Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20191007plCC 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: 10/07/2019 Document dates: 09/18/2019 – 09/25/2019 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, September 20, 2019 8:06 AM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Castilleja DEIR Attachments:Leila Moncharsh comment letter. September 16, 2019.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council and City Manager, The neighborhood group PNQL requests that the attached comment letter from our attorney, Leila Moncharsh, be sent to City Council and Mr. Shikada. Thank you, Andie Reed   ‐‐   Andie Reed CPA 160 Melville Ave  Palo Alto, CA 94301 530-401-3809   1 LAW OFFICES VENERUSO & MONCHARSH DONNA M. VENERUSO (d.’09) 5707 REDWOOD ROAD, SUITE 10 LEILA H. MONCHARSH OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94619 TELEPHONE (510) 482-0390 FACSIMILE (510) 482-0391 September 16, 2019 Amy French, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Castilleja School Expansion Plans – DEIR Comment Letter Dear Ms. French: As you know, my law firm represents PNQL. The DEIR is inadequate, it needs to be redrafted with the missing and important information that was left out of it, and then circulated for public comment. When two out of six PTC commissioners requested a new DEIR during the August 14, 2019 hearing and cited specific informational deficiencies in the one presented to them, it was an indication that the DEIR was not ready for release. Other commissioners raised many questions that had not been answered by the DEIR and should have been. An EIR is an informational document that a public agency must consider when it approves or disapproves a project. The purposes of an EIR are to provide decision-makers and the public with detailed information about the impacts of proposed projects and to list ways that significant negative impacts of the project can be mitigated. It must include “sufficient detail to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues the proposed project raises.” (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405.) As shown below, the DEIR in many respects fails to provide detailed information about Castilleja’s proposed project’s impacts or ways to mitigate them. I. Aesthetics A. Trees The DEIR admits that virtually all of the trees on and surrounding the Castilleja campus will be negatively impacted by the proposed project. According to arborist Michael Bench’s reports in Appendix C, there are 122 trees on the school property, 42 trees on the street, and 4 trees on a neighboring property for a total of 168 trees. “All of the 168 trees are expected to be 2 impacted by proposed construction.” (Bench report, dated June 13, 2016, p. 1) He states in a later report that 37 trees, some of which are very large, are to be relocated. (Bench report, dated September 20, 2017, pp. 13-14; February 15, 2018, pp. 13-14.) The DEIR, reflects that 174 trees could be impacted by the project, “128 trees located within the project site and 46 trees adjacent to the site.” (DEIR, p. 3-3.) Despite the magnitude of the tree removals and relocations due to the proposed project, the DEIR impermissibly understates the impacts on aesthetics of the tree removals and relocations. On pages 5-11 - 5-16, it minimizes the number of trees that will be moved or taken down and that will impact views from the street. Impacting Bryant Street and Kellogg Street, the DEIR claims that only one tree each will be relocated and impact the view for each street. (DEIR, pp. 5-11 - 5-13.) On Emerson Street, 22 trees would be removed or relocated. A reader of the DEIR would have no idea that in fact the 128 trees located within the project site and the 46 trees adjacent to the site will be impacted by the project and in turn, will impact the neighbors’ views of the trees. The DEIR is completely silent on how the removal or death after relocation of very tall trees will impact the neighbors’ views around and into the school campus. And as mentioned above, “a sufficient discussion of significant impacts requires not merely a determination of whether an impact is significant, but some effort to explain the nature and magnitude of the impact.” (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 519.) The neighbors are familiar with the proposal to remove and relocate many of these trees. The documents entitled, “Original Tree Locations Phase 1 and Phase 2 Tree Locations Submitted January 8, 2018” show the current locations of the trees and the plans to remove or relocate them. Having seen those documents, the neighbors have written comments, complaining about the change of how the Castilleja campus will look after the proposed project is completed. Currently, the campus has many very large trees that give the campus the feel of a woodland garden, all of which will change greatly with the proposed removal and relocation of the trees. In Hank Sousa’s comment letter and those of other neighbors, they talk about how much pleasure they get from daily walks past the magnificent trees, some of which are as tall as at least two or three story buildings. Photographs submitted by Rob Levitsky, another neighbor, show how the trees provide a forest-like background for the neighborhood. These trees are also located in key locations around the campus that act as visual buffers between the houses surrounding the school and the sterile school buildings. According to the tree location documents, these trees will be lost. Instead, what will remain are much smaller trees along the perimeter of the property. (See plans L2 and T2.) Furthermore, the DEIR’s reliance on arborist Bench’s tree plan is misplaced because the plan does nothing to prevent loss of the woodland garden setting around the campus. Although Mr. Bench relies on a tree protection plan laying out exactly how the trees will be preserved, and how many of them will be relocated, there is nothing in the DEIR that considers the survival rate from doing construction around trees or moving the trees, some of which are extremely large. 3 The neighbors retained arborist David Dockter to review Mr. Bench’s reports and the relevant sections of the DEIR. He states in his comment letter that the survival rate for moving trees is very low. Also, as to the large trees, they will need to be held up with wires which is unsightly and also does not guarantee that the relocated trees will thrive or even survive the move. (See article regarding realities of moving large trees: http://www.deeproot.com/blog/blog-entries/the- realities-of-large-tree-moving.) Furthermore, Mr. Dockter, points out that the DEIR does not discuss the risks to the preserved trees from grading. He explains that grading has a deleterious impact on trees as it disrupts their root structure, no matter how careful the onsight arborist is to set a tree protection zone and protect roots. In looking at the overall picture of what the proposed project will most likely do to the trees on the Castilleja campus and the surrounding streets, it appears that a high percentage of the extant trees will either be removed during construction, relocated and then die, or be killed by the digging and grading that is required to complete the proposed project. Architect Heinrich, in her comment letter of September 5, 2019, also discusses the loss of trees as “degrading” the visual character of the neighborhood. Drawings need to show the “before and after” of what Emerson and Embarcadero will look like after trees are removed or relocated. She points out problems with the DEIR that assumes relocation of a tree that cannot be located due to its size. The DEIR violated CEQA because it did not consider the concerns of the neighbors regarding tree loss and how that will impact the aesthetics of the greater neighborhood. These concerns have been stated in correspondence by the neighbors and the DEIR acknowledges that they are “areas of known controversy.” (DEIR, p. 1-5.) There are two references on page 1-5 of the DEIR to the controversies surrounding the trees: • Compatibility of. . . tree loss, and the scale and massing of the project with the surrounding neighborhood. . . • Tree loss in conflict with the City’s Tree Ordinance The First District Court of Appeal has recently held that a “project’s negative effect on the aesthetic, natural, scenic, or historical environmental qualities in its vicinity may constitute a significant impact under CEQA. (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 596, 609 (Friends).) Comment letters from neighbors who directly observe the condition of the property and understand the significance of the proposed project’s visual impact is sufficient to raise a “fair argument” that the proposed project will have a significant negative environmental impact. No expertise is required. (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928.) The failure to describe the visual impacts from removal and relocation of so many trees fully supports the commissioners’ requests for a new DEIR. The lead agency is legally required to obtain one and release it for public review, give the omissions about the visual impacts of tree loss. 4 B. Loss of Residential Neighborhood Characteristics Another issue not discussed in the DEIR is the aesthetic impact of placing a large institutional building close to housing, removing all but one house on the school side of Emerson Street, and installing an underground garage with an entry and an exit onto residential streets. The neighbors’ architect expert, Gogo Heinrich, points out some of the DEIR inadequacies in her comment letter in which she discusses Impact 5-1: “Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings: The DEIR is incorrect in stating the project is less than significant.” She notes that removal of two residences on Emerson will change the character of the street. Rob Levitsky, who lives on Emerson, points out that with the removal of the two houses as part of the proposed project, there will only be one house left on the school side of the street. A residential street with only one house on one side of a block is no longer residential. Neighbors showed photos of the proposed garage entry and exit at the August 14, 2019 PTC hearing. They demonstrate that the access points to and from the garage are almost identical with what one would find in a downtown parking garage or an area of a city dedicated to office buildings. It is not consistent with any residential neighborhood. A commissioner specifically asked the EIR preparer if there were any underground parking garages in the vicinity of the proposed project. The preparer was unable to provide any examples, and that was presumably because cities do not mix together retail or business building garages with residences. Furthermore, the DEIR does not even offer any examples of similar underground garages with access points adjacent to housing for schools anywhere in Palo Alto. Here, the DEIR is completely silent as to the proposed project’s negative impacts, listed above and in public comment letters, due to visual changes in the neighborhood. Instead, on page 5-2, the DEIR simply lists what is present on the project site, such as trees, parking lots, etc. Then, for some unknown reason, on the following pages, it lists Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) policies and zoning codes sections, which have nothing to do with whether the project will have negative visual impacts on this particular residential neighborhood. It then concludes that the project will have a less than significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood. In the following pages, the DEIR tries mightily to defend many of the problematic portions of the project with statements that amount to claiming in essence that “it is much better to have walls, fences, an underground commercial parking lot, and landscaped bushes than beautiful old houses, tall and magnificent trees, and 3 parking lots normally found on school grounds.” For example, the views for neighbors from Bryant and Kellogg Streets will include a new building that the DEIR admits will be 30 feet tall and 140 feet along Kellogg and a connected “campus center building” will extend another 195 feet along Kellogg towards Emerson Street. The DEIR refers us to Figures 4-1 and 4-2, which show a huge, long structure completely inconsistent with the massing, and in many cases, the height of the houses across the street. To avoid discussing the inconsistent massing and height, the DEIR tells us to look at all of the interesting fencing, wood panels, and storefront windows on this building, and how they are 5 attractively placed vertically along the building. It concludes with the absurd conclusion that as to the view from Bryant Street, “Landscaping and fencing would be similar to existing landscaping and fencing within the project site and would be compatible with the residential nature of the surrounding neighborhood.” Therefore, it reasons that the project would result in a less than significant visual change from Bryant and Kellogg (DEIR, p. 5-12, 5-13.) Nothing about this structure is visually consistent with the residential neighborhood. As for the view from Emerson Street, the DEIR acknowledges that there is no fence or wall visible from the street. The proposed project would result in demolition of two houses, construction of a wall for a swimming pool, a .33 acre park, and the underground garage. The wall admittedly would “change the aesthetics of the pedestrian experience along the sidewalk.” Once again, the DEIR goes into great detail about the wonderful materials that will be used for this wall - there would be horizontal wood slats, a 20-foot wide landscape zone, a brick planter, and only the entrance and exits from the garage would be visible. Against these obvious negative visual impacts, the DEIR then again retreats into great detail about the type of materials that will be used for fencing. It comes to the ridiculous conclusion that these “trades” make the project visually consistent with the neighborhood: “While replacement of one residential structure with a parking garage egress driveway could be seen as an adverse visual change if viewed in isolation, the addition of fencing and landscapiong to the frontage would soften the views of the driveway and the replacement of a second residential structure with a landscaped open space area is considered a beneficial visual change.” (DEIR, p. 5-16.) Several times, the DEIR alludes to the visual benefit of not having cars parking on the street as part of this project, but that conclusion is totally speculative and makes assumptions about the contents of the use permit. (DEIR, p. 5-16.) There is no way to know whether the City will grant the portion of the project that involves a garage or will, instead, require that all students arrive by bus, bicycle, or walking. It is not reasonably foreseeable that the City will go back to allowing Castilleja to have multitudinous single occupancy vehicles dropping off and picking up students, especially since it already has a transportation plan in effect which limits the number of cars during drop-off and pick-up. The visual effect described in the DEIR is impermissibly speculative and should be removed. (Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1448-1449.) II. Transportation A. Data from Unreliable Source Leading to False Conclusion On page 7-30 of the DEIR, we discover a serious “self-reporting” problem that negates some of the critical data relied upon in the DEIR. It refers us to the W-TRANS (WT) traffic engineer report as the basis for its transportation conclusions. WT relied completely on reports 6 from Castilleja for important conclusions without independently verifying the information. For example, on page 34 of the WT, it indicates that to figure out how far away employees and students live from the school campus, it obtained zip codes from Castilleja. It then came to the conclusion, based on the self-reported information that the average distance from home to school for all employees and students is 7.69 miles. That conclusion defies common sense given that we already know that no more than 25% of the students live in Palo Alto and employees likely live in communities less expensive than Palo Alto and its environs. Just getting around Palo Alto, which is spread out, would involve for most people driving more than 7.29 to and from the school. WT should have independently audited the school’s student directory. If privacy was an issue, it should have asked the planner to delete the names and phone numbers of those listed in the directory. A list of employee addresses similarly should have been provided to the planner. Also, WT would have been in a position to know what to do about divorced parents, which can skew data because one parent may live in Palo Alto and the other, with custody of the child, may live in another city quite far away from Palo Alto. Leaving the decisions to the school, with an obvious desire to show that it is not causing a negative traffic impact around the school and the city, defies logic. The conclusion that the project “would contribute less than 0.001% of the existing citywide [vehicle miles traveled]” is not supported by competent evidence and is no more than the product of what Castilleja wants the decision-makers to believe. WT needs to obtain “clean” and objective data from its own auditing before concluding how may daily trips and associated VMT will be related to the proposed project. (DEIR 7-30.) CEQA requires more than obtaining biased information from a project applicant that then leads to obviously erroneous expert opinions as occurred here. The use of zip codes acquired from the school does not meet the essential requirement for substantial evidence to support the WT opinions: Substantial evidence is not “[a]rgument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous. . . Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.2, subd. (c); Guidelines, § 15384; Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1198.) B. No Showing of Infeasibility Justifying “Significant and Unavoidable” Conclusion On page 18 of the WT report, it concludes that the loss of service (LOS) is acceptable at all intersections except: Embarcadero Road Spur/Alma Street, westbound Embarcadero Road during a.m. peak hours (LOS F) and westbound Alma Street/Kingsley Street. Westbound Kingsley approach operates at LOS F during a.m. and p.m. peak hours and LOS E during school p.m. peak hours. On pages 7-37 et seq., the DEIR describes why these impacts would be “significant and unavoidable.” However, there is no showing that it would be infeasible to reduce the school’s 7 impact on the traffic at these intersections. Instead, the DEIR argues that if there were no project, the intersections would still fail the City’s requirement to keep delays at intersections such that they do not fall within LOS’s of E or F. The DEIR misses the point – there can be mitigations to prevent further environmental negative impacts from the project. CEQA requires public agencies to refrain from approving projects with significant environmental effects if “there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures” that can substantially lessen or avoid those effects. (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish and Game Commission (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 134 [“The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects ...”].) The CEQA Guidelines define the term “feasible” as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15364, italics added.) The emphasis is on lessening the impact of the project on the environment, not just compliance with a city policy, as argued by the DEIR. Here, there are mitigation measures available that would reduce the school’s impact not just on the intersections listed above, but on all of the traffic surrounding the school. However, the transportation design management plan (TDM) produced by Nelson/Nygard and relied upon in the DEIR is woefully insufficient and badly outdated for controlling private school traffic, especially in instances where there has been a history of use permit noncompliance. This author has seen many of these Nelson/Nygard recommendations for private schools and they all rely on voluntary steps, insufficient independent monitoring, no fine system or ineffective fine systems, and self-reporting by the school as to compliance. Currently, cities have turned to much more effective mitigation systems. Andie Reed has provided the use permits for several of these cities. One example is Archer School for Girls in Southern California (Archer). The City required Archer to have 80% of its traffic arrive by bus, bike, or walking. The use permit includes other effective mitigations such as prohibiting students from driving to school. Very few schools think it is a good idea to have teenagers driving to school and the license requirements pretty much restrict driving a car without an adult to seniors, in any event. Teenagers carpooling with one of them driving the car? What could possibly go wrong?! The student who has an after school job? If the job is not close enough to the home that the student needs to drive, then that student is not one eligible for admission to the school and needs to either change jobs or find a school closer to home. In section II.D, we discuss the proposed mitigations in more detail. C. Unrealistic 14 Seconds per Car Discharge from the Garage Beginning on page 7-32, the DEIR discusses the problem of cars lining up (“queuing”) on the street, interfering with the flow of traffic as they wait to enter the garage to drop off or pick up students. The estimates are based on a very unrealistic 14 seconds for each car to leave the 8 garage, which assumes that each drop off or pick up is timed rather evenly and occurs quickly, a bad assumption: W-Trans conducted a sensitivity test to determine the slowest service rate that could accommodate the expected demand given the size of the proposed vehicle stacking area [in the garage]. Through this sensitivity test, it was determined that a service rate of approximately one vehicle discharged every 14 seconds [from the garage] would result in an average of 7.9 vehicles per lane in the queue and would have a low probability (4.3%) of exceeding eight vehicles in the queue at any point during the drop-off period. (WT, p. 7-33.) The problem, of course, is that we are dealing with children, not widgets on a manufacturing line with mechanical robots controlling it. The 14 second discharge rate is dependent on no children (or parents) having a “meltdown” as they get in or out of the car, no parent, nanny, or other driver on their first trip to the school being slow to figure out how the garage works, no problem getting a student’s huge and fragile project in or out of the car, no student suddenly remembering she left something in a classroom and running back to get it, no traffic monitors calling in sick during flu season, etc. The chances of this 14 second discharge rate going right are .7% (5% minus 4.3%) before hitting the statistical “not okay” level: Probabilities of 5-percent or less are generally considered to be acceptable. Through this process, it was determined that the successful operation of the drop- off lanes would rely on the quick discharge of vehicles at a rate no slower than 14 seconds per vehicle during peak periods, or about four vehicles per minute. Discharge rates which are slower than this would increase the probability that the queue would exceed the available queue length of the drop-off lanes during the peak periods. (WT, p. 7-33.) The DEIR presents a sad picture of what happens when the 14 second discharge rate is not met - the queue backs up and then interferes with everyone behind it having to sit and wait to either get out of driveways, proceed to work, or enter the garage. The delay will generally cause parents to skip the garage for a quicker and more efficient way to drop off or pick up the students. In this author’s past experience reviewing planning problems with private schools, this means letting the child out of the car a block or two away from the school while the traffic waits. Pick up is a product of today’s smart phone – the child goes down the street and texts her parent with the location while the parent drives around the neighborhood, tying up traffic, and waiting for the text. Then, the pickup location is anywhere except where it is supposed to occur, again tying up traffic. The solution is to implement the Archer use permit mitigation with enforcement. The DEIR should consider restricting the number of students and employees to no more than 20% allowed to bring a car to the campus. That mitigation should be included in any use permit regardless of whether the City Council grants a permit for the current number of students with changes to the campus or adds students. The streets around the school are exceedingly narrow and not designed 9 to carry the amount of traffic that the school generates now. The width of the streets, as it impacts traffic, is completely overlooked by the DEIR and needs to also be addressed. As shown below, the mitigations contained in the DEIR are ridiculously ineffective. D. The DEIR Failed to Consider Alternatives and Effective Mitigations On page 1-14, the DEIR summarizes the possible project impacts, mitigations, and whether the mitigations reduce the environmental impacts to “less than significant.” As to traffic impacts, the DEIR lists the following: “7-1 Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel.” It lists the following list of mitigations: Mitigation Measure 7a:Castilleja School shall implement the proposed enhanced Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce the number of project-related trips by between 12 and 22 percent. As described in the TDM plan (Appendix B), this is expected to include: 1.late afternoon shuttle departures 2.off-site drop-off/pick-up area 3.expanded carpool/trip planning program 4.additional off-site parking 5.parking/carpool incentives program for employees 6.alternative transportation information 7.bike tune-up day and on-site repair stations 8.Guaranteed Ride Home program 9.on-site car or bike sharing program 10.provide transit passes 11.mandatory ridesharing 12.other TDM measures developed by Castilleja in coordination with the City of Palo Alto (City), including the monitoring and enforcement provisions identified in Appendix B.In addition, Castilleja School shall modify the proposed enhanced TDM plan to include the following 13.educating staff, students, and families regarding the importance of an efficient and safe student drop-off operation to prevent excessive queuing in the garage, 14.conduct ongoing monitoring of drop-off lane discharge rates and ingress and egress queues; 15.if vehicle queues are causing spillover into the public right of way on Bryant Street, modify the drop-off procedures and TDM program to include greater staggering of bell schedules or other strategies that would decrease vehicle trips or otherwise spread out the number of peak hour vehicle trips accessing the underground garage; 16.Provide bicycle safety education for students, parents, and staff to encourage students and staff to ride bicycles to and from school; and 17.Host school-wide bicycle encouragement events (such as competitions, incentives, and other fun events) to support biking, walking, carpooling, and transit use so that the school community understands that active transportation is a community-held value. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Patrick Butler <pcb12pcb@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, September 21, 2019 8:55 PM To:Council, City Cc:Karen White Subject:Drinking Sewage CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.        Begin forwarded message:    From: Patrick Butler <pcb12pcb@gmail.com>  Subject: Drinking Sewage  Date: September 21, 2019 at 8:46:10 PM PDT  To: eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org  Cc: Karen White <kwhite.karenl@gmail.com>    Is this the same brain trust that told Palo Alto residents to cut back, drastically, all water consumption  for four years? Good idea.    However, after noticing many of our trees were dead, said it way OK to water trees and, naturally,  bought a huge water truck to water the the trees on sidewalk city property.    Next, we were told that due to our excellent conservation of water, the water price must be increased.    Now we are asked to, in times of draught, to drink recycled sewage. Yes, we will also pay for this  privilege….    Please pull this item and ask for more time for resident comment.     Patrick Butler and Karen White       1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tod Spieker <tod@windyhillpv.com> Sent:Sunday, September 22, 2019 8:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Colleagues Memo Regarding Affordable Housing Plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  CIty Council Members ‐      While I think this memo comes from a good place of wanting to address  the areas housing crisis I think there will be unintended consequences if  any of the recommendations outlined in this memo are adopted. If the  true goal is to increase the amount of affordable housing built in Palo  Alto, then I applaud the effort, but I don’t see anything in this memo that  would result in more affordable housing being built in Palo Alto.    What I see is further burdening commercial and residential developers  with fees and inclusionary requirements. The housing crisis is an issue for  all of us to solve not just the development community.     Building housing in Palo Alto is difficult and expensive. My firm, Windy  Hill Property Ventures, is one of the few firms to attempt to build housing  in Palo Alto. I can tell you from experience that it is more difficult and  more expensive than in other cities in San Mateo and Santa Clara  counties.  Neighboring cities, Menlo Park, Mountain View and Redwood  City have all done a much better job of encouraging housing  development. I suggest looking to them for ideas, but the common  theme will be more relaxed residential zoning standards.     The requirement for inclusionary BMR units within rental projects would  be a killer for housing development in Palo Alto. I can tell you that if this  were a requirement for our project at 2755 El Camino (the former VTA  site) it would have killed our housing project. Other cities have  2 inclusionary requirements but they are offset by increased density, FAR,  height, and lower parking requirements. We recently entitled a 250 unit  project in Belmont where we have 15% inclusionary BMR and it works  because its a much larger project with a higher FAR and less per unit  onsite parking.      If Palo Alto wants to adopt an inclusionary BMR program then it needs to  drastically increase density, FAR, height and require drastically less  parking.     And if Palo Alto wants to increase their affordable housing stock then it  needs to incentivize housing developers to want to develop in Palo Alto  not burden them with fees and unrealistic inclusionary requirements.   Thanks, Tod Spieker O: 650-847-1315 M: 650-219-8671 www.windyhillpv.com 530 Emerson Street Palo Alto, California, 94301     1 Brettle, Jessica From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 11:41 AM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:PLEASE VOTE YES FOR HOUSING CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth and Council Members:     I apologize for the late hour of this email as it pertains to tonight's action.     I'd like to register my support of TONIGHT'S COLLEAGUES' MEMO presented by Lydia Kou and Tom DuBois urging  Council to adopt measures to support the construction of affordable and BMR housing.     Palo Alto Neighborhoods Executive Committee supports these basic measures which Council pretty much already agreed  to, but has yet to implement.    Arthur Keller PAN's Housing Chair studied up on the matter. If you would like to review Arthur's analysis please visit  this link on the PAN website.    Thank you very much.    Becky Sanders  PAN Co‐Chair  1 Brettle, Jessica From:david thornton <thormat@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 11:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support for more affordable housing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Palo Alto City Council,    We members of First Presbyterian Church of Palo Alto are writing you in support of an increase in affordable housing in  our city.  We look to the example of neighboring cities and pledge our support for your leadership in stepping up efforts  to do our share in Palo Alto.  We support the Colleagues Memo from Council Members Dubois and Kou.    The City Clerk has our signatures and addresses.  Thank you for meeting the challenge!    Leif Erickson  David Leith  Doreen Leith  Melissa Kirven  Avy Nielsen  Ellen Hartog  Greer Ellison Wolfson  Aric Keller  Beth Keller  Mary Alice Thornton  Margaret Tompkins  Susan Chamberlain  David G. Thornton  Joy Sleizer  Ellen Forbes  Patty Irish      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Greg Welch <welgreg@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 1:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:Affordable Housing Rules CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth:    I support the colleague memo to be presented by Lydia Kou and Tom DuBois tonight urging Council to adopt measures  to support the construction of affordable and BMR housing.     We are on track to meet our market rate housing goals.  What we really need is affordable housing and BMR housing so  that Palo Alto can continue to be home to a diverse community.    Thank you very much.    Greg Welch    CHY illF PALO ALTO. ~A CITY CLERK'S OFFICE flW-23Af~o -4on_~ ( w~ m~~s hf-~f Pres ~~ Y,-CNA., t I\ ;)U ~ 1 ~ IY\cJl....e_G\._ (f'"\ c;._f{or. h<S\A. '~J /~ OU.- ~ -We, t b-6 l -h:, 14_ e,;X VleJJ~ 6W1'A_J <:V.h'e-s ~ . feJ;;'i!., ou_r suff_J'>\Jf-~[our /~~'f IA. 5 kf f rny-ur e~~ ~ ~ our-shoJVL, (h~ v~ ~ V't\ee;f_~ ~ ~~( Greer Effr'~m{)JtJ/fSol'\ -,J;(;< ~five.., /Vo//./fo. CJ An'C. Kb1UJ-rZ.c-z__ 01~ Jf: Pcitei ..,{.tfv C4 :t,Y.?tJ6 <3-ctti ~..(./' /-Z..1-z._ G,,.~ ~ ~/,, A-tf?J CA-l{-&'il{ /)(~~~ 3(!)/}f-~(!t;; /!l.!lf f~~~ b:o6.J~~ r1~-G-r=~ .pft !i{-3o r ~ I;;<,[ ~~ · ~61 S'i30j ~:-s-u kJ12~ s~ 3t-, t:f !f-sr-fA-9 V.5 o J 9~ . 'ii S-0 (k JJ,,;,-fc:u-';;.{.µ 7 O(o (>/I ?'cf~/ ~~ ~~v~~ PA-'7'f3.os ~~j'1fv S1o o W2f,JfZ, SR t'fP-6:1 i ~ q ~:s o I 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Andrea Lacasia <wolfhowl73@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, September 21, 2019 1:16 PM To:Council, City; North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Subject:Palo Alto urgently needs affordable housing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Sirs and Madams, Fry’s Electronics will close in 2019, and that building and area is going through North Ventura  Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) process. NVCAP is a key housing area identified in our  Comprehensive Plan.     Palo Alto desperately needs more low and moderate income housing and this area has been so designated in the city housing element; historical significant structures can be acknowledged with a mural or plaque. Sincerely, Andrea Lacasia Resident of Palo Alto 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mitch Mankin <mitch@siliconvalleyathome.org> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 4:43 PM To:Council, City; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg Cc:Clerk, City Subject:Re: Item 8 - Colleagues' Memo on Affordable Housing Plan Attachments:Inclusionary-Housing-White-Paper_final-7_19.pdf; Inclusionary-Housing-White-Paper_final-7_19.pdf; SVH Letter Re- Colleagues Memo 092319 final.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable Mayor Filseth and City Councilmembers,    Please find attached our letter on Item 8 on tonight’s agenda, regarding the Colleagues’ Memo from Councilmembers  DuBois and Kou regarding Affordable Housing Plans.     The letter is also reproduced in plaintext below:    RE: Item 8 ‐ Colleagues’ Memo from Councilmembers DuBois and Kou Regarding Affordable Housing Plan    On behalf of our members, SV@Home would like to provide recommendations on several items presented in the  colleagues’ memo. We greatly appreciate the memo’s goal of increasing affordable housing opportunities in Palo Alto. In  particular, an inclusionary housing ordinance for rental properties would be a key part of the City’s affordable housing  toolkit. With that said, it is critical for the Council to carefully consider the potential impact or unintended consequences  of any proposals that might negatively affect the production of affordable or market rate housing in Palo Alto. We  believe Palo Alto city staff are well positioned to help the Council analyze and weigh these factors.     #1. Inclusionary Housing. We are happy to see that Palo Alto is ready to move forward with a rental inclusionary  ordinance. SV@Home has worked on and followed inclusionary ordinances countywide and has compiled an exhaustive  set of best practices with regard to inclusionary housing, which can be found on our website or attached to this letter.  Important highlights include a 15% inclusionary rate at an average of 60% AMI, setting fees at a level than incentivizes  on‐site build of affordable units, and application of the ordinance to developments of ten units or more, to avoid  discouraging missing middle construction types.     The rationale of inclusionary policy is to generate resources without deterring housing development. However, almost  no housing development is currently moving forward in Palo Alto, meaning that this policy will produce no inclusionary  units and no money towards the city’s affordable housing fund until that problem can be fixed. Thus the Council should  explore mechanisms for increasing production of housing to reap the full benefits of an inclusionary policy.     In addition to feasibility concerns, we do caution that inclusionary housing rates above 15% leave open the opportunity  that California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) could review, investigate, and even  overturn an inclusionary ordinance, whereas a 15% rate is discretionary on the part of cities.    We recommend continuing to explore an inclusionary rental policy, targeting a level that maximizes  affordable housing production and funds by remaining feasible. The rate should be set at 15%, absent strong  evidence that a higher rate is supported by the local market.     2 #3. Density Bonuses for Mixed‐Use Development. The rationale behind density bonus policy is to incentivize both  density and affordability. Adding a higher inclusionary requirement such as 20% or 25% for density bonus developments  would effectively tax denser building types that are by their size providing more affordable units, disincentivizing the  creation of the housing supply that Palo Alto needs. Based on feasibility studies from surrounding jurisdictions, 20‐25%  inclusionary is too high for  multi‐family developments across the region, and runs the risk of making housing  development infeasible.     We recommend dropping this item, so that density bonus development is not rendered infeasible.    #4. In‐Lieu Fees or Off‐Site replacement for units removed from housing stock. This idea is promising. While Palo Alto  has not yet experienced a similar level of demolition and displacement, neighboring Mountain View has faced a large  number of demolitions of naturally‐occurring affordable housing stock. In‐lieu fees or off‐site replacement could  mitigate the displacement impact of redevelopment. It could also counteract the incentive to redevelop older, naturally  affordable housing and rather focus efforts on adding new housing stock.     We recommend further exploring this topic.     #5. Protections and regulations in low‐density zoning. We are happy to see the Council focusing on the importance of  missing middle housing types. The production of missing middle housing types like duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and  ADUs would provide greater affordability for middle income people.     To ensure that the spirit of this goal from the City’s Housing Work Plan is implemented, direction to staff should be clear  that relatively low‐density housing types such as cottage clusters and duplexes should not be preserved at all costs,  especially at the expense of quadplexes, stacked flats, and modest apartment buildings that also integrate well with  single family neighborhoods.     Palo Alto has a rich history of integrating moderate density uses into single family neighborhoods. Drive down Bryant St  from City Hall towards Oregon Expressway, and you will see mansions, smaller single family homes, and half‐block, three  story buildings that are stacked flats or condos. Those moderate density uses fit into the neighborhood and provide  greater affordability than exclusively single family zones.     We recommend that the language of this item be modified to include the production of missing middle  housing opportunities, as well as to clarify that any protection or regulation of cottage clusters and duplexes  be focused on preventing their replacement with single family homes, rather than other modest density,  missing middle housing types.    #6. Protections and regulations to prevent existing housing being converted to commercial/hotel use. Palo Alto has a  high jobs‐housing imbalance, which puts severe upward pressure on rents and home prices, decreasing affordability.  Protecting existing housing from being converted to commercial/hotel use could help keep the jobs‐housing imbalance  from further worsening. With that said, some mixed use developments introduce commercial space while also adding  more housing stock. That type of development should be exempted from any restrictions on redevelopment.     We recommend exploring this topic further, while excluding any conversions to mixed use development that  would create more homes overall.    We look forward to continuing to work with the Council and City Staff to identify and enact policies that support the  City’s Housing Workplan goals. We were concerned, however, that this memo was added to the Council agenda on  Friday, with no notification to the City Council agenda mailing list. It would be preferable to have more notice on  substantive housing issues so the public has more time to provide thoughtful input on City policies.     Best,  Mitch Mankin  3 Policy and Advocacy Associate  SV@Home  Pronouns: he/him  (408) 780‐8915  mitch@siliconvalleyathome.org     The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.  350 W Julian St. #5, San Jose, CA 95110  Website I Facebook I Twitter I Newsletter I LinkedIn I Become a Member!          Inclusionary Housing in Santa Clara County: Aligning Local Policies toward a Countywide Affordable Housing Strategy (August 2019) Inclusionary Housing: An Introduction Inclusionary housing policies require or encourage developers to set aside a certain percentage of housing units in newly constructed or rehabilitated projects for low- and moderate-income residents. By creating mixed-income developments, people from different socio-economic backgrounds are given the opportunity to access the same services and amenities, furthering equity and inclusion, and addressing federal fair housing obligations. For a number of years, inclusionary housing was only legal for for-sale housing in California due to the Palmer Sixth Street Properties v Los Angeles court case. This changed effective January 1, 2018 when new law created by AB 1505 went into effect. AB 1505 expressly supersedes the Palmer decision by authorizing the legislative body of any city or county to adopt ordinances requiring that, as a condition of developing rental housing units, the development include a certain percentage of rental units affordable to moderate- income, lower-income, very low-income, or extremely low-income households. In February 2016, the US Supreme Court declined to review a challenge brought by the California Building Industry Association, which questioned the validity of local inclusionary ordinances for for- sale housing. This decision removed any questions over the ability for local government to adopt and implement inclusionary ordinances for for-sale housing. Legal and Legislative Requirements AB 1505 authorizes communities to adopt rental inclusionary requirements by ordinance. An ordinance should be adopted to implement inclusionary requirements contained in general plans, housing elements, or other policy documents. Existing rental inclusionary ordinances that were not amended after Palmer can be implemented after January 1, 2018 as long as they include provisions for alternative means of compliance. No nexus study is required to justify a rental inclusionary requirement. In the 2015 California Supreme Court decision California Building Industry Ass'n v. City of San Jose (CBIA), it determined that inclusionary requirements were “land use provisions similar to rent and price controls and met constitutional requirements so long as not ‘confiscatory’ and designed to further the public health, safety, and welfare.”1 If a rental inclusionary ordinance was adopted prior to September 15, 2017, no economic feasibility study is required to justify a rental inclusionary requirement, regardless of the required set-aside percentage. If the ordinance was adopted or amended after September 15, 2017 to require affordable rental housing, a feasibility study would not be required if the set-aside percentage required is 15 percent or less. However, if the ordinance requires a higher inclusionary requirement, or if affordability 1 Goldfarb and Lipman restrictions are deeper (targeting extremely low- income or very low-income households), a jurisdiction may choose to prepare a feasibility study. The State Department of Housing and Community Development has the authority to require that an economic feasibility study be provided for any inclusionary ordinance that was adopted after September 15, 2017 if the ordinance requires that more than 15% of the homes be affordable, but only in two circumstances: (1) if the jurisdiction has failed to meet at least 75% of its RHNA need in the above moderate income category for five or more years, or (2) if the jurisdiction has not submitted its annual housing element report for two consecutive years. If HCD should find that the study is insufficient, the jurisdiction would only be able to require 15% affordability until it could prove through an economic feasibility study that additional affordability was feasible. SV@Home’s Recommendations: Local jurisdictions must make many choices when designing an inclusionary housing ordinance. As these choices are made, it is important to ensure that the inclusionary requirements are both feasible for developers and support achievement of affordable housing goals. To the extent that all 16 Santa Clara County jurisdictions adopt similar requirements, it will provide more certainty to the development community working in the South Bay. SV@Home encourages all Santa Clara County jurisdictions to consider SV@Home’s recommendations as a way to align local policy goals with a broader countywide inclusionary housing strategy. Criterion Recommendation Rationale Set-Aside Percentage Adopt a minimum 15% onsite inclusionary housing onsite requirement for both for-sale and rental housing. If an Alternative compliance option is selected (see below) then this percentage should be increased to a minimum of 20% Creating a consistent 15% requirement across the county provides predictability for developers as well as a level playing field for cities. The cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and San Jose have set 15% affordability as their inclusionary requirement. The recommended set-aside percentage is increased to 20% to incentivize the development of integrated on-site affordable units. Project Size Threshold Apply the inclusionary requirements to projects of ten or more units. Do not apply to ADUs. For projects that are smaller than ten units, require that developers pay a fee if the units exceed 1,200 square feet. The fee can increase for larger units. It is important to offer “missing middle” opportunities, and requiring inclusionary percentages for smaller developments can discourage developers from pursuing small infill development like row houses, stacked flats, duplexes and fourplexes which tend to be more naturally affordable, and therefore affordable to teachers, nurses, construction workers, and others. At the same time, it is recognized that some developments that are small are offered at luxury prices and not naturally affordable. Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties have Criterion Recommendation Rationale adopted inclusionary ordinances that tier fees according to unit size. Income Restrictions— Rental Average 60% of Area Median Income (AMI) with at least two different income targets Example—50% of the homes at 30% AMI and 50% at 80% AMI = average of 55% of AMI This allows a developer to provide units for a variety of income levels. Requiring two different income targets ensures that not all units are provided for the same population. Income Restrictions— Owner Average 100% of Area Median Income (AMI) with at least two different income targets Example—50% of the homes at 120% AMI and 50% at 80% AMI = average of 100% AMI This allows a developer to provide units for a variety of income levels. Requiring two different income targets ensures that not all units are provided for the same population. Term of Affordability -- Rental Place affordability restrictions on rental homes for a minimum of 55 years This ensures that the homes are available for an extended period, and is consistent with other State and federal affordable housing programs. Term of Affordability -- Owner Place affordability restrictions on for sale homes for a minimum of 45 years This ensures that the homes are available for an extended period, and is consistent with other State and federal affordable housing programs. (Note: these restrictions can be removed upon an equity share sale) Resale Restrictions— Owner Implement an equity share provision that allows the original buyer of an affordable unit to sell the unit at market rate and share in the equity appreciation This allows homeowners to acquire equity, making it possible for them to purchase a new home when they need to move. It also allows the local agency to re-invest its share in a new first-time homebuyer family who can purchase a new home anywhere in the jurisdiction. Home Amenities Affordable homes are indistinguishable from market rate homes and are integrated into the development This is a best practice that ensures that lower- and moderate-income households have access to the same amenities as market-rate households. Alternative Compliance Options Provide a variety of alternative options for compliance: - Build Onsite - Offsite construction - Credit trading/transfer - Housing Preservation credits - In lieu fee - Land dedication - Acquisition/Rehabilitation - Combination Recognizes that not all developments are the same, and provides both the developer and the City with flexibility to respond, particularly when a different option would result in more affordability. Additionally, in some circumstances, payment of an in-lieu fee or another compliance option may be preferable, as in the case of a multi-million- dollar home subdivision. According to AB 1505, all rental inclusionary ordinances must include alternative means of compliance, however jurisdictions have broad discretion over the alternative means provided. Criterion Recommendation Rationale Incentives Provide a robust suite of incentives to developers that should include: - Density bonus - Reduction in parking spaces - Changes to setbacks, height requirements, and other zoning variances - Expedited review - Fee or tax exemptions - Financial support Provides developers the opportunity to achieve cost savings that can offset the cost of providing the affordable units. Timeframe and Grandfathering While an ordinance should go into effect in 30 days, it should provide an adequate timeframe for developers to adjust to new inclusionary requirements. Our recommendation is to grandfather those projects that have applications that have been “deemed complete” by city staff prior to the ordinance becoming effective. Establish requirements that ensure that any project that is grandfathered continues to move forward through the development process. This is a best practice that recognizes that the development process is long, and that many developers have invested time and resources into projects that are already in the development pipeline. Requiring that the developments that receive grandfather status meet key requirements for progress ensures that those requesting an exemption are verifiably in the development process. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 5:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Colleagues Memo CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  PAN urges the Palo Alto City Council to support and implement the housing incentives as outlined in the September 23rd Colleagues memo presented by Lydia You and Tom DuBois. Council should direct staff to direct rental apartment developers to build in below- market rate (BMR) housing or pay for it elsewhere the way that for-sale condominium builders and other major developers in Palo Alto already do. We also urge our City Council to raise impact fees on office development that pays for below-market rate housing in line with what Santa Clara County is requiring Stanford University to pay as part of the pending General Use Permit. We further urge our City Council to protect existing housing that is by its nature more affordable. expected to bring substantial and likely painful neighborhood impacts.) I totally agree with the PAN memo, and totall support the Colleagues memo presented by Tom DuBois and Lydia Kou. Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St. 94306 1 Brettle, Jessica From:atkinsonkim@pacbell.net Sent:Tuesday, September 24, 2019 5:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: 670 Los Trancos development CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the City Council of Palo Alto,      On September 12 the below email was sent to you, with photos of the area of concern at Arastradero (see below).  Here included is one more photo, taken today on Sept. 24, from the horse‐hitch picnic spot at the top of Acorn Trail.  Seen from this angle, the reddish metal beams clearly protrude above the skyline (hill top).    It was my understanding that you had approved a project that would not interfere with the skyline view from the park.         In any event,  there are no screening plantings in sight, the main concern expressed in the letter to you below.       When you have the time, a response would be kindly appreciated.  Thank you.    The photo taken today is grainy, because I could not get my iphone chip to load it into my laptop to send you,  so had to take a camera photo of the iphone picture, to load and send you.  Yes, it is a zoomed shot taken from the horse‐hitch picnic area, but the view of construction beams against the sky  is of what anyone sees, from that picnic area.   The future structure will go up into the sky view, seen from the park.    Thank you,  Kim Atkinson,   a concerned citizen and hiker in the park          2 From: atkinsonkim@pacbell.net <atkinsonkim@pacbell.net>   Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 3:57 PM  To: 'city.council@cityofpaloalto.org' <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: 'kcholman@sbcglobal.net' <kcholman@sbcglobal.net>  Subject: 670 Los Trancos development    To the Palo Alto City Council,         The photos below were taken today, Sept. 12 2019,  of the construction project at 670 Los Trancos  that you approved in 2017.            These photos were taken from the Woodrat trail, near the top of Arastradero Open Space Preserve.          Where are the promised plantings to screen this project from public view in our open space park ?          As you can see, the project is unsightly and huge, for the benefit of one single family.        This impacts the view for hikers, cyclists and horseback riders at Arastradero          An agreement and promise were made in the approval process to screen this project from the park with plantings.          Where are they ?     And an additional question:  what is the reddish metal‐frame on the left side representing?              Was this in the original plans ?                       From below, the perspective make it look taller than the hilltop behind it.  Did you approve this ?    Thank you,    Kim Atkinson  1753 Middlelfield Road  Palo Alto              94301    3                   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mike Alexander <malemike@earthlink.net> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 12:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:9-1-1 incident reported in PA Weekly CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council, It's been 3+ months since the incident in which paramedics were delayed by PAPD from reaching a resident exhibiting symptoms indistinguishable from those of stroke. PAPD and the city have apparently internalized the necessary follow up, looking for wisdom among themselves to fix the lack of clear protocols and effective training that enabled the event. Why should we residents, any one of whom might fall victim the same mistreatment, trust that those responsible will solve the puzzle? There should never have been a puzzle in the first place. Now it's your turn to be smart by exercising the considerable influence you have, with both city professionals and the public, to assure that neutral experts are consulted to implement best-practices protocols, that appropriate discipline is handed out where needed, and that the public is kept up-to-date. Stroke waits for no bureaucrat. Get this right, and do it quickly. There's no point in living a few minutes away from a world-class hospital if the police have put road blocks in the way. Sincerely, Mike Alexander St. Michael Drive 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mark Cox <markdarrellcox@icloud.com> Sent:Thursday, September 19, 2019 2:45 PM To:pressoffice@goarch.org Subject:Adam and Eve CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Adam A"da"m ((The Day)). Eve ((The Night)). Was this the First Biracial Marriage? You can see the Beating Heart Side  during Surgery but the Opposite Side is Unseeable.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Amie Neff <amie.neff@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 9:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:Affordable housing meeting. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I wasn't able to join this meeting in person, but have been listening online. I am so, so, glad you are entertaining this  issue in Council. One of the speakers,    Mike Mono spoke about capturing value in an impassioned way, focusing specifically on the ides that Rental Housing is  only available to the low‐income community. While this is typically true, I believe it should not be the case.   In the U.S. much of our personal economic advancements come from being part of the housing market. We move up,  move forward and gain equity through this vehicle of home ownership. Renters never have this opportunity for equity  building.   I would encourage the city to consider a program like Stanford's where Land Trust developments are supported and  encouraged for a portion of the BMR projects. Land costs being what they are in Palo Alto, the opportunity for a  developer to only carry the cost of construction costa, while the city retains ownership of the land in perpetuity allows  the development to gain capped value, and stipulates how the units can be sold. I hope you will think about this  possibility. I'm happy to provide more details as needed.    Best Regards,      ‐‐   Amie Neff  M.Arch, LEED® AP  ‐‐  cell: 650/ 396/ 9146  amie.neff@gmail.com  www.capabledesign.com  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Dave Shen <dshenster@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, September 19, 2019 12:56 PM To:Gaines, Chantal; Shikada, Ed; Apex Strategies; Council, City; greg@brail.org; bbest@pausd.org; philburton.pagradecrossings@gmail.com; Carrasco, Tony; inyoungcho0@gmail.com; mkanneXCAP@gmail.com; lklein40@gmail.com; Kleinberg, Judy; patlau2010@gmail.com; adina.levin@friendsofcaltrain.com; nadianaik@gmail.com; Reckdahl, Keith Cc:dshenster@gmail.com Subject:Re: Agenda thoughts for XCAP next week CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Sorry resending ‐ the XCAP email list seemed to have bounced my email! See below:    On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:43 PM Dave Shen <dshenster@gmail.com> wrote:  Hi all,     I saw the email sent out by Chantal Gaines on postponing the Design Workshop. Thanks again for offering us the  opportunity to weigh in on that matter.    I wanted to share some thoughts about the agenda for the upcoming XCAP mtg.     1. We have new operating parameters. I'd like to hear how they affect us going forward.     2. I'd love to get more specific on our new constraints. Brown Act? How does it affect how we work together?     3. How do we communicate with City Council? Anyone else would need to communicate with?    4. How do we do things? What's our access parameters to the consultants?    5. Do we need to vote for a Committee chair? Vice‐chair? Any other positions?    6. What are our goals?    7. How do we achieve those goals? Do we have a budget to work within?    8. Timeline? Will we meet more/less?    9. Resources?    10. Does it make sense for 1 or more City Council members to be present to help guide us in these matters?    11. Information ‐ what do we need? What are we missing? What do we need more of?    12. Ultimately what kind of commitment will the new XCAP require of its members? Do we need more/less members?    This may take more than one meeting to organize and crystalize.     Thanks for your consideration,  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, September 22, 2019 1:54 PM To:Eggleston, Brad Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City Subject:Bol Pathway Study CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi Brad, It has been over a few months since I asked you for the results of the traffic study the city conducted on the Bol Park Pathway. You may recall that you told me you would send a copy of the results of the study once the analysis has been completed. Surely by now that analysis has been completed. Please send me a copy of the results. Also, what is the current city position re making improvements on the pathway in order to make it safer for the increased pedestrian and bicycle traffic? As you know, there have been at least three accidents that I am aware of in the past year that required medical attention. Does that not matter to the city? It is further my understanding from the previous manager, that once the city is aware of such accidents, it moves from just being liable for the safety of the pathway, but now it is also culpable should another serious accident occur and result in a lawsuit. As a taxpaying resident, this concerns me, as I hope it also concerns you. Thank you for your attention to this message. Richard Placone Chimalus Drive Barron Park 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tony Ciampi <T.Ciampi@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 9:59 PM To:sleyton@altshulerberzon.com; Council, City; jrosen@da.sccgov.org Cc:Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Binder, Andrew; aschlosser@aclunc.org; asoltani@aclunc.org; btucker@aclunc.org; Bains, Paul; HRC; pbains7@projectwehope.com; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com Subject:Palo Alto 911 Brain Tumor Emergency Attachments:record-after-the-fact_orig.png; record-after-the-fact-1_orig.png; record-after-the-fact-2_orig.png; record-after-the-fact-5_orig.png; Integrated-In-Car-Body-Camera-Brochure.pdf; moore complaint clerk's - info item-Police Aud Report.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Stacey Leyton      Hello Ms. Leyton,    Police refuse treatment to woman suffering from brain tumor, video recording is missing.  https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/09/20/on‐the‐ground‐and‐suffering‐a‐seizure‐a‐palo‐alto‐woman‐pleaded‐to‐be‐taken‐to‐the‐hospital‐but‐police‐kept‐ paramedics‐from‐helping‐her‐for‐14‐long‐minutes      I see your client does not want what happened to her to happen to others in the future.  Other people have  said exactly the same thing in the past regarding what happened to them at the hands of the Palo Alto  Police.  Your client is the victim of the city not holding its officers accountable for years.    First of all the video cameras in the patrol cars have a feature called, "Record After the Fact"  and you  should still be able to obtain the recording from the city, unless of coarse if they have  deliberately destroyed the recording.      2     https://watchguardvideo.com/software/record‐after‐the‐fact  To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Record-After-the-Fact, Pre-Event Recording Software | WatchGuard Video - WatchGuard Video® Body Camera, In-Car Video Manufacturer Record-After-the-Fact is a powerful pre-event recording tool for law enforcement, exclusive to WatchGuard Video's integrated body-worn camera and in-car video system. This tool allows you to go back in time and retrieve video even if the record button was not pressed. Click to learn more about pre-event recording. watchguardvideo.com       This feature on the cameras' recording system allows police departments to obtain video footage even if the  camera system is not activated to record during an incident for the camera is recording at all times that the  3 camera is receiving power and the cameras receive power at all times.   Since the command staff in this  instance imitated a prompt investigation into the missing the video, the command staff could have retrieved  the missing video using the "Record After the Fact" in fact its possible they still can based upon the date of the  incident.  So when city attorney Molly Stump says no video existed she is lying.  The City's Mobile‐in‐Car MAV system by Watchguard.    https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/37824  Attached is the specification of the integrated body camera.  The Palo Alto Police especially Adrienne Moore will retaliate against me for helping you and exposing their  corruption as they have been persecuting me for 11 years.      Attached is a police auditor report containing an incident in which a citizen filed a complaint against Adrienne  Moore for assaulting him.  Apparently Moore was retaliating against this citizen on behalf of other rowing  members regarding a prior incident.  She was attempting to instigate a physical altercation in which she could  have arrested the citizen.    4     You are now the 13th and 14th recording devices to fail to record 8 incidents, that we know of.   https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/missing‐videos.html  5 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Missing Videos - Corrupt Palo Alto Police 7 (2 Recording Devices) We just learned on April 11, 2019 that on December 23, 2015, 3 years earlier, that Palo Alto Police Officers Sgt. Brian Philip and Officer Daniel Fino, Lt. James Reifschneider and officers Jeremy Schmidt and Paul Burgio beat a shoplifter suspect breaking his eye socket. corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com     Tony Ciampi,  https://chiefburns.weebly.com/                        • Automatic wireless activation • Audio and video synchronized across all cameras • Superior hardware, audio and image quality • Configurable Record-After-the-Fact technology • Dock interface with wireless uploading • GPS-enabled • Panoramic X2 Camera • Record-After-the-Fact technology • HD video quality with SD storage costs • Dual drive redundant architecture • Hands-free wireless uploading EL4WEB: SYNCHRONIZED PLAYBACK 4RE HD PANORAMICIN-CAR VIDEO SYSTEM VISTA WIFI HDBODY-WORN CAMERA • Highest rated web-based evidence management system. • Synchronized playback from multiple camera views. • Case management to integrate all digital evidence. • Flexible storage options: on-premise, cloud or both. • CLOUD-SHARE to securely share evidence in seconds. 4RE HD Panoramic and VISTA WiFi cameras operate together as a single, fully integrated system, intelligently collaborating to automatically capture an incident from multiple, synchronized vantage points. EVIDENCE LIBRARY 4 WEB 4RE/VISTA INTEGRATED VIDEO SYSTEM AUTOMATIC EVERYTHING AUTOMATIC GROUP ACTIVATION • 4RE and one or more synched VISTA WiFi cameras create a recording group. • Any camera within the group can initiate a group recording. For example, if the light bar activates the 4RE to record, all synched VISTA WiFi cameras can automatically begin recording. WIRELESS SYNCHRONIZATION 4RE and VISTA WiFi wirelessly synchronize clocks to enable precise, simultaneous playback. AUTOMATIC EVENT LINKING • The system automatically links all synchronized body camera recordings with the matching in-car recording. AUTOMATIC CLASSIFICATION • The incident classification selected by the in-car system is used to automatically populate the incident classification of the synchronized body camera recordings. AUTOMATIC WIRELESS UPLOADING • When VISTA WiFi is docked in the car, the camera charges and wirelessly uploads at the same time 4RE uploads. • VISTA WiFi cameras can also be docked using transfer stations or USB docks, and Evidence Library will automatically link the body camera recordings with the matching in-car recordings. 04 MULTIPLE SYNCHRONIZED VANTAGE POINTS 360° EXPANSION OPTION 4RE can simultaneously record and display up to six in-car cameras and have up to eight VISTA WiFi cameras synchronized into its recording group. Optional left, right and rear-facing cameras. A single point of view does not always tell the whole story. WatchGuard’s integrated video system includes four cameras to provide multiple views of a single incident. INFRARED BACKSEAT CAMERA Captures the prisoner compartment. 4RE is also available with the HD Mini Zoom or Zero Sightline Cameras. HD IN-CAR CAMERA Provides the detailed third-person perspective. HD PANORAMIC STRIP CAMERA • Provides a view from pillar-to-pillar. • Captures everything in front of the cruiser. HD BODY-WORN CAMERA • Provides the officer’s perspective. • Multiple VISTA WiFi cameras can synch to a single in-car VISTA WiFi docking base. 05 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, September 19, 2019 10:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:California Ave Ped Tunnel -- Safety Proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,    We all know that the California pedestrian tunnel is a problem in that some bicyclists will whiz through it, placing anyone  else in the tunnel at risk.  We know people have been hit and we know there have been many close calls.  We hear of  elderly people being really worried about walking it.    I wonder if you would consider a proposal?  It's based on the premise that the riskiest times in the tunnel are when the  kids are riding to and fro school (Paly and Greene).  What about placing a police‐person at the tunnel for just 20 minutes  around the time school starts and school gets out?  Just two or three days a week, random days.      Maybe if this was consistently done it would be a deterrent.  It's better than the current situation ‐ namely that the city  knows there is a problem and is doing nothing about it.  As a tax‐payer I'd prefer to pay for management of the problem  then the lawsuit(s) that will happen sooner or later.    As an aside, it would be awfully nice if there were crosswalks painted at the N California and High intersection.      Ann Protter  185 N California Ave          1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Sunday, September 22, 2019 5:19 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal) Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; 'David Hirsch'; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; UAC; board@pausd.org Subject:Cell tower news Attachments:David Hirsch Editorial 9.20.19.jpg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, I am writing to you for three reasons. First, Architectural Review Board member David Hirsch had an important guest editorial in Friday’s Palo Alto Weekly. With the thought that you may have missed it, I am attaching it to this email. The thrust of his piece is that Palo Alto—ignoring the advice of experts—has been approving poorly designed and inappropriately located cell towers and should immediately reverse course. (To be clear, Mr. Hirsch is not at all opposed to cell towers per se.) Second, I understand that—after Palo Alto firefighters expressed concerns about the health risks associated with extended exposure to RF emissions from cell towers—City Council approved the funds to build a protective wall between the now-under-construction new firehouse at Embarcadero and Newell and a cell tower located nearby. I would appreciate it if you could explain why City Council, as a body, was immediately responsive to the firefighters’ concerns, but has shown no urgency with respect to the concerns of Palo Alto residents about cell towers in close proximity to their homes. In this regard, I ask you, on behalf of United Neighbors, to direct City Staff: 1) to immediately revise Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance so that it includes the sensible guidelines Council approved in April, guidelines such as disfavoring cell towers in residential areas and establishing minimum distances between cell towers; and 2) to neither approve, permit nor allow the installation of any new cell tower that does not comply with the revised Ordinance. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sam Teixeira <samteixeira1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 24, 2019 12:07 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal) Cc:Council, City Subject:Cell Tower Protection for Firefighters CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Filseth, I recently learned that—after Palo Alto firefighters expressed concerns about the proximity of a cell tower to the now-under-construction firehouse at Embarcadero and Newell—City Council approved the funds to build a radiation-inhibiting wall between the new firehouse and the cell tower. Yet in April, you and Councilmembers Cormack, Fine and Kniss—overruling Councilmembers DuBois, Kou and Tanaka—voted to allow Staff up to a year to revise the city’s Wireless Ordinance so that it would at last include basic protections for residents, protections such as disfavoring cell towers in residential areas and establishing a minimum distance between cell towers. I would appreciate it if you would explain why you and your three colleagues were immediately responsive to the firefighters’ concerns and approved the funds to build them a radiation-inhibiting wall, no less, but have failed to show a comparable sense of urgency with respect to the concerns of Palo Altans regarding, for example, the siting of cell towers only a few short feet from their homes. Respectfully, I ask that you right this wrong and direct City Staff: 1) to immediately revise Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance so that it includes the essential new guidelines Council endorsed now over five months ago; and 2) to neither approve, permit nor allow the installation of any new cell tower that does not comply with the revised Ordinance. Yours truly, Sam Teixeira Business Owner 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Nancy Krop <nkrop@kroplaw.com> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 5:39 PM To:Council, City; Filseth, Eric (Internal) Subject:Cell Tower Question CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor and City Council,     I’m just told in response to Palo Alto firefighters’ concerns about the proximity of a cell tower to the now‐under‐ construction firehouse at Embarcadero and Newell, City Council approved funds to build a radiation‐inhibiting wall  between the new firehouse and the cell tower.    Is this true?    If so, it’s just as important to protect our children and our residents as it is to protect our firefighters from cell tower  radiation.    If so, please also protect our residents and school children by requiring cell tower set backs. The Palo Alto school board  passed a resolution seeking 1500 foot set backs from our schools. The Palo Alto PTA council also passed a resolution  requesting cell tower set backs..     Please STOP all cell tower installation that does not afford our children and our residents the same protections you afford  to our firefighters.     I very much look forward to your response.    Nancy Krop  Palo Alto resident  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tina Chan <tinachan@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 24, 2019 9:15 AM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal) Cc:Council, City CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, I recently learned that—after Palo Alto firefighters expressed concerns about the proximity of a cell tower to the now-under-construction firehouse at Embarcadero and Newell—City Council approved the funds to build a radiation-inhibiting wall between the new firehouse and the cell tower. I am shocked. In April, you and Councilmembers Cormack, Fine and Kniss—overruling Councilmembers DuBois, Kou and Tanaka—voted to allow Staff up to a year to revise the city’s Wireless Ordinance so that it would at last include basic protections for residents, protections such as disfavoring cell towers in residential areas and establishing a minimum distance between cell towers. I would appreciate it if you would explain why you and your three colleagues were immediately responsive to the firefighters’ concerns and approved the funds to build them a radiation-inhibiting wall, no less, but have failed to show a comparable sense of urgency with respect to the concerns of Palo Altans regarding, for example, the siting of cell towers only a few short feet from their homes. Respectfully, I ask that you right this wrong and direct City Staff: 1) to immediately revise Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance so that it includes the essential new guidelines Council endorsed now over five months ago; and 2) to neither approve, permit nor allow the installation of any new cell tower that does not comply with the revised Ordinance. Sincerely, Tina Chan Midtown resident 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeanette Bahn <jeanettebahn@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:37 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Council, City Subject:Cell Towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Mayor Filseth,    I recently learned that—after Palo Alto firefighters expressed concerns about the proximity of a cell tower to the now-under-construction firehouse at Embarcadero and Newell—City Council approved the funds to build a radiation-inhibiting wall between the new firehouse and the cell tower.     I am shocked. In April, you and Councilmembers Cormack, Fine and Kniss—overruling Councilmembers DuBois, Kou and Tanaka—voted to allow Staff up to a year to revise the city’s Wireless Ordinance so that it would at last include basic protections for residents, protections such as disfavoring cell towers in residential areas and establishing a minimum distance between cell towers.   I would appreciate it if you would explain why you and your three colleagues were immediately responsive to the firefighters’ concerns and approved the funds to build them a radiation-inhibiting wall, no less, but have failed to show a comparable sense of urgency with respect to the concerns of Palo Altans regarding, for example, the siting of cell towers only a few short feet from their homes.    Respectfully, I ask that you right this wrong and direct City Staff: 1) to immediately revise Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance so that it includes the essential new guidelines Council endorsed now over five months ago; and 2) to neither approve, permit nor allow the installation of any new cell tower that does not comply with the revised Ordinance.     Yours truly,  Jeanette Bahn  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Edouard Lafargue <edouard@lafargue.name> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 7:41 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal) Cc:Council, City Subject:Cell towers and firefighters CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth,      I recently learned that—after Palo Alto firefighters expressed concerns about the proximity of a cell tower to the now‐ under‐construction firehouse at Embarcadero and Newell—City Council approved the funds to build a radiation‐ inhibiting wall between the new firehouse and the cell tower.       I am shocked.  In April, you and Councilmembers Cormack, Fine and Kniss—overruling Councilmembers DuBois, Kou and  Tanaka—voted to allow Staff up to a year to revise the city’s Wireless Ordinance so that it would at last include basic  protections for residents, protections such as disfavoring cell towers in residential areas and establishing a minimum  distance between cell towers.      I would appreciate it if you would explain why you and your three colleagues were immediately responsive to the  firefighters’ concerns and approved the funds to build them a radiation‐inhibiting wall, no less, but have failed to show a  comparable sense of urgency with respect to the concerns of Palo Altans regarding, for example, the siting of cell towers  only a few short feet from their homes.       Respectfully, I ask that you right this wrong and direct City Staff: 1) to immediately revise Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance  so that it includes the essential new  guidelines Council endorsed now over five months ago;  and 2) to neither approve,  permit nor allow the installation of any new cell tower that does not comply with the revised Ordinance.          Yours truly,       Edouard Lafargue  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 5:26 PM To:Filseth, Eric (external) Cc:Council, City Subject:Cell Towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Filseth, I recently learned that—after Palo Alto firefighters expressed concerns about the proximity of a cell tower to the now-under-construction firehouse at Embarcadero and Newell—City Council approved the funds to build a radiation-inhibiting wall between the new firehouse and the cell tower. I am shocked. In April, you and Councilmembers Cormack, Fine and Kniss—overruling Councilmembers DuBois, Kou and Tanaka—voted to allow Staff up to a year to revise the city’s Wireless Ordinance so that it would at last include basic protections for residents, protections such as disfavoring cell towers in residential areas and establishing a minimum distance between cell towers. I would appreciate it if you would explain why you and your three colleagues were immediately responsive to the firefighters’ concerns and approved the funds to build them a radiation-inhibiting wall, no less, but have failed to show a comparable sense of urgency with respect to the concerns of Palo Altans regarding, for example, the siting of cell towers only a few short feet from their homes. Respectfully, I ask that you right this wrong and direct City Staff: 1) to immediately revise Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance so that it includes the essential new guidelines Council endorsed now over five months ago; and 2) to neither approve, permit nor allow the installation of any new cell tower that does not comply with the revised Ordinance. Yours truly, Suzanne Keehn 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, September 22, 2019 1:39 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Mike Alexander Subject:Chimalus Drive Resurfacing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Council Members: I am calling two items to your attention in this letter: 1. Residents of Chimalus Drive have been informed that the entire length of this street will be resurfaced on Saturday, October 5. You should be aware that this street underwent surface repairs and total resurfacing about two years ago. The street is in perfect condition. I have talked to a few neighbors about this and they agree that it is beyond belief that the city is wasting tax payer money to resurface a street that is in perfectly good condition. I ask, what has happened to the city management? This project must be canceled 2. This item is one that demands Council attention. I refer to the recent case where a women in medical distress asked the aid of a 14 year old boy in calling 911. You surely know the result - 911 took the boy's word that this was likely a "psychological condition" and so the police was sent, while 911 rescue teams were put on hold. It is bad enough that such an incident took place, but that 911 would take the word of a 14 year old boy re the woman's condition is beyond the pale. Now evidently the police department and the city manager's office has closed all doors to legitimate public requests for information. I want to remind the Council that this is Palo Alto, and not Washington, D.C. where such tactics are routine. I ask the Council to take a serious look into this and take corrective action, even if that means removal of incompetent city management officials. I also want the Council to respond to me re this issue. In the 57 Years I have been a resident of Palo Alto, this is the worst instance of outrageous city management that I can recall. Richard Placone Chimalus Drive Palo Alto 1 Brettle, Jessica From:David Coale <david@evcl.com> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 3:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Climate change - Reach code and project reviews CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor and City Council,  I am here to talk about one of the city’s top priorities and that is climate change.  Did any of you make it to the rally last  Friday at city hall?  It was really great.  It was the largest gathering I have seen in a while for any issue.   Here is what some of the signs said from some of our youth:  “I would be in school if you were doing your job” (at San Francisco rally)  “Don’t make me afraid to have children”  “You will die of old age.  I will die from climate change”  Just this morning in front of the UN Climate Summit Greta Thunberg blasted world leaders for failing to act on climate  change.  Please view her address to the UN here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYqtXR8iPlE  I am asking you to act on two specific items and staff is already working on these, so this should be easy.  ‐ There is a building reach code coming up.  Please ask staff to have an all‐electric only proposal as has been done by  Berkeley and now San Jose. I am on the green building technical advisory committee and while staff has presented a few  options, they do not have an all‐electric only plan.  An all‐electric requirement has been shown to be cost effective and is  much more healthy for residents while setting a good example of where we need to go with our buildings.  A good cost  effective, healthy example that addresses climate change; I think that is a requirement that everyone can live with.  ‐ There needs to be a process in place that would require a review of any large expenditures/projects being done by the  city that would consider the climate change impacts of the project.  This would not have to be an extensive study, it  would be more like a check list.  This is also being worked on by staff but has been stalled out for review by department  heads and the city manager.  Staff and the city manager need to hear from the council that these items and climate change issues are a top  priority.  Most governments move much slower then our melting glaciers, so you need to ask staff for bold, far‐reaching  plans to address climate change.   You need to give them the cover to really take action on climate change.  And as Greta  Thunberg mentions in her address, we will be watching.  Thanks,  David Coale    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kelly Chang <kellyc319@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 7:04 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Cormack, Alison; Kniss, Liz (internal); Council, City Cc:Colby CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Filseth, Mrs. Cormack, and Mrs. Kniss,  I recently learned that—after Palo Alto firefighters expressed concerns about the proximity of a cell tower to the now-under-construction firehouse at Embarcadero and Newell—City Council approved the funds to build a radiation-inhibiting wall between the new firehouse and the cell tower.   As a resident of Old Palo Alto, both my husband and I are disgusted by what we are witnessing. In April, you and Council members Cormack, Fine and Kniss—overruling Council members DuBois, Kou and Tanaka—voted to allow Staff up to a year to revise the city’s Wireless Ordinance so that it would at last include basic protections for residents, protections such as disfavoring cell towers in residential areas and establishing a minimum distance between cell towers.  I would appreciate it if you would explain why you and your three colleagues were immediately responsive to the firefighters’ concerns and approved the funds to build them a radiation-inhibiting wall, no less, but have failed to show a comparable sense of urgency with respect to the concerns of Palo Altans regarding, for example, the siting of cell towers only a few short feet from our homes. If nothing is done, my two very young children (4 years old and 9 month old) will literally be sleeping right next to one of these cell towers/units (their bedroom upstairs is less than 20 feet from a cell unit). You guys built a wall to protect the firefighters, but where is this "wall of protection" for our children?  Respectfully, I ask that you right this wrong and direct City Staff: 1) to immediately revise Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance so that it includes the essential new guidelines Council endorsed now over five months ago; and 2) to neither approve, permit nor allow the installation of any new cell tower that does not comply with the revised Ordinance.   Lastly...  2 Mr. Filseth - Please have the decency to at least respond to your residents. I have emailed you to ask for a meeting or phone conversation and have heard nothing from you.  Mrs. Kniss - As the previous Mayor I would also like to have a meeting or at least phone conversation with you to understand where your head is at on this issue.   Mrs. Cormack - Thank you for your continued dialogue with me, I would like to hear your explanation on this as well. Where is this "wall" of protection for the residents?  Concerned Parents,  Kelly and Colby Ranger  {REDACTED} 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tony Ciampi <T.Ciampi@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 24, 2019 12:29 PM To:sleyton@altshulerberzon.com; Council, City; Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; Binder, Andrew; jrosen@da.sccgov.org Cc:michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; asoltani@aclunc.org; aschlosser@aclunc.org; btucker@aclunc.org; pbains7@projectwehope.com; Bains, Paul Subject:GPS information 911 fiasco CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Stacey Leyton    Hello Ms. Leyton,                          It is incredulous that the Sgt. Adrienne Moore's car has no GPS data.  You can obtain her constant  location before she arrived at the scene of the emergency by obtaining Sgt. Moore's cell phone number and  data in which the location of the cell phone will be identified throughout, either through the phone's GPS or  cell towers .        https://perkinsfirm.com/accident‐investigation/how‐to‐locate‐where‐a‐driver‐was‐before‐or‐after‐an‐ accident‐from‐cellphone‐data/  To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   How to Locate Where a Driver Was Before or After an Accident from Cellphone Data - Perkins & Associates Attorneys at Law Suppose a driver said she was coming from a certain direction, but you question if it’s true. Is there a way to analyze the cellphone GPS data to determine where she was coming from before the impact? Yes. Location tracking is not only about finding where someone is right now, like in an exciting movie chase […] perkinsfirm.com   https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/13/us/google‐location‐tracking‐police.html  2 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Tracking Phones, Google Is a Dragnet for the Police - The New York Times - nytimes.com The tech giant records people’s locations worldwide. Now, investigators are using it to find suspects and witnesses near crimes, running the risk of snaring the innocent. www.nytimes.com   Tony Ciampi      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tricia Kellison <tkellison@girlsms.org> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 5:55 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal) Cc:Council, City Subject:Important questions about cell towers in Palo Alto Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________  Dear Mr. Filseth,  A huge Verizon cell tower has just been constructed 30 feet from the front of my house, again my wishes and my  protests.  Coincidentally,  I just recently received information that the City of Palo Alto agreed to build a “protective wall” between  the new fire station at Embarcadero/Newell and a nearby cell tower, because the firefighters expressed concern about  the long term health risks of their exposure.  I would like several questions answered by you or your staff:  — Is there some difference between that cell tower antenna and the one that is being placed in front of my house, 30  feet from our front bedroom?  — If not, how can the firefighters as employees of the City, receive consideration that we as citizens and families did  not?  I would appreciate it if you or someone on your staff could answer these questions at your earliest convenience.  Sincerely,  Tricia Kellison {REDACTED}  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Carolyn M Johnson <rhunterg@ix.netcom.com> Sent:Sunday, September 22, 2019 6:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:June 3 *Non-Response* by PAPD and PAFD CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Is this what the City of Palo Alto employees have become ?   The City Council MUST call all those involved in the 3 June 2019 incident and the subsequent coverup to account.    The incompetence, along with their disregard of their sworn duties, by employees of the Palo Alto Police Department  and the Palo Alto Fire Department are incomprehensible to me.  Simple humanity would have dictated a better response  than the one undertaken by them. The stone‐walling and coverup by the Administrative Officers is equally, if not more,  unacceptable.    As an “older” taxpaying voting person and a 50 year resident of this City, I now would fear to call upon these “public  servants” in time of need. Are we to live as if this was Chicago?  Please listen to the voices of your constituents!   Respectfully (kinda?)  Carolyn M. Johnson  Palo Alto, CA  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Martha <marthalg@sonic.net> Sent:Sunday, September 22, 2019 10:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:medical fiasco CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,  My husband and I observed part of the police medical fiasco that happened in our neighborhood on June 3rd. We couldn't believe what was happening. In fact I considered contacting the police chief about how it was handled and if it has happened before. We're happy the Palo Alto Weekly publicized this.  We were eating lunch and from our window we saw the fire truck and paramedics drive up and stop on La Donna Ave. Then nothing happened. They didn't even get out of their trucks. Quite a while later two police cars drove by them and turned the corner and a bit later the fire personnel followed them.  After finishing our lunch, we walked in that direction. We observed a very well known woman sitting on the ground with a police woman questioning her. She was being asked if she had taken anything. The young boy's mother, we didn't see the dad, was standing next to her and the fire personnel were standing quietly across the street.  I wondered later if the lady was being treated badly due to a grudge by the city, because the lady was very active politically. Also it was apparent to me that she needed to be sent to the hospital, so why weren't the paramedics overriding the police action.  The whole situation was excruciating to observe and still bothers me after all these months.   The police are not doctors so there was no reason for them to be there.  Heads need to roll for this from the top down. Please take action for a change and do something.  Martha Gregory  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Leo Povolotsky <leopovolhoa@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 24, 2019 3:30 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal) Cc:Council, City Subject:Midtown cell towers, ARB & the new Firehouse CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth,  I recently learned that—after Palo Alto firefighters expressed concerns about the proximity of a cell tower to the now-under-construction firehouse at Embarcadero and Newell—City Council approved the funds to build a radiation-inhibiting wall between the new firehouse and the cell tower.   I am shocked. In April, you and Council members Cormack, Fine and Kniss—overruling Council members DuBois, Kou and Tanaka—voted to allow Staff up to a year to revise the city’s Wireless Ordinance so that it would at last include basic protections for residents, protections such as disfavoring cell towers in residential areas and establishing a minimum distance between cell towers. I would appreciate it if you would explain why you and your three colleagues were immediately responsive to the firefighters’ concerns and approved the funds to build them a radiation-inhibiting wall, no less, but have failed to show a comparable sense of urgency with respect to the concerns of Palo Altans regarding, for example, the siting of cell towers only a few short feet from their homes.  Respectfully, I ask that you right this wrong and direct City Staff: 1) to immediately revise Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance so that it includes the essential new guidelines Council endorsed now over five months ago; and 2) to neither approve, permit nor allow the installation of any new cell tower that does not comply with the revised Ordinance.     Yours truly,  Leo Povolotsky,  HOA Board Member,  Long time Palo Alto resident     1 Brettle, Jessica From:LWV of Palo Alto <lwvpaoffice@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 22, 2019 8:10 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission; North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Subject:North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan comment Attachments:LWVPA Support NVCAP 2019 09 22.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, City Council members, Planning and Transportation Commission members, and NVCAP working  group members,     Attached please find a letter from the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto regarding the NVCAP, submitted as public  comment to the NVCAP working group agenda on September 24, 2019.  Thank you.  Terry Godfrey  President LWV Palo Alto      ‐‐   League of Women Voters of Palo Alto  3921 E. Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303  Phone: (650) 903-0600   Web: www.lwvpaloalto.org  Facebook: www.facebook.com/PaloAltoLeague/  Twitter: www.twitter.com/lwvpaloalto  Empowering Voters. Defending Democracy. 3921 E. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 | lwvpaloalto.org | lwvpaoffice@gmail.com 2019-20 Board Terry Godfrey Ellen Forbes Lisa Ratner Paula Collins Sue Hermsen Jean Lythcott Lynne Russell Karen Kalinsky Ellen Smith Lizzy Gardner Liz Jensen Myra Lessner September 22, 2019 Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council Members: Re: North Ventura Comprehensive Area Plan (NVCAP) The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports efforts to increase the number and density of multiple-family units for all groups and income levels. We strongly urge the Council to continue to pursue a strategy of maximizing the opportunities for multiple-family housing for the North Ventura Area. Since the 1980-95 Comprehensive Plan, the City has considered the Fry’s site for housing. The subject site was then called the Maximart site. During that period, the City was facing an earlier version of the jobs-housing imbalance which has only continued to worsen. The Council rezoned the site from CS to CS/RM-30, allowing for 30 units per acre. As with other rezonings at the time, the City allowed the property owner 15 years to replace the existing buildings with housing, and then allowed further extensions of time to continue the commercial uses. This site has always been seen as suitable for housing, especially with such great access to bus and rail transit, as well as its proximity to shopping and services. It borders the busy Park Boulevard bike boulevard giving kids and adults easy access to schools and other Palo Alto destinations. The site remains an ideal housing and mixed-use neighborhood. It is now past time to act. As the largest Housing Opportunity Site (in the adopted Housing Element) in town, this property is critical to achieving the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan housing goals. With City Council support, combined with the review by the Planning and Transportation Commission, the North Ventura Group should continue to develop a housing plan for this area complete with the zoning and incentives that will maximize the housing reserved for low- and moderate-income residents. Thank you. Very truly yours, Terry Godfrey President, League of Women Voters Palo Alto tgodfrey.lwv@gmail.com cc: Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mark Cox <markdarrellcox@icloud.com> Sent:Friday, September 20, 2019 2:05 PM To:pressoffice@goarch.org Cc:jd@howardstern.com; jweinat3@hotmail.com; communications@holytrinitysf.org; frdean@assumptionseattle.org; oaklandkosherfoods@gmail.com; wildcatcox@gmail.com; editorial@nytimes.com; economy@haaretz.co.il; radbam@tdhs-nw.org; rabbi@shaarzahav.org; radler@berkeley.edu; tbirnbaum@paloaltojcc.org; tduggan@sfchronicle.com; tips@nytimes.com; tips@rollingstone.com; tigay@sfsu.edu; uk@haymarketbooks.org; info@betalef.org; info@gov.il; info@peterpapoutsis.com; info@tehila.gov.il; info@theahmansonfoundation.org; InfoBox@cio.gov.il; Investigations@npr.org; info@emmanuel.tv; office@bnaiemunahsf.org; officemanager@assumptionseattle.org; uwpdpio@uw.edu; peter.grant@wsj.com; press@google.com; partnerservice@rhema.org; pastordusty@nextstepchurch.org; press@tbn.tv; Council, City; petestottt11@gmail.com; america@aljazeera.net; adamp@probolskyresearch.com; alice.meyer@sjc.edu; signaturestorm@yahoo.com; cityattorney@mountainview.gov; jandhleary@yahoo.com; marno@apcusa.com; hello@generalassemb.ly; service@sfsu.edu; ssudweeks@gwc.cccd.edu; salesteam@economist.com; sanjose.info@acerelocation.com; disciples.green@gmail.com; dave@davegranlund.com; fitzsimmonsnsniff@gmail.com; gcfohi60 @gmail.com; georgeh@upc.org; greekschoolseattle@gmail.com; googlebooks- support@google.com; general@rainbow.coop; guy@voice-lessons.com; help@wonderfulunion.com; jasonkimelmanblock@yahoo.com; joy@baderandassociates.com; jfj@jewsforjesus.org; PoliticsUSA@gmail.com; jennifer@jenniferrocholl.com; kathleendunn@ureach.com; kim@kimberlygoldman.com; Loopiedo@hotmail.com; karl@westyventures.com; karensevans@saintdemetrios.com; letters@nytimes.com; library@seattleu.edu; lisabjobs@gmail.com; leealbright@gmail.com; zkamenetz@jccsf.org; cox.cindy.m@gmail.com; churchadmin@orthodoxchurch.com; charles@apostolicbible.com; voicers@nydailynews.com; banderson@sacbee.com; Blade; books@nytimes.com; Victoria.Borjesson@ventura.courts.ca.gov; news@haaretz.co.il; niharika.mandhana@wsj.com; MediaInquiries@kushner.com; matt@tidbits.com; menlopark@steveandkate.com; mike.obrien@seattle.gov; management@parishiltonentertainment.com Subject:P'tah // Pa'tah CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    While the Object below the Swimming Goat of Nourishment is indicative of the Breath Taken before an Aspirated "T"  that begins the Final Accented Syllable given that the Aspirated "T" will require the Tip of the Tongue to Contact the  Upper Gum Ridge behind the Upper Teeth and this happens After the Glottal Stop as the Pinacle to the Conical Veil  ((Perhaps the Body we can't see because we haven't Metamorphosiszed Yet)) on the Foundation of the Six Books of  Moses then between the Glottal Stop and the Tip of the Tongue to the Upper Gum Ridge behind the Upper Teeth the  Intake of Air must be through the Nose. Some People have Difficulty with an Inbreath through the Nose. Running  Intervals on a Track where you Only Breath In and Out through the Nose can Help to Remedy this. To Breath in through  the Nose with Respect to Inspiration even Sacred Writings that are Mouth Memorized and Head Echoed in Mimicked  ((The Inner Man Repeats)) Rumination relates to Knowing as when Someone Knows Something.    This Position of the Tongue might be a Good Way to Anchor the Tongue while you Inwardly Repeat what the Mouth has  said correctly as the Mouth is Silent.    The Rightmost Symbol is like a Philips Screwdriver "Screw Head"/"Tool". Philip was the First Recruited by Messiah the  2 Incarnate Torah who Neither Sanctioned Swine nor Uncircumcision while Peter ((Abraham)) was still with his Still Living  Father John the Washer ((Moses who was drawn from Water who I think is Terah Reborn)) ((Why wasn't Abraham  Reborn to Moses the Author of the Terah? Maybe they weren't ready yet to Spend Time with the Father of Nations so  they Spent Time with the Grandfather of Nations)) ((Hence Abraham as Muhammad spends a Life as an Orphan without  Terah and Terah as Moses spends a Life as the Law Giver without Abraham.)). Screws are Easy to Mechanical Strip. How  did they Know that No One Entering the Temple Inner Rooms was Uncircumcised? How did they Know that the Priests  were without Defect?    [:;]    Maybe the Schwa "ə" wouldn't be the Right Vowel for a Vowel after an Initial Plossive "P" and before a Glottal Stop, and  maybe we have ample Retention of Sound with "Parent" "Paternal" "Papyrus" "Patrician" and given that a Frontal  Mouth View is under the Aspirated "T" as in "Top" whose Larva Tongue touches the Upper Gum Ridge behind the Teeth  and this is the Swimming Kahari Camel Substituted with the Strong Swimming Goat and Apparently Orphaned Lambs can  be fed Goats Milk, so maybe the Mouth the Sunken Lamb beneath the Goat is the Marker to Take a Breath after the  Glottal Stop to allow Sufficient Air for the Aspirated "T", the Accented Vowel of "A", and the Final Aspiration of the "H"  the Indicative Indication of Inspiration having the Final Word on All.    So then like Gaga would "Pa'tah" be a better representation in Lingua Franca English?    [:;]    I have to wonder whether this Hieroglyphic of Memphis ((Memphis being the Greek Pronounciation Oddly Pointed to by  The Holy Anointing Oil of Moses with Mor "Hops" "Humulus Lupus" "Hum with Your Lips" "Memphis" "Mem Phis" "Do  you Guys Remember Phishon in Paradise before the Crocodile would turn this River into the Nile? Is Everyone Living in  Denial?")) could point to the Pronounciation of P'tah where the Symbol on the Right is the Pucker of "P" the Plosive in a  Rounded Form followed by Vowel ((Maybe a Schwa "ə")) to be Closed Glottal Stop by the Tip of the Next Symbol  ((Moving Right to Left in Contrast to What they Say About Hieroglyphics, That you Read from the Side a Profile Character  is Facing)) while the Middle Column is an Aspirated "T" as in "Top" ((And not the "T" of "Stop")) this being a Profile  Representation of the Aspirated "T" and the Next Symbol the Rock the Tomb the Head with the Sword in the Head  infering Hard Core Memorization of the Scroll of the Hippocampus in Recitation and Rumination of Sacred Writing is the  Open 'A' Sound where the Jaw is Open as Opposed to Closed ((Or the Tongue is, Or Something is, Whether Lips are  Rounded or Unrounded. Talk to an IPA Specialist for More Information. When you Bang your Head on Something what  Vowel do you Most Naturally Use? Hence the Crucifix Sword could denote the Accent of the Syllable)) and the Fifth  Column is the Aspiration of "H" though of What Kind? Would this be a Gutteral Aspiration? Exactly how do you do that?  So therefore the Hieroglyphic of Memphis could be the Pronounciation of P'tah. P'tah is like Father Patrician Patriarch  Peter and the True God is the Father while Abraham was given the Covenant that is Cut with Male Circumcision and the  Promise and the Obligation of Being a Father to Nations hence Abraham is Peter is Muhammad is Yet to Be Again in  Peter's Third Life Feeding the Sheep in Abraham's Fourth Life that will be Muhammad's Second Life to Feed Grass to  Hungry Sheep without Poisoning Them with Half Truths.          1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ellen Cohen <cajunview@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, September 22, 2019 10:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:PA Police behavior with sick resident CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council, I read with great dismay the article below about the Palo Alto woman that was suffering some sort of neurological event and her medical help was delayed by PA Police, who were suspecting she was a 5150. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/09/20/on-the-ground-and-suffering-a-seizure-a-palo-alto- woman-pleaded-to-be-taken-to-the-hospital-but-police-kept-paramedics-from-helping-her-for-14-long- minutes Both of my parents have suffered neurological events in their lives. Mom had a golf ball size tumor in her brain that would cause her to black out (that was removed), but not before impairing her ability to speak and understand things clearly. Dad has had multiple strokes as well as events where he can express words clearly (some form of seizure). How would I know, if they went outside and requesting medical help, that PA Police wouldn't suspect a 5150 and delay urgently needed, critical medical care? It would appear that in the case mentioned, many mistakes happened, starting with the dispatcher that made a critical assessment based on the testimony of a 14 year old boy, to telling the EMTs to wait for police etc. It is imperative to do a full and thorough and TRANSPARENT investigation so that conclusions can be drawn, policies and training corrected to prevent this ever happening again. My request to the council is to ensure that the investigation continues unimpeded and gets the FULL cooperation of the police, FD and any other municipal or other bodies involved (911). I shouldn't have to ask this since that's how it's supposed to work anyway, but it doesn't appear that the investigators or the family of the woman are getting much cooperation from the PA officials. That just adds insult to injury. We in Palo Alto, can do better. Regards, Ellen Cohen Palo Alto Resident 1 Brettle, Jessica From:public.policy@bayareabusiness.news Sent:Friday, September 20, 2019 11:56 AM To:Scheff, Lisa Cc:janice.lu@pdo.sccgov.org; City Mgr Subject:PAPD - Public Records Act Request CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Ms. Scheff, Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, I request copies of the following records / records containing the following information: 1.) All Radio / CAD Transcripts , full dispatch records to Palo Alto Police incident # 194802 , which occured on September 11th, 2019 at Edgewood Shopping Center. 2.) First Names, Last Names, Badge Numbers of all Palo Alto Police officers attached to incident # 94802 , which occured on September 11th, 2019 at Edgewood Shopping Center. 3.) Chain of Command: Full Names, Badge Numbers Rank of all officers in chain of command from from "The officers attached to incident # 194802 to Palo Alto Police Chief Jonsen. 4.) Copy of Palo Alto Police Departments written policies and standards for officers response to domestic violence calls (See PC 13701 ) 5.) Copy of PAPD Use of force policy If for any reason, you refuse to release any segment or portion of these records, I request you give reason in writing within 10 days pursuant to California Government Code § 6255 Thank you in advance for your compliance with this CPRA request. Regards, 2 Cary Andrew Crittenden BayAreaBusiness.News Public Policy Correspondent 1 Brettle, Jessica From:David Perry <dperry2@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 24, 2019 3:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:PAPD CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  There can be no excuse or justification for the dangerous, unprofessional and out‐of‐control behavior of the PAPD,  recently evidenced most dramatically by their actions in incidents involving unforgivable delay in dispatching medical  assistance to a women who turned out to be having a seizure due to a brain tumor, and the thuggery engaged in by  physically and verbally abusing a man at the Buena Vista Trailer Park. Chief Jonson should be first demoted, then fired  immediately, along with all other officers, dispatchers, and any others involved in either of the above incidents,  including all personnel in any City capacity contributing in any manner to the failure to provide truthful information  about the incidents or trying to justify the abominable conduct exhibited. No amount of "retraining" or other pitiful  response would be sufficient to remedy the profound problems the above incidents demonstrate, and inaction by the  Mayor and Council is condonation and approval of despicable conduct.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:abby boyd <abby650@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 25, 2019 10:04 AM To:Council, City Subject:Planning Commission CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  What is this about a planning commission member, Michael Alcheck, construction an illegal garage?   How corrupt.  Get rid of him.  Get him to resign. What a jerk.   Abby Boyd  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Alexis Hamilton <alexishgpr@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 8:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Police Response to Possible Stroke Victim CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Council Members — please help the community understand how the police department is going to review their  procedures to ensure that residents with medical emergencies quickly receive the treatment they need.  While it maybe  hard to tell the difference between a stroke and psychotic episode, I would like the police to let medical professionals  make that determination rather than delaying access to treatment. Time to treatment in a stroke situation is critical for  best outcomes.  Thank you for looking into this matter.  Alexis Hamilton  St. Michael Drive    Sent from my iPad  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Patti Kahn <patti@kornfeld.com> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 9:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:Police response to 911 call in June CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I was appalled to read the Palo Alto Weekly article about the police's botched response to the 911 call made in June on  behalf of the woman who was in medical crisis due to a brain tumor.  It is clear that the policewoman who responded to  the call acted unprofessionally, caused unnecessary delays, and was, moreover, negligent in her duties.  It is fortunate  that the woman who was ill survived.      But it was a very close call, and the policewoman's delay in calling in the medics was simply inexcusable.  What is being  done to reprimand/remove her?  And what is being done to educate the city's first responders on appropriate and  timely reactions to 911 medical distress calls?    And why is the City Council protecting the policewoman and not supporting the woman who was ill?    How terribly disappointing it is that politics and CYA evasive talk by City Council members are taking precedence over  care for community members.    Sincerely,    Patti Kahn  Barron Park      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mark Cox <markdarrellcox@icloud.com> Sent:Thursday, September 19, 2019 1:43 PM To:pressoffice@goarch.org Cc:jd@howardstern.com; jweinat3@hotmail.com; communications@holytrinitysf.org; frdean@assumptionseattle.org; oaklandkosherfoods@gmail.com; wildcatcox@gmail.com; editorial@nytimes.com; economy@haaretz.co.il; radbam@tdhs-nw.org; rabbi@shaarzahav.org; radler@berkeley.edu; tbirnbaum@paloaltojcc.org; tduggan@sfchronicle.com; tips@nytimes.com; tips@rollingstone.com; tigay@sfsu.edu; uk@haymarketbooks.org; info@betalef.org; info@gov.il; info@peterpapoutsis.com; info@tehila.gov.il; info@theahmansonfoundation.org; InfoBox@cio.gov.il; Investigations@npr.org; info@emmanuel.tv; office@bnaiemunahsf.org; officemanager@assumptionseattle.org; uwpdpio@uw.edu; peter.grant@wsj.com; press@google.com; partnerservice@rhema.org; pastordusty@nextstepchurch.org; press@tbn.tv; Council, City; petestottt11@gmail.com; america@aljazeera.net; adamp@probolskyresearch.com; alice.meyer@sjc.edu; signaturestorm@yahoo.com; cityattorney@mountainview.gov; jandhleary@yahoo.com; marno@apcusa.com; hello@generalassemb.ly; service@sfsu.edu; ssudweeks@gwc.cccd.edu; salesteam@economist.com; sanjose.info@acerelocation.com; disciples.green@gmail.com; dave@davegranlund.com; fitzsimmonsnsniff@gmail.com; gcfohi60 @gmail.com; georgeh@upc.org; greekschoolseattle@gmail.com; googlebooks- support@google.com; general@rainbow.coop; guy@voice-lessons.com; help@wonderfulunion.com; jasonkimelmanblock@yahoo.com; joy@baderandassociates.com; jfj@jewsforjesus.org; PoliticsUSA@gmail.com; jennifer@jenniferrocholl.com; kathleendunn@ureach.com; kim@kimberlygoldman.com; Loopiedo@hotmail.com; karl@westyventures.com; karensevans@saintdemetrios.com; letters@nytimes.com; library@seattleu.edu; lisabjobs@gmail.com; leealbright@gmail.com; zkamenetz@jccsf.org; cox.cindy.m@gmail.com; churchadmin@orthodoxchurch.com; charles@apostolicbible.com; voicers@nydailynews.com; banderson@sacbee.com; Blade; books@nytimes.com; Victoria.Borjesson@ventura.courts.ca.gov; news@haaretz.co.il; niharika.mandhana@wsj.com; MediaInquiries@kushner.com; matt@tidbits.com; menlopark@steveandkate.com; mike.obrien@seattle.gov; management@parishiltonentertainment.com Subject:P'tah CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Maybe the Schwa "ə" wouldn't be the Right Vowel for a Vowel after an Initial Plossive "P" and before a Glottal Stop, and  maybe we have ample Retention of Sound with "Parent" "Paternal" "Papyrus" "Patrician" and given that a Frontal  Mouth View is under the Aspirated "T" as in "Top" whose Larva Tongue touches the Upper Gum Ridge behind the Teeth  and this is the Swimming Kahari Camel Substituted with the Strong Swimming Goat and Apparently Orphaned Lambs can  be fed Goats Milk, so maybe the Mouth the Sunken Lamb beneath the Goat is the Marker to Take a Breath after the  Glottal Stop to allow Sufficient Air for the Aspirated "T", the Accented Vowel of "A", and the Final Aspiration of the "H"  the Indicative Indication of Inspiration having the Final Word on All.    So then like Gaga would "Pa'tah" be a better representation in Lingua Franca English?    [:;]    I have to wonder whether this Hieroglyphic of Memphis ((Memphis being the Greek Pronounciation Oddly Pointed to by  The Holy Anointing Oil of Moses with Mor "Hops" "Humulus Lupus" "Hum with Your Lips" "Memphis" "Mem Phis" "Do  2 you Guys Remember Phishon in Paradise before the Crocodile would turn this River into the Nile? Is Everyone Living in  Denial?")) could point to the Pronounciation of P'tah where the Symbol on the Right is the Pucker of "P" the Plosive in a  Rounded Form followed by Vowel ((Maybe a Schwa "ə")) to be Closed Glottal Stop by the Tip of the Next Symbol  ((Moving Right to Left in Contrast to What they Say About Hieroglyphics, That you Read from the Side a Profile Character  is Facing)) while the Middle Column is an Aspirated "T" as in "Top" ((And not the "T" of "Stop")) this being a Profile  Representation of the Aspirated "T" and the Next Symbol the Rock the Tomb the Head with the Sword in the Head  infering Hard Core Memorization of the Scroll of the Hippocampus in Recitation and Rumination of Sacred Writing is the  Open 'A' Sound where the Jaw is Open as Opposed to Closed ((Or the Tongue is, Or Something is, Whether Lips are  Rounded or Unrounded. Talk to an IPA Specialist for More Information. When you Bang your Head on Something what  Vowel do you Most Naturally Use? Hence the Crucifix Sword could denote the Accent of the Syllable)) and the Fifth  Column is the Aspiration of "H" though of What Kind? Would this be a Gutteral Aspiration? Exactly how do you do that?  So therefore the Hieroglyphic of Memphis could be the Pronounciation of P'tah. P'tah is like Father Patrician Patriarch  Peter and the True God is the Father while Abraham was given the Covenant that is Cut with Male Circumcision and the  Promise and the Obligation of Being a Father to Nations hence Abraham is Peter is Muhammad is Yet to Be Again in  Peter's Third Life Feeding the Sheep in Abraham's Fourth Life that will be Muhammad's Second Life to Feed Grass to  Hungry Sheep without Poisoning Them with Half Truths.      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kelly Chang <kellyc319@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 7:09 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Cormack, Alison; Kniss, Liz (internal); Council, City Cc:Colby Subject:Radiation Inhibiting Wall for our firefighters... where is the wall of protection for your residents? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Mrs. Cormack, and Mrs. Kniss,    I recently learned that—after Palo Alto firefighters expressed concerns about the proximity of a cell tower to the now-under-construction firehouse at Embarcadero and Newell—City Council approved the funds to build a radiation-inhibiting wall between the new firehouse and the cell tower.     As a resident of Old Palo Alto, both my husband and I are disgusted by what we are witnessing. In April, you and Council members Cormack, Fine and Kniss—overruling Council members DuBois, Kou and Tanaka—voted to allow Staff up to a year to revise the city’s Wireless Ordinance so that it would at last include basic protections for residents, protections such as disfavoring cell towers in residential areas and establishing a minimum distance between cell towers.    I would appreciate it if you would explain why you and your three colleagues were immediately responsive to the firefighters’ concerns and approved the funds to build them a radiation-inhibiting wall, no less, but have failed to show a comparable sense of urgency with respect to the concerns of Palo Altans regarding, for example, the siting of cell towers only a few short feet from our homes. If nothing is done, my two very young children (4 years old and 9 month old) will literally be sleeping right next to one of these cell towers/units (their bedroom upstairs is less than 20 feet from a cell unit). You guys built a wall to protect the firefighters, but where is this "wall of protection" for our children?    Respectfully, I ask that you right this wrong and direct City Staff: 1) to immediately revise Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance so that it includes the essential new guidelines Council endorsed now over five months ago; and 2) to neither approve, permit nor allow the installation of any new cell tower that does not comply with the revised Ordinance.     Lastly...  2 Mr. Filseth - Please have the decency to at least respond to your residents. I have emailed you to ask for a meeting or phone conversation and have heard nothing from you.  Mrs. Kniss - As the previous Mayor I would also like to have a meeting or at least phone conversation with you to understand where your head is at on this issue.   Mrs. Cormack - Thank you for your continued dialogue with me, I would like to hear your explanation on this as well. Where is this "wall" of protection for the residents?  Concerned Parents,  Kelly and Colby Ranger  {REDACTED} 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 6:00 PM To:Council, City; Bobel, Phil; Eggleston, Brad Subject:recycled water vs ground water extraction during underground construction CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members: It makes no sense in 2019 to allow individual builders to extract over 21 million gallons of community groundwater before even starting residential basement construction and shunt it down the storm drain at no cost. Then to ask tax payers to pay for recycling water, and transfer to SCVWD for infusing recycled water back in to the aquifer to become groundwater. This is a double standard. According to the September 2019 DeLeon Insight, page 26, " This was empirically proven with Palo Alto having the highest return on investment among all local cities with an average of 39% for speculation homes build by developers." Such profits indicate, to me, money for better construction practices, better hydro-geological studies to reduce groundwater extraction and use of "cut off walls". I know there are different strata of aquifers but water is water. It is past time to end massive under ground construction dewatering and demand all pay their fair share. Santa Clara Walter District and Senator Hill were recently contacted regarding this massive extraction of groundwater. SPAGW will work with both to amend the problematic wording in SCVWD's Act (1929) to reflect modern times and excessive groundwater wastage. We ask for your assistance. I hope to attend next week's City Council meeting and provide additional information regarding this "double standard". Thank you so much. Rita C. Vrhel, RN, BSN, CCM Medical Case Management Phone: 650-325-2298 Fax: 650-326-9451 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Nancy <nstein@sonic.net> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 8:23 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal) Cc:Council, City Subject:Residents Concerns about Recent Decisions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth,  I have learned that the city is ignoring residents' concerns of radiation from cell towers that can be placed near their homes.  That's  bad enough, but worse still is to find out that if those concerns come from our firefighters, then our city springs into action and pays  to build a protective wall from the cell tower.  It concerns neighbors in Green Acres I that we may be facing that issue too in the near  future.    Recently, I and other neighbors spoke before City Council on Sept 9th and also the 16th about concerns of danger to residents by  pad mounting our underground utility boxes.  Our neighborhood, Green Acres I, was ignored too.  We asked that you not approve  Rule 20 until all the affected districts could be notified of this major reversal in policy.  The Council did admonish CPAU that all  districts should have been informed (just as the UAC had previously advised CPAU in earlier meetings) before coming to City  Council.  CPAU's response was to promise to do so in the future, but that is a weak promise since Council appears to have no  problem in ignoring their own advice.  City Council had the option to table the passing of Rule 20 in order to be able to inform the  other affected districts but instead chose to rush through approval of it.  It is very distressing that Council members are ignoring reasonable requests from its constituents.  Clearly, if firefighters feel there is the potential for harm and the city is willing to spend money on that protection, then residents  concerns about cell towers should also be taken seriously.  And clearly if the City Council agrees all affected districts should be  informed about a major reversal in policy, then the City Council should make sure that is done.  These recent actions by City Council  are very disappointing to say the least.  Sincerely,  Nancy Steinbach  Green Acres I  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net> Sent:Sunday, September 22, 2019 2:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Residents' lives are at risk if the City doesn't straighten up right now and do so openly CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    No one in this town is anything but shocked and dumbfounded by what the Weekly uncovered and published last Friday  regarding the treatment of a resident who needed emergency medical services from City first responders. I am very  sorry for what happened to her and to the 14‐year old neighbor who was put in an impossible position by the  Dispatcher. I trust that you were too.    As our elected representatives you must, given your oversight of the City Attorney and Manager, see that this matter is  addressed immediately, clearly, and openly, so that policies that support emergency medical aid to residents by our  medical first responders are not inhibited as happened here ever again.    If any of my family members living in Palo Alto (7 other than myself) were treated this way, I would sue this City’s sox  off. I don’t say that lightly ‐ l love this town and respect those who work for our City, but this is so far over the line I am  exceedingly distressed.    Address this now, get it right, and make sure everyone that works for the City and all residents understand what was  done, what the policies are, and that it will never happen again.    And who the heck is responsible for withholding reasonable information from the public and press? They should know  that was not acceptable nor helping, but hurting the chances that a lawsuit will happen. It was just dumb.    Winter Dellenbach  Barron Park  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Suzanne Jacobs <suzgjacobs@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 6:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Someone coulda died while waiting for medical help CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  What transpired during that 911 call was frightening.  We cannot count on an 8th grader for a diagnosis.       Suzanne Jacobs  Long‐time Palo Alto resident    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mark Cox <markdarrellcox@icloud.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 24, 2019 12:00 PM To:acct3@katabiblon.com Subject:Source Material CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hi, your Website (( Katabiblon.com )) is Interesting and holds potential but exactly what are you using for Source  Material? The Only Valid Septuagint Printing is the Sixtine Text of 1587. Reprints afterwards were corrupted as "Man in  his Errant Nature" is Driven to Perpetually "Revise the Truth." The Source Material of the Sixtine Text of 1587 has been  in Quarantine in the Vatican in Rome Italy since 1590/1600. The Reprint of the Sixtine Text in 1665 by John Fields was  Corrupted with Edits by John Pearson. The Source Material should be Complete and Convincing in Contrast to the Four  Main Uncials which are Incomplete. Only the Original Alexandrine Text Type of the Four Main Uncials of Alexandrinus,  Vaticanus 1209, Ephraemi Rescriptus, and Sinaiticus can be Trusted to Validate and Confirm the Sixtine Text of 1587. The  Edits in the 18th Century of Codex Alexandrinus in the UK would be Corruptions of the Text. Likewise the Byzantine Text  Type of Alexandrinus will be an Overlay that Redacted the Original Gospels. There are no Gospels in the Sixtine Text  though I'm Confident the Sixtine Text printed only a Portion of the presently Quarantined Source Material. The  Presentation of the Four Main Uncials by Tischendorf and Others can NOT be Trusted without Character for Character  Confirmation using Clearly Produced Facsimiles. Fuzzy Characters should be printed as Fuzzy Characters. Codices should  be presented as they are and not as you would imagine them to be. Tischendorf and Others assumed they could correct  what they thought were errors. This incorrect. The only correction you can make is to your own work when your own  rendering stands in contrast to the Source Material you are attempting to Reproduce for Presentation.    As to the Gospels the Only Greek Printing that is tenatively True given that all Other Printing contain corrupted passages  and revisions and adulterous additions would be the Complutensian Polygot of 1514. Wait. That's Odd. I just realized this  Year matches my Address in 1972 when Jeff Laird "Steve Jobs" and his Older Brother Mike Laird "Howard Stern" were  my Hebrew Neighbors in a time where my Hebrew Descent was Hidden from Me, and this Address was 1514 Pamela  Crest, Redlands California. Mona Simpson is Not their Sister as Mona Simpson is simply a Stealth Second Wife. Their  Sister had Jet Black Hait, and their Parents had died in a Car Accident so Laird was their Adoptive Last Name. In any  event, the Gospels of the Four Main Uncials with respect to the Alexandrine Text Type can be used to Validate or  Invalidate the Printing of the Complutensian Polygot whose Publishing as a Larger Work occurred in 1520/1522 when  only 600 Copies were Published. Key Passages to Look for are the Passage of the "Missionary Position of Immaculate  Abortion" presented as a Scribal Defense for Revising True Scripture into a Hybrid Text of Truth and Deception that is  refered to as the Pericope of the Adultress; Any Codex containing this Passage in it's Original Form is Invalid. Likewise  the Passage of "Genocide by Drink" with respect to the Ending of Mark is an Invalid Codex if this was the Original Form  of the Codex hence the is some Question as to why ((Supposedly)) Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi Resciptus  have ((Supposedly)) the Longer Ending of Mark*. Is this True by Facsimiles of Codices Alexandrinus and Ephraemi or are  these Mistatements by Wikipedia Writers, or Other Writers, or Editing to Alexandrinus in the UK or a "Corrected"  Version in a Corrupted Presentation of by even the Likes of Constantin Von Tischendorf. Then as to the purported 3,036*  differences to the Gospels between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus 1209 ((*Claimed Today on Wikipedia on the Page covering  the Ending of Mark)), in what way are there differences? By One's Ommission and by One's Inclusion? By Distortions in  the Printing that Present an Altered Version of these Codices? Everything said with respect to the Four Main Uncials  must be Verified by "Easy to Read" and "Easy to Search" "Online Facisimiles" that are Highly Clear in their Well Defined  Image.    2 There is a Scan of the Sixtine Text of 1587 Online however the Reading is Fuzzy on Some Characters even from the  beginning of Genesis and this is the Fault of the Scan and it's Rendering and Not of the Actual Printed Text. This should  absolutely be fixed. You can see this Scan with your own eyes at (( OriginalBibles.com ))    The Source Material of the Complutensian for the Gospels may likewise be in Quarantine with the Source Material of the  Sixtine Text of 1587. To say that Vaticanus 1209 is the Source Material of the Sixtine Text of 1587 is just a Way to throw  People off the Scent for Truth. "Can we the Source Material of the Sixtine Text of 1587." "Sure. It's right here." And then  the Priest shows them this Torn Document Vaticanus 1209 missing the First 45 Chapters of Genesis and gestures with a  shrug and an Uplifted Open Palm, to which the Inquistor says, "Well then How do you know God Finished His Work on  His Sixth Day?" "We don't say that in the Vulgate. We say God had some Unfinished Work to on Saturday. Just like  Humans. Like Me. I always have some work to finish on Saturday Morning." "Do you really consider Conjugating with  your Wife to be Work?" "Look. We're Priests. We don't Conjugate." "Well what do you do with your Seed when it Comes  Out?"  "Look. I'm sorry. I have some unattended business to attend to." "You mean those guys in Black Suits who just  pulled up in the Well Waxed Limo? What's in the Brief Cases?"  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 6:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:I support Ms Kou's and Mr. DuBois' Colleagues' Memo CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council; Please support the Colleagues' Memo from Ms Kou and Mr DuBois regarding Affordable Housing Goals that address Social-economic diversity. Palo Alto is rapidly becoming a City where only the rich can live. In the process we are losing so many lower- moderate income hard working individuals who form the "spine" of our service economy. Also, many City employees are forced out and, in an emergency, most likely will not be available to provide essential services. The City likely is having trouble hiring and/or retaining employees due to the rising cost of homes/rentals in PA. I realize this is a regional problem, but action must be taken locally to remedy. The recommendations in the Colleagues' memo are an excellent first step. I urge your support. Thank you. Rita C. Vrhel, RN, BSN, CCM Medical Case Management Phone: 650-325-2298 Fax: 650-326-9451 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mark Cox <markdarrellcox@icloud.com> Sent:Thursday, September 19, 2019 11:22 AM To:pressoffice@goarch.org Subject:Synogogue CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Sothe Goal of Rome was to Create a Defective God and they Leveraged the Unfaithful Faction within Judea to Purge the  Name of God from the Lips of the Hebrews. That would be the High Priority given that knowing the Name the  Tetragrammaton "Yawuøòwah" (הוהי) was the End Game for Unfaithful Egyptians and their Empire under the Eleventh  Ramesses. With the Twin Towers the "Eleven" in the Sky over New York built as a Monomumental Memorial for the  Power to Destroy with a New Clear Weapon brought down in Obeisance to Judgement as the Prelude toward  Recompensation for Hiroshima and Nagasaki then we should Read the Writing in the Sky and Prepare for the Gutting of  American Power on the World Stage in the Fourth Generation that begins AD 2026. ""All Hebrews in America should aim  for Australia for an Interim Period.""    Please Absolutely put yourselves in Emergency Mode. This is NOT a Joke. This is Life or Death. Do you want to Increase  or Decrease? Multiply or Divide? The Baby is Australia.    [:;]    The Visit to the Synogogue was Fruitful in Seeing that in their Book the Defective Spelling of Elohim is Used [((םימולא))  versus ((םיהלא))] though I didn't realize this immediately and came to a premature wrong conclusion until I later realized  they're spelling Elohim "differently" (And I was adding Yod to the Wrong Group). So with "Correct Spelling" ((Elohim =  "92")), and with "Incorrect Spelling" ((Elohim = "87")). And this Number of "87" bears Significant Relevance to the  Nontrivial Fact that within Our Timeframe in this Current Age the Number "87" marks the Number of Years between  Successive Third Generations of 1914 and 2001, and likewise 1939 and 2026. Women who live together will see their  Periods Sync together Over Time. So by Faithfully Following the Defective Book the Elevated Abomination in the Pulpit  we have Succeeded in Syncing with the Book for the Purpose of "Knowing" Good AND Evil.    Apple's iPad Undo Key is Another Unrequested Fuck in the Ass. I expect the Extreme Dipshits who run the Company to  Run Apple In Bankruptcy. Build a Company as a Pervasive Liar and You can Watch Your Company Be Easily Destroyed.  Jeff Laird "is" a Fundamentally Stupid Person regardless of the Causation. He Married "Stupidess."    Of course, I have to Walk on Thin Ice or they'll become Jack in the Box Heads who become Lunatics foaming at the  Mouth. I already know Jews can't handle the Truth.    Of course as a Descendant of Abraham Isaac Jacob why is that I'am able to Face the Uncomfortable Truth? Maybe it's  Because I'm Hebrew and Not Jewish. Is it?  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mark Cox <markdarrellcox@icloud.com> Sent:Thursday, September 19, 2019 12:48 PM To:pressoffice@goarch.org Subject:Synogogue CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Where exactly in Australia? Roma,  Queensland. That would be the Epicenter assuming Madison Street in Seattle truly  aims directionally towards Roma, Queensland Australia.    The coordinates Madison Street at Broadway in Seattle is 47.6111769 N and 122.3209328 W and the Compass Reading  is 238 Degrees. Why Madison St? This is where Sunny visited Me in the Evening of a Sabbath on July 21 St across the  Street from iHop in front of Seattle University nearby their Art Department after My Cultic Mafia Family strangled Sunny  Adrienne Sudweeks Twenty Years prior with Costa Mesa Police Involvement on February 23rd, 1997 in the Year after her  Grandfather Max Leary died and Sunny was expecting something substantial before Sunny was murdered. Sunny's Name  birth was Chris Sproul and Cynthia Leary Sproul the Mother of Chris called Chris Sproul by the Apellation "Sunshine." If  Sunny wasn't the Stubborn Person she was then Sunny would likely be alive today as a Functional Cultic Member of a  Cultic Organized Crime Group focused on Bring Heroin to New Markets including The Next Generation by Marketing to  Adolescents via Songs like Camila Cabello's "Never Be the Same" and Taylor Swift's Namesake the Needle in the Arm as  an Extension to Opie Tayloy's Genocidal Fantasy of a Black Free South in Mayberry, NC "May We Bury your Black Folk"  with Aunt Bee "Stingers" Pandering her Irish Mafia Cult Family as Connected Law Enforcement like Andy Taylor  runs  Opium Territories in the Deep South while employing the "Clueless Who Can't See Patterns" like Barney Fife. Opie  "Opium" Taylor is Product Placement. Instead Sunny was Stubborn and My Connected Criminal Family ended her Life.  They did NOT however End the Fulfillment of the Purpose of Her Existence. Hence Australia should be a Place to Nurture  the Growing Population of Hebrews who need to Ruminate on What [[True ((T"rue" T"ru"e)) Scripture]] is, and on the  Lessons in History.    [:;]    So the Goal of Rome was to Create a Defective God and they Leveraged the Unfaithful Faction within Judea to Purge the  Name of God from the Lips of the Hebrews. That would be the High Priority given that knowing the Name the  Tetragrammaton "Yawuøòwah" (הוהי) was the End Game for Unfaithful Egyptians and their Empire under the Eleventh  Ramesses. With the Twin Towers the "Eleven" in the Sky over New York built as a Monomumental Memorial for the  Power to Destroy with a New Clear Weapon brought down in Obeisance to Judgement as the Prelude toward  Recompensation for Hiroshima and Nagasaki then we should Read the Writing in the Sky and Prepare for the Gutting of  American Power on the World Stage in the Fourth Generation that begins AD 2026. ""All Hebrews in America should aim  for Australia for an Interim Period.""    Please Absolutely put yourselves in Emergency Mode. This is NOT a Joke. This is Life or Death. Do you want to Increase  or Decrease? Multiply or Divide? The Baby is Australia.    [:;]    The Visit to the Synogogue was Fruitful in Seeing that in their Book the Defective Spelling of Elohim is Used [((םימולא))  versus ((םיהלא))] though I didn't realize this immediately and came to a premature wrong conclusion until I later realized  they're spelling Elohim "differently" (And I was adding Yod to the Wrong Group). So with "Correct Spelling" ((Elohim =  2 "92")), and with "Incorrect Spelling" ((Elohim = "87")). And this Number of "87" bears Significant Relevance to the  Nontrivial Fact that within Our Timeframe in this Current Age the Number "87" marks the Number of Years between  Successive Third Generations of 1914 and 2001, and likewise 1939 and 2026. Women who live together will see their  Periods Sync together Over Time. So by Faithfully Following the Defective Book the Elevated Abomination in the Pulpit  we have Succeeded in Syncing with the Book for the Purpose of "Knowing" Good AND Evil.    Apple's iPad Undo Key is Another Unrequested Fuck in the Ass. I expect the Extreme Dipshits who run the Company to  Run Apple In Bankruptcy. Build a Company as a Pervasive Liar and You can Watch Your Company Be Easily Destroyed.  Jeff Laird "is" a Fundamentally Stupid Person regardless of the Causation. He Married "Stupidess."    Of course, I have to Walk on Thin Ice or they'll become Jack in the Box Heads who become Lunatics foaming at the  Mouth. I already know Jews can't handle the Truth.    Of course as a Descendant of Abraham Isaac Jacob why is it that I'm able to Face the Uncomfortable Truth? Maybe it's  Because I'm Hebrew and Not Jewish? Is it? Is the Apellation of Jew actually a Perjorative? Are Gypsies descendants of  Egyptians? "Hebrew" is like Heb"rew" like Heb"ru" like Rumination like what is the Real Meaning?  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mark Cox <markdarrellcox@icloud.com> Sent:Thursday, September 19, 2019 1:25 PM To:pressoffice@goarch.org Subject:Synogogue CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Sunny left walking toward Puget Sound on Madison Street when I began saying the Age of Lamech was 753 Years. If you  think Lamech lived to be 777 Years then you have a Problem gambling away your True Protection by Betting against a  House that will Destroy those who Play with the "House" Long Enough. If you think "Elhim" (םיהלא) is God then you think  God is Defective and you might even think G‐d is God. What is G‐d? What is God, Good, Gold, Greed, Grad(e) the Steep  Grade that Kills You when you Fall to Cemetery Alumni. This is Vague? Did the Emperors allow All the Others Gods to be  Pronounced? Yet the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob had the Right to Remain Silent? The Right to Die? The Right to be  Eliminated, Expulsed, Exterminated? The Right to be Unknown? What kind of "Gawd" has "Elhim" proven Hmself to  B(Minus[e])? The True God is the True Elohim (םיהולא) and the True Elohim (םיהולא) is Not Defective and is Not a Liar and  Keeps His Promises. His Name is "Yawuøòwah" (הוהי) and "Blank Space" is Not a True Substitute. Do you want a "House"  or would you rather have a "Home"?    [:;]    Where exactly in Australia? Roma,  Queensland. That would be the Epicenter assuming Madison Street in Seattle truly  aims directionally towards Roma, Queensland Australia.    The coordinates Madison Street at Broadway in Seattle is 47.6111769 N and 122.3209328 W and the Compass Reading  is 238 Degrees. Why Madison St? This is where Sunny visited Me in the Evening of a Sabbath on July 21 St across the  Street from iHop in front of Seattle University nearby their Art Department after My Cultic Mafia Family strangled Sunny  Adrienne Sudweeks Twenty Years prior with Costa Mesa Police Involvement on February 23rd, 1997 in the Year after her  Grandfather Max Leary died and Sunny was expecting something substantial before Sunny was murdered. Sunny's Name  birth was Chris Sproul and Cynthia Leary Sproul the Mother of Chris called Chris Sproul by the Apellation "Sunshine." If  Sunny wasn't the Stubborn Person she was then Sunny would likely be alive today as a Functional Cultic Member of a  Cultic Organized Crime Group focused on Bring Heroin to New Markets including The Next Generation by Marketing to  Adolescents via Songs like Camila Cabello's "Never Be the Same" and Taylor Swift's Namesake the Needle in the Arm as  an Extension to Opie Tayloy's Genocidal Fantasy of a Black Free South in Mayberry, NC "May We Bury your Black Folk"  with Aunt Bee "Stingers" Pandering her Irish Mafia Cult Family as Connected Law Enforcement like Andy Taylor  runs  Opium Territories in the Deep South while employing the "Clueless Who Can't See Patterns" like Barney Fife. Opie  "Opium" Taylor is Product Placement. Instead Sunny was Stubborn and My Connected Criminal Family ended her Life.  They did NOT however End the Fulfillment of the Purpose of Her Existence. Hence Australia should be a Place to Nurture  the Growing Population of Hebrews who need to Ruminate on What [[True ((T"rue" T"ru"e)) Scripture]] is, and on the  Lessons in History.    [:;]    So the Goal of Rome was to Create a Defective God and they Leveraged the Unfaithful Faction within Judea to Purge the  Name of God from the Lips of the Hebrews. That would be the High Priority given that knowing the Name the  Tetragrammaton "Yawuøòwah" (הוהי) was the End Game for Unfaithful Egyptians and their Empire under the Eleventh  Ramesses. With the Twin Towers the "Eleven" in the Sky over New York built as a Monomumental Memorial for the  2 Power to Destroy with a New Clear Weapon brought down in Obeisance to Judgement as the Prelude toward  Recompensation for Hiroshima and Nagasaki then we should Read the Writing in the Sky and Prepare for the Gutting of  American Power on the World Stage in the Fourth Generation that begins AD 2026. ""All Hebrews in America should aim  for Australia for an Interim Period.""    Please Absolutely put yourselves in Emergency Mode. This is NOT a Joke. This is Life or Death. Do you want to Increase  or Decrease? Multiply or Divide? The Baby is Australia.    [:;]    The Visit to the Synogogue was Fruitful in Seeing that in their Book the Defective Spelling of Elohim is Used [((םימולא))  versus ((םיהלא))] though I didn't realize this immediately and came to a premature wrong conclusion until I later realized  they're spelling Elohim "differently" (And I was adding Yod to the Wrong Group). So with "Correct Spelling" ((Elohim =  "92")), and with "Incorrect Spelling" ((Elohim = "87")). And this Number of "87" bears Significant Relevance to the  Nontrivial Fact that within Our Timeframe in this Current Age the Number "87" marks the Number of Years between  Successive Third Generations of 1914 and 2001, and likewise 1939 and 2026. Women who live together will see their  Periods Sync together Over Time. So by Faithfully Following the Defective Book the Elevated Abomination in the Pulpit  we have Succeeded in Syncing with the Book for the Purpose of "Knowing" Good AND Evil.    Apple's iPad Undo Key is Another Unrequested Fuck in the Ass. I expect the Extreme Dipshits who run the Company to  Run Apple In Bankruptcy. Build a Company as a Pervasive Liar and You can Watch Your Company Be Easily Destroyed.  Jeff Laird "is" a Fundamentally Stupid Person regardless of the Causation. He Married "Stupidess."    Of course, I have to Walk on Thin Ice or they'll become Jack in the Box Heads who become Lunatics foaming at the  Mouth. I already know Jews can't handle the Truth.    Of course as a Descendant of Abraham Isaac Jacob why is it that I'm able to Face the Uncomfortable Truth? Maybe it's  Because I'm Hebrew and Not Jewish? Is it? Is the Apellation of Jew actually a Perjorative? Are Gypsies descendants of  Egyptians? "Hebrew" is like Heb"rew" like Heb"ru" like Rumination like what is the Real Meaning?  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 5:38 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal) Cc:Council, City Subject:Ugly Cell Phone towers near residences CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth,    I recently learned that—after Palo Alto firefighters expressed concerns about the proximity of a cell tower to the now-under-construction firehouse at Embarcadero and Newell—City Council approved the funds to build a radiation-inhibiting wall between the new firehouse and the cell tower.     I am shocked. In April, you and Councilmembers Cormack, Fine and Kniss—overruling Councilmembers DuBois, Kou and Tanaka—voted to allow Staff up to a year to revise the city’s Wireless Ordinance so that it would at last include basic protections for residents, protections such as disfavoring cell towers in residential areas and establishing a minimum distance between cell towers.   I would appreciate it if you would explain why you and your three colleagues were immediately responsive to the firefighters’ concerns and approved the funds to build them a radiation-inhibiting wall, no less, but have failed to show a comparable sense of urgency with respect to the concerns of Palo Altans regarding, for example, the siting of cell towers only a few short feet from their homes.    Respectfully, I ask that you right this wrong and direct City Staff: 1) to immediately revise Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance so that it includes the essential new guidelines Council endorsed now over five months ago; and 2) to neither approve, permit nor allow the installation of any new cell tower that does not comply with the revised Ordinance.     Yours truly,  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Luce, Gwen <GLuce@cbnorcal.com> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 8:04 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Council, City Subject:Urgent action requested! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Coldwell Banker Gwen Luce, Realtor® To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Coldwell Banker To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. DRE License #00879652 Direct Line: 650.566.5343 gluce@cbnorcal.com To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office preventeautomatic download of this picture from the Internet. Dear Mayor Filseth, I am most upset to learn that after Palo Alto firefighters expressed concerns about the proximity of a cell tower to the now-under-construction firehouse at Embarcadero and Newell, City Council approved the funds to build a radiation-inhibiting wall between the new firehouse and the cell tower. How hypocritical! In April, you and Councilmembers Cormack, Fine and Kniss—overruling Councilmembers DuBois, Kou and Tanaka—voted to allow Staff up to a year to revise the city’s Wireless Ordinance so that it would at last include basic protections for residents, protections such as disfavoring cell towers in residential areas and establishing a minimum distance between cell towers. Please explain why you and your three colleagues were immediately responsive to the firefighters’ concerns and approved the funds to build them a radiation-inhibiting wall, but have failed to show a sense of urgency with regarding the concerns of Palo Altans regarding the siting of cell towers only a few short feet from our homes! I ask that you right this wrong and direct City Staff: 1) to immediately revise Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance so it includes the essential new guidelines Council endorsed over five months ago; and 2) to neither approve, permit nor allow the installation of any new cell tower that does not comply with the revised Ordinance. Sincerely, Gwen Luce 4065 Laguna Way 2 Gwen Luce 650-566-5343 gluce@cbnorcal.com www.gwenluce.com Powered by e-Letterhead     *Wire Fraud is Real*.  Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to  confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a  real estate contract via written or verbal communication.  Enjoy an evening with friends & neighbors celebrating all that's spectacular about Palo Alto! FRIDAY, OCTOBER 4th 7PM TO MIDNIGHT LUCIE STERN parecfoundation.org The City of Palo Alto's 125th Birthday The Palo Alto Weekly's 40th Anniversary Live music, DJ & silent disco, dancing, signature cocktails, Taste-of-Palo Alto, black tie optional. THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS: .:,. Sutter Health Palo Alto Medlca Foi.nc1a11on ID Stanford W HEALTH CARE QPalantir Stanford University Postmates Stanford • CllUllT- The Black & White Ball is organized by the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation (PARF), in partnership wrth the City of Palo Alto and The Palo Alto Weekly PARF is a non-profit organization with SOl(c)(3) tax status All proceeds from the Ball directly support PARF 1n funding a wide range of events and programs m and around the city of Palo Alto \ Herb Borock P. O. Box 632 Palo Alto, CA 94302 September 23, 2019 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 ) ~ r'.r>UNCI7.ME~TJ,NG ~--·-CJ:';-3/1/ ~ [ I !'.aced Before Meeting ~ed at Meeting SEPTEMBER 23, 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #8 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN Dear City Council: The Palo Alto Housing Corporation has repeatedly informed the City Council that it is difficult for them to manage individual rental units that are included i n an otherwise market rate housing development, and that they prefer subsidized rental housing to be 100% affordable housing, rather than a mix of market rate and subsidized housing. Mixed use projects that include both subsidized housing and employment generat ing uses do not help solve the housing problem. They only exacerbate the housing problem by creating a demand for housing. At the beginning of this year, Palo Al to's unmet Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for 2015-2023 consisted of 1,022 Very Low Income and Low Income housing units. [Very Low Income: 691-432 = 648; Low Income : 432-58 = 374. (Very Low Income includes Extremely Low Income)] During the year, the Council approved a 59-unit subsidized housing development on El Camino Real that lowered the unmet need to 963 housing units. The RM-40 zone district allows 40 housing units per acre and can accommodate those 963 units on 24 acres of land. The most likely place to find that 24 acres is in the 700 acre Stanford Research Park that already has a 70-unit subsidized housing project on 1.8 acres of land on El Camino Real located on the edge of the Stanford Research Park . As part of Santa Clara County's review of Stanford's application for a new General Use Permit (GUP), it is appropriate to propose using Stanford Research Park land for housing mitigation because Stanford uses both the GUP land and the Research Park for academic uses. The Stanford Research Park is located in the City of Palo Alto. Only a small portion of the Research Park would be needed for Palo Alto's current RHNA Very Low Income and Low Income unmet housing needs, p l us Palo Alto's future RHNA Very Low Income and Low Income allocations for the life of the proposed GUP. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, ~ I COU~LlMEETING 9~ 1q ( ) ~d Before Meeting ~eceived at Meeting My name is Dave Warner. I'm pleased to be long time Palo Alto resident and am proud of this and past city councils. It seems to me that the main issue with the transfer agreement is that the environmental benefit is murky at best given that the other benefits to Palo Alto are insignificant. As you know the agreement will increase our recycled water by 1 mgd and Mountain View by 3 mgd and Mountain View if it wants can use the potable water it replaces however it wants, including for growing water demand. For the majority of the water in the transfer agreement, Valley Water can use the water however it wants, not necessarily to reduce imports. It's also not clear that if Palo Alto and Mountain View reduce their water demand from the SFPUC, that it won't use the water elsewhere hence there could be no benefit to the Tuolumne from this transfer. This set of circumstances makes Valley Water's opposition to the Bay Delta plan particularly problematic for the transfer agreement. The Bay Delta Plan is the one thing that would assure additional water for the Tuolumne. As you know, we Palo Altans are very environmentally conscious, 80% of us voting in 2016 to tax ourselves to save the bay. This leads to the vexing problem statement: How can we execute a transfer agreement for recycled water when there's no assurance that it will benefit the environment and control of the water is put in the hands of a party that is in opposition to the one thing that would help the Tuolumne? Isn't this an awkward position. This isn't our problem. Valley Water put us here. As evidenced by their last recycled water committee meeting, they are desperate for our water. We're not in a rush. Let's pause and give Valley Water a chance to fix the situation. Thank you. The Transfer Agreement: What Palo Alto Cares About Reliability (low priority) • Additional source of supply: City council already acknowledged Bay Delta Plan was not a threat given numerous means to mitigate. If supply is a concern, a better solution is to choose an option with known costs rather than the unknown costs in the transfer agreement. Funds (low priority) • $1M/year. Not significant relative to price of potable water. Environment (High priority) • Mitigate Tuolumne river devastation caused by Palo Alto's imports. Not significantly addressed by transfer agreement. Instead Valley Water goes as far as opposing the Bay Delta Plan. • Medium. Effluent used to offset other water imports: Not addressed by transfer agreement. Instead water could be used for projected Valley Water demand increases Conclusion: Unless the transfer agreement better addresses Palo Alto's priorities, other options better align with Palo Alto's values, including the "do nothing" option (keep options open) Please incorporate Palo Alto's environmental priorities Herb Borock P.O. Box 632 Palo Alto, CA 943402 September 23, 2019 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 SEPTEMBER 231 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #3 RECYCLED WATER AND TREATED WASTEWATER TRANSFER Dear City Council; I urge you to direct staff to take no further action on the subject of this study session. Staff told you when they recommended gifting part of the City's water supply to East Palo Alto that Palo Alto does not need an additional supply of potable water. You recently adopted a Sea Level Rise Policy based on a presentation that showed the path of any new recycled water pipeline being inundated by sea water during the term of the agreement discussed in the staff report for this agenda item. The lower aquifer is the wrong place to add treated water because the lower aquifer is subject to salt water intrusion. It makes more sense to use the upper aquifer in the Stanford foothills for adding rain water that can be stored in detention basins until the surrounding ground is not saturated, when the stored rain water can replenish the upper aquifer. Sending treated water to the Santa Clara Valley Water District so that the water can enable future development along the Caltrain line to create the need for more frequent trains that in turn would require grade separations in Palo Alto is a bad idea, unless Valley water agrees to pay for Palo Alto's Caltrain grade separations in addition to paying for the water. We should retain ownership of the Regional Water Quality Control Plan with our partners . Sincerely ~ Herb Borock September 19, 2019 TO: STATE, CITY AND LOCAL OFFICIALS NOTICE OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMP ANY'S REQUEST TO INCREASE RA TES FOR THE CATASTROPIDC EVENT MEMORANDUM ACCOUNT (CEMA) (A.19-09-012) Summary On September 13, 2019, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed its 2019 Catastrophic Event Memorandum Account (CEMA) application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The application seeks recovery of $159.3 million for costs related to PG&E's 2017 and 2018 fire and storm emergency response. The scope of this application is thirteen catastrophic events, including multiple wildfires and a storm spanning from mid- 2017 through 2018. This application does not include the 2015 Butte Fire, 2017 North Bay Fires or the 2018 Camp Fire. If the CPUC approves this application, PG&E will begin to recover costs in electric and gas rates beginning January 1, 2021 . PG&E is proposing the recovery of costs and any rate increase to mostly occur over one-year starting in 2021, with smaller amounts recovered in 2022. Background CEMA is used to record unexpected costs incurred as a result of significant events declared to be disasters by the state of California or federal authorities. Costs are related to the following: • Safely restoring utility services to customers during declared natural disasters • Repairing, replacing or restoring damaged utility facilities • Complying with governmental agency orders Climate change is affecting weather patterns and field conditions in California, including extreme weather, drought, heat waves, and changes in precipitation levels and timing. This is leading to more frequent declared emergencies and larger- scale response events. How will the application affect electric rates? Most customers receive bundled electric service from PG&E, meaning they receive electric generation, transmission and distribution services. Based on rates currently in effect, the bill for a typical residential Non-CARE custocner using 500 kWh per month would increase from $118.05 to $119.41 or 1.1%. Actual impacts will vary depending on energy usage. Direct Access and Community Choice Aggregation customers only receive electric transmission and distribution services from PG&E. On average, these customers would see an increase of 1.5%. Another category of nonbundled customers is Departing Load. These customers do not receive electric generation, transmission or distribution services from PG&E. However, these customers are required to pay certain charges by law or CPUC decision. The impact of PG&E's application on these customers is an average increase of 0.5%. Detailed rate information was provided in a bill insert sent directly to customers. How will the application affect gas rates? Bundled gas customers receive transmission, distribution, and procurement services from PG&E. Based on rates currently in effect, the gas bill for a typical residential non-CARE customer averaging 34 therms per month would increase from $53.56 to $53.59, or 0.05%. How do I find out more about PG&E's proposals? If you have questions about PG&E's filing, please contact PG&E at 1-800-743-5000. For TTY, call 1-800-652-4712. Para mas detalles !lame al 1-800-660-6789 • ~ffl~Jj(• 1-800-893-9555. If you would like a copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits, please write to PG&E at the address below: Pacific Gas and Electric Company 2019 CEMA Application (A.19-09-012) P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 1 I Z :9 MV ~ Z d3S 6 J }:Jl:l..:ffJ S.~>J31J A U:J v ::i ·a nv 01vd -Jo i .i l;J A copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits is also available for review at the CPUC's Central Files Office by appointment only. For more information, contact aljcentralfilesid@cpuc.ca.gov or 1-415-703-2045. PG&E's Application (without exhibits) is available on the CPUC's website at www.cpuc.ca.gov. CPUC process This application will be assigned to an Administrative Law Judge (Judge) who will determine how to receive evidence and other related information necessary forthe CPUC to establish a record upon which to base its decision. Evidentiary hearings (EHs) may be held where parties will present their testimony and may be subject to cross-examination by other parties. These EHs are open to the pubnc. but only those who are formal parties in the case can participate. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearings, the assigned Judge will issue a proposed decision which may adopt PG&E's proposal, modify it or deny it. Any of the five CPUC Commissioners may sponsor an alternate decision. The proposed decision, and any alternate decisions, will be discussed and voted upon at a scheduled CPUC Voting Meeting that is open to the public. The California Public Advocates Office (CalPA) may review this application. CalPA is the independent consumer advocate within the CPUC with a legislative mandate to represent investor-owned utility customers to obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. CalPA has a multidisciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. For more information about CalPA, please call 1-415-703-1584, email PublicAdvocatesOffice@cpuc.ca.gov or visit CalPA's website at www.publicadvocates.cpuc.ca.gov. Stay informed If you would like to follow this proceeding, or any other issue before the CPUC, you may use the CPUC's free subscription service. Sign up at: http://subscribecpuc.cpuc.ca.gov. If you would like to learn how you can participate in the proceeding, have informal comments about the application or have questions about the CPUC processes, you may access the CPUC's Public Advisor Office (PAO) webpage at http://consumers.cpuc.ca.gov/pao/. You may also contact the PAO as follows: Email: public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov Mail: CPUC Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Call: 1-866-849-8390 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-2074 TTY: 1-866-836-7825 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-5282 Please reference PG&E's 2019 CEMA Application (A.19-09-012) in any communications you have with the CPUC regarding this matter. All public comments will become part of the public correspondence file for this proceeding and made available for review by the assigned Judge, Commissioners and appropriate CPUC staff. 2 Sept. 10,2019 City Council Calif. City Re: The Wall & Refugeeszo 19 SEP 2 3 PH I: I Ii \t.~tH.:.iJ Dear City Council, Cll r ~:\N;\GEli'S OFFICE I have a suggestion as to how you can help the refugees at our U. S border. You have a Mexican Sister City, please contact the Mayor or your contact person in your Mexican Sister City. Ask them to help you make contact with a person or group who will co sponsor a refugee with you in the Mexican City. We are working to find the correct U.S agency for you to make contact with one of the refugees or a family. Then your US city will help fund that refugee to be placed in your Mexican Sister City and funding will come from your U.S city, a U.S agency to provide housing, education and training for that refugee or a refugee family. I am working with Congressman John Garamendi and other U. S legislators to organize this program. Please contact me if you are interested in helping develop a solution to the refugee problem and a better use of the U.S money. We wont need a wall. Thank you for your help and suggestions. Blessings (f(_;t:r 'bl~ -he~ Rita Montes Martin Sharing Gods Word Ministries International 1221 Kennedy Pl. # 69 Davis, CA. 95616 E-mail-rita1215@aol.com 530-759-8434 \.0 (/) ni -0 N w -0 ~ w 0 nc.> --i -i-< -< nCi3 r-""" r.i-o .::<:I)>. ;Jl::I u)O o> .,. -.,-1 _a C"). ,,,n > City of Palo Alto, Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 15 September 2019 Dear Gentlepeople, CITY OF p CITY CL£~k9sAoLTo. CA FF/{;£ 19 SEP 19 pu 11 2: , , I live in Palo Alto and I am against putting up more cell phone towers in Palo Alto. If Verizon is able to provide good coverage for its customers with the existing towers, why can't AT&T do as well? Why shoulo ::i city go out of it<:: w~y to • accommodate this one private business in a way that negatively impacts its citizenry, just so it can be more competitive. Many of Palo Al tans are protesting the installation of more cell phone towers, especially near residences, schools, parks, and places where children play. There is plenty of research showing the harmful effects of RF radiation on animal and human health, including birds and honeybees, whose navigating systems are seriously disrupted, which is contributing to the ominous demise of honeybees. (see Warnke, Bees, Birds, and Mankind: Destroying Nature by 'Electrosmog'-Effects of Wireless Communications Technology.) Moreover there are growing numbers of individuals who are especially sensitive who experience debilitating symptoms in proximity to cell phone towers and smart meters. For this reason I am especially against placing cell phone towers near or in our parks. People go to these areas to experience the beauty, healing, and calming effects of nature. EMF and RF radiation fields interfere with the aesthetic experience of Nature and counteract its healing benefits. We don't al1ow our parks to be trashed with litter and garbage. Why would we allow them to be trashed energetically by harmful and unnatural energy frequency fields that affect everyone? Please leave nature in its natural state! Sincerely, Molly Rose /)(YJo-f ~ Fo ~ 3143 Avalon Court --~ Palo Alto, CA94306