HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180716plCC701-32
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: 7/16/2018
Document dates: 6/27/2018 – 7/04/2018
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 | 7/2/2018 5:14 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Peter Ko <design@koarch.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 27, 2018 6:11 PM
To:Lait, Jonathan
Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Flaherty, Michelle; Morse, Rosemary; Hoyt, George;
Gerhardt, Jodie; 'apetersen@m-group.us'; Council, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject:429 University Mixed Use Project
Attachments:429 Option 1 diagram.pdf; Option 1 - area calc.pdf; 429 University-
planning-6-29-18.pdf; 429 Sqft 6-26-18.xlsx
Good afternoon, Jonathan:
Please see our response to your e-mail. Our responses to your requests are below, in blue.
Sincerely,
Peter Ko, AIA, LEED AP
NCARB Certified
Ko Architects, Inc.
900 High Street, Suite 1
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: 650.853.1908
design@koarch.com
ABOUT THIS E-MAIL: The information transmitted may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material that is only for the person or entity
to which it is addressed. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material
immediately.
From: "Lait, Jonathan" <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Date: June 25, 2018 at 6:46:38 PM PDT
To: Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> Cc: "Hoyt, George" <George.Hoyt@CityofPaloAlto.org>, "Morse, Rosemary" <Rosemary.Morse@CityofPaloAlto.org>, "Flaherty, Michelle" <Michelle.Flaherty@CityofPaloAlto.org>, "Adam Petersen (apetersen@m-group.us)"
<apetersen@m-group.us>, "Gerhardt, Jodie" <Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: 429 University
Elizabeth,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:14 PM
2
Thanks for meeting with me last week. I’ve reviewed the plans approved by Council and the
most recent building permit submittal. I have a couple of questions and requests that I hope
you can address; this will help inform the process question on how best to proceed:
1. Can you clarify the amount of floor area being added to the fourth floor and make a
distinction between a building or fire code requirements and design preference.
The total amount of floor area added to the 4th level is 446 sf. See
response #2 for the list of floor area alteration items due to building
code requirements.
2. Similarly, can your architect provide a schematic of the needed changes on levels
1‐4; this does not need to be in‐depth, I’m just trying to understand where the
changes are being made and why. You mentioned when we met that some of this had
to do with building codes, but sizes of elevators or stairways count toward FAR.
Please see attached latest floor plans and calculations dated 6/29/18, which will be
delivered to the building department on that date as our third Building Permit
submittal.
And the excel attached here has a breakdown of total square footage changes on each floor with a brief note of reason. 1st floor lose about 64 sf compare to Option 1; 2nd floor lose about 295 sf; 3rd floor lose about 87 sf; 4th floor add
total 446 sf to balance out.
We prepared a diagram based on Option 1 floor plans to show the needed
changes on each level and also with a brief description for the reasons, see attached. Blue text is Ko Architects’ explanation for the changes.
The main changes on each level are:
On each floor 8 inches setback from west property line reduce about 280 sf
total, due to building code requirements.
1st floor, in Option 1 the garage ramp going down doesn’t have enough headroom clearance, so we have to cut back into retail space, losing about 180 sf. This is a building code requirement. The new exit corridor and slightly enlarged stairs and
elevators add back square footage but not enough to balance the 180 sf loss.
2nd floor, building department asked us to separate stair A from the elevator. So we
have to enclose Stair A and we took out the elevator lobby which has no function now. So our circulation is more efficient and lost about 90 sf. 2/3 of this counted as
commercial FAR, which needs to make up on the 4th level. Also the balconies on
Option 1 is only 4 feet deep which is not functional in our opinion. So we enlarged
the two balconies on 2nd office to have more open space and also set back more
from the streets.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:14 PM
3
3rd floor, we took out the original elevator lobby (same building department
comments), so we lost about 90sf. 2/3 of this counted as commercial FAR,
which needs to make up on the 4th level.
4th floor, we add net 446 sf to the office.
3. I know you have some design interests on the fourth floor to accommodate outdoor
seating arrangements, but would like to ask that you show a fourth floor plan that retains to
the extent feasible the setbacks approved by council. Where more floor area is required to
address a smaller floor plate on the first three levels (to address the seismic expansion at
western P/L), consider placing that area nearest the westernmost property line.
The 4th level set back is consistent with Option 1 at University Ave, Kipling
St, and west property line. With that in mind, we put the square footage on the
west side corner along the alley. The western wall on the fourth floor needs a
setback to allow fire rescue access to residents at the lightwell/balcony at the
third floor.
Based on this initial review, it appears we are looking at an architectural review application.
The two options are a Minor AR or Major AR. A Minor AR is an administrative decision
whereby only the applicant, property owner or adjacent property owner or tenants may
request a hearing. You are familiar with the Major AR process.
In response to the requirement in the approval letter, we request a minor ARB
hearing for a review of landscape, materials, and western wall
design. Landscape Report, materials board and western wall design drawing were delivered to Planning three months ago on March 20, 2018. Please schedule this minor ARB hearing which was requested by us numerous times
in the past.
Please be advised that it is extremely onerous to make changes to the plans as
our consultants and professionals as well as the different departments of the City are nearly complete in the building permit process, June 29 being our third response to the permit process comments. Thank you for your
consideration.
Please send the above information to my attention and I’ll review quickly. I understand from
our meeting your concerns re: timing for a building permit.
Thank you.
Jonathan
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:14 PM
4
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director
Planning and Community Environment Department
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
Work: 650.329.2679
Email: jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org
429 University Ave, P.A. option 1 2nd resub difference reason option 1 2nd resub difference reason option 1 2nd resub
commercial office inc. access
path 2028 2597 569
shared stair/shaft
(comm 66.6%, res. 33.3%)501 378 ‐123
building
code 189
TOTAL 4th floor 2529 2975 446 189
residential space inc. access
path 7215 7079
shared stair/shaft
(comm 66.6%, res. 33.3%)530 443 ‐87
building
code 267 221
TOTAL 3rd floor 530 443 ‐87 7482 7300
commercial office inc. access
path 9395 9152 ‐243 function
shared stair/shaft
(comm 66.6%, res. 33.3%)435 383 ‐52
building
code 219 192
TOTAL 2nd floor 9830 9535 ‐295
commercial retail inc. access
path 6642 6537 ‐105
building
code
shared stair/shaft
(comm 66.6%, res. 33.3%)876 917 41
building
code 439 459
TOTAL 1st floor 7518 7454 ‐64
TOTAL: 7,518 7,454 ‐64
building
code 12,889 12,953 64
building
code 8140 8,140
COMMERCIAL RETAIL COMMERCIAL OFFICE RESIDE
4TH FLOOR
3RD FLOOR
2ND FLOOR
1ST FLOOR
COLOR
CODE 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, P.A.TOTAL
AREA
COMM.
RETAIL
COMM.
OFFICE RESID.PED.
OVERLAY
USEABLE
OPEN
LANDSC.
OPEN GARAGE
4TH FLOOR
green COMMERCIAL OFFICE
INC. ACCESS PATH 2,028 2,028
mauve SHARED STAIR/SHAFT
(COM 66.6%, RES 33.3%)501 501
brown LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE 6,683 6,683
beige USABLE OPEN SPACE
TOTAL 4TH FLOOR 9,212 0 2,529 0 0 6,683 0
3RD FLOOR
yellow RESIDENTIAL SPACE
INCL. ACCESS PATH 7,215 7,215
mauve SHARED STAIR/SHAFT
(COM 66.6%, RES 33.3%)797 530 267
beige USABLE OPEN SPACE 1,951 1,951
TOTAL 3RD FLOOR 9,963 0 530 7,482 0 1,951 0
2ND FLOOR
green COMMERCIAL OFFICE 9,395 9,395
beige USABLE OPEN SPACE 563 563
mauve SHARED STAIR/SHAFT
(COM 66.6%, RES 33.3%)654 435 219
TOTAL 2ND FLOOR 10,612 0 9,830 219 0 563 0 0
1ST FLOOR
yellow RESIDENTIAL SPACE na na
dk. blue COMMERCIAL RETAIL 6,642 6,642
mauve SHARED STAIR/SHAFT
(COM 66.6%, RES 33.3%)1,315 876 439
lilac PEDESTRIAN OVERLAY 358 358
brown LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE 53 53 na
pink GARAGE RAMP 1,106 1,106
green
TOTAL 1ST FLOOR 9,474 7,518 0 439 358 0 53 1,106
BASEMENT LEVEL 1
pink GARAGE AREA 10,575 10,575
TOTAL BASEMENT LEVEL 1 10,575 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,575
BASEMENT LEVEL 2
pink GARAGE AREA 7,891 7,891
TOTAL BASEMENT LEVEL 2 7,891 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,891
TOTAL AREA 57,727 7,518 12,889 8,140 358 2,514 6,736 19,572
SITE AREA
= 11,000 SF =57727 SF - 358 SF - 2514 SF - 6736 SF
=48,119 SF
F.A.R. COMM. RETAIL + COMM. OFFICE
7518+12889=20407 SITE COVERAGE = TOTAL 1ST FLOOR - PED. OVERLAY
20407 : 11,000 = 1.86: 1 - LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE
= 9474 SF - 358 SF -53 SF
F.A.R. RESIDENTIAL =9,063 SF
8,140 SF : 11,000 SF = 0.74 : 1
(1:1 MAX.) GROSS FLOOR AREA INCL. ACCESS PATHS
TOTAL F.A.R. = COMM. RETAIL + COMM. OFFICE + RESID.
28,547SF : 11,000 SF = 2.58 : 1 :11,000 = 2.58:1 = 7518SF + 12889 SF + 8140 SF
(3:1 MAX.)=28,547
LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE
LANDSC.6736 GROSS FLOOR AREA DEFINED PER P.A. 18.04.030 (65):
USEABLE OPEN SPACE
USEABLE 2514
PEDESTRIAN OVERLAY
PED.358 On Kipling : 208 Required 159 sq ft
On University Ave : 150 Required 150 sq ft
AREA OF BUILDING = TOTAL AREA - PED. OVERLAY - USEABLE
OPEN SPACE - LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE
FOR ALL ZONING DISTRICTS OTHER THAN THE R-E, R-1, R-2 AND RMD RESIDENCE
DISTRICTS, "GROSS FLOOR AREA" MEANS THE TOTAL AREA OF ALL FLOORS OF A
BUILDING MEASURED TO THE OUTSIDE SURFACES OF EXTERIOR WALLS. "GROSS
FLOOR AREA" SHALL NOT INCLUDE PARKING FACILITIES ACCESSORY TO A PERMITTED
OR CONDITIONAL USE AND LOCATED ON THE SAME SITE.
AR
E
A
C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
A2.1
RAMP UP TO FIRST FLOOR
25'-0"
RAMP SLOPE NOT TO EXCEED 22%1/2 RAMP SLOPE(NOT TO EXCEED 11%) BREAK OVER ANGLE NOT TO EXCEED 10°
1 2 3 4 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
17 16
UP
UNOCCUPIED ENCLOSED SPACE CLG < 5'-0"
17 PARKING SPACES
UP
1415
UNOCCUPIED ENCLOSED SPACE CLG < 5'-0"
25'
-
0
"
25'-0"
RAMP SLOPE NOT TO EXCEED 22%1/2 RAMP SLOPE(NOT TO EXCEED 11%) BREAK OVER ANGLE NOT TO EXCEED 10°
RAM
P
D
N
SLO
P
E
N
O
T
TO
EXC
E
E
D
2
2
%
14 15 16 17
1 2 3 4 5
7
8
6
9
10
11
12
13
17 PARKING SPACES
UNOCCUPIED ENCLOSED SPACE CLNG < 5'0"
ACCESSIBLE PARKING
UP
UP BIKE PARKING
LONG TERM FOR 6 BIKES
DNUP
UP
DN
UP
UP
LIVING+DINING LIVING+DINING
LIVING+DINING
MASTER BEDROOM
BED ROOM
KITCHEN
KITCHEN
BED ROOM
BED ROOM
BED ROOM
BED ROOM MASTER BED ROOM
BED ROOMBED ROOM
KITCHEN
LIBRARY
UP
UP
BASEMENT LVL. 2 BASEMENT LVL. 1
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
FOURTH FLOOR PLANTHIRD FLOOR PLAN
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
CHECKED
DATE
SCALE
JOB NUMBER
COPYRIGHT 2016
ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED,USED OR ALTEREDWITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT
PRINTABLE TO SCALE FORMAT 12" x 18"
ARB SUBMITTAL
42
9
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
, C
A
9
4
3
0
1
www.bellomoarchitects.comF6 5 0 .3 2 6.0 4 8 4ax
T e l 6 5 0 .3 2 6 .0 3 7 4
102University Ave.P alo Alto,C A 9 4 3 0 1
Suite B
L T
C
E
TIHCRA
IC E N
S
ED
C-24054
9 2015
T
S
ATEOFCALI FO RNIARENEWALDATE
JO O
O
M
BELL
SEP HMICHAEL
10/26/16
AR
E
A
C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
A2.1
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/5/2018 1:30 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ross, Annette P. <Rossa@sullcrom.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 03, 2018 11:29 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Biking to Work
I live in College Terrace and work out near the golf course. Today I biked to work and along the way I re‐learned why it is
that roads are hard to share: Palo Alto cyclists need a primer on the rules of the road.
Today, more than the usual number of bike riders dismounted in the Cal Ave pedestrian tunnel. I attribute this to the
recent presence of a police officer at the entry/exit near the train station. I hope this lasts, but I have my doubts.
The overpass at the end of Oregon is another story altogether. As is normal, I was the only bicyclist (of about a dozen,
today) who dismounted and walked my bike. Not only do most riders not dismount, many shout out “on your left” so
that they can pass. Today, one couple zoomed by almost side by side, leaving not much room for anyone else.
I am officially a senior citizen. I enjoy riding my wonderful bike, but I am not about to embrace that as a regular
alternative to driving if doing so is dangerous. It’s really quite absurd that riders ignore the obvious signs and
admonitions. There is nothing ambiguous about the words WALK YOUR BIKE or DISMOUNT ZONE. Some of the signs are
even embedded in the concrete! If you are serious about wanting Palo Altans to bike when they can, the ride needs to
be safe. This means riders need to ride on the correct side of the road, stop at stop signs, cross with the lights, walk
bikes in the tunnel and on the overpass, etc.
When cyclists choose to not honor the rules of the road, they impact other riders, pedestrians, and drivers. . I know you
cannot change human behavior, but a few tickets here and there might do the trick.
Regards,
Annette Ross
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and contains information that may be privileged and confidential. If you are
not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and notify us immediately.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/5/2018 1:30 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Dianne E. Jenett <djenett@serpentina.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 03, 2018 10:34 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Golfing too expensive for seniors at new course
Dear City Council Members
As a Palo Alto home owner and golfer I was one of the supporters of the reconfiguration of the course so the kids could
have more soccer fields even though I thought the old course was fine.
I waited patiently for the new course only to discover that it is now too expensive for me to play on a regular
basis! MANY of the regular golfers are over 65 (and much older) and we are only able to play 9 holes. This had been
understood and accommodated by the old course. Regular players could play 9 holes for about $20‐$25 by buying 10
rounds at once or buying a $275 monthly card which allowed unlimited play Mon‐Thurs. Now the rates, even for a
senior Palo Alto resident are $73 to $58 (Monday‐Thurs) and this is after we pay $50 for a special card. Weekends are
$95. There is no 9 hole rate being offered. If we played twice a week like we used to it would cost close to $600 versus
the $250 we used to pay and we can’t afford it.
For comparison, Shoreline, where we played as non‐residents, only charges non‐resident seniors $46 for 18 holes on
weekdays and $39 for their residents. They also have a nine hole rate early in the morning for $28. Even with the
upgrades at Baylands, Shoreline is a much longer course with much better facilities.
But we want to play “our” course. The new course is nice, the people are nice and the shorter course is great for
seniors.
We’ve told the people at the course and on review sites but since you (and I) paid for the course I wanted you to know
the problem. And many other older golfers we’ve spoken with agree. I’d like to suggest a senior card for Palo Alto
residents which allow us to play 9 holes for about $300 a month or $30 a round.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Dianne Jenett, Ph.D.
330 Cowper Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
djenett@serpentina.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:10 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Dan Xu <danxuseven@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, July 01, 2018 9:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Join the petitions that support the train trench/tunnel options
Count me in in the petitions that support train trench or underground tunnel options at the Charleston-Meadow
crossings.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:09 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mary Ann Michel <maryannm7@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 28, 2018 2:10 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Honorable Council members,
I have posted this request in several places on the PA Web site (very difficult to maneuver ). I highly recommend this app
Transit if any of you ever venture out of your car. You can down load the app on you phone ... don't know how long it
will take to get the Shuttle schedule on the app but as is it is a good app.
Please use the "Transit" app to show the Shuttle schedule This app shows every other transit possibility in our area
Magurite, vta ,caltrain, etc. It also works across the country when I was in NC recently and opened the app there was
the local city transit schedule. Please contact me asap if you receive this message and tell me if you have forwarded it to
some one whocan act onthis request asap
Thank you for your service.
Mary Ann Michel
650324 7384
850 Webster St. Apt 503
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:04 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 27, 2018 2:41 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Architectural Review Board; UAC
Subject:PART 1 -- TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 05-21-18 Council meeting --Item 6 -- 11
Verizon small-cell nodes
Council members,
Here's a transcript of item 6 of your 05-21-18 meeting, which was a quasi-judicial hearing to consider 7 appeals of a
decision to approve 11 Verizon small-cell nodes. I have added my comments (paragraphs beginning with "###").
Due to technical limitations, the transcript is divided into four email messages.
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
#############################################################################
05-21-18 agenda:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65028
05-21-18 staff report (492 pages):
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65023
05-21-18 video:
http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-152-2-3-2-2-5-2-2-2/
=========================================================================
PARTS OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS THAT SEEMED RELATED TO ITEM 6:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18:54:
Mayor Kniss: Thank you. And our next -- oops -- is Paul McGavin.
19:16:
Mayor Kniss: Are you Paul McGavin? OK. Just checking.
19:25:
Paul McGavin: Good evening, council members. I have 3 minutes to talk about 20 minutes. And so, what we're talking
about is due process.
19:30:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:04 PM
2
Mayor Kniss: I -- Are you sure you're not on number 6?
19:33:
Paul McGavin: No, I'm definitely not on number 6. I'm talking about due process. That's the subject.
19:37:
Mayor Kniss: OK. You have two minutes.
19:40:
Paul McGavin: I'll do it in two. Thank you. Starting now, I hope. OK. So, the Palo Alto City Council Procedures are very,
very specific about how you handle comment for appeals. And they lay it out very clearly. I'm not going to read it all to
you, but the key words are one appellant versus more than one appellant. And you either get 10 minutes, or you get 20
minutes. What we have tonight are seven separate appeals. And we have the evidence in the public record that
establishes them as seven separate appeals. That's seven separate $280 payments made to the City of Palo
Alto. Collected by the City of Palo Alto. That sets its establishment as a separate appeal. Not part of a single agendized
item. A separate appeal. Your own agenda also states exactly what it is. It says -- quote -- "The City received seven
separate appeals for the 11 wireless permits approved by the Director. To facilitate consideration of these appeals, they
are all being considered in one consolidated public hearing."
### McGavin is quoting from the staff report (page 2) (not the agenda).
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65023
Why consolidated? Each person paid $280 to purchase speaking time. Why are you taking the money and not giving the
time? So, no rationale was given for this error. This is just some kind of way to take away speaking time from
people. These people are fighting for their lives here. And they're getting cuttin' down to 5 minutes, which we don't think
is appropriate. We suggested that every single appeal be a separate agendized item, so they could qualify for the full
speaking time they deserve. We were shut down by everybody in the process. We engaged with everybody -- the City
Clerk, the planning department, and you, Mayor Kniss. We had some emails going back and forth. Didn't get much --
great information from you. But we were saying that, at one point, you gave us an email. And you said that a certain
appeal was going to get 10 minutes of presentation time, and 6 minutes for rebuttal. You wrote, specifically, ...
21:41:
[timer buzzes.]
21:41:
Paul McGavin: ... right here, you have 10 minutes -- 5 minutes each. But the issue is that ...
21:47:
Mayor Kniss: Thank you ...
21:47:
Paul McGavin: ... we're not getting that tonight. So we don't quite understand why.
21:49:
Mayor Kniss: Thank you for speaking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24:40:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:04 PM
3
Mayor Kniss: So, we have our -- Reinette -- is it Senum? Close? And then, if you come and get somewhat closer to the
mike, if it's possible, Harry Lehmann? and Mark Weiss, that would be helpful, because we'll try and go through this
quickly.
24:56:
Reinette Senum: Hello. My name is Reinette Senum. And I'm here, actually, to talk about radio frequency harm that is
being done. I don't know if you're familiar with the National Institute of Health. They recently spent $25 million, and spent
30 months ...
25:11:
Mayor Kniss: Are you actually addressing number 6?
25:13:
Reinette Senum: No. I'm actually addressing radio frequency in general. Just in general. The $25 million, 30-month high
school lab personnel studied the question of radio frequency impacts. The preliminary report -- late in May of 2016 -- said
that there was scientific basis supporting the conclusion that cellular radiation exposure leads to the formation of glioma,
which leads to the brain cancer that kills people we love. Now there have been two years of peer review. And on the last
-- March 28th -- the conclusion of the National Toxicology Program stated that there was clear evidence of a casual
### She probably meant "causal."
relationship between cellular microwave signal and increased likelihood of formation of brain cancers. Interestingly
enough, this deadly form of brain tumor, the glioma blastoma
### She probably meant "glioblastoma."
previously was reserved for those 64 years and older, and today, it is now striking 20-29 year olds, because they are
holding a cell phone to their head for approximately 10 years. We're also seeing a very fast rise in prostate cancer in 14-
19 year olds. Again, they have a cell phone in their pant pocket. Also, colon cancer and rectal cancer. This is
serious. And it must be considered by all those making decisions at the government body level. So, I would just like to
inform you of these newest developments. Because you're the deciders. And there's a lot that's at stake here. Thank
you so very much. I appreciate it.
26:33:
Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Harry Lehmann.
26:39:
Harry Lehmann: Good evening. My name is Harry Lehmann. I'm here representing my friend and -- in this instance,
technically -- client, Russell Targ, and Patty Targ. But I'll talk about their appeal later. I just want to register with you, as a
general statement, that I submitted the best I could do to bring you up to date on a bunch of very recent developments in
the sciences, and an email to your -- I think -- ...
27:02:
Mayor Kniss: Mr. Lehmann, I've let a couple go by. You really are addressing number 6. So, I'm going to ask you to put
your card back in again. And thank you.
27:11:
Harry Lehmann: All right.
=========================================================================
ITEM 6:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:04 PM
4
45:56:
Mayor Kniss: We're going on to what is now agenda item number 6. So, for anyone who missed what we said earlier,
there is -- there was -- not an error but a renumbering of what is on for tonight. And so, under number 6, this will be to talk
about the Verizon wireless communication antennas and equipments -- and equipment on utility poles. So, that is where
we are going next. If you wish to speak to this item, would you fill out a card and give it to the City Clerk, who's sitting
here to my left. OK. So, starting us off tonight is going to be our interim city planner -- Interim Director of City Planning,
Johathan Lait.
46:51:
Jonathan Lait: Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, City Council. We're -- I'm here tonight -- and supported by a variety of
staff -- to present the -- an application related to a wireless communication facility. This is an appeal of a Director's
decision. (Let me see if I can get this to work here. OK.) So, just as an overview, we have 11 small-cell nodes that are
proposed in various neighborhoods throughout the City. The Director approved these -- this application on March
26th. And the City received seven discrete appeals on April -- or, through the appeal period of April 9th. For those who
have not had a chance to go by the mock site that has been put up across from the Palo Alto Arts Center, this is a picture
showing the proposed antenna with its tapered shroud, cabling, and radio equipment, which is also covered with a
mechanical shroud.
48:09:
You have drawings that show a little bit more detail of the proposed projects. This is an illustration of a typical wood utility
pole. Applicant proposes to put in, in 9 of the cases, a 7-foot bayonet on top of the wood utility pole. And, on top of that,
a 5-foot antenna. Both the antenna and the bayonet extension would be covered in a shroud, matched -- colored to
match the utility pole. Cabling would drop down from the antenna into the radio equipment, which is located towards the
bottom of the pole, and enclosed in a mechanical shroud. Here are some examples that were presented to the --
reviewed by the Director, and presented to the Architectural Review Board. On the left is an existing utility pole without
any antennas. And then it progresses, with the three in the center, with the bayonet extension and antenna. And the
example on the right is a replacement pole. And two of the nodes are proposing replacement poles. Those don't have
the bayonet but an extension -- a larger wood utility pole. The image in the middle is the design that was preferred by the
Architectural Review Board, and supported by the Director in its -- in that determination. These are some examples of the
mechanical screening that was proposed. The example on the far left is the one that was recommended by the
Architectural Review Board, and supported by the Director. Here's an overview of the 11 nodes, where they're located
generally in the Palo Alto neighborhoods.
50:04:
And so, the Council may recall that in 2015, we made a comprehensive amendment to our zoning regulations, and we
established a series of tiers to process certain applications. This set of applications is called a tier 3 wireless
communications facility. And it is subject to a number of requirements that are set forth in the municipal code. There are
some standard -- development standards. There are standard conditions of approval that must be met. The project is
subject to the six Architectural Review Board findings. It's subject to two conditional use permit findings. And, because
it's a discretionary -- Well, not just because it's a discretionary. But in addition to being a discretionary application, the
project is subject to the City's CEQA noise thresholds. And we'll talk about some of that in a little bit. The code provides
that the Director's decision can be appealed to the City Council.
51:06:
And, at this point, I'm going to turn the presentation over to Albert Yang, who's going to talk a little bit about the federal
preemption that exists with these antennas.
51:17:
Albert Yang: Thank you, Mayor and Council Members. Albert Yang, Deputy City Attorney. So, there are a number of
federal and state laws that come into play for a wireless communications facilities. The first is the Telecommunications
Act of 1996. This federal law generally preserves the local land use authority of cities. But it does provide a number of
important limitations. First, cities cannot effectively prohibit the provision of wireless service. And this means they cannot
prohibit a provider from closing a significant gap in its service, when the provider proposes to use the least intrusive
means available. And, in that case, the concept of least intrusive means must be an alternative that is both available and
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:04 PM
5
feasible. In addition, cities cannot unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally equivalent services. This
does -- doesn't mean that they can't distinguish between applications at all. But they cannot discriminate when facilities
are similarly situated, in terms of structure or placement or cumulative impact. Finally, under the Telecommunications Act,
cities cannot base their decisions on the effects of RF emissions, to the extent that the facilities comply with FCC
regulations. And we have the City's consultant, Dr. Jonathan Kramer here today. And he's going to speak a little bit more
to RF emissions later on.
Wireless applications are also subject to a unique processing timeline that's referred to as the "shot clock." For tier 3
applications, like these, the City must act within 150 days of the application submittal, unless the City and applicant agree
to extensions. In this case, the City and applicant have agreed to a number of extensions. And at this point, the shot
clock will expire on May 24th. There is a misprint in the printed staff report, I believe, on that date.
Finally, there are two state laws that I'd like to note. The first is Public Utilities Code section 7901 and 7901.1. These deal
with telephone companies in the right of way. And they provide a statewide franchise for those companies, which means,
basically, they provide a right for those companies to occupy the right of way, subject to city regulations, to ensure that
those uses don't inconvenience the public. And that is the source of cities' authority to regulate issues such as aesthetics
and noise in the right of way.
Finally, there's AB 57, which allows a provider -- and applicant -- to assert that an application should be deemed granted if
there is no decision within that shot clock period. This, basically, ...
54:37:
Mayor Kniss: Could I do just a point of clarification?
54:40:
Albert Yang: Yes.
54:40:
Mayor Kniss: Is this available to people who are in the audience? And, if so, how can they access it?
54:45:
Albert Yang: The presentation?
54:48:
Mayor Kniss: Pardon?
54:48:
Albert Yang: The staff presentation?
54:50:
City Manager Keene: Can the City Clerk help out?
54:53:
Mayor Kniss: Do you have copies of this somewhere?
54:55:
**: Not that.
54:55:
Mayor Kniss: OK.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:04 PM
6
54:55:
City Manager Keene: No. The staff report that he is covering -- there are copies in the back, available to the public, ...
55:01:
Mayor Kniss: OK.
55:02:
City Manager Keene: That's ...
55:03:
Mayor Kniss: Good. I just want to -- Because somebody will ask. So, thank you.
55:07:
Albert Yang: Sure. Ah -- yeah. Finally, AB 57, essentially, shifts the burden from the provider to cities to seek relief from
the shot clock limitation. So, the city would be forced to go to court to argue for additional time.
55:28:
Jonathan Lait: Great. Thank you, Albert. And so, just to continue on, briefly, with my presentation. I wanted to let the
Council -- and the public, I think, probably knows this -- this project has gone to the Architectural Review Board several
times, once as a preliminary review, and then twice as formal hearings. The Board was pretty consistent in its interest in
wanting to see the equipment underground. That was a recommendation that was provided by the Board at its March
15th meeting -- excuse me, at its December 7th meeting. And during that time, staff was working with the applicant to
understand the constraints associated with vaulting the mechanical equipment in a little more detail. And based on our
understanding of the constraints at the time, it was the staff recommendation to the Board that the equipments be appro- -
- the radio equipment be approved on the pole, as was done so at that meeting, and supported by the Director. And now,
it's noted that tonight's hearing, of course, is an appeal of that Director's decision.
56:34:
There are a number of public comments that we've received throughout this process. And a lot of those comments are
reflected in many of the appeal statements that are provided for you here. This slide does not capture all of the appeal
statements that you have before you. But they generally relate to health and safety concerns, the aesthetics, noise, and
vaulting of the radio equipment.
Regarding vaulting, the applicant has expressed objections to vaulting these 11 nodes, that were -- I think it was 4 other
nodes that were -- are being considered for possible vaulting elsewhere in the City. But those have been removed from
this cluster of application nodes. And so, we're not talking about those tonight. But for these remaining 11 nodes, the
applicant has expressed concerns about locating the vaulting equipment underground. And that relates to locations in the
flood zone, concerns about shallow groundwater. They've noted some constraints in their ability to place the vaults
underground, based on existing utilities, the limited right of way. There's been concern expressed about the need for
venting the vaults. And their lack of compliance with the City's CEQA threshold. And also, employee safety, with respect
to being able to access and service the equipment, when that is required. From the City's perspective, we do not have
any restrictions on vaulting in the flood zone, or where there's shallow groundwater. We do have an interest in preserving
the street roadway, for the City's infrastructure. And so, this limits the applicant's ability to place the vaulting equipment in
the parkway and sidewalk areas. And then, also, within a 30-foot radius of the pole itself. And this is related to matters
that the applicant could probably speak to more fully. And it has to do with the size of the cabling that would be required
to be attached to the pole, the greater distance that you extend away from it.
The other matters, or other issues that were identified -- and this is expressed in an at-places memo that was provided the
City Council this evening -- about concerns about proximity to other utilities. Again, this is, in part, a business decision
from the applicant. And not so much a constraint from the City. But it is something that is being identified as something
for the Council's consideration when you're evaluating these different nodes.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:04 PM
7
This slide shows an illustration of an installed vault. In Santa Cruz, I believe. At least the slide on the upper left. Yup,
Santa Cruz. And then Rancho Palos Verdes on the right. And then, on the bottom, what one of the in-ground vaults looks
like.
Other -- Some other issues that were identified, related to noise and safety. The pole-mounted equipment has no backup
batteries, and, therefore, no fans. And so, no noise is generated for the pole-mounted equipment. It's when you put the
equipment underground that we require the ventilation fans and the sump pumps, to -- that generate noise. And we have
a CEQA threshold that if you generate 3- or 5-decibel increase over the ambient noise in the residential neighborhood,
that could trigger an impact, under CEQA, for our local -- based on our local thresholds. However, we've talked about this
with the applicant, and to date we haven't received any information to substantiate those concerns about their ability to
meet that noise threshold. And I'll just note that an inability to meet the noise threshold, in and of itself, does not bar an
application from moving forward. There is a process whereby we can conduct additional environmental analysis that
could be reviewed by the City Council. And if that were necessary, there is a process that exists to evaluate that request.
As far as the safety related to the pole mounting, we have our professional experts, who have looked at the structural
integrity of the poles, at this stage. And we'll do another thorough review at building permit / plan check.
1:01:04:
And then, finally, on safety, you've heard a lot about RF emissions. And it's at this point that I would like to invite Dr.
Jonathan Kramer to come and make a presentation. I think he has three or four slides to present to the Council, to further
elaborate on this issue of RF emissions. So, City Clerk, I think Mr. Carnahan was going to switch over to the other
presentation.
1:01:51:
Jonathan Kramer: Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. I'm Dr. Jonathan Kramer. My firm, Telecommunications
Law Firm, ...
### A.k.a. Telecom Law Firm.
http://telecomlawfirm.com/
1:02:00:
Jonathan Kramer: Hmm. Well, we'll get the slides up. I'll do a little bit of an introduction. My firm, Telecom Law Firm,
has been retained by the City to help evaluate a number of the technical issues -- as well as compliance with federal laws
regarding radio-frequency emissions. So, I want to take about five minutes only to talk about that, and to frame that, so
that you understand both the legal and the technical environment that you're operating within. And both the authority and
the limitations you have.
So, in terms of sources of authority, Congress has told us, through the Telecommunications Act, that if a wireless site is
proposed, and if it demonstrates planned compliance with the FCC rules, then we can't use that as a basis, at local
government level, to deny the site. Congress, at the same time, delegated national authority -- and SOLE national
authority -- to the FCC, to create the standards that apply across the country. Before that, there was a patchwork of
standards, and local governments did their own things. And Congress wanted to standardize it across the country. So
that's why they delegated that task to the FCC. This is 1996 timeframe. In 1997, the FCC released its rules. And the
rules basically said the same thing that Congress said. Which is, if a local government sees a demonstration of planned
compliance from a -- from a carrier, that its site is going to comply with the FCC rules that had just been created, then we
would no longer have that as a basis to consider a denial of a wireless site. As part of our work for the City, we evaluated
every one of the projects for compliance with the federal rules. And each of the projects does comply. Now, that's the
federal level. At the state level, the government code -- the California government code section -- says essentially the
same thing, which is that cities and counties, to the extent that a project complies with the FCC rules, can't then deny a
project based on RF emissions.
1:04:19:
The reality is that that's really not a very satisfying answer to the public, who have thoughtful concerns about this
subject. So the next portion of my presentation is going to be to explain to you some of the inner workings of the FCC
rules. And I promise -- I promise -- it's not going to be a technical discussion. But I think you'll get kind of how I'm
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:04 PM
8
presenting this to you. To use -- To understand the FCC rules and what they're geared to do, I'm going to use a tool,
which is a common twelve-inch ruler.
### The presentation was excessively dumbed down.
So, assume that at the top of the ruler, that's the point where you can actually see enough signal to measure a
physiological change because of RF. So we're going to arbitrarily assign that to twelve inches. And, in terms of what that
physiological change is, it's heat. This is what's called non-ionizing emissions. It doesn't -- It's not like X-rays or
something like that. It's simply like radio waves. So, it doesn't alter DNA. So, the FCC said, OK, we know from going out
to various federal agencies, interest groups, the wireless industry itself, at what point you can actually measure a
physiological change. So, they had to set a safety standard. And, on this ruler, I'm going to demonstrate basically the
relationship between the safety standard the FCC created and that point where you can actually measure a physiological
change -- a rise in temperature caused by RF. It turns out that the FCC set that limit at 0.26 inches on our 12-inch
scale. And that actually relates to a 50-times safety margin.
1:06:10:
So, there -- The FCC rules -- The FCC had to set a safety standard somewhere. And they set it at two percent of the
limit where a measureable effect can occur.
### I'm having trouble tracking down the history. But this source
http://www.arrl.org/the-fcc-s-new-rf-exposure-regulations
seems to say that the FCC's limit is based on IEEE C.95.1 (1991), which ASSUMED that any effect would be caused by
heat generated by the radiation. They found that test animals had "temporary difficulty performing complex tasks" at a
specific absorption rate (SAR) of 4 W/kg (which, apparently, corresponds to 50 mW/cm2 for RF radiation above 1.5 GHz).
### The "50-times safety margin" is the product of two factors. The exposure limit for "controlled/occupational"
environments is one tenth the level that caused "behavior disruption" in test animals (which corresponds to 5 mW/cm2 for
RF radiation above 1.5 GHz). The exposure limit for "uncontrolled/general public" environments is one fifth the
controlled/occupational limit (which corresponds to 1 mW/cm2 for RF radiation above 1.5 GHz).
### Since then, various research studies have detected "measurable effects" at intensities as low as 0.02 mW/cm2.
http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/emf_6.pdf
So I suppose the discussion should be about whether the "measurable effects" are harmful.
I'm going to talk about the adequacy of those standards in just a couple of slides. But it's an important consideration for
the public. But just understand that the FCC rules have a build-in safety margin of 50 times. The maximum a wireless
carrier is allowed to emit to the public, where they don't even know they're being exposed to RF, and the point where they
can actually measure a change. So, it's fairly typical for most small cells to operate at a fraction of one percent. In fact,
small cells are, by their technical design, intended to have very constrained coverage, measured in hundreds of feet, not
miles. And the reason is that, from a technology standpoint, the wireless industry has a finite number of frequencies they
can use. So what they do is, they reuse the frequencies. They constrain the coverage. And that gives them more
capacity in their networks. And that's why you're seeing projects like the AT&T project which came before this, now
Verizon's project, going into the neighborhoods, to bring their signals closer to the end users. And basically reuse the
frequency bands that they're assigned by the FCC.
So, really, what about the adequacy of the standards? Well, there are two answers to this. And, most importantly, I have
to tell you, both as an RF engineer and as an attorney, that this is an area of federal preemption. Since the project has
demonstrated a compliance with the FCC rules, you can't base a denial on concerns about radiofrequency
emissions. And, in fact, you can't even change them. You can't adopt the FCC rules as your own. You can't create your
own rules. So the problem is that, while we are here at the local level, considering the approval of projects, the real
decision makers, on this issue -- of what is adequate -- sit in Washington, DC. And they're -- Frankly, they're protected
from these decisions, because you're the ones who have to make the hard decisions.
But the final thing that I'll say about this is that there are a number of countries that have different RF safety
standards. And some of those RF safety standards are stricter than the FCC's. The result of that actually is --
counterintuitively -- it makes for more cell sites. To cover the same area with lower power, you have to have more cell
sites. So this why the FCC has gone through a process -- They started a process in 2006 to reevaluate whether their
standards were adequate. And they recently completed the process. And basically said, as to these types of cell sites -
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:04 PM
9
- the base stations -- that they had no science that demonstrated the standards should be changed. As to the handsets --
the things that we carry around -- they have some changes coming up. But that's really not the subject of this
discussion. And that's what I wanted to share with you.
The final slide on this is, the FCC has a published guide to local governments on this subject. Talks about a lot of the
things I've talked about. I co-edited and authored that, working through the Local and State Government Advisory
Committee at the FCC.
### This seems to be the document: "A Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety:
Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance."
http://wireless.fcc.gov/siting/FCC_LSGAC_RF_Guide.pdf
It's pretty old (June 2, 2000).
And this is still the standard document that local governments use to evaluate wireless emissions.
With that, I'm available for questions, now or later. And I'm going to turn it back over to Mr. Lee, I think.
### Mr. Lait.
1:09:50:
Jonathan Lait: Thanks.
1:09:54:
Mayor Kniss: Thank you for being here. And there may be questions later.
1:09:57:
Jonathan Kramer: (unamplified) Absolutely.
1:10:08:
Jonathan Lait: So, thank you, Mayor. Just a couple more slides, actually. You know that you've received the seven
appeals. And, procedurally, your rules of order set forth a process by which to determine speaking times when you have
multiple appeal -- appellants. And what we have for you -- let me just skip forward to this slide -- So, the way that we've
discussed us proceeding is that after the staff presentation, I understand, perhaps there may be an opportunity for Council
to ask questions of staff. But when you open it up to the public comments, that we would first hear from the appellant
groups. And each appellant group would have the -- five minutes to speak, followed by the applicant, speaking for ten
minutes. Then public comments. And then returning for rebuttals. First hearing from the appellant group. And then the
applicant for ten minutes.
And, the staff recommendation. We've given you two to choose from. One is to endorse the Director's determination for
pole-mounting. Or, after your review of the administrative record and public testimony, if you find that one or more
nodes require -- or, should be placed with radio equipment below ground, that we would suggest that you make that
recommendation as well.
And, before I go, I just wanted to just spend a second thanking -- There's a lot of staff that's been involved in these
applications. And I want to thank Rebecca Atkinson, who's next to me, who's been the project planner for not only this
project but the series of applications that the City is reviewing. Our Public Works engineering division, Utilities -- water,
gas, and wastewater utilities, electrical, urban forestry, real estate, and, of course, to the City Attorney's office. And -- It
takes a lot of people involved to move this application forward. So, I appreciate all their efforts. Thank you.
1:12:06:
Mayor Kniss: Thank you very much. So, I am going to suggest the following. First of all, it is time for us to do disclosures
on whomever we have talked to who's involved with the item tonight. Then, secondly, we are going to spend a half an
hour. I'm going to ask the Vice Mayor to set the timer at three minutes, so that each of us -- each of us sitting up here on
the dais -- can have three minutes to speak, or ask questions, or whatever you want to do, before we go, first, to the
appellant. And it's just as Jonathan put out. Five minutes to speak. And each of the appellant groups has the five
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:04 PM
10
minutes. Then the applicant team will have ten minutes. And, again, one representative may speak, or you may share
your time among those speakers. We'll then have public comment. And, after public comment, there will be three
minutes for rebuttal for the appellants. And then the applicant team will have ten minutes for theirs. So, I have some
more to read to you in a few minutes, but I think we should start now with disclosures. I can start from either end. Tom,
are you ready to do your disclosures?
1:13:17:
Council Member DuBois: Yeah. I spoke to resident Jeanne Fleming some time ago. And I also had a phone call with
three Verizon reps, who kind of went over -- went over it from their perspective.
1:13:34:
Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Council Member Holman.
1:13;40:
Council Member Holman: The conversation has been so long ago, I don't even remember who or -- who or how long
ago. So --
1:13:48:
Council Member Fine: I've spoken on the phone or by email with numerous residents in Palo Alto, and also met last week
with the Verizon team at their demonstration site on Newell Road.
1:14:03:
Mayor Kniss: Go ahead.
1:14:04:
Council Member Wolbach: I met with a resident who's an appellant from appeal 18-AP-8. And I don't think I learned
anything that' s not in the pubic record.
1:14:13:
Mayor Kniss: So, I'll just go down the line. I have met with some people from Verizon. I also have visited the site, with
their engineer. And I have heard from numerous people in the community. Emails and so forth. And phone calls. So, I
can list all those people at some point. But I have probably heard from 20-30 people by email and by phone. Vice Mayor.
1:14:41:
Vice Mayor Filseth: I've had email and phone discussions with a number of the opponents of the project, and a few of the
proponents. That are residents. And on the recommendation of some of those, I visited a noisy AT&T unit in Old Palo
Alto, which did have the battery backup and the fan. I also met with the City's engineering consultant and Verizon to view
the mock-up site, of what a proposed installation would look like. And I received no non-public information at any of
these.
1:15:14:
Council Member Scharff: So, I visited the mock-up site, which I thought was really interesting. I've had stuff dropped off
at my house. I've gotten numerous emails. I think I got some voicemails. But nothing other than visiting the mock-up
site, frankly, has, you know, made any impression on me, other than what's in the public record.
1:14:39:
Mayor Kniss: (unamplified) Council Member Kou.
1:14:42:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:10 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, July 01, 2018 10:45 PM
To:paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; chuckjagoda1
@gmail.com; Council, City; Keene, James; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org;
citycouncil@menlopark.org; council@redwoodcity.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org;
molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; dcbertini@menlopark.org;
HRC; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; Kilpatrick, Brad; Perron, Zachary; Binder, Andrew;
Jonsen, Robert; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Kniss, Liz
(internal); stephanie@dslextreme.com; essenceoftruth@gmail.com;
griffinam@sbcglobal.net; apierce@pierceshearer.com; Cullen, Charles; Constantino,
Mary; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Doug Fort; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com
Subject:Protesters surround home of police officer charged in killing of unarmed teen
Special bail for officers????
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/protesters-surround-home-police-officer-charged-killing-unarmed-162603687--abc-
news-topstories.html
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/5/2018 1:29 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:redress.of.grievance@gmail.com
Sent:Tuesday, July 03, 2018 6:22 AM
To:Aram James
Cc:price@padailypost.com; sdremann@paweekly.com; Scharff, Greg;
allison@padailypost.com; bjohnson@paweekly.com; jaythor@well.com;
gsheyner@paweekly.com; acisneros@CApublicrecordslaw.com; Council, City; Kniss, Liz
(external); Jonsen, Robert; Perron, Zachary; Cullen, Charles; swagstaffe@smcgov.org;
swebby@da.sccgov.org; Keith, Claudia
Subject:Re: Antwon Rose should still be here.
Do you know of just one journalist or editor that has ever come before city council?
Journalists should be vigilant, but are not...Their primary concern is ad content and revenue. Their not interested
in past events and how these events impact out future. They have developed don’t bite the hand that feeds you attitude. (The Palo Alto Weekly‘s past lucrative
advertising contact of 450k with the city) Forgot about that one huh...
Reporters have stopped asking the tough questions along time ago...Controversy’s are no longer exposed, investigated, and the public assured they won’t happen again....Readers have been kept in the dark... Palo Alto news stories are just a high pitch shrill to the ear and nothing more.....
Armchair warriors complacent spineless and derelict journalist is what they have become.....
Mark Petersen-Perez Editor: Palo Alto Free Press
Ticuantepe, Nicaragua 🇳🇮
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 2, 2018, at 9:08 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark, As always, you have an amazing recollection re the history of the PAPD...and you are fearless in
reminding anyone who will listen...about their historical misdeeds. Without a journalist-historian
like yourself, we -the community- are bound to repeat the past. Without a knowledgeable and
active community... and vigilant watchdog system...our police will, with little doubt... repeat the past. Thanks for opening up this critical conversation, yet again. Aram
If PA free press has asked that fired police officers not be hired by other
agencies, how is it possible that this simple, common sense procedure
has not been followed? Irresponsible! Stephanie Munoz
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/5/2018 1:29 PM
2
From: "paloaltofreepress" <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
To: "Aram James" <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Cc: "WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto" <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>,
"acisneros" <acisneros@capublicrecordslaw.com>, "Robert Jonsen"
<Robert.Jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org>, "mdiaz" <mdiaz@redwoodcity.org>,
"Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, "james keene"
<james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org>, "citycouncil"
<citycouncil@menlopark.org>, "jrosen" <jrosen@da.sccgov.org>, "council"
<council@redwoodcity.org>, "gkirby" <gkirby@redwoodcity.org>,
"dcbertini" <dcbertini@menlopark.org>, "molly o'neal"
<molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org>, "molly stump"
<molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org>, "hrc" <hrc@cityofpaloalto.org>, "liz
kniss" <liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org>, "swagstaffe"
<swagstaffe@smcgov.org>, "myraw" <myraw@smcba.org>, "stevendlee"
<stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu>, "stephanie"
<stephanie@dslextreme.com>, "zachary perron"
<zachary.perron@cityofpaloalto.org>, "brad kilpatrick"
<brad.kilpatrick@cityofpaloalto.org>, "michael gennaco"
<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>, "Timothy Gray"
<timothygray@sbcglobal.net>, "roberta ahlquist"
<roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>, "minka vanderzwaag"
<minka.vanderzwaag@cityofpaloalto.org>, "michael kan"
<michael.kan@cityofpaloalto.org>, "craig lee"
<craig.lee@cityofpaloalto.org>, apierce@pierceshearer.com, "Andrew
Binder" <Andrew.Binder@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 7:14:18 PM
Subject: Re: Antwon Rose should still be here.
Editorial: Do more to stop bad cops from being
hired elsewhere
https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/editorials/2017/07/09/officers-
discipline/458979001/
Officer Michael Rosfeld as reported in this story was fired from his
previous employment
This is a growing national problem in which nearly everyone ignores.
Ive been writing about this for years and not a single person other
than you Aram has ever responded...Our criminal justice system
requires a complete overhaul..
Case in point, the drunken PAPD officer arrested give special
treatment and allowed to be unhand-cuffed to sit in a police cruiser
and taken to jail by Zack Perron. He’s still employed (Officer Eric
Anthony Bulatao) https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2010/10/01/palo-
alto-cop-identified-in-2009-dui-arrest and protected by the city of Palo
Alto... My god statistically, alcoholic’s drive drunk behind the wheel
10 times before being caught...
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/5/2018 1:29 PM
3
And as you know, police personnel files are exempt from review by
the new hiring agency. A practice which needs to stop immediately.
(Police officers special bill of rights)
Reading this and other tragic accounts as the one you've routed
provides me with a greater resolve to expose the fallacy that officers
are sworn to protect..
Mark Petersen-Perez
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 26, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/5/2018 1:29 PM
4
Dear Aram,
The East Pittsburgh officer responsible for
fatally shooting Antwon Rose has been
identified as Michael Rosfeld. He was also
fired from his last place of employment as an
officer at the University of Pittsburgh for
repeatedly being violent and falsifying reports.
Officer Rosfeld was sworn into the
Allegheny Police Department hours before
gunning down Antown in broad daylight.
Antwon was an unarmed 17-year-old boy that
fled from police officers after a traffic stop.
Antwon posed no threat to the officers involved.
17-year old Antwon Rose was gunned down by East
Pittsburgh Police
Tell District Attorney Stephen Zappala: Charge Officer
Rosfeld with murder!
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/5/2018 1:29 PM
5
Yet, Officer Rosfeld put three bullets in the back
of his body.
Allegheny County District Attorney Zappala
has a moral obligation to immediately press
charges against this trigger-happy officer.
The Pittsburgh community is looking to his
leadership to bring justice to Antown’s
loved ones and community.
Tell District Attorney Zappala: File charges
against Officer Michael Rosfeld who shot
and killed Antwon Rose!
We are angry angry. Antwon should still be
here. Antwon was loved by many and had a
bright and promising future ahead of him. While
our community deals with the pain of losing
Antwon, Officer Rosfeld has been put on
administrative leave. In other words, Rosfeld
is still getting paid with our hard earned tax
dollars. Killer cops should not be rewarded for
taking the lives of Black children.
Officials from the Allegheny County Police
Department are doing everything in their power
to deny responsibility in Antwon’s death. The
police superintendent and investigators
have prioritized mischaracterizing Antwon
to the media as someone deserving of death
before releasing any information on the
officer who actually killed him. We have
learned about the vehicle matching the
description of a car fleeing another shooting,
firearms found on the floor of the car and the
empty gun clip in Antwon's back pocket.1 None of
those details change the fact that Officer Rosfeld
did not give Antwon a fighting chance before
opening fire.
Despite the public outcry, District Attorney
Zappala’s office has failed to act. This is
unacceptable and shameful. There is no need
to wait for the Allegheny County Police
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/5/2018 1:29 PM
6
Department to finish their investigation. We
have the facts. A video recording shows officer
firing at Antwon's back without any
hesitation.2 Officer Rosfeld needs to be
charged with murder now!
Demand DA Zappala hold Officer Rosfeld
accountable!
The police have a sworn duty to protect and
serve. The East Pittsburgh police's targeting
and shooting of Antwon is a prime example
of the disproportionate impact of police
violence on Black people in this country. In
2017, Police killed 1,147 people. Black people
were 25% of those killed despite being only 13%
of the population.3 Black communities are living
under constant racial terror while police officers
continue to operate with impunity.
In a high-profile election year, DA Zappala is
proving himself to be a candidate that fails
to act in the best interest of the community.
His refusal to hold Officer Rosfeld
accountable speaks volumes. Zappala has the
power and authority to send a very clear
message to the police in Allegheny County - acts
of police violence in will not go unpunished. Join
us in demanding justice for Antwon!
Demand Justice for Antwon Rose!
In solidarity,
--Jasiri X, One Hood and Brandi Fisher, Alliance
for Police Accountability
Resources:
1. "Live updates: Allegheny Co. police respond to
reports about N. Braddock shooting" WPXI News. 22
June
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/5/2018 1:29 PM
7
2018. https://act.colorofchange.org/go/68386?t=10&akid
=14735%2E1456029%2EfTJhez
2. "Police Killing of Antwon Rose, 17, in East Pittsburgh
Prompts Protests." New York Times. 21 June
2018. https://act.colorofchange.org/go/68387?t=12&akid
=14735%2E1456029%2EfTJhez
3. Mapping Police Violence.
2018. https://act.colorofchange.org/go/68388?t=
14&akid=14735%2E1456029%2EfTJhez
Join us and start your own petition on OrganizeFor
today!
Color Of Change is building a movement to
elevate the voices of Black folks and our allies,
and win real social and political change. Help keep
our movement strong.
If you're absolutely sure you don't want to hear
from Color Of Change again, click here to
unsubscribe.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:12 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com>
Sent:Monday, July 02, 2018 2:53 PM
To:paloaltofreepress
Cc:Aram James; dcbertini; gkirby; chuck jagoda; Council, City; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto;
citycouncil; council; Keene, James; stevendlee; mdiaz; Stump, Molly; jrosen; swagstaffe;
Kniss, Liz (internal); Timothy Gray; myraw; bos; HRC; molly o'neal; roberta ahlquist;
essenceoftruth; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Kilpatrick, Brad;
acisneros@capublicrecordslaw.com; michael gennaco; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Perron,
Zachary; lydiakou; Watson, Ron; patriceventresca@gmail.com; griffinam; sdremann;
Kniss, Liz (external); Jay Boyarsky; Scharff, Greg
Subject:Re: Transcript of 1st Amendment exchange between mayor and citizen —re police
abuse-the limits of the 1st amend,etc. Palo Alto City Council circa 2005
Very strange message and published in giant letters which would not show an entire line. However, the past participle of
"to slay" is "slain". Regards, Stephanie
‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐
From: "paloaltofreepress" <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
To: "Aram James" <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Cc: "dcbertini" <dcbertini@menlopark.org>, "gkirby" <gkirby@redwoodcity.org>, "chuck jagoda"
<chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>, "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, "WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto"
<wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>, "citycouncil" <citycouncil@menlopark.org>, "council"
<council@redwoodcity.org>, "james keene" <james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org>, "stevendlee"
<stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu>, "mdiaz" <mdiaz@redwoodcity.org>, "molly stump" <molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org>,
"jrosen" <jrosen@da.sccgov.org>, "swagstaffe" <swagstaffe@smcgov.org>, "liz kniss" <liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org>,
"Timothy Gray" <timothygray@sbcglobal.net>, "myraw" <myraw@smcba.org>, "bos" <bos@smcgov.org>, "hrc"
<hrc@cityofpaloalto.org>, "stephanie" <stephanie@dslextreme.com>, "molly o'neal" <molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org>,
"roberta ahlquist" <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>, "essenceoftruth" <essenceoftruth@gmail.com>, "Robert Jonsen"
<Robert.Jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Andrew Binder" <Andrew.Binder@CityofPaloAlto.org>, "brad kilpatrick"
<brad.kilpatrick@cityofpaloalto.org>, "paloaltofreepress" <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>,
acisneros@capublicrecordslaw.com, "michael gennaco" <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>, "minka vanderzwaag"
<minka.vanderzwaag@cityofpaloalto.org>, "zachary perron" <zachary.perron@cityofpaloalto.org>, "lydiakou"
<lydiakou@gmail.com>, "ron watson" <ron.watson@cityofpaloalto.org>, patriceventresca@gmail.com, "griffinam"
<griffinam@sbcglobal.net>, "sdremann" <sdremann@paweekly.com>, lizkniss@earthlink.net, "Jay Boyarsky"
<jboyarsky@da.sccgov.org>, "Greg Scharff" <gregscharff@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 6:40:47 AM
Subject: Re: Transcript of 1st Amendment exchange between mayor and citizen —re police abuse‐the limits of the 1st
amend,etc. Palo Alto City Council circa 2005
This was indeed, one those ancient Roman gladiator jaw dropping moments in the colosseum (council chambers) and an
outstanding First Amendment victory where the dragon, the Mayor, was slew with no blood being shed....
The moment was poetic...leaving the Mayor’s staff stunned. Like a grenade dropped into the calm waters of a lake and
fish rising to the surface belly up.....
Mark Petersen‐Perez
Editor: Palo Alto Free Press
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:12 PM
2
Ticuantepe, Nicaragua 🇳🇮
[image/jpeg:image1.jpeg]
Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 25, 2018, at 9:49 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks ‐to Mark Peterson Perez ‐of the Palo Alto Free Press for locating this piece.
>
> <IMG_4618.jpg>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:10 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Zhengyuan Zhou <zhengyuanzhou24@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, July 01, 2018 8:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:regarding Caltrain rails
I reject any elevation of the Caltrain rails in Palo Alto. I support building the trench or the underground tunnel
for rails at the Charleston Meadow crossings.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/5/2018 1:29 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Linhai Qiu <lqiu@alumni.stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, July 02, 2018 11:21 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support the trench or underground tunnel options at the Charleston and Meadow
Caltrain crossings
I am expressing my support for the trench or underground tunnel options at the Charleston and E Meadow
Caltrain crossings. I support the petitions that reject any elevation of the Caltrain tracks.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:09 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rachel Kellerman <rkellerman@mac.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 28, 2018 12:00 PM
To:Holman, Karen
Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Keene, James; Mello, Joshuah; De Geus, Robert; Tom
Kellerman
Subject:Thanks and Update on Our Neighborhood Communication Plan
Hello Karen,
Tom and I want to thank you for improving section E of the City Council Motion that passed during the City Council
meeting on June 19th to include actual mitigation measures for traffic overflow in our area should Churchill close
completely. Tom and I are meeting today with Mr Mello and some of his team to talk about the current plans to
improve Embarcadero for pedestrians and bicyclists specifically at the intersection of Emerson and Embarcadero and to
discuss how his department and their consultants will measure traffic impacts on our street and in our neighborhood
should Churchill be closed completely. We plan to communicate the information we receive from this meeting with
interested neighbors in a newly formed communication group encompassing University South, Professorville and
Embarcadero: University South Professorville Embarcadero Neighbors USPEN. (It seems every neighborhood group
needs an acronym these days!). We are hoping that one of our neighbors who applies for the Community Advisory
Panel will get accepted in order to include this large area of historic homes and safe routes to schools and libraries in the
decision‐making process.
We want to commend city staff on their prompt response to our questions and concerns, and our hope is that they will
continue to communicate with stakeholder groups and share information on a timely basis. We must all remember that
neighborhood streets designed 125 years ago were not intended to become major commuting arteries or cloverleafs.
We must respect neighborhood norms around traffic and stay true to the city’s stated policies and goals as put forth in
their Traffic and Safety Operations Report (2017) from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan T‐3.14 Prioritize safety of school
children; T‐4.2 ‐ Prioritize traffic calming on local collector residential streets over congestion management; T‐4.4
Maintain Embarcadero as a residential arterial between Alma and West Bayshore Road.
Karen, thank you again for your leadership on this important community issue.
Sincerely,
Rachel and Tom Kellerman
Emerson Street, Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:08 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Gloria Pyszka <gpyszka@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 27, 2018 7:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Town Square comment on Avenidas in the June 22 Guest Opinion article. Mea Culpa
I wrote a Town Square comment, responding to the Guest Opinion article written by Paula Wolfson in the June 22nd
issue on the need for a master plan to address the needs of the aging population.
My husband accused me of flaming Avenidas in my last sentence of that comment. I also included a reference to the
City Council in the last paragraph. My comments below might be of interest to you all. You need to read both
comments to understand the issues that I raised s/Gloria Pyszka
Posted by Webster Street
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
0 hours ago
I would like to apologize to Avenidas for "flaming" as my husband accused me in my last comments. (Does anyone
over 50 know what the term means?) Mea culpa. I have written them for years about having a satellite elsewhere in
Palo Alto. As far as I know, they haven't acted in any way. Despite that shortcome, they are an outstanding
organization with many programs for seniors. We're lucky to have them. Why do I keep pushing the satellite idea?
Because the city is spread out and a program on Bryant does not serve the needs of many seniors who live at a
distance. To me, that means beyond Oregon Expressway, especially if you have to depend upon public
transportation.
We live on East Charleston. We drive now, but when we need it (and we haven't been banished to Chico), the bus stop is nearby. For many it isn't. For us, the trip is long, but it does reach downtown and Avenidas. Look up www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pin/transit. Or, call Avenidas at 289-5400 for information.
Avenidas is currently in Cubberley on Middlefield in southern Palo Alto. But, that will end once Avenidas is remodeled
on Bryant Street. Will Cubberley continue to be used by Avenidas in some way? Will Comida, the lunch program,
continue at Stevenson House on Charleston, or move elsewhere? The city council quickly approved money for
remodeling. What's their commitment to funding a sattelite? ANY satellite? Finally, there are many advantages to
using Avenidas. Read a about them at Avenidas.org. Am I forgiven?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:11 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org>
Sent:Monday, July 02, 2018 11:02 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Tri Delta Transit launches first electric bus
Why not electric Palo Alto Shuttle buses, as we expand the shuttle?
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/06/29/tri-delta-transit-launches-first-electric-bus/ Tri Delta Transit launches first electric bus
By ALISON BERG | aberg@bayareanewsgroup.com |
PUBLISHED: June 29, 2018 at 1:22 pm | UPDATED: June 30, 2018 at 1:29 am
Commuters in East Contra Costa County now have one more option for a ride to and from
BART stations: electric buses.
Two buses are currently in use, but Tri Delta Transit plans to have a total of four by the end of
the year. All are part of a “pilot program” designed to “test the performance of these electric
buses in our service area and results will be evaluated to determine future orders of all-
electric buses,” Jeanne Krieg, CEO of Tri Delta Transit, said in a written statement.
The new buses can carry up to 38 seated and 18 standing passengers. They follow the
regularly scheduled routes in Martinez, Concord, Pittsburg, Bay Point, Antioch and
Brentwood.
Tri Delta Transit is increasing their efforts being environmentally friendly, and the electric
buses are an important part of those efforts. The buses are also set to reduce noise pollution
and save the county “tens of thousands of dollars in fuel and maintenance costs,” Krieg said.
More information can be found at trideltatransit.com.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:11 PM
2
Tri Delta Transit
A Tri Delta Transit electric bus waits for departure
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/5/2018 1:30 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ardan Michael Blum <ardan.michael.blum@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 03, 2018 1:13 PM
To:Architectural Review Board; Council, City; Clerk, City; Atkinson, Rebecca
Subject:Typos corrected / text changed slightly - Cell relay on light at 345 Forest Av with a
large box next to a prime historic location
Warm hello,
I do wish to come back to you today with a plea - that you will not allow the
placement of cell relay on the light at 345 Forest Av as it includes a large box
to be added next to this street light. Note that people daily are taking pictures
at this 1930s building from the street and such a box will block the view -
sure it is not a "huge" box in the eyes of the people trying to set it up, yet the
reality is that it WOULD change the view of the fountain as seen from the
road.
Have a walk over to my courtyard and see for yourselves!
With respect and warm regards,
Ardan Michael Blum
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 7/2/2018 5:07 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Willi Paul <willipaul1@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 27, 2018 6:03 PM
Subject:Where the Landlord is King - Interview with Emily Beach, Burlingame City
Councilmember
“Where the Landlord is King”
Interview with Emily Beach, Burlingame City Councilmember
by Willi Paul & Planetshifter.com
- excerpt -
Willi: What is your vision for Burlingame Avenue in 5 years?
Emily: A thriving, walkable, sustainable, pedestrian-friendly district with a local feel and
regional draw. A place where people can walk from where they live to all the goods and
services they need on Burlingame Avenue or its adjacent neighboring streets. A place
where it is safer, easier, and more convenient to choose transit, walking, or biking over
driving single-occupancy cars. I envision a beautiful town square adjacent to the former
post office site that serves as a community gathering space. I am hopeful as
transportation modes shift away from single-occupancy car trips downtown and parking
needs change with technology, perhaps some of our surface parking lots could be
converted to higher uses -- including green space.
http://www.planetshifter.com/myth/2558
--
Willi Paul, Principal
415-407-4688
2081 Cornell Street, Palo Alto, CA (650) 776-0809 18 JUN 28 PH 2: ltO
6/28/18
City of Palo Alto Council Members
Honorable Council Members:
The City of Palo Alto needs to put a law in plac:e that protects residents from continually being displaced,
especially by out of state developers. The latest threat of mass eviction facing all residents of the President
Hotel Apartments must be stopped. Given crises of unaffordable housing and increased congestion, Palo
Alto sure is living up to its Shallow Alto reputation. Which is sad. Growing up here and going to Paly and
being raised by a single dad, Palo Alto was known for its innovative optimism and open source inclusivity.
The ongoing pain and heartbreak of displacement is an outrage and much action is needed.
It is obvious to many long-time residents that a creed of self-centered elitism has eroded our community.
It's become shameful to be a Palo Alto resident. I'm sorry to report. Honorable City Council members:
Holman, Tanaka, Scharff, Kou, Wolbach, Fine, DuBois, on behalf of the working-class people, and even
most professionals, who cannot afford housing, and are an integral part of our community, please put
protections in place for all. Don't continue to turn a blind eye. The luster of our town is not completely lost.
Act now to bring the luster back before it's too late. Please put protection in place.
Saddened and Concerned -
<Zffe
Kent Schneeveis
RETURN ADDRESS:
,. ... I support Castilleja's proposal to
increase enrollment and modernize its
campus because ...
:..
<i.i ~(..) C>4: !:;~
<to
o~
-1X: ~f5
u......J OU
>->-t-t::
t:)U
.. "
,. ' . ~.
r •• ,
RETURN ADDRESS:
vV'-""'
N .. ..:r
z: a..
O'\ N
:z :::.> -,
.CD
Office of the Clerk
Please distribute to all City Council Members
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto, CA, 94301
-----------n~•~ ...---~:ti-' ... ~~ _______...--:111 .... .;...,.;:~-.
-------......,;::::__,L ---------
n~ --1 ~-< no r-""" ~~ ::xr -o r;;o
:JC o~
Office of the Clerk .i:--ri!:j •• -.,Cl_ Please distribute to all <a Coie;rt~embers
250 Hamilton Avel'JA, 7~or
Palo Alto, CA, 94301