Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20191223plCC 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: 12/23/2019 Document dates: 12/4/2019 – 12/11/2019 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Shannon Rose McEntee <shannonrmcentee@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 7, 2019 10:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:12/9/19 City Council Meeting - Agenda Item 9 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council Members,    With regard to Monday evening's Item No. 9 entitled:  "Council Direction on Scope of Review for Procedures  and Protocols Related to Boards and Commissions."    "Should expectations of board/commission members be clarified, with definitions to elements such as  qualifications, term limits, recusals and disclosures, attendance, conduct and a process for removal?"    YES, absolutely.  This is way overdue.  It's been nearly two years since it came to light that Commissioner  Alcheck subverted the intent of city laws with regards to placement of covered parking on two properties in  which he had an economic interest.  He violated building codes during construction and again after the final  inspection.  This may be business as usual in Washington DC, but it's not OK in Palo Alto.  City Council, please  remove Alcheck from the Planning and Transportation Commission.  The fact that he is still sitting on the  Commission is a disgrace to your leadership.    Sincerely,    Shannon Rose McEntee        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Emily Renzel <marshmama2@att.net> Sent:Sunday, December 8, 2019 7:28 AM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda item #9, Scope of Review... CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Members of the City Council:   It’s a sad state of affairs when you have to “decide” whether you should have  clarified expectations of Board/Commission members per Item 3*  in the Staff report.   YES, not only should the Council  make clear that Conflicts of Interest are serious, but I think the Council should have serious consequences when  Commissioners abuse their trust.   I think there is ample evidence that in the case of Commissioner Alcheck, that he used  his position for personal benefit (A case in point: Have any of you been watching the issues in the impeachment  proceedings?).  Alcheck’s improper actions had a serious impact in his neighborhood and set a precedent for other  neighborhoods.   Mr. Alcheck should be removed from the Planning Commission.        Emily Renzel  1056 Forest Avenue  Palo Alto,CA. 94301    *3. Commissioner conduct and terms – Should expectations of board/commission members be  clarified, with definitions to elements such as qualifications, term limits, recusals and disclosures,  attendance, conduct, and a process for removal?  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 8, 2019 3:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:12/9/2019 item 9 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    A short time ago I was in council chambers to address council on another matter, when a private citizen gave a detailed  report/investigation on the conduct of planning commissioner Michael Alcheck.  From this detailed report it is appears  evident Mr. Alcheck engaged in behavior that conflicted with role as a planning commissioner.  If council does nothing to  address Mr Alcheck,s actions,  I am left with the impression the council condones Mr.  Alcheck's behavior.    Thank you    Paul machado  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, December 8, 2019 5:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Michael Alcheck / Tomorrow's City Council Mtg and Item #9 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council Members,    Fred Balin has done an amazing job in his 112 page report, clearly supporting the case for Michael Alcheck's removal  from the council appointed Planning and Transportation Commission.  I do NOT understand why there has been radio  silence for months from City Council, given the facts Fred has shared which clearly show conflicts of interest and use of  his position for personal benefit.    While ethical lapses and conflicts of interest should be the basis of his removal, I’m sure you’ll agree (as many residents  have) that Commissioner Alcheck’s behavior at PTC has been unproductive.  He dominates meetings showing disrespect  towards others.    Trust in government was a key item identified by residents a year ago as something for Council to address.  Doing  nothing about this well documented conflict of interest situation is a clear signal to the community that trust is NOT a  priority.  Given what people see on the news at the national level, I’m sure a lot of people are drawing similar  comparisons to national and local level regarding sanctioning bad behavior.    I do not think that process, procedures, and protocols need to be specifically defined for every possible bad behavior  someone might pursue before you, as local government representatives, apply common sense and take appropriate  action which, in this case, is to immediately remove Commissioner Alcheck from the PTC.    That said, I certainly would advocate a “YES” regarding the City Manager’s question (item #3 in his staff report pertaining  to item #9 at tomorrow’s City Council meeting) where he asks if there should be expectations of board/commission  member conduct and terms, including most importantly an expeditious process for removal.    I think it is also important, when appointing anyone, to have him/her confirm they are NOT beholden to anyone else,  and their allegiance is only to the community (not developers or specific businesses who may be clients).  And any  funding from developers and businesses should be avoided altogether.    Please “walk the talk” by removing Michael Alcheck from his position and appoint someone focused solely on the  betterment of our community and council’s priorities.  We can and should do better.    Thank you.    Chris Robell      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kurt Buecheler <kurtbuecheler@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 8, 2019 8:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Michael Alcheck process CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear city council:    I think a fairly big concern was identified in 2017 and it seems the concern has since escalated in breadth and  depth.        https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/03/12/commissioners‐ethics‐questioned.       Here we are almost in 2020.  Is this going to escalate into "the" issue in the next election?      I think we deserve an update on the City Council's views and progress on the council's process.      Respectfully,  Kurt      To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Commissioner's ethics questioned | News | Palo Alto Online A legal dispute last fall between the city of Palo Alto and planning commissioner Michael Alcheck arose over converting two carports to garages -- while the commission was considering a zoning ... www.paloaltoonline.com   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Deborah Plumley <deborah@plumleygroup.com> Sent:Sunday, December 8, 2019 8:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:Monday 9 Dec.: ITEM NO 9 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  IN REFERENCE TO ITEM NO 9: "Council Direction on Scope of Review for  Procedures and Protocols Related to Boards and Commissions.”    The key section that staff has presented for council discussion in its short report is Number 3,  mostly quoted in the PA Online piece referenced above, but restated in full here:    3. Commissioner conduct and terms – Should expectations of board/commission members be  clarified, with definitions to elements such as qualifications, term limits, recusals and disclosures,  attendance, conduct, and a process for removal?    [ — Staff Report at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74201 ]      Dear Palo Alto City Council:    I am advocating “Yes” in regard to the a process for removal of board/commission members.    I have complete trust in Fred Balin’s efforts to have Michael Alcheck removed from his post as Planning and  Transportation Commissioner for manipulating city law in his favor and his personal gain.      And I urge the Palo Alto City Council to remove Commissioner Alcheck from his position.     Deborah Plumley    Resident of College Terrace, Palo Alto          1 Brettle, Jessica From:Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:10 PM To:Council, City Cc:Fred Balin Subject:Commissioner Michael Alcheck CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Greeting Council Members: I am writing in support of Fred Balin's address to the City Council in the matter of Mr. Alcheck's violation of city regulations in the matter of garage placement, on properties in which the predominant placement of a garage or other parking structure is in the rear. I have read Mr. Balin's report on this subject, and agree with him that Mr. Alcheck used his positon as Commissioner to find a way to violate this regulation on two properties of which he owned or had a financial interest. Once a public official is able to circumvent a standing regulation, that other citizens must obey, then a serious violation has occurred. While the subject of garage placement may seem a trivial matter, the misuse of one's governmental position for personal gain is a serious breach of the public's right to expect honest behavior from public officials. Mr. Alcheck has misused his positon of Commissoner for personal gain not available to non government citizens. As such, he must be removed from the Commission forthwith. Failure to take this action will imply to me that the City Council has little to no regard to such breaches of the public's expectation of honesty in citizens who hold government office. Thank you for your attention. Richard C. Placone Chimalus Drive Palo Alto. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:meyere@meyere.digitalspacemail8.net Sent:Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Item 9, Dec.9thAgenda Review ofBoard procedures... CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Re Action Item 9, Commissioner conduct: -Please add an important item for clarification, Conflict of Interest. -And clarify the procedure for removal of a board/commission member. For example, Commissioner Alcheck has violated conflict of interest rules many times, and often behaves inappropriately. There needs to be a way to deal with this problem, that is not overly complicated. The violations are visible to all and do not require lengthy procedures. Mr. Fred Balin has given the Council an excellent detailed description and analysis of the dishonest actions. Thank you, Elaine Meyer elainemeyer@gmail.com . 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Margaret Heath <maggi650@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2019 3:06 AM To:Council, City Subject:Michael Alchek CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth and Council Members,    The broader community has become increasingly aware of how Michael Alcheck, a current member of the Planning and  Transport Commission, did not declare his conflicts of interest on a number of occasions. Instead Mr. Alcheck continued  to actively participate in and had the opportunity to directly influence Commission decisions and votes with the  possibility of significant personal financial gain.     The details, though tedious, have been well documented by Fred Balin and Jeff Levinsky, both of whose integrity and  high standards I have great respect. To my mind, one of the more telling incidents I personally watched illuminated Mr.  Alcheck’s motivations in a nutshell.  One of the new building codes that Mr. Alcheck had advocated for and helped craft  came before a council meeting for approval. Planning staff were asked if their research had turned up any Palo Alto  properties this particular building code could apply to. Staff responded that as far as they could ascertain there were  only two Palo Alto properties that this new building code would apply to. What staff weren’t asked and didn’t say was  that these two properties were owned by Mr. Alcheck and his sister.  To all intents and purposes, it appears that without  anyone being any the wiser, this particular building code had been all but custom crafted to benefit these two  properties. Which subsequently resulted in a significant financial advantage when Mr. Alcheck and his sister later sold  these two investment properties.    Now that the details concerning Mr. Alcheck’s repeated failure to admit his significant financial conflicts of interest and  his knowing participation in crafting several building codes that could immediately benefit him personally have been  brought to your attention, there is an expectation by the public that Mr. Alcheck will be held  to the same high ethical  standards as members of the council as well as those appointed by you to positions of public trust.      In addition, following the well documented revelations of Mr. Alcheck’s flagrant violation of ethical standards and public  trust, the longer he remains on the Planning and Transport Commission the greater the appearance that the  council is  condoning his behavior.  No doubt Mr. Alcheck has a formidable legal team. However, please uphold the council’s  integrity and ethical standards by immediately taking whatever steps are necessary that will result in rescinding Mr.  Alcheck’s appointment to the Planning and Transport Commission as soon as possible. This may be especially important  to pre‐empt further public scrutiny now this story has been picked up by the press and the reputation of both the  Planning and Transport Commission and the Palo Alto City Council is involved.      Thank you for your attention,    Sincerely,    Margaret Heath  2140 Cornell Street  Palo Alto  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Margaret Heath <maggi650@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2019 3:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:Council Meeting 12/9/19, Item No. 9 "Council Direction on Scope of Review for Procedures and Protocols Related to Boards and Commissions.” CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth and Council Members,     "Council Direction on Scope of Review for Procedures and Protocols Related to Boards and Commissions.”    The broader community has become increasingly aware of how Michael Alcheck, a current member of the Planning and  Transport Commission, did not declare his conflicts of interest on a number of occasions. Instead Mr. Alcheck continued  to actively participate in and had the opportunity to directly influence Commission decisions and votes with the  possibility of significant personal financial gain.     The details, though tedious, have been well documented by Fred Balin and Jeff Levinsky, whose integrity and high  standards I have the greatest respect for. To my mind, one of the more telling incidents I personally watched illuminated  Mr. Alcheck’s motivations in a nutshell.  One of the new building codes that Mr. Alcheck had advocated for and helped  craft came before a council meeting for approval. Planning staff were asked if their research had turned up any Palo Alto  properties this particular building code could apply to.  Staff responded that as far as they could ascertain there were  only two Palo Alto properties that this new building code could apply to. What staff weren’t asked and didn’t say was  that these two properties were owned by Mr. Alcheck and his sister.  To all intents and purposes, it appears that without  anyone being any the wiser, this particular building code had been all but custom crafted to benefit these two  investment properties. Which later resulted in a significant financial advantage when Mr. Alcheck subsequently sold this  property.    Now that the details concerning Mr. Alcheck’s repeated failures to admit his significant financial conflicts of interest and  his knowing participation in crafting several building codes that had the effect of immediately benefiting himself and his  sister have been brought to your attention, there is an expectation by the public that Mr. Alcheck will be held  to the  same high ethical standards as members of the council as well as those appointed by you to positions of public trust.      In addition, following the well documented revelations of Mr. Alcheck’s flagrant violation of ethical standards and public  trust, the longer he remains on the Planning and Transport Commission the greater the appearance that the council is  condoning his behavior.  No doubt Mr. Alcheck has a formidable legal team. However, please uphold the council’s  integrity and ethical standards by immediately taking whatever steps are necessary that will result in rescinding Mr.  Alcheck’s appointment to the Planning and Transport Commission as soon as possible. This may be especially important  to pre‐empt further public scrutiny now this story has been picked up by the press and the reputation of both the  Planning and Transport Commission and the Palo Alto City Council is involved.      Thank you for your attention,    Sincerely,    Margaret Heath  2140 Cornell Street  Palo Alto  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2019 11:21 AM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda Item 9: Council Direction on Scope of Review for Procedures and Protocols Related to Boards and Commissions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth and Council Members:     Tonight when you discuss procedures and protocols related to boards and commissions, I encourage you to strengthen  your understanding of the power you already have and specifically to remove Michael Alcheck from the PTC.    I saw the mention in Palo Alto Online on Friday of the fact that Fred Balin created a tour de force investigative piece  detailing how Michael Alcheck's been caught with both hands in the cookie jar.  You know what you need to do in order  to maintain faith with the people and to carry out your responsibilities. Please remove Alcheck immediately and if you  feel the current language doesn't give you enough flexibility to act, then by all means strengthen the policies to make  them more meaningful.      Also, having watched Michael for years abuse, assail and insult both fellow commissioners and residents from the dais,  I'm convinced his bizarre behavior on its own is grounds for removal. Yet here we have the indisputable proof that  Michael Alcheck is no friend of the people. If he stole a loaf of bread, wouldn't we arrest him? But he steals the zoning  for himself, enhancing properties he has interest in to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars and gets a free pass  to keep serving?  I think not.    Please remove Michael Alcheck from the PTC.  Let's keep the public trust and get back to business.    Becky  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Enid Pearson <enidpearson1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2019 12:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Commissioner Conduct and Removal. Clearly Michael Alcheck had a conflict of interest CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  regarding the garage additions to the developments under his control.  I would expect more from the city attorney and other staff than seeming  to pave the  way for Mr Alcheck to force approval from staff for his illegal con‐  struction. If indeed there is no method to remove Mr. Alcheck from his  seat on the Planning Commission, then it surely is time for the council  to first (remove Mr Alcheck from his position) and second to ensure  that there is a written method for the council to take such action.    Sadly, it seems that the terrible activities that we now have in our  Presidency have filtered down to one of the public's first and easiest  contacts with elected officials.  Our elected officials need to take action  and ensure that Mr. Alcheck is and remains an aberration  rather than the  becoming a model for the normal  way of behaving in a position of public trust.  Enid Pearson, PA City  Councilwoman, 1965‐75.           ‐‐        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jim Colton <james.colton10@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2019 1:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:Commissioner conduct CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members,     On the question of Should expectations of board/commission members be clarified, with definitions to elements such as  qualifications, term limits, recusals and disclosures, attendance, conduct, and a process for removal?, the answer is a  definite yes.  The process for removing a commissioner should be more clearly spelled out to avoid confusion such as  with the current Alcheck case.    Jim Colton  Green Acres II      ‐‐     JimColtonPhotography.com  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Art Liberman <art_liberman@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2019 3:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:Corruption at the PTC CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Council members: The talk in the air nowadays is about corruption, of actions at the national level of a political leader asking for personal favors that would benefit him personally. The actions of Mr. Michael Alcheck of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission who, while serving on the body that oversees building requirements, submitted plans to allow permits to alter building requirements for one of his own properties is a classic example of corruption of a public official. His actions put his personal interests above those of the public. Yet he continues to serve on that body and the City has not initiated any action about this. This is troubling. Corruption at any level of government harms our governmental processes, shames those governmental agencies in which that corruption occurs and endangers the public’s faith in the honesty and integrity of those governmental bodies and in the individuals who serve on them. The shadow of corruption not only affects the person or persons directly involved in the specific questionable issues, but also sullies the reputation of those person or persons who appoint the individuals to those bodies. I call on the Council to immediately and expeditiously investigate the accusation of corrupt actions of Mr. Alcheck and to remove him from office if the evidence, as presented by Mr. Fred Balin, is substantiated and to modify procedures and policies of appointing officials to Palo Alto's municipal bodies. Arthur Liberman 751 Chimalus Drive Palo Alto 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sally Heaton <x40trout@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2019 4:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:Planning Commission Ethics CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Council Members,  I am writing with regards to “Planning and Transportation Commission I Hale Alcheck’s carport to garage caper”. This has  been public knowledge since 2017 with no action by the council. Why?    Subverting city laws for private gain, violating building codes, conflict of interest, and abuse of city staff have no place in  Palo Alto.    Therefore, in regards to item #9, “Council Discretion on Scope of Review for Procedures and Protocols Related to Boards  and Commissions”, #3 “Commissioner conduct and terms”, I urge a yes vote.    Then I urge you to restore good government practice, and the confidence of the people of Palo Alto in the functioning of  their community.    Yours,  Whit Heaton  Bowdoin Street  Palo Alto    Sent from my iPad  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Christina Gwin <my1gwinevere@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 5, 2019 1:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:AB 1482 and the PA emergency ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,    I just read the "Our Palo Alto" email and am pleased that the City Council is taking up the issue of housing. I have been  an educator in the community for 22 years and been a renter for 12. In that time, we have had two 22%+ rent increases  in addition to smaller, reasonable ones. We have felt our situation to be especially precarious in the last 5 years as we  have seen and heard of others who have been evicted or who have had steep increase year after year. Our cluster of  cottages has been a great addition to the neighborhood and often appeals to either young families and/or those who  work in the nonprofit world. I don't believe Palo Alto would want to lose either.     Thank you,  Christina Gwin  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Rachel Kellerman <rkellerman@me.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 10, 2019 12:10 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Gaines, Chantal; Nadia Naik; kanne.megan@gmail.com Subject:About Last Night Neighborhood Concerns CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable Council Members,     Thank you for listening to the concerns of Professorville/Embarcadero neighbors last night.  I want to make sure that the  Council and city staff know that no one was intentionally speaking “out of order” and not honoring the rules of only  speaking directly to agenda items.  We were specifically told by the chair of the XCAP and by our XCAP representative  that we should arrive early and speak to the agenda item.  I’m sure you recognized the frustration of both the neighbors  who are new to the rail crossing process  and those of us who have been involved for some time in getting our voices  heard by Council and city staff.  We want our opinions and concerns to have an actual impact on the important decisions  you will make next year and thus far we have not seen much evidence of this.  The traffic study is a perfect example of a  document that was created without any input from the citizens who actually live in the neighborhood the study  attempts to mitigate.  I will note that Dexter, the neighbor who was finally given a chance to speak last night has  probably lived in Professorville longer than anyone else.  He and his wife have a lovely home and small orchard that is  valued by everyone. We all love living in our neighborhood, the oldest in Palo Alto, and welcome the chance to work  with city leaders to make sure its streets remain residential and are safe for all.      With that in mind, I’d like to invite any of you who are interested to a future neighborhood meeting in January.  If you  are interested in attending please let me know and we will endeavor to find a date that suits your schedule.  During my  comments I did not include my concerns about the traffic study.  I have added them below.      I hope you all have a restful holiday break and a very happy new year.      Regards,  Rachel Kellerman    Comment on traffic study:    Our neighborhood asks for more thoughtful and productive public engagement with city staff, council and AECOM  consultants.   We ask that no decision be made concerning the Churchill closure option without a detailed  comprehensive traffic plan that does not degrade our neighborhood and aligns with comprehensive plan policy T‐4.4  that mandates improving safety on Embarcadero.  With over 100 residential driveways, Embarcadero road is classified  as a residential arterial.  It is the same road classification as Charleston, a road that has just been redesigned to limit  speeding traffic not attract it.    https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62915  Page 90  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ed Schmitt <schmitte@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, December 8, 2019 11:01 AM To:Council, City Subject:Action on issues of removal of a volunteer member of a commission CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Should expectations of board/commission members be clarified, with definitions to elements such as qualifications, term limits, recusals and disclosures, attendance,conduct, and a process for removal?     Absolutely“YES” and specifically, with greatest expeditiousness, in regard to conduct and a process for removal.    The municipal code already grants the City Council the power to remove a board or commission member, but it appears that the council wants to tread slowly into this water. Is the City Council thinking that it is more appropriate not to offend a volunteer member; they are so hard to find? Or is it better to have a corrupt volunteer than none at all? Why is the council not practicing the best ethics by dispatching a tyrannical member? Please,restore good government practice and confidence in the work of this very important planning commission.  The highest elected official in the country is being accused of abuse of power. Some members of his administration are obstructing justice. Has this behavior trickled down to our City Council level?    Ed Schmitt  47 year resident   Palo Alto  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, December 8, 2019 12:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Commissioner Alcheck CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Council Members:  Is integrity not a requirement to serve on a commission?  It’s clear Michael Alcheck has used his position as commissioner to serve his own interests. I can’t understand  why you have not already removed him from this appointed role. Please do it now!  Thank you,              Pat Marriott    Palo Alto property owner  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 4, 2019 10:11 PM To:Stump, Molly; Council, City Subject:Asher Woldfagel Legal Opinion regarding his Castilleja Trustee Status deciding matters when Castilleja was the Applicant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi again, Molly - [cc'ing City Council] Hope you are well. I was told that tonight the City Council asked Asher Woldfagel why he did not recuse himself from the Castilleja CUP matters during the time when he was a Castilleja Trustee. If I heard correctly, Asher Woldfagel responded that he obtained an opinion letter (possibly from a third party law firm whom he paid?) that concluded that he need not recuse himself. I was told that Asher said that he sent that letter to you, and that you approved it. Of course, I will file a Public Records Act request, but to expedite matters, can you please provide that letter? Also, can you please provide me whether or not you also had an opinion about whether Asher needed to disclose this potential conflict of interest, and if he did in fact disclose the potential conflict in a way that would have been legally compliant (clear and conspicuous)? (Or if the City of Palo Alto has another legal standard on disclosure?) (Disclosure being different from recusal, of course.) Finally - my interview tonight with the City Council, Commissioner Dubois said that the City Attorney is not the legal counsel for the City Council. Can you please opine on that? Perhaps I misunderstood the question - or perhaps your website is incorrect? https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aty/default.asp Thank you in advance. Warm regards, Rebecca Rebecca Eisenberg, Esq. Principal & Founder Private Client Legal Services www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg rebecca@privateclientlegal.com 415-235-8078 PLEASE NOTE: The information in this e-mail message is confidential. It may also be attorney-client privileged and/or protected from disclosure as attorney work product. If you have received this e-mail message in error or are not the 2 intended recipient, you are not authorized to use, copy, or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in it. Please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Thank you. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, December 7, 2019 1:50 PM To:Jack Derripper Subject:Breakthrough: U.S. Attorney Agrees to Present Evidence of World Trade Center Demolition to Federal Grand Jury CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  HI BROTHERS AND SISTERS Always good to hear from you, I have no sense of time anymore since I retired on Januar 4 2018 WHOOPI hah I should have retired 10 years ago HAH I don't watch TV or have time clocks in my face anymore lol I don't spend too much time on this e-mail account. I now have 13 more MAXED OUT and OTHER VENUES LOL Not only did I crawl too far out on the limb, IT BROKE HAHAHAHHAHAhahahhahahhahhahah I am VP of NJ911AWARE and David Meiswinkle ran into me in Pennsylvania 2010 where I gave him a DVD in the street outside the college UPENN in Rittenhouse Square. Philadelphia (Philly 9/11 Truth Street Action) We met-up in Hightstown New Jersey about a month later and began to conjure up ideas, evolved to NJ911AWARE 2014 David Meiswinkle is PRESIDENT of NJ911AWARE and he is a LAWYER and he is the LEAD CHAIR LAWYER of the LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR 9/11 INQUIRY "WE HAVE OUR FEET IN THE CASTLE" A GRAND JURY WILL CONVENE :) and under SEPARATE SUIT? The FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION is being SUED too (for their role, COVER- UP.) These are NATIONWIDE lawyers coming together as a TEAM to PROVE THE LIES we were told about 9/11, a DIFFERENT BREED of lawyers, NOT ESQUIRES OF THE COURTS? The judges on up KNOW they DON'T have a choice, by law, they MUST provide the GRAND JURY with ALL the evidence FILED on April 10, 2018, and July 30, 2018, or else they are held under MISPRISON OF TREASON? (JAILTIME) On December 23, 2018, WE GOT THE GRAND JURY? never happened in the whole 17 YEARS PRIOR? MIND-BOGGLING Check this INFO out as YOU will have what THEY HAVE The FIRST STEP is to PROVE the LIE because NO ONE WILL DIE FOR A LIE, RIGHT? :) The who what when where how and WHY will follow 6 months to one year later MAXIMUM TIME (UNDER LAW) YEAH BABY NOW THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN ABOUT Help Continue the Investigations for 9/11 Truth    2 To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In Help Continue the Investigations for 9/11 Truth The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry is working hard to reopen 9/11 investigations. In addition to a NYC Gran...    https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9‐11inquiry.org/… https://youtu.be/Y5Lb_7ycx04 https://www.ae911truth.org/…/519‐lawsuit‐seeks‐answers‐on‐f… https://youtu.be/Kd6vR1J0_6A… https://scontent‐ort2‐2.xx.fbcdn..net/v/t1.0‐ 9/22045820_483625681998325_2288136210776403916_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_ht=scontent‐ort2‐ 2.xx&oh=9978c4a1aa7800ff686afeb92265b8ca&oe=5D9A19E4 LAWYERSCOMMITTEEFOR9‐11INQUIRY.ORG The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry To develop and implement a detailed legal strategy to achieve transparency and accountability under the law, regarding the unprosecuted crimes of 9/11   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.alt   On Monday, April 15, 2019, 4:58:29 PM EDT, Jim Kinstrey <kjimbok46@msn.com> wrote: Begin forwarded message: Frankie...Its about time u contacted me.Ha !…Really, Thanks for this heads-up. At this point I hope something will rise to the surface but Im not holding my breath. Seems timely too since the plot against Trump is looking to close but the truth may come out about the Dem’s role to fabricate All the claims leading to their coordinated ‘resistance’. So how are you doing, retired now? Sorry I lost touch but u seemed to have crawled to far-out on the limb and I felt I couldn’t reach you. I hear from Glenn & I call Bill Nelligan now & then. Stay well. Keep me posted, thanks again…Jim  GET INVOLVED o        3             NEWS  DONATE  SUBSCRIBE   Breakthrough: U.S. Attorney Agrees to Present Evidence of WTC Demolition to Federal Grand Jury Finally, after 17 long years, the 9/11 Truth Movement has opened an avenue to prosecuting those responsible for the shocking destruction of the World Trade Center and the horrible loss of life that resulted. Last spring, the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry — together with more than a dozen 9/11 family members and with help from AE911Truth — filed a petition with the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan demanding that he present evidence of unprosecuted federal crimes at the World Trade Center to a special grand jury. Then, in November, came the big news: The U.S. Attorney notified the Lawyers’ Committee in writing that he would comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3332 requiring him to relay their report to a special grand jury. Now the Lawyers' Committee and AE911Truth are working to ensure a thorough and successful grand jury investigation. __._,_.___ Posted by: =?UTF-8?Q?Yahoo_Mail=2E=C2=AE?= <honkystar@yahoo.com> Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group •Start a New Topic •Messages in this topic (1) Please visit the ultimate resource for defending liberty. CLICK HERE: 4 http://targetfreedom.com/ This is the Most Extensive Collection of Freedom Videos Ever Compiled: http://targetfreedom.com/videos-to-watch/best-collection-of-freedom-videos/ Books about defending liberty http://americanistbookstore.com/ and: http://www.amazon.com/shops/jperna12 What is The Answer To The Greatest Question? Click here: http://americanistbookstore.com/books/answer-to-the-greatest-question/ or here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/097871461X?ie=UTF8&seller=A1AVPSERX4QF0E&sn=jperna12 HERE IS your Free DISCOUNT Card FOR Prescription, Lab and Imaging. UP TO 75% OFF JUST CLICK HERE: http://www.freerxplus.com/DDBSF2131/en/index.html OR HERE: http://targetfreedom.com/discounted-prescription-and-laboratory-service/ The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke VISIT YOUR GROUP To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InYahoo! Gro • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Keri Wagner <keriwagner@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 7, 2019 5:09 PM To:Council, City; Transportation Cc:Keri Wagner Subject:Bus service in South Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council Members and Transportation Staff — As you have heard, VTA is renaming the 88 bus route to the 288  route, and cancelling all weekend service.  The 288 will run only at Gunn’s morning and afternoon bell times, no midday  service will be available starting in January.    South Palo Alto is poorly served by transit, in particular the area south of Oregon and west of Alma has few options aside  from the 22 and 522 buses that run along El Camino Real.  Can the City consider expanding the community shuttle  service so that there is access for those of us who live west of Alma and south of Oregon?    Thank you.  Keri Wagner  Edlee Ave  Charleston Meadows neighborhood  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Lorie Langdon <lorie.langdon@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 8, 2019 8:36 AM To:Council, City Cc:Lorie Langdon Subject:Fwd: CALL TO ACTION for San Alma Residents CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.     Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I am a member of the San Alma Home Owner’s Association in Palo Alto. Our community presented a petition (appended below) to the Council on Monday, November 18, 2019. I am writing to show my support of their petition for the City to enforce the Municipal Code 10.36.030 that mandates all parked vehicles move every 72 hours and install “No overnight parking signs” along San Antonio between Alma Street and Briarwood Way. Photo of San Antonio with RVs below taken November 30, 2019. Please keep me informed of any updates regarding this issue. Sincerely, Lorie Langdon 4262 Ponce Drive Palo Alto 2   November 14th, 2019 To: Palo Alto City Manager and Council From: Residents of San Alma HOA and neighbors Petition We, the 75+ residents of the San Alma HOA and surrounding neighborhoods, are submitting this petition to request that the City of Palo Alto:  Enforce Municipal Code 10.36.030 that mandates all parked vehicles move every 72 hours;  Install “No RV Parking” signs along San Antonio Ave between Alma St and Briarwood Way;  Extend the “No Parking From Here to Corner” zone along the west side of San Antonio Ave between Alma St and Ponce Dr to improve sight lines, and refresh red-color curbs and install additional signs;  Create bike lanes on both sides of the San Antonio Ave between Alma St and Briarwood Way to improve bike and pedestrian safety;  Consider installing “No Parking” signs on designated days and times of the week, to allow a sweeping vehicle to clean pavement and remove trash from both sides of San Antonio Ave. In the last few years the short stretch of San Antonio Ave between Alma St and Briarwood Way has experienced a sharp increase in traffic, littering, and illegal dumping including human 3 waste. The increase in commuter traffic, parking for the train station, ‘Waymo’ car tests, heavy construction trucks, and special equipment have all contributed to these conditions. This entire stretch of San Antonio Ave is always full of RVs and cars used as sleeping accommodations; there are frequently abandoned vehicles as well, and often used for storage of construction equipment. The oversized vehicles parked along this street block visibility when exiting Ponce Drive, especially concerning because this stretch of San Antonio Ave is very busy with bicyclists and pedestrians traveling to and from the Caltrain station. It is currently very hazardous for bicycles and pedestrians: bicyclists are forced onto the sidewalk for safety, jeopardizing the pedestrians and creating hazardous driving conditions for vehicles. We have also observed that the fire hydrant is blocked which causes even more of a safety concern for the residents in the area. It has been often observed that frequent lack of parking provokes fire hydrant blocking violations that is once more an extreme hazard jeopardizing safety of San Alma community. There is a large amount of trash along both sides of San Antonio Ave because the individuals residing in RVs leave bagged trash directly on the street or in nearby areas. The area on the east side of San Antonio Ave is used as a bathroom and human fecal matter and other trash has been observed; the residents of the homes behind these walls have complained of strong human waste odors often coming from San Antonio Ave. The parked RVs and other vehicles prevent the sweeping truck from cleaning the streets. All of these bio-hazardous conditions are creating an area that is unsanitary and unsafe for the community in general and for the quality of life of our residents in particular. When the weather gets colder, the RVs and other vehicles that are used as living accommodations run generators for heat, which pollutes the air and creates loud sounds which violate city noise ordinances. This has been a problem for our community for several years, and many of our residents have filed numerous reports. Despite our efforts, there are several RVs that are here many days and weeks with no discernible movement. One particular RV has been parking here for over three years. This lack of enforcement has attracted more RVs and cars that are used as residences. We ask for code enforcement and “No Overnight Parking” signs placement for safety, security and sanitation reasons. Our Residents require a safe and sanitary neighborhood to be maintained for all. Moreover, we urge the Palo Alto City Council to adopt an ordinance prohibiting overnight parking of RVs, trailers, oversized vehicles, and special equipment within at least 100 feet from any residential property line. We understand that many individuals and their families have circumstances causing them to reside in RV’s and other vehicles. While we empathize with these individuals, we request the City of Palo Alto take immediate actions to protect our residents by enforcing the municipal codes and increasing signage. We are aware of measures taken by the City in other locations, and we request the same consideration from the City. Respectfully submitted on behalf of the residents of the San Alma HOA and surrounding neighborhood. Simon Gleyzer, President of San Alma HOA 4 SGleyzer 4214 Ponce Dr. Palo Alto, CA 94306 qasimon@gmail.com 650.224.6979   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 8, 2019 5:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cell Phone Towers - change to proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,    I am requesting that you make a change to the proposed Wireless Resolution before you tomorrow night.    Please modify the 20 foot set‐back to a 100 foot setback.    Given that we residents do NOT want a cell phone tower just outside our bedroom windows (at least I don't), this seems  reasonable.    Thanks,  Ann Protter    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, December 8, 2019 5:16 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Cell tower setback 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 have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home?     In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.     It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes.     Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto.    Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,  Chris Robell  Old Palo Alto resident  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Lynn Hollyn <lynn.hollyn@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 8, 2019 6:11 PM To:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City; Council, City Subject:NO EXCEPTIONS PLEASE CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,      Most of us have chosen to live in Palo Alto because of the trees, quiet and safety. As we walk, we see and feel nature. Cell towers are absolutely an invasion of this prized neighborhood, and proximity of 20 feet is unacceptable to our health and well-being.    Twenty feet is less than the setback for most homes, this proximity will create the feeling the tower in is our front yard. We must help the earth, the environment and all life by keeping our firm stance against cell towers less than 100 feet from a home. Additionally, it will cause property values to drop.   Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry concede to the aesthetic and well-being values of the Palo Alto neighborhood.    Thank you for supporting this great community.      Best regards,    Lynn Hollyn  455 Seale Avenue  2   ‐‐   lynn hollyn www.lynnhollyn.com 1.650.799.1129     1 Brettle, Jessica From:Luce, Gwen <GLuce@cbnorcal.com> Sent:Sunday, December 8, 2019 8:20 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Revised Wireless Resolution CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Gwen Luce, Realtor® DRE License #00879652 Direct Line: 650.566.5343 gluce@cbnorcal.com     Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I have recently learned that the City Staff is asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. As 20 feet is only 3-4 feet longer than the average car, how can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home? Last April, City Council specifically asked the City Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. However, the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their noisy, ugly and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes! I am grateful that the City Staff has prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” However, since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes. I implore you to not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto. Thank you for your consideration. 2 Yours truly, Gwen Luce 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.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Magic <magic@ecomagic.org> Sent:Sunday, December 8, 2019 8:33 PM To:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City; Council, City Subject:Cellular communications equipment CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Councilmembers,     Telecommunications providers can offer Palo Altans quality services without placing cell towers and associated  equipment in residential neighborhoods. Residents have expressed a clear preference that this infrastructure be  prohibited in our neighborhoods.    Rather than open a door to endless bickering strongly influenced by industry lobbyists about what warrants an  exception, please adopt a resolution and ordinance that state in clear and unequivocal terms with no exceptions that all  cellular towers and associated equipment must be at least 100' away from all residential zones in the city.    Thank you for considering this request.    With appreciation,    David Schrom    ************* Magic, 1979‐2019: forty years of valuescience leadership ************** Magic demonstrates how people can address individual, social, and environmental ills nearer their roots by applying science to discern value more accurately and realize it more fully. Enjoy the satisfaction of furthering Magic's work by making one‐time or recurring gifts at http://ecomagic.org/participate.shtml#contribute. Magic is a 501(c)(3) public charity. Contributions are tax‐deductible to the full extent permitted by law. THANK YOU! www.ecomagic.org ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ (650) 323‐7333 ‐‐—‐‐‐‐‐ Magic, Box 15894, Stanford, CA 94309 ************************************************************************************** 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Dena Seki <denaseki@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, December 8, 2019 8:44 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Letter for City Council CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home? In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes. It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes. Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto. Thank you for your consideration. 2 Yours truly, Dena Seki 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kelly Chang <kellyc319@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 8, 2019 9:06 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City; Colby Subject:DON'T APPROVE 20 FT SETBACK FOR CELL TOWERS!! - we need 100 feet setback CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home? As an example, there is currently a telephone pole that is roughly 20+ feet away from my 2 boys' second story bedroom window. Mrs. Cormack has been to my house herself and can attest to how close and inappropriate it is for 2 young children (ages 4 and 1) to grow up in a house where there will be potentially harmful and noisy cell boxes installed directly outside their bedroom windows. They will be sleeping in these rooms for the next 15-18 years of their lives. Please do not make their home unhealthy for them. Aside from potentially harmful EMF exposure, these cell towers do make a consistent humming noise. In the summer, a lot of families have to open the window to stay cool and will not be able to "avoid the noise" made by these towers. I can't imagine my oldest son having to start kindergarten next August having to sleep through a consistent humming sound for the rest of his childhood summers. Let's please be reasonable and make our children's quality of life and health a first priority!     In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.     It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes.  2   Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto.    Thank you for your consideration.    Yours truly,  Kelly and Colby Ranger  2085 Emerson Street     1 Brettle, Jessica From:Celia Boyle <swcie@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2019 10:05 AM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Revised Wireless Resolution-No on 20 foot setback. Yes on a proposed 100 foot setback. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, We have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16thThis is not an acceptable distance. In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment directly next to our homes. It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes. Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto. Thank you for your consideration and we will see you at the City Council meeting on December 16, Celia Boyle and Jay Hopkins Barron Park, Palo Alto 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jim Herriot <jimherriot@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2019 12:09 PM To:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City; Council, City Subject:Please NO 100 foot exceptions on cell towers! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To the honorable Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Please please don't allow any exceptions to the 100 foot minimum on cell towers' proximity to residences! (Even 100 ft is too close!) Recent medical studies reported in medical journals now tell us that electromagnetic radiation from cell towers is indeed injuring public health. We're seeing significant patterns of illnesses. As I'm sure you know, this is quite serious. Also, note that as dangerous as 4G cell towers are, the coming of 5G is even worse. Please assure me and other Palo Alto residents that our city will not allow 5G. Thanks, Jim Herriot 784 Rosewood Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2019 2:49 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:20 foot setback a gift to telecom companies CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home? In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes. It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes. Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly,   Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-151       1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2019 2:51 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:20 foot setback a gift to telecom companies CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home? In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes. It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes. Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly,   Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-151       1 Brettle, Jessica From:Leo Povolotsky <leopovolhoa@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2019 6:28 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City; Jeanne Fleming Subject:Cell Tower Update_for tonight's CC meeting_Please NO Exceptions! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,  I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home?   In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.   It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes.   Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto.    Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,    Leo Povolotsky Palo Alto resident of 28 years  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Annette Rahn <bno21@aol.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2019 10:29 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Tower 20 Foot Setback CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,      I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home?     In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.     It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes.     Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto.    Thank you for your consideration.   2   Yours truly,    Annette Rahn                     1 Brettle, Jessica From:Annette Fazzino <annette.fazzino@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 10, 2019 9:00 AM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; DuBois, Tom; Tanaka, Greg; alisonlcormack@cityofpaloalto.org Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City; board@pausd.org Subject:Wireless Ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice‐Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka:    Oh, dear. I have learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences. This  is included as a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution that you, as Council, will be considering on  December 16th. Twenty feet is only a yard or so longer than the average car length. In essence, twenty feet is a parking  spot; it is certainly not a setback.     When I look at my children, I realize that twenty feet is also the length of my son, cloned twice, and placed end to end  with him‐‐3 lengths of my 12 year‐old. How can 20 feet possibly be an acceptable distance for a cell tower to be placed  near our home?    I was optimistic in April when City Council asked Staff to prepare a revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the  City's wireless policy. The instructions and discussions at the time were to provide greater protections for Palo Alto  residents. Unfortunately, a twenty foot setback does not protect Palo Alto residents at all. Rather, it opens the door for  the telecom industry to place their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to my house and so many  other homes. This is not right.    In fact, City Staff did prepare a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements. One important  provision that residents wanted to be included is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential  zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an "exception." I am appreciative of the efforts of City Staff;  however, I am concerned about protections that are granted when an exception comes into play. We need to be  protected from having a cell tower installed 20 feet away.     Twenty feet is not enough. It's a car length. It is 3 Matthews (my son) end‐to‐end. Do NOT establish a 20 foot setback.  Please establish what was preliminarily agreed to on April 15th‐‐a 100 foot setback with NO exceptions. One hundred  feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecoms make to the aesthetic standards of our  beautiful Palo Alto.    Thank you for your consideration.    Very truly yours,    Annette Evans Fazzino  (650) 799‐7414        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Chelsea Young <chelsea.anne.young@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 10, 2019 10:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Climate emergency CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Given that climate change is one of the four top priorities identified by the city council as of February 2019, are you  considering declaring a climate emergency like Menlo Park is probably going to? Has this ever been discussed or  considered in the past? Thanks!    Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2019 7:55 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Shikada, Ed; City Council Subject:Fw: [WAPF-SouthBay] Important Court Ruling regarding FCC and Wireless Small Cell Deployments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Palo Alto City Council, Planning Commission, and City Manager, There is an important new regulation regarding installation of "small cell antenna" in our neighborhood The new Federal Court Ruling is requiring Verizon and others to comply with a re- assessment of environmental impact Please read details below as this needs to be implemented in our communities. - Whoa! This is huge! I was actually pulled into a FB discussion in Willow Glen on 5G and pleasantly surprised to see many concerned. This is a great thing to share! On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 12:12 PM Stephanie Vargo swalker@craterdiver.com [WAPF-SouthBay] <WAPF- SouthBay@yahoogroups.com> wrote: All, This is an important update regarding a recent court ruling that now requires environmental impact assessments for wireless small cell deployments. Any application for a wireless small cell deployment after August 2019, is now incomplete and needs to be resubmitted with the environmental impact assessment. Please use the letter below and send to your local City Council members so they have this important information to help them with any current small cell deployment applications. -Stephanie Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: This may impede 5G deployment. 2   The FCC Gets It Wrong on "Small Cells" (and why this may significantly set back the nationwide 5G rollout)     Dear Friend, Every once in a while we have good news to share, and this is one of those times! The FCC has been reprimanded by the Washington DC Federal Court of Appeals for overstepping its authority, and now, most pending applications for "small cell" antennas in your community will need to be revised and re-submitted for consideration.   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Here's the story: There is a federal law called the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) which requires all federal agencies, like the FCC, to analyze and report on the environmental impact of any major action it takes. Pretty much every application to install an antenna requires some type of environmental impact assessment. So the FCC delegates the responsibility of conducting an environmental assessment to the wireless companies and their contractors that install the antennas. In 2017, wireless companies complained that the NEPA process was expensive, time-consuming, and unnecessary. So the FCC decided to release wireless companies from submitting the environmental analyses required under NEPA in March of 2018. "Not so fast," said the Judges in Federal Court in Washington DC. The court ruled that the tremendous deployment of "small cell" antennas could have major environmental impacts. Now, the wireless companies have to do NEPA analyses for "small cells" whether they like it or not. You can read the final court decision here. Lawyers are still scratching their heads about whether or not "small cells" that were approved and/or installed without the proper NEPA paperwork need to be redone. We will keep you informed as events unfold. So as of right now, what's the bottom-line? All pending applications for "small cell" antenna permits may need to be redone and re-submitted with the proper environmental assessments. Take Action: Today we're asking that you please spread the news about the recent NEPA court decision by calling or emailing any of your local officials who may be considering applications for "small cells." Sample Email to Your Local Officials: Dear __City of Palo Alto_____, I wanted to bring to your attention a recent court decision by the Washington DC Circuit Court of Appeals that vacates a recent FCC order to exempt "small cell" wireless installations from the environmental review process required by the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). As per the August 2019 ruling, any application for a "small cell" installation is incomplete if it does not include the required NEPA assessment. 3   *In your email, include this link to the court order. Thank you for you consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, _Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St. 94306___________     Thanks for all you do! - The 5G Crisis team Donate     Copyright © '5G Crisis.' All rights reserved. Contact us: Email report@5gcrisis.com Call 516-883-0887 Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.     __._,_.___ Posted by: Pamela Lau <wapf.siliconvalley2@gmail.com> Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group •Start a New Topic •Messages in this topic (2) VISIT YOUR GROUP To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InYahoo! Gro • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ -- 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Davina Brown <browntow@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, December 10, 2019 7:08 AM To:Council, City Subject:Cubberley Plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I reviewed the Cubberley Concept Plan and was disappointed not to find a commercial kitchen and dining room for La  Comida.  We have been a part of the community for over 40 years.  Last year the Tall Tree Award was given to La  Comida.  La Comida is one of the few senior nutrition centers in the County of Santa Clara that is NOT housed in a city  owned and supported building.  With the rising costs of everything, this need becomes ever more urgent.    A commercial kitchen and dining room could provide a source of income to the city on weekends and evenings.  The  senior population in Palo Alto continues to increase.  A stable, supported site will enable La Comida to continue to  provide nutritious meals to our seniors in a congregant setting for many more years.    Davina Brown  La Comida Board Member  Palo Alto Resident  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mary <mary@mac-archcon.com> Sent:Sunday, December 8, 2019 12:09 PM To:Shikada, Ed; nadianaik@gmail.com; Council, City; mkanneXCAP@gmail.com Cc:Mary Subject:STOP - Diverting Traffic Is Not The Answer!! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      All,  Diverting traffic to Embarcadero and North Palo Alto - Professorville is not the answer.  We live at the corner of Embarcadero and High Street (North). One side of our lot is on the Embarcadero frontage road that accesses Alma. Our front door is on High street. High street is a 30 foot wide street. Cars are parked all week long on both sides of the street. The parked cars come from:  1. Street residents   2. Permit parking for downtown workers   3. Permit parking for PALY students.   4.  Our street is also the drop off and pickup site for many PALY students every morning and afternoon.  There is a large number of bikes and pedestrian that come down High Street/Emerson Street and Embarcadero to go to PALY, Stanford and T&C. In fact many residents park on High and Embarcadero frontage and walk to T&C to shop because it’s quicker then sitting in the long line on Embarcadero to get to T&C. Additionally, there have been multiple car/bike accidents at this intersection.  Essentially this is an already VERY busy and dangerous intersection.  Diverting Churchill traffic would completely destroy our streets and quality of living. We have a wonderful WALKABLE neighborhood with young kids, dogs, 2 pets, elderly residents that we do not want to be destroyed by sending more cars that would normally go down Churchill through our neighborhood…..this is NOT the answer…all it does is create another harmful problem to an already traffic impacted area.  Thank you for your consideration!   Mary Chacon   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kate Wilson <kwkatewilson@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 4, 2019 12:11 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed Subject:Embarcadero/High St plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,   I am Katherine K. Wilson of 132 Lincoln ave. corner of High st I have been  A resident of that address since 1981. I also  was born and raised in Palo Alto.  The corner I live on has always been very busy and very dangerous. We've had many near‐miss incidents, and luckily  only a few accidents.  I am very concerned about a proposal to close the Churchill RR crossing without a safe plan to handle the increased  traffic shunted to other accesses to Palo Alto High and El Camino Real.   The streets in this old part of Palo Alto were developed and built in late 1800's‐ 1920's.  They are very narrow and  require very defensive driving, biking and walking as they are now. To reconfigure this area ( High or Emerson) to handle  1,000's more cars daily is simply not well thought out. There are people traveling in cars, cyclists, pedestrians, and  including a 4th group Palo Alto Students being dropped off for school.  I understand the concern to close the RR crossing, I am not convinced it is a viable option.   Yes, it is dangerous having a train traveling at high speed ( or even slow speeds) through any populated area. Let's face it  people make dumb decisions when to cross the tracks.  It is a big undertaking trying to save people from themselves. I  cringe whenever I see a vehicle creep over the tracks without completing clearing them.    One idea in meantime would be to stop traffic BEFORE the tracks on west side. Only 1 car has room to cross while  waiting for a green light so this does not creat a large transition. As for the Right turn, simply do not allow Right turns on  a red light at this spot.  Thank you for your time and concern.  Katherine Wilson  132 Lincoln ave  kwkatewilson@gmail.com      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mark Cox <markdarrellcox@icloud.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 10, 2019 7:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Eva Braun : Nazi Matriarch March to Armageddon CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________      2 3     Eva Braun has aged remarkably well. There must be something Eva Braun does that most people don't do. Any guesses  as to what? I've got mine, but you'll have to think about that. Her Name today is Jane Kingsley Tomczak and she lives in  El Cajon where she operates a Horse Ranch for "At Risk Kids." When a Cult is formed they Operate as a Functional Unit  of Distortion to the Truth. Scripture says that the Man is to Rule over the Woman in a Family Unit. Why is that? It's so  that the Man is Held Accountable if he has Evil Children. This will be his Fault because this is his Obligation and when Eve  ate from the Tree for Knowing Good and Evil if you look at the Text and compare what was said with what was quoted  then it's Plain and Obvious that Eve's Version of which was given to Adam with respect to the Forbidden Tree is in a  completely scrambled Version like when a Couch has been torn apart by a Cat. The Cat leaves you the Same Pieces  except the Placement of the Components are rearranged and the Fabric is Torn. And given that Adam had more  Experience then Eve then Adam had Greater Culpability for Eve's Recitation and if Adam's Children are not Instructed in  the Truth then Adam bears the Blame though of course Adam should hearken to everything Eve would say because Eve  will have Ideas that came from God yet in the Hearkening Adam will also have the Opportunity to Discovery whether Eve  has Inadvertently Scrambled Things. And in Tandem to this there is the Fact Male Circumcision that is required only for  Biological Male Bodies in the Covenant and likewise Men tend to be at least Slightly Older than Women in Marriage.  Hence it's the "More Innocent" the "Less Culpable" who give birth to the "More Innocent" in their respective  Incarnations though Everyone is Guilty of something that is need of Resolution even in Consequence in the Formation of  their Characters from Previous Incarnations inclusive of the Backstory Sin that Presently is Veiled to Us though maybe  the Unveiling of the Backstory Sin will be required if we are to have the Context of Understanding that brings True  Enlightenment In the Study of Sacred Scripture "It's Sacred so don't change the Writing and treat your Synonymology  with Extreme Fragility as you Explain this to the Laity who sleep with their Wives which reminds me of my concern for  your dejected aloneness : When are you going to realize that Priests are allowed to have Wives?" And so when we  discover in Egypt the Hidden Carbuncle with the Prasian Cipher Stone with the Sacred Writing of Egypt the Gold of Egypt  that is Good and Only the Father is Good and Unfortunately the Sacred Unaltered Writing of Egypt was hidden by  Elevated Powers who thought Exclusive Power should be Reserved for their Family Cult in a Members Only Mafiastic  Clan who Vow Oaths of Silence to the Absolute Truth until by Death they Depart from the Oath of Deception and they  devolve into Depravity to become a False Sadistic Family Death Cult even though their Original Intent might have been  to Empower their Family Cult to become the Uberman Syndicate to Rule Over the /Misinformed /Uninformed Masses  and All they ever accomplish by this is the Invocation of Curses on their Family Tree to be dragged into the Shadow Land  of Spiritual Blindness in their Devolution into Sadism as they lure the World with Glittering Darkness with Unfolding  Curses on the Fertility of the Earth.     Hence the Myth of the Cult twists the Natural Arrangement of Family Order in that the Patriarchal Godfather is Veil that  Cloaks their Hierarchy wherein the Actual Overlord of their Group is likely in the Form of the Matriarchal Hierarchical  and the Sea they Divide is the Cunt of their Queen and they use the Myth of Masculine Power to conceal this  Matriarchal Hierarchy hence Adolf Hitler may have been like a Doll held by Strings in the Hands of Eva Braun who today  is the Sadistic Bitch known in the Region of El Cajon in Southern California in the San Diego Area as Jane Kingsley  Tomzcak. Formerly I used to think that Eva Braun was Hannah Murphy Leary my Irish Aunt who had subjected herself to  Plastic Surgery because Eva is intertwined into Childhood Memories and there might be relatedness by the Family Tree  that is larger than my present understanding because my Family distorts the Truth and hides the Truth and though this  may have started long ago with the Intent to Protect and Preserve Life what really happens is Ultimate is that the Family  Tree becomes a Tree producing Good and Evil Fruit and the Progression over Time is a Preponderance of Sadistic Evil  Fruit and cutting back the Branches can become their own Holocaust as Elohim curses the Branches that have grown  Wholly Evil yet this pruning should be by the Tongue even the Jaw of an Ass in Accord with the Will of Elohim so the  Purge is Manifest by the Power of Elohim because if a Hand throws a Rock once the Rock leaves the Hand then there is  No Pulling the Rock back by the Hand and Innocents can be harmed by this when the Target or else the Aim is Mistaken.  The "Reich" the "Right Arm" the Mother Cunt Cult that Kills her Children in Self Righteousness wants to Rise Again as the  Fourth Reich with More Subtly this Time because you can't Write the Same Song Every Time and Third Reich was just the  Prelude to the Fourth Reich emblazed upon their Flag for Fourth Generation Empire Building to Make an Empire out of  Europe that Rules the World as they Reign as Pharaohs creating a World in their Image to Evelate Jupiter the Iron  Wrecking Ball. And unless the Children of Israel learn to begin to use their Tongues to Curse the False Priests of Baal to  4 Death for their Leadership in Delivering a False Messiah to the World with the Desecration of Sacred Unaltered Scripture  wherein the First Thing said is, "Let Light Be on All Paths" to allow Levirate Conformance for those who will Return to  Elohim to help fight Baal the False Cult and to also elevate Accountability and Culpability to shorten the Ability of Death  Cults to hold People Captive as if Not Abated the Fourth Reich will do everything they can to Kill Hebrews, Christians,  Muslims, and Gypsies in what they hope will be the Second Holocaust as the Fourth Reich the Mafistic Syndicate  conspires to Cut and Sever Jews and All Others who are not in their Jewish Tree of Exclusive Leadership like the Judean  Cult did to cut out the Levites to form Judaism with Pharisees in the Cult of Severism tagged by giving Lamech the Age of  "777" as they work for Roman Gold that isn't Good whereby Triple Seven by the Cult of Baal might be the Clue of Intent  meaning World Wide Mass Extinction given that Seth is the Third Line After Cain with Eight from Adam and Able with  Two from Adam and the Seventh in the Line of Seth from Adam is Enoch who is Translated so maybe the Intent of Triple  Seven is to Meaning the Severing of Future Valid Translations though I still have to sort this out to clearly understand the  Code the Hidden meaning of the Alternation from 753 and why would the Egyptian Roman Greco Cult prefer "777" over  "753" in their Redaction? And the Point of this could very well revolve around how the Lineage of Seth that survives the  Flood is a Myth if the Age of Lamech is False to encode the Underlying Meaning that the God of Avraám, Isaac, and Jacob is False and Salvation is a Myth.     That Eva Braun formed a Relationship with Jon Leary aka Ron Tomczak who functioned as my Childhood Uncle in San  Bernardino California until the Murder of Jonny Leary on April 6th, 1977 with the Portrayal of 26 Stab Wounds as a  Heavy Set Eva Braun with an Irish Accent yelled Jonny's Name in a Dramatic Scene at the Funeral as she clasped the  Casket with the Entire Marching Band in Tears. Then afterwards Noel the Brother of Jonny handed me a Pocket Knife  that Jonny had owned and after Noel handed this Pocket Knife to me then "Hannah" called out "Noel, did you give the  Knife to Mark?" Whereupon "Hannah came into the Room of their House from Another Room and took the Knife from  me and handed the Knife to Darrell Hobbs who had been with Jonny Leary on the Night of April 6th, 1977 when Gary  LeRay Luton had attacked Darrell Hobbs and then Gary LeRay Luton attacked Jonny Leary as Darrell Hobbs fled the Scene  to bravely find a Payphone blocks away from where the Car had stopped among the Orange Groves in the Year after  Apple Computer had been formed and given that Jonny Leary had met Jeff Laird the Future Steve Jobs then Of Course  the Leary Hitlers wanted to Ride the Pony to the Power of World Wide Technological Surveillance and my Big Mouth by  the Talents in the Family Tree had spoken of Apple Computer in 1972 and as to what exactly was said then by me might  be recorded in their Book of Notes. That Eva Braun formed a Relationship with Jon Leary the Brother of the Woman who  had functioned as my Mother Diane Leary McVeity Cox is why I thought Jane was Hannah Leary when Jane is Eva Braun  and really they might be Twins else Cousins in a Tree of the Family Cult which is why Transparent Genome Identity Cards  need to become a World Wide Stand with Transparent Confirmation with Protection from Falsification. Either way Jane  Kingsley Tomczak has the Appearance of Eva Braun and Jane is Sadistic and Hannah might have had Plastic Surgery and  Hannah might have a Twin and since that Night of April 6th 1977 there might be someone Innocent in Confinement at  Patten State Hospital receiving their Punishment for the Crime from and in an Earlier Incarnation of Life Existence who  has been illegally held since April 6th, 1977 for Jonny Leary had told me he was joining the Family Cult and though Jonny  told me to "Not Say" Anything as a Child with the Loud Obstinate Voice I went immediately and told this to All of the  Adults in the Living Room without realizing that I was in a Room of Thugs unless there exists anyone without Culpability  in the Family Tree. Hence Jonny to my Memory of this Veiled Experience did violate his Oath of Silence of the Oath to  "Not Say" Anything to join a Group Breathing in Conspiracy as Mafia Families function as Family Units of Concealment  and the Rise of Nazi Structures becomes the Latent Talent of the Family as their Vine reaches forth it's Hand to Destroy  Countries from within and to then "Lie in Wait" thereafter as they Immigrate to Other Lands as they Buy their Way in  with the Harvest of Stolen Silver and Gold to finance the Formation a Cult of Subservients in the New Land with  Harvested Children taken from Hospitals as New Born Babies are taken and moved in Exchange for Money to Hospitals  in Bribes in Mappings to the Stars by their Zodiac Signs. "We got a Leo on August 9th? Are you interested? We already  sedated the Mother.". So whether Hannah was Hannah else Eva Braun at the Funeral the Act of Passing a Knife through  me was Sadistic in the Conveyance of Severing and my Falsified Birthdate which they gave me is March 15th, 1964 the  Calendar Day when Julius Caesar was stabbed with 23 Stab Wounds in the Curia of the Theater of Pompey the Same  Pompey who had violated the Holy of Holies to enter the Room in the Temple reserved for the High Priest and this  happened ((I think)) on September 23rd, 63 BC on Yom Kippur and Pompey walked past 2000 Talents in doing this and  Pompey was surprised that there was No Idol in the Holy of Hollies and from this Pompey may have determined that the  Power of the Hebrews to defend themselves in Rooted in their Sacred Scripture yet Pompey had already conquered the  5 Hebrews hence the Goal of the Roman Empire must have been to maintain the Deviance of Hebrew Scripture as Pompey  had used a Trojan Horse of Money so that the Hebrews could not regain their Independence and the Question is  whether the 2000 Talents were normally there or whether Pompey had paid the High Priest to Switch the Scripture with  a Different Version in the Temple. To see that there was No Idol in the Holy of Holies would only confirm what Pompey  has likely already been told. Then Fifteen Years after the Violation is when Pompey dies by the Sword to have his  Beheaded Body thrown into the Waters of Egypt which was the Source of Deviated Sacred Knowledge for Romans and  Greeks ((per Herodutus)). They don't want you to Say Anything. "It's a Synagogue! Don't Say Anything!" Not Say. Nazi.  Nazareths with Silent Tongues can't Stone Baal to Death. Have you ever heard a Baby Wail? What about a Priest  Screaming when the Jaw Bone of the Ass the Prophet Elijah curses the False Priests of Death until they Die? Yes Also :  Bless the Captives with Release to Exercise the Right to Return to Unaltered Sacred Writing.     The Cult is Practiced in the Art of Disguises on a Level like Hollywood. Hitlers Mustache was the Disguise of his Day and  the Goal may have merely been to Manipulate the Germans by Dividing the Germans to Harvest their Wealth to  thereafter extend their Reach in the Lands that would naturally Benefit in the Aftermath of the Second World War and  at this Juncture the Cult the Fear the Reich the Hidden Breathing Conspirators who Wrestle with Each Other and Pit the  Masses against the Masses with Family Members held as Ransom might wish to return to Europe to form a Larger  Mapping of Concentrated Power as they help along the Self Destruction of the United States and Guide the Russians into  a Struggle to Destroy Both Lands. They play a Game with Us.     This is why we are supposed to Stone False Cults that would lead Us to Another God or else Blockade the Exercise of the  Right to Return to Unaltered Truth of Elohim and we are supposed to do this by our Tongue until they Die in According  with the Will of Elohim while saying afore this in the Preamble of our Tongue, "Let Light Be on their Path" to increase  their Accountability while also offering Escape for those who would return to Elohim as this also shortens the Window of  their ability to continue in Deceit.     Anyone who can recognize a Face and yet observe that No One Anywhere will do anything to arrest a War Criminal who  may have been the Matriarch Architect of the Holocaust must therefore then realize that it is Time to leave the United  States and that Not Even Israel is a Safe Destination therefore the Destination should be Australia and I'm calling upon  All Hebrews to Head for Australia for a Safer Haven.     Speaking of the Obvious is required at this Juncture. When I First saw the Picture of Jane Walking the Meaning of the  Image of the Depiction went over my Head. Now it's Obvious that Jane is the Operational Mode of a Nazi Marching  Goose Step and if Jane has a Golden Egg in Mind it could be the Coveted Desire to Be the Sole Possessors of Sacred  Unaltered Hebrew Writing perhaps even with a Valid German Translation that was made in Separate Rooms by Separate  Translators to Verify the Translation as in the Gleaning of Six to Sixteen Million Hebrews ((Six in the Death Camps and  Ten in the Field of Battle unless there are Secret Death Camps we never found given that Cults like tp Conceal even  when they Reveal)) there could have been an Amazing Hidden Find and the Inkling of this could have been the Mad  Phenomenon of Beatle Mania which would certainly have been deeply coveted by every Cultic Hierarchy on "Mother  Earth." Whenever you see this you have to understand that you're getting an Example of what happened when the  Messiah walked in Israel and likewise with the First Unaltered Disciples who knew the Truth to a Degree the Apostle Paul  didn't though even the Small Exchange between Pontus Pilate ((Saul, Paul)) and the Standing Messiah was still enough to  allow Pontus Pilate as Paul the Apostle to Shift the Future of the Roman Cult away from a Dive towards Absolute Death  and this Work is still a Work in Progress. Janes Horizontal Left Palm Forearm is suggestive of the Coveting of Leviration  Power while at the Same Time the Pinnacle Eva Braun the Conspiring Moonshine Money Brain is an Operational Pointer  to Apple Inc located in Cupertino the City named after a Man of whom it's said could Levirate and Reed Jobs might be  either the Son or Grandson or Great Grandson of Eva Braun and Adolf Hitler the Man who would be Baal if he had the  Nerve to Defy his Wife else Ex Wife Whatever she is to Dan Crain Crayon the Singlet else the Twin and the Switching is a  Deck of Cards played by the Mother Hen in Webs woven in Tapestry with Patterns meant to Amaze with Perplexity to  make them Proud in Hell Stone Fire Land and Jon "Genre Shooter" Leary "Ron Tomczak" is the Son or else the Husband if  Not Both of Eva Braun and Eve Jobs is either likewise Conspiratorial or yet Another Victim in a Maze of Victims and  either way ii would be Wise to be Leery of Reed Jobs the Kid with the Extended Vowel in the Name of the Color of Spilt  Blood.   6   This Movie is the Kind of Movie where when you think its over its just Beginning so more work is to be done to clear the  Stage for when Everyone will have to prepare and brace themselves for the Rapture of the Return of the Nephilim to the  Earth and Concealment will Not be Anyone's Salvation so by the Resident Breath emanating from Your Land "Yore Land"  it behooves you to Plow your Earth with Seeds of Spirit and Truth by your Speaking Mouth when a Mouth can Speak  with the Heavy Stone removed from the Well to Practice Recitation in Repeated Repetitions by the Reading of the Script  the Scripture until the Lines roll off your Tongue in Eloquence to the Elevation of Elohim Father God.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Saturday, December 7, 2019 1:43 PM To:Loran Harding; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Dan Richard; Doug Vagim; newsdesk; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Mark Kreutzer; Mayor; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Daniel Zack; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; yicui@stanford.edu; hennessy; Council, City; terry; huidentalsanmateo; Mark Standriff; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg; robert.andersen; bballpod; nick yovino; vallesR1969 @att.net; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; becerra.bere11@gmail.com; grinellelake@yahoo.com; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; eappel@stanford.edu; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Raymond Rivas; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; Kirk Sorensen; leager; Leodies Buchanan; Tom Lang; Mark Waldrep; pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; popoff; russ@topperjewelers.com Subject:Fwd: GM and LG JV to build batt plant in Ohio CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 1:14 PM  Subject: Fwd: GM and LG JV to build batt plant in Ohio  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 7:24 AM  Subject: Fwd: GM and LG JV to build batt plant in Ohio  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 2:56 PM  Subject: Fwd: GM and LG JV to build batt plant in Ohio  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 2:46 PM  Subject: Fwd: GM and LG JV to build batt plant in Ohio  2 To: Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Dan Richard  <danrichard@mac.com>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, newsdesk <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, kfsndesk  <kfsndesk@abc.com>, <kwalsh@kmaxtv.com>, Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>,  <margaret‐sasaki@live.com>, Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, <shanhui.fan@stanford.edu>,  <yicui@stanford.edu>, hennessy <hennessy@stanford.edu>, city.council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, terry  <terry@terrynagel.com>, huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>, Mark Standriff  <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, Steve Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, steve.hogg <steve.hogg@fresno.gov>,  robert.andersen <robert.andersen@fresno.gov>, bballpod <bballpod@aol.com>, nick yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>,  <vallesR1969@att.net>, <fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net>, <becerra.bere11@gmail.com>, <grinellelake@yahoo.com>,  <mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com>, beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>, <bearwithme1016@att.net>,  <eappel@stanford.edu>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Steven Feinstein <Steven.Feinstein@ionicmaterials.com>  Date: Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 2:31 PM  Subject: RE: GM and LG JV to build batt plant in Ohio  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>    Thanks Loran. Yes, we are aware of this. Making good progress.     From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>   Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 5:27 PM  To: Steven Feinstein <Steven.Feinstein@ionicmaterials.com>; Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Subject: Fwd: GM and LG JV to build batt plant in Ohio     CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.        ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 2:24 PM  Subject: GM and LG JV to build batt plant in Ohio  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>              Thurs. 12‐5‐19  3               Mr. Steven Feinstein              Ionic Materials, Inc.             Mr. Feinstein‐  You have to see this. The plant will adapt to new technologies as they come on. I'll bet Ionic Materials,  Inc. will be talking to them about your lithium metal tech. Bet you've talked to them already.      https://seekingalpha.com/news/3523994‐general‐motors‐and‐lg‐chem‐announce‐battery‐cell‐ jv?utm_medium=email&utm_source=seeking_alpha#email_link              See the press release in that link.                                 Recipients:  See Nova   "The Search for the Super Battery"   See the LITHIUM METAL battery of Ionic Materials,  Inc.  Big improvement over lithium‐ion batts.                    Here is the relevant segment of the Nova program on YouTube:  ~ 2 minutes:                         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9‐cNNYb1Ik                   Also on YouTube, one can find the entire Nova program  "Search for the Super Battery".  See the part re Ionic  Materials, Inc. at ~ the midway point.                   Also, their website, www.ionicmaterials.com is very interesting. Lots of information there. The polymer  electrolyte in their battery is a solid instead of a liquid. Far safer, for one thing. The liquid electrolyte can vaporize and  ignite if a lithium‐ion battery is damaged, as everyone knows by now. Many airlines have stopped transporting the more  dangerous lithium‐ion batteries as cargo.     4                                  L. William Harding                Fresno, Ca.                                        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net> Sent:Wednesday, December 11, 2019 11:43 AM To:Council, City Subject:Grade Separations have financial information available for each current alternative CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members ‐ I made a comment at last Monday’s (12‐9) council meeting about the excellent 4 page color fact  sheets for each grade crossing for each alternative that were handed out at the November Grade Seps Community Town  Hall. Each includes description, engineering challenges, neighborhood considerations, maps, photos, illustrations, an  evaluation with city council‐adopted criteria, and costs for each.      When I finished, I heard Council Member Kniss say there was no financial information available. As no one corrected this  mistaken notion, I thought I would write do so now.     Costs for each alternative for each crossing under consideration are included in each fact sheet, broken down and  totaled: For example:   Meadow‐Chaleston Trench  Roadway & Railroad items    Structure Items  Right‐of‐way & Utilities  Suport Costs  Escalation from 2018 to 2015 dollars  Total Project Costs     I urge each of you to get a complete set of these fact sheets. Again, they are excellent. This is a first ‐ never before this  November Town Hall has something of this quality been available, including costs.     There is also an additional sheet of side by side comparison of engineering challenges and on the other side ‐ a summary  of evaluation with city council adopted criteria.     I urge you to not put your May decision off yet again. Or to put it off after the election for political reasons (sorry, but I  speak plainly). We need to move forward. The town halls are very well attended every time with standing room only, so  it’s not as if no one is paying attention. Yes, many in town are not much engaged and I predict that won’t change a lot  even if communication is upped ‐ but it is not an excuse for you all not to act. The XECAP is highly motivated, extremely  well‐led and will get their job done with city cooperation which should be very helpful to you. And these fact sheets, if  you have not seen them, will ground you in where things stand right now, including costs.     One last thing ‐ nothing is being said to the public about the paralleling station (I think that is what it is being termed)  that CalTrain will build at Page Mill in the train right of way as part of electrification. This is inevitable but people should  know it is going to happen and no one does and its not ever talked about in town halls. At a CatTrain meeting (not a  grade sep meeting) about a year or more ago, this was mentioned which is how I know about it. The CalTrain person said  it would be about 80 feet long and about 20 feet wide. It has something to do with conversion of electricity type for  trains. That is a pretty big structure that I assume is also plug ugly. People should be informed and prepared for it being  built. Did you know of it?     Winter Dellenbach  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Susanne Bentley <senior.affairs@groupmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 5, 2019 9:57 AM To:Markham Plaza Tenant Association Cc:bill@sdap.org; patrict@sdap.org Subject:Re: Heidi Yauman Attachments:bribery-judge-socrates-peter-manoukian.jpg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello Jason, This matter involves a very compex bribery investigstion into the financial affairs of judge Socrates Peter Manoukian, that was preceded by a lifestyle audit, which was triggered in great part by the work of Kevin Williams, an investigator out of San Francisco, and Carrole Herman, from F.A.T.E., (Foundation Aiding The Elderlly) coordinated with Bay Area coalition members in compiling the relevent probate court records. Janet Phelan was was lso involved. Terri's investigative files were removed from San Benito county and passed over via "Task Force" delivered to retired FBI agent Robyn Gritz and designated records custodian in the San Francisco Bay Area. Lynn should know who this person is. Susanne Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 6:17 PM From: "Markham Plaza Tenant Association" <markhamplazata@gmail.com> To: "Susanne Bentley" <senior.affairs@groupmail.com> Subject: Re: Heidi Yauman Susanne I would like to apologise for being so abrupt in our last communication and saying you would not help and withdrawing my request for assistance to the Markham Plaza Tenant Association. For my part, I was illegally evicted and staying in hotel and running out of money. Trying desperately to get some help from some non-profit agency to help with the civil rights violations at Markham Plaza against ELI Seniors and Disabled. The Markham Plaza Tenant Association is getting support from Silicon Valley Independent Living Center where we had a meeting and only one person would show because they are afraid to death of EAH Inc. I have sent over 1.2 GB of evidence to the Tenant Law Group who is considering taking the case up of the Markham Plaza Tenant Association which is all inclusive of all current tenants and all past tenants or future tenants. I also have another attorney who is going to file a False Claims Act Qui Tam motion accusing Core Developments and EAH Inc of defrauding the Federal and State Government in the excess of $100 Million dollars. I need the help of your organization with its political contacts, members and affiliated organizations to spread the word about the abuse, fraud, illegal evictions for profit, San Jose City and Santa Clara County are assisting Core Developments and EAH Inc, in the displacement of seniors and disabled who get an eviction on their records and $3,500 bill for lawyer fees and any damages they decide on. The deaths of Robert Moss and Rhonda Evens who both lived in the same building Markham Plaza I and the same apartment # 409 and who were both killed by EAH Inc and Core Developments and then covered up the City of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara. Cary Andrew Crittenden was helping Robert Moss when he was killed and the death covered up. The cover up led to retaliation and abuse against Heidi Yauman who is a member of the Markham Plaza Tenant Association and this email is being sent to them both via blind carbon copy to keep Heidi’s email private. You help is greatly needed to make justice prevails and those who have done these horrible crimes pay for their crimes and the tenants past and current get recompense for the damages to their life, family and bank account l. 2 If you are willing to help or need evidence showing my claims I can send you the emails from all parties saying Markham Plaza is not HUD funded so Tenant Participation in Management Decisions is in Public Housing and does not apply to Markham Plaza property and that Tenant Association funding is in other HOME funding programs but does not apply to Markham Plaza Property. The letters from HUD telling the Housing Director of San Jose that it wanted to remind the City of San Jose that it spent $5.1 Million dollars in HUD HOME Funds and that a fair lease, fair grievance procedure and plan for tenants participation in management decisions was required. Plus I will send emails with descriptions of the documented evidence attached. As much or as little as needed. Cindy Chavez Santa Clara Board of Supervisors, Maya Esperanza San Jose Council are both politicians that we think are helping the community and when the evidence is given to them with a letter that details the crimes supported by the evidence which includes abuse and fraud of seniors and disabled and shows the complaints to the City of San Jose and County of Santa Clara and how their employees did lie, deceive and conspired against the low income seniors and disabled tenants. Please help the tenants as the City of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara have decided to rehabilitate each building at $26 million dollars per building for a total of $52 million dollars. This money is already set for more than half the funds to be paid with nothing received in return. $13 million dollars of each buildings $26 million is set for Land Cost/Acquisition which makes no sense since Core Developments already owns the property and building!! I believe that is why they are changing the LLC names again so that one LLC has to but the land/building for $13 million which they just robbed half the grant money without fix a thing. Notice also that HomeFirst formerly EHC is no longer a partner and now EAH Inc is a partner. Notice also that even with this rehabilitation they are still using HUD HOME funds but not using it to calculate the rents so they get the HUD HOME subsidy but they don’t comply with HUD HOME rules and regulations or rent calculation because when both LIHTC and HUD HOME funds are used than the rent should be no more than 30% of the combined tenants adjusted monthly income. I have the proof of this and so much more it is inhuman and is Human Trafficking when you deny their civil rights and use the tenants for making money without caring whether they live or die so long as they get there money. They have paid off city and county employees and threaten and have Fair Housing Advocates unlawfully detained or physically attacked. Which are both components of the FBI qualifications for an Organized Crime Organization which they are. In 2017 the 990 tax forms of EAH Inc show that they made $53 million dollars profit for a nonprofit organization that is stealing grant money for their own profit. As far as the lawsuit I could use a letter from your organization to the Tenants Law Group that states confirmation of the criminal activity conducted by the owner, EAH, the city and county of Santa Clara including the fraudulent female who tried to convince you that the Markham Plaza Tenant Association was lying and was acting against the interests oh Heidi Yauman which you did chastise me very throughly but then you sent another email apologizing and stating that woman was a plant of the DA’s office to interfere with the Markham Plaza Tenants getting in type of help against the abuse and fraud done against them. This would help solidify my accusations and proof against EAH and Core Developments and it helps hearing that this charges are true from a third party. We can discuss other ways we can work together to stop the abuses and fraud against the seniors and disabled at Markham Plaza. I need your and your partner organizations to halt the rehabilitation as besides the fraud of grant funds the tenants are not getting offered any relocation assistance as required by the Ellis Act, San Jose Tenant Protection Ordinance and the HUD relocation rules and regulations. Please help me help the tenants who have been victimized for so many years and have had no relief from the abuse nor any justice no matter what agency was told of the abuse. One last note is that I have seen little to no help in the complaints to HUD or any other agency in Housing. So I plan on taking a different route with the next compliant and that is to file a discrimination complaint with HHS as 3 California HCD is under the direction of HHS. So I am hoping you would also participate with me in proofing my complaint draft and submitting a similar one on behalf of your organization. Sincerely Jason Smith On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 12:30 PM Susanne Bentley <senior.affairs@groupmail.com> wrote: Joy Birney is a puppet used by the District Attorney to oppress and attack Heidi Yauman, Cary Andrew Crittenden and the Markham Plaza residents. I will do my part to warn others about this dangerous toxic troll. Her Facebook address is here: https://www.facebook.com/joy.birnie.5 According to court records, she goes by 4 names: 1.) Joy Birney 2.) Dana Birney 3.) Joy Amini 4.) Dana Amini Susanne Bentley, Elder advocate 1230 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 at 8:38 PM From: "Markham Plaza Tenant Association" <markhamplazata@gmail.com> To: "Susanne Bentley" <senior.affairs@groupmail.com> Subject: Re: Heidi Yauman I just got this message and i will remove anyone from any email list or facebook friendship list that the markham plaza list maintains and from any future emails or posts that we maintain Susanne out of respect and privacy of individuals. I will also inform any person that is associated with the markham plaza tenant association that has Ms. Birnie as a contact or friend on their facebook that should would like to be removed from any communication or association with Heidi Yauman. I must inform you i am in contact with Heidi and she just added herself as a friend to the Markham Plaza Tenant Association as she is a member and we our advocating on her behalf and it has occurred to me that this may have been where Ms. Birnie actually got included in this issue because I have never added her or sent anything to her. I will 4 forward your email and my response to Ms Yauman here shortly and see if this was the source of the connection and of she could see about resolving the issue with her family. I will ask her and her family member to also notify you as of any resolution to this issue or if there remains an issue. I hope that will resolve your complaint to me. I do need assistance in the protection of elders and disabled tenants from physical, mental and financial abuse that has been going on for years of which I have been a resident and advocate on their behalf for most of the three years. During that time I have advocated, which includes scanning in to digital format all their relevant documentation as well as all my work on their behalf. I have recently been trying to get a hold of A non-profit that focuses on elder abuse to help protect the tenant population which are all either senior or disabled extremely low income tenants. For physical abuse I present 24 or less hours notice before shutting off the water all day, all entrance and exists besides the main entrance being illegally mislabeled as emergency doors with fake signs stating an alarm will sound and which EAH Inc does use as a just cause reason to evict on the grounds that they or someone leaving their apartment did use an emergency door when it was not an emergency. These entrance and exit doors per the plans and permits are not emergency exits door but are accessible exit and entry points that may not have any inside locking device and must have a quick release bar and all apartments must be within 100 feet of a exit per the building of new construction for multifamily that can be found at sjpermits.org and going to online building information and entering the address 2000 Monterey RD and scroll down to the original permit application and the permits for planning you will find this information as they had to make modifications to be compliant as the community room doors had to have quick release bars and had to exit to outside. For financial the last 10 years since EAH took over management from EHC lifebuilders because EHC was audited by HUD and they were found to come up missing $6 million that they could not account for of supportive housing grant money. Also in a 3rd party audit for HUD against HomeFirst of SCC for 2015-2016 it reported that HUD asked EHC to do a self audit for several years and from that audit EHC reported reported that they owes $1.2 million to HUD for items purchased purchased that were not compliant with Supportive Housing grant. On Sunday, August 19, 2018, the city and EAH Inc Corporate management and local Management had a tenant meeting regarding the plan for tenant participation in management decisions which was on a Sunday which they never work as calendars always show office closed including the month of August and the day of August 19. Secondly i was not able to attend this meeting even though it was a direct result from my complaints to HUD and to which HUD 5 replied by sending an email to San Jose Housing Director reminding the City they they spent $5.1 million dollars in HUD HOME Funds and that a fair lease and fair grievance procedure and a plan for and to follow for tenant participation in management decisions was mandatory. Third, they illegally retaliated against me by evicting me on September 19, 2018 and the final plans for Tenant Participation in management decisions was distributed on September 21, 2018. I am currently in a hotel for which I had to borrow money from my mom so I had shelter and the Markham Plaza Residents are shocked and disappointed that I have been evicted as I was the one person who fight for their rights and against the illegal evictions. I was just texting Nguyen Tam of District 7 regarding these same concerns when I saw the email notification regarding the email you sent. I am in desperate need to secure temporary housing assistance for the hotel room until I- can repossess my apartment.Additionally arestraining order against EAH Inc for elder abuse and them not being a CHDO as is required by HUD and Catholic Charities to take over the role as CHDO as they are a certified CHDO and a HUD certified faith based organization. Lastly and of critical time importance is because of my continued complaints I believe it to be the HUD OIG but the Letter just says HUD and details about contact info left out intentionally because of my complaints against CPD-HUD which the director Kimberly Nash was required to notify me that HUD wl be here 1st part of October for meeting with Santa Clara County Housing Authority, Santa Clara County Supportive Housing and San Jose City. That after the meetings i will be informed in writing on what to expect. Well since no one in these meetings will have the tenants best interest in mind I find that this has before and may happen again that the Markham Plaza Senior and Disabled low income tenants will have no legal or advocate representation which make s it too easy for them to be conspired against. I seek assistance to have myself or an advocacy organization that is aligned with the Markham Plaza Tenant Association be present and be able to comment or object on our behalf. Jason Smith 669-244-3169 Markham Plaza Tenant Association To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.PDF file Letter to Smith - 10.4.17 (00… To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.PDF file 9-19-2018 12-01 Notice to Vacate.pdf 6 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.PDF file 9-4-2018 Unlawful Detainer not… To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.PDF file 8-25-2018 3 day notice to quit… To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.PDF file 6-14-18_K. Johnson_San Jose_Citizen… To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.PDF file 6-14-18_K. Johnson_San Jose_HOME_Jason… To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.PDF file 2016+HomeFirst+audit+report.p… To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.PDF file Disabled Access Requirements.pdf To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.PDF file CON6244800-TG2 TITLE AND DOCS.PDF.pdf To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.PDF file StateHOME_CHDO_Regs.pdf To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.PDF file Letter to Jason Smith RE:Renita… On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:32 AM To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In 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 prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 7 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In Susanne Bentley <senior.affairs@groupmail.com> wrote: I suggest you remove all mutual friends on facebook and that you do it now. These are all relatives of Heidi who you have no business associating with. You need to stay out of her life and out of her business or I will make your life my business. Susanne Bentley, Elder advocate 1230 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 at 2:07 PM From: "Joy Birnie" <joybirnie@gmail.com> To: "Susanne Bentley" <senior.affairs@groupmail.com> Subject: Re: Heidi Yauman Hi Susanne, I hope you are having a good day. I do not live in California and have not lived in California for over a year. I have not seen Heidi in a very long time. Joy Sent from my iPhone On Jun 29, 2017, at 16:41, Susanne Bentley <senior.affairs@groupmail.com> wrote: Do not go anywhere near Heidi Yauman!!!!! Susanne Bentley, Elder advocate 1230 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 -- Jason Smith Markham Plaza Tenant Association Fair and Healthy Housing for all markhamplazata@gmail.com 669-244-3169 -- Jason Smith Markham Plaza Tenant Association Fair and Healthy Housing for all markhamplazata@gmail.com 408-706-1889 1 Brettle, Jessica From:L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> Sent:Saturday, December 7, 2019 5:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:It's Time to End Single-Family Zoning Attachments:It s Time to End Single Family Zoning.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Honorable City Council:    The attached article, _It's Time to End Single‐Family Zoning_ by Michael Manville, Paavo Monkkonen & Michael Lens, in  the Journal of the American Planning Association, is worth a read.  It lays out the article against R1 zoning in a clear 5‐ page article.  I agree with nearly all of it.    It's also available from:  https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2019.1651216  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01944363.2019.1651216  https://twitter.com/mc_lens/status/1203091629126500352    ‐David    ‐‐     L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/                  Before I built a wall I'd ask to know               What I was walling in or walling out,               And to whom I was like to give offense.                 ‐ Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)  Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjpa20 Journal of the American Planning Association ISSN: 0194-4363 (Print) 1939-0130 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa20 It's Time to End Single-Family Zoning Michael Manville, Paavo Monkkonen & Michael Lens To cite this article: Michael Manville, Paavo Monkkonen & Michael Lens (2019): It's Time to End Single-Family Zoning, Journal of the American Planning Association To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2019.1651216 Published online: 06 Dec 2019. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Viewpoint It’s Time to End Single-Family Zoning Michael Manville Paavo Monkkonen Michael Lens ABSTRACT Local planning in the United States is unique in the amount of land it reserves for detached single-family homes. This privileging of single-family homes, normally called R1 zoning, exacerbates inequality and undermines efficiency. R1’s origins are unpleasant: Stained by explicitly classist and implicitly racist motivations, R1 today continues to promote exclusion. It makes it harder for people to access high- opportunity places, and in expensive regions it contributes to shortages of housing, thereby benefiting homeowners at the expense of renters and forcing many housing consumers to spend more on housing. Stacked against these drawbacks, moreover, are a series of only weak arguments in R1’s favor about pref- erences, aesthetics, and a single-family way of life. We demonstrate that these pro-R1 concerns are either specious, or can be addressed in ways less socially harmful than R1. Given the strong arguments against R1 and the weak arguments for it, we contend planners should work to abolish R1 single-family zoning. Keywords:inequality, regulation, single-family homes, zoning Most American cities have a zoning designa- tion prohibiting all development except detached single-family homes. Many cities apply this designation to most of their land. We think this designation, usually called R1, should not exist. R1 is inequitable, inefficient, and environmentally unsustainable. It lets a small number of people amass disproportionate property wealth, excludes many others from high-opportunity neighborhoods, and forces others to pay more for housing than they should (Lens & Monkkonen,2016; Reeves,2017). In many cities, R1 prevents housing development where development would be most beneficial and instead pushes development—and conflict over it— into denser, lower income neighborhoods, onto pol- luted commercial corridors, and into the undeveloped land outside city boundaries. R1 was born from, and codifies, base and tribal instincts: a desire to set privi- leged in-groups apart and keep feared or despised out- groups at bay (Nightingale,2012). Its history is explicitly classist and deeply interwoven with racism, and its pre- sent form only barely conceals these origins (Rothstein, 2017; Trounstine,2018; Weiss,1987). It should have no future. Planners should actively work to end it. We do not expect this argument to go down easily. So before proceeding we should clarify what we are and are not saying. We are not saying that ending R1 is the only—or even the most important—possible planning reform. Nor do we suggest that ending R1 will by itself solve the problems of segregation, exclusion, or housing affordability. Ending R1 is, like many reforms, necessary but not sufficient. R1 stands out for being both important and overlooked. Many reforms are pro- posed, debated, and (too often) defeated. R1, however, remains a third rail. Ending it is rarely on the table, but it should be. In the 21st century, no city should have any land where nothing can be built except a detached sin- gle-family home. Because R1 is, in many places, an unquestioned sta- tus quo, we focus more on why planners should end it and less on how. We have no illusion that the politics will be simple or that every city can end R1 the same way. R1 may disappear through incremental reform rather than outright abolition. But the first step, no mat- ter the subsequent path, is agreement that R1 should end. That is the case we make here. A final clarification: We are arguing against a type of law, not a type of building. There is nothing intrinsic- ally wrong with detached single-family homes. Two of the three of us live in them, and we all grew up in them. Living in a detached single-family home is a per- fectly acceptable private choice, albeit one with real social and environmental costs (Arnold, Graesch, Ragazzini, & Ochs,2012; Norman, MacLean, & Kennedy, 2006). But it is not a choice that warrants public protec- tion. People in detached single-family homes neither need nor deserve laws ensuring that nothing will sur- round them but structures like their own. The Case Against R1 Why do we oppose R1? Suppose that, for your well- being, you need regular access to only a small amount of expensive medicine. One day you go to the DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2019.1651216 |2019 American Planning Association, Chicago, IL. Color version available at tandfonline.com/rjpa Journal of the American Planning Association 2019 | Volume 0 Number 01 pharmacy and learn the government has implemented a new rationing system strictly limiting the number of sales that can occur in small doses. Because many peo- ple, like you, only need small doses, the new rule results in few small doses being available. Plenty of medicine is available—you can see it over the counter—but the pharmacist can only sell it in large quantities. So you are stuck. If you want your medicine, you must buy more than you need, at a price higher than you can afford. This new rationing system is also strictly enforced. Not only must you buy in large quantities, but you cannot divide up your ration afterward and sell your extra doses to others who might need and value them. Most people, we suspect, would consider such a rationing system unjust and inefficient. It would force a large number of people to spend and consume more than they otherwise would, subsidize the smaller num- ber of people who want and can afford large doses, and keep some people from getting medicine at all. Fortunately, the United States does not allocate medicine in this bizarre manner. But it does ration urban land this way. And although land is not medicine, access to land, like access to medicine, has powerful implications for wellbeing. Where people live directly affects their exposure to pollution and violence (Chakraborty & Zandbergen,2007; Peterson & Krivo, 2010), the quality of schools their children can attend (Reardon & Owens,2014), and the jobs they can reach (Johnson,2006). Residential location is thus strongly cor- related with many life outcomes, from earnings to edu- cational attainment to mental and physical health. Location, moreover, has not just large but multigener- ational returns, yielding better outcomes for people who move in and their children as well (Chetty & Hendren,2018a,2018b; Currie,2011). Because opportunity is unevenly distributed both between and within metropolitan areas, and because moving people to opportunities is generally easier than moving opportunities to people, letting more people live in the most prosperous and amenity-rich neighbor- hoods of our urban areas would dramatically increase wellbeing (Chetty & Hendren,2018a,2018b; Lens,2017; Sanbonmatsu et al.,2011; Sharkey,2013). Many people, however, are effectively barred from these cities and neighborhoods because access to them is sold primarily in large, expensive, and inefficient chunks—through R1. Lower and middle-income families would benefit immensely from a small foothold in prosperous neigh- borhoods—perhaps a modest apartment or duplex— but R1’s prevalence means few such small footholds are available. The result is scarce housing in desirable pla- ces. This scarcity, in turn, pushes prices beyond what many can afford and burdens many others by forcing them to buy more housing than they need. The conse- quences are debt and stress as well as a growing anxiety among many families that they are running in place on the road to economic security (Frank,2007; Warren Tyagi & Warren,2004). Just how much urban land is zoned R1? Estimates differ depending on one’s choice of denominator (all land, residential land, land with or without road space, etc.). But all are high, even in central cities. In San Francisco (CA), home to some of the most valuable and productive land on Earth, about 38% of residential land is R1. In Los Angeles (CA) the proportion is more than 70%. Seattle’s (WA) estimated share is more than 80%, and San Jose’s (CA) approaches 90%. 1 In the prosperous suburbs of urban areas, moreover, R1 approaches ubi- quity (Hirt,2014). The low-crime, high-job access, high–test score communities that ring cities around the United States are defined by their detached single- family homes, which in many cases are virtually the only housing zoning allows. R1 arose, at least in part, from invidious motives. It was built on arguments about the sort of people who don’t live in detached single-family homes and the harms that would arise if they mixed, socially or as fel- low taxpayers, with those who do. R1 first proliferated after the Supreme Court struck down racial zoning in 1917’s Buchanan v. Warley decision.Buchanan made single-family mandates appealing because they maintained racial segregation without racial language. Forcing consumers to buy land in bulk made it harder for lower income people, and therefore most non-White people, to enter affluent places. R1 let prices discriminate when laws could not (Trounstine,2018; Weiss,1987). Contemporary observers denounced this regime of backdoor segregation, but in 1926 the Supreme Court upheld it. In Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.(1926), the court tacitly excused R1’s implicit racism by validat- ing its explicit classism. 2 Cities could prohibit apart- ments, the court said, because apartments were nuisances:“mere parasites”on the value and character of single-family homes. In Euclid’s wake, R1 became a quiet weapon of the White and wealthy in their cam- paign to live amid but not among the non-White and poor (Danielson,1976; Rothstein,2017; Trounstine,2018). Today’s planners cannot be blamed for R1’s origins; however, the past throws a long shadow over the sys- tem they now administer. R1 delivers large and undeni- able benefits to some people who own property. In places where housing demand is high, R1 inflates home values and protects the physical character of neighbor- hoods. But its social costs exceed these private benefits. Higher property values for owners mean higher rents for tenants. Because homeowners as a group are richer and Whiter than renters, policies that increase housing prices redistribute resources upward, increasing Journal of the American Planning Association 2019 | Volume 0 Number 02 homeowner wealth, reducing renter real incomes, and exacerbating racial wealth gaps. 3 When cities prohibit development in amenity-rich neighborhoods, further- more, housing demand does not disappear. It moves to other neighborhoods—where it may fuel gentrification and displacement—and into the urban fringe, resulting in longer commutes, greater emissions, and less open space. These factors combine to make R1 the sort of prob- lem planning was designed to solve. R1 is a classic col- lective action problem, an inefficiency that arises when people pursuing their own ends generate an outcome that harms the larger whole. It is also an affront to social justice, an impediment to a more inclusive and inte- grated society. Yet R1, with its dark past and present harms, is not an institution planners are trying to end. Instead it is an institution planners created, and one they too often work to protect. Even bold zoning reform usually steers clear of R1 (Monkkonen,2019). Cities will consider more height and density, but almost always in places that are already tall and dense. Planners and planning documents often talk about R1 neighborhoods the way conservationists talk about manatees. Zoning codes describe R1 in language that combines normative approval of single-family living with dark hints about looming threats (Hirt,2014). Zoning codes in both Detroit (MI) and Milwaukee (WI) discuss “protecting”and “preserving”R1, after noting R1 is characterized by “high ratios of homeownership” and “suitable characteristics of family life”(Hirt,2014, p. 58). An explicit priority in Los Angeles’s General Plan Framework Element is to “preserve single-family neighborhoods by focusing any growth away from them and into centers”(City of Los Angeles,n.d.). In both 2018 and 2019, California’s legislature considered laws that would supersede local zoning and allow multifamily housing on all land near transit, including R1 zones. Los Angeles’s mayor objected both times, calling 2018’s law “too blunt for single family home areas”(Dillon & Zahniser,2018) and 2019’s law “a bad stick”that would threaten neighborhood character (Cowan,2019). The cake was taken, however, in 2018, when Seattle’s mayor bravely suggested ending R1 in her city. The Seattle Times editorialized against her in tones that would have done Euclid proud.“Seattle must preserve its single family neighborhoods,”the paper intoned, calling them the city’s “most precious asset”and “essential to its livability, character and economic success”(“Don’t Upzone Seattle Neighborhoods,”2018). The Nonexistent Case for R1 What makes R1 so important? The arguments in its favor are consistently weak. One common contention—made by journalists, neighborhood groups, and some aca- demics—is that most Americans prefer detached single- family homes, and trying to change that preference is impossible (Kotkin & Cox,2019; Swanson,2015). This argument has two problems. First, it is not obvious that R1 is always a majority preference. Certainly many peo- ple live in R1 neighborhoods. But housing is a long-lived good, and because single-family homes are often all that zoning allows, the prevalence of single-family living might be partly an artifact of constrained choice. People’s preferences can influence zoning, but at least some evidence suggests zoning can influence preferen- ces (Levine,2005). Second and more important, our goal is to end a mandate, not change a preference. R1 is not problem- atic because it allows detached single-family homes. It is problematic because it does not allow anything else. In places where housing demand is low and everyone wants a detached single-family home surrounded by detached single-family homes, most structures will be single-family homes, regardless of regulation. The zon- ing in this case does not bind. Nonbinding zoning imposes no costs but also delivers no benefits, so it is not clear why we need it. In other places, however, where housing is in high demand, R1 does bind: Neighborhoods would not be uniformly single-family without it. In these places R1 suppresses the supply and diversity of housing and denies some people access to the housing and opportunities they want. Put another way, where R1 is harmless, it is also unnecessary. But where it is necessary, it is also harmful. Both situations argue for its abolition. A second argument for R1 is aesthetic: R1 protects against excessive density. This argument is most com- mon among neighborhood groups and other incum- bent residents (Dougherty,2017). Anti-development advocates in Los Angeles, for example, often decry the “Manhattanization”(or, in one case, the “Dubai-ization” [Dillon,2018]) of the city’s neighborhoods. Certainly it could be disconcerting to have a tower suddenly loom over your single-family home. But this is an argument against tall buildings, not for R1. Rejecting the most restrictive zoning need not require embracing the most permissive zoning. Cities can end R1 and allow structures other than single-family homes—town- houses, triplexes, and so on—without allowing skyscrapers. Removing R1, in fact, could reduce rather than increase the prevalence of high-rise development. Tall buildings are at least partly a response to the scarcity of development-friendly parcels. When development can occur on only a small share of land, more pressure exists to build that land out intensively (and, as a conse- quence, more expensively). In cities where most resi- dential land is R1, legalizing mid-rise development in Viewpoint: It’s Time to End Single-Family Zoning3 single-family neighborhoods could dramatically increase the housing supply, at relatively low cost, with no high- rise development at all. Aesthetics, at any rate, are often in the eye of the beholder. Certainly some people think detached single- family homes are the highest expression of urban design. But many others prefer the townhomes of Philadelphia (PA), the duplexes of New Orleans (LA), or the pleasant mix of building types that define Tokyo (Japan) and Mexico City (Mexico). To the extent the world has a consensus “beautiful”city, it might be Paris (France), which has almost no detached single-family homes (and, for that matter, almost no skyscrapers). Aesthetics matter, but R1 prevents some buildings many people consider attractive, does not prevent detached single-family homes that are unattractive, and most of all has high social costs unrelated to building appearance. Locking people out of opportunity is a high price to pay for consistency in lawns and gables. The zoning language we quote above suggests another argument for R1: Detached single-family neigh- borhoods generate a special sort of social life (Hirt, 2014; McCabe,2016). In this telling, which has echoes of the Euclid decision, R1 is synonymous with the American Dream, uniquely suitable for homeownership and raising families. Set aside for a moment the ques- tion of whether homeownership is something public policy should promote (e.g., McCabe,2016). The idea that R1 neighborhoods are the only places families can thrive is supported by virtually no theory or evidence: It is a product mostly of rank classism. Every day, all over the world, people successfully raise children in and around townhomes, condos, and apartment buildings. Planning language that singles out R1 as family friendly implies that other areas are not and suggests that parents in other, less-expensive neighborhoods are somehow doing their children a disservice. The plan- ning profession should abandon such condescension and elitism. A fourth defense of R1 involves some form of “whataboutism.”Why focus on R1? What about funding more subsidized housing? Abolishing parking require- ments? Reducing minimum lot sizes? What about all the other ways cities can exclude? These are legitimate questions. But our argument, again, is not that ending R1 solves every urban problem. We are no friends to minimum lot sizes or parking requirements, and America absolutely must fund subsidized housing more generously. Acknowledging that these reforms are necessary does not make ending R1 unnecessary. Indeed, without ending R1, the efficacy of these other reforms would be limited. Suppose the United States dramatically expanded housing vouchers. Poor renters would have more money but remain badly constrained in where they could spend it because R1 would still wall off large swathes of urban land. In this situation, where poor renters have more spending power for housing but not more housing choices, landlords can simply raise prices and pocket the vouchers as profit (Collinson & Ganong,2018). Affordable housing policies will be far more powerful when more land is open to affordable housing development. 4 It is true that R1 is not the only way cities can exclude. It is, however, the easiest and most prevalent way. Few weapons in the exclusionary arsenal rival a blanket prohibition on all but the lowest density devel- opment. The fact that cities can erect other barriers to housing is no excuse for leaving the biggest barrier intact. People sometimes commit violence with knives, but that is not an argument against gun control. A final argument, which we take more seriously, is that ending R1 risks evicting tenants in single-family homes. When R1 is upzoned, single-family landlords can earn windfalls by selling to developers, but their renters could be put on the street in the process. Although this concern is valid, it is not a concern unique to upzoning R1: it is a concern about upzoning, period. If the pres- ence of renters makes upzoning R1 problematic, then it must make upzoning multifamily neighborhoods even more problematic because multifamily neighborhoods have far more renters. By this logic, cities should not upzone any neighborhoods at all. Anyone concerned about housing affordability, however, should favor upzoning, not oppose it. If cities worry upzoning will harm renters, then cities should upzone places where renters are least likely to live. This means upzoning R1. Most people in detached single- family homes are not renters, and most renters, espe- cially low-income renters, are not in detached single- family homes. The American Housing Survey shows that in the metropolitan United States, only 10% of house- holds in detached single-family homes are poor, com- pared with close to 30% of households in multifamily units. More than 60% of the poor households in single- family homes, moreover, own their dwellings. In total, only 4% of detached single-family homes in the United States hold renters whose household incomes are below $25,000 (U.S. Census Bureau,2017). These statistics do not mean, of course, that upzon- ing R1 will never displace tenants. But they do suggest the problem can be managed. Cities can and should attach strong renter protections to upzoning: They can require owners give tenants ample notice, generous buyouts, and even rights of return. Provisions like these will ensure that owners only benefit from their windfalls if they do right by their renters. Homeowners will still receive windfalls from the upzoning, and this may seem unfair, but remember that homeowners also receive windfalls from not upzoning. When land is not upzoned, values rise because housing Journal of the American Planning Association 2019 | Volume 0 Number 04 cannot be built. When land is upzoned, in contrast, val- ues rises because housing can be built, and homeown- ers can only access that value when they sell to someone planning to build it. Accessing that value, moreover, makes it liquid. When homeowners sell, their windfall housing wealth becomes windfall income, and taxing income is easier, politically and administratively, than taxing wealth. If local governments pair upzoning with a progressive tax on real estate transfers, they can get more market-rate housing and more funding for subsidized affordable housing. The question, then, is not whether homeowners will receive windfalls. It is whether those windfalls will come from maintaining housing scarcity or enabling housing abundance. 5 Conclusion: The Elephant in Planning’s Room The American way of zoning is unique. Many countries privilege homeownership, and many households world- wide live in single-family homes. The United States is almost alone, however, in using regulation to promote and protect neighborhoods of detached single-family homes and to imply that life in these neighborhoods is synonymous with good citizenship and responsible family life (Hirt,2014). This valorization of detached sin- gle-family living embeds a long line of prejudice and bias—against non-Whites, nontraditional families, the poor, immigrants, and urbanity—into local zoning. Planners have twin obligations to equity and efficiency, and R1 fails on both counts. America’s inefficient alloca- tion of urban land creates unequal opportunities and unequal outcomes. Zoning is important. By offering residents some assurance about the future of their communities, it can encourage people to invest both time and money in the places they live (Fischel,2002). That is undoubtedly to the good. But certainty and stability are not sover- eign virtues. Their benefits must be weighed against their costs, and those costs include the burdens carried by people who live outside strictly zoned areas. No one has an inviolate right to steadily appreciating property wealth, and reasonable certainty about the future is not the same as perpetual protection from all threats, real and imagined, that might come from new development. One could accept our argument and still question its political feasibility. Perhaps we are just proposing a series of losing battles with neighborhood associations. We do not think so. Ending R1 will be difficult but not impossible. R1 can end neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city. Some cities might expand their use of zon- ing, like form-based codes, that eschews strict use restrictions. Others might permit more accessory dwellings. In expensive regions, even incremental pro- gress will help. But progress could also come faster. Minneapolis’s (MN) 2019 General Plan includes a frame- work for ending R1, and Oregon’s governor has pro- posed similar legislation. The mayors of three large California cities have said they are open to ending R1 (Dillon,2019). Maybe these efforts in Minneapolis and Oregon will sputter; maybe these mayors were being insincere. At least some signs, however, point to change. Even if we are wrong, and the politics are more daunting than we think, that hardly constitutes license for inaction. Planners should not stand down in the face of a social harm, particularly a social harm that lies clearly in their domain, simply because reform is unpopular. Planners are public servants, but they can serve the public by leading as well as following. Single- family zoning is a status quo planners should work to change. Planning’s past already has too many instances where the profession stood on the sidelines, or on the wrong side, during fights for progress. R1 is without question planners’responsibility. As others recognize its consequences, planners should at least help, if not lead, efforts to end it and to reverse the damage it has done. ABOUT THE AUTHORS MICHAEL MANVILLE (mmanvill@ucla.edu) is an associate professor in the Department of Urban Planning at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Luskin School of Public Affairs.PAAVO MONKKONEN (paavo.monkkonen@u- cla.edu) is an associate professor in the Department of Urban Planning and Department of Public Policy at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs.MICHAEL LENS (mlens@ucla.edu) is an associate professor in the Department of Urban Planning and Department of Public Policy at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. ORCID Michael Manville https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4218-6427 Paavo Monkkonen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3513-0230 Michael Lens https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4693-3370 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the editor, anonymous reviewers, Donald Shoup, and Mark Vallianatos for helpful comments. NOTES 1.City of Los Angeles statistic computed from county assessor data. Seattle estimates: Eliason (2018), Rosenberg (2018). C. J. Gabbe provided assessor data to estimate San Jose. 2.An oft-forgotten aspect of Euclid is that it reversed a lower court ruling that Euclid’s zoning was designed in part to keep neighborhoods White and was therefore a violation of Buchanan (Rothstein,2017). 3.The 2017 American Community Survey shows that 72%of non- Hispanic Whites are homeowners, compared with only 42% of Blacks. Viewpoint: It’s Time to End Single-Family Zoning5 4.Similarly, abolishing parking requirements but leaving R1 intact would likely generate little new housing in suburban areas. 5.A related objection: Perhaps R1 owners are harmed by upzoning. What if developers build apartments on either side of a detached single-family home? Should cities compensate the homeowner if the home’s value falls as a result? No. First, the homeowner can presumably sell her property, just as her neighbors did. More to the point: Simply asking that question demonstrates R1’s exalted status. Cities rarely compensate people for the consequences of their regulatory decisions. Cities do not compensate condo owners when new buildings block their view or existing landlords when new apartments are constructed and certainly not renters when restrictive zoning causes rents to rise. So we see no substantive basis on which to compensate a homeowner. REFERENCES Arnold, J., Graesch, A., Ragazzini, E., & Ochs, E. (2012).Life at home in the twenty-first century: 32 families open their doors. Los Angeles, CA: Cotsen Institute Press. Buchanan v. Warley. (1917).245 U.S. 60. Chakraborty, J., & Zandbergen, P. A. (2007).Children at risk: Measuring racial/ethnic disparities in potential exposure to air pollution at school and home.Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health,61(12), 1074–1079. doi:10.1136/jech.2006. 054130 Chetty, R., & Hendren, N. (2018a).The effects of neighbor- hoods on intergenerational mobility I: Childhood exposure effects.The Quarterly Journal of Economics,133(3), 1107–1162. doi:10.1093/qje/qjy007 Chetty, R., & Hendren, N. (2018b).The effects of neighbor- hoods on intergenerational mobility II: County-level estimates. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,133(3), 1163–1228. doi:10.1093/qje/qjy006 City of Los Angeles. (n.d).General plan framework. Retrieved from http://cityplanning.lacity.org/cwd/framwk/chapters/04/04. htm Collinson, R., & Ganong, P. (2018).How do changes in housing voucher design affect rent and neighborhood quality? American Economic Journal: Economic Policy,10(2), 62–89. doi:10.1257/pol.20150176 Cowan, J. (2019, June 5).Homeless populations are surging in Los Angeles. Here’s why.New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/us/los-angeles-home- less-population.html Currie, J. (2011).Inequality at birth: Some causes and consequences.American Economic Review,101(3), 1–22. doi:10.3386/w16798 Danielson, M. (1976).The politics of exclusionary zoning in sub- urbia.Political Science Quarterly,91(1), 1–18. doi:10.2307/ 2149156 Dillon, L. (2018, January 4).Get ready for a lot more housing near the Expo Line and other California transit stations if new legislation passes.Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from https:// www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-transit-bill- 20180104-story.html Dillon, L. (2019, May 16).California housing crisis podcast: Bay Area mayors discuss end of single-family-only zoning.Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/polit- ics/la-pol-ca-housing-crisis-podcast-bay-area-mayors-20190516- story.html Dillon, L., & Zahniser, D. (2018, February 28).Garcetti says major state housing bill doesn’t protect single-family neighborhoods.Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from https:// www.baltimoresun.com/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-gar- cetti-says-major-state-housing-bill-1519851982-htmlstory.html Don’t Upzone Seattle Neighborhoods. (2018, June 29).Seattle Times. Retrieved from https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/ editorials/dont-upzone-seattle-neighborhoods/ Dougherty, C. (2017, December 1).The great American single- family home problem.The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/business/economy/sin- gle-family-home.html Eliason, M. (2018, May 29).What is the correct percentage of single-family zoning in Seattle?Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@15kwhm2a/what-is-the-correct-percent- age-of-single-family-zoning-in-seattle-7db6af731c21 Fischel, W. (2002).The homevoter hypothesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Frank, R. (2007).Falling behind. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hirt, S. (2014).Zoned in the USA. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Johnson, R. C. (2006).Landing a job in urban space: The extent and effects of spatial mismatch.Regional Science and Urban Economics,36(3), 331–372. doi:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2005. 11.002 Kotkin, J., & Cox, W. (2019, May 13).Densification efforts like SB50 are the wrong fix to California’s housing problem. JoelKotkin.com. Retrieved from https://joelkotkin.com/densifi- cation-efforts-like-sb50-are-the-wrong-fix-to-californias-housing- problem/ Lens, M., & Monkkonen, P. (2016).Do strict land use regula- tions make metropolitan areas more segregated by income? Journal of the American Planning Association,82(1), 6–21. doi:10.1080/01944363.2015.1111163 Lens, M. C. (2017).Measuring the geography of opportunity. Progress in Human Geography,41(1), 3–25. doi:10.1177/ 0309132515618104 Levine, J. (2005).Zoned out. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. McCabe, B. (2016).No place like home. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Monkkonen, P. (2019).The elephant in the zoning code: Single family zoning in the housing supply discussion.Housing Policy Debate,29(1), 41–43. doi:10.1080/10511482.2018.1506392 Nightingale, C. (2012).Segregation: A global history of divided cities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Norman, J., MacLean, H. L., & Kennedy, C. A. (2006). Comparing high and low residential density: Life-cycle analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.Journal of Urban Planning and Development,132(1), 10–21. doi:10.1061/ (ASCE)0733-9488(2006)132:1(10) Peterson, R. D., & Krivo, L. J. (2010).Divergent social worlds: Neighborhood crime and the racial-spatial divide. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Reardon, S. F., & Owens, A. (2014).60 years after Brown: Trends and consequences of school segregation.Annual Review of Sociology,40(1), 199–218. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc- 071913-043152 Reeves, R. (2017).Dream hoarders. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Rosenberg, M. (2018, December 7).Seattle’s housing crunch could be eased by changes to single family zoning, city report says.Seattle Times. Retrieved from https://www.seattletimes. Journal of the American Planning Association 2019 | Volume 0 Number 06 com/business/real-estate/city-report-widespread-single-family- zoning-is-damaging-seattle-and-needs-changing/ Rothstein, R. (2017).The color of law. New York, NY: Liveright (Norton). Sanbonmatsu, L., Katz, L. F., Ludwig, J., Gennetian, L. A., Duncan, G. J., … Lindau, S. T. (2011).Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration Program final impacts evalu- ation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Sharkey, P. (2013).Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Swanson, B. (2015, July 1).Millennials demand single-family homes.Housing Wire. Retrieved from https://www.housingwire. com/articles/34367-millennials-demand-single-family-homes Trounstine, J. (2018).Segregation by design: Local politics and inequality in American cities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. U.S. Census Bureau. (2017).American housing survey 2017. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.(1926).272U.S. 365. Warren Tyagi, A., & Warren, E. (2004).The two-income trap. New York, NY: Basic Books. Weiss, M. A. (1987).The rise of the community builders: The American real estate industry and urban land planning. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. doi:10.1086/ahr/94.2.538 Viewpoint: It’s Time to End Single-Family Zoning7 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Venkata Atluri <atluri@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2019 6:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Monroe park Parking Issues CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,    I live in the Monroe park neighborhood. The parking in our area is becoming an issue because of the   the overflow from the Del Medio apartments. Cars are left parked for more than 3 days (promptly reported),  parked near fire hydrants and near red curbs. Also I am afraid that with the 100s of new apartments coming up  on Del Media, Fayette and Miller Ave, the situation is going to get worse. This is especially bad on   Miller Ave + Miller Ct area. Please find a solution. Either better enforcement or resident only permit parking.     Sincerely  Ram  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Murphy, Shawn (NBCUniversal) <Shawn.Murphy@nbcuni.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 10, 2019 4:10 AM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal) Cc:Council, City; City Mgr; Caracciolo, Lisa Subject:NBC Request Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Good Morning,    We were at the meeting last night but it looks like our crew only covered the vaping stuff so I don’t have video of the  Stop Gap protection for renters info I needed.  I was hoping to independently confirm the 6‐0 vote to adopt emergency measures stopping landlords from wrongfully  evicting tenants or increasing rents.    Thank you so much!    Shawn     Shawn Murphy Assignment Editor  2450 North First Street San Jose, CA 95131 Newsroom Phone: 408-432-4780 Follow: @SMurphyNBC Shawn.murphy@nbcuni.com        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Reshma Singh <greshmasingh@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2019 2:50 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Inder Monga Subject:Permission to speak at the City Council Meeting Dec 9th CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Good afternoon:    My husband and I (residents of 115 Embarcadero Road) request your permission to speak about the new traffic report  during the public comment part of the agenda at the City Council Meeting Dec 9th.    Thank you:  Reshma Singh and Inder Monga  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Winter Dellenbach <winterdell@earthlink.net> Sent:Sunday, December 8, 2019 11:39 AM Subject:Photos of Buena Vista Posada - a great time was had by all - and good weather! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Friends ~ Here are a few photos from the festivities for your enjoyment. It was a nice evening with good weather as  promised ‐ whew!  We had fun ‐ again. Great speechifying ‐ just the right words. And the dancers were lovely and  impressive, making it seem easy when in fact these regional Mexican dances are hard and take serious commitment  to learn. We’ve watched some of these children grow‐up dancing year after year at the Posada, now they are tall  teens. And the food. My goodness, once again the food was yummy. When the huge long handled cauldron  of menudo came out, carried by two strong men, a new long line formed fast ‐ with a bunch of Friends getting in on  the action.    Well done, BV residents ‐ thank you for inviting us.    I wish you all a cozy happy holiday season.   Winter  Friends of Buena Vista      There are Angels in Palo Alto.   They will lead the Posada Procession, and here practice their flying technique. Notice their feet do not touch the ground.       Board of Directors of the of the BV Residents Mobile Home Park Assoc.   2 Bd. Pres. Maria Martinez, greets everyone.      Before speaking ‐ Supervisor Joe Simitian, PA Mayor Eric Filseth.   BV Bd. member Roberto Munoz looks on.   Angels lend inspiration to speakers         Posada Lane  3       The Raices de Mexico non‐profit is at Cubberley and performs on the Peninsula        4     Two‐month old Eddie Munoz, the newest BV resident, with his daddy, Nico.       1 Brettle, Jessica From:Judy Adams <judyblueeyes1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 5, 2019 2:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Poor People's Campaign March and Mass Meeting in San Francisco on Wed. Dec. 11 Attachments:updated dec 11 flyer.jpg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear City Council members, Mayor Filseth,  Please help us publicize this important event on Wed. Dec. 11, by the Poor People's Campaign (modeled on the Rev. Martin Luther King's 1968 campaign), and supported by local peace and justice groups. Housing, living wages, healthcare, education, transportation, climate change issue hit low-income residents, and the un-housed particularly hard. Please show Palo Alto's support for this event. We want to encourage people to carpool, take church or city buses, or take the train to attend. Having mayors and city council members supporting the 4 goals of the Poor People's Campaign will speak to your dedication for positive, peaceful change for the economically disadvantaged people of your city and other peninsula cities: ending poverty, racism, militarism and the devastation caused by unchecked climate change. Reverends William Barber and Liz Theoharis, who will be speaking at the Mass Meeting following the march, are articulate, inspiring speakers, and if you missed Rev. Barber this past January when he spoke to a packed Memorial Church at Stanford, don't miss this opportunity! I encourage you to march and attend the mass meeting afterwards at Glide Memorial Church and to encourage East Palo Alto residents and local churches to support the PPC! Judy Adams - Menlo Park resident - member of Peninsula/Palo Alto Women's Intl. League for Peace and Freedom (natl. partner with PPC) - co-petitioner to the East Palo Alto and Menlo Park city councils to join Mayors for Peace (both cities joined) - Organizer of weekly Fri. noon-1 peaceful sidewalk vigil/demonstrations for peace and justice issues at the corner of El Camino and Embarcadero in Palo Alto - 650-326-1235 Poor People's Campaign National Tour San Francisco March and Mass Meeting This event is the only CA stop on a 22 city national tour of the Poor People's Campaign's (PPC) "National Call for Moral Revival." This is a DO MORE effort to raise consciousness about the need for peaceful change, to do more to end poverty, racism, militarism and the devastation of the planet by the effects of climate change, and change the nation's moral agenda to accomplish these goals 2 (M O R E stands for Mobilizing, Organizing, Registering - to vote. and Educating our communities). You can attend one or both parts of this event in San Francisco. 1. THE MARCH: Wed, December 11, 5:45pm – 6:45pm. The assembly point is San Francisco's City Hall at 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place (turns into Polk), SF, CA 94102 (map). The March goes from City Hall to Glide Memorial Church (300 Ellis St.) for a free handicap accessible Mass Meeting 7-9pm. (map) 2. THE MASS MEETING AT GLIDE MEMORIAL CHURCH. Wed. Dec. 11, 7-9 pm. Hear the inspiring speakers, the Reverends William Barber, II (Pres. Repairers of the Breach) and Liz Theoharis (Co-Dir. Kairos Center), co-chairs of PPC. They will talk about the goals of the PPC and the culmination of the tour in a "Poor People's Assembly and Moral March" in Washington,, D.C., June 20th, 2020. For general information on the PPC see https://www.poorpeoplescampaign.org/. For information about WILPF (Women's Intl. League for Peace and Freedom), a national partner of the PPC: wilpfus.org. See also the Peninsula/Palo Alto branch Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/PPAWILPF/ or contact wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Leonard Schwarz <lschwarz@right-thing.net> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2019 6:26 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:Preserving the quality of life in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Councilmembers: I understand that you are being asked to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences as part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. The protection provided by a 20 foot setback is completely inadequate (20 feet is about the length of three twin-size beds and a good bit shorter than three kings). How can you consider allowing cell phone towers to be placed that close to residents’ home? The Wireless Resolution is supposed to protect Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite. It encourages telecom companies to seek exceptions to the other provisions of the Resolution. Why? Because once granted, an exception, would—if the setback is only 20 feet—allow a company to install a tower as close as the length of a large SUV next to virtually any home in Palo Alto. Please preserve the quality of Palo Alto’s wonderful neighborhoods. Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish a setback of at least 100 feet. Yours truly,   Leonard Schwarz Webster St. lschwarz@right-thing.net 650.248.6136           1 Brettle, Jessica From:Roland Lebrun <ccss@msn.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2019 12:25 PM To:Council, City Cc:Gaines, Chantal Subject:Item #3 Rail Communication update CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor and Council,    I would like to present this video during public comment after the Rail Communication update from the XCAP  committee.  https://youtu.be/M‐emh55UC3E    Thank you in advance.    Roland Lebrun  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Barbara Ann Hazlett <bthazlett@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 10, 2019 10:13 AM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly Subject:Rail and 12/9/19 Council Meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable Council Members: I am writing regarding the Connecting Palo Alto project. I am memorializing and expanding on my oral comments to Council last night in writing. I find it curious that you are concerned with the lack of community knowledge and engagement on this, the most consequential public works project in our town's history, and yet the Mayor felt it important to narrow the scope of last night's public comments and attempt to silence the Professorville/Embarcadero neighborhood's concerns. It is frustrating to speak before Council when it is apparent to the speaker, and the audience, that some are paying little attention while others appear concerned solely with cutting people off. I suggest you listen closely and get engaged with this issue. It is increasingly apparent that you are depending exclusively on the XCAP. People are watching, and elected officials who want to earn and keep the public’s trust must be engaged, conscientious and stop abrogating their responsibilities. Since the Mayor was so concerned with 'process' last night, I opine that this process is on very thin ice. Herewith, my comments from last night, which, do speak directly to a process issue between the XCAP and Council. "We all know that if Churchill is closed it will have an adverse impact on Embarcadero and the Professorville neighborhood streets as 10,000 cars a day are diverted. Council permitted the XCAP to invite new grade crossing ideas other than the ones currently under consideration by Council. However, the XCAP advised us at their last meeting on 12/4, that the window is now closed regarding submission of new ideas, and our recourse is only to Council. New Idea: Leaving Churchill the way it is and building an underpass for peds & bicyclists makes the most sense. Nobody loses their home, hundreds of millions of dollars are saved, the kids have a safe way to get to school and the drivers who can’t tolerate the new wait times will find an alternate route. More robust signage and technical advancements in signaling can be installed at the tracks. Advanced algorithms and software are enabling railroads to greatly enhance safety. Also, I do not think a viaduct is an appropriate solution in our town. The elevated railway, serves as a signifier of urban decay, a visual cue for areas of crime and dilapidation. Please consider leaving Churchill open at grade. It will function as it always has, as an important East and West conduit. This solution makes the most sense for my stated reasons and provides the greatest equity across the neighborhoods. I would ask the Council to add this 'new idea' to the list for your consideration of the Churchill crossing. Thank you." Regards, Barbara Hazlett 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sunita Sastry <sunita.sastry@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 6, 2019 8:42 AM To:Council, City Subject:shuttle service for Gunn High School CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Members of Palo Alto City Council: Please add a shuttle service which includes Gunn High School, and connects Gunn and Fletcher with El Camino Real and Middlefield Road. The present 88 route is inadequate and too infrequent. Thank you. -Sunita Sastry. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:thedavee <thedavee@aol.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2019 5:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:Tonight speaking CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I plan on speaking at the city council meeting tonight regarding the rail project.    Thank you   David Epstein   1118 Emerson         Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Erin Barrett <erin@erinbarrett.net> Sent:Friday, December 6, 2019 11:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:Vape Product Ban CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,    Growing up in Asia, I unfortunately had access to cigarettes before the age of 10. I smoked from age 9 through age 30–a  pack or more every day.    I took up running, and was able to quit smoking for the first time in my life. Nicotine has always been my drug of choice,  and though daily running stopped my smoking, I spent the next dozen years ‘white knuckling’ it. I still wanted to smoke,  but running wasn’t possible if I started back again.    In 2010, my children's father attempted suicide (I found him before he died); my father died after a painful two year  battle with cancer, my two children graduated from high school and my marriage fell apart— all in one, single year. I was  adrift in grief. I quit running, and other life‐affirming activities, because I had to focus everything on earning a living,  alone and without help or support. It was a very dark and difficult time in my life and, not surprisingly, I began smoking  again.    Two years later, a friend bought me a vape pen online. I decided to try it with the goal of merely cutting back on  cigarettes, knowing the weight of my addiction. In the past, gum and patches still left me wanting to smoke. I was  unconvinced this could ever be a complete substitute—even if I ended up liking it, which I doubted I would.    I took one puff off that e‐cigarette, in August 2012, and I haven’t touched a cigarette since that first drag. I haven’t  WANTED to touch a cigarette in these years, since, either. A beautiful side benefit is that I no longer have asthma and  can breathe easy even with seasonal allergies. And, guess what: I started running every day again, too!    Vaping has saved my life. As a professional researcher, non‐fiction author, editor, and all‐‘round digger for information,  of course I did my homework. Vaping is the same material used in fog machines, which have been around for decades,  with absolutely zero ill effects to health in those who regularly operate them and those of us who’ve been around  them—often in small spaces and venues. That’s pretty much all of us! They’re perfectly safe, and they’re completely  legal.    There also hasn’t been one single study, in the last decade‐plus of research, that has turned up any evidence of health  risks associated with vaping nicotine (or no nicotine, even!) in e‐cigarettes. None. At all.    There are two factors driving this national movement to demonize vaping (& we vapors, too, sadly). 1) Ignorance of the  actual facts. 2) Big tobacco. Both are driven by false statements in PSA’s, like the current one that’s regularly airing on TV  (and funded by our tax dollars!), that outright claims the recent illnesses and deaths are connected with vaping nicotine.  Even the CDC has now established and stated those cases came purely from tainted black market cartridges of THC. The  illegal producer (whomever that is) actually put in Vitamin E oil—a known substance that causes major damage if  inhaled. This terrible tragedy had literally nothing to do with the nicotine oils used in e‐cigarettes and vape mods, used  by people who vape.  2   However, if you choose to move forward with this ban, we will begin seeing more and more similar tragedies, as millions  of former smokers find it harder and harder to vape—in many cases, the one thing that led to them quitting cigarettes,  for good.    Cigarettes have so many fatal illnesses that we KNOW are caused from smoking. In all the research on vape products  that have been conducted not one illness has been remotely even linked to the act of vaping, much less shown that  vaping is causal in any detriment to health. The comparison to cigarettes (a legal product that anyone 21 or over can  purchase in this city) is nil. Vaping is not detrimental to anyone. Cigarettes kill, without doubt or fail.    Think logically and critically on this issue—I beg of you. Your votes and decisions effect so many people. Please do not  act thoughtlessly, caught up in the erroneous hype circulating around us or the pressure it has created. Please consider  how many of your constituents will likely return to smoking cigarettes, if you choose that route. Think of how many of  those—based on scientific and medical research—will ultimately die from smoking cigarettes, again. Please act on behalf  of the people you represent, and not based on the lies we are being fed. And, if you parse out the logical chain of the  propaganda going around, consider who vaping bans ultimately benefit. Big tobacco has suffered great monetary loss  from the growth of vaping, as more and more people continue to quit smoking. Who do vape bans benefit? They directly  put money BACK in the pockets of the huge tobacco industry. I urge you to please not allow them to win at the expense  of the lives of your constituents.    Thank you for listening to my story, and for you thoughtful and critical consideration of what is in the best interest of the  people in and around our city.    Respectful regards,  Erin Barrett    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Andrew <andrew.ronstadt@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 5, 2019 9:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:Vaping saved my life CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,     I was born and raised in, around Menlo Park, my family has been there since the 60's, we are natives. I wanted to share  my personal experience with smoking cessation, vaping with you.    I smoked cigarettes starting around the age of 18. It was a tremendous financial burden, my clothes smelled horrible, I  was extremely unhealthy, I was morbidly obese. I tried Rx nicotine inhalers, Rx drugs, patches, gum, it was all crap. All of  it was ineffective because the physical sensations of inhaling smoke were not being replaced, or even loosely imitated by  any of these cessation aides. In 2014 I found vaping. I sampled flavors from a family owned shop in Belmont (since shut  down,) I landed on fruity flavors, and energy drink flavors. I chose a device that offered high cloud production, dense  clouds of warm vapor. This device simulated the physical sensations of smoking almost perfectly. The amount of  resistance, the same "drag" of a filtered cigarette, inhaling and exhaling this vapor felt very similar to smoke.    I was able to wean myself from 18% nicotine ejuice down to zero in just over thirty days. I carried on vaping zero  nicotine liquid until this past October. I was hooked on vaping as a hobby. Building coils, building and customizing vaping  "mods," mixing my own juice.     Immediate benefits.. I regained my sense of smell. Inhale fully and completely. I was less anxious. I could walk flights of  stairs without feeling taxed. I could go on hikes.     Now, after five years of daily vaping, consuming thousands of dollars of premium zero nicotine liquid I have experienced  no ill effects. No lung injury. Nothing.    More recently, through diet and regular exercise I have lost a ton of fat. None of this would have been possible if not for  vaping. I know this, this is my own first‐hand experience.    So when I see media slamming vaping, trumpeting every baseless debunked garbage study vilifying this literal life saving  technology without issuing retractions or apologies I am absolutely sickened. Now, seeing politicians, councils pick this  cause up, push to ban it outright ‐ Why would you ever do such a thing? You don't care about public health. This is  campaign fodder. "Look at us, we're doing good!"     Let me tell you, if I had been born a few years later, taken up smoking a few years later, I might not have had access to  vaping. You are literally working to outlaw this thing that saved my life.     The idea that fruity, candy flavors are only appealing to kids, or, the fact these flavors of eliquid exist show vapes are  marketed to kids is nonsense. There is no evidence to back this.    Kids are vaping so that they can use them to stealthily abuse prohibited substances, not to quit cigarettes. You know  this. Prohibition doesn't work, you know this. They will buy vapes, buy these substances on the black market, and then  you will have dead kids on your hands...    2 This is peak‐stupidity. Consensus is not on your side either, people are weary of bans, governmental overreach. Please  do not ban vaping in Palo Alto, doing so will cause more harm than good.    Thank you,    Andrew Ronstadt          1 Brettle, Jessica From:Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2019 2:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:For Comment City Council Dec. 9, 2019 Agenda item#10 - Anti-Vaping Colleges Memo CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  RE: Agenda Item #10– Memo Anti‐vaping  Winter Dellenbach  Barron Park, Palo Alto  December 9, 2019     I strongly support this effort to prepare an urgency ordinance to eliminate vape devices, etc. as stated in this Colleagues  Memo.  We have two vaping stores in the Ventura and Barron Park neighborhoods. The Ventura store is on a fairly high profile  corner with a stoplight. Parents have worried for years about it. You would make both neighborhoods very happy if you  would close down the vaping aspect of both stores.  Both businesses sell tobacco and pot paraphernalia, so I assume they will continue on without vaping sales as the  Ventura business did before vaping was “a thing”.  However, if business viability is a concern, it cannot be a primary  concern given vaping is a safety and public health issue that is now centered on our youth, taking lives short term and  will take more long term.   We have made terrific strides in cutting tobacco use in our country, but now we see reversals due to vaping. This is nuts.  We must stop this ASAP or we will have a terrible undermining of generations of hard work.  I think the online aspect of this ordinance is critical. It is the dominant way to get vaping products by young people in  Palo Alto.  I am not so certain about the success of the outreach effort in this Memo. While I know this is the Council and not  PAUSD, I think this outreach would have a better in‐built avenue through the schools rather than the City. But perhaps I  don’t know what you are thinking of? One thing is extremely important however ‐ any communication must be in  several languages not just English and Mandarin. Spanish is a must and Cantonese too I think. And not just emailed out – not everyone has email or reads City emails.  Get this going now in all its aspects. Don’t wait till after the New Year.   Thanks to the drafters, especially Council Member Cormack, for bringing this matter forward.  Winter Dellenbach  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tricia Barr <tricia.tjernlund@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2019 10:28 PM To:Council, City; City Attorney Subject:No penalties on youth possession, purchase, use! Please focus on Retailers! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,     ChangeLab Solutions and other leading tobacco control organizations strongly recommend against the adoption or enforcement of laws penalizing youth who purchase, use, or possess Tobacco Products or Tobacco Paraphernalia (commonly referred to as “Youth PUP Laws”). Evidence demonstrates that well-enforced laws targeting Tobacco Retailers provide greater public health benefits than Youth PUP Laws. Moreover, studies show that Youth PUP Laws only minimally affect tobacco use, and prioritizing enforcement of other tobacco control laws can more effectively reduce youth access to Tobacco Products. Finally, Youth PUP Laws raise significant equity concerns because their enforcement often disproportionately affects youth of color.    https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/assets/factsheets/0074.pdf    Best regards,  Tricia Barr  650.867.7301  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Thursday, December 5, 2019 6:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:Visions of a more equitable future CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its‐a‐miracle‐helsinkis‐radical‐solution‐to‐homelessness  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ray Cruz <ray.cruz@Ergonica.com> Sent:Friday, December 6, 2019 6:59 PM To:UAC Cc:Council, City Subject:Wildfire Mitigation Alternative Infrastructure - Wind Control CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Attention Palo Alto Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC),  Is it possible that some important safety improvements for wildfires have yet to be added to your list of promoted or  essential safety measures?  Does your Wildfire Mitigation Plan (WMP) or Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) include  wind control and ember protection fencing?  I know you’re busy, so I’ll make this brief.   I don’t have to emphasize the  critical concern we all have about wildfires, especially in western states.  Especially in the past few years with climate  change.  Good news is that there are several potentially fruitful infrastructure alternatives to help protect us from  severe damages to human lives and property with a strong emphasis on wind control.  Bad news is that the perspective  and imagination of our leaders and responsible land managers is very narrow, myopic.  This may be due to political  context or simply conformist institutional perspectives.  It’s hard to say.  I will briefly share with you just a few ideas that have sprouted in my little cranium within the last year or two.  I know  you are smart.  I know you will appreciate the potential beneficial impact of these ideas.  The key problem is how do we  get a few good ideas properly placed on the table where policy makers take notice.  Some research is needed.  Tests are  needed.  Pilot models need to be initiated.  Yet, some of these ideas are so obviously beneficial and simple that all we  really need is a policy decision.  I am just one of thousands, if not millions, of citizens in California and other western  states dismayed by horrible losses suffered by my neighbors and dear friends from conflagrations and looking for some  evidence that our policy makers and public safety providers at every level are doing everything possible to protect  us.  Our confidence in public safety policy and performance is waning especially when obvious tools for safety are  apparently beyond the visual spectrum of our trusted public safety providers.  Let me also clarify that even though I would love to cash in on some of my ideas, I recognize that some are so obvious  that they cannot be claimed in a patent.  Others are simply too technical for me with a degree in psychology to be able  to handle in a patent application or refine to a marketable product.  So, please don’t worry about me claiming any  intellectual property with any revelations that follow.  It’s all up for grabs.  My main purpose with this disclosure is to  benefit our communities, our states, our country, and my family and grandkids, too, who live in several western  states.  All of these ideas have already been published on my website at Ergonica.com/wildfire_protection.htm including  a few rough sketches.  My gift to the community.  These ideas should at least be seriously investigated by local and  federal policy makers, stakeholders and community leaders:  1. Wind fences or windbreaks, that can also serve as ember filters, and be made of metal or other fire‐resistant  materials, can and should be deployed in several strategic places including:  a. Along firebreaks on ridges,   b. Surrounding hillside housing developments especially in high fire‐risk areas,  c. On both sides of freeways in high fire‐risk areas to prevent wildfires from jumping over this space and to  protect vehicles on the highway possibly as an enhancement to existing sound walls,   d. Along the center median of especially wide freeways and in windy areas for enhanced wind and  firebrand protection and to guard against debris and vehicles jumping over the median,   2 e. On both sides of overhead high‐power lines to hinder the spread of firebrands should the power lines  spark a fire, and to create a more effective firebreak for wildfires and embers from external sources, as  well,  f. In valleys with a history of wildfires,  g. Atop perimeter walls in housing developments and gated communities within high fire‐risk zones,  h. Between lots to replace wooden or other flammable fences as safe privacy fencing in housing  developments within high fire‐risk zones,  i. Around the edges and along rails of flat roofs, balconies and patios, especially when the areas contain  combustibles or open doors and windows,     j. Exterior decks should be constructed of Class A fire‐resistant composites or pressure treated woods and  all rails protected with windbreaks.  2. External firewalls or lithoshields possibly including robotic nozzles and surveillance systems installed selectively  surrounding hillside developments, observatories, communication towers and other critical facilities and  populations, or placed on access roads designed to suffocate advancing wildfires, heat and embers,  3. Repurposed wind turbines to not only generate electricity off or on the dangerous grid, but also to attenuate  winds and filter firebrands in targeted mountain ridges and valleys where dangerous winds have historically  been generated,  4. Do‐it‐Yourself projects for homeowners including the installation of windbreak – emberbreak fences on their  properties.  Attenuating wind flow will by itself significantly reduce fire combustion hazards beyond the fence: Slower wind, less  oxygen per second.  Let’s empower our imaginations with social media campaigns to dig up many more imaginative ideas from constituents  and followers.  This may be an opportunity for you to leverage your expertise with alternative solutions that can push  the needle towards sustainable solutions that make us all safer.  We don’t expect our firefighters to build fences, but  land managers need to fortify our firebreaks so that our firefighters can more safely do their work.  The firebrand‐filter  fences along ridges should carefully be patterned in overlapping strips with breaks in such a way that allows our  emergency crews to work with hoses and other equipment whenever needed on adjacent slopes.     Our focus on windbreak ember filters as fences around houses and on top of walls may rub against traditional building  and safety rules requiring expensive variance fees.  If you think this is an important alternative, you may recommend  relaxing the application of fees for permits or variances for wind and ember fences.   Taking similar steps may also save  local governments and utilities from liability for neglecting the responsibility for public safety with regards to  wildfires.  These alternative infrastructure solutions can also be useful in other parts of the Americas, Europe and in  many other parts of the world.    Please let me know if you can stand up as an advocate, so that I know that I am not alone in the quest for much needed  adaptations to climate change.  Imagine what your leadership can do.  Where else can emberbreak fences or multi‐ purposed wind turbines help?  Make a map appropriate to the area of your target constituents or stakeholders.  Make it  happen!  Do what you can within local jurisdictions.  Propose reciprocal support from overlapping agencies.  We can’t  fight nature, but we can resist wind and embers intelligently, just like the roofs we build over our heads to protect us  from rain.  Adaptation starts at home.  Roofs for rain, windbreaks for wind and firebrands (not traditional walls).  Respectfully Submitted,  Ray Cruz   3 Ergonica  1107 Fair Oaks Ave, Suite 887  South Pasadena, CA 91030  ray.cruz@ergonica.com  www.Ergonica.com   213‐598‐7430        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Friday, December 6, 2019 4:05 PM To:French, Amy; Atkinson, Rebecca Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; UAC; board@pausd.org Subject:Wireless Hot Topic Page Updated CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Amy and Rebecca, Thank you for letting me know that the Wireless Hot Topics Webpage has been updated and that, other than the upcoming consideration of the revised Wireless Resolution by Council, there is no additional wireless-related news. I was glad to see the Update. Will you now be updating the page as you did in the past, that is, will you now be systematically reporting on cell tower application submissions, resubmissions, reviews, approvals, appeals, hearings, permits, installations, compliance reports, tolling agreements, shot clock extensions and the like? As always, thank you for your help. Jeanne Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net {REDACTED} 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Rob Levitsky <roblevitsky@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 10, 2019 5:40 PM To:Council, City Cc:rob levitsky Subject:xcap presentation Dec 9 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  council members    i have been attending or listening to palo alto city council meetings for almost 50 years, and have rarely seen such an  unfriendly response to the public wanting to speak.    in this case, to speak about probably the largest and potentially most disruptive project  in palo alto since the removal of  more than 90 houses with the widening of Oregon Ave in 1963, which i witnessed as a child.      And what does the Mayor do? Looks at the clock, sees that chat time with Supervisor Simitian is 20  minutes away, gives the public 2 minutes to speak, and says specifically that he doesnt want to hear our  thoughts on the impacts of a churchill closing, or our comments on yet another traffic mitigation study  that supposedly will make 10,000 daily car Railroad track crossings magically fit on Oregon and  Embarcadero.    nuts    you win, i didnt put in a card.  No point upsetting the Mayor. Dexter went up to speak, but was afraid he’d get yelled at  by the Mayor, and sat down.  Barbara spoke anyway.    we live on embarcadero, and we need to be heard.      Regards,    Rob Levitsky  1200 Emerson (corner of emerson and embarcadero)        Sent from my iPhone  COUNCIL MEETING \'Z-/L-/ /kf> L~ OReceived Before Meeting eceived at Meetin DEBORAH SHEPHERD: Remarks to Council for HRB Interview Good afternoon Council members. Thank you all for you time in interviewing rnc for a position on the I Iistoric Resources Board for Palo Alto. I have had the pleasure of serving out my predecessor's tenn for 18 months and am cager to continue my service. As perhaps you know, I am a retired art historian and art museum administrator with an interest in American architecture. I have and continue to take courses regarding preservation and the history of architecture. r live in a Category 2 historic home from 1904 in Palo Alto, and also volunteer as chair of membership at the Cantor and Anderson Muse urns at Stanford. While serving on the HRB, r have also been appointed to the Historical Heritage Commission in Santa Clara County, and find r have a very big learning curve in this work and am cager to continue with it. On both the board and commission we arc charged with considering the historic resources involved in matters brought to us by staff In Palo Alto, we have a terrific chair in David Bower, and rnany fine members, as well as terrific professional staff, from whom I am learning a great deal. Some of our rnembcrs have served for lengthy periods of tin1c. I am sure they would agree that each matter which comes before the HRB is a unique case, but must be consistently evaluated for compliance with CEQA, and occasionally with Council approved design guidelines, as in the case of the Profcssorvillc Historic District. I feel I can do an even better job if I have the opportunity to continue to learn and serve when reappointed for a full term. rn CITY OF 3 TO: FROM: DATE: PALO ALTO POLICY & SERVICES COMMITTEE MONIQUE ZIESENHENNE, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DECEMBER 10, 2019 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 3 -Discussion and Recommendations for 2020 City Council Priority Setting Process As mentioned in the agenda staff report, what follows are priorities suggested by Councilmembers, to date. The list of all priorities from 2011-2018 are also included, for your information. Priorities from Councilmembers: • In addition to the four priorities from this year, add "Rebuild Cubberley Community Center." • With respect to climate change, more specificity, particularly around sea level rise adaptations. • I would vote for roughly the same as we have this year: o Grade Separations o Economic Diversity (not just fiscal) o Transportation and Mobility (not traffic) o Climate change ( ... maybe) • Housing • "Make Palo Alto Fun Again" • Traffic Congestion Relief • Affordable Housing and Homelessness • Grade Separations The City Manager's Office will post a s.imilar request to the community later this week on Open City Hall, following past years' model. Results will be available at the upcoming Council retreat for additional consideration. 1 of3 CITY OF PALO ALTO Past Priorities: 2018: A. Transportation: Mobility, circulation, traffic mitigations and reduction of in-bound SOV trips B. Housing: Adopt policies to increase the rate of market rate and affordable housing production according to the goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan C. Finance: Create an infrastructure funding plan D. Grade Separation: Choose a preferred alternative by the end of the year 2017: A. Transportation B. Housing C. Infrastructure D. Healthy City, Healthy Community E. Budget and Finance 2016: A. The Built Environment: Housing, Parking, Livability, Mobility, with a particular emphasis on Mobility B. Infrastructure C. Healthy City, Healthy Community D. Completion of the Comprehensive Plan 2015-2030 Update with increased focus from Council 2015: · A. The built environment: multi-modal transportation, parking and livability B. Infrastructure strategy and implementation C. Healthy city/healthy community D. Completion of the Comprehensive Plan update, with "increased focus from council." 2014: A. Comprehensive planning and action on land use and transportation B. The Built Environment-transportation, mobility, parking and livability C. Infrastructure Strategy and funding 2 of3 DATE: December 3, 2019 TO: STATE, CITY AND LOCAL OFFICIALS NOTICE OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMP ANY'S REQUEST TO CHANGE RATES FOR 2020 GENERAL RATE CASE PHASE II (A.19-11-019) Summary On November 22, 2019, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed its 2020 General Rate Case (GRC) Phase II application (A.19-11-019) with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). In this application, PG&E is proposing to gradually adopt rates that more accurately reflect what it costs to serve each customer class. The years included in these proposals are 2021, 2022 and 2023. This results in rates increasing for some customer classes and decreasing for other customer classes; no new costs are being proposed in this Phase II application. If approved, the proposed rate changes will go into effect in 2021 after a final decision is issued by the CPUC. Background Every three years, PG&E is required to file a GRC with the CPUC, which includes both Phase I and Phase II applications. In Phase I of the GRC (A.18-12-009), costs for operating and upgrading our electric and gas distribution systems, and how much of those costs PG&E will recuperate in rates, is determined. In Phase II of the GRC, PG&E's electric rates are designed by dividing approved electric costs among each customer class (residential, commercial, etc.). Gas rate design is addressed in separate gas applications and is not included in the scope of this application. -n£? \0 --. How will the application affect electric rates? ~ ~-< Bundled electric customers receive electric generation, transmission and distribution services from PG&E. n p~ -rn::o Depending on usage, some residential customers will see a decrease in their monthly bill amount and some 9Vltl se~ increase. At the end of the three-year period covered by this GRC Phase II, the bill for a typical residential cL&om~ enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) program and using 500 kWh per month would i~ease> l> slightly from $122.85 to about $122.97, or approximately 0.1%. A similar customer using 750 kWh per montl'Mtoul~ a decrease from $193.49 to about $192.22, or approximately-0.7%. ta> c::;P en .rrin Direct Access and Community Choice Aggregation customers only receive electric transmission and distribution se~es from PG&E. On average, these customers would see a decrease of approximately -0.3%. 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 still 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 approximately 6.3%. Actual impacts will vary depending on usage. Detailed rate information will be sent directly to customers in a bill insert in the month of December. 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 • ~~~3&11t 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 2020 GRC Phase II Application (A.19-11-019) P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 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 for the CPUC to establish a record upon which to base its decision. Evidentiary 1 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 public, 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) will 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 2020 GRC Phase II Application (A.19-11-019) 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 National Youth Tobacco Survey, Teenage Vaping Use Table 1 shows that 3.13 million high schoolers vaped, with 877,500 using the products 20-30 days in the past month. Table 1. Number of High School Students in 2018 Who Vaped in the Past Month, According to Age Days Vaped Less than 18 years 18+ years All 1-5 1,303,366 200,264 1,503,630 6-19 602,392 150,841 753,233 20-30 630,490 247,000 877,490 All 2,536,248 598,105 3,143,353 Next, let's remove any high school students who ever tried CIGARETTE SMOKING. As shown in Table 2, that leaves 1.36 million, with 198,000 using the products 20-30 days in the past month Removing students who ever tried CIGARS, the total drops to 978,000, with 132,500 using the products 20-30 days in the past month (Table 3 ). Finally, subtracting students who ever tried SMOKELESS TOBACCO, Table 4 reveals that the vaping epidemic consists of 897,000 individuals, with 116,000 using the products 20- 30 days in the past month. Of those, 95,316 were underage. Table 4. Number of High School Students in 2018 Who Vaped in the Past Month But Never Tried Cigarette or Cigar Smoking or Smokeless Tobacco, According to Age Days Vaped Less than 18 years 18+ years 1-5 572,091 47,539 6-19 139,881 20,942 20-30 95,316 21,053 All 807,288 89,534 All 619,630 160,823 116,369 896,822 It is true that frequent vaping among underage high school teens increased substantially from 26,660 in 2017 to 95,316 in 2018. These numbers translate into an increase from less than 0.2 to 0.6°/o of all high school students. In summary, the oft-cited teen vaping epidemic involves not three million youths, but rather 95,000 • nderage teens who vaped frequently but never used other tobacco products -- or 0.6°/o of the nati 's 14.8 million high school students. I am a 67-year-old grandmother, retired software engineer, and vaper. I've been a Democrat for 47 of those years, and a feminist for 50. I've always been told that Democrats stood for my right to control my body. It wasn't until I started talking to legislators and attending committee hearings that I found out that they didn't mean that. I have a lot more organs in my body than just my womb. I'm fighting cancer and breathing problems * The lung injuries are from black market THC "dab pens", note-cigarettes. The CDC is in charge of germs, the FDA is in charge of chemical contamination AND e-cigarettes. Taking the CDC's "we don't know" advisory over the FDA's is like asking the Water Department to tell us how to handle high- power lines safely. FDA's advisory QR code: * Democrats have consistently ignored all the science consumers have been giving them since 2011. Yesterday's Massachusetts vote, where they refused to assign 10% of fines from their ban or MSA money makes it clear that Dems are more interested in having an excuse to save tobacco revenue than in health OR freedom. Politicians wanted upfront cash from a legal victory over Big Tobacco, and bankers happily obliged. The price? A handful of states promised to repay $64 billion on just $3 billion advanced. QR for Pro Publica's article * Tobacco harm reduction (THR) is a public health strategy to lower the health risks associated with using nicotine, as an example of the concept of [!] harm reduction, a strategy II L for dealing with the abuse of other drugs. Smoking tobacco is widely acknowledged as a leading cause of illness and death._ However, nicotine itself is not very harmful, as inferred from the long history of use for nicotine replacement therapy products. Opponents have argued that some aspects of harm reduction interfere with cessation and abstinence and might increase initiation._ However, surveys carried from 2013 to 2015 in the UK_and France suggest that on the contrary, the availability of safer alternatives to smoking is associated with decreased smoking prevalence and increased smoking cessation. The opponents, departments in American Lung Association, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and many others, are in the field of Tobacco Control, That field has as it's published ethic and goal the creation of a "Tobacco-Free World" They consider nicotine to be tobacco. In a word, prohibition. They didn't update their ideas when it became clear that SNUS (Swedish smokeless tobacco) and vaping can create a Tobacco- Illness-and-Death-Free World. The cites for this and deeper information is available at http://www.casaa.org (Consumer Advocates for Smokef-free Alternatives Association, 1.4 million consumer members. Founded in 2009 when the FDA got Customs to seize incoming e-cig shipments at the border (later stopped by the courts, on the condition that e- cig sellers and mfrs NEVER make any health claims) *Flavors were invented by consumers in 2010-2011, before youth noticed vaping. Invented because tobacco flavors make people want to smoke. They make up 89% of the "open systems" market (mostly 10,000 small and medium businesses, mom-and-pop.) These businesses can't survive on 11 % of their revenue. While opponents keep talking about JUUL and other Big Tobacco products, they avoid telling the public that "public health advocates" were already claiming it was Big Tobacco 4 months before the FIRST Big Tobacco purchase of a vaping business in 2011. They also talk about JUUL and other BT products having 70% of the market. NO! They have 70% of the CONVENIENCE STORE market, which is 30% of the market. That's 21 %. The other 79% are those 10,000+ small businesses. Ask tobacco stock analysts about the actual market shares, such as Bonnie Herzog with Wells Fargo. *IT IS NOT TRUE that 27% of high school kids are vaping or "JUUL"-ing, per the actual government statistics being quoted. 27% have had one puff in the last 30 days. When you take it down to last 20 days, the number goes way down. About 5.9% "are vaping." The media, and Campaign for Tobacco- Free Kids, routinely conflate these statistics -it makes for a better scare. In addition, studies of current youth that were in high school 5 years ago and vaped shows 1. They are not smoking. 2. They are mostly not vaping either -it's expensive, and it's likely they'd rather eat or pay tuition. The references come from the National Youth Tobacco Survey. ,. J ,,. 1 2 COUNCft MEETING \'d <f /tj OReceived Before Meeting Received at Meeting Palo Alto's Dewatering Regulations Need an Overhaul. Keith Bennett, Ph.D. Save Palo Alto's Groundwater December 9, 2019 http://savepaloaltosgroundwater.org Palo Alto's current dewatering regulations • Intended to reduce destructive dewatering from basement construction. • However, dewatering in 2019 definitively shows they are • Ineffective • Difficult for contractors • Too complex • Unenforceable in practice • Damages storm drains and properties • The impacts of current practices are significant, cover very large areas and are unacceptably large. 12/10/2019 1 7 8 Underground construction is practical without using large quantities of groundwater. • Cutoff (secant} walls successfully used for at least • 3 residential construction projects • City garage (California Ave.) • Marriott Hotels (San Antonio) • Design can avoid the need for dewatering • Make somewhat shallower basements • 711 Moreno built a basement this year w/o dewatering. Approx. 8' deep. • 849 Greenwich (2018) redesigned to make the basement ~i· shallower Bottom Line The maximum pumping rate must be reduced -the impacts at 100 - 150 gpm under any conditions are significant, very widespread (up to 1 mile diameter area of influence} and unacceptable. Our storm drains are *not* designed for constant high velocity, high speed flows from dewatering and are being damaged. Underground construction is practical and possible in Palo Alto at much lower pumping rates. 12/10/2ll19 \ 4