HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190204plCC 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: 02/04/2019
Document dates: 01/16/2019 – 01/23/2019
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Andrew Schwartz <aschwartz@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, January 18, 2019 11:28 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Backyard Service
Hi Palo Alto City Council,
When I used to live in Menlo Park, one of the services that was provided (for an added fee) was back/side yard collection
of trash/compost/recycling containers. It was an extremely convenient service, but unfortunately does not appear to be
a service that is provided in Palo Alto.
When renegotiating the agreement with GreenWaste, would it be possible to include pricing for back/side yard
collection?
I've taken a look, and the cities that have back yard collection include:
1. Menlo Park starting at $20.15 per month ( https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/18996/Final‐Reso‐
6410‐‐‐Solid‐waste‐rates‐for‐2018‐2019‐2020 )
2. Redwood City starting at $20.15 per month ( https://www.redwoodcity.org/departments/public‐
works/water/rates/current‐rates )
3. San Mateo starting at $21.50 per month ( https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/61011/2018‐
Unscheduled‐Additional‐for‐Website?bidId= )
Other cities such as Mountain View seem to have the service as well, but it's harder to understand what the rates are on
their website.
Thanks,
Andrew
1
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 22, 2019 3:53 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:January 22, 2019, Council Meeting, Item #6: GreenWaste Agreement
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
January 22, 2019
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
JANUARY 22, 2019, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #6
GREENWASTE RESTATED AND AMENDED AGREEMENT
Dear City Council:
I urge you to reject the proposed Second Amended and Restated Agreement
with GreenWaste, because it includes a payment by the City of Palo Alto of
$9,132,000 for new replacement vehicles that GreenWaste was required to
purchase no later than 2017 to comply with the existing agreement's
requirement that "At no time during the Term of this Agreement shall any
vehicle used to perform the services required under this Agreement exceed
8 years of age from the first date the vehicle was registered without the
express written approval of the Director [of Public Works or the
Director's designee]."
It was the obligation of GreenWaste to purchase replacement vehicles by
2017 at its own expense for all the new vehicles it put into service in
2009.
The ability of the Director of Public Works to postpone that purchase date
was not intended to shift the responsibility for the purchase cost of the
replacement vehicles from GreenWaste to the City of Palo Alto.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
Carnahan, David
From:Gary Lindgren <gel@theconnection.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 16, 2019 2:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rail Crossings
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I recommend that a viaduct be used for the Meadow and Charleston rail crossings. The viaduct has some import
features.
1.No shoofly is needed in the construction, there will be minimal interruption.
2.Once the viaduct is in operation, it will take only a day or two to get the roads underneath up to full height.
3.The area underneath the viaduct will be open for walking, running, and other outdoor activities.
I also recommend that the council keep an open mind on a viaduct through out the city. In that way, Churchill and Palo
Alto Ave. could be kept open.
Also I recommend that the tunnel open be taken off the list of possible options. There is no money to complete this very
expensive idea. The trench option should also be taken off the list of possible ideas as there are too many unsolved
issues to deal with.
Thank you,
Gary Lindgren
Gary Lindgren
585 Lincoln Ave
Palo Alto CA 94301
650-326-0655
Check Out Latest Seismometer Reading
@garyelindgren
Listen to Radio Around the World
Be Like Costco... do something in a different way
Don't trust Atoms...they make up everything
A part of good science is to see what everyone else can see but
think what no one else has ever said.
The difference between being very smart and very foolish is
often very small.
So many problems occur when people fail to be obedient when
they are supposed to be obedient, and fail to be creative when
they are supposed to be creative.
The secret to doing good research is always to be a little
underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste
hours.
It is sometimes easier to make the world a better place than to
prove you have made the world a better place.
Amos Tversky
1
Carnahan, David
From:carlin otto <carlinotto@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 17, 2019 7:12 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Viaduct ???
Dear City Council
Why is this VIADUCT option still on your list of options !!! ????????
I have never heard ANYONE ever support this incredibly awful solution.
Your continued consideration of this option in the face of NO PUBLIC support for it
raises questions of your motives and your allegiances.
You are NOT acting in the best interests of the people who voted you into your office,
and we (your constituency) are noticing.
Of all the options, the viaduct is the noisiest, dirtiest, ugliest, and most problematic for attracting undesirable conditions.
GET IT OFF THE TABLE.
‐ It throws noise the farthest. The proposed rate of trains will create almost constant noise for two blocks on each side
of the tracks. The proposal is for one train every 5 minutes (6 trains in each direction every hour meaning 12 trains pass
by my house per hour).
‐ It pushes dust and dirt the farthest. (My house is already constantly dusty inside.)
‐ It is visibly divisive and in‐your‐face.
‐ It creates underneath itself unused, fenced, seemingly secret and abandoned land that is perfect for people to do
hidden activities (crime and homelessness), and it will collect trash and graffitti and be forever UGLY.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
vote this week to REMOVE THE VIADUCT option.
Carlin Otto
231 Whitclem Court
Palo Alto, CA
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rachel Kellerman <rkellerman@me.com>
Sent:Saturday, January 19, 2019 3:09 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please read our attached letter regarding Agenda Item 7A
Attachments:Letter to Council January 19th Agenca Item 7A.docx
Honorable Council Members,
Please read the attached letter expressing our views and the views of many of our Professorville and Embarcadero Road
neighbors regarding upcoming agenda item 7A.
Thank you,
Rachel and Tom Kellerman
January 19, 2019
Honorable Council Members,
We respectfully ask that you amend agenda item 7A to add the Churchill Avenue
crossing, to read in full as follows:
Separate From Study all Alternatives for the Palo Alto Avenue Crossing (Closure and
Hybrid) and Churchill Avenue (Current Alternatives) and Include Palo Alto Avenue and Churchill Avenue in a Separate Comprehensive Planning Effort;
The reasoning behind this proposed change is as follows:
• Closing Churchill without mitigation goes against Council’s already adopted
resolution from June 19, 2018
o E. Add to Churchill Avenue crossing closed (CAX) idea, “study additional
options for addressing traffic in the Embarcadero Road underpass area including actions to minimize redirected traffic onto residential streets in adjacent neighborhoods and commit to adopting appropriate mitigations
to address the impacts;
• There are no simple mitigations that fall within the scope of the current project
• Churchill, Embarcadero, University Avenue, Palo Alto Avenue are all part of an
interrelated traffic matrix and need to be planned in a comprehensive manner.
We think these changes will not only unite adjacent neighborhoods in a shared process
but also help Council and staff to focus on solutions that best suit the south and north regions of Palo Alto.
Respectfully,
Tom and Rachel Kellerman
Emerson Street, Palo Alto
1
Carnahan, David
From:mickie winkler <mickie650@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 21, 2019 5:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:grade separations
Dear city council
1. The Grade separation issue is clearly the most important issue before council.
2. This decision must be informed by a city‐wide traffic impact study.
3. This decision must not just be dictated by residents living close to tracks. Many resident fears are
unjustified. The good of the city must be the number 1 consideration.
4. The decision must also consider traffic impacts during construction—which may take 4 to 5 years. These are
not trivial and will greatly impact our businesses and our lives.
Please do not be discouraged by this ongoing discussion. It is complicated and difficult‐‐and deserves the
investment of time and $$$.
Thank you
Mickie Winkler
1
Carnahan, David
From:Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, January 22, 2019 2:32 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Arthur Keller; Neilson Buchanan; John Guislin; Paul & Karen Machado; Shikada, Ed; Keene, James;
David Schrom; Carol Scott; Christian Pease; De Geus, Robert
Subject:Fwd: Fw: CAP Update - New Animation - Tunnel
Dear City Council,
this video does not really make sense to me. Why is it that we have to seize properties for a deep bore tunnel? ‐ which is
the only real alternative, since partial or covered trenches won't do it. We will need to "gain" the real estate currently
occupied by the tracks.
Alternatively, if you really would need some land for a limited time period during construction, stop Cal train for that
period of time and replace it with a bus service.
This video just seems to be the final death sentence into boring a tunnel citywide, before ever having had a serious
discussion about a true solution that would benefit all of us for a very, very long time period.
Did you have a chance (during the past few years) looking into the legal aspects of who owns the land (above ground)
and if the city of Palo Alto could acquire it if necessary, so that we can then usefully re‐purpose it ‐ partially for parks,
partially for housing ,etc..?
Wolfgang Dueregger
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: De Geus, Robert <Robert.DeGeus@cityofpaloalto.org>
Date: Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 11:48 AM
Subject: CAP Update - New Animation - Tunnel
To: Christine Logan <christine.logan@gmail.com>, David Shen <dshenster@gmail.com>, Greg Brail <greg@brail.org>,
Inyoung Cho <inyoungcho0@gmail.com>, Kari Hodgson <karihodgson@gmail.com>, Mandar Borkar
<mandar.borkar@gmail.com>, Megan Kanne <Kanne.megan@gmail.com>, Nadia Naik (nadianaik@gmail.com)
<nadianaik@gmail.com>, parag@virtunetsystems.com <parag@virtunetsystems.com>, Patricia Lau
<patlau2010@gmail.com>, Phil Burton <philip-b@comcast.net>, Carrasco, Tony <tony@carrasco.com>
Good morning CAP members,
This evening at the January 22 Council meeting we will take up grade separation again, continued from December 17.
Here is the link to the staff report: Staff Report. Note a few changes from December 17 staff report are described in the
Executive Summary. Also, I want to share with you a new animation that AECOM just completed for the City Wide Tunnel
Alternative. The animation is and should be viewed as a concept for discussion only and not a specific proposal.
That being said, we intend to show the animation to Council this evening, even though we just received it. The animation
is particularly relevant to the recommendation to remove from consideration the City wide tunnel, and to further study a
south Palo Alto tunnel only. As you can see in the animation the property impacts in north Palo Alto to construct a tunnel
entrance would be very significant and staff believes Council should have this information as they consider how best to
proceed. We will also post the link to the new animation and power point presentation to the City website this afternoon.
2
Video Link: https://vimeo.com/312275948
Thank you,
Rob
Rob de Geus
Deputy City Manager
250 Hamilton Ave | Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650.463.4951 | F: 650.321.5612 | E: Robert.deGeus@cityofpaloalto.org
“Engaging Individuals and Families to Create a Strong and Healthy Community”
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 22, 2019 3:42 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:De Geus, Robert; Shikada, Ed; Minor, Beth; Elizabeth Alexis
Subject:Public Comment for City Council Agenda Item #7 - Rail
Attachments:CARRD public comment for City Council Jan 22 2019.pdf
Attached please find CARRD's comment for tonight's City Council Meeting agenda item #7 Discussion and
Project Update on Connecting Palo Alto
To: City Council
From: CARRD (Nadia Naik – nadianaik@gmail.com)
Date: January 21, 2019
Re: Public Comment on Staff Report
CARRD sent in a public comment for the December 17th, 2018 meeting with the
following recommendations:
1. Agendize future discussion of Criteria and Process
2. Include Loma Verde Bike Crossing
3. Amend Scope of Work: include Freight-less Tunnel
4. Do not eliminate alternatives YET!
5. Approve inclusion of PA Avenue into University Ave area plan - shorten timeline
In addition, we have an additional 2 points we’d like to convey:
1. Loma Verde Bike Crossing – Move it to NVCAP study:
Upon further study, we’d like to change our recommendation for the Loma Verde
bike crossing. We would like to support the Staff Report’s recommendation to remove
it from the grade separation studies. However, we’d recommend it be added to the
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan project (NVCAP).
The NVCAP is a well funded study that will already be looking at issues such as
transportation and Safe Routes to School. Given the importance of the bike path to
allow better connectivity across the tracks, we think it makes sense to include it as part
of the NVCAP scope of work.
Additionally, Measure B has money that is available for Bicycle improvements and the
Loma Verde bike path (South Palo Alto Bike Path) is on the list of eligible projects. See
Attachment A of : http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-
1.amazonaws.com/Site_Content/ResolutionNo%202016%2006%2017%20(2).pdf
(It is also identified in the VTA 2040 Plan where it is known as project “B98” and
described as “Palo Alto South Palo Alto Caltrain Bicycle and Pedestrian Grade
Separation - Construct grade-separated bike/ped crossing between California Ave.
Caltrain station and at-grade crossing on E. Meadow Ave. – estimated cost $8 million)
See: http://www.vta.org/sfc/servlet.shepherd/document/download/069A0000001e96jIAA
2. Downtown Coordinated Area Plan – include Palo Alto Ave and
Churchill/Embarcadero in Impact Zone
CARRD supports the idea of a separate Coordinated Area Plan for the downtown area
since the issues related to both existing grade separations (University Ave) and future
potential grade separations (Palo Alto Ave) also include significant Land Use issues and
technical issues and should be considered together.
We have stated before that Churchill and Embarcadero are inextricably linked from a
circulation perspective. To some extent, however, Embarcadero is also linked to
University Avenue’s existing grade separation. One of the reasons Embarcadero has so
much traffic is because the University Ave grade separation does not handle the current
traffic capacity adequately. If a downtown coordinated area plan considered the
reconfiguration of the Intermodal Transit Center, including having other streets such as
Lytton and Hamilton go through to El Camino (as has been proposed in numerous
previous studies of the area), then the impact of adding multiple additional East/West
crossings in downtown would likely have a measurable impact on circulation –with
impacts/changes extending down to Embarcadero.
As such, we would recommend that Churchill and Embarcadero be included NOT in any
land use zone considered by a Downtown Coordinated Area plan, but certainly in the
adjacent “Impact zone” related to transportation (the circulation/transportation sphere of
influence).
In general, there are typically more dollars available for redesigning station areas, and
thus including the station and surrounding area as part of a Downtown Coordinated
Area Plan would likely allow us to access more money to address circulation issues in
North Palo Alto.
As a reminder, Measure A from 2000 had significant dollars set aside for planning for
the Intermodal Transit Center (University Ave station) and Measure B also has some
additional money set aside for it as well (not from the grade separation portion – but in
another bucket).
1
Carnahan, David
From:chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, January 18, 2019 2:20 PM
To:Dave Price; Jason Green; Sandy Perry-HCA; Dave Cortese; Joe Simitian; Loquist, Kristina; Kris
Sankaran; Gregorio, Rose; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Paul George @ PPJC; charisse domingo; Blanca
Bosquez; Kelcy Fleming; Palo Alto Free Press; Seelam Reddy; Council, City;
citycouncil@menlopark.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Robert Norse;
a16z@theoutcastagency.com; Chris Richardson; Sue Dremann
Subject:Answered Prayers: Microsoft, MillionairesofConscience, Solutions
Bill Bonner, noted financial newsletter publisher, and Sean
Hannity, noted Fox News Reporter are both very concerned that
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) doesn't have a completely worked
out budget-- with sources of funding-- to pay for feeding all the
people, housing them, educating them, and providing health care
comparable to people in other countries that she is proposing.
Bill and Sean are very worried about this. I find it hard to
imagine them worrying this much if the call were for funding for a
war or another fat tax cut for fat cats.
Well, they can relax. Microsoft has answered their fervent
prayers.
On Jan 16, the NY Times reported that Microsoft has pledged
$500 million for affordable housing in the Seattle area
(https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/technology/microsoft-
affordable-housing-
seattle.html?emc=edit_na_20190116&nl=breaking-
news&nlid=59396805ing-news&ref=cta).
Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, Marc Andreesen, Jeff Bezos, Mark
Zuckerberg, Bill Gand many other CEOs of Conscience are also
publicly giving their extra money away. Others should try it. It
seems to feel pretty good to these guys. And it's one of the great
2
solutions to housing shortages, hunger, poverty, and mass
inequality in our country. What's bad about that? You just need
two things: cash and a conscience.
What do you say Midpeninsula Millionaires?
‐‐
Chuck
1
Carnahan, David
From:E Nigenda <enigenda1@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, January 18, 2019 8:42 AM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Dueker, Kenneth
Subject:Artificial Intelligence Can Marry Urban Planning and Disaster Response
". . . [former FEMA chief] Fugate, as One Concern’s chief emergency management officer, said
the most pressing need is for governments to transition from being reactive
to proactive. He said land use and building codes will be instrumental in
mitigating future risk, but until recently, no one had both the data and computing
power to predict impacts of natural disasters in enough detail to recommend precautions."
Artificial Intelligence Can Marry Urban Planning and Disaster Response
1
Carnahan, David
From:Clerk, City
Sent:Friday, January 18, 2019 4:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Eshoo introduces cell tower legislation
Thanks and have a great day.
B‐
Beth Minor, City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650)329‐2379
From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 3:21 PM
To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cormack,
Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal)
<Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg
<Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission
<Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Eshoo introduces cell tower legislation
Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou, and Mr.
Tanaka,
On Monday, our representative in Congress, Anna Eshoo, introduced legislation to overturn new FCC
regulations intended to limit the ability of local governments to regulate the deployment of so-called
small cell node cell towers.
In doing so, she joins the League of California Cities and dozens of municipalities—including Los
Angeles, New York and San Jose—in opposing the same new FCC regulations that City Staff 1) are
urging you to make haste to incorporate in Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance, and 2) are using as a
pretext for giving the interim Planning Director sole authority for establishing aesthetic standards for
the siting and appearance of cell towers.
2
I hope Congresswoman Eshoo’s actions and ideas will help frame your consideration of the amended
Wireless Ordinance City Staff has proposed you adopt.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
‐‐
1
Carnahan, David
From:iqbalserang@gmail.com
Sent:Wednesday, January 16, 2019 5:38 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Iqbalserangarchitect@gmail.com; iasdesigns@aol.com; iqbalserang@gmail.com
Subject:FW: Urgent Appeal to Council from Hotel President Tenants
From: iqbalserang@gmail.com <iqbalserang@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 11:22 AM
To: City.council@cityofpaloalto.com
Cc: kaokaren007@gmail.com; cckellog@gmail.com; labiba@att.net; Iqbalserangarchitect@gmail.com;
iasdesigns@aol.com; michelle.Kraus@carbontracing.com; katja@Languagearts.org
Subject: Urgent Appeal to Council from Hotel President Tenants
Dear Council Members:
We thank you in advance for hearing and hopefully recommending this urgent request of the Hotel President Apartment
tenants, in a non‐binding manner that, AJ Capital consider extending the President tenancies until June 2019 or until
A.J’s project for the President has been submitted to the City and approved.
We urgently need Council’s help regarding AJ’s announcement of our eviction in two weeks on January 31st, since many
of us seniors are unable to move at this time, for hardships and difficulties in finding an appropriate substitute home.
If Council prefers to make the public aware of our request in advance of the next Council meeting, you can agendize this
item for next week’s Council Agenda and we tenants will return then to hear your deliberations.
We thank Council for your continued concern for the President tenants.
Sincerely,
Dennis Backlund and Iqbal Serang.
Long‐term residents of the historic,
Hotel President Apartments.
Virus-free. www.avast.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Tuesday, January 22, 2019 3:42 PM
To:Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Daniel Zack; Mayor; Mark Standriff; Mark
Kreutzer; Joel Stiner; Cathy Lewis; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; nick yovino; steve.hogg;
Steve Wayte; info@superide1.com; midge@thebarretts.com; terry; Council, City; beachrides; jerry
ruopoli
Subject:Fwd: Schlacht um Berlin, Stunde null. Strike, hit, blow on Berlin. Zero hour
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 3:20 PM
Subject: Fwd: Schlacht um Berlin, Stunde null. Strike, hit, blow on Berlin. Zero hour
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 2:56 PM
Subject: Fwd: Schlacht um Berlin, Stunde null. Strike, hit, blow on Berlin. Zero hour
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 1:29 PM
Subject: Fwd: Schlacht um Berlin, Stunde null. Strike, hit, blow on Berlin. Zero hour
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 5:07 PM
Subject: Fwd: Schlacht um Berlin, Stunde null. Strike, hit, blow on Berlin. Zero hour
To: Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 4:52 PM
2
Subject: Schlacht um Berlin, Stunde null. Strike, hit, blow on Berlin. Zero hour
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Tues. January 22, 2019
To all‐ At 2 AM this morning I awoke to what sounded like a string quartet playing some Mozart. I listened since
they were playing well. It seemed to be some auspicious occasion. I knew it was when the Chancellor of Germany stood
and went up to the little raised stage. Event held in a beautiful little cathedral. She spoke, then the President of France
spoke. Then everybody sat at a big table and signed treaties. The ceremony was live on DW from Aachen, near the
border between northern France and Germany. It was the signing of a 16‐page treaty of friendship between Germany
and France on January 22, 2019, the Vertrag von Aachen, auf Deutsch.
A similar event had occurred on January 22, 1963, the signing of the Elysee Treaty, so they don't do these every
day. They seem to be important to the French and Germans. Probably similar signings took place just before August,
1914. Aachen has some history. It was merely the capital of Europe under Charlamagne.
Here is some good context from DW: See the two minute video there:
https://www.dw.com/en/whats‐in‐the‐franco‐german‐treaty‐of‐aachen/a‐47178247
In the translation, one heard Merkle say that "a new reality" was at hand, perhaps referring to Pres. Trump's
determination to cause Europe to start paying a little for its own military defense. One of the commentators after the
event, said that Trump was trying to ruin European unity.
European unity seems to be fraying, what with Brexit. Also, the Scandinavians have their own ideas about that
unity, and there is now a Polish‐Italian axis that has its own ideas. After the ceremony, Merkel went over and kissed
Junkers. They are all afraid of the EU coming unstuck.
The commentators said that more military co‐operation among the Europeans is on the table, as we withdraw.
Economic co‐op, trade, immigration. Merkel went so far as to say that an attack on German soil would be an attack on
all nations of the EU. Why is any of this important? See the mails below.
LH
Tues. January 22, 2019
Doug‐ If you have ever wondered what it was like in Berlin in the immediate post‐war years, here is a good 90
minutes of film. This gives you some idea: "Berlin under the Allies, 1945‐1949":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS_Vw5DMlEI
Rubble every place. Much of it due to allied bombing, and much due to the Russians taking the city. You see the
political campaigning as we got a government (Regierung) going again in Deutschland.
As you look at these people, consider their situation. Imagine if your country's military was utterly defeated:
Air force gone, navy sunk, army either dead or wounded, disarmed, rounded up and marched off at gun‐point to POW
camps. AND, your government leaders? Dead from taking cyanide, from having shot themselves in the head, arrested
and held to stand trial for war crimes, or on the run to South America. OK, then who is in charge? The military who
defeated yours, and the civilians who control that military in Moscow, London and Washington, D.C. As civilians, you
would be utterly at their mercy. They could have killed every man, woman and child of your country‐men. In the case of
the Russians, I would have expected it, considering what the Wehrmacht did in Russia: 13 million Russian military dead,
3
and 14 million Russian civilians dead. But no, the allies got food, water, electricity, sanitation, transport, even industry,
going again, all at their expense. I have read that that first winter, 1945‐46, was one of the coldest on record in
Germany. You see lots of people carrying wood, any wood, trying to stay warm.
Think of the task the allies faced: what do you do first? Try to prevent the out break of disease. Repair the rail
lines and roads to the Atlantic ports and to Bremerhaven and Hamburg so you can transport food and coal into German
cities. Get the German coal mines going. That wouldn't be too hard, except where bridges were down. You could fly very
vital items in until roads and rail were working. Water, electricity, sanitation, then food, coal. We held ports like
Antwerp, except that the Germans had done huge destruction of them to foil an invasion in 1944. And you had the
same situation in most big G. cities. In March, 1942, the British bombed Koln with one thousand heavy bombers in one
night, reducing most of the city to rubble. Ich war da fur drei Tagen in 1973. Koln had been the great city in the west of
Germany and think of the impact on the regime of losing it. Tough to say they were winning after that. In July, 1943, the
Americans and British bombed the port city of Hamburg for three days and nights, killing 40,000 people. Tougher still to
say they were winning after that. They'd lost the Sixth Army at Stalingrad in January, and were losing the biggest tank
battle in history at Kursk in July, '43, so the "winning" argument was wearing thin. Then the same month, July, 1943, the
allies invaded Sicily. What was left of the Afrika Corps had surrendered on the eastern coastal plain of Tunisia in May,
1943. By September, 1943, "they had to know".
So it was very many cities that were just gone. Dresden in the east was bombed for three days and nights in
spring, 1945 like Koln had been in 1942, to assist the Russians who were approaching the city from the east. Maybe
100,000 civilians dead there. The Germans struggled to rebuild from 1945 to 1949, and were not doing very well. In 1948
Congress approved the Marshall Plan, $15 billion to rebuild Europe. The work began in 1949 and continued until 1952.
Some wanted to renew it then, but we were embroiled in Korea, and it was felt that that war took priority. George
Marshall eventually won the Nobel Prize for his Plan.
Notice that they did not renew the Marshall Plan in 1952. INSTEAD they made the decision to bleed the American
people white for at least 74 years to provide a free military defense for all of Europe and Japan. That guaranteed the
good life, the rich life, for those folks more than any renewal of the four‐year Marshall Plan would have done in 1952.
There is something about the Europeans that really turns our leaders on.
In the 50's we saw the German "economic miracle", as their industry roared back. Most Americans never saw any
of this, even though they paid for it. With the arrival of the DC‐8 and the 707 in 1958, better‐off Americans started
running to Europe. Since we have provided a free military defense for all of Europe since 1945, those countries have
really developed economically. Magnificent high speed rail all over Europe is just one benefit our largesse has enabled,
and the Republicans fight desperately to deny it to the American people. Ditto for national health care and affordable
universities. Their true loyalty is to the people of Germany, Japan and all of Europe, and that ticks most of the boxes for
treason. Murdering thousands of young Americans fighting other peoples' wars every few years completes the process.
L. William Harding
Fresno
Saturday, Jan. 5, 2019
Doug‐
Here are two hours on the final days of Berlin in '45 and the immediate aftermath:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRf9gfkNvxg
4
Must have been rough on the civilians in the immediate years after. Germany and the rest of Europe were
having real trouble rebuilding on their own by 1949. So we weighed in with $15 billion of Marshall Plan money, real
money in 1949, and that was transformative. We rebuilt every road and highway, every school, every shopping center,
every dam and bridge, every hospital, every factory, every last building in Europe. Good thing the American people
didn't need anything in those years. And now, the U.S. government cannot build 13 miles of road east of Gilroy, Ca. It is
still a two‐lane, winding road. Late at night, in a rainstorm, with drunks on there driving cars with bad tires and brakes, it
can be deadly. I drive it all the time, and I always know that I am playing the odds. There is something very wrong with
our government for letting that continue.
L. William Harding
Fresno
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 22, 2019 8:55 PM
To:Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert
Cc:Council, City; patburt11@gmail.com
Subject:GUP/ Development Agreement / Tri-Party Agreement
Attachments:Stanford GUP DA Naik Burt Comments 112918.pdf
Rob and Ed,
Listening to tonight’s council meeting, I heard Councilmember Kou discuss the Tri‐party agreement relative to Stanford.
Attached is the comment letter I sent (along with former Mayor Pat Burt) to County Supervisors that discusses that
agreement that I thought would be helpful.
Nadia
November 29, 2018
County Supervisors Cindy Chaves and Joe Simitian
County Government Center
Tenth Floor - East Wing
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Re: Stanford Development Agreement
Dear Supervisors Chavez and Simitian,
We are writing today to recommend that Stanford be responsible for their fair
share of Palo Alto/Stanford area Caltrain grade separations and station
improvements. We’d like to preface our remarks by stating that the Development
Agreement should focus on public benefits and not be at the expense of mitigations
necessary to address any environmental impact.
Change is Coming
Huge regional growth is causing jurisdictions along the peninsula corridor to address the
biggest infrastructure projects many of those cities have ever faced, the need to
eliminate at-grade rail crossings. These projects are being driven by the pending
doubling of the number of trains per hour planned to occur over the next decade.
Caltrain is already the backbone transit system for the peninsula and its expansion is
essential for the TDM programs in jurisdictions throughout the line, including Stanford
and Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto has determined that the gate down times and signal
recovery periods, resulting from the pending 20 total trains per hour, will render existing
at-grade rail crossings functionally gridlocked, severely hindering car, bus, bike and
pedestrian access routes to the Stanford campus.
Stanford as a Regional Jurisdiction with Financial Obligations
The basis for Stanford’s fair share obligation to fund grade separations and related
station improvements is fundamentally different from other GUP related mitigations that
are determined by Stanford’s incremental growth impacts. Mitigations for affordable
housing, schools or traffic impacts are calculated based on the additional needs
generated by the impacts of GUP growth. In contrast, Caltrain expansion is not
happening due to specific new development from the City of Palo Alto or Stanford, but
rather it is being imposed on jurisdictions because of the overwhelming cumulative
regional needs and Caltrain’s expanding vital role in regional transportation. The need
for each jurisdiction to solve grade crossing problems is essential to maintaining their
existing circulation after accommodating the increased Caltrain service that is the
backbone of TDM programs in the City and at Stanford.
Stanford has recognized their reliance on Caltrain expansion and is consequently
playing a key financial and planning role in the development of the new Caltrain
Business Plan. Stanford’s growth and reliance on Caltrain is also a key driver in the
need to expand Caltrain service. Together, their reliance on the grade crossings for
campus access and their need for expansion of Caltrain capacity for their TDM program
arguably make Stanford’s cost share obligation at least equal to that of the city.
Throughout the corridor, much of these costs are being absorbed by the impacted
jurisdictions. As a major unincorporated jurisdictional entity, Stanford is responsible for
their share of the local grade crossing expense.
The Caltrain corridor is essentially a permeable membrane that physically separates the
Stanford campus from critical transportation corridors to the East (101, East Bay, etc.)
The expansion of Caltrain service and the subsequently required grade separations are
forcing a full re-evaluation of how East-West traffic travels across the Caltrain line. In
the case of North Palo Alto, the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University represent the
two jurisdictions that share the crossings. The potential closure of some existing at-
grade crossings is being considered (Churchill and Palo Alto Avenue), which could
increase traffic on existing grade separations (Embarcadero and University Avenue)
that may then need to be upgraded and expanded to handle the increased flow.
In addition, both Palo Alto train stations (University and California Avenue) will likely
need to be scaled differently to reflect passenger demand. Significant changes may
include improved circulation for all modes, bus/shuttle stops, parking lots or garages for
vehicles and bikes, drop-off areas.
The Tri-Party Agreement Role
Since the 1980’s, the Stanford GUPs have been framed by the Tri-Party Agreement
(Santa Clara County, Palo Alto and Stanford) which embodies a recognition of how the
three parties are intertwined and their respective responsibilities. This agreement
effectively acknowledges Stanford as its own jurisdiction under the governance of the
county. The GUP is the means under the Tri-Party Agreement framework by which the
county can obligate Stanford to meet its fair share of what will be a very costly and
significant project. The Agreement requires Stanford to provide for “all municipal
services”. Roadway and transit services are essential municipal services that Stanford
should share the responsibility to provide. Stanford’s Marguerite bus system, which by
necessity extends beyond the campus boundaries, is a key part of their transit service
obligation. Stanford must also meet this emerging grade separation roadway and transit
obligation.
Recommended Actions
The City of Palo Alto currently has underway a multimillion-dollar program to evaluate
grade separation design alternatives, their impacts and select alternatives for
implementation. The VTA Measure B tax is providing the initial significant down
payment for design and construction. However, these funds will need to be
supplemented by significant local and regional/state dollars. Because the design
selection and cost determination will not be resolved prior to the GUP and Development
Agreement approvals, the Stanford fair share dollar amounts will need to be determined
subsequent to the GUP approval. Consequently, the Development Agreement should
include language that frames Stanford’s fair share obligation for amounts to be
determined based on the costs and the portion of those costs that will need to be
borne by the two local jurisdictions, Palo Alto and Stanford.
Sincerely,
Pat Burt
Palo Alto resident and former Mayor of Palo Alto
patburt11@gmail.com
Nadia Naik
Palo Alto resident and Co-founder, Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design
nadianaik@gmail.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Tuesday, January 22, 2019 10:06 AM
To:Steve Levy
Subject:How the Retirement Wave Will Impact Bay Area Jobs and Workers | SPUR
How the Retirement Wave Will Impact Bay Area Jobs and Workers | SPUR
This is a blog I wrote for SPUR as part of their future of the region project https://www.spur.org/news/2019-01-17/how-retirement-wave-will-impact-bay-area-jobs-and-workers
There are two big takeaways
1) The Bay Area will see 1 million workers retire by 2030 even assuming older workers stay i the workforce longer.
This will mean a need for 700,000+ mew workers to fill the opening left by retirees and the new job after
taking account of today's children moving into the workforce
2) While education and training are important, they do not address the need for new workers to move into the region. To attract the new workers will require policies to expand the supply and affordability of housing and
national policies welcoming immigrants with skills to contribute.
While the study looked at the 9 county Bay Area adjacent 12 counties in the larger mega region, these
findings would be duplicated when an analysis is done for the greater Southern California region where more than half of the state's jobs and residents live.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Dave Shen <dshenster@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 23, 2019 10:20 AM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:David Shen; Jason Matlof; Monica; Jeff Brown; De Geus, Robert; Apex Strategies;
etty.mercurio@aecom.com
Subject:Ideas for Palo Alto Ave (and Embarcadero as well)
Attachments:Embarcadero and Palo Alto Ave Concepts v7.pptx
Hi all,
First, we appreciate once again you all spending a late night listening to us and hashing out issues on the grade
separation project.
I wanted to resend the presentation I made last December, as I continue to hear we have no options at Palo Alto
Avenue. It seems to us that there are still possibilities to consider that provide possible and viable solutions at that
intersection. One of those, an idea involving a viaduct, is becoming more plausible if we consider Menlo Park City
Council's recent decisions:
https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2019/01/16/new‐menlo‐park‐council‐reverses‐decision‐on‐caltrain‐separations
It seems as though a viaduct which continues from Menlo Park into North Palo Alto is more possible now. Having said
the above, I'm not necessarily advocating for a viaduct, but I am saying there is more that can be done over and above
the initial explorations we've done.
In light of our sketches and this new information from Menlo Park, I would like to urge Council and Staff to amend their
thinking regarding what is possible at the Palo Alto Ave intersection, to put on their creative thinking caps, and to spend
some more time studying what is possible there.
If you like, we would love to come over and brainstorm with you on the possibilities, both for Palo Alto Ave and
Embarcadero, where there are some great ideas sparked by Josh Mello to mitigate traffic there and substantially
improve conditions for the residents around that underpass from how they are now.
Thank you for your kind consideration,
David Shen
NOPA
Embarcadero and
Palo Alto Ave Concepts
David Shen, Tony Carrasco, Jason Matlof
V7 12-12-18
Concept Goals
•STIMULATE THINKING AND POSSIBILITIES
•TREAT TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS IN PALO ALTO AS A SYSTEM
•ADVOCATE FOR ADDING EMBARCADERO TO WORK PLAN
•ADVOCATE FOR EXPANDED THINKING ON PALO ALTO AVE
Embarcadero Ave
Goals
•Upgrade/update old 1930s structure.
•Reduce traffic flow in neighborhood streets.
•Increase safety and access for pedestrians and cyclists.
•Fix traffic lights between Alma and El Camino.
•Do all this without property takings
Concept 1: Josh Mello –Curve Embarcadero to the south,
add exit loop onto Embarcadero West.
Exit loop
Orange= original
path of Embarcadero
Traffic light
Traffic light
Concept 2: Josh Mello –Curve Embarcadero to the south,
add left exit lane from Alma North onto Embarcadero West.
Left exit lane
Orange= original
path of Embarcadero
Traffic light
Traffic light
Exit ramp from Kingsley to
Embarcadero West
Orange= original
path of Embarcadero
Traffic light
Traffic light
Concept 3: Exit ramp from Alma North onto Embarcadero
West. Curve Embarcadero to south
Concept 4: Tony Carrasco –Create traffic circle between
Alma and Embarcadero
Palo Alto Ave
1
Carnahan, David
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Saturday, January 19, 2019 11:34 AM
To:Steve Levy
Subject:Latest Bay Area Jobs Report
http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/bay-area-job-watch-33/
The key takeaways are:
--The region posted very strong job growth for December and 2018 led tech growth in the San Jose and
San Francisco metro areas.
--The surge was fueled by strong labor force growth signaling that many workers rejoined the workforce
to take advantage of eager employers and wage gains.
--Labor force gains came despite a sharp slowdown in population growth throughout the region.
--For the future these trends, combined wit the 1 million Bay Area workers expected to retire by 2030, focuses us on the need for housing, immigration and other policies that will attract the workforce we need to replace retirees and support planned job growth.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Catherine Martineau <catherine@canopy.org>
Sent:Wednesday, January 23, 2019 11:07 AM
To:Shikada, Ed
Cc:Council, City; Eggleston, Brad; Keith, Claudia; Passmore, Walter; Rice, Danille; Susan Rosenberg
Subject:Letter about the tree removals for public safety building
Attachments:Letter to Ed Shikada 1-23-19.pdf
Dear Ed,
Please find Canopy’s letter about the tree removals associated with the construction of the new public safety building.
I look forward to hearing from you soon and seeing you at Mayor Filseth’s Ceremonial Tree Planting tomorrow evening.
Best,
Catherine
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Catherine Martineau
Canopy Executive Director
HEALTHY TREES, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES
catherine@canopy.org www.canopy.org (650) 964‐6110 ext. 2
Canopy 3921 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 info@canopy.org 650 964 6110 canopy.org
Staff
Catherine Martineau
Executive Director
Michael Hawkins
Program Director
Natalie Brubaker
Education Director
Judy Sissener
Development Director
Board of Directors
Sally O’Neil
Chair
Kammy Lo
Vice-Chair
Marilyn Keller
Secretary
Shelley Ratay
Treasurer
David Collins
Marty Deggeller
Jane Jones
Alison Mark
Geoff Paulsen
Susan Rosenberg
Advisory Committee
Matthew Bahls
Ann Bilodeau
Lauren Bonar Swezey
Tony Carrasco
James F. Cook
Urban K. Cummings
Anne Draeger
Susan Ellis
Patricia Foster
Jeff Greenfield
Joe Hirsch
Leannah Hunt
Jeanne Kennedy
Carole Langston
Roy C. Leggitt, III
John McClenahan
Mary McCullough
Scott McGilvray
Mark McInerney
Dave Muffly
Brooks Nelson
Sairus Patel
Nancy Peterson
Forest Preston, III
Elizabeth Schwerer
Jeffrey Snyder
Jane Stocklin
Jennifer Wei
Lanie Wheeler
Canopy’s mission is to grow
urban tree canopy in
Midpeninsula communities
for the benefit of all.
January 23, 2019
Ed Shikada
City Manager
City of Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303 Via email: ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org
Re: Tree removals for public safety building
Dear Ed:
The city has done everything required by regulation to inform the public of plans to
remove 35 mature trees for the construction of the new public safety building and parking
garage. What the city missed was the opportunity to partner with Canopy in the early
stages of this important project.
We have a long history of working with the city on CIPs; For instance we collaborated on
successful public outreach for the redesign of San Antonio Avenue well in advance of the
removal of over 100 iconic Italian stone pines. After the California Avenue clear-cutting,
Canopy helped the city recover from the ensuing debacle. We proposed a winning tree
pallette and organized the planting of replacement trees with the assistance of more than
150 community volunteers. Canopy is a trusted voice in the community and our newsletter
reaches over 4,000, giving us the means to keep the community informed.
Going forward we have recommendations and would like the opportunity to meet with
you and your team.
Warm regards,
Catherine Martineau
Executive Director catherine@canopy.org 650-964-6110 ext. 2
Cc.: City Council, Brad Eggleston, Claudia Keith, Walter Passmore, Danille Rice,
Susan Rosenberg
1
Carnahan, David
From:Peter Phillips <pkphillips@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, January 18, 2019 12:41 PM
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Cc:Pflasterer, Jim; Star-Lack, Sylvia; Mesterhazy, Rosie; Moision, Christy
Subject:Letter re: Stanford GUP from Palo Alto Council of PTAs Traffic Safety Committee
Attachments:GUP SRTS 2019 Signed Letter.pdf
Dear Honorable City Council Members and City Manager,
By way of copy, please see the attached letter from the Palo Alto Council of PTAs Traffic Safety
Committee. This letter was voted upon and approved by the Palo Alto Council of PTAs General Association
and Executive Board at their most recent meetings.
Thank you for considering our comments in the attached letter and providing support when necessary.
Regards,
Jim Pflasterer, jimpf@sbcglobal.net
Peter Phillips, pkphillips@gmail.com
Co-Chairs, Palo Alto Council of PTAs Traffic Safety Committee
January 15, 2019
Santa Clara County Supervisors
County Government Center
Tenth Floor -East Wing
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Palo Alto Council
.PT/I
c11crychild. 011cvoice.
Subject: Stanford University General Use Permit Environmental Impact Report
Honorable Supervisors,
We are writing on behalf of the Palo Alto Council of PT As to ask that the Stanford GUP EIR and Development
Agreement address impacts on safe school commutes for PAUSD students affected by Stanford's
development. These mitigations are recommended by the Palo Alto Council of PT As Traffic Safety Committee.
They specifically address transportation and safety mitigations which we ask you to include in the Stanford
GUP EIR mitigation plan and/or Development Agreement as appropriate.
1. Participate in Safe Routes to School Operating Costs/Crossing Guards: Identify and describe
the existing safe routes to schools activities, which include crossing guards at affected intersections.
Assist the City with the cost of school crossing guards required at major intersections that benefit
school-bound children of both city residents and Stanford affiliates.
2. Continue Cooperation with SRTS Partnership: Continue to coordinate with the City and the Palo
Alto Unified School District to define and implement improvements that reflect the most recent Safe
Routes to School recommendations. If an additional school is provided near Sand Hill Road for
students living in University housing on that side of campus, the current cooperation between Palo
Alto, the Palo Alto Unified School District, the Palo Alto PT As, and Stanford on Safe Routes to
School should be extended to access for any future school site as well.
3. Fund Identified and Not Yet Identified Safe Routes Engineering Improvements: As Stanford's
current funding for agreed improvements for safe access to schools has not been fully implemented,
the City asks that Stanford create an annual budget based on the agreed work program for future
improvements that benefit Stanford faculty, employees, staff and graduate students with children.
Ensure that the University remains responsive when new demands for school travel are generated by
new development, such as development on campus resulting in large bursts of new school children
as residential projects are completed.
4. Fund Bol Park Path Improvements: Consider the. financial impacts on paths through Sol Park that
are used on a daily basis for recreation and bicycle transportation by Stanford-residing adults as well
as Stanford-residing children attending Fletcher and Gunn schools. Support the most critical
modifications needed to provide connectivity between the Stanford Perimeter Trail and the Sol Park
Path. Stanford representatives should coordinate with Palo Alto staff to better define this project and
ensure that it does not include elements that are already covered by the $3.2 million agreement with
the County but does include funding for elements that are still critically needed for upgrading this
bikeway.
5. Support Partner Organizations: Provide technical and financial support to partner organizations
(e.g. local shuttles and Transportation Management Associations). Coordinate with the City of Palo
Alto to support the City's Shuttle Program and enhance connections with the Marguerite Shuttle.
6. Make Contributions to Transit and Transportation Infrastructure: Make contributions to
necessary capital improvements at City intersections and to support grade separations. Make fair
share payments to the City in line with the City's Transportation Impact Fee requirements. Provide
up-front funding to improve the efficiency, capacity-and reliability of Caltrain and the Palo Alto Inter-
Modal Transit Center, including fair share contributions to Caltrain grade separation.
7. Upgrade Analysis and Commute Trip Methodology: Identify the true traffic-related impacts of the
Project, so that the burden of responsibility does not shift from the University to Palo Alto and
surrounding communities. Require Stanford to make some needed adjustments to the University's
"no net new commute trips" to more accurately reflect the traffic impacts that occur all day and during
school commute peaks.
Finally, require fair share funding of grade separations to address safe routes issues for Stanford and
PAUSD. Growing numbers of Stanford commuters will be using Caltrain, creating demand for the capacity that
will be created by electrification and increased numbers of trains -necessitating grade separation locally.
Further, Stanford commuters who use all other modes rely heavily on rail crossings that are already severely
congested by train preemption. These crossings provide crosstown school commute routes for children who
walk, bike and ride Shuttles or buses to PAUSD schools. We understand it is possible that some impacts listed
here cannot be addressed in the Final EIR, so we ask you to please address those impacts in the
Development Agreement.
Thank you for considering our request.
CC: PTAC Executive Board
Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto Board of Education
Palo Alto City Manager
David Rader, Senior Planner, County of Santa Clara, Planning Office
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 23, 2019 8:14 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:President Hotel Apartments
I support the President Hotel Apartment residents, also our DTN neighbors, with a personal letter
stating that
* President Hotel Apartments should be preserved in every legal manner available to city council.
* President Hotel provides accommodations for ideal residents of DTN neighborhood.
* City staff failed Palo Alto's best interest by its early negotiations with the buyer of the hotel.
* It is apparent that the current Comp Plan must be deficient in some manner because there is
inadequate protection for lower income housing. Futhermore, there is too much incentive to
encourage office development without adequate parking and displace lower income workers to
residential neighborhoods when excess parking exists within the commercial core.
* Very soon City Council will be addressing more housing within Palo Alto's two commercial
centers. City staff has not responded to residents' requests for parking policy within the commercial
core in order to protect the RPPs adjacent to the commercial cores. The Comp Plan provides clear
guidance: Promote commerce but not at the expense of residential neighborhood. One interpretation
is that tenants and owners of commercial core housing must have highest priorities for city parking
within the commercial cores.
* Finally, city policy must be revisited so that existing, successful lower-income properties can be
protected. Current and proposed city policy promotes commercial core housing for upper-income
residents with adequate on-site parking.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aditi Nagaraj <anagaraj88@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 17, 2019 2:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Presidents Hotel Tenants
Hi there,
I heard that the Presidents Hotel tenants are in a difficult situation as their eviction date is the end of January and many
have not found new places to live. Will the council hear a request from them to extend their tenancy to June of 2019
before their eviction date, i.e. at the Jan 22 city council meeting?
thanks
Aditi
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sarah L'Heureux <sarah@touchpoint.io>
Sent:Tuesday, January 22, 2019 4:36 PM
To:Flaherty, Michelle
Cc:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Fine, Adrian; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia;
Tanaka, Greg; Architectural Review Board; Council, City; Ben D'Ewart; israell@stanfordalumni.org;
Sarah Z L'Heureux; kimrice@stanfordalumni.org; Israel L'Heureux
Subject:"Raw Smoke Shop" at 265 California Ave complaint
Dear Acting Director of Development Services, Michelle Poché Flaherty:
We would like to formally complain about the "Raw Smoke Shop" sign at 265 California Ave. This sign is obnoxiously loud
in its bright red color and size but more menacingly, it actively promotes smoking. The City of Palo Alto has long been a
pioneer in promoting health and eliminating the harmful effects of smoking. It is appalling to have this signage
prominently placed on a Safe Route to School street in Palo Alto (for children riding to Palo Alto High School, Greene S.
Middle School, Escondido Elementary, Stanford University and others), and utterly out of character with a street that
has been revitalized to be a destination for healthy lifestyle focused on fitness, farmer's market, dining, office uses, and
transit oriented residential. None of the businesses adjacent to this sign have been consulted about this incompatible
business let alone this architecturally out of character sign.
We kindly request that you consider the proximity violation of this "Raw Smoke Shop". Antonio's Nut House and La
Bodeguita Del Medio are registered tobacco retailers that are fewer than1,000 feet from the 265 California Ave location
[https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61035] and it is possible the Living Wisdom School is also
within 1,000 feet. The "Raw Smoke Shop" is not yet open so it does not qualify for exemption as an "existing business"
and should therefore not receive a Tobacco Retail Permit. We further ask that your staff assess the legality of this use in
a concrete based structure that shares walls with multiple tenants. The City’s current ban on smoking extends to multi‐
unit residential. The impact of this use is no different here – in fact we may all be subject to noxious and unregulated
chemicals that are banned throughout the City should this business be allowed to operate.
This use is in violation of the intent of the City’s ban on smoking of all types and forms (we appreciate it is hard to keep
ordinances up to date today given all of the alarming and unchecked changes to this industry). It is also too proximate
to schools, the Safe Bike Route and other registered tobacco retailers. Lastly this business type is incompatible with the
vibrant health‐focused California Avenue of 2019. It would be a shame to see this business denigrate our neighborhood,
cause health issues to our employees, lure children into smoking, and reduce the economic viability of California
Avenue.
As you can tell we and the many businesses of California Avenue are shocked and alarmed about this sign, business, and
the negative impacts of both. We hope that staff will be able to respond to our concerns in a manner that mitigates this
and ideally expands the regulatory framework that the City has lead the nation on for years in promoting healthy lives
for all.
Israel L'Heureux
Sarah L'Heureux
Ben D'Ewart
Kimberly D'Ewart
CC Architectural Review Board: Peter Baltay, Wynee Furth, David Hirsch, Alexaner Lew, Osma Thompson
City Council: Eric Filseth, Alison Cormack, Tom DuBois, Liz Kniss, Lydia Kou, Greg Tanaka
1
Carnahan, David
From:iasdesigns@aol.com
Sent:Wednesday, January 16, 2019 3:57 PM
To:Cormack, Alison; Council, City
Cc:iqbalserang@gmail.com; KaoKaren007@gmail.com; michelle.kraus@carbontracing.com;
cckellogg@gmail.com; catbox@googlegroups.com; forrest.glick@gmail.com;
irfan.mirdad@gmail.com; irfan.rydhan@gmail.com; jeff@levinsky.org
Subject:RE: URGENT: RESIDENTS PLEA for EXTENSION at HOTEL PRESIDENT APARTMENTS
Attachments:Letter to CC of PA 091018.pdf
To City Council members Cormack, Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, Kniss, Dubois, Kou, and Tanaka;
We thank you for your assistance in providing a reasonable approach to Relocation benefits for residents of larger than
50 unit complexes of rentals. However, we at the Hotel President Apartments are now in dire need of your active and
creative leadership in suggesting to the landlords and helping us long‐term residents of this historic Hotel Residency,
with some sort of a relief specifically with a direction and an extension of time for us to be removed from these
premises. Or we will get removed from our homes by January 31, in two weeks. We would appreciate your personal
intercedence to extend this stay till at least the end of the rains and beginning of summer, (June 2019) when the rental
market is agreeable and reasonable for our expected move. Please read this letter explaining some of our reasons for
this.
Thank You Sincerely,
Iqbal Serang and Dennis Backlund,
(And many others of this 75 unit Hotel President Apts.)
From: iasdesigns@aol.com <iasdesigns@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 10:35 PM
To: Alison.Cormack@cityofpaloalto.org; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Cc: iqbalserang@gmail.com; KaoKaren007@gmail.com; michelle.kraus@carbontracing.com; cckellogg@gmail.com;
catbox@googlegroups.com; forrest.glick@gmail.com; irfan.mirdad@gmail.com; irfan.rydhan@gmail.com;
jeff@levinsky.org
Subject: URGENT: RESIDENTS PLEA for EXTENSION at HOTEL PRESIDENT APARTMENTS
Dear Ms. Cormack; I am writing this appeal to you being the freshest member on this
historic Council,,, Welcome!!! And sorry for a tough option brought directly to your
attention, I hope you take bold steps where required, and can follow through with some
leadership?
Please see the attached letter.
Thanking you,
Sincerely,
Iqbal Serang, and
Dennis Backlund.
Virus-free. www.avast.com
Mayor and City Council Members
City of Palo Alto,
Palo Alto, Ca. 94301.
September 10, 2018.
RE: Support for solutions for the Housing shortage epidemic facing Palo Alto and neighboring
cities of the Bay area. Agenda item #10, and #14.
1) City Council offering reprieve for Hotel President Apartment Renters, and the entire
community of “workforce” residents of the 75 unit functioning Apartment building, and
also to similar renters across the city of Palo Alto.
2) In support of expressed Palo Alto city policy and the General Plan to expand housing by
creating affordable units in the downtown areas and commercial corridors. Therefore,
acknowledging existing large housing complexes like “The President” to be deemed as a
treasure and worth protecting, and even rescuing due to its current status as a viable
functioning housing solution for all renters in Palo Alto.
3) Can the city leadership and the city of Palo Alto afford to be put into this “PR nightmare”
condition, where long-term Tenants who are Seniors, Teachers, Professionals, and even
Single Mothers who will be uprooted from their homes just before “Thanksgiving” and
“Christmas Holidays” for no fault of their own? And perhaps becoming homeless?
4) Is Palo Alto a city to be known only for “business development,” “start-ups” and
“Venture Capitalism” OR Does Palo Alto also have a heart and soul of a caring and
responsible city able to provide for ALL its constituents and citizens, and can provide
adequate housing and peace of mind to its “workforce,” and its almost 50% renting
community, which is constantly growing?
5) Is it time for City Council members to take the leadership role and stand in front of the
problems head-on? Simply by working towards and providing solutions to this crises of
epidemic proportions, i.e. The Housing crises and the Rental stabilization needed to
stem this viral contagion facing our communities and our vulnerable cities.
I Thank you all City Council members, to be able to reach deeply into your own souls to
recognize the need, and to tackle this systemic problem facing our times. It requires your 100%
attention and involvement to get past the politics, and actually craft and provide a reasonable
solution, which can be of immense help and utility to the entire community at large.
Sincerely,
Iqbal Serang
488 University Avenue, Palo Alto, Ca. 94301.
1
Carnahan, David
From:chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 17, 2019 2:15 AM
To:Stop the Ban Google Discussion Group; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Paul George @ PPJC; Pamela
Chesavage; Joe Simitian; Dave Price; Dave Cortese; citycouncil@menlopark.org; Council, City
Subject:Really Good Affordable Housing Solution: Pay Attention Bay Area Cities
Sean Hannity recently freaked out because Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn't have a complete answer to how she
was going to pay for food and education and health care for the poor. Now he can relax. Here's the answer: you just
need two things to be part of this solution: cash and a conscience. Microsoft does. So does Warren Buffett. Yet
there are still stingy types like Sean who only worry about the gov't taking more in taxes from the the rich's tax cuts
instead of from food stamps and medical insurance. Well, here's Microsoft's wonderful response. Let's see what
Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google, Facebook, and Stanford can do.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/technology/microsoft-affordable-housing-
seattle.html?emc=edit_na_20190116&nl=breaking-news&nlid=59396805ing-
news&ref=cta
‐‐
Chuck
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nicholas Fenech <nfenech@stanford.edu>
Sent:Sunday, January 20, 2019 4:16 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Mike VanFossen
Subject:Stanford construction on MLK Day
Dear Palo Alto council,
I’d like to register my concern regarding the ongoing housing construction projects on the Stanford University campus. I
frequently hear loud noise from activity and vehicles prior to and after the official commencement of work hours. The
Noise Ordinance (9.10.060) extends to prohibiting deliveries outside of the specified work hours so I am puzzled as to
why this problem has persisted.
More recently, I was surprised to receive an announcement (copied below) indicating that construction is scheduled to
continue on Martin Luther King Day (“The construction site will be open and operational on Martin Luther King Jr.
holiday”). The Noise Ordinance is unambiguous in declaring that construction is prohibited on holidays, and specifically
lists MLK day among those (9.10.020 [k]).
Is there a special exemption for Stanford projects of which I am unaware? I have copied Mike VanFossen on this email,
who I gather holds some degree of responsibility for the project.
Cordially,
Nicholas Fenech
From: kennedyfrontdeskimap <kennedyfrontdeskimap@stanford.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 3:48:48 PM
Subject: Escondido Village Graduate Residences – Weekly Construction Update 1.18.19
Dear Stanford University Community Member,
UPCOMING CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Work on Saturday, January 19 will include:
Work on exposed top floor of Buildings B and D will feature:
o Rebar work. No noise is anticipated.
o Dry-packing of construction joints. Expect noise from grout mixer.
Thoburn residents: Workers dry-packing construction joints at the base of Building D may be visible.
No noise impacts anticipated.
Manzanita Garage:
‐ Additional large concrete pours are scheduled for the following dates, all pours are scheduled from 8am
– 8pm, however, these may go longer due to weather and site conditions.
o Saturday, January 26, 2019
2
STORM AND WIND MITIGATION FOR ALL SITES:
‐ Crews may be deployed after hours to mitigate damage from storms and wind. Expect noise from pumps, work
crews clearing debris, and scraping mud from travel surfaces.
The construction site will be open and operational on Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, Monday, January 21.
Pavilion Ramp concrete pour scheduled for Tuesday, January 22, may extend past 6:00pm.
Thoburn Garage concrete pour on Friday, January 25 may extend past 7:00pm. If after hours work is
needed, lights may be visible from areas around EVGR.
Intermittent Serra St lane closure. Traffic lanes will be open at all times.
Temporary path impact at Blackwelder scheduled January 28 – February 1 to install utility at Building A.
Visit the EVGR Gallery to see new construction videos and photos.
Current Construction Updates
Note: projects outside of the EVGR fence line have their own construction hours. For more information, visit
headsup.stanford.edu.
EVGR Project Alerts: sign up on our website OR text EVGR to (662) 200-4303 to opt in. Message and data
rates may apply.
Any unannounced activity on site after 7:00pm should be considered suspicious. Call Stanford Police at
the time said activity is observed. If you wish to call the project hotline, you may do so, but please call law
enforcement first by dialing 9-1-1 or the non-emergency line at (650) 329-2413.
For your safety, please refrain from entering the construction site.
Stanford will make every effort to keep you informed and to minimize inconvenience during construction. Feel
free to contact us with any project comments, questions, or concerns.
ESCONDIDO VILLAGE GRADUATE RESIDENCES
3
COMMUNITY RELATIONS TEAM
EMAIL: newgradhousing@stanford.edu
INFORMATION LINE: 650.721.8521
WEBSITE: newgradhousing.stanford.edu
1
Carnahan, David
From:kemp650@aol.com
Sent:Wednesday, January 23, 2019 9:20 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for President Hotel residents
Dear City Council,
Please do what you can to support the residents of the President Hotel who are caught between the new owner's greed
and bullying and the City Council who supports housing in Palo Alto yet somehow 75 residents are losing their housing.
Thanks,
Susan Kemp
1
Carnahan, David
From:angie evans <floridaangie@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 23, 2019 11:40 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Supporting Presidents Hotel Tenants
Hi,
I wanted to check‐in about whether the remaining Presidents Hotel residents are able to get an extension. Some have
been asking about staying until June 30th ‐ or until permitting has happened. Is this going to be possible?
Best,
Angie Evans
Crescent Park Resident
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, January 20, 2019 11:55 PM
To:chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Kniss, Liz (external); Council, City;
council@redwoodcity.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com;
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Subject:Time to break the silence on Palestine by Michele Alexander—author of The New Jim Crow
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/opinion/sunday/martin‐luther‐king‐palestine‐israel.amp.html
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 16, 2019 6:05 PM
To:UAC; Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); CAC-TACC; Batchelor, Dean; Shikada, Ed
Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 01-09-19 UAC meeting, Item IX.2 -- Fiber Optic, Wireless, and AMI
planning
Commissioners and Council members,
At the 01-09-19 UAC meeting (agenda here),
https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68326
UAC considered at Item IX.2 an item about fiber optic, wireless, and AMI planning (staff report here):
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68314
Below the "######" line is a transcript of this item. I have added my comments (paragraphs beginning with "###".)
SUMMARY
* The staff report didn't provide much information. So UAC and the public didn't have much opportunity to educate
themselves ahead of time.
* Staff has done a remarkable about face. On 11-19-18, they told Council AMI didn't fiber at all. On 01-09-19, they told
UAC that meeting AMI's fiber requirements ought to be FTTN's highest priority. You all should figure out why.
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
#########################################################################
ITEM IX.2 -- FIBER OPTICS, WIRELESS, AND AMI
video:
https://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-31-192019/
1:05:09:
Chair Danaher: All right. So, we'll move on to our next agenda item. And we have two citizen comments for this. So,
David Weiss, would you like to -- are you still here?
1:05:33:
David Weiss: [unamplified] My name is David Weiss.
1:05:35:
Chair Danaher: Oh, is the microphone on there? We'll make sure we can hear you.
2
1:05:39:
David Weiss: Can you hear me now?
1:05:41:
Chair Danaher: Yes. Thank you.
1:05:42:
David Weiss: I'm a resident here. And I happen to be an electrical engineer, who designed fiber optics two and a half
decades ago. And I don't understand why I don't have fiber optics. People are asking me -- friends from all over the
world -- how come you don't have -- in Palo Alto, the Birthplace of Silicon Valley -- high-tech communication? Somebody
from Latin America, in a small town, just a week ago told me, I have fiber optics in my home. And I'd like to know the
answer why not. I know that the fiber optics is the answer for communication -- for future communication. And I cannot
get an answer that rings a bell to my ears. I'd like to know why. And when will we have.
1:06:33:
Chair Danaher: OK. Well, that's a good statement. That a lot of people share that sentiment. Or share that
question. We can't really discuss yours right now, but ...
1:06:33:
David Weiss: What do I answer, when someone is asking me such a question?
1:06:46:
Chair Danaher: I guess the short answer is, the City is working on plans for fiber-to-the-node. [FTTN] And we'll see
about -- from there, but -- that it will be the next step. There's still more analysis to be done. And it's been going slower
than many people in the community would like. But, ...
1:07:03:
David Weiss: I meant FTTP.
1:07:05:
Chair Danaher: Yeah. I understand. I understand. But that would be a second stage of thinking about it
now. Yeah. So, anyways ...
1:07:13:
David Weiss: In my lifetime?
1:07:15:
Chair Danaher: Yeah. Ah. Appreciate your comment. It's shared by a lot of people, that sentiment. All right. The -
- Jeff Hoel, please.
1:07:34:
Jeff Hoel: OK. Um. This may be the last time I'll be able to say this. So, I'm a member of the Citizens Advisory
Committee on FTTP and Wireless. But I'm speaking just for myself. I think it was a mistake for staff to consider
"sunsetting" -- terminating the CAC. It has a reasonable role. It's been trying to play the role, in spite of the fact that five
of its meetings were cancelled last year. But I think staff's memo emphasizes that UAC has a role to play, too. And,
especially if CAC becomes absent, it will become clear that UAC is the only oversight entity on this subject. And so, be
prepared to do your best.
The original Option 2, that Council voted for on August 21st, 2017, included an option for designing an entire fiber-to-the-
premises network. As far as I can see, reading just this four-page memo that you're considering this evening, staff may
3
be thinking of changing the scope so that it doesn't include that option. I think that would be a disaster. The only good
thing I thought could possibly come from FTTN was the FTTP part.
1:09:18:
Chair Danaher: Was what?
1:09:19:
Jeff Hoel: Sorry. The FTTP option part.
1:09:24:
Chair Danaher: Yeah.
1:09:26:
Jeff Hoel: Another question is, staff is proposing -- Apparently staff thinks that none of the bids that they got for its
original RFP were good enough. And so, it wants to write the RFP over again. What I'm concerned about is that the
public doesn't get to find out why none of the bids was satisfactory, and may not be able to watch how staff is proposing to
write it again. And so, there may be an information blackout all the way until staff comes back and -- gets bids from the
altered RFP and says this is the one we want. So, between August 21st, 2017, and now, a lot of time has
elapsed. Potentially, a lot more time can elapse in the future, before we get any information back to the public on what
should happen. Thanks.
1:10:28:
Chair Danaher: Thank you, Jeff. Herb, are you ready to speak?
1:10:44:
Herb Borock: Chair Danaher, commissioners, and Mayor Filseth. As in the past, Mayors are liaisons. They're only
prohibited from being on either the Finance Committee or the Policy and Services. And can substitute for any of those
members as needed.
I sent you a letter. It was today, which means that I hadn't had an opportunity to make copies for the public, at places,
because it was so late. But I'll be sending copies to CAC members and the Council as well. I believe you should exercise
your appropriate role under the Municipal Code, and make a recommendation to the Council, as an action item. This has
not been agendized as an action item. So, therefore, you should have one at your next meeting. And you can simply
track the language of this agenda item, and substitute, for the feedback language, you know, commission
recommendation to Council regarding the City's fiber optic, wireless, and advanced meter infrastructure planning. The
responses to the current RFP were due on June 28th. [2018] Staff has been keeping them for over six months, and has
suggested issuing a new RFP. But staff is not the awarding authority for a contract of this dollar amount. The City
Council is. And it's the City Council that makes the decision of whether to reject all those bids, or to award a bid. And
because of your responsibilities, it does so upon YOUR recommendation. So, when this an action item, staff should bring
back their proposal, and you make a recommendation to the Council of what to do about the RFP responses. It would
seem that an action item would be more appropriate to -- you know, to give you details of what to say -- and what to
include. But, just to go back in history, this has been going on for 20 years. And there have been times where it was the
City Council that approved the content of the request for proposal. And I believe it's time to do that again.
The issue with the Citizens Advisory Committee is, I've given you some documentation in my letter, there seems to be, at
least with former employee Jonathan Reichental, in the Information Technology department, which was responsible for
convening the Citizens Advisory Committee meetings, of holding out, still, the hope of being a basis for Google to do its
latest idea of wireless-to-the-home. And I have no idea to whether what is being designed is to do that. It's being
presented as a fiber-to-the-node, and then we'll take some future step. So, that's another reason why it should be the City
Council that should be reviewing the draft RFP, and making a decision as to what the request for proposal should be. But
you can't do that this evening, because it's not an action item. So, that's another reason for making it an action
meeting. Action agenda item.
As far as the proposal, I believe the part of it that's sort of a poison pill is when we talk about ubiquity. Ubiquitous
meaning everybody gets connected. And if you then say, well, how can you justify that, well, you say, it's for the meter
4
reading. But if you're talking about citizens and businesses using a connection to the internet for other things, that's not a
viable proposal. The correct thing would be, you PASS every address, and give everybody the opportunity to connect on
the same basis. You're essentially designing something to fail if you're saying everyone has to be connected for
everything. And you're also designing it to fail if you try to have standards and goals that a profit-making company would
have. The City should look at it as a service to residents, and design it on that basis, and with that criteria, rather than
saying it's a private business, or an initial public offering, or it's something to make a certain rate of return. And I think
those kinds of things are going to be fleshed out more on an action item agenda, when everyone would have an
opportunity to see what staff's proposing, and asking for YOUR recommendation to the Council on, when that appears on
your agenda in the future. And, hopefully, at the next meeting. Thank you.
1:15:39:
Chair Danaher: OK. Thank you, Herb. All right. Well, Herb is correct. This is agendized as a feedback, or discussion,
not as an action item. And, Dave, do you want to begin with -- Or, whichever one of you. Dean -- [laughs]
### Since Shiva Swaminathan has been the project manager for AMI up to now, and since he attended the 01-09-19
UAC meeting to present Item IX.1, I guess I'm surprised that he wasn't part of the presentation team for this item (Item
IX.2).
1:15:57:
Dean Batchelor: So, tonight, we're asking a request for some feedback, from the board -- and the commissioners -
- regarding the following two staff recommendations, as you see, on the wireless advanced metering infrastructure. And
that is to reissue the fiber-to-the-node RFP, to expedite this network design -- advanced metering infrastructure.
So, we're really reconsidering reissuing this fiber request, to expedite the network planning, and the construction, to better
align to business cases, and the AMI implementation. And I think the thing is, is that we found was, is that we really only
found one qualified responder. For the existing RFP that we put out today. And that vendor may not be that interested, at
this period of time. And so, we've had long deliberations with staff, including Legal and Purchasing staff, and
recommending this reissuing. And the main reason for this is, is that if -- if this one vendor decides that they want to bid
on the existing RFP today, then, at that point, they will not be able to re- -- bid for any of the new design work or any of the
construction management. Because the feeling is, from a legal standpoint, is that this is an advantage to them. 'Cause
they would be doing the business plan. They'd be looking at some of the ordinances that we've been talking about. And
so, the feeling is, from Legal's perspective -- and also from Purchasing -- is that they would be counted out. And they
would not be able to look at the bigger picture of -- as we move forward with this RFP.
### Then why did this vendor submit a bid in the first place? (Don't get me wrong. I'm OK with rejecting all bids, since I
agree that RFP #171422 asked for the wrong thing.)
1:17:48:
One of the things that was mentioned -- that there was a design that was in this RFP. But there -- the design was a high -
- very high-level design. There was no detail design. It was never going to get down to the nodes. It was going to be
basically a high-level portion of it. So, as we were thinking through this whole process, that -- you know, we still need to
look at the whole business case. But this may delay the RFP portion of it. But we think that reissuing it will accelerate the
engineering design and cost. So -- looking at the construction. So, one of the things that we were hoping we were going
to be able to do in the RFP was that we were going to take that high-level design, that we were going to make it a full
design. That's what we were asking for, from a legal perspective. And they said, basically, is that you can take anything
OUT of the RFP, but you cannot put anything back into the RFP, additional.
### I think this is just misstated. Staff means, you can't add anything to the RFP. Never mind about putting anything
"back."
And the reason for that is, is that, when the RFP went out, there was only six vendors that applied for it, at that period of
time, and put bids in for it. So, now, if you add this full design, there might have been other folks that would have taken
that portion of it on. So, we could not add anything to the existing RFP. And so, as I mentioned, that we know that there
will be a delay. But we think that it will accelerate at the very end portion of it. Because we would go through this
RFP. And then we would have to issue another RFP for a full design. It's going to take more time. So, those are some of
the reasons.
1:19:18:
5
So, the overall goal, to leverage the exis- -- extending the fiber network into the neighborhood, with the support of the
AMI, and other City initiatives, such as Smart City applications and wireless communications. And so, that's kind of the
approach that we took. So, staff's feeling is that we focus our efforts on expanding the fiber network. And take that
approach -- to look at the essential City --
### Is staff talking about "essential City" services? Is there a list of what these essential City services are? And who's
supposed to pay for them? If a service would require FTTN, which does not yet exist, can we conclude that the service
does not yet exist? If so, in what sense is it "essential"?
There's some functions, from Emergency Preparedness, as well as some IT perspectives -- um -- looking at this
infrastructure as we move forward. And then, the last thing is, is that we think that the UAC will provide that broader
viewing of -- 'Cause we've been talking so much about AMI. AMI is going to get us out to -- um -- to the node. So it
would be FTTN. And then extend that out to where these collectors will have to be. 'Cause we need to put collectors up
for the AMI portion of it.
### How many collectors are proposed?
1:20:17:
Now, there's two ways of looking at it, from the collector portions of it, is that you can use the cellular, commercial type of
device, that you can hook the collectors up to. Or you can use fiber.
1:20:30:
Commissioner Segal: Sorry, what's a collector?
1:20:30:
Dean Batchelor: Oh, I'm sorry. So, as you launch your AMI, and you put your meters in there, you know, the meters hop
from -- a water meter to a gas meter to an electric meter, and then they go on to the next house, and on and on to the
next house.
### Not exactly. Gas meters and water meters are never asked to forward messages from other meters, to conserve the
battery life of the meters.
And then these collectors are actually collecting all that data for the billing purposes. This -- what this -- it's almost -- just
like a radio, basically. And a transmitter. So, as the radios are in the meters, this thing collects all that data. And that's
what gets pushed back into the CIS piece. So, from the billing aspect of it. So that's what collectors are.
### I assume collectors don't store anything (except ephemerally). They just forward messages from the wireless mesh
network of meters to fiber backhaul or the cellular equivalent, and forward messages from the fiber backhaul or cellular
equivalent to the wireless mesh network of meters.
### I assume there's no reason that an electric meter that was directly connected by fiber couldn't serve as a collector,
although I understand that staff hasn't studied this possibility.
1:21:03:
So, you can do it -- You can hook it up in two different directions.
### I would say ways, not directions.
You can hook it up with cellular. Or you can do fiber. So, we're thinking that, as we went through to Council to approve
the AMI concept, back here in November, that we would then, at that point, since we were talking to some of the vendors
that went for this RFP, that it would probably make more sense to use some of the fiber that we've already put in there.
### As far as I know, we haven't "already" put any fiber into FTTN nodes. RFP #171422 sought to find how much fiber
should go to nodes, and how nodes ought to be interconnected. A new RFP would do the same, but might get a different
answer.
6
Drop larger -- bigger bundles of fiber. At the node. So that, at that period of time, we can expand it. And then possibly
get to FTTN. Or, to the premise. Sorry. FTTP. To the premise.
### I'm interested in getting very specific about this FTTP possibility.
That would be kind of the long-term portion of it. But it would expedite getting fiber out into the neighborhoods.
### Just getting fiber out into the neighborhoods without requiring that it be optimized-by-engineering-design for FTTP
won't accomplish what needs to be accomplished. The City has a dark fiber network (with about 90 nodes), that got
some fiber into neighborhoods, but it hasn't helped FTTP that much.
1:21:50:
And then, the last part of it is, is that, on the idea of taking the Citizen Advisory Committee ...
1:21:58:
Chair Danaher: Oh, I tell you what, let's treat that one separately ...
1:22:01:
Dean Batchelor: OK.
1:22:01:
Chair Danaher: ... just to keep it easier. So, I've had the benefit of talking with you about the first item last week. And,
just to summarize, the reasons for reissuing would be: We may not have any qualified vendors to do the first
one. Secondly, expanding the scope to include the detailed study would actually accelerate the time in which we have the
whole set of information. So it would NOT be a delay. Maybe we should have started out that way.
### Maybe. Although I still don't hear staff saying that what we should really do is an engineering design of citywide
municipal FTTP.
Third, it might cause more vendors to bid on this. And, fourth -- and, I think, incidentally to this -- is, IF we're reissuing, we
could include the AMI.
1:22:36:
Dean Batchelor: Yes.
1:22:36:
Chair Danaher: Now, it's not as important as the other items.
### Is Chair Danaher saying that adding AMI to the list of things FTTN has to do is relatively unimportant? If so, I
agree. But staff seems to be saying (at 1:51:01) that AMI is the basis for a "whole different direction" in FTTN.
Does anybody feel the need -- Well, actually, it -- Let's address Herb's question. This is all about fiber-to-the-node. So
why don't we talk a little bit about why the scope of this doesn't include fiber-to-the-premises.
1:22:53:
Dean Batchelor: So, I think right now is that, you know, if we do go back out and we actually put this high -- take out the
high-level design portion of it and get more of the detailed design portion of it, then, at that point, we would look at nodes
throughout the neighborhoods. For the potential of that. And then, as I said, we would look at where it made sense to GO
to the node. Which is what we went to Council with. And we would drop large amounts of fiber at that one node. Then,
at that point, you could, then, move it further into more nodes within the neighborhoods. So that you could -- possibly a
LONG-term goal would be to serve the customers and the residents of Palo Alto.
### Below, staff says it expects FTTN to have 80 or 90 (or 100?) nodes. Here, staff seems to be saying that staff
expects that in order to do FTTP, you'd need several times that many nodes. I think that's crazy.
7
### Why isn't the best FTTP design to have only nine nodes (one in each electric substation)?
### When Google Fiber was proposing fiber infrastructure for Palo Alto, it was talking about just two "huts" -- both in
Mountain View. And, I think, no "nodes" between huts and premises. (Splitters, yes. Vaults, yes. But nodes, no.)
### RFP #171422 has only 14 occurrences of the word "node." And it's not defined anywhere. That's a problem.
1:23:32:
Chair Danaher: So, [to] make sure I understood, as you're thinking of it now, you'd be asking for more detail on the -- on
the detail of the fiber-to-the-node. But not necessarily enough to cover all the neighborhoods, and all the houses?
1:23:48:
Dean Batchelor: I think what we would do is, we would ask for that detail. We think -- We're thinking that -- Maybe Jim
Fleming can correct me if I'm wrong. But we're thinking maybe about 100 nodes.
1:23:58:
Jim Fleming: [unamplified] Roughly 80 to 90.
1:23:59:
Dean Batchelor: So, 80 to 90 nodes would probably take care of the whole City. So, if we would drop one node in one
neighborhood, then the future portion of it -- and this design would show the future -- of those 85 to 100 nodes --
throughout the City. So, we wouldn't have to go back out for another design at that period of time. So, the idea is to get a
full detail for every street, everything that we have in the City today. And that would be the design. And then, included in
that, would also be the design to spur off going to these collectors that we would need for the AMI portion.
1:24:34:
Chair Danaher: OK. OK. But what about -- So, the question that Herb raised is -- Fine, we get the design, for the 90
nodes, or whatever. When do we talk about connecting to the premises? Or doing the study on that?
1:24:46:
Dean Batchelor: Well, I think one of the things that we would still include back into this new RFP was, you know, some of
the things that we looked at in the past -- that was in this RFP today --
### When staff talks about the "RFP today," they mean RFP #171422, "Fiber to the Node Network," which was issued on
05-24-18.
https://nextcenturycities.org/wp-content/uploads/RFP-171422-FTTN-B1.pdf
was to look at, you know, some of the funding plans, identify the potential of -- you know, some of the ordinances that we
would have to think about. Like that dig-once. We talked about, you know, the one-touch-make-ready on the pole
side. We also about possibly looking at the microtrenching portion of it. So, all of that -- still in the business plan -- would
still be within this RFP. So, I think, then, at that point, um, you know, Council would have to make a determination that, at
that point, from the business plan, is -- does that make the most sense for us then at that period of time. 'Cause, if you
remember, when we went to Council, back at the very beginning, we gave them three options. As we gave those three
options to you. One was to go ahead and look for funding for to build out 100 percent of it, which was in the tune of $50 to
$75 million. The second one was to build it to the node. And the third thing was -- kind of phase it out, at this period of
time, and look for a third party vendor. So, Council decided, as well as you all did, was to look at building to the node.
1:26:08:
Chair Danaher: OK.
1:26:08:
8
Dean Batchelor: And then, you know, we would build, then, at that point. So, I think that's an open end question. About
when do we look at what that larger piece is. And I think the thing is, is that if we reissue this, and we get this full design
portion of it, we'll have a better understanding. From when CTC came in here, some years ago -- you remember, if they
did the business plan. That's where that dollar amount come.
### As far as I know, the 09-28-15 staff report (347 pages)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49073
was a collaboration between staff and CTC. The estimated cost was $77.6 million. When Council asked for some detail
in support of the cost estimate, CTC refused to provide it in public, because they said some of the details of how it was
calculated were proprietary.
### According to my notes, at the 09-13-17 CAC meeting, Darrell Gentry (President and Founder of Next Level, a start-
up that wants to deploy FTTP)
https://www.linkedin.com/in/gentrydarrell
said that the $77.6 million estimate was probably high by a factor of 2.5. The official minutes of this meeting say
something similar: "CTC inflated the $78m by 2-3 times."
https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62665
So, I think the thing is, is that we can re-look at that portion of it, and see what those true costs would look at, at that
period of time.
### If the new RFP asked for an engineering design of FTTP, I would have more confidence in the cost estimate.
1:26:39:
Chair Danaher: OK. So, to recapture, it's about fiber-to-the-node. But you expect it's going to cover some of the details
about to-the-premises.
1:26:46:
Dean Batchelor: Yes.
1:26:46:
Chair Danaher: What the options might be -- cost, technology, that sort of ...
1:26:49:
Dean Batchelor: [Nods]
1:26:49:
Chair Danaher: OK. Very good.
1:26:51:
Dean Batchelor: Yes.
1:26:51:
Chair Danaher: Thank you. Ah, so, commission members, any discussion from people on this? Or do we just want to
encourage staff to bring back an action item? Comments?
1:27:03:
Dean Batchelor: What's that?
1:27:04:
Commissioner Segal: I think I'm still a little confused about how the RFP covers fiber-to-the-premises, with this new --
discussion -- proposal.
9
1:27:13:
Dave Yuan: I think the near-term focus is more on the fiber-to-the-node network. But then there will still be a part of the
RFP that will be -- show that there's flexibility, or scalability, to reach out to the fiber-to-the-premise. In regards to the
detailed design of that section, we're not sure yet. We're still evaluating that piece. So it will depend on how much it will
cost, and how long will it take to do all of that design work for the fiber-to-the-premise. But the short-term goal is definitely
fiber-to-the-node. With the scalability to expand out further. But we're not exactly sure how detailed that second phase
will be. So, it's more like an incremental approach. For now.
1:27:53:
Vice Chair Schwartz: So, I think that if it goes to the -- if they do the study to the node, then that gives us a business case
that's larger than just fiber to the premises. So, the business case for doing it -- of why it might be valuable to the
investment -- of AMI -- let's us sort of get greater value for that. And then, the incremental piece that has to go to the
household, to do something else, can be put in this other context. And then you can compare it to, do we just use a, you
know, a Wi-Fi
### Nobody is talking about using Wi-Fi for this. Staff has -- at least for the moment -- given up on proposing to extend
Wi-Fi into neighborhoods.
or a cellular system to bring that last piece of data back, or do we do it by fiber, then, that puts it in a context, also, that it's
more just -- um, so it's more than just -- are you using it for some entertainment purposes, or things like that.
### I find it extremely offensive that Vice Chair Schwartz would imply that citywide municipal FTTP is just for
entertainment purposes (or things like that).
It's -- It's -- you're now looking at it at this other infrastructure level. So, I think that -- when we have that conversation
about it, that was why we got going out and doing -- adjusting the RFP so we could handle that made more
sense. Because then there's more that you can bundle in with it.
1:29:04:
Dave Yuan: And the second RFP will also give us a second cost estimate -- an actual better cost estimate of the fiber-to-
the-premise network as well. So, it will be a cost estimate for both fiber-to-the-node and fiber-to-the-premise.
### OK. But will the FTTP cost estimate be based on a citywide FTTP engineering design?
1:29:18:
Comissioner Segal: OK. So, I -- Sorry, but I just want to make sure, because I struggled with this in the past -- this idea
of an RFP for fiber-to-the-node, and how that gets us information about fiber-to-the-premises. So is -- in addition to
putting in detail about AMI, we're also talking about adding detail in terms of additional nodes, and some information in the
RFP responses that will give us a sense of the viability, the economics of fiber-to-the-premises. And, perhaps, maybe --
maybe this is going too far -- is there any sense of security tradeoffs between fiber to -- to AMI and fiber back to the -- um
-- the -- what are the ...
1:30:09:
Dean Batchelor: The collectors?
1:30:09:
Commissioner Segal: To the collectors. Right. Versus Wi-Fi. Or 5G. Or whatever it's going to be.
### Good question, but not really answered.
1:30:17:
Dean Batchelor: Well, I think that that's what the future looks like.
10
### Implying that we can't do anything about what the future looks like? The incumbents' networks sometimes have
outages that affect millions of customers. What's the City's plan for dealing with that?
I mean, I think the thing -- from a security standpoint, the thing is, is that -- you know, I mean, if you're using a commercial
type of cellular, it's just going to go up in the cloud. There's always that potential portion of it. You know, we can -- we'll
be able to own and operate that security portion of it, if it was fiber to those collectors. That would go right back to the
CIS. So there's some advantages in that area. And I think the thing is, is that, incrementally, getting it out to the node --
like I say, we would drop large amounts of fiber. And then, you can splice from that one node, that we designed to, to get
to the collectors, as well. But then, at that point, you could take it further into the neighborhoods. So you could drop more
nodes, to get these other nodes that we would need throughout the City.
### Again, the notion that the City would need a lot more than 80-90 nodes altogether is completely crazy.
1:31:04:
Chair Danaher: [unamplified] So, I guess what you need to propose is that you would come back to us with a redesigned
RFP, to cover the elements you've talked about. And then ask for our recommendation **.
1:31:15:
Dean Batchelor: I think the next step will be, actually, that we'd have to go to Council, right now.
### Right now?
### FTTN is not on Council's 01-22-19 agenda (the only future meeting whose agenda is posted online, as of 01-16-
19). Council's 01-22-19 agenda has no pointer to a "Tentative Meetings" document! (Why not?)
### Council's 01-14-19 agenda
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=42880.23&BlobID=68437
points to a "Tentative Meetings" document that forecasts items through 02-11-19
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=43043.94&BlobID=68439
It doesn't mention any FTTN-related items. (But that's not necessarily definitive.)
### According to the latest 12-month rolling calendar,
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68308
Council won't consider any FTTN items in the next year. (But that's not necessarily definitive.)
Our next steps would be -- is actually is to take THIS -- to let them know that we're going to cancel -- we want to reissue
the RFP. And then, once we do that, then come back with the RFP. Back ...
1:31:32:
Chair Danaher: [unamplified] So, the Council's ** would be to withdraw the current one.
1:31:34:
Dean Batchelor: Right. Because their -- their recommendation to us was to go to the node.
### Council directed staff to do Option 2 (FTTN). It was not just a recommendation. But Council's direction was based
on staff's recommendation to Council.
And now, you know, we want to add the design phase, as well as, we want to push to the AMI portion of it. So, we think
that the best way is to actually go to Council. Because they may feel differently. They may just say, you know what, we
want to keep the design -- the RFP the way it is. And we may have to reissue. We don't know that for a fact. Like I said,
it sounds like the only viable one out of the six -- um ...
1:32:06:
Chair Danaher: [unamplified] So, if the Council agrees to withdraw it, then you go through ...
1:32:09:
1
Carnahan, David
From:iqbalserang@gmail.com
Sent:Wednesday, January 23, 2019 2:15 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:michelle.kraus@carbontracing.com; 'Iqbal Serang'
Subject:URGENT APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE HOTEL PRESIDENT
Dear Council Members:
Thank you for hearing our urgent request that Council recommend to AJ Capital (in a non‐binding manner) that AJ
consider extending the Hotel President tenancies until June 30, 2019 (or until AJ’s project for the Hotel President is
submitted and approved by the City).
We urgently need help from Council regarding AJ’s announcement that our tenancies will be terminated on January 31st,
because many of us seniors on fixed incomes are unable to move at this time due to our hardships and difficulties so far
in finding an affordable place to live.
We the undersigned tenants of the Hotel President would prefer the Council to agendize this item for the next Council
meeting on January 28, 2019 so that Council can comment and respond directly to our emergency need to have our
tenancies extended.
We would also like to remind Council of the one year leases required to be offered annually to all renters in Palo Alto as
provided by PAMC 9.68.030, and including 9.68.030.e.3. If one year leases were enforced at the Hotel President, it
would automatically provide the tenants with additional time in the building. This issue of one year leases very likely
goes beyond the Hotel President to many other properties, and there could be concern across the board from renters
and landlords alike on issues of implementation of PAMC ordinances as they stand today. Is there a role for the current
City Council to participate in public discussions and resolving such implementation of ordinances for current and future
housing stock?
We thank Council for your continued concern for the Hotel President tenants.
Sincerely,
Dennis Backlund, Iqbal Serang, and Karen Kao.
Long‐term residents of the historic,
Hotel President Apartments.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:Cathy Helgerson <cathyhelger@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 17, 2019 9:34 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Urgent Message
Attachments:URGENT MESSAGE.docx 2019 Lehigh.docx
Hello,
My name is Cathy Helgerson and I have been an advocate against the Lehigh Hansen/Heidelberg Cement and Quarry
and the Stevens Creek Quarry for 14 years and counting I have written this Urgent Message to notify the Cities and
others of the problems with pollution from these companies.
Please review this Urgent Message and if you have any questions please contact me at 408‐253‐0490
Thanks
Cathy Helgerson
408‐253‐0490
URGENT MESSAGE
To: Citizens of Santa Clara County, Cities in the Silicon Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area
From: Cathy Helgerson – E-mail address: Cathyhelger@gmail.com
Regarding: Lehigh Hansen – Heidelberg Cement & Quarry and the Stevens Creek Quarry
The City of Cupertino held a citizens meeting to publically discuss the illegal dirt and gravel road that the Lehigh Hansen – Heidelberg Cement
and Quarry decided to build destroying 20 trees between Lehigh and the Stevens Creek Quarry property. The road was built on some Lehigh
property under the unincorporated land that falls under Santa Clara County jurisdiction and some of the road was built in the incorporated land
area which falls under the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino they did this without any permission or permits. Lehigh it seems hoped to build
this road so as to transport polluted overburden rock from their quarry and polluted waste from the WMSA and the Cement Plant without
anyone objecting or even knowing this was all taking place. I complained to Santa Clara County that they never seem to site Lehigh who is
always out of compliance for polluting the Air, Water and Soil and right after that they decided to issue an NOV – Notice of Violation with a
cease and desist order against Lehigh and demand that they stop using this road. Lehigh had already started to transport polluted overburden
rock on this illegal road and deliver it to the Stevens Creek Quarry. It then seemed that the Stevens Creek Quarry would be processing this
overburden rock on their land and storing it there. Lehigh then decided because they could not use this illegal road to then transport this
polluted overburden rock to Stevens Creek Quarry using heavy duty trucks to take their polluted overburden rock over on public roads Stevens
Creek Blvd. and the Steven Canyon Road causing all kinds of traffic problems, dust and major disturbances and the public became terribly upset
and wanted Lehigh to stop. Lehigh had for decades processed their own rock at their site with their own equipment which is still available so
now the question is why are they transporting their polluted overburden rock to the Steven Creek Quarry? It is becoming more and more
evident that the State Regional Water Quality Control Enforcement Division had told Lehigh that they have to get rid of this polluted
overburden rock and any other waste product that Lehigh had on site in order to stop polluting. The Steven Creek Quarry is next door from
Lehigh and it seems to be the ideal spot to dispose of their polluted waste and polluted overburden rock. The real problem is that it is not the
best place and the State Regional Water Quality Enforcement Department is conducting an investigation of the Stevens Creek Quarry and the
Lehigh Hansen Quarry and land. I do not believe that Lehigh is selling this polluted overburden rock to the Steven Creek Quarry Company but
both Lehigh and the Stevens Creek Quarry have been instructed by the State Regional Water Quality Control board and the EPA Region 9 to
take care of this pollution or suffer a Super Fund Site cleanup set up by the EPA. There is no money exchanged by either party both sites have
strong issues regarding pollution. How will the City of Cupertino and Santa Clara County deal with this lack of real enforcement the public asks
that Lehigh stop using the public roads? The illegal road issue needs to be addressed and Lehigh has applied for a permit for another road they
want to build on their property which seems an impossible road to build. The road will destroyed trees, displace and kill many animals and birds
all over again in the process and also hold many of the comings and goings of Lehigh in secrete. They have also filed an amendment requesting
the road be added to the Reclamation Plan and Santa Clara County has yet to approve any of this. This road should not be added to the
Reclamation plan and it should be listed as a private road on Lehigh land and a separate permit should be submitted to Santa Clara County for
review. Lehigh is still allowed to use the public roads, and the Sheriff’s Department is supposed to monitor the traffic trying to control the
trucks and traffic congestion problems which now seem impossible. The dust is also a problem and Lehigh is not keeping the dust down on the
roads the Bay Area Air Quality Control Department is not controlling the dust and pollution and they are not even able to handle all of the
complaints coming in to their office about all the pollution coming from the Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant and Quarry an the Steven Creek
Quarry.
I am very concerned not only about this illegal road but also another real problem that has been and is taking place at the Lehigh Hansen –
Heidelberg Cement and Quarry which dates goes back to a EPA Superfund Site Department’s Preliminary Assessment Report that was
conducted in 2012, in which I personally requested that the EPA conduct an investigation to determine if Lehigh qualified for a Superfund Site
Cleanup. I had been told by the State Regional Water Quality Control Department that all of the water at Lehigh was polluted. The EPA decided
not to issue a Superfund cleanup and I was never really sure why at the time but I know now what they decided to do. The Stevens Creek
Quarry had a Preliminary Assessment Report conducted at the same time in 2012 and I was told not enough people lived in the area around the
Stevens Creek Quarry to qualify them for a Superfund Cleanup. I wanted to bring this up because I wanted to tell you what I think happened
behind closed doors. The EPA I believe decided to let Lehigh Hansen Company, Santa Clara County and the State Regional Water Quality Control
Board work out a plan to do their own clean up or risk an EPA Superfund Site takeover and Cleanup. This happening has taken the State
Regional Water Quality Control all these years to finally do what they were supposed to do years ago and the public should wonder where was
the EPA all this time and why did they not put pressure on them. It seems that compliance is something that is stalled and extended to these
polluters and the public suffers.
Lehigh’s quarry pit has or is running out of Limestone and they will probably soon apply for a permit to mine a new pit they tried to apply for a
permit before but a Santa Clara County board member told them to pull the request back and no one was really sure why. I believe that the
reason was that they needed to clean up the pollution at Lehigh and the Steven Creek Quarry. The pit is still being mined so I have been told by
Santa Clara County and they have taken Limestone and overburden put it at the top of the quarry it can be seen from the Stevens Creek
Boulevard they are destroying the foothill scenic view and I have found out that what I am viewing is the outside shell of the quarry a hollowed
shell covered with dirt. Lehigh has allowed the water from the cement plant, ponds and groundwater to also flow back into the pit which in
turn Santa Clara County says all of this will be pumped out and sent to their new Lehigh Wastewater Treatment Plant to be cleaned but it will
never be cleaned down to zero pollution. The Lehigh quarry has extraction wells all around and they have pit seep data report that they issue
with all kinds of metals and pollution levels that need to be reviewed the public needs to know what kind of pollution they are subjected to and
what is being done to control it if it can be controlled. I believe that Lehigh has mined way down past the water table for a reason and that is to
bring up the polluted water from the aquifer below this water is then pumped out and sent to ponds nearby which Lehigh will then pump up
and send to the Lehigh Wastewater Treatment Plant. The water will be released down the Permanente Creek which Lehigh has destroyed and
now has to have a reconstruction build in order to correct the creek and flow. The excuse they give for not cleaning the water completely is that
the aquatic life cannot live if the water is to clean and so they are blending it with some other water I am not really sure how or what kind of
water. I wish to mention again water being pumped out of the Lehigh quarry pit has a report issued by Lehigh that states the Quarry Pit Seep
Date September 2017 with all of the information about the Metals and pollution and ug/L’s which no one really knows if the information is true
or not they monitor themselves. The term seepage is a quantity seeping from and I believe that the aquifer polluted water is being allowed to
seep into the quarry pit to be removed by the extraction wells and then carried up to the Lehigh Hansen Wastewater Treatment Plant for
treatment.
I would like to now give you a view of what is really going on with Lehigh Hansen – Heidelberg Cement and Quarry with regards to the pollution
and the quarry pit which has been mined down to the aquifer/water table/water shed under the Silicon Valley for years I have mentioned that
Lehigh and the Steven Creek Quarry were polluting the Aquifer, the Stevens Creek Reservoir next to the Stevens Creek Quarry, the creeks and
wells polluting the public’s drinking water. Lehigh Hansen – Heidelberg Cement and Quarry, Santa Clara County, State Regional Water Quality
Control Department, Santa Clara Valley Water District, City of Cupertino, EPA Region 9, EPA Superfund Department, California Water Service
Company, San Jose Water Service Company, Bay Area Air Quality Control, State Mining and Geology Board, State Conservation Department,
Office of Mine Reclamation and State Fish and Game are all aware of the situation. The Lehigh quarry has been mined way below the water
table and Santa Clara County says that is alright but they do not even know how far down the aquifer is. Lehigh and the Steven Creek Quarry
have polluted the aquifer, and this water is being pulled up by the extraction wells inside around the quarry pit and then it is piped out to the
Lehigh ponds which is pumped up to the Lehigh Waste Water Treatment Plant. They are also cleaning some of the ponds with a smaller
treatment unit up at the north end of Lehigh. The aquifer is supported by many Reservoirs including the Steven Creek Reservoir which has been
polluted by the Stevens Creek Quarry from the processing of their recycled concrete and more and now overburden from the Lehigh Hansen
Quarry. I also believe that these other Reservoirs in the Silicon Valley are also polluted and contain Mercury and other pollution which is
released into the aquifer. The treated water from the Lehigh Hansen Wastewater Treatment Plant will be released into the Permanente Creek.
The rainwater/groundwater flows over the chopped up concrete which Steven Creek Quarry has piled up and created a massive mountain right
next to the road and right where the grinding machinery is there is a massive pile of ground up concrete and I suspect the Lehigh’s overburden
is now being ground up and held there as well. Lehigh has been allowed to release this polluted water which is stored from a tank under the
weigh in trailer because of a permit. This water is then piped over the road by the weigh in trailer via what looks like a fire hose to a small little
pond next to the inside fence, which then releases this polluted water under the Steven Canyon road and it soon ends up in the Stevens Creek
Reservoir. I found this all out because I was up at the Steven Creek Quarry at 6:00 AM one morning and witnessed what they were doing and
was told by a worker that they had a permit to release this water into the Steven Creek Reservoir. The Steven Creek Reservoir and the other
Reservoirs deliver water to our aquifer and these reservoirs are polluted with Mercury and other pollutants which the Santa Clara Valley Water
District seems to think the pollution levels are acceptable. They have failed to clean up this pollution the pollution levels are not acceptable.
The gray dust at the bottom and all around the Steven Creek Reservoir is known as the bath tub ring and now I have named it the toilet bowl
ring because the Steven Creek Quarry has been using this Reservoir as their own toilet. Santa Clara Valley Water District manages 10 reservoirs
and receives money from the water companies to supply water which leads me to believe they are not going to tell anyone what is really going
on. The reservoirs are polluted and people are not able to eat the fish in the reservoirs because of the Mercury pollution it seems that everyone
is aware of this problem but no one will clean up this mess. The public has been totally held in the dark for decades all these years while this
deception goes on.
The levels set by the agencies regarding pollution contaminants are always set high enough to allow companies to conduct their business unless
of course you have something like a lead contaminant which is set very low because it is proven to be a very serious pollutant and so it is held
at a very low level. The EPA does not regulate all of the many types of contaminants we are subjected to which have a very serious cumulative
effect that is overlooked by the agencies completely. This contamination by the pollution from Lehigh Hansen Cement and Quarry and the
Stevens Creek Quarry of the Air, Water and Soil continually cumulates in our bodies and causes all kinds of disease, health issues and death but
it seems that companies like the Lehigh Hansen Cement and Quarry and the Steven Creek Quarry can operate and pollute as long as they get
the required permits. The agencies in charge are giving them permits, and it seems that all they need is a permit to pollute, the public needs to
wake up to the destruction that is taking place in our communities and demand that the agencies use full enforcement even to the point of
closing down the Lehigh Hansen Cement and Quarry and the Steven Creek Quarry. I cannot stress this enough Lehigh will soon try to apply for
another permit to mine a new mine for limestone which they will destroy 30 thousand trees and 600 acres of land killing and displacing animals
and birds the land will never be reclaimed by any means to the beautiful way it was. They will be the public’s worst nightmare living each day
with Air, Water and Soil pollution from these polluters will make it impossible for the people to live in the Silicon Valley and the SF Bay Area
there needs to be a stop to this terrible tragedy.
I took a trip up to the Steven Creek Reservoir on 1/09/2019, and noticed it has just been closed and the water has seriously been lowered and
released down through the recharge pond behind the 7/11 store this water then goes down to the aquifer below and becomes eventually our
drinking water. I viewed signs at the Reservoir stating no fishing or swimming, orange cones and rope block the entrance and the park next to
the reservoir is also closed. I believe this is due to the aquifer clean up by Lehigh this water is being pulled up through the quarry pit by the
extraction wells to be eventually cleaned by the Lehigh Waste Water Plant. There is so much water coming up that I have heard they may have
to use the Cupertino Sanitation Lines that go down to the Santa Clara/San Jose Wastewater Treatment Plant to be treated. I had asked the
Cupertino Sanitation Board to use the Cupertino lines instead of the Lehigh Hansen Wastewater Treatment Plant but they refused. This may
have saved Lehigh some of the 5 million dollars that they spent to build the Lehigh Hansen Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Santa Clara/San
Jose Wastewater Treatment Plant could have charged Lehigh to process their polluted water and in turn then used that money to upgrade their
own facility that needs work.
The road that Lehigh is trying to build and has applied for a permit with Santa Clara County should not be allowed to be built and they should
also not be able to use the illegal road that they did build. There should not be any transport of any kind of rock or overburden sent from Lehigh
to the Steven Creek Quarry for processing for any reason.
I hope I have stirred up your thinking and that the public will take the next step and contact your community representatives and agencies
today to demand justice our lives and our children’s lives depend on it. It is time to set up meetings to discuss what comes next and how do we
the public must also take responsibility for what is happening and make the changes necessary to keep from any further pollution destroying
our land. I may have repeated myself on this urgent message but that is to make a stronger effort regarding the issues.
Thanks,
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lawrence Garwin <lawrencegarwin@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 22, 2019 11:10 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Urgent Request re: Extension of Hotel President Tenancies.
Dear Council Members,
Thank you for hearing my urgent request, that Council recommend to AJ Capital (in a non‐binding manner) that AJ
consider extending the Hotel President tenancies until June 30, 2019. (Or until the project is submitted and approved by
the city.)
The current tenants need urgent help from Council regarding AJ’s announcement that their tenancies will be
terminated on January 31st, because many of the seniors on fixed incomes are unable to move at this time, due to their
hardships and difficulties in finding an affordable place to live.
I, along with the concerned tenants of the Hotel President, would prefer the Council to agendize this item for the next
Council meeting dated January 28, 2019. So that Council can comment and respond directly to their emergency need to
have their tenancies extended.
I thank Council for your continued concern for the Hotel President tenants.
Sincerely,
Lawrence Garwin
Community Center
1
Carnahan, David
From:Joseph Haletky <jhaletky@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 16, 2019 7:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Webster Wood rents
Honorable members of the City Council,
I am forwarding an e‐mail to you that I sent to a property supervisor at the Palo Alto Housing Corporation in response
to a letter she had distributed to residents at Webster Woods Apts last Friday afternoon. She did not return a phone
message I had left on Monday, and she has not yet responded to my e‐mail.
The letter was an announcement of new “contract rents” as of April 1. My rent at a 3‐bedroom apartment will be going
from $1,467/mo to $4,545/mo. The rest of my e‐mail, I think, is self‐explanatory. I am appealing to the city council to
have a discussion about this outrageous rent increase and, if possible, take some action to have it reversed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Cordially,
Joseph Haletky
961 Webster Street
650‐387‐3270
Sent from myMail for iOS
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Joseph Haletky <jhaletky@gmail.com>
To: vgranadosin <vgranadosin@pah.community>
Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 7:39 AM ‐0800
Subject: Webster Wood rents
Hi Evangeline,
I was most surprised to find your letter tacked to my door when I got home late Friday afternoon about the new rents
at Webster Wood. I was one of the first residents to move here in August of 1978, when I was still poor enough to
qualify for Section 8, and have lived here for over 40 years since. I have become accustomed to occasional rent
increases and accept them as necessary to provide funds for maintenance and upkeep of the property, but I was
totally unprepared to get your letter and find that my rent was going to be raised by over 200% as of April 1. “We are
pleased to inform you...” one of your sentences begins. I for one am NOT so pleased to be so informed!
This letter is, in effect, an eviction notice to most, if not all, of the “market rate” tenants, You hold out the possibility of
becoming eligible for Section 8 again, but that cannot happen unless the allowable income levels are similarly raised,
of which there is no indication.
Also, there is no indication if you are similarly jacking up rents at your other facilities. Nor is there any justification
given for such a steep rise other than HUD has approved them.
2
Palo Alto Housing Corporation was founded with the mission of making and keeping affordable housing in the Palo
Alto area. These new rents are a blatant betrayal of that mission that your organization has been so faithful to for
almost half a century.
I moved here as a relatively young man with two small children, and I very much appreciate the opportunity PAHC
gave me to live here all these years and serve the Palo Alto community in many ways. I was a founder of both the
Downtown Food Closet and the Urban Ministry, active in music and theatre at Stanford and with three of Palo Alto’s
theatre companies, an active member of First Lutheran Church, etc. I do not appreciate being thrown away like this!
Cordially,
Joseph Haletky
961 Webster Street
Sent from myMail for iOS
1
Carnahan, David
From:Zoe Mount <zoeumount@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 21, 2019 4:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Working on CEDAW
To: Palo Alto City Council:
It has come to my attention, via the Palo Alto City Council staff report from 10‐1‐2018, that Palo Alto has adopted the
CEDAW‐‐ commitment to eliminate discrimination against women. Terrific! I could not be more delighted! It has also
come to my attention that that is about all that has happened. Please, do what you can to get a good estimate of how
well women and other minorities, such as the disabled, certain ethnic groups, etc., are represented in Palo Alto City's
workforce, so that we can begin to make plans to bring equality to everyone.
I hope you will make this a priority to the City Council, to make Palo Alto an even more amazing place to live.
Thank you,
Zoë Mount
‐‐
Zoë Mount, LMFT
Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist
(650) 996-6042
zoe@zoemount.com
http://zoemount.com
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632 -("")~
Palo Alto, CA 94302 "° --1 -1-< c.... -< ~ ("")~
January 23 , 2019 N r -'O ml>
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
JANUARY 22, 2019, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3703-3709 EL CAMINO REAL [lSPLN-00136]
Dear City Council:
C..l
~ :.it -..
a
Last week I wrote you a letter in which I urged you to limit
your approval of the subject project to "individuals and
families" earning no more than 80% of the County median income
based on the substantial evidence in the administrative record
that the residential units in the proposed project would be
affordable to those earning no more than 80 % of the Area (Santa
Clara County) Median Income.
' 11.nrirovJ.J
The Record of Land Us~sed by Planning staff and approved
by the Council used only the single word "individuals" rather
than "individuals and families" or the single word "households".
The use of the single word "individuals" is ambiguous when
determining the appropriate income limits for households of more
than one individual (i.e., families).
The income limit of a two-person househo ld (family) at all
income levels is only 14.3% higher than the income limit of a
one-person household at the same income limit. The income limit
for a two-person household is not double the income of two one-
person households income limits.
The income limit of a three-person household (family) at all
income levels is only 28.6% higher than the income limit of a
one-person household at the same income limit. The income limit
for a three-person household is not triple the income of three
one-person households income limits.
Attached to this letter are (1) the 2018 Section 8 Income Limits
for San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara HMFA, including the LOW-
-""r-~o (fl
o~ -ne\ "'Tlo
(=) (; (Tl>
'
INCOME [80 % of Area Median Income] income limits for different
size households, and (2) the 2018 Multifamily Tax Subsidy Income
Limits for San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara HFMA, including limits
for different size households that are based on the same Fiscal
Year 2018 Median Family Income that is used for the Section 8
Income Limits.
If it is possible at this time to correct the language added in
response to staff's January 14, 2019, memorandum to the Record
of Land Use Approval Condition of Approval (COA) #4, I urge you
to replace the word "individuals" with the word "households".
Thank you got your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
~ Herb Borock
Attachments:
(1) 2018 Section 8 Income Limits for San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa
Clara HMFA.
(2) 2018 Multifamily Tax Subsidy Income Limits for San Jose-
Sunnyvale-Santa Clara HFMA.
w(~
STATE:CALIFORNIA ----------~ C T ' O~N C 0 H E L ~---------------
PROGRAM 1 PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4 PERSON 5 PERSON 6 PERSON 7 PERSON 8 PERSON
Redding, CA MSA
FY 2018 MFI: 61400 EXTR LOW INCOME 12900 16460 20780 25100 29420 33740 38060 40550
VERY LOW INCOME 21500 24600 27650 30700 33200 35650 38100 40550
LOW-INCOME 34400 39300 44200 49100 53050 57000 60900 64850
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA MSA
FY 2018 MFI: 65800 EXTR LOW INCOME 14150 16460 20780 25100 29420 33740 38060 42380
VERY LOW INCOME 23600 27000 30350 33700 36400 39100 41800 44500
LOW-INCOME 37750 43150 48550 53900 58250 62550 66850 71150
Sacramento-Roseville-Arden-Arcade, CA MS
Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CA HMFA
FY 2018 MFI: 80100 EXTR LOW INCOME 16850 19250 21650 25100 29420 33740 38060 42380
VERY LOW INCOME 28050 32050 36050 40050 43300 46500 49700 52900
LOW-INCOME 44900 51300 57700 64100 69250 74400 79500 84650
Yolo, CA HMFA
FY 2018 MFI: 85100 EXTR LOW INCOME 17500 20000 22500 25100 29420 33740 38060 42380
VERY LOW INCOME 29150 33300 37450 41600 44950 48300 51600 54950
LOW-INCOME 46600 53250 59900 66550 71900 77200 82550 87850
Salinas, CA MSA
FY 2018 MFI: 69100 EXTR LOW INCOME 17550 20050 22550 25100 29420 33740 38060 42380
VERY LOW INCOME 29250 33400 37600 41750 45100 48450 51800 55150
LOW-INCOME 46800 53450 60150 66800 72150 77500 82850 88200
San Diego-Carlsbad, CA MSA
FY 2018 MFI: 81800 EXTR LOW INCOME 20450 23400 26300 29200 31550 33900 38060 42380
VERY LOW INCOME 34100 38950 43800 48650 52550 56450 60350 64250
LOW-INCOME 54500 62300 70100 77850 84100 90350 96550 102800
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA MSA
Oakland-Fremont, CA HMFA
FY 2018 MFI: 104400 EXTR LOW INCOME 24400 27900 31400 34850 37650 40450 43250 46050
VERY LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700
LOW-INCOME 62750 71700 80650 89600 96800 103950 111150 118300
San Francisco, CA HMFA
FY 2018 MFI: 118400 EXTR LOW INCOME 30800 35200 39600 44000 47550 51050 54600 58100
VERY LOW INCOME 51350 58650 66000 73300 79200 85050 90900 96800
LOW-INCOME 82200 93950 105700 117400 126800 136200 145600 155000
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA
San Benito County, CA HMFA
FY 2018 MFI: 79800 EXTR LOW INCOME 19600 22400 25200 27950 30200 33740 38060 42380·
VERY LOW INCOME 32600 37250 41900 46550 50300 54000 57750 61450
52200 59650 67100 74550 80550 86500 ~2450 98450
Clara, CA HMFA
EXTR LOW INCOME 27950 31950 35950 39900 43100 46300 49500 52700
VERY LOW INCOME 46550 53200 59850 66500 71850 77150 82500 87800
-INCQm 66150 75600 85050 94450 1Q2050 109600 117150 124700
San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande, CA MSA --FY 2018 MFI: 80600 EXTR LOW INCOME 17500 20000 22500 25100 29420 33740 38060 42380
VERY LOW INCOME 29150 33300 37450 41600 44950 48300 51600 54950
LOW-INCOME 46600 53250 59900 66550 71900 77200 82550 87850
~c~g' (Y) U L lr~m-r..\...'"f /A'/. S"o~~ tlt)'f -:µJ· Corne:-l-Jv'V/J."fT.
STATE:CALIFORNIA ---------------------------I N C 0 M E L I M I T S----------------------------
PROGRAM 1 PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4 PERSON 5 PERSON 6 PERSON 7 PERSON 8 PERSON
Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CA BMFA
FY 2018 MFI: 80100 VERY LOW INCOME 28050 32050 36050 40050 43300 46500 49700 52900
60% INCOME LIMIT 33660 38460 43260 48060 51960 55800 59640 63480
Salinas, CA MSA
FY 2018 MFI: 69100
San Benito County, CA BMFA
VERY LOW INCOME
60% INCOME LIMIT
FY 2018 MFI: 79800 VERY LOW INCOME
60% INCOME LIMIT
San Diego-Carlsbad, CA MSA
FY 2018 MFI: 81800 VERY LOW INCOME
60% INCOME LIMIT
San Francisco, CA BMFA
FY 2018 MFI: 118400 VERY LOW INCOME
IMIT
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA BMFA
FY 2018 MFI: 125200 VERY LOW INCOME
OME LIMIT
BERA Special 50%*
BERA Special 60%*
29250
35100
32600
39120
34100
40920
51350
61620
46550
55860
47550
57060
San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande, CA MSA
FY 2018 MFI: 80600 VERY LOW INCOME 29150
60% INCOME LIMIT 34980
Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA MSA
FY 2018 MFI: 81400 VERY LOW INCOME
60% INCOME LIMIT
Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA MSA
FY 2018 MFI: 79600 VERY LOW INCOME
60% INCOME LIMIT
Santa Rosa, CA MSA
FY 2018 MFI: 84100
Stockton-Lodi, CA MSA
FY 2018 MFI : 63700
Vallejo-Fairfield, CA MSA
VERY LOW INCOME
60% INCOME LIMIT
VERY LOW INCOME
60% INCOME LIMIT
FY 2018 MFI: 83700 VERY LOW INCOME
60% INCOME LIMIT
BERA Special 50%*
BERA Special 60%*
39100
46920
35150
42180
34400
41280
22300
26760
29300
35160
29750
35700
33400
40080
37250
44700
38950
46740
58650
70380
53200
63840
54350
65220
33300
39960
44650
53580
40150
48180
39300
47160
25500
30600
33500
40200
34000
40800
37600
45120
41900
50280
43800
52560
66000
79200
59850
71820
61150
73380
37450
44940
50250
60300
45150
54180
44200
53040
28700
34440
37700
45240
38250
45900
41750
50100
46550
55860
48650
58380
73300
87960
66500
79800
67900
81480
41600
49920
55800
66960
50150
60180
49100
58920
31850
38220
41850
50220
42450
50940
45100
54120
50300
60360
52550
63060
79200
95040
71850
86220
73350
88020
44950
53940
60300
72360
54200
65040
53050
63660
34400
41280
45200
54240
45850
55020
48450
58140
54000
64800
56450
67740
85050
102060
77150
92580
78800
94560
48300
57960
64750
77700
58200
69840
57000
68400
36950
44340
48550
58260
49250
59100
* Income Limit for any project in a HUD impacted area whose current limit would be less than last year or
less than its FY2008 limit times the Current Year Median (FY2018) over the FY2008 median.
HUD impacted areas are areas with Section 8 Income Limits held harmless by BUD in FY2007 or FY2008.
51800
62160
57750
69300
60350
72420
90900
109080
82500
99000
84200
101040
51600
61920
69200
83040
62200
74640
60900
73080
39500
47400
51900
62280
52650
63180
55150
66180
61450
73740
64250
77100
96800
116160
87800
105360
89650
107580
54950
65940
73700
88440
66200
79440
64850
77820
42050
50460
55250
66300
56050
67260
..
I support Castilleja's proposal t2._
increase enrollment and modernize its
Office of the Clerk
l> :I: a ..
Please distribute to all City Council Members
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto, CA, 94301
J