow through on commitments made to Santa Clara voters, such that a thoughtful consideration of governance is particularly timely. The City of Palo Alto therefore requests that VTA provide funding to an appropriate fiscal agent, such as the Cities Association of Santa Clara County, to provide the resources needed for a thoughtful discussion of alternatives and positions by cities without designated seats on the VTA Board. This discussion should include the potential support for organizations similar to Councils of Governments that can sustainably represent the interests of multiple municipalities. Once this funding is committed, at least 120 days will be needed to complete the discussion and documentation of perspectives and recommendations to the VTA Board and County Board of Supervisors. Recommendation Within six months following the completion of the studies and reports ld specified in Recommendations la, lb and le, the County of Santa Clara and/or one or more of VT A's other constituent agencies, should propose enabling legislation, including appropriate amendments to Sections 100060 through 100063 of the California Public Utilities Code, to improve the governance structure of VTA (which potentially could include an increase in the directors' term of service, the addition of term limitations and the inclusion of appointed directors who are not currently serving elected officials). City of Palo Alto Agree. Per the response comments provided for Recommendation lC, the Response City of Palo Alto is open to participating in the development of such legislation, assuming it addresses the root concerns that lead to underrepresentation of the smaller jurisdictions, particularly communities bordering other counties. Recommendation In order to provide more continuity in the leadership of the VT A Board, within le six months following the completion of the studies and reports specified in Recommendations la, lb and le, the County of Santa Clara and/or one or more of VTA's other constituent agencies, should propose enabling legislation amending Section 100061 of the California Public Utilities code to provide that the Chairperson of the VTA Board shall be elected for a term of two years rather than one. City of Palo Alto Partially agree. While continuity is very important for the functionality of the Response board, the continuity is only effective if it is fairly distributed among the constituent agencies. In other words, extending the term for chairpersons representing San Jose or Santa Clara County could actually exacerbate other issues discussed in the report. Given this, we believe it may be premature to commit to a specific action such as increasing the Chairperson's term to two years. Palo Alto would prefer to hold this recommendation in abeyance in order to allow time for overall recommendations to be developed. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this response, please feel free to contact City Manager Ed Shikada at ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org. Sincerely, ~~¥? Eric Filseth Mayor cc: VTA Board Palo Alto City Council 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Laura Bajuk <lbajuk@paloaltomuseum.org> Sent:Friday, August 30, 2019 11:35 AM To:Council, City Cc:Ramberg, David; Tong, Sunny Subject:Museum wins grant approval of $102,992 from the County CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members:     A quick note to share some good news: the County board of supervisors approved our grant request of $102,992.00 on  Wednesday, to help repair the Roth roof.     This drops our goal to complete the construction fund of $9.2M to $800,000.    We submitted two additional grant requests to the County this week: $100k toward the remainder of the roof, and  $100k toward the protection and conservation of the Arnautoff frescoes. (HUGE thanks to David Ramberg, Elise  DeMarzo and Nadya Chuprina for their advice on these grants.)      OTHER RECENT NEWS:    Our construction permit extension runs through February 2020, allowing time for City staff to update our lease  agreement, audit our financial position and outstanding pledges, and for us to close that funding gap.   Linda Taaffe and the Weekly are allowing us to make her 125th timeline into a physical exhibit, which will be  shown the month of March at the Pacific Art League.   9th Grader Annie Reynolds is forming a Teen Advisory Council to assist the Museum. They will help refill the  time capsule.   We have a new, pro bono office: 4260 El Camino Real, Palo Alto ‐ hosted by Juliana Lee, Jade Lee Realty. In a few  weeks, we will be hanging copies of our archival photos there in a new exhibit in partnership with PAHA.  Thank you for your support, and service to our community; you are making history.    Best, Laura      Laura Bajuk  Executive Director  Palo Alto Museum  LBajuk@PaloAltoMuseum.org    New Office: 4260 El Camino Real, Palo Alto ‐ hosted by Juliana Lee at Jade Lee Realty    History teaches everything - including the future. - Lamartine       1 Brettle, Jessica From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Wednesday, August 28, 2019 2:35 PM To:Loran Harding; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; Mayor; Mark Standriff; midge@thebarretts.com; Mark Kreutzer; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; huidentalsanmateo; margaret-sasaki@live.com; terry; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; robert.andersen; jerry ruopoli; popoff; bballpod; Doug Vagim; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg; Steven Feinstein; info@superide1.com; Council, City Subject:Fwd: NBR for Tues. Aug. 27, 2019 Amtrak new HS trains in Boston-DC CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 2:14 PM  Subject: Fwd: NBR for Tues. Aug. 27, 2019 Amtrak new HS trains in Boston‐DC  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 1:36 PM  Subject: NBR for Tues. Aug. 27, 2019 Amtrak new HS trains in Boston‐DC  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>              Wed. Aug. 28, 2019              Dan‐  I case you missed it, this NBR has a piece at 20:57 here re 28 new Acela trains to run in the Boston‐DC  corridor. Built by Alstom of New Castle, De. in upstate New York. 160 mph v. 150 for current Acelas. In service in 2021.  Nice test drive for CHSRA to consider when they choose trains.              At 20:57 to 23:56                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4QUqbejKDg           They discuss the safe but old infrastructure the faster trains will run on. That would give me pause as a passenger.  Recall DB's Eschede accident. CHSRA can say someday that Amtrak had fast trains first, but ours will run on safe(r)  infrastructure.                 Trump says the States should pay to upgrade rail infrastructure. Spending $738 billion of federal money next year  to defend and enrich  Germany‐ all of Europe‐ and Japan and S. Korea and Taiwan, and a lot more, is a square deal for  the American people, provided they survive their trips on Acela. Not a dime of federal money to upgrade rail  2 infrastructure. That should be a talking point by the (incompetent) Dem pres. candidates.  We don't hear current Dem  members of Congress or California's Dem Governor discussing this either. Too busy out shopping, I guess.                LH  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Saturday, August 31, 2019 2:03 PM To:kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Daniel Zack; Mark Standriff; Mark Kreutzer; info@superide1.com; midge@thebarretts.com; beachrides; bearwithme1016 @att.net; robert.andersen; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; Mayor; Council, City; popoff; Cathy Lewis; huidentalsanmateo; grinellelake@yahoo.com; vallesR1969@att.net; Doug Vagim; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg Subject:Fwd: Opponent of Ca HSR who you probably know. Bet he's a Republican CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 1:40 PM  Subject: Fwd: Opponent of Ca HSR who you probably know. Bet he's a Republican  To: Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 1:22 PM  Subject: Opponent of Ca HSR who you probably know. Bet he's a Republican  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>               Saturday, Aug. 31, 2019                Dan‐‐ Here's a nice anti‐HSR piece. You probably know this fellow.               https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/guest_perspectives/bringing‐common‐sense‐to‐high‐speed‐rail‐ plans/article_9a54e57c‐cad5‐11e9‐9a52‐d7809f4cb4b0.html                Where his argument falls apart is that all of the big, rich countries we defend all have big HSR systems, as I keep  saying. $738 billion is the new "Defense" budget‐ defense for lots of rich countries paid for by Americans. He says he's  from the CV and HSR is indeed fiercely opposed here by the rich Repubs who want to keep things as they are. 45 min.  Fresno to Palo Alto and visa versa would not keep things as they are.                    Where, oh where would the money ever come from for HSR? From the money we now lavish on Germany and  Japan.                         LH                                      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Timothy Mulligan <simpatico4@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, September 2, 2019 10:45 AM Subject:Timothy Mulligan "California Waterscapes" at the Bryant Street Gallery in Palo Alto, Sept. 3 - 30, 2019 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  2   I wanted to let you know about my new art exhibit, "California Waterscapes" at the Bryant  Street Gallery in Palo Alto, CA, Sept 3rd ‐ 30th, 2019.  3 Wishing you the best,  Timothy  Website: Timothy Mulligan Fine Art     1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Wednesday, August 28, 2019 3:10 PM To:French, Amy Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; UAC; board@pausd.org Subject:RE: Wireless CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Ms. French, Thank you for your prompt response. I take note that, while the updates to the Wireless Ordinance Council voted for in April still have not been made, Verizon plans to install in September eleven ugly, noisy, potentially hazardous cell towers right next to homes in Mid-town neighborhoods. These include at least one cell tower in close proximity to an elementary school. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net {REDACTED} From: French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 5:21 PM  To: jfleming@metricus.net  Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: Wireless  Hello Jeanne,  The CMO staff no longer updates the Wireless Hot Topics webpage.   Planning staff had provided content to the CMO regarding planning entitlement reviews for that page.   However, staff will be modifying the CMO page soon to:  (1) note Council’s June amendments to the Ordinance,  (2) refer readers to Planning Department project pages that are updated with respect to planning entitlement projects,  and   (3) archiving and cleaning up some content.  We have yet to understand how other departments might provide the public with updates about their permit processes  related to wireless.  Public Works maintains a webpage about major public works projects.  Meanwhile, below is correspondence from Utilities staff, providing status information about Verizon/Vinculums street  work and encroachment permits.  Verizon Wireless/Vinculums  2 Cluster 1  Node # Address Pole  #  Street Work  Permit  Issued Encroachment  Permit  Issued  129*  2490 Louis Rd 3121  18STR‐00087 10‐05‐18 18ENC‐00044  10‐05‐18 130  2802 Louis Rd 2461  18STR‐00088 10‐05‐18 18ENC‐00046  10‐05‐18 131  891 Elbridge Wy  3315  18STR‐00086 10‐05‐18 18ENC‐00045  10‐05‐18 133E*  949 Loma Verde Av  2872 18STR‐00089 10‐05‐18 18ENC‐00047  10‐05‐18 134  3409 Kenneth Dr  2964  18STR‐00090 10‐05‐18 18ENC‐00048  10‐05‐18 135  795 Stone Ln 3610  18STR‐00091 10‐05‐18 18ENC‐00049  10‐05‐18 137  3090 Ross Rd 3351  18STR‐00093 10‐05‐18 18ENC‐00051  10‐05‐18 138  836 Colorado Av  2479  18STR‐00085 11‐29‐18 18ENC‐00043  11‐29‐18 143  419 El Verano Av  3867  18STR‐00094 10‐05‐18 18ENC‐00053  10‐05‐18 144  201 Loma Verde Av  1506  18STR‐00092 10‐05‐18 18ENC‐00050  10‐05‐18 145  737 Loma Verde Av  3288  18STR‐00095 10‐05‐18 18ENC‐00052  10‐05‐18 * Utility Pole Replacement (Nodes 129 & 133E) Utilities also provided tentative construction dates from Cupertino Electric for the first cluster for Verizon/Vinculums.  Day Date Location Pole Address Outage Notes  Tue  17‐Sep  130  2461  2802 Louis Rd  Non Test  Wed  18‐Sep  138  2479  836 Colorado Ave  Non Test  Thu  19‐Sep  134  2964  3409 Kenneth Dr  Non Test  Thu  19‐Sep  133  2856  949 Loma Verde Ave Hang triplex  Fri  20‐Sep  143  3867  3299 Waverley St  Non Test, TX  Outage  Relocate TX  Mon  23‐Sep  144  1506  201 Loma Verde Ave  Non Test, TX  Outage  1 span triplex  Tue  24‐Sep  131  3315  3120 Louis Rd  Non Test, TX  Outage  Relocate TX  Wed  25‐Sep  137  3351  3090 Ross Rd  Non Test, End of  Line  Thu  26‐Sep  135  3610  795 Stone Ln.  Non Test, End of  Line  1 span triplex  Fri  27‐Sep  129  3121  2490 Louis Rd  Non Test, End of  Line  Replace pole  Mon  30‐Sep  145  3288  737 Loma Verde Ave  Non Test 1 span triplex  Tue  1‐Oct  133  2856  949 Loma Verde Ave  Non Test Replace pole  Finally, Rebecca is transitioning from Current Planning into our Long Range Planning section. She will be involved in  other projects and will not oversee the processing of new Wireless right of way applications.  Rebecca will have some  assignments related to wireless policy/codes. She is currently training staff, helping on wireless compliance efforts, and  finishing work on several projects Crown Castle Clusters 1,2 and 3, Vinculums Clusters 2 and 3, and AT&T Cluster 1. Jodie  Gerhardt, copied, is supervising the current planning staff (including staff for several vacant positions) who she will  assign the new wireless applications as they come in.  I have brief responses to your two earlier questions, which were:  1. “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?” 3 Answer: The Hot Topics webpage will not be systematically updated by Planning regarding public works activities, once  the update on the Council action is completed. Planning staff will continue to update our Planning Department’s project  pages regarding planning entitlement projects. I do not know whether Public Works or Utilities plan to contribute to, or  get access to modify, the Hot Topics webpage.  We know that page was connected with a group email list and that is  something to consider.  2.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. My answer: Correct. An update is underway. The Palo Alto Building Eye system reflects planning entitlements received,  and other permit types as well (are you able to view applications and keep abreast that way, on Building Eye?)  Amy French| Chief Planning Official 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2336| E: amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email –Thank you! 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Don Jackson <dcj@clark-communications.com> Sent:Thursday, August 29, 2019 9:58 AM To:Council, City Cc:UAC Subject:WSJ article: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics—and FCC Bullying Attachments:Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics—and FCC Bullying - WSJ.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    With respect to the current issues/debate around proposed/new microcell installations in Palo Alto,  I found this recent article in The Wall Street Journal of interest as background information.    8/24/19, 2)38 PMCities Are Saying ‘Noʼ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics—and FCC Bullying - WSJ Page 1 of 4https://www.wsj.com/articles/cities-are-saying-no-to-5g-citing-health-aestheticsand-fcc-bullying-11566619391 Jack Tibbetts, a member of the Santa Rosa, Calif., city council, knew he had a problem. It was early 2018, and he’d started getting calls from constituents at opposite ends of the political spectrum. The common thread: cellular antennas going up next to their homes, causing concerns over property values and health. The weight of evidence suggests that if radio-frequency emissions have any effect on humans at all, it is, according to the World Health Organization, about on par with other “possibly carcinogenic” substances, including coffee and pickles. The Federal Communications Commission, citing input from the Food and Drug Administration, recently declared that existing limits on the amount of radio-frequency energy these antennas put out make them safe. A senior FCC official said there is nothing unique to 5G networks that poses additional health risks. None of this has stopped the social-media-fueled conspiracy whirligig that allows health scares to thrive on the internet. Cities and towns throughout Northern California are issuing ordinances that would exclude new 5G cell sites from residential areas, citing supposed health concerns. Residents of Portland, Ore., and Whitefish, Mont., have also cited these beliefs while lobbying for restrictions. Legislators in four states including New Hampshire have proposed bills that would mandate further study of health effects or else urge Congress to do so, and Congressman Thomas Suozzi (D., N.Y.) wrote to the FCC echoing these concerns. For Mr. Tibbetts, it didn’t matter whether or not these new “small cell” antennas—which are This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visithttps://www.djreprints.com. https://www.wsj.com/articles/cities-are-saying-no-to-5g-citing-health-aestheticsand-fcc-bullying-11566619391 KEYWORDS Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to5G, Citing Health,Aesthetics—and FCCBullying Those hawking specious safety concerns about the new technology have found common cause with some of America’s most powerful mayors Aug. 24, 2019 12:03 am ET By Christopher Mims SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS How would you feel if a new small-cell tower went up in your neighborhood, adjacent to your house? Join the conversation below. 8/24/19, 2)38 PMCities Are Saying ‘Noʼ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics—and FCC Bullying - WSJ Page 2 of 4https://www.wsj.com/articles/cities-are-saying-no-to-5g-citing-health-aestheticsand-fcc-bullying-11566619391 used for 4G networks but can be upgraded for 5G—going up in Santa Rosa were actually dangerous. Some were attached to utility poles a mere 20 feet from people’s bedroom windows, and residents complained Verizon had put them up without notifying them. What mattered was that his constituents didn’t want these ungainly chunks of public infrastructure anywhere near them. “I don’t like the idea of someone being in their home and it’s supposed to be a place of security, and they are having that feeling of insecurity,” Mr. Tibbetts says. “I won’t be surprised if in 10 years there’s no evidence of cancer from these towers, but my job is not to protect Verizon, it’s to protect people in their houses.” Whatever the basis for residents’ objections to new cell towers, Mr. Tibbetts—as well as countless mayors, governors and council members across the country—have little or no power under current rules to act on their constituents’ wishes. Nor do they have the leeway they once did to set pricing for cell sites, a lucrative source of funding for civic initiatives. Those who do take action are creating ordinances that put their cities at risk of being sued by the telecoms, as happened this month in Rochester, N.Y. Billed as the key to the future—of telecommunications, of global competition, of innovation and even of municipal infrastructure—5G has instead become a bone of contention. In addition to upgrading existing towers, it will require an estimated half-million new towers and small-cell sites on utility poles, lampposts and buildings. Experts also anticipate a long rollout period, potentially of a decade or more. Most cities want 5G, but they don’t want to be told how, when and at what cost. Rules the FCC has already passed, meant to expedite 5G’s rollout, might well be creating acrimony that serves to do the exact opposite. Fast and Furious “My personal reason for doing this is I believe that humanity is threatened,” says Sandi Maurer, a member of the activist group EMF Safety Network, which lobbies to reduce people’s exposure to electromagnetic fields. Partly as a result of such activism, many towns in Marin County, Calif., have passed ordinances or resolutions that limit 5G cell sites in residential areas. Towns like Mill Valley specify zones where towers aren’t permitted, and may also require them to be a certain distance from each other. In 2018, Verizon withdrew its application to install two small cells in Sebastopol, Calif., rather than sue the city or refer the matter to the FCC. But since then, the FCC has rolled out its 5G Fast plan requiring cities and states to approve new 5G antennas within 60 or 90 days. It also limits what government leaders can charge carriers for the real estate on which the new infrastructure will hang—be it a utility pole, streetlight or even building facade. Carriers love this plan. A spokesman for AT&T referred to a statement lauding the FCC’s new rules, saying they “will help ensure that, through tried and true free-market incentives, all Americans no matter where they live will enjoy the benefits of jobs, investment, and economic growth this new technology will foster.” A Verizon spokesman said, “We’re looking for reasonable access and reasonable prices so that we can deploy 5G effectively and promptly to communities and the people who live and work in them.” 8/24/19, 2)38 PMCities Are Saying ‘Noʼ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics—and FCC Bullying - WSJ Page 3 of 4https://www.wsj.com/articles/cities-are-saying-no-to-5g-citing-health-aestheticsand-fcc-bullying-11566619391 FCC chairman Ajit Pai and President Trump have both said that widespread deployment of next-generation 5G wireless networks is critical to winning the race with China. A spokesman for the FCC referred to previous statements by the agency: “To enable broadband providers to enter new markets and deploy high-speed networks, access to poles must be swift, predictable, safe and affordable.” City leaders say their power to zone and regulate infrastructure is being abridged. More than 90 cities and counties have joined together in a lawsuit, currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the FCC has overstepped its authority. A decision could happen as early as in the spring, but it could also take much longer. San Jose, Calif., has already permitted 596 small-cell sites, all of which can be upgraded to 5G, says Shireen Santosham, the city’s chief innovation officer. When that rollout began, San Jose signed agreements with telecoms for between $750 a pole and $2,500 a pole for the new small- cell sites. If the cities lose their suit against the FCC, San Jose might be forced to charge less than the lowest amount it had previously charged per pole. The city very much wants a 5G rollout, says Mayor Sam Liccardo. But like other cities, San Jose wants to be able to charge higher prices for use of its infrastructure, not only to fund staffing to expedite permits for new sites but also to supply the $1 million to $2 million needed to support a program to deliver broadband access to poor households. “If we lose the money, the program pretty much grinds to a halt,” says Ms. Santosham. “Deployment will slow down, and the money to close the digital divide goes away.” This sort of thing could happen in other cities, despite FCC rules that say permits are automatically approved after 60 or 90 days, says Mr. Liccardo. “There are lots of ways for local bureaucracies to make it difficult even when the federal government says they must,” he adds. Blair Levin, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former chief of staff for FCC chairman Reed Hundt, said, “What the wireless guys are asking is for cities to treat them totally different than every other entity asking for construction permits. I think it will backfire because, in the fullness of time, instead of a cooperative relationship you’ll get a hostile relationship.” The prime example is Rochester, which was on the receiving end of a lawsuit filed by Verizon on Aug. 8. Verizon claims the city’s code violates FCC rules by “imposing upon wireless providers non-cost-based fees on the deployment and maintenance of small wireless facilities.” Translation: Verizon thinks the city is charging too much rent for space on its utility poles where 5G antennas would be installed. A city spokesman says the fees are in line with what other providers pay and calls the suit frivolous. “The federal framework calls for nondiscriminatory access at cost-based rates, and that is what we are seeking,” said a Verizon spokesman. “That means the federal rules prohibit special treatment.” An AT&T 5G small-cell setup hangs on a pole in Atlanta. Some cities have challenged carriers on the size and shape of 5G cells. PHOTO: MELISSA GOLDEN FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL 8/24/19, 2)38 PMCities Are Saying ‘Noʼ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics—and FCC Bullying - WSJ Page 4 of 4https://www.wsj.com/articles/cities-are-saying-no-to-5g-citing-health-aestheticsand-fcc-bullying-11566619391 Big and Ugly The health argument is hard to take to court because the FCC has sole discretion over whether the emissions of an electronic device are safe, a right unquestioned by any current court cases or pending federal legislation. A different—and so far more successful—tack has been to challenge carriers on the size and shape of the 5G cells. In a legal challenge to the FCC’s current rules undertaken by the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma, the D.C. Circuit Court recently ruled against the FCC, asserting, among other things, that 5G “small cells” aren’t nearly as small as advertised. In its brief, the industry has said these new antennas are only as big as a pizza box, and that in other respects they are comparable to home Wi-Fi routers. But the court said that, especially when they sit atop newly installed towers, they are in fact big and obtrusive enough that they require a review of their environmental impact, and that they are subject to historic- preservation rules. “Even if only 20% of small cells required new construction, as one wireless company estimates and the FCC highlights in its brief…that could entail as many as 160,000 densely spaced 50-foot towers,” writes the court. Despite all this conflict, most cities remain eager for telecoms to bring 5G to their streets, says Craig Moffett, founder and senior analyst at MoffettNathanson, a communications research firm. The industry is promising a veritable cornucopia of fantastical technologies will flow from ubiquitous, ultrafast wireless—a smarter city where your autonomous car, your augmented- reality headset and your self-emptying trash bin are always in constant contact. “It may be in retrospect we look back and laugh at how silly we all were at wondering what applications this will be used for,” Mr. Moffett said. —For more WSJ Technology analysis, reviews, advice and headlines, sign up for our weekly newsletter. Write to Christopher Mims at christopher.mims@wsj.com Copyright © 2019 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visithttps://www.djreprints.com.