Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190211plCC 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: 02/11/2019 Document dates: 01/23/2019 – 01/30/2019 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Carnahan, David From:MEGAN BARTON <megbarton@me.com> Sent:Monday, January 28, 2019 1:23 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission Cc:Harris Barton Subject:NO! on the Waiver Proposal for downtown buildings- Dear Mr. Lauing, Mr. Alcheck, Mr. Riggs, Ms. Roohparvar, and City Council,            We are urging you to represent the citizens of Palo Alto and reject the proposal allowing waivers to existing laws that require  oversized downtown buildings to retain the same mix of uses they presently have.  We are appalled this waiver is even up for  consideration and it makes us wonder why our tax dollars are paying salaries of people that would even consider making this  change.  Palo Alto needs to retain its housing as much as possible.  We don’t not want tenants evicted so we can have more  offices and hotels.  City staff should NEVER be allowed to grant waivers worth millions of dollars without legal necessity and  outside the public view‐ EVER.  Please do what is right, do not sidestep our city laws.  AJ Capital can find a new town to  pillage.  The President Hotel Apartments at 488 University must remain residences.  Please reach out to us if you care to  discuss further.      Sincerely,      Megan and Harris Barton  1 Carnahan, David From:chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 25, 2019 10:13 PM To:WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Aram James; Stop the Ban Google Discussion Group; Jen Hoey Padgett; Michelle Ogburn; Loquist, Kristina; Dave Cortese; dprice@padailypost.com; Robert Aguirre; Sandy Perry-HCA; Palo Alto Free Press; Council, City; Seelam Reddy Subject:Cubberley and Housing Hi All, I attended the third meeting of the Cubberley Co Design (?) Project on Thursday night (1/24/19). I found that the committee (group) has done a very thorough and transparent job of assembling community input. None of the principals who ran the meeting had lived in the area for more than a few years and knew little of the recent history of Cubberley or local CC politics. Nice folks but I had to explain a lot to them to make my points. My Points: 1. Cubberly is a community resource, a "commons." It used to be much more of one. Homeless people were expelled from car and ground camping and access to the the showers and bathrooms were cut off, people were evicted, and that function/community service has not been in effect since 2013 (?) It should be reinstated. What justifies the continued exclusion of the poor? Do you think it would stand up in court? 2. There is a trend in the area to decrease the number of shelter beds. Thankfully there has lately been a COUNTER trend but consider these facts: the Clare-Mateo Women's shelter was closed for repairs in 2013. It is still closed. The "de facto homeless shelter" at Cubberley which has been a part of the community 2 forever is forever lost (as of now). We need MORE shelter, not less. 3. Housing Supply. Speaking of increasing the number of shelter beds, there is a slow pivot to increasing residences if not shelters. The headline in today's POST is a group of successful business types pledging half a billion for housing. MSFT did the same thing in Seattle on Jan 16. There is a dawning of recognition of what activists have been preaching for years-- there are not enough residences and there are getting to be fewer. 4. ) Housing Supply Two. We must stop bending over, laying down and giving it up to Stanford, Google, and Facebook. If these rich, white, masculinist power centers want more land for workspace, let them build housing to help with the long standing shortage they've helped cause and THEN let's talk about them building more housing to house the workers for the workspace they're asking for. *There was not one word at the meeting of using any of Cubberley to add to shelter or residence inventory.   Chuck Jagoda Palo Alto Poverty Press   1 Carnahan, David From:Connor McManus <cmcmanus@concordia.com> Sent:Thursday, January 24, 2019 10:48 AM To:Karen Schreiber; Bobbie Hill; Golton, Bob; Kristen.O’kane@cityofpaloalto.org; Council, City Subject:Re: Third Cubberley Co-Design Meeting Hi Karen,    Thank you for sharing those concerns. We have heard similar concerns from others about the car access onto  San Antonio Ave, and we are discussing them with our traffic consultant to arrive at a safe solution.     We don't yet know what the management scenario for the pool will be ‐ that will likely be for the City to  decide ‐ but we will bring that into the discussion over the next several months.    Thank you, and congratulations to you and your daughter!  Connor    Connor McManus concordia O: 504.569.1818 D: 337.654.5873   From: Karen Schreiber <kpsphoto@gmail.com>  Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 12:36:28 AM  To: Bobbie Hill; rgolton@pausd.org; Kristen.O’kane@cityofpaloalto.org; City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org; Connor  McManus  Cc: Karen Schreiber  Subject: Third Cubberley Co‐Design Meeting      Hi to all,     I live in Greenmeadow on Creekside Drive. I am unable to attend the meeting January 24th, 2019. I am helping out our  daughter in Seattle who just had a baby.    I am concerned that the following student bicycle routes need to be protected from cut through traffic.  Students who  bike on Nelson Drive, Scripps, Mackay and Ferne need to be protected from drivers cutting through the new campus  driveway onto San Antonio and then right on Ferne or Mackay to Nelson via WAZE to avoid traffic signals on Alma or  Charleston. This area is already in gridlock in the evening commute on Charleston to 101 or Charleston to 280 or  Middlefield to Charleston.    My second concern is about who will manage the two new swimming pools. The City of Palo Alto has already outsourced  running the city pool at Rinconada. Who will mange the new pools?    Sincerely,  Karen Schreiber  1 Carnahan, David From:mickie winkler <mickie650@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 27, 2019 4:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:midpen media support Dear Councilmembers    I value the work that Mid Pen does and hope that you will enable it to continue that work.  thank you.      Mickie Winkler    1 Carnahan, David From:Suepprgm <sueppr@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 27, 2019 7:48 PM To:Council, City Cc:Keri Stokstad Subject:Re: Update from Midpen Media Mike ‐     Thank you so much for these thoughtful comments; they highlight very important issues. Keri and I talked them through  to make sure I can address them clearly.    There have been many discussions about all of these concerns and I believe they will be settled in the course of the  agreement but to assure you that we are working on them here is the current status.     1. We will continue to submit an annual budget to the JPA and to the City We believe that we will addressing the  approval issues through the budget review process with the JPA.   2. Thank you for the check in about the equipment. The purchase agreement is for the building because we have learned  that this is the best strategy for this stage of the process. We will include the equipment as possible.  3. We will strengthen the language about their commitment to us as and the sole provider and we will also review the  language about how both parties will respond to major changes in the marketplace.     As you know, this has been a long and difficult process but Keri is doing an excellent job working with the Melissa and  the City and I feel that this is the best option for the future of Midpen Media.  Thank you very much for all of your  support and guidance over the years. We would love to see you at the Council Meeting if you are able to attend. The  agenda Item is now scheduled for discussion from 6:40‐7:45. If you are not able to join us, I invite you to consider  sending an email of support to: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org      Best regards,    Sue    Sue Purdy ☮ Pelosi LinkedIn 650-814-7563 Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible. Dalai Lama       On Jan 25, 2019, at 8:45 AM, Michael Di Battista <Michael.DiBattista@tivo.com> wrote:    Hello Sue,    Nice to hear from you.    I thank you for the invitation to attend the Council meeting. I want to give this a bit more thought before committing.    2 However, I have read the entire Staff Report and it appears (from memory) that the significant points we were concerned with seem to be taken into consideration.  At the risk of raising matters that you are already intimately aware of, there are three other points that I wanted to make certain aren’t lost:  1. The City has (or at least had) access to the Media Center’s Capital Equipment Policy and we attempted to take into consideration their review of same. That being the case, the Media Center should work to assure that Capital expenditures that meet the policy are not required to have the City’s approval prior to expenditure. On more than one occasion statements were made by the City and/or JPA that Media Center capital expenditures would require approval by the City.  2. The Staff Report only speaks of purchase of the Media Center’s building, but I believe we were suggesting the building and equipment that was purchased with non-PEG fees. 3. Since the Media Center will be ultimately losing ownership of the facility and equipment, in the negotiation of the new agreement with JPA (by the City) the Media Center may wish to strengthen the terms under which they will be the choice of Community Access in future years. My hazy recollection is that the agreements have a limited term (perhaps 3 years) and it should be only due to demonstrated lack of proper operation by the Media Center that the City (JPA) can designate some other entity to take over the Community Access.    Regards,  Mike D.      From: Suepprgm <sueppr@gmail.com>   Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 9:51 PM  To: Michael Di Battista <Michael.DiBattista@tivo.com>  Subject: Update from Midpen Media     Hi Mike   ‐      Hope that the New Year is off to a good start for you!      It's been nearly a year since you retired from the board and I hope that you are doing well. I am reaching  out to you because the Palo Alto City Council will be discussing the proposed JPA purchase of the  Midpen Media Center at the upcoming meeting on Monday, January 28th at 6:40. It has been more than  two years! Thanks to all the hard work that you and Mike Stern and Barbara put into the negotiations,  we believe that the sale will be  the best option for us to sustainably support the work that we do for  our service area communities. Here is a link to the Council meeting agenda,  and link to the Staff Report.      We are expecting the discussion to go fairly smoothly so we are not reaching out to our entire  community to attend. We are specifically inviting members of the board (including alums!) to come to  the meeting on Monday night. We are hoping to have the Vice Mayor of Menlo Park, the Mayor of East  Palo Alto, the past Mayor of Palo Alto and other folks to submit brief remarks.      Would you be able to join us>? I know we all would love to see you!! Please let me know what you  think!      Thanks very much,     Sue         Sue Purdy ☮ Pelosi LinkedIn 650-814-7563 Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible. Dalai Lama    1 Carnahan, David From:Suepprgm <sueppr@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 28, 2019 8:47 AM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda Item #6, Midpen Media, City Council January 28 Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council Members:     Please approve Item #6. Midpen Media Center provides cable access TV service to the towns of Atherton, Menlo Park,  East Palo Alto and Palo Alto, and is a trusted community center giving local voices a significant platform. Because of  Midpen's non‐profit, commercial‐free channels and web streams, local governments, schools, community concerns,  issues and arts, appear alongside national content. Midpen ensures local voices are heard on TV and on the web.     Midpen Media Center users are a cross‐section of the communities we serve. Every age, culture, identity, income level  and ability has found a home with Midpen creating a true marketplace of ideas and a gathering place for training and  the exchange of knowledge and experience. Together, we create meaningful community content, reflecting the values  of our tapestry of towns here in the mid‐peninsula. Where else can you find such a treasure?      Thank you for your consideration of our request that Midpen Media Center be preserved and supported.          Respectfully submitted by the Midpen Media Center Board      Sue Purdy Pelosi  Less Lincoln  Andrew Mellows   Barbara Noparstak  Joanne Reed  Azieb Nicodemos  Lawrence Lee  Marie McKensie  Nick Szegda  Gayathri Kanth          Sue Purdy ☮ Pelosi LinkedIn 650-814-7563 Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible. Dalai Lama     1 Carnahan, David From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Saturday, January 26, 2019 12:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:new zoning codes for housing Council Members:  With increased density, how much will you be increasing impact fees for schools, parks, and infrastructure? How about  water? Will current residents see new limits on water use?   The new ordinance states that the housing shortage, "threatens the city's ‘prosperity, diversity, stability, environment,  quality of life, and community character.’”  Seems like the increase in density/population is the real threat:   ‐ How many developers will build “affordable” housing that would increase diversity? (I’m assuming economic  diversity as well as ethnic diversity.)  ‐ How will quality of life be improved with overcrowded schools? With increased traffic? What good are in‐lieu  parking fees when there’s nowhere to provide parking?  ‐ How will high‐rises improve the environment? (Please don’t tell me none of the new tenants will have cars and all  will ride a bike or take public transit, so they will still be driving. And many PA residents work outside of PA.)   ‐ How will rooftop gardens improve the environment? They reduce the amount of permeable soil on the ground  where rain can feed the water table. And they mean that buildings can be packed together with no open space for  pedestrians walking by. No sun. No sky.  ‐ What does density have to do with community character? How will an increased population that strains city services  be an improvement?  ‐ How many new city employees will have to be hired to support an increased population? What will that add to the  Calpers debt?  I realize that you’re trying to get ahead of the Wiener bills. I appreciate that projects would have to go through the  approval process and not just be approved ministerially.  But I hope you are also going to fight Wiener and CASA and all  the other attempts to do away with local zoning control.                  Pat Marriott    1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, January 28, 2019 8:04 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: SV@Home Letter RE: Item 7 - Comp Plan Implementation/Housing Ordinance Attachments:SVH Letter RE Item 7 - Housing Ordinance 01252019.pdf     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: David Meyer <david@siliconvalleyathome.org>   Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 12:50 PM  To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cormack,  Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia  <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom  <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: SV@Home Letter RE: Item 7 ‐ Comp Plan Implementation/Housing Ordinance     Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou, and Tanaka:    On behalf of SV@Home and our members, we write again today to urge the Council to move forward with the staff‐ recommended proposals for an ordinance reducing barriers to the construction of housing and affordable housing in  Palo Alto. This package of improvements is a bold step towards achieving the City’s Comprehensive Plan goal of adding  300 homes a year to its existing housing stock.     We applaud the steps that the Council took last December to pass significant portions of the ordinance, including  eliminating the commercial preservation ordinance requirement for 100% affordable developments (a key  recommendations in our letter), streamlining the review process for housing developments, permitting increased  residential densities city‐wide, and putting incentives in place for increased residential densities in the downtown area.    Building on these significant steps, we encourage the Council to adopt similar incentives for increased densities and  opportunities for residential developments, especially for 100% affordable developments, in the California Avenue  2 and El Camino Real areas. We also encourage the Council to confirm its proposal to eliminate the commercial  preservation requirement for 100% affordable developments city‐wide.    For the proposed changes to be effective, they must be passed as a package. Only when taken together will they  succeed in meeting the Council’s objective of incentivizing residential development in the city.    As we have seen in several neighboring jurisdictions, the costs of development are only continuing to rise. The City  needs to act now to remove barriers and put in place incentives that will spur the building of housing and affordable  housing in Palo Alto. Meeting the community’s needs depends on it.    Sincerely,    David    David Meyer Director of Strategic Initiatives david@siliconvalleyathome.org (408) 462-1572 sv@home 350 W Julian St. #5, San Jose, CA 95110 Website I Facebook I Twitter I LinkedIn I Become a Member!   Ron Gonzales, Chair Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley Janice Jensen, Vice Chair Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley Kevin Zwick, Treasurer Housing Trust Silicon Valley Kathy Thibodeaux, Secretary KM Thibodeaux Consulting LLC Shiloh Ballard Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bob Brownstein Working Partnerships USA Gina Dalma Silicon Valley Community Foundation Katie Ferrick LinkedIn Amie Fishman Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California Javier Gonzalez Google Poncho Guevara Sacred Heart Community Service Nathan Ho Silicon Valley Leadership Group Janikke Klem Technology Credit Union Jan Lindenthal MidPen Housing Jennifer Loving Destination: Home Mary Murtagh EAH Housing Chris Neale The Core Companies Andrea Osgood Eden Housing Kelly Snider Kelly Snider Consulting Jennifer Van Every The Van Every Group Staff Leslye Corsiglia Executive Director 350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110 408.780.2261 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL January 25, 2019 Honorable Mayor Filseth and Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou, and Tanaka: RE: Agenda Item 7: 2018 Comp Plan Implementation/Housing Ordinance On behalf of SV@Home and our members, we write today to urge the Council to move forward with the staff-recommended proposals for an ordinance reducing barriers to the construction of housing and affordable housing in Palo Alto. This package of improvements is a bold step towards achieving the City’s Comprehensive Plan goal of adding 300 homes a year to its existing housing stock. We applaud staff for conducting an extensive consultative process with the community and housing practitioners as well as the technical reviews that led to the targeted proposals before the Council today. We do, however, take note of the staff report’s statement that the City will need to consider further improvements in the future to fully address Palo Alto’s housing needs. The ordinance’s comprehensive approach combines streamlining residential development approvals, right-sizing parking requirements, and allowing increased densities. It reflects best practices SV@Home has supported and seen succeed across Santa Clara County. For the proposed changes to be effective, they must be passed as a package. Only when taken together will they succeed in meeting the Council’s objective of incentivizing residential development in the city. SV@Home calls on the Council to pass the proposed Housing Ordinance without delay. We also urge the Council to restore and support two staff recommendations that will create additional opportunities for the construction of much-needed 100% affordable developments in Palo Alto:  Reinstate staff recommendation to include additional incentives for 100% affordable housing development in high-amenity transit-oriented locations (Downtown, California Avenue, El Camino Real). Allowing increased heights and density for affordable housing developments in these areas will help increase the number of affordable homes in the city while taking advantage of these locations’ proximity to transit and employment opportunities. Honorable Mayor Filseth and Members of the City Council January 25, 2018 Re: Item 7 - 2018 Comp Plan Implementation/Housing Ordinance Page 2 of 2 350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110 408.780.2261 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org  Reinstate staff recommendation to exempt 100% affordable housing projects on El Camino Real from the Retail Preservation Ordinance. 100% affordable developments in transit-oriented locations should be exempt from these requirements as they negatively impact the fragile financing packages that non-profit developers must structure to make affordable housing projects feasible. As we have seen in several neighboring jurisdictions, the costs of development are only continuing to rise. The City needs to act now to remove barriers and put in place incentives that will spur the building of housing and affordable housing in Palo Alto. Meeting the community’s needs depends on it. We urge you to act without delay. Sincerely, David K Meyer Director of Strategic Initiatives 1 Carnahan, David From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Monday, January 28, 2019 3:53 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Housing work plan Dear Mayor Filseth and Council Members, Tonight the council can take another step forward in meeting our housing goals by adopting the staff recommendations and avoid adding costs to housing development. This will have two related benefits: --It will make achieving the Housing Element/Comp Plan housing goals easier and --It will by doing so remove Palo Alto from having housing decisions made by the state if Palo Alto is not in compliance with it's adopted housing goals. Measures that make housing harder to build whether through restrictive zoning or cost additions is a signal to outside bodies that we do not intend to meet our goals and invites intervention. On the other hand a strong effort to incentivize housing tells the state to look elsewhere. Stephen Levy 365 Forest Avenue Palo Alto 2 Carnahan, David From:Linnea Wickstrom <ljwickstrom@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, January 28, 2019 11:17 AM To:Council, City Cc:Linnea Wickstrom Subject:YES! to Housing Mayor Filseth and Council Members,    I urge you to vote YES to the package of housing incentives.    I support:   the Housing Incentive program for California Avenue and I urge matching the proposed California Ave FAR on ECR – a  transit corridor.   doing away with current limit on unit density   Allowing residential‐only buildings in commercial areas  I hope that building a lot more housing, especially with the use of the Affordable housing zoning overlay in appropriate spots,  will allow more people of various incomes to live and work in Palo Alto. I hope that increased housing density will give an  impetus to transit improvements – both car‐lite living and more ridership to support public transit.    Sincerely,  Linnea Wickstrom  Palo Alto  1 Carnahan, David From:Ng, Judy Sent:Thursday, January 24, 2019 3:22 PM To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email Cc:Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Gaines, Chantal; Tanner, Rachael; Stump, Molly; Eggleston, Brad; Allen, James; Bobel, Phil; Jonsen, Robert; Lum, Patty; Perron, Zachary; Nose, Kiely; Lobo, Rima Subject:1/28 Council Agenda Questions for Items 3, 4, & 5       Dear Mayor and Council Members:     On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please find below the staff responses to inquiries made by  Council Member Tanaka and DuBois in regard to the January 28, 2019 council meeting agenda.      Item 3: Design and Construction Support Services of the RWQCP Operations Center – CM  Tanaka   Item 4: Approval for COPS Funds – CM Tanaka    Item 5: Approve FY 2018 CAFR, Budget Amendments and Approval to Move $2 Million from  BSR Infrastructure – CM DuBois       Item 3: Design and Construction Support Services of the RWQCP Operations Center – CM Tanaka    1. What is the square footage of the building?    The final building size has not been determined. A planning level estimate given to the  proposers in the Request for Proposal (RFP) was 23,850 square feet, which is based on an  estimate developed by Carollo Engineers in 2012 in the Long Range Facilities Plan  referenced in the staff report.    2. How many years would it take the City of Palo Alto to pay off the mortgage of this  project?    A low‐interest state loan or a utility revenue bond is typically set up on a 30 year repayment  plan.     3. Would there be an increase in taxes to fund this project?    Wastewater rates would be increased to fund the construction phase of the project. These  rates are charged to customers using the sewer system in Palo Alto and its partner agencies.    4. Can the cost be reduced in any way?    2 Staff negotiated the design fees based on what is necessary to complete the work. Cost  reductions in the design fee would lead to reduction in scope and services. For future  construction costs, staff will work with the designer to minimize capital and operational  costs for an efficient and effective building over the life cycle of the building.    5. Why is the City of Palo Alto the sole financer of this project when it serves the wastewater  filtration of other communities?    Palo Alto is not the sole financier of the project. Palo Alto will pay for 38.16% of the project.  Mountain View, East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Stanford  University will reimburse Palo Alto for the remaining 61.84% of the project.    6. Does this project fall under, or exceed, the budget allocated for infrastructure?    The project is not part of the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan.  It is funded by a capital  improvement program project in the Wastewater Treatment Fund.  The contract amount is  in line with cost expectations for the design phase.    7. What are the specific “safety improvements” of the new facility?    Safety improvements are numerous. For example, safety will be realized with greater  compliance with the latest building codes. Fire suppression systems will be provided;  current lab and ops building has no fire suppression system. Accessibility under ADA rules  will be provided; current facilities are not compliant with the latest ADA regulations. The  new building is critical to public health and safety and will be designed to the latest seismic  regulations for protection in an earthquake according to current standards. Hazardous  material chemical storage will be improved pursuant to fire and building codes.    Improved lab safety will be realized with a lab built to modern lab standards for (a)  ventilation, (b) safe and less crowded movement at lab counters, hoods, and at eye  wash/emergency showers, (c) spill prevention counter measures, (d) provision of modern  lab hoods, and so forth. Provision of the ADA required elevator in a two‐story building (or a  lab on a ground floor) will benefit the City from reduced risk of injury and liability; the City  lab and operations staff and couriers (e.g., FedEx) will now no longer need to carry heavy  samples up and down staircases in weighted ice coolers.    8. How can we ensure the safety of 75‐100 tour people interacting alongside working  facilities?    A wastewater treatment facility is an industrial facility. Tours are not self‐guided. All tours  are guided by plant staff that makes tour participants aware of safety concerns. Tour groups  are broken down into groups of 20 or less to improve safety. Tours are limited to  participants aged 11 or older (appx. Grades 5 and higher), which are students able to follow  safe instructions at an industrial facility. Tour members are given a hardhat and requested  to wear closed toed shoes. Tour members are not taken into areas that are for employees  only (e.g., the laboratory). The tour path is set by the tour guide to ensure safety (e.g.,  avoiding slippery areas, running equipment, or exposure to bio hazardous materials).    9. Why are the implementation of showers and exercise rooms for employees necessary,  especially when there is already an exercise room?    3 The showers and locker rooms are for plant employees who may be exposed to wastewater  and biosolids and regularly need to cleanup and change into/out of uniforms. The cleanup  facilities are provided for normal cleanup after a day of physical work in the plant or in the  lab (or when employees are soiled in the course of a workday). A cleanup area and uniform  storage area (i.e., lockers) is required for the industrial nature of the plant’s work. Provision  of showers and locker rooms is a common industry practice at wastewater treatment  plants. Showering after use of a fitness room is secondary to the main cleanup function of  the industrial work at the plant.     The existing fitness room will be repurposed for recycled water piping and pumping  systems, which requires its relocation. Fitness rooms are provided as a benefit to employees  throughout the city for health and wellness (e.g., at MSC, public safety, etc.). The current  fitness room has cardio and weight resistance equipment along with mats for stretching.    10. Who would be managing and funding the tours of the facility?    Palo Alto and its five contributing partners fund the tours as part of educating the public.  Tours are free. Tour expenses are minimal. Palo Alto Public Works staff manages the tours,  including scheduling, conducting, and preparing handouts for tour members.    11. How many tours has this facility given before per year?    In 2017, 1,008 people toured the plant from the sewer service area in 48 groups ranging in  size from 3 to 55 people (these were broken into smaller groups). In 2018, due to  substantial construction limiting the tour availability, only 8 tours to 84 people were  conducted. Tours will be restored in 2019 after completion of substantial construction on  the Sludge Dewatering and Truck Loadout Facility. Tours are typically high school  environmental science students (e.g., Palo Alto High School), vocational career students,  college engineering classes (e.g., Stanford University), and elementary schools (e.g., Addison  Elementary). Tour participants also include visiting scholars to Stanford, staff members from  our partner agencies, industry professionals, local tech companies, City interns, Palo Alto  sister city delegates, general members of the public in the sewershed service area attending  during Pollution Week or Earth Day, and prospective job applicants.    12. What kind of metal discharge is happening?    Certain metals are toxic substances (e.g., mercury, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel,  selenium, silver, zinc, and chromium). The plant water and biosolids are sampled and tested  regularly for metal pollutant concentrations. The metal concentration results are submitted  to the state and USEPA as required by plant permits; results are substantially lower than  limits established by the state and USEPA. Source control activities and pretreatment staff  regulate sewershed industries to prevent a high level of metals in the plant’s influent,  effluent, and biosolids. The laboratory provides certified analysis of these metals from the  industrial sites, the influent, the effluent, and the biosolids.    13. Why Smith Group? Why not previous contractor Brown and Caldwell?     In compliance with City’s procurement policy, staff solicited the proposals from qualified  consultants through the Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Brown and Caldwell was  invited to propose. They did not submit a proposal, as their expertise lies mainly in the  wastewater treatment process related projects. The staff and laboratory building is  consistent with skills of an architectural firm. Smith Group was selected because its  4 proposed team met the experience requirements, has a good record on similar projects,  and has an efficient and innovative approach to the project.      Item 4: Approval for COPS Funds – CM Tanaka    1. Who will pay the salary for the two Community Service officers?    Their salaries will continue to be paid by the Police Department; these are not new positions,  nor are they new employees.  We have simply chosen to assign two of our existing eight  Community Service Officers to our patrol division to handle non‐emergency calls for service  and non‐injury traffic collisions.  The remaining six CSOs will continue on in their current  capacity, which primarily focuses on parking enforcement (as an aside, over the first two  months that we have had these two CSOs reassigned to patrol, there has been no decrease  in the amount of revenue from parking citations).  Patrol duties are one of many functions  listed in the existing job description for our CSOs, but we are just assigning two of them full‐ time to patrol duties.    2. Do they have the same authority as police officers?    No.  They are not sworn peace officers, do not have powers of arrest, and are unable to detain  people.  They are able, however, to issue parking citations and tow vehicles.  They are not  dispatched to investigate cases that have a known suspect, where an arrest is a possible  outcome of the case.  They have the same level of authority as the rest of our existing  Community Service Officers.    3. What is the enhancement in revenue gained from switching to the E‐cite system?    Since it is more efficient for an officer to complete an E‐cite than writing one by hand, we  anticipate that our personnel will be able to complete more citations in the same period of  time.  As the system has yet to be implemented and rolled out, we are not able at this time  to provide an estimate of the potential enhancement to revenue.    Item 5: Approve FY 2018 CAFR, Budget Amendments and Approval to Move $2 Million from BSR  Infrastructure – CM DuBois     1. The motion refers to approving budget amendments to the Annual report identified as  Attachment B ‐ Exhibits 1 and 2.  I cannot find those exhibits in the packet or on the  website.  Am I overlooking something?  If not, can it be sent to all council members please?    The CMR that was transmitted to the Finance Committee was inadvertently not attached.  Included in that CMR was attachment B as referenced in the recommendation language.  The  CMR can be found in the link below, specifically attachment B can be found beginning on PDF  page 13 ending on page 23.    https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=59683.35&BlobID=67970      Thank you,  Judy Ng      5     Judy Ng   City Manager’s Office|Administrative Associate III   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650) 329‐2105  Email: Judy.Ng@CityofPaloAlto.org    1 Carnahan, David From:Sandra Slater <sandra@sandraslater.com> Sent:Thursday, January 24, 2019 12:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Council Priorities Urgent Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,   As you are defining the priorities for the Council and City for 2019 we, the undersigned (on behalf of our organizations), implore you to keep our climate change goals front and center. The climate crisis is ever more present and we’re feeling its effects here in Palo Alto already (drought, smoke from fires and even a drastic reduction in Monarchs and beneficial insects)!   The City committed to reducing our greenhouse gasses (GHG’s) 80% from 1990 levels by 2030 — and our Sustainability Implementation Plan by a vote of 9-0 in 2016. We need to redouble our efforts in delivering a robust transit system and deal with our affordable housing inventory, get serious about electrification of our homes and businesses and promote EV uptake among other pro-sustainability measures.   While you may consider traffic and housing as your main issues, please note that the low carbon alternatives in these areas are often the most cost-effective and beneficial way to deal with them. For example, smaller, denser, all-electric housing is less expensive to build and operate. It increases alternative mode use while reducing long commutes from far away towns and cities. Not acting or just continuing to build as usual creates GHGs and also affects our quality of life as lack of housing limits the number of people to staff our schools, hospitals and other services.   While you’re prioritizing crucial issues, it is imperative that you take GHGs into account and review each policy, building, roadway, garage, ordinance and project for its potential GHG impacts. One way to do this would be to require an informational box on each City Staff Report and project approval document, noting the potential GHG impact of the options presented. Such highlighted attention would help us meet our own approved goals. Making decisions without considering their GHG implications is irresponsible and ignores our City’s stated goals. We need to visibly demonstrate the path forward for our city and our planet.   It has never been more urgent and more clear - and our children’s and grandchildren’s future are in our collective hands. Please include climate change as a top priority.   Sincerely,   Jennifer Thompson - Sustainable Silicon Valley 2 Nicole Kemeny - 350 Silicon Valley Chris Lepe - Transform Gladwyn D’Souza - Loma Prieta Chapter, Sierra Club Adina Levin - Friends of CalTrain Debbie Mytels - Peninsula Interfaith Climate Action (PICA) Diane Bailey - Menlo SPARK Sandra Slater - Cool Block Palo Alto Bruce Hodge - Carbon Free Palo Alto James Tuleya - Carbon Free Silicon Valley Jeralyn Moran - UUCPA Green Sanctuary Committee Marianna Grossman - Minerva Ventures Barbara Weinstein - Transition Palo Alto Eric Rosenblum - Palo Alto Forward Sudhanshu Jain - Acterra Linda Hutchins-Knowles - Mothers Out Front Northern California Walt Hays Jonathan Foster Peter Drekmeier A.C. Johnston Bret Andersen Lisa Van Dusen Mike Danaher John Kelley Pat Burt Terry Trumbull Gail Price Sven Thesen David Coale Stu Bernstein Elizabeth Greenfield 1 Carnahan, David From:Ronald Wilensky <ronwilensky@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, January 25, 2019 10:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Airplane Noise as a Priority Dear City Council Members:  Please make sure dealing with the important problem of airplane noise is in the group of priorities for 2019    Many Palo Alto neighborhoods are affected by airplane noise.    Low and loud flights late at night and very early in the morning are a serious problem.     Best regards,  Ron Wilensky  Old Palo Alto  1 Carnahan, David From:chris cocca <chris_cocca@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, January 27, 2019 12:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please make climate change a priority Hello,  I moved to California for the climate, not unlike a lot of people.  For two weeks last year, we had the worst air quality in  the world due to forest fires.  Scientists now say climate change is responsible for the increasing number of wild  fires.  We need to take climate change more seriously.    Please support more transit oriented housing, more alternative energy, more funding for the TMA, more bike lanes and  mixed use zoning so people can move between their homes, workplace and shopping locations on foot.    Also, please stop wasting money on more parking garages.  You are not only wasting tax payer money but also  exacerbating global warming.     Thanks,    Chris Cocca  839 University Ave.  Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android  1 Carnahan, David From:Andrew Griscom <apgriscom@aol.com> Sent:Sunday, January 27, 2019 3:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Climate change-City Council Dear City Council,    Please adopt climate change as one of the top Council priorities for the upcoming year.     Let’s go all electric housing in all new and major remodel housing.     Let’s invest in encouraging active transportation and public forms of transportation, rather than building more parking  structures that will be obsolete in future, and instead use the funds in creative ways to reduce automobile traffic and  parking congestion.     Support company buses and shuttles, public transit, ride‐sharing services, and self driving cars.     Support the nonprofit Traffic Management Association (TMA) alternate commuting program which reduces traffic levels  in downtown PA.  (10% reduction, so far.)    Support carpooling, CalTrain, biking, and walking.     Natural gas produces Green House Gases; go all electric everywhere possible starting now and avoid using natural gas.     We can do it, you can lead the way.     Thank you,  Andrew Griscom  m 650.796.1000   e apgriscom@aol.com  1 Carnahan, David From:Kristian Meisling <kmeisling@comcast.net> Sent:Sunday, January 27, 2019 6:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please Make Airplane Noise Reduction a Top Priority Dear Palo City Council Members,    I am writing to let you know that airplane noise has become an increasingly serious quality of life issue for my wife and I.  As long‐time Palo Alto residents we are concerned that the overflight noise situation has been allowed to deteriorate to  its current unacceptable state.      We are often awakened at night by low‐flying commercial aircraft, especially on cloudy days. Certain times of the week  the frequency of planes flying directly over our house reaches more than one every two minutes.  It is not uncommon  for things to rattle in our house due to low‐flying aircraft rumble, and at times it can be difficult to hear the TV or carry  on a conversation.      By observing aircraft flight patterns it is my belief that this air traffic is all on an approach path to SFO.  Planes used to  follow many paths and fly at higher altitude, but now they all seem fly lower and almost directly over our house.    I believe that addressing our deteriorating airplane noise problem should be a top priority for the Palo Alto City Council.   I would appreciate your efforts to bring our concerns to the attention of the authorities that are in position to do  something to improve the situation.    Thank you for listening and for representing us as constituents in this matter,    Dr. Kristian Meisling  Palo Alto Resident  1 Carnahan, David From:Steven Atneosen <atneosen@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 28, 2019 10:49 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please adopt climate change as one of the top Council priorities for 2019. Dear Council member:    I support the request articulated in David Coale's recent post:    https://www.paloaltoonline.com/print/story/2019/01/25/palo‐alto‐needs‐to‐step‐up‐its‐green‐new‐ deal#comment_form    Many thanks,    Best,    Steven Atneosen   3966 Duncan Place, Palo Alto CA 94306  atneosen@hotmail.com  1 Carnahan, David From:David Coale <david@evcl.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 10:22 AM To:Pete Gang Cc:Council, City; Flaherty, Michelle; Shikada, Ed Subject:Re: Climate numbers - Please make climate change a top priority Hi Pete and City Council,    Unfortunately, I think you are reading the numbers correctly, we only have about 10 years (2028) to get to zero CO2 if  we are going to avoid disaster.  And if we could get to zero CO2 in that time, there is only a 66% chance that we would  avoid disaster as you have stated.  Would you get on a plane that had a 66% chance of getting to its destination?  I think  not!    The problem is that governments the world over are not acting on this info, or they think 66% chance for a livable planet  is good enough.  As much as you and I (and many others) try to educate local and state governments on this problem  and urgency of this issue, I am not seeing enough action on their part.  In Palo Alto, they think they are ahead of the  curve with their aggressive goal of 80% reduction by 2030.  The problem is, this problem/progress can not be graded on  a curve; it is measurable in absolute numbers so while we look good compared to our neighbors, we can see by the IPCC  numbers below, that with our aggressive goals we are falling way short of what is needed.    I hope you have better luck in persuading your local government/city council on the need for immediate aggressive  action on this issue.  I like your idea of declaring a Climate Emergency, but this might scare some people off.  The really  ironic thing is that most of the solutions make for a more livable planet anyway: renewable energy, cleaner  transportation systems, more active transportation (biking, walking etc), housing near transit centers, clean efficient all  electric homes that are cost effective, etc. etc.  But you know all this.    I will keep pushing the rope here and best of luck in your efforts my friend,    David    PS. Maybe the comic below will “cheer” you up.    Begin forwarded message:    From: Pete Gang <pete@commonsensedesign.com>  Subject: Re: Climate numbers  Date: January 28, 2019 at 11:16:36 PM PST  To: David Coale <david@evcl.com>    David,    The attached is excerpted from the recent IPCC "Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C" (released  in October 2018).    As I read the highlighted text, in order to have a 66% chance of limiting temperature rise to 1.5°C  above pre‐industrial average, our remaining “carbon budget” – or how much more CO2 we can dump  into the earth’s atmosphere ‐‐ is 420 gigatons of CO2, or just 10 years at current rates of emissions. In  2 other words, if we continue to burn fossil fuels at current rates, we must immediately and completely  stop using all fossil fuels and magically arrive at net zero carbon emissions ten years from now (in 2028).     This is not a likely scenario.  Please tell me I’m reading it incorrectly!!!!    Pete          On Jan 28, 2019, at 7:13 PM, David Coale <david@evcl.com> wrote:    Hi Pete,    I would like to get a copy of the climate (CO2) numbers you were showing me.  The numbers for folks  like you and I are very compelling!    Thanks and hope you are well,    David      3         1 Carnahan, David From:Mary Holzer <mbholzer@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 3:29 PM To:Council, City Cc:support@opengov.com Subject:Open Burning in Palo Alto - the Dangers to Health Attachments:2018-03-02-0002.pdf Dear City Council Members,    I understand that I have missed the deadline for topic discussion for your retreat next weekend. Apologies. Too many  things . . .     I did connect with Alison Cormack at the Cubberley meeting last week, and we had a short discussion about open fire  pit/wood burning pollution. You may not be aware that it is apparently OK for people to burn wood in open air fire pits  in Palo Alto, even though the city no longer issues permits for in‐home wood burning fire places. And has (see PDF  attachment) banned second hand smoke in living accomodations in the city. Second hand smoke from open fire pits is  worse than either of the above.    I’m sure you remember the air pollution from the North Bay fires and how everyone suffered from that. The firepits are  placed very low to the ground so the smoke emitted spreads out at ground level, unlike smoke from chimneys that is  dispersed into the air at 20 feet or higher. This means that the heavy smoke from the fire pits blankets the air  surrounding the near by residences, even as far as several streets away. It is extremely irritating and if you have low‐ level asthma, as I do, sets off severe coughing spells. Even closing all the house windows does not keep it completely  out, and it is impossible to be outside while the people on the street behind me are burning in their fire  pit.      Just so you know, I am not the only one in the neighborhood, and the city who suffers from this open burning. I pinged  the neighborhood email list and had many responses saying the smoke had the same effect on them as it does on me,  and on their children. And that they, as I have, complained to the people burning and were told it was fine to have open  pit fires in Palo Alto.     To quote the Familes for Clean Air Website: "In the winter, residential wood burning produces more particle pollution  than any other single source in the Bay Area, accounting for 30‐50% of this area’s particle pollution. This adds up to  6,000 tons of sooty particles annually, more than the entire region’s vehicles and businesses."    For more information, below are links to the Families for Clean Air website. And you can also find information on the  California EPA site. These sites explain the chemistry of wood smoke, why breathing it is so dangerous and which  particles are the worst.     And for reference, the Palo Alto ordinance on Second Hand Smoke is also attached.    I hope you can find time to discuss instituting a ban on outdoor burning similar to the ban on second hand cigarette  smoke. Thank you for your consideration of this request.     Regards,    Mary Holzer      2 From the Families for Clean Air website:  http://www.familiesforcleanair.org/  http://www.familiesforcleanair.org/health/health2/    The Truth About Wood Smoke Pollution    Even though humans have burned wood for thousands of years, scientists have only recently discovered just how  hazardous wood smoke pollution is to our health.    Hundreds of studies have now documented the harmful health effects of wood smoke pollution. Yet many people  remain unaware of the facts—or refuse to accept them.    The current situation is similar to the way we used to treat second‐hand tobacco smoke—by the time the public finally  accepted just how hazardous second‐hand smoke was, there had already been incalculable damage to human life.    There’s good reason to be even more concerned about wood smoke pollution than about second‐hand tobacco smoke,  since it’s more hazardous: according to the US EPA, the lifetime cancer risk from wood smoke is estimated to be 12  times greater than from a similar amount of cigarette smoke.    The time has come for all of us to acknowledge the real dangers of burning wood.       Wood Smoke is Hazardous to Your Health    Scientists have now linked wood smoke and the pollution it creates with a litany of health hazards. These include asthma  attacks, diminished lung function, increased upper respiratory illnesses, heart attacks, and stroke. Long‐term exposure  to wood smoke can lead to emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and arteriosclerosis.    Many of the substances in wood smoke are carcinogenic. Laboratory studies have linked wood smoke exposure to nasal,  throat, lung, blood, and lymph system cancers.    While pollution from wood burning is harmful to everyone, research has shown that it is particularly dangerous for  children.    Epidemiological studies have linked daily morbidity and mortality to particle pollution concentrations; burning wood  creates particle pollution. Put in plain English, this means that when particle pollution levels rise, more people die.      CITY OF PALO ALTO PUBLIC WORKS 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 February 16, 2018 Re: Multi-unit Smoking Ordinance Requirements in Effect Dear Resident, Palo Alto City Council unanimously voted in 2016 to restrict smoking at all multi-unit residences and common areas effective January 1, 2018 (Smoking and Tobacco Regulations, Ordinance 9.14). Council's decision was based on the desire to reduce public exposure to secondhand smoke and a survey of multi-unit residents. Th~ survey showed that 80% of multi-unit residents were bothered by smoking from nearby units, and 90% favored smoking restrictions in multi-unit housing. This letter provides answers to common questions about Ordinance provisions that prohibit smoking in multi-unit residences: 1. Where is smoking prohibited in Palo Alto multi-unit residences? As of January 1, 2018, smoking is prohibited: • inside multi-unit residences, including associated balconies, porches, decks and patios; • in indoor and outdoor common areas of multi-unit residences, such as lobbies, halls, pathways, courtyards, elevators, community rooms, playgrounds, gym facilities, swimming pools, grassy or landscaped areas, laundry rooms, shared cooking and eating areas, and parking lots and garages; • in outdoor areas that are within 25 feet from a doorway, window, opening or vent of a multi-unit residence (a nonsmoking "buffer zone"). 2. What is considered a multi-unit residence? A multi-unit residence includes any property containing two or more units, including apartments, condominiums, town homes, senior facilities, long-term health care facilities, and assisted living facilities. A multi-unit residence does not include a single-family home (including a home with a detached or attached second unit), a hotel or motel, or a mobile home park. 3. What does "smoking" mean? Smoking includes the use of cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos, hookah, pipes, electronic smoking devices, and marijuana. 4. Where is smoking allowed? Owners or property managers may create a designated smoking area so long as it: (1) is outdoors; (2) is located at least 25 feet away from multi-unit residence doorways and windows, areas primarily used by children, and recreational areas; (3) has receptacles for cigarette butts that are maintained free of tobacco litter; and (4) has conspicuous signs. Additionally, residents may smoke cigarettes and use electronic smoking devices on streets or sidewalks that are at least 25 feet from a multi-unit residence, unless smoking is otherwise prohibited in those locations. 5. I am a property owner or landlord of a multi-unit residence, what am I required to do? Property owners or landlords must: • post clear "No Smoking" signs in common areas where smoking is prohibited. A selection of free signs and window decals can be ordered at cityofpaloalto.org/smoking ordinance, although other "No Smoking" signs that are preferred by the property owner or manager may be used as well; • deliver a written notice of the new smoking restrictions to each unit of a multi-unit residence. Sellers of a multi-unit residence shall provide prospective buyers with written notice of the smoking restrictions. A list of Frequently Asked Questions is available at cityofpaloalto.org/smokingordinance that may be used to supplement the required notification letter; • include all Smoking and Tobacco Ordinance limits in new, renewed, or continued month-to-month rental and lease agreements effective January 1, 2018. Lease language must include a clear description of all areas on the property where smoking is prohibited. Property owners and managers should refer to Section 9.14.060 of the Smoking and Tobacco Ordinance for a complete list of requirements that should be included in lease and rental agreements (visit cityofpaloalto.org/smokingordinance for a link to the Ordinance). 6. What should I do if I see someone violating the ordinance? If you are a resident, please report the problem to your landlord, property manager, or condominium association so that they can take steps to resolve the problem. You can also try talking to your ' neighbor to inform them of the law. If you are a landlord or property owner, smoking violations are also violations of the lease and may be enforced accordingly. For additional information: www.cityofpaloalto.org/smokingordinance ~~ Phil Bobel Assistant Director Public Works cityofpaloalto .org Printed with soy-based inks on 100°/o recycled paper processed without chlorine. 1 Carnahan, David From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:City Council Priorities Honorable City Council Members, Like a lot of Palo Alto residents, I am bothered by the increase in airplane noise. It rattles my windows, interrupts my sleep and conversations. It has become untenable. However, I do not think this issue should be a City of Palo Alto priority. Our electeds and staff may provide support of citizen efforts to make headway with appropriate government agencies, but this is not the city’s purview and it should not be a city priority. Instead, I think the city should prioritize issues that fall squarely in the city’s wheelhouse. The 2018 City Council Priority List was a good one, and the work is not yet done:  Transportation  Housing  Budget and Finance  Grade Separation RE: Transportation-- Prioritize Safe, Convenient Multi-Modal Mobility Moving forward, please commit to implementing the progressive vision for Multi-Modal Mobility that is laid out in our Comprehensive Plan. This vision includes Safe Routes to School and the projects outlined in the city’s new Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan as well as city-wide TDM, parking, transit, signalization and road improvements, and would provide safe and convenient options for road users of all ages and abilities. It is important to remember what we have learned from Safe Routes to School. Mode shift requires a comprehensive, multi-pronged approach to support behavior change, including: encouragement, education, engineering, enforcement, equity and evaluation. Steady, disciplined and strategic work in all of these categories effects real change. We have seen it. A similar approach can work across the broader community as well. The priorities on the 2018 list, interestingly, align with concerns raised in the citizen’s survey. Stay the course. You were right last year. There is more to be done. Thank you for considering my comments and for your service to our community. Gratefully, Penny Ellson 1 Carnahan, David From:Anne Schmitt <schmitta@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 8:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Climate change a priority Hello dear council: sustainability has always been a priority and PA a leader. It is an over arching goal for housing, public  transit and transportation. And underlying is an issue of scarce resources and the real fact of climate change.  Pls make this issue a priority.   Thanks for your consideration,  Anne and Ed Schmitt    Anne Schmitt  Sent from my iPhone  2 Carnahan, David From:Sven Thesen <sventhesen@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 11:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:Make Climate Change A Priority for 2019! Gentle Council Members,   As you determine Council priorities for 2019, i strongly encourage the Council to address climate change as one of the  Council's top priorities.     In summary, relatively simple steps initiated now to address climate change such as new building energy efficiency  codes, expanding the TMA and heat pump/ electric retrofit programs have multiple benefits in addition to reducing our  carbon footprint including cost savings over conventional practices and increases in comfort, convenience and safety.     I look forward to more detailed discussions in the coming months,     Sven  Resident,  314 Stanford Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306    ‐‐   Sven Thesen,  415‐225‐7645  EV Consultant & Founder, ProjectGreenHome.org and BeniSolSolar.com; Wonder Junkie  __________________________________________________   Electric Cars are Cheaper than Cell Phones!  See:   http://www.projectgreenhome.org/articles.html  1 Carnahan, David From:David Coale <david@evcl.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 30, 2019 8:41 AM To:Council, City Subject:Guest Opinion: Palo Alto needs to step up its Green New Deal In case some of you have not seen this and for the record:  Palo Alto Weekly  Spectrum ‐ January 25, 2019  Guest Opinion: Palo Alto needs to step up its Green  New Deal  by David Coale  It has been exciting to hear about the Green New Deal (GND) being talked about across the nation. Here at home, Palo  Alto has committed to an 80‐percent reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 — the 80‐by‐30 goal. This  goal was adopted in 2016, so you could say Palo Alto has laid the groundwork for its GND already; but even though city  staff has been working on this, the overall plan is not widely known. With California's recent Climate Action Summit in  San Francisco last September, a United Nations report, and even the climate report from the White House, all saying  that climate change is worsening at a faster pace than we thought, I think the City of Palo Alto needs to step up its  efforts to enable our community to seriously address climate change.  The first step is to avoid continued investment in fossil fuel infrastructure and appliances that will likely become  obsolete before the end of their useful life. The main opportunities to save here relate to transportation, and natural gas  usage in buildings. They are the largest contributors to Palo Alto's GHG emissions, and we have efficient and cost‐ effective alternatives. Let's look at our transportation:   Currently, Palo Alto is planning to build a parking garage downtown at a cost of $29 million. This large expenditure  would encourage more auto use and likely be underutilized as our transportation modes continue changing.  Increasingly, the younger demographic is shying away from car ownership, choosing instead to use company  buses/shuttles, public transit, ride‐sharing services and other modes of transportation. Ride‐sharing services and self‐ driving cars will become very important to our aging population as well, enabling safe and reliable mobility as driving  becomes more difficult.   The money for the garage can be spent much more effectively on expanding the nonprofit Traffic Management  Association's (TMA) alternative commuting program. (The association develops, manages and markets programs aimed  at reducing traffic levels in downtown Palo Alto.)  By 2017, the association had reduced the number of single‐driver service workers driving downtown by 10 percent by  providing alternative commute incentives to their places of work. It plans to reduce driving by 30 percent (from a 2015  baseline of about 5,500 member employees) in the next few years with incentives that increase the use of carpooling,  CalTrain, biking and walking. This change is being achieved at a tiny fraction of the cost of building new parking garages  2 and allows for increased flexibility in managing parking demand. Plans are afoot to increase and expand these efforts to  the Cal Ave area.   The other good news in transportation is that we have reached a 50‐percent active transportation mode (walking,  biking, skateboarding) share in our schools. Most of this is bicycle use. This change has reduced auto traffic and parking  problems, promoted a healthy lifestyle, and freed up parents from school transportation all while reducing GHG  emissions. While some of Palo Alto's bike infrastructure might not be perfect, continued investment in this area will  serve us all well by enabling more of us to use active transportation modes. The success in our schools is an outstanding  example of what concerted city‐supported efforts can accomplish.  For our energy infrastructure, the time is right to modernize by moving away from natural gas to the city's carbon  neutral electricity to power our homes and buildings. When you factor in the natural gas leakage (2‐5 percent for  California) from production, distribution and end‐use in buildings, natural gas is no better than coal in terms of the GHG  pollution that is created. We would never consider using coal to heat our homes, as was the common practice in the  1800s. The resulting pollution choked our cities and shortened our life span. The difference now is that the CO2,  methane and other pollution from natural gas use is invisible. What is most visible are the effects of climate change that  worsen "natural" disasters worldwide.  Again, here in Palo Alto, there is good news. The city has enjoyed carbon neutral electricity since 2013 at rates lower  than our neighbors. Also, a recently completed study commissioned by the city showed that it is cost effective for all  new homes and small businesses and major remodels to be built all‐electric. The study looked at using modern heat‐ pump appliances for heating and cooling (hot water too) and induction cooking; not the old clunky resistive heating and  cooking of yesteryear. These new appliances are three times more efficient than their gas counter parts, and are  cheaper to operate so we can start gradually upgrading to electric homes in a cost effective and beneficial way. The city  can help by requiring that all new homes, small businesses and large retrofits use cost‐effective, low‐carbon appliances  instead of their natural gas counterparts. And with electric vehicles (EVs) getting more affordable everyday, charging  them with Palo Alto's carbon neutral electricity also will play a big role in switching away from fossil fuel use.  Since climate change is happening faster than any government can react, we need to make climate change a top city  council priority. If we make the right investments now instead of building obsolete infrastructure and equipment, we will  save even more in the long run. The sooner we make climate‐friendly investments, the more we will save and improve  our quality of life.  If you think Palo Alto should be combating climate change through local actions, then send an email to the City Council  (city.council@cityofpaloalto.org) asking them to adopt climate change as one of the top Council priorities for the  upcoming year.  David Coale is a board member of Carbon Free Palo Alto, was on the city's Green Building Technical Advisory Committee  and is a former Acterra board member.    See https://www.paloaltoonline.com/print/story/2019/01/25/palo‐alto‐needs‐to‐step‐up‐its‐green‐new‐ deal#comment_form to view this on‐line and see the comments most of which are supportive.    1 Carnahan, David From:Patti Colevas <pattiallencolevas@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 30, 2019 12:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Climate Change is a Priority Dear City Council,    I read David Coale's editorial in Palo Alto Online today and I wholeheartedly agree with his view that Palo Alto needs to  be a leader in planning for and mitigating climate change.  I oppose the large parking structure in the California Avenue  area which will just increase individual automobile use.  Let's use the money to really develop a great bike path, bike  lane system.  Please consider a trip to Boulder, Colorado where one can ride for miles on bike paths without having to  cross traffic.  And keep in mind that Colorado is the fittest state in the nation.  We would benefit from a similar system  and the maintenance costs would be much lower here because of our mild weather.      Please combat climate change in all your decisions.    Patti Allen Colevas  1 Carnahan, David From:Kelly Germa <kelly.germa@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:44 AM To:Cormack, Alison; alisonlcormack@gmail.com; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Fine, Adrian; Filseth, Eric (Internal) Cc:Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City; Council, City Subject:Bypassing ARB Dear Ms. Cormack, Mr. Tanaka, Ms. Kou, Mr. Dubois, Ms. Kniss, Mr. Fine, and Mr. Filseth,    Please support the United Neighbors’ Appeal and set aside the Planning Director’s January 4th decision to completely  bypass the ARB and unilaterally approve many many cell tower ancillary equipment installations on the streetlight poles  in our beautiful Palo Alto neighborhoods.    The first reason to do this is that it completely flouts the democratic process by which you were elected to carry out the  will of your constituents.  The Architectural Review Board is installed with experts to make informed technical  recommendations by gathering and reviewing data to provide consensus opinion as to sound course of action, and they  have recommended the cell tower ancillary equipment be put underground.  If you now selectively decide to totally  ignore the existence of the ARB regarding cell tower equipment installations without a mandate from the people of Palo  Alto to do so, then you are abusing your power.    The second reason to do this is that the people of Palo Alto bought homes here in large part because of the lovely  environmental aesthetics.  They searched and paid their hard‐earned money to enjoy the schools and proximity to work,  but also because they can walk to parks and coffee houses and smell the flowers on the way.  If you approve unsightly  noisy cell tower equipment all around our neighborhoods, it will detract substantially from personal enjoyment.  These  equipment locations are too numerous to be cavalier with their approval.  When you are out taking a walk around Palo  Alto, you will see and hear them, no matter how hidden, and they will take away from your overall experience of health  and well‐being.  We all want to see as much open blue sky as possible with as little man‐made noise or items in view.  So  you must make sure that putting these cell towers underground is not the best option, especially because the expense is  with the cell phone companies, not your residents.  The feeling of freedom and beauty for residents many years in the  future is at stake.    Sincerely,  Kelly Germa, Midtown Homeowner  650‐544‐5711    Sent from my iPad  1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 2:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Cell Tower Update: Feb. 4th Appeal     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: Leo Povolotsky <leopovolhoa@gmail.com>   Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 1:49 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: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>; Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning  Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Re: Cell Tower Update: Feb. 4th Appeal    Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice‐Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka.   As a concerned resident of the Barron Park for decades now and a member of the HOA Board for Villas De Las Plazas,  who’s going to be directly affected by the proposed installation of the mini‐cell tower on it’s property within a few feet  of our member’s house wall, I join with our concern with the United Neighbors and Jeanne Fleming, in particular in the  action of protesting the outrageous decision by the interim Planning Director, Jonathan Lait to approve the new  proposed installations of the mini‐cell towers without regard to the ARB recommendation and absent of a public hearing  on the matter.   We have no acceptable choice but to:  1. Condemn the interim Planning Director’s outrageous disregard both for residents’ rights and for the judgment of  the experts on the ARB;  2 2. Ask Council to overturn the interim Planning Director’s University South decision; and   3. Ask Council to send the new cell tower design he approved for University South where it should have gone in the  first place: to the Architectural Review Board for review in a public hearing.     Thank you for your continued leadership.    Sincerely,  Leo Povolotsky  Palo Alto resident for 28years,   HOA Board Member for 8years     3 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 2:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Cell tower appeal     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        ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Linda Clarke <lspclarke@gmail.com>   Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 1:53 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>; greg.tanaka@ciytofpaloalto.org  Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission  <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Cell tower appeal    Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice‐Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. Dubois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka,    It is very disappointing that the interim planning director, Jonathan Lait, disregarded due process and approved a new  above ground cell tower design. That type of blatant disregard for residents and the the judgment of the ARB should  never have been allowed to happen.     Please do the right thing and overturn Mr. Lait’s University South decision. The new cell tower design should be sent to  the ARB for review and approval. Otherwise, why even have an ARB?     Thank you,    Linda Clarke  204 Washington Avenue  Palo Alto, 94301   4 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 1:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Concern on the installation of new mobile cells in Palo Alto     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: Edouard Lafargue <edouard@lafargue.name>   Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 12:08 PM  To: 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>; Tanaka, Greg  <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia  <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission  <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Concern on the installation of new mobile cells in Palo Alto    Dear city officials,        For quite some time now a lot of Palo Alto residents have been expressing serious concerns about plans to install new  cell towers in our community.        Aside from potential health concerns, the installation of new equipment on utility poles goes against many common  sense management initiatives: while most cities are moving to underground utility lines for the sake of reliability, long  term maintenance costs and resilience, adding new equipment on existing poles will make it harder for the city of Palo  Alto to modernize to current urban standards, and perennialize those outdated overhead utility structures that are  becoming more and more of an embarrassment for the image of the city as time goes on.        Also, being in an earthquake prone area, the installation of heavy equipment on utility or lighting poles poses a direct  public safety threat to our community in case of a seismic event. As you know, the city of Palo Alto, like the rest of the  5 bay area, suffers from a chronic lack of emergency response resources to face a large catastrophic event, and having to  deal with additional poles falling on streets or housing will make the situation even worse the day it happens.        I urge the city to follow the Architectural Review Board common sense recommendations  related to locating  equipment underground, which is a long accepted standard in most cities in the world. Any additional cost borne by the  network operator for doing so should not be a determining factor for our city.      Thank you in advance for your consideration on this,    Edouard Lafargue  972 El Cajon Way, Triple El, Palo Alto      6 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 1:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Oppose Cell Tower installation above ground     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: John D Melnychuk <jmelnychuk@sbcglobal.net>   Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 12:30 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: Oppose Cell Tower installation above ground    Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka,   I am opposed to locating Cell tower equipment above ground. Such equipment is visual pollution, noisy, it creates a fire hazard. I believe the City of Palo Alto should require underground installation of all such equipment. The technology to install underground the majority of the equipment exists; Palo Alto should require these companies use this equipment like other cities are.     It’s objectionable and unreasonable that all of the huge-for-profit companies, Verizion, AT&T, Crown Castle, and others that install cell towers be allowed to override Palo Alto residents’ concerns because the companies prefer to install the cheapest, ugliest equipment in the least expensive way.   Last year there was an ethics scandal regarding the former Chief Information Technology Officer, Jonathon Reichental, because his decision making regarding installation of such towers was suspect; it looked as if he was a lobbyist for Industry, rather than a protector of Palo Alto and its 7 environment. Reichental resigned under a cloud of scandal and his actions are now being investigated by the State.    Is there another scandal brewing, this time because Palo Alto’s Planning Director has rejected the Architectural Review Board’s December recommendation to locate underground the cell towers Crown Castle/Verizon has applied to install in the University South neighborhood?    Has Mr. Lait been successful in bypassing the ARB and has he approved a Crown Castle streetlight pole-mounted cell tower design?    Is it true that he approved a design which none of us has ever seen a drawing, image or photograph of?     As you know, undesirable actions come at a time when City Staff is asking City Council to approve an amended Wireless Ordinance that gives the Planning Director sole authority to establish aesthetic standards for the over 150 so-called small cell node cell towers that telecom companies have already applied to locate in close proximity to residents’ homes here.     Please reject the amended Ordinance that City Staff has submitted to you and amend it to:     1. Establish the Architectural Review Board—not the Planning Director—as the lead in setting standards for the siting and appearance of cell towers;      2. Establish that there be a series of community meetings so that residents may learn what standards are being proposed, ask questions of ARB members and City Staff, and offer their own ideas for consideration; and     3. Require that, once these standards have been assembled, City Council must approve them before they become part of the City’s Wireless Ordinance.     I ask you as well to please direct Planning Director Lait to withdraw his decision to approve the Crown Castle/Verizon University South proposed cell tower installations.     Let’s have a look at what will be installed in our skyline forever before we accept the cheapest, ugliest equipment that huge for profit corporations wish to install to shave costs. We’ll live with the legacy of this precedent for generations. Why should Palo Alto accept the a design decision preferred by lobbyists for these corporations over those of Palo Alto residents?    Respectfully,    John Melnychuk  3707 Lindero Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306   8 Carnahan, David From:Leland Wiesner <lwiesner@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 12:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Cell Tower Update: Feb. 4th Appeal What is the point of the ARB if the city ignores their recommendations?    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>  Date: Tue, Jan 29, 2019, 12:09  Subject: Cell Tower Update: Feb. 4th Appeal  To: <JFLEMING@metricus.net>  Cc: Jerry Fan <jerry.fan@gmail.com>, <jnimkar@gmail.com>    Dear Neighbors,    Thank you for your on-going concern and support in the cell tower struggle. The hurdles we are facing now are the hurdles that come with success.     On the success side of the ledger, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) has told the City and the telecom companies: 1) that the ancillary equipment for the streetlight cell towers proposed for the University South neighborhood should be put underground; 2) that cell towers should not be installed on utility poles in Barron Park; and 3) that cell towers should not be installed on utility poles in Downtown North.    That should have been the end of it. Because what the city’s Planning Director is supposed to do— and indeed virtually always has done in the past—is defer to the recommendations of the ARB. After all, the ARB members are qualified to judge whether a particular project conforms to Palo Alto’s aesthetic standards; the Planning Director is not.    Instead, however, the interim Planning Director, Jonathan Lait, went rogue. He threw out the ARB’s recommendation with respect to the University South cell towers and unilaterally approved a new aboveground cell tower design. Moreover, he did so without either the ARB review or the public hearing mandated by Palo Alto’s Municipal Code. And now Mr. Lait has thrown out the ARB’s recommendation with respect to the Barron Park cell towers as well.    9 We have appealed Mr. Lait’s decision regarding the University South cell towers, and this coming Monday, February 4th, City Council will be hearing our appeal. (Barron Park will be dealt with in the future.)     Consequently, we would appreciate it if, sometime in the next few days, you would write to City Council and:     1. Condemn the interim Planning Director’s outrageous disregard both for residents’ rights and for the judgment of the experts on the ARB;  2. Ask Council to overturn the interim Planning Director’s University South decision; and   3. Ask them to send the new cell tower design he approved for University South where it should have gone in the first place: to the Architectural Review Board for review in a public hearing.    At the bottom of this email you will find the email addresses of each member of City Council. In writing to them, please begin your email with: “Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka.”    Please cc the ARB, the Planning Commission and the City Clerk on your email. Their addresses are provided below as well.     We also hope you will join us at the hearing and let your views be known. Our appeal is on the agenda for 8:15, although it could start earlier. It will take place in City Council’s chambers, which are located on the ground floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue.     Thank you, as always, for your concern and support. Please continue to let your voices be heard.    Jeanne, Jerry & Jyo  For United Neighbors     Members of City Council:  Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org  Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org  10 Alison.Cormack@cityofpaloalto.org  Tom.Dubois@cityofpaloalto.org  Liz.Kniss@cityofpaloalto.org  Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org  Greg.Tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org    Cc:  ARB@cityofpaloalto.org  Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org  city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org            1 Carnahan, David From:Carol Heermance <cheermance@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 9:09 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject:cell towers Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. Dubois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka, We are writing to you concerning the city’s handling of the proposed cell towers in our neighborhoods. In December, the ARB recommended a sensible underground solution regarding the placement of cell towers in University South. Even with this recommendation, Mr. Lait, the interim Planning Director, disregarded both the resident’s rights and the judgement of the experts on the ARB by approving an aboveground cell tower design for University South. How can the Council, in good faith, allow one individual to make an end-run around the well established City procedure by ignoring the recommendations of the ARB and the inputs from our citizens? We strongly urge the Council to overturn Mr. Lait’s decision regarding University South, and insist that Mr. Lait send his recommendations to the ARB for review and public hearing. Thank you for your consideration of this issue. Richard and Carol Heermance 208 N. California Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301     1 Carnahan, David From:ForestLight <forest129@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 30, 2019 11:50 AM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject:University South Cell Towers Appeal - Feb 4, 2019 Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka.   The City of Palo Alto's Architectural Review Board (ARB) has told the City and the telecom companies: 1) that the ancillary equipment for the streetlight cell towers proposed for the University South neighborhood should be put underground. 2) that cell towers should not be installed on utility poles in Barron Park. 3) that cell towers should not be installed on utility poles in Downtown North. Mr Lait has apparently decided to ignore the ARB’s recommendation with respect to the University South cell towers and unilaterally approve a new aboveground cell tower design. Mr. Lait did so without either the ARB review or the public hearing mandated by Palo Alto’s Municipal Code. Now Mr. Lait has apparently thrown out the ARB’s recommendation with respect to the Barron Park cell towers as well. Mr. Lait’s continued disregard both for residents’ rights and for the judgment of the experts on the ARB is deeply distressing and alarming — in no little measure because it is yet one more example of Palo Alto’s city staff members taking it upon themselves to evade, ignore or usurp the right of citizen/resident review in many critical areas involving a wide range of utilities. Please overturn this interim Planning Director’s University South decision. Send the new cell tower design he approved for University South where it should have gone in the first place — to the Architectural Review Board for review in a public hearing. Thank you, Michael Maurier  Property Owner and Resident Green Acres One   1 Carnahan, David From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Monday, January 28, 2019 12:36 PM To:Steve Levy Subject:Bay Area and Mega region job and wage trends https://www.spur.org/news/2019-01-23/wage-trends-show-increases-low-wage-jobs-while-middle-wage-job-growth-slows The key takeaways The share of jobs in high wage occupations has grown while the share in middle wage occupations has declined These trends are likely to continue The share of jobs in low wage occupations has remained steady, which means the number of low wage jobs has increased and will continue to grow. Wage growth in low wage jobs has lagged growth in high wage jobs BUT this trend has reversed in the past three years as a result of a strong labor market and minimum wage increases. Still Bay Area and Mega region wage gains have not kept pace with rising housing costs for many residents. 1 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, January 28, 2019 5:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:California Street Greetings,    I hope you do not add density to California Ave.  Roof top gardens are not   open space, and only people living/working there can access them.  We are all healthier when we have green and open space around us.  Roof top gardens do not fulfill the requirements for open space.    Thank you,    Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St.  94306  1 Carnahan, David From:Anna Dambrosio <anna.dambrosio82@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 27, 2019 5:26 PM To:Council, City; De Geus, Robert; Filseth, Eric (external); adrianfine@gmail.com; kou.pacc@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; liz.kniss@cityofpaloalti.org; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; Shikada, Ed; Cormack, Alison Cc:Francesco De Paolis Subject:Charleston/Meadow Rail Crossings Dear Rail Committee and City Council members, First, thanks for all your hard work. My husband and I have recently purchased a property in the Greenmeadow community, one block away from Alma Street. Soon after purchasing the property, we were informed about the rail project and the alternatives. Had we known that the City was even considering building a viaduct along Alma, we would have never purchased the property. Coming from Europe, I find it simply shocking that this is even being considered in 2019, especially in one of the most expensive cities in the world which is home to some of the most highly educated citizens in the world. Please show some pride in your beautiful city and empathy to your neighbors who might end up with a huge number of train passengers looking into their backyards everyday and will see their property value drop. I struggle to comprehend how a city as wealthy as Palo Alto could base such an important decision merely on numbers. I sincerely and truly hope the raised options will be eliminated asap and more time will be spent on identifying the right underground solution. I'm personally in favor of the tunneled passenger train and freight at grade, as this solution will not interfere with the creeks, it will cost less then the tunnel solution and will leave space for other land use options if the freight gets eventually electrified or re-routed over Dumbarton rail route. Thanks again for the work done so far in this project, Anna Dambrosio and Francesco De Paolis 1 Carnahan, David From:Mary Ann Michel <maryannm7@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 4:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:Draft 2019 New Transit Service Plan http://newtransitplan.vta.org/       No doubt you know about this VTA transit plan that is seeking input from citizens. Notice the closest venue to us is  Mountain View Sr Center at 6 pm Feb 6.  I believe other meeting can be arranged by calling the no. on this site above.  Would someone please send this to our Transportation Dept.  Did you know  that part of the plan is to serve the busiest  routes and delete the ones that have low ridership.     Thank you for your attention to this situation.    Sincerely,    Mary Ann Michel  650 324 7384  850 Webster St. Apt 503  Palo Alto, CA 94301          1 Carnahan, David From:Osborne Hardison <hardisun@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 26, 2019 10:58 AM To:Council, City Subject:Dragging on long enough. Council members:    I urgently ask you to work on SFO/SJO jet noise abatement.  There are 20 Palo Alto neighborhoods are affected ‐ low and  loud day night flights are a serious problem. It's urgent that PACC step up and speak up for the health and well being of  thousands of residents.      This problem has gone on long enough with no progress being made ‐ we need our city leaders to act in a decisive and goal‐ oriented way to correct this and improve our quality of life.  The FAA and regional management organizations seem perfectly  content with putting our concerns on the back burner and ignoring our requests for relief.  You are our only hope ‐ if that  means a lawsuit, I think it is high‐time to consider that.     Inaction is not an alternative any more.    Sincerely,  Osborne Hardison  456 Ferne Ave  Palo Alto, CA 94306    1 Carnahan, David From:Brown Jonathan <jbrownie2218@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 23, 2019 10:26 PM To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission Subject:Fw: 3350 Birch Street Attachments:2017-05-01 ATT Propty for Parkland Informational Report 7987.pdf Dear City Council and Parks and Rec Commission, Please see below. I need you to be aware of a critical update to the status of property that the Parks and Recreation Commission and residents in the Ventura neighborhood have expressed strong support for the City to purchase and set aside as parkland. The time to act is now, and if the opportunity is missed, the land will be lost forever. I have invested many hours of my time trying to make this happen, but I have not been kept in the loop by the City as to what it has been doing on this matter. As Chair of the Ventura Parks Committee, it is my duty to report the status of this situation to those I represent and to do everything I can to help drive a deal that makes the expansion of Boulware Park a reality, as well as further the express desires of our citizens with respect to the North Ventura Coordinated Action Plan. Thank you. Jonathan Brown ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Brown Jonathan <jbrownie2218@yahoo.com> To: Jensen, Peter <Peter.Jensen@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Ghaemmaghami, Hamid <Hamid.Ghaemmaghami@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: O'Kane, Kristen <Kristen.O'Kane@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019, 10:12:49 PM PST Subject: 3350 Birch Street Hamid, Peter, What is the status of the negotiations with AT&T to purchase the land at 3350 Birch Street? Did the lot get divided already? (see also my points earlier in the string on zoning). Today I noticed the attached "for sale" sign on the property. I have reached out to the real estate agents to inquire, but I would appreciate an update from your side. This issue is extremely important to the community, particularly the Ventura Neighborhood and with the Fry's Site right next door, and I would hate to think that the City is squandering an opportunity that it has already expressed a desire to pursue. I remain willing and eager to help in all ways. I await your response. Thank you. Jonathan Brown 2 Chair of the Ventura Parks Committee 3 4 On Wednesday, May 10, 2017, 1:23:19 PM PDT, Ghaemmaghami, Hamid <Hamid.Ghaemmaghami@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: We do not have a formal application from AT&T to subdivide the parcel. We have an appointment next week to discuss the status with the AT&T consultant. Thanks you, Hamid             Hamid Ghaemmaghami CCIM, CPM, SR/WA Licensed Real Estate Broker  Manager of Real Property  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2264 |email:  Hamid.Ghaemmaghami@cityofpaloalto.org                5 From: Jonathan Brown [mailto:jbrownie2218@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 11:36 AM To: Jensen, Peter; Ghaemmaghami, Hamid Subject: Re: Ventura Parks Committee Comments on Concept Plans for Boulware Park and Ventura Community Center Park Peter, Hamid, I saw that the City Council was informed about the Parks and Recs recommendation to pursue the opportunity to buy at least part of the AT&T parcel at 3350 Birch Street, although I do not know for sure if it was discussed on the record (minutes have not been published). What is the status? Thank you. Jonathan On Mar 30, 2017, at 3:24 PM, Jonathan Brown <jbrownie2218@yahoo.com> wrote: Peter, I understand that AT&T has submitted its application to divide the property at 3350 Birch. What is the status of that application, and are you or Hamid (cc’d here) involved? Among other things, I want to make sure that any division of the property would result in both parcels’ retaining the PF zoning designation. Section 18.28.040 of the Municipal Code, Land Uses, Table 1, specifies only one permitted (as opposed to conditionally permitted) land use for PF land not owned by or leased to the City: "Park uses and uses incidental to park operation.” Preserving this land as potential expansion for Boulware Park was the clear preference of the Parks & Recs Commission, and nothing in the process of subdividing the property should make such preservation more difficult. Any assessment of “full market value” needs to reflect the PF zoning designation. Are you able to provide any further update? How can I help push the Parks & Recs Recommendation onto the City Council Agenda? Thank you very much. Jonathan Brown On Jan 25, 2017, at 3:16 PM, Jensen, Peter <Peter.Jensen@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Jonathan – 6 Per my conversations with Hamid from the city’s real estate department he has reached out to Pacific Bell who owns the property and made them aware of the city’s interest in purchasing the land when and if they decide to sell. Pacific Bell has been requested to reach out to the city when that decision has been made to discuss the possibility of acquiring the land. However, it should be noted that Pacific Bell will be seeking to sale the land for its full market value . At that time a closed session will be held by the city council to determine if purchasing the land is something the city would like to pursue. The land would need to be put on the market before any of that could formally take place. Please contact me if you have further questions. Thank you <image008.jpg>     Peter Jensen | Public Works  Landscape Architect #5663 | Certified Arborist WE‐8718A  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  D: 650.617.3183 | C: 650.444.5024  E: peter.jensen@cityofpaloalto.org     <image003.png>   <image004.png>    <image005.png>   <image006.png>    <image007.png>                                                                                7       From: Jonathan Brown [mailto:jbrownie2218@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 2:33 PM To: Jensen, Peter Subject: Re: Ventura Parks Committee Comments on Concept Plans for Boulware Park and Ventura Community Center Park Peter, I hope you had a nice break as 2016 became 2017. What is the status on the potential acquisition of 3350 Birch? I’ve seen “No Trespassing” signs go up on the parcel. Do you know when the Parks & Recs Recommendation will be considered by City Council? I don’t see it on the agenda for the 23rd. Is there an opportunity to provide input into whoever is considering the lot line adjustment to ask that they consider conditioning any split of the property in ways that make it clear that the City would prefer that the entire parcel be reserved for open space/parkland rather than other uses? Thank you. Jonathan On Oct 6, 2016, at 2:56 PM, Jensen, Peter <Peter.Jensen@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Thank you I'll keep you posted Sent from my iPhone On Oct 6, 2016, at 11:00 AM, Jonathan Brown <jbrownie2218@yahoo.com> wrote: Peter, 8 Thank you for continuing to keep this issue on the front burner. I am sensitive to public disclosure requirements and related issues, so I did not include the information in my email to City Council. I would be happy to work with you and other staff to make further contact with AT&T. Below I have pasted the email I received from Sharon Church regarding the property at 3350 Birch Street. It includes her contact information. Please let me know if you would like to arrange a joint call. I am happy to be involved in any way that makes sense and could be of assistance, and I look forward to hearing further developments. Thank you. Jonathan Brown 650-823-3898 From: "CHURCH, SHARON I" <sc7125@att.com> Subject: FW: AT&T Real Estate Question - 3350 Birch, Palo Alto Date: September 20, 2016 at 8:11:54 AM PDT To: "jbrownie2218@yahoo.com" <jbrownie2218@yahoo.com> Good morning Mr. Brown, I am the Corporate Real Estate manager responsible for selling the excess land adjacent to our equipment building on Birch in Palo Alto. We are currently working on a lot line adjustment. When we have that complete, we will list the property with one of our brokers and competitively market the property for sale. Thank you for your inquiry! 9 Sharon I. Church, CCIM Regional Manager, Transactions AT&T Services, Inc. 125 Liberty Street, 2nd Floor Petaluma, CA 94952 707-781-7074 sharon.church@att.com On Oct 5, 2016, at 4:40 PM, Jensen, Peter <Peter.Jensen@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Jonathan – City staff is reviewing the property at 3350 Birch. Do you have the contact information of the person you spoke with at AT&T. City staff would like to inquire further about it’s availability. Please note for future communication on this issue I will be the contact, so reach out to me directly. Thank you for your assistance. Respectfully 10 <image001.jpg>    Peter Jensen | Public Works  Landscape Architect #5663 | Certified Arborist WE‐8718A  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  D: 650.617.3183 | C: 650.444.5024  E: peter.jensen@cityofpaloalot.org     <image002.png>   <image003.png>    <image004.png>   <image005.png>    <image006.png>                                                                  From: Jonathan Brown [mailto:jbrownie2218@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 12:33 PM To: pwecips; ParkRec Commission; Council, City Cc: Rebecca Sanders; Jensen, Peter Subject: Re: Ventura Parks Committee Comments on Concept Plans for Boulware Park and Ventura Community Center Park Dear City of Palo Alto and Parks and Recreation Commission, I write (in my individual capacity for now) to urge prompt follow-up action on an issue identified in my February 8, 2016, email, the July 28, 2016, email from the Ventura Parks Committee, and in the City’s Draft Park and Facilities New Amenities Concept Plans Review City of Palo Alto (ID # 7987) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 5/1/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: AT&T Property for Parkland Title: Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation to Explore the Potential Sale by AT&T and Purchase by City of Palo Alto of a Portion of a Parcel at 3350 Birch Street, Palo Alto, Adjacent to Boulware Park, for Parkland From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services RECOMMENDATION This is an informational report and no action is required at this time. The Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) has considered and recommended that the City Council explore the potential sale of AT&T owned land adjacent to Boulware Park at 3350 Birch Street, for possible purchase by City of Palo Alto for dedicated parkland (See Attachment B). Staff is evaluating next steps and providing this report to inform the City Council of the pending issue and will return to the Council for action in the near future. BACKGROUND In Fall 2016, staff learned that a section of a property owned by Pacific Bell Telephone Company (referred to as the AT&T property) in the City of Palo Alto would likely be made available for purchase. The Parks and Recreation Commission, along with residents in the Ventura neighborhood have expressed their strong support for the City to consider purchase of the property. The 1.65 acre (71,807 square feet) property is located at 3350 Birch Street in the Ventura neighborhood and is bounded by Chestnut Street to the east, Ash Street to the south and Lambert Avenue to the west (Attachment A). The General Plan designation for the property is Major Institution/Special Facilities and the Zoning is Public Facility. A large building exists on the northeast corner of the parcel while the remaining parcel is vacant. This property is owned by Pacific Bell Telephone Company, with AT&T being the regulated entity. At this time, AT&T plans to separate the land at the above location and then competitively market it for sale. The area of the parcel that would be made available for sale is estimated at 0.64 acre (27,832 square feet) and is a vacant section of the parcel. AT&T has not completed its internal approvals to sell the property which will be another step in the process. City of Palo Alto Page 2 At the intersection of Chestnut and Ash Streets and opposite the AT&T property sits Boulware Park, a 1.5 acre neighborhood park. The park includes two children’s playgrounds, a basketball court, two picnic areas with barbecues, benches and a short perimeter pathway. The area surrounding both the AT&T property and Boulware Park is a mix of residential and commercial land uses. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The draft Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan includes a policy aimed at expanding parkland inventory using the National Recreation and Park Association standard of 4 acres/1,000 residents as a guide. The policy states that parkland should expand with population, be well distributed across the community and be of sufficient size to meet the varied needs of neighborhoods and the broader community. The maximum service area of a park should be ½ mile. Palo Alto does not currently meet the standard and acquiring this property and dedicating it as parkland would get the City closer to achieving it. Staff is in the process of analyzing the potential purchase of the property by the City and is including the distance to other neighborhood parks, population density and compatibility with the Draft Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan in the analysis. Additional considerations will be cost, available funding and prioritization over additional City parks and recreation projects that also require a funding source (for example, development of the 10.5 acre property in the Baylands), and criteria for designating priority of parks for funding, acquisition, or improvement. To the extent such decisions require general funds, implications for the Citywide Capital Improvement Program need to be reviewed and considered. Attachments:  Attachment A: Site location  Attachment B - AT&T Purchase Memo to Council Attachment A 0 rt Logic, Inc 0 •Cker AT&T Property 3350 Birch Street Boulware Park Corner Bai<ery Cafe Attachment B 1 MEMORANDUM April 3, 2017 TO: City Council FROM: Parks and Recreation Commission SUBJECT: Recommendation to explore opportunity to purchase the parcel owned by AT&T at 3350 Birch Street, Palo Alto for parkland use. The Parks and Recreation Commission strongly recommends full investigation of the opportunity to purchase the AT&T property, located at 3350 Birch Street (adjacent to Boulware Park), for use as parkland, including identification of creative funding strategies to realize this unique opportunity The sizeable subject property is currently zoned Public Facility. It sits on the edge of two park search areas highlighted in the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan and adjacent to existing Boulware Park and Matadero Creek in the Ventura neighborhood. Acquisition of the property would allow for expansion of this undersized park in an already underserved area targeted for future growth. In addition, the property location offers unique potential for employing the public right of way (street) for recreational use and developing a creek walk connecting with future development at the Fry’s site. Pursuit of this unique opportunity to expand the city’s parkland inventory is consistent with the Draft Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan as follows: DRAFT PARKS, RECREATION, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN: Policy 1.B: Expand parkland inventory using the National Recreation and Park Association standard as a guide for park development in Palo Alto’s Urban Service Area. New parkland should be added to meet and maintain the standard of 4 acres/1,000 residents. Parkland should expand with population, be well distributed across the community and of sufficient size to meet the varied needs of neighborhoods and the broader community. Maximum service area should be one-half mile. Program 1.B.2: Establish a system in the City’s real estate office that identifies land being sold and reviews it for park potential, prioritizing review of land within park search areas. Program 1.B.4: Examine City-owned right of way (streets, which make up the biggest portion of publicly owned land) to identify temporary or permanent areas for improvements that connect or add recreation activity space. Attachment B 2 Program 1.B.7: Monitor properties adjacent to parks that are smaller than the minimum recommended size for potential acquisition to expand existing parks. [Note: While the Master Plan does not carry over the explicit NPRA distinction between neighborhood parks (2+ acres) and district parks (5+ acres), it does use the overall NRPA standard as a guide. Boulware is undersized by both standards.] Program 1.B.9: Acquire and develop a new neighborhood park in each park search area, starting with the most underserved areas and targeting a central and well- connected location to maximize access. Program 1.B.10: Develop a creek walk along Matadero Creek that links parks and creates open space and habitat corridor. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Policy C-28: Use National Recreation and Park Association Standards as guidelines for locating and developing new parks. These guidelines are as follows:  Neighborhood parks should be at least two acres in size, although sites as small as one- half acre may be needed as supplementary facilities. The maximum service area radius should be one-half mile. Two acres of neighborhood parkland should be provided for each 1,000 people.  District parks should be at least five acres in size. The maximum service area radius should be one mile. Two acres of district park land should be provided for each 1,000 people. A park should be provided within walking distance of all residential neighborhoods and employment areas. The National Recreation and Park Association defines walking distance as one-half mile. 1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Monday, January 28, 2019 2:03 PM To:Loran Harding; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; Mayor; terry; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; Mark Standriff; Mark Kreutzer; Council, City; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Steve Wayte; Joel Stiner; hennessy; midge@thebarretts.com; info@superide1.com; nick yovino; jerry ruopoli; russ@topperjewelers.com; robert.andersen; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; yicui@stanford.edu; popoff; bballpod Subject:Fwd: Cameras will be installed in wine country to spot wildfires.   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 1:36 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cameras will be installed in wine country to spot wildfires.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>            Monday, Jan. 28, 2019                   To all‐  Here is a statement issued by PGE last Thursday, Jan. 24, 2019, after CalFire concluded that PGE's  equipment did not start the 2017 Tubbs fire:  Note all of the measures the company says it is implementing to reduce  the chance of their equipment starting wild fires:                      https://www.pge.com/en/about/newsroom/newsdetails/index.page?title=20190124_cal_fire_concludes_that _pge_equipment_did_not_cause_2017_tubbs_wildfire                  Lots more cameras and automatic weather stations. Those, of course, would show smoke and flame from fires  started by sources other than PGE, so these will be very valuable. So this addresses the fire detection issue. Now we  need government to address, and seriously upgrade, the fire fighting system, as, e.g., with 50 747 tankers.                       This morning, KCBS is reporting that a private group is proposing to provide PGE with several billion dollars  though a bond financing program, possibly allowing it to avoid BK. I hope so since one report estimates that a BK will  produce an $11 per month increase in the average home's PGE electric charge.                     That report did not talk about the increases in home owners' insurance rates as the wild fire crisis continues. I  hope the California State Insurance Commissioner is cognizant of what a huge increase in those rates would do: it could  simply force millions of Californian's out of their homes. If one cannot afford to insure a home, his mortgage holder will  foreclose the mortgage and have him evicted from the property. Millions of Californians will then flee the State, if  breathing deadly wild fire smoke hasn't caused them to do so already.                     Am I somehow expressing my belief that the wild fires in California constitute a crisis?              L. William Harding            Fresno        2 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 10:34 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cameras will be installed in wine country to spot wildfires.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, dennisbalakian  <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Daniel Zack  <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, <esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov>, paul.caprioglio  <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, Mark Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>,  city.council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>,  <kwalsh@kmaxtv.com>, Steve Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, Joel Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com>, Dan Richard  <danrichard@mac.com>, hennessy <hennessy@stanford.edu>, <midge@thebarretts.com>, <info@superide1.com>,  terry <terry@terrynagel.com>, nick yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>, jerry ruopoli <jrwiseguy7@gmail.com>,  <russ@topperjewelers.com>, robert.andersen <robert.andersen@fresno.gov>, beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>,  <bearwithme1016@att.net>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 10:01 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cameras will be installed in wine country to spot wildfires.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                    Sun. eve, Jan. 27, 2019                   To all‐  A tiny tid‐bit from KCBS as I was waking this morning. It is regarding a big wild fire in the San Diego area a  few years ago. The San Diegan they interviewed, a woman, might just be an inveterate PGE hater, but this is what she  said:                     She said that since that fire, PGE has done a lot to prevent their equipment from starting fires around San  Diego. They have cut the foliage way back, they have gone to metal poles in places, they have gone to taller poles to  avoid the trees, and they have installed automated weather look‐out stations with cameras, etc. I've seen those  automated weather stations PGE installs on TV in ads by PGE, but it was not emphasized that they were installed in the  San Diego area after a big fire there.                  This woman seemed to imply that PGE knows how to reduce the likelihood of their equipment starting fires, but  they just didn't do it in the wine country or in Butte County in time. Sort of a close the barn door after the horse is gone  approach, she seems to say.  No way to know how true any of this is. Regulators and investigators might do well to look  into the history of these fixes by PGE in the San Diego area.  Were they implemented after a big fire in the San Diego  area thought to have been sparked by PGE equipment? Have they reduced the incidence of fires there, and why were  they not implemented in the wine country and in Butte Co. and elsewhere. The answer to that would be the cost. So the  real question would be why PGE didn't scream for the money to do these fixes before the 2017 and 2018 fires, or at  least the 2018 Camp Fire, the cause of which is still to be determined.  If the fixes mentioned work, PGE should  implement them widely and be given the money to do so. Even be mandated to implement them.                 NOTE:  Something is wrong with the above since PGE doesn't operate in the San Diego area. Wish I could hear the  report again, above, broadcast by KCBS SF Sunday, Jan. 27, 2019.  Either the woman talking wasn't talking about San  Diego, or, if she was, she wasn't talking about PGE.      3               We in California are really up against it with these wild fires. I still say that Trump is taking a "let em hang"  approach to this issue. During his visit to the "Camp fire" in Paradise, Ca., he said that the Dept. of Ag budget has $50  million (?) to address forest dead wood clearing. That won't solve the problem. We need billions of dollars to clear the  forest floor on millions of acres of forest in the West, and we need 50 747s converted to tanker duty. They might cost  $100 million each, or $5 billion, plus more for hangars, maintenance facilities, etc. That money could come from Trump's  $716 billion DOD budget. One of these fires, DOD assets are going to be lost, so taking money from that budget would  be justified.                It is probably just a matter of days before the next 300 square mile forest fire breaks out in Calif. That smoke is  deadly, and we need the federal government to step up to this. People get fired or even deposed for ignoring such a  situation in other countries.                    BTW the man at Univ. of Nevada, Reno who is the expert with the cameras in forests is Graham Kent.                  L. William Harding                Fresno                       ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 3:06 AM  Subject: Fwd: Cameras will be installed in wine country to spot wildfires.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David  Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, Mark  Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>,  newsdesk <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, <kwalsh@kmaxtv.com>, beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>,  <bearwithme1016@att.net>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, Steve Wayte  <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>, <esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov>, paul.caprioglio  <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, <fmerlo@wildelectric.net>, Joel Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com>, hennessy  <hennessy@stanford.edu>, nick yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>, huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>                 Late Wed. Jan. 23, 2019                To all‐  Think they are joking re Traveler's getting tough about underwriting in California due to the fire losses?  Read this:              https://www.reinsurancene.ws/travelers‐to‐pull‐back‐on‐california‐wildfire‐exposure/                Get ready to pay more for homeowners insurance, if you can get it, as well as to pay higher PG&E bills. This  should rattle rich republicans with immense homes in the CV. The ones who are planning thousands of new homes east  of Fresno, too.                 Oh and one other tiny point:  KCBS said this AM that cities and counties in Calif. are worried about a PG&E BK  because it can reduce property tax collections. The Co. operates in 50 Calif. counties and pays (or has paid) $230 million  per yr. in property taxes, 20% of that to the 9 Bay Area Counties.. It also pays franchise fees to cities to string wires and  deliver e‐.                  KCBS quoted the Fresno Co. Treasurer as saying that in the early 2000's during the e‐ crisis, PGE went through a  BK. BK does not excuse property taxes, but at that time the Co. fell behind paying them but did catch up later.     4                  So mighty sweet: higher homeowners insurance premiums, higher PGE bills, more for gas and car reg. I may  step up my German skills and, if I move there, none of you will have Harding to kick around any more. NOW, in the face  of all of this, let's lay on that great, bracing new sales tax hike in Fresno. It should be an easy sale at the polls, especially  with me yelling my head off about it. But again, it is irresistible: A huge, $5 trillion tax cut for the upper incomes, and a  kick in the gut for the little guy. It just makes that tax cut so much sweeter.               Keep advertising those big new vehicles and all those great internet, phone and TV plans.  The divorce and BK  lawyers will see an uptick in business, I think.  Surely no recession in sight. Keep those rate hikes coming and keep  clearing that Fed balance sheet.                    LH     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 3:22 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cameras will be installed in wine country to spot wildfires.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David  Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, Mark  Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>,  newsdesk <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, <kwalsh@kmaxtv.com>, beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>,  <bearwithme1016@att.net>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, Steve Wayte  <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>, <esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov>, paul.caprioglio  <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, <fmerlo@wildelectric.net>, Joel Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com>, hennessy  <hennessy@stanford.edu>, nick yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 3:09 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cameras will be installed in wine country to spot wildfires.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 2:40 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cameras will be installed in wine country to spot wildfires.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 2:35 PM  Subject: Cameras will be installed in wine country to spot wildfires.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>    5            Wed. Jan. 23, 2019              To all‐  KCBS San Francisco,  AM 740, broadcasting the truth into California's Central Valley, reported this morning  that cameras will be installed in Mendocino, Sonoma, Marin, Napa and Lake counties in Calif. to spot wildfires early on.  Graham Kent at University of Nevada, Reno is the expert on this:  KCBS interviewed him. He said that often people call in  a fire when they don't know where they are at the time. Resources can be dispatched and find no fire when they arrive.              The cameras are the size of a basketball and cost $16,000 each. They are more than just cameras, this suggests.  They will be installed by spring, 2019.             I suggested in recent months that we install smoke detectors, cameras, wind, temperature and humidity measuring  devices, in our forests, solar powered and reporting via satellite. Great minds think alike?  The article here is dated  August, 2018 and talks about Sonoma Co. getting the cameras. KCBS said this morning that the five counties I mention  above are now a go for these cameras.                    https://www.unr.edu/nevada‐today/news/2018/alertwildfire‐expands‐to‐sonoma‐county                 The public will be able to log on and see what these cameras are seeing, so a crowd reporting effort will be  enabled.                  MY hope is that we could get this system installed in the Sierra east of Fresno. Think of a big wildfire starting  there and sweeping west across Clovis‐Fresno and burning every last home to the ground. Trying to stop such a fire with  thousands of men with shovels would be hopeless. We need 50 747s converted to tanker duty. And we need the camera  system right away. 100 such cameras at $16,000 each would cost $1,600,000.                   BTW, NBR last night said that Travelers Insurance stopped underwriting in California in 2018 due to the wildfires.  Not a good trend for Calif. home owners.                                LH                            1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Thursday, January 24, 2019 2:17 PM To:Loran Harding; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Steve Wayte; Mayor; Mark Standriff; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; info@superide1.com; midge@thebarretts.com; jerry ruopoli; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council, City; leager Subject:Fwd: Measure P can be declared Passed, this says   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 2:13 PM  Subject: Fwd: Measure P can be declared Passed, this says  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 2:02 PM  Subject: Fwd: Measure P can be declared Passed, this says  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, Mark Standriff  <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, Steve Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, paul.caprioglio  <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, <esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov>, Joel Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com>, beachrides  <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>, <bearwithme1016@att.net>, Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>, nick yovino  <npyovino@gmail.com>, robert.andersen <robert.andersen@fresno.gov>, newsdesk <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, kfsndesk  <kfsndesk@abc.com>, <kwalsh@kmaxtv.com>, huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>,  <info@superide1.com>, <midge@thebarretts.com>, hennessy <hennessy@stanford.edu>, Dan Richard  <danrichard@mac.com>, Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, terry <terry@terrynagel.com>, leager  <leager@fresnoedc.com>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 1:31 PM  Subject: Fwd: Measure P can be declared Passed, this says  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 1:27 PM  Subject: Measure P can be declared Passed, this says  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  2        Doug‐ Here is a good price on yellow vests:  Only $2.30 each:              https://www.amazon.com/d/Safety‐Vests/PeerBasics‐Yellow‐Reflective‐Safety‐ Breathable/B0761YKMTV/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?ie=UTF8&qid=1548367741&sr=8‐1‐ spons&keywords=yellow+vests+safety&psc=1               LH            Thurs. Jan. 24, 2019               Doug‐  You must love this: The group pushing for more parks for the disadvantaged, which I would never set foot  in for fear of my life, are going to sue to get the City to say a simple majority was all that Measure P needed to pass. That  will give us all a nice big kick in the gut via a big sales tax hike here in Fresno, something that we'll "never notice". I  usually do really notice it when somebody kicks me in the gut.             https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article224998300.html             This when our home owners insurance rates are sure to rise due to the fires, when our PGE bills will rise due to the  BK, when we are paying higher gas prices and car reg. fees to pay for all of the very obvious and very well thought‐out  work being done on our roads and streets, when our water and trash rates keep rising, when our property taxes are now  rising the full 2% allowed by Prop 13. I think its time for a couple of big, new high schools here to teach the illegals with  the best of everything, including, of course, multi‐lingual instructors in every subject. We Anglos deserve to pay to  educate them because it was through our venality that conditions in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador are  so bad, driving them north. Why are you so cruel?                I know you're relieved by this and will be glad to pay even more in our sky‐high sales tax. You don't pay enough  now to employ border security, ICE agents, keep the jails and prisons and courts and emergency rooms and probation  and parole agents servicing these people We need lots of better parks and more new schools to educate and entertain  them. Again, it all stems from our cruelty in Mexico, Guatemala etc.              BTW, we give Egypt $1.5 billion tax dollars per year, almost as much as we give Israel, and we're thrilled to do it. I  know I am. Forget the $716 billion DOD budget of Trump, which, he bragged, is the largest in history. I took a cab ride  one morning in Koln, Germany. Great ride, sitting as I was in the back seat of a big Mercedes cab. You see those all over  Fresno. The United States is now an utterly corrupt country, like Egypt. We just don't have any pyramids.               As for me though, where can I buy a yellow vest? I'm serious.                  L. William Harding               Fresno  1 Carnahan, David From:Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent:Friday, January 25, 2019 9:28 AM To:Council, City Cc:Arthur Keller; Neilson Buchanan; John Guislin; Paul & Karen Machado; David Schrom; Carol Scott; Christian Pease Subject:Fwd: more on Zuckerberg housing coalition Dear City Council,    to mitigate the effects of the housing boom, the City of Palo Alto should ask these benevolent companies to create a  similar fund for funding a train tunnel as well as paying for already more than overdue upgrades to  our city's infrastructure (water, gas, sewer lines, etc.) plus traffic management.    There is plenty of money out there, it just needs to be used for the right purpose.    Without upgrading our infrastructure, more housing will just break our aging infrastructure. And those who are  advocating for more housing ‐ not because they care about low income housing, but because they care about to house  their employees as close to their officies as possible ‐   should pay for those upgrades.    And these upgrades have to come BEFORE more tech worker housing is built.    thank you.    Wolfgang Dueregger  Evergreen Park      Bay Area housing gets $500 million boost, with launch of region’s largest fund    Bay Area housing gets $500 million boost, with launch of region’s larges... The new fund, spearheaded by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, comes as residents pressure Silicon Valley tech com...    1 Carnahan, David From:Shannon Rose McEntee <shannonrmcentee@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 26, 2019 9:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: NYTimes.com: Noise May Raise Blood Pressure Risk Dear City Council Members,    I understand that you soon will be discussing the ongoing problem with jet noise.  The attached article from  the New York Times regarding the health dangers of aircraft noise should be of interest, and perhaps it might  be helpful.  Not only is the unending jet noise driving Peninsula residents crazy, it is bad for our health.  I urge  you to do everything in your power to get the FAA to change the flight paths and improve this unbearable  situation.    Sincerely,    Shannon Rose McEntee   410 Sheridan Avenue  Palo Alto    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    From The New York Times:    Noise May Raise Blood Pressure Risk    A study of people who lived near Athens International Airport found that the more nighttime noise, the higher the risk  of high blood pressure.    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/well/live/noise‐may‐raise‐blood‐pressure‐risk.html?mwrsm=Email        1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Monday, January 28, 2019 11:38 PM To:Loran Harding; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; Mayor; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; terry; Cathy Lewis; Joel Stiner; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; Mark Standriff; Mark Kreutzer; midge@thebarretts.com; info@superide1.com; hennessy; bballpod; nick yovino; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; jerry ruopoli; robert.andersen; Council, City; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Raymond Rivas; Steven Feinstein; Chris Field; huidentalsanmateo; leager; scott.mozier; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; popoff; Roxana Lisette Puente; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; Irv Weissman Subject:Fwd: One hour film: "In Money we Trust". Excellent   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:24 PM  Subject: One hour film: "In Money we Trust". Excellent  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>               Monday, Jan. 28, 2019            To all‐  Just watched "In Money We Trust". Excellent. Made 2018. Here it is:               https://inmoneywetrust.org/               After you see this, your faith in the value of your money may have to be revised. Governments do things to  money. Lots of things. You're supposed to notice all of that and understand the implications, and vote accordingly. Fat  chance.                 Believe me: This is excellent.                 LWH              1 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <skeehn2012@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 25, 2019 10:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: SIlicon Valley losing it"s edge due to cost and REDUCED QUALITY OF LIFE...ARTICLE BELOW   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Suzanne Keehn <skeehn2012@gmail.com>  Please Read, property is loosing businesses, people, and property is actually worth less.  We cannon keep doing  business as if the economy will/can stay the same.  Remember the definition of insanity.    Thanks,  Suzanne Keehn  4076 Orme St.  94306    On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 11:04 AM Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com> wrote:  https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple‐expansion‐moves‐show‐how‐silicon‐valley‐is‐losing‐its‐grip‐on‐tech‐jobs‐ 2019‐01‐22  1 Carnahan, David From:Carol Scott <cscott@crossfieldllc.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 30, 2019 11:00 AM To:Council, City Cc:cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Subject:Fwd: WeWork parking impact of Calif Ave businesses and neighborhood Attachments:190129 WeWork is moving to Palo Alto SV Business Journal Jan 29 2019.pdf Dear Council Members,     I urge you to seriously consider the email and article sent to you by Neilson Buchanan.      As you know, this area of Park Blvd. has already seen a number of dense commercial projects.  At least one other huge  project is now under construction.  And, last night the Council apparently gave the go‐head for developer to build very  dense, under‐parked residential projects in the same area.  The current site for Fry’s is also just waiting for a huge  development area.    Enough is enough.  These narrow and already crowded streets can’t take much more, and please let’s not continue with  the fiction that everyone will take the train.  Some will, but many will not, particularly if they work part‐time or odd  hours at a shared work facility.  And, there is some uncertainty about the sheer capacity of the train to handle  developments from both Stanford and the City.  Due to construction already happening in this area, portions of Park  Blvd. are closed to traffic on a regular basis.  The addition of many more pedestrians, many more bicycles (due to Park  Blvd being a bike boulevard, the tricky intersection on California Ave near Mollie Stone’s market, and the transformation  of Park Blvd into a speedway with no stop sign at Park and Stanford, etc.) and many more cars is already making this  area dangerous.    Where will all of these people park?  Are we over subscribing the new parking garage even before it is built?  The  taxpayers (not the businesses or developers) who are funding the garage were hoping that the new capacity would take  at least some pressure off of the surrounding residential neighborhoods in terms of overflow parking.  Are you prepared  to restrict all of these new developments — both residential and commercial — from purchasing parking permits in the  surrounding neighborhoods which include Old Palo (under the Cal Ave underpass) as well as Mayfield and Evergreen  Park?  Any “car‐lite” projects should be precluded from these permits.  Even then, increased demand for evening and  weekend parking will be substantial.      I know the City staff like to look at each project in isolation.  That approach is folly and surely inconsistent with any  rational city planning process.  Someone needs to take a look at the entire area and realize what is happening here.      I also know that the City staff is depleted and there is really no one left who is in charge of things like RPP management,  transportation, etc.  It is time for the Council to step in and demand changes.  When you do, please remind the City Staff  that they must include residents who are affected by these developments in the process of planning and finding  solutions to problems that are easily anticipated.    Thank you.    Carol Scott  Evergreen Park      Carol Scott   2 Sent from my iPad    Begin forwarded message:  From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>  Date: January 30, 2019 at 10:13:00 AM PST  To: City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Dave Price <price@padailypost.com>, Jocelyn Dong <jdong@paweekly.com>, Sallyann Rudd  <sallyannr03@gmail.com>, Ronjon Nag <ronjon.nag@gmail.com>, Malcolm Roy Beasley  <beasley@stanford.edu>, Pat Burt <patburt11@gmail.com>, Karen Holman <kcholman@sbcglobal.net>,  John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>, Greg Welch <welgreg@gmail.com>, "Norman H. Beamer"  <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>, Marion Odell <marionodell7@gmail.com>, Jan Merryweather  <jan@hamilton.com>, Mary Dimit <marydimit@sonic.net>, Mary Gallagher  <marygallagher88@gmail.com>, Barbara Ann Hazlett <bthazlett@aol.com>, Meg Barton  <megbarton@me.com>, Allen Akin <akin@arden.org>, Kris Johnson <krisjj8@yahoo.com>, assemblyca  <assemblymember.berman@outreach.assembly.ca.gov>, Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com>, Kuo‐ Jung Chang <kuojungchang@gmail.com>, Fred Kohler <fkohler@sbcglobal.net>, Bob Moss  <bmoss33@att.net>, Margaret Heath <maggi650@gmail.com>, Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>, Mark  Nadim <marknadim@gmail.com>, Keith Bennett <pagroundwater@luxsci.net>, Rita Vrhel  <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net>, Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com>, Elaine Meyer <emeyer3@gmail.com>, Fred  Balin <fbalin@gmail.com>  Subject: WeWork parking impact of Calif Ave businesses and neighborhood  Please take a look at the attachment. This article indicates new-era, commercial property occupancy load of 744 desks within a building of nearly 40,000 square feet. If report is correct, then the Planning Commission and Council should be declaring emergency meetings to address impact of such occupancy. More likely there is an error in journalism. Please assess a more probable scenario of high occupancy office spaces which tend to have impact over a much longer workday. Palo Alto's parking infrastructure probably cannot sustain such impact. Caltrain does not and will not have capacity to absorb this level of occupancy up and down the Peninsula. I dont have to remind you that city response is understaffed due to turnover and budget restrictions. Palo Alto's comp plan is not sufficient for sensible protection from this type of real estate model, even if it is subdued. Futhermore, the terms of PADs compound the risks. Long-promised parking mitigation such as valet parking, garage signage and paid parking incentives are not operational. In summary Council is ill-equipped to react proactively to a variety of under-parked development risks throughout our town. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 1/30/2019 WeWork set to open first Palo Alto coworl<.ing location in fonner Groupon-leased building -Silicon Valley Business Journal SELECT A CITY v . ) INDUSTRIES & TOPICS NEWS LISTS & AWARDS PEOPLE & COMPANIES EVENTS MORE ... FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF CNSBUCHANAN@YAHOO.COM From the Silicon Valley Business Journal: https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/01/29/wework-to-open-first-palo-alto-location- part-of.html WeWorl< to open first Palo Alto location, part of major Silicon Valley push Jan 29, 2019, 3:04pm PST Updated: Jan 29, 2019, 3:12pm PST Subscriber-Only Article Preview I For full site access: Subscribe Now WeWork is set to open its first location in Palo Alto, the city largely revered as the epicenter of Silicon Valley innovation and easily one of the most sought-after office markets in the region. The fast-growing coworking company, which is dually based in San Francisco and New York, has signed a lease to move into nearly 40,000 square feet at 3101 Park Blvd., a onetime Groupon-leased building. WeWork plans to open the location to its customers -which it calls members -in late summer or early fall, according to Elton Kwok, general manager for WeWork. COURTESY PHOTO A common area at the San Jose WeWork. "It's going to really connect the corridor that WeWork is building," he said. "Our members have been asking us for a while for this and we found the perfect building and the perfect landlord to partner with on this." WeWork said it will fit around 744 desks in four stories of the building, including three stories above ground and a basement level, along Park Boulevard. The building sits about a half mile from the California Avenue Caltrain station and was built in the mid- 1980s. It has been owned by a group called Park Place Associates since that time, property records show. Kwok said the company has already fielded plenty of current and potential member interest in a Palo Alto location, but hasn't yet signed customer agreements related to the office. While coworking is most often associated with startups and entrepreneurs -two types of workers that are in no short supply in Palo Alto -it's worth noting that large companies make up about half of https://www.bizjoumals.com/sanjose/news/2019/01 /29/wework-to-open-first-palo-alto-location-part-of. html?s=print 1/2 1/30/2019 WeWork set to open first Palo Alto coworking location in former Groupon-leased building -Silicon Valley Business Journal WeWork's customer base in Northern California, which some real estate experts say is partly due to a dearth of mid-sized office spaces available in the region. Those larger company customers, which can take up anywhere between a few dozen desks or entire WeWork location, are known as Enterprise members. Globally, enterprise members make up about 30 percent of WeWork's memberships, making Northern California an outlier in that regard. Facebook, for instance, opted last year to move into about 450,000 square feet of WeWork-leased space across two brand-new Mountain View office buildings. The move was aimed at creating "a balanced real estate portfolio," Facebook spokesperson Anthony Harrison told the Business Journal earlier. Though Kwok acknowledges that there will likely be plenty of interest from potential enterprise members for its Palo Alto location, he maintains that the company plans to open the Palo Alto location to "all types of customers." "It's really a place for anybody to call home and we want to cater to all different size of companies," he said. Palo Alto city documents show WeWork has requested building permits to begin work on the interiors of the brick building, Palo Alto Online reported earlier this month. RMW Architecture and Interiors is listed as the architect on the project. The office is surrounded by parking, which Kwok said would be divvied about among members based on individual agreements. The news of WeWork's first Palo Alto location, which Kwok said will serve as part of a link between its large San Francisco presence and its offices in the South Bay, comes as the company is growing rapidly throughout the Bay Area. In December, WeWork opened a 72,160-square-foot location at 333 W. San Carlos St. in downtown San Jose, and shortly thereafter unveiled a 96,000-square-foot location at 400 Concar Drive in San Mateo. WeWork is also preparing to open a third San Jose location at 152 N. Third St. in downtown, which is a 130,000-square-foot building that is currently being rehabilitated by prolific developer Gary Dillabough. Adam Neumann, WeWork's CEO and co-founder, has also invested along with Dillabough in another historic building blocks away known as the Bank of Italy, though it isn't clear how WeWork may use that space. Palo Alto is just the newest lease in what is likely to be a year of growth for the company, Kwok said. "It really does connect all the different cities we're in," he said. "Putting a flag in Palo Alto is a continuation of a great journey ahead for 2019 for us." Janice Bitters Commercial Real Estate Reporter Silicon Valley Business Journal https://www.bizjoumals.com/sanjose/news/2019/01/29/wework-to-open-first-palo-alto-location-part-of.html?s=print 212 From:Daligga, Edward (Teddy) To:Council, City Subject:Healthy Cities Annual Update, January 2019 Date:Friday, January 25, 2019 10:00:04 AM Attachments:image002.png    Healthy Cities Annual Update, 2019       2018 Healthy Cities Awards  |  2018 Healthy Cities Dashboards  |  Tobacco-Free Communities Funding Awards  |  Enforcement Grant Funding Awards  |  Flavored Tobacco Event  |  Tobacco Enforcement Meeting  |  Farmers’ Markets Accepting CalFresh/EBT and Market Match  |  Increasing Bicycle Ridership and Safety  |  Bike to Work Day 2019          About Healthy Cities Healthy Cities is a program launched by the County of Santa Clara Public Health Department in 2016. Our primary objectives are to (1) recognize cities for their efforts to reduce chronic disease and injury, and (2) support and partner with cities to promote policies that increase access to safe opportunities for physical activity, increase access to healthy food and beverage environments, and increase access to tobacco-free communities.  We advance our objectives by offering cities and towns technical assistance and other resources. For more information, please visit sccphd.org/healthycities.       2018 Healthy Cities Awards In December, the County of Santa Clara Public Health Department recognized three cities for encouraging their residents and employees to get out of their cars and onto their feet, bicycles, and public transportation. Each of the cities awarded achieved all strategies within the “Support Healthy Commutes” subcategory on the Healthy Cities Dashboard. Congratulations to the cities of Cupertino, Mountain View, and Palo Alto!   Cupertino (Former) Cupertino Mayor Darcy Paul and the City Council accept their Healthy Cities award from County of Santa Clara Public Health Officer and Director Sara Cody at a Council meeting on Tuesday, December 4, 2018.   Mountain View   (Former) Mountain View Mayor Lenny Siegel accepts a Healthy Cities award from Bonnie Broderick of the County of Santa Clara Public Health Department at a Council meeting on Tuesday, December 11, 2018.   Palo Alto (Former) Palo Alto Mayor Liz Kniss accepts a Healthy Cities award from Bonnie Broderick of the County of Santa Clara Public Health Department at a Council meeting on Monday, December 10, 2018.     Healthy Cities Dashboards Over the course of the past year a total of 11 cities adopted, updated, implemented, and/or achieved at least 23 new policies or practices promoted on the 2018 Healthy Cities Dashboard.   To view how your city’s or town’s Healthy Cities accomplishments compare to other jurisdictions within the County, please check out this grid. To view each city’s or town’s 2018 Healthy Cities Dashboard, please click here.   If your city or town is interested in earning more “checks” and “stars” on the Healthy Cities Dashboard in 2019, please do not hesitate to reach out to us; where feasible, we would like to offer our expertise and support. Please contact Teddy Daligga for more information at edward.daligga@phd.sccgov.org or 408-793-2737.     Tobacco-Free Communities Funding Awards The Santa Clara County Public Health Department has released $310,000 in grants and in-kind support through June 30, 2021 to the cities of Cupertino, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, San Jose, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale for tobacco prevention efforts. This funding will address the prevention and reduction of tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke. Please see the press release for additional details on tobacco prevention strategies and funding amount per city.        DOJ Enforcement Grant Funding Awards In 2018, 10 jurisdictions within Santa Clara County conducted tobacco enforcement operations to verify retailer compliance with state laws prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to people under 21 years of age. Of the 159 visits to stores across the 10 jurisdictions, 13 resulted in an illegal tobacco sale to the underage decoy.   In an effort to continue supporting cities on preventing youth access to tobacco products, the Santa Clara County Public Health Department applied for, and was awarded, $565,000 through a grant from the Department of Justice. This funding will be used towards tobacco prevention activities and is executed in partnership with the Cities of Campbell, Los Altos, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office. All jurisdictions will be conducting tobacco enforcement checks in stores, however some cities have also opted to provide tobacco prevention education within the community, and enhance compliance with existing tobacco control laws. This funding will support activities through June 30, 2020.        Flavored Tobacco Forum Event Invitation Breathe California of the Bay Area, in partnership with the Santa Clara County Office of Education and the Tobacco-Free Coalition of Santa Clara County, will be hosting a forum to (1) highlight tobacco industry tactics of menthol and flavored tobacco products and (2) the impacts these products on youth. The forum will be held on Thursday, February 28, 2019 at the MLK Library from 5:30-8:00pm. Please see this eventbrite page to register.        Tobacco Enforcement Quarterly Meeting Invitation The Santa Clara County Tobacco-Free Communities Program will be convening quarterly meetings with city and county departments in an effort to address tobacco-related concerns, standardize existing tobacco-related requirements, and assess technical assistance needs from all jurisdictions. The quarterly meetings will include trainings on various topics such as tobacco enforcement protocols, e-cigarettes/vaping devices, and updates on state and local tobacco control laws. The first meeting is being scheduled to occur in late February or early March. Please contact Joyce Villalobos at joyce.villalobos@phd.sccgov.org or (408) 793-2739 if you are interested in participating in the meetings.     Farmers’ Markets Accepting EBT and Market Match Many farmers’ markets are year round and are a great place to buy produce and fresh foods. Most Santa Clara County farmers’ markets now accept CalFresh/EBT cards. A family can swipe their EBT card at the market info booth and get CalFresh tokens to spend at the market.     A FREE matching program - Market Match – is offered at several markets. For every CalFresh dollar that is spent at a participating farmers’ markets, families will receive a dollar-for-dollar match, between $5-$10 per day to spend on fruits and vegetables through the Market Match incentive program.  Market Match makes farmers’ market produce more affordable and helps stretch food budgets.  Find a list of all farmers’ markets in the County, along with those that accept CalFresh and participate in Market Match here.     County Board of Supervisors Support Increasing Bicycle Ridership and Safety The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors approved $125,000 to increase bicycle commuting, ridership and safety among County employees and residents. By partnering with a local bicycle organization, the County seeks to educate policy makers and stakeholders from local municipalities about quality bikeway designs and amenities such as protected bike lanes, bike boulevards, trails, community bike repair stations, as well as highlight opportunities for improvement. In addition, funding will support County employee bicycling safety and engagement in annual Bike to Work Day events through education and group rides. For more information or to learn how your city can be involved contact Sue Lowery at the Public Health Department at susan.lowery@phd.sccgov.org.     Bike to Work Day Marks 25 Years! The Bay Area’s 25th annual Bike to Work Day (BTWD) will occur on May 9, 2019. Last year, nearly 100,000 riders of all abilities commuted throughout the nine Bay Area counties. For many people, BTWD is the first time they give up a vehicle in favor of a bicycle to commute to work. This single step can lead to a lifetime of behavior that has health, environmental, and economic benefits for individuals and their communities.   Cities can participate in the Bike to Work Day by encouraging staff to ride to work, coordinating group commute rides, hosting bicycling safety classes, or sponsoring an energizer station. Municipalities can use BTWD as an opportunity to educate staff and residents about new bicycling infrastructure and amenities such as new bike boulevards, sharrows, trails, or bike repair stations. For more information about event, visit Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition at https://bikesiliconvalley.org/btwd/.     Healthy Cities is a program of the County of Santa Clara Public Health Department. Contact us at phcdip@phd.sccgov.org, or visit sccphd.org/healthycities for more info.   County of Santa Clara Public Health Department  |  1400 Parkmoor Ave. Ste. 120-B  |  San Jose, CA 95126                  NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It isintended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you areprohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and mustdelete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email. 1 Carnahan, David From:Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, January 28, 2019 9:40 PM To:Council, City Cc:Arthur Keller; Neilson Buchanan; John Guislin; Paul & Karen Machado; David Schrom; Carol Scott; Christian Pease Subject:housing density Dear City Council,    it seems that Mr. Wiener and Gov. Newsom are pushing you to a rushed decision making process.    the new mantra is "build, build, build".    Can anybody tell us why?    ‐1: there is a need for affordable housing. but building and approving new structures that destroy our communities will  not produce "affordable" housing, but only benefit those who are the root cause of the problem: companies like Google,  Facebook, LinkedIn, Palantir, Amazon, et al. which need housing for their employees.   So first of all separate "affordable" housing from the doctrine out of Sacramento that we need "housing".    we mentioned this many times before: when Palo Alto is serious about affordable housing, then relocate corporations  out of the city core zones to the periphery and re‐purpose that real estate for affordable housing. No need to plaster  along and around El Camino, Cal Ave and other parts of the city with mega structures.    And keep Hotel President the way it used to be ‐ for poor residents.    ‐2: You have to push back against the career politicians in Sacramento. Sorry, this is your job! This is why we Palo Altans  (the majority) elected you. We elected you to fight to keep our beloved town from being destroyed by some reckless  politicians ‐ whose ultimate motives are about their own power grab and ego financed by big donors who in turn are  waiting for their share to finally cash out with big lucrative construction projects.    Follow and support Huntington Beach, team up with our like‐minded neighboring cities and towns (which also strongly  oppose this rush to build whatever it takes) and create a front against Wiener and Newsom.    thank you    Wolfgang Dueregger    Evergreen Park  From:Jeremy Pruitt To:district1@sanjoseca.gov; district2@sanjoseca.gov; district3@sanjoseca.gov; district7@sanjoseca.gov; district5@sanjoseca.gov; housing@sanjoseca.gov;angelo.tom@sanjoseca.com; kimberly.nash@hud.gov; sam.liccardo@sanjoseca.gov Cc:cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Markhamplazata@gmail.com Subject:Markham Plaza Apartments (FWD from Al Ramirez)Date:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 2:45:00 PM My name is Al Ramirez i want to have my concerns heard. When I lived at Markham Plaza Apartments, I Couldn’t sleep at night. Worriedabout people climbing up the balcony to break in. People using drugs and drinking heavily. Homeless people allowed to come into thebuilding. Security guards often were using drugs and hanging out with residents as well as having inappropriate relations with residentsinstead of protecting them. Child predators were allowed to live on site with children living onsite. Favoritism runs deep on property.Consistent rules should be for everyone. I had no choice after 10 years but to move myself and son out for his safety and quality of life.I was in communication with the staff and I was complying with all the requirements. But after i left they charged me for things thatwere not agreed to upon during the move out process. The manager Shelsy Bass even had me wait a day for the final inspection to fither schedule. Shelsy told me that I had until the 3rd of Oct to be out. I have never been late on my rent. And have always been anadvocate for doing the right thing. I am a Veteran as well as a senior citizen. All I wanted was a safe to live and a place to raise mydaughters child. It became impossible to do this. I am writing this review only to hopefully get someones attention to make real changesto protect the friends i made during my 10 year of what sadly at times felt like i was imprisoned by the actions of the staff including themaintenance personnel that allowed all of the actions in the court yard and building to happen. I would welcome any chance to talk tothe heads of the management company if they would like. 1 Carnahan, David From:Suepprgm <sueppr@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 30, 2019 10:42 AM To:Council, City Cc:Keri Stokstad Subject:Message of support for Midpen Media Center from Joe Simitian Dear Palo Alto City Council   ‐    Joe Simitian, the President of the San Mateo County Supervisors, wrote a statement of support for our Center which I  did not have time to read, so I would like to submit it to you now,    Very best regards,    Sue Purdy Pelosi    Sue Purdy ☮ Pelosi MidPen Media Center Board Chair 650-814-7563 Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible. Dalai Lama   “Local government transparency is important, and this, of course,  is central to the Midpen Media Center’s  mission.  That’s why I was so pleased to see our City staff’s recommendation in support of continued discussions  regarding the possibility of the JPA purchasing their building to ensure the sustainability of this important organization.  The regulatory environment at both the state and federal level has been changing and challenging. Good to see that our  City is trying to be both nimble and creative in response.”      County Supervisor Joe Simitian    Sue Purdy ☮ Pelosi LinkedIn 650-814-7563 Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible. Dalai Lama     1 Carnahan, David From:changelabs <changelabs@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, January 28, 2019 4:51 PM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto City Council + Stanford d.school class Attachments:380_2019_Class_Partners_Expecations (1).pdf; 380_2019_Class_Partners_Overview (1).pdf Hi there,     My name is Kate, and I am part of the teaching team for a Stanford University d.school class called  “Collaborating with the Future: Launching Large Scale Sustainable Transformations,” where teams of top‐tier  graduate students work with Class Partners on a system transformation project.    We are currently looking for Class Partners for our Spring 2019 course. We’re looking to work with  organizations that are involved in the world’s most important and complex problems, including  sustainable city planning; I’d like to tell you a bit more about the course to see if there is a match for some of  the work you have in Palo Alto.    The class will meet for 9 weeks (April‐June 2019) on Fridays for a full‐day workshop each week, covering topics  including mapping, finding system leverage points, and generating ideas for interventions, and then detailing  the top choices into a strategic pathway and roadmap. By the end of the class, each team of students will  produce a system strategy and intervention pathways for their partner organization to consider. You can find  more information about the course and past projects here.    We ask Class Partners to support the students in understanding the nature of the problem, give them  feedback in their work, and most importantly, connect them with experts and stakeholders to interview so  that they can piece together the various dimensions of the challenge. The attached document goes into a bit  more detail.    If you think this would work for projects you’re involved in, or if other teams in the Palo Alto government  might find this useful, we can move ahead and start working on a project brief.     Once you’ve had a chance to look over the information, let’s set up a call to discuss a project that would be a  good fit. There is a fee involved with being a participating organization, which we can also discuss.    Looking forward to hearing from you.    Best regards,  Kate Uhlman, Banny Banerjee, & Annette Zou    COLLABORATING WITH THE FUTURE: INNOVATING LARGE SCALE SUSTAINABLE TRANSFORMATIONS | SPRING 2019 Project Partner Responsibilities Being a project partner for this class means that you and your organization will be a critical asset for the project team. There a few specific things that we would rely on you for: 1. Finalize your challenge brief, using the provided template. This is what will frame your challenge to your student team. Deadline: March 11th, 5pm PT. Send to Annette Zou (azou@stanford.edu). 2. Identify recommended background literature (or videos/films) on the focus challenge for the students to read before the first class. Appropriate scope: 3-4 articles, briefs, or research papers. What are the foundational backgrounders that you would use to catch up a newly hired employee or consultant on this complex challenge? Deadline: March 22nd, 5pm PT. Send to Annette Zou (azou@stanford.edu). 3. Arrange for student team to have access to end users, customers, and/or stakeholders with whom they can do 1:1 interviews and prototype testing with. Because this class will be conducted and completed over 9 weeks, we want to minimize the amount of lag time that finding interviewees and setting up interviews can take in a typical design project. You will help connect the team to interviewees, and offer suggestions about locations where the team could find people to speak with or shadow. This means that you need to be able to connect the students with individuals located within the Bay Area or (if you are work abroad) with individuals who are able to talk via phone or video chat. Students will be conducting their interviews and user research primarily between April 8th and May 3rd. 4. The point person from your organization attends the first session of the course (9:30am-4:30pm) on April 5th, 2018 on Stanford campus. If this person cannot attend for the whole session, 1pm-3pm is the most essential period. 5. The point person from your organization spends 1-2 hours with the team at the beginning of the course (between April 5th and April 19th) to orient them to the focus challenge, the key stakeholders involved, and key resources. This does not need to be in person. You will coordinate directly with the team to set up this meeting. 6. Be available for questions and responsive to team emails for the entire duration of the class. 7. (*This one is important!*) Allow the team to explore the challenge space and come up with their own ideas, solutions, and insights. Your role is support the team to practice applying systems thinking techniques to the particular design challenge. Your role is not to give them a pre-made solution or strongly steer them towards a single perspective. The students may go down unexpected ideas paths that you don’t see as valuable. We encourage you to give them your candid feedback, but also bring an open mind to the conversations. 8. The point person from your organization attends the final student presentations on June 7th, 3-6pm on Stanford campus. You will be part of your panel of project judges evaluating the students’ performance and strength of their design solutions. Please email Annette Zou (azou@stanford.edu) with any questions about partner responsibilities and expectations. COLLABORATING WITH THE FUTURE: INNOVATING LARGE SCALE SUSTAINABLE TRANSFORMATIONS | SPRING 2019 KEY MILESTONES & DATES Students Selected & Notified of Class Admission Mid-March Partners Finalize Project Briefs March 11th, 5pm PT Send to Annette Zou — azou@stanford.edu Partners Send Key Background Readings & Materials on Challenge (if any) March 22nd, 5pm PT Send to Annette Zou — azou@stanford.edu Class Session 1: Understanding a Complex System We request that a project partner representative joins this session (either in person or through video conferencing). If the project partner representative cannot join for the full day, the time from 1pm to 3pm will be most important. April 5th 9:30am-4:30pm, Studio 1, Stanford d.school Mid-term Design Project Progress Presentation Optional (recommended): Project partner representative joins this session. May 3rd 10am-12pm, Studio 1, Stanford d.school Final Presentation (20 min per team): Teams present to partner organization, the teaching team, and other students. Following the presentation, teams will be asked to submit: 1. Final slide deck from the final presentation 2. Materials from all Design Project (DP) assignments. June 7th 3-6pm, Studio 1, Stanford d.school All team final materials will be shared on June 14. Partners typically request student teams to repeat their presentation to an internal audience. COLLABORATING WITH THE FUTURE: INNOVATING LARGE SCALE SUSTAINABLE TRANSFORMATIONS | SPRING 2019 Collaborating with the Future: Innovating Large Scale Sustainable Transformations STANFORD D.SCHOOL, SPRING 2019 We are teaching Collaborating with the Future at the Stanford d.school and we’re looking for enthusiastic project partners who are working on complex social or environmental challenges. Will you join us? Collaborating with the Future: Innovating Large Scale Sustainable Transformations is a 3-4 unit, Spring Quarter (April-June) graduate student class taught at the Stanford d.school. The class combines Design Thinking with Systems Thinking, with the goal of designing viable interventions for large scale, complex challenges. The curriculum draws from System Theory, Scaling and Diffusion Theory, the behavioral sciences, and a methodology for scaled transformation. We believe that systemic challenges can only be addressed by systemic interventions. We call this approach “System Acupuncture.” Graduate students from across Stanford (business, medicine, law, engineering, humanities, design) competitively apply to take the class – we pick the top 20 and put their creative minds to work on complex, real-world projects. That’s where you come in. Interested? Read more about the class below… COLLABORATING WITH THE FUTURE: INNOVATING LARGE SCALE SUSTAINABLE TRANSFORMATIONS | SPRING 2019 ABOUT THE COURSE Models, simulations, and problem sets are simplified, but the real world is messy. Linear thinking will not enable us to solve large-scale complex challenges. As we attempt to tackle issues of increasing complexity and urgency, we need to learn how to innovate at the systems level, across multiple users and stakeholders. In Collaborating with the Future, students learn the tools of systems thinking and design thinking. Students learn how to identify the dynamics of the system, visualize stakeholder networks, and understand the actions and beliefs of the people that shape the current system outcomes. Students then use system design tools to frame the vision of a future state, and decide where to intervene in the system. Simultaneously, we teach students how to apply design thinking techniques in order to ensure that the interventions are grounded in the reality of human behavior and quirks. This class guides students through the entire design arc, from challenge exploration to solution design. In early June, the student teams will present their final solution proposals and prototypes. CLASS PARTNERS & PROJECTS A key aspect of any class at the d.school is the projects. Learning through doing (on real projects, with real people) is central. We are looking for project partners who are excited to support students’ learning process, gain new insight into a complex challenge they face, and get a creative solution proposal from a team of top-tier Stanford graduate students. Our ideal project partners are: • Working on big, messy problems and world- changing solutions. We partner with all types of organizations: large companies, start-ups, NGOs, government agencies. • Looking for an infusion of creative ideas on a specific social or environmental challenge. • Excited and able to regularly liaison (30min - 1hr/week) with a team of 3-5 Stanford graduate students. • Supportive of the student team examining new dimensions of the identified challenge and taking solution exploration in radically new directions. • [If not on the Bay Area:] In a time zone where you could Skype with students during Pacific Time daylight hours. EXPECTATIONS AS A PROJECT PARTNER You will get: Don’t expect to get: • New human-level and system-level insights about a complex challenge that matters to your work, from a top-tier team of Stanford graduate students • New ideas for how to frame and approach your challenge • A thoughtful, creative solution proposal for your complex challenge that is grounded in the human-centered design process • Access to the students’ products (i.e. a system maps and stakeholder/user behavior profiles) • A robust go-to-market strategy for a new product or service • An interface design/UX flow for a specific product that you have already created • A silver bullet solution to your big, messy problem Are you ready to join us as a project partner? Please contact Annette Zou (azou@stanford.edu) to learn more and get started. We look forward to working with you! 1 Carnahan, David From:Adam Brand <adamdbrand@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 28, 2019 1:04 AM To:Council, City; Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; De Geus, Robert Cc:'Adam Brand' Subject:Proposal for rail at grade with comprehensive traffic plan Attachments:Caltrain crossing proposals 2019_01a.pdf Dear Rail Committee Members and Rob De Geus:    Palo Alto needs a complete solution for the rail which provides acceptable quality of life, improved traffic movement,  better bike/ped safety and affordable cost.   Please read the attached proposal for a rail at‐grade / car under rail solution  which I think provides a reasonable balance of all the requirements.   This proposal is similar in some ways to the Road  Under Rail ideas which have been discussed.   The advantage in the attached proposal is that it simultaneously addresses  the need for four rail tracks while fully addressing the needed auto, bike and pedestrian transportation needs.   If you  implement a system like the one proposed here it will improve traffic movement in the city by eliminating bottlenecks at  the rail crossings.    Both the tunnel and viaduct options have severe problems.   The tunnel option is unaffordable.   The viaduct option will  disrupt the quality of life in a swath of the city hundreds of yards wide.   Please review the high speed rail systems in  Japan, Taiwan and Europe and you will understand.    A key part of this plan is that traffic at Charleston and Meadow should flow freely, both along Alma and across the  tracks.   To enable this I propose complimentary turns be available at Charleston and Meadow.   For example I propose  that while you cannot make a left turn from Alma at Charleston, you can at Meadow.    The idea is to focus on the flow  of traffic on Charleston to/from highway 101, while using Meadow for local turns.    Similarly, I propose we eliminate  traffic at Churchill, but greatly improve traffic flow at Embarcadero to compensate it.   A few compromises are needed in  the turns possible at each intersection, and with that we can have an affordable and very effective road system.     Naturally, there are many exact solutions one can make based on rail at‐grade with road under rail.   I hope this proposal  helps grow attention to this most practical solution.    Thanks    ‐Adam Brand  Ramona Street, Palo Alto      Comprehensive Proposal for High Speed Rail Service in Palo Alto with Grade Separation Jan 2019 Prepared by Adam Brand Proposal for Rail At-Grade in Palo Alto •Proposal: rail at grade / autos under / ped over •Rail at-grade provides the lowest cost and safest solution –All surface rail crossings to be closed, access fully closed off –Extend successful strategy used at Oregon, University and Embarcadero •Rail at-grade will be more quiet than elevated rail –Option to build sound wall as needed •Safeer auto/ped/bike crossings can be achieved at reasonable cost –Primarily use auto tunnel and ped flyover solutions at crossings –Improved traffic flow will be achieved by eliminating rail crossings and signals •Four rail tracks should be provided to enable express and local service –Express lanes should be placed in the center Notes to Reader •This rail at-grade proposal is more practical than trench & viaduct options •The most likely solution to be driven by CA HSR is a tall viaduct •Palo Alto needs to get a realistic rail plan in place before CA HSR and Caltrans electrification projects lock in an undesirable solution •Ped overcrossings are provided because it is the safest option Option Comparison •At-grade 4 track rail is the best option which is affordable Metric At-grade 4 rails Close all grade crossings Stack: express in tunnel /Caltrain at grade Close all grade crossings Stack: express on viaduct /Caltrain at grade Close all grade crossings Cost $250-500M range >$1000 range Not affordable $500-1000M range Noise Slightly worse than present due to express trains. Possible mitigation with sound walls Similar to present Much higher than present Construction 4 tracks provides flexibility Requires shoofly Requires shoofly Environmental impact Lowest High – creek interference Requires deep pilings Traffic Mitigation Best. Multiple signals eliminated. Some turns redirected. Similar, assuming all grade crossings are closed Similar, assuming all grade crossings are closed Danger to community Best – all access eliminated Similar, assuming all grade crossings are closed Similar, assuming all grade crossings are closed Note, if road / Caltrain grade crossings are not eliminated than traffic and community danger remains medium / high risk Best Medium Worst Overall Recommendations •Build 4 adjacent tracks with total width of 52 feet at grade •Build road over and under-crossings to eliminate all track crossings Location Recommended Solutions for Rail & Road Recommended Solutions for bike/ped Rail/auto cost Ped/bike cost Palo Alto Avenue Two lane straight underpass Two lane flyover bridge 25-50M 10M University Ave Widen station area to 100 feet 10-20M Embarcadero Widen rail bridge at grade Eliminate traffic signal at T&C crossing Flyover bridge at Town & country crossing 10-20M 10M Churchill Close through traffic at tracks Flyover at Paly 10M Embarcadero Widen rail bridge at grade Left hand turn tunnel into Paly campus Flyover at Paly 10-20M + 25-50M 10M California Widen platform gap from 30’ to 52’ 5-10M Oregon Widen rail bridge at grade Meadow Two lane tunnel straight on Meadow Two left turn flyovers Shared flyover structure with road 50-100M 25-50M Charleston Four lane tunnel on Charleston with two right turn ramps Three sided bridge with four entry points 50-100M 20M San Antonio Tunnel for Showers Drive. Widen station over Showers Drive to 52’ gap MV cost MV cost Total estimate not including rail grade 210-420M 80M Cost estimates on this slide are very high level estimates based on other project cost per unit length and figures reported in Palo Alto Weekly Rail Pitch •Rail spacing is 4’ 8.5” •Rail cars are up to 10’ 8” wide •Present Caltrain track uses a rail pitch of 13’ •Recommendation: four train rails with pitch = 13’ -> 52’ wide track zone •A 52’ right of way can be created in Palo Alto with minimal incursion into adjacent property based on an areal survey •Platform gap of 52’ is needed at Calif Ave and San Antonio stations for local service •Station width of 100’ is needed at Univ Ave to serve local and express Palo Alto Ave •Close off rail pathway •Provide tunnel under tracks for road •Build bridge for bike / ped. New crosswalks provide access to bridge Straight underpass for cars BikePed bridge over tracks crosswalk crosswalk University Ave •Redo Palo Alto Station to be 4 tracks wide with 20 foot platforms (100 ft) Widen 4 lane train station depot to 100 feet Embarcadero •Widen rail bridge to 52-60 feet wide Widen rail crossing 1 Carnahan, David From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net> Sent:Sunday, January 27, 2019 7:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rail Corridor Before decisions that impact the rail corridor are made, can you inform the public of the likely “end game” for that  corridor?  We know electrification is underway.  What about high speed rail?  Is it likely that this city will someday need  to accommodate HSR through town? Shouldn’t we at least try to ascertain those odds BEFORE tearing the corridor apart  for grade separation purposes?    Whatever is decided regarding grade separation, the expense is going to be  considerable and it would be crushing to absorb that cost and endure the upheaval only to face ripping up the finished  product in some number of years to accommodate HSR.  I know that it is not always possible to pause on major  decisions but it seems to me that it would be prudent to know all that we can about the future of HSR before embarking  on a costly endeavor only to learn that its useful life is limited ‐ unless one or more of the options under consideration  can accommodate HSR.     And doesn’t the future of HSR also impact where housing goes in the transit corridor?  Does it make sense to add  hundreds of high‐density housing units in a transit corridor with an iffy future?  Who assumes the risk if added housing  later has to be removed and residents displaced?  Given the numbers that are being discussed, the relocation benefit  could be very, very high.    And to the extent the grade separation decision impinges on housing, while I do not know enough about rail to know  which of the options is best, common sense tells me that this city should not choose any plan that eliminates housing.     I realize you are tackling multiple major issues simultaneously and I thank you for your time.  Members of the public  sometimes stand up and urge you to have the courage to do the right thing.  Right now, I am urging you to take the time  to know what the right thing is because we are flat out of wiggle room.  1 Carnahan, David From:Gary Lindgren <gel@theconnection.com> Sent:Friday, January 25, 2019 3:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Railroad Grade Crossings Dear City Council Members,  I attended the January 22nd council meeting on rail crossings. During the public testimony, I heard many people that  were concerned that Churchill Ave. would be closed as a solution for grade separation. There is a way to keep Churchill  open without taking property. I recommend that AeCom study using a viaduct to clear Churchill. The rail bed would start  rising at Palo Alto Ave. and by the time it reaches Churchill, the viaduct would be 21 feet high. Road traffic would now be  able to drive underneath the viaduct with no issues. This also includes students walking or on bikes going to/from Palo  Alto High School. The viaduct would then continue on all the way to San Antonio and meet at grade for the Mt. View San  Antonio station. For most of the distance through Palo Alto, no shoofly would be needed and the construction time  would be shorter than the berm for Meadow and Charleston hybrid solution. I like the viaduct because we would have  access to the area below and we can see through it and it’s only five feet higher than the hybrid idea. I noticed that  many people have commented on the “City struggles to decide on rail redesign” article on Palo Alto Online that they  would prefer a viaduct solution.  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. 2 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:Rainer Pitthan <Rainer@Pitthan.com> Sent:Monday, January 28, 2019 6:50 PM To:Paul Machado; Lydia Kou; news@padailypost.com; jaythor@well.com; Gina Hamilton; Suzanne Keehn Subject:Re: article on staff recommendation that threatens housing and renters but delights developers Attachments:NewConstructionCaliforniaEastMarch16A.xls; 2TomDuboisFinal.pdf   Paul.  Thank you for keeping us informed.  Palo Alto has turned into a Banana City.  When 2555 Park Ave was on the Agenda 3 years ago many (older) owners and occupants of Palo Alto Central documented very convincingly that already then now the local traffic was close to self-strangulation.  Remember we talked about programming Excel for getting a grip on Parking and Day Trips. If you know somebody who want to update it, I am attaching the actual EXCEL file (and not just the immovable pdf).  You also might enjoy a letter I later wrote to Tom Dubois to help him to grow a back bone. I do not think it worked. He talks the talk, but unlike Lydia Kou he does not walk the walk.  Rainer  On 1/28/2019 4:45 PM, Paul Machado wrote:  Guest Commentary Proposed City Law Threatens Housing and Renters January 27, 2019 – From the Palo Alto Neighborhoods Committee on Development, Zoning, and Enforcement (PANCODZE) All Palo Altans should urge the Planning and Transportation Commission to reject a controversial staff proposal that would make it easier for Downtown residences such as the President Hotel Apartments at 488 2 University to become hotels or offices. Scheduled for discussion this Wednesday, January 30, the staff proposal would create a new waiver process that vastly favors owners and developers of Downtown buildings over tenants. Under the proposed waiver process, City staff could cast aside or “adjust” existing laws that require oversized Downtown buildings, such as the six-floor President Hotel, to retain the same mix of uses they have at present. So while the rule, known as the Grandfathered Facility Law, currently protecting the residences would remain in place, owners and developers would need only to “assert” in writing that it conflicts with some state or federal law. Staff would then need only to find that the “assertion has merit” and could then immediately grant the waiver. The proposed process does not require that tenants of the buildings, the press, or the public at large be notified when a waiver is being sought. No public hearing will necessarily occur and no written legal opinion from the City Attorney citing relevant case law for public review would necessarily be issued. Although the waiver could in theory be appealed to the City Council, tenants and others may not even know a waiver has been granted until after the appeal deadline expires. Renters might instead find out only once their leases expire and be too late to appeal. Palo Alto requires a much more open process for other waivers. For example, the law that buildings cannot convert existing ground floor retail and similar uses into offices requires that an exemption request be accompanied by financial data and be approved by the City Council at a public hearing. Such exemptions might only affect thousands of dollars of rental income a year, yet the waiver enabling the President Hotel residences to become a hotel might be worth tens of millions of dollars. So why shouldn’t the waivers be decided by the City Council too, in full public view? And why is a waiver process even needed for the law protecting Downtown residences? The staff report for Wednesday’s meeting states a waiver would be granted when the law preserving residences would lead to “a violation of state or federal law (i.e.; Ellis Act).” But preserving residences is legal and cities have long had the right to do so. Most of Palo Alto is already zoned to allow only residential and similar uses such as day-care facilities. Federal law allows cities to further restrict what is in buildings as long as some viable economic use remains. Residential property in Palo Alto is surely viable, given that it often sells for over $2,000 a square foot. Staff has repeatedly cited the state’s Ellis Act to justify the need for a waiver process, as in the quote above. Yet that law explicitly states the opposite of what staff claims, namely that it does not bar cities from controlling how properties are used. The Ellis Act merely allows owners to cease renting out residences and instead have those become owner-occupied or company-owned housing if cities so allow. If the Ellis Act actually required cities to allow residential buildings to convert to some other use contrary to local laws, apartment complexes in Palo Alto and all over the state would have long ago turned into office buildings. So why are senior City staff actually asking for the waiver process for this law and not for the hundreds of others in our municipal code? Despite staff’s insistence that they are not favoring AJ Capital, the Chicago-based purchaser of the President Hotel, the waiver proposal seems crafted to allow AJ Capital to sidestep many City laws 3 and replace the existing housing in the building with a hotel. We urgently need to retain housing in Palo Alto. We do not want tenants evicted and forced to find new places to live. And we do not want staff to grant waivers worth perhaps tens of millions of dollars to developers when there’s no legal necessity and outside of public view. Please email the Planning and Transportation Commission at Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org to urge them in your own words to reject the waiver process proposed by staff. And please attend the Commission meeting if possible at 6 pm on Wednesday night at City Hall (250 Hamilton). Links: Planning Commission Agenda for January 30, 2019 Meeting: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68695 Staff Report on the Proposed Change in the Law https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68694 -- mailto:rainer@pitthan.com ---this is not a US Government supported domain, true and nasty political comments are given and are welcome--- https://stanford.io/2Mqa8mJ (650)327-9497 157 S. California Ave., #H-100 Palo Alto CA 94306 USA Cell Rainer: (650)380-4823 Rainer.Pitthan@Gmail.Com November 28, 2015 “You told the truth, up to a point, but a lie of omission is still a lie” —Capt. Jean-Luc Picard (cautioning Starfleet Cadet Wesley Crusher) Dear Tom, You asked me to summarize on half a page of what I had identified to you as some of the “de- ceptions” (to call it charitably) the City Planning Department allowed to go forward (again, to call it charitably) with the goal of getting 2555 Park Blvd approved. A perfunctory summary would be at least 10 pages. But I will try to make it shorter. For a more introduction parhaps read at least the 2 letters to the Council in URL Doc Letters 6-15-15 Set 1.pdf, http://bit.ly/1H0rig1 , pp 40 by Jamie Beckett, and pp 138 by William Ross, or read all the 14 letters flagged below. You will see many decisions from City planning prioritizing maximizing the profit of the developer over the quality of life and basic safety of residents without regard to facts. Where did the bending and omission of facts come from? For the most part the “deceptions” originally were created by the applicant’s traffic consultant 1 (see footnote) Kimley-Horn (1) and then passed through a sequence of experts: from the architect (2) to the “Planning and Traffic Commission” (3), and on to the Palo Alto ‘”Planning and Community Environment Department” (Planning Department for short) (4), presumably on to the City Attorney (5), and lastly to the City Council (6). There were 4 expert groups and none of them checked for errors and omissions (I hope they have insurance?). Really? That is to say the “deception” may have originated out- side by consultants, but the City Administration was mostly in advocacy mode for the appli- cant, [ http://bit.ly/1hM24bI ] instead of being the guardian of the rights and interests of the resi- dents. [see, e.g., see comments by Annette and Rainer http://bit.ly/1hM24bI, Ken Alsman http://bit.ly/1EPwdfz p31, Bill Ross http://bit.ly/1H0rig1 pp137-146 ]. This advocacy has led to many “quid-pro-quo” questions in the press and sometimes in chambers! What is different in this case is that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required an Environmental impact Report (EIR) for 2555 Park Blvd. This leaves behind, for the first time, a paper trail. The omissions are often very clever: some omissions are actually posted after the respective meetings, so the “legal” aspect is covered! Or, in hearings, as William Ross points out on June 1, 2015, the applicant and its advocates speak after the residents, so their state- ments cannot be challenged. A very few illuminating examples:  For the future 24,5000 sqft 2555 Park Blvd the consultant Kimley-Horn used Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) equations designed for shopping centers with an average size of 200,000 sqft. The Planning Department’s answer to questions reads like Kafka: “In the PM peak hour, the 2555 project is expected to generate a total of 106 trips, with 88 of those trips being attributed to the existing building. “Omitted” was that 78 of those 88 trips come from ZERO office space. The real increase: from 14 to 87 (see Table).  At present only 10 cars exit from the existing 2555 Park B building through Grant Stub. In the future 92 cars will exit from the new building into Grant Ave, an increase of 920%. But the trip increase claimed for approval purposes is the 20% increase. Ridiculous? Yes. Shameful that the City Council has accepted this? Yes. Since the Senior Planner 1 The historical resource Consultants did much better despite being strong armed early on by the applicant. Rainer.Pitthan@Gmail.Com November 28, 2015 and the Director of Planning were repeatedly challenged on those numbers before the June 1 Council meeting the question arises: why insisting on untenable mathematics? Since only 10 of the 28 cars now parked in 2555 Park B. exit into Grant Ave (18 exit into Park B), the present base- line, that is the traffic suffered from 2555 Park Blvd, should be reduced by 10/28 = 36%, from 39 to 14 for PM Peak.  When the Palo Alto Central Condominium owners, and other neighbors, pointed out that the existing traffic from the 94 car underground garage must also be considered, the Sen- ior Planner answered, in writing, that by 8:00AM these cars had left the garage, before the 2555 Park B. cars would arrive. But the original 12/4/13 Kimley-Horn Transport Im- pact Analysis (TIA) http://bit.ly/1Qyu2lX had the measured intersection exit trip data as an Appendix which shows that few cars leave between 7 and 8AM. So the Senior Plan- ner knowingly did not speak the truth: And why? o Hiding the data: The original TIA was difficult to find, as if someone tried to hide the traffic data, but have them legally public. The revised and final TIA is here http://bit.ly/1fzPprN ; it does not have the measured intersection trip data.  Uniform random statistics was used evaluating the stacked parking. Traffic gener- ally does not follow uniform random statistics; neither do decaying nuclei. In this case moreover it was experimentally shown, by the neighbor Jared Jacobs, to be “Poisson Statistics” by measuring the arrival times at the court house. But miraculously, when the Planning Department subsequently changed the “wording” from “uniform” to “Poisson” Statistics in the EIR, not a single number changed. Wow! New Math? So the traffic fraud originated from the outside contractor for Tarlton, LLC, which is not our concern; let Tarlton or the FBI handle this. What is our concern is that the City of Palo Alto’s Planning Department not only let these deceptions pass but even doubled down when made aware of serious errors and mistakes. I am not surprised that the PTC did not object, after be- ing told straight to my face on April 29, 2015, they did not care about any effects outside the pro- ject’s physical properties like height of buildings or other effects on neighbors. And yes, they were looking at each project in isolation, no cumulative impact analysis. This is the Planning Commission? What definition of “traffic planning” (Google for fun) do they use:? It will be easy to unravel for a court the legal aspects in the chain of responsibility which started with Kimley-Horn, was transferred through the Architect to the Planning Department, and from Rainer.Pitthan@Gmail.Com November 28, 2015 there to the PCT. They all had the duty of a critical analysis; I assume the PCT members, like the CC, swore an oath of office? In particular they had to be on the lookout for manipulations of the applicant trying to make the existing traffic large, and making the future additional traffic small, allowing a quicky “not significant impact” statement without thorough analysis. The City Council must be able to rely on the work of the Planning Department (and the PTC), but obviously cannot. The City Council participates in the charade by giving the Planning Department unlimited speaking times, and by not letting neighbors cross-examine the planners in Chambers. There were about 20 detailed letters to the City’s various planning bodies in, e.g., http://bit.ly/1H0rig1 pp 24, 44, 46, 51, 53, 137, and in http://bit.ly/1HM3ONn pp25, 28, 35, 44, 50, 62, 65, 67. In a professionally run planning department these letters would have been com- bined to a matrix describing the mutual dependency of the problems. The legal buck stops with the City Council by stating that the highest profit possible for the applicant is the highest goal of the City, and not, for example improving the housing balance by re-zoning the property to PTOD, as proposed in ARB. The factual buck stops with the Plan- ning Department. The Senior Planner misstates in writing, and in Chambers, the traffic habits of Palo Alto Central, despite having data to the contrary from the first TIA http://bit.ly/1Qyu2lX . As mentioned above since we have an environmental impact report (EIR), (historical building) there is a paper trail on facts, unlike for the other 44 recent building projects [Alsman, in p31 http://bit.ly/1EPwdfz ]: There is the Director, who was early enough given written warning by many to look into the reasonableness of trip calculations [how can 88 trips be generated in one hour out of 28 parking spots in the PM Peak Hour, for example, she was asked]. There are cer- tain City consultants who should be banned from doing business with Palo Alto for solely acting as advocates for the applicants, and not making sure the City follows the spirit of CEQA. And then there is the excellent Historic Resource Evaluation http://bit.ly/1KXtu7q :The Senior Planner bullied the HRB [http://bit.ly/1GYw7Hc pp191-206] telling them they were not allowed to vote (but could express their feelings), after telling the applicant a year earlier “that the City of Palo Alto Planning Staff [….] do not believe 2555 Park Boulevard would meet the criteria for list- ing in “any” category of the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. Why is he still employed? Even in this case the City Council and the City Attorney did nothing. Maybe they wait for citi- zens to sue, because the California Natural Resources Agency states:  CEQA is a self-executing statute. And continues:  Agencies (like the City of Palo Alto) are entrusted with compliance with CEQA and its provisions are enforced, as necessary, by the public through litigation and the threat thereof. o Even more difficult to find than the Palo Alto Central garage traffic count was a 2nd peer report http://bit.ly/1KXtu7q for the Historic Evaluation, maybe be because it concluded like the first, that the existing building could and should be on the histor- ic register. The Final Environmental Report from November 2014 contained a subversively edited 1 ½ page extract of the HRB hearing. The complete 15 page verbatim transcript of the HRB hearing was only available to the public (me) after the City Council session on Jun1, 2015. Rainer.Pitthan@Gmail.Com November 28, 2015 There are serious consequences from the undercount of Trips: the Bike Boulevard and the Public Safety Building The PAC letters quoted above show that there is now, in 2015, with only 104 parked cars in the Grant Stub, chaos in the stub and in the multi-modal Grant/Park Intersection, where separate Level of Services CLOS, PLOS, and BLOS 2 (see footnote) for cars, bicycles, and pedestrians all are “F” in certain modes, directions and turns, with waiting times of several minutes. In FHWA-NAS parlance the stub would be called a critical lane group. Palo Alto has bragged for years of being in the forefront of the multi-modal transportation of the future, but has done only piece meal studies. In the eager advocacy rush to get approval for 2555 Park Blvd. the Plan- ning Department, again, has omitted results from proper analysis with the readily available (FHWA) methodology. Which they should/must have done, they are professionals? To wit: Without any signals for the traffic on Park Blvd. itself, the future 193 PM Peak Hour car trips in and out of Grant Ave (vs. the 106 trips “used” by the Planning Department) will have to traverse in the PM Peak Hour close to 600 cars and 300 bicycles whizzing by, which are un- impeded by signaling on Park Blvd. Reading up on well-managed bicycle traffic in cities (Atlanta anyone?) one immediately learns that the only signaling that bicycles respect are red lights. The EXCEL spreadsheet [ http://bit.ly/1H0rig1 ] on “Page 50 of “Doc Letters 6-15-15 Set 1.pdf” for the Council Meeting on June 15, 2015 (update enclosed) showed that the buildings already approved in the neighborhood with a total of 4200 trips will increase the car traffic on Park at Grant by at least 250 trips per PM Peak Hour, judging that about 40% of the 630 PM-trips trips will use Park Blvd. There certainly will be more than 300 bicycles in the future. Conse- quences are: (a) The bike boulevard will (a) NOT be safe for bicycles, and (b) NOT be efficient for cars, even after replacing street parking with protected bike lanes [ http://1.usa.gov/1lBxF2f, http://bit.ly/1GFqNZX ] and (c) even then FHWA prescribes a red-light signal (and not just blink- ing lights for pedestrians) for the Grant/Park intersection. [ http://1.usa.gov/1SQW8ej ] Similarly the Public Safety Building (PSB) will be suffocated by the projected traffic increase in the proposed location between California and Sherman Ave. The square area between S. California Ave., E. Park Blvd., Oregon, and El Camino is like a traffic anti-fortress: already not easy to get out from. That raises a more fundamental point: Has the Planning Department (maybe with the Police Department) made a study on the mutual compatibility of (a) future traffic, of (b) a physically Centralized Patrol Center and of (c) Community Policing? Community Policing Theory has some varying concepts of Police Patrol http://bit.ly/1NT7xX8 , but always included are:  The Patrol is working from decentralized locations (like upgraded Fire Stations) and  Patrol is on foot as much as possible. So the very concept of a Central Patrol Center goes against both traffic con- straints and the very fundamentals of Community Policing. What gives? 2 In its Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 5th Edition, the National Academies of Science specifically does not define, nor encourage use of, one general MMLOS (Multi-mode LOS). Instead it defines the procedures to have usable separate car, bicycle, and pedestrian LOS’, as CLOS, BLOS, and PLOS, resp., for separate critical lane groups. Easy reading: http://bit.ly/1L5F0k3 . A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q Commercl Parking from sqft Residentl Parking from sqft Total NEW Trips from Office Total In Out Total In Out Total NEW Trips from Residentl Total NEW Trips Address parking made available in house sqft commer- cial Condo sqft resi- dential # dwelling units Parking Deficit = G+H - B Required now, per 175 sqft Required, per 500 sqft ln(t)=0.756 * ln(Size) + 3.95 8 trips per unit commercial and residential 2865 Park 295 47,000 101,000 85 -176 268.6 202 954 124 112 12 143 29 114 680 1,634 260 Cal Ave 42 22,000 8,000 2 -100 125.7 16 537 70 63 7 81 16 64 16 553 2650 Birch 42 10,556 14,271 8 -47 60.3 29 308 40 36 4 46 9 37 64 372 385 Sherman 103 50,000 4,800 4 -192 285.7 10 1,000 130 117 13 150 30 120 32 1,032 2555 Park 92 24,466 0 0 -48 139.8 0 582 76 68 8 87 17 70 0 582 Sum 574 154,000 128,100 99 -560 880 260 3400 440 400 40 510 100 410 790 4200 derived numbers are rounded along and across El Camino 1501 California 462 4,291 239,173 180 -41 24.5 478 156 20 18 2 23 5 19 1440 1,596 1845 El Camino 44 7,700 0 44.0 0 243 32 28 3 36 7 29 0 243 2100 El Camino 300 52,500 5,300 8 -11 300.0 11 1,037 135 121 13 156 31 124 64 1,101 2209 El Camino 54 9,500 2,000 1 -4 54.3 4 285 37 33 4 43 9 34 8 293 2500 El Camino 119 20,748 60,000 70 -120 118.6 120 514 67 60 7 77 15 62 560 1,074 Sum 517 94,700 306,500 260 -180 540 610 2200 290 260 30 340 70 270 2100 4300 San Diego County Trips AM PM Legend: http://bit.ly/1J31gsU In:Out In:Out T = Trips Ln(T) = 0.756 Ln(x) + 3.95 13%15%x = area in units of 1000 sqft (9:1) (2:8) Updated from Page 50 of “Doc Letters 6-15-15 Set 1.pdf", http://bit.ly/1H0rig1 The ITE equations used by the applicant are different for "AllDay", AM, and PM, and were designed for Office Centers of 200,000 or more sqft. Result: 80 PM Rush-hour trips for buildings with "Zero " sqft. San Diego County used formulae more suited for office buildings <35,000 sqft. Also Consult: "Truth in Transportation Planning": http://bit.ly/1dYZAF6 AM PM We all know that property may not be taken for public use without payment of just compensation to its owner (Cal. Const., art. I, § 19; U.S. Const., 5th Amend). But in the case of zoning changes in practice the courts have for 200 years deferred to the police power of Cities and Counties. Particularly difficult to overcome is the threshold that a "mere diminution" in property value due to a zoning action is not compensable. (Agins v. City of Tiburon (1979) 24 Cal.3d 266, 273-274 [157 Cal.Rptr. 372, 598 P.2d 25], affd. (1980) 447 U.S. 255 [65 L.Ed.2d 106, 100 S.Ct. 2138].) The “mere” for the Supreme Court cases has meant diminution up to of 80%. Under these circumstances it is hard to understand why 2555 Park zoning was not changed to PTOD, the zoning with the greatest benefit to Palo Alto. New Trips& Parking from construction built before June1, 2015, already approved construction, proposed construction; Omissions and Mistakes: Rainer.Pitthan@gmail.com 1 Carnahan, David From:Desiree Docktor <ddocktor@apr.com> Sent:Saturday, January 26, 2019 8:30 AM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Plane noise in Palo Alto neighborhoods Hi City Council Members,    Please help with changing the approach to SFO and other airports so that they do not fly over our neighborhood. The  low an night flights are very disturbing. Please consider rerouting the flight path over the bay.    Many neighbors complain about the noise some are thinking about moving due to the noise. It will also affect property  values most importantly human health.    Thank‐you,    Desiree Docktor   Resident  1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, January 28, 2019 10:15 AM To:Whitney Leeman; Council, City Subject:RE: Please vote against approving the amended Wireless Ordinance     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: Whitney Leeman <whitney.r.leeman@gmail.com>   Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 9:22 AM  To: Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine,  Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@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: Re: Please vote against approving the amended Wireless Ordinance    Dear Councilmembers, I am writing to ask that you support United Neighbors’ Appeal and set aside the Director of  Planning’s extraordinary January 4th decision to: 1) dispense with required procedure; 2) dispense with the Architectural  Review Board’s recommendations, and; 3) unilaterally approve a new, street‐light‐pole‐mounted cell tower design in the  University South neighborhood.     I am extremely concerned that City Staff have brazenly turned their backs on the advice of the experts on the  Architectural Review Board, cutting residents out of the review process, and doing exactly what they want to do:  allowing the telecom industry to install cell towers in residential neighborhoods however they want, where ever they  want .     In fact, only a couple of days ago, the Planning Director again ignored the Architectural Review Board, this time the  Board’s recommendation to deny the cell towers in Barron Park.  Instead, the Planning Director decided to push forward  and allow the installation of hundreds of pounds of ugly, noisy, potentially hazardous equipment on utility poles in  Barron Park.  2   Again, the evidence that RF/microwave radiation may be unsafe is mounting:    https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/EHIB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Cell‐Phone‐Guidance.pdf    https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html    Please do not subject your constituents to the great human experiment conducted by the cellular providers, who are  trying to fill every cubic centimeter of public space with RF/microwave radiation at densities unheard of in the past.  As  you know, there are major conflicts of interest between cellular providers, local/state/federal/international  governments, and the public:     https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/23/palo‐alto‐tech‐chief‐whose‐junkets‐triggered‐ethics‐complaint‐says‐hes‐ quitting/    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/    Sincerely,    Whitney Leeman, Ph.D.         On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 1:53 PM Whitney Leeman <whitney.r.leeman@gmail.com> wrote:  Dear Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Mr. Fine, Mr. Filseth, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou, and Mr. Tanaka,    I am writing to ask you to vote against approving the amended Wireless Ordinance that City Staff is asking you to  approve.    The Planning Director and the City Attorney may tell you that the proposed amendments represent only minor  adjustments to the Ordinance, adjustments required to bring it into compliance with an FCC order that goes into effect  in mid‐January.    Unfortunately, the proposed new language gives authority over aesthetics of cell towers to the Planning Director,  instead of to City Council and the people (both residents and businesses) of Palo Alto.      The amended Ordinance, in giving the Planning Director the sole authority to establish aesthetic standards—more  specifically, the sole authority to replace the City of Palo Alto’s core aesthetic standards expressed in Section  18.76.020(d) of the Code with those of his own devising—does so a) without stating what the standards should be, b)  without requiring that the Architectural Review Board provide the Planning Director with recommendations, and c)  without giving either City Council or residents/businesses any say in the matter.     In 2017, the ARB put forward a thoughtful set of guidelines that should serve as the starting point for any cell tower‐ related aesthetic standards the City establishes.  But the amended Ordinance ignores these guidelines and, as written,  empowers the Planning Director to establish whatever aesthetic standards he chooses, with input from no one.    If you approve this amended Ordinance, you will be:  1)  pre‐approving, sight unseen, whatever a single City employee—an employee who has no particular qualifications to  establish aesthetic standards and who is not accountable to voters—wants to do;    2) allowing him to make critical quality‐of‐life and quality‐of neighborhood decisions without any recommendations  from the Architectural Review Board—i.e., from the people best qualified to establish aesthetic standards; and  3   3) setting in motion a process in which the residentsand businesses of Palo Alto are given no opportunity to participate.    The proposed amended Ordinance establishes a process that is undemocratic: residents and businesses should have a  say regarding what small cell towers look like, sound like, and where they should be located.    Additionally, the evidence that RF/microwave radiation may be unsafe is mounting:    https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/EHIB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Cell‐Phone‐Guidance.pdf    https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html    Please do not subject your constituents to the great human experiment conducted by the cellular providers, who are  trying to fill every cubic centimeter of public space with RF/microwave radiation at densities unheard of in the past.  As  you know, there are major conflicts of interest between cellular providers, local/state/federal/international  governments, and the public:     https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/23/palo‐alto‐tech‐chief‐whose‐junkets‐triggered‐ethics‐complaint‐says‐hes‐ quitting/    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/    The amended Ordinance makes no provision for anyone to know what standards the Planning Director has in mind  until after City Council has approved his sole authority to establish them.  Why doesn’t the amended Ordinance you are  being asked to approve state, at least in general terms, the aesthetic standards the Planning Director wishes to  incorporate into the Wireless Ordinance?  Staff have had since October to prepare the Ordinance.    The proposed amended Ordinance ignores the wishes of the ARB and the concerns of the Planning & Transportation  Commission and the people of Palo Alto.    The ARB, in its public hearings, has repeatedly said that ancillary cell tower equipment must be installed underground,  where it can’t be seen.  In addition, the California Public Utilities Commission, because of the fire hazard utility poles  and aboveground equipment pose, has now begun a process that will lead to moving most of them underground.    Only two weeks ago, the Planning and Transportation Commission 1) expressed grave doubts about the safety of  aboveground ancillary cell tower equipment; 2) urged the City to consider joining dozens of other municipalities plus  the League of California Cities (to which Palo Alto belongs) in suing the FCC; and 3) urged the City to obtain expert legal  advice on the lawfulness of the FCC’s order and on how best to amend Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance.  Why are the  PTC’s recommendations being ignored?    Please, reject the amended Ordinance that City Staff has submitted to you and insist that it be modified to establish:    1) the Architectural Review Board as the lead—not the Planning Director— in setting standards for the siting and  appearance of cell towers;     2) that there be a series of community meetings so that residents may learn what standards are being proposed, ask  questions of ARB members and City Staff, and offer their own ideas for consideration; and     3) require that, once these standards have been created, City Council must approve them before they become part of  the City’s Wireless Ordinance.      4 The 12/12/18 Staff Report notes that cities may take up to 180 days following the effective date of the FCC regulations  to develop and publish their aesthetic standards.  There is no need to rush.    Sincerely,    Whitney Leeman, Ph.D.  1 Carnahan, David From:Cindy Alvarez <cindy.alvarez@mail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 23, 2019 1:31 PM To:richard.glennon@shf.sccgov.org Cc:richard.glennon@shf.sccgov.org; I.INVESTIG8@yandex.com; scottlargent38@gmail.com; rua@uglyjudge.com; SOPIO, SHF; Jason Smith; tips@nbcbayarea.com; ladoris@judgecordell.com Subject:Re: Sergeant Richard Glennon - Missing Internal Affairs Case File # 2015-09 Sergeant Glennon, If Detective David Carroll's internal affairs case file is in fact missing, I would think that would indicate that someone has misapropriated or destroyed evidence. This is very serious. Sir, please tell me who is your immediate supervisor. I will need his first and last name in case I need to email him. Give me his phone number too. Who do you report to? Cindy Alvarez, Markham Plaza Tenant Association Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 8:20 PM From: "Team Reyes" <team.reyes@protonmail.ch> To: "richard.glennon@shf.sccgov.org" <richard.glennon@shf.sccgov.org> Cc: "I.INVESTIG8@yandex.com" <I.INVESTIG8@yandex.com>, "scottlargent38@gmail.com" <scottlargent38@gmail.com>, "rua@uglyjudge.com" <rua@uglyjudge.com>, "SOPIO, SHF" <SHF.SOPIO@shf.sccgov.org> Subject: Sergeant Richard Glennon - Missing Internal Affairs Case File # 2015-09 Dear Sergeant Glennon, We know for a fact that an internal affairs complaint was filed against detective David Carroll in January of 2015 and that the internal affairs case number (which is also a serial number) is 2015-09 IA complaint 2015-09 contained very credible police misconduct allegations including the falsification of police reports by detective David Carroll which has been verified by several hundred witnesses. IA complaint 2015-09 also contained credible allegations of excessive force (See civil code 1575) also proven to be true and verified by several individuals. Some documentation can be found here: http://www.uglyjudge.com/santa-clara-county-california-government-conspiracy-exposed-police-falsified-reports-to-frame-whistle-blower-cary-andrew-crittenden/ The inability of the Santa Clara County Sheriff office to produce these internal affairs complaint records may have profound and far reaching ramifications, for example: dozens other criminal suspects arrested by detective David Carroll may have been denied their due process rights having been denied this exculpatory evidence through the Pitchess motion process. This could potentially cause dozens of convictions by to have to be overturned. With that being said; Pursuant to the California Public Record's act, we request copies of the following records / records containing the following information: 2 1.) The exact steps taken by Sheriff office to fulfill the original CPRA request sent in on Sunday, January 20, 2019 (See original below) 2.) The names of all individuals / offices contacted in attempt to fulfill the original CPRA request from Sunday, January 20, 2019 - AND THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION (See original below) 3.) copies of written documentation (emails,faxes, notes etc AND RESPONSES) showing steps taken in attempt to fulfill original CPRA request from Sunday, January 20, 2019 (See original below) If you are unable to provide these records within 10 days, you are required to give reason in writing pursuant to gov code 6255. If the response is that "There are no records responsive to the request", then that will be proof that the original response of same nature, to the original CPRA request (see below) was a lie. Team Reyes . ------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 11:26 PM, Team Reyes <team.reyes@protonmail.ch> wrote: What about chain of command info as specified in item 3? ------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 7:42 PM, SOPIO, SHF <SHF.SOPIO@shf.sccgov.org> wrote: Hello,   There won’t be any releasable personnel records for this request since David Carroll does not have  personnel or IA records that fall within the SB1421 exemptions.  David Carroll holds the rank of  deputy.  We also have another deputy employed by the name of “Matthew Carroll” that works in a  different division than David Carroll.   Thank you,   Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office             3 From: Team Reyes [mailto:team.reyes@protonmail.ch] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 11:28 AM To: SOPIO, SHF Cc: I.INVESTIG8@yandex.com Subject: Re: Detective David Carroll When do you anticipate these records will be ready? On Sunday, January 20, 2019 7:51 PM, Team Reyes <team.reyes@protonmail.ch> wrote: Pursuant to the California public records act & FOIA & SB 1421, please send copies of the following records / records containing the following information: 1.) Personnel file for Santa Clara County sheriff detective (or deputy) David Carroll 2.) Internal affairs complaint information for detective (or deputy) David Carroll 3.) Current rank of David Carroll and chain of command list to Sheriff Laurie Smith 3.) List of other deputies with same last name of" "Carroll" and similar last name with different spelling: "Carol" with date they began working with Sheriff office You are required by law to explain the reason why any any parts if these records are remitted or redacted within 10 days pursuant to gov code 6255 Thank you, 4 Team Reyes 1 Carnahan, David From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 23, 2019 4:03 PM To:Council, City Cc:iasdesigns; Iqbal Serang Subject:Re: URGENT APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL BY HOTEL PRESIDENT TENANTS. By clustering the recalcitrant tenants on the lower floorw while renovation is going on, AJ Capital would be well served because they have no guarantee from anybody, least of all the Council, that they will EVER get a zoning variance to do what they want. THey might even like to keep the arrangement permanently--two elevators, etc/ From: iqbalserang@gmail.com To: "iasdesigns" <iasdesigns@aol.com> Cc: "Iqbal Serang" <Iqbalserangarchitect@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 11:49:33 PM Subject: URGENT APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL BY HOTEL PRESIDENT TENANTS. Hello Hotel President supporters and allies: We thank you for all your support through these months. Can we please still  count on you for this one more supporting gesture for the Hotel President tenants?   We are sending the following letter below to the City Council by Wednesday’s deadline of 3pm as required by staff for  the January 28 hearing date, in order to be included in the Council packet received for the hearing. Therefore, all of your  supporting comments in emails should be sent before the 3 pm deadline, and this would be much appreciated so that  the Council can feel the added weight of your advocacy for us. Your support will certainly encourage the City Council  members to agendize this Hotel President item of “Time extension to June 30, 2019,” for the remaining tenants.       Thank you, Sincerely,     Iqbal Serang, Dennis Backlund.        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 need urgent 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 thank Council for your continued concern for the Hotel President tenants.     Sincerely,     2 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:mickie winkler <mickie650@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 10:36 AM To:Kou.pacc@gmail.com; Council, City Subject:Reverse parking restrictions Reverse the parking restrictions that penalize workers and medical personal from parking in Palo Alto.    thank you.      Mickie Winkler  850 Webster st.   1 Carnahan, David From:Jill Asher <jill@magicalbridge.org> Sent:Thursday, January 24, 2019 12:15 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr; Ng, Judy Subject:Silicon Valley's Magical Bridge Playground Featured at World Economic Forum Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,  We hope by now you've heard that our beloved Magical Bridge Playground is now receiving worldwide recognition and  is being featured at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland this week.  We certainly hope to shine a spotlight on our  city as innovative and inclusive for EVERYONE and we are so grateful for your ongoing support and enthusiam to make  this city welcoming for every communty member.    What started here as a community project is expanding throughout the entire bay area ‐‐ and soon, around the  country.      If you'd ever like a tour of the playground or learn more about our work, please feel free to reach out any time.  My cell  number is 650‐520‐8512 and my email address is jill@magicalbridge.org    With gratitude,  Jill Asher  Executive Director, Magical Bridge Foundation    Magical Bridge Foundation Magical Bridge on the Global Stage at The World Economic Forum 2 Imagine if a world leader like Prince William, Bill Gates or German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited the Magical Bridge Playground. What would they think as they watched children and grownups of all abilities and disabilities laughing and playing together? How would they feel as they passed their bodies through the Magical Harp and heard the cascade of soothing sounds? Those luminaries don’t have to travel to Palo Alto, California, to feel the joy of our innovative inclusive playground. This week, thousands of other world leaders, CEOs and activists attending the World Economic Forum’s 2019 Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland, have the chance to experience the truly inclusive design of Magical Bridge. Our playground is on display for the world to see in the exhibition ACCESS+ABILITY, designed by the Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum. “The World Economic Forum has such a profound impact on humanity. To be able to leverage Davos as a medium to advance inclusion and kindness is a dream come true.” -- Magical Bridge Founder, Olenka Villarreal We are excited to count you as one of the "global citizens" supporting Magical Bridge. Thank you for helping to make truly inclusive play a reality around the world. Read More Magical Bridge Foundation is a nonprofit 501(c)(3). We are building truly innovative and inclusive playgrounds in Redwood City, Mountain View, Morgan Hill and Sunnyvale. This year, we will announce 3 additional projects throughout the bay area and country. We hope you will consider supporting our projects and our Foundation.    Magical Bridge Foundation, 650 Gilman Street, Palo Alto, CA . 94301 Unsubscribe            ‐‐   Jill Asher  Magical Bridge Foundation  NEW VIDEO:  Why Magical Bridge Matters  p:  650‐520‐8512  e: jill@magicalbridge.org    Connect with Magical Bridge on:  Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/magicalbridge  Twitter:  https://twitter.com/magicalbridge  1 Carnahan, David From:Greg M. Bell <gxbell@me.com> Sent:Monday, January 28, 2019 9:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:Spend $29 million on electric scooters - not on a soon-outdated parking garage need Spending $29 million on our short‐term car parking need is my money that can be used more wisely for alternative  transportation.  Yes, let’s make other means of transport easier to use and car use and parking less so.       Here’s a better use of $29 million.  Our City can buy a huge number of electric scooters and distribute them throughout  the  city.  Riding a scooter means moving a person is accomplished with a 20 lb scooter and small amount of electricity,  rather than a 3000 lb car and all the gas and carbon pollution emitted into the air we breath.        Not sure how this works?  Head over to San Jose State University and see electric scooters in large numbers throughout  campus.     City Counsel members, you are a smart group.  Make a better decision with our money!  —— I type less and talk more by phone. Greg M. Bell LinkedIn Profile SustainTimes.net Sustainable Actions Made Easy! ——     1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, January 24, 2019 6:22 PM To:Architectural Review Board; Council, City Subject:Standing the Test of Time Attachments:190124 Project Design and Test of Time San Jose Mercury Jan 24 2019.pdf Too many of us forget the value of our ARB. This article is a good reminder. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com S1ome structures just don't standthe test ef time The remark ap- peared to be spon- taneous. Gina Pa- pan, a member of the Millbrae City Council, was taking ing" within the complex? That's es- sentially subsidized living space. What will happen to that down the line? part in a recent ex-John amin.ation of a pro-Horgan posed, major devel-Columnist opment planned for the southeast cor- Good intentions don't necessarily re- sult in pleasant re- sults tomorrow and the next day. And ner of the town. According to a published account, she didn't much like what $he saw. Render- ings of the planned build- ings near the community's BART/Caltrain station were . not to he~ liking. At one p oint, she de- scribea\\;&at she was look- ing ~t a.S,~eing similar to "proJects' Oh; no. Alarm bells went off. A spokesman for the fi9ancial interests behind the construction was not pleased. · He qui hly offered that he was offended by any such negative comparisons. You can't blame him. Pa- pan's choice of words had hit a nerve. But Papan, though she may have been rather un- tactful in her use of lan- guage, seemed to be hint- ing at something impor- tant: The designs may look OK on paper or on a screen (or not) but what about the future? Will these struc- tures stand the test of time? Even ~ome government housing projects might have seemed to possess rea- sonable redeeming features when initially proposed, but look at them now. Cities across the U.S. have torn down the most egregious examples already. The Millbrae endeavor is not seeI,J. as government housing. But what about so-called, "affordable hous- that appears to be Papan's apparent fear. Which brings up another point: What about the se- ries of apartment/condo monoliths that have al- ready risen throughout the Peninsula? What will they look like a generation fro:rp. now? '.fhey already tower over their residential neighbors in cities and towns from Daly City to Redwood City. Papan was (is) right to be worried. A lot of us are. r r I THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 2019 HORGAN . I {( ••. 'Y • il '. 111 l BAY AREA NEWS CJ"Ratti1.p 83 .. , . ., 1 Carnahan, David From:Dennis Smith <dennishsmith60@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 23, 2019 7:09 PM To:Council, City Cc:Dennis Smith; Ellen Smith Subject:Surprise Cancellation of Tonight's Meeting on the Rail Corridor We arrived at the Mitchell Park Community Center for tonight's 6:00pm meeting on the Rail Corridor. We had  to be told by a Center staff member that the meeting had been cancelled.    This is a terrible way to develop community support for any plan. Without information on alternatives, we  might as well leave things as they are. In fact, this would be by far the cheapest (zero cost) solution. So all the  people, who don't like any of the various alternatives, have to wait longer at the grade crossings. That seems  to be the de facto  'solution' toward which the City is moving.      Dennis and Ellen Smith    1 Carnahan, David From:Mark Peek <markpeek1@mac.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 6:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:Traffic at University and High Hey people,    Have you considered having someone direct traffic while University Avenue is closed at High Street?  My goodness.   It is  the worst during the evening commute and just a little empathy (or forethought) would help.  A human directing traffic  for two or three hours on weeknights at University and High and High and Hamilton?   Just try to go from Stanford to the  east side of PA    Mark  420 Maple street   1 Carnahan, David From:Mary Ann Michel <maryannm7@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 25, 2019 12:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:vta in pa I hope that you will speak up about the plan to decrease the hours for the 22 bus. We get poor service up this way  Because our ridership is on the light side . Perhaps using the buses could be worked into our parking plan. in any event i  encourage you to be supporters of the night time 22, Some people need a place to sleep and others need to get to work  at night we need this bus.    MAMichel  503/384    1 Carnahan, David From:Rachel Kellerman <rkellerman@me.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 23, 2019 3:38 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert Subject:We Appreciate Your Attention to Neighborhood Traffic Concerns Dear Honorable City Council Members, Mr Shikada, Mr de Geus, Thank you for your attention to our concerns about the traffic and pedestrian/bike safety consequences of closing either or both Churchill Avenue Palo Alto Avenue on the University South and Professorville neighborhoods. We look forward to the traffic study and are encouraged to hear that you are looking at the relationships between Churchill/Embarcadero and University/Palo Alto Avenue crossings. We ask that you also take into account the traffic growth projected by the Stanford GUP and the traffic pattern changes that will emerge from a downtown comprehensive plan. We recognize the distances between Palo Alto Avenue and Churchill are significant, but with the advent of WAZE and other traffic avoidance apps, traffic patterns have changed in our town and towns across the United States and will continue to diverge from normal geographic patterns of movement. The City should recognize this fact and plan accordingly. Ideally the traffic study can capture where the traffic is headed and create models regarding how it is likely to be diverted in the event of any closures. We want to emphasize that we do not in any way want to slow down this complicated evaluation process, but we do ask that the evaluation of each crossing be transparent, comprehensive, comprehensible, and forward- thinking. A robust and thoughtful traffic circulation study seems like the best first step. Below please see the message Rachel sent to staff and Council in November as it relates to Council Member DuBois’ request for clarification regarding decision criteria. We hope that you will ask the consultants to use the full decision criteria as listed on the Grade Separation Criteria Fact Sheet (#8) during the evaluation process for every crossing: https://pagradesep.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/08/City_of_Palo_Alto_FactsheetV2.pdf Maintain or improve local access while reducing regional traffic on neighborhood streets. Respectfully, Tom and Rachel Kellerman Message sent in November: Dear Honorable City Council Members, Mr Shikada, Mr de Geus, I attended the CAP meeting yesterday and was dismayed that the decision making criteria concerning the local traffic impacts of all rail grade crossing options was omitted from the Connecting Palo Alto mailer that is being sent to all Palo Alto addresses. Criteria bullet point 8 on the mailer reads: Maintain or improve local access while on the Connecting Palo Alto Fact Sheet posted on the Connecting Palo Alto webpage it reads: Maintain or improve local access while reducing regional traffic on neighborhood streets. (References: https://pagradesep.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/City_of_Palo_Alto_FactsheetV2.pdf I have also attached my copy of the mailer-apologies for the scribbles.) 2 Why is this important? Council has instructed staff to consider neighborhood traffic impacts when weighing all rail grade crossing options. Neighborhood traffic impacts should not be an afterthought, but an integral part of the consideration process. I don’t have enough neighborhood input to speak authoritatively on a number of issues related to rail grade crossings, but I know without a doubt that neighborhood traffic is a huge concern for Professorville neighbors if Churchill and Palo Alto Avenue are closed to East/West traffic. Neighborhood traffic reduction criteria also did not appear on the “decision matrix” slides that were presented yesterday. We are not asking for the mailer to be reprinted but we are asking that all future communication, especially the decision making matrices that are presented at community meetings, include the entire criteria as agreed upon by the Council and posted on the CAP webpage: Maintain or improve local access while reducing regional traffic on neighborhood streets. As always, we greatly appreciate all your hard work on this difficult and complicated matter. Regards, Rachel Kellerman