HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180521plCC 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: 5/21/2018
Document dates: 5/2/2018 – 5/9/2018
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 8:50 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ann Pianetta <annpianetta@me.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 06, 2018 10:48 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Giving Water to East Palo Alto
Dear City Council:
I read in the Daily Post an article about Palo Alto giving away water to East Palo Alto. Why would we give away a
commodity when other cities are selling it? Five million dollars can pay for a lot of things in Palo Alto — namely the Palo
Alto Animal Shelter. Mr. Tanaka was absolutely correct in bringing this up as an inappropriate action on the part of the
City. A better outcome should be for everyone connected with the Hetch Hetchy system work to ensure that East Palo
Alto get a proper amount of water in the future. I hope you all will reconsider giving this water away.
Sincerely,
Ann Pianetta
3815 La Donna Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 8:50 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:John Mori <johnmori@comcast.net>
Sent:Sunday, May 06, 2018 2:44 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:East Palo Alto Water Give Away
Dear City Council Members,
I was astounded to hear that some believe Palo Alto should be providing 500,000 gallons of water per day to the City of
East Palo Alto - FREE. This was especially surprising as PA residents are facing increased costs for water usage and increased rationing if such an arrangement were made.
I am not opposed to providing water to any neighboring city if we believe we can afford to do without the water and that
there will be no degradation in water quality (e.g. increased levels of well water). However, it is important that East Palo Alto pay for their water at full cost. This ensures that water will be used wisely and economically. In addition, the
increased water requirements are largely for enabling East Palo Alto growth which, in turn, brings their city additional revenue.
Please vote against this ridiculous proposal.
Best Regards,
John Mori
712 Garland Dr. Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 8:50 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Don McDougall <mcdougall.don@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 06, 2018 5:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Water for East Palo Alto
Madam Mayor and Council members,
Please approve the plan to provide water fights for 500,000 gallons per day to East Palo Alto. I understand
there are some misguided concerns over the plan to provide. These are water rights we are not using or likely to use. This is the sleeves out of our vest! Other communities (Mountain View) may
have sold water rights but these are water rights I believe they were buying in the first place because
they were using all of their water rights so they were simply passing on the cost. East Palo Alto was
not around in fact when the rights were given out. Let's be good neighbor. Provide East Palo Alto with water rights.
Thanks,
Don McDougall 650 815 1455
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 8:50 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Maryjane Marcus <maryjane.marcus@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 06, 2018 7:36 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Drekmeier, Peter
Subject:thank you! share with EPA
Dear City Council,
I wanted to applaud you and support you in the permanent allocation of water to East Palo Alto. To me, this is
a tangible way to make amends for past practices based on historical segregation and exclusionary practices that limited EPA's access compared to Palo Alto.
Warmly
Mary Jane Marcus
College Terrace, Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 8:50 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Sabra Driscoll <driscollsabra@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 06, 2018 7:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Water
I am writing this email after reading the article in the Post in the May 5th addition that you will be voting on
Monday May 7th to give the City of East Palo Alto 500,000 gallons of water a day, free. I strongly object to
this move. I just received the letter raising the water rates in Palo Alto AGAIN!!!
I am a 93 year old woman with a limited income who does her own gardening. I enjoy keeping my yard well
maintained and need water to keep it alive. I hope this proposition will not pass.
Sabra Driscoll
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Sabra Driscoll" <driscollsabra@gmail.com>
Date: May 6, 2018 7:18 PM
Subject: Water To: <www.cityofpaloalto.org/junkmail@gmail.com>
Cc:
I am writing this email after reading the Article in the post that you will be voting on Monday to give the city
of East palo alto 500,000 gal. Of water per day. I strongly object to this move. I just received the letter raising, again, the water rates in palo alto. I am a 93 year old woman with a limited income who does her own
gardening. I enjoy keeping my yard well maintained and hope that this proposition will not
pass. Sabra driscoll
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 8:50 AM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Annette Isaacson <annetteisaacson@comcast.net>
Sent:Sunday, May 06, 2018 7:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:water allotment for EPA
Dear City Council Members,
Since East Palo Alto has such a small water allotment and Palo Alto has a surplus, I think we should give an allotment of 500,000 gallons a day to EPA. East Palo Alto has a disproportionately small water allocation from the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System because the allocations were worked
out before East Palo Alto was incorporated into a city in 1983.
Many of our students live in East Palo Alto. This water will be helping them. Also, with a larger
allotment, East Palo Alto may be able to build more much needed affordable housing.
Councilman Tanaka, please think of the common good.
Sincerely,
Annette Isaacson
2550 Webster St.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:35 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mary Holzer <mbholzer@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 9:40 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Donating water to East Palo Alto
Dear City Council Members,
I would like to strongly object to the proposal to divert 500,000 gallons of water per day (182,500,000 gallons per year)
to East Palo Alto. This diversion would be PERMANENT and would decrease Palo Alto's future ability to handle
fluctuating water supply and demand. The recent drought and the likelihood of future droughts due to climate change,
not to mention the increasing water demands based on projected California population growth should be enough to
convince you that this is a bad idea.
Clearly there is an inequity in water distribution, but that issue should be raised at the State level, which is where the
water allocations should be evaluated and adjusted.
I am also concerned that the water diversion would be used for more development on this increasingly crowded
peninsula. This proposal is one more instance of the lack of inter‐city and inter‐county planning that might have a
chance of doing something about the problems brought on by rapid development.
And finally, I'm pretty sure I recently received a letter from the City of Palo Alto indicating that our water costs would
rise yet again, and not an inconsiderable amount. The rationale for giving Palo Alto water away is therefore lost on me. If
we can afford to do that, then water rates for Palo Alto residents should not be rising.
Regards,
Mary Holzer
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:35 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Debbie Mytels <dmytels@batnet.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 10:01 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Water Allocation to E. Palo Alto (consent calendar)
Dear Council Members,
I’m writing about the question of whether Palo Alto should donate or sell a portion of its water allocation to East Palo Alto. For three reasons, I think it’s approrpriate and wiser Palo Alto to donate the small portion (only
.5 million gal/day) of our allocation, which is currently proposed :
1) Historical inequity: When the Hetch-Hetchy allocations were originally made, Palo Alto received 17.1
million gal/day, and the unincorporated area that is today East Palo Alto received less than 3 million gal/day. By whatever reasoning such a grossly unequal distribution was arrived at then, on the face of it this
appears to be yet another in a long string of inequities that have been visited upon this underesourced
community. Why was Palo Alto allocated 17.1 mil g/d when we haven’t even used that much water since the
1970’s? — and our usage was down to 14 mg/d during the recent drought? Donating a small portion of Palo
Alto’s allocation could be seen as a small gesture of “reparations” for the historically unfair land use decisions that include re-engineering of San Franciquito Creek to put more land into Palo Alto, the “block busting”
residential real estate practices that manipulated housing costs and created a segregated community, and putting
the 101 freeway through the middle of that community in the 1950’s.
2) Population density: East Palo Alto is clearly struggling with a very high population density. The simple fact of Palo Alto banning on-street parking near the Newell St. Bridge points to the high number of people
living per square mile in EPA. These folks need more water! Equity demands that the current water allocation
should be changed to a per person system rather than the antiquated sysem that the Hetch-Hetchy rules allow.
(Palo Alto is lucky that East Palo Alto has not moved to sue the Hetch-Hetchy system with an equity-based
demand based on every human's right to water.)
3) Housing supply: Because of water shortaages, East Palo Alto has been denied permission to build any more
housing. But we have a regional housing crisis — and the housing constraints in East Palo Alto directly impact
us in Palo Alto as well. At the very least, enlightened self-interest would suggest that Palo Alto should support
East Palo Alto’s desire for more housing, so that it would reduce the housing shortage that afflicts all of us. Offering some portion of PA’s water allocation to offsest this problem and enable EPA to build more homes
would be one small step we could make.
Lastly, and most basic, offering to share an overly generous supply with a neighbor in need is just plain good
human relations. It’s time for us to be good neighbors.
Sincerely,
Debbie Mytels
Debbie Mytels
2824 Louis Road. Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 856-7580
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:35 PM
3
dmytels@batnet.com
"Remembering the Future in our Actions Every Day"
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 3:45 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:jaclyn schrier <jaclyn@schrier.net>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 3:44 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Do not give our water away!
City Council:
While the facts surrounding the possible transfer of some portion of Palo Alto's water allocation to East Palo Alto remain murky, one
thing is crystal clear.
At this time, when the city...
- anticipates a budget deficit - proposes to raise water rates
- plans to increase taxes or fees - intends to grow the population
- faces inevitable drought
...we should not give away our water, and certainly not for free.
Thank you.
jaclyn schrier 427 Alma Street #307
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 3:58 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Adrian Covert <acovert@bayareacouncil.org>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 3:50 PM
To:Keene, James; Council, City
Cc:Wolbach, Cory; Tanaka, Greg; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz (internal);
Holman, Karen; Fine, Adrian; DuBois, Tom; Sean Charpentier
Subject:Letter of support, water transfer
Attachments:57 EPAtransfer_BAC.pdf
Dear Mayor Kniss, Councilmembers, and Mr. Keene,
Please see the attached letter of support from the Bay Area Council regarding the proposed water transfer to
the City of East Palo Alto.
Sincerely,
Adrian Covert
Adrian Covert | Vice President, Public Policy | BAYAREA COUNCIL
353 Sacramento Street, 10th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94111
o: 415-946-8746 | c: 415-519-9141 | www.bayareacouncil.org/join
May 7, 2018
The Honorable Mayor & Council Members
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Proposed Transfer of Water to East Palo Alto
Dear Mayor Kniss & Council Members,
As you know, the Bay Area is suffering from an historic and devastating housing shortage,
leading to congestion, displacement, and lost opportunities for Bay Area residents and
businesses. Amidst this tremendous challenge, East Palo Alto has emerged as a leader on
providing affordable and sustainable housing. Approximately 40 percent of the housing in East
Palo Alto is affordable, and the city’s per-capita water consumption (76 gallons per day) is far
below the area average (114 gallons).
For these reasons, it came as a great disappointment last year to learn of the City of East Palo
Alto’s decision to declare a temporary building moratorium on account of its maxed-out water
allocation from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. The moratorium halted the
construction of 120 affordable housing units, commercial development for up to 5,000 jobs, and
a groundbreaking new private school fully funded by Pricilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg. These
and other impacted projects are critical for the region’s continued economic success.
Which is why I am writing to respectfully urge the Palo Alto City Council to approve the
proposed transfer of 500,000 gallons of water per day to the City of East Palo Alto. This transfer
would allow East Palo Alto to fulfill its general plans with minimal risk to Palo Alto’s own water
supply reliability. In addition, I’d like to acknowledge the good work by the City Managers of Palo
Alto and East Palo Alto, with support from the Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency
and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.
Thank you for your leadership, and for considering our views.
Sincerely,
Adrian Covert
Vice President, Public Policy
Bay Area Council
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 4:28 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 4:05 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:May 7, 2018, Council Meeting, Item #3: Transfer of Individual Supply Guarantee to East
Palo Alto
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
May 7, 2018
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94302
MAY 7, 2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #3
TRANSFER OF INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY GURANTEE TO EAST PALO ALTO
Dear City Council:
The staff report for this agenda item (ID # 9041) at the bottom of Page 1
summarizes a December 15, 2016 Colleague's Memo by saying that the
transfer of part of Palo Alto's water supply to East Palo Alto would be
"to support economic development".
That Colleague's Memo appears at Attachment B to the staff report.
Paragraph 2 on Page 1 of 3 of the November 5, 2016, memo says, "the
economic wellbeing of East Palo Alto is important to Palo Alto, and its
ability to provide affordable and obtainable housing helps support its
surrounding communities."
Developers of commercial property can afford to pay for the increase in
the supply guarantee attributable to their projects.
Developers of housing for individuals and families with incomes above low-
income (80% of the County median income by family size) can also afford to
pay for the increase in the supply guarantee attributable to their
projects.
Those developers of commercial projects and housing projects can always
pass on the cost of their projects to their tenants.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 4:28 PM
2
That is exactly how East Palo Alto was able to pay for the water supply
guarantee it purchased from Mountain View, with some of funding
transferred through a tax-deductible contribution.
The December 24, 2017, Palo Alto Weekly article, "East Palo Alto mayor
lauds 'city on the move'" (posted online on November 21, 2017 at:
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/11/21/east-palo-alto-mayor-
celebrates-city-on-the-move) describes how developers paid for the water
supply Mountain View transferred to East Palo Alto:
"The city has four major projects on the drawing boards, including 1.4 million square feet of office space at
2020 Bay Road -- the closed Romic chemical plant site -- that could add an estimated 4,500 to 5,500 tech and
biotech jobs and a proposed 233,840-square-foot office building on University Avenue and East Bayshore Road.
Those and other projects, including the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative's Primary School and a performing arts
center, had been on hold until recently, after the city ran out of water allocations to support expansion. But a $5
million deal worked out with the city of Mountain View has transferred 1 million gallons of water per day in water rights, which East Palo Alto secured in perpetuity.
"The water transfer is the first of its kind" for the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Association, he
said. He and Palo Alto Mayor Greg Scharff are working to execute transfer of another half-million gallons of
water per day from Palo Alto's allocations, which would help East Palo Alto grow according to its strategic plan, he said.
Funding for the water purchase from Mountain View came from the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative, The Sobrato
Organization, 2020 Bay Road and the Primary School and the City of East Palo Alto."
The funding agreements for the water supply transfer were approved at the
June 20, 2017, East Palo Alto City Council meeting. The agenda packet for
that meeting appears online at: http://www.ci.east-palo-
alto.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_06202017-1319.
For a summary of the developer contributions see Table 1 at PDF page 103;
Attachment 1 at PDF page 155; and Attachment 6 at PDF page 156. The
entire staff report and attachments appears at PDF pages 97-156.
If you believe that 100% low-income housing projects that are deed
restricted to remain low-income housing projects for at least 30 years
need the financial support of Palo Alto to obtain an increased water
supply instead of including the cost of that water supply guarantee as an
expense paid by the limited-equity investors in the housing project
who reap tax benefits from their investment, then the City of Palo Alto's
transfer of part of their water supply guarantee should be conditioned
on East Palo Alto project approval of each 100% low-income housing project
that is deed restricted to remain low-income housing for at least 30
years.
Using terms like "moderate income housing", "affordable housing",
"obtainable housing", and "workforce housing" hide the fact that those
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 4:28 PM
3
are all for-profit housing developments where the cost of their increased
water supply is properly an expense of the developer.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:19 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kerry Yarkin <kyarkin895@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 04, 2018 3:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Gail Price's comments
Dear Mayor and City CouncilMembers:
I think you would all find this interesting to view. It is the April 29,2014 CC Meeting where the initial info.
about the Draft EA for the sky routes over Palo Alto was first heard. I hope you can stand STRONG and support legal action to Right the Wrong that was perpetrated on us by FAA, SFO, Round Table and our
Congresswoman.
Kerry Yarkin
VIDEO here https://paloaltocityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=1691
TIME CODE 5:13:22
--------
THE RECOURSE WAS of course to file a Petition for Review but PACC never did and the public never even knew all this was happening.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 8:52 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Karen Porter <porter.k10@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 06, 2018 2:30 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Stump, Molly; Flaherty, Michelle
Subject:Re: May 7 City Council Meeting -- Airplane Noise Item 8
Dear Council,
The “Policy and Services Committee and Staff Recommendations on Next Steps Related to Airplane Noise” to
be discussed at the May 7 Council meeting are a step in the right direction for the most part. But they fall short of the aggressive actions we need to counter the FAA’s pattern of obfuscation, delay, and denial regarding NextGen. Below are the top 3 areas I believe warrant a more direct approach.
1. The Minimum Altitude at MENLO Should be 5,000 Feet
In May 2000, Congresswoman Eshoo announced an agreement with the FAA to raise the minimum altitude of SFO arrivals crossing MENLO waypoint to 5,000 feet. At some unknown later date, SFO and the FAA’s
Northern California TRACON changed the MENLO overcrossing procedure to 4,000 feet during instrument
conditions and 5,000 feet during visual conditions. However, the Select Committee’s unanimous
recommendation was consistent with the 2000 agreement – the minimum altitude for all crossings over MENLO or in its vicinity should be 5,000 feet.
The Staff Report (at p. 5) says the City should advocate for adherence to the TRACON agreement. This is ill-
advised and must be changed for at least 3 reasons:
The TRACON agreement was not disclosed for public comment, nor preceded by any known environmental assessment, and therefore should not be valid.
When the FAA announced NextGen, apparently none of the published documents stated that
altitudes over or near MENLO would be lower than 5,000 feet, and in fact they implied otherwise
(e.g., the draft Environmental Assessment stated that aircraft flying Optimized Profile Descents
“can maintain higher altitudes and lower thrust for longer periods”).
The FAA’s discussion of altitudes in its November 2017 Update is confusing and contradictory (as discussed further in memo attached to my April 9 email), nor does it take into account new
Ground Based Augmentation System (GBAS) technology -- which SFO’s Aircraft Noise
Abatement Manager has specifically said could enable landings at a higher descent gradient and,
as a result, higher altitudes at and near MENLO.
In addition, a growing proportion of SFO arrivals over or near MENLO may not be adhering to even
the 4,000 foot minimum, according to GPS-based data collected using the stop.jetnoise.net
application. The City needs to investigate further, including through a Freedom of Information
request for arrival data.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 8:52 AM
2
2. City Should Challenge New SERFR 3/SERFR STAR Amendment
The Staff Report does not address the new SERFR 3 (aka SERFR STAR) Amendment that was described in the FAA’s November 2017 Update and implemented on March 29, 2018, per the FAA’s April 2018 Update. The latest Update implies this new route will remain indefinitely, contrary to
previous indications that it was temporary.
The FAA has not provided key information about this new route, such as mapping to show impacted areas, minimum altitudes, expected volume and concentration of aircraft, environmental screening test results, whether it is intended to be temporary (and, if so, what will replace it), and other data to
demonstrate that its reliance on a “categorical exclusion” to avoid an environmental review is
appropriate. As set forth in the legal opinion prepared by the City’s outside counsel released on April
5, 2018 (at p. 3), the way to obtain this information is through a FOIA request to the FAA – has the
City issued a FOIA request for complete SERFR 3 data?
The legal opinion also noted that this change re-started the 60-day statutory limitations period. Did
the City investigate the FAA’s “categorical exclusion” for SERFR 3 and whether it affords an
opening for litigation? If not, it should do so immediately. Council must not let an opportunity for legal challenge just fade away yet again. It absolutely should protest SERFR 3 because it shifts
the noise/emissions burden within an already-impacted area, when what is needed is a more
comprehensive, equitable redistribution of flight paths, including to southeast of the Bay (the FAA's
reasons for rejecting FAITH as an alternate waypoint are refutable, as also discussed in my April 9
memo).
3. City Needs a Fast Track Process to Enable Timely Complaints Regarding FAA Actions
A resident has proposed that, given the 60-day statute of limitations for challenging FAA actions, the City should put in place a fast track process to enable proactive monitoring, timely evaluation, referral
to Council, and initiation of litigation for new FAA procedures considered actionable. The Staff Report
(at p. 8) states that this was to be addressed in outside counsel’s legal opinion. While the opinion
covers applicable law, it does not discuss a monitoring and expedited review process.
At the Council's April 9 meeting, the Mayor gave the impression that Council is against any lawsuit
over NextGen. It is understandable if Council does not want to fully disclose its litigation strategy. But
it would be nice to know that there is a fast track process in place to assure that past mistakes
will not be repeated, and that Staff and Council will act promptly to protect Palo Alto against
harmful jet noise and emissions.
Thank you,
Karen Porter
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Karen Porter <porter.k10@gmail.com> wrote: Sorry, am re-sending with pdf attachment that omits extra spacing in document sent previously.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 8:52 AM
3
Regards,
Karen
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Karen Porter <porter.k10@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Council,
Thank you for your continued diligence in seeking relief from harm caused by NextGen – especially
the significant noise and emissions due to the high number of SFO arrivals flying over or near
MENLO waypoint, at low altitudes, throughout the day and night. Unfortunately, the FAA’s strategy seems to be one of delay and denial. This was made clear by its November 2017 Update on Phase Two, which addresses the 100+ recommendations made by the Select Committee on South Bay
Arrivals and the SFO Roundtable, following months of public hearings. The Update was part of the
“Northern California Noise Initiative” that began in 2015, shortly after NextGen was implemented, at
the urging of Congresswoman Eshoo and other local U.S. Representatives.
I appreciate the Staff Report’s summary of the Update responses pertaining to Palo Alto’s identified positions, as well as release of the legal framework memo prepared by outside counsel. I am writing
to emphasize the serious problems with the Update that – together with more recent FAA
comments – demonstrate the agency’s lack of good faith in its purported effort to find a solution,
giving rise to the need for more aggressive pursuit of the City’s options. The Attachment to this email provides an overview of the Update’s deficiencies and a more detailed discussion of what I
consider to be the top three issues, along with suggested rebuttals.
Significantly, the Update (at p. 2) repeats the FAA position that: “This report does not represent the
end of our work.” Indeed, the FAA has repeatedly communicated that it was looking into the NorCal
Metroplex noise problems, was open to fixing the problems, and wanted to work with Palo Alto and others to find a solution.
The City arguably has a reasonable basis for relying on the FAA's recurring representations. The
original Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact should be scrutinized for
legal deficiencies, particularly in light of the actual effect of NextGen changes (and despite the
unsuccessful petition by Portola Valley citizens, since Palo Alto was not a party to that action and should retain its due process rights). Subsequent procedure changes (including SERFR STAR)
should be evaluated thoroughly, especially for their impact on historical and recreational sites. A
Freedom of Information Act request is also needed to require the FAA to produce supporting data
for its Update findings and other relevant information.
In short, I urge Council to take strong action now, including developing a strategy for legal action, particularly considering that the only jurisdictions to have achieved meaningful progress are those
that have filed a lawsuit (such as Phoenix and Newport Beach).
Respectfully,
Karen Porter
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:35 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Keith Bennett <kbennett@luxsci.net>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 11:34 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Jet Noise
To honorable Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council:
I'll keep this. Jet noise in Palo Alto is intolerable and getting worse. I've been awoken by low flights, directly overhead at
3 AM, and that's with our windows closed.
Palo Alto needs to be aggressive and not let others, particularly people in San Mateo County decide our quality of
life. Regional solutions do not work, especially if we don't have significant representation at the table. We, the citizens
have been patiently waiting for years. We need action now. SkyPosse is competent, informed, and represents our views
well. Listen to them and follow their lead.
Keith & Atsuko Bennett
2225 Webster St
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:35 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:jjh <jjh2000@gmail.com> on behalf of Jim Holmlund <jjhstuff@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 11:05 AM
To:Council, City; Representative Anna G. Eshoo; senator@boxer.senate.gov;
senator@feinstein.senate.gov; Sky Posse; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org
Subject:PLEASE do something about the airplane noise!
I don't know that the city council can actually do anything - seems like action has to come from the federal
level.
Our representatives Anna Eshoo, Sam Farr and Jackie Speier did a good job of getting the FAA to participate with the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals. Unfortunately, it does not seem like those efforts will bear much fruit. IF the SERFR traffic moves back to where it was before NextGen, it will help some people, hurt
others. And I don't recall anything in the Select Committee's report about moving BDEGA West flights back to
the East leg during daytime hours. It appears to me that somewhere around 30% of the noise near Channing
and Newell is from these BDEGA West and Oceanic flights. I realize that forcing the FAA to split the southern arrivals into multiple routes is problematic and would take a
long time.
But, another and it seems to me maybe an easier, quicker way to achieve dispersion would be to make changes
so that BDEGA West, Oceanic, and vectered SERFR flights do not all converge near the MENLO waypoint. Instead, have each of these three fly to the bay at different points. That could greatly reduce the noise in Palo Alto
without severely affecting other areas.
Below are about 100 'complaints' I made via stop.jetnoise.net last Wed, while I was at my desk working much of the day and watching TV during the evening hours. And, I was not ALWAYS reporting, so an unknown number of noisy flights are not reported below (note the 4 hour gap between 3:30 and 7:30).
The blank entries are caused by shortcomings in stop.jetnoise. I DID hear noise at those times.
As would be expected, the flights are not evenly distributed over the 11 or so hours covered. For example, there are about 15 flights between 10pm and 11 pm - about one flight every 4 minutes. Argh! So much for reducing the nighttime flights over populated areas.
We should not have to live with this!
Thank you
Jim Holmlund
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Daily report summary for nn
Date: Thu, 03 May 2018 00:41:46 -0700
From: reporters@jetnoise.net Reply-To: reporters@jetnoise.net To: jjh2000@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:35 PM
3
Hello, nn !
All of these complaints have already been auto-submitted to SFO, so please do not forward this email to sfo.noise - they already have them all !
The 100 reports:
Wed, May 02, 11:35 PM
Flight: UA 724 [HNL-SFO] (B772; speed: 234 knots, altitude: 5062.3851191296 ft, distance: 1 KM)
Wed, May 02, 11:29
PM
Flight: CM 382 [PTY-SFO] (B738; speed: 231 knots, altitude: 4391.5402747904 ft,
distance: 3 KM)
Wed, May 02, 11:27 PM
Wed, May 02, 11:15 PM
Wed, May 02, 11:13
PM
Wed, May 02, 11:11 PM
Wed, May 02, 11:10
PM
Wed, May 02, 10:57 PM
Flight: UA 650 [HNL-SFO] (B739; speed: 248 knots, altitude: 5203.88917488 ft,
distance: 1 KM)
Wed, May 02, 10:54 PM
Flight: AS1143 [PHL-SFO] (A320; speed: 218 knots, altitude: 3816.481652791467 ft,
distance: 3 KM)
Wed, May 02, 10:50
PM
Flight: B6 833 [BOS-SFO] (A321; speed: 223 knots, altitude: 4217.502452986667 ft,
distance: 0 KM)
Wed, May 02, 10:43 PM
Flight: UA 435 [KOA-SFO] (B739; speed: 240 knots, altitude: 5302.027132504533 ft, distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 10:40
PM
Wed, May 02, 10:36 PM
Flight: WN1252 [SAN-SFO] (B737; speed: 201 knots, altitude: 5282.9072820224 ft,
distance: 2 KM)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:35 PM
4
Wed, May 02, 10:35 PM
Wed, May 02, 10:32
PM
Flight: UA1288 [OGG-SFO] (B738; speed: 255 knots, altitude: 5028.277996004266 ft,
distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 10:27 PM
Flight: AS1050 [HNL-SFO] (A320; speed: 231 knots, altitude: 5604.907213448533 ft,
distance: 1 KM)
Wed, May 02, 10:17 PM
Flight: AS3453 [SNA-SFO] (E75L; speed: 238 knots, altitude: 5659.4356317568 ft,
distance: 5 KM)
Wed, May 02, 10:16
PM
Wed, May 02, 10:11 PM Flight: DL2027 [MSP-SFO] (B752; speed: 234 knots, altitude: 3921.5559287850665 ft, distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 10:08
PM
Flight: AC 568 [YVR-SFO] (A320; speed: 240 knots, altitude: 3820.249071410133 ft,
distance: 5 KM)
Wed, May 02, 10:02 PM
Flight: AS1077 [IAD-SFO] (A320; speed: 221 knots, altitude: 3607.760998549333 ft,
distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:59 PM
Flight: AS 318 [SEA-SFO] (B738; speed: 226 knots, altitude: 4680.935361621333 ft,
distance: 7 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:55
PM
Flight: AM 662 [GDL-SFO] (B738; speed: 228 knots, altitude: 5690.6018307584 ft,
distance: 7 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:53 PM Flight: UA2274 [IAD-SFO] (B738; speed: 223 knots, altitude: 4764.48875368 ft, distance: 10 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:48
PM
Flight: DL 408 [JFK-SFO] (B763; speed: 194 knots, altitude: 4665.732416151467 ft,
distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:47 PM
Flight: CX 872 [HKG-SFO] (B77W; speed: 185 knots, altitude: 3259.5506858816 ft, distance: 4 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:42
PM Flight: DL2953 [LAX-SFO] (B738; speed: 225 knots, altitude: 4850 ft, distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:40
PM
Flight: AS1193 [EWR-SFO] (A319; speed: 203 knots, altitude: 4794.1816136768 ft,
distance: 0 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:38 PM Flight: HA 42 [OGG-SFO] (A332; speed: 218 knots, altitude: 3834.5414593824 ft, distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:36
PM
Flight: WN5370 [PHX-SFO] (B738; speed: 195 knots, altitude: 4602.735228752 ft,
distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:34 PM
Flight: WN1796 [LAX-SFO] (B737; speed: 218 knots, altitude: 4464.0560278933335 ft, distance: 3 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:32
PM
Flight: WN1585 [BUR-SFO] (B737; speed: 202 knots, altitude: 5085.479071458133 ft,
distance: 4 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:30
PM
Flight: B61436 [LGB-SFO] (A320; speed: 185 knots, altitude: 5082.436869226667 ft,
distance: 2 KM)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:35 PM
5
Wed, May 02, 09:28 PM Flight: AS1945 [LAX-SFO] (A320; speed: 224 knots, altitude: 4850.964405553067 ft, distance: 1 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:27
PM Flight: UA5366 [ONT-SFO] (CRJ2; speed: 242 knots, altitude: 4875 ft, distance: 1 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:23 PM
Flight: AS1042 [KOA-SFO] (A320; speed: 226 knots, altitude: 3843.814740753067 ft,
distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:22 PM
Flight: UA1740 [BUR-SFO] (B738; speed: 217 knots, altitude: 4882.9700117312 ft,
distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:20
PM
Flight: AA6014 [LAX-SFO] (E75L; speed: 223 knots, altitude: 4621.918180208 ft,
distance: 1 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:18 PM Flight: AS 461 [LAX-SFO] (B738; speed: 237 knots, altitude: 5369.9387163648 ft, distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:15
PM
Flight: UA1728 [OGG-SFO] (B753; speed: 260 knots, altitude: 3725.6216001088 ft,
distance: 7 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:13 PM
Flight: UA1728 [OGG-SFO] (B753; speed: 260 knots, altitude: 5916.0928694869335 ft,
distance: 5 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:09 PM
Flight: WN1217 [SAN-SFO] (B737; speed: 266 knots, altitude: 5542.1362392703995 ft,
distance: 3 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:06
PM
Flight: UA 283 [LAX-SFO] (B738; speed: 255 knots, altitude: 4686.3234455744 ft,
distance: 0 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:04 PM Flight: UA5829 [SBP-SFO] (CRJ2; speed: 435 knots, altitude: 6140.771223652267 ft, distance: 5 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:01
PM
Flight: AM 664 [MEX-SFO] (B738; speed: 246 knots, altitude: 4916.140786811733 ft,
distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 08:59 PM
Flight: HA 12 [HNL-SFO] (A332; speed: 231 knots, altitude: 4671.0053680224 ft, distance: 3 KM)
Wed, May 02, 08:57
PM
Flight: WN1201 [SNA-SFO] (B737; speed: 270 knots, altitude: 5838.0683330496 ft,
distance: 4 KM)
Wed, May 02, 08:54
PM
Flight: AS1969 [SAN-SFO] (A320; speed: 191 knots, altitude: 5280.348470510933 ft,
distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 08:45 PM Flight: UA1541 [IAH-SFO] (B739; speed: 236 knots, altitude: 5028.7168308992 ft, distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 08:41
PM
Wed, May 02, 08:36 PM
Wed, May 02, 08:28
PM
Flight: UA1152 [LIH-SFO] (B752; speed: 219 knots, altitude: 5255.15300368 ft,
distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 08:26
PM
Flight: SQ2 [HKG-SFO] (B77W; speed: 214 knots, altitude: 4444.014572442667 ft,
distance: 1 KM)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:35 PM
6
Wed, May 02, 08:19 PM Flight: UA2201 [LAX-SFO] (B738; speed: 258 knots, altitude: 6259.1773735104 ft, distance: 7 KM)
Wed, May 02, 08:02
PM
Flight: AS1717 [DAL-SFO] (A320; speed: 212 knots, altitude: 3897.0034990784 ft,
distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 08:01 PM
Flight: UA5560 [SNA-SFO] (E75L; speed: 207 knots, altitude: 3945.8799972533334 ft,
distance: 4 KM)
Wed, May 02, 07:56 PM
Flight: AV 564 [SAL-SFO] (A320; speed: 222 knots, altitude: 3948.4695297216 ft,
distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 07:50
PM
Flight: UA2016 [SAN-SFO] (A320; speed: 223 knots, altitude: 4502.479808746667 ft,
distance: 1 KM)
Wed, May 02, 07:45 PM Flight: UA 455 [AUS-SFO] (A319; speed: 242 knots, altitude: 5738.080910443733 ft, distance: 1 KM)
Wed, May 02, 07:42
PM
Flight: BR 28 [TPE-SFO] (B77W; speed: 238 knots, altitude: 6391.479312221867 ft,
distance: 1 KM)
Wed, May 02, 07:40 PM Flight: UA1885 [EWR-SFO] (B752; speed: 222 knots, altitude: 3900 ft, distance: 1 KM)
Wed, May 02, 07:36 PM
Flight: AA6013 [LAX-SFO] (E75L; speed: 255 knots, altitude: 5055.251544311467 ft,
distance: 1 KM)
Wed, May 02, 07:30
PM
Flight: AS 320 [SEA-SFO] (B739; speed: 234 knots, altitude: 6076.2696285952 ft,
distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 07:27 PM Flight: UA5523 [MSP-SFO] (E75L; speed: 229 knots, altitude: 3769.1030970762667 ft, distance: 1 KM)
Wed, May 02, 06:10
PM
Flight: AA6012 [LAX-SFO] (E75L; speed: 216 knots, altitude: 4507.0073723456 ft,
distance: 1 KM)
Wed, May 02, 03:33 PM
Flight: UA 420 [LAX-SFO] (A320; speed: 233 knots, altitude: 4817.684994651733 ft, distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 03:31
PM
Flight: UA1687 [SJD-SFO] (B738; speed: 225 knots, altitude: 5185.111718106667 ft,
distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 03:28
PM
Flight: WN1242 [LAX-SFO] (B737; speed: 235 knots, altitude: 5324.0173143328 ft,
distance: 3 KM)
Wed, May 02, 03:27 PM Flight: AS1929 [LAX-SFO] (A320; speed: 222 knots, altitude: 4037.0458936224 ft, distance: 1 KM)
Wed, May 02, 03:21
PM
Flight: EI 147 [DUB-SFO] (A333; speed: 239 knots, altitude: 5042.9815524928 ft,
distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 03:12 PM
Flight: LX 38 [ZRH-SFO] (B77W; speed: 229 knots, altitude: 6036.0121511125335 ft, distance: 4 KM)
Wed, May 02, 02:48
PM
Flight: DL2939 [LAX-SFO] (B738; speed: 256 knots, altitude: 4660.993670896 ft,
distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 01:15
PM
Flight: CI5107 [LAX-SFO] (B744; speed: 232 knots, altitude: 4708.4108122752 ft,
distance: 2 KM)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:35 PM
7
Wed, May 02, 12:56 PM Flight: JL2 [HND-SFO] (B77W; speed: 203 knots, altitude: 4382.826005712 ft, distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 12:49
PM
Flight: AS 334 [PDX-SFO] (B739; speed: 242 knots, altitude: 5094.1162546432 ft,
distance: 7 KM)
Wed, May 02, 12:33 PM
Flight: AS1899 [LAX-SFO] (A320; speed: 260 knots, altitude: 4515.4979472448 ft,
distance: 1 KM)
Wed, May 02, 12:26 PM
Wed, May 02, 12:13
PM
Flight: AS1957 [SAN-SFO] (A320; speed: 391 knots, altitude: 4994.6833301088 ft,
distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 12:10 PM
Wed, May 02, 12:09
PM
Wed, May 02, 12:04 PM
Flight: AA6008 [LAX-SFO] (E75L; speed: 221 knots, altitude: 4473.344649344 ft,
distance: 1 KM)
Wed, May 02, 12:01 PM
Flight: WN2081 [BUR-SFO] (B737; speed: 235 knots, altitude: 4946.063105648 ft,
distance: 1 KM)
Wed, May 02, 11:58
AM
Flight: UA 334 [SAN-SFO] (B738; speed: 252 knots, altitude: 4423.700507797334 ft,
distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 11:51 AM
Wed, May 02, 11:51
AM Flight: SY 393 [MSP-SFO] (B738; speed: 234 knots, altitude: 3924 ft, distance: 4 KM)
Wed, May 02, 11:44 AM
Flight: UA5176 [MFR-SFO] (E75L; speed: 214 knots, altitude: 3687.0162837504 ft, distance: 6 KM)
Wed, May 02, 11:34
AM
Flight: DL 791 [SEA-SFO] (A319; speed: 225 knots, altitude: 5660.605995364267 ft,
distance: 4 KM)
Wed, May 02, 11:30
AM
Flight: CX 870 [HKG-SFO] (B77W; speed: 224 knots, altitude: 5813.160245060267 ft,
distance: 1 KM)
Wed, May 02, 11:17 AM Flight: UA 698 [SEA-SFO] (B738; speed: 227 knots, altitude: 6220.182811524267 ft, distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 11:15
AM
Flight: AM 668 [MEX-SFO] (B738; speed: 225 knots, altitude: 4861.9704455072 ft,
distance: 1 KM)
Wed, May 02, 11:03 AM
Flight: DL2934 [LAX-SFO] (B712; speed: 298 knots, altitude: 4969.2907540544 ft, distance: 1 KM)
Wed, May 02, 10:53
AM
Flight: UA 708 [LAX-SFO] (B738; speed: 256 knots, altitude: 4514.598380110933 ft,
distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:10
AM
Flight: AA6006 [LAX-SFO] (E75L; speed: 215 knots, altitude: 4085.3359591370668 ft,
distance: 2 KM)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:35 PM
8
Wed, May 02, 09:09 AM
Wed, May 02, 09:08
AM
Flight: UA5789 [MSP-SFO] (E75L; speed: 182 knots, altitude: 3329.3504424416 ft,
distance: 9 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:05 AM
Flight: MU 589 [PVG-SFO] (B77W; speed: 217 knots, altitude: 4196.291905774933 ft,
distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 09:03 AM
Flight: DL3576 [SLC-SFO] (E75L; speed: 210 knots, altitude: 3877.7374255562668 ft,
distance: 1 KM)
Wed, May 02, 08:42
AM
Flight: AS1935 [LAX-SFO] (A320; speed: 218 knots, altitude: 4173.2970315776 ft,
distance: 4 KM)
Wed, May 02, 08:37 AM Flight: UA5186 [ONT-SFO] (E75L; speed: 246 knots, altitude: 3741.441956832 ft, distance: 2 KM)
Wed, May 02, 08:34
AM
Flight: UA 392 [PDX-SFO] (A319; speed: 239 knots, altitude: 3495.816075392 ft,
distance: 1 KM)
Wed, May 02, 08:31 AM
Flight: AS1742 [SEA-SFO] (A320; speed: 227 knots, altitude: 5477.015127744 ft,
distance: 3 KM)
Thank you.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 5:13 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 4:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Airplane noise tonight’s meeting
Dear Council,
As many of you have lamented, FAA is difficult, and there’s the suggestion that there is "very little" that you or that the City can do, perhaps suggesting that efforts are not worth it for City government.
The attitude of low expectations is new to me in my experience with the community I have come to know here,
and no issue exhibits more opportunity to "do better" than the airplane noise issue. The FAA doesn’t make
noise on the ground a priority, and I think that comes from the failure of local governments to not make noise a high priority. Sleep interference impacts work force productivity, it adds not minor stress factors to people of all
ages, and the impacts on the vulnerable can be brutal. Transportation noise is a hazard, and airplane noise is not
a joke annoyance.
If other cities and the State of CA wanted to make airplane noise a priority - say over the interests of SFO, SJC, OAK etc. then much (much) more could be done. We have the advantage that local government and state
leadership are on the same team. Yet, a plea to you and our elected officials in *January 2017* to quickly set up
a follow up body to the Select Committee (voted unanimously by the Committee) went unanswered! Should
FAA get blamed for that?
Of the things that you do have control over, are two significant areas 1) You should have some influence to stop
the misrepresentation that is happening with this issue regionally 2) You can work to ensure that NEPA laws are
not abused and that FAA actions do not happen with inadequate environmental review.
Please see this CATEX which allowed the actions over Palo Alto published on March 29, including SERFR 3. I ask that you please vote on pursuing a petition for review for this CATEX.
FAA has more recently improved the way it does CATEX but Northern California has not gotten the Memo to
improve the way they do environmental screenings.
Note the contrast between the CATEX for SERFR 3 and the 2018 Catex for Phoenix which was used for the recently announced Phoenix
flight path reversals. Yes - even to reverse the paths they had to do an environmental screening.
You are representatives of one of the most affected cities in the USA from unjust and sloppy FAA actions. Reducing airplane noise for Palo
Alto starts with you.
Do you have Palo Alto's back on the two areas you do have control of?
Jennifer
• CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
8
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
MICHELLE POCHE FLAHERTY, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
MAY7, 2018
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8 -Policy and Services Committee and Staff
Recommendations on Next Steps Related to Airplane Noise (Continued From
April 9, 2018)
This memo provides updates to three topics of information discussed in City Council Staff
Report #9195 for the May 7, 2018 Council Meeting: 1) a summary of information provided by
the FAA in a new report issued in late April 2018; 2) an update on issues related to the South
Flow Ad Hoc Advisory Committee, including a letter sent to the FAA by the City of Palo Alto
together with neighboring jurisdictions; and 3) a legislative update on federal action related to
airplane noise.
1. New FAA Report
In late April 2018, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released a "Further Update on the
Phase Two report on the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns of Santa Cruz/Santa
Clara/San Mateo/San Francisco Counties, compiled at the requests of Representatives Farr
(Panetta), Eshoo and Speier" (April 2018 Phase Two Update) (Attachment K). In the report, the
FAA also commits to release another quarterly report no later than 90 days from the release of
this report.
The April 2018 Phase Two Update provides limited additional information regarding issues of
interest to the City of Palo Alto as summarized in City Council Staff Report #9195. A summary of
this information follows.
Fly Higher Over the Peninsula (Staff Report #9195 Item C): There are no direct references in
the April 2018 Phase Two Update to opportunities to increase altitudes over the Palo Alto area.
There is a reference to maintaining the highest altitudes possible on the BRIXX route1; however,
this route is an arrival into Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC), not San Francisco
International Airport (SFO), and crosses the Peninsula roughly over La Honda and Boulder Creek
1 Attachment K, page 5.
1of3
before continuing south to make a U-turn into SJC. These arrivals historically have been
designed to fit under SFO arrivals as necessary.
Relocate Northern Arrivals from Peninsula to Bay (Staff Report #9195 Item D): Arguably the
most positive news in this report for the City of Palo Alto, the FAA confirms it issued a notice in
March 2018 to Northern California TRACON to strengthen the language in its standard
operating procedures to recognize BDEGA East as the preferred route during nighttime hours.
This action by the FAA responds to a portion of the more forceful requests communicated by
Palo Alto City Council Members in their meeting with FAA representatives in early March, 2018.
The FAA report now classifies the Select Committee's recommendation to increase use of
BDEGA East as an "Addressed Concern."2
Reduce Vectoring over the Peninsula (Staff Report #9195 Item E): The FAA report confirms the
FAA is continuing to study whether an increase in in-trail spacing on BDEGA will result in decreased
vectoring over the Peninsula.3
Use Flow Management to Limit Noise (Staff Report #9195 Item F): The FAA report reiterates
the agency's commitment to leveraging technology to further this possibility in the long term.4
SERFR 3: The FAA report confirms the agency altered the SERFR route on March 29, 2018 in a
manner that moves its trajectory approximately ~-mile east of the Menlo waypoint.5 (In the
November 2017 Phase Two Update, the FAA stated its intention to amend the SERFR STAR
route.6) In addition, the report speaks to the movement of the SERFR alignment toward the
historical BSR ("Big Sur") route and the agency's continuing design work to develop an
Optimized Profile Descent overlay for this route. The FAA reiterates its commitment to meet
with a local ad-hoc committee within three months of completion of this overlay.7
2. South Flow Arrivals Update
The Ad Hoc Committee on South Flow Arrivals is developing its final set of recommendations
and is scheduled to discuss them at its next meeting. In late March, the consultants hired by the
cities of Los Altos and Mountain View identified a new arrival route proposed for south flow
arrivals into SJC that could significantly impact neighboring communities including Palo Alto and
for which no information had been shared with the Ad Hoc Committee. At the March 27
meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee, a representative of the FAA expressed regret over this
occurrence and confirmed the proposal was on hold and that community engagement would
be a part of any future consideration of the route. The City of Palo Alto joined with the cities of
Mountain View and Los Altos to express concern over this incident by sending a letter of
objection to the FAA (please see Attachment L).
2 Attachment K, page 4.
3 Attachment K, page 3.
4 Attachment K, page 4.
5 Attachment K, page 6.
6 Attachment C, page 126.
7 Attachment K, page 3.
2of3
3. Legislative Update
On April 27, 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 4, the FAA reauthorization bill,
by a vote of 393 -13. While the bill included a handful of amendments related to airplane
noise, the strongest amendments did not make it into the final version of the House-passed bill.
For this reason, Palo Alto's representative, Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo, was one of the few
who voted against the bill. She made the following statement regarding her vote:
From Congresswoman Eshoo, "This week, the House passed legislation to
reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the first long-term update
to the law that governs this important agency since 2012. This bill includes
provisions to improve airline safety, strengthen the rights of passengers, and
promote controlled testing of commercial unmanned aerial vehicles.
"While the underlying bill includes a pilot program to find innovative ways to
reduce noise in our communities and a study of the health effects of aircraft noise
on communities near large airports, including the Northern California Metroplex,
my constituents do not need new studies to tell them that aircraft noise diminishes
their quality oflife because they experience it every day. What they need is for
the FAA to take action to reduce the noise, this bill unfortunately fails to do that,
and I voted against it.
"I'm committed to continuing to work with the FAA and the hundreds of engaged
constituents in my District until this issue is resolved, but I could not vote for
hollow legislation that does nothing to address airplane noise due to the NextGen
Program launched by the FAA."
The next step for the FAA reauthorization bill would be consideration by the U.S. Senate, where
additional amendments may be offered. Senate leadership has not recognized this legislation as
a priority, associating greater urgency with the scheduling of Senate floor votes for the approval
of Administration and Judicial nominations. The City of Palo Alto's lobbying team is in
communication with the Senate Aviation Subcommittee to monitor indications of when, or if,
the legislation might be scheduled for a floor vote by the Senate before the FAA's current
authorization expires on October 1, 2018.
Finally, also attached for your information is another recent article describing the increase in air
traffic anticipated at SJC. (Attachment M.}
3 of 3
1 | Page
NorCal Update
April 2018
FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns of
Santa Cruz/Santa Clara/San Mateo/San Francisco
Counties
FURTHER UPDATE ON PHASE TWO
Compiled at the Requests
of Representatives Farr (Panetta),
Eshoo and Speier
April 2018
Federal Aviation Administration
2 | Page
NorCal Update
April 2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The FAA’s November 2017 Update on Phase Two Report detailed the agency’s determinations for the
full set of recommendations by the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals (Select Committee) and
the San Francisco International Airport / Community Roundtable (SFO Roundtable). The November
report detailed 203 items which consisted of the original 104 recommendations and each of their sub-
recommendations. Of those, 101 had already been addressed*, 25 would be addressed in the future and
77 were not endorsed. Additionally, some recommendations covered multiple topics. Those additional
topics are captured in the numbers below. Each item was explained in the November report and its
appendices.
This April 2018 Further Update on Phase Two shares the current status of the FAA’s efforts on 12
topics that collectively total 10 Select Committee items and 24 SFO Roundtable items. Each topic
references the specific Select Committee recommendation(s) and/or SFO Roundtable
recommendation(s), from the November 2017 Update to Phase Two “Response Tables” and
“Appendices” (pages 11 through 125)
This April 2018 report does not represent the end of our work. The FAA continues to commit to work
collaboratively with communities and local members of Congress to address a wide range of noise
concerns.
Since release of the November 2015 Northern California (NorCal) Initiative, the FAA has undertaken
enhanced community outreach efforts. Although not specifically referenced within the November 2017
report or this report, and even if there is no legal requirement to do so, the FAA remains willing to
address community noise concerns. As a result, the FAA undertakes its community outreach efforts
and considers potential adjustments to address community concerns while remaining mindful that all
arrival and departure procedures within the Northern California airspace are interconnected,
interdependent and designed to improve safety and efficiency within the National Airspace System
(NAS). To the extent the FAA determines a new requested procedure is initially feasible, flyable, and
operationally acceptable from a safety point of view, then the FAA will conduct its formal
environmental and safety reviews for this new federal action.
Further, although not specifically detailed within the NorCal Initiative or any of its subsequent
reports/updates, the FAA’s processes and standards for evaluating noise impacts associated with
potential amendments to currently published procedures—consistent with FAA Order 1050.1F,
Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures (effective July 16, 2015)—will be followed before
implementing any airspace or procedural changes. Finally, this update does not constitute either a final
decision of the FAA or a re-opening of the FAA’s August 6, 2014 final decision for the NorCal
Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (OAPM).
* The attached Appendix (15 pages) identifies the 101 “Addressed Concern” items contained in the
FAA’s November 2017 Update on Phase Two.
Federal Aviation Administration
3 | Page
NorCal Update
April 2018
Class B Redesign
• Reference: Select Committee Recommendation 1.1 (SC 1.1, Pg. 11)
• A redesign of the SFO Class B airspace is proposed to be implemented in August, 2018. The
FAA previously held public workshops to give the public an opportunity to better understand
the proposed action and issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Class Bravo
Redesign in the Federal Register in January 2018. This airspace redesign does not change
existing procedures. Once implemented, this redesign will allow for Optimized Profile
Descent (OPD) procedures to be fully utilized as intended.
• Status: Based on the rule-making process and operating criteria, the FAA anticipates the
modified Class B airspace to be published in August 2018.
BSR Overlay
• References: SC 1.2 R1 (Pg. 11), SC 1.2 R2 (Pg. 11), and SC 1.2 R4 (Pg. 12)
• The Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals voted 8 to 4 to recommend that the FAA design
an Optimized Profile Descent (OPD) overlay of the conventional Big Sur (BSR) arrival into
SFO. Based on the three California Representatives Eshoo, Speier and Farr (Panetta)’s
December 2, 2016 approval of the Select Committee’s recommendations and request that the
FAA implement those recommendations as soon as possible, the FAA has continued its
extensive work and efforts associated with Select Committee’s recommendations.
• Status: The FAA is currently engaged in the design stage work of this Optimized Profile
Descent (OPD) overlay and anticipates the Full Work Group will meet on May 8, 2018. We
anticipate a more detailed timeline to accompany the next quarterly Update. That update
will occur no later than 90 business days after the publication of this April 2018 update.
FAA to meet with Ad-Hoc Subcommittee after BSR Overlay complete
• Reference: SC 1.2 R3 (Pg. 11)
• Status: This Select Committee recommendation (e.g. Ad-Hoc Subcommittee within three
months of completing the new Big Sur (BSR) overlay procedure) remains feasible, pending
completion of BSR Overlay.
BDEGA In-Trail Spacing
• Reference: SFO Roundtable Recommendation B 6 (RT B 6, Pg 24)
• The SFO Roundtable asked the FAA to study whether an increase in in-trail spacing on the
BDEGA arrival will result in the decrease in vectoring over the Peninsula.
• Status: Under evaluation by the Northern California TRACON (NCT), Oakland Air Route
Traffic Control Center (ZOA) and the Western Service Center.
Federal Aviation Administration
4 | Page
NorCal Update
April 2018
NorCal TRACON Update Standard Operating Procedure – BDEGA “Down the Bay”
• References: SC 2.2 R1 part 2 (Pg 13), and RT C Woodside COL 4 (Pg. 35)
• The Select Committee asked the FAA to assess the potential of formalizing the procedure so
that it is more likely to be used. The SFO Roundtable asked the Northern California
TRACON (NCT) to update its Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) to reflect that use of a
“down the Bay” procedure is preferred during nighttime hours.
• Status: Addressed Concern. Northern California TRACON (NCT) updated their SOP in
2017, followed by a Notice in March, 2018 to strengthen the language.
NIITE / HUSSH / CNDEL to GOBBS and South
• References: SC 1.4 (Pg. 12) and RT B 19 (Pg. 27), B 20 (Pg. 27), B 29 (Pg. 29),
B 30 part 2 (Pg. 30), B 33 (Pg. 30), C NITTE ST 1 (Pg. 38), C NIITE LT 1 (Pg 39),
C NIITE COL 1 in part (Pg. 40), C Nighttime ST 1 (Pg 43),
C Nighttime LT 1 (Pg. 46), C CNDEL ST 3 (Pg. 48), D 1.f. iii, (Pg. 61),
D 2.a.ii. (b) Req c. (Pg. 64)
• Status: Although entry into the Instrument Flight Procedure (IFP) Gateway typically allows
design stage work to begin, forward progress has been temporarily delayed until issues
associated with congestion, anticipated noise-shifting concerns and increased flight
distances have been addressed with airline stakeholders and the affected communities
within the jurisdictions of the Select Committee and SFO Roundtable. (For further detailed
explanation, see November 2017 Update to Phase Two, Appendix C, 3.23, pages 102
through 103). SEE BELOW QUOTE:
[As noted previously by the FAA, while this recommendation is feasible, the FAA
will not move forward on this recommendation until issues of Congestion, Noise
Shifting and Flying Distance have been addressed with the airline stakeholders
and the affected communities by the Select Committee and/or SFO Roundtable.]
FAA use new, more effective, time-based flow management tools for better sequencing
• Reference: SC 1.6 (Pg. 13)
• Status: The FAA is currently engaged and anticipates continued, long-term efforts regarding
this endeavor. The FAA is continuously seeking and identifying safety improvements to
effectively manage the National Airspace System (NAS). Through technology and
innovation, programs are being developed to safely address capacity/demand imbalances at
select airports, departure waypoints, arrival waypoints and en route points across the NAS.
As newer technology and more effective programs become available, the FAA is committed
to incorporate needed improvements into the NAS to address local communities’ concerns.
Federal Aviation Administration
5 | Page
NorCal Update
April 2018
Revise Woodside VOR OTA
• Reference: SC 2.3 R2 (Pg. 14)
• The Ocean Tailored Arrival, an existing private arrival procedure, is being replaced by a new
public PIRAT RNAV STAR which will be used primarily by oceanic airlines for arrival into
SFO. The PIRATE RNAV STAR will be an Optimized Profile Descent (OPD) procedure,
and will require aircraft crossing ARGGG, which is in the vicinity of the Woodside VOR
(OSI), at 8,000 MSL.
• Status: The FAA anticipates proceeding consistent with its non-rulemaking processes as
explained in the November 2017 Updated (see page 7) and anticipates implementation on
November 8, 2018.
Following BSR overlay, evaluate BRIXX to maintain highest possible altitude
• Reference: SC 2.11 (Pg. 18)
• Status: This Select Committee recommendation (i.e. seeks the FAA’s consideration of a
successor committee’s new, proposed procedure associated with BRIXX) remains feasible,
pending completion of BSR Overlay, as well as the establishment of a successor committee.
Create an RNAV Visual Approach to SFO’s Runway 28L
• References: RT B 17 (Pg. 26), D 1.a.i.(a) part 2 (Pg. 55)
• Status: The FAA’s November 2017 Update to Phase Two carries forward the agency’s
initial feasibility determination. However, development of the requested visual approach is
on hold due to safety concerns.
Create an OAK departure procedure that flies down the Bay
• References: RT B 24 Part 2 (Pg 28), B 33 (Pg. 30), C 050° ST 2 (Pg. 40),
C Nighttime ST 4 part 2 (Pg. 44), C CNDEL COL 1 in part (Pg. 50),
D 1.a.ii. Resp 3 part 2 (Pg 56), D 1.b.ii. Resp 4 part 2 (Pg. 59)
• Status: On March 9, 2018, this proposed action was entered into the IFP Gateway with an
anticipated January 30, 2020 charting date. Mindful of the environmental and safety
information requirements mentioned in the November 2017 Update to Phase Two, to the
extent an earlier publication date becomes available, implementation may occur sooner.
Federal Aviation Administration
6 | Page
NorCal Update
April 2018
SERFR 3 Amendment
• Reference: This was not a SC recommendation, but pertains to the Southern San Francisco
Bay area and has been the subject of a great deal of interest to communities in this area.
• On February 1, an outside vendor that loads route databases into aircraft flight computers
sent out an update of the San Francisco SERFR arrival that the FAA wasn’t prepared to use
yet. As a result, the FAA immediately transitioned to the conventional Big Sur arrival route,
which is west of the SERFR flight path. The database has been corrected, and the FAA
resumed using the existing SERFR on Friday, March 2.
• On March 29, the FAA began using an updated version of the SERFR. This updated version
is a safety and operational enhancement that will be contained within the highly controlled,
existing Class B airspace around San Francisco International Airport. This route passes
approximately ¼-mile east of the MENLO waypoint.
• Status: The FAA implemented this procedure on March 29, 2018.
Federal Aviation Administration
April 30, 2018
Mr. Dennis Roberts
Regional Administrator
FAA Western-Pacific Region
15000 Aviation Blvd
Lawndale, CA 90261
Dear Mr. Roberts:
It has come to our attention that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently published a notice
on the Instrument Flight Procedures Information Gateway on the FAA website that a new arrival
procedure is being designed by the FAA for use at Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC) during
certain South Flow configurations. This possible new procedure is deeply concerning to our
communities.
Our cities suffer from the constant challenges presented by aircraft noise and emissions in and out of
San Francisco International Airport and, now, with the South Flow arrivals, in to SJC. We have
participated on various regional committees and are currently actively involved in the San Jose ad hoc
committee on south flow arrivals. That is why we are shocked that this new arrival path was not
brought to the attention of that group in a timely manner, nor has public input been sought for this
significant change to the flight path. In addition, our research indicates there are no environmental
reports available for public inspection.
This new flight path could have a significant impact on our communities as the track moves closer to the
foothills than currently and moves the track further north. And, the impacts would be even greater as
the proposal lowers the altitude of the flight path over our communities, including directly over schools
and potentially over historic districts.
We respectfully request that the FAA delay implementation of this plan until a robust public and
community input strategy can be formulated and implemented. We offer the services our agencies to
assist you in publicizing opportunities for the public to participate in this important process.
Please let us know how you plan to proceed.
Sincerely,
Jean Mordo, Mayor Lenny Siegel, Mayor Liz Kniss, Mayor
City of Los Altos City of Mountain View City of Palo Alto
cc: Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, Member of Congress
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:45 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Moss <bmoss33@att.net>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 12:44 PM
To:Council, City; leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique
Subject:Transportation Impact Fees (Item 9)
Mayor Kniss and Councilmembers;
After I re-read the staff report on modifying traffic impact fees I had some questions on the process. On report
p. 4, packet p. 213 the projected growth of housing units by 2030 is given as 3545 to 4420, a higher rate than we have had for the past 20 years. Considering that Palo Alto is built out and has little raw land for housing
development, where did this estimate come from, and is it really valid? The other figure on that page is
projected job growth of 9850 to 11,500 and also seems questionable. Is it based on the out-dated estimate of
250 sq. ft. of space for every office worker or the more realistic figure of 150 sq. ft. per office worker? I suspect
it is based on the 250 sq. ft.per worker which is out-dated and understates job growth potential. After all, if the space per office worker shrinks, many office buildings will add more workers just by cramming more people
into their current space, and new construction will add even more workers.and traffic than is assumed by the
out-dated office space per worker assumption.
The data used to calculate traffic impacts seems to underestimate jobs (and thus traffic) that could be added in the next 12 years..
Yours sincerely,
Bob Moss
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/3/2018 2:14 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ng, Judy
Sent:Thursday, May 03, 2018 1:56 PM
To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email
Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Abendschein, Jonathan;
Dailey, Karla; Jonsen, Robert; Lum, Patty; Cullen, Charles; leConge Ziesenhenne,
Monique; O'Kane, Kristen; Gitelman, Hillary; Mello, Joshuah; Stump, Molly; Lee, Sandra
Subject:5/7 Council Agenda Questions for Items 3, 4, 5, & 9
Attachments:Los Trancos Trail Washout 2017.png
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries
made by Council Members Tanaka and Fine in regard to the May 7, 2018 council meeting
agenda.
Item 3: Transfer of Individual Supply Guarantee to East Palo Alto – CM Tanaka
Item 4: Approval of Field‐Based Video Contract – CM Tanaka
Item 5: Approve 3‐Year Open Space Trail Maintenance Contract with Northwest Woodland
Services for $657,278 – CM Tanaka
Item 9: Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study and Fee Adoption – CM Fine
Item 3: Transfer of Individual Supply Guarantee to East Palo Alto – CM Tanaka
Q. 1. The City of Mountain View sold their water rights for $5M for 1 M gallons per
day to East Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto is considering massive tax increases... yet
in this consent item we are considering giving away 0.5M gallons per day (mgd)
worth of water rights. Given the City's current budget woes, what is the wisdom of
giving away such a valuable asset?
A. 1. Mountain View is different from Palo Alto in a couple of ways. First,
Mountain View has a minimum take obligation in its Water Supply Agreement
with the SFPUC. While the ISG sale does not relieve Mountain View of that
obligation, it does partially help offset the cost of unused water Mountain View
has to purchase from the SFPUC. Mountain View by this agreement does not
recapture its costs.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/3/2018 2:14 PM
2
In Palo Alto’s case, we do not have to pay for our unused water allocation. We
have zero direct outstanding cost. Our transfer to EPA has no similar net cost. We
are in a better net position than Mountain View.
Additionally, the budget gap we have is really in our General Fund. It is unlikely
we could use any revenues from our water allocation towards the General Fund.
Q. 2. The appearance of “we’re giving away our water” could cause panic and
dismay. Has this issue been directly communicated to stakeholders in the
community? This being a consent item does not seem to be appropriate.
A. 2. Please note the original colleague’s memo discussed by Council on
December 5, 2016:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54878. Given the de
minimus effect of the recommended transfer on Palo Alto, staff has
recommended Council approval. In the past, there has been fairly clear public
commentary by the Council regarding the very disadvantaged position that East
Palo Alto has been in, and their desire to help our neighbor, with whom we have a
distinctive relationship. Palo Alto is in a position to alleviate EPA’s long‐term
water supply deficit because Palo Alto has reduced its potable water consumption
and is extremely unlikely to rely on the full 17.07 mgd ISG in the future. Our City’s
typical annual water consumption is 11 mgd in the short‐term and 10 mgd in the
long term.
Q. 3. How confident are we in the permanency of Palo Alto’s water allotment from
Hetch‐Hetchy? Is the consideration of making this a contingency, especially during
droughts, clause worth discussing?
A. 3. Section 3.04 of the Water Supply Agreement with the SFPUC states that, as
a Wholesale Customer, the City may “transfer a portion [of its ISG] to one or more
other Wholesale Customers.”[1] Transfers must be permanent, and the minimum
quantity that may be transferred is 1/10th of an mgd. Because transfers must be
permanent, it is not possible to include a drought contingency. In any case, such a
contingency would undercut the main objective of the transfer – the ability for
EPA to secure a long‐term water supply to enable development.
[1]The Wholesale Customers, as defined in the 2009 Water Supply Agreement, are the 26 agencies
that are members of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) and include
Alameda County Water District, California Water Service Company, Coastside County Water District,
Estero Municipal Improvement District, Guadalupe Valley Municipal Improvement District, Mid‐
Peninsula Water District, North Coast County Water District, Purissima Hills Water District, Skyline
County Water District, Stanford University, Westborough Water District, and the Cities of Brisbane,
Burlingame, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Hayward, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Milpitas, Mountain View,
Palo Alto, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Jose, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale.
The Water Supply Agreement requires the SFPUC to meet the aggregated wholesale ISGs (184 mgd)
in perpetuity. Potential state regulations that may increase the unimpaired flow requirements on
the Tuolumne River do pose a threat to the availability of this water supply during dry periods, but
this is unrelated to the ISG. The potential relationship of the recommended transfer to drought
conditions is discussed in the staff report.
Q. 4. The report is not clear. Please answer the following:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/3/2018 2:14 PM
3
a. What is our total mgd allotment?
b. What is the max (not average) mgd we have ever used?
A. 4. The City’s ISG represents a permanent contractual entitlement to 17.07
mgd of water from the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System. This information is
provided in the first full paragraph on page 2 of the staff report. The ISG is an
annual average (actual daily maximum flow is irrelevant with respect to the ISG).
The system has been designed to meet peak daily and hourly demands, and that
capacity has never been met.
Item 4: Approval of Field‐Based Video Contract – CM Tanaka
Q. 1. How long are the cameras expected to last for?
A. 1. The initial warranty is for three years and the expected lifespan is 3‐5 years.
Q. 2. What is the Law Enforcement Services Reserve usually used for? How much
money is currently in it?
A. 2. Due to an oversight on our part, the funding source in the CMR was
misidentified as originating from The Law Enforcement Services Reserve (also
known as COPS funding). On advisement from the Budget Director, salary savings
will be utilized for the $72,000. COPS funding is grant money provided for new
technology or programs. The current balance is $237,000. Most of the 2017
funding is committed to projects and the Department is in the process of
identifying suitable uses for the 2018 funding.
Q. 3. What were the other bid amounts from competing vendors?
A. 3. The in‐car video system contract was competitively bid in 2013 and the
contract was awarded to WatchGuard Video. The Department no longer has a
record of the 2013 bids. As noted in the CMR, the Police Department sought an
integrated solution for body‐worn cameras to avoid added expense and staff
time. The WatchGuard pricing complies with the NASPO competitive bid
requirements and municipal code PAMC 2.30.360 (J).
Item 5: Approve 3‐Year Open Space Trail Maintenance Contract with Northwest Woodland
Services for $657,278 – CM Tanaka
Q. 1. Have 50 unforeseen work days not been enough in the past? Or why is the
extra budget being asked for?
A. 1. The 50 work days for unforeseen work have not been sufficient in prior
years. Staff believe 80 work days for unforeseen work is necessary to keep the
trails in safe condition.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/3/2018 2:14 PM
4
The extra work days are for unforeseen issues with hiking and multiuse trails at
Foothills Park, Pearson Arastradero Preserve, Esther Clark Park, and Palo Alto
Baylands/Byxbee Park. In the past, these work days have addressed minor
mudslides, cleared windblown downed trees that block trails, repaired erosion to
trails caused by weather/rain, restored trails after emergency utility repairs
(water, gas and electrical), removed unpermitted renegade trails, and addressed
unanticipated bridge repairs. Much of the unforeseen work is weather related.
Q. 2. Where else would that extra budget go?
Q. 2. These unforeseen work days would go towards the repair and restoration
of trails from the types of incidents mentioned above.
Q. 3. In the report it mentioned geologists studied the parks and trail rerouting
was necessary?
A. 3. The geologist report pertains to the closed trails and the trail rerouting,
which is not part of this contract. Staff will bid the trail rerouting project
separately after the Planning Department has completed the environmental
review of the rerouted trail alignment.
The geologist report was for the evaluation of the soils in and adjacent to the two
sections of hiking trail which were damaged by the slope failures/mud slides in
the winter of 2016/2017. The root cause for both slope failures/mud slides is a
combination of overly saturated soils from the above average rainfall, and greater
than normal surface runoff in drainages which undermined the toe of the
slopes. Both areas have very steep terrain with a mix of aged sandstone and
colluvial soils. To add to the instability of the Los Trancos trail, there is also an
adjacent seismic zone of the San Andreas earthquake fault making this area
inherently dynamic. Repair of the hiking trails at their current location is not
feasible.
a. Were there any other recommendations made?
The geologist noted that small trail failures will likely continue to occur and
routine maintenance will be required, especially in other areas next to the
creek where steep creek banks and trails located on colluvial soil are present.
b. How dangerous is this trail?
The closed sections of trail are extremely dangerous and impassable. They are
located in some of the most remote areas of Foothills Park. The Los Trancos
trail areas with the slope failures/mud slide are very unstable with trail tread
no longer present or a gap of twenty feet and a sheer drop to the creek
bed. The Costanoan trail area with the slope failure has an area of at least
120‐feet by 80‐feet where an entire block of soil, trees and other nature
features have dropped at least six feet as an entire mass. I have attached a
photo of one section of the trail that illustrates the severity of the damage.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/3/2018 2:14 PM
5
Q. 4. How many people actually use this park and trails?
A. 4. Approximately 151,000 people visited Foothills Park in 2017. At least 50% of
our visitors hike on the 15‐miles of hiking trails and 4‐1/2 miles of fire roads at
Foothills Park.
Q. 5. What were the competing bid amounts?
A. 5. There was only one bid received in response to the Request for Proposals
(RFP).
As mentioned in the staff report, on January 4, 2018, a RFP for Open Space Trail
Maintenance was issued on the City’s e‐Procurement system called "PlanetBids.”
A non‐mandatory bidder conference was held on January 17, 2018. One bidder
attended the conference. There were no questions submitted from other bidders.
Bids were due February 1, 2018. Northwest Woodland Services submitted the
only bid.
Item 9: Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study and Fee Adoption – CM Fine
Q. 1. Is there any way to assess this fee or similar fees to existing buildings and
uses? (i.e. not new development)
A. 1. No. The mitigation fee act allows impact fees to be charged to new
development. Any fees charged to existing uses would be considered a tax.
Q. 2. Do we have an understanding of how the cost of net new trips differs by
location and time? Isn't a net new trip downtown at lunchtime "more expensive"
than a new trip on San Antonio on the weekend?
A. 2. The study looked at the projected impacts of new development to the year
2030, the cost of needed improvements, and calculated a per‐trip fee based on
the percentage of PM Peak hour trips in 2030 that are attributable to new
development. The calculation is based on aggregated trips derived from a
regionally‐compliant travel forecasting model and focuses on the PM Peak hour
only because this is the time period used to determine whether impacts would
occur (and the period when traffic congestion is generally at its worst).
Q. 3. How do we monitor net trips to a building after impact fees have been
assessed? What if the use changes to a different configuration?
A. 3. Fees are generally assessed at the time of building permit application based
on a calculation of net new trips after implementation of a TDM plan (if required).
The number of net new trips will only be monitored if a TDM plan is required. In
that instance, PAMC 18.52.030 requires monitoring two years after building
occupancy and every year thereafter. If the number of trips exceeds what was
assumed, the City may require TDM plan modifications and impose administrative
penalties if the revised TDM plan is not effective within six months. The proposed
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/3/2018 2:14 PM
6
impact fee ordinance also allows for collection of a fee if a development project
creates additional gross floor area “or involves a change in use that requires a use
permit or other planning entitlement” (16.59.010(h).
Q. 4. Why is multi‐family residential not exempt? (other residential categories are)
A. 4. The City’s impact fee program currently exempts below market rate
housing and residential remodels that do not result in net new dwelling units. This
would not change with the proposed ordinance. In general, the Finance
Committee expressed a desire to limit the number of exemptions provided.
Q. 5. Why is retail exempt?
A. 5. The City’s impact fee program currently exempts retail uses that are 1,500
square feet or smaller presumably because small retail is a desired use, and many
retail trips are local or “linked” trips that occur between work and home. This
topic is addressed in the Nexus Study on packet page 262, which recommends
that the City either increase the retail exemption from 1,500 square feet to some
larger number, or exempt 50% of new retail trips. The Finance Committee
recommended the latter option (see Section 16.59.060(i) of the ordinance on
packet page 228).
Thank you,
Judy Ng
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
WILLIAM F. MORRISON
Consultant to Management 3902 Duncan Place Palo Alto, CA 94306 PHONE 650-815.1298 E-MAIL wfmorrison@earthlink.net MAJOR PRODUCTS: 1. Negotiation courses (4 day Basic & 3 day Advanced) 2. Three day First Level Management course 3. Customized Negotiation workshops and Consulting AUTHOR: "The Pre-Negotiation Planning Book" 1985 (John Wiley & Sons) "The Human Side of Negotiations" 1994 (Krieger Publishing Co.) "The Savvy Negotiator" 2006 (Preager Publishing) Many articles on Negotiation and Management LISTED IN: WHO'S WHO IN AMERICA THE INTERNATIONAL DIRECTORY OF DISTINGUISHED LEADERSHIP BETA GAMA SIGMA (Honor society for Business Colleges) Faculty Advisor for San Jose State University chapter COMPANY: Westinghouse Electric Corp. Retired (36.5 yrs) up to VP & General Manager Advanced Micro Devices (2 yrs) Supply Base Manager & Lead Negotiator ReSound Communications (1yr) Assist. to GM &Lead Negotiator for key Alliances TRAINING EXPERIENCE: 3 Continents/13 Countries/29 US States/22,700 students MAJOR CUSTOMERS: INDUSTRY: A. B. B. Bank of America Bank of the West Calpine Carolina Power and Light Carrier Corp. Chaparral Filter Co. Detroit Edison Fata Hunter, Inc. Goulds Pumps, Inc. Firestone Tire & Rubber Mitel Corp. Halliburton Nus Environmental Corp. PG&E Hewlett-Packard Peerless Pump Corp. Northrop Grumman Corp. Nortel Novells Siemens-Allis Westinghouse Electric Corp. Schindler Corp. UNIVERSITIES: CA San Jose State Univ. (Under Grad &MBA)./Menlo College Golden Gate Univ. (MBA))/Univ. of California-Berkeley IN University of Notre Dame OH Bowling Green University/Bluffton College PA University of Pittsburgh/Robert Morris College ASSOCIATIONS: American Society for Training and Development American Management Association Building Managers International Business and Professional Women Executive Women's Council of Southern Arizona Hospitality Management Association Industrial Engineers Society Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers Institute of Management Accounts National Association of Purchasing Management National Contract Management Association Society of Logistics Engineers GOVERNMENT: U.S. Dept. of Energy U.S. Dept. of Transportation PUBLIC SEMINARS: Advance Management Research, Development Dimensions SPECIAL: World Cup USA 94
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:38 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nancy Shepherd <nlshep@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 11:40 AM
To:Mello, Joshuah
Cc:Council, City; 'greg tanaka'; Keene, James; Christine Shambora; Jim McFall
Subject:RE: Minor Correction to Southgate RPP Program - City Council May 14
Hi Josh,
Thank you for reaching out last week, and I apologize for the late communication. As you know, our neighborhood has
been distressed with the Southgate RPP changes that seem to have popped up as the program was being implemented,
not during the promised process. I now understand that the City is loosing more staff with Phillip already gone, and
Hillary soon.
I was part of the neighborhood leadership team that applied for the RPP zone, and I worked carefully with others to
follow the process as intended, and explained the RPP policy passed by the city. We did not request council members to
author a colleagues memo to bypass the process—and yet, our good intentions seem to have turned unexpectedly
against the city, local Southgate businesses, and our neighbor RPP zone, Evergreen Park. This is a sad outcome, as it
takes time and neighborhood goodwill to work with the city to implement the zone.
Here are my continuing concerns:
1) Conversations with staff during the application period were not recorded accurately. Mainly the questions
regarding changes to the pilot program during a period of implementation. It was certain in our understanding
that there would be no changes to the zone without the one year trial period, and when asked specifically if that
included more worker parking permits, the answer was a quick “of course”. This we communicated to our
neighborhood during the election period.
2) Stakeholder meeting between our residential leadership team, as identified in the application, were never held
with representatives from the businesses along El Camino (the doctors offices). We noticed that it was skipped
by staff, we did question if it would impact anything and there was no clear answer.
Subsequently, both of these principles were not held, and the neighborhood is unhappy and how actively involved in
ensuring that the city follow new expectations—all of this would have been unnecessary had the stakeholder meeting
met during the implementation period.
The “stakeholder” meeting convened by Phillip in both December 2017 and January 2018 were not property
managed. It consisted of inviting everyone, not a representative leadership team from the business and residential
groups in our neighborhood. This has resulted in name calling, discourtesies and other unkind experiences that could
have been minimized or avoided with proper stakeholder meetings as already modeled by the downtown RPP process.
I hope that the city will correct this RPP process, and administer the policy with better expectations and consistency. It
can be a collaborative and community building time for a neighborhood, with a true problem solving spirit for the good
of everyone.
Thank you for your outreach here—and I hope that prior changes in the Southgate RPP zone as it becomes permanent, a
true stakeholder meeting of identified neighborhood and business leaders will be convened to resolve changes.
Nancy Shepherd
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:38 PM
2
From: Mello, Joshuah <Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2018 11:42 AM
To: Mello, Joshuah <Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Minor Correction to Southgate RPP Program ‐ City Council May 14
Dear Southgate RPP Stakeholder:
Good morning, I hope you are doing well. I wanted to write and let you know that we will be taking an item to City
Council on May 14 that will remove the cap on Daily Employee Parking Permits that was mistakenly included in the
consent calendar resolution adopted by City Council on March 5. This cap was inconsistent with the direction given by
City Council on January 29, when they directed us to maintain all aspects of the current “pilot” phase of the parking
program, except for changes to the boundary to include sections of El Camino Real (after Caltrans approval) and the
contingent release of 15 additional Six‐month Employee Parking Permits. When we returned to them with a revised
resolution on March 5, as directed, it included this Daily Employee Parking Permit cap. I take full responsibility for this
clerical error that occurred during a staffing transition. It should have been caught before going to council.
As you know, we are charged with executing these programs as directed by the City Council. Therefore, we need to
revise the resolution for the current pilot program, which runs until September 30. At that time, City Council will likely
consider additional changes to the program, as it continues past the pilot period. I hope that you can spread the word to
your neighbors and provide them with the necessary information regarding this resolution. Please let me know if you
have any questions or concerns.
On another note, we have submitted the request to Caltrans to add the west side of El Camino Real to the Southgate
RPP Program area and I will update you as soon as we hear back from them. Thank you, and have a good day.
Regards,
JOSHUAH D. MELLO, AICP
Chief Transportation Official
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
Transportation
Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org
office: 650.329.2520 fax: 650.329.2154
Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix. Download the app or click here to make a service request.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:03 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Peter Stangl <petersss@stanford.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 10:10 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Employee Parking permits
Dear Council —
I have been a Palo Alto resident since 1971 and currently live in Channing House. The drastically reduced number of
employee permits may prevent our Life Care facility from sustaining an adequate level of service to our senior
population. RPP seems to be working well downtown, so why the drastic cut in the number of permits to employees?
Please reconsider.
Thank you,
Peter Stangl
Channing House
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:03 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Marcia Pugsley <marciapugsley40@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 10:29 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:More Employee Parking Permits
Dear Council Members,
As a Palo Alto resident for more than 20 years and current resident of Channing House I speak for my fellow
residents I request you reverse the reduction of employee parking permits. We are dependent on our employees for the care and services they provide us and there are already housing cost and commute hurtles they must deal
with without burdening them with restricted parking. The RPP appears to be working let’s not punish the our
employees.
Sincerely, Marcia Pugsley
850 Webster Street #535
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 1:07 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mr. Ted Andersson <tma@stanford.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 11:46 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:parking cuts
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Ted Andersson. I am a retired member of the Stanford faculty and have lived in Channing House for most of
five years. I understand that we are scheduled for another round of employee parking cuts. This is a serious problem.
1. Channing House residents are dependent on staff for food services, health services, maintenance, and administrative
services. We are in danger of being very adversely affected by further parking restrictions. We need more rather than
fewer.
2. The most immediate problem is how to make replacement hires when workers retire or leave. In this market workers
are not available if there is no parking for them.
3. Channing House is not the problem. As I have written before, there is surplus parking on Homer Street and no reason
to reduce the available spaces further, or even as much as they have been reduced.
Thanks you,
Ted Andersson
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 1:07 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:zbrcp1@comcast.net
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 12:00 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:mmatsumoto@channinghouse.org; Kleinberg, Judy
Subject:Employee Permits in Downtown RPP Distdrict
Ladies & Gentlemen:
I've lived 45 years in Palo Alto: Professorville, Downtown North, Downtown South.
Please stop reducing the number of employee permits.
Strongly urge you make permanent the current 1000-1100 cap.
Why?
1. 250 retired voters here at Channing House urgently need the care its employees provide. 2. Many businesses serving all Palo Alto can't survive a forced march toward the unrealistic
ZERO goal you approved as recommended by the now departed Planning Director.
Respectfully, Joseph Baldwin
850 Webster Street
Palo Alto CA 94301
650-324-7378
zbrcp1@comcast.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:09 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:sburgrval@aol.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 02, 2018 1:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:305 N. California Street CUP request
I live within 600 feet of 305 N. California, and have been in regular correspondence with the Planning Department
regarding the issuance of a CUP to the First Baptist Church regarding their request to become a Community Center, which
I believe is a part of the record in Planning Department correspondence. Since that correspondence, the Planning
Department has issued recommendations and the Planning Commission has made a motion for the issuance of a CUP
which changes those recommendations.
The Council should note that all parties, the neighbors and the church, have noted multiple times that a CUP is not the
appropriate vehicle for deciding what uses are appropriate at this location. FBC takes the position that its current uses
are in accordance with modern church uses, and that the city should adapt accordingly. I believe the city should address
this overriding position, rather than issuing piecemeal CUPs for churches to allow them to make different uses. In that
way, the hours of a church operating in an R1 neighborhood, the number of attendees at any event, and the noise that is
permissible, may be addressed in a uniform manner, allowing for the differences in church location. If the council
proceeds with issuing this CUP, we have been advised other churches will follow suit, which will result in non-uniform
allowable uses throughout the city. It will be viewed as precedent, and the result could be disastrous.
If the council proceeds to consider a CUP, the most concerning issues to me are the burdens of parking upon the
neighborhood, as well as safety.
FBC has only 5 regularly available parking spaces. - 8 in total including the disabled space and the spaces reserved for the
Pastor and the psychologist who has offices there. If it were to apply for a permit to operate as a community center
today, it would be allowed to have 32 people in attendance at any time. Because it originally began operating as a
church in the 1940s, it can continue church services and uses with many more people. This is allowed in fairness and in
law - it is grandfathered in, much as the neighbors have the right to require that the church only have the uses it did
when the purchased their property. The new use, however, requires that FBC meet the current codes for parking (as well
as codes for usage such as disabled entry, sprinklers, etc). No law has been cited by any of the parties to allow the use
in contravention of the code requirements. I would note that Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.12.150 provides for
the continuation of a grandfathered use in an R1 zone only
"...for continual use and occupancy by the same use" PAMC 18.12.150c)(1) [emphasis added}
Any CUP allowed must limit the occupancy to no more than 4 people per parking space.
With regard to safety, FBC lies at the intersection of two major bike routes, both part of the Safe Routes to School. To
lessen the risks and burden upon the neighborhood and the bikers, the church has created a drop-off spot on the curb,
through which cars must traverse the bike lane in order to drop off and pick up students. This is not a safe location for
drop off and pick up, and would not be allowed at any other community center or school in the city. Under the uses
proposed by the planning department (50 people in attendance over 9 hours during the day, assuming hourly changes for
appointments or classes = 450 per day) or those proposed by the Planning Commission (120 people in attendance per
day, over 13-14 hours per day, same assumption = 1560 / 1680 per day) the attendant traffic and drop off and pick
up through 20 feet of a bike lane is mind-staggering. It does not matter whether the use is at this rate currently, the
Council must address the fact that allowing a CUP with these provisions will allow a use at this rate. It is the job of our
City Council to allow uses which are not only safe at this time, but will continue to be safe due to their provisions. The
issuance of a CUP with these provisions simply is not safe. This is not the proper location for a community
center. Additionally, think of the cars which will travel on the Safe Routes to School, in order to provide for these uses.
While the Planning Department attempted to craft a CUP which ameliorated these concerns of citizens and voters, the
Planning Commission, without facts or data, enlarged these uses to the figures above. Some of the many illegalities and
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:09 PM
2
irregularities of the motion made by the Planning Commission include:
1. Expanding the availability of the FBC to rent to mental health professionals. This use is illegal in an R1 zone as a
personal service use (PAMC 13.12.130) The Planning Department limited these uses to 3 professionals at any time,
determining that such would amount to an ancillary use. This may or may not be legal, however, enlarging that scope to
9 is certainly neither ancillary nor legal;
2. Enlarging the permitted hours of operation and permissible amplified music beyond that recommended by the Planning
Department and beyond that allowed for other City-run community centers (which are in areas with large parking
facilities, generous set backs and on major street arteries) and for other uses in the same neighborhood such as Gamble
Garden.
Finally, it cannot be emphasized enough, that this CUP has nothing to do with the worthiness of any of the uses presently
in the FBC. Many seem worthwhile activities which would be heartily supported by these neighbors at other
locations. But the attempts at consideration for the neighborhood sensitivities by these organizations as well as their
value, is completely irrelevant to this application. This application is not for iSing, folk dancing, or the psychologist who is
presently renting office space at FBC. If the CUP is granted, FBC could evict all of these tenants tomorrow, and replace
them with other, unknown uses. The application for the CUP must be evaluated on its own merits, without
regard to any of the current tenants. FBC's talk of "partnership" and placing tenants who follow its values are not a
part of the CUP request - it is simply a request to become a community center. If granted, any tenant who rents to a
community center could come into our neighborhood - much as Palantir recently used
Cubberley. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/04/27/palantirs-plan-for-cubberley-party-riles-neighbors
Thank you for your careful consideration of this application for a community center in the middle of our quiet residential
neighborhood. It is unprecedented, but most certainly will create precedent for the rest of our city. There are people
who desire to live downtown, with busy traffic and no available parking. The people who carefully chose their houses,
paid their taxes and voted for the past 30 years in the houses surrounding this church are not among them.
Sarah Burgess
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:09 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Chuck Fulanovich <drchuck48@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Wednesday, May 02, 2018 3:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:First Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit
Dear City Council Member,
In less than a week you will be asked to grant a conditional use permit (CUP) to the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto that will allow it to operate as a community center and commercial business enterprise in a residential neighborhood, seven days a week.
The permit will allow for conduction of business until 10 PM on weekdays and 11 PM on weekends
and does not consider the time involved for these events to break up and leave the facility in a quiet, timely manner that doesn't disturb neighbors in their homes adjacent to and near the church property. It will allow for gatherings of up to 120 people per scheduled event and also the use of amplified
music.
There are legal considerations regarding existing zoning laws that the permit violates relative to parking, safety, noise and the leasing of office space to medical providers in a neighborhood designated R-1.
As you must know, the church is located at the corner of North California Avenue and Bryant streets,
both heavily traveled by bicycles and cars. Bryant street is a designated bike route and is used by students riding to Palo Alto High School and commuters riding to work downtown and North Palo Alto. North California Avenue provides students on bikes a direct route to Jordan Middle School and is
used by cars traversing Alma Street to Middlefield Road.
It is projected that the permit will increase auto traffic up to 500 trips per day during the week, presenting significant safety concerns for cyclists as well as drivers of cars. North California Avenue was recently narrowed to allow for bicycle lanes on both sides of the street and in doing so,
automobiles approaching each other need to move into the bicycle lanes to avoid collision. We don't
need a serious injury or worse to understand that this idea just isn't logical.
Unlike nearly every church in Palo Alto, First Baptist is surrounded by homes on four sides and has only 8 parking spots on the property. It's right in the middle of a dense residential neighborhood
making its use as a community center and commercial enterprise incompatible with zoning
restrictions. The residents desire to live in a quiet, peaceful environment. We didn't buy our homes
here with the understanding that one day that environment would be dramatically changed without our input.
I have lived directly across the street from the church sanctuary for the last 40 years and have
experienced a significant change in non-church related activity levels over the last decade or longer.
Music, singing, dancing groups with amplified music and the list goes on.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:09 PM
4
Imagine waking up tomorrow to find the property directly across the street from your front door has
been changed to a commercial building with a variety of tenants coming and going all day long during
the hours of operation referenced above. I have a feeling you wouldn't be very happy. Neither are we. This CUP in its present form demands a
NO vote from City Council. In light of a recent poll conducted by the city that shows only 43% of Palo
Altans think the city is headed in the right direction as opposed to 61% just two years ago, it's not
hard to understand that decisions like these and others that have been made recently directly affecting the quality of life in our neighborhoods, have people seriously questioning your leadership capabilities. You can begin to change that perception. Vote NO.
Chuck Fulanovich
310 N. California Ave.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:09 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Anna Dieck <annamdieck@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 02, 2018 5:20 PM
To:Council, City; info@isingsv.com
Subject:First Baptist Church
Attachments:FIRST BABTIST LETTER A.docx
335 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Tel, (650) 325-7372
May 2, 2018
City Council
Palo Alto CA
Re: First Baptist Church’s Conditional Use Permit
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of Palo Alto and live in the Old Palo Alto neighborhood and am writing this letter
to support First Baptist Church’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP), with workable use conditions.
I support First Baptist Church that serves as an affordable community center here in Palo Alto. There
are very few inexpensive spaces for community groups to meet near our very expensive downtown
areas. Community Centers recommended by church neighbors as alternatives to First Baptist Church
have been found to be impacted or unable to accommodate iSing. These include Mitchell Park,
Cubberly and Lucy Stern.
First Baptist Church has long been a focal point for building and supporting our community. Over the
years they have provided local access to groups such as iSing, therapists and other groups that build and
support the fabric of our community. This is only possible because First Baptist Church can offer an
affordable, centrally located home for these groups.
I frequently pass by the church and have personally noted many of the efforts to respond to concerns
from some of the church’s neighbors. I am also aware of many of the plans to respond to those
concerns. These include installing HVAC and replacing single pane windows to minimize external sound
and creation of a multi-faceted traffic and parking reduction plan to reduce street parking and street
traffic.
The First Baptist Church plays a critical role in Palo Alto and the local neighborhood. It has been a
part of our neighborhood for years and has contributed to the quality and depth of our
community. They have been a responsible neighbor and have timely responded to recent
concerns by some in the community. I respectfully request that the City Council approve First
Baptist Church’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP), with workable use conditions.
Sincerely yours,
Anna Dieck
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:10 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kat Dieck <kat.dieck@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 02, 2018 6:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Church
Attachments:FIRST BABTIST LETTER K.docx
335 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Tel, (650) 325-7372
May 2, 2018
City Council
Palo Alto CA
Re: First Baptist Church’s Conditional Use Permit
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of Palo Alto and live in the Old Palo Alto neighborhood and am writing this letter
to support First Baptist Church’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP), with workable use conditions.
I support First Baptist Church that serves as an affordable community center here in Palo Alto. There
are very few inexpensive spaces for community groups to meet near our very expensive downtown
areas. Community Centers recommended by church neighbors as alternatives to First Baptist Church
have been found to be impacted or unable to accommodate iSing. These include Mitchell Park,
Cubberly and Lucy Stern.
First Baptist Church has long been a focal point for building and supporting our community. Over the
years they have provided local access to groups such as iSing, therapists and other groups that build and
support the fabric of our community. This is only possible because First Baptist Church can offer an
affordable, centrally located home for these groups.
I frequently pass by the church and have personally noted many of the efforts to respond to concerns
from some of the church’s neighbors. I am also aware of many of the plans to respond to those
concerns. These include installing HVAC and replacing single pane windows to minimize external sound
and creation of a multi-faceted traffic and parking reduction plan to reduce street parking and street
traffic.
The First Baptist Church plays a critical role in Palo Alto and the local neighborhood. It has been a
part of our neighborhood for years and has contributed to the quality and depth of our
community. They have been a responsible neighbor and have timely responded to recent
concerns by some in the community. I respectfully request that the City Council approve First
Baptist Church’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP), with workable use conditions.
Sincerely yours,
Katarina Dieck
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:13 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:John McGilvray <jdmcg@pacbell.net>
Sent:Thursday, May 03, 2018 1:33 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Owen, Graham; Lait, Jonathan
Subject:First Baptist Church CUP Concerns
Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto, CA
Dear City Council –
Regarding the First Baptist Church’s request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to act as
a community center, I, as a neighbor within half of a block of the church, strongly object to the City Council allowing/issuing such a permit.
This a classic case of doing a good thing in a bad way. No neighbor has stated that the
activities to be allowed under the CUP are bad or intrinsically improper. The proposed
uses are reasonable for a community center. The problem is the location of the proposed
community center is in violation of current zoning laws. This an R-1 neighborhood with
very limited parking. All the proposed uses for the community center will impose heavy
traffic and parking burdens on the center’s immediate neighbors. School students using
California Avenue and Bryant Street will be at great risk from inattentive drivers dropping
off or picking up visitors to the community center. The new traffic circle will only make
congestion worse and traffic patterns less predictable. Proposed events for the center will
impose further community disruption, including intrusive musical noise levels.
All the immediate neighborhood disruptions noted above are inevitable and intrinsically
part of the proposed usage under the CUP. The comment from supporters of the CUP
that only a few neighbors have repeatedly objected to the proposed use is naive. Of
course they object. The closest neighbors are the ones most affected by the CUP. The
impact of the CUP will be felt most by neighbors within a block of the church. Not one
neighbor, but many neighbors. Most strong supporters of the CUP and associated
activities don’t live within the affected area. Their use of the church’s proposed expanded
offerings/services won’t affect them at. They’ll be part of our problem.
Why is it so difficult for the City of Palo Alto staff to see the obvious problems. Why is the
proposed CUP not perceived as making a bad situation worse. It’s unfortunate that the
First Baptist Church apparently has financial problems that they hope to solve via the
CUP. However, their propose solution will have a strong negative impact on their
immediate neighbor’s quality of life.
Please deny the proposed Conditional Use Permit.
John McGilvray
South Court
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:15 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ronald Dieck <ron@magicvc.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 03, 2018 6:26 PM
To:Council, City; info@isingsv.com.
Subject:First Baptist Church
Attachments:FIRST BABTIST LETTER R.docx
Dear Palo Alto City Council
Please find the above attached letter in support of the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto.
Best regards
Ron
Ronald Dieck
Advisor
Medical Device Industry
(650) 269‐0868
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Please note that communication in this form cannot be 100% secure. This communication and any attachments may
contain confidential or privileged information for the use by the intended recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying
of it or the attachments is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender by reply e‐mail an destroy all copies of the original message and
attachments.
335 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Tel, (650) 325-7372
May 2, 2018
City Council
Palo Alto CA
Re: First Baptist Church’s Conditional Use Permit
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of Palo Alto and live in the Old Palo Alto neighborhood and am writing this letter
to support First Baptist Church’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP), with workable use conditions.
I support First Baptist Church that serves as an affordable community center here in Palo Alto. There
are very few inexpensive spaces for community groups to meet near our very expensive downtown
areas. Community Centers recommended by church neighbors as alternatives to First Baptist Church
have been found to be impacted or unable to accommodate iSing. These include Mitchell Park,
Cubberly and Lucy Stern.
First Baptist Church has long been a focal point for building and supporting our community. Over the
years they have provided local access to groups such as iSing, therapists and other groups that build and
support the fabric of our community. This is only possible because First Baptist Church can offer an
affordable, centrally located home for these groups.
I frequently pass by the church and have personally noted many of the efforts to respond to concerns
from some of the church’s neighbors. I am also aware of many of the plans to respond to those
concerns. These include installing HVAC and replacing single pane windows to minimize external sound
and creation of a multi-faceted traffic and parking reduction plan to reduce street parking and street
traffic.
The First Baptist Church plays a critical role in Palo Alto and the local neighborhood. It has been a
part of our neighborhood for years and has contributed to the quality and depth of our
community. They have been a responsible neighbor and have timely responded to recent
concerns by some in the community. I respectfully request that the City Council approve First
Baptist Church’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP), with workable use conditions.
Sincerely yours,
Ronald Dieck
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:17 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Melanie Wilensky <melaniewilensky@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, May 04, 2018 12:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Let's apply the Golden Rule to the First Baptist Church CUP
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council:
The First Baptist Church has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a for-profit community
center in our quiet residential neighborhood. The discussions have become contentious. It would be
so much better if all parties followed the simple rule of Matthew 7:12 to treat others as you would
have them treat you.
The church has already been leasing space to non-religious activities that adversely impact the neighborhood.
One the other hand many of these activities are very worthwhile and beneficial to the community. But
to apply the Golden Rule, these activities should not impose undue noise, traffic, parking, and safety
burdens on the church’s neighbors.
We now have a situation in which supporters of the proposed community center who do not live adjacent to the church attack those of us who object to their desires to have large, noisy events at the
church, often with amplified music. They have no appreciation of the impact their activities have on
those of us who live near to the church. It would be helpful if they would put themselves in the shoes
of the church’s neighbors. Would community center supporters want unrestricted activities at a facility
across the street from their homes?
One solution to this problem is for the City to issue a Conditional Use Permit that includes reasonable
restrictions that would reduce the many impacts of the community center. The Planning Department
staff has already studied this issue in great detail, conferring in depth with the church and its
neighbors as well as conducting a public meeting at which all parties could air their concerns. The
planners prepared Department Staff Report ID #8981 that contained a draft CUP that addressed all of the concerns in a fair and balanced way that I think should be acceptable to both the church and its
neighbors.
The Planning and Transportation Commission at its April 11, 2018 meeting amended the draft CUP in
a way that removes all reasonable restrictions. These changes are not even consistent with the
existing restrictions in the rules for the City’s own community centers and the CUP for a private community center at the Gamble Garden. The City Council should therefore NOT approve the
amended CUP. Instead, the City Council should approve the original version prepared by the
Planning staff, which is fair, balanced and imposes only reasonable restrictions on operation of a
community center at the church.
I would also ask that in consideration of its neighbors someone from the church should be required to personally monitor and control parking, bicycle safety, and noise at all events.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:17 PM
2
It is not difficult for the church to be a good neighbor if it is aware of how its actions adversely affect
others and takes steps to minimize their impact on the neighborhood.
Best regards,
Melanie Wilensky
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 8:50 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:holli <writeholli@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 04, 2018 11:42 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:CUP for First Baptist Church of Palo Alto
Dear City Council Members,
We write to you as a family that resides in Downtown North with a daughter that attends iSing. Although we do not live in the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, this is a small community and several of our friends and colleagues
live as close as 3 doors down on N. California Ave and on Washington. We have a vested interest in keeping
the neighborhood safe, preserving its charm and mitigating noise and traffic. Our daughter can now bike to
FBC!
Over the last school year, we have observed a drastic decrease in traffic volume after the departure of the music
school. The directors/founders of iSing have have also worked and continue to work tirelessly to encourage
behaviors that decrease traffic (setting up carpools), and increase safety like doggedly enforcing adherance to
traffic laws. Yes, actually *enforcing*! I was shooed away from the drop off lane for taking an extra 30 seconds
to look up an address to put into my GPS and I've seen other parents get addressed for any infraction. They are motivated and listening to the FBC neighbors. As iSing families who would like to stay at FBC, so are we!
If the community supports FBC as a church, we hope it can support its extension as a community center. The
church's mission is to minister and offer a home to individuals or organizations offering religious or social
services and education . We hope you can see that allowing organizations like iSing to operate on premises goes hand in hand with the mission. Through music education, iSing brings music and joy into the community.
Beyond music education, there are far-reaching outcomes for young women through promoting self esteem,
inclusion and a sense of purpose and belonging. These types of programs are what make communities shine,
especially during these times.
We heartily support the granting of the CUP for FBC which would allow reasonable days, hours and occupancy
making it possible for FBC to be a host to iSing and other community services at a reasonable distance and rents
which make these services accessible to those who otherwise would not be able. Thank you for your
consideration.
Respectfully,
Holli, Bryan and Lily Cho
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 8:50 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Mari Varma <marivarma@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 8:43 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:First Baptist Church - CUP
Dear Palo Alto Council,
We are writing to express our opposition to the Planning & Transportation Commission's recommendation for the Conditional Use Permit for First Baptist Church to operate as a community center. Specifically, we are opposed to the
increased hours and maximum number of participants in the proposal. I respectfully ask you to maintain the city planning staff’s conscientious and well-researched recommendation.
Our family moved to Palo Alto in 1996 and has lived on Bryant St. for over twenty years - within 600 feet of the
Church. For a long time we found the First Baptist Church to be a wholesome and cooperative neighbor. They rented space in the fellowship hall for regular events: Monday evening talks, vegetarian dinners, dance lessons. These functions
presented no problems and gave an uplifting culture to the community.
Increasingly, however, the Church has begun to lease space in a fashion similar to a commercial landlord. Coinciding with this increased rentals has been an increase in events with loud music, increased traffic, and a rise in littering that was
virtually unseen in the past. The result is a neighborhood cultural change - one of diminished safety and receding quality of life. A change that, once set as law, is not possible to roll back.
I want to particularly emphasize the increase in traffic due to events at the church - one has been accompanied by erratic
driving and disorderly parking, often blocking the fire hydrant located in front of our house. Bryant Street is the Bike Boulevard and has a large volume of bicycle and pedestrian traffic at all times of the day. In addition, both California
Avenue and Bryant Street carry a large volume of children going to Walter Hayes Elementary, Jordan Middle School and Palo Alto High. We are concerned with the safety of the bicyclists and pedestrians, and want to caution the City to set
rules to keep the hours and event capacity in check, lest it lead to a tragedy that we all might regret.
The discussion, of late, has centered largely around the behavior of the current chief tenants, iSing. Luckily, iSing has been accommodating of and cooperative with the neighborhood. They, together with the current pastor Rick Mixon, have
reduced noise levels and taken measures to address various grievances. The fundamental issue, however, has little to do with this group in particular, and the discourse has been short-sighted. Future tenants and future pastors may take
different approaches. Perhaps these approaches will be similarly accommodating. Economics and history, nonetheless, tell us a story of a tragedy of the commons. Put statistically, the more tenants that come and go, the more cultural
disagreements will arise with surrounding neighbors.
It is prudent for, and indeed the responsibility of, the City Council to enact rules and laws that anticipate future evolution. We are thus asking that conscientious regulations be placed on the logistics of use. It is the obligation of the
municipal government to do right for its residents. This means allowing the Church to promote social good through its functions. It also means maintaining the safety of the neighborhood and preserving the rights of the residents for peace
and enjoyment.
Thank you for your time,
Maricela and Rajiv Varma
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:35 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Karen Ivey <karenivey@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 9:37 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:May 14 City Council Meeting: 305 North California Avenue
There are many questions that were not answered by the Planning and Transportation Commission that need to
be considered by the City Council before a Conditional Use Permit is granted for the First Baptist Church at 305
North California.
1). Why should there be another community center in Palo Alto?
I asked the City of Palo Alto’s Planning Director Hillary Gitelman for a list of the existing community centers
in Palo Alto. I explained that I wanted to compare the locations and parking capacity of existing community centers against the residential location and limited parking capacity at 305 North California Avenue. She
emailed back that the City of Palo Alto did not maintain such a list and that I would need “to Google to find out
that information.” I am stunned that the City’s Planning Department would advocate for another community
center without the knowledge of whether one was actually needed. A recent survey, provided to the Planning
Commission in their packet, showed that there was plenty of available and affordable space for rent at other nearby Palo Alto locations, including at community centers owned by the City of Palo Alto.
2). Why is this church going to be allowed to do what no other church in Palo Alto can do?
At present, churches in Palo Alto exist compatibly with their surrounding neighborhoods because most have light, occasional use solely for church-related activities. There are at least thirty other churches in Palo Alto
with more parking and with locations like Middlefield Road that are not close to private homes. As written, this
CUP would set a new precedent for churches in Palo Alto to shift to adding commercial activities that are well
beyond the scope of Palo Alto’s current zoning laws.
3). Why would personal services be permitted in an R-1 neighborhood?
The City of Palo Alto Planning Department staff report in June 2017 to the City Council explained why the
New Mozart School of Music’s application for a Conditional Use Permit at this same site was denied, and
explained that “New Mozart School of Music is a personal service use in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.04.030 (114)(G), which states that personal service uses include “music studios intended for
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:35 PM
2
individuals or small groups of persons in a class.” The staff report goes on to say that “personal service uses are
not an allowed use in the R-1 (10,000) zoning district in accordance with PAMC 18.12.030. Locating the
subject personal service use at the church would therefore not be permissible.” Note that iSing, the largest current tenant at the First Baptist Church, would also not be permitted in accordance with PAMC 18.12.030.
4). Why is this the only community center or church in Palo Alto where medical services would be
permitted?
At present, the City of Palo Alto bans the provision of medical services in R-1 neighborhoods. No medical
services are allowed at the Cubberly, Lucie Stern, or Mitchell Park Community Centers. Why is this precedent
being considered for a completely residential neighborhood with just eight parking spaces?
5). Why aren’t the City of Palo Alto’s parking regulations being followed?
The inadequate parking at 305 North California Avenue is presently allowed because the site's current use as a
church is grandfathered in. However, the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.52.010 specifies that a “new
use” requires the implementation of new parking criteria. This Conditional Use Permit application is clearly
meets the legal definition of a new use, because the First Baptist Church does not need any CUP to continue operations as a church. The only reason that the City of Palo Alto is requiring the First Baptist Church to apply
for a CUP is solely to regulate the non-church-related commercial activities that are a “new use” and therefore
require parking appropriate for that new use. The Planning Department staff estimated that more than 70
parking spaces would be needed under current parking criteria.
I hope that City Council members will take the time to read through the many letters provided by neighbors and
Palo Alto residents as this issue is considered. This CUP would set a dangerous precedent for Palo Alto in
multiple ways, and should be denied.
Karen Ivey
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:35 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Joyce Farnsworth <joyce.farnsworth@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 11:41 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please Grant Conditional Use Permit for First Baptist Church of Palo Alto
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council:
Please grant the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto the Conditional Use Permit it has applied for to let it continue to host community organizations and services. Palo Alto has always been a vibrant, engaged place to live, and
letting churches continue to host community organizations and events is integral to its remaining so.
I have two daughters in iSing, and they've formed strong ties to Palo Alto through iSing as they've grown as
musicians. iSing fosters collaborations even between very young girls, so that my daughters knew girls in any camp or event they attended in Palo Alto even when they were in school in Menlo Park. They've become very
conscientious about minimizing our impact on traffic and noise near the church, as I think they should. We bike
to choir when we can and appreciate the improvements that have been made in the traffic.
I do understand that there are impacts on the neighbors from any community activity. We live a couple of blocks from JLS and Fairmeadow, so we pick up discarded snack wrappers in our garden most days, and when I
started to write this the JLS marching band was practicing at the end of our driveway. There are also
immeasurable benefits to living in a place where people know each other and want to help each other. It is my
hope that a conditional use permit can limit the inconvenience to neighbors while allowing the many positive
effects that FBCPA's and other churches') hosting of organizations and events has on our community.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Farnsworth
3571 Bryant Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 9:39 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Natalie Watkins <natalieawatkins@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 11:10 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:iSing Silicon Valley
Subject:Support for First Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit
Dear City Council Members,
I support the granting of a Conditional Use Permit for First Baptist Church of Palo Alto, with workable use conditions
(including reasonable days, hours, and occupancy) that will make it possible for First Baptist Church to host its arts and
social services partners.
My daughter started iSing this year and it has been a wonderful experience for her. She is a quiet girl but iSing has given
her a place to shine. There are many wonderful activities for kids in the bay area, but this an important asset for our
community. For many of our other activities, we have to drive to Los Altos and Mountain View. It’s very stressful to get
kids to after‐school activities during high traffic times, it’s so convenient for us to bike to First Baptist Church to take our
daughter to iSing. Having activities in the community where we live is important to us.
I support First Baptist Church as the home of affordable community center uses in Palo Alto. There are very few
inexpensive spaces for community groups to congregate near our very expensive downtown areas. Community Centers
recommended by church neighbors as alternative venues for First Baptist Church tenants, including Mitchell Park,
Cubberly, and Lucy Stern have informed us that they cannot accommodate iSing.
I support local organizations, as a way of building local community. In providing partners like iSing with a local,
accessible, and affordable home, First Baptist Church helps Palo Alto helps residents like us to build that community.
Thanks,
Natalie Watkins
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 9:39 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Erin McOmber <erin.mcomber@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 12:03 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:iSing Silicon Valley
Subject:Support of FBCPA CUP
Dear City Council,
My name is Erin McOmber. I live on Byron Street between Santa Rita and N. California.
With this letter, I voice my support for the city granting a Conditional Use Permit for First Baptist Church of Palo Alto. I respectfully ask the City Council to listen to the voices of neighbors who support the FBCPA CUP
in addition to the sometimes-vitriolic voices of those who feel the opposite. As Commissioner Alcheck
commented during the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting on 11 April 2018 (which I attended
and at which I addressed the commission), “I’m sure you’re familiar with the saying ‘the squeaky wheel gets the grease.’ That’s not our role. Our role on this Commission is to not to grease the squeaky wheel. I believe our role...is to insist that our City do a better job of balancing the interests.”
FBCPA provides affordable space for community groups and non-profits that offer arts education/performance
and social services, as well as the church’s own ministry-related religious activities, as do faith-based organizations throughout the United States. Churches and multi-use spaces like community centers allow our Old Palo Alto neighborhood be more than just a bedroom community. A community center is just that—a
center for the community that houses organizations that benefit the families who live in the surrounding area.
Bicycle accessibility to businesses and public spaces has long been of import to Palo Altans. FBCPA’s location
at the intersection of two bike boulevards only increases its value. Community centers located on bike boulevards create safe routes to community activities, which lowers car trips.
I am particularly supportive of this cause because my teenage daughter is part of iSing Silicon Valley Girlchoir.
Due to the Cubberley, Lucie Stern, and Mitchell Park Community Centers not having space available to
accommodate iSing, their continued residency at FBCPA is absolutely essential to their survival. No other church or space in the city could allow iSing to continue to function in the same way at the same price as does FBCPA. The relationship between FBCPA and its tenants is mutually beneficial, as the church receives funds
necessary to make improvements to the buildings, which must lead to increased community spirit and property
values in the immediate area.
Despite several tangible changes made by FBCPA and its tenants—e.g. the Dec. 2017 [or Jan. 2018] departure
of the for-profit New Mozart School of Music and the attendant increase in afternoon parking space availability,
staggered start times and strict adherence to the loading zone by iSing staff and parents, installation of HVAC in
the fellowship hall, and planned window replacements/upgrades—a handful of vocal neighbors continues to
oppose the CUP and asks the city to impose ridiculous restrictions such as allowing no more than twelve people to occupy the buildings at one time. For a building of its square footage, despite the number of on-property
parking spaces, a limit of twelve people is not only unreasonable, but just plain senseless. Workable use
conditions, including reasonable days (seven days a week), hours (10am–9pm), and occupancy (at least 120
people), will make it possible for FBC to continue to host its arts and social services partners. It is the right
thing to do for the community.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 9:39 AM
3
I raise my voice to join those who support FBCPA, the potential CUP, and the City of Palo Alto. Thank you
very much.
Sincerely,
Erin McOmber, DMA, MM
--
Erin McOmber
Doctor of Musical Arts
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 9:39 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:jhchinatpa@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 8:37 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Your approval of CUP at FBCPA and Initiation of Discussion to Update Municipal Code
definition of Church
Dear City Council Members,
First Baptist Church of Palo Alto, where we have been members since 1960, has provided affordable
space to selected individuals and organizations whom we call partners (instead of tenants), since we
consider them as part of our church family community as well as part of our broader Palo Alto
community. We think this service of community building is a part of the mission of our church which is consistent with what has been done over the years, similar to the conventional practice of other faith-
based organizations in Palo Alto and throughout the country. In fact, our major current partner, iSing,
was sponsored as a mission project when they first started and was subsidized by the church for
several years before they obtained their 501c as a non-profit entity. iSing is indeed making a huge
positive impact on the lives of young girls and their families in our community.
Some of us were surprised when we received the abrupt enforcement orders from the Department of
Planning and Community Environment that we were having events and activities that did not meet
Palo Alto code’s definition of a “church”. Thus we have spent many hours in providing the information
required to apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) so that we can officially be considered a “community center” as well as a church. We think our current situation at the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto is an excellent time for a longer term approach as voted by the Planning and Transportation
Commission on April 11 that the City Council direct Staff to bring to the Commission a discussion of
uses that are considered under the definition of church, so that the amended Municipal Code can
reflect the reality of what actually goes on in most Palo Alto churches at this time.
We at First Baptist Church and our partners are truly sorry that we did not get a chance to sit down with our church neighbors to resolve many of their concerns before they brought their complaints to
the City. Now that we have heard the concerns of our church neighbors about noise, traffic, parking
and other safety issue, we and our partners have been working very hard to address these issues.
We do want to be good neighbors and will be using discretion in selection of any new partners. To
reduce noise from Fellowship Hall, a new HVAC system has already been installed mid-April and bids are being received for window replacement. To reduce traffic and parking issues, iSing has worked
closely with parents by adjusting class schedule to have staggered drop-off pick-up times and the City
has created a drop-off zone in front of the church. These recent measures have already alleviated
much of the earlier traffic congestion.
We are thus requesting your approval of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) submitted by the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto to allow our community partners to continue to operate with reasonable
and workable conditions as approved by a 5 to 1 vote of the City’s Planning and Transportation
Commission on April 11 so that we can work together through open communication to be a good
neighbor and still contribute to the life of our city of Palo Alto. We also urge you to begin the serious
discussion of amending the outdated Municipal code definition of “church”.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 9:39 AM
5
Thanks to each of you for your dedication to do what you consider is best for Palo Alto,
Jane and Jin Chin
727 Christine Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:00 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Elaine Uang <elaine.uang@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 1:49 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Owen, Graham; Keene, James
Subject:First Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit
Dear Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Filseth, and Honorable City Council Members,
Thank you for your attention to the the First Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit. I have never officially been part of a religious community. But for my two daughters, ages six and four, their best memories were formed at programs in Palo Alto churches, from Music Together classes at Unity, to many years of preschool at First Presbyterian, and starting last August, iSing at First Baptist. As a family that bicycles as our primary mode of transportation, when my daughter joined iSing, we loved that it was located at two bike boulevards. It makes transporting her by bike more stress-free and safe. (We also try to bike to activities at the Midtown Shopping Center and Cubberley Community Center, but both are much more stressful destinations access by bike). While we stop at FBC once a week, we bike past or around it every day along Bryant and California streets and we have always felt safe cycling there. Whenever I have passed through on my
bike, the parents and caretakers I see dropping off and parking around FBC are conscientious and alert to all the children,
cyclists, and drivers around.
As someone with a young family and the founder of a local community group, I want to underscore how excruciatingly difficult it
is to find space for community activities in Palo Alto. For decades, religious institutions in Palo Alto have opened their doors to house child care centers, music and arts classes, non-profit organizations, soup kitchens, clothes closets, even shelters for the unhoused. I am tremendously grateful to ALL the faith-based groups who have opened their doors to provide safe and welcoming services and activities. The community spaces that religious institutions provide also support our city's mission for a more inclusive and diverse population and nurture the spirit of individuals holistically: through faith, friendship, emotional well-being, artistic expression, or basic needs. This Conditional Use Permit process for First Baptist Church has highlighted the tremendous demand for community activities,
arts/music classes, and non-profit space here in Palo Alto, and how much religious institutions have stepped up to provide. I
urge you to approve First Baptist Church's CUP with workable conditions to support their mission and their partners. In
particular, please approve a capacity of 120 people and extended hours to 10p on Monday-Thursday and 11p on
Friday/Saturday. Approving these terms does not mean 120 people will be there every day, every hour until 10p or 11p, but
provides flexibility for different program needs. Regarding noise, the city has a noise ordinance, and the church and its partners
have worked hard to address noise concerns by installing a new HVAC system to provide cooling and acoustically absorptive double paned windows prevent noise transmission. With respect to parking and traffic, the church and partners seem to be working continuously on this, staggering program sessions from school commutes, continually notifying people where to drop off safely and park, and sharing safe driving tips along the busy bike boulevards. Even some of the neighbors acknowledge traffic & parking issues have been greatly reduced since last summer. The Temporary Use Permit (TUP) for larger events (120-300 people) seems like a good solution to help set conditions for such activities. 12 TUP events per year (about 1/month) also seems reasonable and provides flexibility for the church and its partners.
Thus far, it feels like all sides are working hard together and in the spirit of community harmony. I hope you can see the positive
outcomes that have already resulted and grant the conditions First Baptist Church requested and the Planning & Transportation
Commission recommended. Not approving the CUP will set a terrible precedent in our city, endanger the ability of First Baptist
and their partners to fulfill their missions, and begin to undermine Palo Alto's long tradition of supporting its community
needs. Not approving the CUP will embolden a small tyranny of voices to stymie the ability of religious institutions to serve their
congregants and provide activities and services that young families, youth thrive on and our neediest community members depend upon. It is my hope that in addition to approving First Baptists' CUP, Council and Staff can develop a longer term plan to review our community's needs and update our zoning standards for religious institutions. We need to craft a more reasonable process to help religious institutions and community organizations thrive and fulfill their missions. Thank you for your consideration, Elaine Uang Palo Alto 94301 Resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:00 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Lesley N. Robertson <lrobertson@stanford.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 2:28 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:iSing Silicon Valley
Subject:First Baptist Church -In support of the Condition Use Permit
Dear Council Members
I write to you in support First Baptist Church of Palo Alto and the granting of a Conditional Use
Permit with workable use conditions (including reasonable days, hours, and occupancy) making it possible for
FBC to host its arts and social services partners.
First Baptist Church’s central mission includes providing a local, accessible, and affordable home for individuals and organizations offering social services, arts education and performance, as well as offering
religious services and other ministry to its parishioners.
This is a mission shared by churches and other faith-based organizations all over the country.
As a community member I applaud FBCPA efforts towards mediation and their action to accommodate church neighbors.
FBCPA and their partners have listened closely to church neighbors concerns about noise, traffic, parking, and
related safety issues and have working tirelessly to address them.
The Church has installed HVAC and is currently planning window replacement in the Fellowship Hall. This
will reduce noise from the Church to a minimum, all year round.
iSing and the other Church partners made a commitment last year to a multi-faceted traffic and parking reduction plan, including staggering activity start/stop times with school drop off/pickup times when Bryant &
California are most heavily used by cyclists — and will willingly commit to report to church neighbors about
this on a regular basis. Church neighbors have acknowledged noticing the difference already.
I support local organizations, as a way of building local community. In providing partners like [iSing/other organization/therapists] with a local, accessible, and affordable home, First Baptist Church helps Palo Alto helps residents like us to build that community
I support FBCPA as the home of affordable community center uses in Palo Alto and ask you to grant the
Conditional Use Permit
Respectfully yours Lesley Robertson
Artist In Residence
Stanford University
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:00 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:iSing Silicon Valley <info@isingsv.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 3:50 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Lait, Jonathan; Owen, Graham; Gitelman, Hillary
Subject:In support of a First Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit
Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
We, the undersigned, respectfully send this letter in support of the final approval of a Conditional Use Permit
with reasonable and workable use conditions for First Baptist Church of Palo Alto, as recommended by the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission.
Like other churches throughout the United States and beyond, FBC makes it a central part of its mission to
provide rare affordable and accessible space to individuals and organizations providing arts and social services
to their local communities. Please make it possible for FBC's partners to continue to operate at the Church, to offer essential, accessible, and affordable programs and services to residents of Palo Alto and elsewhere on the Peninsula, and to bring our local community together in the pursuit of artistic expression, appreciation, and
wellness.
Sincerely,
Pastor Rick Mixon, First Baptist Church
Jennah Delp-Somers & Shane Troll, iSing Silicon Valley (FBC Partner)
Jenn Sherer, Spinefulness (FBC Partner)
Joellen Werne, M.D. Psychiatrist FBC Partner) and the following local community members:P
1. Oliver Aalami (iSing parent, Old Palo Alto resident)
2. Lauren Aalami (iSing singer, Old Palo Alto resident)
3. Alexa Aalami (iSing singer, Old Palo Alto resident)
4. Evan Aalami (iSing family member, Old Palo Alto resident) 5. Felice Ahn (Palo Alto resident) 6. Mehdi Alhassani (Old Palo Alto resident)
7. Audrey Alonis (Midtown resident)
8. Kristen Andersen (iSing parent)
9. Brian Andersen (iSing parent) 10. Neali Armstrong (iSing parent) 11. Chris Asing (iSing parent)
12. Colleen Backstrand (Palo Alto resident)
13. Marcia Baugh (Member AAUW Palo Alto Branch)
14. Annie Bedichek (Community member) 15. Angelina Bena (College Terrace resident) 16. Sandra BenEfraim (iSing parent/community member, Old Palo Alto resident
17. Henny Bhushan (iSing parent)
18. Margaret Billin (Old Palo Alto resident, musician)
19. Karin Bonnard (Old Palo Alto resident)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:00 AM
4
20. Katharina Borchert (FBC Congregant, Old Palo Alto resident)
21. Maureen Bradford (iSing parent)
22. Susan Bradley (FBC Congregant) 23. Lisa Branson (iSing parent)
24. Jeff Brown (iSing parent/community member)
25. WilliamBruner iSing (parent/community member, Old Palo Alto resident)
26. Brooke Carson (Friend of many iSing parents and Old Palo Alto residents)
27. Susan Chakos (iSing parent) 28. Ashokn Chandy (iSing parent)
29. Cindy Chen (Old Palo Alto resident)
30. Jane Chin (Palo Alto resident)
31. Jin Chin (FBC Congregant)
32. Jim Chin (Palo Alto resident) 33. Holli Cho (iSing parent)
34. Bryan Cho (iSing parent)
35. Dave Chou (iSing parent)
36. Michal Cierniak (iSing parent)
37. Amy Darling (Old Palo Alto resident) 38. Grant Dasher (Palo Alto resident)
39. Evie Davidson (Old Palo Alto resident)
40. Cristiana De Oliveira Costa (Palo Alto resident)
41. Toni Deser (Midtown Palo Alto resident)
42. Martin Dieck (iSing parent, Old Palo Alto resident) 43. Ronald Dieck (Old Palo Alto resident)
44. Katarina Dieck (Old Palo Alto resident)
45. Anna Dieck (Old Palo Alto resident)
46. Ingrid Donahue
47. Scott Doorley (iSing parent) 48. Emily Drennan (iSing parent)
49. Aleksandra Dudukovic (iSing parent)
50. Kathy Durham (Faith-based Coalition member, Palo Alto resident)
51. Adriana Eberle (iSing parent)
52. David Epstein (Palo Alto resident) 53. Charlotte Epstein (Palo Alto resident)
54. Marius Eriksen(Palo Alto resident)
55. Sally Espinoza (iSing parent)
56. Paolo Faraboschi
57. Joyce Farnsworth (iSing parent) 58. Mariseth Ferring (Old Palo Alto resident)
59. Masha Fisch (Old Palo Alto resident)
60. LindseyForrest (Old Palo Alto resident)
61. James Forrest (Old Palo Alto resident)
62. April Foster (iSing parent) 63. Stephanie Frick (iSing parent)
64. Ryan Frick (iSing parent)
65. Jessica Galbraith (iSing parent)
66. Kathryn Gillam (FBC Congregant)
67. Hilary Glann (Supporter of Arts/community Activities in Palo Alto) 68. Leslie Goldman (Old Palo Alto resident)
69. Julie Good (iSing parent, Palo Alto resident)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:00 AM
5
70. Michael Greenfield (iSing parent)
71. Norma Grench (Old Palo Alto resident)
72. Alison Guan (Old Palo Alto resident, nearby church neighbor) 73. Douglas Ha (Old Palo Alto resident)
74. Maria Haber (Old Palo Alto resident)
75. Jonathan Hammer (Friend of iSing member)
76. Philip Hayes (FBC Congregant, Old Palo Alto resident)
77. Mark Hoffberg 78. Thomas Holzer
79. Mary Holzer (iSing grandparent, longtme choral singer)
80. Jane Huang (Old Palo Alto resident)
81. Jennifer Ibbotson-Brown (iSing parent)
82. Charlotte Jackson (FBC Congregant, Other) 83. Alice Jacobs (iSing parent)
84. Tyler Johnson (iSing parent)
85. Brett Johnson (iSing parent)
86. Alisi Kaihau (iSing parent/community member)
87. Jayanthi Kalyanaraman (Palo Alto resident) 88. Maria Karsner (iSing parent, Old Palo Alto resident)
89. Steven Ketchpel (Faith-based Coalition member)
90. Heelan Kim (iSing parent)
91. Gayathri Kini (iSing parent)
92. Sanjay Kini (iSing parent) 93. Dorcia Ko (iSing parent)
94. Mary Anne Kochenderfer (iSing parent)
95. Tom Kramer (Old Palo Alto resident)
96. Susan Kramer (iSing parent, Old Palo Alto resident)
97. Murali Krishnan (iSing parent/community member) 98. Chloe Lee (iSing parent/community member)
99. Jusok Lee (Old Palo Alto resident)
100. Cynthia Lee (Faith-based Coalition member)
101. HoChan Lee (Old Palo Alto resident)
102. Josh Lehrer 103. Michelle Lepori (iSing parent, Old Palo Alto resident)
104. Roxanne Leung (iSing parent)
105. James Lik (iSing parent)
106. Libby Lungren
107. Elana Manson (iSing parent) 108. Jonathan Manson (iSing parent)
109. Patricia Marcello (Old Palo Alto resident)
110. Elizabeth May (iSing parent)
111. Alix Mayer (iSing parent)
112. Erin McGurk (Old Palo Alto resident) 113. Leisa McNeese (iSing parent)
114. Bryant McOmber (Old Palo Alto resident)
115. Erin McOmber (iSing parent, Old Palo Alto resident)
116. Honey Meir-Levi (Nonprofit management professional)
117. Alicia Miao (Palo Alto resident) 118. Jeanette (Mihov)
119. Marcela Millan (iSing parent)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:00 AM
6
120. Robert Mitchell (iSing parent)
121. Randle Mixon (FBC Congregant, Faith-based Coalition member)
122. Veronica Montero 123. Christine Moon (iSing parent)
124. David Moran (Professorville resident)
125. Debbie Mukamal (iSing parent/community member)
126. Carol Munch (Supporter of Arts/Community Activities in churches)
127. Monika Nagy (iSing parent) 128. Dana Nelson (iSing parent)
129. McHale Newport-Berra (Old Palo Alto resident)
130. Sarah Nguyen (Palo Alto resident)
131. Jacques Nicole (iSing parent)
132. Sarah Nitzar (Palo Alto resident) 133. Collette O'Shea (iSing parent)
134. Alexandra Olsen (iSing parent)
135. Lara Otte (iSing parent)
136. Nancy Palmer (Old Palo Alto resident)
137. Amy Parigi (iSing parent) 138. Heejeong Park (iSing parent)
139. Sarah Patanroi (iSing parent)
140. Ellen Payne (iSing parent)
141. Laurie Phillips (Palo Alto resident)
142. Nicole Pitman (Old Palo Alto resident) 143. Paula Powar (Old Palo Alto resident)
144. Laura Prentiss (Old Palo Alto resident)
145. Nina Randazzo
146. Lesley Robertson (iSing parent)
147. Carin Rollins (iSing parent) 148. Eric Rosenblum
149. Jeffrey Salzman (Baron Park resident)
150. Clea Sarnquist (iSing parent)
151. Hugh Satterlee (Old Palo Alto resident)
152. Eleanor Satterlee (Old Palo Alto resident) 153. Rosalie Shepherd (Old Palo Alto resident)
154. Mari Soberg (iSing parent)
155. Jung In Son (Palo Alto resident)
156. Kathleen Spillane (Old Palo Alto resident)
157. Nana Spiridon (Palo Alto resident) 158. Gregory Stevens (FBC Congregant)
159. Randy Stoltenberg (Faith-based Coalition member)
160. Cari Templeton (iSing parent)
161. Daniel Templeton (iSing parent, Old Palo Alto resident)
162. Aurelie Teyssier (iSing parent) 163. Sven Thesen (FBC vegan dinner attendee)
164. Shamim Tong (Old Palo Alto resident)
165. Meghann Tovar (iSing parent/community member)
166. Ron Tuttle (FBC Congregant)
167. Thelma Tuttle (FBC Congregant, Old Palo Alto resident) 168. Melinda Tzeng (iSing parent, Old Palo Alto resident)
169. Elaine Uang (iSing parent)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:00 AM
7
170. Debra Van (Old Palo Alto resident)
171. Jared Verzello (Old Palo Alto resident)
172. Casper Vroemen (iSing parent) 173. Hanna Vuornos (Old Palo Alto resident)
174. Janet Wang (iSing parent)
175. Raziya Wang (iSing parent )
176. Katherine Wang
177. Charles Wang (iSing parent) 178. Rex Watkins (iSing parent)
179. Natalie Watkins (iSing parent)
180. LaRhee Webster (Artist in support of artists of all kinds)
181. James Welch (iSing accompanist, Palo Alto resident)
182. Deanne Welch (iSing parent) 183. Dominique White (FBC Congregant)
184. William Whitmer (Old Palo Alto resident)
185. Janet Whitmer (Old Palo Alto resident)
186. Jessica Wilkes (iSing parent, Old Palo Alto resident)
187. Jeff Wine (Palo Alto resident) 188. Marlene Wine (Palo Alto resident)
189. Jenny Wine (Palo Alto resident)
190. Janet Wong (FBC Partner/Tenant, iSing parent)
191. Michele Wong (iSing parent)
192. Dandan Wu (Old Palo Alto resident) 193. Qing Xiao (iSing parent)
194. Sue Yee (iSing parent)
195. Danny Yee (iSing parent)
196. Jung Yoo (iSing parent)
197. Cliff Young (iSing parent, Palo Alto resident) 198. Helen Young (UNA Midpeninsula Chapter)
199. Uri Zemik (Old Palo Alto resident)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:00 AM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Laura Seitel <lseitel@mac.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 11:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:First Baptist Church CUP
Dear Members of the City Council,
My husband and I and many of our neighbors remain bewildered by the City’s idea of creating a
community center at the First Baptist Church. It is embedded in a quiet residential neighborhood
with very near neighbors, is surrounded by bike routes heavily trafficked by students and has only
eight parking spaces. This concept might make sense at any almost any other church in the City. All but three (out of nearly forty) are located on major boulevards, have ample parking, are
well buffered from neighbors or are located in nonresidential districts.
Should the City, despite these objections, decide to grant a CUP for the Church to operate as a
community center, I hope that you will approve the version of the CUP drafted by the Planning
Department as opposed to the recommendation of the Transportation Commission. The latter will
sow seeds of discord in our neighborhood into the indefinite future. A slightly amended version of
the document prepared by Staff, who studied our neighborhood’s problems at length and in depth,
might give us a chance at a new beginning.
Regarding amendments to the Staff CUP, I would suggest the following:
Hours of Operation: The Staff CUP permits the Church to operate as a community center seven
days a week from 10 A.M. to 7:30 P.M. This means that the quality of life in our gardens, in our
homes and on our streets will be compromised every single day and evening. To balance the effect,
I propose that the hours of operation of the community center be required to end at 6 P.M. and that
weekend activities be limited to church functions only.
Enforcement: This is the key to the success of any CUP for the Church. The latter has a long
history of noncompliance with City ordinance. In addition, the Pastor has been unwilling to meet
with the large majority of neighbors who have asked to discuss problems the church has generated
in the neighborhood. To help it carry through on its welcome and recently expressed wish to be a
better neighbor, I suggest that for each violation of the CUP, both the Church’s tenant and the
Church be fined a sum that will be a true deterrent, with financial penalties increasing significantly
with each successive violation. I also propose that after three violations of the CUP, a tenant be
required to leave the premises permanently. Finally, I propose that after six violations of the CUP,
the permit be rescinded.
Reevaluation After One Year: The CUP is a document that tries to predict a wide range of future
events and is unlikely to be perfect on the first try. Unforeseen problems may arise either for the
church or for its neighbors and a mechanism should be in place to correct these problems. I
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:00 AM
9
propose that, after one year, the CUP be reevaluated and perhaps amended by the Planning
Department.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Laura Seitel
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:00 AM
10
Carnahan, David
From:John Bender <bender@stanford.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 9:27 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: First Baptist Church Palo Alto
May 9, 2018
To: Palo Alto City Council
RE: First Baptist Church
From: John Bender I have lived for twenty years in house owned on Cowper Street, about four blocks from
First Baptist Church (FBC). In recent years, I have lived in a house we own at Newell
Road and North California. I frequently use that street as route to Alma, which means
that I pass FBC several times each week. I also frequently pass the numerous churches on Middlefield Road between Oregon and
Charleston, some of which seems to house community functions like schools. These
churches are on a busy thoroughfare and most have large off-street parking lots.
I ask that the Council not put FBC in the same category as the Middlefield Road (and other) churches on busy streets. FBC is one of a tiny number of churches in genuinely
residential neighborhoods made up of single-family dwellings.
I know from direct observation, prior to the current moratorium, that the traffic, drop-offs/pick-ups and on-street parking generated by community center activities in the location of FBC both pose danger to bicyclists and pedestrians and is harmful to the
quiet and safety the residents rightly presumed when they purchased their houses.
The model I propose, though it is not a church, is the Gamble Garden Center. In 2017, while planning an event at Gamble, I learned about the tightly drawn rules they must follow. These include stringent limits on the number of events each month and even
more limits on events over 50 people (with an absolute cap at 75). No amplified music
is allowed, and even some specific instruments are banned. Gamble faces private
houses on only two sides—the other sides are Embarcadero, a very high traffic road, and a small park. Yet these limits are deemed appropriate. And, of course, the Gamble property is far larger than that of FBC.
As a citizen and property holder, I argue that the chief activities of churches should be
churchly, most especially in quiet neighborhoods. Please enact permanent rules that keep the events at First Baptist Church within such limits and that secure the peace of its neighbors.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:00 AM
11
Yours truly,
John Bender
2160 Newell Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:01 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jennah Delp <jennah@isingsv.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 2:14 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Owen, Graham; Keene, James
Subject:First Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit
Attachments:iSing_at_FBCPA.pdf
Dear Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Filseth, and Honorable City Council Members,
Thank you for your attention to the the First Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit.
As the Co-Founders and Co-Artistic Directors of iSing Silicon Valley, we are writing to express our strong hope that the
Palo Alto City Council will grant final approval of a Conditional Use Permit for First Baptist Church of Palo Alto (FBCPA), with reasonable and workable conditions that will allow iSing to continue to make FBCPA our home.
Please find the attached presentation, containing these details about iSing:
Our mission and history
Our programs and who we serve
Our concern about issues of concern to some FBCPA neighbors, and our ongoing efforts to mitigate each of
these issues
The usage conditions we need in order to continue to continue to operate at FBCPA, the only venue in our area that can accommodate and support our organization and our programs
As a clarification on conditions, a view of our typical weekly usage of FBCPA facilities
Thank you very much for your consideration,
Jennah Delp-Somers and Shane Troll
Founders, Artistic Directors
--
Jennah Delp-Somers
Artistic Director, Co-Founder iSing Silicon Valley www.isingsv.com
Following iSing on Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter
iSing @ FBCPA
We’re raising our voices to stay at our home @FBCPA
What is iSing?
•ARTS AND CULTURE: an award-winning
choir that champions the voices of
young girls
•COMMUNITY: providing a diverse,
collaborative environment,
empowering girls to excel
•GIRL EMPOWERMENT: fostering self-
confidence and leadership skills for
girls ages 5–18 from varied
socioeconomic backgrounds
A 501(c)(3) non-profit providing:
Est. 2013 Founded as a mission outreach of FBCPA
2014
•iSing raises supplies for local nonprofit organizations 10booksahome
and Standupforkids
2015
•Established iSing @ School to provide music education to girls in
underserved communities
•iSing tours Scandinavia, iSing hosts the Copenhagen Girls’ Choir in Palo Alto2016
•iSing receives the prestigious Chorus America award, recognizing
musical excellence taking place right here in Palo Alto
•iSing commissions musical composition from world-renowned
composer to be premiered at Bing Concert Hall in 2019
•iSing tours Central Europe
2018
•iSing hosts the Norwegian Girlchoir in Palo Alto2017
19%
12%
2%
4%
3%
60%
Palo Alto
Atherton, Woodside
Belmont, San Carlos, San Mateo
Los Gatos, San Jose
Cupertino, Los Altos, Mountain View, Sunnyvale
Menlo Park, Redwood City
Communities served
iSing is a beacon of musical
excellence for 300 girls from across
the Peninsula region. 260 girls call
FBCPA their singing home. 40 girls
are part of iSing’s in-school outreach
program in Redwood City.
Half of our students, 149, and their
families are Palo Alto residents.
40 iSing families are neighbors of
FBCPA, living in 94301. 107 live in
nearby neighborhoods: 94301,
94303, and 94306.
iSing students/ Valley representation
Neighborhood concerns
•Traffic and congestion: Continual pick-up and drop-off of students
throughout the afternoon
•Illegal stopping & safety: Families stopping in inappropriate
locations, sometimes waiting in vehicles
•Nighttime noise: Activities at the church with high noise levels
carrying on into the night
Some of FBCPA’s neighbors have voiced complaints about the church’s
contribution to the following issues:
Several factors other than iSing contributed to these issues, including other
tenants of FBCPA, many of whom have relocated. Upon learning of
neighbor complaints, iSing immediately and voluntarily endeavored to
mitigate concerns.
Addressing concern: Traffic and congestion
iSing voluntarily modified our class schedule to reduce large numbers
of cars in the area at one time. Students are picked up and dropped off
in staggered groupings to eliminate congestion. We also publish a
group carpool list for our families. Many iSing parents utilize carpools.
A closer look at iSing’s schedule
•Wed and Thurs are highest volume rehearsal days, however:
•Drop-off and pick-up occupies a 10–15-minute window, maximum; then
traffic and parked cars are gone
•iSing parents do not wait at the church during class
•Student benefit: This arrangement of classes is calculated to allow for
our older singers to inspire and mentor younger girls through combined
rehearsals
Addressing concern: Parking
iSing published rules to help parents to understand proper parking
protocols and sends regular reminders. Our staff also enforces these rules
during drop off and pick up.
We will continue to refine and communicate this plan and we welcome
the collaborative participation of our neighbors.
Addressing concern: Nighttime noise
Neighbor complaints on record cite noise occurring as late as 11 PM.
iSing has never operated at these hours.
All iSing activities are concluded each evening by 8:30 PM.
iSing seldom uses amplification or loud instruments. Our latest class in the
church sanctuary is inaudible from the street.
Newly installed HVAC in the church fellowship hall allows us to rehearse with
the windows and doors shut.
We further commit to ensuring noise is kept at a minimum by hosting major
concerts offsite and very rarely using amplification.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 8:54 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Tom <Tommartin@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Sunday, May 06, 2018 9:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:train uderground
Dear council members,
I am not able to attend the meeting on May 14th, but would like to say as a 38 year homeowner on
Greer Rd. in Palo Alto that I think you need to spend the money required to do a serious study of all the advantages and disadvantages of a tunnel through Palo Alto. You need to think in terms of the next 100 years and should seek out creative ways of amortizing the financing over 50 years. The
benefits of going underground are more than I could mention here. The major one of course is to
make the city WHOLE and have considerable land with which to do creative things such as address
the affordable housing shortage. And on and on you could list the advantages of tunneling. So,
please spend the money to study the option of a tunnel throughout the boundaries of Palo Alto.
Thank you.
Tom and Debby Martin
--
Tom Martin
Palo Alto, CA
650-857-1339
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:36 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Leon Beeler <leonbeeler@live.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 11:05 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Caltrain Grade Separation
Greetings: I have been a Palo Alto resident for 50 years. I ask you to keep the bored tunnel option open in your
discussions. This will present an opportunity to re‐connect East and West Palo Alto with minimal property taken, and
allow construction without altering existing tracks. This is very important to the long‐term livability of Palo Alto.
Thank You, Leon Beeler
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 1:07 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:YORIKO KISHIMOTO <yoriko12330@icloud.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 11:42 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Mayor Kniss and Honorable City Council members: This is regarding the rail crossing item before you on May 14th. First, thank you for your support of Caltrain’s electrification and modernization so it can carry more of the regional commute demand. That helps all of us. I am writing to urge you to eliminate any wording about any road expansions, currently included in Option 3 and Option 9 for Embarcadero Rd and University Avenue. Over the past twenty years, our city has made the clear policy direction to attempt to reduce the volume and speed of automobile traffic,
not accommodate more, for example:
The new Comp Plan you all approved (thank you!) places its primary emphasis on reducing reliance on single-occupancy vehicles, and making alternatives safer and more attractive. It keeps safety the clear first priority of citywide transportation planning, prioritizing safety over vehicle LOS (level of service).
The City Council and Planning Commission (thank you) also spent much time planning to improving the bike lanes on Embarcadero between Emerson and El Camino so people can bike more safely to Stanford University, Palo Alto High School, Town and Country, and other key destinations.
We want to be known for our iconic tree canopies, not take them down for road widening - the huge stone pine trees on Embarcadero Road and Alma should be kept as a gateway and for providing shade and habitat, not victim to road widening. Although there is also a specific Comp Plan policy to keep existing at-grade crossings (T3.16), I am open to options of closing Churchill and Palo Alto Avenue automobile crossings as long as they do not push around and WORSEN the citywide traffic impacts. Citywide traffic reduction through a citywide
transportation demand management program should be the goal, not widening roads which encourage both MORE traffic and FASTER traffic. More bike/pedestrian only crossings would be wonderful. Since so many residents are relatively new to Palo Alto, perhaps many have forgotten or have never heard of the physical and political schism caused by the
decision to do eminent domain on hundred plus houses and put an expressway in Palo Alto: Oregon Expressway. To this day, it is a physical divide in the city, as much as any rail line, and the bitter politics led in a convoluted way to a recall of the entire city council just as it was undergoing a reduction in council size. We don’t need another Oregon Expressway in Palo Alto. In summary, please strike out the references to any road widening for both Options 3 and 9.
Instead, I urge a city wide funding mechanism of a Transportation Management Association (TMA) to REDUCE citywide traffic volumes as the best way to reduce congestion, not temporary increases in street and intersection capacity which only invite more long term congestion. We need to attack the root of the problem, not enable more of the same problem.
Thank you very much for your service to the city.
Yoriko Kishimoto Former Mayor of Palo Alto Resident, 251 Embarcadero Road yoriko12330@icloud.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:12 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 02, 2018 10:36 PM
To:Architectural Review Board
Cc:Roberta Ahlquist; Cherrill M.; Shelly Kosak; chuck jagoda; Ruth Chippendale; Stephanie
Munoz; Bill Cane; Debbie Mytels; Helen Young; Emer Martin; Elaine Meyer; Samina
Faheem; M. Gallagher; Aram James; Gmail:linzjiang; Paul George @ PPJC; Rosalinda
Quintanar; Sandra Weiss; cherrill@slac.stanford.edu; Beth Rosenthal; David Kwoh; Mary
Dimit; Norman H. Beamer; Carol Scott; Furman, Sheri; Becky Sanders; John Guislin; Reza
Riahi; Allen Akin; Christian Pease; Paul Machado; Karen Machado; Rainer Pitthan; Chris
Donlay; Michael Hodos; Brand, Richard; Tommy Derrick; Glanckopf, Annette;
Markevitch, Pat; Council, City; Bruce Heister; Sue Dremann; Dave Price; Diana Diamond;
Annette Glanckopf; Elaine Uang; John Erving; Kristine Erving; KJ and Fred Kohler; Ray
Dempsey; Mary😂- SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD; Nelson Ng; Rita Vrhel; Keith Bennett
Subject:difficult choices on Hamilton Avenue
Dear Members of the ARB, Several members of our community asked me what I thought about your deliberations on a project
known as 565 Hamilton.
During the past 6 years I have been a neighborhood activist advocating the Residential Parking Program (Downtown RPP). As a result, I frequently monitor parking on residential street faces in approximately one square mile around University Avenue commercial core. Furthermore, I am
extremely involved with University Ave city garage utilization. More recently I have been involved
with commercial parking impact on Evergreen Park, Mayfield, Old Palo Alto, Southgate and Ventura
neighborhoods. To a lesser extent I am familiar with parking and other transition issue around Newell Bridge and Edgewood Plaza. I am aware but uniformed about transition issues for the Midtown neighborhood.
Parking is not my passion. Quality of neighborhoods is my passion. Neighborhoods are housing,
parks, schools and human interaction. Please consider the following:
1. The salient technical issue is transition from the commercial cores to residential
neighborhoods. The current transitions radiating from University Avenue are established, gentle, aesthetic. I can elaborate on details, but I have confidence that you and city staff are well aware of the quality of the primary neighborhoods---Crescent Park, Downtown North, Professorville and
University South. Each of this neighborhoods have unique qualities worthy of your attention. Your
decisions on 565 Hamilton has many implications beyond these four neighborhoods.
2. Non-resident parking outside the commercial core is tightly regulated within the Downtown RPP. If city staff cannot summarize, then residents have excellent objective and subjective data. In fact,
capacity to accommodate additional non-resident vehicles for periods longer than 2 hours is very
limited. City staff has worked very hard to design and manage non-resident parking, but at least two
more years is needed to implement parking management and enforcement systems.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:12 PM
2
3. The salient social issue is housing supply versus job demand. This translates into your ARB
oversight responsibility. How can ARB influence priorities for jobs vs dwellings in our downtown. Therefore, your stewardship is more important than ever for the transition areas between commercial and residential areas.
4. In my opinion, the comprehensive plan provides excellent guidance. City policy and planning
practicalities must address how to promote commerce but not at the expense of residential neighborhoods.
I have lived in downtown Palo Alto for over 20 years. I have never heard a "complaint" about too
much housing. I have heard residents' concerns about too much commercial parking on residential
streets. I hear growing concerns about cut-through traffic rushing through purely residential streets. I have never heard resentment for lower income service or merchant employees parking with permits in Downtown neighborhoods. To be honest, a few neighborhood parking issues persist such as mal-
distribution of non-resident vehicles on some residential street faces. A few neighborhood serving
businesses have access problems for non-resident permits, but those concerns could be addressed
by city staff with new permit management systems pending in the current budget process for next year.
Economic success in this region is certain to aggravate development policies under your
jurisdiction. The proposal at 565 Hamilton is a wonderful learning opportunity for Palo Alto. The 500
block of Hamilton Avenue warrants your highest degree of stewardship.
Thank you.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@gmail.com>
To: Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Cc: Spencer, Cherrill M. <cherrill@slac.stanford.edu>; Shelly Kosak <Shelly.Kosak@gmail.com>;
chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>; Ruth Chippendale <grchippendale@yahoo.com>;
Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com>; Bill Cane <b_cane@yahoo.com>; Debbie Mytels
<dmytels@batnet.com>; Helen Young <Hybj@stanford.edu>; Emer Martin
<martin_emer@hotmail.com>; Elaine Meyer <meyere@concentric.net>; Samina Faheem <samina_faheem@yahoo.com>; M. Gallagher <Writing2win@gmail.com>; Aram James
<abjpd1@gmail.com>; Gmail:linzjiang <linzjiang@gmail.com>; Paul George @ PPJC
<paul@peaceandjustice.org>; Rosalinda Quintanar <rquintanars@yahoo.com>; Sandra Weiss
<Sweiss10@sbcglobal.net>; Jeff <jeff@levinsky.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2018, 5:41:40 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Please send an email tomorrow
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:12 PM
3
Thank you Roberta.... I will send email tonight... Neilson Buchanan
Our Downtown neighborhoods can easily accommodate the concepts you are suggesting. I will also encourage some of my Crescent Park friends who live near this project.
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:46 PM, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:
Hi Friends,
I need folks to flood city hall (emails below). Hope you can send a note of opposition, using any of this info. We need below market rate housing, NOT MORE OFFICE and expensive condos. Architectural Review Bd meets at 8:30 am May 3rd to discuss HUGE 30,000 sq foot development of office and expensive housing(condos probably)w/ underground parking @ 565 Hamilton/Webster. 3 parcels of land, TWO moderate income apt complexes and one single family house, so three parcels from Hamilton to Webster (around the corner, across from First Methodist Church. We need to speak against this as it is totally out of scale, out of context, with the neighborhood. It has no
low income or below market housing, is too dense, and we have just had the City commit to restricting office development.
1. It is way too BIG. Nearly 30, 000 sq feet is more than half the city has committed for office for the entire year. It is not a fit
for the area. It's 'out of context, 'out of scale' with the neighborhood, the sq footage is WAY too big, too much office space and
too much for this block, not enough parking, and it's going to create too much traffic congestion.
2. We have a huge 550 building on Hamilton and a very active church that has ongoing daily meetings. There is limited parking now for all the traffic that these two buildings serve. It will make this corner too congested. It already is congested. 3. There is NO LOW-income or below marking housing as part of the proposal. 4. We need low income, low-low income housing, not housing for the upper class, NOT ANY MORE OFFICE UNTIL HOUSING IS BUILT TO REPLACE IT. Let me know if you can send an email or attend this meeting. Thanks much,If you can attend the 8:30 am Thursday May 3 meeting at city hall, that would be great.
If you can't please send a note of opposition
to Haligh.King@cityofpaloalto. org and cc council which is:
city.council@cityofpaloalto.or g
--
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant St Palo Alto CA 94301
650 329-0484 home
650 537-9611 cell
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 4:56 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Admin <carol.gilbert@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 1:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Dipping into Reserves - Nay Nay
If you really polled the community on what they would like to see, I think you would come up with leave the
reserves left in tact and stop excessive spending that gains us nothing.
o Do not update the council chambers for $2M
o Do not give our extra water away and then increase what we are paying for it.
o When we have any excess, pay down the pension indebtedness.
Do you not see anything ridiculous in how your spending patterns look?!
Carol Gilbert
555 Byron St. #209 Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 9:40 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Neff <robert@neffs.net>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 9:34 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank you for supporting water transfer to EPA
Dear City Council,
Thank you approving the water allocation transfer from Palo Alto to East Palo Alto at the May 7 meeting. This benefits
our region.
‐‐
‐‐ Robert Neff
Emerson Street, Palo Alto.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 9:40 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Peter Phillips <pkphillips@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 9:23 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Palo Alto Transfers Water to East Palo Alto
Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I was not able to watch this portion of the meeting - I received this summary from my good friend Mr Drekmeier and want to applaud and congratulate the Council on your decision, and for being an outstanding
neighbor to the City of East Palo Alto - helping them in their efforts to service more homes and schools.
It is times like this I am proud of our city.
Best Regards,
- Peter Phillips
434 Guinda St
Palo Alto
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Peter Drekmeier <peter@tuolumne.org> Date: Tue, May 8, 2018 at 9:04 AM
Subject: Palo Alto Transfers Water to East Palo Alto
To: Peter Drekmeier <peter@tuolumne.org>
Friends,
Last night the Palo Alto City Council voted 7-1 to transfer a small portion of it’s water allocation — 0.5 million gallons per day (MGD) — to the City of East Palo Alto. TRT has been working on this issue for more than three years, and we were pleased by the decision.
Despite having the lowest per capita water use in the region, East Palo Alto had constantly bumped up against its individual supply guarantee (ISG) (amount of water it is entitled to purchase from the SFPUC) of 2 MGD. Meanwhile, Palo Alto’s ISG was established at 17 MGD, but the City used only 10 MGD last year, and projections suggest demand will remain at 10 MGD in 2040.
Last year the City of Mountain View agreed to sell 1 MGD of its ISG to East Palo Alto, which raised the question as to why Palo Alto was giving East Palo Alto a share of its water allocation versus selling it. The answer is that Mountain View has a minimum purchase
agreement with the SFPUC, and when they are below it, they have to pay a penalty. Mountain View has done a great job at conserving water — and in fact was a Silicon Valley Water Conservation Award winner this year — so they’re expecting to pay the penalty for the next several years. The funds they received from East Palo Alto will help cover this cost for the next three years or so.
Palo Alto has no such minimum purchase requirement, so it has had the luxury of holding on to its extra water allocation without having to pay for it. Yesterday’s gift to East Palo Alto will have no economic impact on Palo Alto, and will help correct an injustice created
decades ago when the BAWSCA member agencies divvied up their overall allocation from the SFPUC. It essentially gave East Palo Alto the ability to purchase slightly more water from the SFPUC. The water transfer now enables East Palo Alto to move forward with projects to build affordable housing, which is desperately needed on the Peninsula, and a school. We are very pleased that Palo Alto was a good neighbor and helped make this possible. If you would like to thank the Palo Alto City Council, you can send an email to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org. Many thanks to those of you who supported this cause.
-Peter
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 9:40 AM
3
-----------------------
Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director
Tuolumne River Trust
peter@tuolumne.org
(415) 882-7252
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 9:40 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Virginia Tincher <vatincher@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 9:18 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank You for Water Allocation to East Palo Alto
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
Thank you for transferring a portion of Palo Alto’s water allocation to the city of East Palo. It is the fair action based on
the past inequality of water allocation.
Regards,
Virginia Tincher
879 Garland Drive
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 9:44 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jennifer Heit <jenufa2@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 9:44 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank you
Thank you for sharing water with East Palo Alto. I know this was a very involved situation...thank you for your
inclusiveness.
Jennifer Heit
Tuolumne River Trust member
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 1:07 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeralyn Moran <jeralyn.moran@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 11:01 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Water from Palo Alto to East Palo Alto
Dear Council members,
Thank you for your decision to share some of Palo Alto's water allocation with our
neighboring city - this is much needed, helping free up plans to build more (much
needed as you know!) affordable housing in this area.
Sincerely,
Jeralyn Moran
-- jeralyn.moran@gmail.com
..... the Time for Climate Action Is Now.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 1:07 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:promiserani <promiserani@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 10:58 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Water allocation
Thank you so much for gifting a portion of Palo Alto's water to East Palo Alto. I am proud to be part of a kind
community!
rani Jayakumar
Do not be dismayed by the brokenness of the world. All things break. And all things can be mended. Not with time, as
they say, but with intention. So go. Love intentionally, extravagantly, unconditionally. The broken world waits in darkness for the light that is you. - L.R.Knost
http://www.karnatik.com
http://www.transitionpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 1:07 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:John Fredrich <jkfredrich@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 10:14 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:water for EPA
Congratulations and Thank You,
for getting the deal right on water
for the people of East Palo Alto.
Our resources need to be managed
and shared with others ...
stewardship and generosity go
together.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 1:07 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Pat Kinney <pkinney48235@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 10:04 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank you for transferring some water allocation to East Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 1:07 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:jean.c.roth@gmail.com on behalf of Jean Roth <jean.roth@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 9:56 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank you!
I was very pleased to read that the Palo Alto City Council voted to share their extra water with the city of East
Palo Alto. Thank you all for making this wise decision. Jean Roth
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:01 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Bruce Karney <bkarney@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 1:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thumbs up for water transfer to East Palo Alto
I'm very pleased that Palo Alto has shared some of its water allocation with EPA.
Cheers, Bruce Karney
Mountain View resident & former East Palo Alto resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:01 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Marty Mackowski <vistamartym@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 2:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:water
Thanks for your gift of water to EPA. It will be fantastic if they build some affordable housing with
the new allocation.
Sincerely,
Marty Mackowski
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:01 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:JIM POPPY <jamespoppy@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 3:19 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank you Councilmembers Kou and Holman for speaking up for affordable housing
PA City Council,
You may be able to fool most of the people most of the time. Apparently, that's what you count on when you wave the red herring of affordable housing then turn around and deny housing for people with lower income.
Councilmember Kou was precisely on point with her eloquent statement in voting against item 6.
Thank you for putting it on the record.
Jim Poppy
135 Melville Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:01 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Horstmeyer <rhorstmeyer@growthpointpartners.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 3:46 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Water Rights Gift to EPA
Hello:
I was at the City Council meeting Monday night May 7, 2018. I arrived at 7:30 to hear about what Palo Alto will do to get
the FAA or SFO to reduce jet noise. I sat with 55 to 60 others (who apparently arrived on time) until 8:45 to hear about
the jet noise issue.
But while I was waiting; there was an interesting discussion about giving EPA water rights that are owned by Palo Alto.
Several speakers said the water rights were free and that Palo Alto had excess water allocations that we don’t need and
won’t ever have need for. So we are just going to give EPA the rights. I found that odd as we have been told so many
times about how rare and precious water is in California and that we need to conserve. I also see my water bill has
increased again.
Only one speaker said something about the value of the water rights. As I heard, he said:
1. The water rights are worth $2,500,000.
2. Mountain View would not give their water rights away for nothing in return
3. The beneficiaries of the water rights are the developers in East Palo Alto.
Notably, the next agenda item was about grant funding for some projects in Palo Alto and there was back and forth and
concerns about $2,000 being spent in the appropriate manner.
I found this odd. That the City Council can be concerned about a $2,000 expenditure while giving away something worth
$2,500,000.
I was looking through the Palo Alto Municipal Code to try to understand how the City can just give away its property. I
don’t see where the City Council is authorized to do that.
Can you tell me where the authorization is located for the City Council to give away City assets?
Thanks in advance,
Bob Horstmeyer
Robert Horstmeyer
Managing Director
office: +1 (650) 322‐1859
mobile: +1 (650) 714‐6476
rhorstmeyer@growthpointpartners.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:01 AM
5
The information in this email may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended for the named recipients only. If you are not the addressee
indicated in this message, please do not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, destroy this message and notify us immediately by replying to this email
or by calling us directly, in the U.S. at +1‐650‐322‐2500.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:01 AM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Stephen Branz <stephen.branz@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 5:09 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Emily Young; Peter Drekmeier
Subject:Fwd: Palo Alto Transfers Water to East Palo Alto
Date: 8 May 2018
To: Palo Alto City Council
From: Steve Branz & Emily Young, 402 El Verano Ave, Palo Alto
Re: Palo Alto Transfers Water to East Palo Alto My wife and I are very pleased with the transfer of water allocation to East Palo Alto (described below). This is
a win-win no matter how we look at it. We Palo Alto residents need to find more ways to work cooperatively
with our neighbors to address regional problems.
Thanks! Steve & Emily
cc: Peter Drekmeier
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Peter Drekmeier <peter@tuolumne.org> Date: Tue, May 8, 2018 at 9:05 AM Subject: Palo Alto Transfers Water to East Palo Alto
To: Peter Drekmeier <peter@tuolumne.org>
Friends,
Last night the Palo Alto City Council voted 7-1 to transfer a small portion of it’s water allocation — 0.5 million gallons per day (MGD) — to the City of East Palo Alto. TRT has been working on this issue for more than three years, and we were pleased by the decision.
Despite having the lowest per capita water use in the region, East Palo Alto had constantly bumped up against its individual supply guarantee (ISG) (amount of water it is entitled to purchase from the SFPUC) of 2 MGD. Meanwhile, Palo Alto’s ISG was established at 17 MGD, but the City used only 10 MGD last year, and projections suggest demand will remain at 10 MGD in 2040.
Last year the City of Mountain View agreed to sell 1 MGD of its ISG to East Palo Alto, which raised the question as to why Palo Alto was giving East Palo Alto a share of its water allocation versus selling it. The answer is that Mountain View has a minimum purchase agreement with the SFPUC, and when they are below it, they have to pay a penalty. Mountain View has done a great job at conserving water — and in fact was a Silicon Valley Water Conservation Award winner this year — so they’re expecting to pay the penalty for the
next several years. The funds they received from East Palo Alto will help cover this cost for the next three years or so. Palo Alto has no such minimum purchase requirement, so it has had the luxury of holding on to its extra water allocation without having
to pay for it. Yesterday’s gift to East Palo Alto will have no economic impact on Palo Alto, and will help correct an injustice created decades ago when the BAWSCA member agencies divvied up their overall allocation from the SFPUC. It essentially gave East Palo Alto the ability to purchase slightly more water from the SFPUC.
The water transfer now enables East Palo Alto to move forward with projects to build affordable housing, which is desperately needed on the Peninsula, and a school. We are very pleased that Palo Alto was a good neighbor and helped make this possible. If you would
like to thank the Palo Alto City Council, you can send an email to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org. Many thanks to those of you who supported this cause.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:01 AM
7
-Peter -----------------------
Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director
Tuolumne River Trust
peter@tuolumne.org
(415) 882-7252
-- Stephen E. Branz, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemistry
FORMER Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies
contact Dr. Wendy Ng, the new Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies San José State University San José, CA 95192-0030
Personal Office: Administration 106
GUP Office: Administration 159
phone: 408-924-2443 (rarely accessed; e-mail strongly preferred) fax: 408-924-2444 e-mail: stephen.branz@sjsu.edu
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:01 AM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Anne Galli <annegalli316@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 7:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:thanks for sharing
Thanks for sharing water with E Palo Alto.
Anne Galli
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:01 AM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Anne Schmitt <schmitta@pacbell.net>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 8:07 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Water to EPA
A BIG thank you for sending water to EPA. We have much good fortune on this side of the freeway. Keep up the good
work to reduce social inequity!
Anne Schmitt
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:01 AM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Linda <redwoodlinda@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 9:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Sharing water
Thank you for sharing water with East Palo Alto. That is a good thing. That will help with housing and a school.
Linda Cohen Menlo Park ( formerly 30 years in Palo Alto)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 9:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Neff <rmrneff@sonic.net>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 8:01 AM
To:Transportation; PABAC
Cc:Mello, Joshuah; Planning Commission; Council, City
Subject:Final draft of county bike plan released
Hello Palo Alto Transportation Staff and PABAC,
cc: PTC and City Council,
(As Palo Alto VTA BPAC (Bike/Ped Advisory committee) representative, what communication channels should I be
using? I know I'm to make a monthly report to PABAC, but PABAC's connection back to governance in Palo Alto is as
advisory to staff, so should I send regular updates to Council? To PTC? To transportation@cpa or ??. I am cc'ing PTC
and council here.)
VTA just released the final draft of the County Bicycle Plan. See www.vta.org/bikeplan
As your representative on the VTA BPAC, I am interested in hearing any of your feedback before the BPAC meeting on
Wednesday evening, though my expectations is that this will be approved by the VTA board with minimal change in
June.
The focus is on development of Priority Cross‐County Bicycle Connections, as "bicycle superhighways", and tabulates
these as well as locations for Across Barrier Connections (ABCs). In the executive summary available on the site is a map
of the Priority CCBCs. Also the system priority has shifted to a connected network of low stress routes, instead of just
miles of bike lanes.
In Palo Alto and nearby the plan identifies these Priority CCBCs: (West to East on the map:)
Sand Hill Road
Junipero Serra / Foothill
Bol Park Path connecting to Matadero/Marguerite (but not to Stanford) and Loma Verde.
Casti'/Park/Wilkie
Bryant/Bryant Extension (Connecting to Central in MV) East Bayshore /Geng / Baylands path to EPA Channing Homer
from 101 to Alma.
ABCs and other notes:
The plan recognizes a need for an across barrier connection of CalTrain at Seale/Stanford, but does not include either
Everett or Loma Verde on the same list.
The plan mentions a "proposed crossing of 101 between Embarcadero and University" and does not seem to realize that
there is construction happening now, but that is in San Mateo County, so I will ask for an explanation.
Since I ride on expressway shoulders as bikeways, I am a bit miffed at the exclusion of the 2012 VTA BTG as a technical
guide, while the ancient and creaky 2003 County Highway Design Manual is indicated as a reference source. (Basically I
don't want to see VTA continue using a guide that indicate that 5‐6 foot bike lanes are "good enough" for new designs
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 9:42 AM
2
on expressways and >35 mph streets.) Maybe the solution is to ask for an update to the county HDM, and let the VTA
BTG be superseeded by other, newer sources like the NACTO guide.
Thank you for letting me serve.
Robert Neff
Palo Alto VTA‐BPAC representative.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:16 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:PHCDIP <PHCDIP@PHD.SCCGOV.ORG>
Sent:Friday, May 04, 2018 12:13 PM
To:Daligga, Edward (Teddy)
Cc:Broderick, Bonnie; Jones, Laura
Subject:Healthy Cities - May 2018 Newsletter
Attachments:2018 Healthy Cities Dashboard Highlighted.pdf; 2018 Healthy Cities Criteria.pdf
May 2018
Updated 2018 Dashboard | Tobacco‐Free Communities Funding Announcement | Bike to Work Day Swag for Your City
Refreshed Healthy Cities Dashboard for 2018
Based on feedback we received from cities and towns over the last two years, the Santa Clara Department of Public
Health has modified the Healthy Cities Dashboard for 2018. While most of the changes are modest and meant to help
with clarity and organization, a few notable changes to the Dashboard include:
Strategies that are NEW
NACTO Street Design Guidelines
Climate Action Plan
Strategies and criteria that have been UPDATED
Complete Streets
Bike and/or Walk Friendly Designation
Workplace Wellness Policies
Water Access Policy
Strategies that have been REMOVED
Bike Parking Near Public Facilities
Pedestrian, Bike, and/or Transit‐Oriented Facilities
Shower Facilities for Employees who Walk or Bike to Work
Install Water Bottle Filling Stations
Want to boost your 2018 Dashboard? Would you like more information or technical assistance on any specific
policies? Let us know.
Active & Safe Communities ‐ Alice.Kawaguchi@phd.sccgov.org
Healthy Food & Beverage Environments ‐ Laura.Jones@phd.sccgov.org
Tobacco‐Free Communities ‐ Nicole.Coxe@phd.sccgov.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:16 PM
2
Cross‐Cutting Strategies ‐ Edward.Daligga@phd.sccgov.org
See the attached template Dashboard and Criteria document with changes highlighted. Have questions or suggestions
related to the 2018 Dashboard? Please email Edward.Daligga@phd.sccgov.org.
Funding Announcement: Tobacco‐Free Communities
In 2016, California voters approved Proposition 56, increasing the tax on cigarettes by $2.00 with an equivalent tax on
other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes containing nicotine. With these increased tax revenues, the Santa Clara
County Public Health Department plans to release a funding opportunity for cities in Santa Clara County to implement
priority tobacco prevention strategies aligned with the Healthy Cities Program. High priority strategies include:
Reducing secondhand smoke exposure through implementation of smoke‐free multi‐unit housing
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:16 PM
3
Reducing youth access and exposure to tobacco products through flavored tobacco restrictions
Limitations on where tobacco products can be sold in the community (i.e. Near schools, community centers,
etc.)
More info to come in late spring/early summer. Until then, contact us with recommendations for us to consider as we
prepare for release of the funding. Please contact Joyce Villalobos at the Tobacco‐Free Communities Program at
joyce.villalobos@phd.sccgov.org.
Bike to Work Day Swag for your City
Next week Thursday, May 10 is National Bike to Work Day. Interested in picking up some free Bike to Work Day swag* to
distribute in your city? Contact Teddy Daligga by Tuesday, May 8 at 408‐793‐2737.
To find energizer stations or for more information about Bike to Work Day 2018, please visit
https://bikesiliconvalley.org/btwd.
*supplies are limited
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:16 PM
4
If you would like to stop receiving Healthy Cities Program newsletters, please click this link and hit send.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:16 PM
5
NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted.
It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized
recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error,
please notify the sender by return email.
p.1 Updated May 3, 2018
Healthy Cities Program – 2018 Policy and Practice Strategies Criteria
ACTIVE & SAFE COMMUNITIES
Policies and strategies that promote active and safe communities focus on getting our residents and visitors out of their
cars and engaged in physical activity and active transportation (e.g. walking, biking, or using public transportation). For
more information on any of the Active & Safe Communities strategies, please contact Alice Kawaguchi at
Alice.Kawaguchi@phd.sccgov.org.
Promote Healthy Recreation & Transportation
Strategy Criteria to Earn a Check or Star
Vision Zero Plan To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt a Vision Zero Plan or strategies (e.g. within City
General Plan) that at a minimum:
Sets a clear goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries;
Has the public endorsement and commitment of the Mayor/elected official(s);
Establishes a clear time frame; and
Engages key city departments (Police Department, Department of Transportation, and
Public Health).
Complete Streets To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt a Complete Streets Resolution or Complete Streets
language in its General Plan. A jurisdiction may earn a star if its Complete Streets policy
includes all 10 policy elements as outlined by the National Complete Streets Coalition. For
more information visit the Complete Streets Coalition website:
https://smartgrowthamerica.org/resources/elements-complete-streets-policy.
Adopt NACTO Street
Design Guidelines
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt National Association of City Transportation
Officials (NACTO) street design guidelines to inform innovative street design that supports
traffic calming and promotes walking, bicycling, and use of public transit.
Bike/Ped/Trails Master
Plan
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt a bicycle, pedestrian, and/or trails master plan to
make biking and walking more safe, comfortable, convenient, and/or enjoyable for all
community members.
Parks and Rec Master
Plan
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt a parks and/or recreation master plan that guides
maintenance and environmental, recreational, and programming work in parks, and that
establishes priorities for future park renovations and facility improvements.
Achieve Bike and/or
Walk Friendly
Designation
To earn a check a jurisdiction must have received a minimum of a Bronze-level Bicycle
Friendly Community designation (from the League of American Bicyclists) in the previous
four years OR a minimum of a Bronze-level Walk Friendly Community designation (from the
University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center). A jurisdiction may earn a star
if it was earned and maintains BOTH a Bike-Friendly and Walk-Friendly designation.
p.2 Updated May 3, 2018
Strategy Criteria to Earn a Check or Star
Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) Resolution
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt a SRTS Resolution that addresses the acceptance
of federal or state SRTS funding. A jurisdiction may earn a star if its SRTS Resolution
commits to a comprehensive Safe Routes to School Program (as described and developed by
the National Center for Safe Routes to School and Santa Clara County). For more
information visit https://www.saferoutespartnership.org/resources/toolkit/building-
momentum-safe-routes-school-momentum -safe-routes-school.
Multi-Disciplinary SRTS
Collaborative/Task
Force
To earn a check:
Representatives from the city engineering and law enforcement department must
participate in regular multi-disciplinary SRTS Collaborative meetings which include
school and community/parent partners.; and
The SRTS Collaborative must address education, encouragement, enforcement,
engineering, evaluation.
A jurisdiction may earn a star if it meets the above criteria AND:
City staff OR an independent SRTS non-profit (i.e. NOT the County Public Health
Department) lead and provide administrative support for regular SRTS Collaborative
meetings.
Dedicated SRTS and/or
Bike/Ped Coordinator
To earn a check a jurisdiction must have a SRTS Coordinator and/or Bicycle and Pedestrian
Coordinator, available through temporary or short-term grant, who coordinates SRTS
education, encouragement and evaluation strategies with the city traffic
engineer/infrastructure, and law enforcement. A jurisdiction may earn a star if
the SRTS Coordinator and/or Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator is city-funded or funded
through long-term source (such as 2016 Measure B); OR
an independent non-profit SRTS has been created to coordinate the SRTS infrastructure
and non-infrastructure programming on a city-wide scale.
Conduct Annual
Assessment of Student
Travel Mode
In order for a jurisdiction to earn a check, student travel mode data (e.g. walking, biking,
carpool, etc.) must be collected within the jurisdiction on an annual basis.
Support Healthy Commutes
Strategy Criteria to Earn a Check or Star
Incentives for Use of
Public Transit and
Ridesharing to Work
To earn a check a jurisdiction must offer its employees financial or other incentives to use
public transportation or ridesharing to commute to and from work.
Incentives for Walking
and/or Biking
To earn a check a jurisdiction must offer its employees financial or other incentives to walk
or bike to and from work.
Transportation Demand
Management Policies
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt and implement Transportation Demand
Management policies to discourage employees and residents from driving (e.g. fees to park)
and encourage alternate forms of transportation.
p.3 Updated May 3, 2018
Healthy Food & Beverage Environments
Policies and strategies that promote healthy food and beverage environments focus on reducing access and
consumption of unhealthy food and beverage and increasing access to healthy food and beverages. For more
information on any of the Healthy Food & Beverage Environments strategies, please contact Laura Jones at
Laura.Jones@phd.sccgov.org.
Reduce Exposure to Sugary Drinks
Strategy Criteria to Earn a Check or Star
Require Healthy
Beverages with
Restaurant Kids’ Meals
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt an ordinance requiring restaurants with kids’
meals to offer water or plain milk as the default beverage option for kids.
Require Warning Labels
on Sugary Drink
Advertisements
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt an ordinance requiring health warnings on all
advertisements within city limits that promote sugary drinks (including billboards and any
signage larger than a certain size).
Resolution to Decline
Fund and Gifts from the
Beverage Industry
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt a resolution to not accept any funds or donations
from the beverage industry.
Propose a Tax on Sugary
Drinks
To earn a check a jurisdiction must propose adopting a tax on sugary drinks.
Increase Healthy Food & Water Access
Strategy Criteria to Earn a Check or Star
Procurement Standards
for City-Sponsored
Meetings and
Celebrations
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt written standards that address require healthy at
least some of the food and beverages served at meetings and celebrations meet specific
nutritional criteria (and that do not meet model criteria below). A jurisdiction may earn a
star if the adopted written standards require all (100%) of the beverages served and sold at
meetings and celebrations to be healthy and that no less than half (50%) of the food served
and sold at meetings , events and celebrations to be healthy (details on what food and
beverages are “healthy” are available upon request).
Procurement Standards
for City-Sponsored
Events
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt written standards that address healthy food and
beverages served at events (and that do not meet model criteria below). A jurisdiction may
earn a star if the written standards require all (100%) of the beverages served and sold at
events to be healthy and that no less than half (50%) of the food served and sold at events
to be healthy (details available upon request).
Procurement Standards
for Vending on City
Properties
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt written standards that address healthy food and
beverages sold in vending machines (and that do not meet model criteria below). A
jurisdiction may earn a star if the written standards require all (100%) of the food and
beverages sold in vending machines to be healthy (details available upon request).
Procurement Standards
for City-Sponsored
Programming
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt written standards that address healthy food and
beverages served during City-run adult and youth-based programming (and that do not
meet model criteria below). A jurisdiction may earn a star if the written standards require
all (100%) of the beverages for City-Run Adult- and Youth-Based Programming to be healthy
and at least half (50%) of the food for City-Run Adult- and Youth-Based Programming to be
healthy (details available upon request).
p.4 Updated May 3, 2018
Strategy Criteria to Earn a Check or Star
Procurement Standards
for City-Run Food
Establishments
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt written standards that address healthy food and
beverages sold in City-run cafes, cafeterias, snack shacks, and kiosks, and that do not meet
model criteria. A jurisdiction may earn a star if the written standards require at least half
(50%) of the beverages and food sold in cafeterias, snack bars, and other purchase points to
be healthy (details available upon request).
Water Access Policy To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt a policy mandating the installation of water bottle
filling stations in publicly accessible areas whenever significant improvements are made to
city properties. A jurisdiction may earn a star if it can demonstrate it has installed water
bottle filling stations at publicly accessible city properties (e,g, City Hall, Libraries,
Community Centers, Parks and Playgrounds, etc.).
Maintain Community
Gardens on City
Property/Parks
To earn a check a jurisdiction must maintain or support community gardens on city
properties.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 8:53 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Terry Martin <tmartin@wynnmartin.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 06, 2018 7:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:How can you destroy our City?
I have been a Palo Alto Resident since 1969 and homeowner since 1977.
I have never missed voting in an election, however, I have never voted for a City Council member. Up to now, there were
more important things to do than take the time to become an informed voter in City matters.
I became resigned to the decay of City management over the last two decades, poor city manager leadership, and the
lack of technical skill in the utility department.
I became resigned to my tax dollars being wasted, but I can no longer stand by and watch misguided government
compromise the safety of my neighborhood!
The Ross Road redesign is so ineptly engineered that I believe it rises to a criminal disregard for the safety of residents in
general, and bicyclists in particular.
I therefore pledge to become intensely active in City elections and to vigorously oppose unworthy candidates. In this
endeavor, I respectfully ask for your help. I ask if you can identify the list of all City officials who approved the Ross Road
bicycle project. I also ask for a list of anyone who voted against the project.
Terry Martin Ph.D.
Engineering Physicist, Stanford University, Retired
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 8:54 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Charles Ferring <cferring@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 06, 2018 10:04 PM
To:Mello, Joshuah; Council, City; board@pausd.org; khendricks@pausd.org; Keene, James;
Moore, Christopher; Young, Bradley; Jonsen, Robert
Subject:Embarcadero/Middlefield Intersection Still Exhibits Unsafe Issues to Our Children
Distinguished City Council and Staff and PAUSD Staff, Administration and Board Members,
We, the residents whose children attend Walter Hays Elementary School, want to thank you for your efforts in
protecting the safety of our children. We are heartened to see you assign a police officer to help with crossings in the
morning at our intersection. His presence has been a great addition to keeping traffic in line, as well as helping to direct
students and cyclists.
However, it is not enough. The remaining issues are:
1. We need a second crossing guard in the afternoons when school lets out. The same issues exist at that time where for
approximately 30 min in/around 3pm, there is heavy foot and cyclist traffic of our young students crossing the
intersection.
2. The painting of the lines makes everything prettier, but it is not enough. Cars are still making turns in front of
pedestrians and cyclists waiting there. The only thing preventing them from doing that right now is the presence of an
actual police officer directing traffic, and the threat of an actual citation.
3. The smaller SW and NE corners are still overflowing pedestrians and cyclists onto the street during the busy crossing
times. This is unsafe and unacceptable.
4. We desperately need the diagonal crossing light sequence back as soon as possible. Given the small size of the SW and
NE crossings, this intersection is not built for a 2 step crossing. This must be remedied at once to protect our children.
Remember that this is an elementary school. These are children aged 5 to 10 years old! They cannot be expected to have
the same attention nor capabilities of older children nor adults. But yet we have made the crossing at a busy street more
complex and unsafe for them.
We applaud the recent efforts but we still have many days of school left. We urge City Staff and Council to re‐institute
the diagonal crossing light sequence at once for the safety of our young elementary aged children.
Respectfully signed,
Charles Ferring
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 8:55 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Amy Darling <amywdarling@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 06, 2018 10:18 PM
To:Mello, Joshuah; Council, City; Keene, James; Moore, Christopher; Young, Bradley;
Jonsen, Robert
Subject:IMMEDIATE ATTENTION NEEDED AT MIDDLEFIELD/EMBARCADERO INTERSECTION
FOR SAFETY OF YOUNG CHILDREN
Distinguished City Council and Staff,
As a parent at Walter Hays Elementary School, I was pleased with for your efforts in protecting the safety of our children. Assigning a police
officer to help with crossings in the morning at our intersection has been helpful, but it is not enough. These issues need to be made urgently.
Please do not delays that a child needs to be hurt before you make the changes that we know will make the children safer. The remaining issues are:
1. We need a second crossing guard in the afternoons when school lets out. The same issues exist at that time where for approximately 30 min in/around 3pm, there is heavy foot and cyclist traffic of our young students crossing the intersection.
2. The painting of the lines makes everything prettier, but it is not enough. Cars are still making turns in front of pedestrians and cyclists waiting there. The only thing preventing them from doing that right now is the presence of an actual police officer directing traffic, and the threat of an actual citation.
3. The smaller SW and NE corners are still overflowing pedestrians and cyclists onto the street during the busy crossing times. This is unsafe and unacceptable.
4. We desperately need the diagonal crossing light sequence back as soon as possible. Given the small size of the SW and NE
crossings, this intersection is not built for a 2 step crossing. This must be remedied at once to protect our children.
Remember that this is an elementary school. These are children aged 5 to 10 years old! They cannot be expected to have the same attention nor capabilities of older children nor adults. But yet we have made the crossing at a busy street more complex and unsafe for them.
We applaud the recent efforts but we still have many days of school left. We urge City Staff and Council to re-institute the diagonal crossing light sequence immediately for the safety of our young elementary aged children.
Respectfully signed,
Amy Darling
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 8:54 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Christina Passariello <christina.passariello@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 06, 2018 10:13 PM
To:Mello, Joshuah; Council, City; Keene, James; Moore, Christopher; Young, Bradley;
Jonsen, Robert
Subject:Middlefield/Embarcadero crossing
Distinguished City Council and Staff and PAUSD Staff, Administration and Board Members,
We, the residents whose children attend Walter Hays Elementary School, want to thank you for your efforts in protecting the safety of our children. We are heartened to see you assign a police officer to help with crossings in the morning at our intersection. His presence has been a great addition to keeping traffic in line, as well as helping to direct students and cyclists.
However, it is not enough. The remaining issues are:
1. We need a second crossing guard in the afternoons when school lets out. The same issues exist at that time where for approximately 30 min in/around 3pm, there is heavy foot and cyclist traffic of our young students crossing the intersection.
2. The painting of the lines makes everything prettier, but it is not enough. Cars are still making turns in front of pedestrians and cyclists waiting there. The only thing preventing them from doing that right now is the presence of an actual police officer directing traffic, and the threat of an actual citation.
3. The smaller SW and NE corners are still overflowing pedestrians and cyclists onto the street during the busy crossing times.
This is unsafe and unacceptable.
4. We desperately need the diagonal crossing light sequence back as soon as possible. Given the small size of the SW
and NE crossings, this intersection is not built for a 2 step crossing. This must be remedied at once to protect our
children.
Remember that this is an elementary school. These are children aged 5 to 10 years old! They cannot be expected to
have the same attention nor capabilities of older children nor adults. But yet we have made the crossing at a busy
street more complex and unsafe for them.
We applaud the recent efforts but we still have many days of school left. We urge City Staff and Council to re-institute the diagonal crossing light sequence at once for the safety of our young elementary aged children.
Respectfully signed, Christina Passariello
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:32 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lakshmi Raj <lakshmi@replicon.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 11:53 AM
To:Mello, Joshuah; Council, City; Keene, James; Moore, Christopher; Young, Bradley;
Jonsen, Robert
Subject:Walter Hays Elementary School Intersection Crossings
Distinguished City Council and Staff,
We, the residents whose children attend Walter Hays Elementary School, want to thank you for your efforts in protecting the safety of our children. We are heartened to see you assign a police officer to help with crossings in the morning at our intersection. His presence has been a great addition to keeping traffic in line, as well as helping to direct students and cyclists.
However, it is not enough. The remaining issues are:
1. We need a second crossing guard in the afternoons when school lets out. The same issues exist at that time where for approximately 30 min in/around 3 pm, there is a heavy foot and cyclist traffic of our young students crossing the intersection.
2. The painting of the lines makes everything prettier, but it is not enough. Cars are still making turns in front of pedestrians and cyclists waiting there. The only thing preventing them from doing that right now is the presence of an actual police officer directing traffic, and the threat of an actual citation.
3. The smaller NW and SE corners are still overflowing pedestrians and cyclists onto the street during the busy crossing times.
This is unsafe and unacceptable.
4. We desperately need the diagonal crossing light sequence back as soon as possible. Given the small size of the SW and NE
crossings, this intersection is not built for a 2 step crossing. This must be remedied at once to protect our children.
Remember that this is an elementary school. These are children aged 5 to 10 years old! They cannot be expected to have the
same attention nor capabilities of older children nor adults. But yet we have made the crossing at a busy street more complex and unsafe for them.
We applaud the recent efforts but we still have many days of school left. We urge City Staff and Council to re-institute the diagonal crossing light sequence at once for the safety of our young elementary aged children.
Respectfully signed, Lakshmi Raj
--
Lakshmi Raj | Co-CEO | Phone
1-650-286-9200
(ext. 7174)
| Fax 1-650-286-9229
Replicon | Hassle-Free Time & Expense Management Software - 7,300 Customers - 70 Countries www.replicon.com | facebook | twitter | blog | contact us
We are hiring! | search jobs
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:32 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Mukul Gupta <mukulgupta2@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 11:37 AM
To:Mello, Joshuah; Council, City; Keene, James; Moore, Christopher; Young, Bradley;
Jonsen, Robert
Cc:Rashi Singhal
Subject:Embarcadero/Middlefield Intersection Still Exhibits Unsafe Issues to Our Children
Distinguished City Council and Staff and PAUSD Staff, Administration and Board Members,
We, the residents whose children attend Walter Hays Elementary School, want to thank you for your efforts in protecting the safety of our children. We are heartened to see you assign a police officer to help with crossings in the morning at our intersection. His presence has been a great addition to keeping traffic in line, as well as helping to direct students and cyclists.
However, it is not enough. The remaining issues are:
1. We need a second crossing guard in the afternoons when school lets out. The same issues exist at that time where for approximately 30 min in/around 3pm, there is heavy foot and cyclist traffic of our young students crossing the intersection.
2. The painting of the lines makes everything prettier, but it is not enough. Cars are still making turns in front of pedestrians and cyclists waiting there. The only thing preventing them from doing that right now is the presence of an actual police officer directing traffic, and the
threat of an actual citation.
3. The smaller NW and SE corners are still overflowing pedestrians and cyclists onto the street during the busy crossing times. This is unsafe
and unacceptable.
4. We desperately need the diagonal crossing light sequence back as soon as possible. Given the small size of the SW and NE crossings, this intersection is not built for a 2 step crossing. This must be remedied at once to protect our children. Remember that this is an elementary school. These are children aged 5 to 10 years old! They cannot be expected to have the same attention nor capabilities of older children nor adults. But yet we have made the crossing at a busy street more complex and unsafe for them.
We applaud the recent efforts but we still have many days of school left. We urge City Staff and Council to re-institute the diagonal crossing light sequence at once for the safety of our young elementary aged children.
>>>
It has become quite unsafe for kids to cross while traffic is live at the intersection. Especially the situations of "right turns". Kids may come running / rushing / biking to cross intersection while some car is trying to take the
right turn.These are elementary school kids who don't necessarily see gravity of this particular situation as it is
their school intersection. If a car doesn't take right turn to be extra safe, then the whole right-turn option pretty
much become non-existent.
I personally saw one incident where an angry parent was banging the car that took the right-turn just after kids
crossed. That car wasn't at fault as right-turn was allowed but its combination with young kids - made it very
scary and unsafe for everyone.
>>>
Respectfully signed, Mukul Gupta
252 Seale Ave,
Palo Alto
(Parent of Elementary Kid in Walter Hays)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:32 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Laurel Robinson <laurel@serenogroup.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 11:17 AM
To:Mello, Joshuah; Council, City; Keene, James; Moore, Christopher; Young, Bradley;
Jonsen, Robert
Subject:Embarcadero/Middlefield Intersection - Walter Hays Crossing
Distinguished City Council and Staff, We, the residents whose children attend Walter Hays Elementary School, want to thank you for your efforts in
protecting the safety of our children. We are heartened to see you assign a police officer to help with crossings in the morning at our intersection. His presence has been a great addition to keeping traffic in line, as well as
helping to direct students and cyclists.
However, it is not enough. The remaining issues are:
1. We need a second crossing guard in the afternoons when school lets out. The same issues exist at that time
where for approximately 30 min in/around 3pm, there is heavy foot and cyclist traffic of our young students crossing the intersection.
2. The painting of the lines makes everything prettier, but it is not enough. Cars are still making turns in front of pedestrians and cyclists waiting there. The only thing preventing them from doing that right now is the
presence of an actual police officer directing traffic, and the threat of an actual citation.
3. The smaller NW and SE corners are still overflowing pedestrians and cyclists onto the street during the busy
crossing times. This is unsafe and unacceptable.
4. We desperately need the diagonal crossing light sequence back as soon as possible. Given the small size of
the SW and NE crossings, this intersection is not built for a 2 step crossing. This must be remedied at once to
protect our children.
Remember that this is an elementary school. These are children aged 5 to 10 years old! They cannot be
expected to have the same attention nor capabilities of older children nor adults. But yet we have made the crossing at a busy street more complex and unsafe for them.
We applaud the recent efforts but we still have many days of school left. We urge City Staff and Council to re-institute the diagonal crossing light sequence at once for the safety of our young elementary aged children.
Respectfully signed, Laurel Robinson
--
Laurel Robinson
Realtor, Sereno Group
650-269-7266
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:32 PM
4
laurel@serenogroup.com
www.LeannahandLaurel.com
BRE# 01747147
Right-click download help protecOutlook prautomatic dthi s pi ctu reIn ternet.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:32 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Jill Johnson <jillj727@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 10:42 AM
To:Mello, Joshuah; Council, City; Keene, James; Moore, Christopher; Young, Bradley;
Jonsen, Robert
Subject:Intersection at Middlefield and Embarcadero
Distinguished City Council and Staff and PAUSD Staff, Administration and Board Members,
We, the residents whose children attend Walter Hays Elementary School, want to thank you for your efforts in protecting the safety of our children. We are heartened to see you assign a police officer to help with crossings in the morning at our intersection. His presence has been a great addition to keeping traffic in line, as well as helping to direct students and cyclists.
However, it is not enough. The remaining issues are:
1. We need a second crossing guard in the afternoons when school lets out. The same issues exist at that time where for approximately 30 min in/around 3pm, there is heavy foot and cyclist traffic of our young students crossing the intersection.
2. The painting of the lines makes everything prettier, but it is not enough. Cars are still making turns in front of pedestrians and cyclists waiting there. The only thing preventing them from doing that right now is the presence of an actual police officer directing traffic, and the
threat of an actual citation.
3. The smaller SW and NE corners are still overflowing pedestrians and cyclists onto the street during the busy crossing times. This is unsafe
and unacceptable.
4. We desperately need the diagonal crossing light sequence back as soon as possible. Given the small size of the SW and NE crossings, this
intersection is not built for a 2 step crossing. This must be remedied at once to protect our children. Remember that this is an elementary school. These are children aged 5 to 10 years old! They cannot be expected to have the same attention nor capabilities of older children nor adults. But yet we have made the crossing at a busy street more complex and unsafe for them.
We applaud the recent efforts but we still have many days of school left. We urge City Staff and Council to re-institute the diagonal crossing light sequence at once for the safety of our young elementary aged children.
Respectfully signed, Jill Johnson Mother of a 2nd and 5th grader at Walter Hays
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:32 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Caryn Marooney <Caryn@fb.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 10:41 AM
To:Mello, Joshuah; Council, City; Keene, James; Moore, Christopher; Young, Bradley;
Jonsen, Robert
Subject:Walter Hays Intersection - your attention is needed. THANK YOU
Distinguished City Council and Staff,
We, the residents whose children attend Walter Hays Elementary School, want to thank you for your efforts in protecting the safety of our children. We are heartened to see you assign a police officer to help with crossings in the morning at our intersection. His presence has been a great addition to keeping traffic in line, as well as helping to direct students and cyclists.
However, it is not enough. The remaining issues are:
1. We need a second crossing guard in the afternoons when school lets out. The same issues exist at that time where for approximately 30 min in/around 3pm, there is heavy foot and cyclist traffic of our young students crossing the intersection.
2. The painting of the lines makes everything prettier, but it is not enough. Cars are still making turns in front of pedestrians and cyclists waiting there. The only thing preventing them from doing that right now is the presence of an actual police officer directing traffic, and the threat of an actual citation.
3. The smaller NW and SE corners are still overflowing pedestrians and cyclists onto the street during the busy crossing times.
This is unsafe and unacceptable.
4. We desperately need the diagonal crossing light sequence back as soon as possible. Given the small size of the SW and NE
crossings, this intersection is not built for a 2 step crossing. This must be remedied at once to protect our children.
Remember that this is an elementary school. These are children aged 5 to 10 years old! They cannot be expected to have the
same attention nor capabilities of older children nor adults. But yet we have made the crossing at a busy street more complex and unsafe for them.
We applaud the recent efforts but we still have many days of school left. We urge City Staff and Council to re-institute the diagonal crossing light sequence at once for the safety of our young elementary aged children.
Respectfully signed Caryn Marooney
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:32 PM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Matt Robinson <matt@heroicvc.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 10:08 AM
To:Mello, Joshuah; Council, City; Keene, James; Moore, Christopher; Young, Bradley;
Jonsen, Robert
Subject:Crosswalk at Embarcadero / Middlefield
City Council and Staff,
In re to the corner of Embarcadero and Middlefield.... 1. I've personally witnessed (and video recorded) several cars narrowly missing (within a foot or two) children standing on the small, crowded NW an SE corners. Even with the officer there I've seen cars run red lights on right turns, speed up to make left hand turns on yellow, etc. In ALL of the situations there are kids who step out exactly when the walk sign turns. 2. The afternoons without a police officer are even more dangerous than mornings.
3. Many of us have taken to driving our kids instead of letting them ride their bikes, thereby adding to the traffic issue. I'm simply unwilling
to let me kids stand on those corners - kids push and bump and they're literally standing w/ their heels on the curb and 40MPH cars whizzing
by.
We applaud the recent efforts / assignment of an officer but it's simply not enough - something terrible is going to happen - let's reinstitute the diagonal crosswalk and put the safety of children above all else. Thank you for reconsidering. Matt Robinson
--
Matt Robinson
Heroic Ventures
650.224.3294
DISCLAIMER
Any private opportunity discussed in this email or its attachments is being presented to you because you have
expressed an interest in such opportunities, and any decision to invest in a venture fund or special purpose vehicle ("SPV") or any similar investment vehicle should be based on your own diligence and analysis. Please
consult with your own tax, legal and financial advisors. An investment in the fund or SPV should only be
considered by investors who can reasonably afford a loss on their investment. The investment presented in this
email may be in a company or companies in which the sender, the sender's affiliates, and/or the GP in the
investment vehicle has a related party interest, which may exist in the form of separately owned or earned shares or options, consulting compensation, executive compensation, and/or other forms of economic interest
that are distinct and separate from those which may be of beneficial interest to the investor.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:32 PM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Dave McQuarrie <dpmcquarrie@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 9:46 AM
To:Mello, Joshuah; Council, City; Keene, James; Moore, Christopher; Young, Bradley;
Jonsen, Robert
Subject:Embarcadero/Middlefield Intersection Still Exhibits Unsafe Issues to Our Children
Distinguished City Council and Staff and PAUSD Staff, Administration and Board Members,
We, the residents whose children attend Walter Hays Elementary School, want to thank you for your efforts in protecting the safety of our children. We are heartened to see you assign a police officer to help with crossings in the morning at our intersection. His presence has been a great addition to keeping traffic in line, as well as helping to direct students and cyclists.
However, it is not enough. The remaining issues are:
1. We need a second crossing guard in the afternoons when school lets out. The same issues exist at that time where for approximately 30 min in/around 3pm, there is heavy foot and cyclist traffic of our young students crossing the intersection.
2. The painting of the lines makes everything prettier, but it is not enough. Cars are still making turns in front of pedestrians and cyclists waiting there. The only thing preventing them from doing that right now is the presence of an actual police officer directing traffic, and the threat of an actual citation.
3. The smaller SW and NE corners are still overflowing pedestrians and cyclists onto the street during the busy crossing times.
This is unsafe and unacceptable.
4. We desperately need the diagonal crossing light sequence back as soon as possible. Given the small size of the SW and NE
crossings, this intersection is not built for a 2 step crossing. This must be remedied at once to protect our children.
Remember that this is an elementary school. These are children aged 5 to 10 years old! They cannot be expected to have the
same attention nor capabilities of older children nor adults. But yet we have made the crossing at a busy street more complex and unsafe for them.
We applaud the recent efforts but we still have many days of school left. We urge City Staff and Council to re-institute the diagonal crossing light sequence at once for the safety of our young elementary aged children.
Respectfully signed, Dave McQuarrie
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:32 PM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Rol Williams <rol.wi2liams@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 9:45 AM
To:Mello, Joshuah; Council, City; Keene, James; Moore, Christopher; Young, Bradley;
Jonsen, Robert
Subject:Embarcadero/Middlefield Intersection
Ladies and Gentlemen,
As a resident whose child attends Walter Hays Elementary School, I want to thank you for your efforts in protecting the safety of our children, including the redesign of the intersection at Embarcadero and Middlefield. However, the small size of the SW and NE corners of the intersection make them inadequate to hold the pedestrian and cyclist traffic that occurs at peak usage time around school dropoff and pickup. Without the all-way crossing light sequence that enabled pedestrians and cyclists to cross the intersection diagonally during this peak usage time, they overflow into the street while waiting to cross, which is an extremely dangerous situation that must be remedied as soon as possible. Accordingly, please reinstate the all-way crossing light sequence at this intersection as soon as possible, in order to avoid the inevitable accident that will otherwise occur. It is not acceptable to prioritize the traffic wait time at the intersection over the
safety of our youngest residents and their parents.
Regards,
John Williams 1715 Waverley St.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:32 PM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Charlotte Myers <charlie_a_myers@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 9:27 AM
To:Mello, Joshuah; Council, City; Keene, James; Moore, Christopher; Young, Bradley;
Jonsen, Robert
Subject:Walter Hays School Crossing
Distinguished City Council and Staff and PAUSD Staff, Administration and Board Members,
We, the residents whose children attend Walter Hays Elementary School, want to thank you for your efforts in protecting the
safety of our children. We are heartened to see you assign a police officer to help with crossings in the morning at our
intersection. His presence has been a great addition to keeping traffic in line, as well as helping to direct students and cyclists.
However, it is not enough. The remaining issues are:
1. We need a second crossing guard in the afternoons when school lets out. The same issues exist at that time where for
approximately 30 min in/around 3pm, there is heavy foot and cyclist traffic of our young students crossing the intersection.
2. The painting of the lines makes everything prettier, but it is not enough. Cars are still making turns in front of pedestrians and
cyclists waiting there. The only thing preventing them from doing that right now is the presence of an actual police officer
directing traffic, and the threat of an actual citation.
3. The smaller SW and NE corners are still overflowing pedestrians and cyclists onto the street during the busy crossing times.
This is unsafe and unacceptable.
4. We desperately need the diagonal crossing light sequence back as soon as possible. Given the small size of the SW and NE
crossings, this intersection is not built for a 2 step crossing. This must be remedied at once to protect our children.
Remember that this is an elementary school. These are children aged 5 to 10 years old! They cannot be expected to have the
same attention nor capabilities of older children nor adults. But yet we have made the crossing at a busy street more complex
and unsafe for them.
We applaud the recent efforts but we still have many days of school left. We urge City Staff and Council to re-institute the
diagonal crossing light sequence at once for the safety of our young elementary aged children.
Respectfully signed,
Charlotte Myers
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 4:28 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Leslie Lukash <leslie.lukash@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 1:12 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Embarcadero/Middlefield Intersection Still Exhibits Unsafe Issues for Children
Distinguished City Council and Staff,
We, the residents whose children attend Walter Hays Elementary School, want to thank you for your efforts in protecting the safety of our children. We are heartened to see you assign a police officer to help with crossings in the morning at our intersection. His presence has been a great addition to keeping traffic in line, as well as helping to direct students and cyclists.
However, it is not enough. The remaining issues are:
1. We need a second crossing guard in the afternoons when school lets out. The same issues exist at that time where for
approximately 30 min in/around 3pm, there is heavy foot and cyclist traffic of our young students crossing the
intersection.
2. The painting of the lines makes everything prettier, but it is not enough. Cars are still making turns in front of
pedestrians and cyclists waiting there. The only thing preventing them from doing that right now is the presence of an actual police officer directing traffic, and the threat of an actual citation.
3. The smaller NW and SE corners are still overflowing pedestrians and cyclists onto the street during the busy crossing times. This is unsafe and unacceptable.
4. We desperately need the diagonal crossing light sequence back as soon as possible. Given the small size of the SW and NE crossings, this intersection is not built for a 2 step crossing. This must be remedied at once to protect our children. Remember that this is an elementary school. These are children aged 5 to 10 years old! They cannot be expected to have the same attention nor capabilities of older children nor adults. But yet we have made the crossing at a busy street more complex and unsafe for them.
We applaud the recent efforts but we still have many days of school left. We urge City Staff and Council to re-institute the
diagonal crossing light sequence at once for the safety of our young elementary aged children.
Respectfully signed,
Leslie Lukash
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 4:28 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Mariseth Ferring <mariseth@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 1:40 PM
To:Mello, Joshuah; Council, City; Keene, James; Moore, Christopher; Young, Bradley;
Jonsen, Robert
Subject:Crossing at Embarcadero and Middlefield
Distinguished City Council and Staff,
I am a parent of a 3rd Grader (and an incoming Kindergartener) at Walter Hays. Along with the other parents, I'd like to thank you for your efforts in protecting the safety of our children. However, we desperately need the diagonal crossing light sequence back as soon as possible. This is an elementary school with children aged 5 to 10 years old. This crossing is located at such a busy street, and recent changes has made this crosswalk unsafe for these kids. For years, we’ve had this diagonal crossing system in place, and this forced all cars to stop and obey the lights, respect the pedestrians, and ensure everyone is safe. In the past two weeks, I've
witnessed motorists rushing through this intersection. Some are turning into the crosswalk even when the pedestrian light is on
and we have the right to cross the street. Children are in grave danger, and this is a potential liability for the city of Palo Alto.
Here is a summary of the remaining issues:
1. We need a second crossing guard in the afternoons when school lets out. The same issues exist at that time where for approximately 30 min in/around 3pm, there is heavy foot and cyclist traffic of our young students crossing the intersection. 2. The painting of the lines makes everything prettier, but it is not enough. Cars are still making turns in front of pedestrians and cyclists waiting there. The only thing preventing them from doing that right now is the presence of an actual police officer directing traffic, and the threat of an actual citation.
3. The smaller NW and SE corners are still overflowing pedestrians and cyclists onto the street during the busy crossing times.
This is unsafe and unacceptable.
We applaud the recent efforts, especially the presence of PAPD to help with this intersection. But we still have many days of
school left.
We urge City Staff and Council to re-institute the diagonal crossing light sequence at once for the safety of our young elementary aged children. Respectfully signed, Mariseth Ferring
Resident of Old Palo Alto since 2011
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 4:28 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:kathleen spillane <kspillan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 2:53 PM
To:Mello, Joshuah; Council, City; Keene, James; Moore, Christopher; Young, Bradley;
Jonsen, Robert
Cc:Bussmann, Mary
Subject:Intersection Crossing at Walter Hays Elementary - Corner of Embarcadero / Middlefield
Attachments:IMG_5483.jpg
Dear City Council and Staff,
I am a concerned parent of children who attend Walter Hays Elementary.
I am disappointed in the decision you made to remove the diagonal crossing at Embarcadero and Middlefield
for the relatively modest amount of time that children are going to and leaving school. What a terrible cost-
benefit decision!
By removing the diagonal crossing, you have added more confusion and, more significantly, put children at risk
of getting hit by a car!
This is already an agitated, confusing, fast-moving, poor sight-lined intersection - and you've made it worse.
What's more, the NW corner is so narrow and shallow that it cannot adequately accommodate the children and
bikes waiting to cross the street. I have my doubts whether this meets guidelines for safe crosswalk design -
particularly FOR ELEMENTARY AGED CHILDREN.
Already, I have seen cars passing the "line limit" in an effort to make a right hand turn. The cars, therefore,
block the crosswalk and force children to overflow even closer into the fast moving Embarcadero lane. I took a
picture of someone just this morning - doing exactly this! This is the third or fourth car I have seen doing this in
the past two weeks alone. See picture below.
As a tax-payer and voter in Palo Alto, I urge you to reinstate the diagonal crossing immediately.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Spillane and Ross Taylor
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 9:38 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Hanna Vuornos <hanna.vuornos@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 8:30 PM
To:Mello, Joshuah; Council, City; Keene, James; Moore, Christopher; Young, Bradley;
Jonsen, Robert
Subject:Embarcadero/Middlefield Intersection unsafe for our children
Distinguished City Council and Staff,
We, the residents whose children attend Walter Hays Elementary School, want to thank you for your efforts in protecting the safety of our children. We are heartened to see you assign a police officer to help with crossings in the morning at our intersection. His presence has been a great addition to keeping traffic in line, as well as helping to direct students and cyclists.
However, it is not enough. The remaining issues are:
1. We need a second crossing guard in the afternoons when school lets out. The same issues exist at that time where for approximately 30 min in/around 3pm, there is heavy foot and cyclist traffic of our young students crossing the intersection.
2. The painting of the lines makes everything prettier, but it is not enough. Cars are still making turns in front of pedestrians and cyclists waiting there. The only thing preventing them from doing that right now is the presence of an actual police officer directing traffic, and the threat of an actual citation.
3. The smaller NW and SE corners are still overflowing pedestrians and cyclists onto the street during the busy crossing times.
This is unsafe and unacceptable.
4. We desperately need the diagonal crossing light sequence back as soon as possible. Given the small size of the SW and NE
crossings, this intersection is not built for a 2 step crossing. This must be remedied at once to protect our children.
Remember that this is an elementary school. These are children aged 5 to 10 years old! They cannot be expected to have the
same attention nor capabilities of older children nor adults. But yet we have made the crossing at a busy street more complex and unsafe for them.
We applaud the recent efforts but we still have many days of school left. We urge City Staff and Council to re-institute the diagonal crossing light sequence at once for the safety of our young elementary aged children.
Respectfully, Hanna Vuornos Mother of a 3rd Grader in Walter Hays
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 9:38 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Dave Madwed <dmadwed@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 8:51 PM
To:Council, City; Mello, Joshuah; Moore, Christopher
Subject:walter hays school crossing
Distinguished City Council and Staff,
We, the residents whose children attend Walter Hays Elementary School, want to thank you for your efforts in protecting the safety of our children. We are heartened to see you assign a police officer to help with crossings in the morning at our intersection. His presence has been a great addition to keeping traffic in line, as well as helping to direct students and cyclists.
However, it is not enough. The remaining issues are:
1. We need a second crossing guard in the afternoons when school lets out. The same issues exist at that time where for
approximately 30 min in/around 3pm, there is heavy foot and cyclist traffic of our young students crossing the intersection.
2. The painting of the lines makes everything prettier, but it is not enough. Cars are still making turns in front of pedestrians and
cyclists waiting there. The only thing preventing them from doing that right now is the presence of an actual police officer
directing traffic, and the threat of an actual citation.
3. The smaller NW and SE corners are still overflowing pedestrians and cyclists onto the street during the busy crossing times. This is unsafe and unacceptable.
4. We desperately need the diagonal crossing light sequence back as soon as possible. Given the small size of the SW and NE crossings, this intersection is not built for a 2 step crossing. This must be remedied at once to protect our children. Remember that this is an elementary school. These are children aged 5 to 10 years old! They cannot be expected to have the same attention nor capabilities of older children nor adults. But yet we have made the crossing at a busy street more complex and unsafe for them. 5. Walter Hays has by far the greatest number of bikers, walkers, skaters to school of any of the 10 elementary schools ( Safe
routes to school data).. Due to the institution of this ridiculous crossing situation, you are simply forcing many back into their cars
and creating even more car traffic.
We applaud the recent efforts but we still have many days of school left. We urge City Staff and Council to re-institute the
diagonal crossing light sequence at once for the safety of our young elementary aged children.
Respectfully signed,
Dave Madwed MD
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 9:38 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Lauren Goody <lauren.goody@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 9:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Embarcadero/Middlefield Intersection Still Exhibits Unsafe Issues to Our Children
Distinguished City Council and Staff,
We, the residents whose children attend Walter Hays Elementary School, want to thank you for
your efforts in protecting the safety of our children. We are heartened to see you assign a police
officer to help with crossings in the morning at our intersection. His presence has been a great
addition to keeping traffic in line, as well as helping to direct students and cyclists.
However, it is not enough. The remaining issues are:
1. We need a second crossing guard in the afternoons when school lets out. The same issues exist
at that time where for approximately 30 min in/around 3pm, there is heavy foot and cyclist traffic
of our young students crossing the intersection.
2. The painting of the lines makes everything prettier, but it is not enough. Cars are still making
turns in front of pedestrians and cyclists waiting there. The only thing preventing them from doing
that right now is the presence of an actual police officer directing traffic, and the threat of an
actual citation.
3. The smaller NW and SE corners are still overflowing pedestrians and cyclists onto the street
during the busy crossing times. This is unsafe and unacceptable.
4. We desperately need the diagonal crossing light sequence back as soon as possible. Given the
small size of the SW and NE crossings, this intersection is not built for a 2 step crossing. This must
be remedied at once to protect our children.
Remember that this is an elementary school. These are children aged 5 to 10 years old! They
cannot be expected to have the same attention nor capabilities of older children nor adults. But
yet we have made the crossing at a busy street more complex and unsafe for them.
We applaud the recent efforts but we still have many days of school left. We urge City Staff and
Council to re-institute the diagonal crossing light sequence at once for the safety of our young
elementary aged children.
Respectfully signed,
Lauren Goody
2448 Greer Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
lauren.goody@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 8:52 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Don McDougall <mcdougall.don@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 06, 2018 5:41 PM
To:O'Kane, Kristen
Cc:Council, City; leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique; De Geus, Robert
Subject:May Fete
Kristen,
Please pass on to your team my congratulations on a good Fete event on Saturday. With more and more
competition for the attention of children and their parents I suspect it's not easy to pull a successful event. You had the participation and a good "buzz".
Proud to be a Parks and especially on Saturday a Recs. commissioner.
Don McDougall 650 815 1455
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:11 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 02, 2018 2:00 PM
To:Cindy Chavez
Subject:'Mistreated' writes Dr Pearl, former Kaiser CEO .
Book Review:
Mistreated: Why we think we're getting
good health care . . . and why we're
usually WRONG!
Book Review by Arlene Goetze, Health Writer, May 2, 2018
* Doctors need to reduce common errors and maximize preventive care
* Drug companies write the rules and exert the most power
* Need for better electronic monitoring
* U.S. ranks 70th in overall health and wellness
* US consumes over 80% of the world's most addictive oral pain pills
Dr. Robert Pearl, former CEO of Kaiser Hospitals in SF Bay Area and a very
good plastic surgeon, has just published a book giving the state of doctors in the
U.S. today. He is now affiliated with Stanford, giving lectures, etc. and is one of the
leading medical doctors in the U.S. He did serious surgery on one of my sons 38 years
ago.
Dr. Pearl writes that Americans look for health-care solutions in the wrong places. He
says hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved each year if doctors reduced common
errors and maximized preventive medicine.
He says consumers make mistakes by passively accepting last century's technology in
our health care. US spends 50% more on health care than any other country and ranks
70th in overall health and wellness.
He finds Americans are fed up with the health care system. It is overpriced and under-
delivers. He finds health care is in the hands of Legacy players:
* Major health insurers
* Hospitals
* Physical speciality societies: 200,000 doctors are primary care who exert little
influence. Specialists can get triple the salaries.
* Drug and device companies who exert the most power: They wrote rules governing how
health care is structured, reimbursed and supported. Doctors decide what to use and
hospitals how much to bill.
The US consumes over 80% of the world's most addictive oral pain pills and 99% of
hydrocodone, a highly addictive compound in Vicodin.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:11 PM
2
The U.S. health care system is broken but needs 4 Pillars of Transformation:
1. Health care needs to be integrated in all specialities
2. It needs to be pre-paid...not pay-for-volume but pay for value and superior outcomes.
3. It need comprehensive electronic health record systems, patient access to medical info
and the ability to obtain care using mobile and video technologies.
4. Health care will need to be physician-led but needs greater leadership training.
Pillar 1: Physicians need to work together on patient behalf (We'll need fewer hospitals.)
Pillar 2: It's better and cheaper not to get sick in the first place
It needs to be prepaid! Fee for service leads to mistreatment. He mentions preventive
care but nothing about natural remedies.
Pillar 3: What your doctor doesn't know can hurt you. Electronic health records need to
be unlocked and house calls made again.
Pillar 4: Who will you trust?
Health care needs to be led by doctors so they need more leadership training.
Dr. Pearl advocates 4 Cs:
*Cost * Clinical excellence *Coordination * Compassion
What Americans want is "affordable coverage, limited out-of-pocket expenses and
convenient access to medical care. They want clinically excellent doctors who
understand the Golden Rule, treating patients in the same way they would a family
member." "They want doctors to avail themselves of the latest information technologies
and coordinate the medical treatment they provide. Finally, all of us want
compassionate physicians who respect our wishes and tell us the truth about the
medical problems."
Dr. Pearl supports health insurance but wants more technology and universal electronic
monitoring of all patients. He supports all vaccines, not mentioning the unsafe ingredients
and lack of proper testing for the large number given children at one time (up to 15 in one
day for some babies or 29 by age 1).
He mentions preventive care but he does not mention support for any natural remedies
like diet, avoiding toxins, exercise, etc. or use of acupuncture, chiropractic, EFT, Reiki,
meditation or energy healing.
He writes physicians (not patients) are the ones in charge of their health. +++
--------------------------
Comments by reviewer Arlene Goetze:
My solutions for US health care are not discussed in this book:
* Get rid of health insurance companies to cut costs.
* Stop ads for all drugs, vaccines, etc on TV, computers, media. They are a matter
between a patient and doctor....not misleading ads showing healthy young people on
dangerous drugs.
* Accept successful natural remedies: homeopathy, acupuncture, healing touch, Reiki,
EFT, energy healing, etc.
* Work to find the cause of sickness....not just to treat symptoms and continue
drugs for life. Goldman Sachs recently wrote that "curing drugs is bad business" because
it would put the drug companies out of business. Three vaccines companies were going
out of business from lawsuits on babies so Pres. Reagan gave them immunity!
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:11 PM
3
* My electronic records show no respect for a person refusing drugs as
treatment. Use of natural remedies, diet, exercise, meditation etc. are not discussed.
I have read my 700 pages of electronic health record from Kaiser since 2009.
* What is written by one doctor is merely copied by 2 to 10 more doctors without
further testing. 200 pages on my brief trip to ER for vertigo in one ear turned into 3 days
in ICU and Hospital for a mis-read catscan. It now dominates my health records. A dozen
doctors verified I had a brain hemorrhage of one drop when other tests proved I did
not. One doctor threatened me with death 5 times in 20 minutes if I didn't start 2 to 5
drugs. immediately.
* What was written about my appointments is NOT what the doctors told me.
* Kaiser rejects making corrections.
They don't allow radiologists to talk to patients. Errors ABOUND in my electronic records
with omissions of what actually happened.
Electronic testing can be most helpful but so can doctors entering the truth
in the records. Dr. Pearl did suggest doctors need to be more truthful.
I believe each of us is in charge of our own individual health by the choices
we make...in most cases. Trusting doctors today is not highly recommended
by this book.
Arlene Goetze, MA, Health Writer, NO Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com
. Medical experience with 2 dying elders, 7 children and 18 grandchildren. 50 years
experience with natural healing methods which reduced need for most all types of drugs.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:03 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lin Jiang <linzjiang@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 8:41 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:No to 565 Hamilton Ave. project
Dear City Council Members,
We live on the 600 block of Webster St., across the street from 565 Hamilton Ave.. We walked by 565 Hamilton recently and saw a sign for a project proposal for a mixed-use building for this site. We STRONGLY oppose the construction project for 565 Hamilton Ave. for the following concerns/factors:
1. Parking
The proposed 565 Hamilton project has 7450 office sqft with another 19 residential units, which means that
total GFA is about 30000 sqft. The current car park proposed (39 spaces) for this project is substantially
lower than the carpark required by code (66 spaces), this will end up more demand for street parking that
are already rare. The residents and existing employees near by will not be able to find street parking during
the day.
Reference: 550 Hamilton Ave directly cross the street has 43000 sqft tenancy space and have 115 parking spaces, yet the parking lot is always full during weekdays,
2. Street elevation is not compatible with the neighborhood in terms of Scale, Proportion and Characteristic：
The facade is flat and long, emphasizing continues horizontal lines (e.g. eaves, reveals at window heads
and sills) of more than 100 feet, which is not compatible with the rhythmic pattern established in the
neighborhood, where buildings either have a smaller width or having the facades and masses break down into smaller portions to minimize the visual impact of the massing;
The 130 feet long overhanging eave lines are not compatible with the neighborhood roof type where the roof are generally slope up or stepping back;
3. Setback
The site plan does not show the roof plan for an adequate understanding of the massing. On the site constraint plan,
the plan noted 16 feet setback required at Webster St., whereas 17 feet setback is required along Hamilton Ave., —
How are these requirements established?
4. Traffic – during and after construction
5. Noise during and after construction
6. Construction pollute from a project of such scale
Sincerely,
Residents
Lin Jiang, Chan Kam Chu
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:03 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Yu Wen Chen <yuwenchen1996@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 1:24 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Water Recycling Expansion
Hi, I am advocating for the Palo Alto Water Recycling Expansion that you guys are doing. I did some research
on your expansion plans and I feel like most of them are really well thought out and I really like what you guys
are doing.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:19 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net>
Sent:Friday, May 04, 2018 4:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please note this online activity for future reference.
Honorable City Council Members,
As you know, an against-Ross petition was posted via Nextdoor during project construction and a majority of signatures were
collected during project construction.
You may not know that a pro-Ross petition was posted on Nextdoor
yesterday (May 4) by George Jacquette (who is, oddly, a project opponent). Today the following warning appeared on Nextdoor
discouraging people from signing the pro-Ross petition. This was
posted immediately after a project proponent encouraged people to
sign.
Len Levy, Midtown
Mark, I will not sign the online petition because I do not like the privacy
policies. For example they say that they can use my information to
"developing new services" and " operating and expanding our business
activities". That is more open-ended than I want it to be. Reading their
privacy policies further make things worse.
Later their policy about my information states "This information will be
viewable to any visitor, including the media, search engines, and other
organizations that provide archival Internet activities. If you do not wish
to have your personal information displayed on Change Politics, you
should not use the service". I will not give so much information away.
Other people might also feel this way and so this vehicle for measuring
public opinion will not be accurate. In fact it might lead others to think
that there is less support for the issue than there really is.
I understand that many council members cannot see this Nextdoor list so I am notifying you of what I have observed. I’m not sure how these two petitions will be used, so I am notifying you of this course of online
events.
I won’t be signing any petition. I thought you ought to know why. Penny Ellson
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:13 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Thursday, May 03, 2018 1:30 PM
To:Loran Harding; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; huidentalsanmateo; Mayor; Dan
Richard; Daniel Zack; Joel Stiner; Cathy Lewis; paul.caprioglio;
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; Mark Kreutzer; Mark Standriff; nick yovino; newsdesk;
kfsndesk; rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com; beachrides; leager; Leodies Buchanan; bballpod;
popoff; terry; hennessy; Council, City; Irv Weissman; info@superide1.com;
midge@thebarretts.com; blackstone@blastfitness.com
Subject:Re: Tesla Model 3 now 2,000 per week, equaling Fiero at its best
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
Thurs. May 3, 2018
To all- KCBS said this AM that Tesla Model 3 production is now up to 2,000 per week. The goal is
5,000 per week. Musk has been sleeping on the factory floor in Fremont to get things going. Too much
automation was in place. I'll just note that Pontiac sold 100,000 Fieros in its first year, 1984, so around 2,000 per week. So Tesla
Model 3 production is now as good as Fiero production ever got. Pontiac sold ~47,000 Fieros in 1988, and
that's when Roger Smith killed the Fiero. 300,000 total were ever built.
The Toyota 2M4 had four valves per cylinder, so a little peppier, and that hurt Fiero. Also, insurance costs were high for the 20 somethings who bought them. I have not seen a 2M4 on the road for many years.
Ugly little car with a metal body.
At 3:23 PM ET today, TSLA was $285.46, down $15.69, down $5.41%. I'm not selling and those who sell will regret it, I believe. For the first quarter, net loss widened a little and revenues grew, both slightly betterthan expected. Musk was a little sharp with some analysts in a phone call yesterday, so SELL! With 2,000
Model 3's being produced per week, we'll start seeing them on the road.
At 3:31 PM ET today, NVDA was $233.88, up $7.57, up 3.34%. Maybe investors are waking up to what NVDA has. My flood of emails about it may be getting noticed. Recall, one could have bought NVDA for $19 in July, 2015, so $19,000 has become $233,880 in 2.7 years. B of A recently put a price target of $300
on NVDA, and that will only be the start.
$233,880 will buy a decent house in Fresno, and home prices here are finally climbing. Jensen Huang said at the recent developers conference in San Jose that they will start shipping their
self-driving platform in 2 or 3 years. It looks to be perfected now, but they want to be sure. Might that increase
revs and profits? He announced that Toyota will use the NVDA platform in their self-driving cars and that
Bosch has agreed to work with NVDA. Bosch is a huge German auto parts maker and "sells product to every car company today". The head of Audi USA appeared with Huang and told about their close cooperation with Nvidia. Self-driving cars are about to break upon us.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:13 PM
2
I'm not sure if investors should buy FB for a 56% gain with its price target of $275, or buy NVDA
which is on its way to the moon, or buy some of the TSLA shares which investors are selling like drunken sailors today. Buy all three? Only if you can stand making easy money. Some people are uncomfortable with
that.
LH
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:39 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rohit >
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 12:26 PM
To:San Francisco Asylum; KlinckMV2@state.gov; info@parl.gc.ca;
speakers.office@parliament.govt.nz; U.S. Senator Rand Paul;
Press_Harris@harris.senate.gov; consular.moscow@dfat.gov.au;
environmentalcrime@interpol.int; publicinformation@da.sccgov.org; Office of the
President; mjr@stanford.edu; Council, City; Police
Cc:Rohit
Subject:Re:
DA Santa Clara
Members us senate can aus nz parls
sec state defense dhs treasury commerce
Interpol CC:
Palo Alto Police
City Council Palo Alto
President Trustees Stanford University
What is the status of my matter with Palo Alto Police, complaint 174 324 0028, report filed by Chris Correia ("Did you know that your bike accident of spring 2016 was not an accident" inside the police station) that has had no response since the report was filed in fall 2017, and the chemical/biological/radiological damage has
increased at an increasing rate since summer 2015.
Rohit
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 9:11 PM, San Francisco Asylum <SanFranciscoAsylum@uscis.dhs.gov> wrote:
Rohit
Your asylum application is under review. An additional review had to be performed on your case and this has
caused a delay in processing your case. When the review in this matter is complete, you will be notified in writing of any decision pertaining to this case.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:39 PM
2
Please notify this office of any change of address in order to prevent any delays in receiving further
notification regarding your case.
Sincerely,
USCIS
San Francisco Asylum Office
P.O. Box 77530
San Francisco, CA 94107
From: Rohit [mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2018 1:50 AM
To: San Francisco Asylum; Rohit
Subject:
Secretary DHS:
What is the status of my asylum application.
Rohit
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 8:55 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Unmesh Vartak <unmeshv@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 06, 2018 11:03 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross rd disaster
Many of us are concerned about the dangers of the Ross Road work, and upcoming work on Amarillo Avenue
next to Ohlone. We’ve seen no evidence that the new projects are safe or effective, and see obvious risks to
bicyclists with the current designs that intentionally pinch bike lanes. Despite clear disapproval from residents, responses from city council for education efforts and outreach are another dangerous distraction. We’re
endangering our children. Please revert these changes now, and stop making more changes that pinch bike lanes.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 8:51 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Usha Krishnamurthy <ukrishnamurthy@icloud.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 05, 2018 5:30 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross x Meadow Roundabout
I live on 748 Mayview Ave and walk often on Ross.
The roundabout is a debacle. It is very unsafe to school kids and pedestrians.
Why did you not think of doing a beta test before making this permanent?
Part of the test could have been cameras on for all 4 stop signs that monitored traffic, including violations.
Then you could have discussed the data with the community. No one can argue with facts. Then come up with a solution
that worked.
Now it seems like a unilateral top down decision on your part.
I would prefer to have cameras on all 4 way stops in the city that catch and fine traffic violations on the spot. Use
technology to automate the process. When people who disobey traffic laws start getting expensive fines in the mail with
attached videos that they cannot refute, they will change.
Usha Krishnamurthy
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Copies to: Jim Keane, City Manager
Molly Stumf, City Attorney
'City Counci 1
18 MAl -I+ AH U: 38
May 3, 2018
Hillary Gittleman
Transportation and Planning
City of Palo Alto
Dear Ms. Gittleman:
Palo Alto Fost
Palo Alto ~eekly
A few days ago I was alme>st struck a.nd knoc1~ed down by a
horde of bicyclists as I was walking through the California Ave.
railroad tunnel underpass. Many other neighbors have experienced
the same dangerous occurence. The cond1i~ion has t!Xisted many years
and must be controlled before .a serious~njury or death occurs.
The incidf:!nt happened at 3: 10 p. m. on a Thu1·sday. The bicyclists
were probabl]l Jordan High Schc•ol students speedir_g two-abreast
heedless of pedestrians in the dark tunnel. They travel like a
pack of wild dogs and I had to throw myself agairst the cement wall
to escape injury. I could feel their clothing br~sh against me.
The underpass was probably built in the 1930s or 40s. At only
seven feet wide it is unable to accommodate the nanv-fold increase
in pedestrian, bikers, roller skaters and even the new motorized
scooters. Older bikers are equal1¥ guilty, some ~earing bike club
attire and very speedy.
After many years walking the tunnel I have never observed
police enforcement of the WALK BICYCLES signs at· antrances, The signs
expose the City's egregious hypocrasy because the mid-point gates
which formerly forced bikers to dismount have bee1 OPENED WIDER recently
permiting bikers to continue without stopping.
At risk are all pedestria1'ls including senior; J handicapped
with walkers and wheelchairs and families with sm.Lll children.
It is an accidea:c·: ready to happen with possibili·:Y. of fractures,
concussions and death. Clearly there must be enfo:~c!trrent of the WALK
BICYCLES signage, but also school instruction in 11:i:'cycle safety
particularly this underpass. Hundreds of vehicles and pedestrians
pass through this narrow , dark tunnel daily. It boars no center-line
or cautionary signage.
Another hazard re la terd. prc·blem is bicyclists entering from East
California Ave to the tunnel , 'I'he City's bizarre :t lanning directs
bikes to the North side of California Ave, then tc turn 90 degrees lef~
South in a Bike Lane in harm's way of heavy trucks and cars. All
bikers are observed aiming directly to the tunnel entraue~whizzing
past pedestrians, children , handicapped.
When a serious accident likely to occur happens, the City will
be derelict and guilty of lack of public trust. This letter serves as
a clear advance warning that should a serious accident happen to me
or others a suit will be filed by my attorn9'(.My call about this matter
to Rosie Mesterhazu has gone unanswered for a week. Note that copies .
of this letter have been sent c~ local media. I respectfully ask for ·
a written reply.
Vic Befe~ ~~o Alto 94301 (6j0) 328-3936
d
,.
April 26, 2018
Council Members
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton A venue
Palo Alto CA 94303
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
18 HAY -I+ AH II : 31
As a forty year resident of Greenmeadow I am writing to express my concerns for the
project plans and scope for the Charleston corridor proposal as outlined in your recent
mailing.
I walk from Alma to Charleston to Middlefield each morning for exercise and at no time
do a see a need to widen the sidewalks. Most days I will not encounter more that two
other walkers between Alma to Middlefield. And I only see a few people riding on
bicycles and they are usually running the red lights. Forget about installing median
islands and the additional cost of landscaping and maintenance. Who needs to further
narrow the road by installing curb bulb outs. Your plan creates more problems that it
solves.
In this area there are only two schools in this project, one shopping center but no parks as
noted in your notice. It would be nice if the City were more accurate and honest in their
proposals.
My suggestion is either leave the road the way it is or return it to its original
configuration. Anything else is a waste of taxpayers money.
If you would like to solve a real problem it would be to install a left turn light at Nelson.
When there is a backup on Charleston, and it happens several time daily, and the only
way you can turn left is to wait until turns red and then proceed. And you are guilty of a
traffic violation in running the red light.
Some cities have a problem with not having enough money to operate successfully. Palo
Alto's problem is that it has too much money and is always looking for ways to spend it
on unnecessary projects.
I hope the Council will have the good judgment to cancel the staff's recommendation and
not fund this project. Thank you for your consideration to my letter.
~ tJ)tiic Ja~s F. Dougherty
159 Greenmeadow Way
Palo Alto, CA 94306
( 650) 494-7221